Comments by "Diana Pennepacker" (@dianapennepacker6854) on "Why the Army chose Bell’s tiltrotor over Sikorsky’s pusher-compound-rotor design derived" video.

While I wanted it to win you're correct. Footprint and gun placement is definitely the only downsides but the range and speed alone make up for it. Helicopters are reaching physical limits in both areas. So tilt rotor are the future so better get use to them.
7
@pdxmarine1430 Well putting them under the wings makes them only available in hover mode. Not sure how fast it can move with them out of the way. Yeah I see them using door guns mostly. Still it will have it's arc of fire limited. I'm only saying it has less options compared to a helicopter. I don't know if they are planning on a chain mounted gun but that would be great if they did. Either way I am all for it and believe tilt powered vehicles make the most sense. Way too many advantages as helicopters reach their physical limits in speed and range. People will look for any reason to hate tilt rotors it seems although they are proven to be JUST as safe. The Valor already can fly on its own without pilot input.
4
@LayneBenofsky I know how it works but I think you read my post wrong. I didn't bring up the nacelles at all in my post so I'm not sure how I am confusing it with the Osprey. I mentioned nothing about it outside gun placement, because the rotors get in the way.
3
@harrymu148 I have never seen a prop safety on a gimbal or turret. Have you? I mean sure they won't be an issue for it firing straight ahead. We've had that technology since WWI. HOWEVER a straight line strafing run is pretty much suicide these days. It will just have some weird arcs of fires and won't be able to shoot targets at some angles in certain directions. I'm not too worried about it TBH - CANT wait to see them in the air fully kitted out.
2