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.

 

Bell's V-280 Valor is Rockin and Rollin

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   


I have to be a bit careful about this aircraft, to be honest. I'm starting to turn into a fanboy and I hate that. I hate it in others and I'm loathing it in myself. However, Bell seems to have really done a good job on the V-280. And I am very impressed.

Recently, Bell got the sucker going 140 kts with the nacelles at 60 deg and will have to change from a chase helicopter to a fixed wing aircraft...because the Valor is too fast. The requirement is 280kts. Bell hopes to do 300.

The aircraft is progressing through its testing regime. In fact, it's looking like they will definitely (barring major disaster) be all but done with the requirements that the Army came up with this year. Potentially even by the end of summer. Then they will move onto things they want to demo before the army down selects, such as autonomous flight (though that will be next year, most likely). Even so, there's a nontrivial chance this new tilt rotor will end up through the test cards that the Army wants done prior to the Sikorsky/Boeing design even getting airborne.

An Army pilot has already flown the Valor and Bell has extended an invitation to the other services (especially the Mighty Consumers of Crayons!) to do the same.

As I said, color me impressed. Bell is certainly very thrilled.

The only concern I have is cost. The Army has made it clear that cost is really, really important.

aviationweek.com...




posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Here is a video of a previous 80 knots test:
www.youtube.com...

I hope it gets selected. Can't wait to see civil versions flying around.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 03:19 AM
link   
S&F.. I was thinking yesterday and today about the Bell UH-1 which is still in service even today. That bird could take a licking and keep on whopping providing the hit was not by a golden BB. It was easy to maintain and inspect which considering the environment the bird has operated in is a major plus, IMO.. Going into a hot LZ and having birds hit by 27 rounds of AK-47 and still managing to make it out of the LZ is something I wonder if the new stuff will be able to do the same ?

I like the advertised speed for the Valor and hopefully that will reduce time in the sights of small arms fire.. Again my question with the configuration is all about the survive-ability....... the army gets a big flight of birds loaded with troops to deliver in harms way .... Intel says there are no bad guys yet when the birds touch down all hell breaks lose...

Anyway I agree a cool bird.. I just think about the landing and take-off phase in a hostile environment..



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I think that is a really cool machine, but I do wish that our military would stop this nonsense of trying to replace various systems with one system.

A tilt rotor, just by looking at it shows that it would less than optimal for attack and forward troop deployment. It takes alot of concentration and effort to maneuver those at low speeds from what I hear. And as such it would not be doing much bob and weave on site.

I think they should use this craft for quick deployment in the back and other cargo needs. The Boeing craft looks much better suited to frontline engagement.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

This will determine the path that FVL will take but isn't going to be all that FVL is. The various iterations will have different airframes that are mission determined.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think that there is any chance that the brass will see that there can actually be more than one design to fulfill different needs though??

I mean think if the F-35 A and C were allowed different fuselage, more standard high performance coke bottle types, wouldn't it be a little better airplane?

Maybe alot better?

Not to get in an F-35 discussion, but this one size fits all seems to have some definite problems and the only REAL benefit is to the warehouses as well as the technicians.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

They've already made that clear with some of the talk about their needs. The F-35 was someone's legacy or attempt at a promotion.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

They've already made that clear with some of the talk about their needs. The F-35 was someone's legacy or attempt at a promotion.


bravo...



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Still prefer the Sikorski direction.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Might be good. However, it's running waaaaay behind.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
If you threw everything away when it runs behind, we'd still fly only the Slicks and Snakes for another 70+ years.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Tru, but we have a good competitor that is almost literally flying rings around it...



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Raider and X-2 have both flown, too. Raider hit 150 kts. X-2 hit 250. It honestly depends on how much time you plan to spend in hover, slow, or low. If you don't plan on spending a lot of time down in the weeds, maneuvering around in urban environments, etc, then the tilt-rotor is probably better on range, endurance at speed, etc.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I think the more impressive thing here is that the V280 Valor is a far more complicated design, both mechanically and in terms of getting the damned thing to fly, and yet the folks at Bell have it out faster than Sikorsky's fan-assisted Kamov rip-off. You have to give the folks at Bell some major props for that.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It's a little unfair to call the SB1 a Kamov knockoff and the Defiant has potential. I don't think it has as much potential as the Valor, but that's just my opinion. I've been known to be wrong before and will be again.

The Defiant's issue, apparently, was the transmission and the complexity therein:

www.janes.com...
edit on 1-5-2018 by anzha because: certain symbols seem to be verboten



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It's hilarious to me that they're having transmission issues with it, considering that the drunken vatniks at Kamov have been able to make a coaxial gearbox that can survive under Soviet/Russian maintenance regimes for over a half century while Sikorsky's new corporate parent themselves made something even more complicated work pretty darn flawlessly back in the 70s with the Cheyenne's Rube Goldberg rotor arrangementm



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It was more about parts durability than anything reading that article. It's one thing to be able to build the transmission, but it would be nice to have an MBTF/O that's higher than double digits.



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Kamov never had to transfer power to yet another long-shaft away from and back to the coax rotors... I don't think you get it...



posted on May, 1 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Kamov never had to transfer power to yet another long-shaft away from and back to the coax rotors... I don't think you get it...


This needs more stars.



posted on May, 2 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

It doesn't sound any more complex than a three-engine Stallion's transmission (or a V-22's backup power transfer shaft for that matter) and part of me is wondering whether they're having issues keeping the weight down enough to have a useful payload or something to that end. Kamovs were never known to be heavy lifters and as the Stallion's and the Mi-26 prove, on a really big bird the greasy bits are a much smaller fraction of the overall weight of the thing.

Given that the V-280 in it's hover configuration is delivering 100% of its power as lift, it seems that even in a feathered configuration the thrust propellor of the SB-1 design probably bleeds 5-10% of the engine power and would leave the design at an inherent disadvantage compared to the Bell, and a heavy transmission would likely only complicate that.

It almost seems like Sikorsky designed a solid attack helicopter platform while Bell aced the "flying truck" part of FVL. Too bad they won't replace the Apache with one and the Blackhawk with the other.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join