Bell V-280 Valor

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
That was my thoughts too, I had always thought the V-280 was a proof-of-concept demonstrator and now it's done it's final flight test that's what it seems to be. Mind you, it does open up a possible commercial line of tilt-rotor transports doesn't it ---
It would appear that Leonardo has elected to use this technique with their Clear Skies tilt rotor project.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,539
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
483
Reaction score
261
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.
Would the GE38 have to be modified to operate vertically, if they go with the same engine architecture of the V-280? I'd have thought just a new gearbox to handle the additional power
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,539
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
483
Reaction score
261
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.
But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,539
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.
But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb
I doubt it's that simple else the Army would have just bought V-22s.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?
Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)
The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.
But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb
@sferrin - my mistake. You are correct. If they were to revise the wing to V-280 format there would be no need to certify the GE Engine for vertical operations. A standardized engine would certainly be of benefit to the USMC I would think.
 

mil

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
140
Reaction score
64
at what altitude the V-280 flew at a cruising speed of 280 knots
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
@mil - I suspect it was done at several altitudes. This leads to the real question of could it "cruise" at lower altitude and still make the range? If Bell is accurate with their statements they demonstrated the capabilities laid out in the requirements documents. These documents have specific mission profiles that must be demonstrated.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,202
To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...
You are correct the Army is looking for minimum acceptable performance within cost. No pressurization, no folding anything. So it is likely that the V-280 is achieving the speed below 10K feet. In fact I think I recall them boasting that they could go much further on a bag of gas if they could climb to 20K.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
444
Given the way and how fast Army wants troops to enter/exit, pressurization would be difficult to do, given those doors. Of course for ferry flights,O2 could be supplied to the crew and then they could fly higher.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,298
Reaction score
2,884

SteveO

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
434
Reaction score
143
To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...
You are correct the Army is looking for minimum acceptable performance within cost. No pressurization, no folding anything. So it is likely that the V-280 is achieving the speed below 10K feet. In fact I think I recall them boasting that they could go much further on a bag of gas if they could climb to 20K.
I wonder if they have considered autonomous high altitude ferry/self deployment flights? The aircrew can arrive in the pressurised comfort of an airliner.

I’d like to see a higher flying pressurised variant for the STOVL carrier AEW/ISTAR role too.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
4,202
@SteveO : They did mention a trans-oceanic ferry range* and autonomous flight. But it's unclear yet if that includes autonomous ferrying.

*at least enough to cross the south Atlantic or jump across the north Atlantic route.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
282
The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).
Through since the Army is looking at using the Valor to replace the Blackhawk it does mean that one of the engines will slowly be dropped over the coming years. Also it wasnt that long ago that the army had 3 engine types in service when the Kiowas were last flying in 2015 so its not that big of a deal.

Plus a version of that engine is used by the other branches else so that will help offset the costs a bit.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,609
The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).
Through since the Army is looking at using the Valor to replace the Blackhawk it does mean that one of the engines will slowly be dropped over the coming years. Also it wasnt that long ago that the army had 3 engine types in service when the Kiowas were last flying in 2015 so its not that big of a deal.

Plus a version of that engine is used by the other branches else so that will help offset the costs a bit.
Agree 100%. However a "sound bite" for the Army was reducing the logistics footprint of the force.
 

Similar threads

Top