Bell V-280 Valor

[Jemiba]

Provisional drawing, based on the photos of the mock-up:

 

[Jemiba]

... and the attack version:

 

[Triton]

Mock-up of Bell V-280 Valor on display at AUSA 2013.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151827801945528

 

[Stargazer]

What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.

 

[yasotay]

What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.

I agree with your premise, however I think the vendors are looking at a customer with turned out pockets telling them they want a Cadillac.

 

[F-14D]

What strikes me when I look at the Valor or the Relentless is how Bell seems to be digging in their old files to snatch features here and there for their new types. They did the folding rotor studies in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the V-tail was a feature of several 1970s studies. And then they add a Sikorsky Blackhawk-type fuselage to rely on a proven operational configuration... Not that Sikorsky-Boeing's Valiant is much more innovative, being based on the coaxial twin-rotor configuration tested by Sikorsky during the 1970s. Even Piasecki's X-49 Speedhawk is based on the Pathfinder prototypes of the early 1960s.

It all makes it look like these types could have been built way back then and add very little in terms of design innovation and nothing much has been invented since.

Lots of stuff gets recycled. Look at a number of MDD and Northrop's concepts in the early '90s. You'll see features that clearly came from the F-23.

You can trace the ancestry of a lot of Bell's civil helo shapes to the JetRanger. Regarding the V-tail, that's a function of the environment in which the a/c is intended to operate. If you want a rear loading ramp, V is out of the question, regardless of weight savings. OTOH, Bell's BAT for LHX and Boeing's original Tilt-Rotor concept for same both sported V-tails. The fuselage looks like a Blackhawk because that's the size and shape they're aiming for and it's actually pretty generic and quite efficient. Boeing's YUH-61's fuselage also resembled it.

Sikorsky's X2 has what could be a critical innovation over the ABC concepts of 30 years ago: This time it might work.

Just because the companies are not inventing entirely new, never-before-seen concepts doesn't mean they're not being innovative. By that criteria, the only innovator would be AVX, unless you wanted to say it's a KA-92 with X-22 ducted fans.

 

[Stargazer]

Lots of stuff gets recycled. Look at a number of MDD and Northrop's concepts in the early '90s. You'll see features that clearly came from the F-23.

You can trace the ancestry of a lot of Bell's civil helo shapes to the JetRanger. Regarding the V-tail, that's a function of the environment in which the a/c is intended to operate. If you want a rear loading ramp, V is out of the question, regardless of weight savings. OTOH, Bell's BAT for LHX and Boeing's original Tilt-Rotor concept for same both sported V-tails. The fuselage looks like a Blackhawk because that's the size and shape they're aiming for and it's actually pretty generic and quite efficient. Boeing's YUH-61's fuselage also resembled it.

Sikorsky's X2 has what could be a critical innovation over the ABC concepts of 30 years ago: This time it might work.

Just because the companies are not inventing entirely new, never-before-seen concepts doesn't mean they're not being innovative. By that criteria, the only innovator would be AVX, unless you wanted to say it's a KA-92 with X-22 ducted fans.

I was thinking a bit along those lines actually... LOL! Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments.

 

[Triton]

The JMR and FVL-Medium programs aren't experimental or research rotorcraft programs. The intention is to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in the United States Army and U.S. Special Operation Command inventory with a new rotorcraft with additional speed and range. So I don't understand why anyone would expect that the JMR and FVL-Medium would use radical aerodynamic shapes or an entirely new propulsion technology.

The JMR and FVL-Medium programs represent an evolution in rotorcraft design, not a revolution. They incorporate the lessons learned from experimental and production rotorcraft. The Sikorsky S-69 (XH-59A) with it's Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) was ahead of its time in 1973. Sikorsky now believes that ABC is no longer an experimental technology but is ready for primetime as demonstrated by its investments in X2 Technology and by self-funding the S-97 Raider prototype. Bell is betting on its tilt-rotor technology.

JMR and FVL-Medium will probably use composite materials in their construction, the next-generation of rotorcraft avionic systems, and advanced fly-by-wire control systems. So I don't understand how someone can maintain that these vehicles aren't advanced.

 

[Stargazer]

I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

 

[Sundog]

I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

That partly depends on what you mean by innovative. I think the Karem design is very innovative. But I think what happens often times, is that people confuse innovative with the ability to meet the mission requirements.

One: The manufacturers probably did look at many innovative designs during development, but they couldn't meet the mission requirements. I know people don't like to hear that, but it was drilled into our heads back in school; The mission defines the vehicle, not the other way around. So is it shocking that vehicles designed to fulfill missions by already existing vehicles look similar to those vehicles? No, not really.

Two: If they did uncover something radically innovative, it would probably be very classified and they wouldn't go about revealing it in a program like this.

Three: What usually leads to "innovative" changes in concept and design are radical changes in propulsion technology. Such as going from reciprocating internal combustion propulsion technology to jet powerplants. Now, where I think you will see radical changes and great innovation in that regard will be in the form of distributed electric/hybrid propulsion systems. We're not there yet, but the research is ongoing and it's only a matter of time before this leads to some radical changes in configuration, IMHO.

 

[yasotay]

I never said these projects didn't incorporate innovative technology or innovative materials... I spoke about a lack of innovative DESIGN.

That partly depends on what you mean by innovative. I think the Karem design is very innovative. But I think what happens often times, is that people confuse innovative with the ability to meet the mission requirements.

One: The manufacturers probably did look at many innovative designs during development, but they couldn't meet the mission requirements. I know people don't like to hear that, but it was drilled into our heads back in school; The mission defines the vehicle, not the other way around. So is it shocking that vehicles designed to fulfill missions by already existing vehicles look similar to those vehicles? No, not really.

Two: If they did uncover something radically innovative, it would probably be very classified and they wouldn't go about revealing it in a program like this.

Three: What usually leads to "innovative" changes in concept and design are radical changes in propulsion technology. Such as going from reciprocating internal combustion propulsion technology to jet powerplants. Now, where I think you will see radical changes and great innovation in that regard will be in the form of distributed electric/hybrid propulsion systems. We're not there yet, but the research is ongoing and it's only a matter of time before this leads to some radical changes in configuration, IMHO.

I have to agree that Karem likely has the most radical innovations in the competition. He did design the first practical and deployed US UAS design after all (I may be wrong here). Besides if the government engineers (not a timid group I am told) thought bringing an outsider in was worthy I suspect that there is something to it.

 

[Triton]

Is it possible that the Bell V-280 attack configuration is a possible replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior?

 

[F-14D]

Is it possible that the Bell V-280 attack configuration is a possible replacement for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior?

No, all the JMR contenders are too big and powerful. This is the size that will replace the AH-64.

 

[Jemiba]

No, all the JMR contenders are too big and powerful. This is the size that will replace the AH-64.

Would mean abandoning tandem seating for attack rotor craft by the US, too, as with the Kamov Ka-52.
Of course, a tilt rotor probably has a much bigger frontal profile either. Maybe the distances to engage a
target have increased generall, so that the danger of being hit by gunfire has lessened.

 

[yasotay]

I think the decision on tandem versus side-by-side is not finished. The reason you see it right now is that they are keying on the question of how much commonality can you have in the aircraft. I would not be surprised if Bell does not have a tandem fuselage design ready to hang under the wing if the decison is made to go that route.

 

[F-14D]

I think the decision on tandem versus side-by-side is not finished. The reason you see it right now is that they are keying on the question of how much commonality can you have in the aircraft. I would not be surprised if Bell does not have a tandem fuselage design ready to hang under the wing if the decison is made to go that route.

Only Bell and AVX have shown their attack models, and like you said they both show side-by-side. Certainly, commonality is a factor, but I wonder if they're also thinking that the way attack helos have evolved, the value of tandem seating may no longer be worth the extra cost, if it's a variant of a utility version. In the three photos I've attached, the first is of the original AH-1G. It's a model, but it clearly illustrates how thin the profile was from the front, barely wider than the crewmembers, theoretically making it a harder target to whoever's shooting back. The second is of the Zulu Cobra, and with all the new equipment you can see how much wider the frontal aspect has become. Finally, with the pic of the Apache it's obvious that considerations of a slim profile are long gone.

Now if they were startting from scratch to build a straight-up attack bird they'd almost certainly do a tandem fuselage. Sikorsky has given us plenty of artists' concepts of exatly that. But in this case it appears Army is looking for commonality and cots savings where they can get it. Given that, and the fact that the attack verions of these vehicles won't be any faster than the utility versions, maybe they're all thinking that the cost of a separate fuselage just isn't worth it. Then again, I could be all wet (again).

 

[Jemiba]

Indeed, even with tandem seating the Valor wouldn't get a slim frontal profile. But another point
in favour of this seating arrangement could be the better protection for the pilot, or better, the chances
of a single hit to eliminate both crew members are decreased, I think.

 

[yasotay]

Having attended a few seminar now and again, I have repeatedly heard that the fuselage is the least expensive component to develop. So if there remains a COMPELLING reason for a tandem layout in the mid-21st Century I'm sure it will buy its way into the program. There are a number of arguments, counter-arguments for and against. It will come down to a decision I suspect if there remains value added for a discreet attack layout.

 

[F-14D]

Having attended a few seminar now and again, I have repeatedly heard that the fuselage is the least expensive component to develop. So if there remains a COMPELLING reason for a tandem layout in the mid-21st Century I'm sure it will buy its way into the program. There are a number of arguments, counter-arguments for and against. It will come down to a decision I suspect if there remains value added for a discreet attack layout.

The fuselage probably is the least expensive component to design, but it still does cost to design and with radically different fuselages, the extra cost of a separate production line may be necessary. Does anyone know if the UH-1 and AH-1 (prior to the Y and Z) were built on the same, or parallel lines?

Another factor is the desire for weapons to be carried internally in these higher speed designs. That could favor a "fatter" fuselage. Like anything, it'll come down to cost/benefit.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Re: Bell V-280 Valor Costcos

They had different lines, however keep in mind the demand for helicopters was so high during Vietnam that the Chinook was actually being built on two lines for a period. The second line is now the only Costcos with a control tower. The differences might not have made one line impossible, but volume certainly did. In this context I'd be real skeptical on one line building both at once, but you might be able to follow the latest plan for F-35 assemble, of assembling each type in small batches, rather then switching aircraft by aircraft to what is being done. I don't see it happening though when an evolved helmet display could give back the superior visibility being lost by side by side seating.

 

[yasotay]

Allegedly, the two aircraft have 80% commonality. The only difference being the forward fuselage.

 

[F-14D]

Allegedly, the two aircraft have 80% commonality. The only difference being the forward fuselage.

If you're talking the -1Y and -1Z, Bell advertises 84%. I was talking about earlier models and how they were built, whether they were on a common line or two. Come to think of it, I don't know if new build -1Ys and -1Zs wiill be on a common line!

 

[yasotay]

Army pursuing family of Osprey-like aircraft

The Bell V280 Valor - which looks like a mini-version of the Osprey - is designed to be flown by pilot but could be produced as an unmanned vehicle. It will be able to cruise at 280 knots with a range of 500 to 800 nautical miles.
Courtesy of Bell Helicopter

BySeth Robson

Stars and Stripes

Published: November 12, 2013

Tilt-rotor aircraft that look like mini-Ospreys are vying with other new designs to replace thousands of U.S. military helicopters.

Tilt rotors are incorporated in two of four vertical-lift designs awarded funding by the Department of Defense last month. The Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator funding is part of efforts to build a family of vertical-lift vehicles that could replace thousands of aircraft over the next 50 years, according to the Army.

Today’s fleet of U.S. military helicopters has flown extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade, and many may need to be replaced before long, although officials are also looking at extending aircrafts’ lifespans.

The goals of the Future Vertical Lift initiative are to provide the warfighter with improved speed, range, reliability and survivability, the Army’s Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center said in a statement announcing the design funding.

“The Army has taken a large step toward developing a new family of aircraft referred to as the Future Vertical Lift Family of Systems,” AMRDEC officials said.

Over the next nine months, teams from Bell Helicopter, Karem Aircraft Inc., a Sikorsky-Boeing team and AVX Aircraft Co. will refine their designs and prepare for flight tests in 2017.

Tilt rotors like those employed by the Osprey are incorporated in the Bell and Karem designs. They are competing with aircraft that feature coaxial rotors — which spin in opposite directions — and pusher propellers.

The tilt-rotor aircraft appear to be faster and have a longer range than other designs, but proponents of the coaxial helicopters claim they will be cheaper to build and operate. The Marine Corps, which has flown the tilt-rotor Osprey on numerous combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, has praised its performance, and Japan and Israel have expressed interest in buying some.

However, several fatal crashes and an inspector general report that raises concerns about the way in which Osprey units have recorded readiness information mean there’s still a cloud hanging over the aircraft.

One possible alternative is Sikorsky-Boeing’s SB-1 Defiant helicopter, which can fly up to 250 knots using a pusher propeller, according to a Sikorsky statement. A UH-60 Black Hawk cruises at 150 knots and has a range of just more than 300 nautical miles.

Patrick Donnelly, of Boeing Defense Systems, said by email that the design has a rigid rotor coaxial configuration.

“We believe the configuration better meets the stated needs of the Army as it has the low speed maneuverability of a helicopter while providing a high cruise speed,” he said.

Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems, said the design offers “reduced risk, a 100-knot improvement in speed, a 60 percent improvement in combat radius and 50 percent better … hover performance.”

AVX spokesman Mike Cox said his company, formed in 2005, has already designed a $2 million upgrade that can give today’s Kiowa scout helicopter greater lift and speed by installing coaxial rotors and ducted tail fans.

The AVX design for the future lift helicopter would also feature coaxial rotors and ducted tail fans attached to a sleek fuselage. The aircraft could carry 14 troops at 230 knots and could fly from the West Coast to Hawaii with extra fuel tanks, Cox said.

“Our design will provide the Army with the performance that they have put out in their request at a lower cost than a tilt rotor — in terms of both acquisition and operations,” he said.

Tilt rotors require complex engineering to shift from helicopter to plane mode, he said.

“Ours is a simple design that produces the performance they want at a lower cost than competitors,” he said.

In contrast, the aircraft that Bell hopes to build — the V280 Valor — leverages advances made in the Ospreys, which have flown more than 200,000 hours, according to Chris Gehler, business development manager for the aircraft.

“We’ve been able to develop a brand-new aircraft with all the goodness of that design, but we’ve also reduced weight and complexity,” he said. “You get the performance characteristics that you have in the Osprey but in a smaller package.”

Bell plans to start by building a tilt-rotor replacement for the Army’s Black Hawk utility helicopter. Modifications could produce tilt-rotor replacements for Apache attack helicopters as well as maritime versions capable of transporting Marines or Navy SEALS or undertaking countermine or anti-submarine missions, Gehler said.

The Valor, which looks like a small Osprey, is designed to be flown by pilot but could be produced as an unmanned vehicle. It will be able to cruise at 280 knots with a range of 500 to 800 nautical miles.

It’s designed to be cheaper to fly over its lifespan than today’s helicopters, taking into account the cost of maintenance and fuel and other savings that could be achieved due to its improved performance, Gehler said.

He said the Valor could move troops and equipment around the battlefield faster than conventional helicopters.

“If you have a range of 800 to 2,100 nautical miles, you can reduce or eliminate FARPs (forward arming and refueling points) in certain areas,” he said. “It changes the way a ground commander looks at his battlefield and how many other assets he has to put out there.”

A civilian version of the aircraft might be available one day, but the focus now is on a military version, he said.

In the Pacific theater, where the U.S. military plans to focus its efforts in years to come, the extra range of new vertical-lift aircraft will be important.

“The distances in the Pacific are huge,” Gehler said. “A platform like this is something that commanders can use to operate throughout the region.”

For example, the Valor would be able to fly from Okinawa or even the U.S. to the Philippines. Conventional helicopters would normally be transported there inside a C-17 transport plane or shipped on a container vessel, Gehler said.

“DOD wants to have a leap-ahead technology,” he said. “The idea is to provide warfighters with a capability that is transformational.”

Karem did not immediately respond to an interview request, but the company has posted images and technical data on its website about heavy-lift, tilt-rotor aircraft that could carry armored vehicles at an altitude of 45,000 feet and a speed of 330 knots.

“Karem Aircraft is actively developing its Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor and other technologies for transport applications,” the website states.

Former Army officer David Johnson, who works at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, said officials need to look at the impact of new aircraft on things such as doctrine, personnel, training and facilities.

“Small changes can have huge secondary and tertiary ripples,” he said.

For example, officials should assess whether new vertical-lift aircraft could transport items of the same size, either as internal or external loads, as the helicopters they will replace, he said.

AMRDEC public affairs Officer Merv Brokke said in an email that the Army is investing $217 million to develop the Future Vertical Lift Initiative designs.

Late next year, two of the four designs will be selected for funding to build and test prototypes, he said.

 

[Triton]

I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since we saw JMR tiltrotor designs identified as Bell/Boeing concepts in 2011. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity on the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army? We didn't see a Sikorsky and Boeing alliance coming.

 

[yasotay]

I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since we saw JMR tiltrotor designs identified as Bell/Boeing concepts in 2011. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity on the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army?

I think it is more a sensing that the US Army is not comfortable with the Tilt Rotor solution.

 

[F-14D]

I am very surprised that the V-280 Valor is not a Bell/Boeing proposal since some early JMR tiltrotor designs were identified as Bell/Boeing concepts. I wonder why Boeing left Bell to form an alliance with Sikorsky with the SB-1 Defiant and in perpetuity in the JMR/FVL program. Boeing has higher confidence in X2 Technology than tiltrotor for the needs of the United States Army?

I believe Boeing is covering the bases as a big company is wont to do. They already have access to Tilt-Rotor technology and data from V-22 and their original LHX design effort. This move, win or lose, gets them access to X2 technology so for them it's business diversification. Maybe in 10 years Boeing will propose a "Tilt-X2". ;D

Don't forget, for JHL Lockheed teamed with Karem, and now they're with Bell.

I'm not too concerned with Army's discomfort with Tilt-Rotor, given that for JHL they said that technology was probably the only one that could meet their needs and that for JMR they picked both of the Tilt-Rotor proposals for the next stage.

Of course, Tilt-Rotors look a lot like a fixed wing and as I've said before, something that looks that much like an airplane and promises to cruise at 280 (or 360 for Karem) knots may draw the wrath of the Air Force and Army could be nervous about that.

 

[Stargazer]

The Valor looks a lot like a tactical tilt-rotor study done by Scaled Composites for Bell Textron circa 1988.

The Model 170 had canards the air intakes were still in the tilt-rotor units, not over the fuselage (the Model 169 had no canards)., but the rest of the design is pretty much there.

I'm attaching two images:

• a company illustration of the D324 U.S. Navy "Type A" proposal from the late 1970s (the D321 and D323 were very similar Navy/Marines proposals).
• A crude digital rendering I did back in 2006 from an original sketch that was shown to me. I truly apologize for how horrible it looks, but it will give you an idea of what the Model 170 was supposed to look like (USCG markings were my idea).

Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

 

[sferrin]

The Valor looks a lot like a tactical tilt-rotor study done by Scaled Composites for Bell Textron circa 1988.

It's funny how things like that happen. There was the DARPA Heliplane several years back that was a dead-ringer for a Ryan design - from the 60s.

 

[Jemiba]

Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

A design point still not used and not tested in a real VTOL aircraft are the tilting rotors, I think. It means
not just turning the nacelle, but incorporating a tiltable joint into the shaft. The nearest such thing, that
readily comes to my mind was the Dornier Do 29, but that was a considerable smaller aircraft. So I would
regard this point as a potential risk in the development.

 

[F-14D]

Design-wise, these two projects show that the configuration chosen by Bell for the V280 is nothing new.

A design point still not used and not tested in a real VTOL aircraft are the tilting rotors, I think. It means
not just turning the nacelle, but incorporating a tiltable joint into the shaft. The nearest such thing, that
readily comes to my mind was the Dornier Do 29, but that was a considerable smaller aircraft. So I would
regard this point as a potential risk in the development.

Bell already did something along those lines with the XV-3, although admittedly, the powerplant was in the fuselage, a configuration Boeing also looked at for their original Tilt-Rotor design for LHX.

Interestingly enough, the configuration used in the V-280 is the same one Boeing used for their Model 222 proposal (picture stolen from Stingray's site), Whig lost to Bell's Model 301 for the XV-15 program .

 

[Triton]

I believe that JMR/FVL-Medium competitors have to push the performance bar to meet Army requirements for the next generation of rotorcraft and yet produce concepts that do not appear to be too radical or risky for the customer that might cause delays and/or cost overruns. Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

 

[Stargazer]

Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

 

[Triton]

And how many times has the Boeing X-32 been criticized for being ugly. :'( There seems to be an aesthetic bias against the X-32. How much of the JMR/FVL-Medium competition is going to be decided by the vehicle looking like a proper replacement for the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk? Certainly there is an element of form following function, but it is likely that a design will be chosen to appeal to the aesthetic and other biases of the Army.

 

[sferrin]

And how many times has the Boeing X-32 been criticized for being ugly. :'( There seems to be an aesthetic bias against the X-32.

That's 'cuz it's ugly.

 

[Triton]

That's 'cuz it's ugly.

And the reason people seem to be grateful that Boeing lost the JSF competition.

 

[F-14D]

Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

Cirrus and Lancair were game changers in the Genav world, but that illustrates a paradox. Cirrus especially, was selling like mad, and they only survived because someone bought the whole company. Lancair (certified) did go bankrupt, but then Cessna ate them and killed their own NG.

Then there was Eclipse who turned the industry on its ear even though they fell prey to their own unrealistic hype.. Of course, now they're rising from the dead.

'Tis a strange world...

 

[yasotay]

Is there reassurance for the customer to combine elements that have been previously seen rather than create an entirely new vehicle? That aerospace companies have to find the proper mix of conservatism and innovation?

The number of really innovative designs that found commercial success or military contracts over the past three decades is extremely limited. I can think of the Diamond DA42, the B-2 Spirit or the Piaggio Avanti, for instance, but there aren't that many... Take the example of business and regional jets. Bombardier, Canadair, Gulfstream or Cessna stick to a given formula and do not stray from it. Even when you see original configurations in the design phase, it's always the most conservative layouts that end up being produced... And the success of the F-22 and X-35 over the F-23 and X-32 may owe to their being from the all-powerful Lockheed Martin, but it probably also has to do with their more conservative configuration.

Cirrus and Lancair were game changers in the Genav world, but that illustrates a paradox. Cirrus especially, was selling like mad, and they only survived because someone bought the whole company. Lancair (certified) did go bankrupt, but then Cessna ate them and killed their own NG.

Then there was Eclipse who turned the industry on its ear even though they fell prey to their own unrealistic hype.. Of course, now they're rising from the dead.

'Tis a strange world...

Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky. The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

 

[Stargazer]

Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky. The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[F-14D]

Thus my reason for saying why I think Boeing jumped into bed with Sikorsky. The Army (not a terribly progressive organization to start with), does not have a record of going to the wild side and Boeing with CH-47 and AH-64 are very familiar with how the Army thinks about rotorcraft.

Makes a lot of sense.

Certainly possible. But as of this point in time the Defiant is more on the wild side than the Valor simply because there's so much more experience with Tilt-Rotor. That's why the Raider is so vitally important to the success and acceptance of the X2 concept. Myself, I'm gonna stick with it's Boeing covering all their bases.

 

[yasotay]

I agree with the point that Boeing is covering their bets, and recall that Lockheed has signed on with Bell. Given their minimal rotorcraft work recently, I would say Lockheed is in the same position as Boeing; doing the mission equipment that could be transferred to any vehicle vendor.