Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="yasotay" data-source="post: 57652" data-attributes="member: 291">Mole,  I suspect that Bell is fishing. Trying to find out what their government customer is thinking.  Thus the point "no hardware unless there is a government program".  Tilting the wing slightly is a lot less complex than a full tilt rotor conversion and probably a lot lighter too, although I am on thin ice with that particular thought.  IF it is just a sideways tandem, with canted transmissions, then the dynamics ought to be no more complex than a CH-47.  From the picture it looks like it might be even simpler because the rotors do not intermesh so there is not any synchronization problem.  A BIG jump is that it might be even less complex than the Sikorsky X-2.    But since the government customer is starting to think that they may need faster rotorcraft because of the large areas they have to deal with (point made last week I think by an Army general saying Afghanistan is as big as Texas or something like that), and considerations like MEDEVAC golden hour,  troops in contact wanting guns in less than 30 minutes, etc., I'm thinking that everyone is looking to push past the 200 knot barrier.  Then there is the USMC who after the H-1 is likely not looking for aircraft much slower (if at all) than the V-22.</blockquote>