That close to ground maneuverability footage was outstanding. Awesome!
@Thickcurves
Жыл бұрын
It is amazing but there are some things said in the video that are wrong. I've worked as airframe in a lot of Army blackhawk hangars. The Valor could fit 2 of these in a 4 bay blackhawk hangar but it absolutely will not fit as-is in inline hangars which are way more common. Even chinook hangars the valor would be a tight fit. We are talk 54 feet to 80 feet width. Those rotors are going to have to come off and then barely fit in a single bay blackhawk hangar or turn it sideways? Either way, that's a huge pain in the ass. The valor is wider than the black is long by about 15 feet.
@ColemanCanna
Жыл бұрын
@@Thickcurves as well as the video says 6" doors no way in hell.
@dentalnovember
Жыл бұрын
@Thickcurves Shhh! He he trying to sell it.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
@@Thickcurves The Valor only has a 19% larger footprint for 20-25% more troop capacity. Likely over double the range and significantly faster.
@eriknewman5288
Жыл бұрын
Good luck replacing the Chinook. Just keep making them with better engines. The wheel is old too but... it keeps rolling
@LeroyBraun
Жыл бұрын
Gearing the tilt rather than tilting the entire engine is genius.
@ph11p3540
Жыл бұрын
Not really. It just substitutes one set of engineering complexity for another. You just can't engineer a single drive shaft universal joint that dynamically tilts under load. It's just not possible. There must be a triplex telescoping drive shaft system on swash plates to handle heavy tiling torque loads
@niio111
Жыл бұрын
@@ph11p3540That's not the way it works. It uses a double right angle gearset, allowing tilt to occur around the intermediate driveshaft. There are no u joints. Look at the nacelles and you see the propshaft is offset inboard of the turbine center line. The gearsets are likely also responsible for speed reduction, required in all turboprops, so there is likely a very small transmission efficiency penalty.
@SebastienChedalBornu
Жыл бұрын
Just a correction: while the footprint is the same as black hawk, landing clearance is larger
@WardenWolf
Жыл бұрын
And that's going to create some major problems which will keep the Blackhawk or other conventional choppers around for a very long time.
@Thickcurves
Жыл бұрын
@@WardenWolf also hangar space. the valor is 15 feet wider than a blackhawk is in length, which creates a huge problem for hangar space.
@dcpack
Жыл бұрын
Yes, the "footprint" is meaningless. The "landing clearance will prove to be an issue and single masted rotor craft will be included in the inventory. It is new and it's cool.
@michaelgormel7223
Жыл бұрын
Yeah fair enough. Although Sikorsky already have the tooling factories for the Defiant. Oh well, the valor is cheaper
@HansSchulze
Жыл бұрын
I was dismayed not to see folding wings, which would be required for carrier ops. This thing is fine for land ops, although I immediately liked the overall size and merging of the two props on the competition for the same reason.
@burningbarnavit
Жыл бұрын
6 inch wide doors for easy ingress and egress? Oh Bell, you always do such great work! 😂
@patmcbride9853
Жыл бұрын
For toy soldiers?
@Dakakeisalie
Жыл бұрын
5 seconds later "Has a self deployable system" nice
@andrewtaylor940
Жыл бұрын
@@Dakakeisalie Self Deployable means it is capable of reaching most areas of operation on it’s own with fueling stops or aerial tankers. Which is a vast improvement over needing to stuff blackhawks into cargo planes to get them overseas.
@TheDarkArtist66
Жыл бұрын
I caught that too
@burningbarnavit
Жыл бұрын
@Matt Mann no. No they haven't. Bell has an appalling record of budget overruns, fleecing taxpayers, and failing to meet requirements. Relevancy in the military industrial complex requires one thing, and one thing only: senators with defense contractors in their district. Read a book. Preferably more than one actually. The only companies work worst records? Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. And they still get BILLIONS of our taxpayer dollars every damned year.
@chriskelvin248
Жыл бұрын
I’m excited to see this aircraft put to good use. When the tilt rotor paradigm was first invested in, it was in the form of the V-22. But it suffered from first-run curse. The US. Military’s very first tilt rotor aircraft had a set of engineering requirements set very high. It was a Marine aircraft that was burdened by the specification that its entire wing structure rotate 90 degrees for storing below deck on a ship. Very complex and heavy mechanicals to have functioning tilting rotors that perform in all modes AND have THAT whole assembly spin front to back as well. The added weight and complexity hurt performance and reliability. But NOW we get to see a tilt rotor war machine in its purest form do what they are born to do. Combine the best parts of fixed aircraft with the best parts of rotary wing aircraft. Without having to also sing and dance and be charming at cocktail parties. I can’t wait to see them out in the wild.
@kenfoote2598
Жыл бұрын
V-22 was NOT the first. XV-15 was the first and did very well. Much smaller, but they learned a lot.
@chriskelvin248
Жыл бұрын
@@kenfoote2598 not to be pedantic, but the V-22 WAS the first. The XV-15 was indeed fully functioning, but it was a test bed , a prototype. And the XV-15 wasn’t the US’s first flying prototype tilt rotor either. That distinction belongs to the XV-3 circa 1955. But neither aircraft was mass produced, nor put into service with any branch of the military. The V-22 was and is the military’s first fighting tilt rotor aircraft.
@bigfootdarrell13
Жыл бұрын
My close friend Pat Sullivan, died trying to demonstrate the V22 to Congress. We served together at Edwards, he was an exceptional test pilot. I was very skeptical of the Osprey, as in my opinion, the systems required were outside the scope of the electronic technologies at the time. Godspeed Pat...
@MartinMartinX
Жыл бұрын
Good use ? You mean the terrorist attacks from side of USA all over the world ? Iraq - "weapons of mass destruction" , Serbia ? Syria - helping terrorist ISIS ? Afghanistan ? or destroying of Libya ? Pleas tell me when US army was put in good use after WW2 . USA destroyed many countries and killed or displaced millions of innocent people for greed of US military complex.
@abhinandanarivazhagan7493
Жыл бұрын
Too much reformer cope in the comments. I think it looks cool and will prove to be a great successor
@Cool_boy258
Жыл бұрын
Looks kind of big
@abhinandanarivazhagan7493
Жыл бұрын
@@Mal101M The Apache serves a different role for what the V-280 is trying to fill, which is the Black Hawk. V280 is better for island hopping, which is the environment it's being designed for and Bell have already got experience with Tilt-rotors so it's got a lot of potential. Also tilt rotors look based AF.
@tom95521
Жыл бұрын
Both VTOLs are amazing. If I had to choose if the payload/range specs were equal I would go with the Defiant X. The counter rotating blades with rear propulsion has always been my favorite design due to simplicity.
@BharathCalgary
Жыл бұрын
Probably more easy to maintain too.
@WardenWolf
Жыл бұрын
Counter rotating rotors also serve to greatly reduce the effects of receding blade stall, allowing much higher top speeds. This is doubly so if the wings are also designed to provide some lift, as how Russian helicopters do. Russian helicopters have always been, in many ways, superior to our own. They have lagged some in the last 20 years or so, but the fundamental designs are usually better.
@tom95521
Жыл бұрын
@@WardenWolf I figure if it's good enough to fly a helicopter on Mars like Ingenuity then it must be good. I think the Russians have a long range bomber with dual propellers that counter rotate.
@cranberryeater7459
Жыл бұрын
@@tom95521 I agree 100%. I suspect there were a lot of politics involved in pushing the Osprey through. I choose practicality, efficiency, and function. Defiant X over the Osprey.
@likemostthings
Жыл бұрын
what are teh speeds of the Defiant X compared to this platform? One thing I thought about is when entering a combat zone, the 280 wouldn't be able to use guns mounted inside the craft until the blades were fully in verticle position, that might cause an issue when coming in to a hot zone where they need to use supressing fire while loading or unloading
@ph11p3540
Жыл бұрын
The V-22 is a really amazing aircraft as well as being the world first VTOL medium military utility aircraft. Most of the teething problems were fixed but a few intrinsic flaws will persist and only really frequent maintenance keeps them flying reliably. The V-280 Valor should be a better product given all the lessons learned on engineering the V-22 Osprey.
@siege1cj1
Жыл бұрын
The osprey has had MANY failures over the years and still does
@WhitechocolateHOTHOT
Жыл бұрын
They wont even let the president fly in it thought xD
@robertsettle2590
Жыл бұрын
@@siege1cj1 maybe they need to change whoever the pilots are!
@siege1cj1
Жыл бұрын
@@robertsettle2590 Its poor design bud
@forrestbernard1243
Жыл бұрын
@Myopinionwaygv😮⁵c y txt
@jackcheng7437
Жыл бұрын
This new V-280 better than old V-22. The new V-280 is more safety and fast❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
@amaneyugihanako-kunofthesi8849
Жыл бұрын
Among the other programs in the Future Vertical Lift program, the JMR-Ultra seems to be the most interesting one, because it basically means an attempt to create a Helicopter or Tiltrotor the sizes of which are unprecedented in History before, it would even put a King Stallion to shame if they come out (Even if both of them would be almost the same length). If the JMR-Ultra should be made, it would already be among the largest, if not the largest Vertical Lift aircraft in history. And better yet, there's already a design for such an aircraft made by Bell Boeing known as the Quad Rotor design. It is designed to be as large as the C-130 Hercules, with 50 feet (15 meter)-long rotors, and a cargo bay that's around 62.34 feet (19 meters) long. And as the name suggests, it would have 4 tiltrotors instead of the 2 found on the Osprey and the Valor. And if that impressive tiltrotor size is not enough, one of the design excursions coming from the program would be dubbed the "Big Boy", which would be even larger than the standard Quad Rotor, with 55 feet (17 meter)-long rotors and a cargo bay that's around 67.91 feet (20.7 meters) long, allowing it to carry a pallet more than the initial design, and accommodate a Stryker at that. However, what's not to say that they might eventually become bigger in the design and research and development phase. Time can only tell whether that program will come to fruition or not Overall, the JMR-Ultra is something to look forward to, because it is not like the other JMR programs that are gonna replace pre-existing vertical lift designs. (Maybe the JMR Medium Light might replace something like the Venoms and some other smaller transport helicopters, I guess, so technically it might also replace a pre-existing design). Rather, the JMR Ultra might be the first in a series of larger and more powerful series of cargo-carrying vertical lift aircraft, and maybe it can also fill up a combat role by having enough space to transport a large number of troops to any point in the battlefield, as long as it's not contested. But for its size, it would be better off doing some cargo roles first and formost, and maybe it will also be capable of carrying Rapid Dragon racks, and thus be able to give some siege and artillery capability for when the situation calls for it. Either way, the entire Vertical Lift program is interesting as a whole, but it's the JMR-Ultra that I'm looking forward to the most
@indigocolossus
Жыл бұрын
I enjoyed reading your post, Ty
@TheBooban
Жыл бұрын
Except it would have to be as cheap as the C-130 which it can’t be. Or, there is a use case for vertical lift of that size. Which there isn’t.
@amaneyugihanako-kunofthesi8849
Жыл бұрын
@@TheBooban Currently, but there must be a reason why the JMR-Ultra is part of the Future Vertical Lift program. Whether it is because they're anticipating something that might happen in the future, proving that they can make such technology on such a large scale, or just yet another money-making scheme in which they aim to get a bit more of the slice of the Defense Budget pie, it's right there in the program, and it's confirmed as such. Unless they cancel it, that is.
@theshittybowman
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this Info😮, very interesting!
@amaneyugihanako-kunofthesi8849
Жыл бұрын
@@theshittybowman You're welcome, but the information presented is still tentative
@lynnkramer1211
Жыл бұрын
I think the Defiant X would translate to civilian missions much better than the V-280. It would be great to develop both.
@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63
Жыл бұрын
Navy may like the smaller footprint of the Defiant X.
@TheOriginalFaxon
Жыл бұрын
@Jaomir Courtar Yea this is a great example. The F-17 failed to win the contract over the F-16 so they reworked it and sold it to the Navy as the F/A-18 :). There's nothing stopping the navy from buying these for their larger ships, and developing something smaller for their LCS, Amphibios Assault Ships, and other ships that host aircraft, but are smaller than a carrier.
@bl8danjil
Жыл бұрын
@@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 The Defiant X is not smaller, that's a misconception. They both have a size problem because they were required to fit more troops. The Valor is wider but it's fuselage length is shorter. I remember seeing a comparison where the Valor's length fit inside a Blackhawk main rotor. There is a picture whose source is Sikorsky where the Defiant X main rotor and length looks to be roughly the same total length as the Blackhawk. You can find the picture on one of "The Drive" articles. Additionally, the Defiant X is very tall. Looks to be 2 or 3 times taller than the Blackhawk and on a ship that isn't an aircraft carrier I just don't see the it being able to fit. With the Valor, it would just need a blade fold and wing stow mechanism.
@DJAYPAZ
Жыл бұрын
The Defiant X offers advantages over traditional helicopter designs that can't be ignored.
@andrewtaylor940
Жыл бұрын
The problem is Sikorsky and Boeing have been having an awful lot of trouble getting the Defiant=X to fly. The complex gearbox for the dual counter rotating rigid rotor props has been giving them fits. All of the wonderful flight footage of the Defiant-X comes from the 2 days of testing that they were actually able to fly the thing. Total flight time is around 12 hours spread over a handful of days. Whereas the V-280 prototype has been flying for almost 5 years now. It has logged hundreds of flight hours and the Army has been able to put the demonstrator through it's full range of operation. The Raider-X is entirely new technology with no real operational examples. The V-280 Valor is built from the experience and lessons learned from the V-22 Osprey. With 10's of thousands of flight hours and operational status all around the world. Plus while the Raider-X is arguably more maneuverable (in concept) it has nowhere near the speed or range of the V-280. It was a choice between a well refined derivative design that could be put into production in a very short period of time. an airframe ready for prime time, vs a new untried concept that will require years of further development and testing before it will ever see production. I love the look of the Raider-X. It looks like an awesome helicopter. But the Army's decision was a no brainer in this. And really it's the JSF program all over again. Boeing/Northrop Grumman never managed to lock down their design in that competition. While it had some promising features and ideas it wasn't anywhere near ready. Whereas Lockheed taxi's out for their first VTOL demonstration, it was supposed to be a simple take off, hover and land demo. Instead they took off transitioned to horizontal flight, went supersonic and did a few laps of the field, pulled up into a hover, and gently landed on the tarmac vertically. It took Boeing three tries to get their plane a few feet in the air, with all the doors and panels removed to reduce weight. Once again the Air Force bought the aircraft that was most ready for production and that had the best hope of entering service within their needed schedule. I'm sure Sikorsky will make some good use of the Raider-X development and morph it into a solid offering in some role in the future.But it wasn't ready for what the Army needed today.
@lancecrowe1958
Жыл бұрын
With only a 6,000 ft altitude flight ceiling, it would NEVER be able to fly from Albuquerque, 5,280 ft in elevation, to Santa Fe, at 7,200 ft elevation, only 60 miles away. I think it's flight ceiling is far higher than 6,000 ft of elevation.
@alexnefi
Жыл бұрын
Maybe he meant 6000 meters which would be slightly below 20000ft. I can't imagine it's 6000ft when normal helicopters like the black hawk can go much higher than that.
@ddegn
Жыл бұрын
@@alexnefi Maybe that spec is wrong but the six inch doors is correct, right?
@alexnefi
Жыл бұрын
@@ddegn good one lmao, would a person even fit through that?
@kevlar7669
Жыл бұрын
Only thing that can replace Chinook is King Stallion. But the Valor is awesome.
@stealthassasin1day291
Жыл бұрын
The defiant x would fit in a more attack helicopter design which they also have a design/prototype they are competing with.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
It also doesn't suffer from the same issues the larger version had.
@jerky00000
Жыл бұрын
Wow, 2 6 inch wide side doors.... I guess we have some very futuristic soldiers on the way too. 5:30
@t3chman94
Жыл бұрын
Everybody hating on it before even watching. It ain't the Osprey
@dianapennepacker6854
Жыл бұрын
Osprey has a similar safety record of other rotor aircraft. People are just ignorant. Complain about the footprint. That is the only the only thing that people can complain about.
@synchro505
Жыл бұрын
Oh, how I'd love to fly in one of these. What an awesome aircraft.
@1XX1
Жыл бұрын
Steam has a VR V22 Osprey simulator named VTOL. Its very difficult to fly by arcade standards, so no kids fly this. Only more mature disciplined people. It also has an excellent Super Hornet with weapons.
@antikoerper256
11 ай бұрын
Thanks for the service to all current and former US servicemen and women, past or present, from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria. Anglo-saxon masters of the skies and seas!
@ericb.4358
Жыл бұрын
The US needs BOTH the Bell and Sikorsky designs for different missions. In particular the Pacific theater needs the range of the Valor. As the replacement for the Apache a shorter, narrower tandem version of the Defiant would give more speed, range and maneuverability in a smaller package than a Valor.
@howdywowey2165
Жыл бұрын
Got an extra 100 billion ? That figure is probably too small if we develop both for the same mission. Take your pick - More inflation because Fed will have to start printing more money to do both. Or we raise federal income tax to fund it. Or both of the above. One of the above scenarios will happen. There's no free lunches in the world. There's always a trade-off. Wishful thinking is just that - Wishful....
@DelverRootnose
Жыл бұрын
I'd like to see a gunship version of the Sikorski Raider. This would give the old Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne gunship a chance to shine again. In the new form. I hope the Sikorski company continues to develop their Raider.
@ewanstewart8011
Жыл бұрын
Great video as usual 👍🏻🏴
@danielch6662
Жыл бұрын
Yes. If the navy's army can have it's own air force, the army must have its own air force as well.
@justadbeer
Жыл бұрын
Impressive aircraft. The only thing it can't do is glide or auto rotate, which is kind of a good feature to have if you're in an aircraft and you lose power
@Festivejelly
Жыл бұрын
Most aircraft cant really glide if they lose all engines.
@Appletank8
Жыл бұрын
If it is moving forwards at speeds, i believe it can still glide to a certain extent. Both engines are connected through the wing so it can still have a bit of power for landing, both engine failures are hopefully not something common to run into.
@edwardsummey8843
Жыл бұрын
It can feed both rotors from one engine at a reduced rate in case one fails.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
It can glide and auto rotate. Even the V22 can do both in a poor capacity. How well can it do both we will see but people are saying it should auto rotate quite well.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
@@Festivejelly I mean they can glide... just don't expect a 747 to glide well XD
@jeffreymorris1752
Жыл бұрын
That 6000 ft service ceiling doesn't sound right. Is it relative to sea level or local ground level? The town I live in is at 7150 ft, so would it be grounded here or could it operate up to 13150 ft?
@That_Bender
Жыл бұрын
I was thinking the same… seems a way too low for medium to high altitude operations.
@CarletonForsling
Жыл бұрын
That’s not the service ceiling. It’s just a benchmark for hovering during certain missions. The ceiling is much higher.
@watchthe1369
Жыл бұрын
The Osprey was the first of the kind, had to live on a ship, and had a huge number of naysayers ridding its coattails. The first helicopter, first jet, first monoplanes all had issues. I think the Valor benefitted from a bunch of lessons learned from the first iteration. Pivoting at the gear box rather than the whole nacelle just might be the a key technology going forward. What this does mean is that tiltrotors are here to stay, and they bring much needed mobility and lift as the USA Military moves into a new era of new global paradigms, we are no longer in a population explosion, so everything is going to shift, fewer people, less ability to produce, a world of regional powers instead of global powers. We bridged the Atlantic and have it well watched, but the Pacific? Yeah there is a big threat screeching at us from that side of our defensive moats, we will need the mobility to jump between lilly pads. The Army is buying helos with range to help, the Marines are getting more amphibious and getting more logistic ships. The way development is going is reassuring, that SOMEone still has their brains engaged.
@WvlfDarkfire
Жыл бұрын
I highly doubt this will or even can replace the Blackhawk. But it would be an interesting future...
@teevee5233
Жыл бұрын
5:31 - "Two 6 inch wide side doors for rapid....." those are really thin humans if they are going through 6 inch wide doors.
@DJAYPAZ
Жыл бұрын
A most interesting video. The V-280s performance specs are very impressive.
@robozstarrr8930
Жыл бұрын
Order Both Please . . . . Tank U
@cgyro14
Жыл бұрын
I’m curious about how solid a vehicle this is considering the numerous issues that exist with the Ospreys. Maybe they’ve improved upon them a lot with this model.
@chriskelvin248
Жыл бұрын
Remember, this airframe will have 30 years on the Valor in terms of engineering, computer and material science. But the biggest advantage will be that this will be a pure and more simple tilt rotor, without the weight and performance penalty the V-22 had being forced to have a swiveling wing assembly for storage below deck on a ship.
@cgyro14
Жыл бұрын
@@chriskelvin248 - I hadn't realized the V-22 started back in '89 and only really went into service in 2007. As you pointed out, technology has come a long way since then, so all of what you said made sense. I'm still shocked it's that old of an aircraft though.
@chriskelvin248
Жыл бұрын
@@cgyro14 My insight comes from Richard Whittle’s book, Dream Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious V-22 Osprey. My god, it’s a grueling campaign to get a big military program through from concept to the field over the course of many years, administrations and even human lives.
@cgyro14
Жыл бұрын
@@chriskelvin248 - I knew it wasn't a quick and easy process, but I wouldn't have imagined it took that long. I wonder if the timeline is shorter now because tech has increased exponentially from '89 and even in the past 20 years for that matter.
@Baronstone
Жыл бұрын
It is a POS! Certain members of congress are pushing it because it will be built in their districts
@douglassauvageau7262
Жыл бұрын
EXCITING! The 'side-slip' demonstration along with continuously horizontal exhaust are compelling.
@chriscjjones8182
Жыл бұрын
That is beautiful
@1dravano
Жыл бұрын
The "Assault Weapon" would need to be featureless or break in half to be legal in California, it could only carry a maximum of 10 Missiles and the Machine guns have to be semi-auto with 10 round belts
@gsc512
Жыл бұрын
It seems really cool, but the amount of valuable drivetrain components that are in or exposed to enemy fire is enormous compared to a traditional helicopter and you have the drive shafts going to both sides of the air frame, powerplants on the outside leading edges of the airplane. All of this is prime target for enemy fire and everything is needed for flight, if you lose one power plant on this air frame she has to land
@SoldrfMfortune
Жыл бұрын
Not to mention it's essentially a refit blackhawk (now with wings and a short v-fin tail instead of main rotor and tail).
@night8285
Жыл бұрын
I think professional engineers and military personnel who's in the program knows it too.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
It can fly on one engine. You aren't adding enough armor to protect those engine either way.
@moist_ointment
Жыл бұрын
People who say the US should instead be "focused on home" makes no sense. The US working internationally to expand and maintain US hegemony is in the best interest of the home front, in the same way a father that goes out of the home to work is focusing on home, by working outside of the home. The US's ability to build up the home front is enhanced by being the world's leading power
@christineshotton824
Жыл бұрын
There should be a "spot the obvious error" drinking game with these Dark ____ videos. I don't think an aircraft that has a service ceiling of 6,000 feet is what the military specified. Everybody take a shot.
@dominicfuller-rowell7301
Жыл бұрын
lol yup, must be a mistake. Maybe 6000m, but even that is low for something that has wings and can fly like a plane once airborne
@michaelchristensen5421
Жыл бұрын
The Osprey was built to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight, a larger helicopter than the Blackhawk is. This is why the Navy still has their Sea Hawks.
@Badger13x
Жыл бұрын
Six inch wide side doors, damn those rations must be poor !!!
@jtjames79
Жыл бұрын
What is this? A side door for ants?!
@joellamoureux7914
Жыл бұрын
I'm glad to hear that Bell has succeeded in this venture. It really isn't surprising considering how long they have been developing the osprey. From an asthetic point of view I'd have to go with the compet. The Defiant X is one sexy bird. I'd love a video comparing the two oh dark one
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
Defiant had MANY issue with it. It seems like their smaller version for the scout/attack helicopter bid is further along and doesn't have some of the same issues.
@saberwork
Жыл бұрын
Mature tilt rotor technology will be critical to the civilian air transport system of the future. For trips under 500 miles tilt-rotors can compete effectively with short haul turboprop and jet aircraft while operating out of limited footprint airport/heliport facilities. This will take passenger load off of currently overcrowded terminals and their associated runways and airspace by spreading the traffic out of larger and lower traffic areas.
@willstikken5619
Жыл бұрын
It sounds like a nice dream but I don't believe the underlying economics support this change.
@SocialDemocraciaPT
Жыл бұрын
Design of V280 is not as sturdy and survivable as Defiant X. Coaxial rotors will not suffer severe instability if one engine goes out.
@SeanP7195
4 ай бұрын
Yep. Those business commutes will like them. Yes, they are slower, but the “door to door” time will probably be comparable.
@TheBongReyes
Жыл бұрын
The Chinnok is like the B-52, it just refuses to let youngsters to replace it.
@danko6582
Жыл бұрын
I wonder how well it flies with an engine out?
@rickh6963
Жыл бұрын
That is exactly what I was thinking. Can you transition to vertical lift with one engine out. What happens when you are in vertical lift and an engine goes out?
@akkorokamui8319
Жыл бұрын
Each engine can power the other rotor through a drive shaft that runs through the wing in case of engine failure. Also the control systems I believe are triple redundant.
@Ezzell_
Жыл бұрын
how are you going to state that a version of the FVLP will replace the c130.....and not talknabout it?
@channelsixtysix066
Жыл бұрын
Looks like the flexible drive to the rotors is a better idea than the V.22's tilting engine system.
@hallmobility
Жыл бұрын
Oh, the V-22 is made to FLEX. I can't begin to list the incredible number of flex joints. Simplification of THAT is most welcome.
@channelsixtysix066
Жыл бұрын
@@hallmobility It just seems this thing is what the V.22 should have been.
@hallmobility
Жыл бұрын
@@channelsixtysix066 Remember the V-22 took well over two decades to develop and many died making that happen. Thankfully the V-22 turned out a success. And any successor to an existing design had _better_ be an improvement.
@alexdelarge8772
Жыл бұрын
The V-280 Valor is designed and manufactured by Bell and Lockheed Martin and won the Future Vertical Lift contract December 5th 2022. The SB-1 Defiant was designed and developed by Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing, NOT Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as the narrator states.
@pickmandaily
Жыл бұрын
I was an Aircraft Electrician in the 82nd Airborne Aviation Brigade & worked on all of the older helicopters. I’ll be sad to see them go.
@dbyers3897
Жыл бұрын
The soldiers who operated the hot air balloons during the Civil War felt the same. Oddly, they reported the balloons obtained buoyancy faster/sooner over Washington, DC. Go figure. Some things never change.
@toddsimone7182
Жыл бұрын
5:30 I'm glad they put in the 6 inch doors for the GI Joe's.
@keysersoze_6
Жыл бұрын
You should make a video on the competitor of this aircraft. It has an interesting design!
@mkllove
Жыл бұрын
They already have, look at their prior videos.
@MrLeftfootlouie
Жыл бұрын
I like the version Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble fly.Way ahead of its time.
@cnknguyen
Жыл бұрын
the 58 has already been phased out and replaced by the apache, there are 0 58s flying for the US Army anymore. (also its pronounced Kai-owa)
@theshittybowman
Жыл бұрын
That’s a bummer… I heard everyone say awesome things about those aircraft.
@Thickcurves
Жыл бұрын
@@theshittybowman no, no we didn't. I went to Afghanistan in a Blackhawk line unit and we brought our sister 58 unit. They had to repack and send the 58's to Iraq about a month in when they realized how under powered the 58 was. It simply had too much shit packed on it. Even the 58 guys in the unit hated those birds. Also those airframes were super old and refitted so many damn times. The highest peak in theater was 24 thousand feet? Many of ranges were 15 to 20 thousand feet. The ridges near khandhar could be 10-12 thousand feet. The blackhawk struggle to get over the ridges further inland sometimes in hot weather.... the 58's had no chance. On super hot days and a full load, the 58's had issues getting over some of the ridges near Kandahar, lol. Anyways, the 58 was over used, under powered and over weight. It was a sloppy stop gap. Also you have no idea how much it sucked constantly patching that airframe.
@niio111
Жыл бұрын
They are looking for an aircraft to fill the Kiowa's role, armed recon. The apache is an attack helicopter that has been pushed into doing armed recon, but it is expensive and overmatched for the task.
@frankmccann29
Жыл бұрын
Go Army! Go Bell! Very impressive but not stupid.
@informationcollectionpost3257
Жыл бұрын
Agree on developing both the Sykorsky and Bell designs but they are slightly different in capabilities. From this video the V-280 Valor just happens to meet those specifications better.
@space.youtube
Жыл бұрын
You are allowed only one "moreover" per video. You failed your brief this time. Edit: Use of "additionally" somewhat ameliorates the situation. Your effort is recognised.
@d0ngd0llas64
Жыл бұрын
It looks great. I just don’t think in combat it’ll perform as well as single rotor aircraft. The spar creates more of a target area and so do two massive engines hanging on the sides. It might have better gas mileage but will it keep our guys alive? And forgot about landing or flying through urban environments, it’s too big.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
it is has a 19% larger footprint while carrying 20-25% more troops. It stays in the danger zone for a shorter duration of time and is MUCH faster for CAS missions which will save lives.
@OLDGUY7301
Жыл бұрын
Thanks to the marines for not giving up on the v22 Osprey during development. All other departments walked away from the program. Thankyou to the US Marines who died in the development of this platform who without thier sacrifice it would not exist.
@shipofthesun
Жыл бұрын
So...an Osprey that works? It looks cool as all hell.
@kavecrock1112
Жыл бұрын
If I were the enemy, I would shoot at those areas being blurred in the video.....the tilt area of the two engines. Thanks for highlighting the Achilles Heel.
@creamcheesediarrhea1006
Жыл бұрын
He brought the music back!!! Thank you!!
@timpeterson2738
Жыл бұрын
2400 range, that's insane!
@theshittybowman
Жыл бұрын
That can fly north from San Diego to Portland and then head back south making it all the way down to San Diego - at least according to the range. Obviously the wind and weather are taken in to account but that’s insane!
@willstikken5619
Жыл бұрын
That isn't operational range, it is ferry range. Usually means internal tank or inflight refuel and no other payload.
@MadOgre
Жыл бұрын
Personally, I feel like the Army needed both Valor and Defiant X. I like the designs of the Defiant X and Raider X. The Defiant lost out because they used under-powered engines to show off the aircraft. Never skimp out on the Engine Power.
@mkllove
Жыл бұрын
Also had rotor issues limiting its flying, reportedly vibration and flapping... it was a new design after all.
@Fifthmiracle
Жыл бұрын
The vibration problems of Sikorsky's X2 technology have not been solved and likely never will be given its be in developement nearly 50 years.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
@@Fifthmiracle Yea the Russians don't care about small things like that but the US certainly does.
@talon2pro
Жыл бұрын
Can it complete a mission on one engine? How repairable is the carbon fiber wing from small arms?
@icanreadthebible7561
Жыл бұрын
Oh, you want a COMBAT aircraft? Can you say "cost overruns"? Name the last g'ubbment project that didn't cost at least 3 times the original estimate.
@westtex3675
Жыл бұрын
There is a drive shaft running through the wing that allows one engine to power both rotors.
@talon2pro
Жыл бұрын
@@westtex3675 yes, I am aware of that feature. I meant can the aircraft still carry the same load at the same distances and speed? Will it have to abort because of one engine?
@SeanP7195
4 ай бұрын
@@talon2proI would think so? That’s kinda SOP for any aircraft. Any failures will result in an abort of mission. Now, can it get back home on one engine? Yes.
@harryschaefer8563
Жыл бұрын
I hope the safety record proves to be much better than that of the Osprey.
@ViciousAlienKlown
Жыл бұрын
The Osprey had a shaky beginning but it's now on par with other aircraft.
@dantakeoff
Жыл бұрын
Try get me to climb into one of those things. I double dare you muffugga...
@jtjames79
Жыл бұрын
You are either ordered to climb into one of those or you get a dishonorable discharge. Done.
@dominicfuller-rowell7301
Жыл бұрын
The service ceiling is 6000'? That doesn't sound right. That means it could barely fly in Denver CO and couldn't fly in Santa Fe NM, for example.
@SHINR__
Жыл бұрын
All of my friends in the Army already hate it. Going to disagree already.
@TheLondonForever00
Жыл бұрын
Why is that then, what makes them hate it already?
@briancooper2112
Жыл бұрын
They haven't flown it yet or see specs or armament plus safety equipment
@jtjames79
Жыл бұрын
@@TheLondonForever00 Because they generally hate everything that's new.
@mdybos
Жыл бұрын
They are paid by defaint helicopter producer hehe
@jackwalker9492
Жыл бұрын
"All your friends". First, you obviously have zero first experience and have never been in the Army. 2nd, it hasn't been fielded yet, so this is a DOUBLE BULLSHIT CALL!
@L_Train
Жыл бұрын
What is being blurred out at 7:10 below the rotors?
@bl8danjil
Жыл бұрын
The internal workings that allow the tilt rotor to rotate just the propellers. I hope they fix that open space, because I can just see dirt and sand caking up in that place.
@MrOskiee
Жыл бұрын
When I was kid the coolest planes were planes like the f-15, f-16 and f-22. Now as an older man, it's all about planes like the Valor and a-10. Such awesome machines
@VictoryAviation
Жыл бұрын
The A10 has been around for a long, long time. It was developed as a response to the cold war. The A10, F14, F15, F16, and F18 all shared battle space together.
@Mediiiicc
Жыл бұрын
A-10 sucks
@fastsheep3964
Жыл бұрын
This is an incredible feat of engineering
@charlescomly1
Жыл бұрын
I preferred the RADER much more and haven't heard why it didn't get accepted.
@tbarry4990
Жыл бұрын
I may be talking through my hat, so to speak, but what do the pilots make of it? Is this a piece of equipment the pilot and crews like? It looks like they've hit the nail on the head but sometimes what the 'head' wants isn't always what works out best in the field in extreme or very harsh conditions. I may be full of crap .... but I'm just trying to think what would work best for the guys in battle out in the field. (Please correct me if I'm wrong. It does look impressive.)
@larrysfarris
Жыл бұрын
@ 9:35 - Boy(!)…. sure glade they got that ‘Service Ceiling’ up over one mile altitude! 😄👍
@MicAdams-bb5sh
Жыл бұрын
I love the different aircraft from all over the world, but America's airforce and aircraft are my favorite 😍
@roscop.coaltrain9440
Жыл бұрын
Air wolf cant be replaced and will always remain on top
@timpeterson2738
Жыл бұрын
Nothing is going to replace the Herc nor Chinook
@avroarchitect1793
Жыл бұрын
They will have to be replaced eventually, but definitely not with this thing.
@joehayward2631
Жыл бұрын
With only the rotors move hope they can do the same for the ospreys. When ospreys go to helo the dirt make a blk out landing. I live by Quantico Marine Base we all know when helo are coming minutes before you can see them BUT the ospreys you don't hear until there over head.
@paulwv33
Жыл бұрын
I saw 2 of these several years ago. I told people at work and no-one believed me.
@c94d44027
Жыл бұрын
Interesting, what is the time between servicing for these very complex and critical gearboxes that do rotor tilts?
@Barrachoinfinitum
Жыл бұрын
Service ceiling of 6000ft? I’ve flown Cessna’s at twice that 😂
@Makedonac007
Жыл бұрын
I always apply ripple sheathing over any harness inclusive air, hydraulic electric cable. The sheen is key for inspection. Diesel RULES! AMEN
@williamconlon4183
Жыл бұрын
Lovely, if I wanted an airplane. How about some NOE, small LZ's to land in. How does it perform at high altitudes, like 10,000ft and above. Curious minds want to know.
@johncampbell14
Жыл бұрын
6 inch wide side doors? Do you listed to your content before releasing it?
@captjinxmarine9832
Ай бұрын
Well produced piece as usual, thaks
@Crooked_Clown
Жыл бұрын
This configuration greatly improve maintenance cost as it eliminates the tail rotor, driveshafts, numerous gearboxes and servos the standard UH-60 has.
@adrianhenle
Жыл бұрын
...by introducing tilt-rotors? I'm not the right kind of engineer, but my gut says the Valor isn't exactly less mechanically complex than the Blackhawk.
@Crooked_Clown
Жыл бұрын
@@adrianhenle As a UH-60 mechanic, I can tell you that the Blackhawk is really complicated. This new acft won't have a tail rotor gearbox, a tail rotor, 4 tail rotor blades, a five section driveshaft from the transmission all the way to the tail rotor, intermediate gearbox, transfer modules, transmission, input gearboxes one per engine, servos, swashplate, 4 pitch change links, main rotor pylon, bifilar weights, 4 main rotor spindles, 4 huge blades, and I can keep going for ever.
@jacksavage4098
Жыл бұрын
NOTHING will replace the C-130.
@fredlacroix6865
Жыл бұрын
rotor wash is the main factor detrimental to response mission, so minimizing it while extending range, superior maneuverability and faster ingres and engress makes this an excellent choice for mission flexibility
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
Also the Valor shouldn't have the same excessive rotor wash the V22 has.
@jmsmaxwell
Жыл бұрын
How about weapons systems for close air support of troops in Harms Way? Guns, Rockets Etc? Transportation is fine but weapons to back up the troops on ground will also help succeed in the mission.
@matthewstephenbrown
Жыл бұрын
I think it would be a much better design to use electric motors on the rotors, that can be surrounded in armor, and move the power plant internally so it too can be shielded and just use the turbines to generate electricity. Then you could get away with two turbines instead of the four on this thing (used for redundancy on each side). And the electric motors have a greater efficiency than something with gear reduction, instant torque, much lower maintenance costs and cycle. I don't think this design is the future but really a new machination of old technology. Additionally if you had electric motors and a battery backup - if you have a complete power failure you could store enough reserves to land whereas if this thing loses two engines on one side it's toast. These things will be outdated the day they roll off the assembly line. Just look at drones. They are incredibly and surprisingly good at not falling out of the sky. Find me one that has four gas turbines. Heck, if you moved the turbines inside and they just generated electricity you could put them in a cell that could be easily removed for maintenance, slap another cell in and the aircraft can keep operating same day. Treat the turbines as power generation units and they bridge the gap until they ultimately will be replaced by batteries and start focusing on building better aircraft using electric propulsion. Oh and the power cell can have tons of noise reduction and a much lower heat signature compared to four engines on the end of wings, and the electric motor make little noise. All around a better product to design around electric propulsion. Hate to see our tax dollars going to stuff that is already obsolete. It looks cool, and the VTOL theory is the way to go, but the mechanical approach, as a mechanical engineer, is way outdated.
@Appletank8
Жыл бұрын
IIRC there’s a driveshaft going through the wing, so one side’s engine can power the other side in the event of an engine failure.
@n3v3rforgott3n9
Жыл бұрын
leave it to the engineers...
@scotttillotson3962
Жыл бұрын
Ummm, Rolls Royce engine manufactured in one facility only? would have thought that makes it a very important target. one strike, oops there goes the entire Future Vertical Lift fleet of spares and new aircraft
@murgel2006
Жыл бұрын
Frankly, I can not see a tilt-rotor craft filling all the same niches as a helicopter. I do honestly believe that there is a need for both systems in modern warfare and modern civil services. If one day we will have other forms of lifting such vehicles then this might change.
@jamesozechoski8254
Жыл бұрын
I feel sorry for countries that screw with the USA 🇺🇸
@bcarss1970
Жыл бұрын
I ma not an expert but wouldn't an increase in size, especially in width with the wings be detrimental to the radar signature?
@Alex-bc1hx
Жыл бұрын
So sad that my country airforce never buy v22 osprey, truly the most splendid helicopter
@shesathome
Жыл бұрын
Awsome, just look at accidents report.
@davidh5645
Жыл бұрын
@5:30 "Two 6 inch wide side doors" LOL.
@theoldfartschannel3692
Жыл бұрын
Combine the capabilities of this with the A-10 and that'd really be something.
@hu._-
Жыл бұрын
gonna take a lot of those common engines to replace a Chinook, much less a C-130
@avroarchitect1793
Жыл бұрын
Replacing the Herc with one of these is a pipe dream. You don't just replace a fixed wing tactical airlifter with a helicopter, no matter how big it is.
@andrewday3206
Жыл бұрын
The V-44 quad rotor from Transformers: Dark of the Moon may just have been foreshadowing what was to come.
@giannileegalvan2669
Жыл бұрын
I loved how grounded it looked, it's basically the V-22s big brother.
@andrewday3206
Жыл бұрын
@@giannileegalvan2669 That proposed design was going to have the cargo capacity of the C-130
@vanguard9067
Жыл бұрын
C’mon, nothing can (should or will) replace the C-130. The Hercules forever!
@davidladd5597
Жыл бұрын
Just curious, can it survive the loss of a single engine?
@txtworld
Жыл бұрын
Yes ... in the event of engine failure, the Bell V-280 Valor's remaining engine can power both rotors
@devo1977s
Жыл бұрын
I want to see the heavy lift one called the pelican, and when they make a gun ship version it should be called the vulture 😂😂
Пікірлер: 1,1 М.