Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New Bell battlefield product - Bell V280 Valor

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New Bell battlefield product - Bell V280 Valor

Old 13th Apr 2013, 16:36
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"So maybe the bad guys would have been fooled. "No, that's not a helicopter. It's the 6:50 from Paddington." "


and roughly the same speed.........................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 06:50
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
"I guess the redesign is due the terrible experiences of the rotating engines on the V-22. After so many fatalities they reduced the vulnerability of the engine to ground-strikes but the lack of ground clearance is still a concern to operators and the jet efflux is less than ideal too. This design (if it works) looks much more appropriate for an aircraft you plan to land in the dark, on uneven terrain in a threat environment.

The internal bomb-bay looks interesting"

Excuse me, but exactly which crashes were due to the fact that the engines rotate? Which fatalities were caused by engine ground strikes?

Regarding the number of fatalities, the V-22 has had, the number is due to the fact that it can carry a lot of people, whereas say, an Apache carries two. Over half of all Osprey fatalties happened in one accident, and two accidents were responsible for over 70% of the fatalties.

The internal storage of missle launchers is probably partially to reduce drag at higher speeds. Sikorsky's concept of an X2 gunship a while back also showed internal storage of Hellfires.




Oh, don't call it a bomb bay. I believe one of the AF insisted-upon agreements regarding Roles and Missions mandates that Army helos can not drop bombs.

Last edited by Commando Cody; 18th Apr 2013 at 05:29.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 21:08
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 81
Posts: 57
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 'Valor'? I thought that was a cheap oil heater for garden sheds!
kkbuk is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 01:25
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CC... I suppose he is thinking of the crash(es) from hydraulic system failure due to line leaks in the nacelles... but those were due to chafing and vibration, and had nothing to do with the rotating joint.

A quick re-routing and proper securing of the lines against movement and that was fixed.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 06:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
CC... I suppose he is thinking of the crash(es) from hydraulic system failure due to line leaks in the nacelles... but those were due to chafing and vibration, and had nothing to do with the rotating joint.

A quick re-routing and proper securing of the lines against movement and that was fixed.

In that particular case, it also didn't help that a number of operational procedures weren't followed (including the decision to fly non-stop from Eglin to Quantico). In fact, the aircraft itself gave two warnings enroute, one of which dictated an immediate landing, which wasn't done (remember, it can land like a heloicopter). The leaks continued and when the nacelles passed through 44 degeres as they were tilted, proprotor gearbox fluid ran into the intake, ignited, and the gearbox started coming apart; the right engine surged and failed. The crosshaft functioned as advertised and the left engine began powering both proprotors. However, the intense heat and fire led to a failure in the shaft which then led to a hydrualic leak preventing control of the nacelles.

One of the probable causes was considered to be maintennace errors at Eglin resulting in incorrectly installed seals. So, while the tilting of the nacelles allowed fluid to run into the intake at that point, given what was going on, it's quite possible that something similar would have happened anyway had the aircraft remained in the air longer. In other words, it wasn't the fact that the nacelles tilted that caused the accident.

As you said, rerouting of lines, plus a titanium shield prevent a recurrence
, but an incorrectly installed seal is still an incorrectly installed seal. Doing it right remains vital. Another Osprey was lost on its first flight because part of the flight control system was wired backwards, and so the aircraft would do the opposite of the commanded input!

Last edited by Commando Cody; 22nd Apr 2013 at 19:03. Reason: spelling
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 09:49
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like the poor frontwards field of view from the Blackhawk when landing has been expertly carried across! All good fun though.
nice castle is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2013, 18:57
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
The idea to keep the engine in the normal orientation whilst powering the rotors is not that new but it makes sense to me.

Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2013, 19:10
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
As with anything, there are tradeoffs.

Keeping the engines fixed means you don't have to design or cetify an engine to operate vertically or at intermediate angles. You also don't have to rotate such a large wieght, which allows you to have smaller nacelles, lighter rotating mechanisms, have a wider field of view from the sides and more ground clearance. You can also probably translate the proprotors more quickly.

On the other hand, with fixed engines and translating proprotors, you have a more complicated (and heavier) linkage between the power source and the proprotors. The safety crosshaft may be more complex in its totality. Your rotating mechanisms have to be more robust, since they are more complex.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Interesingly enough, Chitty-Chitty uses the original Boeing concept in their Tilt-Rotor proposal for LHX, with the engines in the central fuselage connected by shafts to rotating proprotors at the wingtips. Even more interstingly, the V-280 uses the tilting concept Boeing proposed for their version of the aircraft that lost to Belll for the XV-15!. I guess it really does all go 'round in circles!

Last edited by Commando Cody; 22nd Apr 2013 at 19:02. Reason: futher info
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2016, 12:47
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,119
Received 80 Likes on 46 Posts
Heli Expo 2016 my photos of V280 mock up

Hi guys here are my photos of V280 mock up in both utility and Dustoff fit,

cheers



















and the DUSTOFF version









cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2016, 14:16
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,369
Received 18 Likes on 11 Posts
Another new concept:-
US military drone with vertical take-off gets a lift from Rolls-Royce
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2016, 02:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One issue that comes to mind is how will the Army deal with the big difference in speed between the new generation of rotorcraft and legacy models like UH-60, CH-47, etc during transition?
riff_raff is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2016, 07:11
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,776
Received 253 Likes on 101 Posts
Bell's XV-3 of 60 years ago also used tilting rotors, but the engine was located in the fuselage and drive shafts transmitted power to the rotors:

BEagle is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2017, 06:53
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,119
Received 80 Likes on 46 Posts
First images prototype

https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/3...aft-prototype/


Last edited by chopper2004; 31st Aug 2017 at 07:36.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2017, 19:50
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,119
Received 80 Likes on 46 Posts
Achieves first flight


cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 16:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by India Four Two
Ah, the Rotodyne. Its main drawback was the noise. I lived near White Waltham. You could hear it coming for miles! Not much good for a stealthy special forces insertion.
A few comments:
1. No, the SB>1 is not a rotodyne. The main rotor is directly coupled to the engines and the rotors are a contra rotating coaxial system. Completely different mechanically and aerodynamically than rotodyne.
2. The rotodyne was loud because it's rotor system was literally jet powered with jets at the tip of each rotor blade. No such jets in the SB>1.
3. The SB>1 uses an advancing blade concept. Simplified, this means the rotor blades (at speed) only generate lift while they are advancing forward into the airstream. The retreating blades go flat and do not generate lift. This gives the system a much higher top speed because the retreating blades do not stall as airspeed increases.
4. The rotor system is rigid and does not tilt forward to generate forward thrust. It only generates lift. The tail propeller provides forward thrust. This has the advantage that the fuselage stays level and the nose and weapons systems do not point downwards as the aircraft accelerates. Even the tiltrotor tends to drop its nose when accelerating. This level acceleration is a huge benefit in an armed helicopter.

Last edited by KenV; 19th Dec 2017 at 16:18.
KenV is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 16:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,787
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Nice Summary Ken V
Rigid coaxial is the key!
Haraka is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2018, 20:37
  #37 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes on 19 Posts
Latest V-280 Valor flight test updates and videos.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...-flight-tests/

CTR is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2018, 21:44
  #38 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,428
Received 88 Likes on 49 Posts
Interesting how they've blurred the exposed 'joint' though it's clearly visible in Choppers photo from earlier.
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2018, 21:49
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,776
Received 253 Likes on 101 Posts
What's so special about the front of the nacelles that they've been blurred out in the video?

(You beat me to it, Buster!)
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2018, 09:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I'm sorry, but who decided to put the undercarriage on the wrong way around? It just looks wrong.
VX275 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.