Comments by "Jerry Kahn" (@jerrykahn6894) on "Sikorsky challenges US Army's helicopter award" video.

  1. There is NO data that proves it is easier to land a helicopter in an Assault Configuration than it is for tiltrotors. If you can find such data, please provide it. Also the V-22 has provided the US Marines with exceptionally reliable service in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, & Kuwait. If it were worse than it's predecessor it would have been replaced, instead it has also been adopted by the Navy and the Air Force for Special Operations.
    4
  2. The V-280 Valor is not and has never been a replacement for the V-22 Osprey. I really don't know where you get such information. None of the predecessors of the Sikorski SB-1 Defiant X has been a long term Commercial or Military success. The SB-1 Defiant X has no more maneuverability in tight situations than the V-280 Valor. It also has a larger operational footprint. You should research both Blackhawk replacement options thoroughly before you make comments you can't support.
    3
  3. Because the Defiant had already lost on all parameters, so why waste time with a flyoff. Anyway in the 3+ years since the first flight the Defiant only had a total of 18 hours of flight time over 36 flights, an average of 30 minutes a flight. Pathetic.
    2
  4. I don't get your point. The Valor is an Army Aircraft not a Navy or Marine Aircraft. It was only ever intended for the Army. And anyway its footprint is SMALLER than the Defiant's.
    2
  5. They have. The Osprey now has the best operational accident data history of all Tiltrotors and Helicopters in Marine Service.
    2
  6. Wrong, Osprey and Valor are two completely different animals. Read up on the details of the V-280 Valor and you will see how it differs, in so many ways from the V-22 Osprey. And why would they be sorry to lose rotary capability? The Valor gives the same capabilities and has a smaller LZ footprint than the SB-1 Defiant. It's faster, flies farther, has greater hover/linger time, has greater load capacity(for troops, medivac, loadouts, ordinance), is easier and cheaper to repair, is more compartmentalized for easier tech upgrades, it's been flight tested for almost 20 times the hours, and if an engine goes out, it can still fly. What more can you want from an Aircraft?
    2
  7. You're talking about a logistical nightmare. All the significant points have been evaluated and the Valor has beat the Defiant on all of them. that's why the Army has chosen the Valor as the replacement for the Blackhawk and the Apache. And yes, in this case, one size does fit all!
    2
  8. Just WRONG!
    2
  9. Tiltrotors don't rely on autorotation for survivability. It is very unlikely that both engines on a tiltrotor like the V-22 or the V-280 would go offline at the same time. If an engine on one of these tiltrotors did go out, there is a driveshaft between the two propellers that allows only one engine to operate both rotors to keep the Aircraft flying. I'm not sure of the V-22 but the V-280 has enough lift from it's wings to attempt a landing if both engines stop working.
    2
  10. The Osprey has a cleaner history in the operational accident department than any other helicopter in US Marine history. Check out the stats yourself. I don't deny that it had a lot of development difficulties but that was mostly because the US Marine Corp kept changing the design specifications of the Aircraft(I.E. first to solve the safety issues and shortening the wingspan and then making the wings and rotors foldable to accommodate fitting inside Aircraft Carriers hangers). If the Ospreys weren't good, why then did the Navy and the Air Force(who uses them in Special Operations) also adopt and still use them? By the way, the V-280 Valor has adapted all the solutions the V-22 Osprey discovered to problems it encountered and has had 5 years of operational success unlike the Defiant X, which hasn't even flown with the New Engine (the T901 by GE, still in development, provides 50% more power and has 25% less fuel consumption.) the Army has designated it needs to use in it's existing and future FLRAA & FARA Helicopters. There is no mention that I could find on whether or not the V-280 Valor would be required to use the T901 engine but it may be exempt since it is a twin engine Tiltrotor and not a Helicopter. Also, the Valor made its first flight in 2017 and has 200 flight hours in 150 flights while the Defiant X didn't make it's first flight until 2019 and only has 18 flight hours in 36 flights since.
    2
  11. It's no bigger than the Defiant so how can that matter?
    1
  12. The Defiant X still has a rotor span of almost 59 ft and is 63+ ft long. So it's actually 13 ft longer than the Valor. Since the average town street is anywhere from 29 to 39 ft neither one of them is going to fit.
    1
  13. Wrong. The Valor has a smaller footprint than the Blackhawk or the Defiant and can fit into tighter LZs than either of them.
    1
  14. NO, they don't.
    1
  15. Sorry, the Tiltrotor design has been improved in the Valor(the biggest objection the Army had about the Osprey was it's size and the Valor is much smaller.) and it is just an overall better Aircraft as assessed by the Army itself.
    1
  16. Valor is projected to be lower maintenance than current Blackhawk and Defiant X both.
    1
  17. Lockheed Martin supplied avionics, sensors, and weapons but nothing else to the project, and only to the original FVL program(from what I can determine). All the rest was Bell Textron.
    1
  18.  @Legion-xq8eo Sorry but the Logistics and Training both for Pilots and Maintenance is just too much for a program that will be replaced in five years or for a mixed program that will be continued indefinitely. You can't carry two programs side by side without incurring tremendous costs. It's not worth it.
    1
  19. bl8danjil is mostly right. they receive 32 weeks of Helicopter training followed by 20 weeks of Multi-Engine training and finally 20 weeks of Tiltrotor Simulator training before they are allowed to fly a Tiltrotor.
    1
  20. SIKORSKI GONNA LOSE! Valor is overall a better choice. Hands down. Sikorski is more expensive, more expensive to repair and upkeep(this includes installation of electronic upgrades), flies slower, has shorter distance, a lower payload and lower operational lifespan. As a matter of fact it hasn't even flown with the new engine the Army requires it to use. The FARA choice will only replace the Kiowa, the FLRAA choice will replace the Apache along with the Blackhawk. This is why Sikorski is so scared about losing to Bell, it means the eventual replacement of more than 2330 Helicopters. That's not chump change, is it?
    1
  21. Sorry, the Bell Valor Tiltrotor has a smaller LZ footprint than the Sikorski Defiant, or the old Blackhawk for that matter.
    1