Military Review

The newest American convertiplane V-280 Valor flew in an airplane

59
Promising American convertible glider V-280 Valor, developed by Bell Helicopter, 15 on May 2018 of the year made its first flight in aircraft mode, reports "nplus1" with reference to Defense News. During these tests, the aircraft developed speed in 190 nodes (about 352 kilometers per hour).


The newest American convertiplane V-280 Valor flew in an airplane


Details about the tests were not disclosed. Probably, the experts checked the transit flight mode during the transition from the “helicopter” configuration to the “aircraft” configuration and back. The performance of the onboard equipment and propeller turning mechanisms was also evaluated.

In total, V-280 has spent 27 hours in the air so far. The convertoplane has already passed ground tests, made several flights in helicopter mode, including with a slight inclination of the propellers. In addition, experts checked the work of the onboard equipment of the device.

The V-280 is being developed as part of a JMR tender as a new army transport aircraft designed for the rapid transfer of fighters and cargo over long distances. According to the requirements of the military, such a device must be capable of vertical takeoff and landing.

Photos used:
bellhelicopter.com
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vkl.47
    vkl.47 17 May 2018 11: 55
    +6
    The machine is certainly interesting. But it does not inspire confidence. Painful mechanisms are painful. And sensitive to pollution. And these are possible breakdowns. Often with these devices the stories happen
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 12: 17
      +4
      where is it written about?
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 17 May 2018 12: 39
        0
        Yes, an interesting contraption, but very expensive and fuel eats unmeasured.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 15: 28
          +3
          and where is it written about?
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 17 May 2018 15: 41
            +2
            In Karaganda
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 16: 49
              +3
              there is also not written
              1. maxim947
                maxim947 17 May 2018 19: 04
                +2
                The cost of the dispute is more than 112 million (according to other sources 68 million), Valor will be even more expensive, the cost of AH-64 Apache - about 52 million dollars, and this despite the fact that combat helicopters are usually always more expensive and an order of magnitude. Regarding fuel consumption, the consumption during vertical movement is quite large. And use the search.
                1. maxim947
                  maxim947 17 May 2018 19: 24
                  +2
                  Osprey:
                  practical range - 2627 km (without refueling);
                  with vertical take-off - 2225 km;
                  during take-off with a short take-off - 3340 km; - difference in ton.
                  With a mass of 15 tons, the consumption is in the region of 2,6 t / h, at the glutton MI-26 (on ancient engines) with an empty mass under 30 tons. consumption of 3,1 tons. In my opinion, the figures are not in favor of the first.
                2. YELLOWSTONE
                  YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 19: 54
                  +2
                  you can write about the cost
                  about fuel consumption and how else if the helicopter is not moving like that?
                  how far during these tonnes will both fly?
                  1. maxim947
                    maxim947 17 May 2018 20: 45
                    +1
                    how far during these tonnes will both fly?

                    the tiltrotor will fly further, and the same MI-26 cargo will take 3 times more.
                    About:
                    you can write about the cost
                    - search for yourself, and prove to yourself, the topic is closed.
                    1. YELLOWSTONE
                      YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 20: 47
                      +1
                      further and three times faster
                      Quote: maxim947
                      The topic is closed.
                3. Yodzakura
                  Yodzakura 17 May 2018 22: 43
                  0
                  consumption is large enough
                  In the usa print money for them it is not unprofitable
                4. Sergey ippon
                  Sergey ippon 18 May 2018 00: 33
                  0
                  the main thing is to start production - then it’s easier to finalize. than do nothing.
    2. Nix1986
      Nix1986 17 May 2018 12: 39
      +8
      Fly on balls, like blame the fluff, which is easier.
    3. cats
      cats 17 May 2018 13: 34
      +1
      Such difficulties, and the speed is 352 km .. Was it worth it? In my opinion, an ordinary turntable
      so much can. recourse
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 15: 32
        +2
        below they write that for example 500 although more than 600
    4. Yodzakura
      Yodzakura 17 May 2018 22: 42
      0
      Oh well, how many years flies?
      At 280 only vents rise and not the whole engines
  2. impostor
    impostor 17 May 2018 11: 56
    +3
    Will fall as famously as the Hornet and Osprey
    1. MPN
      MPN 17 May 2018 12: 14
      +13
      Quote: impostor
      Will fall as famously as the Hornet and Osprey

      Not a fact ... they already have their second serial ... Children's illnesses are basically taken into account ... And everyone falls to fall ... request
      1. impostor
        impostor 17 May 2018 12: 18
        +3
        Of course. But I like their envelopes from star landing more - they sit on ramjets in the midst of paratroopers, while only a light breeze and not a single charred carcass
        1. MPN
          MPN 17 May 2018 12: 22
          +12
          Quote: impostor
          Of course. But I like their envelopes from star landing more - they sit on ramjets in the midst of paratroopers, while only a light breeze and not a single charred carcass

          laughing There are neutron gravitaps .... laughing
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 19 May 2018 23: 25
          +1
          How did you like the fact that in the film the race of people who mastered interstellar galactic flights lost all tanks, helicopters, night-vision devices, thermal imagers and small-sized walkie-talkies? )))) And people still have mortars, mines, multiple launch rocket systems and nuclear missiles somewhere)))))
  3. Dead duck
    Dead duck 17 May 2018 12: 00
    +6
    More goals, good and different!
    Your ardently loving, air defense winked
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 17 May 2018 12: 03
    +4
    At one time, we turned down convertiplanes, and the Americans clung to it and continued to develop. But that is their business.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 15: 30
      0
      it was also their business
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 17 May 2018 12: 07
    +3
    Beautiful machines, but expensive and in terms of efficiency and price, are massively available only with an American money machine. And their predecessors did not differ in reliability.
    1. NN52
      NN52 17 May 2018 13: 08
      +6
      But at the speed declared by amers for him at 500 ... in airplane mode .. Not a bad thing for transporting people, etc. ... And it seems like a strike version will also be ...
      About reliability ... everything breaks down .. And for everyone.
  6. net0103net
    net0103net 17 May 2018 12: 24
    0
    I wonder what will happen if one of the screws stops? )
    1. betta
      betta 17 May 2018 12: 43
      +2
      So what? Forced fall, only.
      1. net0103net
        net0103net 17 May 2018 12: 44
        0
        Very crooked inconvenient drop for landing and bailout) So they need it. They built the BMP - the mass grave of the infantry.
    2. NN52
      NN52 17 May 2018 13: 19
      +2
      There was an article already in VO, sort of .. If one fails, then it seems that rotation is transmitted through the shaft from the working engine to the failed one, I don’t remember exactly ... If interested, look ..
      1. net0103net
        net0103net 17 May 2018 13: 26
        +1
        Yes, I also read, it was funny) .. But it's not about the engine, but about the screw. If you are a good engineer, then you see the same picture now as I do - enchanting freaks in the air and the inability to escape)) The supporting wing also holds many surprises, for example, the failure of the entire program, you just have to get into the fire of air defense. Well, the high cost of course, especially during operation and improvements that will never end, is worth this tin can go on an unsuccessful assignment. In fact - this is the same kinolap as the F-35, but not so funny, but also instructive.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 15: 34
          +1
          what if the chinook and his ilk like the CH-46? these screws are more reliable
        2. Topgun
          Topgun 17 May 2018 17: 45
          +2
          saved a lot of "autorotation" of lives?
          in my memory, not a single one, only in a Soviet film about her I saw 2 helicopter survivors who survived, and so no helicopter crash, so everyone died ...
          and the tiltrotter range (combat radius) (due to the economy of the “airplane” flight) has many times more + speed (almost 2 times) more ...
  7. gridasov
    gridasov 17 May 2018 12: 40
    +1
    A very interesting aspect is that the propeller blades should not rotate towards the body. To a greater extent, this applies to the left mover
    1. farcop
      farcop 17 May 2018 13: 02
      +1
      Quote: gridasov
      A very interesting aspect is that the propeller blades should not rotate towards the body. To a greater extent, this applies to the left mover
      Yah? And in which direction will they rotate?
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 17 May 2018 13: 07
        +1
        You remember the physics. The propeller must rotate when viewed from the front, clockwise. Why ?!
        1. prodi
          prodi 17 May 2018 13: 26
          +1
          but in fact, why?
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 17 May 2018 13: 38
            +1
            Just as in the bearing the balls not only rotate each by themselves, but all together they move together. That is, there are break-in moments of the entire series and individual parts. Therefore, the rotation of the blades form the same circular stream. Therefore, recalling the rule of the left hand, it is clear that the entire flow should, like magnetic forces, move backward, forming a thrust. Otherwise, the outflow flow to the blades will counteract this circumferential air flow, and with increasing rotation speed this opposition will only increase. Pilots often notice a sharp increase on the control levers. In general, there are a lot of such nuances and all of them need to be harmonized. It was precisely about this that Tesla said that it is necessary to use positive extremes at all stages of the physical process. Everything is obvious if we consider banal simple, seemingly, magnetic force interactions
            1. gridasov
              gridasov 17 May 2018 13: 40
              +1
              By the way, the durability and load resistance of bearings can be increased by orders of magnitude if, in accordance with the rules of physics, it is changed
            2. prodi
              prodi 17 May 2018 14: 33
              +3
              I see NO obstacles to create normal traction in the "opposite" rotating screw
              1. gridasov
                gridasov 17 May 2018 14: 47
                +1
                Too subjective. At the same time, the increase in the rotation speed of not only the propeller blades, but also of the turbines has a negative effect, and ultimately all the consequences
        2. farcop
          farcop 17 May 2018 14: 07
          +1
          Quote: gridasov
          The propeller must rotate when viewed from the front, clockwise
          Stop. You said you should not rotate towards the body. Not in front, not in back, not by the rule of the gimlet and others like him. must not rotate towards the housing.
          1. gridasov
            gridasov 17 May 2018 14: 10
            +1
            Do not cling to words. I can only apologize for having incomprehensibly expressed myself. The essence of the process is still obvious.
            1. farcop
              farcop 17 May 2018 14: 54
              +1
              Quote: gridasov
              Do not cling to words. I can only apologize for having incomprehensibly expressed myself. The essence of the process is still obvious.
              What an apology, explained and will be.
              1. gridasov
                gridasov 17 May 2018 15: 03
                +1
                This is only one of the elements of the process that makes it possible to reasonably speak not only about the inefficiency of propellers and propellers, but also that new devices in the form of a mover are orders of magnitude more efficient and have a great future in application
                1. farcop
                  farcop 17 May 2018 15: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: gridasov
                  new devices in the form of a mover are orders of magnitude more efficient and have a great future in application
                  When will be. In the meantime, there is what it is.
  8. Nix1986
    Nix1986 17 May 2018 12: 40
    0
    But is his TTX in the public domain ?! Compare with osprey on the main parameters.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 17 May 2018 12: 46
      0
      The tests have just begun, there are no confirmed characteristics yet.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 17 May 2018 13: 16
        0
        Most interesting is its carrying capacity and speed compared with the same hawk. How much does a sheepskin stand out. Judging by the size, the carrying capacity is not much higher than the hawk, the main thing is the speed and radius of action.
  9. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 17 May 2018 13: 10
    +2
    Handsome men!

    Vertical take-off / landing and speed above helicopter - as required.
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 17 May 2018 14: 19
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Handsome men!

      Vertical take-off / landing and speed above helicopter - as required.

      That is, the payload, combat radius, maintainability, cost and resistance to damaging factors do not give a damn?
  10. Mih1974
    Mih1974 17 May 2018 14: 55
    +2
    I wrote earlier, but I think it is necessary to repeat - let's all think "why the hell did such freaks surrender?" That is - why it is necessary to refuse from tested and brought to almost ideal helicopters (different brands and schemes) for the sake of such a perversion. In theory, a decrease in flight time by the same distance, hmm, I agree, but "WHY?" Well, let's suppose - so that the enemy does not have time to pinpoint us like helicopters and react (shoot down). Hmm, it seems logical, but let’s say - who is this “cool” one who shoots down your helicopters but cannot convertoplane? Here then the apologists of this "miracle" fall into a stupor tongue laughing . The fact is that the development of modern technology is so complete that a helicopter and a tiltrotor are all clearly visible. The reaction rate of air defense systems - is minimized, almost to "immediately", the range of missiles is generally prohibitively far.
    That is - a technically equipped enemy will fill up this crap as they don’t do FIGs, the "poits" will not be able to shoot down a helicopter, or THIS! And that means - all these "achievements, which have no analogues in the World" - a simple theft of money, which has absolutely no real basis.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 15: 39
      0
      just to fill up the Papuans at kotoryz bow and arrows you need to go back to the berdanks and three rounds each, and then a Chinese with a Kalash from the bushes or an American and other European with M-16
      1. Mih1974
        Mih1974 17 May 2018 15: 53
        +1
        Mock, but in essence - why complicate the cost and reduce security? I am not a retrograde and do not "demand to return to the huts and caves", but any "advance" should be logical and reasonable. Remember the "great idea" "concord" - but time has shown that it is either too early or not at all in this sense. request . Yes, from a technical point of view - it’s very interesting and “advanced”, but I don’t see the point (personally).
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE 17 May 2018 17: 03
          0
          Remember the Tu-160? then be able to run when you can just walk? even turtles know the answer to this question
        2. Aqr009
          Aqr009 17 May 2018 17: 15
          +1
          A couple of pluses are still striking:
          1. the combat radius is much larger than that of a helicopter, which means that ships can remain in neutral waters (this pepelats is used mainly by ILC);
          2. The speed is twice as high as that of a helicopter, which means help for evacuation will arrive twice as fast (although it would still be more practical to use an ultra-fast helicopter).
    2. Topgun
      Topgun 17 May 2018 17: 59
      0
      what is the "distance" too? pull up the materiel a little ...
      just the distance (combat radius) of the convertiplanes is several times (once again TIMES) greater than that of the helicopters (there was even an operation against a drug cartel in South America where specialists from the USA flew on convertible planes crossed the entire Caribbean region without landing and landed in the jungle (like Colombia , if you need, see documentaries about Osprey for sure)
      It is because of the combat radius that they are made (speed is also important but the main profit in range), after the US embassy was seized in Iran and the CIA could not evacuate it (they even prepared hercules with rocket engines for a special operation but the plane crashed) the military had such a request and today it is possible to implement it ...
  11. Chicha squad
    Chicha squad 17 May 2018 15: 38
    0
    But how did the V-22 show itself? They were also used in combat conditions.