Comments by "Don" (@dct124) on "Bell's Big Tiltrotor Win May Be a Turning Point in Aviation" video.

@johns70 You do understand choosing Valor means we still have to use the Black Hawks right? Valor DOES NOT replace the Chinook 🤦🏾‍♂️ 55 troop capacity down to 14, 🤣 are you serious? Even less in the attack variant 😭 *and it cost 2.5x more to operate and twice as much to build.
4
@bernadmanny I was talking about cost. I predict it'll cost more to fly 3 V280 than to just load them up inside a C-130. If they can reduce cost or already have 👍🏾 Big benefit is TIME. You save TIME leap frogging traditional logistics from A - B. But you spend time and resources on maintenance and shortening it's life span. It's a Compromise. Less transit time, less moving parts, more flight hours. More cost, more ground time, shorter life span. Whether Sikorsky is blowing smoke up our ass, they said, Defiant X will be cheaper to operate and maintain than the Black Hawk.
3
@abvmoose87 Speed and Range are the only two requirements Defiant X hasn't met. Where SB-1 lost, was the "Threshold Requirement test" of 250 KTAS over 200 NM Combat Load unrefueled. It could do the RANGE no problem. The SPEED they hit was 247 KTAS flying from Florida West Palm Beach to Nashville Tennessee, or 800 mi (695 NM). The objective requirement is 300 NM unrefueled at 280 KTAS which it also has not done. Valor V280 was able to complete 280 KTAS (322mph). Both are capable of 900 NM combat range. Defiant X SB-1 as much as I like it, can't do 280 KTAS yet. Sikorsky/NASA built a similar helicopter in the 70s with 350mph potential.
3
The Defiant X is still using the old engines which is why it's range and speed are lower than Valor. Valor will require a full infrastructure rebuild due to it's size. Cost is always a factor and the Defiant X program is cheaper with less potential problems as the Osprey have encountered.
2
@johns70 Airframe cost was done by Lockheed Martin. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know BIG helicopter won't fit in small helicopter hangers, b/c they don't. Dude this is a repeat of AH-56 project.
2
@johns70 You realize all of the Osprey were grounded? Ok. Understand, this is FAR less about the platforms and more about suits. Tilt rotors cost far more than traditional helicopters and more than Coaxial rotor. You're paying for complexity and stress on the airframe especially at higher speeds, not to mention it's size. The Defiant while a coaxial design, is closer to a traditional helicopter and doesn't need the rear blade. You could shoot the tail off the Defiant X and it would still fly, do that to Valor or an Osprey and you'd be lucky to land, if the clutch doesn't take it out first. However, in favor of the Valor which was chosen, it has higher internal capacity, higher lift capacity, longer cruise range, and slightly higher top speed, but dramatically reduces it's range. Neither are perfect like I've said. The Defiant is too tall, the Valor is just too damn big, however you don't need to rebuild infrastructure or completely retrain pilots from practically 0. You don't have to like my opinion. But last I checked we needed more stealth capable aircraft.
2
@TheBooban Here's some things you've likely not considered. How do you think we'll transport the V280? We LITERALLY can't transport the V280 inside anything! Land, Sea or Air! It'll take 2-3 tractor trailers to transport one V280 in halves or thirds. We can carry them on ship decks & underslung via Chinook. We bought 💸 more 47-G last year. Chinook's can land on water 🌊 They put out large fires & deliver large bulky supplies. 5x the capacity of a V280 and cost 50% less & 2-3x less to operate, while in harsher conditions. We can literally fit 2 BH w/ room for a third helicopter inside a C-17 Globemaster. Meaning we could fit multiple DX inside a C-17 Globemaster easier, b/c it's shorter. We can also just store DX inside ships where we could also do maintenance at sea. 47-G can fit inside ships & aircrafts, b/c it can fold. V280s don't fold, meaning you can't store in current Black Hawk facilities Land, or Sea. Chinook hangers are OCCUPIED! by Chinook's. V280 requires new facilities, tools, fixed wing training, and more. More government spending not being considered. We literally need new ships and bigger aircrafts to ship these things or they'll be transported in pieces. Chinooks makes us money 💰💰💰 now, b/c we export to other countries for military, private and civilian use. They ARE NOT the same.
2
@lionellhwang5153 yes w/Wings open it has a similar footprint. V280 cannot collapse it's wings for storage or transport even if it can ferry empty for forward operations. SB-1 is likely to also be picked up by a military/medical branch, especially around the world as it's a plug & play system to the Black Hawk said by exec's, test pilots, etc. even being little taller. They both do things better than the other, like V280 Ferry distance, but even Valor hasn't met the requirement yet of 2,440NM one way unrefueled. It's projected to lift over 13,000 lbs but neither have yet and the Utility demo version was only rated for 5,000 lbs. Based on history the V22 isn't a good underslung carry platform. Bell thinks they've corrected that by rotating the engines and fixing the clutch problem. Even with it's higher speed both have roughly the same combat range around 700 NM with Valor being slightly faster at 280 Knots and Defiant 250 Knots. Valor has reached the required 300 Knot speed but it's range is lowered to I think 500 NM. Fell the test pilot said, SB-1 can go faster when it's new engine is installed. But like Valor may lose more range even with a more powerful and efficient engine. There's other factors as well like heat, weight, structural integrity, etc on both. He made it clear that the speed target isn't the issue for them. Suggesting the design can exceed 300 KT. I think it's range at that speed will drop to 350-450 NM with the new engine. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but both are still just demo's. They both have a long way to go. Also just fyi, X2 tech is newer but this type of design predates tilt-rotor by 16yrs. Sikorsky was making this since the 60s. Both engines come from mid 50s era technology. The V280 biggest benefit is real world data and use from the V22 while X2 has remained experimental. Future wise I think SB-1 becomes the big seller. Especially Raider X.
2
@irvhh143 Defiant does not operate as a traditional Helicopter, stop confusing that. Do the same amount of research on it, as you've done with Valor. It's main props have additional functions beyond a traditional helicopter and coaxial rotor craft. The current Valor V280 in test is a Utility vehicle and what you've said, is partially true. Army wouldn't have selected Sikorsky design as a finalist for FLRAA out of the additional aircraft submitted which had other tilt-rotor. Even Bell has submitted a traditional helicopter design for the FARA program. What you've not covered is the attack variant or it's attack drones. Additionally Army will be fielding a new attack helicopter replacing Apaches (FARA program). Army and Navy aircraft tilt-rotor, helicopters and fixed wing are part of the CIRCM program. *Full production started in April 2021. This program was announced back in 2015, started in 2019 adding manpad laser countermeasures. Sikorsky currently manufacturers over 90% of all Army aircraft. This is about meeting or exceeding the requirements but also fitting into the budget. Not too expensive but also not cheap is just as important 😉
2
@irvhh143 The reason Sikorsky lost, was being behind schedule. The crash, the new engine is currently late, test were done late, and it hadn't met the 250 KTSA requirment nor the the 300 KTSA requirment. Defiant X has the potential to exceed 350 KTSA. The main props are no longer the limiting factor like traditional helicopters especially those fitted with tail rotors.
2
@UCRpqAXO2jUz1vb-XzD1nsOQ yes I already know that. Are you a bot? As for the V280, it's doubtful they'll modify the wings to rotate, b/c it was a physical solution to get around the two rotating engines on the V22. It was to make the aircraft simpler, cheaper and lighter. The V22 is 3x as complex as the V280. Technically they don't need to collapse the wings even on Navy ships or ships with Black Hawk hangers. They do actually fit. The height is just barely short enough to roll them in. The next project is the drone V247 Vigilant. It too like the V280 will be a tilt-rotor, fixed wing design. Munitions are stationed under each wing via hard points and will be used in hover mode although Bell suggest they'll be able to shoot through the props. I doubt that very seriously. Maybe if mounted on the fuselage near the pilots cabin.
2
@user-pq4by2rq9y the Marine Corps are likely to have the rotating wing version.
2
@user-pq4by2rq9y The weight is not to be compared to the V22. The V22 is irrelevant as the Army has none. The weight is to be compared to the out going Black Hawks and requirements set forth by the Army FLRAA program. The purpose of the test to reach 2,444 NM is to self deploy. However the V280 has not reached that threshold and only flies around 2,100 NM so they plan to change the rear wing. All military aircraft will eventually have unmanned capabilities. The Apache, and Black Hawk can both fly autonomously. The Airforce is currently testing Ai to fly the F-16. Even Defiant X is designed for autonomous flight and the two FARA attack helicopters. We're supposed to have unmanned A-10s as well. Even if the V280 can fly 2,440 NM, that's still not enough range for a South Pacific conflict. The ranges look to be for land conflicts and the ability to loiter as well as make multiple patrols without having refuel. If I find the demo of the Army showing it's tactics from Afghanistan and Iraq they want to implement with this program I'll post it. In a nutshell they want a center HQ position and for the aircraft to reach all ends of there combat range on a single tank. Both Bell and Sikorsky tripled the combat range to over 800 NM.
2
@johns70 I get it, you're a fan and have some sort of high interest and support in whatever they choose, great. The F-35 on paper is excellent, in reality its a dumpster fire. It is not comparable to the F-22, not even close. The Valor obviously is being positioned for a possible conflict with China, N. Korea or Russia. We're likely not to be in heavy sand conditions for a good while.
1