www.army.mil
www.flightglobal.com
FVL seems to have become an umbrella program for all the services who are looking to replace their H-60s and H-1s in the coming decade or so. As the FVL program has gone on it seems like each service has developed or branched off their own specific requirements that include FARA (new Kiowa take 3?), AURA (h-1 replacement), and others (USN 60 replacement). The Defiant and V-280 are technology demonstrators for FVL that will result in a eventual replacement for USA 60s.Interested in this...looks like USMC is looking at Attack Utility Replacement Aircraft (AURA) and is piggybacking (sorry) off the army.
USMC looks for high-speed replacement to Bell UH-1 and AH-1
The US Marine Corps issued a request for information for its Attack Utility Replacement Aircraft (AURA) programme, formally launching its search for a rotorcraft to succeed the Vietnam War-era Bell UH-1 utility and Bell AH-1 attack helicopters.
Anywhere I can read more about this or does anyone have any detail on how this is going? Looks like 2020 on is a good time to be helo's/tilt with the new trainer coming online and development of a future H-1 replacement happening.
No guarantee that any of them will be tilt rotors. Plus, tilt rotors can be designed and built to fold to help with the stuffing.
Maybe this will result in helicopters/tilt rotors that don't look like they are build out of Legos or tinker toys, with all kinds of stuff bolted on. I loved flying the Seahawk, but holy f$%^, all that stuff (radar, ESM, hoists, datalink, FLIR, mirrors, etc...) bolted on never helped in range, speed or efficiency.Army pushes for higher speeds in future tiltrotor aircraft
The U.S. Army is developing a new wind-tunnel testbed that will help future tiltrotor aircraft attain higher speeds, improved stability and enhanced safety.
Not to thread jack, but has anyone else seen this? Seems like the Army wants an upgraded version of the V22 Osprey?
I think half the reason that stuff can be big clunky boxes on helos is that they don't go fast enough for it to matter so why put the time, money, and effort into unnecessary aesthetics? Now if you start going faster then that stuff really starts to matter.
Agreed. But doesn't change the fact that most helos don't go fast enough to make worrying about aesthetics matter. But your point about adding weight without adding engine performance is a good one. The aerodynamics may not matter, but the build up of weight sure does. As does power usage and thermal issues. (SWAP-C)
Maybe it's different in the 60M but while the 60R/S manuals had drag adjustments as well the weight and impact to Pr vs Pa always seemed to be the biggest factor. Or put another way a 60R with lumps and bumps and a slick 60S with the same GW had a very similar max airspeed. A 60S with the AMCM CSTRS on I think was airspeed or Q limited.
