Which is why I said alot not all.
www.forbes.com
You are aware (maybe?) that the USMC has, for at least the last 60 years, operated a 3-tier vertical-lift force?
www.bbc.com
Other than there is NO other VTOL platform in any inventory that can cross the Pacific Ocean (with supporting air refuel) and land at most open spaces, roads, ships, etc. Nor to my knowledge are there ANY other VTOL platforms that CRUISE at ~230 knots and conduct missions in half the time of a conventional helicopter. There is an F-15E crew who bailed in Libya that might find it a good investment as well as several missions into the Sahal (sp) where kidnapped folks were recovered. Haiti in less than a day from North Carolina. Europe in two days (with equipment and tools needed for operations. The USMC has developed special units around the MV-22 for emergency actions in unstable areas, because other than C-17/C-130 lift they are the only ones who can make it AND it is the only one that can land at the embassy. Which has been done more than once.
And now we have the V-280 to fill that spot.
Sadly, we discovered that some parts of the XV-15 did not scale up like we expected them to. See also the XFV-12.
Canard FSW folding rotors... That's way up there on the mid 1980s wild list.
You have no clue how much the USFS would love to have fire bombers like that...
It would be a slightly swept forward wing like that currently fitted to the V-22, it just would have fixed engines instead of tilting ones. This would simplify a number of aspects.
I believe this is the current anticipated "re-wing solution" that the USMC is talking about for the aircraft update in the early 2030's timeframe.
And in the late 2030s they're probably going to buy V-280s to replace all the H-1s, so that all their VTOL stuff has the same rough performance capabilities.
This assumes the Bell FLRAA makes it into production. Given the ineptitude of the U.S. Army's ability to field rotorcraft, this is not a given.
Interesting observation. My last design job at Bell before exit to Structures was the XV-15 wing. IIRC Charlie Bowen had the transmission design (a nightmare with twin shafts to both engines to from 'mixing box' for engine loss contingency)- and my nightmare was the wing flex in jump takeoff making flap design 'interesting'.
Granted.
The issues with XV-15 were not aerodynamic/Flight Mechanics so much as structural and elasticity - with exception engine failure in hover mode.
Since the LHAs are no longer in service (thank all that is holy) and are no longer driving a width limit on the Osprey, how much bigger could we make the proprotors on the V-22 without needing to replace the wings? I'm talking just a proprotor swap, maybe a new reduction gearing in the engines due to the diameter. Something that could technically be done in the fleet, in the field with an (engine&)proprotor swap, not a major rebuild of the airframe at a depot.
They can't get any larger. As it is, the proprotors are very close to each other in hover and the fuselage in forward flight.
Looks like they could add another foot or maybe 2, depends on just how close you can have the rotor tips to the fuselage.
It would provide much less downwash velocity, as the 43ft proprotors are 28% greater in area.
Bugger, that's closer than I thought it was.
Bugger, that's closer than I thought it was.
Guess it would take a new wing to make a bigger proprotor work, and that really jacks the price up.
Also, didin't realize that there were lights on the rotor tips...
I think the new LHDs are wider across the flight deck, but when it's a whole new wing to install bigger proprotors that's way too much of an ask. Plus, adding 30" of blade length means adding 30" of wing length, so the whole Osprey is now 10ft wider, 5ft wider from the LHD island.
And the aft fuselage would require lengthening as well, for clearance of the upsweep to the vertical tails during wing-fold.
Well, crud, that shoots down that idea. Be cheaper to just build new at this point!
Eyeah that was the Boeing Design that was basically a VTOL capable C130 spec wise wasnt it?
That's what I'd do with it. Something that big does have some other sneaky potentials, too. Imagine ~4 of those flying to an LHD to support a direct insertion out of nowhere!
Both Boeing and Bell worked on designs for the JHL late in the effort. Boeing did the JPALS effort which was a dual rotor, four engine effort that looked to be able to make a fixed wing turbofan version as well. Bell Quad Tilt Rotor was never intended as a C-130 replacement while it was a U.S. Army effort. As the Army weight grew with the FCS program the platforms continued to increase in size until the platforms were almost C-17 sized. The downwash/outwash got to the point that the platform could make its own landing zones and it became financial 'unobtainium' as well. Much on this is in the JHL thread.
www.airforcetimes.com
