Bell V-280 Valor

[popcorn]

Interesting. I saw them advertising the DAS-like sensors, and was wondering if they had brought in Northrop Grumman. Guess not.

Not surprising really. All the H/W, S/W and Systems Integration associated with sensor fusion represent a lucrative business for aerospace firms.

[count_to_10]

By the way, one interesting thing is how much bigger the V-280 is than the Raider, it's competitor in the competition. The V-280 has positions for a pilot, co-pilot, two door gunners, and then something like a dozen passengers (sitting sideways, back to back). The Raider has just the pilot and copilot, plus six (?) passengers (sitting forward and back, facing each other). Visually, though, the engine pods make the V-280 look huge in comparison.

[popcorn]

The Raider isn't their entry in the JMR program. Their entry will be based on the SB-1 Defiant which can accommodate 4 crew and 12 passengers.

[count_to_10]

The Raider isn't their entry in the JMR program. Their entry will be based on the SB-1 Defiant which can accommodate 4 crew and 12 passengers.

Well, that makes more sense.
Odd that they aren't shopping around a mock-up of that, though.

[charlielima223]

By the way, one interesting thing is how much bigger the V-280 is than the Raider, it's competitor in the competition. The V-280 has positions for a pilot, co-pilot, two door gunners, and then something like a dozen passengers (sitting sideways, back to back). The Raider has just the pilot and copilot, plus six (?) passengers (sitting forward and back, facing each other). Visually, though, the engine pods make the V-280 look huge in comparison.

Even though there are concept pictures of the V-280 with door gunners and it even looks like it has provisions for it; I just don't think it is a good idea... for two reasons. I would think that the nacelles and even the rotors could obstruct the line of fire. There is a reason why the V-22 has a tail gunner instead.

Also I would love to see an actual attack version concept based on the SB-1 Defiant. Instead of a tandem crew that sits side by side, a more conventional tandem crew of one behind the other like what we see in Cobra or Apache.

[delta9991]

Even though there are concept pictures of the V-280 with door gunners and it even looks like it has provisions for it; I just don't think it is a good idea... for two reasons. I would think that the nacelles and even the rotors could obstruct the line of fire. There is a reason why the V-22 has a tail gunner instead.

Also I would love to see an actual attack version concept based on the SB-1 Defiant. Instead of a tandem crew that sits side by side, a more conventional tandem crew of one behind the other like what we see in Cobra or Apache.

In the V-280, the Nacelles stay horizontally mounted and only the rotors rotate so only during cruise would a door gunner be obstructed. Wont have the same issue as the V-22's did with the entire nacelle rotating. I'd love to see both of these designs win, V-280 for Blackhawk replacement, SB-1 for Apache, and its little brother S-97 Sky Raider for A/OH-6.

[charlielima223]

In the V-280, the Nacelles stay horizontally mounted and only the rotors rotate so only during cruise would a door gunner be obstructed. Wont have the same issue as the V-22's did with the entire nacelle rotating. I'd love to see both of these designs win, V-280 for Blackhawk replacement, SB-1 for Apache, and its little brother S-97 Sky Raider for A/OH-6.

I know that the V-280's nacelles do not rotate like that on the V-22 but wouldn't its Rotors still obstruct the field of fire for the door gunner at different stages of transition?

The way I am seeing it, a door gunner on a V-280 can only cover a field of fire of about 50 degrees (eye balling it here) from 90 degrees off to the side than moving to the rear while the V-280 rotors tilt during transition. Door gunners on a Blackhawk (from my understanding) can have a maximum of 100 degrees from 50 degrees forward right of the aircraft moving to the rear. However when the V-280's rotors are fully transitioned to the hover position the door gunner on the V-280 will have as much field of fire as a door gunner on a BlackHawk.

Sorry if what I am saying is a little confusing. I just pictured a protractor overlaying a Blackhawk when describing fields of fire.

[count_to_10]

In the V-280, the Nacelles stay horizontally mounted and only the rotors rotate so only during cruise would a door gunner be obstructed. Wont have the same issue as the V-22's did with the entire nacelle rotating. I'd love to see both of these designs win, V-280 for Blackhawk replacement, SB-1 for Apache, and its little brother S-97 Sky Raider for A/OH-6.

I know that the V-280's nacelles do not rotate like that on the V-22 but wouldn't its Rotors still obstruct the field of fire for the door gunner at different stages of transition?

The way I am seeing it, a door gunner on a V-280 can only cover a field of fire of about 50 degrees (eye balling it here) from 90 degrees off to the side than moving to the rear while the V-280 rotors tilt during transition. Door gunners on a Blackhawk (from my understanding) can have a maximum of 100 degrees from 50 degrees forward right of the aircraft moving to the rear. However when the V-280's rotors are fully transitioned to the hover position the door gunner on the V-280 will have as much field of fire as a door gunner on a BlackHawk.

Sorry if what I am saying is a little confusing. I just pictured a protractor overlaying a Blackhawk when describing fields of fire.

The door gunners aren't going to be out and looking for targets unless the aircraft is at near hover speeds, so it's doubtful that the rotors will be in a position to obstruct them.

[popcorn]

The door gunners would appear to have a clear field of fire.

[charlielima223]

As I said, the door gunner will have a field of fire very much equivalent to that of BlackHawks when the rotors are fully tilted in the hover position. My concern is during a transition phase of the rotors or during low speed approaches or flight when the rotors aren't exactly in full hover tilt.

The door gunners aren't going to be out and looking for targets unless the aircraft is at near hover speeds, so it's doubtful that the rotors will be in a position to obstruct them.

It is not uncommon that when dedicated attack helicopters or other aircraft are not available to provide cover, another BlackHawk circles to provide cover. Door gunners are mainly their for defensive purposes but the gunner still has to be able to look for possible threats and be able to engage them. The V-280 definitely seems like an improvement over the V-22. Perhaps I am thinking too much into it.

[popcorn]

As I said, the door gunner will have a field of fire very much equivalent to that of BlackHawks when the rotors are fully tilted in the hover position. My concern is during a transition phase of the rotors or during low speed approaches or flight when the rotors aren't exactly in full hover tilt.

If that should turn out to be a valid concern then simply execute the transitiona little bit earlier/later during ingress/egress to/from the LZ.

[count_to_10]

The door gunners aren't going to be out and looking for targets unless the aircraft is at near hover speeds, so it's doubtful that the rotors will be in a position to obstruct them.

It is not uncommon that when dedicated attack helicopters or other aircraft are not available to provide cover, another BlackHawk circles to provide cover. Door gunners are mainly their for defensive purposes but the gunner still has to be able to look for possible threats and be able to engage them. The V-280 definitely seems like an improvement over the V-22. Perhaps I am thinking too much into it.

Yes, but that all happens at low speeds -- probably less than 100 mph. The rotors will probably be elevated enough to be totally out of the line of fire at those speeds.

[XanderCrews]

being built now with affordability in mind, Gehler said. Typically, a first design of a helicopter is one of the most expensive investments in the life of a program, but the company is taking lessons learned from the V-22 in driving out cost for the V-280, such as manufacturing a single wing structure.

“We focused on materials, techniques in manufacturing that could eliminate cost,” Gehler said. “not as sexy but it has actual real payoff for the customer.”

And Bell has designed Valor using a “digital thread environment” where it was able to design the aircraft, collaborate with suppliers, engineers, and information technology teams in order to understand where interference might be and where changes need to be made. “So by the time it gets to the build,” Gehler said, “pieces are snapping together, wires are going where they need to, the rework is significantly reduced.”

No matter how many times I hear this, it still makes me laugh.

Regarding the Door guns. There was so much hay made over them with the Osprey, and it turned out to be mole hill. They made the bottom mounted turret that nobody liked or used, life went on. Ospreys are usually able to get away from trouble pretty quickly, and the Osprey was never built to shoot it out over hot LZs. It still can of course, But I think people were thinking of it as an advanced CH-46 and its not. V-22s cruise above small arms range at triple the -46 speed. So its basically moot.

Tilt rotors are very good on paper. Just like "swing wing" airplanes are very good on paper.
In a decade or so, the "tilt-rotors" will be were the swing-wings are now.

absurdly, unbelievably, wrong. pure ignorance.

[popcorn]

Not as fancy as the Army's tech but for some years now the Marines have actually been testing the concept of linking grunts to the network while sitting in the back of MV-22s during ingress.

[zerion]

HERE ARE THE FIRST IMAGES OF THE FIRST BELL V-280 VALOR NEXT-GENERATION TILT-ROTOR AIRCRAFT PROTOTYPE

https://theaviationist.com/?p=43420