I believe the army bird is a bit faster with greater range. More importantly, the V280 is supposed to have a slide-in weapons system that will allow the aircraft to effectively defend itself during insertion, extraction, and bug-out phases.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The right aircraft wins…again
- Thread starter phrogdriver
- Start date
When you mentioned "slide in" made me wonder why the V280 does not have a ramp? Would have made enplaning and deplaning quicker and given it more utility over the competition. Doesn't look like the final design would have accommodated one, but seems easily done earlier in development.
Nope, doors on the port and starboard, but no ramp.
It’s smaller and a little bit faster. The V-22 has a Vne of 280. The 280 hit over 300 in level flight and that was with a smaller engine than the production aircraft will have.
Lower disc loading and having a side door for hoist ops will make overwater rescues a little easier than in the CV.
Aircraft in this size category typically don’t have ramps. They’re heavy and need hydraulics.
They’re great for vehicles and pallets. Not so great for people. I don’t think a ramp would be faster than sliding doors, even if you could somehow make a ramp fit in this configuration.
Why doesn’t a 60 have a ramp? Because it’s just not practical.
Didn’t the Air Force already consider tilt-rotor and tandem rotors as part of their CSAR-X and CRH analysis for the HH-60G replacement? Granted, those programs were being briefed back in early 2000s, paused, and then restarted in the 20-teens.
Air Force Will Look at CV-22, New Army Helicopter for Long-Range Combat Search and Rescue | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The AIr Force will consider the new Army V-280 helicopter for long-range combat search and rescue but may rely on the CV-22 in the interim.www.airandspaceforces.com
Considering they finally got the HH-60W program underway, and that were probably still a few years from FOC, I have to think this is probably more than a few decades away.
Edit: Meanwhile, USAF is also looking into the unmanned route for the PR mission. Who knows, maybe an “optionally manned” V280?
Robot Rescue? Air Force Seeks New Way to Recover Downed Troops
The CSAR helicopters it’s currently buying can’t handle the mission in a conflict with China, officials say.
www.defenseone.com
Last edited:
Bell already has it V247Didn’t the Air Force already consider tilt-rotor and tandem rotors as part of their CSAR-X and CRH analysis for the HH-60G replacement? Granted, those programs were being briefed back in early 2000s, paused, and then restarted in the 20-teens.
Considering they finally got the HH-60W program underway, and that were probably still a few years from FOC, I have to think this is probably more than a few decades away.
Edit: Meanwhile, USAF is also looking into the unmanned route for the PR mission. Who knows, maybe an “optionally manned” V280?
Robot Rescue? Air Force Seeks New Way to Recover Downed Troops
The CSAR helicopters it’s currently buying can’t handle the mission in a conflict with China, officials say.
At this point wouldn’t it just be easier to get rid of the fixed wing pilot and just suspend the idea of CSAR?Edit: Meanwhile, USAF is also looking into the unmanned route for the PR mission. Who knows, maybe an “optionally manned” V280?
Robot Rescue? Air Force Seeks New Way to Recover Downed Troops
The CSAR helicopters it’s currently buying can’t handle the mission in a conflict with China, officials say.
@phrogdriver How the heck do they fire those Hellfires? I'm sure it's been engineered, but even the look-down models have to get off the rail first.
You convert before firing. The nacelles move at 11 deg/second in a V-22, and you only have to move them halfway up.
Ah, of course. Thanks.
And here I was thinking they had firing interrupters like WWI fighters! ?
Naw, steel plates on the rotors, full Roland Garros-style.
“Rifle!” *thwap* “Belay my last.”
GaryWright75
New Member
It is exposed without issue because:
1. All that stuff is fairly structurally sturdy or there are redundant systems
2. Even if the PCA does jam...So what? Your nacelles get stuck at a weird angle and you have to do a run-on landing. It has happened a few times during the types' millions of hours of service, everybody has lived to tell the tale so far.
Unrelated, the Osprey does have very real issues with Icing and its' anti-ice equipment. The anti-ice equipment is extremely robust if working, but the anti-ice equipment is expensive and time-consuming to maintain due to the heavy use of composite throughout the aircraft, not because it is a tiltrotor. Composite can catch fire, so special care needs to be taken when running heating elements through it.
As for why people are still defensive about the Osprey? No idea. I will say it is strange that there is a fair amount of tilt-rotor distaste on the interwebs which I don't get as well. It feels like BetaMax vs. VCR or Oreo vs. Hydrox. Weird flamewar history about which technology is better that some people are really into for whatever reason. The thing started development before most of the people flying it were born, and has been operational since most of the people currently flying it were in elementary school. It just works. It is frustrating sometimes trying to explain to people that it is not a helicopter and doesn't work like a helicopter. It is confusing why some people still think it is this weird novel thing. So it could just be exhaustion from repeating themselves rather than defensiveness.