Quad Tiltrotor

What happened to the development of this thing? They said that first prototypes were expected back in 2012, since then it has been silent. I can find no source wether or not they are still working on this thing or have killed the project.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Four (4) engines to maintain
    Probably got their hands on someone with actual experience with aircraft and got lambasted by them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No need.

      Better not tell them about the B52.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Better not tell them about the B52.
        A strategic fixed wing aircraft with ordinary engines and three times the takeoff weight is not quite the same thing as a heavy lift helo with four fricking tilt rotors. That Bell-Boeing project was trying to more than double the lift-weight of the Mi-26 with a vastly greater mechanistic complexity.
        It was never going to get through.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          We will get a heavy lift variable rotor airframe sooner rather than later.

          Helicopters cannot compete with the range and travel speed of a plane.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >vertical take off
          That could be weight limited how AV8B's are, while using their tilt rotors for landing and offloading cargo, in essence a pocket C130.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >in essence a pocket C130.
            With massive maintenance requirements. Why do you even need one? Where are you going that a C-130 can't either land or just drop stuff with parachutes?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >where a c130 can't land
              Anywhere that isn't a runway.....
              >parachute
              >accurate
              Oooooooooof

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why bother when 2x works fine?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/0lDEvzn.png

      What happened to the development of this thing? They said that first prototypes were expected back in 2012, since then it has been silent. I can find no source wether or not they are still working on this thing or have killed the project.

      can either make a landing that's survivable for the crew if one of them malfunction?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I was thinking the same thing. You go from two chances of failure to four.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You are ignorant of how the osprey works. Repent, sinner.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I think it'd be safer, I've been in an opsrey that lost an engine. There's a clutch and drive system that they can engage to drive both propellers off one engine, has enough ass to sort of softly get it to the ground. Reasonably this would be better as instead of losing 50% overall power you'd only lose 25%

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Have you never heard of the concept of redundancy?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can it airlift 4 abrams tanks at once?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >its the "trainee civilian aircraft mechanics try to talk shit about the osprey" thread again
      ok guys dont you have jeffs cessna engine to pull apart or something

      it wont even be able to carry one anon

      https://i.imgur.com/0lDEvzn.png

      What happened to the development of this thing? They said that first prototypes were expected back in 2012, since then it has been silent. I can find no source wether or not they are still working on this thing or have killed the project.

      The V-44 was a contender for JMR-Heavy iirc which is probably more likely to be done by a conventional tiltrotor, but boeing said that its unlikely their program will be ready for introduction until the 2060s or something. Quadrotors are a much more likely candidate for the JMR-Ultra program, which hasn't even started real development yet

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I used to live across from from camp peary and i swear i saw one fly over back around 2012-2013. I was like holy shit a super Osprey

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Yfw the super osprey shows up

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We mastered the flying pill tech snd scrapped it.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Dumb and gay
    This is not the future I was promised

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the advantage of the V-22 is that it is small enough to land VTOL but economical enough to be worth buying.

    the life capacity of the V-22 is close to a Chinook. a Chinook is one of the heaviest life helicopters. so since the plan is that the V-22 is a good enough replacement it adds features and therefore is a worthwhile cost replacement.

    the problem of your purposed V-44, is that the close equivalent ground lift, is a C-130 and C-5. the V-44 cannot be compacted more than it already is, so it doesn't meet the space requirements for use aboard an aircraft carrier. the other thing it would be good for, is a VTOL for the US Army for in theater logistics. That is covered by the Chinook and it will be until the Chinook air-frames break down.

    so you have no immediate need, it doesn't fit the doctrine of most of the armed services, and its close equivalent is already in service.

    what you would have to replace is both the chinook and the C-130. you have to overcome the good enough sphere of those two aircraft to be considered viable. for the heavy and super heavy aircraft the VTOL is inferior to the current doctrine of logistics.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A VTOL C-130 would be an upgrade. Yes, you can STOL C-130's with liftoff weight restrictions and JATO's, but being able to give FOB's and spread units strategic level logistics would be a huge boon.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think because of the epense of re-engineering it is more likely that the air force would prefer to take a C-130 from a STOL to are R-STOL (REALLY-Short Take-off and Landing). that is basically what the C-5 galaxy tries to do.

        there are just physics principles that limit that:
        >drag
        >lift/thrust (direct on propellers)
        >lift (on wing span)
        >thermal output
        >cargo bulk

        Helicopters are really good for moving a bulky or heavy item a relatively short distance. V-TOL aircraft are really good at moving a heavy but relatively unbulky object a moderate distance. Fixed wing are really good at moving a heavy and relatively unbulky item a Long distance.

        Helicopters are limited by range, the only way to increase speed, range, or lift is to basically make a bigger engine that burns more fuel. as of today we have hit a limiter on efficient fuel usage because of the limitation of using an engine in accordance with thermodynamics. to make a more powerful engine you have to more efficiently use the thermal properties, Jet turbines have a maximum efficiency of 46% compared to a diesel engine with a turbo of... 46%. so not really getting more power per engine bulk/mass.

        what the V-tol and fixed wing aircraft due is cheat that efficiency by spreading the inertia across time and space, such that F=MA. the wing basically acts like a potential energy battery, and through some complex physics, actually stores the excess thermal energy that would otherwise be wasted. so much so that a helicopter and a prop-plane using the same engine have a split of almost double the out put, such that the difference of energy efficiency is 1:2. this is because all energy usage in a helicopter is constantly put into moving the propellers and overcoming the torque-resistance. again through complicated physics you get more out of a fixed wing, in lift, speed and distance.

        >TBC

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          if we compare close equivalents:
          >CH-47
          >V-22
          >C-295M (NATO/EU/Airbus)

          the CH-47 has a stated:
          >400nmi
          cargo (external, 20000lbs internal)
          >0.28 hp/lb (power mass)
          >3,529 kW engine (4,733 shp)

          the V-22 has a stated:
          >879nmi
          cargo (it is weird because of VTOL calculations but it is equal to the Chinook)
          > 0.259 hp/lb (power mass)
          >4,590 kW engine (6,150 hp)

          the C-295M has a stated:
          >850 nmi (has special conditions, when light loaded, and can extend to 2850nmi)
          lbs cargo
          >0.10 hp/lb (power mass)
          >1,972 kW engine (2,644 hp)

          so from this we can see that for in air efficiency a fixed wing >V-tol > Helo

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I want Endwar NAO

  9. 1 year ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Its gonna be like 2030-40 when we see the Ultra and Heavy components of Future Vertical Lift.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Filtered you for being moronic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why? He's correct. The quad-tilt won't get significant R&D resources until much closer to contract time, and the FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra-Heavy are still many years out (and may not even begin until the new Chinook variant is in need of being replaced).

        There was a big push in tactical air transport during the whole FCS era, where every major combat vehicle was supposed to top out at 20T and fit in a C-130. That effort failed so completely that a lot of the demand for heavier tactical transports died, and instead the Army and Air Force got a refresh of the C-130 and CH-47 fleets that should keep them going for another ~20 years.

        Only then does it make much sense to devote large amounts of money for quad-tilt; honestly, one designed in 20 years would probably be significantly more capable than one designed this year. Now, there are possible events that could happen to drive a quad-tilt requirement sooner than then, like the V-280 blowing the socks off the Army brass, who find new ways to use it, or a war that involves specific conditions that makes the military regret not having one. Giving all of the competing funding priorities at this time, however, I'd say that these are very unlikely.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the CH-47 has been left to die a slow death. based on current estimates it should take that 20 years or so.

          the US army isn't likely to give up the CH-47 because they don't really perform any too many "raids" that require distance. they do need heavy vertical lift, and short range "hops." so while the V-22 could do it and then some, the army can make do with the CH-47 until the defense budget can allot a better opportunity. so a slow death to the CH-47, just like the A-10.

          some parallels
          >Marines don't need MBT
          >Army uses MBT
          >Marines need a long range VTOL, has CH-47
          >Army uses a moderate range VTOL, uses CH-47

          my point with that is that the dynamic of marines and the army is different, and that actually helps with their budget management. the marines can barrow army when it works and return army when it doesn't. however with the V-22, the air-force is more likely to take them as they fill the role of a dual prop, they don't really have a dual prop.

          the Army's principles in fighting a war is basically zerg rush. put down successive sustained shots in volume.

          the marines have more of an opinion of blow the frick out of everything and sort through the ashes, because if it is dead it can't call it a war crime.

          Navy does both but needs its equipment to fit inside a ship.

          Airforce will spawn kill from 2000ft and return home for lunch. but they still need a moving van.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they saw it looked stupid in transformers and decided not to make them

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But it looked cool in edge of tomorrow, so it evens out.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus, the wake turbulance going into the rear rotors!

    This can not possibly be a real design

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Front rotors effect airflow and lift over rear rotors.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Weren't they going with a design that had fold-away rotors and then turbofans for forward flight?

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is a bad idea don't build this. The propwash from the front propellers would cause the rear propellers to fail once tilted.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Star scream destroyed the only one during the end of Transformers Dark of the Moon.

Leave a Reply to RC-135 Rivet Joint Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *