Comments by "n" (@user-pq4by2rq9y) on "Why the Army chose Bell’s tiltrotor over Sikorsky’s pusher-compound-rotor design derived" video.

  1. 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
  2.  @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
  3. 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
  4. The power of the other engine is split between both rotors
    7
  5.  @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
  6. 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
  7. Well, if there is redundancy built in this design, you can bet the tilt mechanism will be on top of that list.
    1
  8.  @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
  9.  @vitordelima  more like random username. Fake profiles actually use a proper name.
    1
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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