Bell V-280 Valor

[yasotay]

That was my thoughts too, I had always thought the V-280 was a proof-of-concept demonstrator and now it's done it's final flight test that's what it seems to be. Mind you, it does open up a possible commercial line of tilt-rotor transports doesn't it ---

It would appear that Leonardo has elected to use this technique with their Clear Skies tilt rotor project.

 

[TomcatViP]

After the V-22, the V-280:

Bell V-280 Valor aircraft to get Safran landing gear systems

Bell Textron has signed an agreement with Safran Landing Systems for landing gear systems for its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor vertical lift helicopter.

www.army-technology.com

 

[sferrin]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

 

[yasotay]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

 

[kitnut617]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

Would the GE38 have to be modified to operate vertically, if they go with the same engine architecture of the V-280? I'd have thought just a new gearbox to handle the additional power

 

[sferrin]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.

 

[kitnut617]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.

But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb

 

[sferrin]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.

But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb

I doubt it's that simple else the Army would have just bought V-22s.

 

[yasotay]

Couldn't the wing/engine/proprotor combination just be transferred to the V-22 ?

Indeed it could. Would not be surprised to find out that this idea is being considered by USMC/USAF.

The V-280 has a pair of T64-GE-419s at 4750 shp. The V-22 has a pair of RR T406s at 6150 shp. (I could swear they were looking at the possibility of fitting the GE38, from the CH-53K, on them.)

The RR engines have been modified for vertical operations. While the GE engine "could" be modified as well, that is $$. Doubt that would be resourced.

My main point was the hp difference between the V-280 and V-22. That would have to be addressed before swapping wings/rotors/engines.

But would it matter, just been looking at the specifications of both
V-22 empty 31,818lb V-280 empty 33,069lb
V-22 Max TOW 55,000lb V-280 Max TOW 57,320lb

@sferrin - my mistake. You are correct. If they were to revise the wing to V-280 format there would be no need to certify the GE Engine for vertical operations. A standardized engine would certainly be of benefit to the USMC I would think.

 

[mil]

at what altitude the V-280 flew at a cruising speed of 280 knots

 

[mil]

View: https://youtu.be/6c0dlZIuxWI

 

[yasotay]

@mil - I suspect it was done at several altitudes. This leads to the real question of could it "cruise" at lower altitude and still make the range? If Bell is accurate with their statements they demonstrated the capabilities laid out in the requirements documents. These documents have specific mission profiles that must be demonstrated.

 

[TomcatViP]

To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...

 

[yasotay]

To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...

You are correct the Army is looking for minimum acceptable performance within cost. No pressurization, no folding anything. So it is likely that the V-280 is achieving the speed below 10K feet. In fact I think I recall them boasting that they could go much further on a bag of gas if they could climb to 20K.

 

[F-14D]

Given the way and how fast Army wants troops to enter/exit, pressurization would be difficult to do, given those doors. Of course for ferry flights,O2 could be supplied to the crew and then they could fly higher.

 

[bobbymike]

Paid advertising

Range, Speed, And Reaction Time At Operational Distances Will Define The Next Phase Of Army Aviation - Breaking Defense

Bell created the V-280 Valor with agility, speed in excess of 280 knots, and more than 500 nm of range that is needed to quickly take advantage of tactical opportunities in multi-domain operations in theaters across the globe.

breakingdefense.com

 

[SteveO]

To my knowledge, the Valor is not pressurized or not intended to. In that regards only, having a cruise speed perf achieved well over 10kft (the alt above which you would need to provide O2 to the passengers), will be irrelevant for the US Army...

You are correct the Army is looking for minimum acceptable performance within cost. No pressurization, no folding anything. So it is likely that the V-280 is achieving the speed below 10K feet. In fact I think I recall them boasting that they could go much further on a bag of gas if they could climb to 20K.

I wonder if they have considered autonomous high altitude ferry/self deployment flights? The aircrew can arrive in the pressurised comfort of an airliner.

I’d like to see a higher flying pressurised variant for the STOVL carrier AEW/ISTAR role too.

 

[TomcatViP]

@SteveO : They did mention a trans-oceanic ferry range* and autonomous flight. But it's unclear yet if that includes autonomous ferrying.

*at least enough to cross the south Atlantic or jump across the north Atlantic route.

 

[TomcatViP]

The Valor is to get a 40% power boost (!!) with a dedicated version of Bell Osprey's RR engines, the 110F:

Bell Picks Rolls-Royce Engine for V-280 Valor in Army Black Hawk Replacement Contest

The move dramatically increases the horsepower of the V-280 over the General Electric engines it uses today.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Moose]

Sling load capability going to jump up a bit.

 

[yasotay]

The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).

 

[Firefinder]

The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).

Through since the Army is looking at using the Valor to replace the Blackhawk it does mean that one of the engines will slowly be dropped over the coming years. Also it wasnt that long ago that the army had 3 engine types in service when the Kiowas were last flying in 2015 so its not that big of a deal.

Plus a version of that engine is used by the other branches else so that will help offset the costs a bit.

 

[yasotay]

The only negative is that the US Army does not already use this engine. This would mean that they would retain three engine types in inventory. That said, it is a damned good engine, that "takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'" (old catch phrase for an American watch maker).

Through since the Army is looking at using the Valor to replace the Blackhawk it does mean that one of the engines will slowly be dropped over the coming years. Also it wasnt that long ago that the army had 3 engine types in service when the Kiowas were last flying in 2015 so its not that big of a deal.

Plus a version of that engine is used by the other branches else so that will help offset the costs a bit.

Agree 100%. However a "sound bite" for the Army was reducing the logistics footprint of the force.

 

[TomcatViP]

With a nice video:

FLRAA

Proven Power for the FLRAA

www.rolls-royce.com

 

[RavenOne]

Was reunited with her albeit mock up after six years from Heli Expo 2016 and Farnborough Air Show 2016 when I saw and sat in her at both shows. So here are my photos from last week at Farnborough Air Show 2022 at Bell Chalet.

cheers

 

[FighterJock]

Was reunited with her albeit mock up after six years from Heli Expo 2016 and Farnborough Air Show 2016 when I saw and sat in her at both shows. So here are my photos from last week at Farnborough Air Show 2022 at Bell Chalet.

cheers

Excellent photos RavenOne.

 

[yasotay]

Can Bell’s V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Helicopter Dethrone the Mighty Black Hawk?

Bell recently took apart a V-280 Valor to refine its sustainability and performance.

nationalinterest.org

Bell has been very keen to point out that they did not need to replace any of the components on V-280 during the 200+ hour demonstration. When they decommissioned the V-280 they were savvy enough to use current US Army equipment to take it apart, demonstrating that maintenance could be done without new/special equipment.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

A photo of the naval proposal on display at the Tailhook Convention during set up.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

A cut sheet from the Tailhook Convention on the V-280.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[SteveO]

Wonder why they made the maritime strike variant concept ugly?!
I’m guessing the pannier is needed for weapons/fuel carriage but I would have thought there is a neater way to do it. Same goes for the EO turret. Previous images show a F-35 style set up. No obvious radar either, distributed AESA maybe?

 

[yasotay]

I have always said that you could tell when a concept aircraft design is being made ready for prototype development and evaluation. They start getting less "swoopy" (modern aviation technology term) and grow bumps and warts. Some of the good ideas and "it could" claims fall to the cost reduction decisions. So the FLIR in the nose likely is a cost reduction measure for the Increment One version, or because the USN/USMC have more targeting requirements than the USA.
I highly suspect that if you imagine the pictures in army green you are looking at the Bell proposal for FLRAA as well.

 

[sferrin]

I have always said that you could tell when a concept aircraft design is being made ready for prototype development and evaluation. They start getting less "swoopy" (modern aviation technology term) and grow bumps and warts.

Straight is cheaper than swoopy.

 

[helmutkohl]

TEXTRON’S BELL V-280 VALOR CHOSEN AS NEW U.S. ARMY LONG-RANGE ASSAULT AIRCRAFT

Bell Textron Inc., a Textron company, has been awarded the development contract for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program.

news.bellflight.com

V-280 beats the SB-1.
wish they could explain in detail why it was chosen

 

[Firefinder]

TEXTRON’S BELL V-280 VALOR CHOSEN AS NEW U.S. ARMY LONG-RANGE ASSAULT AIRCRAFT

Bell Textron Inc., a Textron company, has been awarded the development contract for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program.

news.bellflight.com

V-280 beats the SB-1.
wish they could explain in detail why it was chosen

It met all the wants and exceed some.

Plus was ready early and used tech that is known to the military.

Basically Bell had stuff that worked while Boeing Sikoristy didnt.

 

[FighterJock]

TEXTRON’S BELL V-280 VALOR CHOSEN AS NEW U.S. ARMY LONG-RANGE ASSAULT AIRCRAFT

Bell Textron Inc., a Textron company, has been awarded the development contract for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program.

news.bellflight.com

V-280 beats the SB-1.
wish they could explain in detail why it was chosen

It met all the wants and exceed some.

Plus was ready early and used tech that is known to the military.

Basically Bell had stuff that worked while Boeing Sikoristy didnt.

Good news for Bell that the V-280 beat the SB-1 in the FLARAA program. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Bell-360 Invictus when it also goes up against Boeing Sikorsky. Bell 2 Boeing Sikorsky 0?

 

[TomcatViP]

Honestly, Bell will go forward with the Invictus in any case. They are not going to shut down 50 years of attack helicopters history just for that.

Invictus is lean and can propably be sustained with a couple hundreds of orders. That should be reasonably doable in the next 20 years by themselves (think Airbus receeding market).

On the other side, Sikorsky offers something new with a bonus in performance. If they don't get an order, their design will die and it would probably means that a design opportunity has been lost.

IMOHO, there is nothing to choose. It's only logical. (what it should be, by the way)

 

[FighterJock]

Honestly, Bell will go forward with the Invictus in any case. They are not going to shut down 50 years of attack helicopters history just for that.

Invictus is lean and can propably be sustained with a couple hundreds of orders. That should be reasonably doable in the next 20 years by themselves (think Airbus receeding market).

On the other side, Sikorsky offers something new with a bonus in performance. If they don't get an order, their design will die and it would probably means that a design opportunity has been lost.

IMOHO, there is nothing to choose. It's only logical. (what it should be, by the way)

It will be good for Bell if the Invictus wins after the cancelation of the Comanche.

 

[Dagger]

Maj. Gen. Robert Barrie, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, said the decision boiled down to a “best value proposition". “Can we be more specific on the factors of how exactly we arrived at this point? No,” Barrie said. “However, best value is meant in the truest sense that it was a comprehensive analysis of a variety of factors. No one really drove that decision. So, if you look broadly at a very high level, the factors are variables and performance, cost, and schedule, all were considered, and the combination of those are defined explicitly and evaluated ... that is what I would describe as the best value ... [and] what the Army would describe as its best value selection.”

That is not much clearer than mud.

Bell's V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Picked As Army's Black Hawk Replacement

Bell's V-280 tiltrotor bests Sikorsky and Boeing's Defiant X coaxial helicopter to replace the Army's aging fleet of iconic UH-60 Black Hawks.

www.thedrive.com

 

[TomS]

It will be good for Bell if the Invictus wins after the cancelation of the Comanche.

Why? Comanche was Boeing and Sikorsky. And was canceled nearly 20 years ago.

I'd be shocked if LM-Sikorsky doesn't win FARA, if only from the unspoken industrial policy perspective.

 

[FighterJock]

It will be good for Bell if the Invictus wins after the cancelation of the Comanche.

Why? Comanche was Boeing and Sikorsky. And was canceled nearly 20 years ago.

I'd be shocked if LM-Sikorsky doesn't win FARA, if only from the unspoken industrial policy perspective.

That is the trouble with getting old you start to forget things TomS. Thanks.