Bell V-280 Valor

I am pretty sure that the JMR aircraft have to meet the same maneuver criterion as the current helicopters. Guess we will find out in the next couple of years. Have to agree that individual blade control, while promising ... well I'm not sure I would want to be flying fast in a version 1.0 either.
 
Somebody's gotta be first to risk/improve/innovate/profit/die/advance the ball.

Collectives (Boeing and other well established and public companies), not so much. Outfits like Scale Composites, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, and Virgin Galactic, a lot.

No balls, no blue-chips.

David
 
Big advances usually require big money. No money - no party.
 
yasotay said:
I am pretty sure that the JMR aircraft have to meet the same maneuver criterion as the current helicopters. Guess we will find out in the next couple of years. Have to agree that individual blade control, while promising ... well I'm not sure I would want to be flying fast in a version 1.0 either.

I was wondering if the A160 Hummingbird incorporated individual blade actuators in lieu of a swashplate and it appears it did. The airfoil is varied over the span of the rotor to optimize efficiency and only rotation speed is used to vary lift. The "collective" function is replaced by speeding up or slowing down the rotor rpm's via a 2 speed transmission (hence "optimum speed").

Boeing bought the design/manufacturing rights to the A160 but wound up with a repeat of the Canard Rotor Wing history with multiple crashes and program termination. Karem is still basing all its' JMR proposals on Optimum Speed Rotor technology. Hopefully version 2.0.
 
Fairly certain they (Karem) are on contract to demonstrate the rotor system on a whirl stand.
 
Model on display at Farnborough 2016.

Source:
http://www.edrmagazine.eu/seen-at-farnborough
http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/uploads/media/large/2016/28/4310.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 11_Bell-Textron-V-280-Valor-P-Valpolini-Copy.jpg
    11_Bell-Textron-V-280-Valor-P-Valpolini-Copy.jpg
    79.8 KB · Views: 686
  • 4310.jpg
    4310.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 671
So an anhedral tailplane looks like the way to go for folding wing versions. The website has two versions of the same picture of the V-280 operating off a carrier showing both tailplane options.

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/military/bell-v-280
 
I suspect Bell is spending a lot of time looking at the tail of the aircraft. Given the change from the big V tail to the smaller V tail on the mock-up and grahics. Most obvious benefit for the anhedral tail is mechanical simplicity and associated weight savings. It appears that the anhedral versions of the aircraft does away with the side mounted launch tubes seen on the base aircraft. Most likely to reduce the weight of the aircraft since they will introduce a good amount with the folding equipment on the roof. Then there is also the greater chance that a weapon might hit the anheadral tail making the crew and maintainers very unhappy.
 
Bell’s V-280 to Use F-35-Like Sensors

8/30/2016

​The V-280 Valor tiltrotor, Bell Helicopter’s entry in the Army’s Joint Multi-Role helicopter development program, will make use of 360 degree image sensors similar to those on the F-35, Scout Warrior reported. The technology will give both pilots, as well as passenger troops, greatly enhanced vision of the battlespace and of incoming fire. The Army wants the new helicopter to be able to maintain the speed of fixed-wing aircraft and also be capable of hovering and maneuvering like a helicopter, according to Scout Warrior. The sensors on the V-280 Valor are one of a number of systems designed to flex in relation to emerging technologies so that the aircraft can be continually upgraded as new technologies are developed. Both Bell and a Boeing-Sikorsky industry team are building demonstrators that are expected to take flight next year. The goal is for the future tiltrotor to be operational in the 2030s.
 
V-280 less engine, rotors and transmissions.
From AW&ST.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20160915_215117.jpg
    IMG_20160915_215117.jpg
    330.1 KB · Views: 319
Those tails are giant. I'd have sworn later artwork showed much smaller tails.
 
I guess this demonstrator is based on the earlier stages of the design seen at the start of this thread. I had forgotten how large the v-tail looked on the early art and models.
 
I wonder if they released the design for construction while still examining alternatives. The landing wheel side pods seen in the picture have never appeared on art work. The engine nacelles look like they are also somewhat different than current display mockups. I would guess the final production hardware will probably match the show mockups. The large tails for the prototype might help demonstrate they can be cut down later or be retained if actual flight data shows otherwise.
 
It could also be that as they've done more development testing under different conditions/parts of the envelope, they discovered they needed larger tails.

They're making good progress, though.
 
Design was likely frozen well before all of the current design iteration. Suspect that some of the features are cost saving measures as the V-280 JMR aircraft is a demonstrator, not a prototype.
 
My guess is the smaller tails assumed yaw would be actively controlled using differential thrust. They looked tiny, just large enough to give yaw stability at cruise speeds. These tails are more in line with something that gets its yaw stability from aero forces in most parts of the envelope.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/fly-with-us-kinda-in-bells-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-video/
 
At 6:10 mark discussion switches to V-280 and goes into details on agility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOnawz6FZXw
 
~180 degrees in 3 seconds... not sure a UH-60 can do that.

Not sure a UH-60 crew would want to do that.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/bell-v-280-tiltrotor-being-prepared-ground-testing
 
Some really interesting details in that article. The APU installation being an "easy," 15-minute process is probably music to the ears of any Army aviation mechanic.
 
Moose said:
Some really interesting details in that article. The APU installation being an "easy," 15-minute process is probably music to the ears of any Army aviation mechanic.

Well that is just the initial installation in a demonstrator aircraft. By the time the FVL requirements are done, it will require nuclear physicist to install and remove. In fairness to Bell/Lockheed it does seem that Bell learned a lot about getting the maintainers involved from the initial V-22 efforts that got them some stout comments from the Marines who keep them in the air.
 
Bell V-280 Valor Prepping for Flight-test Program

by Matt Thurber - February 8, 2017, 1:47 PM

VIDEO: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...t-test-program

In a well-guarded hangar tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus at Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport in Texas, a tightly knit team of dedicated technicians and engineers is putting the final touches on Bell’s next-generation tiltrotor, the V-280 Valor. If all goes as planned, the V-280, which was about 93 percent complete in late January, will fly sometime around September this year.

Designed to fulfill a requirement for new cost-effective and more efficient aircraft for the U.S. Department of Defense’s Future Vertical Lift program, the V-280 is the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD), “the flagship program anchoring the Army Aviation science and technology portfolio,” according to the Army.

Bell leveraged its experience with the V-22—also built in Amarillo—in designing the V-280. Both share design features such as composite wings and other structural elements, but there are significant differences that are apparent when viewing the two aircraft. The V-22 is much larger and capable of carrying a maximum of 32 passengers plus at least three crewmembers, while the V-280 can fit 14 passengers and four crew. The Navy and Marines required a rear ramp for loading/unloading, which adds complexity and weight to the V-22, but the crew enter and exit the V-280 via six-foot-wide fuselage doors under the wings.

Also adding complexity to the V-22 is the gigantic spherical bearing mounted under the center wing section and the folding proprotors, which allows the V-22 to fold into a compact and more easily stored unit. The V-280’s wing is fixed to the fuselage, and its proprotors are about a foot shorter than the V-22’s.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two aircraft is the way the proprotors tilt. On the V-22, the engines tilt up and down to provide the craft’s unique vertical lift and horizontal flight modes. The V-280’s engines are mounted in the nacelles and do not move, but the output shaft is connected to the gearbox through a massive ball joint that transfers power to the gearbox and proprotor, both of which rotate on two big spherical bearings, driven vertically and horizontally by a thick jackscrew mechanism. The V-280’s tilting gearbox design vastly simplifies the V-22’s complex hydro-mechanical clockwork that provides the necessary tiltrotor action.

The V-280’s powerplant configuration offers other advantages, explained V-280 build team manager Scott Allen. When the V-22’s engines point skyward during vertical flight, the exhaust is directed onto the landing area, and this could cause a fire, say on a grassy area, or damage a ship’s flight deck (the Navy uses protective pads under the V-22 exhaust blast). The V-280 projects only proprotor airflow downwards, while the engines remain fixed in place horizontally, eliminating the hot exhaust problem. Another benefit is that the pilot’s field of view is improved, with much less machinery blocking the view along the wings, he explained.

Allen has been involved with the V-280 JMR-TD for four years, ever since it began as a preliminary design concept. Like Bell’s new 505 and 525, the V-280 was developed in Bell’s new digital design framework, which has helped keep costs down. The V-280 wing, for example, is estimated to cost less than half that of the V-22 wing, according to Allen. Designing just one of the V-22’s hydraulic systems took 700 to 800 manhours, compared to just 40 for the V-280. “Digital-first is beyond huge,” he said.

The program faced many challenges, but the hand-picked team of top Bell engineers and technicians has been able to solve every one.

One challenge is because of the fixed wing mounting, which means that the V-280 will have to fly out of Amarillo, as it can’t be folded up like the V-22. Because of this, Bell had to build a ground-run stand, which features large ramps for the V-280 to roll up for installation in the test rig. The Amarillo Economic Development Corporation provided a $3 million grant to Bell to build the run stand.

While Bell built the V-280’s composite wing at its own facilities, the fuselage, made of aluminum frames and composite skins, was built by Spirit AeroSystems. The fuselage could eventually be all-composite, made using Spirit’s filament-winding machines, but that would depend on the Army’s level of comfort with composite structure. “I’d love to get to zero fasteners,” Allen said.

Flight control surfaces are composite, as are the proprotors. The V-280’s wing has 22 percent of the parts count of the V-22 wing; the V-22 wing is also more complex, with some dihedral that isn’t present in the V-280’s flat wing. Like the V-22, a clutch-activated shaft runs in the back of the wing, allowing either engine to power both proprotors in case of engine failure.

The V-280’s landing gear configuration is also unique; basically, it’s a taildragger, with two main landing gear up front and a large wheel on the aft fuselage, and all are retractable.

The empennage is a V-tail configuration, which some observers note is not the same as early drawings of Marine Corps V-280s with downward-tilting anhedral stabilizers. “That is one potential solution, but we haven’t evaluated it yet,” said Allen.

The V-280 is equipped with its own APU, mounted toward the top of the aft fuselage, and this can power utility systems and help start the aircraft’s GE T64-149 engines, each with more than 5,000 shp. The V-280 has three hydraulic systems running at 3,000 psi (compared to the V-22’s 5,000 psi), and up to two systems can fail while the remaining system powers the fly-by-wire flight controls.

Last year, Bell demonstrated a sophisticated new cockpit concept for the V-280, a single-display touchscreen that fills the entire instrument panel. The touchscreen display has integrated night-vision and synthetic vision capabilities and allows the pilot to customize layouts of various kinds of information.

In the V-280 JMR-TD, the cockpit is more standard, with dual Lockheed Martin PFDs and MFDs and dual FMSs. The fly-by-wire collective and cyclic are a similar shape as the Bell 525’s, and they are mechanically interconnected to provide a visual cue of control movement for both pilots.

V-280 specifications include a maximum speed of 280 knots, combat range of 500 to 800 nm, maximum self-deployable range of more than 2,100 nm and 12,000+ pounds of useful load.
 
yasotay said:
Bell V-280 Valor Prepping for Flight-test Program

by Matt Thurber - February 8, 2017, 1:47 PM

VIDEO: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...t-test-program

Thanks for the article but the video link resolves as "Page Not Found"
 
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.
 
marauder2048 said:
yasotay said:
Bell V-280 Valor Prepping for Flight-test Program

by Matt Thurber - February 8, 2017, 1:47 PM

VIDEO: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...t-test-program



Thanks for the article but the video link resolves as "Page Not Found"

Working link.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-02-10/bell-v-280-valor-prepping-flight-test-program


N
 
yasotay said:
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.

I get that, it was just the terminology I was querying . . . as far as I'm concerned, a campus is where students go to learn, or hipsters code software and/or design smartphones. Aircraft are designed and built in factories . . .

cheers,
Robin,
 
robunos said:
yasotay said:
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.

I get that, it was just the terminology I was querying . . . as far as I'm concerned, a campus is where students go to learn, or hipsters code software and/or design smartphones. Aircraft are designed and built in factories . . .

cheers,
Robin,

Ah! My apologies. But, "factories" are so twentieth Century. This is the twenty-first century! We are smarter. B)
 
They tend to use "campus" now because the complex of buildings is not purely focused on manufacturing. And it's a bit of PR as "campus" sounds more appealing than "factory/office complex."
 
yasotay said:
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.
What he said.

The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tiltrotor. Some real thought should given to fans that don't have the huge loss open props offer as a 'prize'. The VTOL wheel of shame knows only victims so far.
 
jsport said:
The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tiltrotor.

How is the Yemen incident related to the radar cross section?
 
Some real thought should given to fans that don't have the huge loss open props offer as a 'prize'. The VTOL wheel of shame knows only victims so far.
 
jsport said:
yasotay said:
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.
What he said.

The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tiltrotor. Some real thought should given to fans that don't have the huge loss open props offer as a 'prize'. The VTOL wheel of shame knows only victims so far.

Are you implying that the crash was caused by radar guided munitions? I doubt that it will make any difference in the near future if the rotors are enclosed or not. Not being seen by radars and other electronic medium will be the task of electronic means. Enclosed rotors tend not to allow the agility that most rotorcraft crews prefer.
 
yasotay said:
jsport said:
yasotay said:
robunos said:
. . . tucked away on the Bell Helicopter campus . . .

Don't they design and build aircraft in factories anymore . . . ? :eek: :'(

cheers,
Robin.
The more Congressional Districts involved in the process, the less likely it is that your program will be cancelled.
What he said.

The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tiltrotor. Some real thought should given to fans that don't have the huge loss open props offer as a 'prize'. The VTOL wheel of shame knows only victims so far.

Are you implying that the crash was caused by radar guided munitions? I doubt that it will make any difference in the near future if the rotors are enclosed or not. Not being seen by radars and other electronic medium will be the task of electronic means. Enclosed rotors tend not to allow the agility that most rotorcraft crews prefer.
Tiltrotors have large RCS. A problem for a spec ops infiltration craft. Task of electronic means is not enough and may not be available in all operation circumstances etc.
Current designs of "Enclosed rotors tend not to allow the agility that most rotorcraft crews prefer."
 
Once again: are you saying that the Yemen incident was the result of the radar cross section of the MV-22 involved?
 
GTX said:
Once again: are you saying that the Yemen incident was the result of the radar cross section of the MV-22 involved?
What is the point of this question? Tiltrotors have large RCS in flight and therefore are not optimum for spec ops infiltration.
 
The point is the fact that you made the comment "The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tilt rotor.". This implies that you are saying that the Yemen incident was somehow caused or at least directly influenced by the radar cross section of the tilt rotor. If so, please explain how.

As to your comment "Tiltrotors have large RCS in flight and therefore are not optimum for spec ops infiltration.", one could easily say that helicopters do as well but that hasn't stopped militaries all around the world from using them for such. Similarly, standard transport aircraft (be they prop or jet) also typically do. Again, militaries all around the world continue to use them for this role. Therefore, why are tilt rotors any different re this?
 
GTX said:
The point is the fact that you made the comment "The Yemen $75m crash site should be a cautionary tale to the huge radar cross of the tilt rotor.". This implies that you are saying that the Yemen incident was somehow caused or at least directly influenced by the radar cross section of the tilt rotor. If so, please explain how.

As to your comment "Tiltrotors have large RCS in flight and therefore are not optimum for spec ops infiltration.", one could easily say that helicopters do as well but that hasn't stopped militaries all around the world from using them for such. Similarly, standard transport aircraft (be they prop or jet) also typically do. Again, militaries all around the world continue to use them for this role. Therefore, why are tilt rotors any different re this?
Sounds like alotta Texas spin (from a particular city in fact) pardon the pun.


No 'Senior Citizen' proposal included an open prop design. Closed prop SOF trans is again basic.
enough already.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom