Comments by "n" (@user-pq4by2rq9y) on "Defense News" channel.

If you want a good reason, the v280 is more reliable than the defiant. That's because the latter has to deal with excessive vibration that causes premature wear.
22
Because its more reliable and easier to maintain, probably. The valor isn't that much different of a standard twin-engine aircraft with a bunch of extra parts for the transmission and tilting mechanism. The defiant not only has to deal with coaxial rotors but with the vibration associated with compound designs, putting a lot of stress on that transmission. In conclusion, the valor should actually be easier to service than the blackhawk despite the added parts while the defiant maintenance will not only be more frequent but possibly a little harder. There are more factors involved but these two should be the most significant, as it is.
15
yes, because that isn't true. That aircraft can fly on a single engine since both props/rotors are connected.
11
At least the Valor can fly.
10
@givemethedaily1052 power is split 50/50 even on a single engine thanks to the driveshaft. Unless you compromise the rotor or transmission it should still be able to fly.
9
Acoustic signature favors the valor. If you ever seen a turboprop up close, you must have noticed that you only really hear them when they are on top of you, the same should be true for the valor in the horizontal rotor configuration.
8
The power of the other engine is split between both rotors
7
@Defender78 how is the defiant simpler than the valor? You got 2 coaxial rotors and a pusher prop on a single transmission while the v-280 has 2 identical rotors and engines and a slightly less complex (I am assuming) transmission on the wing, all easily accessible. The defiant looks so much like a pain in the ass to service when you think about it. The Valor does not look that much different from a twin engine turboprop, aside the transmission.
6
@dct124 how isn’t it the right choice? The Defiant spend over a year just to fix the transmission, assuming Sikorsky managed to do it at all. If the Valor isn’t a match for the army them just staying with the blackhawk is a better option.
5
@angryox3102 it is also a reason why they didn't go with the Cheyenne back in the day, despite having clearly superior specs to the Apache that came a decade later. Keep in mind that the Cheyenne had only one main rotor.
4
@johns70 or hellfires. Considering the missile just got itself a substantial range upgrade, you can use a valor loitering at a safe distance as a launch platform by feeding it targeting data from other assets. Now you can have a scout helicopter and a valor delivering the payload equivalent of two or three apaches. Considering the amount of lifting power it will have, it should still be able to do it while carrying troops without much issue.
3
The Valor can fly faster and loiter for longer than any conventional helicopter.
3
The defiant is slower and, like all compound aircraft, suffers from excessive vibration, even more so because it has two rotors. This translates into excessive wear.
3
@bartlettdieball2678 why would you bother with cargo planes and ships when it has enough range to self deploy. About the same range as a C-130. About folding, I don’t know if it is worth the added complexity for the army but the Osprey can do it so if there is a need for it, Bell should be able to make a folding one (as far as I am aware, it is already in the drawing board).
3
It is a overkill and not too convenient to maintain and repair as a light cas aircraft. They want to buy this to aliviate the burden upon the a-10 fleet. If you wanna do most of the work of the warthog but with 1/10th of the cost and have the a-10 when needed, that's a good reason to buy a light attack aircraft.
2
I don't know if the valor has the cargo space that the navy is looking for but it's almost a given that they will try to sell a variant to them.
2
@Paiadakine it's not really boeing or Sikorsky fault. Compound heli engineering with fixed rotors is just not as straightforward as it seems, even from a helicopter manufacturer perspective.
2
Well, if there is redundancy built in this design, you can bet the tilt mechanism will be on top of that list.
1
@hunormagyar1843 Well, in the event of an engine failure, the valor can simply fly at a reduced speed, like any twin engine aircraft (actually a little better because power is split between the two rotors). I don't know if it can land on the vertical in such event however what I would be more inclined to try is a conventional landing with a 70~80 degrees tilt or something similar so I can use the lift generated by the wing to my advantage.
1
Not when all you have is a single one proof-of-concept prototype. Also, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Valor was more survivable simply due to its acoustic signature but that’s just especulation of my part.
1
@03stmlax yes, there aren't many places where you can fit a blackhawk that won't fit a valor. Regardless, it's only one of the two that can actually fly reliably and provide what the army is asking for.
1
@dct124 well, the V-280 weighs half as much as the Osprey so it doesn't need to burn nearly as much fuel and the engine won't be working nearly as hard. A full tank Osprey should have comparable ferry range to a c-130 while holding little more than half as much fuel. I would let the v-280 self-deploy and use the transports for more space efficient cargo. Fun fact: The v-280 should eventually be able to self-deploy without the need of a pilot.
1
@abvmoose87 In my mind: Valor: transport, lift capacity Raider X: light transport, casevac, light attack/scout. Both seem to be capable of performing multiple roles. The defiant, however, does not bring that much to the table in terms of capabilities or potential growth.
1
@NGabunchanumbers well, let me put like this. The Valor loses some hover agility and has a slightly bigger footprint to offer significantly better range, speed, loitering time, some serious lift capability and the ability to self deploy. The production model could be half of the weight of the Osprey, yet with more powerful and efficient engines. If I was in the army I would be praying for the Valor to succeed because tilt-rotors are their best bet to make something to surpass the Chinook in Vtol capability. Imagine a Vtol C130 whenever you need. An unprecedented level of logistic flexibility.
1
@vitordelima more like random username. Fake profiles actually use a proper name.
1
If it was up to me I would mount a few hellfire missiles on the wings and a 20mm vulcan inside the hull, on the side, in a turret with a thermal sighting system. There are better aircraft for the attack role, this seems better suited to support boots on the ground.
1
Both engines are interconnected by a driveshaft. If one goes down, it keeps flying and range stays the same. Yes, it can autorotate, has it ever been tested? As far as I am aware, no.
1
I wouldn’t. No tail rotor, smaller blades. If anything, it should be a little safer because the crew can actually see the rotors.
1