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

Bell V-280 Valor

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
246
kitnut617 said:
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 ----
My understanding, besides what TomcatVIP noted, is whereas the V-22 was just designed to meet Tilt Rotor requirements, the V-280 was designed to meet helo requirements, which require more agility while in the hover, per Army requirements, which also exceed the V-22's capabilities.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
As mentioned the V-280 is looking to meet/exceed Level 1 rotorcraft maneuverability standards. The prop-rotors have considerably more flapping than found on the V-22.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
691
As a matter of facts:

CEO: Textron Could Pull Funding From V-280 Without Further Army Investment

During an earning call the same day, Donnelly praised the program, but said its future is tightly coupled to the Army’s upcoming fiscal 2020 budget.

“It'll affect our pace a lot,” Donnelly said of the upcoming budget. “We have no insight into what the [PB-20] looks like at this stage of the game. … 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."
[...]
“We would certainly hope to hear shortly, to start to see that — those statements turn into some contracted work,” Donnelly said. “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. … So it's sort of debunked all these notions that a tiltrotor 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.”
Source:
Rotor&Wings.com
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
468
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Bell's Freeland on First Year of V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Testing, 2019 Program Goals

Published on Jan 7, 2019

Col. Rob Freeland, US Marine Corps Ret., Bell's government relations and business development director, discusses the first year of V-280 Valor tiltrotor flight testing, 2019 program goals and more with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian. The V-280 is among the competitors to replace H-60 Blackhawk
https://youtu.be/LM4EGT_a0Xc
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
TomcatViP said:
As a matter of facts:

CEO: Textron Could Pull Funding From V-280 Without Further Army Investment

During an earning call the same day, Donnelly praised the program, but said its future is tightly coupled to the Army’s upcoming fiscal 2020 budget.

“It'll affect our pace a lot,” Donnelly said of the upcoming budget. “We have no insight into what the [PB-20] looks like at this stage of the game. … 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."
[...]
“We would certainly hope to hear shortly, to start to see that — those statements turn into some contracted work,” Donnelly said. “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. … So it's sort of debunked all these notions that a tiltrotor 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.”
Source:
Rotor&Wings.com
Nothing like finding out you may have spent over a hundred of million dollar on a school science project
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
691
After the Scorpion (surprising) lack of success, that would be an ungainly hard hit for Textron...
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
371
Reaction score
84
Sundog said:
kitnut617 said:
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 ----
My understanding, besides what TomcatVIP noted, is whereas the V-22 was just designed to meet Tilt Rotor requirements, the V-280 was designed to meet helo requirements, which require more agility while in the hover, per Army requirements, which also exceed the V-22's capabilities.
Thanks, but it seems to beat the object of having a tilt-rotor don't you think ???

I can't help but think that the V-280 is nothing more than a technology demonstrator, looking at the profile of the fuselage top before, over and behind the wing, it looks very similar to the V-22. The wing, nacelles, prop could be a straight transplant on to a V-22 I'm thinking ---
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
815
Reaction score
117
kitnut617 said:
I can't help but think that the V-280 is nothing more than a technology demonstrator,
That's exactly what it is, along with the SB-1. They are intended to demonstrate the high speed desired by the Army for the FVL Capability 3 requirements, along with the handling characteristics needed in an operational vehicle. There's been no attempt to integrate modern avionics, weapons, or self-protection systems. The objective engines are still in development, too.

There's been a lot of investment on the part of the contractors, so once the objectives of the demonstration have been met, there's little sense in investing more capital until the actual FVL-3 program gets under way.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
148
JMR TD = Joint Multi Role Technology Demonstrator...
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
Bell has clearly, and often stated that the V-280 builds on their efforts with the V-22. The objective was to simplify the amount of effort needed to put a tilt rotor together, and thus with improved manufacturing techniques reduce cost per lbs on an aircraft. The agility is a requirement for a tactical rotorcraft that can maneuver at least as well as the UH-60 Blackhawk. It is a technology goal as no requirements documents have been released for an aircraft of this type.
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
283
Reaction score
28
yasotay said:
TomcatViP said:
As a matter of facts:

CEO: Textron Could Pull Funding From V-280 Without Further Army Investment

During an earning call the same day, Donnelly praised the program, but said its future is tightly coupled to the Army’s upcoming fiscal 2020 budget.

“It'll affect our pace a lot,” Donnelly said of the upcoming budget. “We have no insight into what the [PB-20] looks like at this stage of the game. … 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."
[...]
“We would certainly hope to hear shortly, to start to see that — those statements turn into some contracted work,” Donnelly said. “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. … So it's sort of debunked all these notions that a tiltrotor 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.”
Source:
Rotor&Wings.com
Nothing like finding out you may have spent over a hundred of million dollar on a school science project
Oh dear, this could turn into the biggest "We don't have money budgeted to pay you for your work but think of the exposure you'll get!" of all time.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
Jeb said:
yasotay said:
TomcatViP said:
As a matter of facts:

CEO: Textron Could Pull Funding From V-280 Without Further Army Investment

During an earning call the same day, Donnelly praised the program, but said its future is tightly coupled to the Army’s upcoming fiscal 2020 budget.

“It'll affect our pace a lot,” Donnelly said of the upcoming budget. “We have no insight into what the [PB-20] looks like at this stage of the game. … 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."
[...]
“We would certainly hope to hear shortly, to start to see that — those statements turn into some contracted work,” Donnelly said. “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. … So it's sort of debunked all these notions that a tiltrotor 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.”
Source:
Rotor&Wings.com
Nothing like finding out you may have spent over a hundred of million dollar on a school science project
Oh dear, this could turn into the biggest "We don't have money budgeted to pay you for your work but think of the exposure you'll get!" of all time.
How do you figure? Bell didn't build the demonstrator out of the goodness of it's heart did it? Pretty sure the Army paid for it.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
514
Reaction score
164
I don't have a figure, but the program efforts have been largely self-funded by both teams. Army spending has been relatively small.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
_Del_ said:
I don't have a figure, but the program efforts have been largely self-funded by both teams. Army spending has been relatively small.
I guess I'm wondering what the problem is. It's not like both companies didn't know what they were getting into. Did they imagine that both companies would win a production order?
 

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
815
Reaction score
117
sferrin said:
_Del_ said:
I don't have a figure, but the program efforts have been largely self-funded by both teams. Army spending has been relatively small.
I guess I'm wondering what the problem is. It's not like both companies didn't know what they were getting into. Did they imagine that both companies would win a production order?
There isn't a problem. Textron is simply saying that without a funded program to move FVL-3 or whatever they'll call it forward, they're done for now. I would imagine Boeing and Sikorsky will say the same thing after SB-1 completes its demo phase.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
George Allegrezza said:
sferrin said:
_Del_ said:
I don't have a figure, but the program efforts have been largely self-funded by both teams. Army spending has been relatively small.
I guess I'm wondering what the problem is. It's not like both companies didn't know what they were getting into. Did they imagine that both companies would win a production order?
There isn't a problem. Textron is simply saying that without a funded program to move FVL-3 or whatever they'll call it forward, they're done for now. I would imagine Boeing and Sikorsky will say the same thing after SB-1 completes its demo phase.
That's as would be expected I'd think. Weird that some people seem to think the DoD has an obligation to pony up dough for all these projects.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
I have heard said that the Industry has invested in the neighborhood of five times the amount of funds into these JMR efforts as has the U.S. DoD.
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
590
Reaction score
56
Website
theavgeeks.com
20191019_AFW_01.jpg

It was super cool to see the Valor come speeding in to air show center with an ATAC L-39 flying chase. I've seen plenty of V-22s in action but love the sleek looks of the Valor. I wish I was that photographer in the back seat of the chase!
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
To update some of what Sentinel Chicken wrote in the great article and pictures. Cap Set 1 - (Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft /FARA) is exclusively an Army Program for the OH-58D replacement. Cap Set 2 - is looking to be a USN effort aimed at a replacement for H-60s (expect endurance over speed). Cap Set 3 -(Future Long Range Air Assault/FLRAA [US Army] and Attack Utility Replacement Aircraft/AURA [USMC]) will replace H-60 and H-1 for those services. Cap Set 4 - a H-47 or V-22 replacement. Cap Set 5 - H-53K fits the bill at the low end. If it starts to look like an airplane it is likely USAF Inc. will step in and study it to its grave.

Cap Set 1 & 3 are as healthy as they can be under the now unending continuing resolutions. Cap Set 2 is still bumping around in the Navy decks at the Pentagon in the inevitable internal funding wars. USN is still quite happy with H-60. Cap Set 4 will happen when the Army decides H-47, and the Marines the V-22, are not meeting requirements. So not in my lifetime. Cap Set 5 if the H-53K does not meet your need, you will have to wait for the USAF to decide it needs to replace C-130.
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
590
Reaction score
56
Website
theavgeeks.com
So if I understand things correctly, the proposed Bell 360 Invictus is for the FARA requirement and though the Valor and Defiant are for JMR-TD, at least Bell intends the Valor to be as close as possible to production standard?
 

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
162
Reaction score
25
The V-280 Valor gave its first public flying demonstration at the 2019 Fort Worth Alliance Air Show several weeks ago.

I wrote about it for The AvGeeks and it has the photos I took as well: https://theavgeeks.com/2019/10/20/the-first-public-demo-of-the-bell-v-280-valor-tilt-rotor/
I got to see it in real life! My father (who is a retired Bell employee) was dumbfounded to see it flying for the public already, but getting it into taxpayers minds will benefit it's prospects.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
So if I understand things correctly, the proposed Bell 360 Invictus is for the FARA requirement and though the Valor and Defiant are for JMR-TD, at least Bell intends the Valor to be as close as possible to production standard?
Both Bell and the Sikorsky(Lockheed) Boeing Team have indicated that their JMR-TD aircraft are representative of their FLRAA offerings if the final requirements are not significantly changed. The Bell 360 has been developed to the requirements specified by the US Army in their request for proposals.
 
Last edited:

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
162
Reaction score
202
Thinking about it, even though I really like the Defiant and it's co-ax rotors for Army use, this might be a opportunity to fulfill the promise of the proposed CL-84 AEW and ASW platforms for the Sea Control Ships. I can think of a fair few Harrier/F-35B carriers (QE2 to start) that would really benefit from that kind of capability.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
Would not want to be Sikorsky going up against the V-280 with the Defiant.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,464
Reaction score
282
Would not want to be Sikorsky going up against the V-280 with the Defiant.
I am not a betting person myself, but if I were I would put my money on the Valor winning instead of the Sikorsky Defiant any time.
 

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
684
Reaction score
283
Would not want to be Sikorsky going up against the V-280 with the Defiant.
It is a pity that Sikorsky/Boeing's technology demonstrator is about one year behind shedule, as they apparently ran into some unexpected challenges. However, that does not prevent Defiant to finally deliver the required performance...time will tell.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
As mentioned above, the Sikorsky-Boeing team can still succeed. Recall that both V-280 and SB>1 are technology demonstrators, not prototypes. Once the request for proposals is out both get to respond and competitive prototypes will be built (supposedly). Certainly Bell has a leg up with a mostly flawless tech demo, but they can still loose.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
691
IMOHO the architecture chosen is at the verge of what could possibly be done for a single shaft helo (SB-1).

The size of the cabin (even enlarged sidewise) is now only a fraction of the airframe putting a lot of constraint on the operator side (extra cost, reduced operability). The massive gear box assembly and aft projected push rotor is increasing the mass. The enlarged cabin (to keep length at a raisonable value) adds drag and lower the disc efficiency.
.
Although I see like many the Raider as being a leading design hard to challenge, the SB-1 would have needed a more radical architecture to be such.
 
Last edited:

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
684
Reaction score
283
IMOHO the architecture chosen is at the verge of what could possibly be done for a single shaft helo (SB-1).

The size of the cabin (even enlarged sidewise) is now only a fraction of the airframe putting a lot of constraint on the operator side (extra cost, reduced operability). The massive gear box assembly and aft projected push rotor is increasing the mass. The enlarged cabin (to keep length at a raisonable value) adds drag and lower the disc efficiency.
.
Although I see like many the Raider as being a leading design hard to challenge, the SB-1 would have needed a more radical architecture to be such.
The published CGI shows four seats next to each other. As far as I know UH-60 has exactly the same arrangement. Hence I would assume SB>1's cabin is not wider.

I do agree that the tiltrotor config allows the cabin to be placed closer to the center what makes the fuselage shorter.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
691
It is bigger than the UH-60. Pilots seating in front have a reduced SA on the rear sector thanks to the length of the bird and reduced front section. Although VR helmet would cut that away (literally) for navigation and defense, expecting an helo the size of a B-17 to evolve easily in terrain and canyon by such only is probably only an optimistic... projection (see KC-46 troubled endeavor).
 
Last edited:

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
684
Reaction score
283
It is bigger than the UH-60. Pilots seating in front have a reduced SA on the rear sector thanks to the length of the bird and reduced front section. Although VR helmet would cut that away (literally) for navigation and defense, expecting an helo the size of a B-17 to evolve easily in terrain and canyon by such only is probably only an optimistic... projection (see KC-46 troubled endeavor).
Concerning "bigger"...You seem to ignore the width of V-280 with turning rotors.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
492
The rotors (turning) are four feet wider than H-60. If you turn the 280 sideways it is almost the same size. The going joke is that H-60 uses very narrow but long landing zones while the V-280 uses very wide but short landing zones. V-280 can put the same number of aircraft into a football (rest of the world) pitch. This is the unofficial Army measure. Ironically the same arguments were levied against H-60 by the H-1 crowd, many years ago.
 
Top