Bell V-44 QTR (Quad Tilt Rotor) multi-purpose VTOL

Now that the Osprey is finally in service and production, and Bell/Boeing has a go for the Quad Tilt Rotor dubbed "V-44".
What are the chances that in the next ten years or so we will actually see V-22 variants? If the US Armed Forces are happy with it, and, who knows, it will also be available for export (probably Israel / Japan) we just might see more variants. The SV-22 seems a likely option, as well as a AEW variant, especially for LHD/LHA operation, giving these amphibious forces a very capable airwing fo which now a CVN is necessary.
 
"...Bell/Boeing has a go for the Quad Tilt Rotor dubbed "V-44"."

That is a bit of an overstatement at this point. It is still a concept being looked at, but no one has committed to bending metal.
 
A model of the Bell Quad TiltRotor concept design is showcased at the Sea Air Space 2016, Navy League's International Maritime Exposition.
Sources:
www.twitter.com/AirRecognition
www.twitter.com/JamesDrewNews
www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/sea-air-space-2016.html
www.defence-blog.com/news/bell-helicopter-and-boeing-showcase-concept-of-cargo-tiltrotor-at-sea-air-space-exposition.html

Edit:
I just saw the spine on top of the fuselage. I wonder if it houses a "4x4" rotor driveshaft.
 

Attachments

  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_0.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_0.jpg
    102.7 KB · Views: 674
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_1.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_1.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 642
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_2.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_2.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 618
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_3.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_3.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 596
  • Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_4.jpg
    Bell_QuadRotor_sas_2016_4.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 211
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgbr8uOaiVY
 
Interesting pop-culture note: On ABC's Agents of SHIELD TV show, the bad guys of HYDRA have a quad-tiltrotor that looks like the V-44.
 
The spine on the top of the QTR is indeed the drive shaft. Put there for ease of maintenance and so it did not impact the interior compartment size.

Hope springs eternal I guess. Can't see the USN doing this alone. Unless USAF Inc. has a revolt; new things with propellers will not be seen in AMC while the C-17 mafia is in charge. US Army started all this and actually got a requirement into the system, only to be crushed by USAF Inc. who did a senior flag level Arc Light on the effort at the OSD level.
 
fredymac said:
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.
Click to expand...

The only people who were seriously interested in it was the US Army. Thankfully, everyone shouted them down at how stupid their idea was and it finally officially died in 2008, but QTR was dead long before FCS was killed.
 
it is a bad idea because X-55 doesn`t represent Lockheed-Martin engineering. It is a German Do-328. Basing future on rebadging wil have long term consequences in precision engineering expertise.
 
Please discuss cats and X-55 in other topic(s).
 
Kat Tsun said:
fredymac said:
If Lockheed is looking for something to keep its Marietta plant in production for another 50 years, I would be putting a lot of IR&D into this concept. As a replacement for the C-130, a vertical landing equivalent would attract a lot of interest. Given the freedom allowed in an IR&D program, they could also try leveraging the technology from the X-55 to reduce costs.
Click to expand...

The only people who were seriously interested in it was the US Army. Thankfully, everyone shouted them down at how stupid their idea was and it finally officially died in 2008, but QTR was dead long before FCS was killed.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate? Would be interested in your sources.
 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/BELL-Quad-...008981?hash=item4d9a684ed5:g:jWkAAOSwfbJdXWwd

From the seller:

“This Item comes from a long time Bell employee who won this one of a kind wind tunnel model from a work raffle. This model was tested in their wind tunnels and during testing was damaged by its wing breaking during the test. This particular prototype was scrapped and wasn't tested again. It is a prototype of a mix of other aircraft, one being an Osprey and the other a C130. This plane never made it to production even after ongoing testing and tweaks. 10 total model prototypes were made each varying to different degrees. This is a one of a kind prototype and the only one like this produced by the Bell engineering department. Model is 22 inches long and 20 inches at it's widest point and weighs roughly 8 pounds. Please see photos and ask any questions you may have! Thanks for looking!”
s-l1600 (62).jpg s-l1600 (61).jpg s-l1600 (60).jpg s-l1600 (58).jpg




s-l1600 (57).jpg s-l1600 (56).jpg s-l1600 (55).jpg s-l1600 (54).jpg

I am not the seller nor associated. I just happened across this.

bill
 
Well it isn't a wind tunnel model and it is not one of a kind either. Although the landing gear is certainly unique.
 
yasotay said:
.... Although the landing gear is certainly unique.
Click to expand...

Reminds me on some thingies, I recently bought for one of our sliding doors ... ;)
Definitely no modelling accessories.
 

Attachments

  • roller.png
    roller.png
    101.1 KB · Views: 16

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom