Bell V-280 Valor

Helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 865
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 07:50

V-280 has now exceeded 300 knots as well.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/300 ... ilestones/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7673
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 May 2019, 22:25

Just what rotary a/c need.

https://youtu.be/NmOqf6t9EoQ
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post21 May 2019, 14:15

V-280 Passes Key Agility Test: Bell

Critics have argued the tiltrotor aircraft could never be as nimble at low speed and low altitude as a helicopter. Bell says it's proven them wrong

WASHINGTON: Bell says it’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor has met the Army’s requirement for low-speed, low-altitude agility, at least equaling the UH-60 Black Hawk it’s contending to replace. That’s the last major objective Bell set for itself in its test program, which is a year ahead of its archrival for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract, the Sikorsy-Boeing SB>1 Defiant...

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/fvl ... r-agility/
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 970
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post24 May 2019, 08:09

zerion wrote:
V-280 Passes Key Agility Test: Bell

Critics have argued the tiltrotor aircraft could never be as nimble at low speed and low altitude as a helicopter. Bell says it's proven them wrong

WASHINGTON: Bell says it’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor has met the Army’s requirement for low-speed, low-altitude agility, at least equaling the UH-60 Black Hawk it’s contending to replace. That’s the last major objective Bell set for itself in its test program, which is a year ahead of its archrival for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract, the Sikorsy-Boeing SB>1 Defiant...

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/fvl ... r-agility/


The article better clarifies what they mean...

Army standard. “ADS-33 Level 1 performance assesses both the responsiveness of the aircraft and the pilot’s workload in flying the aircraft,” Paul Wilson said in an email. “For the V-280 … the aircraft is designed with the control power required for Level 1 responsiveness. Reduced pilot workload is achieved through flight control augmentation taking advantage of the fly-by-wire system. The V-280’s Level 1 agility demonstrated in flight test is equal to or better than the UH-60.”

In layman’s terms, “Level One Handling Qualities” means the aircraft meets the Army’s official Aeronautical Design Standard (ADS-33) for how well it responds to the pilot in fine-grained, low-altitude maneuvers: decelerating to a stationary hover, turning to a precise heading, maintaining a specific altitude and orientation, and so on. It’s assessed by having test pilots put the aircraft through the prescribed maneuvers and rate how hard they had to work to make the aircraft perform.
+++
So this milestone doesn’t mean that the V-280 Valor is necessarily more (or less) agile than the SB>1 Defiant, since SB>1 — or rather the refined model Sikorsky and Boeing built for the FLRAA fly-off in a few years — will have to achieve Level One as well.
+++
“but it shouldn’t be looked at as something that is better than the Defiant, which will presumably also have Level 1 handling qualities.”

“Comparing the Defiant and Valor would require looking at 60-plus metrics to see which aircraft is better for which parameters, and then for someone to make a value judgment on which ones are most important,” Hirschberg explained. But these are demonstrators and not operational aircraft, so each will have different engines, weights, moments of inertia, etc. for the final product” — which means that detailed comparison will probably be somewhat different for the full-up FLRAA prototypes than it would be for the current JMR demo aircraft.


So really it means that it has good handling and responsive characteristics.

It looks like the SB-1's little brother (S-97) meets this as well


At any rate I think the US military will pick both designs for different applications.
Previous

Return to Rotary Wing Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests