Register here

Author Topic: Bell V-280 Valor  (Read 144359 times)

Offline RavenOne

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Bell V-280 Valor
« on: April 10, 2013, 01:16:10 pm »
Sorry havent been around on here was at Heli Expo 2013 in las Vegas a month ago and catching up on leads. Anyhow  I went on my FB and Literally a few minutes ago, Bell unveiled their newest product not yet built - a new generation light utility battlefield tiltrotor - The V280 Valor at Quad A Convention

http://bellv280.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3Onyas984&feature=youtu.be

Cheers

« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 01:18:49 pm by RavenOne »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7649
  • The path not taken.
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2013, 02:10:27 pm »
Somewhat unexpected. Thanks for the heads up!
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2013, 02:20:07 pm »
Video of Bell V-280 Valor:


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2013, 02:29:10 pm »
Quote
A notable feature of Bell's concept for the FVL Medium utility variant to replace the Black Hawk - the engines do not tilt with the proprotors, as they do on the V-22. This is to allow ingress and egress to the side-opening doors (the V-22 has a rear ramp) and clear fields of fire for the door gunners. And, in addition to the V tail, the wing has no forward sweep.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A085f3884-fb49-4997-a479-7cd3a38af7d7
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 02:38:41 pm by Triton »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2013, 03:12:38 pm »
Nice surprise. Thanks a lot for sharing, RavenOne and Triton!

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2013, 03:27:30 pm »
"Bell Helicopter Introduces the Bell V-280 Valor Tiltrotor at AAAA"
Posted on April 10, 2013 · Posted in Bell FVL V-280   

Source:
http://bellv280.com/bell-helicopter-introduces-the-bell-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-at-aaaa/

Quote
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FORT WORTH, TX (April 10, 2013) – Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. company (NYSE: TXT), revealed today the Bell V-280 ValorTM, its offering for the Joint Multi Role/Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Technology Demonstrator (JMR/TD), at the 2013 Army Aviation Association of America’s (AAAA) Annual Professional Forum and Exposition in Fort Worth.

“The introduction of the Bell V-280 Valor underscores our commitment to our military customers. The Bell V-280’s unmatched capabilities in speed, range and payload, and its operational agility combine to deliver the best value for the U.S Army,” said John Garrison, president and CEO at Bell Helicopter. “This aircraft is the most advanced and operationally effective vertical lift solution, providing the Warfighter a decisive advantage. The name itself makes an important statement of its own: V representing vertical lift, 280 representing its unmatched speed, and Valor as a tribute to the service men and women who approach their jobs with valor every day.”

The Bell V-280 Valor, Bell Helicopter’s third generation tiltrotor, offers the U.S. Army the highest levels of maturity and technical readiness. With its U.S. Army-centric design, the Bell V-280 has the capacity to perform a multitude of missions with unparalleled speed and agility. The Bell V-280’s clean sheet design reduces complexity compared to previous generation tiltrotors, with fewer parts, as well as non-rotating, fixed engines. The Valor delivers the best value in procurement, operations and support, and force structure, providing increased maintainability, component reliability and systems designed to reduce operational and support costs.

“The Bell V-280 is a combat multiplier with a cruise speed of 280 knots and combat range of up to 800 nautical miles. Tiltrotor is the only vertical lift platform that can rapidly self-deploy to any theater,” said Mitch Snyder, executive vice-president for military programs at Bell Helicopter. “And our technology demonstrator is a true medium class aircraft accommodating a crew of four and 11 troops, which translates to the highest level of certainty for a future program of record.”

The Bell V-280 Valor’s Army-centric design boasts a number of unmatched capabilities and transformational features including:
  • Speed: 280 KTAS cruise speed
  • Combat range: 500-800nm
  • Strategically Self-Deployable – 2100nm Range
  • Achieves 6k/95
  • Non-rotating, fixed engines
  • Triple redundant fly-by-wire flight control system
  • Conventional, retractable landing gear
  • Two 6’ wide large side doors for ease of ingress/egress
  • Suitable down wash
  • Significantly smaller logistical footprint compared to other aircraft

“Bell Helicopter is leading the development of next-generation tiltrotor technology, because it’s the best technology for future vertical lift. The U.S. Army’s JMR/TD Operational Effectiveness Analysis Report stated that advantages in speed and fuel efficiency made the tiltrotor the most operationally effective concept aircraft,” said Snyder. “Based on a strong foundation of 55 years of tiltrotor experience, including combat-proven platforms, Bell Helicopter has created the ultimate solution for the Army’s FVL needs.”

Bell Helicopter is the world’s premier tiltrotor expert ranging from first generation XV-3 and XV-15, to the second generation 609 civil tiltrotor and the combat-proven V-22 Osprey. Backed by unmatched experience, Bell Helicopter is building a team of premier aerospace leaders, the best engineering resources and industrial capabilities in the industry to meet the U.S. Army’s needs.

 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2013, 06:18:47 pm »
Model of Bell V-280 Valor on display at Army Aviation Association of America Annual Professional Forum and Exposition 2013 in Fort Worth.

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/quad-2013-bell-unveils-next-generation-tiltrotor/

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2013, 08:16:49 pm »
Well other than the dynamics it seems the two front runners seem to have come to a similar conclusion.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2013, 09:11:58 pm »
Or Bell has no choice but to offer a tilt rotor for JMR because all their helicopter experts left and formed AVX.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2013, 09:20:08 pm »
A notable feature of Bell's concept for the FVL Medium utility variant to replace the Black Hawk - the engines do not tilt with the proprotors, as they do on the V-22. This is to allow ingress and egress to the side-opening doors (the V-22 has a rear ramp) and clear fields of fire for the door gunners. And, in addition to the V tail, the wing has no forward sweep.

This principle was chosen for EUROFAR, too : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,857.0.html
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2013, 09:28:41 pm »
Or Bell has no choice but to offer a tilt rotor for JMR because all their helicopter experts left and formed AVX.

Do any of us believe that Bell would have offered a high-speed compound helicopter with coaxial rotors and pusher props for JMR/FVL?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 11:27:41 pm by Triton »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2013, 10:31:26 pm »
Do any of use believe that Bell would have offered a high-speed compound helicopter with coaxial rotors and pusher props for JMR/FVL?

If Troy Gaffey was still Bell's Chief Engineer and Senior VP of Research and Engineering then maybe they would have. Who else? Maybe Bell's CFO, Directors of Systems Integration and Structures Engineering, Chief of Drive System Design, and maybe 16 other senior engineers. designers and managers. All of which who if were still in Bell would be doing what they are now doing for AVX Aircraft.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1517
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2013, 02:35:35 am »
Hey nice effort RavenOne on the V280 Valor topic!It would be nice to think that much of the complexity of the MV-22 Osprey could be ironed out - or even better eliminated! I hope this would go a long way in reducing the exorbitant price and reliability of the MV-22!Is it just me or does the artwork of the fist couple of pics you posted have an UH-60 Blackhawk fuselage look about it?For the sake of the hard-pressed U.S. military (Budget reductions and an awful high rate of program stuff-ups), wouldn't it make sense to utilise the true and trusted and combat proven fuselage as the basis of this new V280 Valor? But then the U.S. military complex would not favour such co-operation, when they so much want competitiveness  ::) I hope for the U.S. military, if this program matures and is deemed what it wants and needs. It will be able to run this program sensibly, cost effective, and on time.  P.S. is the armed (gunship/close air support?) variant on that Youtube video a dedicated variant? or does the assault transport variant also have retractable weapons capability? For this could be the new LHX in a sense of utilising as much commonality into two various role. A scheme which I think has great merit!!   RegardsPioneer     
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2013, 02:44:06 am »
Looking back on the complicated development history of the operational Bell VTOL, it is good to see that the complicated solution of tilting two enormous engines+props has been discarded. Only regret is that the Bell team opted for a solution which was already there in the venerable XV-3 ancestor back in 1954: tilting the props without tilting the engines. It shocks me that it took nearly six decades to go back to it. Ducted fans, tilt-rotors, folding rotors... They've gone full circle and went for the solution that was safest, proven on full-scale prototype and probably less costly too.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2013, 03:20:07 am »
Looking back on the complicated development history of the operational Bell VTOL, it is good to see that the complicated solution of tilting two enormous engines+props has been discarded.

I'm not quite sure, that tilting the rotors only, with the need to bend the cyclic and collective controls
really eases the problems. To my opinion, it may result in a slight decrease in weight, but to an increase
of complexity.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2013, 04:17:52 am »
Bell made a point of "cost" being a major design driver.  As to just taking a H-60 and slapping a new set of dynamics on it; that is no simple engineering feat.  Especially when you consider that the new requirement called for an aircraft that cruises above the Vne of the H-60.  Still there is a reason that both the Boeing/Sikorsky and Bell have aircraft that look very much like H-60 with new dynamic (rotors & power train) components.  The requirements they were asked to design to are similar to the UTTAS except for cruising at 230 knots and going much further.
 
Pioneer – yes the attack variant does appear to be very similar.  That too is a matter of cost as a major design priority.  Commonality is one area that is being looked at by all of the competitors, how much becomes the question.  Do you have a “jack of all trades” aircraft, a common set of dynamics on different fuselage (a.k.a. the H-1Y/Z) or purpose built mission aircraft?   There are grand arguments to be made for any of the philosophies mentioned above.
 
I have watched the “hooah” promotional several times now and Bell crammed as much into that as they could for the discerning viewer.  Starting with the discussion with the first sergeant being told hot/high is just another mission, without FARP (mobile refuel station), where if you watch in the background a couple of V-280 are sling loading a couple of M777 howitzers (UH-60 can’t do that), to the change of missions for first platoon a hundred miles away on the same mission and without having to go to the FARP.  They also made a point of letting you see how many troops were getting on the aircraft to go to that hot and high mission.  A number of troops that the current assault helicopter cannot do.  There is even the point made that the tilt rotor is zooming along until they are only one kilometer from the landing zone.  This is a survivability honorable mention for the discerning viewer who knows that the most difficult part of the combat assault mission is the landing zone. The less time you are doing the low slow thing, the less time the opposition has to shoot at you.  The infantry being able to maintain contact with the use of a tablet and talk with the crew and other aircraft is a nice note.  In fact the whole promo is as much for the infantry as it is for the aviator.
 
As to program being sensible, cost effective, and on time…  Well that has not been a hallmark of western military aerospace for the majority of programs for many years.  Between the company and corporate financial disconnects and government bureaucrats with competing and often opposing requirements it is a wonder anything is ever done.  I remember the utter shock at how phenomenally expensive the Blackhawk was to the beloved Huey it was to replace.  That program was rather well run but still took over a decade to go from requirement determination to prototype competition.  With all of the extra visibility and pervasiveness of information, I don’t hold out much hope.  I am reminded of the old zinger – An elephant is a horse designed by committee.
 
Still as an old assault pilot I give Bell good marks for coming out of the gate.  In fairness I would say the same for the Boeing/Sikorsky effort as well.  Will be interesting to see who else comes to the game.
 

Offline Kiltonge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Greetings Earthling
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2013, 05:00:43 am »
Bizarre that they have stuck with the S-70's 11-man squad size*.  Suits the US Army but too small for the USMC ( 17-man squad ), UK ( 13-man ) or Israelis ( 12-man squad ) plus the need for the command group to ride along.  Though I suppose they could trade-off one of the four crew for a couple of extra riflemen.

The S-70 has been adopted by forces modelled on the US Army TOE but for others the Mi-17 or Puma variants are more capcious and mean that a squad doesn't have to be split over two or more helicopters.

* though in practice with the amount of personal kit being hauled around in current operations it is a squeeze even to fit 11 men into an S-70 and with kit on their laps, under the seat and at their feet there isn't much freedom to move.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2013, 05:38:43 am »
Not much point in going after the USMC market with this since a) it doesn't fold and b) the Marines already have V-22.  And the overseas market is relatively small compared to the US that it's not really worth focusing too hard on that either. 

I'm curious how air transportable this will be.  It looks like the wing has to come off to fit in a C-17 or C-5, which sounds like a lot of work to reinstall, since it means the engines are coming off the airframe.  They're clearly emphasizing self-ferry range, but going trans-Pacific in a bird like this seems like a horrible ride.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2013, 05:53:59 am »
My money is on Sikorsky.  The words "tilt-rotor" have stink all over them (justified or not).  If they get their S-97 demonstrators rolled out soon enough that will only help them. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kiltonge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Greetings Earthling
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2013, 10:39:36 am »
And the overseas market is relatively small compared to the US that it's not really worth focusing too hard on that either. 


What's the S-70 at now, 2,100 units?  Compared to 900 Super Pumas alone.  That's a lot of market to casually discard.

What I was trying to express was that if they sized it for a reasonable squad composition then the overseas market wouldn't be 'relatively small'.

The 204 / 205 sold well because it was a pioneer in army mobility.  Many armies adopted it even though it didn't match their TOE, simply because it was available and fairly priced. 

But when they moved on to the second-generation of squad transport the S-70 lost-out specifically because it was too cramped.  It is bigger than as big as a Sea King but carries 11 troops.  Even the Bell 214 sold better on the export market.

But it's Bell's call.  If the DoD doesn't buy it, they haven't a hope of finding anyone else that will want such a tailor-made type.

Edit: Sikorsky developed the S-92 as a reaction to the success of the Super Puma and the prospect of the NH-90.  That's what the S-70 could have been had it not been for the ridiculous US Army requirement to fit it in a C-130.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 10:44:46 am by Kiltonge »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2013, 11:11:24 am »
Even the Bell 214 sold better on the export market.

Uh? Do you have figures to back this up?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2013, 11:12:59 am »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2013, 11:18:12 am »
Bell V-280 Valor Media Brief

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2013, 11:27:05 am »
My money is on Sikorsky.  The words "tilt-rotor" have stink all over them (justified or not).  If they get their S-97 demonstrators rolled out soon enough that will only help them.

One of the reasons why Bell dissolved its joint venture with Agusta to market and develop the BA-609? Is there a current civilian market for tilt rotor aircraft? Or does Bell now consider tilt rotor to be a product only for military customers?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2013, 11:52:23 am »
My money is on Sikorsky.  The words "tilt-rotor" have stink all over them (justified or not).  If they get their S-97 demonstrators rolled out soon enough that will only help them.

One of the reasons why Bell dissolved its joint venture with Agusta to market and develop the BA-609? Is there a current civilian market for tilt rotor aircraft? Or does Bell now consider tilt rotor to be a product only for military customers?

No idea.  I haven't followed the 609 that closely.  This is the first I heard they bought Bell out of the project.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2013, 12:46:08 pm »
Photographs from the Bell Helicopter booth at AAAA 2013.

Source:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.611467655547881.1073741831.137576202937031&type=1
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 12:59:25 pm by Triton »

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2013, 01:16:44 pm »
Looking at the wing xray, there is no central gearbox like the Osprey. Are they going to have a parachute backup when one engine fails? I don't imagine it will be able to pull off an auto-rotate.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2013, 03:05:49 pm »
That picture only shows the structural elements.   There could be provision for a cross-shaft and gearbox behind that transverse spar and you wouldn't be able to see it from this angle

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2013, 03:29:46 pm »
First Triton, thanks for the great information and pictures.
 
If you look at the second slide of the presentation three of the six bullets are about cost.  One of the points in the first bullet is about cost.  I imagine that they are going after the Army mainly since the Army is the only one who has put any money into the endeavor.  If the Naval services decide they want it then it will most likely gain ~1000 lbs turning into a transformer, like the current TR.  I imagine if the customer base decides that they want more room, then they will scale the aircraft up to meet the need.  Everything about this aircraft (and the Boeing/Sikorsky) is about keeping cost down.  That is why the attack version is basically the same airframe.  Keeps production cost down.  I suspect even the decision to go with doors instead of a ramp was to keep cost down, as ramps make for more complex airframes and add weight.  Weight = $.
 
It will be very telling if Bell can keep the O&S cost competitive with less complex dynamics.  Because fuel is becoming a very big cost driver and helicopters are notorious gas pigs.  The more like a fixed wing you can make the machine the more fuel efficient it is.  One area I think the TR has going for it.
 
Self deploy at ~230 knots.  Army Aviation does it all the time with its fixed wing aircraft (C-12 variants).  The Aviation Center Commander briefed in January at AUSA that self deploy capability is huge to four star commanders as it frees up precious airlift and sea lift assets to move other things.  They showed a Pacific route with the longest leg being about 1800 NM.  Had aircraft getting to the Philippines in as little as three days.  Still I imagine if you had to fly one of the V-250 in strat-air due to maintenance issues you would have to take the wing/rotor/engine assembly off like any other fixed wing aircraft.  I have to wonder if the Boeing/Sikorsky design (as tall as it is) fits in a C-17 as is or do you have to take the rotor head off.   How about under deck on a Navy ship?
 
Well maybe there will be a competitive fly off since the Department of Defense has said they want to do that sort of thing.  Will be fun to watch this process.
 
Right up to the point that the funding is taken in support of the sixth generation fighter program we are so desperately in need of.   >:(
 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2013, 04:14:12 pm »
First Triton, thanks for the great information and pictures.

Thank you, yasotay, for your insights and analysis of the materials I posted.  B)
 

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2013, 04:30:04 pm »
 
Looking at the wing xray, there is no central gearbox like the Osprey. Are they going to have a parachute backup when one engine fails? I don't imagine it will be able to pull off an auto-rotate.
 

The V-22 has a centre gear box not because it is needed to connect the transmission crossdrive but because it has an APU and other ancillaries running off it. I would imagine the V-280 is an all-electric aircraft and wouldn’t need the same level of hydraulics as the V-22 nor the APU hooked up to the prop rotors. The V-280 could easily have a crossdrive in the wing but likely without the central ancillary connection. As to auto-rotating tilt rotors don’t do that. Instead they do what aircraft with wings that lose engine power do: they glide.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2013, 07:01:50 pm »
The V-22 has a centre gear box not because it is needed to connect the transmission crossdrive but because it has an APU and other ancillaries running off it. I would imagine the V-280 is an all-electric aircraft and wouldn’t need the same level of hydraulics as the V-22 nor the APU hooked up to the prop rotors. The V-280 could easily have a crossdrive in the wing but likely without the central ancillary connection. As to auto-rotating tilt rotors don’t do that. Instead they do what aircraft with wings that lose engine power do: they glide.

The V-22, like the XV-15, needs a center gearbox because the wings are swept forward. The wings were swept forward for flapping clearance in airplane mode given the location of the proprotors relative to the wing. The V280 wings have no sweep so a center gearbox wouldn't be required on the cross shafting for that reason.

The V-22 can autorotate and has the capability to flare to a survivable sink rate touchdown from a fully developed autorotation. The problem is transitioning from airplane mode windmilling to helicopter mode autorotation without losing too much rotor rpm and/or altitude. It's doable but requires altitude and a fairly high level of proficiency in the maneuver. Since the V-22 can glide farther as an airplane to reach a suitable crash landing site, a crash landing in airplane mode is survivable (the composite proprotor blades turn into broom straw), and the conversion back to helicopter is problematic, the Navy decided to have the pilots remain in airplane mode in the event of a loss of power from both engines in airplane mode.

With respect to fixed versus tilting engines, Bell selected the tilting option for the XV-15 and the V-22 from an overall weight standpoint. Mounting the engines so that the power was transmitted with spur gears rather than the less efficient bevel gears that would be required with fixed engines was part of the tradeoff. There's also some benefit for engine inlet conditions and the longitudinal location of the engines relative to the proprotor transmissions. It is a close call (Boeing opted for fixed engines on its proposal for the XV-15 program and now Bell has on the V-280) but not tilting the engines is by no means the obvious and best configuration. (The XV-3 had a single radial engine mounted in the center of the fuselage; tilting it was not a sensible option.)

Offline Gerard

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 16
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2013, 07:52:50 pm »
I'm wondering how much wider / bigger an LZ will need to for an assault landing in one of these.

Even if each rotor is smaller than that on a H-60, combined, they still look like making the helo wider.

I also think that aiming for H-60 loads, in terms of equipped troops is a bad idea. Since 2001, troops have a LOT more gear with them, so need a lot more space for weight / bulk.

Wouldn't be a problem if 15 or even 18 / 20 was a better design load.


Regards,
              Gerard

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2013, 08:39:28 pm »
 
I also think that aiming for H-60 loads, in terms of equipped troops is a bad idea. Since 2001, troops have a LOT more gear with them, so need a lot more space for weight / bulk.
 
 Wouldn't be a problem if 15 or even 18 / 20 was a better design load.

The Black Hawk loading takes into account the additional gear troops carry. In Australian use the Black Hawk can carry either 15 soldiers in patrol order sitting on the floor or 10 in marching order with back packs and gear. Australian Black Hawks have different, less space efficient seating arrangements to US Army ones. The simple solution to having to carry more soldiers is add another helicopter to package. No one is losing any sleep over this in the Army and if the Australian Army had a do-over they would take the slightly less number of seats in the UH-60M over the MRH 90 any day of the week.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2013, 04:29:02 am »
Remember that the program is very early in the start up phase.  I suspect that Bell (nor Boeing/Sikorsky for that matter) has ignored the Army's (a.k.a. the customer) desires.  So I suspect the number of troops came from the Army.  If the Army changes its mind and goes for say 14 troops then all of the aircraft will get bigger, which means they will cost more. 
 
I think the Blackhawk 15 troops sitting on thier kit has become universal.  Did the same in the US.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2013, 07:06:46 pm »


With respect to fixed versus tilting engines, Bell selected the tilting option for the XV-15 and the V-22 from an overall weight standpoint. Mounting the engines so that the power was transmitted with spur gears rather than the less efficient bevel gears that would be required with fixed engines was part of the tradeoff. There's also some benefit for engine inlet conditions and the longitudinal location of the engines relative to the proprotor transmissions. It is a close call (Boeing opted for fixed engines on its proposal for the XV-15 program and now Bell has on the V-280) but not tilting the engines is by no means the obvious and best configuration. (The XV-3 had a single radial engine mounted in the center of the fuselage; tilting it was not a sensible option.)


...FWIW, I'm still around and hope to actively participate once again in the foreseeable future.  I just dropped in  to pass on this Bell concept drawing of an earlier version of what eventually became the V-280. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2013, 12:24:32 pm »
Model and screenshots of Bell V-280 attack configuration.

Source:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/512284-new-bell-product-bell-v280.html
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 01:19:13 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2013, 02:02:55 pm »
Photos of the Bell V-280 Valor models from the AAAA convention posted by the American Helicopter Society (AHS) International on Facebook.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151516962220528.1073741829.80119815527&type=3
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 02:34:13 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2013, 02:52:02 pm »
<iframe src="
" width="1280" height="720" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2013, 11:32:36 pm »
The V-22 has a centre gear box not because it is needed to connect the transmission crossdrive but because it has an APU and other ancillaries running off it. I would imagine the V-280 is an all-electric aircraft and wouldn’t need the same level of hydraulics as the V-22 nor the APU hooked up to the prop rotors. The V-280 could easily have a crossdrive in the wing but likely without the central ancillary connection. As to auto-rotating tilt rotors don’t do that. Instead they do what aircraft with wings that lose engine power do: they glide.

The V-22, like the XV-15, needs a center gearbox because the wings are swept forward. The wings were swept forward for flapping clearance in airplane mode given the location of the proprotors relative to the wing. The V280 wings have no sweep so a center gearbox wouldn't be required on the cross shafting for that reason.

The V-22 can autorotate and has the capability to flare to a survivable sink rate touchdown from a fully developed autorotation. The problem is transitioning from airplane mode windmilling to helicopter mode autorotation without losing too much rotor rpm and/or altitude. It's doable but requires altitude and a fairly high level of proficiency in the maneuver. Since the V-22 can glide farther as an airplane to reach a suitable crash landing site, a crash landing in airplane mode is survivable (the composite proprotor blades turn into broom straw), and the conversion back to helicopter is problematic, the Navy decided to have the pilots remain in airplane mode in the event of a loss of power from both engines in airplane mode.

With respect to fixed versus tilting engines, Bell selected the tilting option for the XV-15 and the V-22 from an overall weight standpoint. Mounting the engines so that the power was transmitted with spur gears rather than the less efficient bevel gears that would be required with fixed engines was part of the tradeoff. There's also some benefit for engine inlet conditions and the longitudinal location of the engines relative to the proprotor transmissions. It is a close call (Boeing opted for fixed engines on its proposal for the XV-15 program and now Bell has on the V-280) but not tilting the engines is by no means the obvious and best configuration. (The XV-3 had a single radial engine mounted in the center of the fuselage; tilting it was not a sensible option.)


Tailspin:

One thing I note from the video is that the proprotors on the V-280 seem to pivot a lot faster than they do on the V-22 or XV-15.  I wonder if that's a function of not having to tilt the entire engine assembly.  So even though fixed engines may be somewhat more complex, this might be another advantage.  It minimizes the time that you're in that intermediate stage where the functions of the cockpit controls get  "mixed".  Also, since autorotation was discussed, I wonder if another consideration was that you could glide much farther to a landing area in fixed wing mode,  but once there, with a  more rapid translation of the proprotors, rotating them for vertical mode on final could make for a softer autorotational touchdown. 

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2013, 03:02:18 am »
Quote
I have watched the “hooah” promotional several times now and Bell crammed as much into that as they could for the discerning viewer.  ..... if you watch in the background a couple of V-280 are sling loading a couple of M777 howitzers (UH-60 can’t do that),
Smart Observation.

Wikipedia lists M777A2 weight as 9,800 lb, while an UH-60 LIMITS - Army Aviation doc I found stated the following:

5.17 Cargo Hook Weight Limitation
For UH-60A aircraft, the maximum weight that may be suspended from the cargo hook is limited to 8,000 pounds. For UH-60L aircraft, the maximum weight that can be suspended from the cargo hook is 9,000 pounds.

This implies the V-280 load carrying capacity as at least 10,000 lb
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2013, 04:38:00 am »
Quote
I have watched the “hooah” promotional several times now and Bell crammed as much into that as they could for the discerning viewer.  ..... if you watch in the background a couple of V-280 are sling loading a couple of M777 howitzers (UH-60 can’t do that),
Smart Observation.

Wikipedia lists M777A2 weight as 9,800 lb, while an UH-60 LIMITS - Army Aviation doc I found stated the following:

5.17 Cargo Hook Weight Limitation
For UH-60A aircraft, the maximum weight that may be suspended from the cargo hook is limited to 8,000 pounds. For UH-60L aircraft, the maximum weight that can be suspended from the cargo hook is 9,000 pounds.

This implies the V-280 load carrying capacity as at least 10,000 lb
from Global Security Website
"..FUR is not necessarily based on the UH-60 airframe but lists as goals, 175 knots cruise, 500 nm radius, 10,000lb external lift, 20% increase over UH-60L,.."

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2013, 04:47:57 am »
 
Quote
Current plans call for two JMR technology demonstrator aircraft to be  designed and built for a first flight by sometime in 2017, said Todd Turner,  director for the Army’s Research and Technology Air Portfolio.
“This is an S&T [Science and Technology] effort for the development of a  new, medium-class platform. The goals are to design, fabricate and demonstrate  an advanced vertical lift vehicle with a combat radius of 424 kilometers, that’s  an 848 kilometer range, un-refueled, at speeds of up to 230 knots,” Turner  said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 14th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference/Defense Tech Exposition, National  Harbor, Md.
A key goal for the program is to be affordable, and develop an aircraft that  can reach much greater speeds and extend mission possibilities without  compromising an ability to hover, Turner said.

 
Some thoughts regarding hover efficiency and dimensions of the V-280:
 
The UH-60L has a rotor diameter of 16,36m, a disc area of 210m² and disc loading of 47,5/m² (@9980kg grossweight).
 
Despite the Osprey is a completely diffrent weight class, it has the same disc area (211m²). The rotors of the MV-22B are 11,6m in diameter.
 
For good hover efficiency we can assume the V-280 must have a similar rotor diameter to achive the Blackhawks (low) discloading. That would imply a wingspan of ~14m and width of ~26m with turning rotors! (same as the Osprey)
 
...yes, the V-280 doesn´t need to transfer power to a tailrotor or other anti torque device, but the downwash on the wings is a design penalty of tiltrotor aircraft and reduces powered lift.
 
Just as a side note, the Osprey has a disc loading of 102kg/m²  :o
 
Regards, Michael
 
 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2013, 05:26:00 pm »

Quote
Current plans call for two JMR technology demonstrator aircraft to be  designed and built for a first flight by sometime in 2017, said Todd Turner,  director for the Army’s Research and Technology Air Portfolio.
“This is an S&T [Science and Technology] effort for the development of a  new, medium-class platform. The goals are to design, fabricate and demonstrate  an advanced vertical lift vehicle with a combat radius of 424 kilometers, that’s  an 848 kilometer range, un-refueled, at speeds of up to 230 knots,” Turner  said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 14th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference/Defense Tech Exposition, National  Harbor, Md.
A key goal for the program is to be affordable, and develop an aircraft that  can reach much greater speeds and extend mission possibilities without  compromising an ability to hover, Turner said.

 
Some thoughts regarding hover efficiency and dimensions of the V-280:
 
The UH-60L has a rotor diameter of 16,36m, a disc area of 210m² and disc loading of 47,5/m² (@9980kg grossweight).
 
Despite the Osprey is a completely diffrent weight class, it has the same disc area (211m²). The rotors of the MV-22B are 11,6m in diameter.
 
For good hover efficiency we can assume the V-280 must have a similar rotor diameter to achive the Blackhawks (low) discloading. That would imply a wingspan of ~14m and width of ~26m with turning rotors! (same as the Osprey)
 
...yes, the V-280 doesn´t need to transfer power to a tailrotor or other anti torque device, but the downwash on the wings is a design penalty of tiltrotor aircraft and reduces powered lift.
 
Just as a side note, the Osprey has a disc loading of 102kg/m²  :o
 
Regards, Michael

Couple of things to keep in mind.  The Osprey's proprotors are smaller than optimum for its weight class because of the constraint of required clearance between the spinning disk and the island amidships.  A lighter Tilt-Rotor with the same disk area would be expected to have greater efficiency and smaller downwash.  As you state the requirement is "withou compromising an ability to hover".    It does not say that you have to hover as efficiently as  a Black Hawk, just tthat you have to be able to hover [as well as necessary to met the mission requirements].

Downwash over the wing is an unavoidable penalty for Tilt-Rotor, as is the weight of the wing.   This becomes proportionally larger the smaller the aircraft.  As with everything, you have to make tradeoffs,  Is that hovering penalty worth it in order to get the greater speed, range with given fuel, etc. , you get with Tilt-Rotor?  Looking at the reverse, is the hovering efficiency of a pure helicopter worth the lower speed, range, etc.?   One thing that has to be considered in answering those questions is, how much of your mission is going to be spent hovering or at very low speeds? 

As a side note, Tilt-Rotor gets some, though not all, of that loss back because it can have more "twist" on its blades.  This is because you don't have to worry about pushing those blades through the air sideways at higher speeds.

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2013, 03:02:04 am »
Quote
Couple of things to keep in mind.  The Osprey's proprotors are smaller than optimum for its weight class because of the constraint of required clearance between the spinning disk and the island amidships.  A lighter Tilt-Rotor with the same disk area would be expected to have greater efficiency and smaller downwash.  As you state the requirement is "withou compromising an ability to hover".    It does not say that you have to hover as efficiently as  a Black Hawk, just tthat you have to be able to hover [as well as necessary to met the mission requirements].

Quote from a recent National Defense article:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/April/Pages/FutureVerticalLiftTakesStepForward.aspx

Quote
Data from the technical demonstrations will eventually inform the formal requirements for future vertical lift, but the Army has floated some of its desired capabilities. According to Mangum, the medium-lift variant would cruise at 230 knots, travel distances of about 263 miles and transport up to 12 combat-loaded troops. With such speed, range and payload, the Army could use the platform to “potentially self deploy [and] not be reliant on the Air Force or the Navy to get some place.” It also should be able to fly 6,000 feet on a 95-degree Fahrenheit day. Most existing helicopters can only fly 4,000 feet in those temperatures, which restricts operations during the hottest days in critical environments such as the Middle East and North Africa, Mangum said. The medium-lift aircraft, which is first in line to be developed, will take the place of the AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk. Army officials have said building the medium-lift first will allow it to replace 80 percent of its rotorcraft. This variant will be much heavier at about 30,000 pounds than a Black Hawk at 22,000 pounds. “If you talk about a medium aircraft today, you’re talking about a Black Hawk, an Apache, a Huey. … Those, by weight category, would actually almost be light aircraft in the next generation of aircraft by the Army,” said a senior industry official who asked not to be named. “You’re really starting to stretch the capabilities of what we’re currently doing today and what we’re capable of doing tomorrow,” the official said. “So if there’s anybody who walks in who says the JMR design points are so easy that we’ve already got that developed, I’m proud of them because ... from my personal knowledge of all of these different companies and things that they’re doing, we’re all going to stretch to meet those goals.”

...Interesting

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2013, 05:23:07 am »
If there was a need for 10k lb payload under FUR there likely remains a reason for that capability. How big does a tiltrotor need to be for that lift? In an increasingly urban world (likely a largest mission set) what kind of down-wash are we talking for the that beast? 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2013, 07:52:14 am »
How much time you spend in a hover is a real issue.  One of the main reasons the Army got into VTOL aircraft was because they thought being tied to airports in the atomic age would not be productive.  Of course the Marines showing them that taking hills from the top down was much better helped too.  Looking at recent operations no one is hovering more than ten to fifteen percent of the time over land.  This is almost the opposite of what a naval helicopter likely does in anti-submarine, plane watch and resupply.  So finding a happy medium may be very difficult.  I suspect the Navy/Marine requirement for helicopters to act like transformers will be a contentious issue as well.  The new strategy that focuses the US on the Pacific (an operational theater that dwarfs all other theaters of operation) will have a huge impact on new combat systems.  Now that I think about it that might be why the USArmy said tilt-rotors are operationally best.


On the down wash, I cannot see Bell telling a cash strapped customer they are going to give them something they really don't want.  As mentioned above, the V-280 is smaller and less weight than a V-22 so I would imagine the out wash to be in the teens, vice the twenty-two fps of V-22.  CH-47 and CH-53 are in the high teens and people work around them all the time.


As to 10K payload.  Assuming the artillery remains a customer for Army Aviation and the artillery has a 9,500 lbs gun (they do), then a 10k hook seems in order.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 07:58:50 am by yasotay »

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2013, 08:47:38 am »
Tailspin:

One thing I note from the video is that the proprotors on the V-280 seem to pivot a lot faster than they do on the V-22 or XV-15.  I wonder if that's a function of not having to tilt the entire engine assembly.  So even though fixed engines may be somewhat more complex, this might be another advantage.  It minimizes the time that you're in that intermediate stage where the functions of the cockpit controls get  "mixed".  Also, since autorotation was discussed, I wonder if another consideration was that you could glide much farther to a landing area in fixed wing mode,  but once there, with a  more rapid translation of the proprotors, rotating them for vertical mode on final could make for a softer autorotational touchdown.

Pros and a con for non-tilting engines that I didn't think of when I wrote that are the better field of fire for a door gunner in helicopter mode, the lack of engine exhaust impinging on the deck/ground, and the loss of a counterweight for the transmission/rotor which require a more powerful actuator to go back to helicopter mode. I don't know if the speed of conversion in the V-280 video is correct; you would probably not be surprised to learn that marketers and art directors sometimes favor appearance over accuracy.

The problem in the intermediate phase is not that the cockpit controls get mixed (the response to the cyclic stick and pedals doesn't change and you usually set the Blottle at some power level and don't need to move it), but the fact that the proprotor is not being turned by the relative wind, neither windmilling like a propeller or autorotating like a rotor. As a result, the rotor rpm is slowing and low rotor rpm is both a bad thing and a hard thing to recover from without lots of altitude.

I also forgot to mention in addition to the degree of difficulty of a power-off reconversion, the "window" for a tiltrotor autorotation flare that results in a touchdown at an acceptable  sink-rate is small relative to a helicopter's. In the XV-15 simulator, the Bell pilots could experience a double-engine failure in airplane mode at 270 knots or so at 100 feet above the ground; pull up, convert to helicopter mode, and establish autorotation; and accomplish a power-off rolling touchdown at a reasonable sink rate. (Of course, they didn't have much latitude as to where they were going to touchdown in that case.)  As far as I know, however, in flight test they never went beyond the power-off conversion from airplane mode to helicopter mode and separately,  low-power flares to a rolling landing. And that's the relatively low disk-loading, more agile XV-15. In my opinion, the Navy's decision to have the V-22 pilots stay in whatever mode they were in or going to when things got quiet is the right one. The V-280 would probably be somewhere in between in terms of the likelihood of a successful reconversion to helicopter mode and an autorotation touchdown.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2013, 03:11:38 pm »
I saw a presentation a few years ago at the American Helicopter Society where they showed the testing of the (then) BA-609 going from forward flight to autorotation.  I remember from the video that the rotor rpm dipped significantly during the conversion (they did the test from a significant altitude and did a full power recovery).  If memory serves, they used the 95 degree nacelle angle to accelerate the build up of rpm.  The decent rate was similar to an H-60 once they transitioned from airplane to rotor mode.


Certainly weight and prop-rotor design are going to have a lot of impact on the engine out characteristics of the V-280.  I wonder if there is an optimum prop-rotor vector change rate, or if that is something best left to the aircrew to decide within the mechanical limits of the design?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #49 on: April 28, 2013, 09:06:01 am »
If there was a need for 10k lb payload under FUR there likely remains a reason for that capability. How big does a tiltrotor need to be for that lift? In an increasingly urban world (likely a largest mission set) what kind of down-wash are we talking for the that beast?
If the rotor diameter is about the same as a UH-60, it should work fine.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #50 on: April 28, 2013, 01:41:41 pm »

 




Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2013, 03:50:40 pm »
Yes ... and?
I have to assume from the videos that you believe that tilt-rotors will ALL be worse that helicopters in urban terrain.  I will have to find the video of an MH-6 conducting an urban raid in Iraq.  It blew materials up off the roof into its rotor system and crashed into the building.
Indeed I have to wonder if the thick cord of the prop-rotor might make it more resistant to damage than the thiner cord of most helicopters.
 

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2013, 04:32:31 pm »
 an operator told me a 25lb weight must be added to the fast rope so it is controllable upon decent...done with this topic.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2013, 09:36:48 pm »
Tailspin:

One thing I note from the video is that the proprotors on the V-280 seem to pivot a lot faster than they do on the V-22 or XV-15.  I wonder if that's a function of not having to tilt the entire engine assembly.  So even though fixed engines may be somewhat more complex, this might be another advantage.  It minimizes the time that you're in that intermediate stage where the functions of the cockpit controls get  "mixed".  Also, since autorotation was discussed, I wonder if another consideration was that you could glide much farther to a landing area in fixed wing mode,  but once there, with a  more rapid translation of the proprotors, rotating them for vertical mode on final could make for a softer autorotational touchdown.

Pros and a con for non-tilting engines that I didn't think of when I wrote that are the better field of fire for a door gunner in helicopter mode, the lack of engine exhaust impinging on the deck/ground, and the loss of a counterweight for the transmission/rotor which require a more powerful actuator to go back to helicopter mode. I don't know if the speed of conversion in the V-280 video is correct; you would probably not be surprised to learn that marketers and art directors sometimes favor appearance over accuracy.

Wel, Iwas comparing the posibly exaggerated rate of translation in this video with what I remember of the exaggerated  rate in the early JVX/V-22 videos.   

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8480
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2013, 12:09:12 pm »
Interesting that the patent shows a civil configuration.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8480
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2013, 12:53:12 pm »
more interesting that it shows attack version)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2013, 01:39:36 pm »
Great find flateric  ;)  .


I wonder if Bell is not considering this intermediate solution between a conventional helicopter and a tilt rotor as an better answer to the FTL. The tilt rotor with its 280 knots speed is an a requirement overkill but also too mechanically complex. Perhaps this configuration can achieve the required 230 knots with this variable incidence wing approach in a lot more simple and reliable design.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2013, 05:28:20 pm »
Great find flateric  ;)  .


I wonder if Bell is not considering this intermediate solution between a conventional helicopter and a tilt rotor as an better answer to the FTL. The tilt rotor with its 280 knots speed is an a requirement overkill but also too mechanically complex. Perhaps this configuration can achieve the required 230 knots with this variable incidence wing approach in a lot more simple and reliable design.


Ditto the find!

Can't say  if the variable incidence wing is that much less complex, but Bell states that their 280 knot speed is a fallout of the 6,000 ft.,  95° F requirement.  With the power required to do that, when you rotate the proprotors forward, you get a 280 knot cruise 

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2013, 04:27:41 am »
Quote
Can't say  if the variable incidence wing is that much less complex,
It's it obvious? You don't have a transfer of torque trough the mechanism.

Quote
Bell states that their 280 knot speed is a fallout of the 6,000 ft.,  95° F requirement.  With the power required to do that, when you rotate the proprotors forward, you get a 280 knot cruise

Interesting.  ??? So the question is then how much tilt of the propellers is required to achieve 230 knots?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 04:41:27 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #60 on: May 20, 2013, 06:28:17 pm »
Quote
Can't say  if the variable incidence wing is that much less complex,
It's it obvious? You don't have a transfer of torque trough the mechanism.

Quote
Bell states that their 280 knot speed is a fallout of the 6,000 ft.,  95° F requirement.  With the power required to do that, when you rotate the proprotors forward, you get a 280 knot cruise

Interesting.  ??? So the question is then how much tilt of the propellers is required to achieve 230 knots?



Granted, you do not have a transfer of torque through the mechanism.  That would qualify as reduced complexity, sure.  Of course, you could also do that by just  tilting the engines, as the last three Tilt-Rotor aircraft did. 

  If I understand the concept, not necessarily a given ("Mongo just Pawn in Game of Life"), the rotors are fixed at an angle relative to the engines, which are fixed on the wings and the wing itself has a degree of variable incidence.   While this would not require the transfer gearcase of the V-280 style Tilt-Rotor, it introduces some complications of its own.  Of course, one is you're now moving the entire wing.  A second is that in forward flight you've now got the rotors in an inefficient configuration.  They're not in the most efficient lifting position for a rotorcraft, nor are they in the best position  for propulsion.  Sort of a "least of both worlds".  The thrust vector is not aligned with the direction of flight, requiring some complexity there.  Also, the rotor-wing downwash  penalty, which Tilt-Rotors face when in vertical mode but disappears in aircraft mode, is there all the time.   There are some design and control issues there.  What you are creating here is a Tilt-Rotor with the proprotors always in intermediate position.  Generally a Tilt-Rotor will only have the proprotors at this angle during STOL operations, and will rotate them fully as soon as practical, while here you're flying in intermediate mode all the time.    Finally, because of the angle depicted relative to line of flight, you reintroduce the complication  that at speed you're essentially pushing the rotors though the air sideways.  This means you can't use the maximum twist to the blades.    You've also got more drag to deal with. 

I would opine that  there are some advantages relative to conventional helicopters.  In fact, Fig. 9 resembles a conventional helicopter in higher speed flight.  It allows for a more level cabin than a helicopter in most modes.  This might be an interesting alternative to  X3.   However, I don't see significant advantages relative to Tilt-Rotor (or ABC/X2, once there is more experience with it). 

In answer to your 2nd question, I must ask another:  If you're already got the power and are tilting anyway, why would you want to stop at an intermediate, less efficient angle just you can go slower?

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2013, 05:11:00 am »
 
Quote
If you're already got the power and are tilting anyway, why would you want to stop at an intermediate, less efficient angle just you can go slower?


Simple. You trade speed and range for reliability and survivability.


I agree with most of your arguments but I think you missed the general point I was making, so lets try again.
Any Tilt-Rotor has proven to bring the following 3 advantages compared to a conventional helicopter
- speed
- payload
- range
Looking at the JMR/FTL requirement V-280 meets or exceeds the payload requirements and vastly exceed those in speed and range.


However, the V-22 has proven that a tilt-rotor is also a lot more complex than a conventional helicopter to a point where that complexity may seriously affect the ability of the aircraft to perform its mission safely. The fact the US President will never get one despite the advantages it brings proves that.


My point was that the above patent represented an attempt by Bell to trade speed and range (which they had plenty of above the requirement) for reliability and survivability.


Now, why do I think that they get what they want?
In a V-280 you have 3 moving things to worry about breaking (sorry if I use incorrect terminology)
  • 2 propellers
  • 2 propeller pivoting mechanisms
  • 2 mechanisms for transferring torque at different pivoting angles
Further, you have all those 6 moving systems grouped in 2 small areas. You can say thay you are putting all of your eggs in 2 baskets.


In the patent above Bells engineers sacrifice the forward flight configuration of tilt rotor but achieve the Vertical and STOL oneswith just the following moving systems:
  • 2 propellers
  • 1 mechanism for pivoting the whole wing.
Now, not only you reduce these complex moving mechanisms in half but you distribute them in the whole aircraft reducing the risk that a single hit will damage more than 1 of them.


Granted, this is oversimplification but there is a general logic there. Now, if you look at a conventional helicopter the same way it has only 2 propellers and no big pivoting parts. An X2 or a compound helicopter have both 3 propellers and no moving parts so one can make the crude arguments that the patent above gets the best of the tilt rotor for half the complexity.

Quote
Also, the rotor-wing downwash  penalty, which Tilt-Rotors face when in vertical mode but disappears in aircraft mode, is there all the time.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.In a vertical flight the above patent will face less downwash then a tilt-rotor because the wing is at an high alpha (less air is trapped). In STOVL flight both will behave exactly the same as they have the wing and rotors exactly the same way. The tilt wing concept does not have the efficient aircraft mode at all but that's the whole point. It may achieve the range and speed requirements without it.My whole argument is that the ability to point the main propellers fully forward drives the decision to incorporate the pivoting mechanism from one area in the strongest structural section ( the aircraft central fuselage) to the weakest places, the 2 tips of the wings.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2013, 07:07:39 pm »
lantinian,

Very interesting and thoughtful perspective.  Thanks for taking the time.  My thoughts, FWIW:

As far as vastly exceeding speed and range, that's true.  However, clearly Army wanted to look at a variety of technologies, a good plan.  if they set those requirements much higher, they would have effectively pre-selected Tilt-Rotor.  Again, what Bell is doing is leveraging  the power they're going to have to have to meet the 6K 95F requirement anyway and harnessing it fully. 

Regarding the V-22's problems, AFAIK they haven't been related to how it tilts its proprotors, or even to the fact that it's a Tilt-Rotor.   Regarding Presidential use, I'm not sure how you can state the US President will never get one since there are already 12 being delivered to HMX-1 for support roles and to fly the press and other personnel.    As far as Marine 1 goes, the V-22 is considerably larger than the existing assets (note pic), so that's a consideration--do we need one that large?  Plus, they love to have their competitions, you know, so they're going to have another one for that.  On the other hand, maybe with something this big, they can carry all the stuff the Secret Service keeps wanting to pile in there, which is what killed the VH-71.    Depending on what they want the new one to do, the V-22 may indeed get bid.  Boeing is also considering  separately bidding the CH-47.  In any case, President Obama doesn't seem to be too worried, as he tends to use the V-22 abroad when its available, something neither he nor the Secret Service would tend to put up with if the complexity seriously affected its ability to perform its mission. 

There's actually a complexity you left out regarding the concept  under discussion.   Specifically, since its propellors are not in line with the with the engines (as they could be on an engine tilting Tilt-Rotor but not on a fixed nacelle one), you've got to have some kind of power transfer case in there.   Granted, it won't have to move, but it's a complicated gearcase nonetheless.   Plus, you have the thrust vector not in line with the motion of the a/c, which has to add stress to that gearcase and mount (Tilt-Rotor has it too, but normally only for a small portion of the flight, and only at lower speeds). 

Not sure how this concept would be more survivable.  A 57mm hot in the nacelle of a Tilt-Rotor or this is pretty much going to take out everything, and with this concept you have the additional vulnerable area where the wing tilting mechanism is.   In both cases, BTW, the heavy engines are sitting out on the wing tips.  OTOH, both concepts can land safely with the props forward, but this one can do it more nicely. 

On a conventional helo, you have a lot of moving parts in the rotor hub, and it gets really complex in there.  Possibly even more so for X2, but not to a dangerous or unacceptable level.   Of course,with X2, should that  rear prop or related shaft be knocked out, it looks like it'll be slower than a conventional (a conventional helo in this situation immediately become a thrill ride). 

I don't think I'm using different fruits here.  It seems the the rotor-wing interaction is going to be a function how much the blades overlap the wing in Tilt-Rotor or VI wing some will get deflected aft and down because the wing has some tilt on it in the hover, but it still going to have the downforce impinging on it as a function of wing area and overlap.   It will be reduced in forward flight because of the effect that forward motion will have on the displaced air, but it'll still be impinging on the wing. 

I guess all I'm saying is that it seems that what you have to give up with the VI wing concept seems an awfully high price to reduce what doesn't seem to be  to be that much of a problem. 

Again, FWIW


Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2013, 08:42:04 pm »
I'm not sure how you can state the US President will never get one since there are already 12 being delivered to HMX-1 for support roles and to fly the press and other personnel.    As far as Marine 1 goes, the V-22 is considerably larger than the existing assets (note pic), so that's a consideration--do we need one that large?  Plus, they love to have their competitions, you know, so they're going to have another one for that.  On the other hand, maybe with something this big, they can carry all the stuff the Secret Service keeps wanting to pile in there, which is what killed the VH-71.    Depending on what they want the new one to do, the V-22 may indeed get bid.  Boeing is also considering  separately bidding the CH-47.  In any case, President Obama doesn't seem to be too worried, as he tends to use the V-22 abroad when its available, something neither he nor the Secret Service would tend to put up with if the complexity seriously affected its ability to perform its mission. 



I agree with all of the above. Personally I would absolutely love for Marine One to be an Osprey. Something wonderfully advanced and science fiction like for pres to have a "tranformer" helicopter. the V-22 is a sporty car, the Chinook is a truck. I don't think there is any way to make a chinook look like anything other than a big tandem rotor brick. Looks wise, the osprey wins, A lot of the critisms like downwash could be applied to the Chinook as well.  Its probably a big advantage that HMX will have experience with the osprey, along with being able to get good maintainers with osprey experience from the fleet, as opposed to having to reinvent the wheel with the Hook. I think a lot of the minuses for the osprey will go out the window since there are already 12 in service.
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2013, 10:33:43 pm »
I'm not sure how you can state the US President will never get one since there are already 12 being delivered to HMX-1 for support roles and to fly the press and other personnel.    As far as Marine 1 goes, the V-22 is considerably larger than the existing assets (note pic), so that's a consideration--do we need one that large?  Plus, they love to have their competitions, you know, so they're going to have another one for that.  On the other hand, maybe with something this big, they can carry all the stuff the Secret Service keeps wanting to pile in there, which is what killed the VH-71.    Depending on what they want the new one to do, the V-22 may indeed get bid.  Boeing is also considering  separately bidding the CH-47.  In any case, President Obama doesn't seem to be too worried, as he tends to use the V-22 abroad when its available, something neither he nor the Secret Service would tend to put up with if the complexity seriously affected its ability to perform its mission. 



I agree with all of the above. Personally I would absolutely love for Marine One to be an Osprey. Something wonderfully advanced and science fiction like for pres to have a "tranformer" helicopter. the V-22 is a sporty car, the Chinook is a truck. I don't think there is any way to make a chinook look like anything other than a big tandem rotor brick. Looks wise, the osprey wins, A lot of the critisms like downwash could be applied to the Chinook as well.  Its probably a big advantage that HMX will have experience with the osprey, along with being able to get good maintainers with osprey experience from the fleet, as opposed to having to reinvent the wheel with the Hook. I think a lot of the minuses for the osprey will go out the window since there are already 12 in service.

In the interest of full disclosure, only one of the 12 has been deliverd to HMX-1.  However, about 230 V-22s in total  have been deliverd to USMC and USAF so far. 

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2013, 11:51:31 pm »
In the interest of full disclosure, only one of the 12 has been deliverd to HMX-1.  However, about 230 V-22s in total  have been deliverd to USMC and USAF so far.

you are indeed correct, got a little ahead of the timeline in my post
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2013, 10:42:32 am »
An Article regarding the "Hybrid Tandem Rotor" from The DEW Line (2009):

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/05/bell-helicopter-reveals-hybrid.html

Quote
...It is Bell's candidate for replacing both the AH-64 and UH-60 with an all-new configuration called the Hybrid Tandem Rotor, Robert Kenney, Bell's executive VP for government programs, told me in an interview a few minutes after I filmed this clip.

The HTR "splits the difference between a helicopter and a tiltrotor," said Kenney.

While the BellBoeing V-22 can tilt its tandem rotor 95 degrees, the HTR's wing tilts by 25 degrees and gains 5 degrees more by adjusting the cyclic controls.
That means the HTR could achieve a forward speed of 225kts, Kenney said. A V-22 cruises at more than 300kts, while the fastest helicopters are limited to about 170kts...

Rgds Michael

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2013, 02:16:45 pm »
 
Quote
Regarding Presidential use, I'm not sure how you can state the US President will never get one since there are already 12 being delivered to HMX-1 for support roles and to fly the press and other personnel.
Saying never was a bit harsh on the V-22, I admit. I was simply referring to this piece which I remember reading last week
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/144961/v_22-%E2%80%98reputation-remake%E2%80%99-falls-flat.html
Quote
Ulsh noted that last month the first of 12 Ospreys joined the fleet of aircraft used for presidential travel, a significant endorsement of the aircraft. They’ll be used to transport the president’s staff and journalists, though not the commander in chief.
The program to find a replacement for the Presidents current helicopter has recently been restarted with the V-22 being possibly one of the candidates.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-moves-ahead-presidential-helicopter-program-183652898.html
Quote
Boeing Co has said it is also studying a possible bid based on its H-47 Chinook helicopter or the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that it builds with Textron Inc's Bell Helicopter unit.
So, officially the V-22 is still far from being Marine Force one. Don't get me wrong thought. I'd love for the V-22 to take that roll but the reality is that they may need a solution with a much more benign footprint. Imagine how much reporters are going to love it when they learn that because of the huge V-22 downwash, they now have to wait 3 times further from the landing zone to take pictures.


Quote
There's actually a complexity you left out regarding the concept  under discussion.   Specifically, since its propellors are not in line with the with the engines (as they could be on an engine tilting Tilt-Rotor but not on a fixed nacelle one)
You are right. An that would have been the case had I compared the "hybrid tandem rotor" (as illustrated bellow) with V-22. However, Bell's JMR/FTL proposal is different than V-22. I was specifically referring to the V-280 the whole time which also has fixed engines.
So again in terms of the way the engines and the propellers connect:
  • V-22 (Apples),
  • V-280 (Oranges),
  • "Hybrid Tandem Wing" (Oranges),
  • "Variable Incident Wing" (Oranges)


Quote
I don't think I'm using different fruits here.  It seems the the rotor-wing interaction is going to be a function how much the blades overlap the wing in Tilt-Rotor or VI wing some will get deflected aft and down because the wing has some tilt on it in the hover, but it still going to have the downforce impinging on it as a function of wing area and overlap.   It will be reduced in forward flight because of the effect that forward motion will have on the displaced air, but it'll still be impinging on the wing.


This is all 100% correct. What I meant is that you should not compare the aircraft configuration of a Tilt Rotor with the STOVL configuration of a VI wing which to me is comparing apples and oranges.


Also, the program is called Future Vertical Lift for a reason. It's Future "best possible vertical" lift, not Future "needs to fly like an airplane but hey, by the way, can you make it land like a helicopter" lift. So IMHO, the advantage a VI wing has in less wing downwash (because of the tilt) is much more important than the airplane mode of the Tilt-Rotor.


Quote
A 57mm hot in the nacelle of a Tilt-Rotor or this is pretty much going to take out everything, and with this concept you have the additional vulnerable area where the wing tilting mechanism is.
Sorry but there is a complete lack of logic here.

1st, there is no requirement to for any helicopter to withstand a 57mm round, or a missile or a tank shell, or a 2000lb laser guided bomb of the kind an F-15E dropped on a Iraqi chopper in 1991. A hit by 23mm shell is
the most likely scenario to test against.


2nd, I am not adding anything. Bell is replacing 2 rotating nacelle titling mechanisms with 1 pneumatic one that will be far more reliable because its a more efficient way to achieve the same effect.

Take a home broom and ask yourself this. Which the most efficient way to tilt the broom from horizontal to 25 angle?
a) (V-22) grab the broom around the middle and twist your arm?
b) (V-280) grab the broom by the furthest corner of the stick and twist your arm? Ouch
c) (VI wing) put the handling stick against the wall and just lift the broom part up or down.
I am pretty sure, unless you are really strong, you won't be able to do option b)

So the wing tilting mechanism is by the laws of physics is a much more efficient, simpler and hence reliable and battle resistant solution to tilting the propellers from Vertical to STOVL mode.


3rd, spreading critical systems around the aircraft is a basic survivability concept. Its self evident.
Quote
On a conventional helo, you have a lot of moving parts in the rotor hub, and it gets really complex in there.  Possibly even more so for X2, but not to a dangerous or unacceptable level.
Yes, you are right here. All till-rotor / VI wing solutions do seam to have an aircraft like propellers which have twisted blades attached to the center rotating shaft while conventional helicopters have blades which are mounted via joints as they need to be able to chance angle of attack. X2 and AH-56 Cheyenne operate differently though.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:20:14 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2013, 03:20:49 pm »
Don't want this to turn into  a back and forth thing that could  bore everyone, it's only my opinion anyway, so I'm just going to clarify my thinking on how I adressed three issues.

Regarding Marine 1, the V-22 unquestionably  is going to have  greater downwash than an SH-3/H-60.  It's a lot bigger for one thing.   How significant this will be depends on how the specs come out.    After all, if an H-47 will be acceptable, than this may not be that important.  And, how close do the reporters need (and will be allowed, these days)  to get to be able to use the superb long lenses we have nowadays.  Generally, I see them being held in a press area anyway, whenever the President goes anywhere, at least until engine shutdown.  Maybe they'll have to duck back in the V-22 they arrived in to get a different lens.   Again, V-22 is by no means a sure thing and I'm not implying it is. 

Regarding comparing the STOVL config of VI wing vs.  aircraft config. of Tilt-Rotor, as I see it, VI wing is always in STOVL config because of the fixed relationship of the props to the wing.  There will be the same amount of overlap regardless of VI wing's angle and there will be a downward component applied to the wing at all times because the prop is "blowing" down on it (minus whatever part is deflected by the relative wind derived from forward flight).  I feel the use of Tilt-Rotor in aircraft config is fair because that's the configuration it'll be in at cruise.   So, to my mind comparing what happens in the cruise config of Tilt-Rotor with the cruise config of VI wing is valid. 


Finally, I used the 57mm comment  simply to illustrate that if you get hit in the nacelles with something large enough, the whole nacelle is going to get smashed regardless of whether or not something in there rotates.   I don't see a significant difference in vulnerability of the nacelles in either case.  Ya get hit there, it's gonna hurt.   The V-22 meets the DoD requirements for vulnerability to 23mm API.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2013, 09:19:02 pm »
Looking back on the complicated development history of the operational Bell VTOL, it is good to see that the complicated solution of tilting two enormous engines+props has been discarded.

I'm not quite sure, that tilting the rotors only, with the need to bend the cyclic and collective controls
really eases the problems. To my opinion, it may result in a slight decrease in weight, but to an increase
of complexity.
Trust me, as someone currently working on the V-22 nacelle, it makes a difference.  And, yes, I'm very familiar with that V-22 testbed that was pictured a few months back in Combat Aircraft; further deponent sayeth not.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2013, 01:35:48 am »
Quote
I feel the use of Tilt-Rotor in aircraft config is fair because that's the configuration it'll be in at cruise.   So, to my mind comparing what happens in the cruise config of Tilt-Rotor with the cruise config of VI wing is valid.

Looking at it operationally is the valid point of view indeed. We just can't agree on which is more important for the FTL: Cruse or VTOL.


Had the FTL requirement been to design the fastest and furthest traveling VTOL aircraft  the Tilt-Rotor would probably be the best possible technical solution by far. After all, it does look like and airplane more than a helicopter in flight.


However, that's not where the requirements are being challenged by the reality of combat.
The real challenge is in going up in those high mountains in Afganistan and operating with heavy payload at a very hot day.
In those conditions, less downwash from the wing and more efficient transfer of power are far more important.

I guess that the debate will be settled by what configuration Bell proposes to build at the end (if they win the final contract). 

The things is, we do have members in this tread (who had not posted for 2 years) but who probably knows ;) ....something.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 02:41:13 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2013, 07:22:09 am »
 
A great discussion going here, having been away for a bit, I will do my best not to prognosticate too much.
 
I was under the impression that Bell had already elected to move forward with tilt rotor. Mr. Garrison seemed pretty straight forward at the Quad A meeting that V-280 would be the Bell FVL option. Of course that could change, but I am a great doubter of industrial agility, especially in the American rotorcraft sector.
 
I suspect that the hybrid tandem rotor was a "floater" that Bell put out to see if a very conservative Army would nibble at. Since it appears that the Army has not "nibbled" I suspect the concept (still very valid) goes into the overstuffed vault at Bell.
 
I must disagree somewhat with the "challenged by the reality of combat" comment. To be sure the horrible environment US/NATO rotorcraft have been operating in the last ten years has demonstrated the need for more power/payload.  So a desire for the ability to operate at 6000 feet on a 95 degree day that has been put forward seems valid. Good news with this is that anywhere cooler and lower (much of the earth...well maybe) will allow for even better performance than that at 6000 feet.
 
Nonetheless, range and speed have also become very salient points. Otherwise I seriously doubt the Army would not have doubled the desire for both of them. The distances that the US forces have been operating over are far greater than the current fleet is designed for. This has required them to either penny packet helicopters (in the case of MEDEVAC) or put Forward Area Rearm/Refuel Points (a.k.a. gas stations) all over the map. For senior commanders this creates undesirable circumstances. First they  have to protect all of those expensive helicopters/crews/maintainers and their gas stations. This means more people at risk than would otherwise be in harms way. Along with this they have to get fuel/parts/supplies out to those locations and that means convoys, because it is not practical to move bulk fuel by air. That puts even more soldiers at risk. At a meeting in January of this year the Army Aviation Commander showed a slide comparing coverage requirements for the Philippine between current and future rotorcraft. It showed that today it would take nine operating bases to cover much of that country. With the future requirements it would take only four. That is a lot less people. So being able to operate at long distances can lead to a more streamlined force. He also showed future rotorcraft self deploying across the Pacific ocean in something like four days. Given the US decision to focus more effort on the Pacific Region (it dwarfs any other area I suspect), “range” will be very important I suspect.
 
Speed will likely be the contentious point. How fast is fast enough? The Aviation Commander said that 230 knots was the current desired cruise speed. I personally am in favor of speed because of the old military aviation maxim "speed is life", and how it relates to soldiers on the ground. If you had a choice of being shot at for five minutes or ten minutes before someone comes along to help you, which would you choose? If you had a choice of your child bleeding out for thirty minutes or fifteen, which would you choose? Less emotionally if "time is money" then the more time it takes to accomplish a mission means more wear and tear on an aircraft. Certainly there is a valid argument about cost of a system per flight hour that can stand the comment on its head, but one has to consider whole ownership cost over a long period to have a better picture. Connected to this is fuel efficiency.  The operating cost of an aircraft will see fuel cost become a more critical component as more people bid on the available fuels.  Most westerners are used to relatively cheap fuels (especially the US), so it has not really been a part of the “expense” consideration.  I think this attitude will change fairly soon.  So rotorcraft efficiency will become a more critical component of effectiveness.
 
This is why I think tilt rotor has a good chance, which appears to be consistent with an Army study that Bell likes to quote.
 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 07:28:55 am by yasotay »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #72 on: May 25, 2013, 04:08:46 am »
It would  be interesting to note that we still have not seen Boeing's X2 based proposal.

Sikorsky will continue developing the S-97 on its own and Boeing has taken responsibility for the team JMR entry. Since decision on which 2 teams will proceed with the prototypes is due in September, we are bound to see something interesting from Boeing in the next 1-2 months.

I've been gathering the specs of the more notable contenders and the latest versions of the helicopters they are poposed to replace.

It's quite obvious that in terms of payload, S-97 is not in the same leagues as the others and that V-280 is also in a leagues of its own.




There are a few empty fields if anyone wants to help, you can do so here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6LyF8qNyoudC1DV0tRUEhfc2RGQnBOVC1IdlgwV3c&usp=sharing
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 12:50:38 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #73 on: May 25, 2013, 07:43:19 am »
The Boeing/Sikorsky team has Sikorsky developing the X2 air vehicle and Boeing responsible for the mission equipment.  So unless I have missed the mark, there will be no Boeing air vehicle.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #74 on: May 25, 2013, 08:25:09 am »
It would  be interesting to note that we still have not seen Boeing's X2 based proposal.

Sikorsky will continue developing the S-97 on its own and Boeing has taken responsibility for the team JMR entry. Since decision on which 2 teams will proceed with the prototypes is due in September, we are bound to see something interesting from Boeing in the next 1-2 months.

I've been gathering the specs of the more notable contenders and the latest versions of the helicopters they are poposed to replace.

It's quite obvious that in terms of payload, S-97 is not in the same leagues as the others and that V-280 is also in a leagues of its own.




There are a few empty fields if anyone wants to help, you can do so here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6LyF8qNyoudC1DV0tRUEhfc2RGQnBOVC1IdlgwV3c&usp=sharing

In fairness to Sikorsky, S-97 is not meant to be able to compete for this program, it's too small.  It's more in the size of the Advanced Aerial Scout Program (AAS).  Origninally it was looked at as a long shot because Army was investigating off the shelf stuff for AAS and said it would only consider stuff that was flying now.  However, based on the results of the 2012 "flyoff", Army has decided that no off-the-shelf solution can met their needs for a new vehicle.  So, they either stay with the OH-58 or develop something more advanced, and there S-97 has a shot. 

V-280 is probably too big for what Army wants for AAS. 

Or, Army could wait for the "scalable" FVL results (SLEP OH-58 for another decade or so) and adapt something from that.   :(
 

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #75 on: May 25, 2013, 08:51:20 am »
Well Sikorsky has been showing around a bunch of different X-2 concepts and patents - including enlarged military versions.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of these gets submitted for the JMR role. The question is - have any estimated stats been published yet for the larger versions?

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #76 on: May 25, 2013, 09:50:40 am »
Well Sikorsky has been showing around a bunch of different X-2 concepts and patents - including enlarged military versions.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of these gets submitted for the JMR role. The question is - have any estimated stats been published yet for the larger versions?

There is actually a differnt forum on the site for JMR.  You can see a pic of the Sikorsky Boeing X2 concept here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13812.msg178946.html#msg178946

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2013, 04:19:17 am »
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5302558/Photos%20for%20Links/JMR%20Comparison.png

Your Dropbox link not only doesn't show (I had to fetch it from your source post) but it doesn't work!

Can you provide an alternate URL that is accessible to all? Thanks.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2013, 01:37:38 pm »
Well Sikorsky has been showing around a bunch of different X-2 concepts and patents - including enlarged military versions.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of these gets submitted for the JMR role. The question is - have any estimated stats been published yet for the larger versions?

There is actually a differnt forum on the site for JMR.  You can see a pic of the Sikorsky Boeing X2 concept here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13812.msg178946.html#msg178946

Ah, yes... I just was providing some feedback for lantinian's comparison sheet.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #79 on: May 28, 2013, 12:53:52 pm »
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5302558/JMR%20Contenders.png

Your Dropbox link not only doesn't show (I had to fetch it from your source post) but it doesn't work!

Can you provide an alternate URL that is accessible to all? Thanks.

I fixed the picture but it was just an image for illustration purposes. The link to edit the table was bellow it and it still works.
Here it is again.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An6LyF8qNyoudC1DV0tRUEhfc2RGQnBOVC1IdlgwV3c&usp=sharing
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #80 on: September 10, 2013, 09:55:59 am »
Full-scale mockup of Bell V-280 Valor on display at the 2013 Maneuver Warfighter Conference and Tactical Expo in Fort Benning.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=691901910837788&set=a.139252566102728.20844.137576202937031&type=1&theater

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 21635
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2013, 10:21:55 am »
My brief opinion about that aircraft,


it'll be going to loss in hard tests,as Boeing/Bell V-22.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #82 on: September 10, 2013, 10:43:46 am »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #83 on: September 10, 2013, 11:06:27 am »
"Bell to team with Lockheed Martin on V-280 tilt-rotor"
Posted Monday, Sep. 09, 2013
by Yamil Berard

Source:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/09/5147576/bell-to-team-with-lockheed-martin.html

Quote
FORT WORTH — Lockheed Martin will join Bell Helicopter to build a new tilt-rotor aircraft, officials said Monday.

Three of Lockheed Martin’s business units will join Bell in developing the V-280 Valor, a “third-generation” tilt-rotor able to reach altitudes over 6,000 feet, company officials said. The company’s larger V-22 Osprey flies at 5,700 feet and is designed for a different set of missions, Bell officials said.

Lockheed’s part of the deal is to equip the Valor with a mission equipment package, officials said. The package will reflect many of the technological advancements that produced Lockheed Martin’s F-35 joint strike fighter Lightning II, being built at its west side factory.

“We are very excited,” Bell President and CEO John Garrison said in a statement Monday. Lockheed Martin’s “experience and innovation ... will help us provide the highest levels of maturity and technical readiness required for future vertical lift missions.”

Bell’s V-280 Valor is expected to compete for an Army contract in a Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator program. The contract is expected to be awarded this month, according to Bell.

AVX Aircraft Company of Fort Worth is also a contender in the competition, spokesman Mike Cox said Monday.

The Washington D.C.-based Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training division will take the lead for Lockheed on the project, with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Grand Prairie also involved, Lockheed spokeswoman Melissa Hilliard said Monday.

In April, a model of the Valor was unveiled to hundreds of spectators at the Fort Worth Convention Center during the 2013 Army Aviation Association of America’s exposition.

Valor’s “clean sheet design” reduces complexity compared with previous generations of tilt-rotors, with fewer parts, as well as nonrotating, fixed engines, Chris Gehler, Bell’s business development manager for future vertical lift, told the Star-Telegram during the exposition.

Garrison also touted the benefits of the tilt-rotor during the exposition conference.

“The name itself makes an important statement of its own,” Garrison said, “V representing vertical lift, 280 representing its unmatched speed, and Valor as a tribute to the servicemen and women who approach their jobs with valor every day.”

Models of the Bell V-280 Valor.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 11:24:39 am by Triton »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #84 on: September 10, 2013, 11:20:43 am »
My brief opinion about that aircraft,


it'll be going to loss in hard tests,as Boeing/Bell V-22.

.?.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #85 on: September 10, 2013, 11:21:59 am »
Models of the Bell V-280 Valor.


Is it an optical illusion, or does the attack version seem to have a shorter fuselage?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #86 on: September 10, 2013, 12:18:43 pm »
I believe that they are the same size ... right now.
More from Fort Benning GA
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 12:46:39 pm by yasotay »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #87 on: September 10, 2013, 12:46:20 pm »
I believe that they are the same size ... right now.

Think so, too. Have a look at the windows in the cockpit roof
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #88 on: September 10, 2013, 02:11:16 pm »
I believe that they are the same size ... right now.

Think so, too. Have a look at the windows in the cockpit roof

Thanks

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #89 on: September 10, 2013, 02:21:28 pm »
I believe that they are the same size ... right now.
More from Fort Benning GA

Nice, thank you for sharing, yasotayB)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2013, 10:03:28 pm »
The Bell V-280 Valor mock-up on display at Fort Benning.

Source:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163663-V280-Bell-Valor&p=2496880
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 01:44:47 pm by Triton »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2013, 10:45:38 pm »
Am I wrong, or are there still two basic versions of the Valor around ? One with the nose of the S-70
and a fixed landing gear, the other with a distinct Bell design ?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:47:15 pm by Jemiba »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline ADVANCEDBOY

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 279
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2013, 10:55:15 pm »
 I am excited. Although I was a bit scared that the nose section might be a derivative of S-70, After a closer inspection it seems not to be the case. IF it had a segment from S-70 installed  I would never support this VTOL aircraft. Never. The same way I never supported X3 helicopter which was also not a clean-sheet design. I am allergic to rebadges and regrilles:) Remember, Airbus also wanted to use a lipstick on a pig strategy for their A350, but facing protests from potential customers it went the  clean sheet all the way. I applaud such a strategy. Always! Until the day I die!
P.S. What seems interesting that the door handles on the front door seem eerily familiar. Looks like they have been taken from a certain GM product:)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:56:58 pm by ADVANCEDBOY »
If you are hotter than me, I must be cooler than you:)

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #93 on: September 11, 2013, 05:08:11 am »
The original views of the V-280 had a very H-60 look, but was really a new design.  The mock-up appears to draw from the 525 design more in the front end.  The real reason why it appears similar to an H-60 is in that the primary mission it is designing to is indeed similar, primarily acting as an assault transport for a squad of troops with enablers (communications, mortars, machine-gun teams).

Offline ADVANCEDBOY

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 279
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #94 on: September 11, 2013, 05:47:25 am »
Designwise I would have wished for smaller front tires. Of course retractable front landing gear in this configuration would be desirable, such as the ones installed on Ka-60/62. Also I would like the wings to made in more organic shape, that would represent thicker and wider at the fuselage and thinner and more narrow when moving towards the engines and rotors. And it is still very similar to H-60, could it be that they did clay modelling on top of an existing chopper? Who knows. It seems most likely not, as H-60 has bigger fuselage. Just my guess. I might post an updated pic of what I am talking about.
If you are hotter than me, I must be cooler than you:)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #95 on: September 11, 2013, 08:09:17 am »
The Bell V-280 Valor mock-up on display at Fort Benning.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.691987927495853.1073741843.137576202937031&type=3
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 01:41:06 pm by Triton »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #96 on: September 11, 2013, 12:02:42 pm »
 
Designwise I would have wished for smaller front tires. Of course retractable front landing gear in this configuration would be desirable, such as the ones installed on Ka-60/62.

The front gear do retract.  They fold inward under the fuselage, while the tail gear folds up as well.  This is why you see the other model with no exposed landing gear.
 
As for their size, you want relatively big tires for lower ground pressure when operating in the field, especially if you anticipate doing a lot of rolling STOs. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #97 on: September 11, 2013, 12:12:21 pm »
Jemiba and Advancedboy.  The gear do retract on both version (utility and attack)--you don't get 280 knot cruise with fixed gear. 

As to why the cabin resembles the H-60, that's because it's H-60 sized, and this particular model is designed to perform the H-60 role.  That basic cabin design is very efficient, so it's not surprising that different air vehicles would have similar appearance.  For example, although the nose was quite different and the aircraft didn't work nearly as well, the cabin of the YUH-61A resembled that of the YUH-60.   Other sizes/missions would look different. 

Another thing to consider:  This is America if Bell's design was really thought to be derivative of the H-60/S-70, don't you think Sikorsky's lawyers would already be parachuting in? 

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #98 on: September 11, 2013, 12:45:50 pm »
Starting with the last point:
...don't you think Sikorsky's lawyers would already be parachuting in? 

Yes, thought so and actually the nose is just as similar to the S-70, as the Chinese Z-20. But there may have been things like license
fees and maybe attempts to sell something as "using well known, proven and existing components". And a way to save or share development
costs and maybe time wouldn't have been to unrealistic, I think.

The gear do retract on both version (utility and attack)--you don't get 280 knot cruise with fixed gear.  ...

Had another look at one of the videos and yes, it's shown there (see below). It's just hard to see on the model, was much easier on the
earlier version with a nose wheel landing gear (e.g.#35). In #22 it is shown in cruising configuration with the gear down and that made
me think of a fixed gear. But on the pictures of the attack version, the wheel well doors are visible.

Sorry, should have put on my glasses earlier ...  :-\
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #99 on: September 11, 2013, 01:14:30 pm »
Starting with the last point:
...don't you think Sikorsky's lawyers would already be parachuting in? 

Yes, thought so and actually the nose is just as similar to the S-70, as the Chinese Z-20. But there may have been things like license
fees and maybe attempts to sell something as "using well known, proven and existing components". And a way to save or share development
costs and maybe time wouldn't have been to unrealistic, I think.

The gear do retract on both version (utility and attack)--you don't get 280 knot cruise with fixed gear.  ...

Had another look at one of the videos and yes, it's shown there (see below). It's just hard to see on the model, was much easier on the
earlier version with a nose wheel landing gear (e.g.#35). In #22 it is shown in cruising configuration with the gear down and that made
me think of a fixed gear. But on the pictures of the attack version, the wheel well doors are visible.

Sorry, should have put on my glasses earlier ...  :-\


Aww, you could have saved your glasses, Triton posted Bell's drawings here that show retracted gear:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19036.msg183930.html#msg183930.

Regarding "using well known, proven and existing components", keep in mind that Bell is competing with  Sikorsky for this and FVL.   If you're trying to sell your concept, the last thing you're going to want to do is say, "You can trust us because we use only the best.  That's why we use the technology of the guy bidding against us for this award". 

For that same reason it's highly unlikely that Sikorsky would grant a license to help out someone bidding against them.   And if it was thought that those design concepts were  being used without a license...Duck!  Here they come!

http://www.mississippilawyer-blog.com/ceo-golden-parachute-e1300055027530.jpg

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #100 on: September 11, 2013, 01:25:01 pm »
The Bell V-280 Valor mock-up on display at Fort Benning.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.691987927495853.1073741843.137576202937031&type=1
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 01:41:39 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #101 on: September 12, 2013, 10:47:02 am »
Can we rename this topic to "Bell Lockheed Martin Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Medium proposal" or something similar?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #102 on: September 12, 2013, 11:08:25 am »
Is this what a passenger seat looks like on a utility helicopter?


Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #103 on: September 12, 2013, 12:56:34 pm »
Is this what a passenger seat looks like on a utility helicopter?

Seems to be, at least for foldable seats.
(from http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2654510818_d8fb45ca38.jpg )
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #104 on: September 12, 2013, 01:34:31 pm »
It's still a project, still not clear, if it will ever fly in reality, so I think, it's still more appropriate
to the projects section.

Fair enough.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #105 on: September 12, 2013, 01:39:34 pm »
Is this what a passenger seat looks like on a utility helicopter?


And here they are in an H-60.  The V280 seats look more advanced. 
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 06:12:15 pm by F-14D »

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #106 on: September 12, 2013, 02:27:15 pm »
The seats will likely be similar to those in the MV-22, which are at least a generation newer than those in the UH-60.  Given all of the evidence from twelve years of "hard landings", I expected to see significant increases in occupant safety as a big driver.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #107 on: September 12, 2013, 03:15:52 pm »
The seats will likely be similar to those in the MV-22, which are at least a generation newer than those in the UH-60.  Given all of the evidence from twelve years of "hard landings", I expected to see significant increases in occupant safety as a big driver.

I've never seen the inside of a UH-60 or a MV-22, so I was just surprised that the passenger seats inside the Bell V-280 Valor mock-up looked like canvas folding chairs. Certainly very different than the pilot and crew chairs.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #108 on: September 12, 2013, 05:47:11 pm »
The seats will likely be similar to those in the MV-22, which are at least a generation newer than those in the UH-60.  Given all of the evidence from twelve years of "hard landings", I expected to see significant increases in occupant safety as a big driver.

I've never seen the inside of a UH-60 or a MV-22, so I was just surprised that the passenger seats inside the Bell V-280 Valor mock-up looked like canvas folding chairs. Certainly very different than the pilot and crew chairs.

The difference is that the crew is not expected to have to be able to jump in and out quickly with full packs.  Similarly, troops are not expected to have to sit in their seats through multiple operations, takeoffs/landings. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #109 on: September 13, 2013, 03:36:35 pm »
The seats will likely be similar to those in the MV-22, which are at least a generation newer than those in the UH-60.  Given all of the evidence from twelve years of "hard landings", I expected to see significant increases in occupant safety as a big driver.

I've never seen the inside of a UH-60 or a MV-22, so I was just surprised that the passenger seats inside the Bell V-280 Valor mock-up looked like canvas folding chairs. Certainly very different than the pilot and crew chairs.

The difference is that the crew is not expected to have to be able to jump in and out quickly with full packs.  Similarly, troops are not expected to have to sit in their seats through multiple operations, takeoffs/landings.
I also doubt that the seats in the mockup are representative of what will ultimately end up in the aircraft.  That said F-14D is spot on.  I mention the MV-22 seats as they appear to be the "state of the art" for troop seats in US rotorcraft at the moment.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #111 on: October 21, 2013, 05:36:07 pm »
News Press Releases
Spirit to Manufacture Fuselage for Bell Helicopter's V-280 Valor™
10/21/2013 10:56:00 AM

Source:
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/News/PressReleases/NewsRelease/NewsRelease.html?ReleaseID=1866365

Quote
Fort Worth, TX - October 21, 2013 - Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. company (NYSE: TXT), announced today that Spirit AeroSystems (NYSE: SPR) will design, develop and manufacture the fuselage for the Bell V-280 Valor™.

"We are pleased Spirit has made the strategic decision to join Team Valor and will provide the fuselage for the Bell V-280, our third generation tiltrotor," said John Garrison, president and CEO of Bell Helicopter. "Spirit joins our growing team of aerospace leaders who are aligning their interests and resources to deliver the highest levels of maturity and technical readiness to the U.S. Army for their future vertical lift missions."

"Spirit, one of the world's largest composite aerostructures design/build manufacturers, is proud to be a part of Team Valor," said Larry Lawson, president and CEO, Spirit AeroSystems. "This is an important teaming relationship for both our companies to deliver the best value to such a vital customer as the U.S. Army. Designing and building the fuselage on the V-280 Valor centers on Spirit's core strengths, given our proven capabilities in large-scale advanced composite design and manufacturing, derived from both commercial and military platforms. Spirit is excited to bring our high quality, low-cost solutions to bear in support of U.S. warfighters' need for a Future Vertical Lift family of systems with unparalleled range, speed and payload."

Team Valor is comprised of leading aerospace companies, bringing the best engineering resources, industrial capabilities, and critical thinking in the industry to meet the Army's needs. Additional team members will be announced in the coming weeks.

The transformational features of Bell Helicopter's third generation tiltrotor represent the most operationally effective aircraft for the U.S. Army's Future Vertical Lift requirements. With increased maintainability and component and systems reliability, the Bell V-280 is designed to deliver the best value in procurement, operations and support, and force structure. With twice the speed and range of the US Army's current fleet, the Bell V-280 Valor will offer commanders a combat maneuver platform with unmatched operational agility to self-deploy and perform a multitude of vertical lift missions.

About Bell Helicopter
Bell Helicopter, a wholly owned subsidiary of Textron Inc., is an industry-leading producer of commercial and military, manned and unmanned vertical-lift aircraft and the pioneer of the revolutionary tiltrotor aircraft. Globally recognized for world-class customer service, innovation and superior quality, Bell's global workforce serves customers flying Bell aircraft in more than 120 countries.

About Textron Inc.
Textron Inc. is a multi-industry company that leverages its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with innovative solutions and services. Textron is known around the world for its powerful brands such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna Aircraft Company, Jacobsen, Kautex, Lycoming, E-Z-GO, Greenlee, and Textron Systems. More information is available at www.textron.com.

About Spirit AeroSystems
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., headquartered in Wichita, KS, USA, is one of the largest non-OEM designers and manufacturers of aerostructures for commercial, military and business/regional jets in the world. Spirit's people, capabilities and state-of-the-art technologies provide customers with high-quality, high-value, cost competitive products and services. Spirit brings more than 80 years of experience with the world's most successful and admired aircraft manufacturers.

Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking statements which may project revenues or describe strategies, goals, outlook or other non-historical matters; these statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the risk that the U.S. Army will not choose the Bell V-280 for its Future Vertical Lift program; the efficacy of research and development investments to develop new products or unanticipated expenses or delays in connection with the launching of significant new products or programs; changing priorities or reductions in the U.S. Government defense budget, including those related to military operations in foreign countries; changes in worldwide economic or political conditions that impact demand for our products, interest rates or foreign exchange rates; our ability to perform as anticipated and to control costs under contracts with the U.S. Government; the U.S. Government's ability to unilaterally modify or terminate its contracts with us for the U.S. Government's convenience or for our failure to perform, to change applicable procurement and accounting policies, or, under certain circumstances, to withhold payment or suspend or debar us as a contractor eligible to receive future contract awards; changes in foreign military funding priorities or budget constraints and determinations, or changes in government regulations or policies on the export and import of military and commercial products; and performance issues with key suppliers, subcontractors or business partners.

Contact

Bell Helicopter
Susan Gordon
817-280-3100
mediarelations@bh.com

Spirit AeroSystems
Ken Evans
316-523-4070
kenneth.d.evans@spiritaero.com


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #112 on: October 21, 2013, 08:54:33 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #113 on: October 23, 2013, 11:26:37 am »
Full-size mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor on display at AUSA 2013.

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/28556/ausa-2013-army-to-downselect-to-two-jmr-td-bidders-in-2014

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2013, 10:52:11 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2013, 10:57:22 pm »
Artist's impressions of Bell V-280 Valor.

Source:
http://bellv280.com/media-gallery/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #116 on: October 26, 2013, 09:52:05 pm »
Full-scale mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor.

Source:
http://vk.com/wall-6054817_56959?reply=56972

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #117 on: October 27, 2013, 10:29:56 am »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #118 on: October 27, 2013, 10:54:42 am »


Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #120 on: October 28, 2013, 02:54:08 pm »
Provisional drawing, based on the photos of the mock-up:
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #121 on: October 29, 2013, 06:18:30 am »
... and the attack version:
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #122 on: October 30, 2013, 09:59:36 am »
Mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor on display at AUSA 2013.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151827801945528

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #123 on: October 30, 2013, 05:33:35 pm »
What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #124 on: October 30, 2013, 06:41:10 pm »
What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.
I agree with your premise, however I think the vendors are looking at a customer with turned out pockets telling them they want a Cadillac.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #125 on: October 30, 2013, 07:02:07 pm »
What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.

Lots of stuff gets recycled.  Look at a number of MDD and Northrop's concepts in the early '90s.  You'll see features that clearly came from the F-23.   

You can trace the ancestry of a lot of Bell's civil helo shapes to the JetRanger.    Regarding the V-tail, that's a function of the environment in which the a/c is intended to operate.  If you want a rear loading ramp, V is out of the question, regardless of weight savings.  OTOH, Bell's BAT for LHX and Boeing's original Tilt-Rotor concept for same both sported V-tails.   The fuselage looks like a Blackhawk because that's the size and shape they're aiming for and it's actually pretty generic and quite efficient.  Boeing's YUH-61's fuselage also resembled it. 

Sikorsky's X2 has what could be a critical innovation over the ABC concepts of 30  years ago:  This time it might work. 

Just because the companies are not inventing entirely new, never-before-seen concepts doesn't mean they're not being innovative.  By that criteria, the only innovator would be AVX, unless you wanted to say it's a KA-92 with X-22 ducted fans. 

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #126 on: October 31, 2013, 04:36:01 am »
Lots of stuff gets recycled.  Look at a number of MDD and Northrop's concepts in the early '90s.  You'll see features that clearly came from the F-23.   

You can trace the ancestry of a lot of Bell's civil helo shapes to the JetRanger.    Regarding the V-tail, that's a function of the environment in which the a/c is intended to operate.  If you want a rear loading ramp, V is out of the question, regardless of weight savings.  OTOH, Bell's BAT for LHX and Boeing's original Tilt-Rotor concept for same both sported V-tails.   The fuselage looks like a Blackhawk because that's the size and shape they're aiming for and it's actually pretty generic and quite efficient.  Boeing's YUH-61's fuselage also resembled it. 

Sikorsky's X2 has what could be a critical innovation over the ABC concepts of 30  years ago:  This time it might work. 

Just because the companies are not inventing entirely new, never-before-seen concepts doesn't mean they're not being innovative.  By that criteria, the only innovator would be AVX, unless you wanted to say it's a KA-92 with X-22 ducted fans.

I was thinking a bit along those lines actually... LOL! Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #127 on: October 31, 2013, 10:49:20 am »
The JMR and FVL-Medium programs aren't experimental or research rotorcraft programs. The intention is to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in the United States Army and U.S. Special Operation Command inventory with a new rotorcraft with additional speed and range. So I don't understand why anyone would expect that the JMR and FVL-Medium would use radical aerodynamic shapes or an entirely new propulsion technology.

The JMR and FVL-Medium programs represent an evolution in rotorcraft design, not a revolution. They incorporate the lessons learned from experimental and production rotorcraft. The Sikorsky S-69 (XH-59A) with it's Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) was ahead of its time in 1973. Sikorsky now believes that ABC is no longer an experimental technology but is ready for primetime as demonstrated by its investments in X2 Technology and by self-funding the S-97 Raider prototype. Bell is betting on its tilt-rotor technology.

JMR and FVL-Medium will probably use composite materials in their construction, the next-generation of rotorcraft avionic systems, and advanced fly-by-wire control systems. So I don't understand how someone can maintain that these vehicles aren't advanced.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:04:00 am by Triton »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2013, 11:53:59 am »
I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #129 on: October 31, 2013, 03:51:18 pm »
I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

That partly depends on what you mean by innovative. I think the Karem design is very innovative. But I think what happens often times, is that people confuse innovative with the ability to meet the mission requirements.

One: The manufacturers probably did look at many innovative designs during development, but they couldn't meet the mission requirements. I know people don't like to hear that, but it was drilled into our heads back in school; The mission defines the vehicle, not the other way around. So is it shocking that vehicles designed to fulfill missions by already existing vehicles look similar to those vehicles? No, not really.

Two: If they did uncover something radically innovative, it would probably be very classified and they wouldn't go about revealing it in a program like this.

Three: What usually leads to "innovative" changes in concept and design are radical changes in propulsion technology. Such as going from reciprocating internal combustion propulsion technology to jet powerplants. Now, where I think you will see radical changes and great innovation in that regard will be in the form of distributed electric/hybrid propulsion systems. We're not there yet, but the research is ongoing and it's only a matter of time before this leads to some radical changes in configuration, IMHO.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #130 on: October 31, 2013, 04:24:43 pm »
I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

That partly depends on what you mean by innovative. I think the Karem design is very innovative. But I think what happens often times, is that people confuse innovative with the ability to meet the mission requirements.

One: The manufacturers probably did look at many innovative designs during development, but they couldn't meet the mission requirements. I know people don't like to hear that, but it was drilled into our heads back in school; The mission defines the vehicle, not the other way around. So is it shocking that vehicles designed to fulfill missions by already existing vehicles look similar to those vehicles? No, not really.

Two: If they did uncover something radically innovative, it would probably be very classified and they wouldn't go about revealing it in a program like this.

Three: What usually leads to "innovative" changes in concept and design are radical changes in propulsion technology. Such as going from reciprocating internal combustion propulsion technology to jet powerplants. Now, where I think you will see radical changes and great innovation in that regard will be in the form of distributed electric/hybrid propulsion systems. We're not there yet, but the research is ongoing and it's only a matter of time before this leads to some radical changes in configuration, IMHO.
I have to agree that Karem likely has the most radical innovations in the competition.  He did design the first practical and deployed US  UAS design after all (I may be wrong here).  Besides if the government engineers (not a timid group I am told) thought bringing an outsider in was worthy I suspect that there is something to it.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #131 on: November 08, 2013, 12:44:15 pm »
Is it possible that the Bell V-280 attack configuration is a possible replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior?

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #132 on: November 08, 2013, 12:50:56 pm »
Is it possible that the Bell V-280 attack configuration is a possible replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior?

No, all the JMR contenders are too big and powerful.  This is the size that will replace the AH-64.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #133 on: November 09, 2013, 04:03:28 am »
No, all the JMR contenders are too big and powerful.  This is the size that will replace the AH-64.

Would mean abandoning tandem seating for attack rotor craft by the US, too, as with the Kamov Ka-52.
Of course, a tilt rotor probably has a much bigger frontal profile either. Maybe the distances to engage a
target have increased generall, so that the danger of being hit by gunfire has lessened.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #134 on: November 09, 2013, 07:47:29 am »
I think the decision on tandem versus side-by-side is not finished.  The reason you see it right now is that they are keying on the question of how much commonality can you have in the aircraft.  I would not be surprised if Bell does not have a tandem fuselage design ready to hang under the wing if the decison is made to go that route.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #135 on: November 09, 2013, 09:27:07 am »
I think the decision on tandem versus side-by-side is not finished.  The reason you see it right now is that they are keying on the question of how much commonality can you have in the aircraft.  I would not be surprised if Bell does not have a tandem fuselage design ready to hang under the wing if the decison is made to go that route.

Only Bell and AVX have shown their attack models, and like you said they both show side-by-side.  Certainly, commonality is a factor, but I wonder if they're also thinking that the way attack helos have evolved, the value of tandem seating may no longer be worth the extra cost, if it's a variant of a utility version.  In the three photos I've attached, the first is of the original  AH-1G.  It's a model, but it clearly illustrates how thin the profile was from the front, barely wider than the crewmembers, theoretically making it a harder target to whoever's shooting back.   The second is of the Zulu Cobra, and with all the new equipment you can see how much wider the frontal aspect has become.  Finally, with the pic of the Apache it's obvious that considerations of a  slim profile are long gone.   

Now if they were startting from scratch to build a straight-up attack bird they'd almost certainly do a tandem fuselage.  Sikorsky has given us plenty of artists' concepts of exatly that.  But in this case it appears Army is looking for commonality and cots savings where they can get it.  Given that, and the fact that the attack verions of these vehicles won't be any faster than the utility versions, maybe they're all thinking that the cost of a separate fuselage just isn't worth it.    Then again, I could be all wet (again). 
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 09:40:09 am by F-14D »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #136 on: November 09, 2013, 10:07:09 am »
Indeed, even with tandem seating the Valor wouldn't get a slim frontal profile. But another point
in favour of this seating arrangement could be the better protection for the pilot, or better, the chances
of a single hit to eliminate both crew members are decreased, I think.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #137 on: November 10, 2013, 08:02:26 am »
Having attended a few seminar now and again, I have repeatedly heard that the fuselage is the least expensive component to develop.  So if there remains a COMPELLING reason for a tandem layout in the mid-21st Century I'm sure it will buy its way into the program.  There are a number of arguments, counter-arguments for and against. It will come down to a decision I suspect if there remains value added for a discreet attack layout.
 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #138 on: November 11, 2013, 10:19:21 am »
Having attended a few seminar now and again, I have repeatedly heard that the fuselage is the least expensive component to develop.  So if there remains a COMPELLING reason for a tandem layout in the mid-21st Century I'm sure it will buy its way into the program.  There are a number of arguments, counter-arguments for and against. It will come down to a decision I suspect if there remains value added for a discreet attack layout.

The fuselage probably is the least expensive component to design, but it still does cost to design and with radically different fuselages, the extra cost of a separate production line may be necessary.  Does anyone know if the UH-1 and AH-1  (prior to the Y and Z) were built on the same, or parallel lines? 

Another factor is the desire for weapons to be carried internally in these higher speed designs.  That could favor a "fatter" fuselage.  Like anything, it'll come down to cost/benefit.   

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Bell V-280 Valor Costcos
« Reply #139 on: November 11, 2013, 11:52:19 am »
They had different lines, however keep in mind the demand for helicopters was so high during Vietnam that the Chinook was actually being built on two lines for a period. The second line is now the only Costcos with a control tower. The differences might not have made one line impossible, but volume certainly did. In this context I'd be real skeptical on one line building both at once, but you might be able to follow the latest plan for F-35 assemble, of assembling each type in small batches, rather then switching aircraft by aircraft to what is being done. I don't see it happening though when an evolved helmet display could give back the superior visibility being lost by side by side seating.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #140 on: November 11, 2013, 03:47:10 pm »
Allegedly, the two aircraft have 80% commonality.  The only difference being the forward fuselage.   

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #141 on: November 11, 2013, 07:01:16 pm »
Allegedly, the two aircraft have 80% commonality.  The only difference being the forward fuselage.

If you're talking the -1Y and -1Z, Bell advertises 84%.  I was talking about earlier models and how they were built, whether they were on a common line or two.  Come to think of it, I don't know if new build -1Ys and -1Zs wiill be on a common line! 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #142 on: November 13, 2013, 09:52:54 am »
Army pursuing family of Osprey-like aircraft


The Bell V280 Valor - which looks like a mini-version of the Osprey - is designed to be flown by pilot but could be produced as an unmanned vehicle. It will be able to cruise at 280 knots with a range of 500 to 800 nautical miles.
Courtesy of Bell Helicopter


BySeth Robson

Stars and Stripes

Published: November 12, 2013

Tilt-rotor aircraft that look like mini-Ospreys are vying with other new designs to replace thousands of U.S. military helicopters.

Tilt rotors are incorporated in two of four vertical-lift designs awarded funding by the Department of Defense last month. The Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator funding is part of efforts to build a family of vertical-lift vehicles that could replace thousands of aircraft over the next 50 years, according to the Army.

Today’s fleet of U.S. military helicopters has flown extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade, and many may need to be replaced before long, although officials are also looking at extending aircrafts’ lifespans.

The goals of the Future Vertical Lift initiative are to provide the warfighter with improved speed, range, reliability and survivability, the Army’s Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center said in a statement announcing the design funding.

“The Army has taken a large step toward developing a new family of aircraft referred to as the Future Vertical Lift Family of Systems,” AMRDEC officials said.

Over the next nine months, teams from Bell Helicopter, Karem Aircraft Inc., a Sikorsky-Boeing team and AVX Aircraft Co. will refine their designs and prepare for flight tests in 2017.

Tilt rotors like those employed by the Osprey are incorporated in the Bell and Karem designs. They are competing with aircraft that feature coaxial rotors — which spin in opposite directions — and pusher propellers.

The tilt-rotor aircraft appear to be faster and have a longer range than other designs, but proponents of the coaxial helicopters claim they will be cheaper to build and operate. The Marine Corps, which has flown the tilt-rotor Osprey on numerous combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, has praised its performance, and Japan and Israel have expressed interest in buying some.

However, several fatal crashes and an inspector general report that raises concerns about the way in which Osprey units have recorded readiness information mean there’s still a cloud hanging over the aircraft.

One possible alternative is Sikorsky-Boeing’s SB-1 Defiant helicopter, which can fly up to 250 knots using a pusher propeller, according to a Sikorsky statement. A UH-60 Black Hawk cruises at 150 knots and has a range of just more than 300 nautical miles.

Patrick Donnelly, of Boeing Defense Systems, said by email that the design has a rigid rotor coaxial configuration.

“We believe the configuration better meets the stated needs of the Army as it has the low speed maneuverability of a helicopter while providing a high cruise speed,” he said.

Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems, said the design offers “reduced risk, a 100-knot improvement in speed, a 60 percent improvement in combat radius and 50 percent better … hover performance.”

AVX spokesman Mike Cox said his company, formed in 2005, has already designed a $2 million upgrade that can give today’s Kiowa scout helicopter greater lift and speed by installing coaxial rotors and ducted tail fans.

The AVX design for the future lift helicopter would also feature coaxial rotors and ducted tail fans attached to a sleek fuselage. The aircraft could carry 14 troops at 230 knots and could fly from the West Coast to Hawaii with extra fuel tanks, Cox said.

“Our design will provide the Army with the performance that they have put out in their request at a lower cost than a tilt rotor — in terms of both acquisition and operations,” he said.

Tilt rotors require complex engineering to shift from helicopter to plane mode, he said.

“Ours is a simple design that produces the performance they want at a lower cost than competitors,” he said.

In contrast, the aircraft that Bell hopes to build — the V280 Valor — leverages advances made in the Ospreys, which have flown more than 200,000 hours, according to Chris Gehler, business development manager for the aircraft.

“We’ve been able to develop a brand-new aircraft with all the goodness of that design, but we’ve also reduced weight and complexity,” he said. “You get the performance characteristics that you have in the Osprey but in a smaller package.”

Bell plans to start by building a tilt-rotor replacement for the Army’s Black Hawk utility helicopter. Modifications could produce tilt-rotor replacements for Apache attack helicopters as well as maritime versions capable of transporting Marines or Navy SEALS or undertaking countermine or anti-submarine missions, Gehler said.

The Valor, which looks like a small Osprey, is designed to be flown by pilot but could be produced as an unmanned vehicle. It will be able to cruise at 280 knots with a range of 500 to 800 nautical miles.

It’s designed to be cheaper to fly over its lifespan than today’s helicopters, taking into account the cost of maintenance and fuel and other savings that could be achieved due to its improved performance, Gehler said.

He said the Valor could move troops and equipment around the battlefield faster than conventional helicopters.

“If you have a range of 800 to 2,100 nautical miles, you can reduce or eliminate FARPs (forward arming and refueling points) in certain areas,” he said. “It changes the way a ground commander looks at his battlefield and how many other assets he has to put out there.”

A civilian version of the aircraft might be available one day, but the focus now is on a military version, he said.

In the Pacific theater, where the U.S. military plans to focus its efforts in years to come, the extra range of new vertical-lift aircraft will be important.

“The distances in the Pacific are huge,” Gehler said. “A platform like this is something that commanders can use to operate throughout the region.”

For example, the Valor would be able to fly from Okinawa or even the U.S. to the Philippines. Conventional helicopters would normally be transported there inside a C-17 transport plane or shipped on a container vessel, Gehler said.

“DOD wants to have a leap-ahead technology,” he said. “The idea is to provide warfighters with a capability that is transformational.”

Karem did not immediately respond to an interview request, but the company has posted images and technical data on its website about heavy-lift, tilt-rotor aircraft that could carry armored vehicles at an altitude of 45,000 feet and a speed of 330 knots.

“Karem Aircraft is actively developing its Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor and other technologies for transport applications,” the website states.

Former Army officer David Johnson, who works at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, said officials need to look at the impact of new aircraft on things such as doctrine, personnel, training and facilities.

“Small changes can have huge secondary and tertiary ripples,” he said.

For example, officials should assess whether new vertical-lift aircraft could transport items of the same size, either as internal or external loads, as the helicopters they will replace, he said.

AMRDEC public affairs Officer Merv Brokke said in an email that the Army is investing $217 million to develop the Future Vertical Lift Initiative designs.

Late next year, two of the four designs will be selected for funding to build and test prototypes, he said.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #143 on: November 14, 2013, 01:22:32 pm »
I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since we saw JMR tiltrotor designs identified as Bell/Boeing concepts in 2011. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity on the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army? We didn't see a Sikorsky and Boeing alliance coming.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2013, 02:01:21 pm by Triton »

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #144 on: November 14, 2013, 01:58:09 pm »
I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since we saw JMR tiltrotor designs identified as Bell/Boeing concepts in 2011. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity on the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army?


I think it is more a sensing that the US Army is not comfortable with the Tilt Rotor solution.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #145 on: November 14, 2013, 02:05:21 pm »
I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since some early JMR tiltrotor designs were identified as Bell/Boeing concepts. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity in the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army?



I believe Boeing is covering the bases as a big company is wont to do.  They already have access to Tilt-Rotor technology and data from V-22 and their original LHX design effort.  This move, win or lose, gets them access to X2 technology so for them it's business diversification. Maybe in 10 years Boeing will propose a "Tilt-X2".   ;D

Don't forget, for JHL Lockheed teamed with Karem, and now they're with Bell. 

I'm not too concerned with Army's discomfort with Tilt-Rotor, given that for JHL they said that technology was probably the only one that could meet their needs and that for JMR they picked both of the Tilt-Rotor proposals for the next stage. 

Of course, Tilt-Rotors look a lot like a fixed wing and as I've said before, something that looks that much like an airplane and promises  to cruise at 280 (or 360 for Karem) knots may draw the wrath of the Air Force and Army could be nervous about that. 

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #146 on: November 15, 2013, 07:23:46 am »
The Valor looks a lot like a tactical tilt-rotor study done by Scaled Composites for Bell Textron circa 1988.

The Model 170 had canards the air intakes were still in the tilt-rotor units, not over the fuselage (the Model 169 had no canards)., but the rest of the design is pretty much there.

I'm attaching two images:
  • a company illustration of the D324 U.S. Navy "Type A" proposal from the late 1970s (the D321 and D323 were very similar Navy/Marines proposals).
  • A crude digital rendering I did back in 2006 from an original sketch that was shown to me. I truly apologize for how horrible it looks, but it will give you an idea of what the Model 170 was supposed to look like (USCG markings were my idea).
Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #147 on: November 15, 2013, 07:40:42 am »
The Valor looks a lot like a tactical tilt-rotor study done by Scaled Composites for Bell Textron circa 1988.

It's funny how things like that happen.  There was the DARPA Heliplane several years back that was a dead-ringer for a Ryan design - from the 60s.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #148 on: November 15, 2013, 09:47:04 am »
Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

A design point still not used and not tested in a real VTOL aircraft are the tilting rotors, I think. It means
not just turning the nacelle, but incorporating a tiltable joint into the shaft. The nearest such thing, that
readily comes to my mind was the Dornier Do 29, but that was a considerable smaller aircraft. So I would
regard this point as a potential risk in the development.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #149 on: November 15, 2013, 10:29:32 am »
Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

A design point still not used and not tested in a real VTOL aircraft are the tilting rotors, I think. It means
not just turning the nacelle, but incorporating a tiltable joint into the shaft. The nearest such thing, that
readily comes to my mind was the Dornier Do 29, but that was a considerable smaller aircraft. So I would
regard this point as a potential risk in the development.

Bell already did something along those lines with the XV-3, although admittedly, the powerplant was in the fuselage, a configuration Boeing also looked at for their original Tilt-Rotor design for LHX. 

Interestingly enough, the configuration used in the V-280 is the same one Boeing used for their Model 222 proposal (picture stolen from Stingray's site), Whig lost to Bell's Model 301 for the XV-15 program . 




Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #150 on: November 15, 2013, 12:09:42 pm »
I believe that JMR/FVL-Medium competitors have to push the performance bar to meet Army requirements for the next generation of rotorcraft and yet produce concepts that do not appear to be too radical or risky for the customer that might cause delays and/or cost overruns. Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 12:13:49 pm by Triton »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #151 on: November 15, 2013, 12:51:38 pm »
Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative  designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #152 on: November 15, 2013, 01:09:43 pm »
And how many times has the Boeing X-32 been criticized for being ugly. :'( There seems to be an aesthetic bias against the X-32. How much of the JMR/FVL-Medium competition is going to be decided by the vehicle looking like a proper replacement for the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk? Certainly there is an element of form following function, but it is likely that a design will be chosen to appeal to the aesthetic and other biases of the Army.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 01:17:14 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #153 on: November 15, 2013, 01:22:22 pm »
And how many times has the Boeing X-32 been criticized for being ugly. :'( There seems to be an aesthetic bias against the X-32.
That's 'cuz it's ugly.   ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #154 on: November 15, 2013, 01:37:25 pm »
That's 'cuz it's ugly.   ;)

And the reason people seem to be grateful that Boeing lost the JSF competition.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #155 on: November 15, 2013, 06:46:01 pm »
Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative  designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

Cirrus and Lancair were game changers in the Genav world, but that illustrates a paradox.  Cirrus especially, was selling like mad, and they only survived because someone bought the whole company.  Lancair (certified) did go bankrupt, but then Cessna ate them and killed their own NG. 

Then there was Eclipse who turned the industry on its ear even though they fell prey to their own unrealistic hype..  Of course, now they're rising from the dead. 

'Tis a strange world...

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #156 on: November 15, 2013, 09:23:43 pm »
Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative  designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

Cirrus and Lancair were game changers in the Genav world, but that illustrates a paradox.  Cirrus especially, was selling like mad, and they only survived because someone bought the whole company.  Lancair (certified) did go bankrupt, but then Cessna ate them and killed their own NG. 

Then there was Eclipse who turned the industry on its ear even though they fell prey to their own unrealistic hype..  Of course, now they're rising from the dead. 

'Tis a strange world...
Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky.   The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #157 on: November 16, 2013, 02:34:32 am »
Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky.   The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

Makes a lot of sense.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #158 on: November 16, 2013, 12:42:13 pm »
Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky.   The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

Makes a lot of sense.


Certainly possible.  But as of this point in time the Defiant is more on the wild side than the Valor simply because there's so much more experience with Tilt-Rotor.  That's why the Raider is so vitally important to the success and acceptance of the X2 concept.  Myself, I'm gonna stick with it's Boeing covering all their bases. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #159 on: November 16, 2013, 04:05:24 pm »
I agree with the point that Boeing is covering their bets, and recall that Lockheed has signed on with Bell.  Given their minimal rotorcraft work recently, I would say Lockheed is in the same position as Boeing; doing the mission equipment that could be transferred to any vehicle vendor.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #160 on: November 16, 2013, 09:47:56 pm »
I agree with the point that Boeing is covering their bets, and recall that Lockheed has signed on with Bell.  Given their minimal rotorcraft work recently, I would say Lockheed is in the same position as Boeing; doing the mission equipment that could be transferred to any vehicle vendor.

Yeah.  For JHL they were partnered with Karem.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #161 on: November 20, 2013, 01:16:24 pm »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #162 on: November 20, 2013, 01:29:04 pm »
I must have missed an episode... I didn't realize the Valor was a Bell-Boeing product. Thought it was only Bell...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #163 on: November 20, 2013, 02:05:14 pm »
I must have missed an episode... I didn't realize the Valor was a Bell-Boeing product. Thought it was only Bell...

No, it isn't a Bell-Boeing product. I didn't rename the original picture files that I gleaned from the Internet to correct the error. Bell has partnered with Lockheed Martin for the V-280 Valor. I apologize for any confusion this has caused. I wasn't paying attention to the file names when I posted them.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 02:10:47 pm by Triton »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #164 on: November 20, 2013, 02:36:00 pm »
I must have missed an episode... I didn't realize the Valor was a Bell-Boeing product. Thought it was only Bell...

No, it isn't a Bell-Boeing product. I didn't rename the original picture files that I gleaned from the Internet to correct the error. Bell has partnered with Lockheed Martin for the V-280 Valor. I apologize for any confusion this has caused. I wasn't paying attention to the file names when I posted them.

Hey, don't feel bad, everyone knows you know better.  After all, the site itself even said, "First up is Bell-Boeing's V-280, this design has been on the internet for a while".

I mean compared to some of the whoppers I've pulled...

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #165 on: November 20, 2013, 04:10:05 pm »
LOL

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #166 on: December 06, 2013, 12:22:13 pm »
Rotor & Wing magazine cover May 2013.

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/79884.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #167 on: December 09, 2013, 09:06:00 pm »
Full-size mockup of Bell V-280 Valor

Source:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Q4UDtTrL-rE/maxresdefault.jpg

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #168 on: December 20, 2013, 02:27:01 pm »
Bell Helicopter sees new aircraft matching Asia pivot

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

 FORT WORTH, Texas Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:15pm EST

 
A full-sized representation of the Bell Helicopter V-280 Valor sits on display at the 2013 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington D.C in this handout photo taken October 21, 2013.
 Credit: Reuters/Bell Helicopter/Handout


 FORT WORTH, Texas (Reuters) - The tilt-rotor aircraft that Textron Inc's (TXT.N) Bell Helicopter is designing for a U.S. Army competition would help troops travel longer distances as the military shifts focus to the Asia-Pacific region, a company official said.

 Bell is trying to capitalize on its experience building the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor plane together with Boeing Co (BA.N) as it designs a lighter, cheaper and less complex aircraft, the V-280 Valor, that could eventually translate into billions of dollars of orders for the winner of the Army competition.

 "We're leveraging all those lessons learned and bringing them forward to revolutionize how the Army conducts operations in the future," Keith Flail, a former Army officer and program director for Bell's "Future Vertical Lift" efforts, told Reuters in an interview.

   Flail leads more than 100 engineers and other experts who are working on the V-280 at a low-rise office about 15 minutes from the company's larger facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

 Bell is on track to fly a demonstrator aircraft in 2017, Flail said. The V-280 will use composite materials, a new straight-edged wing design, and fixed engine nacelles instead of the rotating ones used on the V-22.

 "It's really all about affordability," he said last week. "The technology we're looking at here is to reduce weight and to reduce cost and to reduce complexity."

 Tilt-rotor aircraft take off and land like a helicopter but fly like a plane.

 Bell has teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Spirit Aerosystems Holdings Inc (SPR.N) for the V-280. It is one of four bidders the Army chose in September to work on a preliminary technology demonstrator for the "Joint Multirole" aircraft that will replace thousands of Boeing Apache and Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters now in use.

 The Army plans to choose two firms to build prototypes next June with an eye to first flights in late fiscal 2017.

 Boeing teamed up with Sikorsky, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), to bid for the new program, using Sikorsky's X2 design. Two smaller firms, AVX Aircraft Co and Karem Aircraft Inc, also won contracts for initial design work.

 Bell and Karem are both working on designs based on tilt-rotor aircraft. Such aircraft are particularly well-suited for the vast Asia-Pacific region since they can fly farther and faster using less fuel than a conventional helicopter, Flail said.

 Chris Gehler, another former Army officer and head of V-280 business development, said Army officers who had worked with the Marine Corps' V-22s in Afghanistan and Iraq were keen to acquire similar technology, especially given the increasing focus on regions like Asia and even Africa.

 "The sweet spot for speed, range and payload, that's really where the tilt-rotor outshines the other technology, and that's particularly important when the Army and the Department of Defense are talking about a pivot in strategy to the Pacific region," Gehler said.

 He said Army officials were interested in new aircraft that could travel at higher speeds than current helicopters, which could help Bell's tilt-rotor bid.

 Virginia-based defense consultant Jim McAleese said the V-280 program was critical for Bell, since production of the V-22, its largest military program, has peaked, and the Army has canceled plans to upgrade its 1960s-era OH-58 Kiowa Warriors, work that would have been done by Bell.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Alwyn Scott and Jonathan Oatis)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #169 on: December 20, 2013, 04:08:51 pm »
Which means that the Bell V-280 Valor is capable of flying over the East China Sea to the disputed Senkaku Islands or capable of flying over the South China Sea to the disputed Spratly Islands from land bases.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2034
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #170 on: February 28, 2014, 03:00:50 am »

Bell concept for attack variant of V-280 Valor tiltrotor for USArmy Joint Multi Role/Future Vertical Lift programm


Source:  Graham Warwick ‏@TheWoracle Twitter Feed
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #171 on: June 05, 2014, 12:35:14 pm »
"New Tech Brings Marketing Challenges To Bell"
By Amy Butler
October 23, 2013

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-tech-brings-marketing-challenges-bell

Quote
Bell Helicopter is taking its campaign to sell the V280 Valor tiltrotor concept straight to potential U.S. Army operators with a “productivity-per-hour” appeal rather than the standard “cost-per-flying-hour” argument.

“Our starting point is to go to the end user,” said Bell CEO John Garrison during a roundtable breakfast with reporters Oct. 22. The Valor offers “a very different value proposition. It is a very different mindset.”

This approach also is likely to be pursued by Karem Aircraft, also offering a tiltrotor in the Army Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) program. Through the JMR-TD, the Army eventually will downselect to two contenders that will proceed into the Future Vertical Lift – Medium competition to replace up to 4,000 Sikorsky UH-60s and Boeing AH-64s in the fleet today.

At issue is a tension between the traditional Army method for acquiring aviation systems, which measures value by cost to produce the units and cost per flying hour for operations.

The tiltrotor proposition, however, is to convince the Army to widen its view of the cost of the system to reflect the advantages of its speed and range. The Army currently uses eight main bases in Afghanistan for aviation assets; the range and speed offered by the Valor could allow the service to shrink that footprint to two forward operating bases for support of the entire country, Garrison says. This would reduce the number of soldiers needed for such support functions as security, lowering the practical operating cost of the aircraft.

The V280 also would be self-deployable with its 2,100-nm range using enhanced fuel carriage onboard, reducing the amount of airlift needed to support a deployment, Garrison adds.

This campaign could face similar challenges as those faced by the Global Hawk in winning a Navy competition for a future P-3 replacement, and in EADS’ lost bid to capture the U.S. Air Force aerial refueler competition. In both cases, the value for the aircraft was placed by the contractor on effectiveness, not on unit or a traditional accounting of operating cost.

In the case of Valor, Garrison acknowledges that the value is not only calculable in the cost of the system itself, but in estimating the cost avoidance of other systems, such as the reduced need for support, on the overall Army budget.

Bell, Karem Aircraft, Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX have each won JMR-TD contracts. The Army plans to downselect to two for flight demonstrations in 2017.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #172 on: June 23, 2014, 10:39:15 am »
 From December 2013:

Bell V-280 Valor mockup at AUSA 2013.


Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #173 on: August 03, 2014, 09:32:48 am »
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2014-08-03/bell-applying-525-technology-v-280

No surprise that Bell is using 525 work for V-280.  As I have stated elsewhere I think this will happen more as the civil market now has the agility to develop new ideas that take decades within government venues.  The challenge with this is that while the electronics can make the transition between civil and military with a fair amount of ease, I for one am not sure about airframe and dynamics as they have to be designed to take bullet impacts on military rotorcraft.

I would also note that the Bell Program Director talked more about affordability than he did about tactical goodness. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #174 on: August 03, 2014, 05:06:12 pm »
Quote
Flail said that the V-280’s extensive use of composites will reduce weight while helping performance and maintainability. The new design of the engine and gearbox rotor and prop-rotor interface will also help the V-280 in this regard. On the V-22, the engines, gearboxes and prop-rotors all have to rotate as thrust direction is changed; on the V-280 only the gearboxes and prop-rotors rotate. The V-280 also eschews the forward wing sweep of the V-22. Going to a straight wing on the V-280 eliminates the need for a mid-wing gearbox and makes the wing easier to manufacture. “We spent a lot of time focusing on the maintainability and modularity of the V-280’s components,” Flail said.

While the potential spoils of the eventual winner of the JMR-TD could be as many as 4,000 aircraft under the Future Vertical Lift program, right now much of the technology required on the aircraft, as well as the operational requirements, remains to be defined, and program competitors are fielding their best guesses as to what form it will eventually take. For example, the Army eventually wants FVL aircraft to be fitted with future advanced turbine engines that will post a 35-percent reduction in specific fuel consumption, an 80-percent improvement in power-to-weight ratio, a 20-percent improvement in design life (to more than 6,000 hours) and a 45-percent reduction in production/maintenance costs. The technologies for those engines remain under development and are not scheduled to be demonstrated until 2016. Those engines would not fly on Phase One JMR-TD aircraft in 2017, but could fly on Phase Two or “Model Performance Specification” aircraft in 2019.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2014-08-03/bell-applying-525-technology-v-280

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #175 on: August 03, 2014, 05:52:29 pm »
Is there great technical risk associated with the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE) intended to power FVL-Medium?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #176 on: August 03, 2014, 06:20:18 pm »
I would also note that the Bell Program Director talked more about affordability than he did about tactical goodness.

"Affordable" and "affordability" seem to be popular buzz words, but what do they really mean?

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #177 on: August 03, 2014, 08:38:07 pm »
The V-280 also eschews the forward wing sweep of the V-22. []

 For example, the Army eventually wants FVL aircraft to be fitted with future advanced turbine engines that will post a 35-percent reduction in specific fuel consumption, an 80-percent improvement in power-to-weight ratio, a 20-percent improvement in design life (to more than 6,000 hours) and a 45-percent reduction in production/maintenance costs. The technologies for those engines remain under development and are not scheduled to be demonstrated until 2016. Those engines would not fly on Phase One JMR-TD aircraft in 2017, but could fly on Phase Two or “Model Performance Specification” aircraft in 2019.



I thought wing sweep was required on the V-22 to allow the blades to flap. I wonder what allows them to dispense with the feature.
Once again, the bulk of the improvements in performance come from a new generation of engines. If you look at the planned next generations of airliners, it's the same thing. Aerodynamics might give you a few percent decrease in fuel burn and the remaining 10-15% comes from better turbines.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #178 on: August 04, 2014, 06:03:54 am »
I think it's just that the tilt-engine layout puts the rotors a bit further from the wing than the Osprey.  In the V-280, the whole engine is forward of the pivot point, which is also near the wing leading edge, unlike the Osprey, where the pivot point is near the middle of the wing. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #179 on: August 04, 2014, 09:05:44 am »
 I think that the wing is strait as an affordability function. I have seen Bell talk about not having to have a gearbox mid-wing now and that they can build a one piece spar for the aircraft.  It simplifies the aircraft to some degree (simple = <$).  There are I suspect some issues that will be challenging to overcome with torsion on the spar and maybe some vibration.
 
On the question of the advanced engine.  If it is not in production or late development, it is high risk for technology and funding reasons.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 09:10:49 am by yasotay »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #180 on: August 04, 2014, 02:40:00 pm »
I think that the wing is strait as an affordability function. I have seen Bell talk about not having to have a gearbox mid-wing now and that they can build a one piece spar for the aircraft.  It simplifies the aircraft to some degree (simple = <$).  There are I suspect some issues that will be challenging to overcome with torsion on the spar and maybe some vibration.
 
On the question of the advanced engine.  If it is not in production or late development, it is high risk for technology and funding reasons.

I think AeroFranz and TomS have it.  Both the V-22 and the earlier XV-15 had forward swept wings to insure extra clearance between the blades and the wing leading edge when they flex in airplane mode.  Not a concern on the V-280. 

Note that the AW609 also has a forward swept wing for the same reason. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 07:14:03 pm by F-14D »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #181 on: August 27, 2014, 01:33:26 pm »
Artist's impression of Bell V-280 Valor shipborne variant.

Source:
https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/503997118701662210
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 01:51:57 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #182 on: October 11, 2014, 07:01:19 pm »
The design of the Bell V-280 Valor appears to have changed.

Source:
http://bellv280.com/gallery
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 08:54:25 pm by Triton »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #183 on: October 12, 2014, 05:33:23 am »
Indeed, well spotted !
The nose and glazing is different, as well as the nacelles. Interesting, that the already
known CGI were changed, instead of making completely new ones.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 09:36:30 am by Jemiba »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #184 on: October 12, 2014, 09:08:05 am »
Nice drawing.  I think the angles are off, though.  It looks as though the cabin floor should be parallel to the ground.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #185 on: October 12, 2014, 09:28:55 am »
Absolutely correct, thanks for that clue, corrected !
Seems to have been another modification compared to the older layout,
as shown here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19036.msg198511.html#msg198511.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2014, 03:10:52 pm »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #187 on: October 13, 2014, 07:12:37 pm »
Bell CEO has said that there is a lot in common between Valor and Relentless aircraft.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #188 on: October 14, 2014, 10:36:33 am »
"Bell Adds To V-280 Tiltrotor Team For Army JMR Demo"
Graham Warwick | AWIN First
Oct 14, 2014

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-adds-v-280-tiltrotor-team-army-jmr-demo

Quote
Bell Helicopter has added the first international partner to its V-280 Valor program to build an advanced medium-utility rotorcraft for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstration.

Israel Aerospace Industries will supply the nacelle structures for the 280 kt.-cruise tiltrotor. Unlike the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, the V-280 has fixed wingtip-mounted engine nacelles with only the proprotors tilting.

Bell has also selected Textron sister company TRU Simulation & Training to build a high-fidelity marketing simulator and desktop maintenance trainer with which to give Army pilots and maintainers exposure to operating the tiltrotor ahead of its first flight in 2017.

"The Army does not have tiltrotors, so when the simulator is complete next spring we can start to get more pilots in and help them understand how to fly a tiltrotor," says Keith Flail, Bell’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program director.

Bell has to show the Army that a high-speed, long-range tiltrotor has the hover performance and low-speed agility needed to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk medium utility helicopter beginning around 2035.

The V-22 has proved a tiltotor is fast, and can decelerate and accelerate quickly to increase survivability into and out of the landing zone. But the Osprey has a higher disk loading and lower hover efficiency than a helicopter.

Compared to the V-22, the 280-kt V-280 Valor JMR will be simpler and lighter, with lower disk loading and longer wing for greater hover and cruise efficiency. But Bell does not have a prototype to showcase before the V-280 flies.

Sikorsky and teammate Boeing have to show the Army that the unique flying characteristics of their 230-kt SB.1 Defiant JMR demonstrator justify the additional complexity of its rigid coaxial-rotor compound helicopter configuration.

But Sikorsky plans to fly its first prototype S-97 Raider armed scout helicopter by year’s end, and will have a second aircraft it plans to use to conduct customer demonstrations to show the military utility of its high-speed configuration.

Bell plans to use the marketing simulator to give Army pilots early experience of the tiltrotor’s acceleration and deceleration characteristics and the V-280’s low-speed agility, Flail says.

The desktop maintenance instruction device, meanwhile, will let Army maintainers accustomed to working on overhead-mounted dynamic systems see how the V-280’s engines, gearboxes and proprotors would be serviced.

"The wingtip nacelle is different to what they are used to, but V-280 is designed so they can get at components without removing the nacelle. They can take the [rotor] mast off and pull the proprotor gearbox off a spline shaft," he says.

Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing have been selected by the Army to fly competing JMR high-speed rotorcraft demonstrators as a precursor to an FVL Medium program, beginning around 2020, to develop a replacement for the Black Hawk.

Essentially full-scale, Flail says, the V-280 demonstrator is to be powered by two 5,000-shp General Electric T64-419 turboshafts. The engines, previously used in the Sikorsky CH-53E, will be overhauled and modified for the demo.

The T64s will enable demonstration of the tiltrotor’s speed, range and hot-and-high hover capability, but GE says Bell plans to use a version of the Army’s Future Affordable Turbine Engine demonstrator in a production V-280.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #189 on: October 14, 2014, 04:55:26 pm »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Another significant (to me) change is that on the attack version  weapons previously were carried on stub pylons and in the belly .  Now the stubs are gone,  and weapons are extended from the sides.   The area underneath now seems to house either a sensor or some kind of countermeasures. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #190 on: October 14, 2014, 08:47:53 pm »
Does anyone else believe that the V-280 nacelle design resembles the USCSS Prometheus?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #191 on: October 14, 2014, 09:05:57 pm »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Another significant (to me) change is that on the attack version  weapons previously were carried on stub pylons and in the belly .  Now the stubs are gone,  and weapons are extended from the sides.   The area underneath now seems to house either a sensor or some kind of countermeasures.

I also note the lateral launch tubes behind the mid-body missile racks.  To big for ASE I think.

All in all some great re-do pictures that show more detail of the program.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #192 on: October 15, 2014, 10:38:59 am »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Another significant (to me) change is that on the attack version  weapons previously were carried on stub pylons and in the belly .  Now the stubs are gone,  and weapons are extended from the sides.   The area underneath now seems to house either a sensor or some kind of countermeasures.

I also note the lateral launch tubes behind the mid-body missile racks.  To big for ASE I think.

All in all some great re-do pictures that show more detail of the program.

Another thought:  On the attack version, with the area behind the cockpit all filled with weapons and countermeasures, I wonder if Bell will propose ejection seats for the crew. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #193 on: October 15, 2014, 07:56:33 pm »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Another significant (to me) change is that on the attack version  weapons previously were carried on stub pylons and in the belly .  Now the stubs are gone,  and weapons are extended from the sides.   The area underneath now seems to house either a sensor or some kind of countermeasures.

I also note the lateral launch tubes behind the mid-body missile racks.  To big for ASE I think.

All in all some great re-do pictures that show more detail of the program.

Another thought:  On the attack version, with the area behind the cockpit all filled with weapons and countermeasures, I wonder if Bell will propose ejection seats for the crew.
With the drive for maximum commonality I doubt they are because it likely creates a number of design changes.  The design certainly makes the option viable though.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2034
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #194 on: October 15, 2014, 11:35:23 pm »
Bell V-280 Valor display at AUSA 2014.
Quote
Bell unveils the V280 Valor Tilt Rotor Aircraft at AUSA 2014
Oct 15, 2014
Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky Aircraft displayed at AUSA 2014 full size models of the future rotary wing platforms they are proposing for the US Army.




The man difference between the V-22 and V280 designs is the absence of engine rotation in teh Valor, where only the rotors are rotated up or down. The nacelles will be built by IAI, which yesterday has joined the industry team building the future tilt-rotor aircraft. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update
The man difference between the V-22 and V280 designs is the absence of engine rotation in teh Valor, where only the rotors are rotated up or down. The nacelles will be built by IAI, which yesterday has joined the industry team building the future tilt-rotor aircraft. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update:
Bell unveiled here a full-scale model of its V-280 Valor, the next generation in tiltrotor aircraft the US Army is considering as a future UH-60 Black Hawk replacement for the 2030. Larger than the current UH-60 Black Hawk, but smaller than the V-22 Osprey Bell and Boeing have supplied the Marine Corps and SOCOM, V-280 represents a third-generation tiltrotor aircraft designed for the Joint Multi-Role demonstrator and Future Vertical Lift programs.


Unlike the V-22, where the entire engine and rotor are rotated up for takeoff, landing and hovering, the V-280 is designed with rotating rotors, maintaining the two engines in fixed positions on the win tips.


The V-280 Valor will be able to fly twice the range of current helicopters, cruising at 280 knots it will cover a combat range of 500 to 800 nautical milese, enabling ground forces to control much larger areas of operation. The V-280 will be able to fly 14 troop transport missions, medical evacuation, carry supplies and deliver loads more effectively using two sling loads and large six-foot wide doors.


Bell has gathered a team to build and fly test the Valor demonstrator. The company is in the detailed design phase of the V-280’s development, and the aircraft is expected to be ready for flight testing in September 2017.


Along with the assault transport tilt rotor aircraft offered to the Army, the Valor team is also suggesting an attack variant equipped with internally carried missiles, including side launching common launchers (deploying weapons sideways or to the rear, similar to aircraft gunships,  as well as forward launched guided missiles. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update

Link: http://defense-update.com/20141015_valor.html#.VD9lB_msV8E
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #195 on: October 16, 2014, 09:01:58 am »
"Bell reveals engines, nacelle supplier for V-280 tiltrotor"
2014-10-15 09:26:41
by Andrew D. Parker

Source:
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/BellrevealsenginesnacellesupplierforV280tiltrotor

Quote
During the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual meeting and exposition this week, Bell Helicopter revealed another supplier for the third-generation tiltrotor, and laid out the power plans for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator phase. The T-64-GE-419 engine from General Electric will power the aircraft during the tech demo phase.

JMR is the precursor to Future Vertical Lift (FVL), which is a joint effort across various U.S. military branches to develop a family of replacement aircraft, including for the U.S. Army’s Boeing AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook, Bell OH-58 Kiowa and Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk.

Technology demonstrations are scheduled for 2017, and will pit a team led by Bell and Lockheed Martin against a joint Boeing-Sikorsky effort based off the X2 and S-97 Raider compound aircraft.

Bell plans to use a version of the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) for the production V-280. FATE is under U.S. Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) efforts to develop a more efficient helicopter engine as part of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). GE will supply the Y64-GE-419 for the demonstration phase, noting that the FATE program is advancing toward testing during 2015.

Bell has also added Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to the group of companies that are part of Team Valor. IAI will provide the nacelle structures for the V-280. Bell continues to bolster Team Valor, which includes Lockheed Martin, AGC AeroComposites, Astronics, Eaton, GKN Aerospace, LORD Corp., Meggitt, Moog and Spirit Aerosystems.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #196 on: October 16, 2014, 01:26:20 pm »
Interesting that they increased the size of the windscreens, Sikorsky cut theirs way down after talking with the Army about their early Raider concept.

Another significant (to me) change is that on the attack version  weapons previously were carried on stub pylons and in the belly .  Now the stubs are gone,  and weapons are extended from the sides.   The area underneath now seems to house either a sensor or some kind of countermeasures.

I also note the lateral launch tubes behind the mid-body missile racks.  To big for ASE I think.

All in all some great re-do pictures that show more detail of the program.

Another thought:  On the attack version, with the area behind the cockpit all filled with weapons and countermeasures, I wonder if Bell will propose ejection seats for the crew.
With the drive for maximum commonality I doubt they are because it likely creates a number of design changes.  The design certainly makes the option viable though.

Actually, I'd think there wouldn't have to be that many extra  design changes to put in ejection seats.  Unlike all other rotorcraft, Tilt Rotors do not have to have complicated  systems for  getting rid of the blades  to facilitate ejection;  it's a non-issue, the lift/propulsion components are not affected at all.   In fact, the XV-15s and the FSD V-22s had ejection seats.   

The V-280s forward compartment is already going to have some modification to accommodate sensors and the gun, and replacing the troop compartment with retractable weapons pallets is a significant change as well.   With no one in the back, the bulkhead is going to be modified anyway on an attack version.  To accommodate ejection seats, that bulkhead (which likely is nonstructural) may have to be moved back some inches to accommodate the mount and light guide rails for the seat.    The canopy would need modification so that the area over each seat  would blow off 1/2 sec before the seats came out.   There might be some cg issues as ejection seats would be heavier, but they're already going to have to deal with more weight at the front anyway.  A number of lightweight ejection seats used in turboprops should work nicely, but the price may be that in a hard landing ejection seats might not have the crashworthiness of the seats they replace unless there is some serious (and potentially expensive in cost and weight) modification to how they're fitted. 

That very well be the decider: whether the user would be willing to pay for the extra cost of ejection seats in the attack version.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #197 on: October 16, 2014, 01:31:53 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #198 on: October 17, 2014, 10:53:44 am »
More pictures of the Bell V-280 Valor mock-up on display at AUSA 2014.

Source:
http://www.miltechmag.com/2014/10/ausa-2014-seen-heard-on-day-2.html

Offline Bgray

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #199 on: October 17, 2014, 08:18:52 pm »
How heavily modified is the attack version? The reports don't have a lot of detail on it, save to mention that it could launch weapons to the sides or rear.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #200 on: October 17, 2014, 08:21:05 pm »
How heavily modified is the attack version? The reports don't have a lot of detail on it, save to mention that it could launch weapons to the sides or rear.
No doubt there will be  some.  One of the objectives of the program though is to maximize commonality.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #201 on: November 19, 2014, 11:08:03 am »
Some pictures of the Bell V-280 Valor mockup and gunship model on display at AUSA 2014 taken by Aviation Week.

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/ausa-2014/floor-ausa-part-1#slide-3-field_images-1204071

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #202 on: March 03, 2015, 08:27:19 pm »
"Bell Helicopter Focusing On V-280 In Light Of Army Aviation Restructuring"
By Pat Host

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Bell-Helicopter-Focusing-On-V-280-In-Light-Of-Army-Aviation-Restructuring_84363.html#.VPaIcOGGMdg

Quote
Bell Helicopter is focusing on its V-280 third-generation tilt-rotor aircraft in light of the Army's aviation restructuring and its decision to use UH-72A Lakota helicopters in training.

Company CEO John Garrison told reporters on Monday, though, he didn't agree with the Army's decision to go forward with its massive Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), the company is adjusting.

"I was very honest, we don't agree with it," Garrison said here at the Helicopter Association International's (HAI) Heli-Expo conference. "That decision has been made, so we're focused on the future and we're focused on the V-280."

The Army is moving forward with its controversial ARI, which would retire Bell's OH-58 Kiowas, move the reserve component's AH-64 Apaches to the active component while sending the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks to the Army reserves and Army National Guard. The Army would also retire its TH-67 trainers, also made by Bell. Congress blocked the transfer of Apaches in the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but allowed the Army to try again this fiscal year.

Garrison said Bell did not have the opportunity to bid for the Army's new training aircraft, but when asked by a reporter if the company would have bid, given the opportunity, Garrison said only that Bell's 429 helicopter was a "comparable" aircraft.

The Army in August selected the Bell with its V-280 and a Sikorsky-Boeing partnership for the technology and flight demonstration phase of the envisioned Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter, the precursor to Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Bell V-280 Program Director Keith Flail said in August the goal of JMR technology and flight demonstration is to build and fly a demonstrator aircraft.

Garrison also said he's concerned about the affects of ARI on the helicopter industry as a whole. Bell, he said, is working "very closely" with the Army in terms of the impact of excess defense articles, specifically around the OH-58 and TH-67.

"We've got a very open, transparent dialogue now with the Army," Garrison said.

Bell Helicopter is a division of Textron [TXT]. The Army did not respond to multiple requests for comment by press time.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #203 on: April 01, 2015, 01:01:58 pm »
A new simulator for the V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft is on show for the first time at the Quad A exhibition in Nashville.

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/quad-2015-bell-displays-v-280-simulator/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #204 on: April 01, 2015, 01:06:30 pm »
"Quad A 2015: V-280 assault variant fitted with future cockpit"
30 March 2015 - 16:33 by Tim Fish in Nashville

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/quad-2015-v-280-assault-variant-fitted-future-cock/

Quote
Bell Helicopter is displaying an assault variant of its mock-up of the V-280 Valor tiltrotor at the Quad A exhibition in Nashville.

The aircraft has been fitted with actuators situated in the centre of the airframe under the wing that can extend outwards and launch Hellfire missiles.
...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #205 on: April 01, 2015, 01:32:40 pm »
"Bell Helicopter Unveils V-280 Single Screen Cockpit Concept"
by Andrew Drwiega
March 30, 2015

Source:
http://www.miltechmag.com/2015/03/bell-helicopter-unveils-v-280-single.html?spref=tw

Quote
At the US Army Aviation Missions Solution Summit (29-31 March), Nashville, TN, Bell Helicopter is previewing a technology demonstration of its integrated single screen cockpit concept for the V-280. Andrew Drwiega is reporting from Quad-A, Nashville, TN.

It is a futuristic - combining the usual flight symbology that would be expected from a digital display, together with interactive screens showing active degraded visual environment (DVE) information, live video and imagery feeds, onboard weapons status (with interactive selection and firing on-screen) - all with a touch of 'Iron Man' conceptualisation thrown in for good measure. Pilots would be able to finger-pass information box data across the screen from one to the other.

The system's data could also be displayed on the front windscreen and / or in the pilot's visor - or a combination, which could be customisable.

The V-280 full scale model is also demonstrating a weapons rail that could be deployed from under the wing and, potentially carry Hellfire missiles which could be fired forward without hitting or being affected by the large rotors.

Bell Helicopter has also brought a V-280 simulator to demonstrate at Quad-A (of which more later).

While this concept is just that - a concept - those responsible for the thinking behind it are envisaging taking mission management and situational awareness to a new level.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #206 on: April 01, 2015, 03:59:22 pm »
"Bell, Lockheed show off futuristic flightdeck for V-280"
by Stephen Trimble
Nashville
Source: Flightglobal.com
12:46 31 Mar 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-lockheed-show-off-futuristic-flightdeck-for-v-280-410753/

Quote
Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin unveiled a single-screen glass cockpit concept in the V-280 tiltrotor mock-up displayed at an army aviation conference on 30 March.

The futuristic design concept stretches across the full width of the instrument panel under the glare shield, filling a space usually occupied by several multi-function displays.

In development under the US Army’s joint multirole-technology demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme, the actual V-280 flight deck will contain four conventional multi-function displays.

The JMR-TD will help the army shape requirements for a family of Future Vertical Lift (FVL) aircraft that will not become operational for nearly two decades, so the single-screen concept was unveiled at the Army Aviation Association of America conference to inspire discussion about the requirements for the future cockpit.

The seamless touchscreen display combines and overlays digital instruments over sensor inputs. Bell partnered with Lockheed to provide the mission systems for the V-280. The latter is proposing several technologies originally developed for the F-35, including the distributed aperture system and the electro-optical targeting system.

Also mimicking the F-35, Lockheed’s sensor fusion algorithms would allow the V-280 to pass onboard health and targeting information between other aircraft.

Bell acknowledges the visual display technology remains years, if not decades, from coming to fruition. To survive a strike by bullets or shrapnel, the single-screen layout must be constructed as a mesh of integrated panels. That way a single damaged panel would not wipe out the entire screen.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #207 on: April 01, 2015, 11:26:03 pm »
Photos from Quad A posted on the Bell Helicopter page on Facebook.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #209 on: April 03, 2015, 08:07:40 am »
Full-scale mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor on display at Quad A 2015.

Source:
https://twitter.com/sweeneygov/status/582252654421782529
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 08:22:47 am by Triton »

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #210 on: April 03, 2015, 10:33:26 am »
So from Triton's supplied pictures not only do we see the "attack" configuration full sized, there are several other changes to the mock up that are new (to me).
Location of the refuel probe (right side of nose)
The sensors on the aircraft are now recessed, vice scabbed on.
Major changes to the engine mounts/nacelle.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8388
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #212 on: June 19, 2015, 08:13:27 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/valor-gets-real-bell-begins-building-v-280-for-joint-multi-role-demo/

42 years since the United States last did any VTOL technology demonstrations.
The oldest and most storied helicopter company in the country on the auction block.
[font=]Bureaucrats adding ten to fifteen years to the decision cycle and defeating anything that causes risk.[/font]
 [font=]We are indeed skipping down the Apian Way with our fiddle.[/font]
[font=]Lets hope the next generation will be more bold.[/font]
 

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #213 on: June 19, 2015, 10:03:57 am »
42 years since the United States last did any VTOL technology demonstrations.

Definitely not. The Bell XV-15 was tested into the 1980s as a subscale demonstrator for the JVX (V-22) program, so one can removed at least 10 years from that.

And if we leave the "official" testing aside, there have been plenty of VTOL experimental machines since then!

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #214 on: June 19, 2015, 04:52:03 pm »
I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #215 on: June 19, 2015, 05:18:44 pm »
Indeed the XV-15 did fly into the 80's but it was not new.  When was it developed?  Constructed?  Regardless lets take the ten years you make case for.  So instead of almost half a century it has been a third of a century.  I am talking about officially established government programs.  Sure Jay Carter and Abe Karen have been out there.  As has been the Piasecki family.  All of whom have subsisted on small confessional delegation stipend.  Those programs have done good work, but a major government push to expand the frontier of VTOL in this country I would beg to disagree.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #216 on: June 19, 2015, 09:13:56 pm »
I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

And the X-50.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #217 on: June 20, 2015, 05:39:49 am »
I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

And the X-50.

Of those mentioned I might concede X -50.  However it was a Boeing program with DARPA, that went no where when it came time for major investment from the services.  In fact between this program and UCAR when the services did.not step up DARPA got out of the VTOL side of aero for a long time.  They are back at to a lesser degree now, but I don't see any of the services jumping into the arena with them.  Any service jumping on board with ARES?  How about the High Speed VTOL program?  The DoD looks at rotorcraft like an old pickup truck.  If it still works...  Why do you think the USMC has gone to such pains to paint a picture that the Osprey is so very different than any military helicopter.

I'm sorry.  We will agree to disagree I guess.  That's fine.  To me; the United States Army, who by Title 10 mandate, is responsible for the advancement of rotorcraft technology in the United States has failed this mission.   Don't believe me?  Look at the dollars the Army has had for R&D for rotorcraft since 1970.  Which direction has that fund line gone?  I will bet a beer that if you look you will find that the USAF Inc. invest more in turbine engine technology per dollar, than the entire budget line for rotorcraft R&D line.

I will end my rant now and get back to being pessimistically excited at this program.

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #218 on: June 20, 2015, 07:49:04 am »
Another VTOL demonstrator program? What is there left to demonstrate? Even the hare-brained concepts, e.g. X-wing, have been "demonstrated". All have been weighed, measured, and found wanting with the exception of the tiltrotor and a niche high-speed requirement that resulted in the Harrier, for a short time the Yak-38, and now the F-35. There are currently various full-scale compound-helicopter-type programs based on prior demonstrations but I doubt that they will be used for other than niche mission requirements even in the unlikely event that they do go into production. There is no question that you can make a helicopter go fast: it's been demonstrated over and over in previous demonstrator programs. The problems are that 1) what you add to make it go fast reduces the payload and 2) making it go fast decreases specific range compared to flying at helicopter cruise speeds (add fuel to restore range at a high cruise speed?; see problem 1) . Not to mention the additional development, production, maintenance, and operating costs compared to a pretty good helicopter. There are incremental and worthwhile conventional-helicopter performance gains to be made with structure, rotors, drive system, and engine research and development.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #219 on: June 20, 2015, 08:26:21 am »
Everything that can be invented has been invented...

Pessimistically excited.

So do you think the will go with all flying tail or stay with rudders?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #220 on: June 20, 2015, 12:21:31 pm »
Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #221 on: June 21, 2015, 06:17:05 am »
Everything that can be invented has been invented...

... within the official frame of mind that has been the norm for decades.

If top brass and politicians dared to think "outside the box" then I'm sure we definitely would see more innovative and challenging technologies be explored.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #222 on: June 21, 2015, 09:53:49 am »
Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

The cross shaft and transmission certainly don't help reduce weight or complexity.  I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is? Suppose the turbines were generators and the fans electric. That way you'd only have electric cables between the fans instead of a shaft and a transmission.

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #223 on: June 21, 2015, 11:23:54 am »
Speaking of weight (saving). The fuselage costruction appears to be very traditional.

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #224 on: June 21, 2015, 11:35:13 am »

Quote
I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is?


Are you seroius?  ;D

...imagine a 2000kW electric motor and the corresponding equipment (YT706-GE-700:  1967 kW).
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 11:42:31 am by VTOLicious »

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #225 on: June 21, 2015, 12:12:51 pm »

Quote
I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is?


Are you seroius?  ;D


Yes, there are a lot of pretty exciting advancements in electric motors going on right now. They'll scale up to transport use sooner or later...

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #226 on: June 21, 2015, 01:08:17 pm »
Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

The cross shaft and transmission certainly don't help reduce weight or complexity.  I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is? Suppose the turbines were generators and the fans electric. That way you'd only have electric cables between the fans instead of a shaft and a transmission.
At present the main benefits of hybrid electric drive would be nominal fuel burn and more accessory/weapon power. Weight and volume demands would actually be worse than an equivalent mechanical drive. In another decade or so that may no longer be the case.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #227 on: June 21, 2015, 04:02:26 pm »
Unless you have very complex driveshaft paths, mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight, whereas with an electric power distribution you have the weight and efficiencies of:
- a generator (efficiency no more than 98%)
- inverter (dunno, maybe mid nineties)
- cabling (losses in heat)
- electric motor (efficiency around 95%)


you end up with a powertrain efficiency of 86-87% and possibly more weight.
In the case of a tail rotor replacement, there may be advantages found in redundancy that make up for the added weight and power requirements.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #228 on: June 21, 2015, 04:09:55 pm »
There's the e-thrust hybrid concept being worked on by Airbus and Rolls Royce

http://www.airbusgroup.com/airbusgroup/int/en/innovation-environment/airbus-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft/e-aircraft-roadmap.html

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/media~item=be674db0-2b69-42f6-946a-03cf3b0eef32~.html

That's a hybrid system and one advantage is that it can recover power during descent using the fans/motors as generators.  A key phrase in the release is "enabling technologies are..." meaning "we need some fundamental breakthroughs".


And NASA's Greased Lighting tilt-wing drone

http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testing-electric-propulsion.html


The distributed propulsion provides aerodynamic advantages, apparently, and having the fans out of phase with one another can reduce noise.


It's all still at the concept and test model phase, but there could be some very interesting developments in coming years.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 04:27:39 pm by Rhinocrates »
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #229 on: June 21, 2015, 08:09:10 pm »
mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight

Now when you say reasonable weight, what kind of weight are we talking about for a transmission that can handle the 4000 HP range?

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #230 on: June 22, 2015, 08:03:10 am »
Unfortunately it's highly variable depending on application. The simplest case is something like whatever your powerplant is (usually a turboshaft or turboprop) with a gearbox and whatever the disc actuator is (lift fan, rotor, propeller...).


However, if the powerplant and the disc actuator are not co-located, then you have the added weight of driveshafts, T-boxes, bevel gears, bearings, couplers, combiner gearboxes, cross-shafts and whatever else is needed to make the particular configuration work.
Case in point: the V-22 or the XC-142 would be much lighter and simpler if it could get by without the cross-shafts, for example.
Even then you have the added variable of how fast you make the shafts spin, what ratio you use in the gearbox, so it's hard to come up with a weight metric, like so many lbs/hp.


When you get to highly distributed configuration, that's where the weight of all the mechanical driveshaft starts making electric powertrain attractive.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8480
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #231 on: June 24, 2015, 11:05:45 am »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #232 on: June 24, 2015, 11:16:39 am »
I suppose Bell had to do this because Eurocopter probably has the patent for a fixed engine where the tilt was in-line with the engine.


The Bell XV-3 looked similar but the engine was in the fuselage.  Maybe someone will patent a design where the rotor stays still and the plane rotates.




Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #233 on: June 24, 2015, 02:03:48 pm »
Maybe someone will patent a design where the rotor stays still and the plane rotates.

Ahem...

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #234 on: June 24, 2015, 02:19:54 pm »
Unless you have very complex driveshaft paths, mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight, whereas with an electric power distribution you have the weight and efficiencies of:
- a generator (efficiency no more than 98%)
- inverter (dunno, maybe mid nineties)
- cabling (losses in heat)
- electric motor (efficiency around 95%)


you end up with a powertrain efficiency of 86-87% and possibly more weight.
In the case of a tail rotor replacement, there may be advantages found in redundancy that make up for the added weight and power requirements.

The 98 -99% efficiency per geartrain is an astonishing figure. I'm not doubting it but what level of precision machine tooling and what types of materials are required for that level of efficiency?

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #235 on: June 24, 2015, 03:37:43 pm »
I'm not a mechanical engineer, so take this with a grain of salt. One project my company is working on involves a turboshaft and a gearbox, designed by our partners (one of the three major aerospace engine manufacturers). They told us to assume a 98% efficiency for our conceptual level studies. Now, i'm sure that depending on applications and number of reduction gears that figure may vary significantly.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #236 on: June 25, 2015, 09:42:40 am »
I thought that with the modern computer controlled lathes, etc., that industry was indeed getting phenomenal tolerances on their machined parts.

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #237 on: June 25, 2015, 12:19:00 pm »
98% to 99% efficiency per gear mesh was obtainable twenty years ago with tight tolerance control, proper selection of tooth profile, and surface hardness (based on my experience in the helicopter world).  I can only imagine it is getting better.  NC machining has brought that level of tolerance control to home workshops, if you have the bucks.
Bill Walker

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7649
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #239 on: September 22, 2015, 10:35:07 pm »
 ;)
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #240 on: September 23, 2015, 04:13:15 am »
Landing gear moved to pylon stubs?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #241 on: September 23, 2015, 04:17:54 pm »
Likely. Or external weapons mount?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #242 on: September 23, 2015, 04:24:21 pm »
"Spirit delivers first V-280 tiltrotor aircraft fuselage to Bell (+video) "
by Jerry Siebenmark

The Wichita Eagle
September 22, 2015

Source:
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article36123228.html

Published on Sep 22, 2015

Quote
Bell Helicopter CEO John Garrison talks about Spirit AeroSystems' first V-280 fuselage delivery and the advantages of a tilt rotor aircraft over a helicopter on the battlefield. Video by Jerry Siebenmark.









« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 04:28:55 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #244 on: September 23, 2015, 05:02:27 pm »
"Spirit delivers first V-280 tiltrotor aircraft fuselage to Bell (+video) "
by Jerry Siebenmark

The Wichita Eagle
September 22, 2015

Source:
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article36123228.html

Published on Sep 22, 2015

Quote
Bell Helicopter CEO John Garrison talks about Spirit AeroSystems' first V-280 fuselage delivery and the advantages of a tilt rotor aircraft over a helicopter on the battlefield. Video by Jerry Siebenmark.


Did they redesign the nacelles to be lifting bodies?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #245 on: September 23, 2015, 07:51:10 pm »
The scale model also show significantly smaller tail unit as well.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #246 on: September 24, 2015, 05:10:43 pm »
September 21, 2015
"Bell Helicopter exploring civilian market for new tilt-rotor aircraft"

By Thomas Black
Bloomberg News

Source:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article35969325.html

Quote
Bell Helicopter is reviving its vision of finding a civilian market for tilt-rotor aircraft.

That dream first took shape almost two decades ago in a partnership with Boeing for a commercial aircraft based on the V-22 Osprey, the pioneering tilt-rotor built for the Marines that takes off like a helicopter and cruises like a plane. But Boeing bowed out early and Bell sold its interest in the civilian version in 2011 to AgustaWestland.

Now Bell is working on a new tilt-rotor to be demonstrated to the U.S. military as a possible replacement for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. The V-280 Valor could be cheap enough to appeal to business customers as well, Chief Executive Officer John Garrison said.

“You’re getting into a quantity level where the cost per unit is going to get to a point where it could be very competitive in a commercial space,” Garrison said in an interview at Bell’s headquarters in Fort Worth.

Bell, a unit of Textron, has spoken with customers about the possibility of a civilian tilt-rotor aircraft as part of its normal conversations about market demand, Garrison said, without providing details. Bell will receive the first fuselage next week for the V-280, which it’s building with supplier partners including Lockheed Martin.

A tilt-rotor’s blades spin horizontally to lift off like a helicopter. Then they gradually rotate forward like oversize propellers, providing the speed and range of an airplane. The Marines wanted those capabilities to reach combat zones. When Bell talked up its civilian 609 offering in the 1990s, it envisioned executives making fast trips from helipads or oil workers zipping to distant offshore platforms.

AgustaWestland, a unit of Italy’s Finmeccanica, is doing test flights of its Bell-derived tilt-rotor, now known as the AW609, and expects to obtain flight certification by 2017. Bell has engineering and manufacturing service contracts with AgustaWestland for the project, Garrison said.

“We’re following their certification efforts on the 609 very closely,” he said. “We want them to be successful.”

Bell’s V-280 is part of a competition with Black Hawk maker Sikorsky for a new high-speed military rotorcraft. With Boeing as a partner, Sikorsky is building the S-97 Raider, a more traditional helicopter. Garrison said Bell’s agreements on the V-280 remain in place even with Lockheed’s $9 billion deal to buy Sikorsky from United Technologies.

Military needs drove the Osprey, which is big — it can carry 24 seated troops — and not cheap. Each one cost $89 million in 2005 dollars, according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet. With the Pentagon’s focus on paring expenses for the V-280, private users are more likely to be attracted to a civilian version, Garrison said.

“When you hit that value proposition with the volumes that we’re talking about, there may be an opportunity for a commercial tilt-rotor of that size,” he said. “We’d like to believe there’s an opportunity.”
Business

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article35969325.html#storylink=cpy

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #247 on: September 24, 2015, 05:13:08 pm »
Makes you wonder why they ever gave up their stake in the 609.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #248 on: September 24, 2015, 05:34:26 pm »

But what is the lateral movement latency of tiltrotor vs helicopter? I can now see (thanks Yasotay) where this would be a real chore in tight quarters or winds, and more so for civilian usage where the landing spots are even tighter.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #249 on: September 24, 2015, 09:40:17 pm »
Makes you wonder why they ever gave up their stake in the 609.  ???

So that Bell could free up cash to develop the 525 and 505 while AW's deeper pocketed parent company drags
the 609 through certification hell.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #250 on: September 25, 2015, 10:23:39 am »
Makes you wonder why they ever gave up their stake in the 609.  ???

So that Bell could free up cash to develop the 525 and 505 while AW's deeper pocketed parent company drags
the 609 through certification hell.
+1 
 Bell decided that they could not get a good market share given the expected cost required to bring a new aircraft type through the byzantine FAA process.  Now that AW has gone through the pain for the community, others will start looking to get into the high speed VTOL market.  Supposition on my part.
Couple of points regarding the lateral capabilities.  A tilt rotor is like a CH-47 as far as directional control in winds I am told.  Also, I suspect that the government has maneuver standards that must be adheared to in order to meet specification.  Can't imagine Bell spending that sort of money if they cannot meet the governments requirement.  That seems awefully high risk for a conservative corporation like Textron.
 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 10:30:46 am by yasotay »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #251 on: September 25, 2015, 02:45:43 pm »
Re-reading Bell Helicopter Chief Executive Officer John Garrison's comments, I believe that a civilian V-280 Valor is dependent on winning the FVL-Medium competition.

Offline VTOLicious

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #252 on: September 26, 2015, 02:54:09 am »
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 02:56:01 am by VTOLicious »

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #253 on: September 26, 2015, 10:23:59 am »
Looks like the model might show a V-22 style wing fold.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #254 on: September 26, 2015, 10:53:45 am »
Looks like the model might show a V-22 style wing fold.

The last thing it needs is more complexity.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #255 on: September 26, 2015, 11:54:29 am »
Looks like the model might show a V-22 style wing fold.

The last thing it needs is more complexity.

Perhaps the Bell V-280 Valor will fit in the hangers of United States Navy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 663
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #256 on: September 26, 2015, 12:54:16 pm »
Looks like the model might show a V-22 style wing fold.

The last thing it needs is more complexity.

Perhaps the Bell V-280 Valor will fit in the hangers of United States Navy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers.

That complexity is going to eat into its range and speed advantages and increase its maintenance costs. The Valor program really needs to stick with having the largest advantages over Raider as it possibly can. The manoeuvrability latency issue is already going to be a sticking point.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #257 on: September 27, 2015, 07:04:16 am »
I suspect that Valor team has both options covered so if the Army decides it does not want to have all of the folding equipment, it can do so.  This is a likely impact of significance for both competitors.  Putting a fold system on the Sikorsky-Boeing is going to add ~ 1000lbs to that big rotorhead.  This also means more bits hanging on the rotorhead which means more drag, which needs more power to overcome, which means less speed and range.  If you are going to sell either of these new rotorcraft to the USN/USMC it will have to have automatic fold so it can go underdeck.  It will no doubt change the performance to either of the base aircraft.

As to the maneuver latency issue I do agree that will be something to watch.  I do not think that it is necessarily a given that the Sikorsky design has that much advantage.  I will defer to anyone with more aero-engineering than me (I just flew the darn things).  But as I pointed out the Army and DoD has minimum acceptable maneuver criterion, that anyone who has to compete will be judged against.  If you cannot meet them, you are at a disadvantage... unless your rotorcraft is cheaper.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8388
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #259 on: October 01, 2015, 12:05:10 pm »
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1592645-army-develops-high-tech-helicopter-for-2030
From the above article - “They [Bell ] are also building additional flapping into the rotor system and individual controls that should allow for increased low-speed maneuverability.”
So it seems that they are focused on improving the low speed maneuverability.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #260 on: October 07, 2015, 06:50:19 pm »
Makes you wonder why they ever gave up their stake in the 609.  ???

So that Bell could free up cash to develop the 525 and 505 while AW's deeper pocketed parent company drags
the 609 through certification hell.

That and they hired a high ranking executive from Sikorsky who made no bones about the fcct that he was not a Tilt Rotor fan.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1720
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #261 on: October 07, 2015, 06:53:53 pm »
I suspect that Valor team has both options covered so if the Army decides it does not want to have all of the folding equipment, it can do so.  This is a likely impact of significance for both competitors.  Putting a fold system on the Sikorsky-Boeing is going to add ~ 1000lbs to that big rotorhead.  This also means more bits hanging on the rotorhead which means more drag, which needs more power to overcome, which means less speed and range.  If you are going to sell either of these new rotorcraft to the USN/USMC it will have to have automatic fold so it can go underdeck.  It will no doubt change the performance to either of the base aircraft.

As to the maneuver latency issue I do agree that will be something to watch.  I do not think that it is necessarily a given that the Sikorsky design has that much advantage.  I will defer to anyone with more aero-engineering than me (I just flew the darn things).  But as I pointed out the Army and DoD has minimum acceptable maneuver criterion, that anyone who has to compete will be judged against.  If you cannot meet them, you are at a disadvantage... unless your rotorcraft is cheaper.

just popping in for a moment... 

The concept of rotating the wing structure on a maritime version of the V-280 has been seen before.  What is significantly different here is the smaller tail unit.  In previous iterations, one of the tails folded down so that the engine/proprotor assembly would clear.  The didn't happen in the larger V-22 because its wing was shorter proportional to its fuselage in order to meet the requirement to operate abeam the island on ship.  It looks like the new tail is small enough that it won't have to fold. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #262 on: October 07, 2015, 07:32:30 pm »
That and they hired a high ranking executive from Sikorsky who made no bones about the fcct that he was not a Tilt Rotor fan.

Interesting.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #263 on: October 08, 2015, 11:16:54 am »
That and they hired a high ranking executive from Sikorsky who made no bones about the fcct that he was not a Tilt Rotor fan.

Interesting.
You mean the one who is now an Emeritus at Sikorsky?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #264 on: October 11, 2015, 05:00:25 pm »
A marinized V-280.

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #265 on: October 12, 2015, 02:18:08 pm »
Hmmm... is that a permanent anhedral tailplane now?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #266 on: October 12, 2015, 07:15:56 pm »
"Bell and Lockheed modify V-280 contract ahead of Sikorsky takeover"
12 October, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-and-lockheed-modify-v-280-contract-ahead-of-sik-417664/

Quote
Lockheed Martin’s pending acquisition of Sikorsky has caused some contractual changes between Lockheed and Bell Helicopter for V-280 Valor development to ensure there is no cross pollination with its competitor, the Boeing-Sikorsky SB-1 Defiant.

Bell president and chief executive John Garrison says Lockheed continues to be a good partner on the programme and already follows many of the firewalling policies now solidified in the contract.

Bell and Lockheed have been partnered on the V-280 since 2013, with first flight under the US Army’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) programme planned for September 2017. Lockheed is developing the third-generation tiltrotor aircraft’s mission system, and its $9 billion acquisition of Sikorsky will place it on the opposing SB-1 team with Boeing.

Textron chief executive Scott Donnelly and Lockheed head Marillyn Hewson are said to have discussed the issue when the acquisition was announced in July, and the two sides have appear to have resolved any competing interests.

"Lockheed called me and said, ‘this is the world we operate in. We can put in firewalls. We compete on some programmes and cooperate on others,’” Garrison said at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference in Washington this week. “We actually had a contractual change, and they’ve committed to a lot of things they were in fact doing as part of the programme. Lockheed has been a great teammate and done everything we’ve asked, plus – and we believe they’ll continue to do that.”

JMR-TD aims to mature two competing rotorcraft design in preparation for the army’s upcoming Future Vertical Lift programme, which is currently aiming for initial operational capability in 2035.

Bell believes the V-280 could be delivered to military users seven to 10 years ahead of that schedule.

Spirit AeroSystems delivered the first composite fuselage to Bell’s Amarillo plant in September, and the GKN Aerospace V-tail aerostructure is due to arrive for mating in 2016.

Garrison says his preferred time line would place IOC in 2026 or 2027, and the engineering and manufacturing development phase should begin soon after the first flight.

“We don’t need to do another five- or 10-year technology development phase as we go forward,” he says. “There’s an absolute need for this capability and we can move faster than the current acquisition process is playing out.”

Boeing and Sikorsky have expressed a similar sentiment on their side.

Garrison says for every $1 being spent by the US government on the JMR-TD endeavour, industry is spending approximately $4. He says that level of investment from the V-280 team’s 11 industry participants is unsustainable and the US Army will eventually need to contribute more.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: October 12, 2015, 07:58:36 pm by Triton »

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 837
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #268 on: October 12, 2015, 11:12:43 pm »
From AUSA 2015

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #269 on: October 13, 2015, 05:22:02 am »
Hmmm... is that a permanent anhedral tailplane now?

I think that's a unique element of that model.  The later pics of a navalized version show a different tail with a  short horizontal section and then a dihedral outer segment that folds down for stowage.  The engine exhausts are also very different.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #270 on: October 13, 2015, 10:12:57 am »
The question becomes, are the pictures or the model more current?  Assuming they have gone with an anhedral tailplane (vice it has been lowered for stowage).  Interesting to see the USMC colors. Smart move.
Prop-rotors look somewhat different too.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 10:16:41 am by yasotay »

Offline SteveO

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #271 on: October 13, 2015, 10:27:08 am »
I'm guessing the anhedral tailplane is fixed from the models markings being the right way up in that position :-) As said though I'm sure there are lots of ideas floating about for the tailplane.

The USMC pic Triton posted appears to show conformal bays for rocket pods. Haven't seen those before.

The attack variant looks like it has 9 cell sideways firing tubes for Griffin type missiles too. I wonder if they are thinking of using it as a orbiting mini-gunship (AC-130 style)?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #272 on: October 13, 2015, 10:44:01 am »
The 9 cell side missile tubes on the side have been shown on the Army version as well.  The Army is probably wondering what the heck they would do with those.  Still, I got a pretty good idea where the aircrews kit gets stuffed.  B)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #273 on: October 13, 2015, 12:34:36 pm »
The question becomes, are the pictures or the model more current?  Assuming they have gone with an anhedral tailplane (vice it has been lowered for stowage).  Interesting to see the USMC colors. Smart move.
Prop-rotors look somewhat different too.



This artist's impression looks closest to the prototype fuselage manufactured by Spirit AeroSystems.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 12:51:50 pm by Triton »

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #274 on: October 14, 2015, 02:39:47 am »
Hmm ??? images are not shown !  ???
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #275 on: October 15, 2015, 04:14:44 pm »
Air Platforms
AUSA 2015: Bell emphasises affordable tiltrotor tech in US Army FVL offering
Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
12 October 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/55188/ausa-2015-bell-emphasises-affordable-tiltrotor-tech-in-us-army-fvl-offering

Article preview:

Quote
Key Points

    Bell Helicopter is working to make next-generation tiltrotor technology more affordable
    The company wants to end its JMR technology demonstration at a high enough technology readiness level to enter production by 2025

Bell Helicopter is working to make next-generation tiltrotor technology more affordable for the military, company CEO John Garrison said on 12 October at the Association of the US Army's annual conference in Washington, DC.

The company is offering its V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft to the Pentagon for its Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme to replace legacy helicopter technology beginning in the 2030s.

"The warfighter needs speed, range, and payload; this is what the customer is saying they need," Garrison said during a press briefing. "But they also need sustainability, reliability, and affordability. A lot of the technology development works towards hitting the important goal of affordability."

Garrison added that the Pentagon can save on support infrastructure requirements if it chooses Bell's V-280 for FVL because the aircraft is so fast. "With V-280 technology, you'd need one or maybe two [forward refuelling bases] to cover the same territory and distance" for which legacy helicopters need 10-11 refuelling points. "Think of the support infrastructure you save by not needing that," he added.

Garrison said that Bell and its industry partners are investing about four times the US Army's contract award amount for the FVL precursor Joint Multirole Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme.

Bell is focusing that JMR investment on reducing risk for FVL, Chris Gehler, Bell's director of global business development for military programmes, said during a 25 September interview with IHS Jane's .

"We intend to come out of JMR-TD at a high technology readiness level [TRL]," he said. "We want to be at TRL 7 and ready to go into production." The company is already looking ahead to the acquisition effort.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 07:25:09 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #278 on: October 15, 2015, 08:39:07 pm »
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 06:33:48 am by Jemiba »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Reply #279 on: October 16, 2015, 07:45:12 pm »
Bell Helicopter's V 280 Valor and the Future of Army Tilt rotor

Published on Oct 15, 2015

John L Garrison, CEO of Bell Helicopter, talks about the V-280 Valor and the future of Army tilt-rotor aircraft at the annual AUSA conference in Washington, D.C.




Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9663
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue