|
New Bell battlefield product - Bell V280 Valor
As I said on the rotorheads page, I was on my FB account and subscribed to Bell FB page and saw the countdown to revealing big news at Quad A
BellV280.com Cheers |
Cost per unit?
One wonders. |
Clearly the love child of an Osprey and a Blackhawk!
|
Yes, but note the subtle difference:
The transmission rotates, and the engine stays facing fore and aft. Interesting variation on Osprey. Bell V-280 Valor -- The Future of Vertical Lift Takes Flight - YouTube |
wtf ?
Is this for real ? Or just someone having a CGI budget to spend ?!
|
Thanks Lonewolf, I'd missed that. Does it mention why Bell decided to do it that way? Must be an interesting gearbox! (Yes, I'm an engineer, is it obvious ;-))
|
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. |
|
brave men to suggest ANOTHER expensive military programme in the current climate
|
Do videos like that really sell aircraft?...really? :confused:
|
Well shiny brochures, CGI videos and images of prototype/development aircraft bouncing about seem to have convinced many of the pro-JSF crowd.
They have some JSFs in The Avengers Assemble you know? How much more proof do people need of its abilities? It stars alongside Iron Man and The Hulk!;) |
Excuse me, is this the "Caption Competition" thread?......................
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
brave men to suggest ANOTHER expensive military programme in the current climate
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android |
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. and Boeing will submit a joint proposal to build a demonstrator aircraft based on Sikorsky’s X2™ Technology rotorcraft design for the Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Technology Demonstrator (TD) Phase 1 program. The JMR TD program supports the U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) initiative to deliver the next generation of vertical lift utility and attack aircraft. “The Sikorsky-Boeing proposal will demonstrate how X2 Technology with counter-rotating coaxial main rotors and a pusher propeller, and advanced fly-by-wire system, will deliver efficient 230-knot cruise airspeed, improved hover efficiency, and weight optimized design in an affordable package,” said Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems. “By leveraging our proven design, we can offer the Army reduced risk, a 100-knot improvement in speed, a 60 percent improvement in combat radius and 50 percent better high-hot hover performance.” |
This is all being run by moles from Eurocopter and AgustaWestland. The idea is to cement their global domination by spending another two decades of USG research money on something nobosy wants.
Seriously - I like the X2, which is promising. But the complex won't allow Bell to be excluded, so everyone's idea has to be funded. |
Why must we keep re-inventing the wheel and making uneccessarily complex?
http://www.gbagyros.com/images/fairey.jpg |
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.
On the other hand, it sounded exactly like a steam engine - a GWR Castle Class to be precise. So maybe the bad guys would have been fooled. "No, that's not a helicopter. It's the 6:50 from Paddington." ;) |
Why must we keep re-inventing the wheel and making uneccessarily complex? http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachm...gyrocopter.jpg |
Buster
If it does the job then why not? The point I was trying to make was It is a working design which with mdern production methods, Materials, and avionics etc could make it quieter, Faster, Longer legs etc. Why not dust of the plans and see what BAE make of it? Ah - I see the flaw... :suspect: |
Agreed. :)
|
"So maybe the bad guys would have been fooled. "No, that's not a helicopter. It's the 6:50 from Paddington." http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif"
and roughly the same speed......................... |
"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. http://i.pinger.pl/pgr483/bb20ec35001464f44b68551e 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. |
The 'Valor'? I thought that was a cheap oil heater for garden sheds!:E
|
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. |
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! |
Looks like the poor frontwards field of view from the Blackhawk when landing has been expertly carried across! All good fun though.
|
The idea to keep the engine in the normal orientation whilst powering the rotors is not that new but it makes sense to me.
http://parentpreviews.com/legacy-pic...-bang-bang.jpg |
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! |
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 http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pszrbqqfra.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pswdwdrvcx.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psnsevb1rj.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps5zmjzc6w.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pso9ujw1ze.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pstk9qyxdk.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pst5nhcd1d.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psblsp9s4s.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps9luul3q3.jpg and the DUSTOFF version http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pstwfuhbbi.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psaxy8btpb.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psimpwzsnw.jpg http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psywujfdec.jpg cheers |
Another new concept:-
US military drone with vertical take-off gets a lift from Rolls-Royce |
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?
|
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:
|
First images prototype
|
Achieves first flight
cheers |
Originally Posted by India Four Two
(Post 7789847)
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.
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. |
Nice Summary Ken V
Rigid coaxial is the key! |
Latest V-280 Valor flight test updates and videos.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry...-flight-tests/ |
Interesting how they've blurred the exposed 'joint' though it's clearly visible in Choppers photo from earlier.
|
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!) |
I'm sorry, but who decided to put the undercarriage on the wrong way around? It just looks wrong.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.