Future Vertical Lift for US Army

[ftxag76]

Just heard Bell announced its Future Vertical Lift concept for the Army today. Unvield today as the V-280 Valor. In 2012 Sikorsky had also announced its future concept known as the S-97 raider.

 

Bell V-280 tilt rotor

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-unveils-v-280-valor-384517/

 

 

Sikorsky S-97 Raider

 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sikorsky-s-97-raider-light-tactical-helicopter/

[PhrogGuy]

Not going to get into Osprey-bashing but . . . that makes me nervous. Rotor-system tilting independent of the engine? That just adds a whole other layer of complexity. Interested to see where this goes.

[I3uller]

I really don't see tilt rotors being the future of aviation. Far too expensive to produce/maintain and very limited in ways that conventional systems excel. I can see the possibility of a single platform like the Osprey is for the Marines, but I think conventional layouts will still be the majority by far.

[ftxag76]

I personally like the S-97 concept

[Lindsey]

Gag. I don't like tilt rotors.

[I3uller]

I personally like the S-97 concept

 

I think it all depends on costs. While the tilt rotor might be great, I think in these times the cheaper option will prevail. I imagine the 97 would fly similarly to a conventional system so I'm ok with it.

[annerajb]

This is really cool especially if they can reduce complexity on controls on the tilt rotor one.

[akscott60]

Yea....thats cheap. We cant afford flight hours with the sh*t we have.

 

 

 

Sigh

[Hotdogs]

I really don't see tilt rotors being the future of aviation. Far too expensive to produce/maintain and very limited in ways that conventional systems excel. I can see the possibility of a single platform like the Osprey is for the Marines, but I think conventional layouts will still be the majority by far.

They said the same thing about Helicopters. Guess who pioneered the Helicopter?

[ftxag76]

I really don't see tilt rotors being the future of aviation. Far too expensive to produce/maintain and very limited in ways that conventional systems excel. I can see the possibility of a single platform like the Osprey is for the Marines, but I think conventional layouts will still be the majority by far.

 

I see what you are saying but I disagree. Obviously funding is the key to all doors... However, aerodynamically, the helicopter can only go so fast. If the Army wants to be apart of the new Air-Sea battle concept, which is heavy based on Marine, Navy and AF assets, it is going to need an aircraft that flies faster and further then what is in its current inventory. Whether that be Sikorsky's X2 concept, Bells tilt rotor concept or some other technology.

 

Also having an investment in key technologies that are relevant to the new Air-Sea battle strategy, such as this one will enable the Army to be a priority when it comes to funding

[jag32]

The Osprey didn't earn the nickname "The Marine Killer" for no reason. They always make me nervous when I ride on them. I've been inserted by CH-53s and MV-22s on multiple combat operations, from my perspective as the GIB (guy in back), the CH-53 is a much more enjoyable flight to the LZ.

[akscott60]

Ironically the 53 has killed far more Marines than the Mv22 has.

[I3uller]

Ironically the 53 has killed far more Marines than the Mv22 has.

 

How much longer has the 53 service record been than the 22 though? Would be more accurate to look at a death to years in service ratio.

[Hotdogs]

 

How much longer has the 53 service record been than the 22 though? Would be more accurate to look at a death to years in service ratio.

Then the Huey is the most dangerous aircraft on earth.

[electron_si]

Then the Huey is the most dangerous aircraft on earth.

 

 

Yeah those things were going down left and right in vietnam, damn helicopters

[Velocity173]

 

 

Yeah those things were going down left and right in vietnam, damn helicopters

Ever look at the Huey losses on Armyaircrews? Just in one year in Vietnam they had more fatal accidents than all the Army accidents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the entire duration of the wars. Amazing how many aircraft they lost back then. I think Army Huey's alone were close to 3,500 aircraft lost. That's covers most of our inventory right now.

[Helipilot PTK]

If your really going to look at which aircraft is has the "safest" track record I don't believe you should be looking at how many soldiers/pilots died in it throughout it's whole history.

 

1. You have to look at deaths directly caused by aircraft malfunctions. Not how many times it got shot down etc. Because each war has different challenges/causes for why more/less aircraft are shot down.

 

2. And the time frame when the aircraft was developed has to be factored in. Aircraft created the earliest in history in theory should have the most problems than later aircraft developments.

 

I have not done the research to properly say which aircraft has the best track record, but i'm sure it's out there. This is just my opinion though so take it for what it's worth.

[ftxag76]

Long story short, new technological invitations are going to be risky. Its just the nature of flying.

[electron_si]

Ever look at the Huey losses on Armyaircrews? Just in one year in Vietnam they had more fatal accidents than all the Army accidents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the entire duration of the wars. Amazing how many aircraft they lost back then. I think Army Huey's alone were close to 3,500 aircraft lost. That's covers most of our inventory right now.

 

 

My instruments IP was shot down 4 times when he was in vietnam, you would think by shoot down number 3 he would have thought maybe flying helicopters wasn't so safe for him.

 

I've heard other guys getting shot down in 2 different aircraft in one day. That is just crazy.

[Rob1237051]

The Osprey is garbage. However, something has to bridge the gap between rotorcraft and that sh*t from Avatar. How else will we mine the Unobtainium?

[SBuzzkill]

If your really going to look at which aircraft is has the "safest" track record I don't believe you should be looking at how many soldiers/pilots died in it throughout it's whole history.

 

1. You have to look at deaths directly caused by aircraft malfunctions. Not how many times it got shot down etc. Because each war has different challenges/causes for why more/less aircraft are shot down.

 

2. And the time frame when the aircraft was developed has to be factored in. Aircraft created the earliest in history in theory should have the most problems than later aircraft developments.

 

I have not done the research to properly say which aircraft has the best track record, but i'm sure it's out there. This is just my opinion though so take it for what it's worth.

 

You are talking about military aircraft. Survivability is a huge factor, so yes you have to look at shoot downs.

[Helipilot PTK]

You are talking about military aircraft. Survivability is a huge factor, so yes you have to look at shoot downs.

 

 

I understand that... my point was that in Vietnam there were more deaths from helicopters, not because the Huey was a unreliable platform, but because using helicopters was new to warfare, and also the type of war we were fighting.

 

The V-22 has not been in combat long enough to properly compare it to the CH-53. I mean it's obvious that more soldiers have died in the CH-53 than the V-22, like others have mentioned the CH-53 has seen a ton more combat time than the V-22 so that would be "expected"(for lack of a better phrase).

 

I would also factor in what type of mission the V-22 performs vs other helicopters.

 

I realize i'm just a wanna be Army Aviator who has a PPL(H), and you have WAY more experience than myself. But from what I have heard talking with my brother and his friends they much prefer a conventional helicopter over a V-22, but then again the V-22 is still a "young" aircraft so that may change over time. His main complaint about it is that when coming in to land in a sandy environment it takes forever to land and is a "sitting duck" while it hovers down from 50 or so feet.

 

The tilt-rotor design may be the helicopter of the future, who knows, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Rob1237051]

Helipilot, you are nail on the head with your cv22 observations. Also, they have numerous other problems related to sandy environments. I have had their mechanics in a couple of classes I have instructed. They were also setup next to us overseas. The endorsements are not favorable. I'm sure tilt rotor will progress, however.

[I3uller]

From what I know, the CV-22 is completely unable to autorotate in helicopter mode. While a dual engine failure is unlikely, I still don't like that if both engines go down under 1600 feet, there's not a damn thing you can do.

[Lindsey]

From what I know, the CV-22 is completely unable to autorotate in helicopter mode. While a dual engine failure is unlikely, I still don't like that if both engines go down under 1600 feet, there's not a damn thing you can do.

 

Amen brotha.