New Bell product - Bell V280
Thread Starter
New Bell product - Bell V280
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
Cheers
BellV280.com
Cheers
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.
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.
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by tottigol
Just like this...
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)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: stateside
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In all its subscale glory:
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
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
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 27th Aug 2014 at 17:53.
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.
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.
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.
Arrakis
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.
But I believe that in the end Bell shall try to sell the ARMY the umpteenth development of the 412.
I vote for the Raider.
Plus they are likely to need a gross weight increase AFTER they give it to the ARMY.
But I believe that in the end Bell shall try to sell the ARMY the umpteenth development of the 412.
I vote for the Raider.
Last edited by tottigol; 11th Apr 2013 at 12:52.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 11th Apr 2013 at 14:36.
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).
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?
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 11th Apr 2013 at 18:37.
Well then you have no baseline with which to compare ..
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!