Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

New Bell product - Bell V280

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

New Bell product - Bell V280

Old 17th Apr 2013, 18:19
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
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.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 18:35
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 657
Drift

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

Thanks,
John
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 18:35
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
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...

Last edited by Commando Cody; 17th Apr 2013 at 19:38. Reason: spelling
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 19:40
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 881
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.
heli1 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 19:51
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 2,425
CC: Thanks for your responses.

Do you have any thoughts on the 1958 Doak VZ-4 concept which used rotating ducted fans?
Savoia is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2013, 20:40
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 600
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.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 01:24
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
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.



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

Last edited by Commando Cody; 18th Apr 2013 at 01:46.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2013, 01:27
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Here's an earlier Bell concept drawing of what would evolve into the V-280.


Last edited by Commando Cody; 18th Apr 2013 at 01:29.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2016, 00:20
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,024
Belll V280 mock up HAI 2016

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













chopper2004 is online now  
Old 27th Apr 2016, 02:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,664
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
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2016, 05:58
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 600
The Bell V-280 JMR-TD seems to be coming along nicely from the pictures shown here:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...te-Textron.jpg

The quality of the airframe shown in the pictures seems much better than what you would normally expect in a prototype.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2016, 17:46
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 36
Posts: 19
Anyone know the intended cabin dimensions or at least its height?
Praet is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:55
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,329
Originally Posted by riff_raff View Post
The Bell V-280 JMR-TD seems to be coming along nicely from the pictures shown here:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...te-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).
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 16:08
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by Praet
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
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 6th May 2016, 14:31
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 36
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by Ian Corrigible View Post
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

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.
Praet is offline  
Old 6th May 2016, 15:20
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 657
C-130 Requirement

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.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2017, 06:54
  #57 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,024
https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/3...aft-prototype/


Last edited by chopper2004; 31st Aug 2017 at 07:43.
chopper2004 is online now  
Old 31st Aug 2017, 16:34
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 600
better side view pic here: http://deepbluehorizon.********.com/...sts-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.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2017, 06:08
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 600
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.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2017, 15:08
  #60 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 94
Begs the Question....

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

Any updates on the SB>1 Defiant progress?
CTR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.