i’m confused where are you trying to go with this line of thinking? If you fly them in a C-17, you need clearance for the C-17 and use of an airport. A V-280 will be able to fly directly to where it is needed and will be able to perform its mission almost immediately.

The aircraft is also all weather capable, and can fly at altitudes much higher than any helicopters. Even the Defiant.

What is its OGE Hover capacity at Max Gross Weight?

Same kind of drawback as the V-22 when it comes to hot and high helicopter style work?

Sling load capability....Armament?

Does it fully replace the Blackhawks current capability?

All weather capability....in the hands of the regular Army Aviation units....do tell us more please?

What kind of logistics tail will be required to maintain these aircraft in tactical field conditions?

Multi-mission capability built in?

All that will be a very tough nut to crack.

I thought it’s max altitude was around 6000 ft by the blurb so unlike a C17 they are never going to fly above the weather and I wouldn’t fancy chugging across the Atlantic in the winter at 320 MPH below 6000ft in case of a rapid deployment requirement. I mentioned clearance as I might imagine some countries having issues with military aircraft so visibly transiting through their airspace where as a C17 to those on the ground could just be another airliner.

That’s all
BTW you are still going to need fuel, etc to fly its mission.

A Corvette is not a Half Ton Pickup
 

SASless,

Why do Tiltrotor trashers always try and dismiss them by comparing them to conventional helicopters?

Corvettes make terrible trucks. And while a V-280 can match the lift of a 40 year old design Blackhawk, why would you?

Unlike the Defiant, the Valor achieved all its customer requirements in flight test. This included matching Blackhawk performance.

Using a Valor to haul cargo is a stupid waste of a valuable asset. Blackhawks will be around until 2050. They will be the trucks.

Unlike Helicopters, Tiltrotors Have Wings
 

Unpressurized Tiltrotors like the V-22 can fly at 20,000 ft with pilot oxygen. The pressurized 609 does 25,000 ft without pilot oxygen.

Fuel can always be trucked in to remote areas.

Army set a cost limit of $43. million in con-stat dollars (I don't remember which year) for FLRAA.

V280 is required to meet Army's HOGE requirement. They said achieved the goal of hovering at 6,000 feet in 95 degree heat, There was no hot and high requirement when V-22 was designed. Interestingly enough, Bell said their power requirement was not driven by desired top speed, but by the required power to hover hot and high. That much power, the calculations showed would deliver 280 knots, hence the designation. sS it turned out, the V280 was noticeable faster than that. FWIW, Defiant promised even higher hot and-high hover, but I don't know if they ever demonstrated it. .

V-280 has already demonstrated sling load at hover and forward speeds It will have two side gunners and there is talk of adding other armament depending on customer needs.

Assuming everything goes as expected, it'll beat the Black Hawk in almost everything. 30+ years newer technology tends to do that.

Depends on what the Army asks for, but Bell has stated that all-weather is there if the customer wants. That would mostly be in avionics.

The Army specified once fielded, less maintenance than Black Hawk.

The aircraft certainly would be multi-mission capable. Again, it all depends n what the customer wants (and is willing to pay for). For example, the Navy would want the aircraft to fold to fit into DDG hangars. Bell says their version fold up into a cube slightly smaller than that of a UH-1Y.

A tough nut indeed.

Bell returns to the Lead
 

I was glad to see Bell win this FLRAA. I was thinking about buying Textron stock (an article said the stock soared) but I just had this sinking feeling that somehow Boe-Sik was going to win due the "industrial base concern". I coulda made some good $$.. With the AH-64 and UH-60 having won tons of the recent foreign competitions recently; both Morocco and Poland seemed to be leaning towards the AH-1Z, then *boom* they selected the AH-64, I was SURE that some behind-the-scenes thing was going to see the SB>1 as the winner. Then there was the Leonardo AW-139 winning the UH-1N comp, and Airbus seems to be selling their copters ALL over. But as Bell had two decades with the AH-1 and UH-1 at the forefront, say, 1962 to 1982, the Blackhawk and Apache came around in the late 70s to surpass them, now the V-280 and probably even the B360 will return Bell back on top after being 2nd fiddle. Maybe even the USAF will look into it, hopefully as their H-60 replacement, and maybe they can axe their deal with Leonardo and have the V280 as the UH-1N replacement, a Bell for a Bell..
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7bc977057e.jpg

My scale model Bell helicopters are celebrating!

Relative to all weather, I would think that the ability of autonomous flight without a crew covers that nicely.

At least there is a physical solution to shipboard stowage, and a wing stow mod could feasibly be integrated.

Not so with Defiant. The mast height is non-starter for fitting in any deck elevators or doors. And since that total airframe height is the entire MGB and integral hub, there is no way to address that problem.

I noticed that throughout the demo SB never released a diagram with dimensions showing the height. The pictures and personal observations indicate that Defiant is twice as tall as the 280 would be with V-22 type folding rotors. That alone says the Defiant could never replace UH-60's in naval applications, but the 280 could.

Sikorsky was always careful to compare the overall height of SB-1 as being on par with the UH-60...but that included a spinning tail rotor.

And even then, SB-1 is still 2 feet taller over the entire rotor diameter (18.7' vs 16.8')

CTR,

Wrong response.....if you are going to "replace" the Blackhawk with a Tilt Rotor....it is absolutely relevant to ask what its "helicopter" performance actually is compared to the Blackhawk.

That is not being a "Tilt Rotor Trasher"..... that is asking for an apples to apples comparison of the Blackhawk and its replacement.

We found out that places like Afghanistan demand performance that was lacking in the V-22 and some helicopters...with the Chinook and CH-53 becoming the airframes of choice for Ops in the higher elevations.

We know from V-22 experience that Tiltrotors do have an Achilles Heel of sort when it comes to the "helicopter" side of business.....due to the very design of the machine.

The V-22 is an amazing machine, especially considering it’s a 1980’s technology aircraft, but it’s unfortunate that it was the first tiltrotor to go into production because in may ways it represents the worst case for a tiltrotor. High disk loading, far higher than XV-15, 609, V-280, etc. means downwash is high, hover power required is high, autorotation isn’t possible, etc. FLRAA will have lower disk loading, addressing many of these weaknesses. The V-22 was also burdened with blade fold and wing stow, adding weight, cost, and complexity. Its primary operator is the Marines and Navy, which have higher DOC for any aircraft they operate as a result of the seaborne environment and requirements. So the tiltrotor concept gets a poor reputation, when those issues are particular to one implementation, not the concept in general.

Restating what has been said before.

The FLRAA had a requirement to operate at mission gross weight as a “helicopter” at a height of 6000’ and a temp of 95F. Something you admit the UH-60 couldn’t do. The winning selection has a rotor/engine configuration designed to meet this requirement.

As to the V-22, it was designed for the ship based sea level air assault mission.

SASless,

No, this is the correct response. Tiltrotors are not helicopters. Just like a Corvette will not haul a half ton of cargo, or a 8 x 4 sheet of plywood, a truck cannot go 0-60 in 4 sec, or pull one G in a corner.

There are some missions where the aircraft capabilities overlap, and because of the V-280 increased size and power, the V-280 matches the and lift capability of a Blackhawk. But again, why would you want to waste a expensive asset like a tilt rotor to do a cargo job that can be done cheaper by a conventional Helicopter?

Increased speed and range requirements drive design compromises. However, the V280 achieved the performance specifications required by the US Army, and exceeded others like range and speed.

I did not say the V280 is replacing the Blackhawk, that quote was made by press trying to get a story line. I said that the Blackhawk would continue in the fleet, performing roles where it is better suited to its capabilities.

If I came across as harsh, it comes from decades of responding to people who regurgitate what they read or see online from clearly biased sources. Just a few minutes doing research today allows an individual in most cases to determine what is true and what is false.

Back in the 80s, I was working on the F/A-18 Hornet. In the early days of the F/A-18 program we had to continuously respond to criticism that the aircraft did not match the payload of an A-6, or the speed of an F-14.

Recently, when the V-22 was selected by the Navy for the COD mission, similar criticism was leveled.

Note: A tiltrotor is not a fixed wing aircraft either.

Two decades from now there will still be Blackhawks flying in the US Army.
The UH-60M handled the cited High Hot and Heavy requirement (thanks to the wide chord blade) I think.
I find the discussion about the V-280 being possibly modded for a maritime role interesting - that will take folding. :)
I am sure a few of the sharp folks at Bell are already figuring that out, in terms of forward thinking.

Already done as part of the 247 effort.

From the attached the 60M is designed to operate to a 4000 ft/95F mission albeit at 4000 lb less than max gross with an improved engine in addition to the wider blades.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...M-brochure.pdf

A little expansion on the high disk loading issue, which is unique to the V-22. The proprotor diameter in the V-22 was constrained because Navy/USMC wanted it to be able to operate from the two spots abeam the island on the smaller amphib classes of the time. This required reducing said diameter by five feet from optimum, IIRC, which ups the disk loading. But there was also another factor that isn't that well known. During design, Navy was running a competition for the engine to power the JVX (V-22). Bell/Boeing were told to expect an engine of a certain power, in a certain weight range of a certain size, with a given fuel burn. The competitors were Pratt and GE bidding advanced latest technology , with Allison included with a roe conventional engine as a fallback in case Pratt an GE couldn't design an engine that would meet requirements. Both of the advanced engines met the requirements and according to information at the time, the evaluation board recommended award for one of the advanced engines. The story goes that it was GE, but we'll never know for sure because at the last minute the Navy decided not to go with their team's recommendation and awarded the contract to Alison. Allison's engine actually produced more power, but more importantly it was heavier than the other two engines and had a higher fuel burn, which meant more fuel had to be carried, both factors necessitating more structure which further increased weight. So higher weight on top of constrained proprotror size gives you higher disk loading. BTW, a derivative of that GE engine today powers the CH-53K.

Regarding autorotation, the V-22, like all Tiltrotors can do it, but because of the issues mentioned above, does it badly. Of course most large helicopters (the CH-47 is an exception) don't autorotate that well. The decision was made to meet the power off landing survivability requirement by gliding, which gives you more landing area choices.