Posted on 12/07/2022 9:53:16 AM PST by Yo-Yo
The elimination of the wing and blade stowage capability also greatly simplifies the V-280's construction, making it lighter, and provides more payload.
However, because of this, the V-280 in its current form will not be an acceptable replacement for the Navy's Seahawk helicopters for shipboard operations.
Perhaps the loser of this competition, the Defiant, would make a better shipboard aircraft than the Valor.
Perhaps the loser of this competition, the Defiant, would make a better shipboard aircraft than the Valor.
I think the high stack of the contrarotating rotors would present their own problems when it comes to onboard destroyer class ship storage.
The main driver for tilt rotor is increased speed. A conventional helicopter tops out about 140 knots give or take. A tilt rotor can do about twice that, or about 250 knots. This is great for moving troops about the field rapidly.
Just about everything else is a negative. Cost, maintenance, complexity, deck multiple for ship use, auto-rotate envelope, etc, all negative compared to a helicopter.
That space between an airplane and a helicopter is hard to fill.
Might not fit into a Destroyer's hanger bay?
That’s a maintenance nightmare right there.
The Boeing design looks a lot more practical and easier to maintain. Of course, when you need to squander and launder billions of dollars every year the more expensive solution is always the one you pick.
It may be that once the V-280 proves itself in Army service, wing and blade stowage capability may be developed for a Navy version as a successor or supplement to the Osprey.
A successor to the Seahawk. The V-22 is a much, much larger aircraft than the V-280, so the V-280 will not replace the V-22.
Best value means it cost more, but the better performance, perhaps stealth & top end speed, are worth the higher price.
I'm guessing that Boeing and LM will protest. If the Defiant meets all spec requirements and cost less, then it should win.
My prediction is DOD will force the Navy to accept Defiant as the replacement for their Seahawks. Boeing & LM would then withdraw their protest.
The Boeing design drives all 3 rotors from the same transmission system. It is very complex, and thus would be a big maintenance task as well.
The Boeing design was literally 2+ years behind on testing compared to the Bell design.
The Boeing design never showed the supposed maneuverability advantage they claimed it had compared to the Bell design.
The Boeing design reportedly still had vibration issues at max speed, a max speed that is 55 knots (63 miles) per hour slower than the Bell design.
The Boeing design had less interior space, and far shorter range than the Bell design.
I'm sure there is a lot of graft in all defense contracts, but I'm really sick of the accusations going on here. I have no ties to either program.
Have had one foot in Defiant for the last six months (with other foot still in a VH program).
Interesting aircraft, was looking forward to further development work on it, but probably too close for an accurate self-survey - nice take on unsuitability to ship duty.
The beauty of the old Black Hawk airframe is how versatile it was, easily transitioning to ship-board duty, gunship, even firefighting. We may never see an airframe quite like it.
Sikorsky will still be OK with the loss, but Bell would have been devastated without that contract win - so good for the Bell folks (and their families).
Have been in aviation for 42 years, there's plenty to go around.
Cost to maintain should be less, actually. By tilting just drive mechanism and props, you have a fraction of the moving parts.
These are known, standard, engines with a drivetrain that is far simpler than any true rotary.
Speed is much higher. Range is fantastically higher. Survivability and redundancy much higher. This can land like any fixed wing. It also has a driveshaft that links the engines so it can fly fine and limp in on one engine.
The props are much sturdier and function fine with considerable damage.
It can also be armored up and make a heck of a weapons platform, very comparable to an A-10.
I've seen no data regarding max payload and range w max payload.
Not while the rotors are tilted forward, maybe at some point between there and up.
The props are much sturdier and function fine with considerable damage.
I doubt that. Props and components come apart pretty quickly when unbalanced, which would likely be the case in any damage at all. A lot of the modern blades are composite to reduce weight, which shatter into a billion carbon fibers when the get struck by something at high speed. But this is a minor nit. A hit is a hit regardless of platform and damage may or may not be survivable depending on whats hit.
It can also be armored up and make a heck of a weapons platform, very comparable to an A-10.
Would be pretty dumb to risk a multi-crew platform to do what a single seat A-10 can do better with more load, more survivability, more crew armor. I am sure it will be armed up, but not to replace the A-10 CAS role.
Real helicopter pilots, current and former, are not really impressed. This thing really couldn’t be called a helicopter, which I suppose it probably isn’t being called.
Osprey 2.0................................
The Boeing design reportedly still had vibration issues at max speed, a max speed that is 55 knots (63 miles) per hour slower than the Bell design.
The Boeing design had less interior space, and far shorter range than the Bell design.
To be fair, the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant SB-1 is the flying test bed prototype, but their FLRAA bid to the Army was based on the slightly modified Defiant X.
I guess my nephew (an industrial engineer with Sikorsky) will be retiring immediately in 2023 and not later. Bell is not only getting what has been a top sikorsky government contract, Bell is big in commercial helicopter sales, and with Sikorsky the commercial helicopter field is less than it’s government contracts.
I’ve detested these tilt-rotor turds since the early days of the Osprey development - we lost a LOT of good people firing the initial flight testing to force that piece of garbage into service.
Well, excepting the fact that, yes, the props do have to be canted to not hit the ground, you are incorrect.
Full disclosure, I have involvement in the targeting system for this craft.
Yes, it will replace the Apache. It will also probably fill much of the A10 roll. Yes, it fits the A10 cannon.
The props have vulnerabilities, but are much stouter than a conventional helicopter main lifting surface.
It’s also considerably more stealthy than the A10 or any equivalent rotary (when props are forward).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.