Comments by "Tara Raboomdiay" (@tararaboomdiay7442) on "Why the Army chose Bell’s tiltrotor over Sikorsky’s pusher-compound-rotor design derived" video.

  1. In my opinion, there's one factor that I suspect played a large part in the decision that only a few people have touched on: The relative achievements of the two technologies in the demonstrations. Bell would announce what they were going to do next and then just go out and do it. In a straightforward manner and didn't parse language when they met or exceeded all the requirements and all of their promises. They did what they said they'd do when they said they would, and except towards the very end thy didn't take snipes at the other guys. The Defaint (and the S-97, for that matter) were late, would announce an upcoming goal and when it would be demonstrated and then when it wasn't achieved they'd just be silent about it. For example, the Army's schedule for JMR-TD was first flight in 2017, a year's flight demonstrations where the technologies would demonstrate their promised capabilities as they related to Army criteria in 2018, after which Army would spend 2019 evaluating the test data before deciding in 202 which technology to take further into development. Valor flew as scheduled in 2019. They couldn't get Defiant into the air until 2019, and then in a relatively short time they had to ground it for more work before resuming demonstrations. Valor flew its first Army pilot two months after first flight. Defiant took nearly 2 1/2 years. Defiant flew far fewer hours than Valor. Sikorsky kept saying it was OK because they were providing lots of data from simulations. The thing is, until you actually go out and do the thing for real, there's no way to validate whether your simulations are accurate. For example, Bell could have said the V-280 could do Mach 2 because they did it in simulations. Valor would show high agility in the hover, Sikorsky would brag about their low altitude banks , but leave out the fact that they were moving forward at a good clip, which makes high bank angles easier. They'd talk about their ability to rapidly accelerate after takeoff in a level attitude thanks to the prop, but the videos would show it heading out nose down just like a regular helo. Or, they would announce a new sustained speed achieved, but leave out that it was achieved in a shallow dive. And so on and so forth. Now my point in this case is not to address the relative performance advantages/disadvantages of the promised capabilities of the two technologies. Defiant, for example, if a production aircraft meets the promises, will HOGE hot and high much better than Bell's promises for Valor (although it will meet the Army's requirement). Valor is faster. What I'm getting at is that if in addition to relative promised performance, they're trying to decide which technology generates more confidence that it'll deliver on its claims, from the demonstrations Valor wins that hands down. Some might say that's because there's less experience with X2 but so what? That's not the taxpayers problem, and it further buttresses the Army's choice. Army is not going to come right out and say that, they're going to wait for the protest to be heard and then use what happened in the demonstrations as further justification for their choice.
    48
  2. Regarding the engine, what happened there was that the Army told both bidders to plan on using a new technology engine that the Army would supply. However, the Army's schedule on developing that engine was such that it wouldn't be ready when the contractors would need it. So the Army went back to the bidders and said they should select a currently available engine instead. Bell partnered with Rolls Royce to use an advanced derivative of the engine that powers the V-22. The SB>1 team went with an engine from Honeywell. It's likely Army chose V-280 because it was more successful in its demonstration program so was perceived as lower risk as well as offering higher performance in certain areas.
    3
  3.  @robertjones1729  regular helos are subject to that heat vulnerability. Defiant would be as well. Both Defaint and Valor would have heat reduction technology as well countermeasure. The thing is a Tilt-Rotor can glide further than an engine out helo and if an autorotation is attempted the fact that a Tilt-Rotor's blades never go over the fuselage contributes to crash survival potential. Plus, with that wing out there. it's less likely it'll roll completely over on landing.
    3
  4.  @robertjones1729  If you're in helicopter mode, the spinning blades are on top. Both designs provide for IR suppression. If in airplane mode it can glide. Regarding the LZ, the V-280 meets the Army's requirement. Bell says their pessimistic estimate is an LZ that holds 12 UH-60s will hold 10 V-280s; for all the stuff you get with the latter, that seems an acceptable tradeoff. You could get more UH-1s in an LZ than UH-60s but that didn't seem to stop the Army from glaceing the Huey with the Black Hawk.
    3
  5.  @piloto_loco  No, design on SB>1 was ongoing along with other X2 work before Lockheed came in as a White Knight and saved Sikorsky. There's a a reason it was named "SB>1"; that's short for Sikorsky Boeing >1
    2
  6. Bell will do fine without FLRAA, but they'll do butte with. They have a large civil base.
    2
  7. The OH-6 was indeed better. IIRC, on the initial award it looked Hughes bid below cost in order to get in for follow-on buys. Then, when the initial buy was completed Hughes price for follow-ons was dramatically higher. This embarrassed the customer, and if there's one thing you Never do is embarrass the gov't; it's memory is long. Even though it would result in pries higher than what Hughes was asking then no matter who won, a new competition was ordered. Bell had redesigned their buttt-ugly YOH-4 into the Model 206A JetRanger, one of the most beautiful helicopters ever built. They bid a military derivative of what was now essentially a civil design,, Faichild-Hiller declined to rebid their OH-5, which had come in second the previous time around and concentrated on their civil derivative the FH-1100. Bell's design was selected quite posibly because teh gov't wasn't mad at them. The Cheyenne would have more capable than the Cobra, but it kept having development problems and its schedule was continually slipping. With Vietnam going hot and heavy Army just couldn't wait until the uncertain date when it could be fielded. . Air Force lobbying against it didn't help either. So a new competition was held for an interim gunship that could be fielded quickly until Cheyenne could eventually show up, and Bell's model 209 was the clear winner. If Cheyenne had met its schedule there would have been no Cobra, and if it hadn't been canceled there wouldn't have been so many Cobras The reason they didn't give out ll the details of the decision is that they were preparing for the inevitable protest. .
    2
  8.  @22steve5150  Spae is a premium, which is why Bell showed how a naval variant could fold up without disassembly into a space the size of a folded UH-1Y. The Defiant team has never discussed being based on any ship smaller than a CVN or LH_.
    2
  9.  @22steve5150  Bell has illustrations how two folded naval V-280s would fit in a DDG hangar. Don't know what they'd do with mast of a Defiant to fit in the hangar.
    2
  10.  @robertjones1729  The crosshaft comes on line when there is loss of power in one engine, so lift/thrust remains symmetrical.
    2
  11.  @iamcyrushawkins  Actually it does work like that. With a wing, it can glide farther than a helicopter can travel power out because helo has to keep rotot speed up to store energy to be used in the flare for touchdown. As a result it doesn't glide, it falls until just the very end, and even then i a lot of cased the aircraft is so damaged it's a loss.
    2
  12.  @iamcyrushawkins  If you're talking about a hit so catastrophic that it blows the entire engine off, then yes, unless the Valor can disengage other engine down really quickly, in which case it'd glide, realistically it would be going down. This would be true wingborne (at which point a glide is theoretically possible) or if rotorborne would crash . Same thing if you blow off one of the rotors of a Chinook. More than likely the bad guys would be shooting at the fuselage, which is a bigger target and has all the soft stuff inside.
    2
  13. If the rotor itself fails on any helicopter you're probably going down. If one engine fails, the normally unloaded crosshaft instantly loads up and power from the good engine goes to both rotors.
    2
  14. Look at pictures of Defiant parked next to Black Hawk. it's a good deal larger. Also, when has Defaint actually demonstrated that it's nimbler?
    2
  15.  @scottstewart5784  During the protest all the non-propriety data was disclosed and it showed Valor was the better performer and Sikorsky Boeing didn't even submit a bid that complied with requirements.
    2
  16.  @Fish1701A  Bell has shown how Naval Valor would fold up to fit in DDG type ships' hangars. Defiant doesn't even address the issue.
    2
  17. There's no requirement for Valor or Defiant to be transported in a C-17, and can you transport a Black Hawk in a C-130 without massively taking it apart? ?
    2
  18. When you lose power to one engine, the crosshaft loads up and the good engine powers both rotors.
    2
  19. Assuming the rotors work the same as in the V-22, and videos indicate they do, there is a large "twist" to the blades and they will be operating at a high pitch angle. Unlike a regular prop plane, the roots will be nearly edge on and the tips will have a quite significant angle relative to the direction of flight. In other words it won't appear to a radar as a flat spinning disc, but more of a "faceted" type of surface, sort of like what was done on the F-117. I'm not saying it will be a stealth aircraft, like the F-117, just that the return isn't going to be the big thing people worry about at first glance. Bell has demonstrated nose down backwards flight, possibly not as much as Defiant is theoretically capable of (although Defaint will have the limit of how far "back" you can tilt the disc, whereas Valor does not have to worry about the blades coming too close to the fuselage). Frankly, enemies are going to be shooting at the fuselage because it's an easier target, so the question applies to both craft:. how vulnerable are the engines/transmission,/blades, etc.
    2
  20. Army originally wanted 250 knots, and then for some reason lowered the requirement to 235 knots. I suspect this was because a certain someone didn't think they'd be able to cruise at 250 knots and started making back channel complaints. Army, anxious to say they had a "competition' lowered the requirement. In any case, Defaint came close but never actually achieved their 250 knots in level flight, whereas, like you said, V-280 did 305 knots.
    1
  21. Defiant never demonstrated its so-called level fuselage quick stops (and if you raise the nose like a helicopter or Valor would, you can stop very quickly). Acceleration wise, as soon as he proprotors start coming forward (which can happen early on) a Tilt-Rotor can accelerate real fast, faster than the smaller prop on Defiant can push it.
    1
  22. ​ @n3v3rforgott3n9  In the 1950s the XV-3, the first flying Tilt-Rotor, had the powerplant in the fuselage, but it was single engined so in the fuselage was the only way to do it. . When Bell and Boeing competed for the NASA contract that led to the XV-15, Boeing proposed mounting both engines in the fuselage, but Bell's wingtip design was judged superior and it's been that way ever since. Additionally, mounting both engines in the fuselage would require a much more complicated transmission, exacerbated by a much more complicated method required to keep both proprotors turning in the case of engine failure.
    1
  23.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  True
    1
  24. Lockheed bought Sikorsky, after they had designed the Defiant. They are a subcontractor to Bell, who designed the Valor, for avionics and sensors. V-280 has optical sensors very much like those on the F-35, a plane Lockheed knows a thing or two about.
    1
  25. ​ @piloto_loco  Sikorsky was a division of Untied Technologies, Sikorsky had not been a totally independent company for years. similarly bell is a division of Textron. United T. looked at Sikorsky's prospects and decided they were going to divest it., So Sikorsky needed a new "parent" because it probably couldn't survive on its own. ". There wasn't a lot of beating down the doors to take them aboard. Bell/Textron showed some interest, but the US Gov't frowned on that because they thought that might turn into something monopolistic in the helicopter business. The helicopter companies that did show interest were the Europeans. The gov't realized that by frowning on the Bell option they had created a situation that could mean that a major defense supplier would be owned by companies in foreign countries. Oops! Enter Lockheed. Their tender could resolve the ownership issue and Sikorsky could stay in business. A white knight indeed.
    1
  26.  @piloto_loco  Sikorsky is pretty much out of the large scale civil market. The only thing they have to offer is the S-70, which is basically the H-60, and the S-92, which is based on the S-70/H-60. They will sell for a while, but the newer technology of the Europeans is going to make sales harder and harder. Sikorsky has stated that they don't see a civil market for X2 technology. FARA is critical for them. As long as Raider-X can perform anywhere close to what they claim and isn't ridiculously more expensive than Invictus, I can see them getting the contract for industrial policy reasons regardless of the actual relative performance demonstrated in the flyoff. Clearly they will also bid on the Navy's FVL-Maritime Strike program, but that program's further out there, and whether they can stick it out without a FARA win is uncertain. Of course, now they have Lockheed's deep pockets. Just my opinion.
    1
  27.  @piloto_loco  United Aircraft wanted to sell off Sikorsky. US Gov't told Textron/Bel lthey couldn't buy it for antitrust reasons. For a scary period we were afraid that European company might buy a major US defense contractor. Then Lockheed rode in and saved the day.
    1
  28.  @MrGeforcerFX  Lockheed came on the SB>1 because they bought Sikorsky, originally they weren't involved. Where is it said that Defiant is going to have DAS aboard? I'm not sure that Horsy had disclosed much of their planned avionics.
    1
  29. It's range is far greater than a Black Hawk's. Its hover ceiling is far higher than most traditional helicopters (including the Black Hawk) and it carries more troops than a Black Hawk. As far as the Army needing something between a H-53 (which the army does not use, they use the CH-47), they are moving forward on that. It's called the Valor (or Definat if it had done a lot better during the demonstrations).
    1
  30.  @txtworld  Bell 360 also has just one engine. One engine is an Army requirement. In fact, Invictus and Raider-X use the same, Army specified, engine.
    1
  31.  @pihermoso11  No, Raider-X has one engine.
    1
  32.  @quakethedoombringer  With the rotors facing forward, if they're stopped at the 8-12-4 o'clock position, they wouldn't touch the ground. If they're turning, they each rotate outward so that blades that hit the ground are thrown away from the aircraft rather than the fuselage.
    1
  33.  @txtworld  That's right, it's a supplemental power unit. I didn't count it as a second engine, and neither does the Army [which said that FARA has to be single engined], because it's the 360''s APU. What's Bell's innovation was to design a way use its 610 shp to boost available power to supplement the T901's 3,000 shp when needed to met the Army's dash speed requirement and as you said to improve autorotational capability. I look at it as functioning like an afterburner., So I concede that it's a matter of interpretation. Now what's interesting is that if 360 wins and Sikorsky protests, would one of their arguments be that Bell-didn't meet the specs because thy have "two" engines? I don't know if that would prevail because Army might say they should have protested at the beginning because they knew what Bell was doing all along.
    1
  34. Why can't you fight fires or do disaster response? It meets the Army's requirement for sling load, and should be able to do it as well as Black Hawk (as an aside, V-22 holds world speed record for carrying external load). If you look at Army bases, most helos aren't stored in hangars all the time. V-280 is wider than Defiant (H-60, BTW, is wider than the H-1 it replaced), but so what? It's shorter. More importantly, even acknowledging the greater width, nothing is better than everyone at everything. The choice is, weighing up the pluses and minuses, what gives you the most overall?
    1
  35. As you are probably aware that all the reasons weren't initially given because of the protest which has now been denied. During the examination it was shown the V-280 performed far better. But their relative performance didn't even have to be disclosed. Sikorsky Boeing didn't provide all the information required for their bid and didn't provide data to validate their price was realistic.
    1
  36.  @Michael02703  What whining? Their demonstration spoke for itself, and it was Much better.
    1
  37.  @Michael02703  This isn't a V-22. Sadly, the lager the aircraft, the more casualties can happen in a single flight. For example, 155 people perished in a single C-5 accident.
    1
  38.  @Michael02703  Here's the thing. In one of my other posts I covered this in detail, so I'll be brief. V-22 can autorotate, but like other large helicopters it does it badly. This is due to a restriction imposed on the size of the rotors and the fact that the gov't supplied an engine that was heavier and burned more fuel than what they told Bell-Boeing to design for, which makes the craft heavier than planned. This is also what causes the downwash, because of the higher disc loading. Both V-22 and V-280 are Tilt-Rotors, but projecting one on the other just because they both use Tilt-Rotor technology would be the same as saying back in the day we shouldn't develop the F-16 because it is a single engined jet like the F-8 and the F-8 had an appalling safety record (it did, even ignoring combat losses). The XV-15 and AW609 have both demonstrated much better autorotation. AFAIK V-280 hasn't because it wasn't required for JMR-TD and it's the only one Bell had and you don't want to do anything too far out if you've only got one. If all you want to do is go normal helicopter speeds for normal helicopter ranges with normal ,helicopter performance, a Tilt-Rotor will lose every time. There are always tradeoffs. A Tilt-Rotor can do a helicopter's job, but not as efficiently, but a helicopter can't do a Tilt-Rotor's job. The question is, what do you need?
    1
  39. Yes
    1
  40. The other reason POTUS doesn't fly in a V-280 is that so far they've only built one of them. You probably mean the V-22 and President Obama did fly it abroad.
    1
  41. Did President Obama realize he was not allowed to fly in the Osprey he flew in in Iraq?
    1
  42. Defiant didn't even meet all the claims made for it, let alone "overwhelm" anything.
    1
  43. It's twice as fast as what we have now, and more maneuverable.
    1
  44.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  But Bell sold a lot more civil JetRangers than Hughes/MD sold Model 500s. One of the other early OH-58 "unlikables" was the tendency of the tail boom to come over the top of the aircraft in certain kinds of hard landings. BTW, I'm a fan too (more of the TV show than the movies), so as a purist nerd I've got to point out his name was Frank DreBin 😁
    1
  45.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  Wow! Apparently they're going to start production this summer on a Naked Gun reboot with Liam Neeson starring.
    1
  46.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  Hey! I'm not the one making the new movie, yell at Seth MacFarlane!
    1
  47. Not an issue. There is a crosshaft in the wing that is normally unloaded. If an engine fail, it mechanically loads and transfers power from the good engine to both rotors maintaining symmetrical thrust on both sides. engine to the prop
    1
  48. $43 million in 2018 dollars.
    1
  49. Actually, Valor's fuselage is narrower than Defiant, because Defiant can't use all its internal volume for payload as efficiently. The mast and transmission take a large amount of internal space. Overall, Valor is wider than Defiant, but shorter.
    1
  50. Half the budget wouldn't have be enough to develop either of them,
    1
  51. The V-280 has never crashed
    1
  52. Boeing proposed burying twin engines in the fuselage for the competition for the XV-15, which they lost.
    1
  53. The same way they avoid shooting off the rotors in any conventional helicopter: you limit the travel of the door guns.
    1
  54.  @dianapennepacker6854  You don't have to have the proprotors all the way up to use weapons under the wings, just far enough up so that the weapons would clear, and the aircraft would still be able to move at a good clip. If an attack version was developed, you'd also have the option for internal carriage, which wold eliminate the need for any proprotor position restriction. Regarding door guns, there's always a restriction on any rotorcraft, because you don't want the door gunners to shoot up their own rotor (this has happened!).
    1
  55.  @orbiradio2465  Defiant team has not publicly addressed this.
    1
  56.  @orbiradio2465  It's too high.
    1
  57. Raider-X (and Bell 360) are designed for a mission that the USMC doesn't have. Defiant isn't fast enough for what the Marines want in their H-1 replacement, and USMC doesn't have the kind of budget to bring Defiant into service on their own even if they wanted to.
    1
  58.  @piloto_loco  Army didn't define FLRAA as a helicopter, they defined the concept as to what the aircraft would be required to do, and let the contractors design an aircraft to do it.
    1
  59. But it's shorter. Land at 90° to the street, although I wouldn't want to land either of these in a place where the opposition could shoot down at you from building.s.
    1
  60. Actually according to Army both aircraft fit in the required footprint
    1
  61.  @michaelreedx6823  No it won't any more than an H-60 or CH-47 drops like a stone if it loses an engine. Both rotors keep turning, but performance takes a significant hit.
    1
  62. Bell is doing quite well in the civila market and is developing new aircraft so they would survive without FLRAA. Sikorsky's Limited presence in the civil market is limited to derivatives of the H-60 (which the S-92 is, BTW).
    1
  63.  @vitordelima  The V-22 had some developmental problems, but in service its record has been good. It's better than the F/A-18. In the case of the Leonardo accident, it was being deliberately flown outside its normal operating envelope for testing, and the flight software did not react as they thought it would (a problem with newer fly-by-computer aircraft that is not unique to the AW609. The first YF-22 was lost for that reason, as was one of the two S-97s). As far as X2s go (Defiant is a coax much more advanced and complex than regular ones), things aren't that . One of the two S-97s was lost due to a software error . The Army's original schedule for the demonstrations was 1st flight in 2017, a year of flying and testing in 2018, review and analysis of those tests by the Army during 2019 and a decision one which concept to go forward with for prototyping and eventual production by 2020. The Valor did in 2017 and met or exceeded all claims in 2018. They couldn't even get Defiant into the air until 2019, and it was grounded not that long afterwards for some redesign before resuming flight tests. its progress since then was much slower than Valor's
    1
  64.  @vitordelima  There haven't really been similar helicopters (except V-22/V-280). There has never been a helicopter like Defiant/S-97, it's not just a conventional coaxial even though the rotors are stacked on top of each other. .
    1
  65.  @vitordelima  Russian coaxials do not have the advanced technology used by X2s. I don't think "bipolar" is a good term for Tilt-Rotors. The "proprotors" do the same thing in whatever mode they're in, provide thrust. The trick is where the thrust is directed.
    1
  66.  @Defender78  That came from an Italian Army official who had been fed disinformation abut Tilt-Rotors, no doubt from organization(s) who have different technologies they're pushing. More recently, at an European rotorcraft conference, Italian Army officials expressed a need for a rotorcraft with a 250 knot cruise speed and specifically were looking at Tilt-Rotor. Italian Air Force officials concurred with a need for such a vehicle for personnel recovery and Search And Rescue
    1
  67. You have to make sure the Rotors don't impact the fuselage when forward.
    1
  68.  @chuckcawthon3370  Then you fly it there, which is faster than trying to get aboard airlifters on sudden notice that might not even be available.
    1
  69. No, the Pentagon is stopping production of the Osprey because all the ones they have ordered have been built.
    1
  70. There was no requirement in the specification for the winning aircraft to be air transportable without extensive disassembly; if you're willing to take something apart you can fit a lot of anything inside a C-5/17. The requirement was that if the situation is too urgent to send them by ship (which is how we send 90% of everything), then they had to be able to just fly there.
    1
  71. Uh, the wing on the V-22 doesn't rotate, never has. The requirement is "operational footprint", not just be the size of the Black Hawk (which the Defiant isn't either). Army actually lowered the speed requirement to allow for other technologies than Tilt-Rotor. Even so, Defiant never demonstrated its promised speed while Valor exceeded its by 25 knots. The V-280 is no more a reduced sized V-22 than an F-35 is a reduced sized F-15.
    1
  72. How do you know that?
    1
  73.  @carmelonold1090  You're the one making the claim about expensive and agile. Where in the demonstration did we see this?
    1
  74.  @carmelonold1090  Since we wrote these, the results of the protest have been published. Among other things, the Gov't said Sikorsky-Boeing did not provide enough data to be able to trust that their price was realistic.
    1
  75.  @yolo_burrito  Than what?
    1
  76.  @yolo_burrito  The S-97 was a smaller aircraft and couldn't lift anywhere near what the V-280 (or the Black Hawk, for that matter) can.
    1
  77. Defaint won't fit in DDG hangars due to height and wide fuselage. Valor cpu fold up to fit in smaller space than H-60.
    1
  78. But only one team gets to advance.
    1
  79.  @brianmoore1164  It's not a matter of patience, this whole thing is going to take years. It's a matter of they can only afford one, and it would be silly to build both even if they could afford it, and one of the two was more successful in its demonstrations.
    1
  80.  @brianmoore1164  It's not that we won't have any Lockheed helicopters. H-60s and H-53s are going to be around for a while, and if X2 starts fully living up to its potential, they may get FARA. I'm just saying that for FLRAA, the choice has been made and given how the two concepts performed in the demonstration, I don't see how having patience will change that.
    1
  81.  @brianmoore1164  My point is that at this juncture Defaint is pretty much out of the picture. Army's got only enough money to take one into service, and their choice is Valor; IMHO the right choice. Even if they had the money [and it's not at all certain that they'll have the money to even bring Valor into service, this year's DoD budget request isn't even enough to cover inflation], it would be a waste of money to spend what it would take to develop, set up separate production lines, maintenance, training and logistics for both. Not to mention that with less mumbers bought of each would raise the price for both.
    1
  82.  @theofficialmbc  No reason to. That will be years from now, and the Sikorsky didn't do as well in the tests so far and no work would have been done on it since.
    1
  83.  @amramjose  depends on the Tilt-Rotor.
    1
  84.  @iamcyrushawkins  But it can glide, better than a helo.
    1
  85.  @robertjones1729  Sorry, don't understand your question. If it's doing 250+ plus knots it's going to stay in fixed wing mode at best glide speed until it's time to land and then determine what's best. If it's at 60 knots it's going to be in and stay in rotor mode.
    1
  86.  @bitrage.  15 crashes isn't bad, given how long it's been in servie. The actual number of fatalities is 61, but remember A V-22 can fly with up to 28 people aboard, so a single crash can unfortunately kill a lot.
    1
  87.  @bitrage.  No loss of life is "good". My point is simply compare it with other aircraft with similar age and flying hours.
    1
  88. Different missions. Raider can't come close tp meting the requirements Valor and Defaint were designed for.
    1
  89. ...If they're willing to pay the cost, and most aren't.
    1
  90. It's too big and isn't designed to hover, "hot and high" like the V-280 is.
    1
  91.  @zarthemad8386  Simply not true
    1
  92.  @kennethfharkin  But it still isn't as efficient as a real wing.
    1
  93. It turns ou that because of the layout of the twin proprotors and the wing Tilt-Rotors are less susceptible to crosswinds than single rotor helicopter.
    1
  94. Internally or against the sides. They also can be carried under the wings as log as they are prevented from firing until the proprotors are raised enough. BTW, the role of dropping bombs was given to the Air Force. Army is not allowed have an aircraft that drops bombs.
    1
  95. One of he big advantages both craft have over Black Hawk is that the Army now has a ;hot and high" requirement. Basically, requires that the FLRAA aircraft must be able to hover out of ground effect at mission weight @ 6000 feet on a 95° day. Black Hawk, great aircraft that it is, can't come c;lose to that. So, either craft, if it meets its specs, will do better in the desert.
    1
  96. And they lost big time
    1
  97.  @givemethedaily1052  Bad guys are going to shoot at the fuselage more than they'll shoot at the smaller nacelle. There's also another question to consider. Everyone assumes Defiant-X will autorotate better, but has Sikorsky ever even mentioned autorotation? Seems if they thought that would be a big advantage in their favor, yet they are conspicuously silent on this.
    1
  98. Understood. The SPU is basically a full time APU. However, because of the way the system works, Army considers 3the 360 as meeting their requirement that the aircraft be single engine. I imagine because the 360 can't be powered alone by the PW207D1
    1
  99.  @mshepard2264  Exactly. BTW, how many troops can a B-1 carry?
    1
  100.  @scottstewart5784  And that is exactly what happened, ironically when Coast Guard awarded the contract years ago to the Dauphin (which became the HH-65) instead of to the Bell 222. No one had the nerve to tell the execs that the French had a better 'copter, so they protested got the Coast Guard to tell them! Once you protest, the Gov't is free to disclose the relative performance of the bidders.
    1
  101.  @johnadams8445  All Tilt-Rotorsan autorotate, the question is how well. In the case of the V-22 it does it poorly, for two reasons. First, ther rotors are smaller than they should be becasue they were artificially limited for required separation between them and the island when using the amidship spots on the smaller amphbis of the time. Second, the gov't failed to deliver the promised advanced engine, so the V-22 uses an engine that is heavier and requires more fuel (which adds weight) than was planned for. Even so, it glides much farther can a helicopter can go if it loses its engines. V-280 does not have these issues Loss of one engine costs performance on a Tilt-Rotorbut does not in and of itself require an emergency landing.
    1
  102.  @givemethedaily1052  Bell has already shown how they'd do it. It would actually fold up smaller than an H-60 does. Army doesn't have requirement to do that, and Navy hasn't bought any [yet]
    1
  103.  @TonkaFire2019  Osprey also will fly on one engine. when one engine goes out, a crosshaft transfers power from eh other side.
    1
  104.  @verdebusterAP  The concept of a "stealth" helicopter in routine service isn't practical. As far as teh 160th goes, they don't have the kind of money it would take to bring Defaint into service, which would require more work than what it'll take with Valor of the regular Army isn't footing the bill, and they'd end up with a craft of lower
    1
  105.  @verdebusterAP  While the 160th's budget is somewhat sectioned off, it simply isn't even remotely big enough to cover what it would cost to bring Defaint to an operational state on its own, let alone the cost of producing it and maintaining and supporting the few airframes they'd require. iAll this to get an aircraft that's main advantage is that its with rotors turning isn't as wide and May decelerate quicker but is slower and with less range? ? it's just not in the realm of feasibility. Don't forget 160th doesn't develop its own aircraft, but modifies or just borrows aircraft that have already been developed under someone else's regular program..
    1
  106.  @verdebusterAP  the 160th is much beloved, but they do not have a blank check. It's inconceivable that they'd be given the hundreds of millions, more likely billions, of $$ necessary to do all the EMD and testing to bring Defiant-X to operational status, set up entirely different logistics, maintenance, support, training and crewing necessary. Just to get a slower aircraft that can land lengthways in a street? And if you're only building six to 12, these hand built jewels are going to cost not just $7 million more apiece, they're each going to cost hundreds of millions of $ more. There was the famous semi-stealth version of the H-60 built that was used in the Bin Laden raid, but even though it was a modification of the H-60 design, reportedly it cost so much that the program was cut in half and less than a dozen were built. That's the key. They'll do what they've done so well in the past: Use an existing aircraft or take an already developed design and modify some to suit their purpose.
    1
  107.  @verdebusterAP  The 160th has nowhere near the money to develop Defiant on its own, even if they wanted to. That's why they adapt existing vehicles.
    1
  108.  @givemethedaily1052  Regarding rotating the wings, bell has shown how it wold be done. Army doesn't need it, and if someone else wants it they have to be willing to pay for the feature.
    1
  109.  @verdebusterAP  Given the height and nature of the rotor/mast, a "stealth" Defiant is unlikely, even if you could find someone willing to pay for the cost of doing the development work for an operational Defiant. SOCOM has stated what mods it wants provisions for in the V-280 and Army says it will incorporate them.
    1
  110. Bell has a much more robust civil backlog than Sikorsky, and Sikorsky was the one that had to look for buyers where their parent company put them up for sale.
    1
  111. Defiant is an X2, a much more advanced technology than conventional technologies used by the Kamovs. Notice that even the KA=50/52 is far slower than Defiant, and far, far slower than Valor.
    1
  112. I presume you are talking about putting these aircraft in a C-5 or -17. There was no requirement for either of these aircraft to be carried within a cargo aircraft without significant disassembly, and Neither of them do.
    1
  113.  @konstellashon1364  actually it won't due to the height
    1
  114.  @TheBeingReal  Regarding Sikorsky and FARA, it isn't certain they would have one. Bell's helicopter weighed less but had more power, and was based on a more mature technology. Sikorsky's technology was ore exotic but didn't promise all that much more performance and probably would have cost more. Also, their technology so far can be best described as "disappointing".
    1
  115.  @zeuso.1947  They were built for the same role. Buying both doesn't mean the costs would be split, it means you'd be buying two different aircraft to fill the same role. Your development costs would double and you'd have much higher support costs because you'd have two different inventories of supply and maintenance.
    1
  116.  @zeuso.1947  What differing capabilities for what different roles? They were designed to the same requirement to perform the same mission. the V-280 was just much better.
    1
  117. The S-67 Blackhawk of 54 years ago could not lift as much as the V-280, couldn't fly as far, had cruise speed and maximum speed far less than that of the V-280. It did not glide any better than a regular helicopter, the primary function of the wings was to have a place to hang ordnance. Regarding troops, with a modified cabin the maximum number of troops it could carry was six. Regarding a troop/cargo pod, have you seen how close the S-67 sat to the ground? Where would you put it? Or are you talking about a pod filled with troops (well, actually less than what the V-280 carries internally) that would hang from a cable slung under the S-67? Are you kidding?
    1
  118.  @kingmiller1982  They will be more specific when they answer the protest
    1
  119.  @Tounguepunchfartbox  Or maybe Bell jut outperformed. It also mattered that Sikorsky didn't comply with all the all the required informaton for their bid, while Bell did.
    1
  120. Except that it doesn't work.
    1
  121. Money
    1
  122. Defiant can't fit in C-17 without disassembly. In their specifications, the Army never had a requirement to fit into a C-17 or C-5.
    1
  123.  @Obvsaninternetexpert  A naval version would, Army doesn't need that feature.
    1
  124. It can sling load more than the Black Hawk can.
    1
  125.  @damongraham1398  The only figure I have commonly seen is that it can carry a sling load of 10,00 lbs and can do it @ 150 knots.
    1
  126. Missed a 0. 10,000 lbs.
    1
  127. Valor: six blades Defiant 16 blades
    1
  128. Army won't name the aircraft until it's closer to entering service. "Valor" is Bell's name for it.
    1
  129. The V-280 met or exceeded all Army maneuverability requirements
    1