Comments by "n" (@user-pq4by2rq9y) on "Boeing Shows How the Defiant X Is Not That Different From the Black Hawk" video.

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
@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
@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
@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
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