Bell MV-75 Cheyenne II (aka V-280 Valor)

1733830667509.png *JimThe All Americans medics try out procedures

https://news.bellflight.com/en-US/2...al-care-flight-paramedics-shape-future-medeva
FORT LIBERTY, NC – Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division provided essential feedback on the future Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) Cabin’s design within the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) requirements from Nov. 12 through Nov. 22. As part of a Special User Evaluation (SUE), Critical Care Flight Paramedics (CCFP) of 3-82 General Support Aviation Battalion (GSAB), 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade and Combat Medics of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division provided feedback and suggestions as their teams conducted various scenarios within the Future MEDEVAC Cabin Technical Demonstrator (FMC-TD).

1733830667027.png
 
Ok, now that this is a sure thing:

What specialized equipment do you think will be designed for the platform? Everything from weapon pods to special motor vehicles designed to fit?
 
If long held stories are true, the M in MV-22 was not for “Marines” but was to differentiate the designation from CV-22 which was the hull number of the USS Independence … although I’ve never known how much credence to give that considering that ship was scuttled almost 4 decades before Osprey flew.
 
HaveVoid said:
If long held stories are true, the M in MV-22 was not for “Marines” but was to differentiate the designation from CV-22 which was the hull number of the USS Independence … although I’ve never known how much credence to give that considering that ship was scuttled almost 4 decades before Osprey flew.
Click to expand...
M is for Multi-mission, but 75 makes no sense. According to https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html the next number in the V sequence 26. For H it's 74, but it's not a helicopter.
 
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
 
yasotay said:
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
Click to expand...
Huh. Then be done with the innanity and just call it the MV-1775A. As far as the tribe, I like "Aniyvwiya". Can't pronounce it. But I like it.
 
yasotay said:
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
Click to expand...
Yet another reason to not follow the MDS, I see...

*migraine salute*



yasotay said:
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
Click to expand...
Still hoping for Crow, but I'm expecting to be disappointed.



shin_getter said:
Ok, now that this is a sure thing:

What specialized equipment do you think will be designed for the platform? Everything from weapon pods to special motor vehicles designed to fit?
Click to expand...
Very little. The only thing I'm expecting to be custom is any drop tanks.
 
shin_getter said:
Ok, now that this is a sure thing:

What specialized equipment do you think will be designed for the platform? Everything from weapon pods to special motor vehicles designed to fit?
Click to expand...
Given that the program has been pushed to production 2 years ahead of schedule I suspect much of the associated bits will have to wait.
The Vice Chief of Staff basically said as much. Get the thing in the air, learn how to fly and fight it, then we will improve it.
 
yasotay said:
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that's a retroactive justification.

In reality, they're numbering it like it was a helicopter, but designating it like a tilt rotor.
 
TomS said:
I'm quite sure that's a retroactive justification.
In reality, they're numbering it like it was a helicopter, but designating it like a tilt rotor.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It reminds me of the USAAF's choice of the P-75 number back in 1944, allegedly because it evoked the .75 mm cannon of old... (in fact they skipped P-74 because someone wanted a "good, round number"...)
 
yasotay said:
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
Click to expand...
With the current admin, I'm giving good odds they name it the "Pilgrim."
 
Kind of a what if, but if this nacelle design works (no reason it shouldn't) does anyone think it might be worth it to refit the v-22 with the same type of nacelle? No hot exhaust blasting straight down, engines not having to operation in the vertical...
 
yasotay said:
75 was decided upon because 1775 was the year that the Continental Army was formed under General George Washington.
The DoD appears to have yet to decide on which American native tribe to request permission to name the aircraft after.
Click to expand...
They could follow the example of it's cousin, the V-22 and name it after a birb. MV-75 Buzzard or something like that.
 
Stargazer said:
That would go against Army naming policy, which has been consistent in picking Indian tribe names for over 65 years now.
Click to expand...

That would go against Army naming policy, something that has now repeatedly happened over the past decades.

It's to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not following previous trends, especially given it's tiltrotor nature
 
I wonder if anything under the Trump administation would be named after a minority, even if its tradition.
 
hobbes221 said:
Kind of a what if, but if this nacelle design works (no reason it shouldn't) does anyone think it might be worth it to refit the v-22 with the same type of nacelle? No hot exhaust blasting straight down, engines not having to operation in the vertical...
Click to expand...
You could do this, but I think the engine would still be placed below the rotor axis (instead of beside the rotor axis on MV-75) to preserve the total wing length for wing stow. There would be a performance hit. The V-22 solution has reduced download, points the residual thrust of the AE-1107 in a useful direction, and weighs less. A fixed engine would enable a more effective IR suppressor and was really necessary on the MV-75 to make the Army-preferred side doors practical.

The tilting engines is actually simpler in many ways than the fixed engines.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom