Bell V-280 Valor

They could even name it Cheyenne 2. (Though somebody would probably say that's not PC.)
 
They could even name it Cheyenne 2. (Though somebody would probably say that's not PC.)

We have got the Apache and nobody has complained about that.

All US Army helicopters are named for American Indian tribes. There's a story (true or not) that some tribes actually complained that the Cobra was not named after a tribe. Nowadays, the Army asks permission from tribal authorities before using any tribal names but I don't know of any cases where it was declined.
 
Last edited:
While "Crow" is not as instantly cool as "Blackhawk," it's both the common name of a famous native tribe and a bird, so it fits the tribe tradition of US Army helicopters and bird tradition of US tilt-rotors (all one of them prior to this week.)
 
Are US Army naming conventions still sensible these days? Certainly the USAF and USN seem to have ditched the old naming rulebooks and come up with some questionable choices.

God knows what service designation this will get. Probably UV-280 or CV-280 so they can keep all the marketing materials the same and retain the '280' brand.
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
FjY1YBAXkAYoJvC
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
Certainly more difficult to stuff it into a ship.

Which was probably one of the reasons Bell won with the V-280 against the SB-1.
 
Think also at the poor pilot locked-up in front that would have to manoeuvre a B-25 size aircraft in a glade, clearing tree tops all the way down with all the junk behind him (and no rear view mirrors).
 
Think also at the poor pilot locked-up in front that would have to manoeuvre a B-25 size aircraft in a glade, clearing tree tops all the way down with all the junk behind him (and no rear view mirrors).

Forgetting about the spinning prop at the back of the SB-1 TomcatVIP? Another thing that I did not like about the Defiant.
 
Think also at the poor pilot locked-up in front that would have to manoeuvre a B-25 size aircraft in a glade, clearing tree tops all the way down with all the junk behind him (and no rear view mirrors).

Forgetting about the spinning prop at the back of the SB-1 TomcatVIP? Another thing that I did not like about the Defiant.

The X2 pusher prop is/was clutched and could be shut down for low-speed operations. So that wasn't really a huge problem.
 
The X2 pusher prop is/was clutched and could be shut down for low-speed operations. So that wasn't really a huge problem.

If it was shut down how much weight would it carry at the back of the SB-1, quite a lot I would imagine.
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
Certainly more difficult to stuff it into a ship.

Which was probably one of the reasons Bell won with the V-280 against the SB-1.

I'd be surprised if it was actually a decision criteria for FLRAA.

Honestly, if FVL-Maritime isn't a refreshed/bulked up SH-60 (a la MH-53K), I'll be shocked. There just isn't a pressing need for tilt-rotor speed in an ASW platform.

The X2 pusher prop is/was clutched and could be shut down for low-speed operations. So that wasn't really a huge problem.

If it was shut down how much weight would it carry at the back of the SB-1, quite a lot I would imagine.

Same weight as when it wasn't shut down. Do you mean drag? If so, the prop also feathers so it doesn't create a lot of drag.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't find a GA of the V-280, so knocked this up from photos. Is there a reason there's no decent shots of the upper surfaces?

Any tweaks/adjustments, please let me know. I know the rotors look crap, so need to work on those.

Chris Bell V-280 Valor Master A4.png
 
There is a likelihood the USMC will consider the FLRAA solution again, for its H-1 replacement, now that a tilt rotor solution appears available. Certainly, it will require modification (marinization, automatic folding, etc.) from the base Army FLRAA, but the folded footprint should be similar to that of the H-1 aircraft.
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
Certainly more difficult to stuff it into a ship.
True but the V280's footprint - either hangar or ramp or LZ - is rather large.

So... how will the UH-xx version of the V-280 look? Always looked at the V-280 as a demonstrator more than a prototype.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
Certainly more difficult to stuff it into a ship.
True but the V280's footprint - either hangar or ramp or LZ - is rather large.

So... how will the UH-xx version of the V-280 look? Always looked at the V-280 as a demonstrator more than a prototype.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
I suspect it will mostly be the same. "if it ain't broke..." More warts and bumps, the usual stuff, but I would be surprised if it sprouts a "T" tail and such. The footprint is not that much larger than the H-60 and the Army might have to learn to turn aircraft ~45 degrees to fit more in them into the hanger. I am hopeful the USMC is going to buy in and we will see a folding version soon enough. At least they won't need a new crane in the hanger to pull the main module and rotor hub.
I have to think that was one of the deciding factors as well. The module is almost the size of a CH-53K and likely has similar weight. I don't think the Army has a field capable crane (remember the Army operates in the dirt) that can handle that. Also 16 rotor blades per aircraft, versus 6. Tough math for logisticians and maintainers alike.
 
There is a likelihood the USMC will consider the FLRAA solution again, for its H-1 replacement, now that a tilt rotor solution appears available. Certainly, it will require modification (marinization, automatic folding, etc.) from the base Army FLRAA, but the folded footprint should be similar to that of the H-1 aircraft.
Bell has shown this navalised Valor concept.
 

Attachments

  • image_50432257.jpg
    image_50432257.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 96
  • Bell V-280 Navy-Marines Cut Sheet Front.jpeg
    Bell V-280 Navy-Marines Cut Sheet Front.jpeg
    827.8 KB · Views: 93
  • Bell V-280 Navy-Marines Cut Sheet Back.jpeg
    Bell V-280 Navy-Marines Cut Sheet Back.jpeg
    644.8 KB · Views: 85
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
I imagine it came down to that very reason. Would it even fit in a c5 let alone a 17? Was it going to ferry from conus to the middle east or Europe? If it can't deploy easily then its no better than having nothing at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the pics, I've been working from photos of the beast rather than CGI. I'll have a look at the drawing if I get a chance today. What I'm looking for is detail of the engine/rotor nacelle (intake, tilt arrangement and the nose profile in plan.

Chris Untitled.jpg
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
I imagine it came down to that very reason. Would it even fit in a c5 let alone a 17? Was it going to ferry from conus to the middle east or Europe? If it can't deploy easily then its no better than having nothing at all.

I couldnt find a good side by side comparison of the Valor and Defiant? to see the size differences

but looking at your pic here, height wise it definitely seems like it would not fit in a transport aircraft without disassembling the rotors
and those contra rotating rotors look quite complicated

tbh, both the valor and defiant, as blackhawk replacements, do worry me a bit as they are both significantly more complex and perhaps costly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wondering, has the Bell V-280 wing and rotors same system like V-22 to fold up into storable position ?
 
I wondering, has the Bell V-280 wing and rotors same system like V-22 to fold up into storable position ?
Look at the photo and the text of the images in post #790.

Looks like the starboard V-fin lowers to a horizontal position to allow the wing to rotate into folded position.
 
tbh, both the valor and defiant, as blackhawk replacements, do worry me a bit as they are both significantly more complex and perhaps costly
Apperantly the V22 has one of the best Maintaince per Flight in the rotor fleet.

Like for every one hour for flight its 8 in maintaince compare to the blackhawk or seahawks 1 in 12. Forgot the exact numbers but do know its noticeably lower.

While that might much it is a huge decrease in maintenance cost and a massive increase in readiness.

With the V280 being both Simpler in design and less moving parts it should increase that.
 
i think one of reason that Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant was not selected
was do enormous size of there Helicopter, while Bell V-280 has much lower profile...
FjY1YBAXkAYoJvC

V-280 is still much taller than a Blackhawk. And I'm not really convinced that it is lower than SB1.
Edit: Another pic added
20221209_123135.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20221217_150225.jpg
    20221217_150225.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Now then... Here are side views of Valor and Defiant. I had trouble finding a rotor diameter for the Defiant, but 50ft seems to be the concensus, while 35ft seems to be the diameter of the Valor.

Not much difference unless these dimensions are balleaux.

Chris Defiant vs Valor.png
 
Last edited:
Its should be pointed out that the V280 becomes so much short far easier by copying over the V22 folding mechanism.

Which should be easier.

So loot at the top of the engine pods, not the top of the rotors.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom