Comments by "Tara Raboomdiay" (@tararaboomdiay7442) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. The thing with V-22s rotors is that here was a acquirement for V-22s to be able to operate abeam the island on the smaller flat deck amphibs. So the rotors are smaller than what would be best for V-22 size aircraft. That makes for higher disk loading. This doesn't apply to the smaller V280
    17
  2.  @liammiddleton3064  Who says it can't? The rotor arc makes it wider than Defiant, but they don't extend as far forward, so it's shorter. It meets the Army's requirement for size and operating in the specified footprint.
    5
  3.  @shayker_og  They also delivered or exceeded on everything they promised while Defiant missed a lot. Just two examples: Army wanted to fly by 2017 so they could do comparative testing in 2018. Valor flew in 2017. Defiant couldn't fly until March of 2019. Defaint never achieved its promised speed. Valor not only promised a higher speed, it exceeded its promise by 25 knots.
    4
  4.  @nathan1sixteen  Actually, it is much more efficient When It's Flying On The Wing. That's the whole point. Well over 90% of mission time will be spent on the wing and not hovering.
    3
  5.  @vanguard9067  Why do LZ have to be a lot larger? Remember, V280 is smaller than V22 and should be able to operate where the Black Hawk dies. It meets Army requirements for LZ size.
    3
  6.  @kathrynck  Interestingly enough, the driver for the power level on the V-280 was the hot and high HOGE requirement.
    2
  7. Valor also flew on time, accumulated many more flight hours and demonstrated the ability to meet or exceed all the Army's requirements for this portion of the process. It even demonstrated speed that was 9% greater than promised (which was already 12% higher than Defiant's promise),, while Defiant never quite reached its promised speed in level flight.
    2
  8.  @TheBooban  Not true. Defiant and Valor were competing to replace the Black Hawk. There was a second contract that Invictus and Raider are competing for, to replace the OH-58 and part of the AH-64 fleet. Totally separate vehicles for totally separate requirements.
    2
  9.  @vanguard9067  Why would LZs have to be larger? V280 is smaller than V22 and meets Army requirements to use same LZ's as Black Hawk
    2
  10.  @NuclearSavety  Defiant also has two rotors, they're just stacked on top of each other. . If a rotor (as opposed to an engine) fails on any rotorcraft, it will fall out of the sky.
    2
  11.  @kokofan50  No, it's because the Army specified side doors for quicker entry/exit.
    1
  12. Valor demonstrated that it met or exceeded all Army agility requirements in the hover/ low speed. In fact, it's arguably more agile than Black Hawk in some at low speeds and much more agile at high speeds. Regarding being "vastly inferior" to Defiant, I suggest you look at the actual results from the demonstration. How can a craft that missed the Army's first flight date by a 1 1/4 years and flew less than 1/3 the hours of Valor be vastly superior?
    1
  13. Lockheed bought Sikorsky
    1
  14. Compare the speed of an Osprey after transition to rotorborne flight with that of a helicopter. Because it looks like an aircraft it seems to be going slower than it actually is. BTW V-280 demonstrated slowing (I can't remember if these numbers are exact, but they're very close) from 220 knots to a hover in 45 seconds.
    1
  15. All rotorcraft are subject to Vortex Ring State (VRS). After they properly tested the craft (something they should have done sooner), they found a Tilt-Rotor is somewhat less susceptible to VRS than a conventional helicopter and easier to recover. Sikorsky's approach couldn't even demonstrate all the things they claimed for it.
    1
  16.  @TheRezro  In defense of Sikorsky, X2 technology is completely different from conventional coaxial design.
    1
  17.  @txtworld  the KA-52 is a ocnventional helicopter. Defiant is much more advanced.
    1
  18.  @mrbloodmuffins  Another reason is that the connections to the proprotor and the engine out cross shaft is much easier to do if the engines are by the proprotors and those have to be at the tip.
    1
  19. That's what FARA is about
    1
  20. A Tilt-Rotor will loiter around just as long as a helo, but it'll burn more fuel. Of course, it your requirement is primarily to just operate in the slow speed regime, you're better off with a conventional helicopter than you'd be with either of these concepts.
    1
  21. Money and no need
    1
  22. yes
    1
  23. Valor is Bell's in house name just like Defiant is Sikorsky's. Army will name it what it will when it enters service.
    1
  24.  @kathrynck  The problem with the X family is that they've continually not met their promises. If you look at the comparative performance of the two craft in the recent technology demonstration, the V-280 did FAR better. it met or exceeded every one of its promises and what Army wanted demonstrated in this phase. Defiant continually missed its goals. It didn't even fly until 15 months after the date Army specified. V-280 flew an Army pilot two months after first flight. It took 2 1/2 years after its first flight for Defiant to do that. Valor flew over three times a many hours as Defiant. Defiant never reached its promised top speed [neither did S-97], Valor exceeded its [higher] promised speed by 25 knots, etc. As such X2's a much more risky technology. A conventional helicopter will hover more efficiently that a Tilt-Rotor, but whether an X2 does is not yet known. Regarding the pusher propeller for speed, it's worthy of note that when Defiant or Raider demonstrated their takeoff acceleration they tilted down must like a conventional helo, because-there's a lot more thrust from the rotor. For most missions, 90% or move of the time you're in forward flight, and that's what Tilt-Rotor is pitching. No doubt they'll both hover 'till fuel exhaustion, but a Tilt-Rotor would burn more fuel doing it, whihc is why you don't see Tilt-rotor being pitched for crane duties. If you're going to be mostly hovering or moving at very low speeds, neither of these technologies is the way you want to go.
    1
  25.  @titfortat5727  Lockheed is working with Bell on avionics.
    1
  26.  @damongraham1398  Bell has stated that the V-280 will fold into cubic space the size of a folded UH-1Y. Since this is smaller than a folded H-60, it' can be assumed that everywhere a Sea Hawk could go a naval Valor could. They have shown numerous illustrations and models of such a craft.
    1
  27.  @Gemini-b4g  The primary reason is that it is a replacement for the smaller H-60 rather than the CH-46 so it doesn't need to be as big.
    1
  28.  @Gemini-b4g  One thing they can trade off is that a naval variant wouldn't have the requirement to HOGE at the high altitudes and temperatures the Army is requiring. By trading off that unneeded capability a naval variant has the power to absorb the weight increase.
    1
  29. You can fold a maritime Valor up to fit in DDG hangars. You can't lower the mast on Defiant.
    1
  30. In that case you land like a conventional aircraft. The spinning proprotors are designed to break off and be thrown away from the fuselage.
    1
  31. In its report, Army said Sikorsky didn't provide he information required for the bid , so even though Sikorsky' price was lower, Army said Sikorsky didn't provide the backup data necessary to have confidence in their price.
    1
  32. Heavy lift is the province of CH-53 and CH-47. Smaller V280 is for troop insertion.
    1
  33. Propeller strikes where? The blades never go over the fuselage, and if the V-280 is ever forced to land with the rotors fully forward, they rotate outward away from the fuselage and are designed to break away in a manner that throws them away from the aircraft.
    1
  34. There's not much point in stealth for this kind of mission...you can just look up and see the thing.
    1
  35. Army did not require Valor or Defiant to be able to fit into C-%/17. for rapid deployment they'll fly them there. A naval V-280 will fold, Bell has already shown how. Army doesn't need that capability, and its a/c won't have it. .
    1
  36.  @jackdbur  The ferry range the Army specified will permit them to cross the pond by island hopping without need of a tanker. During WWII fighters flew from US to Europe without tankers.
    1
  37. The missions and environment have changed so much that a 50 year old design can't keep up,much greater range and speed are needed, so that was the point of the competition.. Huey was cheaper, so maybe we shouldn't have developed the Black Hawk?
    1
  38. You can get at least 10 into a soccer field
    1
  39. Neither Valor nor Defiant will fit in a C-5/C-17 without major. It wasn't a requirement. the idea is if you don't have time to ship them somewhere fr away, you fly them there. That's where the large ferry range requirement came in.
    1
  40. Bell has a long history of building military helicopters as well. Ever watched "MASH"? Ever heard of the Huey? This time Bell had the better technology. They're going to need to hire workers to build a lot of these.
    1
  41. FWIW, both competitors were required to be able to fit at least as many of their craft in the same sized specified LZ as the UH-60. Compared to SB>1 its wider but shorter, so you may see them sitting at 90° relative. Th concern about size originally by Sikorsky because they didn't have that many other demonstrated superiorities to brag about.
    1
  42. In that one case, there was a slow burning fire in the nacelle that weakened the crosshaft which is normally unloaded when both engines are operating It only takes up the load if there is an engine failure to distribute power evenly to both rotors. . Crosshaft was designed to take a large hit or explosion, but-no one anticipated a situation whne it would be subjected to a lengthy and sustained fire. So when the nacelles rotated for landing, leaking fuel/oil flowed to the hot exhaust and there was an explosion, the weakened crosshaft failed and so you got asymmetric lift. Thing is, the Osprey had given the crew multiple warnings about a failure situation, and normal procedure would be to land as soon as possible, which be easy to do along the way in a VTOL. Crew chose to press on instead which led to the lengthy stress on the crosshaft.
    1
  43. The most expensive of both worlds. That's why we didn't get both the F-22 and F-23
    1
  44.  @NuclearSavety  If you lose one engine, the normally unloaded crosshaft powers both rotors. If you lose two engines, you glide with an optional auto rotation at the end, if you have suffice height to begin with. If one retro is completely destroyed, well what do you think happens when the rotor is destroyed on a conventional helo?
    1
  45. Because the V-22 carries a lot of people.
    1
  46.  @douglee2438  It autorotates badly, just as many large helicopters do. It would use the wing to glide, something that's not an option in regular helicopters. BTW, autorotations on even conventional helicopters often end badly. That's one of the reasons that in training practice autorotations do not go all the way to the ground.
    1
  47.  @damongraham1398  Also C-141, C/K/M/V/(etc) -135. Besides V-280 is Bell's model number. In Army service it will have a different official number.
    1
  48.  @scenicdepictionsofchicagolife  Carrier On-board Delivery
    1
  49. For (1), we can only have predictions s until the thing actually gets in service. For (2) ditto For (3) We do know, and Bell has produced numerous arttists' concepts and models of attack versions. Modifications wouldn't be that dramatic since you're already starting with a really fast airframe .
    1
  50.  @dbeelee8564  There's not enough money to develop, procure and support both.
    1