Military Review

The first prototype of the military convertoplan V-280 Valor made the first flight

50
According to the American company Bell Helicopter (part of Textron Corporation), the 18 of December 2017 of the year in Amarillo (Texas) made the first flight of the first prototype of the military convertilana V-280 Valor (so-called Air Vehicle Demonstrator - AVCD, registration number N280BH).


The V-280 tiltrotor is being developed jointly by Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin Corporation as a competitive bid for the US Army tender on the program for creating promising helicopters for the Army aviation Future Vertical Lift (FVL), blog post bmpd.

The first prototype of the military convertoplan V-280 Valor made the first flight


The creation of the V-280 is carried out by the so-called Team Valor alliance of Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Moog, IAI, TRU Simulation & Training, Astronics, Eaton, GKN Aerospace, Lord, Meggitt and Spirit AeroSystems. The V-280 tiltrotor with a crew of four is supposed to carry 14 military personnel. With a maximum take-off weight of about 30 thousand pounds (13620 kg; unlikely to be sustained), the device should have a maximum payload of up to 10 thousand pounds (4540 kg). The machine is almost entirely made of composite materials and equipped with two turboshaft engines. The difference between the V-280 and the previous types of convertiplanes (in particular, the V-22 Ospey) is the rotation not completely of nacelles with engines, but only of the propellers, due to the hinge shafts.

Prototypes of the V-280 will be equipped with engines of the General Electric T64 series, however serial vehicles must be equipped with promising turboshaft engines that the US Army will choose according to the FATE program. The cruising speed of the car should be 280 knots (520 km / h, hence the index "280"), the maximum - more than 300 knots (560 km / h). The ferry range is declared in 3900 km, the range (depending on the load) is from 930 to 1480 km.

Now the US Army considers it possible to start entering JMR-Medium vehicles in 2035, although Bell claims that it can bring V-280 to the start of serial production seven to ten years earlier.

Photos used:
(c) Bell Helicopter
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bogart047
    bogart047 19 December 2017 12: 35
    +4
    what ... well done. Good car. And we would like that.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 19 December 2017 12: 50
      +3
      Convertiplanes (the same Mi-30) were and were developed in the USSR, but then they decided to move away from this topic.
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 19 December 2017 13: 07
        +1
        Interestingly, our 100 lards will be enough for them to bring the device to mind and start production, or else they will take it from the Chinese?
      2. The_lancet
        The_lancet 19 December 2017 13: 09
        0
        Who can competently compile a list of all the "minuses" of the Convertible as a transport of the future for the army?
        Please write only if the site visitor understands this topic.
        It is very interesting to know the opinion from the Russian side.
        1. bulvas
          bulvas 19 December 2017 13: 16
          +1
          Quote: The_Lancet
          Who can competently compile a list of all the "minuses" of the Convertible as a transport of the future for the army?
          Please write only if the site visitor understands this topic.
          It is very interesting to know the opinion from the Russian side.


          It is clear that this type of aircraft is needed, if only in order to develop a new

          Cons, like any new technology, is inevitable, but they will be eliminated over time.

          You need to move forward and having money helps a lot
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 19 December 2017 14: 06
          10
          Cons at first glance are not even visible.
          1. The complexity of the engine-screw bundle, respectively, greater attention to service.
          2. Fault tolerance, if one of the engines - 100% Khan fails, it will be quite spectacular to tumble. An ordinary spinner has a chance to land on autorotation.
          3. At first, Osprey, there was a problem of group take-off from a helicopter carrier or avik. Air flows from a neighboring car could easily turn the device. And you won’t calculate in any way ... It was unlikely to be decided, rather, the order of takeoff was changed.
          4. The same question about combat damage, how survivable this unit is is unknown.
          5. Fuel efficiency is questionable compared to helicopters.
          6. In general, the kinematics of a tiltrotor — check out the size of the propellers (obviously heavier than the helicopter ones) and the location of the engines (the center of gravity walks with a shaker, electronics are most likely used for stability).
          Expensive US Army toys. They can afford it. In the civilian sector, they seem to be not observed, which speaks volumes.
          1. S-kerrigan
            S-kerrigan 20 December 2017 07: 52
            0
            2. Fault tolerance, if one of the engines - 100% Khan fails, it will be quite spectacular to tumble. An ordinary spinner has a chance to land on autorotation.

            Ahhh, nohh, here you are already mistaken ... Have you ever seen, heard that a plane with two engines is more reliable than with one?
            So, a tiltrotor is capable, oddly enough, of being both a turntable and an airplane.
            If you land in airplane mode, it will land.
            Further, a through transmission is inside the wing segment. Osprey today is able to transmit power through it from one engine to two blocks with an impeller. Not for long, producing a resource in the trash, but capable.
            1. Piramidon
              Piramidon 20 December 2017 15: 47
              0
              Quote: S-Kerrigan
              If you land in airplane mode, it will land.

              He can’t sit down on an airplane; he gouges the runway with screws.
              1. S-kerrigan
                S-kerrigan 21 December 2017 04: 32
                0
                Just before touching the GDP, the screws are deflected by the required degree.
                Well? Everything, now no longer gouging. Run out of empty excuses?

                “They” are already able to calculate even the return of the first step back to the ground, in an upright position and do it in two whole “faces” (Mask / Bezos). They certainly know how to land a tiltrotor, if there is an opportunity and a necessity.
                1. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 21 December 2017 10: 53
                  0
                  Quote: S-Kerrigan
                  Just before touching the GDP, the screws are deflected by the required degree.

                  So if the rotation of the screws will work, he will sit down in a helicopter. The question is if the rotation system fails and the screws remain in the “airplane” position.
                  1. S-kerrigan
                    S-kerrigan 25 December 2017 05: 37
                    0
                    Well, I see that I have clearly clarified poorly - imagine a situation where the destruction or deformation of mechanisms on one side occurred.
                    Like a helicopter, he can neither fly nor sit down - the impeller rotates from only one of the sides. But flying like an airplane can. It is clear that this will be a “lame fat” with a permanent blockage on one of the sides. Nevertheless, not a stone to the bottom. And already approaching the runway will be able to raise the propeller sowing "in drift mode."

                    In all this, the main thing is that even if it’s beaten, it can still plant people.
                    1. Wedmak
                      Wedmak 27 December 2017 09: 01
                      0
                      the impeller rotates from only one of the sides. But flying like an airplane can. It is clear that this will be a “lame fat” with a permanent blockage on one of the sides.

                      He will not be able to fly like an airplane. The lifting force of his underwing is too small. Failure of one of the engines will lead to a very fast roll and coup. The pilot simply does not have time to do anything. He has the same point of application of traction at different ends of the wings, so imagine a lever and its strength ... Moreover, the traction is both vertical and horizontal.
                      Electronics also help a little, even if you switch the thrust to one engine. According to statistics, most accidents occur during take-off and landing. This is if you exclude combat damage. A few meters or tens of meters to the earth, a second thought.
                      1. S-kerrigan
                        S-kerrigan 27 December 2017 09: 49
                        0
                        Ok, I have outlined what I know (based on logic and their statements). You tell me your point of view (based on the same logic).
                        How is it really? Well, it is necessary to go to the United States Commission, which, I'm sorry, I still will not do it.
        3. ZVO
          ZVO 19 December 2017 14: 29
          +1
          Quote: The_Lancet
          Who can competently compile a list of all the "minuses" of the Convertible as a transport of the future for the army?
          Please write only if the site visitor understands this topic.
          It is very interesting to know the opinion from the Russian side.


          The only negative is its transmission. Rather, implementation and synchronization.
          Otherwise, there are no minuses.

          Evolutionarily. in ten years - it will be a very high-quality and reliable device.
        4. Aqr009
          Aqr009 19 December 2017 15: 03
          +2
          Perhaps the disadvantage is the high requirements for pilot class. The pilot must simultaneously possess the skills of both an airplane pilot and a helicopter pilot. Perhaps that’s why there are already 4 people in the crew!

          In addition, the cost of error is incredibly high at the moment of transition from vertical to horizontal flight and vice versa, when the lifting force of the wing is insufficient, and the direction of propeller thrust is already changing. At this moment, the device is particularly sensitive to various gusts of wind, or a violation of the alignment of the load.
        5. gridasov
          gridasov 19 December 2017 19: 31
          +2
          Quote: The_Lancet
          Who can competently make a list of all the "minuses"

          At the moment, you can even do without a list. The principle of operation of the blades is completely ineffective. Therefore, the glow of the tip of the blades, which is clearly visible in the dark, indicates that they operate at critical rotation modes., And any turbulent flows in the flight space will instantly lead to their destruction. Moreover, the transition moment of change of the plane of rotation of the blades is very dangerous. If you recall the principles of operation of a gyroscope or a unipolar engine, then everything will become clear. Everything else in the form of noise, the dimensions of the rotating blades, as well as imbalance in the speed of rotation or plane of rotation has a significant imperfection. Therefore, there is a conversation about the use of a fundamentally new type of propulsion, which eliminates all these shortcomings.
        6. gromoboj
          gromoboj 19 December 2017 20: 58
          +1
          From the point of view of the MAI graduate, I see the following problems, conclusions are drawn based on well-known facts about v22. Perhaps some things have been fixed. Some can’t be corrected in principle.
          Disadvantages of convertiplanes:
          - Small screws. The size of the propeller is limited by the distance from its center to the fuselage. Also, large screws create great resistance in horizontal flight. And in helicopter mode, small propellers create less lift. Efficiency is less. Either engines should be more powerful or the design is as light as possible. In v22 we went the second way.
          - The complex and heavy mechanism for turning the nacelles and wings, they add up, otherwise you won’t put such an aircraft carrier. It may be necessary to synchronize the motors with the shaft. Either larger engines or lightweight construction are needed. We chose the second. Because a powerful engine eats a lot and this reduces the radius of action. A lightweight construction can be done by applying something lighter than aluminum, such as carbon fiber. I don’t know how it will hold bullets.
          - You probably can’t put something serious from a weapon in your nose. Will break the weight distribution. In the side hatches, too, you can shoot the engines yourself. You can put something in the back, but also not very large-caliber because again the weight distribution.
          - What is now heated on v280, is the interior airtight now? On v-22, everything was not very good. And at an altitude of 6 km it is very unpleasant to fly there.
          - Due to small screws, emergency landing on autorotation is impossible. An emergency landing on an airplane seems to be suicide.
          - The screws are subject to a “vortex ring”. For a twin-screw machine - deadly.
          - I don’t know how much v22 they lost in percentage terms, but I think not a little. The overall complexity of the design does not increase reliability and does not add resistance to combat damage.
          - I can be mistaken, but the tiltrotor raises more dust than a helicopter.


          Another detail. Never, never, not a single US president flew a convertiplane.
          They say the secret service does not allow.
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 19 December 2017 22: 35
            0
            It is necessary to say the main thing that there must be a solution that can change the situation.
          2. S-kerrigan
            S-kerrigan 20 December 2017 08: 12
            0
            I will help with current info - there is a shaft for connecting two impellers to each other. Opprey is now able to fly on one engine. Landing on an airplane is just regulated, as possible in a critical situation.
        7. gromoboj
          gromoboj 19 December 2017 21: 15
          0
          Here, by the way, the article https://topwar.ru/20699-v-22-ospri.html
          all advents with ospri are listed there.
    2. Scoun
      Scoun 19 December 2017 13: 09
      +3
      Quote: bogart047
      what ... well done. Good car. And we would like that.

      It looks very, very decent, cruising speed is good .... IMHA is one minus, the crew is 4 people, ideally 2 people.
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Convertiplanes (the same Mi-30) were and were developed in the USSR, but then they decided to move away from this topic.

      In fact, they didn’t help us, they were in aviation and space, in general, I mean that we HAVE to be here and now, today.
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 19 December 2017 13: 18
        0
        Quote: Scoun
        IMHA one minus crew 4 people


        So it's probably arrows
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 December 2017 13: 33
      +4
      Quote: bogart047
      And we would like that.

      Why is this under-airplane needed? We are following the path of high-speed helicopters with a maximum speed of 450-500 km. This is enough for now.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 December 2017 14: 06
        +2
        "We are on the path of high-speed helicopters" ////

        Where to go? A tiltrotor, like a vertical aircraft, is a complex engineering task.
        The most difficult thing is not even mechanics (Russia would have dealt with it), but automation - an automatic transition from vertical to horizontal flight and vice versa.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 19 December 2017 14: 11
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Where to go? A tiltrotor, like a vertical aircraft, is a complex engineering task.

          These “complex” tasks, even with the union, were solved even, if sclerosis does not change me, in the 70s.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 19 December 2017 14: 12
            +2
            But without serial samples, as usual.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 19 December 2017 14: 15
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              But without serial samples, as usual.

              But why the hell if they chose a different path? For example, did the same MI-24 perform poorly in Afghanistan?
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 19 December 2017 15: 13
                +1
                Russia makes good helicopters, I do not argue.
                But tiltrotor more strategic, if you can call it that, weapons.
                They fly much faster and at times over large distances.
                Osprey made non-stop intercontinental flights
                (with refueling in the air).
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 19 December 2017 15: 19
                  +3
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  They fly much faster and at times over large distances.

                  Sense of this speed, if it is still a low-speed aircraft? At the same time, he has two large propellers, which are even better visible on the radar than one helicopter. At the same time, this product is technically more complicated, which will often result in frequent breakdowns, headaches from techies, etc. ... and for me it’s all not worth it.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 19 December 2017 16: 14
                    +2
                    A simple example: you want to land special forces 1000 km from your base.
                    The helicopter will not fly - far.
                    The plane cannot land - you need a parachute landing (with all its problems).
                    Exit: only tiltrotor.
                    1. Vadim Kurbatov
                      Vadim Kurbatov 20 December 2017 05: 36
                      0
                      Why throw someone over a thousand kilometers? if the conflict then it will be considered as the deep rear of the potential enemy and air defense can detect such a bandura easier to deliver to the front line and then cross it on your own
                  2. S-kerrigan
                    S-kerrigan 20 December 2017 08: 15
                    +1
                    Time! Everything is decided by time. Conditionally, Osprey is twice as capable of arriving at its destination. And in those cases when the score goes for minutes, it is simply super-important. For example, the same Syria. Suppose someone was injured and in the next 30 minutes he needs to be on the table at the surgeon, otherwise everything can no longer help. For this, I would like to see Osprey in our troops.

                    Those. whether the soldiers survive or not ... have time or not. For me, this is already only enough to have such a technique, at least in piece copies.
                2. gromoboj
                  gromoboj 19 December 2017 21: 20
                  0
                  One question. What for ? What kind of task is this, to take off by helicopter, fly across the ocean with refueling and again board the helicopter?
        2. Topotun
          Topotun 19 December 2017 15: 03
          +3
          It is arguable that the combat survivability of such Pepelats is much inferior to conventional helicopters and aircraft. In peacetime, yes, there are a number of advantages, although by and large I would consider it cheaper. The cost of an MI-26 flight hour is about 600000 rubles. The cost of an OV-22 flight hour is $ 80000 (if the media do not lie). Feel the difference ...
  2. HEATHER
    HEATHER 19 December 2017 12: 42
    +1
    But simple helicopters are out of the question? Why make a fence if there are no bears. OSPRE did not seem to be very good. Judging by the number of karastrof and accidents.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 19 December 2017 12: 52
      +3
      Quote: VERESK
      And simple helicopters are not in the subject?

      You just take an interest in speed and range with the same weight and fuel supply, and you will understand why the US government spends so much money and suffers corruption and jambs of engineers ...
      1. HEATHER
        HEATHER 19 December 2017 12: 56
        +2
        https://youtu.be/9ubXJPPFp-AYou just ask about the speed and range of flight with the same weight and fuel supply I know this very well. At one time we tried to build something similar. Praise to Allah did not happen. Look at the statistics of disasters and accidents of this pepelats. Although, in some ways, I agree with you.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 19 December 2017 13: 27
          +2
          Quote: VERESK
          View statistics on disasters and accidents of this pepelats

          To everyone who wants to “send a look,” I advise you to go see the number of car accidents occurring in the country for 1 year, and then go to a rally on the prohibition of vehicles and the transition to green environmentally friendly bicycles. hi
          If this does not convince you, I advise you to carefully analyze the causes of all the accidents and problems of Osprey, well, or read other articles on this topic from this site, it has already been discussed more than once how to solve all the Opprey problems in the implementation of the Russian convertiplane. Start another holivar I see no reason. Who wanted one already figured it out ..
  3. Alexander War
    Alexander War 19 December 2017 12: 43
    +2
    Bell decides to cut the dough to the left laughing Osprey already drank, now a new drank
    1. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 19 December 2017 13: 11
      +1
      "sawing" everything ...
      Only, our "fire will write everything off" ((
      They, although prototypes (still worthless), but "live", and are improving slowly, albeit expensively, but not "in the furnace", with rare exceptions
      1. True
        True 19 December 2017 14: 52
        +1
        Meanwhile, in Russia, the workers of the Vostochny cosmodrome laid out in the snow with their bare backs "help me."
  4. Sierra
    Sierra 19 December 2017 12: 53
    0
    Please explain why this type of transport is needed ....
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 19 December 2017 13: 12
      +5
      Quote: Sierra
      Please explain why this type of transport is needed ....

      Briefly if.
      The speed of the aircraft, takeoff and landing of the helicopter.
      We only in D. Vostok for small aircraft, such shushpantserov in several hundred it is necessary and it without military and the Ministry of Emergency Situations.
      Just not as complicated as the first generation of envelopes.
      1. Topotun
        Topotun 19 December 2017 14: 56
        +3
        It is quite enough for us in the Far East to have DEVELOP small (or light-engine) aviation (as it was in the USSR). Build a field airfield is not a problem. The weather stability of such devices is no different from ordinary ones. And a network of such airfields would be preferable to several from which the tiltrotopes take off. If only because they will have access from a larger number of settlements. And they would provide people with work.
  5. Strength
    Strength 19 December 2017 14: 52
    +1
    Today, Boeing must provide a super plane. Will there be an online presentation? Who knows? https://naked-science.ru/article/tech/boeing-anon
    sirovala-prezentaciyu
  6. gridasov
    gridasov 19 December 2017 19: 49
    0
    A huge number of different prototypes allows American engineers to maintain the level of ability to produce new types of La. At the same time, switching to manufacturing a series of samples is only a matter of financial costs. At the same time, smart people understand that sooner or later breakthrough ideas appear that fundamentally change a person’s ability to fly more efficiently and use technologies that are not always immediately clear. Therefore, it is extremely important to simply be prepared to accept what may not be right now, but at the next moment everything changes.
    Do not forget that in addition to competition in the race for the development of certain technologies, there is also a general evolutionary process, which is driven by the totality of development processes.
  7. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 19 December 2017 22: 09
    +1
    Still, we live in an interesting time. In the USA, v-280 and s-97 clashed in the competition, in Europe, work is underway on a combined helicopter (like x3 it was called if the program was not renamed again) and the Italians bring aw609 to mind. We Milevts work out new blades on the Mi-24ll. It is expected that they will be able to provide an increase in cruising and maximum speeds by 20-25% for helicopters with a take-off weight of 11 to 13 tons, i.e. almost all of our army aviation fleet with the exception of the mi-26.
    I wonder whose approach is more pragmatic, ours or Western? Which is better: a new niche car or the potential to tighten the characteristics of the entire fleet? Or is the race for the ghost of speed once more intoxicating? how do you think?
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 19 December 2017 22: 32
      0
      All this stomping on the spot. Everyone came up against the same problem. Only a fundamentally new solution can change the situation in which it is actually possible to equalize the differences between all types of aircraft.
  8. Conductor
    Conductor 20 December 2017 09: 00
    0
    Strange, Osprey did not seem to go.
  9. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 20 December 2017 15: 35
    +4
    Too complicated device in my opinion. Under-helicopter and under-plane. Neither fish nor fowl. Maybe it will turn out something more worthwhile, but not soon.