Military Review

Ground tests of the American V-280 Valor convertible began

105
The American company Bell Helicopter has begun ground tests of the forward-looking convertoplane V-280 Valor, being developed for the US Army. According to Aviation Week, the device is currently undergoing tests of on-board equipment, components and assemblies and will soon rise into the air, reports N + 1

The V-280 is being developed as part of an FVL tender as a new army transport aircraft designed to quickly transport fighters and cargo over long distances. According to the requirements of the military, such a device should be capable of vertical takeoff and landing. Also participating in the tender is the Sikorsky / Boeing consortium, which is developing a high-speed helicopter SB> 1 Defiant.

Ground tests of the American V-280 Valor convertible began


Bell Helicopter presented the draft of the Valor convertiplane in the spring of 2013 of the year. It is expected that this unit will be able to fly at speeds up to 519 kilometers per hour, and its combat radius will be 1,5 thousands of kilometers with a ferry range of 3,9 thousands of kilometers. The V-280 engines will be stationary: when moving from helicopter to airplane mode, only the propellers will be tilted.

The United States today is still the only country that has armed converters - V-22 Osprey, developed and produced by the Bell / Boeing consortium. In July, 2015, the five convertible plans Osprey acquired Japan. The military of this country liked such devices due to maneuverability, speed and undemanding to the landing sites.

Own convertoplanes are currently being developed by the Italian company Leonardo-Finmeccanica. She creates AW609 devices that will be used for passenger and medical shipments. In 2019, several AW609 search and rescue versions will be supplied to the Joint Aviation Command of the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces.
Photos used:
Bell Helicopter
105 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. wasjasibirjac
    wasjasibirjac 26 July 2017 12: 27
    +7
    and the machine turned out interesting.
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 26 July 2017 12: 33
      +3
      If, when a MANPADS hits, the helicopter can still land on autorotation (there are a lot of such facts), of course there are many nuances, but still. That tiltrotor without options will collapse.
      And so yes the car is not bad, consider the second generation already, It is a pity we are behind in this regard. I don’t know how militarily, but in the civilian version we would definitely be useful, in our open spaces.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 12: 47
        +4
        Yes, in the military there are even more applications, one PLO of which is worth flying, scattered buoys with acoustics for hundreds of kilometers and just have time to launch PLURs, and when the fuel in the buoys ends, flew and collected them. What about trawling and setting mines? And the delivery of MTR with equipment? Yes, there is one AWAC for Av \ UDC / DVKD which is worth it ... But we have a lot of smart ones, "the Americans spent so much more and still doesn't fly", but only with amers and kickbacks are more than ours, and you can save them by studying their mistakes. Yes, and the cost is still unknown what comes out more expensive, because all the calculations come from "grandma said" ....
        1. venik
          venik 28 July 2017 14: 17
          0
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          flew scattered buoys with acoustics for hundreds of kilometers and just have time to run PLURs, and when the fuel in buoys runs out flew and collected them

          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          flew scattered buoys with acoustics for hundreds of kilometers and just have time to run PLURs, and when the fuel in buoys runs out flew and collected them

          =======
          Respected! RSGBs (Radio Hydro-Acoustic Buoys) - NOBODY, NEVER GATHER !!!! This is a DISPOSABLE application technique !!! After completion of work (after a set time, or by radio command) they "self-flood" (well, something like "open the kingstones") ..... "They can collect (and even then, I don’t know if it’s practiced?) thrown out in a well-known square), which "in principle!) can be collected by cat er-torpedols !!! In combat conditions (I repeat) - THERE WILL NOT BE DONE BY THIS !!!
          ------
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          What about trawling and setting mines?

          =========
          The thing is that the "tiltrotor" behaves extremely badly in the "hover" mode (in this it is very inferior to the helicopter !!) due to the much smaller diameter of the propeller! And just during the trawling, he (the tiltrotor) has to “hover” or move at the lowest possible speed (otherwise he will trawl the trawls!).
          ======
          Summary: At first I wanted to advise you to "learn the materiel", but then I realized that you just need to ADULGE !!! (That is, a little growth) !!!
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 29 July 2017 08: 21
            0
            Dear broom, now I want to ask how much the buoy costs and how much money is needed to ensure the PLO of one naval base for one year? And another question: how long does this buoy work? these were rhetorical questions.

            And so my idea is this: why throw money away (to the RSLA) when you can make a mini-buoy with a GAS and deliver it with a tiltrotor, and after it reaches the end of the fuel, pick it up for maintenance. This is trivial, it will allow both saving money and increasing the effectiveness of PLO.
            For example, near the base of the Navy it will be possible to have a couple of convertibles and hundreds of buoys and conduct round-the-clock PLO in a given area, while due to the number of buoys, no submarine can hide using the features of the relief and / or water layer and / or patrol features. In the case of a flotilla during an escort, the same tiltrotopes with buoys based on the aircraft carrier \ UDC \ DVKD \ etc will be scattered along the grouping route. As for your “combat conditions,” it’s impossible to use helicopters with a GAS in combat conditions, because it will be knocked down, but it’s not a pity to lose the buoy boats and you can throw them aside in the safe discharge zone and pick them up as well when the enemy will leave.

            So I’m going to “grow up”, and you’re going to count how many times the system I described is cheaper and more efficient than the existing one.
      2. hrych
        hrych 26 July 2017 12: 50
        +7
        Quote: RASKAT
        It’s a pity we are behind in this regard

        Themselves before and answered the question of survivability. After all, this is not necessarily an air defense system, any malfunction with one of the engines and cranks. Also, the swivel mechanism is a weak link. Another dead end branch, where we better not go, they made it to replace Chinook, who also has problems due to the flaw of the screw circuit, and also no autorotation. Ours made a giant, according to the classic Mi-26 scheme. Again, we have different concepts, we are a continental power, they are maritime, they need to throw marines from landing ships, preferably away from the coast and quickly. This is not in great demand for us. Better than anything Kamov, coaxial scheme, you can put a jet stream for speed, etc. laughing
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 12: 53
          0
          if a helicopter starts up a jet stream, then the blades will not create lift, moreover, they will also interfere.
          1. hrych
            hrych 26 July 2017 12: 57
            +2
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            if a helicopter starts up a jet stream, then the blades will not create lift, moreover, they will also interfere.

            Vooot and the work of the engineers, and let them reward them, either the gyroplane mode, or let the blades fold automatically, in the marine version they are removed for compactness, let it do it in flight, add wings and go laughing
            Yes, and there are gorgeous projects

            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 13: 06
              0
              three times HA, it’s one thing to fold the blades in the parking lot and I’ll find a completely different one, you still suggest that you get into public transport on the go lol
              And your gyroplane also does not fit. His blades are tilted in the opposite direction.
              1. hrych
                hrych 26 July 2017 13: 13
                +1
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                three times xa


                While you laughed there, the engineers are already running experimental models wassat
                1. True
                  True 26 July 2017 13: 57
                  +2
                  ... as if written in the article itself
                  Quote: hrych
                  high-speed helicopter SB> 1 Defiant
              2. hrych
                hrych 26 July 2017 20: 57
                +1
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                what a monstrous dullness the engineers of Osprey froze, and would know how easy it is to fix it

                Clear, I will take note with great pleasure
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 27 July 2017 00: 09
                  0
                  Yes, everything is very simple,
                  Why put the engines in the nacelles at the wingtips if you still have to make a synchronization shaft to work from one engine if the other fails?

                  It’s much wiser to put all the engines in the center of the wing:
                  1) we get scalability; you can set at least 2, at least 4, at least 6 engines to rotate one gearbox, so it will be possible to increase fuel efficiency relative to the flight hour (instead of two gluttonous engines, we set a few more economical ones, and during an airplane flight we reduce their speed and \ or disable some of them)
                  2) we get dust protection, because osprey has problems precisely because of the vertical arrangement of the engineAs a result, a huge amount of dust rises from the ground and then enters the engine, reducing its resource and causing breakdowns (with a horizontal arrangement of the engine there is practically no such problem). It will also simplify the modernization of the tiltrotor (replacing engines).
                  3) we provide the highest protection of them (engines), so the entire fuselage and the entire wing become the protection of the engine and gearbox (the protection of more important components is less important)
                  4) we get it possible to install air filters in front of the air intakes, thereby increasing the life of the engines, which is especially important at sea, in deserted and snowy regions (where something can get into the air intake).
                  5) we get the opportunity to establish a system for reducing visibility in both the thermal and sound spectra (due to the selection of oncoming air)
        2. dauria
          dauria 26 July 2017 13: 02
          +5
          Another dead end branch


          I do not agree. Helicopter in hovering mode is a tiny part of the flight. And the whole structure is sharpened for this mode. Hence the low aerodynamic quality compared to the classic wing. That is why it will lose the tiltrotor both in range and speed.
        3. RASKAT
          RASKAT 26 July 2017 13: 21
          +4
          There are many Pros and Cons. In the first, the cost, I recall the cost of the Osprey program 2.5 billion unit price of more than 100 million (or so). This is of course very expensive, especially for us. Secondly, if we configure the same ones, for example, IL-112, then it will cost 10 times cheaper, and maybe even more. And, in principle, do not concede Osprey to anything, except for vertical takeoff. And in many respects it will certainly be able to take off from the ground in terms of flight range, cost of service, maintainability, etc. IL-112 will be able to take off the ground, and it is not so difficult to find a piece of road 900 meters for takeoff and landing (if it comes to light).
          I just think for such an elementary task as transporting people and goods we do not need such a complex and expensive aircraft. It would be easier and more reliable for us, like AK, for example.
          1. True
            True 26 July 2017 14: 00
            +2
            Quote: RASKAT
            and finding a piece of road 900 meters away for takeoff and landing is not so difficult (if it’s impatient).
            tiltrotor is about the sea
            1. RASKAT
              RASKAT 26 July 2017 14: 17
              +2
              However, they are used in full in Afghanistan. Where is Afghanistan and where is the sea?
              1. sogdy
                sogdy 26 July 2017 14: 35
                +1
                Because they fall over the sea ...
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 19: 19
                  +2
                  Anything besides chatter you have? Maybe information about the place and time of fallen Ospreys who fell over the sea?
        4. jonhr
          jonhr 26 July 2017 15: 29
          +3
          traction from one of the engines is transmitted immediately to both screws. everything is interconnected. or decided that they did not think about engine failure?
          1. hrych
            hrych 26 July 2017 17: 23
            +3
            Quote: jonhr
            or decided that they didn’t think

            So they thought that nowhere else. We take the statistics of disasters, and of the seven dead, two came up performing a combat mission in Afghanistan and Yemen, naturally due to a malfunction. Everyone else just got it right when doing workouts wassat 115 million so banged in training, and all together 800 million. In short, a billion wassat And Senator McCain said: “The V-22 looks great ... when it’s not idle to repair,” McCain refers to Pentagon reports that in Afghanistan, V-22 engines lasted a little more than 200 hours (according to the military, this figure should have been enough would be up to 500-600 hours). Because of this, the cost of one flight hour more than doubled and exceeded $ 10. The same figure for the twin-rotor CH-000 Sea Knight, in short from the Chinook series, is only $ 46.
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 26 July 2017 18: 46
              +1
              it is unfortunate that they did not invite you to carry out design work.
              but in general, if everyone would think in your categories, then probably humanity would not advance beyond the Wright brothers' planes
              1. hrych
                hrych 26 July 2017 19: 22
                +1
                Quote: jonhr
                but in general, if everyone would think in your categories, then probably humanity would not advance beyond the Wright brothers' planes

                There is a way, called a dead end. A tiltrotor, it is. A dead end does not lead to scientific progress, but it slows down. Like the Shuttle, the idea is good, but a dead end, as a result we were led, we spent time and money, but the only launch of Buran was enough to understand the flaw of the scheme, the Americans needed to lose half of the ships and more than a dozen astronauts for the same. The result is the same - dead end and failure. The tiltrotor will suffer the same. In principle, statistics already say that it is time to write off, but lobbyists are pushing. Losses have just begun, but in fact there have not yet been any battles. It was necessary to weed out at the design stage, well, experimental models. And now it's late, failure will be bloody.
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 26 July 2017 20: 37
                  0
                  this dead end has developed a lot of technology. so there may be a dead end for you, but overall it's a breakthrough
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 26 July 2017 20: 55
                    +1
                    Quote: jonhr
                    but overall it's a breakthrough

                    Yes, for God's sake, let a breakthrough. Only you yourself then look carefully at what is advanced there. Antigravity? Plasma? Not at all, a very simple and primitive scheme. Another thing is that turning the screws leads to problems, control with such screws during hovering and landing leads to problems. The result is non-combat losses, gigantic cost, expensive operation, low resource, piloting problems (it’s hard to teach pilots), the impossibility of an emergency landing both in airplane mode (propeller size) and in helicopter mode (problems with autorotation). It’s not us, they themselves say it. Know-how minuscule.
                    1. jonhr
                      jonhr 26 July 2017 21: 52
                      0
                      I don’t understand. Are you out of envy or what?
                      1. NordUral
                        NordUral 28 July 2017 18: 12
                        0
                        What envy, tell me?
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 19: 17
              +2
              Dear grunt, do you know why the osprey has such a short engine life? You probably don’t know, otherwise you would have known what a monstrous stupidity the engineers of Osprey had frozen, and would have known how easy it is to fix it. But it’s much easier for couch analysts to analyze the mistakes of Osprey developers, because it’s much easier to offer to spend the same billions on the development of not one, but several aircraft, this is more “economical” lol
              1. Olegovi4
                Olegovi4 26 July 2017 21: 51
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                otherwise they would have known what a monstrous stupidity the engineers of the dispute froze, and would have known how easy it is to fix it.

                it seems you know. can share with colleagues in VO?
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 27 July 2017 00: 26
                  0
                  described above, the post starts with "Yes, everything is very simple" (search for "Ctrl + F") there, point to number 2, it also describes how to solve the problem of osprey.

                  Of course, there are other jambs of development, especially a lot of jambs were allowed during the tests, because of which many problems got out at the beginning of serial use.

                  In my opinion, we (the Russian Federation) would ideally fit a tiltrotor with a payload of 10-15 tons (one armored car-armored truck or equipment in the TEU form factor) above I described for what and how.
        5. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 28 July 2017 13: 27
          0
          The engines of the V-280 will be motionless: only the screws will tilt when switching from helicopter to airplane mode.
          A witty decision to make rotary gearboxes with screws. Such a scheme is much simpler than the previous version, where the engines rotated. Well done!
      3. faiver
        faiver 26 July 2017 12: 50
        0
        as for the civilian version, it all depends on the cost of the flight hour, and it can be very high with such a device ...
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 13: 00
          +1
          Quote: faiver
          and it can be very high with such a device ...

          Well, let's calculate what is more expensive in fuel
          range: 1000km
          speed mi 8: 225 km / h => 1000/225 = 4,44 h
          spraying speed: 510km / h => 1000/510 = 1.96h
          so the Opprey has flight time and therefore fuel consumption is 2,265 times lower.
          1. sogdy
            sogdy 26 July 2017 14: 45
            0
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            so the Opprey has flight time and therefore fuel consumption is 2,265 times lower.

            These are not visible fuel consumption per time / mileage.
            Yes, and lead to what? Usually - to the payload.
            + preflight + postflight expenses.

            So, gyroplanes lost to helicopters. Devastating.
            Yes, and airships ...

            Gorky had a bunch of developments. All failed at the cost of operation.
          2. faiver
            faiver 26 July 2017 15: 13
            +1
            the difference in fuel consumption at 1000km by half a ton is in favor of the osprey, but the mi-8 in 8-10 is cheaper than the osprey ...
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 19: 22
              0
              so why is it more expensive? the same engines the same body. Probably the cost is higher not because it is a tiltrotor, but because of something else, you guess why? laughing
          3. Black Colonel
            Black Colonel 28 July 2017 13: 29
            0
            Well, let's calculate what is more expensive in fuel
            range: 1000km
            speed mi 8: 225 km / h => 1000/225 = 4,44 h
            spraying speed: 510km / h => 1000/510 = 1.96h
            so the Opprey has flight time and therefore fuel consumption is 2,265 times lower.

            Here you also need to compare the costs of maintaining the landing site (airfield). And it costs a lot of money.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 29 July 2017 08: 24
              0
              Quote: Black Colonel
              Here you also need to compare the costs of maintaining the landing site (airfield). And it costs a lot of money.

              and why will it be different? and there and there everything is the same. what
      4. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 July 2017 12: 52
        +3
        "That convertiplane without options will crash" ////

        No. Osprey can land on one rotor.
        Comp. takes control and calculates sustainability
        upon landing.
        1. A1845
          A1845 26 July 2017 13: 06
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Osprey can land on one rotor

          and his engines are connected by a synchronizing shaft, the failure of one engine will not kill the car
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 13: 12
            0
            Quote: A1845
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Osprey can land on one rotor

            and his engines are connected by a synchronizing shaft, the failure of one engine will not kill the car

            ohh, the demagoguery begins, they say "unreliably", "and if it breaks," only there is an iron argument for the turntables also have a power take-off shaft on the rear screw
            1. A1845
              A1845 26 July 2017 13: 44
              0
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              ooo scha begin demagogy supposedly "unreliable"
              and what happens if a rocket hits it wink
            2. Just me
              Just me 26 July 2017 13: 45
              +2
              ProkletyiPirat
              The pinwheel is much more compact and maneuverable
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              there is an iron argument for turntables also have a power take-off shaft on the rear screw

              Show this shaft on Kamov series
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 20: 00
                0
                Kamov’s co-aligners have the most severe restrictions on the length of the blades and, therefore, on the maximum load, because in fact all heavyweights are made with a tail rotor.
                As for compactness and maneuverability, this is your nonsense, a transport helicopter does not need maneuverability, but the speed of transportation and the mass of cargo are needed, and compactness is generally atypod of any transporter.
                1. Just me
                  Just me 27 July 2017 06: 52
                  0
                  ProkletyiPirat
                  I didn’t write any nonsense about maneuverability. And I absolutely do not mind the use of such vehicles as transporters somewhere far away from the immediate combat zone
        2. Just me
          Just me 26 July 2017 13: 42
          +1
          voyaka uh
          Quote: voyaka uh
          No. Osprey can land on one rotor.
          Comp. takes control and calculates sustainability
          upon landing.

          And if the war is serious and a couple of MANPADS have flown?
          If you recall the story so gyroplanes were still at one time, It’s also difficult, expensive and nothing
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 20: 03
            +1
            MANPAD missile’s flight speed exceeds the speed of flight of both the helicopter and the tiltrotor, so that none of them will run away from it, only the tiltrotor flying on an airplane will have more time to launch traps and leave the affected area
        3. Just me
          Just me 26 July 2017 13: 54
          0
          voyaka uh
          Quote: voyaka uh
          No. Osprey can land on one rotor.
          Comp. takes control and calculates sustainability
          upon landing.

          How IT with its centering and aerodynamics can land on one engine? I really doubt it. If you have facts, please provide
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 26 July 2017 14: 31
            +1
            Details here:
            https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-V-22-Osprey-ma
            ke-a-forced-landing
            Conclusions:
            1) If one motor fails, then the energy of the second is redistributed
            on both screws.
            2) If one screw is broken, that is, the possibility of aircraft planning
            (wing area allows) for emergency landing.
            3) Helicopter autorotation is also possible.
            1. Just me
              Just me 26 July 2017 15: 44
              0
              voyaka uh Looked I saw an advertisement and a theory A really: MANPADS flew in, there was no half-wing engine, what next? How, explain
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 26 July 2017 15: 49
                +4
                "But really: MANPADS flew" //// "

                But really not one Osprey was shot down from MANPADS yet.
                What answer would you like to receive if there were no examples in practice?
                ("But really: if a whale attacks an elephant, who will get over it?" laughing )
                1. Just me
                  Just me 26 July 2017 16: 05
                  0
                  voyaka uh Sorry, this is military equipment and the fate of the states is decided there and whether the fighter will survive in a SERIOUS conflict in this vehicle. Osprey is the trouble in such a conflict. Whale and elephant are about nothing.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 26 July 2017 16: 14
                    +4
                    When discussing military equipment, they discuss it on the basis of:
                    1) known performance characteristics
                    2) application practices
                    For example: S-300/400 has excellent performance characteristics, but no practice
                    Patriot has all the TTX worse, but there is a practice of application. In these cases
                    there is something to talk about and what to compare.
                    You bring absolutely hypothetical "and if", and demand some
                    reasonable answers.
                    Osprey participated in many landing operations of marines, committed
                    flights over thousands of kilometers, suffered accidents and disasters, but their
                    never shot down from MANPADS. hi
                    1. Just me
                      Just me 26 July 2017 16: 40
                      0
                      voyaka uh Well yes there is Osproya How to apply it in case of war with a SERIOUS adversary? By the way, when there is no engine and half wing, you will not answer
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Osprey participated in many landing operations of marines, committed
                      flights over thousands of kilometers, suffered accidents and disasters, but their
                      never shot down from MANPADS.

                      Combat operations call
                      1. telobezumnoe
                        telobezumnoe 26 July 2017 17: 21
                        +3
                        and if you don’t have a helicopter, your tail blown off .. what a stupid thing and if. in view of the airplane layout, it has great energy efficiency .. and the advantages of a helicopter in terms of take-off and landing ... expensive? so you need to compare the human hours invested in development
                      2. Black Colonel
                        Black Colonel 28 July 2017 13: 34
                        +1
                        By the way, when there is no engine and half wing, you will not answer
                        And when there is no engine and half-wing in an airplane does he have more chances to land?
                2. Just me
                  Just me 26 July 2017 16: 16
                  +1
                  voyaka uh
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  But really not one Osprey was shot down from MANPADS yet.

                  And in what real hostilities did the Osprey take part?
                  1. ZVO
                    ZVO 26 July 2017 22: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: Simple

                    And in what real hostilities did the Osprey take part?


                    Those. the fact that Osprey is armed with only special forces of the Air Force, special forces of the US MTR, the United States Marine Corps and participated in Libya and Syria and Iraq, and in Afghanistan there are dozens of them, is not enough to just understand that these machines is it a combat use?
                    1. Just me
                      Just me 27 July 2017 06: 58
                      0
                      ZVO
                      Guys, all these conflicts are just the beating of babies and you understand this very well. I repeat: I am absolutely not against such cars, but only away from the war zone
        4. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 26 July 2017 14: 20
          0
          Like Chinook, by the way ...
      5. Just me
        Just me 26 July 2017 13: 37
        0
        RASKAT
        Quote: RASKAT
        If, when a MANPADS hits, the helicopter can still land on autorotation (there are a lot of such facts), of course there are many nuances, but still. That tiltrotor without options will crash

        That's complicated, expensive, but why?
      6. alexmach
        alexmach 26 July 2017 14: 24
        +2
        That tiltrotor without options will collapse.

        Why no options then? Suddenly able to plan? Or take a plane on one engine?
      7. Div Divich
        Div Divich 26 July 2017 15: 19
        0
        For local flights in Russia, many turboprop aircraft are needed (100 at least), now they are just recovering the production of these aircraft. IL 112 (cargo), IL-114 (passenger). Previously, An occupied this niche, now he has left the Russian market.
  2. pjastolov
    pjastolov 26 July 2017 12: 29
    +2
    In 2019, several AW609s in the search and rescue version will be delivered to the United Arab Emirates Joint Aviation Command.
    interesting, but what will hiccup? recourse
    1. hrych
      hrych 26 July 2017 12: 36
      +1
      Quote: pjastolov
      and what will they hiccup?

      downed pilots, shipwrecked, lost camels
      1. pjastolov
        pjastolov 26 July 2017 12: 59
        +3
        stray camels
        good
  3. magadan72
    magadan72 26 July 2017 12: 34
    +2
    Convertibles are absolutely necessary for our Navy. In principle, they are indispensable for landing operations during over-horizon landing, in rescue operations to rescue pilots of downed planes and various special operations, and not only the Navy. A very necessary machine for the national economy. There is also no information about the development of our designers ...
    1. A1845
      A1845 26 July 2017 13: 10
      0
      Quote: magadan72
      Convertibles are absolutely necessary for our Navy
      at 1.5 thousand km range, such a machine is needed by all types of armed forces
    2. sogdy
      sogdy 26 July 2017 15: 03
      0
      Quote: magadan72
      There is not even information about the development of our designers ...

      "Model Designer" 60x-70x.
      Quote: magadan72
      indispensable for landing operations during over-the-horizon landing, in rescue operations to rescue pilots of downed planes

      No, well, fighters also looked visually ...
      And directly from point to point - there is a sea, there is a wave on it!
      And not a single “computer” will save - the Americans to help. This thing is more sensitive than an air cushion.
      And about the over-horizon landing - the same damage, take-off and decline over the water surface. Is the landing only calm? And a piece of wood on redan goes through everything. And they throw her.
  4. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 26 July 2017 12: 36
    +2
    An interesting model. The fuselage, apparently, was cut from the UH-60. I wonder what will come out in the end.
  5. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 12: 39
    +1
    I don’t understand why Bell Osprey didn’t suit them? request
    1. spirit
      spirit 26 July 2017 13: 12
      +1
      This is a more advanced design, there is no need to twist the entire engine installation, but only the Screw, and it looks better in Aerodynamics)
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 26 July 2017 15: 36
        0
        and payload they are in different niches. more powerful
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 27 July 2017 13: 48
          0
          1) you can also place the engine on osprey
          2) why do you need the 280th if there is a 22nd?
  6. Belyash
    Belyash 26 July 2017 12: 51
    0
    Interesting thing. An unmanned one would be.
  7. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 26 July 2017 13: 01
    +1
    Who makes a rotary screw, in applied mechanics - a set-off.
    It is difficult to imagine what are the requirements for backlash in this design.
    When launched in the V-280 series, the Osprey with a rotary engine and a frantic price will be quickly discontinued.
    The next step will be the transformation of the propellers in flight.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 28 July 2017 18: 20
      0
      So offset or not offset?
      1. Serzh_R
        Serzh_R 31 July 2017 08: 34
        0
        We'll see.
  8. pavelty
    pavelty 26 July 2017 13: 01
    0
    The decision that it is much easier to rotate the screws, and not the whole engine, that’s interesting for me, is to design such a rotary assembly, and the reliability is higher ...
    1. sogdy
      sogdy 26 July 2017 15: 18
      0
      This problem is considered in textbooks of the 30s.
      Three rotation options. All estimates have a high (up to 15%) probability of failure.
      Unless the materials have changed.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 28 July 2017 18: 21
      0
      Just the opposite.
  9. Evil 55
    Evil 55 26 July 2017 13: 02
    +2
    "Osprey" ate 30 lard bucks of American taxpayers, and never learned to fly stably .. How much now will this next "miracle" be required ..
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 13: 10
      0
      not an argument, they have more cuts, and what's the problem to take into account the mistakes of the osprey and prevent them?
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 26 July 2017 15: 11
        +1
        Since they’ve been developing convertiplanes since the forties, the groundwork is huge and yet they haven’t been able to solve all the problems in osprey. Apparently the scheme itself combines not only the advantage of a helicopter and an airplane, but also their shortcomings, the latter being very difficult to overcome.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 20: 11
          +1
          making test models is one thing, and getting useful knowledge from these models is completely different, they made a mistake with the location of the engines, in the 280th they try to fix this problem, but somehow through ...
      2. sogdy
        sogdy 26 July 2017 15: 21
        0
        But sho, didn’t we make our mistakes? Did the world once again start from scratch ?!
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 26 July 2017 15: 13
      0
      Osprey ate 30 lard bucks of American taxpayers, and never learned to fly stably ..

      What do you mean did not learn to fly? It is in service with the same.
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 28 July 2017 18: 22
        0
        Ponty all this.
    3. ZVO
      ZVO 26 July 2017 22: 41
      +1
      Quote: Evil 55
      "Osprey" ate 30 lard bucks of American taxpayers, and never learned to fly stably .. How much now will this next "miracle" be required ..


      First, the program totaled 60 billion.
      Secondly, not a single technical accident since 2010.
      And before that, there were quite a few accidents.
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 July 2017 13: 05
    +4
    V-22 Osprey proved to be not the most reliable and not the cheapest device. High-speed helicopters with coaxial propellers seem somehow more "proportional" or something.
    1. Just me
      Just me 26 July 2017 14: 03
      0
      Mountain shooter
      You correctly formulated Like
    2. True
      True 26 July 2017 14: 07
      +1
      A Lamborghini looks more proportional than a land cruiser, don’t you?
      1. sogdy
        sogdy 26 July 2017 15: 22
        0
        No.
        And what did you mean to say.
        1. True
          True 26 July 2017 15: 53
          +1
          VTOL with a helicopter is not correctly compared.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 July 2017 15: 13
      +1
      Reliability Osprey coped. She caught up with the helicopter.
      Although it took 10 years.
      The price has remained very high. Therefore, they make Valor, which will be cheaper.
      But sometimes it makes sense to pay extra for a speed of 500 km / h.
      1. True
        True 26 July 2017 16: 02
        +1
        If you believe Wikipedia, osprey rises to 7000 and 700 km range
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 July 2017 20: 16
          0
          the range of his flight at full refueling is up to 3340km, 700km is the usual range of operation (i.e., combat radius), it is calculated not from the flight range, but from speed, flight speed * 1,5h = combat radius
  11. Brushing
    Brushing 26 July 2017 15: 13
    +3
    Some garbage, not a flying ...)))
    1. True
      True 26 July 2017 15: 54
      +1
      Such garbage on Kuz oh would be useful
    2. Just me
      Just me 26 July 2017 16: 12
      0
      Still short capaciously and from the heart
  12. LPD17
    LPD17 26 July 2017 21: 08
    0
    but we have a lot of wonderful toys in Skolkovo
    Prime knows!
    Kuzhugetych should have replaced the iPhone as it was, but to send him a car of toys from Alishka to comfort)))
  13. Arakius
    Arakius 26 July 2017 23: 13
    0
    Quote: hrych
    Quote: RASKAT
    It’s a pity we are behind in this regard

    Here, after all, it is not necessary to air defense systems, any malfunction with one of the engines and cranks:

    Osprey has a shaft inside the wing that connects both screws through the gearbox. In the event of a failure of one engine, Osprey may land on the remainder. Here, apparently, the same scheme will be applied.
  14. Div Divich
    Div Divich 27 July 2017 02: 40
    0
    Hybrid propellers are bad, it would be better if take-off propellers would be removed during flight, or integrated into the front and rear wings.
  15. Just me
    Just me 27 July 2017 09: 40
    0
    telobezumnoe,
    Quote: telobezumnoe
    and if you don’t have a helicopter, your tail blown off .. what a stupid thing and if. in kind

    I agree Stupidly Burns and falls
  16. NordUral
    NordUral 28 July 2017 18: 00
    +1
    The weak point is precisely in the rotary screws. And so - a good thing. true against the Papuans (nothing offensive to the cute Papuans in my words is not).