Bell V-280 Valor

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 ilunless these dimensions are balleaux.

Chris View attachment 688843

Interesting artwork Chris, I still much prefer the Valor over the Defiant. Though that is just me.
 
Here's a top view of V-280 & Defiant X vs. UH-60, mashed up from Bell and Sikorsky docs... not that much difference between the 2.
 

Attachments

  • V-280 vs. Defiant X v2.png
    V-280 vs. Defiant X v2.png
    76.4 KB · Views: 233
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 wondering, has the Bell V-280 wing and rotors same system like V-22 to fold up into storable position ?
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bell-v-280-valor.19036/post-551164
also:

v-280-image11.jpg

V-280 is still much taller than a Blackhawk. And I'm not really convinced that it is lower than SB1.
Does it really matter if the rotors fold sideways?
 
Of course it is an option, but it will increase complexity, weight and cost. Consequently, the current V-280 (tech demonstrator) does not feature any folding mechanism. We will see if the US Army will put that in the requirements of a future production model.
 
Last edited:
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...

V-280 is still much taller than a Blackhawk. And I'm not really convinced that it is lower than SB1.
At least for the V-280 you can rotate down the props to make them easier to access for maintenance in the same way V-22s do. If you do that the rotor hub is about as high or a little lower than it is on the H-60. Not an option with the SB-1.
 
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 ilunless these dimensions are balleaux.

Chris View attachment 688843
This is junk. You're making the v280 look like it's going to ship with the engines rotated.... which it won't. The helicopter has the be disassembled to be shipped. Big difference. Plus the helicopter is taller my 2 story house.... just think of all the extra long ladders that they would need to buy just to simply check the nuts and bolts for preflight. Either way I think the screwed up. This extra fast vtol should be a supplement to a traditional helicopter fleet....it should not be the fleet. Like 300 for special requirements missions where speed is critical for insertion. There's definitely room for growth over the Blackhawks performance and survability with a still conventional proven helicopter platform. Frankly we are going to see a lot extra deaths and crashes with the tilt rotor.
 
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 ilunless these dimensions are balleaux.

Chris View attachment 688843
This is junk. You're making the v280 look like it's going to ship with the engines rotated.... which it won't. The helicopter has the be disassembled to be shipped. Big difference. Plus the helicopter is taller my 2 story house.... just think of all the extra long ladders that they would need to buy just to simply check the nuts and bolts for preflight. Either way I think the screwed up. This extra fast vtol should be a supplement to a traditional helicopter fleet....it should not be the fleet. Like 300 for special requirements missions where speed is critical for insertion. There's definitely room for growth over the Blackhawks performance and survability with a still conventional proven helicopter platform. Frankly we are going to see a lot extra deaths and crashes with the tilt rotor.
What are you on about?

Chris
 
Last edited:
Just one of those guys that looked at the accident record of the MV-22 during development and early operational introduction and utterly refuses to accept the reality that those accident rates (which were already lower than what the CH-46 had experienced) have been significantly reduced in the 15 years it has been in operational service.

But he does have a point that you were trying to present the V-280's unfolded height & footprint as the representing the final production product... when ALL of the information released shows that production V-280s will have folding capability for at a minimum air-transport, and most-likely normal operational use (just like the USAF's CV-22As all have folding capability despite not seeing the deck of an LHA/LHD except during very specific training scenarios).

The USAF specified folding capability just for air-transport of their CV-22As - just as the US Army will for its V-280-derived combat aircraft.
 
Last edited:
... when ALL of the information released shows that production V-280s will have folding capability for at a minimum air-transport, and most-likely normal operational use...

Folding capability doesn't come for free. As said before, it will drive complexity, weight and cost up.
FLRAA is an US Army program and the Army will require folding capability only if it is absolutely necessary for their use case.
Anyways, I just had a look at Bell's homepage. Actually there isn't a single sentence on that site that highlights folding capability for FLRAA.

https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-280

*Yes, I'm absolutely aware that Bell is promoting all kind of versions of V-280, including a variant with folding capability.
**They even promoted a stealth variant ;)
 

Attachments

  • 8615865ea4ec4eaad2e794116e1007dd.jpg
    8615865ea4ec4eaad2e794116e1007dd.jpg
    97.9 KB · Views: 199
I don't think it was ever stated that Valor will get actuated folding mechanisms like the potential Naval version offers. However, it was already part of the program that both design had to be aero-transportable and then easily setup for airlift.

But let's be also realistic. Valor offers a relocation range and airplane like speed that will allow them to be deployed without requiring cargo planes. It is then only a minor portion of the usage that will require them to be folded. One that probably can do better with extra manhour than some added fix mass on the airframe.
 
But let's be also realistic. Valor offers a relocation range and airplane like speed that will allow them to be deployed without requiring cargo planes. It is then only a minor portion of the usage that will require them to be folded. One that probably can do better with extra manhour than some added fix mass on the airframe.

The Defiant would be restricted by the contra rotating rotors there is an all out maximum speed helicopters can fly at, whereas with the Valor it does not have that problem.
 
But let's be also realistic. Valor offers a relocation range and airplane like speed that will allow them to be deployed without requiring cargo planes. It is then only a minor portion of the usage that will require them to be folded. One that probably can do better with extra manhour than some added fix mass on the airframe.

The Defiant would be restricted by the contra rotating rotors there is an all out maximum speed helicopters can fly at, whereas with the Valor it does not have that problem.
Eyeah one of tge earlier tilt rotor test beds hit like 400knots once and cruised around at 300.

Which isn't that far off from the earlier piston fighters and some jets...
 
The Defiant would be restricted by the contra rotating rotors there is an all out maximum speed helicopters can fly at, whereas with the Valor it does not have that problem.

The X2 configuration is specifically designed to avoid the retreating blade stall problem and other factors that limit the top speed of traditional helicopters. At high speed, the rotors are unloaded and the pusher prop is doing all the work.

Now, it looks like X2 has some scaling issues and maybe Defiant is pushing the limit of effective use of this configuration, but it would absolutely be faster than a conventional helicopter.
 
Now, it looks like X2 has some scaling issues and maybe Defiant is pushing the limit of effective use of this configuration, but it would absolutely be faster than a conventional helicopter.

Was there any idea as to the maximum speed of the Defiant? Just curious.
 
Now, it looks like X2 has some scaling issues and maybe Defiant is pushing the limit of effective use of this configuration, but it would absolutely be faster than a conventional helicopter.

Was there any idea as to the maximum speed of the Defiant? Just curious.

We saw 205 knots on video and Sikorsky claimed between 230 and 250 knots. Not sure they ever demonstrated that but they also didn't have their planned production engine.

The smaller X2 prototype pushed 260 kts, which is one reason why I think there may be scale issues for the larger versions.
 
... when ALL of the information released shows that production V-280s will have folding capability for at a minimum air-transport, and most-likely normal operational use...

Folding capability doesn't come for free. As said before, it will drive complexity, weight and cost up.
FLRAA is an US Army program and the Army will require folding capability only if it is absolutely necessary for their use case.
Anyways, I just had a look at Bell's homepage. Actually there isn't a single sentence on that site that highlights folding capability for FLRAA.

https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-v-280

*Yes, I'm absolutely aware that Bell is promoting all kind of versions of V-280, including a variant with folding capability.
**They even promoted a stealth variant ;)
Looks like a flying DustBuster! Might be useful preventing brown outs:p
 
In addition to discussion about size:

Bell showed a full-scale mock-up of the Valor at the Farnborough air show,
photo from 'Combat Aircraft Journal' October 2022.

Note the text at the bottom: "Bell said that while the platform appears large 'on paper' it will have the same footprint as the UH-60 Black Hawk and will utilize the same infrastructure."

V-280 full-scale mock-up (Combat Aircraft Journal October 2022).jpg
 
It’s look so beautiful VTOL Aircraft, I’m hopefully them what are the British look for replacement Merlins and Puma (which Puma replacement has hold back for some a reason might FLRAA as British been sign (obv roles) agreement recently with American), also they was look for NATO Future Medium Helicopter Request (I think it is replacement for Merlin) or was it EU? I reckons because this V-280 was success bid over Defiant. As British were looking at V-22 and they undecision with this i think due accident rate record and expensive, V22 Refuel and AEW was ideal for this roles.

Which V-280 is cheapest choice compare to osprey, and they can tuck in small hanagar enough for Ie Frigate, Destroyer and more storage in Carrier.

i think it is very good potential Aircraft for British Army and Royal Navy even that picture of folding mechanism which great replacement for Merlin in RN as it is versatile as Valour can use troop transport, (even refueling for F-35 “B” which drone will likely take refuel tanker) but in Jammer environment which might drone cannot operate, good have back up to used), ASW, Attack Roles, AuSW, SARS, don’t think big enough for AEW (as too small for radar on top is it still possible if split 4 aesa bar each side) to do it.

Also British will need to look for long range rather normal helicopter range, one of the reason it does make sense scenario (Pacific ocean) for this aircraft to part of AU+UK+US+Japan+NZ+India Allies, also can across to EU land aid NATO from UK.

Note; edit as spelling and grammar, explaining why) I’m sorry about it.
 
Last edited:
It’s look so beautiful VTOL Aircraft, I’m hopefully them what are the British look for replacement Merlins and Puma (which Puma replacement has hold back for some a reason might FLRAA as British been sign (obv roles) agreement recently with American), also they was look for NATO Future Medium Helicopter Request (I think it is replacement for Merlin) I reckons because this V-280 was success. As British were looking at V-22 and they undecision with this i think due accident rate record and expensive, V22 Refuel and AEW was ideal for this roles.

Which V-280 is cheapest choice, and small hanagar enough for Frigate, Destroyer and more storage in Carrier.

i think it is very good potential for British Army and Royal Navy even that picture of folding mechanism which great replacement for Merlin and Valour can use troop transport, even refueling for F-35 “B”, ASW, Attack Roles, AuSW, SARS, don’t think big enough for AEW Roles but still possible to do it.

Also British will need to look for long range rather normal helicopter range which make sense scenario (Pacific ocean) for this aircraft to part of AKUS+Japan+NZ+India Allies.

I too think the Valor would make a great replacement for the British Merlins and Pumas and also consider the AEW role as well for the Royal Navy aircraft carriers.
 
It’s look so beautiful VTOL Aircraft, I’m hopefully them what are the British look for replacement Merlins and Puma (which Puma replacement has hold back for some a reason might FLRAA as British been sign (obv roles) agreement recently with American), also they was look for NATO Future Medium Helicopter Request (I think it is replacement for Merlin) I reckons because this V-280 was success. As British were looking at V-22 and they undecision with this i think due accident rate record and expensive, V22 Refuel and AEW was ideal for this roles.

Which V-280 is cheapest choice, and small hanagar enough for Frigate, Destroyer and more storage in Carrier.

i think it is very good potential for British Army and Royal Navy even that picture of folding mechanism which great replacement for Merlin and Valour can use troop transport, even refueling for F-35 “B”, ASW, Attack Roles, AuSW, SARS, don’t think big enough for AEW Roles but still possible to do it.

Also British will need to look for long range rather normal helicopter range which make sense scenario (Pacific ocean) for this aircraft to part of AKUS+Japan+NZ+India Allies.

I too think the Valor would make a great replacement for the British Merlins and Pumas and also consider the AEW role as well for the Royal Navy aircraft carriers.
Yeh "if" The Valour AEW exist ; it will increase defensive range and quick sweep, change area if need. (better defensive far away from Carrier Fleet) it is massive improve and upgrade over Merlin AEW.

Big question is .. Can AEW radar be put on top as they often big or split 4 AESA bar each side? Or still noise (signal inference?) by affect by tiltrotar propeller? That why I'm skeptical about these. (im not expert about this; i'm just curious about this)

So UAV AEW might better answer (yet I'm still skeptical about UAV AEW this too, that reason I prefer manned AEW in some area, "ie"what if enemy cut jammer or cut signal link (even hacker) to Carrier / fleet so UAV AEW it is still a risk for my opinion.

Anyway sorry if im off the topic or unrelated topic. Just food thought.
 
Erieye on the fuselage, with panels fore and aft to cover the blind spots. I have no idea if it could lift that weight though.

I have doubts about it's suitably for ships that aren't carrier like. It may be diffucult or impossible to fit in hangars designed for shipboard ASW helicopters even with folding.
 
Isnt the Merlin Radar a pallet system that has the dish stick out the side door and turns down?

Image it be easy to modify that radar to work in the Valor on a similar side mounted set up.

With the Valor higher cieling it will increase that radars effectiveness by a good bit.
 
Isnt the Merlin Radar a pallet system that has the dish stick out the side door and turns down?

Image it be easy to modify that radar to work in the Valor on a similar side mounted set up.

With the Valor higher cieling it will increase that radars effectiveness by a good bit.
Good point.

If it able modified do to this, might good shout meant have to pay extra to do development, fund to do to alone?

Not sure the UK afford do these their own,

if work together USA might they reject this. If shared project will more reduce on development.
 
Erieye would be a good choice for the AEW Valor, I have one question though, what is the maximum range of the Erieye compared to the Wedgetail?
 
Erieye would be a good choice for the AEW Valor, I have one question though, what is the maximum range of the Erieye compared to the Wedgetail?

I reckon Erieye radar range might less than wedgetail and still better than Merlin maybe I’m wrong. Wedgetail is massive range compare as it bigger radar and big platform.

Erieye on the fuselage, with panels fore and aft to cover the blind spots. I have no idea if it could lift that weight though.

I have doubts about it's suitably for ships that aren't carrier like. It may be diffucult or impossible to fit in hangars designed for shipboard ASW helicopters even with folding.

Erieye would better choice, weight might issues. Yet mini Erieye is good option. If cut weight down.

.
if one were to design an AEW on a tilt rotor, wouldn't the Osprey be a better choice than the Valor due to it being bigger?

Yeh agreed, v-22 is better choice yet if too many different aircraft, maintenance or spare part will expensive for the UK budgeting, one aircraft can do all job save money.
 
if one were to design an AEW on a tilt rotor, wouldn't the Osprey be a better choice than the Valor due to it being bigger?

I have been wondering about that for years helmutkohl , I saw an AEW variant of the Osprey doing the rounds on the internet years ago.
 
Where would Erieye go that it wouldn't be looking through the rotors?
Is not that big of deal actually.

Leaving out the fact that most modern military propellers are made of a fairly radar transparent materials. Like the V22s is something like 60 percent transparent to most radar freqs.

And Stealth Helicopters like the RAH66 and that Spec Ops Blackhawks exist.

Many WW2 planes had radars that look through their props without issue. The Marlin comes to mind as the big one

Also Believe the Valor is to have Low Observation Features as stock. An easy way to do that is to add stealth props to the design, cut the return by like 3/4s without changing the Fuselage...
 
Unless the stealth materials are able to tolerate mud and uncontrolled atmospherics (temp and humidity) along with tired dirty maintainers working on them, it will not buy its way onto the basic Army platform. The revelation that the RAH-66 Comanche would have to operate from prepared surfaces was one of the final "nails in the coffin" for that program. Army lives and fights in fields, especially now that airfields are whacking great targets that even the USAF are concerned about.
 
I can envision an arrangement like the ones in the second row down which is in this Marconi advert. I've been working on a theoretical model of the idea.
 

Attachments

  • Marconiaewadvert1984.jpg
    Marconiaewadvert1984.jpg
    88.3 KB · Views: 105
  • V-22 AEW 001.JPG
    V-22 AEW 001.JPG
    148.6 KB · Views: 81
  • V-22 AEW 002.JPG
    V-22 AEW 002.JPG
    135.7 KB · Views: 69
Looking past/through propeller blades isn't that big a problem. E-2 has a similar thing and it's just never been a major issue.

There are at least two configurations shown for V-22 AEW aircraft. One has a dorsal radome -- either a traditional disk or a fixed triangular housing, depending on the timeframe.

DQk2pmgX4AIoTxq.jpg


main-qimg-b1fce10d40a0b6e4fccad9421083e9b3


The other is basically the existing Cerberus AEW radar on a pallet that lowers the radome out the rear ramp. The USMC was interested in the latter (as TOSS) for tracking both air and surface targets, but nothing came of it.


main-qimg-1e7f6ac64498331e03efe25dc86c1c8b-lq
 
Given that the rear ramp would not be of much use in this configuration, why not replace the ramp door with a bulged radio transparent one and hang there the AESA anntena? You could even gain some points in drag reduction.
 
Given that the rear ramp would not be of much use in this configuration, why not replace the ramp door with a bulged radio transparent one and hang there the AESA anntena? You could even gain some points in drag reduction.

Because you presumably want the radar to be able to see forward.

I believe TOSS called for the ramp itself to be removed, and the radar mounted to a bulkhead inside the aft cabin opening. More details (including a better picture) here:

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom