Bell V-280 Valor Demonstration Flight 

Im agree with you 100%

More shit that can break which will happen. Just watch.

@@yeabuddy6070 Sounds like a hater.

@@boydrobertson2362 .... It's big brother has such a successful record doesn't it .

@@yeabuddy6070 The V-22 isn't a big brother to the V-280. The V-280 is a separate design and shares zero lineage to the V-22 Osprey. The only relation is that the V-280 program is learning from the mistakes of the V-22.

@@yeabuddy6070 And to be clear, yes, the V-22 is extremely successful at this point. Lowest rotorcraft mishap rate in the military since those teething issues, and so capable the Navy replaced the C-2 with it entirely.

I’m praying as I own Rolls Royce stock and it’s their engines that power it

@@mcpraveen Their next engine is scalable for narrowbody, which is a good thing. Getting out of the narrowbody market was a very poor decision but lucky for me I invested in them during Covid and not 10 years ago because if I did that I’d be in real trouble.

@@mcpraveen at the time I think they saw the money for wide body and they were doing fine with that model before Covid happened but without being in narrowbody, they completely lost all their revenue during Covid. Had they stayed in narrowbody they probably wouldn’t of suffered that badly. The good thing is they are definitely going to return to narrowbody at some point within the next few years. Don’t think they’ll make that mistake again.

@@mcpraveen this contract is worth $80 billion or more, Rolls-Royce can really use this as a sign of confidence.

@@mcpraveen I think UltraFan will be quite the engine, as it can scale from 25,000 to 100,000 in thrust. Versatility and 25% more fuel efficient. RR is smart to diversify away from being so reliant on civil aerospace, which is what put them in this position in the first place.

*Fortunate son starts playing* Me too, man Me too.

The Marine still using UH-1Z tho and the Huey is too slow for these kind of task. Yes the blade's noise of the Huey is unbeatable.

19% larger footprint only

TRUELY!

The v-22 is one of the safest aircraft the navy flies.

It can fit on coast guard cutters, frigates, destroyers, and the new large cruisers being designed.

@@kyee7k But the US army funded it not the Navy. There is a lot of wastage of resources & duplication between the services

@@ricky1231 True and true. I would not be surprised if there are Air Force and Naval liason officers there gathering data for their respective services. Both helicopters used by the Air Force and Navy were based on the Blackhawk and are around 42 and 37 years. Whoever wins this contract for the army will also be the winner for the other services, with minor changes based on service needs. By the time the other services start replacing their helicopters, the oldest ones will be over 50 years old.

I'd recommend reading the FLRAA objective documents from the Army/Marines. They are both funding it because they need an integrated, high-speed(280+knots), maneuverable future war machine. Most of the helicopters in service are Pre-Reagan Area, I.e Chinook-1961/Apache-1975/UH60-1972, the fleet needs to modernized, and not another zulu model (even though the AH-1Z is glorious). Imagine if in WW2 they used weapons that were 50-60+ years old developmentally.

@yo yo You are wrong, in a Breaking Defense press release in 2018, Bell shared a Marine variant that would have an folding wings, and inverted V-tail, and internal weapon bays.

It acutally can. the 2 motors are geared together so 1 engine can support both propellers.

It can and all critical system are triple redundant.

@@stevensko9153 Bell. The people who make it. The same ones who made the V-22, which also has both engines linked together because believe it or not, they're not retarded and aren't going to deliver an aircraft which becomes uncontrollable if an engine fails.

@@stevensko9153 RU-vid deletes most links. However, Bell has mentioned (back in 2014, you'll have to google yourself) that the straight wing eliminates the need for a mid-wing gearbox like on the V-22, which implies a straight shaft connection. As a quote form a Bell employee during an interview about the V-280 program “When you put dihedral and sweep in there, you get some complex angles that you have to address with your driveshafts that go from rotor to rotor to keep the interconnect working." Furthermore, again, Bell is not staffed entirely by retards. The Army would never buy a twin helicopter that is guaranteed to lose control and crash in the event of an engine failure, which would be the case without a mechanical interconnection. That would be like ordering a UH-60 that self destructs if an engine fails, it's asinine. It's such a basic required design feature of any tiltrotor aircraft nobody even bothers to mention it, and indeed engineers will act like you're a moron for suggesting it might be designed otherwise.

@@MillionFoul Dude your responses have me howling. "Bell is not staffed by retards".

And giving it several timesthe range, payload, and faster time on target. Y'know, things which make it infinitely more useful as a tactical aircraft.

Disappointed for you but for a lot of people this is a revolutionary achieved. Just accept the fact that we have reached the limit of conventional helicopter.

LMAO it is a good thing people like you aren't in charge or we would still be stick in the past.

from observing the shutdown sequence i think that NOTAResque whine may be the transmission, you can hear it prominently wirring down in sync with the rotors speed but out of sync with the turbines winding down noise (could potentially also be the oil cooler fans if it has any hahaha, the ones on the Bell 412 are very prominent)

Got to admit I hear the euro outer sound, love hearing the Northumbria police ec135 on look out, hovering the streets filling them with rotor beat 😍

It's going to be a long time before they make this available for the private sector.

this thing BETTER win the FLAARA, its faster and just as agile as the Boeing SB-1 is. Did I also say it's 70 MPH's faster!!?

@@Defender78 It won. But Lockheed is objecting.

Bell stated that the V-280 would be focused on the military, while the AW609 (in which Bell is a subcontractor) would be for civil operations.

@@VigilanteAgumon It's priced at 30 million dollars. So it's not going to replace helis anytime soon.

@@stevensko9153 The V-22 has been very successful... even the navy said it is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies and the stats prove that.

@@stevensko9153 and multiple other aircraft have terribly starts and aren't failures.

Chinese Copycat.? Bell's V-280 Valor and Boeing Sikorsky Defiant X Unveiled in Zhuhai Air Show WTF! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--bxH_eDpDJc.html China: Sikorsky and Boeing Challenge Army Decision to Replace Black Hawk with Bell V-280 Tiltrotor ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QML6r2x5vcc.html

@@darylguberman4242 China is a long and complex story. Few get it. They copy what they can, adapt it to their "The Art of War" and that is China.

No completely different role.

not limited by Marine corps' requirements for size so it can have a better rotor diameter for its size meaning the blades don't have to spin as fast.

... The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h), hence the name V-280. It has a top speed of 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km). Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg). In one major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt.

... You think that is what helicopters are for? Also it would be quieter than traditional helicopters while its nacelles are forward.

toroidal propelers won´t work for a rotor, the blades need to be able to adjust their angle

Valor is just better than the defiant in nearly everyway and neither aircraft can perform the ospreys role.

19% larger footprint then the Black Hawk...

Its so stupid this thing could not even land in so many areas where a black hawk can with ease

Exactly - seems to prefer the looks over function

V-280 is a cool and capable aircraft. But, not the right one. Just buy more ospreys if needed. The Defiant is a better choice.

@@iansmith3406 it’s faster and has longer range than the defiant, so it doesn’t suck.

That’s why I’m still choosing the Defiant X over this.

Yes, the wings are removable. However, you don't need to do that because it has a ferry range of over 2000 miles. Faster and cheaper to just fly it to wherever you want it deployed than to take it apart.

There is a shaft that connects the two propellers through the main wing; such that one engine can drive both props if necessary. This is similar to the Osprey and earlier efforts like the Chinook.

In forward flight it can fly on a single engine, no problem. Range stays the same and, on theory, it should have more than enough power to land in hover mode in such event.

@@stevensko9153 Why do you doubt it? Yes, both engines are interconnected, just like on the V-22, because it would be dumb not to. It probably cannot hover on one engine, but most twin helicopters can't.

@@stevensko9153 Problems which the USMC has continued flying through and lead to increased maintenance requirements. From my understanding, the V-280 doesn't actually need a clutch, as the clutch on the V-22 is only there to facilitate the entire power section rotating: on the V-280 both engines can be directly mechanically interconnected with breakaway pins like on most twin engine helos.

@@MillionFoul It can hover on one engine just at reduced capacity as 1 engine turns both rotors. If it loses a rotor it can atleast glide unlike a heli

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 If a helo loses the main rotor it's kind of like a plane losing a wing. Not much design work you can do to make that work. Similarly, a tiltrotor can only lose a rotor in forward flight and stay airborne, of they lose it in a hover they're dead. As for hovwring on one engine I'd be interested to see at what weights it can do that. Tiltrotors tend to have pretty limited one engine performance due to the tranmission requirements from the live engine to such relatuvely light and fast rotor disks.

@@MillionFoul You are wrong... 1. a tilt rotor can auto rotate and glide 2. It is far safer to make an emergency landing while gliding than auto rotating so if you are at a high enough altitude + speed you can turn the rotors forward again to try and glide to a better spot as long as the entire rotor didn't come off which in that case it wouldn't matter the aircraft. 3. The osprey has a restricted weight not tilt rotors... this is because of design choices made by the marine corps. Also its current released max takeoff weight is 30,865 lbs with its empty weight at 18,078 lbs although these are bound to change. Its current engine power is at 5k shp(10k shp total) but an upgrade scheduled in 2021 should have brought that up to 7k shp or there is even testing on a 10k shp engine. Either way unless you are carrying cargo underneath like a M777A2 near the front you should have plenty of power to at least stay airborne.

It’s a jet helicopter, I would assume it’s got a high speed + max ceiling

The valor can fly at over 320 miles an hour, much faster than the defiant X by 60 mph. Sikorsky-Boeing did not get the contract as of December 5th 2022

320 mph, 6000 feet (it isn't pressurized), flight time will vary significantly depending on flight mode but in horizontal flight it should easily beat any traditional helicopter, and both the defiant and Osprey.

@@user-pq4by2rq9y the 6K ft is the max hover height btw the V-22 for example has a max ceiling of 25k FT and is pressurized so they would likely do the same.

Taken from Reddit "The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h), hence the name V-280. It has a top speed of 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km). Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg). In one major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt."

@Jaques Meissen thanks for the answer !

Both engines turn both rotors at all times so just like the Chinook and Osprey it will still be able to fly at a reduced capability

Is there such a thing anymore? Honestly? How many hot LZs have our soldiers been in the last 35 years?

The V-22 has shown that it is far more survivable in combat than other helo platforms, there has been actual RPG and AA fire against it and it has still made it home or to a safe place to land. I’m a CV22 mechanic, have been for 10 years, and as much of a bad rap that the osprey has taken, I would rather hop in the back of an osprey than a 60.

@@mikebarker6628 theres no way its eating an RPG. small arms fire to the rotors would ground this thing, of which there are 2 to choose from. and it needs both for stability. it would be like shooting the tailfin off of a normal heli. also those lines that allow the swivel motions of the heli pods are likely very fragile.

​​​@@cerberus1166 actually, since there are 2 rotors and it usually flies in airplane mode, it's almost guaranteed to be safer so long as it isn't hovering. Plus, just putting a bullet (or 15) through the rotors will give it a hell of a lot of vibration, but it won't necessarily kill thrust. Kill the turbine on one side, there's a shaft running through the wing so the turbine on the other side can take up the slack. Kill both engines while it's flying, you've got a glider. Overall it's safer, so long as you train your pilots to remember this is an airplane that can become a helicopter instead of the other way around. And the swivel points are about as likely likely to be as fragile as your average military transmission. Which is not at all, by design.

@@mage3690 youd have a point. but it seems you dont comprehend that it has to hover to land and takeoff in general. so its not any safer. as far as i can tell the design is to take off and land like a helocopter not like a plane. putting a hole in those rotors would be as detremental as any helocopter if not worse.

@@cerberus1166I mean it really just depends on the situation, in all reality nothing on this green earth will take a rpg to the rotor while hovering and live that’s just common sense, the rotors on these just like the osprey have proven to be able to take some hits though and still hover, and like the other bro said while it’s in its “plane mode” I guess you could say a rotor can go down and the other picks up the slack. This is really meant to be a quick in and quick out type of aircraft so it looks to be really good for it’s intended purpose so just because of bad biases on the osprey on the crashes in it’s early years of flight I don’t think it’s fair to not give this aircraft a straight negative connotation yet, we still have yet to see what this thing can pull off and technology on this stuff has gotten extremely advanced beyond most peoples comprehension so I think it’s going to do fairly good

I don't think you understand how big a UH-60 or AH-64 is. They're medium sized helicopters, not small ones, and their rotor diameter is significantly larger than most four lane roads. Similarly, the V-280 is wider than a four lane road, though notably not longer: the footprint is very comparable to a UH-60, but sideways. And hitting the tail on something won't kill you. The V-280 carries more than a Blackhawk, faster, and further. It's faster and longer ranged than the SB-1 (which is also not small), and it's a more mature design which is lower risk for the Army. It can also ferry itself around the world (it has a ferry range comparable to small international turboprops, and similar cruise speed to boot), where an SB-1 has the range of a helicopter and is too tall to be shipped into theater on a cargo plane.

1. It's not meant to be a stunt plane. 2. The engines at the ends of the wings act like a balance bar that tightrope walkers use. It lowers the center of gravity.

It meets or exceeds all of the army standards for maneuverability which means it is at the level of the Blackhawk or better.

I think there are two different contracts now, though. I think the Army loked both designs so much they chose to go ahead with both.

@@Noisy_Cricket Actually, I can see the Marines wanting some of the V-280's for small rapid night insertions under low threat scenarios. Using them for many of the Marines activities seems logical. Like relief operations overseas, etc. But, for day to day use, and hot zone operations, the Sikorsky's will most likely be SOCOM and the Army's go to. As for the Marines, I can see them sticking to using the newer Huey's and Vipers for hot zone activity. They're much less expensive, and could probably last at least another decade before they are completely obsolete.

@yo yo ...Ah, very good point. If it doesn't fold up nice and tidy like the V-22 for an amphibious assault ship, then they'd have virtually no use for it.

@condor1970 yeah but the thing is, this is like the ch47, I can see this being the replacement for that. The army needs something like this, fast/durable/decent cargo space. This won’t be the replacement for the uh-60 I think Sikorsky won that, but this has the potential to allow the us army and surrounding Allie’s to help build fob’s/mob’s quickly. Fast transport for resources as cargo seems similar to the 47 maybe a bit smaller, and troop transport on the mass. I think the helicopter is designed to be a support helicopter and I think it could do it better than anything we currently have.

@@Yeetusdeleetus979 Believe it or not, the Defiant has the same cargo capacity, but not as fast. The Chinooks can fold the rotors to fit nice and tidy in a small space, but if the V-280 does not fold the wing, then it really has no place on a ship.

Defiant and Valor are competing for FLRAA - basically next gen Blackhawk. Raider and Invictus are competing for FARA, which will be light recon sort of like Kiowa.

@@stevensko9153 Raider is a smaller version with less internal space meant for weapons or 6 troops with the weapons removed.

As do all helicopters

Rear ramp was added to fit large cargo, don't overthink it.

Doesn't matter the craft, its the skill of the pilot that matters. Look at the bin laden raid and the gobshite that crashed a black hawk in optimal conditions. And if you use an osprey for tactical insertion on a mountain you're using the wrong aircraft.

@@skrrt_cobain The point is that the V-280 has the same rotor clearance issue as an Osprey, not that the Osprey is the right aircraft for everything.

Maybe once this will happen in the future. Most of the time they are landing at airfields or actual fields

@@vmpgsc You are wrong... it only has a 19% larger footprint than a Blackhawk but can carry 23% more troops at over twice the speed and twice the distance.

In the Cold War the Army was mostly optimized to fight in the North European Plain. The Army now needs to be configured to fight in the Indo-Pacific. In that theater range and speed are king, and army aviation will need both of those to remain relevant.

@@ajbridgewater I think that if this design could possibly have amphibious ability ( like a seaplane) it would be absolutely PERFECT, especially for the USMC.

as well as the USCG...

@@ajbridgewater Army has no clearly defined role in IndoPacific. Army needs next gen helos but Marines have already adapted for IndoPacific. Russia is still a threat to NATO’s eastern flank - you may have noticed.

@@omarn6989 The Army has a critical and well defined role in the Indo-Pacific that is largely based around their unique Long Range Precision Fires and air defense capabilities among other things. Just supplying and securing these locations locations which will be highly dispersed, will require some very long legs. Just from a numbers perspective, I served in the Marine Corps, with only 4 divisions, we're not going to single handedly take on all 118 infantry divisions of the PLAN. Even in Europe, range and speed will be critical. The proliferation of drones capable of ground strikes, and accurate long range rocket artillery will push the basing of air assets further and further back.

How would they rotate forward then

Or replace the rotors with jet turbines?

@@xaptus that’d definitely be too fuel intensive, loud, and would likely have problems with starting up, not something you want in a transport VTOL

@@xaptus There is a reason this isn't done...

Anything is a missile bait if you want it to be.

Congratz you described all helicopters.

Show me the decibel reading results

they almost sound like a radial in flybys, though. that’s a plus for me, maybe not SOCOM, but it sure is for me!

You think a helicopter is quiet? I think you are missing the point of this class of helicopter...

The engines are geared together so if 1 fails the other can support. It’s also a plane so it has some gliding capability.