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.

 

V44 - big Osprey?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Anybody heard something about this?
The Pentagon is planning to replace C130 Hercules with the new FTR ( future transport rotorcraft ). One of considered designs is Bell's V44. It looks like a quad rotor Osprey. It has a range 1000-2000 miles and can carry more than 20 tons.

Twice A V-22 The FTR will provide a capability that does not exist anywhere in the world today--and perhaps will replace the helicopter for military operations. The concept for the aerial assault platform comes from Bell Helicopter Textron. Having teamed with Boeing on the twin-engine V-22 Osprey tiltrotor program, Bell has developed the concept for a larger fuselage. Envisioned to be about the size of a stretched C-130 Hercules, the FTR would feature two V-22-type wings, each having an engine and a combination rotor-propeller mounted at the outboard tips. The exact configuration has yet to be determined. Some versions show a tailless aircraft, others have an airframe more along the lines of a C-130.
A quad tiltrotor could be put into production as early as 2010.
There is no disagreement about the interior. The V-44 is designed to be a heavy hauler. "Imagine this aircraft with a cabin large enough to internally carry an 8 x 8 x 40-ft. container, several helicopters, all types of high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, eight standard loading pallets, or 70 [medivac] litters," reads an industry analysis describing the concept. "Imagine an aircraft that could transport 80 to 100 troops or 10 to 20 tons of equipment and supplies at speeds greater than 300 mph over distances from 1000 to 2000 miles and then safely land vertically, without the need for runways or airports."
The FTR concept can be traced back as far as the early 1960s when the Curtiss-Wright Corp. built the X-19, a small quad-rotor testbed. After 50 successful test flights, it was destroyed in an accident. A second X-19 was scrapped. Enthusiasm for the FTR, however, is based on the technical success of the V-22 Osprey. These aircraft can be configured to carry 24 combat troops or up to 20,000 pounds of internal or external cargo at twice the speed of a helicopter. U.S. procurement plans call for 360 Marine Corps MV-22 aircraft and 50 U.S. Air Force CV-22 aircraft. Using parts common with the Marine MV-22, the Air Force CV-22 modification includes the addition of internal-wing fuel tanks and terrain-avoidance and terrain-following radars. It also has been given an enhanced electronic warfare suite, additional cockpit seating for a flight engineer, an aerial refueling probe and an internally mounted rescue hoist.
The FTR will use a pair of V-22 propulsion systems. Each is based on two Rolls-Royce Allison AE 1107C 6150-shp engines and a computer-controlled rotor coordination system that permits a safe landing if one engine loses power.
An obvious question is whether the four rotors could operate in such close proximity without creating turbulence that would shake apart the aircraft or make it impossible to control. To answer this question, Bell draws on data reaching back to its X-22 ducted propeller quad tiltrotor, which flew 500 flights between 1966 and 1988. The results encouraged Bell to test a pair of V-22s at a distance approximating the spacing between the fore and aft wings of a V-44. According to Dick Spivey, Bell's director of advanced concepts, the test was a success. Water tunnel tests showed that the rotor wakes from the front engines flowed down and inboard--below and inboard of the rear rotors. Technically, there is no reason this bird shouldn't fly.
Thus configured, it could carry twice the payload and eight times the internal volume of cargo transported by the V-22. A true multiservice aircraft, it would reportedly meet the expanded needs of the Marine Corps' Ship-To-Objective Maneuver operations, support Air Force Aerospace Expeditionary Force units and meet many Army requirements for a future Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR). In the Army's case, officials envision a JTR that will replace some of the aging CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The Navy has its eye on the quad tiltrotor to make deliveries to its oceangoing fleet, much as the C-2A Greyhound now services carriers.

Early requirements issued by the Defense Department call for the ability to transport 8 to 12 tons of cargo over 600 miles with return at cruise speeds of 300 knots. Bell Helicopter engineers believe that their FTR concept would come very close to meeting these criteria.

A Formidable GunshipIn addition to the FTR's cargo-hauling abilities, the possibility of putting tiltrotor technology into combat can be seen in another industry analysis. With advanced laser weapons and precision fire control, the craft could provide protection for overtaking a captured or damaged airport or seaport, making such sites accessible to allied forces.

Gunship applications are just one of several ideas being explored. A joint panel is looking at all of the rotorcraft possibilities. "They're looking at joint common lift replacement aircraft, to include a medium assault, a utility and an attack and anti-armor aircraft," explains Marine Corps Capt. Aisha Bakkar-Poe. "The Marine Corps' view is that tiltrotor is the way of the future because it has such a longer range and goes so much faster that it almost makes a helicopter obsolete."

source: popularmechanics.com... entagon_transport/index2.phtml

I think it would be an excelent transport because with 4 engines there is smaller risk of mechanical failure and because of its VTOL capability it can operate from the carriers or marine wasp class ships. It could be something like a JSF, joint transport.

pics:











posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
i have never heard of one in real life but i know in the video game ssx3 a diferent color one of those transports u from peak to peak



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What the heck are those V44's doing in the second to last pic? There's three of them I think and it looks like they're taking out some drug lords' cabanas or something. I dunno, it just bugs me.

Cool aircraft, though. I've always liked the C130 gunship, but this looks like it could do significantly more damage with the ability to essentially hover.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The pics are just for illustration , the V44 is currently in research phase, I don't know about any prototypes flying. However it is probably one of the most promising concepts for future medium brigade units. There are some other concepts for VTOL c-130 replacement, but V-44 looks like the most realistic one. As I already stated they could be pretty universal - transporting 100 troops, STRYKER with it's crew, navy and marine logistic or serving as replacement for AC-130 gunships.


[Edited on 24-4-2004 by longbow]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If they were having problems with the Ospreys' props transitioning from vertical to horizontal positions, I would think it be twice as hard to make four props keep an aircraft in the air during the transition. Am I right or wrong? Nice looking aircraft though, kinda has a fuselage of the traditional four engine transport craft.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
If they were having problems with the Ospreys' props transitioning from vertical to horizontal positions, I would think it be twice as hard to make four props keep an aircraft in the air during the transition. Am I right or wrong? Nice looking aircraft though, kinda has a fuselage of the traditional four engine transport craft.


Problems may be there, but I think it's always better to have quad engine aircraft than twin engine. If something fails on twin engine or one rotor is destroyed (for example SAM hit) and the security systems will not work the Osprey will fall down like a rock. If you have quad engine one rotor can be totaly destroyed and the V44 could still fly with it's 3 remaining engines (teoreticaly).



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
TextText Red Looks alot like some sketches I saw on the wall of bill moores lil place in long beach CA some years ago. At phalanx organization which I can't find anywhere now. Also walked in to the hangar (at L.B. airport) and saw what I was told was the mp18 dragon then escorted out. Saw in int'l combat arms a one page article on it but that was it. Anybody heard or seen this thing? Read that it's nozzle speed was phenomenal (vtol) mach2 aircraft that security said only the Gov' was buying I saw one complete and two in lesser degrees of completion. Would be perfect for the deck of frigate or other surface combatant. Very very small yet manned aircraft.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Apparently the Nov. '86 issue of Air Combat featured it. However, I have never heard enything of this aircraft, which just goes to show how many prototypes and secret aircraft there are out there... and how many never got past the mock-up or drawing board stage.

www.cahood.com...



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
i've seen a show on the Discovery Wings Channel a long time ago but didnt really pay attention to it that time. but u've gotta admit. it doesn look pretty sexy. not as sexy as the blackbird but still spankin hot! put in a new stereo system, bass, subwoofers, tinted windows, and some new rims (on the propellers) and u'd have a pimpin ride!



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
They have problems yet to make the V-22 fly and stay in fly and they want to make a V-44 ?

To you think it will kill the double of marines than the OSPREY ?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
They have problems yet to make the V-22 fly and stay in fly and they want to make a V-44 ?

To you think it will kill the double of marines than the OSPREY ?


As I already said quad engine is much more reliable than twin engine... And no it will not kill double of marines because it could transport 100 people (24 in Osprey).



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
thanks for the heads up on the mp18 mag' source. I've already seen that one a while back just never looked into it. But, again, anybody got a photo? I've looked alot but some others are probably better at some things than me. My kid (13) would really be blown away by a photo as opposed to just my description of what I saw. It was a complete plane, the others were 50% and they were molded/formed in very large structures--- whole bottom half of wing and fuselage in one piece.Really cutting edge for the timeframe. And the one page I saw stated they were of carbon fiber or even more pricey stuff.Blended wing w/ canard, twin tail. Blowing the Rafale or anything else away. For testing they were to be outfitted w/ cruise missile eng' and then, I believe were to be powered by their production eng' which was not developed yet. Douglas's C-17 hangar at the time was just 100 yards away.Now the hangar(BOEING) takes up the area where PHALANX ORG' used to be. Can't even find them, unless maybe they were the predecessor's of the Phantom Works who make some real cool rides. When I learn how to attach pictures I'll post a Phantom Work plane I picked up just a few days ago. Bill Moore was a PHD from MIT. and, Owner /founder of Phalanx Org'.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by bign]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
... put in a new stereo system, bass, subwoofers, tinted windows, and some new rims (on the propellers) and u'd have a pimpin ride!


Maybe a few decals and exhaust? Imagine in Nelly's videos. Women jiggling next to the airplane with the 24 inch "en dey dun stop spinnin" rims. LOLOLOLOL.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
They have problems yet to make the V-22 fly and stay in fly and they want to make a V-44 ?

To you think it will kill the double of marines than the OSPREY ?


As I already said quad engine is much more reliable than twin engine... And no it will not kill double of marines because it could transport 100 people (24 in Osprey).


Here you can clearly see what is the military strategy of the United States of America in the future. And you say are not an occupation army ?

the truth is that MV-22 Osprey is not a reliable plane. Sinnce the devellopements of it have started, many accidents occurs, at least three time, but...
The US army need this type of aircraft, to make faster (and bigger) intervention in some third world zones, without infrastructures or spaces allowing big troop transport planes to land.

With this project (MV-44, I.E.), they confirm their occupation strategy...

Maybe USA want to conquer the world...



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
Here you can clearly see what is the military strategy of the United States of America in the future. And you say are not an occupation army ?
The US army need this type of aircraft, to make faster (and bigger) intervention in some third world zones, without infrastructures or spaces allowing big troop transport planes to land.

With this project (MV-44, I.E.), they confirm their occupation strategy...

Maybe USA want to conquer the world...


What has VTOL to do with ocupation? So everyone who has helicopters will occupy the world? I'm not American, but IMHO USA don't want to occupy other countries. They are not British or French you know .... The US goal is the economical dominance and eliminating some few threats to national security. So I highly doubt we will see some sort of American Empire in the future.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The goal of making a plane like MV-22 is to have a rapid vehicle for interventions forces in hard to access areas.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Text RedText The MV-22 provides the ability to adapt your original designs to ever changing situations in or around an AO. The speed allows forces to choose the time and place of landing to a degree not possible with helicopters and, allows their platform to stay over the horizon to a greater degree thus giving better response to anti-surface responses. True most helicopters have fair enough range, but their E.T.A. w/ medevac or the like drive the platform closer over time like it or not.. SOMETIMES PILOTS JUST SCREW UP, JUST KEEP HOPING IT'S NOT YOURS...



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
For those who like the Americans having good transport that dosen't kill the passengers, hope this never comes to be. The V22 has sucked up resources for long enough as it is, not one has been deployed to unit because they're not safe enough. The truth is the U.S. would be waaay better off with the tried and true Mi-26 Halo, not that they'd ever buy it but they could at least swallow their pride an come up with a half decent copy. The only advantage the V-22 has over the Mi-26 is speed and given the reliability, capacity, expence it's really not worht the price they're paying.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
The truth is the U.S. would be waaay better off with the tried and true Mi-26 Halo, not that they'd ever buy it but they could at least swallow their pride an come up with a half decent copy. The only advantage the V-22 has over the Mi-26 is speed and given the reliability, capacity, expence it's really not worht the price they're paying.


The US already has a helicopter similar to mi-26 - CH-53 Super Stallion. It cannot carry that much (16 tons compared to 20 tons of russian helo) but it is a similar heavy helicopter. So don't try to make us believe the Russians invented fire or something like that. If US army wanted the traditional helicopter they would simply upgrade CH-53. But tiltrotor is 3 times more efective than traditional helicopter( with the same amount of fuel and payload). In 20 years there will be probably no tradittional helicopters in the US army.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I saw a briefing on the Quad Tilt Rotor (QTR) concept last week. It stems from a need each service has for some kind of long range transport vehicle with STOVL capability. The Army wants a CH-47 replacement and the Navy wants a C-2 replacement while both the Air Force and Marines are looking for a vehicle that can carry a C-130 type payload but takeoff and land vertically. Bell has proposed meeting all these needs with a four-engined cousin of the V-22 called the QTR.

The advantage of this strategy is that much of the necessary technology has already been developed for the V-22. The current QTR proposal uses the same rotors, engine nacelles, cockpit, and most of the same wing structure. The only significantly new development is the enlarged fuselage. However, initial analysis suggests that the biggest design challenge will probably be developing control systems that can correct for the complex interactions between the fore and aft rotor wakes.

The current design concept should satisfy the mission requirements for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, but not the Army which has much more challenging goals. Bell is hoping to build a prototype in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe to prove the concept. This effort would then be followed by a spiral development to create improved technologies needed to meet the Army mission.

In any event, I think the biggest challenge will be finding the money to make such an ambitious project happen.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join