reminder that literally everything past the third window is devoted to housing the rear rotor assembly. Maybe there's some future potential for the design but not until they figure out how to massively reduce the size of it
probably couldn't make one that was small enough and could also give it enough thrust to meet the Army's speed and range requirements, or and this is my thought the entire thing was just a way to have a tech expo to raise awareness/interest for a potential new helicopter method for future products
it's fricking beautiful, just a shame about the useful internal space being so small
I don't understand how they let it progress past the planning stage, but at least it's a useful project to learn on
As a Blackhawk replacement? Based. As a replacement for all rotary including gunships? total giga moronation, the guy who came up with that idea should have his microcephalic head caved in with a brick.
quick! someone find a link between these people and SIG SAUER!
No.
Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph? And given the previous tilt-rotor design in US Army, there will be dead, a lot of them.
Only good thing about this thing is the range, which is like 4 times the H160M.
>And given the previous tilt-rotor design in US Army, there will be dead, a lot of them.
The Osprey is literally safer than the black hawk in accident rates
no major engineering challenge has been conquered without learning at least one lesson with blood
was it 100% needed? probably not
but it's often the easiest path forward, and people sign up for it
eventually, if not already, these will fly flawlessly and will offer unrivaled range/speed/ability
No.
Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph? And given the previous tilt-rotor design in US Army, there will be dead, a lot of them.
Only good thing about this thing is the range, which is like 4 times the H160M.
I just don't see a purpose of a heli that gotta go fast while compromising reliability, lifetime cost and form factor >if you need helis to do two times the delivery rate of troops than usual, why not just use planes >if you need to go 2500km in one direction, why not just use planes
Idk, doesn't seem logical to me but I am not going to pretend I am an expert on this and that I know better.
Maybe it could be used for VIP transport. People who need to get places quick, but a plane wouldn't be practical. Could also be used for medevac where speed is vital.
They came into their own during the hottest conflict in history and throw around more money than some countries do. The Air Force is extremely concerned with controlling doctrine and where their budget goes.
I just don't see a purpose of a heli that gotta go fast while compromising reliability, lifetime cost and form factor >if you need helis to do two times the delivery rate of troops than usual, why not just use planes >if you need to go 2500km in one direction, why not just use planes
Idk, doesn't seem logical to me but I am not going to pretend I am an expert on this and that I know better.
>Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph?
Yeah!
Why would you want medivac or QRF to arrive quickly?
Why would you want your troop transports to pass through hostile airspace as quickly as possible, minimising exposure to manpads?
Why would you want transports to arrive at the LZ as quickly as possible, minimising the time your opponent has to move response forces into place?
It has 2-3 times the range of a Blackhawk. The army may be thinking about China/Pacific.
And more range and speed is never bad. The critical question to me is reliability. Tiltrotors are complex beasts and the Ospreys do not have a good serviceability record.
But the Osprey is statistically among the safer military aircraft if you look at the numbers. While 16 crashes and 63 fatalities in 33 years might sound like a lot, crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in military aviation, particularly when you have to fly low, fast, and often in the dark. For example, the excellent F-15 Eagle has experienced around 125 aircraft losses in mishaps, though none in air-to-air combat.
If you look at the death rate per 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is not even close to the most lethal to fly. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter has resulted in far more deaths (more than 180 military and civilian deaths in non-combat-related crashes in its first 33 years of service), and is still considered the safest helicopter the US military has ever flown.
The V-22 has a lower crash death rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35B, or the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion.
It also depends on how you look at the numbers. For example, the Osprey can carry up to 32 people at once, so theoretically an F/A-18 Super Hornet carrying 2 people could have a fatal crash incident rate of 8 or 10 times that of the Osprey, but the V-22 would still show a higher death rate from fewer crashes.
I'm not talking about crashes. I am sure it is as safe as it is going to get, as any helicopter.
I'm talking about its ready-rates. If you have 10 aircraft and 4 are down for some fault or another, you only have six ready to carry troops. That is the kind of math complex 1st-gen type aircraft have to deal with.
The V-22 was a mess because the flight control software wasn't quite there yet, a modern version should be pretty good assuming it's not a Boeing level frickup.
As for replacing choppers it's got pros and cons, the clear ones being speed vs needing a much larger LZ.
I wonder if the US has enough daisy cutters or MOABs to blow LZs big enough for these in the jungles any war with China would be fought in.
>The V-22 was a mess because the flight control software wasn't quite there yet
I assume you're talking about the VRS issues? That's more a training/flight control issue. There's a few other issues with the V-22 design that the Valor won't have. >Rotating engine nacels lead to lubrication issues, causing engine maintenance or wear out issues
Valor solves this by keeping the engines level and only tilting the rotor hubs. This could have its own maintenance concerns, but it's going to be less of an issue that the whole turbine getting oil starved. >Needed to fit on LPD/LHA flight decks, so rotors are small and disc loading is high. This causes the extreme downwash and inability to autorotate
Valors disc loading is significantly lower than the V-22's, more on par with a CH-53. I'm not aware of any publicized autorotation tests with the Valor, but the AW-609 tilt rotor has similar disc loading and has performed multiple.
How more people aren't hyped about this coming out is beyond me. Way cooler imo than the F-35 and maybe even cooler than NGAD we'll see >muh death trap
Disc-loading on the wings was the issue. It has been fixed with the Valor
wieneramimy bullshit engineering forced on the aeronautics industry by homosexuals who were embarrased by the iran hostage rescue who cant accept the reality that their rescue plan was pants on head moronic so everyone else whos unfortunate to be forced to fly those death traps is held hostage by the prideful vanity of some homosexual in JSOC
Not him, but maybe you should find some new material to justify them getting new material >we
Go leave with all your brown handed friends and let me talk about small arms and MIC blunders here.
it's got big prop.
2 of them.
i like big prop.
>2 props
>not 3
absolutely pathetic
this thing looks moronic and gay, which is the true measure for choosing a platform
Nothing gets him down. He's all smiles.
reminder that literally everything past the third window is devoted to housing the rear rotor assembly. Maybe there's some future potential for the design but not until they figure out how to massively reduce the size of it
>we built a helicopter with the footprint of a Phrog and the capacity of a huey
Did they really think this was a competitive idea?
Why don't they use an electric motor for the pusher prop
probably couldn't make one that was small enough and could also give it enough thrust to meet the Army's speed and range requirements, or and this is my thought the entire thing was just a way to have a tech expo to raise awareness/interest for a potential new helicopter method for future products
Damn, that thing is massive.
And other things I'll never hear from a woman.
it's fricking beautiful, just a shame about the useful internal space being so small
I don't understand how they let it progress past the planning stage, but at least it's a useful project to learn on
>I don't understand how they let it progress past the planning stage
>SB-1
>Sikorsky-Boeing
>Boeing
Bribes
Pushrotors deserve to see the light of day God dann it.
Seems they've solved the crashing and dying problem from earlier attempts (or at least I've not heard of it) so quietly optimistic.
we'd know, god knows they couldn't shut up about the last time
As a Blackhawk replacement? Based. As a replacement for all rotary including gunships? total giga moronation, the guy who came up with that idea should have his microcephalic head caved in with a brick.
quick! someone find a link between these people and SIG SAUER!
>And given the previous tilt-rotor design in US Army, there will be dead, a lot of them.
The Osprey is literally safer than the black hawk in accident rates
It looks fricking cool.
I was seriously hoping they’d acquire both aircraft but if they had to pick one this is the better of the two.
no major engineering challenge has been conquered without learning at least one lesson with blood
was it 100% needed? probably not
but it's often the easiest path forward, and people sign up for it
eventually, if not already, these will fly flawlessly and will offer unrivaled range/speed/ability
>repeatedly draws blood over and over again
Force design 2030 looking sexy af
Yeah I think so. I had the chance to witness a demonstration (industry, military and media people) and it was cool to see it haul ass.
There was also an impressed Israeli who was like "emm dis will change de whole game..."
What?
No.
Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph? And given the previous tilt-rotor design in US Army, there will be dead, a lot of them.
Only good thing about this thing is the range, which is like 4 times the H160M.
>Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph?
Why not?
I just don't see a purpose of a heli that gotta go fast while compromising reliability, lifetime cost and form factor
>if you need helis to do two times the delivery rate of troops than usual, why not just use planes
>if you need to go 2500km in one direction, why not just use planes
Idk, doesn't seem logical to me but I am not going to pretend I am an expert on this and that I know better.
Maybe it could be used for VIP transport. People who need to get places quick, but a plane wouldn't be practical. Could also be used for medevac where speed is vital.
Because planes need prepared landing strips. And because the Air Force doesn't let the Army have transport aircraft (thanks Key West Agreement).
Oh, forgot about that.
Why is your Air Force so obsessed with micromanagement?
They came into their own during the hottest conflict in history and throw around more money than some countries do. The Air Force is extremely concerned with controlling doctrine and where their budget goes.
Because flying faster for the same fuel expenditure means you fly further.
-flying further means you can deploy forces to places they're needed without getting your bases as close
-flying further means you need less flights to get the same cargo from one place to another
-flying faster also means your operations happen at a higher tempo with less ferry time involved
-flying faster means its less succeptible to enemy fire and it can get the frick out of danger quicker
Tempo Tempo?
C-130 45,000lbs carry weight
CV-22 52,600lbs carry weight
What if a better C-130 could land (basically) anywhere with no need to prep a landing area. You could functionally sustain ops anywhere. That’s why
LMAO, not true at all
>What is sling load
Also that’s not the point. The point is what if the CV-22 was good
CV-22 max vtol is 52,600lbs, not carrying capacity (10,000lb is the cargo capacity)
regards. af.mil
>Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph
filthy speed grabber detected
The question we oughta be asking is
>Why isn't it supersonic?
More speed = more better
plane can't vtol
>Why do you need a helicopter that flies 500kph?
Yeah!
Why would you want medivac or QRF to arrive quickly?
Why would you want your troop transports to pass through hostile airspace as quickly as possible, minimising exposure to manpads?
Why would you want transports to arrive at the LZ as quickly as possible, minimising the time your opponent has to move response forces into place?
>Why would you want a helicopter that can fly further and faster
gee i don't know
It has 2-3 times the range of a Blackhawk. The army may be thinking about China/Pacific.
And more range and speed is never bad. The critical question to me is reliability. Tiltrotors are complex beasts and the Ospreys do not have a good serviceability record.
But the Osprey is statistically among the safer military aircraft if you look at the numbers. While 16 crashes and 63 fatalities in 33 years might sound like a lot, crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in military aviation, particularly when you have to fly low, fast, and often in the dark. For example, the excellent F-15 Eagle has experienced around 125 aircraft losses in mishaps, though none in air-to-air combat.
If you look at the death rate per 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is not even close to the most lethal to fly. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter has resulted in far more deaths (more than 180 military and civilian deaths in non-combat-related crashes in its first 33 years of service), and is still considered the safest helicopter the US military has ever flown.
The V-22 has a lower crash death rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35B, or the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion.
It also depends on how you look at the numbers. For example, the Osprey can carry up to 32 people at once, so theoretically an F/A-18 Super Hornet carrying 2 people could have a fatal crash incident rate of 8 or 10 times that of the Osprey, but the V-22 would still show a higher death rate from fewer crashes.
I'm not talking about crashes. I am sure it is as safe as it is going to get, as any helicopter.
I'm talking about its ready-rates. If you have 10 aircraft and 4 are down for some fault or another, you only have six ready to carry troops. That is the kind of math complex 1st-gen type aircraft have to deal with.
the osprey has been around for 20 years now, the valor is a 2nd gen tiltrotor
The V-22 was a mess because the flight control software wasn't quite there yet, a modern version should be pretty good assuming it's not a Boeing level frickup.
As for replacing choppers it's got pros and cons, the clear ones being speed vs needing a much larger LZ.
I wonder if the US has enough daisy cutters or MOABs to blow LZs big enough for these in the jungles any war with China would be fought in.
There's this thing called fast roping that lets you drop infantry in any landing zone.
>repelling in the downwash of an Osprey
This isn't an osprey. What's your problem?
I know, let's pull up and hover in a hot war with China. What could happen?
>The V-22 was a mess because the flight control software wasn't quite there yet
I assume you're talking about the VRS issues? That's more a training/flight control issue. There's a few other issues with the V-22 design that the Valor won't have.
>Rotating engine nacels lead to lubrication issues, causing engine maintenance or wear out issues
Valor solves this by keeping the engines level and only tilting the rotor hubs. This could have its own maintenance concerns, but it's going to be less of an issue that the whole turbine getting oil starved.
>Needed to fit on LPD/LHA flight decks, so rotors are small and disc loading is high. This causes the extreme downwash and inability to autorotate
Valors disc loading is significantly lower than the V-22's, more on par with a CH-53. I'm not aware of any publicized autorotation tests with the Valor, but the AW-609 tilt rotor has similar disc loading and has performed multiple.
>it doesnt look like the Huey
It makes me sad tbqh
>Defiant was snubbed for yet another meme death trap
All tilt is obsolete. Also moronic.
All tilt is the future. Also genius.
Inefficient, unsafe, looks like a middle school science project.
>genius
I love you, Valor-chan!
How more people aren't hyped about this coming out is beyond me. Way cooler imo than the F-35 and maybe even cooler than NGAD we'll see
>muh death trap
Disc-loading on the wings was the issue. It has been fixed with the Valor
The engine tilting was also identified as a cause for failures, which is why in Valor only the rotors tilt while the engine pods remain fixed.
Vertibird's are frickin dope.
Cringewave
'sup
wieneramimy bullshit engineering forced on the aeronautics industry by homosexuals who were embarrased by the iran hostage rescue who cant accept the reality that their rescue plan was pants on head moronic so everyone else whos unfortunate to be forced to fly those death traps is held hostage by the prideful vanity of some homosexual in JSOC
have an airbus
god i love this thing, better than the Defiant and not as complicated as the Valor
I really like this layout because its a biplane and can land safely with no power (I think)
You post the same shit every day.
Same shit
every
day
So?
I wish i jad the longer version, but it kinda looks like the t series is hot garbage
You also post the same shit every day.
No one reads infographics, we just auto-filter it as as schizo bait (which it is)
Not him, but maybe you should find some new material to justify them getting new material
>we
Go leave with all your brown handed friends and let me talk about small arms and MIC blunders here.
>infographics
>just a white page filled with soviet trash tanks dumpstered so far
Ok moron
No one reads infographics. You can post the best, most well-cited shit, no one is going to read it.
Stop doing it, use your words, you're an adult.
AeroGavin could do more of everything for less money.