It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need a second source: Russian helicopter Group claims to have flown a 'convertiplane'

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Virtually everything Russian ought to be taken with a grain of salt these days. After all, the Russians claimed they would be on the Moon by 2025 (with people) and turned around to just cut their space program budget by 30%.

The Russians have claimed they built and flown their first convertiplane. This is what they call the MV-22, what we call a 'tilt rotor.'

However! It is possible this might be something else. A autogyro perhaps? (grasping at straws here).

So, my dear ATS aerophiles, what could this be and do we have a second source?

www.ruaviation.com...
edit on 18-3-2016 by anzha because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

"The works on developing the unique machine started in 2015. Over that time, we have achieved considerable results and have already started the first state of flight tests,"

From concept to first flight in less than one year? I find that dubious at best.

Another source, but sounds like it's pulling from he same "VR-Tech" people.

parnas.info...-5283



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Define development. They may be talking about building it starting last year. If they're talking design, then yeah, BS.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A second story from the same source says it was a tilt rotor and it was a UAV.

However, given its the same source and no pix, I'm not inclined to believe it more.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

There's no way they designed, built, and flew in a year, no. Built and flew maybe. They've been trying hard to catch up in UAVs recently. They realized they missed that boat ac couple years ago and have been fast tracking anything even remotely promising since.

I'm not going to buy everything they say, hook, line and sinker, but at the same time I'm not going to blow it off because of their track record.
edit on 3/18/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
They have some intelligent people over there. We would likely be amazed if we knew what top secret projects the US has in motion right now. The Russians likely have a few secrets of their own



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It's a testbed to prove the concept, and was unmanned.
Those tiltrotors are far too complex anyway, unless they have come up with something much simpler.
I think there were too many consortium Ospreys built in the first place, a money pit.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Their engineers are great. What bites them in the ass every time is production and upkeep. The Su-34 is my go to story for that. It was a disaster. The first 16 aircraft had 16 different problems, with the first two being grounded completely. They would pull the same board from three aircraft, and they were built three different ways.

As for upkeep, this summer drove that lesson home. Counting the helicopter, they lost nine aircraft in 7 or 8 weeks.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Osprey 2.0 has proven to be quite successful. Yes they've found a few bugs, but they're pretty easy to overcome and were the result of stupid decisions by the military people working with the design team.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

For what its worth…

Another source with 'pic'



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The first pic in that article is of a Ka-52 alligator with the center rotor assembly removed.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

Osprey 2.0 has proven to be quite successful. Yes they've found a few bugs, but they're pretty easy to overcome and were the result of stupid decisions by the military people working with the design team.


I don't want to debate how good or bad, I think it's just a bad idea that sounded good on paper, enough to make the military dreamers part with the shekels. It has killed 30 people just on test flights, another 6 since in service, it can't do so much of what it was supposed to do like VTOL all the time without assistance in real service conditions, (mother nature took care of that) It's too fast for required backup assistance in those circumstances, and too slow for jets.
Maintenance is expensive, flyaway cost is just plain silly getting nearer the $100million by now.
The best thing it can do in reality is get a complement of marines to a war zone fast for something specific and highly specialized.

edit on 18-3-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

It worked better than helicopters in Afghanistan, has a higher mission capable rate than most helicopters, deals with high altitude and odd sized payloads better than just about everything but the Chinook. The issues found with dust and dirt have a simple fix that will be implemented this year.

It's not supposed to be as fast as a jet, only faster than a helicopter, which it most certainly is. It gets troops in and out faster, works better for CSAR, and more.

Is it a great aircraft? No, and it won't be. It's becoming damn good at what it does. As for the people killed in testing, they redesigned it so much they call it 2.0 now. And six dead since service entry is far far better than most if not all helicopters.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That tears it! I'm throwing the BS flag!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

It's not supposed to be as fast as a jet, only faster than a helicopter, which it most certainly is. It gets troops in and out faster, works better for CSAR, and more.

I already said that, However I disagree with a higher capable mission rate thus far since, as you say, the dirt and dust problem is not yet implemented, and you are right, it is not a helicopter.
It is an obsolete machine in today's environment. If the Russians want to build a tiltrotor, let them go ahead, even on the assumption that their engineering might be better. If so, it's still a daft idea.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Have you seen the condition of the helicopter fleet? It's beyond pathetic. But even leaving that out the Osprey in Iraq and Afghanistan had something like a high 80% mission capable rate. Very few helicopters can beat that. The dust issue is only a serious issue with prolonged hover in reduced visibility conditions right now. Minimize your time and problems are reduced.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I have read of some research in France of compound helicopters. They can TO vertically and with two props on stub wings. It has high 200 MPH speed.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

The Eurocopter X-3 set a speed record of 293 mph in 2013.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

That's the one. I'm getting old and can't remember #! Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join