V-280 Flies

Velocity173

Velocity173

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
15,222
Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Bell's entry to the Future Vertical Lift competition first flight today. Apparently they don't want the tilt mechanism to be seen.;)


 
That’s pretty cool. Looks like they took some lessons learned from the V-22 and applied them. Curious to see if engine longevity is improved by having them fixed and not rotating with the nacelle.
 
Flymy47 said:
That’s pretty cool. Looks like they took some lessons learned from the V-22 and applied them. Curious to see if engine longevity is improved by having them fixed and not rotating with the nacelle.
Click to expand...

Yep, Bell says they've improved upon what they've learned from the V-22. Still think the Army will go with a pusher configuration over tilt rotor.
 
I think you are right. Speed’s the name of the game. I’m also curious if the downwash is similar to the osprey as well. Sure does look like a winged Blackhawk though!
 
Flymy47 said:
I think you are right. Speed’s the name of the game. I’m also curious if the downwash is similar to the osprey as well. Sure does look like a winged Blackhawk though!
Click to expand...

Crazy panel design. Not sure how well this would hold up in harsh conditions.

 
My god, that’s ugly.

Blackhawk fuselage, Cirrus jet tail feathers, bolt-on C-206 wing.

I just hope that function = beauty because I’d never want to be seen anywhere near that thing. Not flying it, not riding it, not looking at it.
 
TCABM said:
My god, that’s ugly.

Blackhawk fuselage, Cirrus jet tail feathers, bolt-on C-206 wing.

I just hope that function = beauty because I’d never want to be seen anywhere near that thing. Not flying it, not riding it, not looking at it.
Click to expand...

Never seen any kind of transport that was sexy.:D Basically looks like a skinny V-22 with a V tail. The point is to keep it as light and as simple as possible to make up for the shortfalls in performance that the V-22 has. The Army also requires an aircraft that operates at a fraction of what the V-22 costs. This FVL isn't going to be a few hundred like the Osprey did for the Marines. The Army is ordering a few thousand.
 
Velocity173 said:
Crazy panel design. Not sure how well this would hold up in harsh conditions.

Click to expand...

Wow, that is crazy. I used to go round and round with engineers when I worked in the integration shop. Good idea fairy ran rampant and I had to remind them all the time that this has to function in a hot LZ, which most of them had never been in and would never see. Wonder how that panel will look under NVG’s?
 
TCABM said:
My god, that’s ugly.

Blackhawk fuselage, Cirrus jet tail feathers, bolt-on C-206 wing.

I just hope that function = beauty because I’d never want to be seen anywhere near that thing. Not flying it, not riding it, not looking at it.
Click to expand...
Eye of the beholder, my friend, I think it looks very cool!
 
Flymy47 said:
Wow, that is crazy. I used to go round and round with engineers when I worked in the integration shop. Good idea fairy ran rampant and I had to remind them all the time that this has to function in a hot LZ, which most of them had never been in and would never see. Wonder how that panel will look under NVG’s?
Click to expand...

Well it's going to need a crapload of green NVG filter coating. I think it can provide some good SA, but all that stuff will most likely be projected on their helmet visor or monocle. All this fluff, won't hold up in a desert. Also, a few rounds will take those "tiles" out and she'll be grounded.

These engineers come up with this stuff like the aircraft flies in a vacuum. They haven't had to fly 500 miles from Kuwait into Iraq with an inop GPS because the keys are stuck from the sand.;) There's a lot to be said for simple, rugged aircraft like the MI-17/24 series.
 
Last edited:
I thought the counter rotor pusher prop fast as hell chopper concept that they had flying some years ago was going to catch on but so far not ...

I guess payload is the issue.

I can't find a picture of it ....
 
txflyer said:
I thought the counter rotor pusher prop fast as hell chopper concept that they had flying some years ago was going to catch on but so far not ...

I guess payload is the issue.

I can't find a picture of it ....
Click to expand...

Oh it's caught on. The Defiant is in competition with the V-280. It should fly early next year. I think it'll be chosen over the V-280. That is if the Army doesn't go with both variants.

 
Velocity173 said:
Well it's going to need a crapload of green NVG filter coating. I think it can provide some good SA, but all that stuff will most likely be projected on their helmet visor or monocle. All this fluff, won't hold up in a desert. A few rounds will take those "tiles" out and she'll be grounded as well.

These engineers come up with this stuff like the aircraft flies in a vacuum. They haven't had to fly 500 miles from Kuwait into Iraq with an inop GPS because the keys are stuck from the sand.;) There's a lot to be said for simple, rugged aircraft like the MI-17/24 series.
Click to expand...

Boom!
 
To me it makes way more sense in the civilian sector than the military. You can land one of those things in a clear space in an urban setting, or on top of a building. Get your pax, and fly them to the top of the building at the destination. Or to the airport.

It would make sense for the military if it could land quickly, but it can't. But that doesn't matter all that much for civilian transport. I hope it works out.
 
I'm sure both rotors are mechanically coupled together, but the failure of one would ruin your whole day. I suppose the same could be said of the CH46/47.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I'm sure both rotors are mechanically coupled together, but the failure of one would ruin your whole day. I suppose the same could be said of the CH46/47.
Click to expand...

Depends on the conditions. Like the Osprey, I’m sure it can easily fly on one engine in forward flight. The Osprey can even hover on one engine if the conditions are right. Pretty much the same for twin engine helos.
 
Velocity173 said:
Depends on the conditions. Like the Osprey, I’m sure it can easily fly on one engine in forward flight. The Osprey can even hover on one engine if the conditions are right. Pretty much the same for twin engine helos.
Click to expand...

Right - but, I'm thinking rotor failure, not engine failure.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Right - but, I'm thinking rotor failure, not engine failure.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah a rotor failure on one side would be a bad deal. That’s not the only issue with tilt rotors though. You’ll see the AF / USMC has a minimum sep on landing with MV/CV-22 formations due to differential lift with disrupted airflow. Friend of mine flys them in the Marines and expressed the same thing. Coming from Frogs, you’d think he was a fan but he’s not.

https://breakingdefense.com/2012/10...ce-to-restart-cv-22-pilot-formation-training/
 
Last edited:
Was talking to an XP at work that’s flown it. Says it’s pretty cool but they have it dumbed down a lot for future envelope expansion. I’m hoping the SB-1 can pull it off as well. It’s cool technology.
 
It's a pretty cool vehicle. We think we saw it a few weeks ago flying near us at night, and we finally got a peek of it on the ramp yesterday.

DxpXrkDVAAEmiNP.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/NorthTXaerials/status/1088278910666768385
 
Flymy47 said:
Was talking to an XP at work that’s flown it. Says it’s pretty cool but they have it dumbed down a lot for future envelope expansion. I’m hoping the SB-1 can pull it off as well. It’s cool technology.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m leaning towards the coaxial pusher fan over the tilt rotor myself. Don’t think they’ll get 280 out of it but I think it’s other strengths will be better suited for the Army’s needs.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I’m leaning towards the coaxial pusher fan over the tilt rotor myself. Don’t think they’ll get 280 out of it but I think it’s other strengths will be better suited for the Army’s needs.
Click to expand...
I defer to you guys on the technical aspects but I have to say that the Valor is waaaay better looking in my opinion...
 
RyanShort1 said:
I defer to you guys on the technical aspects but I have to say that the Valor is waaaay better looking in my opinion...
Click to expand...

I prefer the looks as well but having listened to a few stories from a fellow coworker who flys Ospreys, I’m not sure a tilt rotor is the best choice. Now, like I said above, Bell has stated they’ve learned from the Osprey and put that experience into the Valor. Based on that, I think it should be a close competition. Just the 6,000 ft HOGE at 95F ain’t bad if that’s at max gross. Of course 280 KTAS cruise and 4,500 FPM at 160 kts is no slouch either.
 
Of course I am biased, but both platforms will have their mission sets. I can’t imagine the valor fast roping to a rooftop in a urban environment, but maybe that’s prejudicial based on V-22 expectations/performance. Who knows. I’m excited to see what comes out of all of this.
 
While looks might be important to some, the tilt-rotor has its limits. One of the reasons it was "shunned" from the GOM early on was the the rotor disc(s) footprint was 90 degrees out from conventional helicopters, i.e., it couldn't land on most current or some future platforms/rigs. There were also some performance issues in tight quarters. While it excels in point to point movement the counter-rotating/pusher systems of the X2/Defiant have a better track record through history and can fit in the same foot print of existing helicopters. Just look at the Russian versions or old Lockheed Cheyenne. It will be interesting how it plays out. A funny thing happened at a past HAI convention when the X2 was displayed. They had a PR video playing that showed a tilt-rotor loading troops and cargo for an assault with X2 Raiders flying armed cover and maneuvering like fighters. Made for quite the discussion at happy hour.
 
Bell206 said:
While looks might be important to some, the tilt-rotor has its limits. One of the reasons it was "shunned" from the GOM early on was the the rotor disc(s) footprint was 90 degrees out from conventional helicopters, i.e., it couldn't land on most current or some future platforms/rigs. There were also some performance issues in tight quarters. While it excels in point to point movement the counter-rotating/pusher systems of the X2/Defiant have a better track record through history and can fit in the same foot print of existing helicopters. Just look at the Russian versions or old Lockheed Cheyenne. It will be interesting how it plays out. A funny thing happened at a past HAI convention when the X2 was displayed. They had a PR video playing that showed a tilt-rotor loading troops and cargo for an assault with X2 Raiders flying armed cover and maneuvering like fighters. Made for quite the discussion at happy hour.
Click to expand...
I totally get that. It's also a taildragger... ;)
 
skier said:
Click to expand...

Never even thought about going negative thrust. That would be a major benefit. Only thing is, sand / rocks are gonna strip the hell out of that prop.
 
Velocity173 said:
Never even thought about going negative thrust. That would be a major benefit. Only thing is, sand / rocks are gonna strip the hell out of that prop.
Click to expand...

I actually thought that was the most interesting part of the video as well. It is a pretty cool idea.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well, the Army chose the Valor. Wished they would’ve gone with the Defiant but the Valor will still be a slight improvement over legacy helicopters.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/
Click to expand...

We've talked a lot about this at work, prior to the decision yesterday. I went to a media day a year or two ago that had the Invictus, Defiant, and Valor mockups, and the Raider prototype. We got to walk around them, and climb in the mockups and ask questions. The Valor mockup was placed on a rug that had a full-size Blackhawk outline to prove the size difference which surprisingly, in my opinion was negligible.

I think they made the right choice. They went with the vendor that hit the milestones on time and budget. Also, the Defiant had issues out of the gate. The scalability they had hoped for from the Raider to the Defiant proved to be more difficult than they anticipated.

From my perspective now, that composite prop was/is an accident waiting to happen. It's all good and fine to zip in to the RP at 200+ knots. Then you land and ding that beautiful expensive composite prop on a tree stump or rock because your crew chief didn't see it. Now you are flying back to the house at helicopter speed.

That said, I would keep my eye on the Raider though for FARA. Bell's 360 Invictus is interesting, but far more conventional. Looks like a Cobra crossed with the Comanche. I believe they recently switched back to a tail rotor from a fenestron.

It is my dream to be able to fly from the Midsouth to ABQ and it not take 9 flight hours with a refuel stop. 270 knots would be a game changer!
 
Velocity173 said:
Wished they would’ve gone with the Defiant
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Sikorsky never brought their A-game to the table in this race. But from what I hear the 280 will not replace the 60 in all modes especially in a true assault role as it is being called. Just as the V22 stayed in the background, I think the 280 will also and require either keeping the 60s for certain roles or require a new model to fulfill those roles... like maybe the Defiant if they choose to fix their issues. Interesting times ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top