Been waiting for a Skyships video on the Bell V-280 Valor and it's well worth the wait!^^ Also, I'm looking forward to the development of this tilt-rotor craft.
A very capable looking aircraft, and a great video. My only comment is that while Osprey accidents are always in the news, the actual rate of accidents, according to the USMC is equal to, or slightly less than their other assets. It is in fact, not as bad as we are lead to believe
Yup it just got into a few high profile crashes and bring in clicks for any crash at all now. So they are plastered all over the news anytime they do happen. It had real issues but what new piece of hardware doesn't.
@@antonkirov1923 it can auto rotate and glide... Tilt rotors also have a better time with VRS... Finally it goes twice the distance at a faster speed while carrying more people so yea it can be more expensive. Hell the defiant designers couldn't give a good reason for their costs even while being less expensive lmao. You really need to look up the public information of the testing.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Of course it can. Even my penis can autorotate. The question is, can Tiltrotor autorotation rescues the crew? No. Because the rotors are too small. Can gliding be safe? No. Because the wings are too small also. Even if people will survive, the machine will be lost. Very expensive machine. Flight with one proprotor stopped? For planes it is normal situation. For tiltrotors it is catastrophe. Broken synchronous shaft - catastrophe. Is it effective? No. Because now the rotors are too big and the blades are too thick. And also two engines has crazy power. With same MTOW, Dr328 has engines with max power 3 times less than V-280. It is interesting to compare these two aircrafts. VRS. Yes, small diameter helicopter rotors are more safe for VRS. But proprotors can more easy generate secondary vortex. Because the blades twist is too big. Defiant is almost same wrong concept. The difference is that Tiltrotor has universal propeller-rotor, but Gyrodyne (Defiant) has universal wing-rotor. People who take decision to build these aircrafts, did not understand basic things.
@@antonkirov1923 I think I'll stick with what the actual data and statistics say rather than preconceived notions people have that aren't based in reality
The #1 thing holding the V-280 back are delays in the new turbine GE has been working on for years. The V-280 needs that engine to get beyond prototype phase.
The V22 didn’t actually crash that much in the grand scheme of things. The only reason it has such a bad rep is because when it does crash it usually has many people on board causing large casualty incidents and so it’s reported on much more then another vehicle crashing more often but only taking 1 pilots life
Eh. It ain’t as rosy as you might think, but you’re right, fair and reasonable in saying it’s not as bad as most people think. It’s above average in incidents per hours flown (so not casualties), but not so extreme as sometimes painted, and only when compared to other aircraft in active service. If I recall correctly. It’s a “first gen”-design. As in, the next gen will have had the childhood diseases fixed. The problem is that some people try to use the design of the Osprey as an argument that the concept is flawed, which is wholly unreasonable.
Also an investigation found that most crashes were because they had airplane pilots trying to work, essentially, a helicopter. They didn't have any crashes with pilots that were trained on helis
@@ChangeEvery14Days how high are rates with other airframes divided by total hours of use? Simply going by number of airframes divided by failures without taking into account usage isn't fair
What if they had set a couple of jet vertical propulsion to the V22 just to be used at landing only? Wouldn't it make more stable to land and reduce crashing? Just an ignorance comment, you tell
The V-22's tilted engines essentially create a jet blast downward that it is a danger to personnel. Hence, no sliding doors on the sides of the V-22. The Valor solves that problem, making it more like a helicopter, with doors on both sides. Bell hit a home run imho.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9Exactly. The Navy wanted it for among other things Carrier Onboard Delivery. It needed to be able to fit an F-35 Engine. The V-280 only tilting the rotors using a mechanical linkage also greatly simplifies a lot of the mechanisms and systems needed. The Osprey needs to tilt all of the control wiring, the fuel and hydraulic lines. Plus it makes that power take off shaft that allows one engine to power both blades much more complicated with complex finicky clutches at both ends. It’s suspected a clutch failure is what caused the recent crash off Japan. But that same shaft system is much simpler on the V-280. Because the engines don’t move.
@@andrewtaylor940 this is all true yea and those design choices were to meet marine corp and navy requirements. The engine has been improved from the begining as early on it had to be taken off the aircraft very often
@@andrewtaylor940 Don't forget the the same electrical and mechanical systems also need to twist at the wing root for storage. That must have been a nightmare to engineer.
@@andrewtaylor940 I heard it was pilot error with the last Osprey Crash. But you’re right about the simplification of the Tit Rotor Design from the Osprey to the new Valor. Fewer moving parts is always better. It’s the evolution of a game changing and brilliant design. The Navy, Marines and the Army really do need these aircraft for whole host of reasons. Helos aren’t going to be able to cross the vast distances in the Pacific. Especially as things become busier in that part of the world.
Thanks buddy! We in Canada love to watch our southern neighbors make...things like this...and then get sad knowing we can't afford it ... find beer ... made in America, and slowly get over it. 😅😂😅 Cheers mate!
Canadians could use bush planes. They can take off and land in VERY short distances with a turbo prop, cruise at high speed at altitude over long distances, and cost a fraction of the price of the Bell. A better solution in my opinion. That'd be one in the eye for the Yanks.
For what it's worth, I think the Canadian armed forces also get a lot of neat equipment. Leopard tanks for the army, F-35's for the air force, plus I remember hearing a while back you guys have a program going to produce smart guns for infantry. I hope we can share future tech like this with our northern neighbors in the future and vice-versa.
We can’t afford it either but our extremely corrupt congress continues to commit fraud by going over on the budget so unnecessary things such as them overpaying themselves along with necessary expenses such as military can be covered.
The Apache isn't being replaced. The Apache is currently filling a role to replace the gap in capability that the Army currently doesn't have, a light reconnaissance heli. I think Bell's Invictus will probably win that contract as well.
I think the Apache replacement is a longer-term part of the overall program, but yes the Invictus is aiming for the light attack/recon role currently split between Huey derivatives and Apache backfilling
@nomercyinc6783 little bird is almost exclusively used by special forces. The 360 invictus will most likely replace it tho. But the apache was being used in reconnaissance roles in the middle east which was proving to be far too uneconomical.
@@nomercyinc6783 The Apache has been used to fill a gap between the very light recon helicopters like OH-6, and the full attack helicopters. It's very uneconomical in the role. The FARA aircraft will keep the Apache relegated to its attack role, and will almost certainly be replacing the UH-1Y and/or AH-1Z in service
@@nomercyinc6783 The main function of attack helis is recon, you're mixing up different types of recon. An attack helicopter will have more advanced sensors and the ability to defend itself and is thus ideal for recon against heavy enemy formations or reconissance in force.
Minor note. I find it funny people always use the Apache as a speed benchmark for military helicopters. The CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter is 10 knots faster and damn near just as maneuverable when unloaded. Massive note. You called the Sea Stallion's rotors propellers.
Chinook uses two engines to get 10 knots faster than an Apache with one engine, so Apache is still a winner aside from the fact that fuel consumption of Chinook is higher. BTW, Chinook is not optimized for speed. It's a truck.
@@marine00001 It’s not the engines, or at least not the core difference. A big part of the speed limits for rotor aircraft is “retreating blade stall” where the airflow from forward flight decreases the flow across the retreating side enough that it stalls the airfoil. That means it starts making less lift on one side as more and more of the rotor area on that side stalls causing it to roll. The flight controls can only compensate so much. The CH-47 and the few like it, though, have 2 rotors turning in opposite directions so the loss of lift on each side of the aircraft is balanced. Russian dual rotor (one above the other) designs like the KA-50 have the same advantage. Some of the designs for the last few advanced helicopter replacement projects use stub wings that start making enough lift to help unload the rotor and offset the imbalance as well, which is part of how they have so much higher proposed speeds.
That's what I was thinking! Especially when he showed the clip of the 3d attack version. It felt like something straight out of scifi. Just wait until ion thrusters become a thing.
If Sikorsky can find a practicable way to fold up those rotor blades, the Navy might be interested for their Seahawk replacement project. But I do think the Raider (smaller version of Defiant) will win the army's FLRAA competition.
@@anwartaylor6096 I'd have thought the navy would prefer the longer operational range and higher speed of the V-280. If they did a dedicated naval variant with osprey style folding wings and rotors that would probably take up less space than the defiant even with folding rotors
@@poprocket2342Yeah, u very well may be right about that. Although, I would say the way that the engines and props are configured with the wing on the Valor makes it much more difficult to fold up those wings up. Or at the very least, the space u save wouldn't amount to the space savings that the Osprey's engine/prop configuration allows for. Also, the Navy might also be interested in the superior hovering capability and agility that the Defiant would provide, given the unique nature of sea-based operations and mission sets.
@@anwartaylor6096tilt rotors are not inherently less maneuverable. You not only have the same control surfaces a helicopter has but increased range of movement thanks to the entire rotor being able to be rotated forward and backwards. You can't judge an entire platform based on the first of it's kind built for a completely different role and had multiple design compromises to meet requirements.
I think that Sikorskey has the win the next FARA competition, yet I believe that the Army made the right choice with the V-280. The speed and range are wildly superior, and it wasn't that inferior to the Defiant in the hover regime. I'm looking forward to the V-280 deployment.
@victorstern3341 There are many who have died in Blackhawks as well. Helicopters are a particularly dangerous vehicles with many moving parts. The coaxial rotor from Sikorskey kept having a myriad of control and vibration issues throughout testing while the V280 sailed through its testing regime. This one is far simpler than the Osprey after they discovered that some complex design features were unnecessary.
This is what the Army is thinking with this program. Simply put the Black Hawk can no longer be upgraded for the mission they think they will need to do. Also longer distance lets heli bases be pushed further back decreasing risk from arty, rocket, and drone strikes.
The V-280 also had over 200 hours of unmanned flight before the official military trials even began. That was probably a huge factor in it being chosen over the defiant.
Built for the Pacific theater of operations. Long range and fast. Something no classic helo can match and it still doesn't have the production engine so range and speed will continue to increase.
Many of you are missing the point. I’m a helicopter guy, however, the V-280 is ideal for the Pacific (long distance Island hopping) at twice the speed of any helicopter. For example you can lift a battalion of troops and move them 300 miles in an hour. No helicopter can accomplish that. Finally, the interconnecting shaft on the V-280 will drive both rotors in the advent of an engine failure. This aircraft will be as ubiquitous as the Huey. Good job Bell.
The advantage of traditional rotorcraft is that it is faster than helicopters, but not as flexible as helicopters. But the speed of the V-280 needs to be increased to at least 800 kilometers per hour, and the current speed of 560 kilometers per hour is still not ideal.
both looks great and may have its own place in military and civilian use, valor looks very promising on a practical point of view due to its simplicity of design and yet faster
MY SON FLIES HELICOPTERS, NICE, GLAD TO SEE BUILDING ON A SUCCESS. I HAVE LOOKED AT ALOT OF OUR WEAPONRY, NOT A FAR DEPARTURE FROM WEAPONS WE KNOW WORK. I AM GLAD TO SEE TAKING OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY PLANES, TANKS, SHIPS, UPDATED AND IMPROVED. NEW AND IMPROVED, VASTLY IMPROVED. WORKS FOR ME. THIS CAN TAKE OFF AND LAND IN VERY SMALL SPACES, HAS IT'S PLACE IN MODERN WARFARE.
That little civilian VTOL look well sized as a platform for a light attack Helicopter replacement.. if they wanted something like that in Europe.. that looks like a good choice to build upon for very light transport too perhaps (like supply drops). The US navy has they cute little autonomous Helicopter though that does that rather nicely too though.
You did a real fine job of summarizing the current V-280 status. Thank you ! The blend of easier maintenance and greater performance is the puzzle then, isn't it ? Knowing what we do about powerplants, mechanical transmission systems, and STOL/VTOL/TR systems, what is the next huge breakthrough in this area ? THis hybridized TR is not it. There is a complete revolution, a total breakthrough to future tech, coming in this area. What is it ?
I always favor the The Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 is a tri-service tiltwing experimental aircraft designed to investigate the operational suitability of vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) transports. An XC-142A first flew conventionally on 29 September 1964
Another great video. Seems to me that rotors as lifting devices are inefficient at the moment. Maybe some form of kinetic recovery system in the SB craft could give it more range in the future.
the V280 wins because of range and speed. It has is drawbacks but potential future war need to be staged from greater distances due to missile/fighter tech.
Honestly the Army should've awarded a double contract. The Valor is good for range and speed but it is wide. While that could be the frontline machine the Defiant should really have been contracted under the idea of cramped locations like inner city flights/landings etc... The defiant could be used for many other things the Valor cant do and the Valor can do many things the defiant cant.
So we should have never upgrade to the Black Hawk from the Huey? The Valor can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk could and greatly outclassed the Defiant in nearly every metric...
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 They really need to buy Defiant and install a driverless system as soon as possible. The V-280 replaces the Black Hawk, and the Defiant can replace an old Apache or Chinook.
All helicopters with a speed of less than 500 kilometers per hour need to be eliminated as soon as possible and replaced by innovative models that are faster, more flexible, and more automated. They need to be developed and mass-produced as soon as possible. The innovation and manufacturing department also needs to refer to the V-280 to develop a new seaplane (with a speed of at least 800 kilometers per hour, can carry 70 people, and is equipped with an unmanned pilot system) to meet more future needs.
They now appear to be experimenting with improved high-voltage electric hybrid engines or high-voltage battery systems that have the potential to push the speed limits of traditional helicopters and traditional rotorcraft.
Defiant's speed is close to 460 kilometers per hour, exceeding the 250-350 kilometers of traditional helicopters, showing the need to continue these experiments.
I think the V-280 is badass. I also think that the V-22 has a similar incident rate as many other service craft. I think the stigma is simply a matter of perception perpetuated by upper level brass who resent the craft from the beginning.
I might be wrong but I think it might have an incident rate lower than the average. I could be wrong though as I only heard about it and never looked into it.
@@shadowopsairman1583 Do you say the same about the 5 or 6 Black Hawk crashes a year? The crash rate of the Osprey is similar to the Black Hawk and better than other medium left platforms.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The crash rate of the V-22 is higher than the Black Hawk, but it's comparable to or less than the more equivalent CH-47 and CH-53; the CH-53 in particular has a rather poor record
The Defiant was outclassed in nearly every way. It also had multiple technical issues that even resulted in a crash during testing of 1 of the only 2 functioning prototypes.
11:17 "In vertical flight, the rotors are directed upward, slightly exposing the mechanisms" Which is apparently highly indecent, hence why they have to keep blurring it out.
Bell Co should quickly think of manufacturing a civilian model of the Bell V280 Valour for dual purposes of private and small cargo transportations. Thank you.
I like it a lot; the rotation of the motors looks far better than Osprey's concept. I wish they could add Kevlar type armor which could be easily replaced after battle if there are hits from ground fire. Maybe an armadillo type armor which when going into contact could rotate to a different shape which deflects gun fire mor effectively. And maybe a non-troop transport version could be developed as an attack aircraft for supporting infantry including the A-10's gatling gun cannon. Use much of the cabin space for weapons, additional fuel and ammo for its weapons systems.
Feels like it'd be better to have the engines mounted over the fuselage with a driveshaft going out to the tilting prop-rotors. Getting all that weight off the wingtips would have to improve a whole bunch of performance metrics. Would be good for scaling the concept down to a single engine light helicopter too.
No they tested those configurations early on into tilt rotors and have not used them since so there much be issues with that. Also this way there is no heavy machinery or fuel over the crew compartment making a fire or crash more survivable.
That would just increase the load on the wings in flight, since the rotor lift would still be at the tips. What metrics would be improved? Roll rate is the obvious answer, but horizontal mode roll rate is unlikely to be an issue and VTOL mode roll rate with differential thrust from the rotors will be excellent.
I doubt they will be able to use a tilt rotor for attack roles. The USAF has a history of complaining to Congress if the Army starts developing combat aircraft that are too fast. Makes a certain amount of sense, since the Air Force mission is to support the troops from the air, and if the Army starts doing that, then the Air Force looks redundant.
That exact info is still not public. According to what was released it had a faster time to altitude than the Defiant which was also faster than the Black Hawk. It also had a faster cruise speed to stop than the Defiant. Again whatever those real numbers are is unknown.
The V-280 was always going to be the choice. The MV-22 operationally has proven to be quantum leap over existing helicopters Secondly the Valor is only for US Army to replace its Black Hawk. The USMC, USAF and USN are already operating the V-22s SH-60s uses by the USN are far more compact allowing for operation on small ships V-280 is too big
@@spazmonkey2131 if they are serious about it then they need to make scale model to show the USN and USCG that it can be done The USCG benefits from USAF, USN and US Army operating the UH-60 its droves cost down they would get in V-280s as well
Likely not, since the Valor's engines are fixed and the force is transferred to the props through a spiral bevel gearbox. It also has a differential that will share power from one engine to both props should an engine be lost. That's not to say that it won't have issues of its own with a power train so complex, but they will be different problems than the Osprey.
I don't see this replacing the Kiowa, Cayuse, or the Apache. I'm also doubtful about it replacing the Chinook, since it's carrying & lifting capacity is a lot less.
Kiowa's were retired and the replacement program was canceled. The V-280 isn't meant to replace any of the helicopters you mentioned, it is only going to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk, period.
That will not be a problem. All the drive shafts are in the wing. Look at how Ospreys fold up. Same thing applies here. www.google.com/search?q=Ospreys+fold+up&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1036US1036&oq=Ospreys+fold+up&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgGEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQc5NDFqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:061fd8d6,vid:_45aUrES-j0,st:0
Few aircraft types are used by both the US Army and the US Navy (or the US Marines, or the USAF). They try, but as the three different versions of the F-35 Lightning prove, they typically don't succeed, ad aircraft types succeed based on sales to only one service. The Sikorsky S-70 is the Army's choice, and sees limited specialized use by the other forces, but it's a basically a generic helicopter - the more specialized the design, the narrower the applications.
The only comment I have is that the openings left when the rotors are horizontal look rather vulnerable in a combat situation, not sure much can be done about it though
I have to comment on the repairability of the carbon fiber. In general, carbon fiber and other composites are perfectly repairable. It requires different techniques than with sheet metal, but it is common to do in the field. You isolate the damaged area, “scarf” the damaged and surrounding area (sand down so you expose the bottom ply nearest the defect, and then only expose the 2nd most bottom ply further from the damaged area, and so on). You then place a backer on the inside of the panel, like a piece of sheet metal, under the damaged area. You then either do a wet layup or use prepreg with a heating blanket over the scarfed plies and against the backer. Viola, repaired panel. Also, the main wing of the V-280 consists of a thin skin over large cell honeycomb, with a thick structural “underskin” underneath. This is done so the outer part of the wing can take damage and be easily repairable, and partially protect the inner structural part of the wing.
Psh. Composites are new and different. Therefore, they're awful. We should go back to doped canvas for skinning aircraft. The liquid coating over the fibrous cloth hardens & makes the whole thing stronger than either constituent component. Way better than 'composite' materials.
@@brianb-p6586 I mean, other than the wet jungle, it’d be hard to do *any* repairs in those conditions. As long as you have an enclosed hanger, you have the conditions needed to do the repair.
@bjw0007 bolts and rivets work in any temperature or humidity. Aluminum can be formed in any temperature or humidity that a person can stand. My guess is that any more than minor damage to a non-removable composite part will likely take the airframe out of service.
I doubt that would be needed. It can already fly without a pilot to where it is needed to save on weight and fly at higher altitudes to save on fuel. I imagine some wing mounted fuel pods would be easy to do, but again, they are not too needed as it can already get to Hawaii from California.
If they use it like the 160th SOAR DAP it would be necessary to lose speed. To fire weapons the propplears would need to be raised. The amount of space to fire weapons at full speed is limited. But if it were altered to have a bay and pylons going out the bottom would work. Keep the pylons up until needed and be at full speed with gins and or 1-2 misses in the space that could carry weapons without interference form the propellers.
Tilt rotors can do both. In general auto rotation rarely saves military aircraft as they do not normally fly at lower altitudes in the first place. Either way dual engine failures on helicopters are few and far between.
The Osprey is controversial for political reasons. Yes it had a shaky elopement and testing period and was delayed and even cancelled several times, but the end product is within mishap rate of other aircraft at 3.28 per 100,000 hours average for the last 10 years.. The F-16 is 3.55 and the F-15 is 1.99. The Chinook is better at 1.59 and the AH-64E Apache is 2.66. The cost is not that bad at $80 million. The Chinook is $65 million average but can cost $60 to $90 million. The latest Apache is $52 million. It is a little expensive, but not that bad and the safety record is also not perfect, but not horrible either. Considering how new and complex the Osprey is I think it is doing a great job.
Not to mention mishap rate is not a full view on safety either as a more expensive platform will reach the dollar amount for a Class A mishap easier. Besides when you are talking about the massive performance increases the cost can simply be worth it. After full testing we will see if everything checks out.
Would be nice if you went a little further back in the history of VTOL aircraft. The Canadair CL-84 "Dynavert" tilt WING aircraft was on the market back in 1967. And the Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 heavey tilt WING almost made it to market at the same time.
@@bluemountain4181 So basically the same as the osprey, i thought they couldn't do that on it couse of the need for a foldable wing and rotor blades that made the design heavier and with smaller overall rotors. This one is smaller, lighter, doesn't have all the foldable parts and still can't autorotate in a hover, even close to the ground using the remaining rotor inertia ? i know there is a small chance that both engines would be hit but still. Can it glide well enough to put it down safely tho ? I think the agusta westland can autorotate yes ?
Tilt rotors can auto rotate and glide so many people are wrong about this. You are also over stating auto rotation as it has rarely saved heavier military helicopters.
The Valor could fill a roll in long range transport. Can you imagine how big the LZ's would have to be to get 4 or 5 V-280's in. Very bad decision for the Army.
curious how and whether other branches will be able to adapt from this base model which is concepted for the army only obviously. the blackhawk at the time has served all branches, including naval, with a respective variant, but i don't see this possible with that tilt concept, especially when it comes to external storages. what is your oppinion? @@n3v3rforgott3n9
@@piloto_loco Just because something has been a certain way doesn't mean it has to continue that way. Although I would say it would help the other branches on costs as any program the army fully uses would have the production numbers to fully drop prices down as much as possible. They do have a mockup of a naval version for ships although since it has yet to be built or tested you wouldn't know how those changes would effect it or if they would be enough to meet requirements. Also what do you mean by internal storage? It carries more people than the Black Hawk and can carry a larger load.
agree. exciting times, can't wait to see all the new stuff coming up, including fixed wing stuff like the FXX. my guess is the navy will seek its own solution, but they won't rush to replace the romeos.@@n3v3rforgott3n9
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Been waiting for a Skyships video on the Bell V-280 Valor and it's well worth the wait!^^
Also, I'm looking forward to the development of this tilt-rotor craft.
A very capable looking aircraft, and a great video. My only comment is that while Osprey accidents are always in the news, the actual rate of accidents, according to the USMC is equal to, or slightly less than their other assets. It is in fact, not as bad as we are lead to believe
Yup it just got into a few high profile crashes and bring in clicks for any crash at all now. So they are plastered all over the news anytime they do happen. It had real issues but what new piece of hardware doesn't.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 doesn’t? But what about:
1. Autorotation? 2. Gliding? 3. Efficiency? 4. VRS? 5. Price?
No chance
@@antonkirov1923 it can auto rotate and glide... Tilt rotors also have a better time with VRS... Finally it goes twice the distance at a faster speed while carrying more people so yea it can be more expensive. Hell the defiant designers couldn't give a good reason for their costs even while being less expensive lmao. You really need to look up the public information of the testing.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Of course it can. Even my penis can autorotate. The question is, can Tiltrotor autorotation rescues the crew? No. Because the rotors are too small.
Can gliding be safe? No. Because the wings are too small also. Even if people will survive, the machine will be lost. Very expensive machine.
Flight with one proprotor stopped? For planes it is normal situation. For tiltrotors it is catastrophe.
Broken synchronous shaft - catastrophe.
Is it effective? No. Because now the rotors are too big and the blades are too thick. And also two engines has crazy power. With same MTOW, Dr328 has engines with max power 3 times less than V-280. It is interesting to compare these two aircrafts.
VRS. Yes, small diameter helicopter rotors are more safe for VRS. But proprotors can more easy generate secondary vortex. Because the blades twist is too big.
Defiant is almost same wrong concept. The difference is that Tiltrotor has universal propeller-rotor, but Gyrodyne (Defiant) has universal wing-rotor.
People who take decision to build these aircrafts, did not understand basic things.
@@antonkirov1923 I think I'll stick with what the actual data and statistics say rather than preconceived notions people have that aren't based in reality
The #1 thing holding the V-280 back are delays in the new turbine GE has been working on for years. The V-280 needs that engine to get beyond prototype phase.
It's always the engines lol
@@S1baarTrue. It makes sense lol.
I thought the narrator indicated the production aircraft was going with the Rolls Royce engines in use by the Osprey?
GE Sucks
@@BernieGolgo13 Why does GE suck?
The V22 didn’t actually crash that much in the grand scheme of things. The only reason it has such a bad rep is because when it does crash it usually has many people on board causing large casualty incidents and so it’s reported on much more then another vehicle crashing more often but only taking 1 pilots life
Eh. It ain’t as rosy as you might think, but you’re right, fair and reasonable in saying it’s not as bad as most people think.
It’s above average in incidents per hours flown (so not casualties), but not so extreme as sometimes painted, and only when compared to other aircraft in active service. If I recall correctly.
It’s a “first gen”-design. As in, the next gen will have had the childhood diseases fixed. The problem is that some people try to use the design of the Osprey as an argument that the concept is flawed, which is wholly unreasonable.
Also an investigation found that most crashes were because they had airplane pilots trying to work, essentially, a helicopter. They didn't have any crashes with pilots that were trained on helis
@@ChangeEvery14Days how high are rates with other airframes divided by total hours of use? Simply going by number of airframes divided by failures without taking into account usage isn't fair
@@ChangeEvery14Days "unknown mechanical defect"
So how do you know it's a mechanical defect?
What if they had set a couple of jet vertical propulsion to the V22 just to be used at landing only? Wouldn't it make more stable to land and reduce crashing? Just an ignorance comment, you tell
The V-22's tilted engines essentially create a jet blast downward that it is a danger to personnel. Hence, no sliding doors on the sides of the V-22. The Valor solves that problem, making it more like a helicopter, with doors on both sides. Bell hit a home run imho.
The navy also wanted the rear loading doors as it was a cargo platform mainly.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9Exactly. The Navy wanted it for among other things Carrier Onboard Delivery. It needed to be able to fit an F-35 Engine. The V-280 only tilting the rotors using a mechanical linkage also greatly simplifies a lot of the mechanisms and systems needed. The Osprey needs to tilt all of the control wiring, the fuel and hydraulic lines. Plus it makes that power take off shaft that allows one engine to power both blades much more complicated with complex finicky clutches at both ends. It’s suspected a clutch failure is what caused the recent crash off Japan. But that same shaft system is much simpler on the V-280. Because the engines don’t move.
@@andrewtaylor940 this is all true yea and those design choices were to meet marine corp and navy requirements. The engine has been improved from the begining as early on it had to be taken off the aircraft very often
@@andrewtaylor940 Don't forget the the same electrical and mechanical systems also need to twist at the wing root for storage. That must have been a nightmare to engineer.
@@andrewtaylor940 I heard it was pilot error with the last Osprey Crash. But you’re right about the simplification of the Tit Rotor Design from the Osprey to the new Valor. Fewer moving parts is always better. It’s the evolution of a game changing and brilliant design. The Navy, Marines and the Army really do need these aircraft for whole host of reasons. Helos aren’t going to be able to cross the vast distances in the Pacific. Especially as things become busier in that part of the world.
I can't imagine anyone producing a tilt rotor at the same price range as a traditional single rotor heli like the UH-60.
The V-280 is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the UH-60.
I need numbers
@drummerdoingstuff5020 $43M for the V-280 vs. $25M for HH-60M, not to mention the cost of maintaining or blueprint.
Maybe some day
@@NCCOOLJ98costs will likely drop with such a large production amount planned.
Thanks buddy! We in Canada love to watch our southern neighbors make...things like this...and then get sad knowing we can't afford it ... find beer ... made in America, and slowly get over it.
😅😂😅
Cheers mate!
Canadians could use bush planes. They can take off and land in VERY short distances with a turbo prop, cruise at high speed at altitude over long distances, and cost a fraction of the price of the Bell. A better solution in my opinion.
That'd be one in the eye for the Yanks.
For what it's worth, I think the Canadian armed forces also get a lot of neat equipment. Leopard tanks for the army, F-35's for the air force, plus I remember hearing a while back you guys have a program going to produce smart guns for infantry. I hope we can share future tech like this with our northern neighbors in the future and vice-versa.
Truth be told we'd rather have health insurance like you do.
We can’t afford it either but our extremely corrupt congress continues to commit fraud by going over on the budget so unnecessary things such as them overpaying themselves along with necessary expenses such as military can be covered.
The Apache isn't being replaced. The Apache is currently filling a role to replace the gap in capability that the Army currently doesn't have, a light reconnaissance heli. I think Bell's Invictus will probably win that contract as well.
I think the Apache replacement is a longer-term part of the overall program, but yes the Invictus is aiming for the light attack/recon role currently split between Huey derivatives and Apache backfilling
an attack helicopter isnt used for a recon role. thats for the 0h-6 little bird. small and quiet. no attack aircraft is a recon platform
@nomercyinc6783 little bird is almost exclusively used by special forces. The 360 invictus will most likely replace it tho. But the apache was being used in reconnaissance roles in the middle east which was proving to be far too uneconomical.
@@nomercyinc6783 The Apache has been used to fill a gap between the very light recon helicopters like OH-6, and the full attack helicopters. It's very uneconomical in the role. The FARA aircraft will keep the Apache relegated to its attack role, and will almost certainly be replacing the UH-1Y and/or AH-1Z in service
@@nomercyinc6783 The main function of attack helis is recon, you're mixing up different types of recon. An attack helicopter will have more advanced sensors and the ability to defend itself and is thus ideal for recon against heavy enemy formations or reconissance in force.
very sweet video Mister Sky! i always look forward to your next work of art. thank you Sir.
Minor note. I find it funny people always use the Apache as a speed benchmark for military helicopters. The CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter is 10 knots faster and damn near just as maneuverable when unloaded.
Massive note. You called the Sea Stallion's rotors propellers.
I remember plenty of flights in the Chinook. You could see where it was patched from the bullet holes it had received in Vietnam.
Spinny bits
Chinook uses two engines to get 10 knots faster than an Apache with one engine, so Apache is still a winner aside from the fact that fuel consumption of Chinook is higher. BTW, Chinook is not optimized for speed. It's a truck.
@@marine00001 It’s not the engines, or at least not the core difference. A big part of the speed limits for rotor aircraft is “retreating blade stall” where the airflow from forward flight decreases the flow across the retreating side enough that it stalls the airfoil. That means it starts making less lift on one side as more and more of the rotor area on that side stalls causing it to roll. The flight controls can only compensate so much. The CH-47 and the few like it, though, have 2 rotors turning in opposite directions so the loss of lift on each side of the aircraft is balanced. Russian dual rotor (one above the other) designs like the KA-50 have the same advantage. Some of the designs for the last few advanced helicopter replacement projects use stub wings that start making enough lift to help unload the rotor and offset the imbalance as well, which is part of how they have so much higher proposed speeds.
An H-53K is even faster … and can pull 3.5 Gs
Great video as usual! Thank you for your efforts and fantastic work.
Another perfect video! Thank you, Sky.
They remind me of futuristic vehicles from 1960's TV shows The Thunderbirds and Speed Racer. :) Thanks again Sky!
That's what I was thinking! Especially when he showed the clip of the 3d attack version. It felt like something straight out of scifi. Just wait until ion thrusters become a thing.
I love the defiant and hopefully it has a future but it couldn't compete with the speed and range of the V280
I thought that they will be used for Special Forces so they're making small numbers of it
If Sikorsky can find a practicable way to fold up those rotor blades, the Navy might be interested for their Seahawk replacement project. But I do think the Raider (smaller version of Defiant) will win the army's FLRAA competition.
@@anwartaylor6096 I'd have thought the navy would prefer the longer operational range and higher speed of the V-280. If they did a dedicated naval variant with osprey style folding wings and rotors that would probably take up less space than the defiant even with folding rotors
@@poprocket2342Yeah, u very well may be right about that. Although, I would say the way that the engines and props are configured with the wing on the Valor makes it much more difficult to fold up those wings up. Or at the very least, the space u save wouldn't amount to the space savings that the Osprey's engine/prop configuration allows for. Also, the Navy might also be interested in the superior hovering capability and agility that the Defiant would provide, given the unique nature of sea-based operations and mission sets.
@@anwartaylor6096tilt rotors are not inherently less maneuverable. You not only have the same control surfaces a helicopter has but increased range of movement thanks to the entire rotor being able to be rotated forward and backwards. You can't judge an entire platform based on the first of it's kind built for a completely different role and had multiple design compromises to meet requirements.
I worked drive systems test in Arlington and Hurst during the 90s. They were also testing a stealth cobra.
I think that Sikorskey has the win the next FARA competition, yet I believe that the Army made the right choice with the V-280. The speed and range are wildly superior, and it wasn't that inferior to the Defiant in the hover regime. I'm looking forward to the V-280 deployment.
I disagree. The tilt rotor concept has too many moving parts which is a maintenance nightmare. Many have died to prove this.
@victorstern3341 There are many who have died in Blackhawks as well. Helicopters are a particularly dangerous vehicles with many moving parts. The coaxial rotor from Sikorskey kept having a myriad of control and vibration issues throughout testing while the V280 sailed through its testing regime. This one is far simpler than the Osprey after they discovered that some complex design features were unnecessary.
The comparison of deaths per 100,000 flight hours tells a different story.
@victorstern3341 it's a larger aircraft with higher capacity, so it only makes sense that it would have a higher death rate.
The incidents per flight hour are much higher as well.
Another Excellent Video !!! - Crewed CH-53A & D's
The Pacific war will demand the V280 because island hooping requires it.
This is what the Army is thinking with this program. Simply put the Black Hawk can no longer be upgraded for the mission they think they will need to do. Also longer distance lets heli bases be pushed further back decreasing risk from arty, rocket, and drone strikes.
I LOVE THIS AIRCRAFT!
The gunship version is gorgeous.
The V-280 also had over 200 hours of unmanned flight before the official military trials even began. That was probably a huge factor in it being chosen over the defiant.
Unmanned? Where do you see that?
Built for the Pacific theater of operations. Long range and fast. Something no classic helo can match and it still doesn't have the production engine so range and speed will continue to increase.
Many of you are missing the point. I’m a helicopter guy, however, the V-280 is ideal for the Pacific (long distance Island hopping) at twice the speed of any helicopter. For example you can lift a battalion of troops and move them 300 miles in an hour. No helicopter can accomplish that. Finally, the interconnecting shaft on the V-280 will drive both rotors in the advent of an engine failure. This aircraft will be as ubiquitous as the Huey. Good job Bell.
The advantage of traditional rotorcraft is that it is faster than helicopters, but not as flexible as helicopters.
But the speed of the V-280 needs to be increased to at least 800 kilometers per hour, and the current speed of 560 kilometers per hour is still not ideal.
both looks great and may have its own place in military and civilian use, valor looks very promising on a practical point of view due to its simplicity of design and yet faster
its a beauty 😍😍
The real question is what tribe or chief the Army is going to name it after once it's officially accepted. No way they are going to stay with "Valor."
If it is fully accepted and commissioned yes. V-280 Valor is its prototype name.
Fairly sure they're sticking with Valor
An AV-280 does sound fun. It could hold a ton of ordnance
The Air Force is unlikely to like it. They have a history of getting Army aircraft cancelled.
MY SON FLIES HELICOPTERS, NICE, GLAD TO SEE BUILDING ON A SUCCESS. I HAVE LOOKED AT ALOT OF OUR WEAPONRY, NOT A FAR DEPARTURE FROM WEAPONS WE KNOW WORK. I AM GLAD TO SEE TAKING OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY PLANES, TANKS, SHIPS, UPDATED AND IMPROVED. NEW AND IMPROVED, VASTLY IMPROVED. WORKS FOR ME. THIS CAN TAKE OFF AND LAND IN VERY SMALL SPACES, HAS IT'S PLACE IN MODERN WARFARE.
This looks like a superb piece of engineering to me. In many ways it has the Osprey outclassed.
It isn't replacing the osprey and can not do the missions the osprey can
That little civilian VTOL look well sized as a platform for a light attack Helicopter replacement.. if they wanted something like that in Europe.. that looks like a good choice to build upon for very light transport too perhaps (like supply drops).
The US navy has they cute little autonomous Helicopter though that does that rather nicely too though.
You did a real fine job of summarizing the current V-280 status. Thank you !
The blend of easier maintenance and greater performance is the puzzle then, isn't it ? Knowing what we do about powerplants, mechanical transmission systems, and STOL/VTOL/TR systems, what is the next huge breakthrough in this area ? THis hybridized TR is not it. There is a complete revolution, a total breakthrough to future tech, coming in this area. What is it ?
Nice overview of the project. Note the blur on the left nacelle at 3:29. Other shots blur the front of both nacelles. 🤔
older photos and videos blurred them before the patients were done I think.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 - I suspect you meant patents rather than patients.
@@wickedcabinboy Damn auto correct yea.
I always favor the The Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 is a tri-service tiltwing experimental aircraft designed to investigate the operational suitability of vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) transports. An XC-142A first flew conventionally on 29 September 1964
good video, unlike alot of aerospace garbage out there. Cheers, thanks mate
Excellent stuff bro
Great summary!
Great video...👍
Happy new year to you my friend all the best for the new year ahead
Another great video. Seems to me that rotors as lifting devices are inefficient at the moment. Maybe some form of kinetic recovery system in the SB craft could give it more range in the future.
the V280 wins because of range and speed. It has is drawbacks but potential future war need to be staged from greater distances due to missile/fighter tech.
Honestly the Army should've awarded a double contract. The Valor is good for range and speed but it is wide. While that could be the frontline machine the Defiant should really have been contracted under the idea of cramped locations like inner city flights/landings etc... The defiant could be used for many other things the Valor cant do and the Valor can do many things the defiant cant.
So we should have never upgrade to the Black Hawk from the Huey? The Valor can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk could and greatly outclassed the Defiant in nearly every metric...
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 They really need to buy Defiant and install a driverless system as soon as possible.
The V-280 replaces the Black Hawk, and the Defiant can replace an old Apache or Chinook.
All helicopters with a speed of less than 500 kilometers per hour need to be eliminated as soon as possible and replaced by innovative models that are faster, more flexible, and more automated. They need to be developed and mass-produced as soon as possible.
The innovation and manufacturing department also needs to refer to the V-280 to develop a new seaplane (with a speed of at least 800 kilometers per hour, can carry 70 people, and is equipped with an unmanned pilot system) to meet more future needs.
@io9883 you don't seem to understand what limits helicopter speeds... also, the defiant could never replace the Chinook, haha.
They now appear to be experimenting with improved high-voltage electric hybrid engines or high-voltage battery systems that have the potential to push the speed limits of traditional helicopters and traditional rotorcraft.
Defiant's speed is close to 460 kilometers per hour, exceeding the 250-350 kilometers of traditional helicopters, showing the need to continue these experiments.
I think the V-280 is badass. I also think that the V-22 has a similar incident rate as many other service craft. I think the stigma is simply a matter of perception perpetuated by upper level brass who resent the craft from the beginning.
I might be wrong but I think it might have an incident rate lower than the average. I could be wrong though as I only heard about it and never looked into it.
Ok explain this to the families who had Airmen in Japan lose their lives because of the V-22 turd bucket!
@@shadowopsairman1583 By that logic you should never get into any car model because at least one of them has been crashed at some point in time.
@@shadowopsairman1583 Do you say the same about the 5 or 6 Black Hawk crashes a year? The crash rate of the Osprey is similar to the Black Hawk and better than other medium left platforms.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The crash rate of the V-22 is higher than the Black Hawk, but it's comparable to or less than the more equivalent CH-47 and CH-53; the CH-53 in particular has a rather poor record
Thank you for a very informative video. I think the Sikorsky/Boeing helicopter would be better used as a model to replace the AH-64.
The Defiant was outclassed in nearly every way. It also had multiple technical issues that even resulted in a crash during testing of 1 of the only 2 functioning prototypes.
Thank you, Sky!
Thanks for your videos, love your channel.
11:17 "In vertical flight, the rotors are directed upward, slightly exposing the mechanisms"
Which is apparently highly indecent, hence why they have to keep blurring it out.
Early photos and videos did as much because of the patents.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I mean I kinda figured that was the case, but I was attempting to make a joke.
Thanks Sky!!
Well done. Thanks
Very attractive and capable !
Bell Co should quickly think of manufacturing a civilian model of the Bell V280 Valour for dual purposes of private and small cargo transportations. Thank you.
I was still holding out hope to one day see a V-44 aircraft. V-480 anyone?
woooww the most perfect helicompter most ever create
i love V-280 valor tiltrotor drone.
I like it a lot; the rotation of the motors looks far better than Osprey's concept. I wish they could add Kevlar type armor which could be easily replaced after battle if there are hits from ground fire. Maybe an armadillo type armor which when going into contact could rotate to a different shape which deflects gun fire mor effectively. And maybe a non-troop transport version could be developed as an attack aircraft for supporting infantry including the A-10's gatling gun cannon. Use much of the cabin space for weapons, additional fuel and ammo for its weapons systems.
Cool vid.
It looks right. I know that's feelings based nonsense, but you can just tell it has lessons and thinking behind it.
I notice that in many clips, the hinge section for the tilt rotors is blurred. I wonder what they are trying to redact.
Right On Go Army!
Feels like it'd be better to have the engines mounted over the fuselage with a driveshaft going out to the tilting prop-rotors. Getting all that weight off the wingtips would have to improve a whole bunch of performance metrics. Would be good for scaling the concept down to a single engine light helicopter too.
No they tested those configurations early on into tilt rotors and have not used them since so there much be issues with that. Also this way there is no heavy machinery or fuel over the crew compartment making a fire or crash more survivable.
That would just increase the load on the wings in flight, since the rotor lift would still be at the tips.
What metrics would be improved? Roll rate is the obvious answer, but horizontal mode roll rate is unlikely to be an issue and VTOL mode roll rate with differential thrust from the rotors will be excellent.
I doubt they will be able to use a tilt rotor for attack roles. The USAF has a history of complaining to Congress if the Army starts developing combat aircraft that are too fast. Makes a certain amount of sense, since the Air Force mission is to support the troops from the air, and if the Army starts doing that, then the Air Force looks redundant.
Making a a multiple of a problem but running for props and then constructing the shock waves
Will there be a corrosion resistant naval variant of this machine?
it's hull is mostly composite making it corrosion resistant by default.
Currently no plans for a naval version atm.
Naval variants are still in early planning, no indication of if and when they could be adopted
Anyone know time and distance, from flat out (305 knots?) to hover? And vice versa.
That exact info is still not public. According to what was released it had a faster time to altitude than the Defiant which was also faster than the Black Hawk. It also had a faster cruise speed to stop than the Defiant. Again whatever those real numbers are is unknown.
The V-280 was always going to be the choice. The MV-22 operationally has proven to be quantum leap over existing helicopters
Secondly the Valor is only for US Army to replace its Black Hawk. The USMC, USAF and USN are already operating the V-22s
SH-60s uses by the USN are far more compact allowing for operation on small ships
V-280 is too big
With the swivel wing configuration itll only take up about the same amount of space as a huey
It's not that much bigger than the H-60.
@@Gridlocked
Ship borne operations wasnt considered
@@spazmonkey2131
if they are serious about it then they need to make scale model to show the USN and USCG that it can be done
The USCG benefits from USAF, USN and US Army operating the UH-60
its droves cost down
they would get in V-280s as well
Because it is an Army project. The V-280 gives the Army greater flexibility for indopacific operations.
This is great, but I like my beefy boy the V-22 more.
the speed is 280 knots?
That is the cruise speed for it yes. Max speed for far has been said to be 305 kts.
Okay, let's see the attack variant. We turned a crop duster into an attack platform, so don't even try to deny it.
They have a digital mockup on one. Nose gun and weapon bays on the sides and bottom.
Hopefully this won’t have the hard clutch engagement issue that of the v22.
Likely not, since the Valor's engines are fixed and the force is transferred to the props through a spiral bevel gearbox.
It also has a differential that will share power from one engine to both props should an engine be lost.
That's not to say that it won't have issues of its own with a power train so complex, but they will be different problems than the Osprey.
I don't see this replacing the Kiowa, Cayuse, or the Apache. I'm also doubtful about it replacing the Chinook, since it's carrying & lifting capacity is a lot less.
Kiowa's were retired and the replacement program was canceled. The V-280 isn't meant to replace any of the helicopters you mentioned, it is only going to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk, period.
If it's getting the engines off the larger tilt rotors, and it's foot print is larger, then it should be classified as a large helicopter.
This will be guaranteed successful just like the Osprey.
As a vtol tilt rotor, it's a major disadvantage that the wings don't fold. They have to also cater for the navy if they want to be successful.
They have a migital mock up of a naval version if the Navy gets interested. Currently the program is only for the Army.
That will not be a problem. All the drive shafts are in the wing. Look at how Ospreys fold up. Same thing applies here. www.google.com/search?q=Ospreys+fold+up&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1036US1036&oq=Ospreys+fold+up&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgGEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQc5NDFqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:061fd8d6,vid:_45aUrES-j0,st:0
That's too complicated, too heavy and too expensive! You armchair engineers need to get real
@@shadetreemech290The design has yet to mature. The first helicopter wasn't exactly perfect either.
Few aircraft types are used by both the US Army and the US Navy (or the US Marines, or the USAF). They try, but as the three different versions of the F-35 Lightning prove, they typically don't succeed, ad aircraft types succeed based on sales to only one service. The Sikorsky S-70 is the Army's choice, and sees limited specialized use by the other forces, but it's a basically a generic helicopter - the more specialized the design, the narrower the applications.
Global skylove and power❤❤
Its like Airwolf on steroids
How quickly does this marvel switch from plane mode to helo?? From full speed horizontal to hover??
waiting to see the potential apache attack chopper replacement
The only comment I have is that the openings left when the rotors are horizontal look rather vulnerable in a combat situation, not sure much can be done about it though
If you can hit those, you can just hit the pilots. Transport helicopters aren't armored anyway.
I have to comment on the repairability of the carbon fiber. In general, carbon fiber and other composites are perfectly repairable. It requires different techniques than with sheet metal, but it is common to do in the field. You isolate the damaged area, “scarf” the damaged and surrounding area (sand down so you expose the bottom ply nearest the defect, and then only expose the 2nd most bottom ply further from the damaged area, and so on). You then place a backer on the inside of the panel, like a piece of sheet metal, under the damaged area. You then either do a wet layup or use prepreg with a heating blanket over the scarfed plies and against the backer. Viola, repaired panel.
Also, the main wing of the V-280 consists of a thin skin over large cell honeycomb, with a thick structural “underskin” underneath. This is done so the outer part of the wing can take damage and be easily repairable, and partially protect the inner structural part of the wing.
Psh. Composites are new and different. Therefore, they're awful.
We should go back to doped canvas for skinning aircraft. The liquid coating over the fibrous cloth hardens & makes the whole thing stronger than either constituent component. Way better than 'composite' materials.
That all sounds reasonable. Now, can you see someone doing that in a desert sandstorm, a dripping wet jungle, or a high mountain snowstorm?
@@brianb-p6586 I mean, other than the wet jungle, it’d be hard to do *any* repairs in those conditions. As long as you have an enclosed hanger, you have the conditions needed to do the repair.
@bjw0007 bolts and rivets work in any temperature or humidity. Aluminum can be formed in any temperature or humidity that a person can stand.
My guess is that any more than minor damage to a non-removable composite part will likely take the airframe out of service.
Cool vertibird
"Valor" is the name of a supermarket chain.
I do not have faith in this concept. I feel the Defiant was the better option. Good luck
Defiant was outclassed in nearly every metric and had multiple technical issues that even resulted in a crash of 1 of 2 working prototypes.
Why did it took you so long to make this video? Thanks for bringing the balnce
This is all very interesting but why was he watching a Techmoan video while recording this?
Can they install a fuel bladder in the cabin to allow extra long distance ferry flights.
I doubt that would be needed. It can already fly without a pilot to where it is needed to save on weight and fly at higher altitudes to save on fuel. I imagine some wing mounted fuel pods would be easy to do, but again, they are not too needed as it can already get to Hawaii from California.
If they use it like the 160th SOAR DAP it would be necessary to lose speed. To fire weapons the propplears would need to be raised. The amount of space to fire weapons at full speed is limited. But if it were altered to have a bay and pylons going out the bottom would work. Keep the pylons up until needed and be at full speed with gins and or 1-2 misses in the space that could carry weapons without interference form the propellers.
A tilt rotor can raise the rotors up to nearly 30 degrees while keeping an airplane flight profile and the majority of its speed.
How do these things emergency land? They can't glider or autorotate. I know the engines are linked but what if...
Tilt rotors can do both. In general auto rotation rarely saves military aircraft as they do not normally fly at lower altitudes in the first place. Either way dual engine failures on helicopters are few and far between.
Will this replace the V22?
I hope they can work out the issues presented by the Osprey.
They won’t because they continued on the tiltrotor path.
That's specifically what they've done, with for example the fixed engines rather than rotating. Some of the Osprey's issues were also training related
Rotating wing and folding blades = weight... Ask the Bell-Boeing Osprey engineers.
I think the V-280 will have a much higher operating cost compared to the UH-60. Also require more maintenance hours between fights.
Yes... and jet fighters need more maintenance hours than turboprop fighters.
The Osprey is controversial for political reasons. Yes it had a shaky elopement and testing period and was delayed and even cancelled several times, but the end product is within mishap rate of other aircraft at 3.28 per 100,000 hours average for the last 10 years.. The F-16 is 3.55 and the F-15 is 1.99. The Chinook is better at 1.59 and the AH-64E Apache is 2.66. The cost is not that bad at $80 million. The Chinook is $65 million average but can cost $60 to $90 million. The latest Apache is $52 million. It is a little expensive, but not that bad and the safety record is also not perfect, but not horrible either. Considering how new and complex the Osprey is I think it is doing a great job.
Not to mention mishap rate is not a full view on safety either as a more expensive platform will reach the dollar amount for a Class A mishap easier. Besides when you are talking about the massive performance increases the cost can simply be worth it. After full testing we will see if everything checks out.
Would be nice if you went a little further back in the history of VTOL aircraft. The Canadair CL-84 "Dynavert" tilt WING aircraft was on the market back in 1967. And the Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 heavey tilt WING almost made it to market at the same time.
The video started further back than the Dynavert, with the 1955 XV-3. The V-280 is a tilt-rotor (like the XV-3), not a tilt-wing.
Will it have a switch for fortunate son?
Can it autorotate safely or is that capability not needed ?
It can't autorotate but there is a shaft connecting the two engines and rotors together so if one engine fails the other can power both rotors
@@bluemountain4181 So basically the same as the osprey, i thought they couldn't do that on it couse of the need for a foldable wing and rotor blades that made the design heavier and with smaller overall rotors. This one is smaller, lighter, doesn't have all the foldable parts and still can't autorotate in a hover, even close to the ground using the remaining rotor inertia ? i know there is a small chance that both engines would be hit but still. Can it glide well enough to put it down safely tho ? I think the agusta westland can autorotate yes ?
Tilt rotors can auto rotate and glide so many people are wrong about this. You are also over stating auto rotation as it has rarely saved heavier military helicopters.
Would love to see a civilian version. A person could start a niche airline with this.
Skyships or Airboats ?
The Valor could fill a roll in long range transport. Can you imagine how big the LZ's would have to be to get 4 or 5 V-280's in. Very bad decision for the Army.
When the bullets start to fly - this thing will be a baaaaad idea......
👍
what will be a realistic time scope to see the valor get into service?
We will see the first active unit testing them in 2025 with a full unit supplied with them by 2030 which is the current timeframe which can change.
curious how and whether other branches will be able to adapt from this base model which is concepted for the army only obviously. the blackhawk at the time has served all branches, including naval, with a respective variant, but i don't see this possible with that tilt concept, especially when it comes to external storages. what is your oppinion? @@n3v3rforgott3n9
@@piloto_loco Just because something has been a certain way doesn't mean it has to continue that way. Although I would say it would help the other branches on costs as any program the army fully uses would have the production numbers to fully drop prices down as much as possible. They do have a mockup of a naval version for ships although since it has yet to be built or tested you wouldn't know how those changes would effect it or if they would be enough to meet requirements. Also what do you mean by internal storage? It carries more people than the Black Hawk and can carry a larger load.
agree. exciting times, can't wait to see all the new stuff coming up, including fixed wing stuff like the FXX. my guess is the navy will seek its own solution, but they won't rush to replace the romeos.@@n3v3rforgott3n9