V44 - big Osprey?

But tiltrotor is 3 times more efective than traditional helicopter

It's only faster, nothing else and pays a big price in safety as proven by the fact that it's still not in service after so many years in the works. Sorry guys but tilt-rotor is a failed experiment, however the U.S. military isn't very good at knowing when to cut its losses and get out of something(apply this.............. everywhere).

Tiltrotor has 2.5 more range than traditional helicopter with the same amount of fuel and payload. Period.

But don't think there is only tiltrotor that can achieve this goal. There are other solutions in development:

1, VTDP ( the advantage is that it doesn't need the new helo just upgrade the current ones)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2, canard rotor wing concept - reaction drive rotor locks in high speed and serves as a fixed wing and the aircraft is propelled with jets
X-50 dragonfly


3, reaction drive rotor (traditional) - similar to X50 but it doesnt have one rotor/wing, but traditional rotor and wing (like VTDP or Hind). Because of reaction drive rotor it doesn't need anti torque device and because of horizontal jets it can fly master and longer.

4, retractable rotor - rotor can be collapsed during high speed flight minimizing drag.

5,aditional propellers and conventional(not retracable rotor) rotor - noninovative , but reliable solution





[Edited on 17-5-2004 by longbow]

V-22
www.fas.org...

Read it, the V-22 does not work well in the role it's being put in.

Mi-26
www.fas.org...

Clearly the Russians in 1983 were capable of making a helicopter with most of the specifications of the V-22 without the problems. If they can do that then, then shouldn't the U.S. be able to make a similar helicopter that cost less then the 80 million V-22. Yes tilt rotor is a novel concept but some of its limitations make it unusable in many situations needed for helicopter roles(landing on unprepared sand, sea hovering.....) and downright unsafe with it's inability to auto-rotate.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
V-22
www.fas.org...

Read it, the V-22 does not work well in the role it's being put in.

Mi-26
www.fas.org...

Clearly the Russians in 1983 were capable of making a helicopter with most of the specifications of the V-22 without the problems. If they can do that then, then shouldn't the U.S. be able to make a similar helicopter that cost less then the 80 million V-22. Yes tilt rotor is a novel concept but some of its limitations make it unusable in many situations needed for helicopter roles(landing on unprepared sand, sea hovering.....) and downright unsafe with it's inability to auto-rotate.

Most of the fas info is almost 10 years old. Mi-26 is not the best deal for future long range transport because it needs too much fuel. As I already said if the US wanted traditional helicopter they would simply upgrade CH-53( by increasing its maximum payload from 16 to 20 tons).

Once again you fail to actually read and understand my post. Read it again then try to make an intelligent responce, I tire of repeating myself.

I could see it being put into service as a transport, but not much else. The added complexity of having four tilting engines would probably make it unreliable for use in a combat zone. I would imagine that the ability to hover over a target would be negated by the time it took to convert from horizontal to vertical flight. Plus, the V-22 has been around since the mid-eighties and still hasn�t seen active service yet, so think having the V-44 in service within six years is optimistic at best.

All that aside, does anyone know how effective the two fore/two aft engine configuration is?

That's pretty much all it can be used for due to safety concerns, a transport. As for transports, I've heard little about a U.S. counterpart to the amazing An-70 under development. It's not that the U.S. can't make these impressive but more conventional planes, they just don't.......... silly buggas.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
Once again you fail to actually read and understand my post. Read it again then try to make an intelligent responce, I tire of repeating myself.

So try to explain it to me, mighty one

What are you trying to say?
Most info on fas is 8 years old (i.e. unability to hoover over water, land in unprepared sand). Yes the Osprey cannot autorotate - really no big deal (but it has security device in the wing allowing to keep the rotors in work dusing one engine failure).The positive and negative of the tiltrotor have been taken into consideration and the decision was that it has much more positive aspects.
Or are you trying to say that traditional helicopter (like Mi-26) has better specifications? As I already stated tiltorotor is 2.5 more efective (including speed and RANGE) with the same amount of fuel and payload. Do you realize that 30% from the engine output on Mi-26is needed for the antitorque rotor and so 30% of fuel is wasted?
Or are you trying too say it costs too much? It is a new technology. Arquebus also costed much more than bow and arrows.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
That's pretty much all it can be used for due to safety concerns, a transport. As for transports, I've heard little about a U.S. counterpart to the amazing An-70 under development. It's not that the U.S. can't make these impressive but more conventional planes, they just don't.......... silly buggas.

Whats so amazing and special on An-70? US has CH-130 Hercules already 40 years. I konow it can carry only 20 tons but why carry more than you need? It was even able to land on carrier deck without the need of catapult or aresting gear.

O do you want to compare An-70 to FTR (like V-44)? I think I don't need to say why is VTOL better than STOL.

I'm sure there are emergency sytems in the works. The osprey is a good system(now). Rocket propelled para-foils (like the ones used on ultralights except bigger) are one of them.

Originally posted by para
I could see it being put into service as a transport, but not much else. The added complexity of having four tilting engines would probably make it unreliable for use in a combat zone. I would imagine that the ability to hover over a target would be negated by the time it took to convert from horizontal to vertical flight. Plus, the V-22 has been around since the mid-eighties and still hasn�t seen active service yet, so think having the V-44 in service within six years is optimistic at best.

It will be primary transport. It can serve for Army, Marine and Navy - can the AC-130 do the same?
About the gunship use - the advantage is not only hoovering over the target. Remember it can takeoff and land verticaly so you don't need the runway and the gunship base can be near the combat zone - so it will be able to faster response. If the V-22 enters service the V-44 would probably do the same, because those aircafts are so similar (engines, whings, rotors are all the same).

Originally posted by longbow

About the gunship use - the advantage is not only hoovering over the target. Remember it can takeoff and land verticaly so you don't need the runway and the gunship base can be near the combat zone - so it will be able to faster response.

Good point, I didn�t think about its VTOL ability as being beneficial for a gunship role.

My main concern flying the thing would be losing one of the rotating mechanisms and then trying to land. You can imagine the damage one of those propeller blades would do to the aircraft if it was still spinning and fragmented on impact. I guess that�s what feathering is for.

Whats so amazing and special on An-70?

It's the same style of plane but much faster, more fuel efficient, very good STOL. The Hercules won't last forever and will need to be replaced one day, however we don't seem to be developping any replacement.
Here's a safety concern that they can't resolve, if one rotor moves over a higher surface then the other(ship, building, cliff) it will flip over due to the inequities in pressure. Yes it can be solved by simply approching carefully but it makes things difficult.
Another problem that they may have worked out(probably not) when landing in an area where loose material can be blown around(sand) the distance of the rotors pushes the deprise into the plane making it difficult to see when landing and unloading also putting people trying to disembark into hostile territory in great danger.

There are new Hercs' I believe they are the U models. They have been taken down to bare bones and rebuilt- reskinned etc,etc re-vamped (slep). Hovering gunships would be vulnerable to direct-fire weapons (12.7-14.5-23mm) ya know? 300kts or so doesn't sound like much but altitude and speed and being under fire make the direct fire attempt a risky one at best. I believe they should use Osprey's with a 40mm and a 25mm only( In addition to the U-model AC-130's) as a rapidly deployable airborn gunship. The hercs might take a while to get/be mission ready and positioned to respond but,-who am I to tell them what works for them? Possible USMC AC130 are to have1 25mm instead of 2 20mms

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by bign]

Originally posted by bign
Hovering gunships would be vulnerable to direct-fire weapons (12.7-14.5-23mm) ya know? 300kts or so doesn't sound like much but altitude and speed and being under fire make the direct fire attempt a risky one at best.

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by bign]

It doesn't need to hoover it has the ABILITY to do it. It can still cruise like c-130.

Why don't they replace the props for turbine jet engines?

Originally posted by Murcielago
Why don't they replace the props for turbine jet engines?

Think about cooling, maneuvrability, price, IR signature, damage to the airfield surface...

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
The goal of making a plane like MV-22 is to have a rapid vehicle for interventions forces in hard to access areas.

Every Army on the planet wants stuff in their arsenal that can do what you described. If your Runways get knocked out do you want to have a bunch of useless transport planes sitting there because they cant take off without a long runway.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Murcielago
Why don't they replace the props for turbine jet engines?

Think about cooling, maneuvrability, price, IR signature, damage to the airfield surface...

Yeah, Several good points.

I dissagree with some, but the damage to the airfield surface, by itself is enough.

WOW! I never realised that the US Aerospace giants got their ideas from reading old British comics.

I jest of course, but nevertheless look at this amazing scene from the comic 'Jet', and look at the date! 1971!

A drawing in a comic is obviously a far cry from a fully engineered aircraft programme* but the similarity of the design, even down to the single modestly swept tailfin, is remarkable.

* not that this ever stops the Luft 46 junkies





link with date

[edit on 18-7-2006 by waynos]