New Bell product - Bell V280

[chopper2004]

Saw this on my Facebook account alert around half an hour ago that Bell was announcing something new within 10 mins or so at Quad A

BellV280.com (http://bellv280.com/)

Cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/Military/Military.html

Nothing at the bell home web site, might this be a "hey, why don't you guys write a requirements document for this because we want part of the UH-60M market" or something like that?

Then again, might be a "future capability" brief at AAAA.

[Savoia]

Blackhawk meets AW609!

If such a vehicle were to be commissioned I have my doubts as to whether it could achieve an operating cost below say a stretched version of the Sikorsky Raider.

Tilt-rotors are, for the moment, notoriously expensive to both build and operate!

[Rabina]

Guaranteed to have compound walls programmed into the navigation database no doubt.

[chopper2004]

1O3Onyas984

[tottigol]

Just like this...:rolleyes:

Avatar RDA Scorpion Gunship review (redo) - YouTube

[Anthony Supplebottom]

I had read that James Cameron had bought shares in Textron, now we know why. :p

[SansAnhedral]

Just like this...

Oh how clever of you, but I think AW had the Avatar Scorpion copy-contest pretty well covered with Project Zero (unless you are merely comparing color):

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AW1038-Project-Zero_1.jpg

Plus, it looks like Bell was astute enough to know not to keep ducts around the rotors for edgewise flight....something that it appears Agusta had to discover sometime over the course of their secret 2 years (based on the photos)

[Gemini Twin]

Excellent idea Rabina!

[riff_raff]

This is Bell's JMR/FVL medium concept. Sikorsky and Bell are the two most likely candidates for JMR flight demo contracts (a Sikorsky compound and a Bell tiltrotor). Sikorsky and Bell have the most experience with their respective configurations which gives them a big advantage over their JMR competition in terms of development risk.

While the Bell V-280 fuselage does bear some resemblance externally to the Blackhawk, there actually is a valid reason for Bell doing this. The FVL medium is intended to replace the US Army Blackhawks, and it's well known that the US Army is very conservative when it comes to adopting new aircraft. By giving their V-280 fuselage a similar appearance to the Blackhawk I think they are trying to create a sense of familiarity with the Army, and thus a reduced perception of development risk.

Another thing that shows Bell is serious about minimizing development risks, whether perceived or real, is the V-280's use of a non-tilting engine. While this approach makes the drivetrain design a bit more complex, it also means that they won't have the added cost and risk involved to develop and certify a new turboshaft engine model that can tilt.

I personally think the Army would be better off with a tiltrotor for FVL. While a compound would be a bit less risky, the tiltrotor has more potential for future improvements in terms of speed, payload, range, etc.

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Should be an interesting competition with two hybrids in the running.
I bet no matter what they choose as a Blackhawk replacement it won't be on time or under budget!
Im assuming it will have to be air transportable like the '60s so will be very interested to see how they would stow the wings and tail for a C-17 trip.
Self protection will be a bit different too, no door gunners like the '60s. That's an absolute must-have but not shown in the photos.
Should be a great competition!

[Ian Corrigible]

In all its subscale glory:

http://i.imgur.com/lVhyaZR.jpg

Going to be interesting to see whether FVL-M does end up with a Hawk-sized cabin, or whether a larger troop load-out is selected. Some of the preliminary studies point to something closer in weight to a Chinook. Let's see if it weathers mission creep better than JHL did.

I/C

[PhlyingGuy]

Im assuming it will have to be air transportable like the '60s

V-22's today are self-deployable with air refueling... the same will go for this concept.

[Savoia]

Riff Raff: I hear what you're saying and there's no denying that with those massive pylon-wings you should be able to lift some impressive loads - especially if they develop the rolling take-off technique.

But the 'planform' of this contraption is considerably larger (and therefore in my view more vulnerable) than the Raider concept. Plus, with the tilt-rotor you have two unique heat signatures effectively giving your assailant unnecessary opportunity.

I understand the advantages of swift troop insertion/extraction but .. at what cost? Financial analysts predict that US defence budgeting will come under increasing strain over the next two decades with the role of the Defence Secretary requiring skills more closely associated with that of alchemy than tactical politics and at the moment I simply can't see how titlt-rotor technology can be cost-effective. I may be wrong.

TukTuk: As Phlying has said, the larger troop-carrying versions are designed to be self-deployable .. if not through in-flight refueling then by leap-frogging (if the US has sufficient allies in the right places at the right time to accommodate their fuel stores).

Re: Door gunners .. surely these are a thing of the past .. except for movie-makers! This function can be far better served by a weapons officer or second pilot using fore and aft mounted turrets through electronic sights. If it doesn't already exist then I am sure it is only a matter of time until this function is completely automated with the role of the weapons officer/second pilot merely being that of confirming that the computer has identified a hostile as opposed to friendly target.

[ARRAKIS]

Going to be interesting to see whether FVL-M does end up with a Hawk-sized cabin, or whether a larger troop load-out is selected. Some of the preliminary studies point to something closer in weight to a Chinook. Let's see if it weathers mission creep better than JHL did.
Based on what was published, there was a requirement for 24" per seat width and at least 66" cabin height. If nothing changed, it would mean more a S-92 size cabin.


Arrakis

[tottigol]

Mmhh, Bell walked out of the 609...I wonder what the development costs and TIMES are going to be for this...

Plus they are likely to need a gross weight increase AFTER they give it to the ARMY.:rolleyes:

But I believe that in the end Bell shall try to sell the ARMY the umpteenth development of the 412.:E

I vote for the Raider.

[SansAnhedral]

Why do people keep talking about the Raider for FVL?

It's far below FVL medium size requirements. Sikorsky and Boeing have already shown their concept art.

To date, no ABC/X2 has been built with a GW greater than what 12,000lb, and about a 35' rotor diameter. Anyone care to guess why that might be?

And how is a compound less risky? There is zero precedent in service. You have a whole fleet of V22s with over 150k flight hours in operation. No ABC has ever been even remotely fielded. The highest time on any ABC prototype airframe was what? 100 hours?

As discussed ad nauseum in the X2 threads on here, while the whole aerodynamic concept of a high hinge offset ABC rigid rotor is scalable, the reality of blade construction and subsequent required rotor spacing means drag increases exponentially. Do we all forget how Sikorsky suddenly dropped their large scale 737-fuselaged concepts in late 2006? Why was XH59 abandoned in favor of tiltrotors in the late 70s early 80s for JVX?

Simply put, a large scale X2 concept is a dog and pony show. I would not be surprised if Sikorsky and Boeing go to FVL and demo with the S97, and then CLAIM that it can be scaled up to FVL medium requirements.

Both Boeing and Sikorsky want FVL dead. Their revenue streams exist with UH60 and AH64. Boeing teaming up with Sikorsky is a win-win for them. But they have to make a presence in the FVL competition either way. The cheapest option is to show the large scale concept art, demo the S97, make outlandish claims (i.e. $15 mil for S97), and try to get the program killed.


http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/GrahamW/Sirkosky%20JMR%20X2.jpg

Plus who in the world would say this thing was "considerably smaller"? Sure, the S-97 is considerably smaller than the Bell....because it is being pitched for AAS against a Kiowa.

[Savoia]

Why do people keep talking about the Raider for FVL?

In my case I am talking about the economics of Raider vs Tilt-Rotor irrespective of FVL and in a compatible comparison (ie. between two aircraft of similar size and payload specification).

[SansAnhedral]

In my case I am talking about the economics of Raider vs Tilt-Rotor irrespective of FVL and in a compatible comparison (ie. between two aircraft of similar size and payload specification).

Well then you have no baseline with which to compare, which was partially my point. Saying that a given tiltrotor is expensive to build and operate is a statement relative to a simple helicopter, not to some wholly unbuilt and untested compound.

Where does one get the idea that a coaxial ABC is simpler or cheaper than anything? Theres a valid technical argument that you cannot even build a functional high speed ABC above a certain rotor diameter. So scaling up actually argues the opposite point.

(Plus, you don't honestly believe the Sikorsky line that an S-97 would cost $15 million do you? Maybe without mission systems or a rotor!)

Has Bell even mentioned the target cost of this aircraft yet?

[Savoia]

Well then you have no baseline with which to compare ..

Let me put it in even 'plainer' English; I already said that my remarks relate to a 'compatible comparison' irrespective of whether or not the Raider can achieve any specific size.

If for example the Raider's 'constructional limit' it a 10 place aircraft then what I am saying .. is that I believe it will be me more cost-effective to build and maintain the Raider concept than a Tilt-Rotor of comparable size.

As far as actual figures (in terms of cost) are concerned, no one has a clue and nor will they until these concepts are further developed. My sole argument is simply that a comparable size Raider will be more cost-effective than a Tilt-Rotor (and which I do not believe is a startling revelation) and which belief will be borne out by time alone!

[SansAnhedral]

We appear to be going in circles.

Nobody suggests a tiltrotor is more cost effective than an X2 at the particular size of S97. Thats precisely why sikorsky went and built that thing unsolicited; its at the max of the veritable X2 gross weight sweet spot.

For anything larger, especially FVL-M, the cost effectiveness of one over the other is entirely indeterminate (though we at least have data and a precedent of multiple tiltrotor machines), and thats assuming theres some magic blade recipe that can avoid tip interaction and self destruction at 60 foot diameters during manuever.

My sole argument is simply that a comparable size Raider will be more cost-effective than a Tilt-Rotor (and which I do not believe is a startling revelation)

I find that startling. My argument is that your assessment that an X2 coax is more cost effective at any given comparable size has no basis. Where do you derive that axiom? What makes a given ABC coax inherently less complex or expensive than a tiltrotor? I contend the complexity is entirely on par.

[keesje]

This is Bell's JMR/FVL medium concept. Sikorsky and Bell are the two most likely candidates for JMR flight demo contracts (a Sikorsky compound and a Bell tiltrotor). Sikorsky and Bell have the most experience with their respective configurations which gives them a big advantage over their JMR competition in terms of development risk.

I wonder if Eurocopter will compete. They are developing an advanced X6 medium helicopter and a militairy aimed similar sized helicopter using X3 technology.

X3 Flight Demo at the Paris Air Show 2011 - YouTube

[riff_raff]

...But the 'planform' of this contraption is considerably larger (and therefore in my view more vulnerable) than the Raider concept. Plus, with the tilt-rotor you have two unique heat signatures effectively giving your assailant unnecessary opportunity...Savoia- For sure, reducing IR is much easier with a conventional helo. The Comanche was a great example of how effectively it can be done. With a tiltrotor having tilting engines the long length (3 or 4 feet) of an engine exhaust IR suppression device can create ground clearance issues.

FVL won't enter service for at least another decade, and the model specs for each of the (4?) variants are still very much a work in progress. However, the BAA issued for the JMR phase I TD aircraft (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2468984175fefdaa30f61f4a9f3098a0) has requirements for DGW of 30,000lb or less, and a speed of 230+kts. Sikorsky had to push hard to reach 250kts with their X2 demonstrator design, which was optimized for only going fast. Once compound helo designs like X2 or EC's X3 make the compromises needed to meet FVL program requirements for payload, range, cabin volume, etc., they will be hard-pressed to attain 250kt speeds. On the other hand, tiltrotors can easily achieve 250kt speeds.

[HeliStudent]

It looks as if there could be larger X2 technology on offer.

http://www.my-walls.net/wallpapers/2012/11/Helicopter-Transport-Project-2855h2142-485x728.jpg

[Commando Cody]

Regarding Tilt-Rotor (TR) vs. ABC, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

A TR is always going to have the penalty of the weight and area of the wing. Although you can have much more twist in the blades of a TR (because there is no need to design for the case where the blades are flying through the air sideways at higher speeds), the smaller the size of the air vehicle, the greater proportion taken up by the wing. On the other hand, once you stop hovering, you have the advantage of having the wing. Your propulsion source doesn't have to be your lift force as well, which gives you greater efficiency and performance. The ratio of hover to forward flight determines which is the most efficient. It's worth remembering that there were likely going to be two TR proposal for LHX until the Army reversed course and changed the specs so as to preclude a TR bid. From the information that leaked, it looked like the TR proposals would far outperform helos, even allowing for the hovering penalty.

A TR does offer lower risk. The XH-59 was pretty much a flop, and the X2, unquestionably an impressive achievement, was years late and has only demonstrated a few minutes at its design speed, whereas the XV-15 was routinely cruising at those speeds and above over 30 years ago.

A TR of course offers higher speeds. In the case of the V-280, the power driver was the 6K 95F requirement. With the power to do that, the 280 knot speed came as a byproduct, not a driver. It also offers longer range, because of that wing, and lower fuel burn, since it can run at proportionately lower power settings while wingborne. Self deployment is relatively easy for a TR, as was demonstrated when V-22s were suddenly deployed from Afghanistan to the Libyan theater. Self- deployment is especially important for them, since it looks like it'll be a easier (if the height permits it) to stuff an ABC vehicle in a C-17 than a TR.

The control system on a TR can be argued to be simpler since there is no need for a separate system to provide thrust. An ABC can fit in a narrower LZ, but it looks like a TR can fit in a shorter one, and there's no need to worry about what the aft prop is doing relative to obstructions and personnel. I can't tell if the arc of the proprotors on the V-280 extend beyond the nose. If you watch Sikorsky's videos on ABC operations, they show the propeller not being brought on line until airborne. This can have an affect on operations and will have a big impact on civil use of the concept for EMS, since one of the big concerns in that arena is the tailrotor and people near it. One other thing: With a TR, at least in the attack version, conventional ejection seats could be provided for the flight crew, not practical with ABC.

Final cost will depend a lot on how the gov't specs out the final requirement, and how much they add on to the desired capabilities and what they stuff into the contract. I simply do not believe that Sikorsky (or anyone) could deliver the Raider for $15 million. Like a TR, the flyaway costs of an ABC are going to be more than that of a conventional rotorcraft. Like a TR, you mke it up in the back end and needing fewer vehicles o accomplish your missions. If all they want is a conventional helo can do (watch what they do with the speed and range requirements), then neither advanced concept a chance. If they back off to 150-175 knots and lower range requirements, both of these technologies will go away.

As to why Bell left the 609, I suspect part of that was that they needed to concentrate all their resources on the V-22 program and that they hired certain people at senoir level (and they definitely needed new blood at that level) who were known not to be fans of TR.

One other thing: door gunners. While in an attack bird, remotely operated turrets are the way to go, in the assault mission they can not react fast enough, don't have the versatility and are much more expensive and trouble prone than guys in the doors. Consider a situation where the vehicle has landed to infil/exfil. The turrets are pretty much out of the picture. Also, when low and slow for whatever reason, you can do a lot more with door gunners than with a turret, especially if there are bad guys on both sides. It's no accident that USMC as decided to give priority to getting UH-1Ys over AH-1Zs.

[cattletruck]

Here's the B model :E

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/flv280b2.jpg


This is how they shoulda made it. The coat hanger design with the big prop (rotor) on top provides better auto capabilities. Point it forward and wheels retract and the struts supporting the gearbox become a lift producing airfoil.

Of course, I purport to know Evry Ting, he lives down the road.

[Ian Corrigible]

Somewhere in Texas...

PR person: "Okay, so we've covered performance, range, technology and safety. Is there anything else we want to mention in the press release?"

Program manager: "No, I think that covers it. Let's go to press!"

PR person: "What about downwash. Do we want to mention downwash?"

Program manager: "Err...no. It's good as it stands, let's get it printed!"

PR person: "Are you sure? Isn't that something people will ask about?"

Program manager: "Well possibly, but it's not really something we want to draw attention to. The Valor's downwash is likely to be a bit greater than for other types. Let's just go with what we've got."

PR person: "Nah, I really think we should mention it. How about this..."

• Suitable down wash (http://bellv280.com/bell-helicopter-introduces-the-bell-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-at-aaaa/)
:E

I/C

[SansAnhedral]

Well at the DGW of FVL-M from the BAA and the apparent rotor radius / solidity from the models, the downwash should be well south of a V22/CH53/HH47 at the very least.

[Commando Cody]

One of the reasons, aside from smaller size/weight, the downwash should be less is that at this size they don't have to worry about required safety clearance between the rotor arc and the island of the Marines' air capable ships. On the V-22, the rotor disc is smaller than optimum for that reason and so that an Osprey can fold up within its own length and width of the empennage.

Regarding the HH-47, now there's downwash! The UK found as their Chinooks approached the LZ in troop insertion operations, the downwash would actually set off shallowly buried land mines.

[JohnDixson]

CC, I'd guess that those readers who have ventured into unfriendly LZ's concur with your point re door gunners ( assuming that this aircraft is tasked with that type of mission ).

Two other points will sooner or later come up when considering a TR for this replacement program, points raised by V-22 experience and resultant constraints in their flight manual:

1. Can the JMR TR operational requirement accept a 40 kt/ -800ft/min envelope restriction?
2. Same question, but applied to the no closer than 250 ft separation between aircraft in the LZ?

Thanks,
John

[Commando Cody]

John,

Those restrictions are part of the original procedures developed prior to fully investigating the Osprey's relationship with VRS. In the Osprey, if one rotor goes into VRS, you get massive roll. In a twin rotor like the CH-46, you go end over end. Since then, and with the flight envelope testing they should have done back then, it's been found that the V-22 is less prone to VRS than most conventional helos, and more importantly is easier to recover (you blip the nacelles a few degrees and the proprotors are in "clean" air and out of VRS). They've also put a VRS condition warning on there which the crews consider more of a distraction than an asset. My understanding is that when an actual tactical situation requires it they do exceed that limitation. V-22s also do put out a bit of rotor wash, which unlike a conventional helo in forward flight, goes aft, not down. This is why there is a limitation of 250 ft. cockpit to V-22 ahead or avoid a 30 degree bearing off the tail when flying at same or lower altitude when within 250 feet. That's why you rarely see them fly in trail. It's not dangerous, just different.

In any case, the two questions you pose are specific to the V-22, its size and its less than optimum disc area (imposed becuase of the shipboard requirement and other original JVX specifications when they tried to make it another F-111--all things to all people). They are not a function of Tilt-Rotor technology itself. JMR/FVL is for a smaller, and more agile vehicle, so it's not likley that those procedures would be required.

[SansAnhedral]

Are V22 flight envelope restrictions relevent to a completely different aircraft with purported lower downwash (and therefore disc loading)?

Bell claimed that lower disc loading on the BA609 incresed max RoD before VRS. Seems like they planned on a 800ft/min "normal operation limit" based on some sort of safety factor, since VRS occured 2000-5000ft/min. This is an old article, so I wonder if flight testing has since expanded the "normal" RoD limits.

Staying flexible - and safe (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/staying-flexible-and-safe-142294/)

The issue of vortex ring state highlighted by the V-22 crash will be tackled mainly by training pilots to stay within the proper flight envelope, says Barbour, and by teaching them how to recognise and escape the condition. A form of rotary-wing stall, vortex ring state occurs when the aircraft catches up with the wake ejected by the rotor. "That will require a very high rate of descent in this aircraft because of our disc loading, and this is desirable for us," he says.

The normal rate of descent in the BA609 will be 300-500ft/min. At 800ft/min the pilot will receive an indication that descent rate has reached the limit of normal operations. This is well below the 2,000-5,000ft/min rate required to enter vortex ring state, says Barbour. And if the pilot does encounter vortex ring, escape will be a matter of tilting the nacelles down and applying power to accelerate out of the proprotor wake, he says.

[JohnDixson]

CC, one interpretation of your note might be that the reasons cited at the time for the Marana and Eglin events were incorrect. Nonetheless, the accidents happened, and the descriptions of the flight situations involved in each weren't really out of the ordinary. As in, for instance, anyone ever get stacked up by the leader going into a hot LZ? Out of the 44K Vietnam pilots, there might be only 8-10 thousand in that category. Anyone ever get in the down wash of the ship in front while in formation? Same answer. Stuff happens and the JMR ought to be able to handle it. Is the argument that the JMR TR will be different, immune to V-22 proclivities? Bell will have to answer that query, and it will be interesting to see the response.

Not an anti-V-22 rant. It is a very fine machine, whose efficiency doing certain tasks is excellent. Every different rotor propulsion system has its strong points and compromises, be it single MR, tandem, coax, stiff coax, TR. Mission requirements will shine a bright light on which strong points and compromises make the most sense.

Thanks,
John

[Commando Cody]

John,

Point I was making is that a TR is not more difficult or more dangerous, but it is different, and the tactics are as well. You've got those big proprotors blowing aft in forward flight, and the vector of that changes during transition as well. That's why they normally don't fly directly behind each other. The wake, if you will, is bigger than a comparable conventional helo.

By the same token, though, normally one conventional helo (or ABC) is not going to formate directly under another at close range, whereas with a TR you could, in forward flight.

As has been reported elsewhere, a refueling package is under study for the V-22. It already can normally refuel from a KC-135, which no helo can do, but it also has the speed to act as a tanker for fixed wings, for example USMC's F/A18s and AV-8s. It's still going to have its wake, but that's jsut something that will have to be planned for, just like it is for a -135, -130 or other tnaker. Of course, tanking operations won't be taking place at 500-100 ft. either! Flight testing will find out.

Accidents do happen, but they happen to everything. One of the more famous, for example, was the H-60 crash on Mt. Hood during a rescue attempt. From the video, it looked like a classic case of VRS, but could have also been a tail rotor malfunction.

It's not a matter of a JMR being immune to V-22 proclivities, they are differently sized aircraft performing a different mission. A JMR is not a V-22. It's a smaller aircraft with an optimally sized proprotor. Bell has already said they're looking at ways to reduce downwash in the hover, and that should also benefit the wake. As with anything, you have to make some choices. Do the speed, range and other advantages outweigh other factors that may be more problematical?

An ABC is going to have to answer the same questions, and it's going to have issues of its own. We have very little data on ABC, but a lot on TR. One of the things that came out in V-22 development is our computer models aren't as good as we thoght. We still need to do real flying to get answers and this will be true of ABC as well.

This isn't an anti-ABC rant, BTW. I'm simply saying that TR won't be the only advanced technology for which questions will have to be answered. Frankly, TR and ABC look like the only things to be viable to meet the Army's desires.

[JohnDixson]

CC, now really! The Mt Hood to-do an example of VRS! As the Great Communicator might say: " There you go again". Not meant personally, of course, but the amount of misinformation promulgated in the wake of a few of the V-22 ooops events as regarding basic helicopters all being subject to VRS at the 40 kt/-800fpm boundary was simply unbelievable. Notice that one never caught the Project Pilot, Tom McDonald speaking thusly.

Anyhow, the Mt. Hood fiasco was a case of the pilot running the engines against the T4.5 limiter, drooping Nr, hence drooping tail rotor Nr as well. Rotor lift being a V squared function, the result was a descending right yaw spiral into the snow as the video showed. No mystery there.

It looks as though you at least are convinced that Bell now understands the shortcomings of the present TR design and has the answers as to how and why the Marana and Eglin events will be designed out of the next version. Have to say they have been really quiet about that aspect of things. And it is not simply a downwash velocity question alone, necessarily. When a few empty moments are available, do a hand calculation of the Marana blade loading number ( Ct/sigma ), allowing a reasonable addition for the increase required for the deceleration.

Not certain that I have read the JMR news correctly, but it appears that they want to have two competing prototypes, and I guess that means a fly-off. A very healthy and in the long run, a cost-effective way for the Army to know they have the right machine. The Army was quite thorough in the UTTAS fly-off, doing both an engineering and an operational comparison, using both their test pilots and a group of specially selected operational pilots ( including some with very little experience-on purpose ). Prior to the formal fly-off, there was a preliminary evaluation at Boeing and at Sikorsky, and that evaluation included power off landings ( not talking about power recoveries here ) for each of the three government pilots. Something else for the Bell TR folks to think about.

All of that in the future.

Thanks,
John

[Commando Cody]

John,

I didn't say Mt. Hood was VRS, just that from the video it looked like it. Since I've never seen the accident report, I totally accept what you say...


Regarding a fly-off, I enthusiastically hope it is so. They always pay off in the long run, but because of the high upfront costs, they are now few and far between. In modern times we had UTTAS, AAH, A-X, ACF and then JSF (no I didn't forget ATF, that wasn't a flyoff-- 'nother story for a different time). I think we'd be well served by a flyoff between the two concepts, but I am not hopeful giving fiscal priorities.

There is an implication, I perceive, in your post that TRs can't autorotate to full landing. This is something that comes from the fact that the V-22 normally won't. That is true, because it wasn't required to. The requirement specified a survivable landing either through autorotation or through gliding to a short rolling landing. The V-22 team chose the latter. The larger the aircraft, the tougher an autorotation all the way gets to be to accomplish. A JetRanger does it nicely, the XV-15 was pretty good (although with only two they were not going to take it all the way), a CH-53, not so much. I suspect that if that is written in as a a pass/fail requirement, the V-680 will be able to do it, just like Sikorsky's JMR submission will.

I really hope we get a flyoff, but I'm not optimistic.

[JohnDixson]

CC, your mention of the AAH fly off brought to mind some memories. You will recall that SA built the S-67 with company funds, and later, in 1971, equipped it with an external stores ( rockets and/or aux tanks ) and armament system. F-111 head up display with low light level TV, a 3-barrel 20 mm turret run off a helmet mounted display, ins driven dig-map etc, all pretty good stuff for that time.

By the time the AAH RFP came out, SA was in good position to compete, but was not selected for the fly-off. While the UH-60 started deliveries in 1978, the AH-64 didn't reach the Army until six years later. I was down at Ft Rucker shortly after that, and had a look at the AH-64 , which had adopted a flying stabilator. The way it is/was mounted, it was easy to look at the installation and the actuator. Guess what: the actuator part number started with 70xx.... It was a Sikorsky Blackhawk stabilator part. Nothing illegal, of course, as the design belonged to the government.

Water under the bridge, and I supposed that DOD did not want too many eggs in one basket, but I always believed that if SA had been selected for the AAH fly-off, the SA candidate would have won and certainly been in the hands of the Army pilots a lot earlier than 1984.

Thanks,
John

[heli1]

Being a history buff the illustrations of the Valor reminded me of designs for tilt rotors produced by Raoul Hafner in the 1960s ,using the same basic engine/tilting gearbox design. Anyone else do similar?

[SansAnhedral]

Can't say I have ever seen anything from Hafner that approached a tiltrotor. Everything I recall from memory resembled an autogyro. Do you have any links/images?

[Savoia]

Anyone else do similar?

Heli1: There were several tilt-rotor types subsequent to the 1955 Bell XV-3 including a number of 'tilt-wing' projects one of which was the 1964 NASA testbed the XC-142 which I always thought looked most interesting:

qzhEmscJRU4

And if you wanted something where the just the rotors tilted then the ducted fan Doak VZ-4 was another interesting contraption:

6vbVN1JQGY8

[Commando Cody]

John,

Interesting observations on AAH. I knew one of the folks who was on the evaluation committee (this was about 15 years afterward), and he told me that when they first set down to evaluate the proposals, one thing they all agreed was that, "We are Not going to select 'Son of Cheyenne'". So, Lockheed had two strikes from the start. I also think that because Sikorsky was able to develop the S-67, which came close to matching AH-56's performance for a fraction of the R&D cost that this embarassed Army leadership and so Sikorsky had two strikes against it as well.

[JohnDixson]

We're getting away from the point of this thread, so let me respond re the pre-AAH flying via PM.

Thanks,
John

[Commando Cody]

Savoia,

XC-142 was really a Tilt-Wing rather than a Tilt-Rotor. While it was tested extensively and advanced concepts were proposed, it didn't go very far for a few reasons.

For one thing, in vertical mode, you were essentially pushing the largest airbrake in the world through the air, meaning less efficiency During transition, you're flying with a partially stalled wing and rotors that aren't at maximum efficiency, which limits the kinds of maneuvers you can do during that phase. Also, until transition is fairly far along, you're not getting much benefit from the wing. There's also a pretty high disc loading, which can lead to the autorotational characteristics of a brick. And, of course a tilting wing is heavy and complex.

Bell's concept stems from the realization that you don't really need to tilt the whole wing, just the rotors. The wing starts generating lift as soon as there is any forward motion, transition either way does not impose any extra maneuvering limitations, the whole thing weighs less, etc.

For JMR, the proof will be in the pudding...

[heli1]

Sans anhedral.....will try and dig them out.his schemes were more airliner orientated and much later than his autogiro days.
Also I was discounting the tilt wing which is very different.the Doak is close though.

[Savoia]

CC: Thanks for your responses.

Do you have any thoughts on the 1958 Doak VZ-4 concept which used rotating ducted fans?

[SansAnhedral]

Rotating ducted fans, while they make for great movie props (think avatar), however the ring is a huge detriment in edgewise flight.

You might have noticed (based upon the pictures) that sometime over the course of a couple years of top secret flight testing, AgustaWestland removed them from their Project Zero machine.

Looks like they may not have anticipated the aerodynamic behavior and had to learn the old fashioned way.

[Commando Cody]

Savioa:

The VZ-4 was tested for a year at Edwards AFB, then given to NASA in 1959. They did some tests, found some undesirable flight characteristics which may have been correctable with technology that would have been invented in years to come. It never did demonstrate its promised performance, I believe. Douglas liked the concept and bought the rights, and proposed an improved version to the US Army in 1961, but there was little interest. The company that seemed to go furthest with the concept was, ironically, Bell with their X-22.

http://www.kamov.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/X-22-Aircraft.jpg

Since they were also flying their XV-3 at the time, they could compare the two technologies and decided that Tilt-Rotor had more promise and practicality. Since then no one seems to have pursued the concept.

The VZ-4 is on display at the U.S. Army Transportation Museum located at Fort Eustis, Virginia. The X-22 is said to be going on display at the Niagra Aerospace Museum in New York, opening in May, and the XV-3 is at the Air Force Museum at Dayton, Ohio

[Commando Cody]

Here's an earlier Bell concept drawing of what would evolve into the V-280.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/GrahamW/Bell%20JMR.JPG

[chopper2004]

Last month, attended Heli Expo 2016 and here are my photos of the mock up

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7526_zpszrbqqfra.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7521_zpswdwdrvcx.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7528_zps6dnt8vin.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7533_zpsju8uunux.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7545_zpso9ujw1ze.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7561_zpsgve4ub8l.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger033/IMG_7565_zpsnsevb1rj.jpg

[mickjoebill]

What do you call that glass cockpit? It looks a metre in width! Assuming it can display a view from a fixed forward facing camera, it looks like it would create a virtual reality, albeit a "through the window effect" rather than a first person pic as you get with VR goggles

Very interesting. What do you think if additional cameras were used and the screen was extended so it wrapped around the cabin, giving a 180 degree "view" of what is otherwise obscured? A 4x4 car manufacture is working on such a idea so the driver can "see" through the dashboard to view what is directly in front of the wheels.


Mickjoebill

[riff_raff]

The Bell V-280 JMR-TD seems to be coming along nicely from the pictures shown here:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/JMR_3_%20Mike%20Calcote-Textron.jpg

The quality of the airframe shown in the pictures seems much better than what you would normally expect in a prototype.

[Praet]

Anyone know the intended cabin dimensions or at least its height?

[Lonewolf_50]

The Bell V-280 JMR-TD seems to be coming along nicely from the pictures shown here:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/JMR_3_%20Mike%20Calcote-Textron.jpg

The quality of the airframe shown in the pictures seems much better than what you would normally expect in a prototype. It appears that they changed their minds form the original concept regarding where to put the main landing gear. The artist's conception from a few years ago had a tricycle gear footprint (like that of a CH-53).

[Ian Corrigible]

Anyone know the intended cabin dimensions or at least its height?
Based on the mock-up displayed at AUSA, it appears to be a nice round set of numbers:
Length: 15.0 ft
Width: 8.0 ft
Height: 5.0 ft
Volume: 600 cu ft
For comparison's sake, the UH-60 Black Hawk's cabin dimensions are:
Length: 12.6 ft
Width: 7.0 ft (6.0 ft @ floor level)
Height: 4.5 ft (max)
Volume: 396 cu ft
While the CH-47 Chinook's figures are:
Length: 30.5 ft
Width: 7.5 ft
Height: 6.5 ft
Volume: 1486 cu ft
I/C

[Praet]

Based on the mock-up displayed at AUSA, it appears to be a nice round set of numbers:

Length: 15.0 ft
Width: 8.0 ft
Height: 5.0 ft
Volume: 600 cu ft

Thank you :ok:

I always considered cabin height to be a major issue with the Blackhawk family. Of course it was due to C-130 transportability requirements but that always seemed to be rather irrelevant.
The V280 mockup appears a bit cramped in that regard, probably due to the wing immediately above the sliding doors. Would be a bad start since stuffing a FVL Medium into a Hercules probably won't be required anymore.

At least 5 ft will be an improvement.

[JohnDixson]

Too true, Praet:

The Army requirements for the UTTAS were perhaps 95-99% right on target and to some extent prescient, but not here. To my knowledge, the only C-130 usage was during the fly-off competition with Boeing, just to ensure compliance.

[chopper2004]

https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/30/here-are-the-first-images-of-the-first-bell-v-280-valor-next-generation-tilt-rotor-aircraft-prototype/

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4408/36099795524_2bd29a63a8_b.jpg

[SansAnhedral]

better side view pic here: http://deepbluehorizon.********.com/2017/08/bell-v-280-valor-engine-tests-begin.html

edit: this site's filters do not allow you to use the term "b l o g s p o t" even in links. laughable.

[riff_raff]

Good work by Bell. The effort involved just to construct that test stand was more than people realize. Hope the inlet airflow to those T64 engines is OK.

[CTR]

Will if no one else is going to ask the obvious question...

Any updates on the SB>1 Defiant progress?

[SansAnhedral]

https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/31/side-view-of-the-first-bell-v-280-valor-next-generation-tilt-rotor-aircraft-prototype/

Better images from The Aviationist

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/V-280-Valor-side-view.jpg

[Otterotor]

It is looking fairly close for clearance between stub wing and blades in airplane mode or zero deg nacelle angle? Just an observation.:confused: Otter

[The Sultan]

0 nacelle is airplane mode. Clearance has been designed to allow more rotor flapping than previous tilt rotors to accommodate the greater maneuverability required by the spec.

[Otterotor]

Sultan

Correct, the clearance for the V-22 between blade tip and fuselage is about 10 to 12 inches. If the V-280 has the same clearance the landing gear stub-wing looks like it protrudes from the fuselage at least that far. Maybe the blade tip fuselage station location during airplane mode flight is aft of the landing gear stub-wing? :confused: Ott

[riff_raff]

Pretty sure they provided adequate clearance between the rotor tip sweep and MLG sponson surface under all anticipated operating load/deflection conditions.

[The Sultan]

V-280 Completes Low Power Ground Run; Program Ahead of FVL Pace - Rotor & Wing International (http://www.rotorandwing.com/2017/10/03/v-280-completes-low-power-ground-run-program-ahead-fvl-pace/)

[SplineDrive]

Congratulations to the team on getting started on restrained runs!

As for some of the rotor clearance comments, I'm sure Bell did a lot of work studying that and I have no doubt the rotor will always clear the fuselage. The rotor to wing clearance is trickier since the blade flexibility will allow additional deflection even if the hub has flapped to a hard stop. Blade to wing clearance will likely always rely on the aircraft being inside a known flight envelope and predicted flap, yaw, roll response.

The exposed hardware when the nacelle is in VTOL mode looks vulnerable to bird strike... I understand that as a demonstrator, the certifying authorities might not require bird strike resistance. Something to address in a production version.

[riff_raff]

"The exposed hardware when the nacelle is in VTOL mode looks vulnerable to bird strike..."

Interesting how that area was blurred-out of the photo and video provided in the article linked by Sultan. There are 3 or 4 published US patent applications covering the related IP (https://www.google.com/patents/US20140263855) dating back to late 2014. Maybe there is something there not yet protected by a patent application.

[SplineDrive]

"The exposed hardware when the nacelle is in VTOL mode looks vulnerable to bird strike..."

Interesting how that area was blurred-out of the photo and video provided in the article linked by Sultan. There are 3 or 4 published US patent applications covering the related IP (https://www.google.com/patents/US20140263855) dating back to late 2014. Maybe there is something there not yet protected by a patent application.

Maybe... there are a few unblurred photos floating around. I suspect that's the sort of requirement that is more strictly designed for and tested under a production contract.

[The Sultan]

Been waiting for someone to state the obvious. The area of discussion on bird strike is not exposed except at low speeds at which a strike poses no risk. At speeds that might be worthy of concern the aircraft is fully converted and the area is protected by the nacelle.

[melmothtw]

It strikes me that with its wingspan coupled with the rotating blades, the V-280 is going to need a very substantial clearing / vessel / landing mat / parking apron from which to operate compared to the current UH-60, or even Sikorsky-Boeing's SB>1. Have tried Googling the V-280's dimensions, but no joy coming up with any measurements (maybe just looking in the wrong place).

It might also have been mentioned already, but surely any forward firing weapons would be inhibited by the V-280's two huge rotor discs (FVL-Medium is after all supposed to replace the Black Hawk and Apache)? The only imagery I have seen of the V-22 firing rockets shows the engines in the 45% angle.

All in all, I think the SB>1 is the far more practical solution (assuming Sikorsky-Boeing can overcome their current technical difficulties).

[Self loading bear]

There is some comparison in a Bell brochure

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/~/media/bell/documents/bell%20v-280/bell%20v-280%20valor%20data%20brochure.ashx?sc_lang=en

SLB

[CTR]

Been waiting for someone to state the obvious. The area of discussion on bird strike is not exposed except at low speeds at which a strike poses no risk. At speeds that might be worthy of concern the aircraft is fully converted and the area is protected by the nacelle.

Sultan is correct, but even on conventional airplanes and helicopters the aircraft structure provides almost zero system protection from bird strikes. If the structure was strong enough to withstand a 2 lb bird at Vmax and shield all the systems underneath, the aircraft would be to heavy to leave the ground. Instead critical systems are installed in locations behind massive components (like gearboxes) or sacrificial components (like non critical avionics boxes). Where this cannot be accomplished redundant systems are employed with adequate separation to prevent a common mode event effecting multiple systems.

As far as dust and debris entering the open area, have you ever seen the inside of a landing gear bay? Landing gear bays are packed full of wiring, hydraulics, and other systems to provide easy access. And landing gear bays are one of the dirtiest areas on an aircraft. We just design the system installations for the environment.

So why blur out the open area of the pylons? Maybe it is just some marketing executives aesthetic tastes are compromised by the sight of system installations. Personally I am fond of the looks of the skinless Bell 47 that hangs its systems out for the world to see. Beautiful!

[Ian Corrigible]

Based on a prior Bell graphic, the V-280's specs are as follows:

Overall length, rotors turning: 51 ft (UH-60 = 65 ft)
Fuselage length: 51 ft (UH-60 = 50 ft)
Overall width, rotors turning: 80 ft (UH-60 = 54 ft)
Rotor diameter: 35 ft (UH-60 = 54 ft)


https://i.imgur.com/FaUZfKh.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/ZwWJSPZ.jpg)
(Click for full-size image)

I/C

[SplineDrive]

Sultan is correct, but even on conventional airplanes and helicopters the aircraft structure provides almost zero system protection from bird strikes. If the structure was strong enough to withstand a 2 lb bird at Vmax and shield all the systems underneath, the aircraft would be to heavy to leave the ground. Instead critical systems are installed in locations behind massive components (like gearboxes) or sacrificial components (like non critical avionics boxes). Where this cannot be accomplished redundant systems are employed with adequate separation to prevent a common mode event effecting multiple systems.


It's still easy to get surprised by bird strike testing... I saw what a 2.2 lb bird did to rotor controls and spinner supports at only 75 knots. The V-280 in the conversion corridor can go fast enough in near VTOL mode for a bird to do real damage. Obviously not a show stopper like CTR points out, but it's not a requirement you just hand wave away on a production vehicle.

And CTR, I agree, I like the clarity of the skin-less helicopter as well. Got up close to an S-64 once... nothing hidden anywhere and it's beautiful for it.

[SplineDrive]

Based on a prior Bell graphic, the V-280's specs are as follows:

Overall length, rotors turning: 51 ft (UH-60 = 65 ft)
Fuselage length: 51 ft (UH-60 = 50 ft)
Overall width, rotors turning: 80 ft (UH-60 = 54 ft)
Rotor diameter: 35 ft (UH-60 = 54 ft)


https://i.imgur.com/FaUZfKh.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/ZwWJSPZ.jpg)
(Click for full-size image)

I/C

I haven't been able to find rotor diameter data for the SB>1, but have zero doubt both JMR demonstrators are larger in gross weight and planform than the H-60 and AH-64 aircraft.

[Ian Corrigible]

I haven't been able to find rotor diameter data for the SB>1
Reportedly 50 ft (https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/we-defy-you-to-ride-the-sb1-simulator-with-us/).
but have zero doubt both JMR demonstrators are larger in gross weight and planform than the H-60
...As evidenced by the fact that we're already using 5,000 shp class engines for a platform with a 12-seat cabin. It'll be interesting to see what cabin size is eventually settled upon for FVL-M. As mentioned previously in this thread, some of the FVL squad sizing AoAs - especially those incorporating the use of exoskeletons - have pointed at something far larger than even the JMR AVDs.

I/C

[CTR]

It's still easy to get surprised by bird strike testing... I saw what a 2.2 lb bird did to rotor controls and spinner supports at only 75 knots. The V-280 in the conversion corridor can go fast enough in near VTOL mode for a bird to do real damage. Obviously not a show stopper like CTR points out, but it's not a requirement you just hand wave away on a production vehicle.
t.

I concur. My friends from the 609 program are the same engineers that oversaw the V-280 system installations, and they followed the same bird strike survivability design requirements as for an FAA certified aircraft.

The XV-15 actually suffered a bird strike to the wing leading edge by a turkey buzzard weighing an estimated 10 lbs that took out the torque shaft connecting the two conversion actuators. Luckily the engineers back then planned for that event and installed a backup system that decluched the shaft. The bird actually passed through the rotor before striking the leading edge.

[NWSRG]

Maybe this is a slightly naive suggestion...

...but would buying both not be the best option for the US Army? Common engines (I think?), potentially commonality in avionics, but different platforms for different missions. Not to mention, keeping the ability to manufacture military helicopters alive in two rather than one organisation (accepting that each involves multiple players). The SB1 looks like a much better replacement for the Apache than the V280, but on the other hand, the V280 looks very good as a Blackhawk replacement...

[SplineDrive]

Reportedly 50 ft (https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/we-defy-you-to-ride-the-sb1-simulator-with-us/).

...As evidenced by the fact that we're already using 5,000 shp class engines for a platform with a 12-seat cabin. It'll be interesting to see what cabin size is eventually settled upon for FVL-M. As mentioned previously in this thread, some of the FVL squad sizing AoAs - especially those incorporating the use of exoskeletons - have pointed at something far larger than even the JMR AVDs.

I/C

Thanks for the link... I assume they meant 25' radius. If that's the case, then a similar pad size to the H-60 platform. You're right, the goals of the various capabilities specifications for the various FVL classes are aggressive and pretty future-looking.

[casper64]

I haven't been able to find rotor diameter data for the SB>1, but have zero doubt both JMR demonstrators are larger in gross weight and planform than the H-60 and AH-64 aircraft.

I hope they are ready for some downwash with these small diameter props....
I can see this work as a strategic/ slight tactical transport, however how it should replace the Blackhawk and Apache in the real tactical role, requiring very low level manoevering, quick stops, fast insertions and extractions..... well let's just say I am curious how it performs in this part of the flight envelope.... that it can fly far and fast is nice, but is only a part of the required performance I guess.

[riff_raff]

I concur. My friends from the 609 program are the same engineers that oversaw the V-280 system installations, and they followed the same bird strike survivability design requirements as for an FAA certified aircraft.

Good point about the AW609. Looking at the picture below shows that area of the AW609 to be fairly well protected from impacts with the nacelle tilted vertical.

http://cdn.rotorandwing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/p22_23_AgustaWestland_AW609_Rotating_at_Altitude.jpeg

[SplineDrive]

Maybe this is a slightly naive suggestion...

...but would buying both not be the best option for the US Army? Common engines (I think?), potentially commonality in avionics, but different platforms for different missions. Not to mention, keeping the ability to manufacture military helicopters alive in two rather than one organisation (accepting that each involves multiple players). The SB1 looks like a much better replacement for the Apache than the V280, but on the other hand, the V280 looks very good as a Blackhawk replacement...

I think most serious engineers would tell you that no single configuration is best all all missions ranging from light scout to ultra-heavy lift. A mix of ABC, tilt rotors, and yes, even conventional helicopters is what will best meet the USG performance vs. cost goals for each mission need.

[SansAnhedral]

Good point about the AW609. Looking at the picture below shows that area of the AW609 to be fairly well protected from impacts with the nacelle tilted vertical.

"Well protected" perhaps from prying eyes only. In the event of a birdstrike, the thin fiberglass nacelle fairings might well as be made of a wet paper bag. They will do nothing to attenuate the energy.

[SplineDrive]

"Well protected" perhaps from prying eyes only. In the event of a birdstrike, the thin fiberglass nacelle fairings might well as be made of a wet paper bag. They will do nothing to attenuate the energy.

You hope they’re either stiff enough to deflect the bird (not likely unless a glancing blow) or the bird punches a hole through the fairing... one of the worst cases is if a fairing deflects like cloth as the bird penetrates the structure and helps contain the mass of the bird as it strikes real structure inside. Better to have the bird uncontained and allowed to 'flow' around structure like rods and struts. Of course, the impacted structure still has to be strong enough to survive those events. Bird strike testing and analysis was one of the more interesting problems I’ve dealt with.

[SansAnhedral]

https://d21buns5ku92am.cloudfront.net/67992/images/268231-280-1-68ac99-large-1513634579.jpg

Bell V-280 Valor Achieves First Flight - Bell Helicopter (news) (http://news.bellhelicopter.com/en-US/162449-bell-v-280-valor-achieves-first-flight)

Bell V-280 Valor Achieves First Flight
Amarillo, Texas (December 18, 2017) – Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, today announced that its V-280 Valor has achieved first flight. The V-280 Valor is a next-generation tiltrotor that is designed to provide unmatched agility, speed, range and payload capabilities at an affordable cost. This milestone represents exceptional progress on the V-280 development program and brings Bell Helicopter one step closer to creating the next generation of vertical lift aircraft for the U.S. military.

“This is an exciting time for Bell Helicopter, and I could not be more proud of the progress we have made with first flight of the Bell V-280,” says Mitch Snyder, President & CEO for Bell Helicopter. “First flight demonstrates our commitment to supporting Department of Defense leadership’s modernization priorities and acquisition reform initiatives. The Valor is designed to revolutionize vertical lift for the U.S. Army and represents a transformational aircraft for all the challenging missions our armed forces are asked to undertake.



“We are thrilled to share in this success of the V-280 first flight with Team Valor,” added Snyder. “The V-280 intends to completely transform what is possible for the military when it comes to battle planning and forward operations.”



The Bell V-280 Valor program is part of the Joint Multi Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) initiative. The JMR-TD program is the science and technology precursor to the Department of Defense's Future Vertical Lift program. The V-280 program brings together the engineering resources and industrial capabilities of Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, GE, Moog, IAI, TRU Simulation & Training, Astronics, Eaton, GKN Aerospace, Lord, Meggitt and Spirit AeroSystems—collectively referred to as Team Valor.

The Bell V-280 Valor is postured to provide the U.S. Army with the highest levels of maturity and technical readiness. The aircraft is designed to provide the best value in procurement, operations and support, and force structure, while delivering desired leap-ahead performance capabilities with increased maintainability, reliability and affordability to the DoD. With twice the speed and range of conventional helicopters, the Valor is designed to offer maneuver commanders unmatched operational agility to self-deploy and perform a multitude of vertical lift missions currently unachievable in one aircraft. The Bell V-280 is a combat force multiplier with superior performance, payload, survivability, and reliability to give the warfighter the decisive advantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Civi4cI1LW4

[IFMU]

Wow! Congrats team Bell!

[MitchStick]

Anybody else noticed they blurred the "wing tips" where the props are attached..

[SplineDrive]

Anybody else noticed they blurred the "wing tips" where the props are attached..

Yup, you can always tell when someone in the external data release approval cycle gets nervous and decides a photo could be ITAR (or just proprietary/competition sensitive). Sikorsky has blurred some photos and video of the early RAIDER ground runs where the transmission bay was visible.

[CTR]

Latest flight test updates on V-280 Valor along with videos.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/02/06/first-look-watch-the-v-280-valor-reach-80-knots-in-flight-tests/

https://youtu.be/YK7eX4s8YIg

[IFMU]

Congrats to the Bell Team!
Bryan, Sikorsky/X2 alumnus

[The Sultan]

At this rate Bell will have completed airspeed envelope expansion before SB even runs the replacement for the crashed S-97. Impressive progress in only 5 months.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBk4WkI_z9M&t=330s

[SansAnhedral]

First public flight demo

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/19/bells-v-280-valor-shows-off-agility-speed-in-first-public-flight-demo/

Interesting factoid noticed in this article

In cruise mode during the demonstration, the aircraft showed it has a much lower acoustic signature than a V-22.

[CTR]

While not as exciting as the SB>1 registering a tail number with the FAA, the V-280 achieved gear up flight last week. Clearing the path to 280 Kt cruise speed.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/killer-angel-on-your-shoulder-armys-future-armed-reconnaissance-aircraft/

[SansAnhedral]

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n280bh#1de5c001

V-280 flights are showing up FR24 now it looks like

Today had a 1:45 flight @ ~11,500ft flight getting up to 259kt GS, not bad

[The Sultan]

Ferry flight rumored for tomorrow the 18th.

[Rotor George]

Now at Flight Research Center Arlington.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n280bh#1de8f53a

[SansAnhedral]

Good video of V280 demonstration flight in Arlington

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article220650710.html

[The Sultan]

Much quieter than the S-97 in the flyby. No obnoxious tail fan noise. Like the 609 the engine is the main noise in airplane mode.

[chopper2004]

One year anniversary sinceBell V-280

Bell V-280 Valor ? First Year of Flight - Bell (news) (http://news.bellflight.com/en-US/170381-bell-v-280-valor-first-year-of-flight)

[tartare]

It is a very impressive looking machine - and Bell has done very well in getting this far this quickly.
But I wonder about that full width glass panel - and the DAS system - is that going to be on initial models, or planned for later or only Spec Ops variants?
Couldn't see any standby steam gauges - maybe they were out of shot.
These machines aren't going to be cossetted JSFs on carriers or airbases - they'll be dropping troops and operators in the dust and be worked very hard.
Having sat in a few RAAF Blackhawk RH seats (on the ground) and ridden in RNZAF UH-1Hs over the years - serviceable but battered and worn instruments and hardware were the norm.
Let's hope they build those sensors and panels tough.
A map with a bullet through it is still a map...

[CobraDriver]

Maybe it's just me but I don't get it. The Osprey has a great record for killing folks and a horrible record for safety and we want to follow that path for development? Nothing wrong with improving what we have, this is not an improvement but it is taking a step backwards.

[etudiant]

Maybe it's just me but I don't get it. The Osprey has a great record for killing folks and a horrible record for safety and we want to follow that path for development? .

Is that still true?
The V22 has not been much in the news lately for any accidents even though it seems to be flown fairly extensively, even at high profile events such as Fleet Week here in NYC.
Perhaps the design concept has shaken down sufficiently and is now achieving promise.

[CTR]

Maybe it's just me but I don't get it. The Osprey has a great record for killing folks and a horrible record for safety and we want to follow that path for development? Nothing wrong with improving what we have, this is not an improvement but it is taking a step backwards.

All new innovations in technology are placed under intense scrutiny and distorted sensationalist coverage by the media. The Osprey was a prime example. Did accidents occur? Yes, but when compared to historical data on other military aircraft development programs the V-22 was far from the exception.

Today, the V-22 has a better safety record than all other military helicopters and is the preferred method of transport for special ops and VIPs.

[The Sultan]

From AvWeek:

Bell has achieved Level 1 handling qualities with the V-280 Valor, demonstrating that the advanced tiltrotor has low-speed agility that matches or betters that of the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk ...

Well done. 300 Kts and helicopter maneuverability is the Holy Grail.

[CTR]

Bell posted this video of the V-280 performing Level 1 handling quality flight testing. Impressive considering the size of aircraft. Especially in light that the Blackhawk does not achieve full Level 1 performance.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xRiZhCAmr6Y

[The Sultan]

Been a lot of activity in last few weeks with much of it apparently being demos and training. Rapid takeoff with high bank angle turn into pattern looks awesome, but most impressive is the high speed low altitude airplane mode pass over the Bell hangers.

Apparently a big demo to the Army brass going on right now. Anyone know if this wraps the program as they have exceeded all program goals with nothing left to prove?

[SansAnhedral]

Been a lot of activity in last few weeks with much of it apparently being demos and training. Rapid takeoff with high bank angle turn into pattern looks awesome, but most impressive is the high speed low altitude airplane mode pass over the Bell hangers.

Apparently a big demo to the Army brass going on right now. Anyone know if this wraps the program as they have exceeded all program goals with nothing left to prove?


Based on the flight path and speed/alt graphs, looks like pretty aggressive stuff

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n280bh#225074f6

[Lonewolf_50]

Anyone know if this wraps the program as they have exceeded all program goals with nothing left to prove?
Probably not, in re the bolded bit. In aviation, you gotta prove yourself every day. It appears that V-280 is doing very well - nice job to all who work on it. :D

As to your post: the Bell PR office is looking for new copy, I guess.
The aircraft is performing well, so hyperbole seems unnecessary.

[Ascend Charlie]

Sultan, you are slipping, it's nearly a year since you put 5h1t on Sikorsky on this thread.

Lift your act, or Bell will stop paying you royalties.

[SplineDrive]

Sultan, you are slipping, it's nearly a year since you put 5h1t on Sikorsky on this thread.

in his defense, Defiant hasn’t publicly done anything in half a year... so nothing new to crap on.

[The Sultan]

AC

The FVL program that covers the V-280 and SB-1 started in 2013 and was originally scheduled to end in September 2019. The V-280 basically met all of the program milestones. The SB-1 apparently still has not progressed much beyond hover. The latest Marine RFI has scheduled a Nov - Jan response window with the requirements being derived from the original program’s results. It is not the fault of Bell that Sikorsky has nothing from its SB-1 effort.

As the program was originally scheduled to end in Sept and the requirements for the production version have been defined it seemed logical that the 280 would rap up with a big demo to program stake holders (like flown today).

[SansAnhedral]

in his defense, Defiant hasn’t publicly done anything in half a year... so nothing new to crap on.

It's been on the ground while the PTSB was running uncovering even more transmission problems, I'm hearing.

This is all before they even approach the real colossal hurdle, which is the vibration outside of static hover. The Defiant program is an unmitigated disaster to date.

[The Sultan]

Sans,

Any idea if the transmission problem is directly related to the ABC concept? Simplistic analysis would say as you grow an ABC in size the rotor moments (which are already in the extreme on smaller versions) go up significantly while Xmsn case stiffness goes down. At some point the mast bearings can’t handle the loads or deflections become so high the case breaks or gear alignment is impacted.

Or is it they just can’t manufacture gearboxes like on the CH-53K?

[SansAnhedral]

Any idea if the transmission problem is directly related to the ABC concept?

That was the implication given, but no specifics for obvious reasons.

In other news, it appears the V-280 is going to be flying at the Fort Worth Alliance Air Show in 2 weeks.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/72981061_2988440057850617_7441071255962255360_o_3a65d5cc6b3c b09871d70d060f77cb9e637d6708.jpg

[The Sultan]

Bell’s best V-280 video yet.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5a9Djp9gsg

[CTR]

No computer generated graphics required ;-D

Go to Bell Facebook link.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&biw=375&bih=553&ei=TLisXeajCJDSsAXK7YnoCw&q=fort+worth+alliance+air+show+%22v280%22+2019&oq=fort+worth+alliance+air+show+%22v280%22+2019&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3...18309.20878..22369...0.0..0.246.773.2j2j1......0... .1.........33i299j33i160j30i10.IHKZz2SN-7Y

[The Sultan]

Flyby at 12:00. Was worried they aborted when they returned to the flight test center immediately after takeoff, but they were just returning to meet up with their chase jet before departing to the show. Imagine needing a jet trainer/attack jet to keep up with a rotorcraft. What does Sikorsky use? A Cessna 172?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u4jvQzx2CZY&t=685s#fauxfullscreen (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u4jvQzx2CZY&t=685s#fauxfullscreen)

https://youtu.be/u4jvQzx2CZY?t=689

[tartare]

It's an impressive looking machine.
I wonder if they'll start hanging weapons off it...?

[SansAnhedral]

The V-280 flew more over the past 4 days than the Defiant has flown in its existence

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1121x406/untitled_93bc629fb174d8162eb2db5f3badf8fac7989998.png

[Commando Cody]

It's an impressive looking machine.
I wonder if they'll start hanging weapons off it...?

Been proposed. USMC interested, Army not so much. First pc is weapons kit on Army version, 2nd two are more potent and dedicated USMC version.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1128x800/v280atakarmy2_dadd5225838d8b308d0ab25e795fdb61aa082253.jpg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/768x576/v280atakusmc1_3a6bab56a66c6cc534617cf641f992d128127f04.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/768x576/v280atakusmc2_459d7ee2e823efec1f584ded5d4990ce159862fa.jpg

[The Sultan]

Some new footage, still impressive. Anybody expecting a Defiant update?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic-tW8JVfK4

[HeliHenri]

.
Bell tests autonomy software in V-280 Valor, paving way for first autonomous flight : http://www.verticalmag.com/news/bell-tests-autonomy-software-in-v-280-valor-paving-way-for-first-autonomous-flight/
.

[tartare]

Appears already to be a very impressive machine.
Wonder if they'll licence or sell internationally - I assume so eventually.

[CTR]

Bell released a video this week marking their V-280 Valor completing 200 flight hours, and additional accomplishments over the past three years of flight testing.

There is definitely a tone to the video that begs the question “What has the competition accomplished?”

https://youtu.be/bVKeTA9CHOc

[chopper2004]

Army awards Bell the FLRAAA/ FVl

https://www.army.mil/article/262523?fbclid=IwAR0GD-TYOnz8-ohuXFEtV_FG9fTgI58b0KV-L-rzX_uiebOMHxurZ_66VJw

[The Sultan]

Congrats to Team Valor! Ukraine has shown the need for the speed and long range the Defiant never demonstrated.

[chopper2004]

and the official Bell press release

https://news.bellflight.com/en-US/220998-textron-s-bell-v-280-valor-chosen-as-new-u-s-army-long-range-assault-aircraft?fbclid=IwAR2fwOb7g0CNVBoPiI06JnEGl3XPfhCp3SOOb1-zpkgeCOhFxz7NKbvHjUg

[Lonewolf_50]

Congrats to Team Valor! Ukraine has shown the need for the speed and long range the Defiant never demonstrated. Is this noise (the unerlined bit), or do you have a bit more meat for that bone? Can you expand on this statement?
The self-deploy/range requirement is not quite a decade old, IIRC, and well pre-dated the Ukraine war.

But yes: 'Grats to Team Valor! :ok: :D
Hope to see first prototype in the air soon. What do you expect?
FY 24? FY 25? Any word on that?
Is the Army going to make a fresh requirement for production/prototype GW, Speed, Payload, Range, footprint etc for Bell to shoot at?
EDIT:
From the press release, thanks Chopper
The initial contract refines the weapon system design, sustainment, digital enterprise, manufacturing, systems integration, flight-testing, and airworthiness qualification.

[The Sultan]

[QUOTE=Lonewolf_50;11343334]Is this noise (the unerlined bit), or do you have a bit more meat for that bone? Can you expand on this statement?]

My declarative is a casually obvious to the intuitive observer fact that long range artillery (guns and missiles) make basing within 200 miles of the FEBA problematic relative to survival. Couple this with diversionary flight paths and the need to carry return fuel the aircraft has to have at least a 500 mile range to conduct future missions. Add this to the fact that Defiant required three refueling stops to go 700 miles in its long range demo, and you can see that the Defiant can not conduct the missions required on the modern battlefield.