Military Review

Need for speed: projects of promising high-speed helicopters

166
Need for speed: projects of promising high-speed helicopters

The CV / MV-22B convertible is adopted by the US Marine Corps in the 2007 year. This is the only currently operated aircraft, taking off and landing vertically and having a high speed horizontal flight.


Helicopters since their appearance in the French army and air force during the war with Algeria in the 1954-1962 years added a new dimension to the concept of military operations.

The use of helicopters to support vertical maneuver allows you to deliver combat units, not paying attention to geographical obstacles, to the place where your opponent can least expect. This opens up new combat opportunities. Since the time of the Algerian conflict, technical progress and constant improvements in the design of the helicopter have increased its capabilities, in particular, its payload and lift. However, the maximum speed and range of modern medium and heavy multi-purpose helicopters, apparently, reached their upper limits.

For example, the newest model F of Boeing’s CH-47 Chinook multi-purpose transport helicopters has a maximum speed of 315 km / h and an 370 km range. For the CH-47F is the Russian Mi-35M helicopter with a maximum speed of 310 km / h and a range of 460 km. The AgustaWestland / Finmeccanica medium AW-101 helicopter with a maximum speed of 309 km / h, while the new AW-139M medium helicopter of the same generation develops a maximum speed of 306 km / h. As can be seen from this list of maximum speeds, not all modern helicopters can develop a maximum speed of just over 300 km / h.

Cruising speed is important because it affects the "turn" of the aircraft when performing combat missions. The faster the helicopter flies, the sooner it will reach its goal and will soon be able to return to pick up and deliver additional forces and supplies. Rapid build-up of forces on the ground is very important for the success of the air assault. Thus, the ability of an aircraft to fly more flights over a given period of time is extremely useful. Flying at high speed also increases survivability by reducing the time when the aircraft is open to enemy observers and arrows on the ground.

An increased range is also desirable, although it is mainly related to the fuel supply. In the past, special attention was paid to increasing the flight range, which is directly related to the capacity of the fuel tanks. Medium and heavy helicopters, such as the Mi-26 with a range of 800 km and Sikorsky CH-53E with a range of 999 km, need such a range to perform several sorties without refueling. Meanwhile, fuel booms mounted on aircraft, such as the CH-53E helicopter or the MH-60G / U Blackhawk special operations helicopter, allow you to perform long-range tasks in the rear of the enemy. However, the range and cruising speed of flight in terms of practical operational sense are closely related. Although the aircraft may have a range that allows it to reach the landing area hundreds of nautical miles, it is necessary to take into account the return journey and the time spent on it, since this can lead to an increase in the time it takes for the landing forces to rise. In this case, it will not be able to quickly perform round-trip tasks due to the increased flight time. That is, in order to most effectively use a longer range, the aircraft must again fly faster.

Swivel screws

Despite initial difficulties and criticism of skeptics, the Bell-Boeing CV / MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor, which began life in 1981 in the framework of the Vertical Take-Off / Landing Experimental (JVX) joint project, changed the concept of operations involving vertical-lift devices. First deployed by the US Marine Corps in 2007 and special forces of the US Air Force in 2009, this convertoplan is currently used not only in military operations (intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), but also in humanitarian tasks and disaster relief operations, for example he helped out after typhoon Haiyart, which devastated part of the Philippines in 2013. The Marines, in particular, saw in the MV-22B tiltrotor a solution to the problem of delivering troops from ships far beyond the horizon. This task was previously performed by a heavy CH-46E Sea Knight transport helicopter, but its flight time was unacceptable. This helicopter took quite a long time to build up the necessary contingent of airborne forces, while it made several sorties. The limited number of troops remained vulnerable.

The unique characteristics and capabilities of the MV-22B tiltrotor are aimed at solving such problems. He can take off vertically from the amphibious ships, but when moving to level flight and turning the engines down he can fly at a speed of 500 km / h. This is more than twice the speed of the CH-46E helicopter, which means the flight time is reduced to the same landing zone by more than half. Plus, the large 722 km range and higher payload in the 9070 kg cockpit and on the 6800 kg suspension further increase its efficiency. The hands-on experience gained with the MV-22B has increased interest in the convertoplanes as an aircraft type and improved the prospects for the next generation convertoplane. This is especially true given that CV / MV-22B, in fact, uses the technologies, materials and processes of development and production of 70-ies of the last century, which, without any doubt, have advanced significantly over the past three decades.


When developing a promising V-280 Valor convertible, Bell-Boeing takes into account the experience gained with CV / MV-22B and introduces the latest technologies, materials and production processes in order to create a more sophisticated turning screw aircraft.


For the Sikorsky S-97 helicopter, a scheme with two rotors of opposite rotation and a tail propeller is used. This allowed not only to get high speeds, but also the possibility of flying sideways and even back

Perspective development

As noted above, aviation the industry is working to overcome the maximum speed limit of helicopters. The problem of increasing speed is partially connected with the very element that allows the helicopter to make a vertical flight - with the upper rotors. The problems that needed to be solved were related to the aerodynamic drag of the screws and the casing, elimination of air breakage from the blades, reverse air flow, and air compressibility. A discussion of the technical subtleties of these problems could take several pages, but one thing is obvious - they must be solved in one way or another in order to change the dynamics of the helicopter flight. Designers are trying to solve these problems, going in a variety of directions and "groping" for answers there.

For example, Bell Helicopter took the proven concept of CV / MV-22B pivot screws and adapted it for its convertible plane V280 Valor project. According to Steve Matia, director of business development for advanced rotary screw systems: “When creating and producing the V-280, the experience gained and tested on the CV / MV-22B tiltrotor is used, and the most modern development and design technologies are used.” As he explained, one of the most interesting solutions is implemented in the V-280 gondola. At the convertoplane CV / MV-22B, the entire gondola is rotated. With the new V-280, only the screws and gears are rotated, while the gondola and the engine remain stationary. This allows you to safely embark and disembark, since the engine case does not interfere with the landing party, and also reduce maintenance requirements. The V-280 convertoplan, designed to perform various tasks, is smaller than the CV / MV-22B convertiplane. It will have a cruising speed of 520 km / h, combat range over 930 km, will be able to hover at an altitude of 1828 meters and fly at a temperature 32 degrees Celsius with a full combat load, while exceeding existing helicopters in maneuverability. Together with Lockheed-Martin, Bell offers a convertible glider V-280 for the FVL JMR-TD (Future Vertical Lift Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration) advanced helicopter program. The companies have scheduled the first flight of their convertible V-280 on August 2017.


Through the use of tail pusher propeller and twin-girder tail stabilizers, the S-97 is already noticeably quieter than traditional helicopters. When there is no need for high speed, but low visibility is needed, the pushing screw makes it almost silent.




A promising X3 helicopter from Airbus Helicopters has short wings, creating lift at speeds above 80 nodes, and two turboprop engines for forward flight. Pilots speak favorably of the maneuverability of an Airbus Helicopter aircraft.

X2

Meanwhile, Sikorsky and Boeing have joined forces with the FVL JMR-TD program to offer the SB-1 Defiant helicopter. They propose to take Sikorsky's X13636 project with coaxial screws of opposite rotation and a pushing propeller as the basis for a new aircraft weighing no more than 2 kg. In this approach, Sikorsky-Boeing has its advantages, since the sample for demonstrating technical solutions X2 Technology Demonstrator weighing 2720 kg made several test flights in 2010 year, in which it reached a record speed of 463 km / h. In 2015, the company Sikorsky presented its prototype of a light tactical multipurpose helicopter S-97 Raider weighing about 5000 kg.



The project of the SB-1 Defiant helicopter companies Sikorsky and Boeing

Chris Van Van Buyten, Vice-President of the Innovation Projects Division at Sikorsky, who heads this project: “Flying farther and faster in a co-axial helicopter is definitely a key requirement. However, with our S-97 project, we want to show the next-generation rotary-wing aircraft, which will be able to surpass traditional helicopters in each operational parameter, especially at low speed and during a hangup. The secret of the coaxial unit X2 is that the main screws with counter-rotation provide lift and forward flight without a tail screw. Above the 150 knots (277,8 km / h) the thrust is provided by a pushing screw, so the main screws do what they do best - provide a lift. ” Van Byuten further made the assumption that the S-97 and SB-1 aircraft "will radically change how military pilots are now flying and fighting in helicopters." By the time the Sikorsky and Boeing team has raised its SB-1 helicopter into the air in 2017, Sikorsky will have the third experimental device X2 in less than 10 years, which can finally confirm the inherent ability of this project to scale to the size of an average multi-purpose UH helicopter -60 Black Hawk.


Sikorsky's X2 Project


The goal of the FVL JMR-TD program is to develop and deploy an aircraft with significantly improved performance and capabilities that can perform a wide range of tasks, ranging from reconnaissance and attack to transporting troops and cargo.

Hybrid projects

Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter) is implementing a hybrid approach to developing advanced helicopters using some of the integral elements of traditional aircraft, such as short rectangular wings. This solution significantly increased the flight speed, which in 2012 showed a test flight of the technological demonstrator X3, which reached the speed of 255 nodes (472 km / h) (above the speed record X2). In the X3 project, the top rotor for lifting and hovering and short wings are combined with turboprop engines mounted on them, providing thrust for moving forward (therefore, the term “hybrid” is used here). It does not have a rear propeller; instead, a horizontal stabilizer with vertical tail stabilizers at each end is installed. When flying forward at speeds of more than 80 knots (148 km / h), the wings begin to create additional lift and at high speed provide almost all lift for this aircraft.

Airbus has not yet disclosed its plans for a new military aircraft using the approach shown by the X3 project. However, a company representative suggested that many of the current helicopters could include these constructive solutions. Since the deep-modernized body of the AS-3N365 Dauphin light-duty helicopter AS-3N3 from Airbus Helicopters is taken as the basis for the X3 project, this seems entirely possible. X2019 was shown to the US military, but ultimately did not get into the FVL JMR-TD program. Airbus has indicated its intention to focus on search and rescue tasks and continues to work on an aircraft based on the XXNUMX project, which can take to the air in the XNUMX year.

Rachel

The Russian Helicopters holding announced in 2009 year that it is developing a promising high-speed aerodynamic helicopter with a retractable landing gear and a proprietary implementation in the rotor design of the local stall suppression system on the retreating blade SLES (Stall Local Elimination System). According to the company, Mi-X1 will have a cruising speed of 475 km / h and a maximum speed of up to 520 km / h. In August, the 2015 of the year at the MAKS Airshow in Moscow Helicopter Plant. Mile showed a RACHEL demo (Russian Advanced Commercial Helicopter - Russian advanced commercial helicopter), advertised as a high-speed helicopter. The helicopter can take on board up to 24 passengers or 2,5 tons of cargo and carry it with a maximum speed of 500 km / h to a maximum distance of 900 km. The holding said that test flights will begin in December, and mass production in 2022 year. In December 2015, the public was presented a deeply modernized Mi-24K with new curved rotor blades. The purpose of this development is to reduce aerodynamic drag, increase stability and speed of flight of the helicopter. The company assumes that the maximum speed of the experimental aircraft will increase from 333 km / h to 400 km / h. According to the company, if it is possible to re-equip another aircraft with curved blades, this will increase the speed by 30 percent.



Russian project of advanced high-speed helicopter RACHEL

X-PLANE

The small American company AMV is developing its own high-speed vertical take-off vessel with propellers located on its short wings. The prototypes clearly hint at a combination of a VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) and a high-speed helicopter. AMV launched its demo X-PLANE into the air and expects its AMV-211 to reach a maximum speed of 483 km / h, a cruising speed of 402 km / h and a flight range of 1110 km. Although the company submitted its proposal for the FVL JMR-TD program, its project was not selected, and the X-PLANE project was not stopped and its development continues.


AMV X-PLANE Concept

Driven thrust

Another candidate proposed in the field of high-speed helicopters uses the VTDP patented design scheme (Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller; a pushing screw with thrust vectoring) mounted in a pipe in combination with bearing wings. The experimental four-bladed X-49 Speed ​​Hawk model with two engines for the first time took off in the 2007 year and reached the speed of 268 km / h. This model was based on the body of the deck anti-submarine helicopter Sikorsky SH-60F Seahawk. The work was initially funded by the US Navy and then by the US Army to demonstrate ways to increase the speed of existing helicopters to 360 km / h. This project was not selected for the FVL JMR-TD program.


The project of the company Piasecki Aircraft on the basis of the deck anti-submarine helicopter Sikorsky SH-60F Seahawk


SB-1 is a further development of the Sikorsky S-97 project and another candidate for the FVL JMR-TD program, which aims to meet the needs of an average multi-purpose helicopter

Mind prevails

A number of countries, including the US and NATO forces, will face the challenge of aging their helicopter fleets in the coming decade. Many of the current helicopters were put into service in the 80-s, their lifespan is approaching the 30 years. For example, McDonnell Douglas / Boeing AH-64 Apache combat helicopters began to be supplied to troops in the 1986 year, and despite a number of improvements, they have essentially the same flight characteristics. The UH-60 family is even older; the first helicopters were delivered in the 1974 year. The newest UH-60M helicopters have electric remote control systems, a common architecture, a new powerful and reliable engine, but the speed remains the same. The first task of the FVL JMR-TD program will most likely be the replacement of UH-60 series helicopters, which explains the similarity of the structures of the cabins offered for it.

So, military operators inevitably seek to replace their aircraft. And here they are faced with the question of whether to leave proven designs, albeit with the inclusion of digital electronics and avionics, electrical remote control systems and composite materials, or move to projects that offer a new level of possibilities. The second question is the possibility of developing a universal vessel that could perform a variety of tasks. The US military initially wanted to have a maximum of three aircraft to perform all its intended tasks. This idea has changed several times, and at the moment they are focused on three projects: Light Scout light helicopter (operated from 2030 of the year), medium Medium Light, universal / shock from the beginning of operation from 2028 of the year, and finally heavy Heavy Cargo transport from start of operation from 2035 year. In addition, the US Army is counting on the implementation of the Ultra project, the start of operation of which is scheduled for 2025 year. This is a new vertical take-off truck with characteristics similar to those of transport aircraft with turboprop engines, such as the Lockheed Martin C-130J or the Airbus A400M. But, judging by the results of a briefing by José Gonzales, deputy director of the ground combat and tactical combat systems department, held at the US Department of Defense in January 2016, everything seems to be changing again. A breakdown into categories is proposed, based on necessary capabilities rather than mass. These new categories have not yet been announced.

Even without the “Ultra” option, this concept of new aircraft has not only technical problems, but can also affect the current situation of the US Air Force with its ambition and deadlines. Probably, from an operational point of view in various tasks some projects may be preferable to others. The main issue remains the proportionate funding of such a program and how this may affect other army modernization projects.

Fly forward

The CV / MV-22B tiltrotor operating experience reveals the advantages of this aircraft and points to new ways of using its unique capabilities. Based on this experience, the US command of special operations forces USSOCOM has already expressed interest in increasing the number of CV / MV-22B convertible plans compared to initial requirements. Adequate experience of the X3 project in the framework of the FVL JMR-TD program shows the reality of achieving high speed, increased maneuverability and greater range. Currently, there is a question of determining the viability, expandability and adaptability of high-speed helicopters, as well as their cost, which will allow them to perform the full range of combat missions. High-speed helicopters are already on the horizon, but how soon and in what form is still unknown.

Materials used:
www.boeing.com
www.sikorsky.com
www.bellhelicopter.com
www.airbushelicopters.com
www.russianhelicopters.aero
www.socom.mil
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Author:
166 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PalSanych
    PalSanych 18 July 2016 06: 04
    +1
    pro-American crap .. not an article
    1. Leto
      Leto 18 July 2016 07: 38
      +8
      Quote: PalSanych
      pro-American crap .. not an article

      You do not believe in the promise of these devices?
      1. 0255
        0255 18 July 2016 11: 27
        14
        Quote: Leto
        Quote: PalSanych
        pro-American crap .. not an article

        You do not believe in the promise of these devices?

        He perceives any article about US technology as American propaganda paid by the State Department laughing
        People, let’s at least sometimes distinguish between articles on technology and politics.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 18 July 2016 11: 56
        +5
        Quote: Leto
        You do not believe in the promise of these devices?

        Experimental developments in the described areas have been going on for a long time. According to the information available on this subject, the graduation project was defended at the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1936. In Germany in 1938, the Weserflug P.1003 convertiplane project was also developed, but it was not implemented. The American XC-142A flew in 1964. A little later, the Bell X-22A, the Canadian CL-84 and the French Nord 500 Cadet flew. We have been developing quite actively since the beginning of the 70s, but the MI-30 project died due to the collapse of the country. Propeller-driven helicopters have been developed from the late forties. In the fifties in Mil Design Bureau created an experimental car - B-7. But even the latest designs like Osprey cannot be considered perfect. A number of unresolved issues remain and whether they will be resolved permanently is not clear.
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 9 August 2016 09: 58
          0
          Quote: Verdun
          We have been developing quite actively since the beginning of the 70s, but the MI-30 project died due to the collapse of the country

          ... not quite true)) Or rather, there was only a proposal to understand the problem - no more.
          Quote: Verdun
          Propeller-driven helicopters have been developed from the late forties. In the fifties in Mil Design Bureau created an experimental car - B-7.

          True, but the B-7 is still not the ramjet, which they were actively trying to use, like the Americans in a small series of Hiller Hornet. On the B-7 stand turbojet.
          Quote: Verdun
          But even the latest designs like Osprey cannot be considered perfect. A number of unresolved issues remain and whether they will be resolved permanently is not clear.

          True, Bell admits that only the work of F.P. Kurochkin helped them create the V-22 in theory. But what is the design, because of some "misunderstanding" of the basics of the tiltrotor ??? Triple duplication for all systems, but in constant work - you must agree, this is a clear overkill IMHO!
          I’ll try to clarify, on this thread I don’t want to duplicate, but next to it https://topwar.ru/98278-na-novom-vitke.html# (due to ignorance of the existence of an interesting topic) I have already posted some material. The work, in general, is still experimental - but there is a result! smile
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 15: 37
            0
            This V-22 has a large number of accidents and a lack of pitch control. In terms of rationality, reliability and convenience, much earlier Canadian convertiplanes are qualitatively superior to them.
            1. SVVP
              SVVP 9 August 2016 19: 41
              0
              The disadvantages listed by you, I have already explained their reason. And the elimination is in the invention of the new and the modifications of the "old" smile
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 34
                0
                The very old Canadian CL-84 did not have these flaws that the American V-22 has.
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 07
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  there were not these shortcomings that the American V-22 has.

                  So the scheme is different - and a different approach to the solution is required, therefore there are no "new" errors, but the emergence of "old", all problems in a new direction will not be taken into account until you "fill up" winked
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 10
                    0
                    The American has a less rational scheme, taking into account his long nacelles, on the verge of suitability in general.
                    1. SVVP
                      SVVP 10 August 2016 12: 17
                      0
                      Such things when the final result is absolutely unknown, because there were no algorithms yet, but "... one-time success is in doubt", the constructors sometimes make completely illogical steps, therefore, let's forgive them for these flaws lol
                2. SVVP
                  SVVP 11 August 2016 18: 12
                  0
                  A distinctive feature of the new machine was the fact that for the first time in the world the technical idea of ​​a rotary wing was successfully realized in it. Previously, such machines were called rotorcraft, but they can also be attributed to the class of "tiltrotor". Structurally, the apparatus, then called VZ-2, was a monoplane with a highly located wing mounted in its central part, with an open truss fuselage and with a three-leg landing gear with a nose strut and a tail wheel. He had a pilot's cabin with a spherical flashlight from the Bell 47 helicopter, behind which were the Avco Lycoming YT53-L-1 gas turbine engine and transmission.
                  .....................
                  The S.P. Langley Research Center worked with the VZ-2 A until 1965. During the operation on the device, about 450 flights and 34 complete transitions from one mode to another were performed. Currently, the device is on display at the Smithsonian Institution.


                  However, the Americans are the first! wink
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 11 August 2016 21: 54
                    0
                    An experimental and no tail machine. The difference in value is the same as between the Bell Type 68 and the Yak-36.
                    1. SVVP
                      SVVP 12 August 2016 08: 15
                      0
                      It usually starts with nothing winked
                      Well, they even took the cabin from an already flying helicopter, and not actually developed lol
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 13 August 2016 01: 39
                        0
                        They even cover the tail with a logo wing. bully
                      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 18 July 2016 12: 58
        0
        Now, if they created a convertiplane with a carrying capacity of 80 tons, this machine would become very useful for all areas of cargo transportation, both military and civilian.
        1. Uryukc
          Uryukc 18 July 2016 18: 25
          -6
          And why only 80 let’s 800?
          The mi-26 of the largest helicopter in the world has a 6 ton payload capacity.
          1. berezin1987
            berezin1987 18 July 2016 19: 14
            +6
            Not 6, but 20-25.
            1. Uryukc
              Uryukc 18 July 2016 19: 41
              0
              Sorry - beguiled, on a suspension of 6 tons.
              1. Operator
                Operator 18 July 2016 20: 26
                +2
                Mi-26 on the external sling raises 20 tons.
                1. Uryukc
                  Uryukc 18 July 2016 23: 00
                  0
                  Googled mi 26, admit it was wrong. But the main message is correct, a tiltrotor with a lifting capacity of 80 tons is still fantastic.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 18 July 2016 22: 58
            +1
            Because all the tanks in the world weigh up to 80 tons.
            1. Uryukc
              Uryukc 18 July 2016 23: 29
              0
              Yes, there is a need, but there is no possibility of implementation yet.
              1. Alex_Tug
                Alex_Tug 19 July 2016 13: 13
                +1
                And if you try to compose 2 MI-12 in one case? For now, forget about the dimensions.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 13 August 2016 01: 41
          0
          Can do 10 to 8, what are the problems? wink
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 18 July 2016 12: 53
      -4
      Cheburator does not approve! am
  2. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 18 July 2016 06: 43
    +8
    25 years before Osprey, in which only DB could make such engine nacelles with which he targeted the ground, and even now there is no sufficient control torque along one of the axes (pitch), Canada had its own tiltrotor with which everything was fine - the Americans are this Canadian the company quickly went bankrupt ...
    1. Leto
      Leto 18 July 2016 07: 41
      +7
      Quote: Simpsonian
      Canada had its own convertiplane with which everything was fine

      Of the three experimental machines, two were lost in disasters, what's good?
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 18 July 2016 08: 10
        +3
        Nothing good - the Americans just just smashed it on purpose ... supposedly trying to break the F-4 climb rate record to 10 feet.
        The second was broken by them while trying to get into a storm on the UDC "Guadacanal"
        During the tests (experiments), the Canadians lost only one, due to a bearing out. The interval between the Canadian accident and the American "tricks" is eight years, before that everything worked fine.
        Such actions by the United States to sabotage and deliberate bankruptcy of firms (this opusiti game its shares on the stock exchanges) have led to the fact that until recently, only one France possessed an independent aviation industry in the Western world.
        1. Leto
          Leto 18 July 2016 09: 21
          +6
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Similar actions by the United States to sabotage and deliberate bankruptcy of firms (this opusitli game its shares on the exchanges)

          Well, then nothing bad happened with Canadair, it became Bombardier ... Far from being a poor company known around the world.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 18 July 2016 11: 31
            0
            Yes, it just went bankrupt and did not change its name, and the other company that bought it does not make such technology, but after a quarter of a century the Americans themselves began to distribute it ... the very same two converters who took from Canadair to play, both crashed and said that "so It was"...
      2. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 18 July 2016 08: 12
        +4
        Quote: Leto
        Quote: Simpsonian
        Canada had its own convertiplane with which everything was fine

        Of the three experimental machines, two were lost in disasters, what's good?

        So during the work of the Kanadir company, the on-board electronics of these machines were still in their infancy ... Hence the accidents ... Convertoplanes require a very serious study of stabilization and stability systems! Osprey was created for about twenty years, and this time was spent, not in the least, on the development of algorithms and their electronic implementation. Then, in the seventies, the possibilities of electronics did not allow the development and creation of a control system. And any helicopter cannot fly without automation. If I remember correctly, the last machine with "manual" control was the Mi-2.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 18 July 2016 08: 48
          0
          there is no "electronics" ...

          just two cars were "played" by the Americans, allegedly having a desire to order them, and "did not return".
        2. V.ic
          V.ic 18 July 2016 19: 36
          +1
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          last manual machine was Mi-2

          The last car is grounded. The aviator would say "apparatus" / because heavier than air/. Mi-2 from soviet helicopters was extreme from helicopters without autopilot.
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 18 July 2016 14: 58
      +3
      25 years before Osprey


      Over 25 years before Osprey there was such a device ...

      At the same time, a number of convertible plans of various American companies appeared: the topic was fashionable, the US Air Force promised to buy everything that would pass at least the initial tests, and the engineers gladly plunged into work. One of the most original designs was the Bell X-22A not with two, but with four YT58-GE-8D engines with a total power of 1250 hp. For the first time in the short history of such machines, the screws on this convertoplane were placed in circular covers, which significantly increased the efficiency both in vertical movement and in horizontal flight. The first of the two Belles made crashed (the pilot survived) during landing at an early stage of testing, but the second successfully flew from 1966 to 1988 for a year, although the model did not go into mass production.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 20 July 2016 21: 20
        0
        The shrouds are not visible ... Canadian flew in 1964 and was technically a cut above any American attempts.
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 9 August 2016 10: 05
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Canadian flew in 1964 and was technically superior to any American attempts.

          ...and Yesand no ))) Tiltwing is one solution, tiltrotor is another, and each has its own drawbacks and advantages.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 14: 59
            0
            No, no. Each device has its own advantages and disadvantages.
            1. SVVP
              SVVP 9 August 2016 20: 15
              0
              Quote: Simpsonian
              Each device has its own advantages and disadvantages.

              You wanted to say solutions worthy of design solutions. winked
              But Canada has a number of very significant drawbacks:
              1. Multimotor, especially strongly spaced along the length of the wing - without a synchronizing shaft (and it is not on the Canadian one!), In case of failure of one of the cantilever engines, an accident cannot be avoided, overturning the moment along the bank.
              2. The small diameter of the aircraft-type propellers, and, consequently, the congestion of the VMU on takeoff and hovering during helicopter mode.
              3. The above requires excessive fuel consumption.
              4. And very significant from a commercial point of view, the inflated cost of SU.
              5. A solid increase in the mass of the empty, due to the hardening of the wing and the complex node of its suspension to the fuselage + the mass of the rotary mechanism of the wing ....
              And this is not all the disadvantages. winked

              Here is a confirmation of my words:
              In 1972, the pilot Canter CLV-84-1 VTOL was transferred to the US Navy Testing Center for final flight tests during the year under the fleet program of the USA, Canada and England. Tests have shown that the overall efficiency of the CL-84, expressed in kilometers per hour of flight for typical search operations, is two and a half times greater than that of a search helicopter of that time.

              I did not go into the series, and also "this"

              During the flight tests on September 12, 1967, the experimental CL-84 VTOL crashed, the crew ejected. The aircraft lost control during a maneuver in horizontal flight at a speed of 275 km / h at an altitude of 900 m. Before the accident, the aircraft made 305 flights and flew 405 hours.

              .......
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 20
                0
                There is a cross feed for both propellers from each engine. They are average, not "long-lasting".
                The rotary mechanism of the wing is only one. This wing with a short take-off works. The flaws are far-fetched.

                The quoted "It" - the Americans took to play around with two tiltrotors and both smashed them, see other comments. He was not allowed into the series, the company was bankrupt.
                Canadians had only one test accident due to bearing failure.
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  The flaws are far-fetched.


                  I do not know! Why, then, having killed the Canadians, the Americans do not develop the "tiltwing" niche, if they have smashed the Canadians on purpose ??? "Flirt"? wink
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 17
                    0
                    This is not beneficial for them in the sense of national security.
                    1. SVVP
                      SVVP 10 August 2016 12: 19
                      0
                      ABOUT! What explains this? Please explain - I come across such details for the first time ...
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 10 August 2016 18: 01
                        0
                        These weapons will give more advantages to their opponents than to them.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 10 August 2016 18: 01
                        0
                        These weapons will give more advantages to their opponents than to them.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Operator
    Operator 18 July 2016 06: 59
    +1
    All known projects of high-speed helicopters are ineffective - their power is twice the power of airplanes of equal take-off weight with higher speed or conventional helicopters with equal speed.

    Helicopters have their own niche of speed and combat use, so all attempts to get into someone else's airplane niche each time end at the design stage.
    1. SVVP
      SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 18
      0
      Found, read.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 08
        0
        this is an amateur in some issues to reverse everything the other way around
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 10 August 2016 12: 20
          0
          winked I see ...
      2. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 08
        0
        this is an amateur in some issues to reverse everything the other way around
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 July 2016 07: 52
    0
    All the same, a universal machine is not yet foreseen, "consciousness lags behind scientific and technological progress" (C) laughing ("Old New Year", on a different occasion, however). A revolutionary solution is needed in propulsion systems, in aerodynamics, and in materials of manufacture.
    1. venaya
      venaya 18 July 2016 08: 35
      +2
      Quote: inkass_98
      All the same, a universal machine is not yet foreseen, "consciousness lags behind scientific and technological progress" (C) ... A revolutionary solution is needed both in propulsion systems and in aerodynamics ...

      First of all, it is necessary to correct the consciousness of the aircraft customers themselves. The use of a large-diameter helicopter propeller for the purpose of obtaining high flight speeds itself is not very rational, they are needed only in the take-off-landing mode, for the economy of these flight operations. Another thing is the efficiency of the flight itself, in order to increase the flight range and (or) increase the mass of the transported payload. The principle is especially vivid here: "the quieter you go, the further you'll get", that is, a decrease in the cruising speed of a tiltrotor flight squared (or more) reduces fuel consumption, in a purely helicopter scheme this dependence does not work so clearly, because the specific fuel consumption for the function of maintaining the helicopter in a vertical plane increases. By the way, the noise (stealth) Also, it is always necessary to search for the optimal form of application of various aircraft.
      1. pimen
        pimen 18 July 2016 09: 45
        0
        purely schematically, turning some screws without a nacelle is more profitable, turning a wing with screws (nacelles) is even more profitable, using coaxial screws would reduce their diameter, and adding the same rotary tail (pushing) and shifting the center of gravity back would make the car more stable on take-off landing
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 18 July 2016 17: 10
          0
          Quote: pimen
          purely schematically, turning some screws without a nacelle is more profitable, turning a wing with screws (nacelles) is even more profitable,

          The main problem of any tiltrotor is the design of the propellers. The fact is that there are some requirements for the main rotor, and others for the main rotor. When trying to combine the desired characteristics, we get losses in both. Therefore, it is not very clear why in the concept of convertiplanes preferred propellers rather than jet engines. True, for stability on takeoff there should be four around the perimeter.
          1. pimen
            pimen 18 July 2016 20: 56
            0
            in principle, you are right. In a helicopter circuit, the weight under the center of the large propeller is stable, and the efficiency of the propeller in statics is large. In the aircraft - the screws are also good because they allow you to blow the wing already at zero speeds. A tiltrotor is neither this nor that. But still, on a vertical take-off, the screws are more profitable
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 18 July 2016 21: 07
              0
              Quote: pimen
              A tiltrotor is neither this nor that.

              It's strange, but smart people think that "this and that" ...
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 22 July 2016 01: 10
            0
            I also think that it is necessary to combine the screws (possibly folding)
            and jet engines.
  5. berezin1987
    berezin1987 18 July 2016 07: 57
    +4
    Russian helicopter RACHEL uses a standard layout. How is such a flight speed achieved? Is it really all about the excellent aerodynamics of the machine and the new screw? From the American, only S-97 and V-280 look promising.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 July 2016 08: 43
      +2
      It is in the screw, like the English with their record Lynx. And also the engine.
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 18 July 2016 10: 00
      +3
      Quote: berezin1987
      Russian helicopter RACHEL uses a standard layout. How is such a flight speed achieved? Is it really all about the excellent aerodynamics of the machine and the new screw? From the American, only S-97 and V-280 look promising.


      Well, just a typo in the article.
      Quote: Author
      load and transport it with a maximum speed of 500 km / h to a maximum distance of 900 km.


      In reality, they planned to increase the speed there to 350 km - no more (and tests will show that)
      Here is the statement from the Rostec website:
      Quote: official data
      So, according to the Russian Helicopters, instead of the net speed that was supposed to be pursued earlier, priority was given to economic efficiency and environmental friendliness. There will still be a speed increase, but it will be approximately 25% compared to modern counterparts, and not 50 or 100, which were assumed by high-speed helicopter programs (note that they will continue to exist, but as separate projects). The choice of priorities was made after a thorough marketing research conducted with the assistance of aircraft operators.
  6. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 18 July 2016 08: 25
    +1
    And here, I think, the Kamovites have classified their version of a high-speed helicopter, since they are the only manufacturers of a pine scheme in the world. I hope we surprise the world with an "asymmetric" answer.
  7. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 18 July 2016 08: 44
    -2
    How many "experts" are there on this site and all the newcomers to enter into an emergency laughing
    Quote: Operator

    All known projects of high-speed helicopters are ineffective - their power is twice the power of airplanes of equal take-off weight with higher speed or conventional helicopters with equal speed.

    Helicopters have their own niche of speed and combat use, so all attempts to get into someone else's airplane niche each time end at the design stage.

    A high-speed helicopter is simpler and more economical than the usual one, which most likely does not fly forward but keeps itself on weight, this can be seen from the angle of inclination of the plane of its rotor.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 July 2016 08: 59
      +2
      Quote: Simpsonian
      High-speed helicopter is simpler and more economical than usual


      Autogyros? Passed it bully
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 18 July 2016 23: 31
        +1
        X-2 is it a gyroplane?
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 9 August 2016 10: 06
          -1
          To be precise rotorcraft: on take-off - helicopter principle, in flight - autogyro
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 15: 00
            0
            I have not heard about the autorotation of the screws on it. This will slow down.
            1. SVVP
              SVVP 9 August 2016 20: 20
              0
              And for what, in your opinion, the rotor speed is significantly reduced? wink
              Only the pushing screw takes on the speed, and the rotor, by the full analogy of the gyroplane, has the bearing properties
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 51
                0
                So many still do not understand the differences between a helicopter and a gyroplane, not just a helicopter from a high-speed helicopter.

                So that the blades do not go to supersonic, and because there is no need for high rotations.
                There is no analogy with a gyroplane. The high-speed helicopter pushing screw replaces the horizontal thrust component of the main rotor of a conventional helicopter. The speed gyro rotor generally obstructs.

                There are gyros in which, for take-off from a place, the main rotor spins on the ground, but these are not high-speed helicopters.
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 12 August 2016 09: 52
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  So many more do not understand the differences between a helicopter and a gyroplane, not just a helicopter from a high-speed helicopter.

                  Naturally! To it understand, you need to at least "cook" in this topic, and all the subtle nuances - only a specialist must know. smile

                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  So that the blades do not go to supersonic, and because there is no need for high rotations.
                  There is no analogy with a gyroplane.

                  ... but what about the fact that rotor characteristics with a decrease in speed, sharply reduced? Compensate them with the speed provided by the tail, pushing rotor (!) - this is where the oblique blowing appears, putting the rotor in the conditions of autorotation, that is, "turning" the rotor itself into a "gyroplane" smile

                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  There are gyros in which, for take-off from a place, the main rotor spins on the ground, but these are not high-speed helicopters.

                  Right! And this is called hopping take-off gyroplane. There are craftsmen who have more than enough SU power on a gyroplane, so they fly a helicopter for a long time, demonstrating this.
    2. Uryukc
      Uryukc 18 July 2016 18: 29
      0
      Easier??? Well, there’s simple things: a coaxial system + a pushing screw, and on some 4 engines. Maybe they are more economical, due to airplane flight, but certainly not easier.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 20 July 2016 21: 21
        0
        Precisely easier ... you just have to read on this topic, if you write this, you just do not know how a "normal" helicopter works.
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 9 August 2016 15: 01
          0
          Quote: Simpsonian
          Definitely easier ...

          Wrong!!! There are so many things that we won’t see them in mass production for a long time. winked
          The more you read, the more you will be convinced of this IMHO crying
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 15: 08
            0
            Right. Whoever claims the opposite is simply unfamiliar with the principle of a high-speed helicopter, or does not know how the ordinary one works.
            1. SVVP
              SVVP 9 August 2016 20: 24
              0
              You say the same about the blades of a high-speed helicopter? wink
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 36
                0
                About him it was that they were different ...
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 34
                  0
                  So I will still stay where I am, because "just a helicopter" is still more complicated than an airplane, and a high-speed helicopter, because another "something" that distinguishes it from a simple one is invested in it, is more difficult than a "simple" helicopter, IMHO laughing
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 06
                    0
                    On the contrary, it is simpler because it is built on a different principle.
                    1. SVVP
                      SVVP 10 August 2016 12: 21
                      0
                      Can you justify? I think I understand if you explain smile
              2. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 36
                0
                About him it was that they were different ...
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 10 August 2016 18: 32
                  0
                  Quote: SVVP
                  Can you justify? I think I understand if you explain smile


                  And more:

                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  There is a cross feed for both propellers from each engine. They are average, not "long-lasting".
                  The rotary mechanism of the wing is only one. This wing with a short take-off works. The flaws are far-fetched.

                  The quoted "It" - the Americans took to play around with two tiltrotors and both smashed them, see other comments. He was not allowed into the series, the company was bankrupt.
                  Canadians had only one test accident due to bearing failure.


                  Amazing Canadians Awareness, I Will Tell You! I collected information about them bit by bit, and you have everything at once! Do you work in the direction under discussion? Turning planes? If you say anything about my project - you are welcome to the PM! I will be glad to hear the constructive, I will be glad to cooperate, I see that you know the topic not by hearsay smile
          2. The comment was deleted.
  8. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 18 July 2016 08: 57
    +1
    Honestly, these hybrids with a complicated transmission are critical. Few disasters and problems of operation of prototypes of 60-70s? They themselves suffered with rotorcraft no less.

    Maybe you should pay attention to short take-off and landing planes, such as the same An-14 Bee, but aimed even at high-speed capabilities, i.e. with increased specific power and wing mechanization. The problem is quite non-travial, of course, it turns out, namely, to ensure extremely low take-off and landing speeds and at the same time provide excellent controllability in these modes with resistance to lateral gusts of wind. Roughly speaking, an airplane should have a low specific gravity and wing load, be able to parachute like a Bee or a Storm, and at the same time bend the speed of the convertiplane.

    Why is it that they have little to do on this topic, probably the cuts are too small? Although there is a need for them, even in the civilian sectors, it will be even more expensive to operate, but cheaper and more reliable than a tiltrotor definitely.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 July 2016 09: 53
      12
      That’s what I meant, of course not so short take-off and landing, but cool! bully

      1. pimen
        pimen 18 July 2016 10: 01
        0
        an interesting twist, but in order to get practical returns, you probably have to increase traction and put a second, folding wing
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 18 July 2016 10: 15
          +3
          No, there’s a trick in highly optimized aerodynamics and wing mechanization, plus power ratio. It’s just that most of the tasks were not set at speeds of 300-400 km / h, and their operating costs are cheap. Well, UVP aircraft also deliver cargo to hard-to-reach areas, so this is almost the norm for them. The same Po-2 of WWII was essentially a UVP aircraft, and it brought a lot of benefits in this capacity.

          So I think that these convertiplanes-hybrids-gyroplanes and other crossbeds of hedgehogs with snakes, for the sake of GDP, lose a lot in load-bearing capacity and reliability, because any technique is a fabric from compromises, and at the same time we will get a useful machine in the national economy.
          1. pimen
            pimen 18 July 2016 10: 22
            0
            and yet, such takeoff and landing characteristics, with real "practical" cargoes, will require a second wing, and ensuring acceptable speed and efficiency - so that it folds
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 18 July 2016 10: 34
              0
              Not necessarily, you can compensate for the low wing load like the An-14.



              And now An-28 in Africa is annealing.



              Although biplanes are also excellent devices in this regard.

              1. Falcon
                Falcon 18 July 2016 10: 42
                +4
                Quote: kugelblitz
                Not necessarily, you can compensate for the low wing load like the An-14.


                Low wing load - implies a large wing area. That for the military is not entirely acceptable.

                The ability of a high-speed helicopter to hang and take off vertically - no short take-off will provide. Since at least some but still runway is needed.
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 18 July 2016 11: 00
                  -1
                  Quote: Falcon
                  The ability of a high-speed helicopter to hang and take off vertically - no short take-off will provide.

                  Well, Duc, I’m talking about this, if there is so much hemorrhoid with this GDP, and if there are helicopters for these purposes, then why bother? Roughly speaking, send an assault group of the helicopter to capture a relatively more or less suitable site and already send a UVP transport aircraft for various needs. And in general, if the military outline the dubious prospects of a tiltrotor, I think about a large wing area will become more accommodating.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 20 July 2016 21: 25
                    0
                    And you can also take a walk slowly to capture the runway, so even ordinary helicopters are not needed lol
              2. Operator
                Operator 18 July 2016 10: 50
                +4
                C-130 - take-off and landing from an aircraft carrier

                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 18 July 2016 11: 02
                  +1
                  By the way, the parachuting mode before touching is perfectly visible! good
                  1. Alex_Tug
                    Alex_Tug 19 July 2016 14: 00
                    0
                    perfectly visible parachuting mode before touching

                    In addition, ideal weather conditions. The wind is decent and headwind. Should the deck be rotated 90 degrees?
                    1. kugelblitz
                      kugelblitz 19 July 2016 14: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: Alex_Tug
                      The wind is decent and headwind.

                      In general, an aircraft carrier should turn against the wind to launch aircraft. Hercules is an oldish aircraft, with not the highest power ratio and not the most modern wing.

                      I understand in the video that many planes are lightened to the limit, but on the other hand, the development of the aircraft wing has not yet ended if we go in the opposite direction from the supercritical profile. I mentioned below slotted wings, which are close to a highly mechanized wing with slats and flaps, as there are options for wings with blowing from GTU compressors, just to prevent flow stall, which often happens at low speeds and large angles of attack.

                      I understand that the UVP plane will not look so pompous as a tiltrotor, yes, it cannot make a purely vertical landing, this is a compromise. Like a compromise, high-speed helicopters with special blade profiles, but they do not exceed the threshold of technical complexity, limiting mass application. A rotary hovercraft and a rotorcraft belong to such schemes and this is their problem, there will be no passenger or mass transport vehicles for this reason.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 19 July 2016 16: 19
                        0
                        The mechanization of the wing and the take-off power of the C-130 engines were not initially sharpened for GDP with a length of 250 meters (the run length at normal weight of 1433 meters is indicated in the LTX).

                        If you equip the C-130 with new wings with slats and flaps located all over the span, as well as install engines with twice the take-off power, the run distance with a normal weight will be reduced to the required 250 meters.

                        Nothing prevents the development of the Russian line of similar turboprop aircraft of various carrying capacities, which would perfectly fit not only as military transport carriers, but also as economic aircraft in the Arctic, Siberia and the Far East, where uneconomical and slow helicopters are now operating.
                      2. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 20 July 2016 21: 29
                        0
                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        Rotorcraft and rotorcraft belong to such schemes

                        do not apply, high-speed helicopter is easier than usual

                        just look at Sikorsky’s trials, it shows the principle of flight and the operation of transmissions for both.
                      3. SVVP
                        SVVP 9 August 2016 20: 33
                        0
                        Quote: kugelblitz
                        A rotary hovercraft and a rotorcraft belong to such schemes and this is their problem, there will be no passenger or mass transport vehicles for this reason.

                        These are fundamentally different aircraft. But how to relate to this turn of events? wink
                        The AW609 tiltrotor, developed by the English-Italian company AgustaWestland, appeared in 1996 as the Bell XV-15, which was jointly created by Boeing and Bell. After Boeing left the project, Agusta took its place, which merged with Westland and bought its stake from Bell. Now there are flight tests of this car. It is planned that in the near future it will pass certification and appear on the civil transportation market.

                        https://topwar.ru/11469-konvertoplan-agustawestland-aw609-gotov-poyavitsya-na-ry
                        nke-v-2016-godu.html
                      4. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 9 August 2016 22: 40
                        0
                        The Canadian tiltrotor CL-84 appeared in 1964, in 1965 it reached operational validity.
                        20 years on the tests of the Italian is tin, almost like an F-35 licked off a Yak.
                      5. SVVP
                        SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        The Canadian tiltrotor CL-84 appeared in 1964, in 1965 it reached operational validity.

                        It all depends on knowledge of the topic, designers and their decisions. bully

                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        20 years on the tests of the Italian is tin, almost like an F-35 licked off a Yak.


                        lol This usually reminds me of a joke, as the Americans stole the drawings of the Ka26, tried to build it
          2. pimen
            pimen 18 July 2016 11: 00
            +1
            no, well, but it is necessary to carry 6-8 tons, take off from the penny and fly at 500 km / h. Low landing speed (at 50 km / h) will reduce the landing glide path, which also needs to be taken into account, and the second wing also reduces the transverse span on the ground
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 18 July 2016 11: 09
              +2
              Well, for example, the An-32 could quite well produce tricks close to this. Again, the power ratio and wing mechanization helped. So to say there is something to build on to improve these parameters.
      2. iwind
        iwind 18 July 2016 13: 30
        +2
        Quote: kugelblitz
        So I think that these convertiplanes-hybrids-gyros and other crossbeds of hedgehogs with snakes

        Likely for this
        "a flight with 1 landing at 6000 km from an arbitrary place to an arbitrary place in 15 hours. With other devices this is not feasible in principle, give friendly airfields with transport workers for transfer.
        To practice
        which was demonstrated during Operation Dawn of Odyssey in Libya, as well as in Afghanistan. six V-22 Ospreys flew about 3.400 nautical miles from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean for deployment in Libya, refueled from KC-130. "V-22 departed from Afghanistan landed in Greece at Sigonella. Which took 15 hours and 25 minutes

        or
        The same pilot talks about his other operation. To rescue the crew of a downed F-15 fighter. I didn’t mark the exact time, ”he says, but roughly,“ I flew for about 40 minutes. The operation involved two MV-22s - I was the leader of the group. we landed in 2 minutes and then flew back in 40 minutes. So it was an 82 minute flight. We were very fast and because of this the enemy forces did not have time to arrive at the place where the f-15 was falling.

        In June 2010, the plane crashed near Kunduz in Afghanistan, "the weather was bad (we had to climb higher), the plane crashed into enemy territory. V-22s flew directly over the top of the mountain range at an altitude of 15000 feet, the entire mission took less than four hours . "the distance one way was about 400 nautical miles.
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 18 July 2016 15: 39
          -3
          Quote: iwind
          From Afghanistan to the Mediterranean for deployment in Libya, with refueling from KC-130. "V-22 departed from Afghanistan landed in Greece at Sigonella. Which took 15 hours and 25 minutes

          It’s beautifully painted, but it looks like a banal advertisement, as if Hercules couldn’t cope, and why would there even be a pilot to Greece if there were enough bases in Afghanistan? And their helicopters can also be refueled as a last resort.

          All these heroic stages are nothing more than an attempt to justify the dubious machine, on which a lot of money was swelled. Like the famous Penguin.

          The machine that ...
          1. cannot make an emergency landing on autorotation and planning.
          2. The screws create increased resistance for horizontal flight and are small for hanging, i.e. not eating in itself.
          3. lack of armor protection.
          4. Due to the design features, the fuselage is not sealed.
          5. the tiltrotor is susceptible to the phenomenon of "vortex ring" in helicopter mode, because of which the device can suddenly fall through one of the propellers and fall to one side.
          6. low resistance to combat damage.
          7. clouds of dust when landing, which means an increased risk of not noticing the enemy.
          1. iwind
            iwind 18 July 2016 16: 29
            +1
            Quote: kugelblitz
            All these heroic stages are nothing more than an attempt to justify the dubious machine, on which a lot of money was swelled. Like the famous Penguin.

            This is the real task that the V-22 completed. Yes, and the F-35 is now all very well.
            Quote: kugelblitz
            It’s beautifully painted, but it looks like a banal advertisement, as if Hercules couldn’t cope, and why would there even be a pilot to Greece if there were enough bases in Afghanistan? And their helicopters can also be refueled as a last resort.

            That's how Hercules can land in the desert mountains, etc. Why is it necessary to evacuate the wounded. Rescue pilots, landing operations special forces. If the flight to 6000km. it will be necessary to carry helicopters in a separate plane, and then prepare them there. And it takes time.
            Quote: kugelblitz
            The machine that ...

            The main thing that lives and performs the task and their number is only growing.
            This entire list .... V-22 casualties are no more than other helicopters.
            "lack of body armor." - who has it from us helicopters?
            4. Due to the design features, the fuselage is not sealed.
            What for?
            Quote: kugelblitz
            the tiltrotor is susceptible to the phenomenon of "vortex ring" in helicopter mode, because of which the device can suddenly fall through one of the propellers and fall to one side

            not without it. But the loss of the V-22 is no more than a helicopter.
            also about
            Quote: kugelblitz
            6. low resistance to combat damage

            Provide statistics of combat losses.
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 18 July 2016 16: 45
              +1
              Quote: iwind
              This is the real task that the V-22 completed

              And it’s absolutely pointless if their helicopters do not feel well in the mountains, this does not mean that this type of flying machine a priori is not suitable there. Mi-8 confirms this.
              Quote: iwind
              Rescue pilots, landing operations special forces.

              Helicopters Including and with refueling in the air, their helicopters can.
              Quote: iwind
              If the flight to 6000km.

              Aircraft. Including UVP with refueling in the air. We practiced the same landing with the capture of a suitable site for GDP, even in the mountains there are such. This is the case if helicopters cannot reach at all.
              Quote: iwind
              The main thing that lives and performs the task and their number is only growing.

              They are relatively few helicopters due to the high price and not a dozen years can not bring this scheme. The resource of the power unit as I heard is only 200 hours and is extremely demanding on maintenance.
              Quote: iwind
              Provide statistics of combat losses.

              Because they are not thrust into the heat of battles, sending helicopters there. By the way, he was given an affectionate nickname - "Death Trap".
              1. iwind
                iwind 18 July 2016 17: 29
                0
                Quote: kugelblitz
                And it’s absolutely pointless if their helicopters do not feel well in the mountains, this does not mean that this type of flying machine a priori is not suitable there. Mi-8 confirms this.

                Quote: kugelblitz
                Helicopters Including and with refueling in the air, their helicopters can.

                For the same period of time? For the wounded, every minute counts. To save the pilots, too. It’s not only yours that are looking for him, and with every hour of the enemy’s strength there will be more. For special operations and the landing of saboteurs, they also need efficiency and secrecy, and air refueling is a noticeable thing
                Quote: kugelblitz
                Aircraft. Including UVP with refueling in the air. We practiced the same landing with the capture of a suitable site for GDP,

                Well, there is no suitable runway (within a radius of 50-100km, and what is well protected), and there is for example an enemy command post.
                Quote: kugelblitz
                They are relatively few helicopters due to the high price and not a dozen years can not bring this scheme. The resource of the power unit as I heard is only 200 hours and is extremely demanding on maintenance.

                It has long been decided. Now everything is ok with reliability.
                "In order to take part in the UNITAS AMPHIBIOUS 2015 international exercise, the MV-22 tiltrotors made a record non-stop flight on the Miramar (California state) - Rio de Janeiro route on November 14, over 9900 km (6165 miles). refueled from the accompanying transport-tanker KC-130J. "

                Quote: kugelblitz
                Because they are not thrust into the heat of battles, sending helicopters there. By the way, he was given an affectionate nickname - "Death Trap".

                I participate everywhere where other US helicopters. And he was bombarded more than once,
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 18 July 2016 18: 30
                  0
                  Quote: iwind
                  For the same period of time?

                  If for landing, then an airplane or a helicopter will still show themselves better. And this ... well, so be it, will be an ambulance.
                  Quote: iwind
                  For special operations

                  It is helicopters that are most suitable, since they can be located for a long time in the hover mode and at low altitude. And they are difficult to detect and bring down.
                  Quote: iwind
                  Well no runway fit

                  Well, it just can't be like that if a special operation is being conducted in the country! wassat
                  Quote: iwind
                  It has long been decided. Now everything is ok with reliability.

                  Nevermind Ok! Last disaster happened May 17, 2015 - The Osprey MV-22B made a hard landing during exercises in the US state of Hawaii. The incident occurred in the area of ​​the air base on Oahu at 11:00 local time (23:00 Moscow time). Onboard the MV-22 Osprey, owned by the 15th Marine Expeditionary Force, there were 21 people, including 15 marines and four crew members. As a result of the accident, one person was killed, the rest were hospitalized.
                  1. iwind
                    iwind 18 July 2016 20: 37
                    +3
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    If for landing, then an airplane or a helicopter will still show themselves better. And this ... well, so be it, will be an ambulance.

                    Which is better? V-22 can transfer more paratroopers per unit of time (it can return faster after a new detachment), and most importantly less time is in a dangerous space. Have you forgotten about the evacuation of pilots? To transfer reinforcements, a simple example from life (In Afghanistan), a detachment ambushed V-22 and was able to deliver reinforcements and evacuate 1,5 times faster than a regular helicopter would do. Another USSOCOM (US Special Operations Command) ordered itself CV-22- and they already understand a lot about this. The most howling unit of the Air Force, there is no military conflict where the United States is at least somehow involved without them.
                    Although it’s silly to push a helicopter and a tiltrotor into one’s forehead, sometimes one is better sometimes the other depends on the tasks.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    It is helicopters that are most suitable, since they can be located for a long time in the hover mode and at low altitude. And they are hard to spot and knock down

                    Who really eat special. operations do not agree with you (USSOCOM). Yes, and India also expressed a desire to buy a CV-22 for similar tasks.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Well, it just can't be like that if a special operation is being conducted in the country!

                    And here is the country. There is no unprotected runway air defense near the target
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Nevermind Ok! The last disaster happened on May 17, 2015 - the Osprey MV-22B made a tough

                    AND? name then a helicopter that would not crash and disaster would not occur. This is happening for everyone.
                  2. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 18 July 2016 20: 52
                    0
                    Quote: iwind
                    Which is better? per unit time V-22 can carry more paratroopers

                    Isn't it better to send more helicopters?
                    Quote: iwind
                    Who really eat special. operations do not agree with you (USSOCOM). Yes, and India also expressed a desire to buy a CV-22 for similar tasks.

                    Yes, let them buy, I do not mind.
                    Quote: iwind
                    And here is the country. There is no unprotected runway air defense near the target

                    Well, in a radius of 200 km, at least you can organize a basing point. And there were no problems as before to organize an unpaved runway, but now it has drawn. You just drew some spheroconin.
                    And if we limit ourselves to a high-speed helicopter, I will be glad. Better instead of dubious aircraft, it’s better to saw the Il-112, which in principle has the signs of a UVP plane, although we’ll still see what happens.
                  3. iwind
                    iwind 18 July 2016 21: 39
                    +2
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Isn't it better to send more helicopters?

                    Is the UDC rubber deck?
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Well, in a radius of 200 km, at least you can organize a basing point. And there were no problems like organizing an unpaved runway,

                    On enemy territory? belay And since the V-22 is very convenient for sabotage operations, the distance and speed are not even for helicopters.
                    Ps
                    I prefer to use the information not from couch analysts, but who actually exploits this technique or is responsible for its selection and use.
                  4. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 18 July 2016 22: 27
                    0
                    Quote: iwind
                    I prefer to use the information not from couch analysts, but who actually exploits this technique or is responsible for its selection and use.

                    All that I listed to you was taken not from the bulldozer, but from the opinion of the operators. Like the experience of military operations.
                  5. iwind
                    iwind 19 July 2016 00: 34
                    +2
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    All that I listed to you was taken not from the bulldozer, but from the opinion of the operators. Like the experience of military operations.

                    that is why operators are buying the new V-22, and the number of operators is growing.
                    Not to mention the development of new convertiplanes.
                  6. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 19 July 2016 09: 00
                    0
                    Quote: iwind
                    that is why operators are buying the new V-22, and the number of operators is growing.
                    Not to mention the development of new convertiplanes.

                    You will be surprised, but for discreet throwing into the rear of saboteurs, perfectly light piston aircraft, especially wooden or composite structures, are suitable. The motor in the IR almost does not shine, the EPR is cheap, but at a low altitude you can not distinguish from interference, you can not hear the sound.

                    By the way ...

                    Quote: iwind
                    On enemy territory?


                    You probably forgot about the experience of the Second World War, when a whole air bridge was organized behind enemy lines just because of the low visibility of light aircraft, it came to the point that the most critical sections of the flight passed with the engine turned off. Of course, the case is purely specific, but it cannot be ignored either.
                  7. iwind
                    iwind 19 July 2016 11: 37
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    You will be surprised, but for discreet throwing into the rear of saboteurs, perfectly light piston aircraft, especially wooden or composite structures, are suitable. The motor in the IR almost does not shine, the EPR is cheap, but at a low altitude you can not distinguish from interference, you can not hear the sound.

                    And where will you fly from? And most importantly, are special forces suicide bombers? How will the evacuation look like?
                    Something I am armed with such aircraft for special. I don’t remember operations at the moment.
                    Yes, and as a small bonus.

                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    You probably forgot about the experience of the Second World War, when they organized a whole air bridge behind enemy lines just because of the low visibility of light aircraft, it came to the point that the most

                    Vova was a long time ago and the detection tools moved forward.
                  8. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 19 July 2016 12: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: iwind
                    And where will you fly from?

                    As well as land. The tiltrotor has no advantages except speed in front of helicopters and in our dispute you have this only argument. As well as vertical landing in front of aircraft, except for GDP.
                    Quote: iwind
                    detection tools

                    A tiltrotor can easily be calculated if it runs in economy mode at high altitude, and it has a problem with the combat radius near the ground, unlike an airplane, which lose much less in range.

                    I said above that in your case it’s a solid spherokonin, you don’t have take-off sites, there are only mountains all around, helicopters are good for anything, planes are completely jet airliners that require multi-kilometer runways. Of course, I am not opposed to increasing the speed of the helicopter, but I consider convertiplanes to be a dead end branch of aviation primarily because of their excessive technical complexity for the mass apparatus and the development of compromises in the amount of shortcomings. Just like with GDP fighters.
                  9. iwind
                    iwind 19 July 2016 16: 29
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    As well as land. The tiltrotor has no advantages except speed in front of helicopters and in our dispute you have this only argument. As well as vertical landing in front of aircraft, except for GDP.

                    With udk? this is which plane can take up to 24 paratroopers and take off from the udk.
                    And range.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    A tiltrotor can easily be calculated if it runs in economy mode at high altitude, and it has a problem with the combat radius near the ground, unlike an airplane, which lose much less in range.

                    Everyone is losing and the planes are also not enough.
                    For this, they came up with a flight mode to the target High-low. The closer to the target the lower the height.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    I said above that in your case it’s a solid spherokonin, you don’t have take-off sites, there are only mountains all around, helicopters are good for anything, planes are completely jet airliners that require multi-kilometer runways.

                    It is quite standard. A strike force of 4-5 udk + a destroyer approaches the coast for 200 km. and act. Conduct diversionary strikes, after / during the strike of cruise missiles + rescue shot down pilots.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Of course, I am not opposed to increasing the speed of the helicopter, but I consider convertiplanes to be a dead end branch of aviation primarily because of their excessive technical complexity for the mass apparatus and the development of compromises in the amount of shortcomings. Just like with GDP fighters

                    Well, 460 units have already been built, and they do not even plan to stop it. This is quite a series. And already Valor is already done. That is, there will only be more of them V-22 (Valor is not a replacement for V-22, but an addition) + Valor for the Air Force.
                  10. kugelblitz
                    kugelblitz 20 July 2016 07: 38
                    0
                    Quote: iwind
                    this is which plane can take up to 24 paratroopers and take off from the udk.

                    This can be done calmly by a helicopter. Which is less noticeable than a tiltrot by the way.
                    Quote: iwind
                    Everyone is losing and the planes are also not enough.

                    At a tiltrotor, loss of range becomes catastrophic, which contradicts your theories of throwing into the enemy’s deep rear.
                    Quote: iwind
                    Well, they have already been built 460 pieces

                    Just? For so many years? 244 units from the marines and 46 from the special forces (The Military Balance 2016 / James Hackett.). The machine, which in theory should be released for a thousand. I see that she could not fully replace the CH-46
                  11. iwind
                    iwind 20 July 2016 11: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    Just? For so many years? 244 units from the marines and 46 from the special forces (The Military Balance 2016 / James Hackett.). The machine, which in theory should be released for a thousand. I see that she could not fully replace the CH-46

                    This is an existing order.
                    At the moment, 263 units were built for the Navy until 2014 + 19 to 2016. Now there will still be an order for aircraft carriers
                    Well, how would a ch-46 from 1962 was built 523 for the navy
                    ... the difference is not big. The v-22 still has everything. Why does the fleet need a thousand? And the Air Force will have its own convertiplane. Aft of those that are used for special operations.
                    By the way, ch-46 is no longer all decommissioned.
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    At a tiltrotor, loss of range becomes catastrophic, which contradicts your theories of throwing into the enemy’s deep rear.

                    Give figures, I haven’t read about it anywhere.
                    Combat radius. 390 NMI (426 miles, 722 km) -v-22
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    make calmly a helicopter. Which is less noticeable than a tiltrot by the way.

                    Very controversial statement. But we definitely lose the reaction speed and range, which is very important for diversion, rescue, and transfer reinforcements.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 22 July 2016 01: 19
                +1
                So far, orders for combat helicopters are declining, and for tiltrotations
                are growing.
                Transport helicopters - where speed is not critical - will remain.
                And in the army, helicopters will gradually supplant the GDP apparatuses.
  • Operator
    Operator 18 July 2016 15: 58
    -2
    And what prevents the U.S. Air Force from using flights with a length of several thousand kilometers to use shortened take-off / landing aircraft (such as the same C-130, taking off even from an aircraft carrier), and when rescuing pilots on enemy territory - UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for 21 million. dollars (on the shoulder of the 400 nautical miles, the reaction time will take not two hours like the V-22 Osprey for 116 million dollars, but two and a half hours)?

    In addition to cutting the budget, of course.
    1. iwind
      iwind 18 July 2016 17: 12
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      And what prevents the U.S. Air Force from using flights with a length of several thousand kilometers to use shortened take-off / landing aircraft (such as the same C-130, taking off even from an aircraft carrier), and when rescuing pilots on enemy territory - UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for 21 million. dollars (on the shoulder of the 400 nautical miles, the reaction time will take not two hours like the V-22 Osprey for 116 million dollars, but two and a half hours)?
      In addition to cutting the budget, of course.

      What kind of aircraft? That landing was experimental, without any load.
      Sometimes these half an hour are very important, and more than half an hour is needed, there will be two refueling for the Uh-60 and by the way the speed of the V-22 Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km / h), UH-60 Black Hawk Cruise speed: 150 kn (170 mph; 280 km / h). for 740 km. (400 nautical miles) is obtained.
      740/280 = 2,6 hours. for UH-60. and 740/446 = 1,6 for v-22. HOUR, one way only, excluding refueling for UH-60. Further, why is 116 million when the Price is MV-22 In FY 2015, the unit cost of the MV-22 is $ 71.92 million (flyaway cost). The airframe costs $ 64.25 million, electronics $ 1.38 million, and the two AE1107C engines cost $ 4.62 million ($ 2.31 million each), an option for the US Air Force even cheaper CV-22 - $ 64.250 That's why you are constantly lying. In general, this is your business, but you can not contact me (I'm already tired)?
      That the UH-60 is needed, that the V-22 is needed each for its own purposes.
      1. Operator
        Operator 18 July 2016 18: 17
        -1
        C-130 with a wingspan of 40 meters takes off and lands on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the presence of an obstacle in the form of a deck superstructure. The take-off weight of the aircraft with a minimum amount of fuel and engine power 18000 hp is 36 tons (2 kg / hp.).

        With normal loading in 18 tons and maximum refueling of internal fuel tanks, the take-off weight of the C-130 is 72 tons (4 kg / hp). It is enough to install twice as powerful engines on the aircraft and it will normally take off and land with an 250 meter long GDP.

        The latest modification of the C-130J (speed 645 km / h, range 5200 km) is more than half the price of the Osprey with a carrying capacity of 2 tons, the flight characteristics of which I do not even want to bring.

        In the image and likeness of the C-130, it is possible to create a whole line of shortened takeoff and landing turboprop aircraft. In this case, an SUVP with an equal carrying capacity of the Osprey will be much cheaper than the latter by an order of magnitude.
        1. iwind
          iwind 18 July 2016 20: 43
          +3
          Quote: Operator
          In the image and likeness of the C-130, it is possible to create a whole line of shortened takeoff and landing turboprop aircraft. In this case, an SUVP with an equal carrying capacity of the Osprey will be much cheaper than the latter by an order of magnitude.

          .... mushrooms would grow. That's when it appears, then back to this question.
          1. Operator
            Operator 18 July 2016 20: 47
            -3
            I agree - together the SUVP line so far we have a cut of the budget and a toadstool "Osprey" bully
            1. iwind
              iwind 18 July 2016 21: 41
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              I agree - together the SUVP line so far we have a cut of the budget and a toadstool "Osprey" bully

              everywhere you have cut.
              Only now this cut flies and performs the task. Unlike the mythical SUVP.
              .
            2. Operator
              Operator 18 July 2016 22: 00
              -3
              There is not enough money for SUVP with such prices for Osprey.
            3. iwind
              iwind 18 July 2016 22: 13
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              There is not enough money for SUVP with such prices for Osprey.

              America has enough money. But where are the military SUVP in other countries since they are so good?
            4. Operator
              Operator 19 July 2016 00: 10
              0
              In other countries, it’s not so much that there is an SUVP — there is not enough money in the budget for a minimal army.

              In America, there is enough money - for Penguins, Osprey, transatmospheric interceptors and other idle crap, but for the analogues of Su-35С, T-14, SUVP, Sarmatia, Caliber of money has not yet been found.

              Maybe something is wrong in the overseas GVZ system?
            5. iwind
              iwind 19 July 2016 00: 38
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              In other countries, it’s not so much that there is an SUVP — there is not enough money in the budget for a minimal army.

              India, China, Japan what poor countries.
              Quote: Operator
              America has enough money - for the Penguins, Osprey, atmospheric interceptors and other idle crap, but for the analogues of the Su-35S, T-14, SUVP, Sarmatia, Caliber money has not yet been found.
              Maybe something is wrong in the overseas GVZ system?

              Well, fools around ... They don’t know what military equipment to order and how to do it.
              I won’t even ask for actual evidence, again there will be deception and lies, etc.
  • Aqela
    Aqela 18 July 2016 13: 02
    0
    Alexander Yakovlev also wrote about his Yak-12 that a football field is enough for him to take off and land. I just forgot to note that the landing glide path is not included in this footage, for which I was fined before Stalin ... In the video, it would be useful to indicate the direction and speed of the wind. With a good fit, such aircraft can almost take off vertically. He would have shown a motorcycle hang-glider ... In short, another "wow!" belay for the ignoramus.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 July 2016 15: 21
      -1
      Quote: Aqela
      another "wow!"

      Of course, for the ignoramus, I threw a video from An-14, An-28. The ignoramuses were developing the An-32. And they planted S-130 on an aircraft carrier. You can continue to dig on these hybrids that eat fuel not in themselves and carry almost only their own weight. bully
      1. Nekarmadlen
        Nekarmadlen 18 July 2016 23: 38
        +1
        Excuse me for interfering in the dispute between the giants of thought))) Last year, the Turks shot down Su -24 in Syria ... While the rescue Mi 8 flew, until they found a suitable site ... (2 man died, the co-pilot miraculously escaped and the 1 helicopter destroyed) ... And what kind of aircraft with a short take-off and landing could be used there? ... And if the VKS had an analogue of Osprey, maybe everything would be less tragic ...
        1. Operator
          Operator 19 July 2016 00: 14
          +1
          Read carefully - the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, which is six times cheaper than the Osprey, is enough to save the pilots.

          I understood you correctly - Osprey, unlike the Mi-8, does not need to choose a suitable landing site as in Syria?
        2. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 19 July 2016 08: 48
          +1
          Quote: Nekarmadlen
          And if the videoconferencing system had an Osprey analogue, maybe everything would be less tragic

          Those. you guarantee that a much less tenacious Osprey with a carbon fiber fuselage and a wing stuffed with hydraulics would definitely survive under fire from the ground?
          And the fact that the pilot was shot in the air, and not on the ground? Those. it can already be concluded that at that moment even a hypersonic tiltrotor could do little.

          I'm just wondering how you imagine the situation?
          1. Nekarmadlen
            Nekarmadlen 19 July 2016 09: 30
            +1
            The point is that for rescue operations, maize aircraft are not suitable at all ... The faster the rescue helicopter or tiltrotor flies into place, the better ... The Americans and their allies have long mastered landing from a hovering helicopter or tiltrotor along ropes (like recently Turks in Ijilik), landing right away is not necessary ...
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 19 July 2016 11: 36
              +2
              Then, according to your words, it’s even more effective to send a vertical take-off and landing fighter there.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 18 July 2016 18: 00
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    That’s what I meant, of course not so short take-off and landing, but cool! bully
    You won’t surprise anyone with such numbers for a long time. Most of the cars present in the frame are variations on the Fi-156 Storch theme, which was adopted by Germany back in 1937. Its takeoff run was a maximum of 65 meters, and after landing - 22 meters. With a headwind of 40 km / h, the aircraft could hang in the air without loss of control. Using such a wind, you can greatly reduce both takeoff and landing on Fizeler.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 July 2016 21: 21
      +1
      By the way, I forgot something about slotted wings, with the forced creation of a sparse boundary layer, both due to flow around and due to the compressor. They have a chip with a very high bearing capacity, but unfortunately only everything is on the verge of experimentation.
      And in theory, when landing, you can partially take air from the compressor of the gas turbine engine to reduce the speed of stall, so as not to make a separate fence. But R&D must be carried out concrete. Here are some interesting models where slotted wings are used to reduce stall speed at high angles of attack. Just what you need for the UVP aircraft.

      modelist-konstruktor.com/v_mire_modelej/na-bolshix-uglax-ataki
  • Oslyabya
    Oslyabya 20 July 2016 08: 34
    +1
    Really impressed! hi
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 18 July 2016 09: 25
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Helicopters have their own niche of speed and combat use, so all attempts to get into someone else's airplane niche each time end at the design stage.

    I agree. What about the horse and the quivering doe? To each his own, there were no sensible hybrids in aviation and they are unlikely to be, no one has canceled the threshold of contradictions.
  • 3vs
    3vs 18 July 2016 09: 27
    -1
    Why should our designers not consider installing a pusher propeller for K-52 helicopters?
    There are two keels on the tail, one between them, and maybe even two pushing screws in a round protective
    cover, and even make the keels turning left and right to make a more dynamic turn of the car ...
    1. thinker
      thinker 18 July 2016 10: 25
      +5
      There is such a project - Ka-92 http://avia.pro/blog/ka-92
      1. 3vs
        3vs 18 July 2016 10: 30
        +1
        And really, there is such a project!
        I would like to see all this embodied in metal!
        1. SVVP
          SVVP 9 August 2016 15: 03
          0
          bully Don't wait - it's just "drank"! IMHO
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 15: 30
            0
            drank this single-rotor
            1. SVVP
              SVVP 10 August 2016 09: 44
              0
              Quote: Simpsonian
              drank this single-rotor


              Not only, and twin-screw - also laughing
              Have you heard anything about the continuation of work, starting from the desktop layouts, of course? Nothing! Everything sank into the water! ...
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 10 August 2016 10: 16
                0
                Perhaps they did not give money to do it ... The single-screw was just called that, it drank "technically", it does not have a pushing screw and at high speeds there will be a blockage on its side.
                1. SVVP
                  SVVP 10 August 2016 12: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  and at high speeds there will be a blockage on its side.


                  For the blockage, the "boomerang effect", the helicopter must be accelerated, especially since it is very interconnected with the AP, its maximum operating angles, cyclic, etc., etc., etc., ...
                  Therefore, the controversial moment, so categorically about the single-rotor is difficult to say ...
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 10 August 2016 18: 32
                    0
                    For this reason, there are categorically two rotors.
                    1. SVVP
                      SVVP 10 August 2016 18: 47
                      0
                      They are not right, I have been tracking high-speed ones for a long time, I assure you, aerodynamics both in Yuriev and Mile - "from teeth", and in the sense too. Now I came to one thing that only a tiltrotor can coordinate the entire AON fleet, and only according to my invention (it’s not in vain that I went to it for more than 25 years) - this is not fanaticism, this is objectivism. the state of things that the cost of a helicopter and an airplane, usually of two halves, and approximately equal: glider / SU. So, in my tiltrotor there is only one indivisible part - the glider, because the classical SU, gearboxes, angular gears and transmissions, on it no, absolutely (!). And the fuel is LPG, the price of a liter of which is within 15 rubles / liter.
          2. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 9 August 2016 15: 30
            0
            drank this single-rotor
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 18 July 2016 09: 28
    +2
    The article unfortunately did not offer anything new. All the same talk about promising patterns, experiments and intentions.

    The phrase "interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan". According to the dictionary:

    Intervention (lat. Interventio - intervention) - military, political, informational or economic intervention of one or several states in the internal affairs of another state, violating its sovereignty.

    Intervention can be military (one of the forms of aggression), diplomatic, informational, economic. All types of intervention are incompatible with the UN Charter and are prohibited by international law.


    In Afghanistan, an operation was conducted with the connivance of the UN Security Council. Unanimous Resolution Resolution No. 1386.
  • Atigay
    Atigay 18 July 2016 12: 56
    -2
    All this is bullshit. And designers know that. We need new schemes, to repeat what Sikorsky did funny 100 years ago.
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 18 July 2016 12: 57
    0
    As for osprey, this idea can be developed in the following direction, instead of installing turboprops, install turbojet engines not in rotary nacelles, but like on a regular plane, use the controlled thrust vector for takeoff, that is, make nozzles rotate 90 degrees.
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 18 July 2016 14: 32
      +1
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      instead of turboprop install turbojet engines


      Something like that ... really, there is no OAT.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 July 2016 15: 44
        +1
        TVD burn the surface, in extreme cases, Turbofan, although turboprop efficiency is higher in the case of vertical take-off.
      3. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 18 July 2016 19: 57
        0
        Quote: Choi
        Something like that ... really, there is no OAT.

        Yes, but do not deploy engines, but nozzles, to create traction during vertical take-off.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 19 July 2016 12: 08
          +3
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          place turboprops install turbojet engines

          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Something like that ... really, there is no OAT.


          Helicopter Prop Converts power to work. What turbojet engines do not have. Therefore, the power of the v-22 engines in the area of ​​4000 book.

          If there is no screw, the turbojet engine power equal to the mass of the V-22 itself is needed, that is, it needs engines for 12 tons of thrust.

          Like the 737 buoy CFM International LEAP)))


          Not the best option. And they will devour the floor of the poor fellow’s tank on take-off, like all VTOL aircraft
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 18 July 2016 14: 51
    0
    The article forgot to mention Agusta Westland 609.

    AW609 commercial convertoplane is a long-term project of AgustaWestland. It was launched in 1996 year, under the Bachnumx index jointly by Bell Helicopters and AgustaWestland (and initially Boeing also participated in the project) as a kind of reduced (six to nine passengers) civilian version of the convergent plane V-609 Osprey. Due to technical difficulties and practically unsolvable problems with the civil certification of the Bell Helicopters apparatus, it ultimately came to the conclusion that the project was unprofitable, and in 22, it came out of it. After that, the program is fully implemented by AgustaWestland under the designation AW2011.


    To date, only two AW609 prototypes have been built (АС1 and АС2, the first flights in 2003 and 2006), and the testing and fine tuning of the vehicles has been extremely delayed. Finally, the second prototype of the AC2 crashed in Italy on October 30 2015. Certification of the device, which was originally scheduled for 2007 year, is now expected no earlier than 2017-2018, and even the opinion exists that AW609 will never be able to get an American type certificate due to the unattainability of the certification requirements for flight safety on it.


    80 solid orders. The catalog value on 2010 year is 29 million.

    The second flight prototype of the Agusta Westland AW609 convertiplane is a prototype of the AC2 (US registration N609AG). This car crashed 30.10.2015
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 July 2016 15: 07
      0
      There is still much to be improved in this direction.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 18 July 2016 15: 43
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        There is still much to be improved in this direction.


        Therefore, probably no one except Opprey has ever gone to the series. And he, too, was extremely alert. So yes, rakes are collected by all who work in this direction.
    2. Uryukc
      Uryukc 18 July 2016 18: 59
      0
      "Catalog value for 2010 -29 million."

      On sous 30 see enough.
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 19 July 2016 03: 12
        +1
        Quote: Uryukc

        On sous 30 see enough.


        Well, it's kind of like a private trader. Like Bombardier or Golfstream. And the prices have already grown for sure. And after the crash, the question of further fine-tuning is acute.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 July 2016 15: 49
    +1
    The coaxial scheme for light and medium helicopters is more relevant. It seems to me that they undeservedly forgot the American scheme without a tail rotor (with a fan in the tail boom and controlled blinds). Add to the scheme a controlled vector of thrust back and to the side and everything is fine.
  • RF Armed Forces 12345678
    RF Armed Forces 12345678 19 July 2016 10: 16
    +1
    An interesting development on the subject of high-speed helicopters was in the USSR. It was MI-42, designed to replace the MI-24 "flying BMP". The MI-42, among other things, did not have a tail rotor. Its functions were performed by gas-jet rudders.
  • Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 19 July 2016 23: 27
    +2
    The article is good, although not detailed, but the coverage is quite wide. It is a pity that they forgot about the project of the Sarov Bureau. By the way, Kamovtsy rotorcraft engaged in a very long time. And they flew in their metal. The principle is the same as that of the apparatus of the Sikorsky company, although the design was completely different. The device, it seems the Ka-22 was called. It is necessary to google.
    If the designers, the military and the leadership thought like some commentators, we would still be flying on the Wright brothers' apparatus. Tu, Boeing and Airbus are much more expensive! Why, in general, spend money on the development of aviation, the plane did the Wright brothers fly! Well this is a specific cut dough! Well, how much you could drink with that money! Or you can take them offshore, and these wise men spend them on some helicopters! Precisely cut!
  • Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 20 July 2016 00: 02
    +3
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/ch/ka22.html Тут про Ка-22. 1960 г., однако. По нынешним временам характеристики, конечно, не запредельные. Но принцип тот же что и у перспективных винтокрылов - крылья и несущие винты несут, а тянущие тянут. Главное достижение современных винтокрылов - это лопости несущих винтов, работающие без срыва потока, даже, при обтекании задом наперед. НИОКР в этом направлении фирма Сикорского вела ещё в 80-х годах прошлого века. Об этом в те годы зарубежное военное обозрение писало. Только тогда винт несущий был у них не соосный и, кажется, останавливался в полёте на больших скоростях, работая как Х-образное крыло. Дальше эксперимента не пошло, соосные винты выгоднее. Вот так и создаются принципиально новые образцы техники, в результате десятилетий НИОКРа. А если через год орарь, что результата нету, что это распил, так и будем старые танки новой краской перекрашивать и выдавать за инннновации. Опытный образец "Арматы" поехал, когда ещё такого слова, "инновации" не знали, а новая техника была. А сейчас диковинные слова с забугорья перенимают, пыль с советских разработок стряхивают, бантики привязывают и выдают за принципиально новые разработки.