Bell V-280 Valor

[yasotay]

How heavily modified is the attack version? The reports don't have a lot of detail on it, save to mention that it could launch weapons to the sides or rear.

No doubt there will be some. One of the objectives of the program though is to maximize commonality.

 

[Triton]

Some pictures of the Bell V-280 Valor mockup and gunship model on display at AUSA 2014 taken by Aviation Week.

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/ausa-2014/floor-ausa-part-1#slide-3-field_images-1204071

 

[Triton]

"Bell Helicopter Focusing On V-280 In Light Of Army Aviation Restructuring"
By Pat Host

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Bell-Helicopter-Focusing-On-V-280-In-Light-Of-Army-Aviation-Restructuring_84363.html#.VPaIcOGGMdg

Bell Helicopter is focusing on its V-280 third-generation tilt-rotor aircraft in light of the Army's aviation restructuring and its decision to use UH-72A Lakota helicopters in training.

Company CEO John Garrison told reporters on Monday, though, he didn't agree with the Army's decision to go forward with its massive Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), the company is adjusting.

"I was very honest, we don't agree with it," Garrison said here at the Helicopter Association International's (HAI) Heli-Expo conference. "That decision has been made, so we're focused on the future and we're focused on the V-280."

The Army is moving forward with its controversial ARI, which would retire Bell's OH-58 Kiowas, move the reserve component's AH-64 Apaches to the active component while sending the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks to the Army reserves and Army National Guard. The Army would also retire its TH-67 trainers, also made by Bell. Congress blocked the transfer of Apaches in the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but allowed the Army to try again this fiscal year.

Garrison said Bell did not have the opportunity to bid for the Army's new training aircraft, but when asked by a reporter if the company would have bid, given the opportunity, Garrison said only that Bell's 429 helicopter was a "comparable" aircraft.

The Army in August selected the Bell with its V-280 and a Sikorsky-Boeing partnership for the technology and flight demonstration phase of the envisioned Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter, the precursor to Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Bell V-280 Program Director Keith Flail said in August the goal of JMR technology and flight demonstration is to build and fly a demonstrator aircraft.

Garrison also said he's concerned about the affects of ARI on the helicopter industry as a whole. Bell, he said, is working "very closely" with the Army in terms of the impact of excess defense articles, specifically around the OH-58 and TH-67.

"We've got a very open, transparent dialogue now with the Army," Garrison said.

Bell Helicopter is a division of Textron [TXT]. The Army did not respond to multiple requests for comment by press time.

 

[Triton]

A new simulator for the V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft is on show for the first time at the Quad A exhibition in Nashville.

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/quad-2015-bell-displays-v-280-simulator/

 

[Triton]

"Quad A 2015: V-280 assault variant fitted with future cockpit"
30 March 2015 - 16:33 by Tim Fish in Nashville

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/quad-2015-v-280-assault-variant-fitted-future-cock/

Bell Helicopter is displaying an assault variant of its mock-up of the V-280 Valor tiltrotor at the Quad A exhibition in Nashville.

The aircraft has been fitted with actuators situated in the centre of the airframe under the wing that can extend outwards and launch Hellfire missiles.
...

 

[Triton]

"Bell Helicopter Unveils V-280 Single Screen Cockpit Concept"
by Andrew Drwiega
March 30, 2015

Source:
http://www.miltechmag.com/2015/03/bell-helicopter-unveils-v-280-single.html?spref=tw

At the US Army Aviation Missions Solution Summit (29-31 March), Nashville, TN, Bell Helicopter is previewing a technology demonstration of its integrated single screen cockpit concept for the V-280. Andrew Drwiega is reporting from Quad-A, Nashville, TN.

It is a futuristic - combining the usual flight symbology that would be expected from a digital display, together with interactive screens showing active degraded visual environment (DVE) information, live video and imagery feeds, onboard weapons status (with interactive selection and firing on-screen) - all with a touch of 'Iron Man' conceptualisation thrown in for good measure. Pilots would be able to finger-pass information box data across the screen from one to the other.

The system's data could also be displayed on the front windscreen and / or in the pilot's visor - or a combination, which could be customisable.

The V-280 full scale model is also demonstrating a weapons rail that could be deployed from under the wing and, potentially carry Hellfire missiles which could be fired forward without hitting or being affected by the large rotors.

Bell Helicopter has also brought a V-280 simulator to demonstrate at Quad-A (of which more later).

While this concept is just that - a concept - those responsible for the thinking behind it are envisaging taking mission management and situational awareness to a new level.

 

[Triton]

"Bell, Lockheed show off futuristic flightdeck for V-280"
by Stephen Trimble
Nashville
Source: Flightglobal.com
12:46 31 Mar 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-lockheed-show-off-futuristic-flightdeck-for-v-280-410753/

Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin unveiled a single-screen glass cockpit concept in the V-280 tiltrotor mock-up displayed at an army aviation conference on 30 March.

The futuristic design concept stretches across the full width of the instrument panel under the glare shield, filling a space usually occupied by several multi-function displays.

In development under the US Army’s joint multirole-technology demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme, the actual V-280 flight deck will contain four conventional multi-function displays.

The JMR-TD will help the army shape requirements for a family of Future Vertical Lift (FVL) aircraft that will not become operational for nearly two decades, so the single-screen concept was unveiled at the Army Aviation Association of America conference to inspire discussion about the requirements for the future cockpit.

The seamless touchscreen display combines and overlays digital instruments over sensor inputs. Bell partnered with Lockheed to provide the mission systems for the V-280. The latter is proposing several technologies originally developed for the F-35, including the distributed aperture system and the electro-optical targeting system.

Also mimicking the F-35, Lockheed’s sensor fusion algorithms would allow the V-280 to pass onboard health and targeting information between other aircraft.

Bell acknowledges the visual display technology remains years, if not decades, from coming to fruition. To survive a strike by bullets or shrapnel, the single-screen layout must be constructed as a mesh of integrated panels. That way a single damaged panel would not wipe out the entire screen.

 

[Triton]

Photos from Quad A posted on the Bell Helicopter page on Facebook.

 

[Triton]

Source:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/c0.90.851.315/p851x315/11001622_1058583227502986_8609385872572990948_o.jpg

 

[Triton]

Full-scale mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor on display at Quad A 2015.

Source:
https://twitter.com/sweeneygov/status/582252654421782529

 

[yasotay]

So from Triton's supplied pictures not only do we see the "attack" configuration full sized, there are several other changes to the mock up that are new (to me).
Location of the refuel probe (right side of nose)
The sensors on the aircraft are now recessed, vice scabbed on.
Major changes to the engine mounts/nacelle.

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/valor-gets-real-bell-begins-building-v-280-for-joint-multi-role-demo/

 

[yasotay]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/valor-gets-real-bell-begins-building-v-280-for-joint-multi-role-demo/

42 years since the United States last did any VTOL technology demonstrations.
The oldest and most storied helicopter company in the country on the auction block.
[font=]Bureaucrats adding ten to fifteen years to the decision cycle and defeating anything that causes risk.[/font]
[font=]We are indeed skipping down the Apian Way with our fiddle.[/font]
[font=]Lets hope the next generation will be more bold.[/font]

 

[Stargazer]

42 years since the United States last did any VTOL technology demonstrations.

Definitely not. The Bell XV-15 was tested into the 1980s as a subscale demonstrator for the JVX (V-22) program, so one can removed at least 10 years from that.

And if we leave the "official" testing aside, there have been plenty of VTOL experimental machines since then!

 

[Sundog]

I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

 

[yasotay]

Indeed the XV-15 did fly into the 80's but it was not new. When was it developed? Constructed? Regardless lets take the ten years you make case for. So instead of almost half a century it has been a third of a century. I am talking about officially established government programs. Sure Jay Carter and Abe Karen have been out there. As has been the Piasecki family. All of whom have subsisted on small confessional delegation stipend. Those programs have done good work, but a major government push to expand the frontier of VTOL in this country I would beg to disagree.

 

[sferrin]

I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

And the X-50.

 

[yasotay]

I take it you meant rotary wing VTOL work as well, as both the X-32 and X-35 flew within that time frame as well.

And the X-50.

Of those mentioned I might concede X -50. However it was a Boeing program with DARPA, that went no where when it came time for major investment from the services. In fact between this program and UCAR when the services did.not step up DARPA got out of the VTOL side of aero for a long time. They are back at to a lesser degree now, but I don't see any of the services jumping into the arena with them. Any service jumping on board with ARES? How about the High Speed VTOL program? The DoD looks at rotorcraft like an old pickup truck. If it still works... Why do you think the USMC has gone to such pains to paint a picture that the Osprey is so very different than any military helicopter.

I'm sorry. We will agree to disagree I guess. That's fine. To me; the United States Army, who by Title 10 mandate, is responsible for the advancement of rotorcraft technology in the United States has failed this mission. Don't believe me? Look at the dollars the Army has had for R&D for rotorcraft since 1970. Which direction has that fund line gone? I will bet a beer that if you look you will find that the USAF Inc. invest more in turbine engine technology per dollar, than the entire budget line for rotorcraft R&D line.

I will end my rant now and get back to being pessimistically excited at this program.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Another VTOL demonstrator program? What is there left to demonstrate? Even the hare-brained concepts, e.g. X-wing, have been "demonstrated". All have been weighed, measured, and found wanting with the exception of the tiltrotor and a niche high-speed requirement that resulted in the Harrier, for a short time the Yak-38, and now the F-35. There are currently various full-scale compound-helicopter-type programs based on prior demonstrations but I doubt that they will be used for other than niche mission requirements even in the unlikely event that they do go into production. There is no question that you can make a helicopter go fast: it's been demonstrated over and over in previous demonstrator programs. The problems are that 1) what you add to make it go fast reduces the payload and 2) making it go fast decreases specific range compared to flying at helicopter cruise speeds (add fuel to restore range at a high cruise speed?; see problem 1) . Not to mention the additional development, production, maintenance, and operating costs compared to a pretty good helicopter. There are incremental and worthwhile conventional-helicopter performance gains to be made with structure, rotors, drive system, and engine research and development.

 

[yasotay]

Everything that can be invented has been invented...

Pessimistically excited.

So do you think the will go with all flying tail or stay with rudders?

 

[Moose]

Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

 

[Stargazer]

Everything that can be invented has been invented...

... within the official frame of mind that has been the norm for decades.

If top brass and politicians dared to think "outside the box" then I'm sure we definitely would see more innovative and challenging technologies be explored.

 

[sublight_]

Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

The cross shaft and transmission certainly don't help reduce weight or complexity. I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is? Suppose the turbines were generators and the fans electric. That way you'd only have electric cables between the fans instead of a shaft and a transmission.

 

[VTOLicious]

Speaking of weight (saving). The fuselage costruction appears to be very traditional.

 

[VTOLicious]

I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is?

Are you seroius? ;D

...imagine a 2000kW electric motor and the corresponding equipment (YT706-GE-700: 1967 kW).

 

[sublight_]

I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is?

Are you seroius? ;D

Yes, there are a lot of pretty exciting advancements in electric motors going on right now. They'll scale up to transport use sooner or later...

 

[Moose]

Weight's going to be a problem with this aircraft, so I'm guessing they stick with rudders.

The cross shaft and transmission certainly don't help reduce weight or complexity. I wonder what the feasibility of going electric is? Suppose the turbines were generators and the fans electric. That way you'd only have electric cables between the fans instead of a shaft and a transmission.

At present the main benefits of hybrid electric drive would be nominal fuel burn and more accessory/weapon power. Weight and volume demands would actually be worse than an equivalent mechanical drive. In another decade or so that may no longer be the case.

 

[AeroFranz]

Unless you have very complex driveshaft paths, mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight, whereas with an electric power distribution you have the weight and efficiencies of:
- a generator (efficiency no more than 98%)
- inverter (dunno, maybe mid nineties)
- cabling (losses in heat)
- electric motor (efficiency around 95%)


you end up with a powertrain efficiency of 86-87% and possibly more weight.
In the case of a tail rotor replacement, there may be advantages found in redundancy that make up for the added weight and power requirements.

 

[Rhinocrates]

There's the e-thrust hybrid concept being worked on by Airbus and Rolls Royce

http://www.airbusgroup.com/airbusgroup/int/en/innovation-environment/airbus-e-fan-the-future-of-electric-aircraft/e-aircraft-roadmap.html

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/media~item=be674db0-2b69-42f6-946a-03cf3b0eef32~.html

That's a hybrid system and one advantage is that it can recover power during descent using the fans/motors as generators. A key phrase in the release is "enabling technologies are..." meaning "we need some fundamental breakthroughs".


And NASA's Greased Lighting tilt-wing drone

http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testing-electric-propulsion.html


The distributed propulsion provides aerodynamic advantages, apparently, and having the fans out of phase with one another can reduce noise.


It's all still at the concept and test model phase, but there could be some very interesting developments in coming years.

 

[sublight_]

mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight

Now when you say reasonable weight, what kind of weight are we talking about for a transmission that can handle the 4000 HP range?

 

[AeroFranz]

Unfortunately it's highly variable depending on application. The simplest case is something like whatever your powerplant is (usually a turboshaft or turboprop) with a gearbox and whatever the disc actuator is (lift fan, rotor, propeller...).


However, if the powerplant and the disc actuator are not co-located, then you have the added weight of driveshafts, T-boxes, bevel gears, bearings, couplers, combiner gearboxes, cross-shafts and whatever else is needed to make the particular configuration work.
Case in point: the V-22 or the XC-142 would be much lighter and simpler if it could get by without the cross-shafts, for example.
Even then you have the added variable of how fast you make the shafts spin, what ratio you use in the gearbox, so it's hard to come up with a weight metric, like so many lbs/hp.


When you get to highly distributed configuration, that's where the weight of all the mechanical driveshaft starts making electric powertrain attractive.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[fredymac]

I suppose Bell had to do this because Eurocopter probably has the patent for a fixed engine where the tilt was in-line with the engine.


The Bell XV-3 looked similar but the engine was in the fuselage. Maybe someone will patent a design where the rotor stays still and the plane rotates.

 

[Stargazer]

Maybe someone will patent a design where the rotor stays still and the plane rotates.

Ahem...

 

[marauder2048]

Unless you have very complex driveshaft paths, mechanical transmissions can be made with high efficiency (say 98-99% per geartrain) and reasonable weight, whereas with an electric power distribution you have the weight and efficiencies of:
- a generator (efficiency no more than 98%)
- inverter (dunno, maybe mid nineties)
- cabling (losses in heat)
- electric motor (efficiency around 95%)


you end up with a powertrain efficiency of 86-87% and possibly more weight.
In the case of a tail rotor replacement, there may be advantages found in redundancy that make up for the added weight and power requirements.

The 98 -99% efficiency per geartrain is an astonishing figure. I'm not doubting it but what level of precision machine tooling and what types of materials are required for that level of efficiency?

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm not a mechanical engineer, so take this with a grain of salt. One project my company is working on involves a turboshaft and a gearbox, designed by our partners (one of the three major aerospace engine manufacturers). They told us to assume a 98% efficiency for our conceptual level studies. Now, i'm sure that depending on applications and number of reduction gears that figure may vary significantly.

 

[yasotay]

I thought that with the modern computer controlled lathes, etc., that industry was indeed getting phenomenal tolerances on their machined parts.

 

[Bill Walker]

98% to 99% efficiency per gear mesh was obtainable twenty years ago with tight tolerance control, proper selection of tooth profile, and surface hardness (based on my experience in the helicopter world). I can only imagine it is getting better. NC machining has brought that level of tolerance control to home workshops, if you have the bucks.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Meant to post this sooner: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-sees-v-280-valor-as-common-attack-utility-platform-414269/

 

[Deino]