• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Bell V-280 Valor

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
13
Website
www.tommythomason.com
F-14D said:
What I also find curious is that the main gear on the Army model appears to be fixed, while on the USMC version it appears retractable. Also, the V-2380 has gone over 190 knots, at least, but AFAIK the gear hasn't been retracted yet. Is that any indication of something?
I've wondered about that. The only things I can think of (possible but not plausible) is that the landing gear actuators aren't flight qualified (could be the actuator itself or less likely, a drop test) or aren't yet in fact available for delivery. If the main gear is to be fixed on one version (also possible but not plausible), then that would be another reason: they're demonstrating the version configured for the first customer.

And why did Bell initially blur an area on the wing tip?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
Tailspin Turtle said:
F-14D said:
What I also find curious is that the main gear on the Army model appears to be fixed, while on the USMC version it appears retractable. Also, the V-2380 has gone over 190 knots, at least, but AFAIK the gear hasn't been retracted yet. Is that any indication of something?
I've wondered about that. The only things I can think of (possible but not plausible) is that the landing gear actuators aren't flight qualified (could be the actuator itself or less likely, a drop test) or aren't yet in fact available for delivery. If the main gear is to be fixed on one version (also possible but not plausible), then that would be another reason: they're demonstrating the version configured for the first customer.

And why did Bell initially blur an area on the wing tip?
The Army model's gear kind of looks like a fixed version of the gear shown on earlier artists' concepts. Interestingly, the tail gear still looks to be retractable. Like you I can't imagine that the gear actuator hasn't been flight qualified yet, after it's been flying this long. i wonder if Bell now feels that they can get 280 knots with the gear down? Or, with Sikorsky so far behind they're not in any hurry?

I'm concerned that the Army is once again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and dumb down the requirement, pushing a vehicle with limited applicability mostly only to them, FVL will drift off to oblivion and once again they'll end up with nothing. This will also send a powerful message once again to companies about the folly of putting too much of your own money into a program where you have to count on Army maintaining interest over an extended period.

Regarding the blurring, I wonder if there was some proprietary technology at the "hinge" that they didn't want revealed and so blurred images until the flight-ready cover could be in place.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
V-280 flew with gear up last week. Bell only has one of them and they are being very methodical with the test program. While I have to admit that F-14D has a valid concern regarding the Army ineptitude at aircraft acquistion, the USMC has benefitted from the Army's problems. Marines have made no bones that they want a Tilt Rotor to replace the H-1 aircraft.
I would also remind you that this aircraft, nor the SB>1 or the S-97 Raider are built to a specific military requirement. They are demonstrator aircraft, built as such. True they are built to a specification defined by the Army, but these parameters have yet to be promulgated into a requirements document.
 

Attachments

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
953
Reaction score
56
Regarding the blurring of the swiveling mechanism, I am on the opinion that this is more related to the age of energy weapons (frequency driven -> component's dimensions related)
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
yasotay said:
V-280 flew with gear up last week. Bell only has one of them and they are being very methodical with the test program. While I have to admit that F-14D has a valid concern regarding the Army ineptitude at aircraft acquistion, the USMC has benefitted from the Army's problems. Marines have made no bones that they want a Tilt Rotor to replace the H-1 aircraft.
I would also remind you that this aircraft, nor the SB>1 or the S-97 Raider are built to a specific military requirement. They are demonstrator aircraft, built as such. True they are built to a specification defined by the Army, but these parameters have yet to be promulgated into a requirements document.
Thanks for the gear up update.

Your point about specific military requirement is well made. That is something that concerns me.

Bell has said they can deliver an operational derivative of the V-280, which they often refer to [marketing speak] as a "prototype", by 2024. Maybe they can, maybe they can't but at least this is technologically, politically and bureaucratically reasonable timeframe. The Army's planned schedule for FVL is positively glacial. I fear that any program that is planned to take that long will never survive through four Presidential /eight Congressional elections as well as other fiefdoms trying to get that money. That's also awfully long for a supportive coalition to hold together.

Army may doom us to end up with nothing once again.
 

zevets

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
yasotay said:
V-280 flew with gear up last week. Bell only has one of them and they are being very methodical with the test program. While I have to admit that F-14D has a valid concern regarding the Army ineptitude at aircraft acquistion, the USMC has benefitted from the Army's problems. Marines have made no bones that they want a Tilt Rotor to replace the H-1 aircraft.
I would also remind you that this aircraft, nor the SB>1 or the S-97 Raider are built to a specific military requirement. They are demonstrator aircraft, built as such. True they are built to a specification defined by the Army, but these parameters have yet to be promulgated into a requirements document.
I did not know about the lack of requirement. If there's no well thought out requirement, this should stay a prototype.

High speed helicopters make fundamental trades against hover performance, and you buy a helicopter because you want to hover. I'm also skeptical about the need for speed - does it actually make you more survivable? If you can't do close terrain following flight because of the speed how much do you lose? Also the navy, while not the lead service, doesn't need speed - it needs hoverin' for resupply and ASW.

The second aspect of FVL is the boost in range requirements. If the army does not have the range requirements of the marines (and should they?) then its not needed. If so, then half the program's justification isn't there and that alone should kill the program.

If you replace the blackhawk with a clean-sheet traditional design with modern engines and a composite airframe, you can probably get enough of a range and payload boost to make the expense of something fancy not really worth it. When these things get past demonstrator, they need to make an honest comparison against a traditional design, or else there's a good chance of wasting a ton of money for not much. Then, if it's not worth it, you take the money you saved and buy a scout helicopter - an actual sensible need. It's not unreasonable to claim that transport helis are glorified trucks, and program requirements should be written as such.

And from what my heli-informed friends have told me, Bell's design is extremely sound, while Sikorsky has major technical challenges ahead in scaling up their design. Their rigid co-ax lift-offset rotor design requires accurate vibratory load prediction and clever vibration damping, and if that stuff doesn't work as well as expected, their design will be in deep trouble.

I honestly hope these aircraft fly and do cool stuff, but my personal doubts combined with the Army's lukewarm commitment, means that I'll take the betting odds that these designs never make it past being demonstrators.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
34
zevets said:
yasotay said:
V-280 flew with gear up last week. Bell only has one of them and they are being very methodical with the test program. While I have to admit that F-14D has a valid concern regarding the Army ineptitude at aircraft acquistion, the USMC has benefitted from the Army's problems. Marines have made no bones that they want a Tilt Rotor to replace the H-1 aircraft.
I would also remind you that this aircraft, nor the SB>1 or the S-97 Raider are built to a specific military requirement. They are demonstrator aircraft, built as such. True they are built to a specification defined by the Army, but these parameters have yet to be promulgated into a requirements document.
I did not know about the lack of requirement. If there's no well thought out requirement, this should stay a prototype.

High speed helicopters make fundamental trades against hover performance, and you buy a helicopter because you want to hover. I'm also skeptical about the need for speed - does it actually make you more survivable? If you can't do close terrain following flight because of the speed how much do you lose? Also the navy, while not the lead service, doesn't need speed - it needs hoverin' for resupply and ASW.

The second aspect of FVL is the boost in range requirements. If the army does not have the range requirements of the marines (and should they?) then its not needed. If so, then half the program's justification isn't there and that alone should kill the program.

If you replace the blackhawk with a clean-sheet traditional design with modern engines and a composite airframe, you can probably get enough of a range and payload boost to make the expense of something fancy not really worth it. When these things get past demonstrator, they need to make an honest comparison against a traditional design, or else there's a good chance of wasting a ton of money for not much. Then, if it's not worth it, you take the money you saved and buy a scout helicopter - an actual sensible need. It's not unreasonable to claim that transport helis are glorified trucks, and program requirements should be written as such.

And from what my heli-informed friends have told me, Bell's design is extremely sound, while Sikorsky has major technical challenges ahead in scaling up their design. Their rigid co-ax lift-offset rotor design requires accurate vibratory load prediction and clever vibration damping, and if that stuff doesn't work as well as expected, their design will be in deep trouble.

I honestly hope these aircraft fly and do cool stuff, but my personal doubts combined with the Army's lukewarm commitment, means that I'll take the betting odds that these designs never make it past being demonstrators.
If the US Army don't want the Valor then what about the USAF and the Marine Corp buying some? I could see the Valor as a very good transporter for the USAF SOCOM.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
22
Just a quick question, I've been looking around the internet but I can't find a reference to what the prop-rotor diameter is of the V-280. Anyone know what it is please ?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
89
The whole point of the FVL program is to break the stagnation in vertical lift technology. In recent operations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa), the limited range and speed of conventional helicopters has made it difficult to project presence/force over tactically relevant distances.

V-22 operations have validated the technical advantages of tiltrotors and they are providing SOCOM with the means to put teams almost anywhere they want. Hover performance is inefficient and requires upsized powerplants to compensate but range is still much better because lift is wingborne. The V-22 has proven popular with the ground troops (and pilots) because it minimizes flight time, flies high during cruise (avoiding small arms fire), and provides significantly lower vibration fatigue. If the Sikorsky ABC design doesn’t provide a significant cost advantage, it’s going to have a hard time winning.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
zevets makes a good conservative argument (not meant condescendingly). If you look at near peer combat environments ground formation density and tactical operations at or near the forward zone of combat, forces are much more densely aligned. The very density of weapons argue for operating at the lowest levels possible in direct support of ground maneuver. If you are doing attack or reconnaissance, speed does not necessarily buy its way into the equation. You are trying to derive the locations and intent of the enemy. Thus the Army is not looking for overly high speed for its new reconnaissance requirement. They do want the range because that can also equate to the amount of time the aircraft can stay on station. However, the Army's requirement for the larger (Blackhawk) replacement is a logistics function (moves things). Productivity is the name of the game. How many things can be moved in the available time? If you can move more things in the same period of time this is good. So for the same reason UPS's of the world use fast jets to move cargo over distances, speedy logistics aircraft are of value. Even at the tactical level.
Fortunately we have reduced the number of times that we fight massive wars against massed Armies. The name of the game now is to fight your enemies below the level of major conflict. So there will be continuous "operations other than war" These tend to happen in less well developed parts of the world and cover much greater distances than conventional war, with forces that are much more dispersed. Take a look at South Sudan for instance. It is roughly the same size as the entire western United States and has virtually no road network. Mali is as long as the US from north to south. The Pacific island chain nations don't need explaining, but in Army speak there are some VERY large rivers to cross.
As freddymac points out M/CV-22 is very popular. In fact they are the most used platform in the US inventory, although I expect the C-17 and/or KC-135 fleet are almost equal. It is because there are so many operations going on around the world with small units at extended distance. If this is the "New Normal", then the range and speed the Osprey operates at would appear to be valid requirements. With this in mind I would say to FighterJock that the USMC has every intention of acquiring a V-280-like tilt rotor to replace the H-1 helicopters in the next ten years. AFSOC might well use a rotorcraft like this to replace the U-28 and other low density aircraft designed to operate in harsh landing environments with the realization there are way more landing zones available in less developed parts of the world than there are runways. I would argue that it would be a darn good CSAR platform as well.
Sadly all this said if I had to put money on this, I would bet that the USMC and USAF will acquire advanced VTOL technology and the Army will be squatting on UH-60Y and AH-64Z in twelve years.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
The big problems with a USMC/USAF Valor buy are culture and money.

Historically, USMC u=is not allowed to develop from scratch their own aircraft, but rather must adapt something developed by someone else for their use. The only major exceptions I can think of were the CH-53, AV-8B (in conjunction with UK) and the V-22. No, USMC did not start the design and development of the CH-46. That vehicle was started in response to an Army requirement, and after work was underway the Army changed its mind and said they wanted something larger, and so a new design was started which became the CH-47 (CH-47 is not an enlarged CH-46). USMC stepped in and said, "If you marinize that smaller design it'll be just fine for us". In conjunction with USA they were developing ASTOVL/SSF, but that program was ordered terminated and they were directed to join the something-for-everyone JSF. That latter is not meant to be a JSF slam.

USAF has shown virtually no interest in developing VTOL/STOVL in general and rotorcraft in particular. They prefer someone else to spend their money to develop a rotorcraft and then they'll come in and adapt it. This is assuming they don't perceive an Army rotorcraft impinging on what they feel are their roles and missions, in which case they'll tend to frown on its development. There have been some concerns about FVL-Heavy and Ultra for that reason.

Marines would no doubt love Valor, the question is whether they can afford to foot the bill, given the size of their fleet. They certainly couldn't afford all of FVL, but then they don't need all the FVL categories. If they were provided the money by Congress/USN I'm sure they would jump at the chance. Almost certainly they would deploy it faster than Army's ridiculous schedule.

If it already existed USAF would no doubt be interested for Special Ops and other uses, although might prefer more of the larger V-22, but still they' make good use of it in different roles (can you say CSAR?). The 160th SOAR would love it, but that might be against Ar,my policy given the HQ preferences.

If as seems to be indicated Army is once again dumbing down their top priority requirements to that of a conventional helicopter as preliminary reports seem to indicate, it looks like we aren't gong to see much advance and I fear we'll end up with nothing. But then we've been there before, haven't we?
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's. Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own. This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward. The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements. Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
yasotay said:
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's. Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own. This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward. The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements. Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.
Thought it might be worth sharing those requirements:

https://www.rotorandwing.com/2018/08/16/marine-corps-lays-requirements-next-generation-h-1-rotorcraft-replacement/

The Marine Corps is specifically looking at Capability Set 3 for an attack/utility aircraft that it plans to field in the mid-2030s. That timeline would have the new rotorcraft serving alongside the H-1 fleet for about 10 years before the transition is complete in the mid-2040s, Walsh said.

Army documents lay out the requirements for Capability Set 3 as cruising at between 230 and 310 kt with a combat radius between 229 and 450 nm, an internal payload of between 3,000 and 4,000 pounds and external carrying capacity of 6,000 to 8,000 pounds.

Marine Corps requirements track with those, but add shipboard compatibility and a combat radius of at least 450 nm with a 30-min loiter time on station, which would match the V-22. It also wants one platform with a reconfigurable cabin that can meet the mission objectives of both an attack and a utility platform.
Basically, by this definition, they're adopting FLV Capability Set 3, which is where the V-280 and SB-1 (if it ever flies) are pointed, plus shipboard compatibility. And they seem to be rejecting a specialized attack derivative in favor of the bolt-on kit approach.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
yasotay said:
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's. Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own. This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward. The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements. Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.
I thought that division of duties applied just to USAF/Army?

USMC is part of Navy, so their funding is controlled by USN and it isn't often the Navy let them go off on their own.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's. Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own. This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward. The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements. Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.
I thought that division of duties applied just to USAF/Army?

USMC is part of Navy, so their funding is controlled by USN and it isn't often the Navy let them go off on their own.
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification. I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920. Navy rotorcraft technology base has been significantly reduced over the last twenty years (my opinion) and for the most part has become an organization mostly focused on marinizing platforms and the mission packages on them. It still exist, but is no where near the size of the Army Science and Technology base for rotorcraft.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
yasotay said:
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification. I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920.
Not without it's bumps. See "Admiral's Revolt". IIRC the USAF wasn't crazy about the SeaMaster either.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong) the Army has responsibility for rotorcraft technology by Congressional Specification. I think the USAF and USN have a amenable division of labor for fixed wing with shore and ship based aircraft since like 1920.
Not without it's bumps. See "Admiral's Revolt". IIRC the USAF wasn't crazy about the SeaMaster either.
Excellent example. If the Korean War hadn't come along, the US might have lost its carriers, which was the position the nascent Air Force

USAF has this view of its "roles and missions" that it views are properly theirs. When it perceives one of the other services (including the Navy) doing something that might conflict with their view of the world, they will work to block it. There are numerous examples.

Here's just one: During the development of the B-2 as costs were rising, a senior USAF General and his staff put out a public position that the way the country could fund more B-2s was to retire as many aircraft carriers and air wings as necessary to fund it. Of course under questioning USAF said that wasn't an "official" position, but those things don't get put out without having gone all through the chain. It's really only since the 1990s that USAF lowered its sniping regarding carrier air.


Another is the Laser Maverick vs. Bulldog. I don't remember all the precise details, but this rough story is illustrative. Early in the operations of laser guided weaponry, seeing their effectiveness, Navy and USMC wanted a laser guided missile for CAS and striking smaller water traffic. They came up with the Bulldog, which was basically taking the large numbers of Bullpup missiles already in stock and replacing the existing guidance system with a laser seeking head they'd develop (decades later the same idea gave us APKWS). USAF said to DoD/Congress they were going to develop their own laser seeker head for new production Mavericks, there was no need for two seekers. USN said that's a good idea, we'll use it for Bulldog.

USAF pushed hard that USN be directed to use their new Laser Maverick, even though USN had no Mavericks in stock, the warhead was not of the size and type needed, it was incompatible with Navy launching systems and a number of other reservations. However, because USAF pushed that with their large buy this should be the missile for everybody. It was so ordered as the AGM-65C. Once Bulldog was safely dead, USAF announced that they really didn't need a laser guided missile anyway right then, but if USN wanted to pay for development and procurement of Laser Mavericks, that would be perfectly fine. AGM-65C was cancelled. With no chance or reviving Bulldog, USMC was left with nothing, so they bit the bullet and had to fund all the development and introduction of a laser version of USAF's 'Maverick with a warhead they could use which emerged as the AGM-65E.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
Are these colorful anecdotes (alas largely devoid of evidentiary support) still remotely relevant today?

The Navy's dismal performance in GW I produced a very different and more cooperative Navy/Air Force relationship.

UCLASS would be the ultimate example of that. The Air Force gave the Navy absolute free reign in an area
clearly within the Air Force world view.

Swerving back to topic:

RAND says that the Air Force, despite being invited, didn't even bother to attend any of the FVL JCoC sessions that RAND observed.
If you want to block a program surely it's much easier to do that from the inside.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
marauder2048 said:
Are these colorful anecdotes (alas largely devoid of evidentiary support) still remotely relevant today?

The Navy's dismal performance in GW I produced a very different and more cooperative Navy/Air Force relationship.

UCLASS would be the ultimate example of that. The Air Force gave the Navy absolute free reign in an area
clearly within the Air Force world view.

Swerving back to topic:

RAND says that the Air Force, despite being invited, didn't even bother to attend any of the FVL JCoC sessions that RAND observed.
If you want to block a program surely it's much easier to do that from the inside.
As it is a Army Program, they likely are not concerned that it will reach a level they need concern themselves with.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
marauder2048 said:
Are these colorful anecdotes (alas largely devoid of evidentiary support) still remotely relevant today?

The Navy's dismal performance in GW I produced a very different and more cooperative Navy/Air Force relationship.

<snip>
My intention was absolutely not to start an off-topic branch, but to back up Yasotay. So, not wanting to be distracting or waste everyone's time, I'll leave this alone.

One thing, though. After reading the comment about the navy's performance in the GW, as an ex-squid I feel duty-bound to point out that it was USAF who controlled of the ATO that determined who was allowed to do counter air and go and hunt down enemy aircraft and who was tied to strike escort even after the air threat to strikers was no longer a factor.

Just stickin' up for our side relative to the zoomies. ;)
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
Heard today that the V-280 has achieved ~250 knots indicated airspeed and flew over three hours from Amarillo to Arlington, TX.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
Have not seen anything yet.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
89
Mentions 250kts at 80% RPM and reaching 280kts by end of year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OlDQ6J1nOA
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
89
Details on cockpit and interior and non-blurred images of nacelles at 5:40 mark.

https://youtu.be/Wy9oyDMqqnA
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
Now all they need is a reliable customer...
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
yasotay said:
Now all they need is a reliable customer...
Exactly. But until they find one, they'll have to work with the US Army. :)
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
89
Video summary of flight test activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rnb0AXTVc
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
59
Happy Anniversary to Team Valor celebrating year since Bell V-280 flew..


http://news.bellflight.com/en-US/170381-bell-v-280-valor-first-year-of-flight

Cheers
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
RavenOne said:
Happy Anniversary to Team Valor celebrating year since Bell V-280 flew..


http://news.bellflight.com/en-US/170381-bell-v-280-valor-first-year-of-flight

Cheers
wow. And we're still waiting for SB-1. :(
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
953
Reaction score
56
Don't be too hard with them. Here in EU we are supposed to celebrate the first production ever H160...
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
V-280 did 280 yesterday. From my twitter addiction.
 

Attachments

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
Just in time for their earnings announcement :)

Seth Seifman

Sorry, I think I was on mute there. Just a quick one on V-280. Scott, can you
talk about maybe the range of outcomes that you're thinking about for V-280
in the '20 budget? What would be considered good? Is there some kind of
commitment that you guys have to have? And how that might affect -- how --
whether it's a lot or a little that's in the budget? How that might affect your
pace of spending on V-280 going forward?

Scott Donnelly

Well, it'll affect our pace a lot. And so I mean, we have no insight into what
the [PB-20] looks like at this stage of the game. We're certainly encouraged by
the dialogue that we've had and I think the army has had publicly around their
desire to accelerate these programs, both Cap Set 1 and Cap Set 3. So we
would certainly hope to hear shortly, to start to see that -- those statements turn
into some contracted work. As I said earlier, look, we've now exceeded 280 knots.
I think our team has done everything we've asked of them to design and build a
terrific aircraft. Its maneuverability is understanding. It's been demonstrated.
So it's sort of debunked all these notions that to order product can't have the
maneuverability of a more conventional aircraft, the speed now going through
and then breaking through that 280 knot performance envelope. This thing does
everything and more than it was expected to do. So at this point, look, we'll have
no choice but to roll back any funding that we put into it, waiting to see what the
army is going to do, because we've done what we can do.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4235511-textron-inc-txt-ceo-scott-donnelly-q4-2018-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
59
Here is the official press release from Bell for the milestone of 280

http://news.bellflight.com/en-US/170939-record-performance-at-bell-v-280-valor-reaches-280-knots-true-airspeed
 

Attachments

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
130
Reaction score
12
Congrats to them hitting their goal! Just another step towards this:

 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
97
@ marauder2048 - Great Post! Something the DoD and especially the Army fail to realize - "Hey we are doing everything you asked us to do, and more. Our investors want to know what YOU are going to do now. Put up or shut up." Even (ad)Venture Capital types are not going to sustain 5 to 1 funding indefinitely.

I have to admit it is gratifying to see such a smooth program, even if it is only a technology demonstration, for the Army after all of these years of shovels to the face.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
22
Am I missing something --- the Bell V-22's advertised speed is 275 kts, what is all the fuss and all this effort for another 5 kts ----
 
Top