The V-280 won due to the two most important words the Army wanted to hear. "Self Deployable". While in theory the Defiant has some things it does better than the V-280 Valor, the Valor can still get just about anywhere in the world faster. Because it can get there mostly on its own, with limited logistical support needed. It doesn't need to be crated and stuffed aboard an Air Force Transport. It may need fuel stops of aerial refueling rendezvous. But that's a hell of a lot easier to setup than flying 2 dozen helicopters somewhere aboard AF transports. The Defiant was an entirely new technology that Boing and Sikorsky were trying to work through. Slowly and badly. The Valor was basically everything learned from the Navy and Marine V-22 Osprey, evolved to the next level. The Defiant Prototype only ever got a handful of hours of flight testing time. It was offline dealing with issues constantly. The V-280 Prototypes have been almost constantly in the air for years now. Bell delivered a production ready prototype. Boeing/Sikorsky delivered an interesting X plane that still needs years of major refinement before it will ever be ready for production let alone front line service.
try landing one in a standard 4 lane wide intersection to drop off troops. Not gonna fit with a 50ft wingspan + rotors. the V-280 would be great for open terrain, it's an amazing machine with more range and speed, the SB-1 has better footprint and maneuverability.
@@Will-W This is a common misconception. The V-280's landing profile is smaller than a CH-47, and not remarkably larger than a Blackhawk. Roughly the equivalent to the Defiant's. You're just looking at it without rotating it 90 degrees.
@@Will-W The V-280 is shorter in overall length but wider, the landing footprint is only about 20% larger in area. The Army used a measure of an NFL football field (not without precedant, the plan for the Iran hostage rescue involved landing helicopters in the soccer stadium in Tehran which was an even larger area) as to why the 280 was superior. In the available field space, you can land 12 Blackhawks or 10 Valors. At full troop and crew loads, the 10 Valors can carry 8 more total troops than the 12 Blackhawks, to a point further away or in less time. Or put another way, the standard US Army infantry rifle platoon is 42 men. To move them together requires four blackhawks or three valors.
On paper maybe but the unspoken dark answer is Bell was much more willing to give away IP, LMCO/SAC/Boeing stood firm on retaining IP. Gov’t wants ownership of all IP.
I definitely prefer the design of the SB-1 and I think as a helicopter it's the better of the two, being able to land in a smaller footprint and transition from hover to horizontal flight quicker. But the design is limited and it's never going to beat the range and fuel efficiency of the V-280 which is ultimately what a military is going to be more interested in. The attack helicopter variant will be very interesting to see be developed and if both were to be adopted the cost and logistics savings from the commonalities between the two would be great for a military. Maybe there's hope another military might adopt both
It would be an incremental improvement but the army was looking for more and the navy/marines had already been using V22 with similar design to the V280 Valor for decades.
Boeing couldn't get it's bid straight. They promised lower acquisition and operating costs but failed to provide details on how it arrived at their promised figures. A failure of paperwork.
There wouldn't be much, if any, parts commonality between FARA and FLRAA if both designs were accepted. However, the Sikorsky design is superior in FARA for exactly the reasons you stated. Particularly, it makes a superior replacement for the little bird, and on par with Bell's design for an Apache replacement.
Thanks for the coverage on this topic. My own conclusion is that the US Army wanted an airplane that could hover rather than a helicopter that could fly fast.
In reality the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric and was a more mature platform as the Defiant had multiple technical issues that caused many moths of delays and even a crash.
@@monstrok it’s easier to make an airplane hover, than it is to get a rotary wing aircraft to the speeds they would like. There are aerodynamic limits on the helo’s prop that put a pretty firm limit on how fast they can go. Airwolf is not actually possible in the real world.
Well the Raider seems exactly like a smaller Defiant. That still has a chance of winning the other competition versus the Invictus. Wonder why he didn't do a video on an aircraft that will actually might have a chance of becoming a production platform! Traditional rotary aircraft have basically reached theroitical limits without having a slew of issues. Tilt powdered aircraft are the future whether people like it or not. Better to chop your teeth early! So many haters on the V-280 already. Saying it is dangerous like the Osprey when the Osprey has best safety record of any rotary aircraft- and many fixed wing in service! Or that tilt rotors are complex... Oh yeah like a dual rotor, pusher propeller aircraft is any less complex*sarcasm* The transmissions and power train alone a miracle of precision mechanical engineering FFS, and are very complex! Damn ignorant haters! Anyway yeah a video of the Valor is always nice. I want to see what the attack variants will look like as the Army I guess will replace the Apache with the Valor as a base platform.
EXCELLENT explanation of the Raider evolution with accurate details including its problems, mentioned with wry humor. Thank you. My nephew was part of the civilian evaluation program that ended up choosing the Bell Valor tilt rotor entry. Hey, fast is good! And longer range for Pacific island hopping is a must. I think the Sikorsky "Push-me Pull-u" entry may, with the new engines, be the better choice FOR AN ATTACK HELICOPTER but only IF it can keep up with the Bell Valor. Next put the new Sikorsky engines in the Valor once they are proven. Lighter & slimmer = attack version with more speed and range.
Don't worry about a V-280 attack version, it won;'t happen because the Air Force will point to the Key West agreement and start complaining that the V-280 is a VTOL fixed wing. If they complained about the AH-56's stub wings (and they actually did manage to get it cancelled) they will for sure complain about the V-280 and they'll have a stronger case here. Everyone including the US Army seems to have forgotten this.
the ridiculously continent sized rotor hub is prohibitive for an "Attack" Helicopter., too vulnerable and too obvious a target. Not that Valor would do much better as it also seems doomed if ever forced to work asymetrically due to one gondola having been sieved by bullets, but Defiant is a no go from the start.
@@Ugly_German_TruthsThe V-280 attack version is doomed because the USAF will claim it's a fixed wing VTOL, and a strong case can be made for that because tiltrotors mostly operate in airplane mode. If they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56 they will for sure do the same about an armed V-280. The USAF have not as far as I know changed their stance that the Key West Agreement prohibits the army from fielding armed fixed wing aircraft.
A video on the helicopter that holds the World Speed Record for a conventional helicopter, The Westland Lynx would be interesting. In 1986 it managed to clock up a speed of 400.87 km/h (249.10 mph)
Also one on the new Wildcat, and why it was chosen while still being slower than the original Lynx. Another cool video would be purely on the original BERP program and how it revolutionised rotor design worldwide.
This configuration of aircraft always captivated me, a simpler way to create a vtol aircraft than going full tilt rotor, while also retaining much more agility in vertical flight, but it fundamentally can never be a very efficient design, since during high speed horizontal flight those massive coaxial rotors don't do much except generate enormous amounts of drag
When I found out the SB-1 lost to the V-280 my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined. However Sikorsky might get the contract with their -Ka-52- Raider X to replace the Apache
yeah, i was pretty bummed too. both are rad, but i think the v280's larger landing area requirement (or even hover to rope drop) is a big downer. i do have a broner for both though.
I remember being in the back of a Chinook and having to slow down because the Apaches and Blackhawks couldn't keep up with us. I learned that day that the Chinook was the fastest vtol in our inventory. Something about dual rotors.
Crewed Cobra AH-1G model,74-76, Germany, 175th AHC, Storck Barracks, Illesheim. Nothing like flying NOE in the front seat of a Cobra in beautiful Bavaria!
The Army gets what the Army wants. A competition was held and the Bell product performed better...and not just by a little bit. It's an amazing aircraft that has a place. The engineers, and technicians on both side have done amazing work.
Pretty pleased on your take for this one because while I strongly prefer the look of the SB-1 or any of it's 'siblings' I can't deny the on paper numbers of the V-280 and it just seems like the obvious choice for most situations. On the one hand it's kind of a shame because I find it relatively ugly, but on the other it's capabilities are undeniable
Feel the same, but if this is to be a Balckhawk/Seahawk replacement I can't figure out what they are going to do for the Navy. The Bell V280 isn't going to fit in frigates and destroyers.
@@aizseeker3622Hmmm I wonder if that’s something they could add to the V280’s design. I don’t think they planned for that kind of folding system initially.
But they didn't. Going on wiki you can see the idea for counter rotating helicopters was already thought of in *1754* by Mikhail Lomonosov (notably not named Kamov).Then in the 1930s some French guys cooked up a gyro copter using the counter rotating design. Arguably, they were ones who actually pioneered the concept. It wouldn't be until late 1947 when Kamov would actually create the Ka-8 helicopter using counter rotating blades. This makes it the 4th functioning design after the first French one and three other American prototypes. In fairness, of Kamov he helped mature the design until his death and arguably did most of the work to make it a production helicopter but it is not fair to say that _he_ started the design.
from the Smithsonian web site: "In 1944, at the age of 19, Stanley Hiller, Jr. designed, built, and test flew the first helicopter with coaxial rotors to fly successfully in the United States. The XH-44 was also the first helicopter to fly successfully with all-metal blades and a rigid rotor. Hiller used the counter-rotating coaxial configuration to distinguish his designs from Sikorsky's single main rotor designs that dominated the helicopter industry in the mid-1940s." its in the Air and Space museum now
The critical difference between the Sikorsky and Kamov designs is that the latter uses conventional rotor blades which need a lot of vertical separation to prevent them from hitting each other when they are moving slowly and drooping significantly. That means a tall rotor shaft which adds a lot of drag. The Sikorsky designs use much more rigid rotor blades that don't droop as much, and can therefore be mounted closer together.
It's a shame they couldn't pick both really, since each has strengths and weaknesses in different areas. The V-280's speed and range is undoubtedly an advantage when operating in the Pacific and South China Sea, but I can't help thinking it'sd choice of landing grounds is a lot more restricted than the SB-1's, and the latter is probably more agile and better at nap-of-the-Earth flying in high threat environments.
I really think the Raider is going to end up being used as a gunship to replace the Apache. The big drawback with tilt-rotor aircraft is those big rotors make it impossible to mount forward firing weapons on them. Even mounting a door gun on that side door risks shooting off rotor blades. The Marines have been tearing their buzz cut hair out trying to mount weapons on the V-22 and not shoot the blades off or burn them with hot rocket exhaust in the process. Something like the Raider is much easier to integrate with weapons and a rotor mounted sensor system.
Agree. Unless it's common to have a single-copter flying unit, I don't see the reason why the military wants to make a black-and-white single-sided decision. Whenever a military unit has more than two copters, it's always possible to have 1 or more V-280 and 1 or more SB-1 working as a team. The CO can make decisions based on real-time needs. The funding is not a problem. Just split the money half-half between Sikorsky and Bell.
@@AkiraNakamoto As someone who has made a career in the military development world, funding and scheduling are two big problems. To qualify an aircraft as safe for flight requires a certain amount of hard work and that costs money. The amount of money necessary to bring a new aircraft into service is more or less fixed. If you want to develop two aircraft then double the money. No way around it. Every new aircraft has to undergo the same rigorous test regimen to prove it is safe to fly and can do the mission. Each new development test program is a billion dollar or more proposition. Second to hang weapons on an aircraft, fire them safely and hit the desired target requires a certain amount of effort. I am not going to say the number or time period in public but it is a significant effort and each weapon has to be integrated in a separate program to each aircraft that will carry it. You can't assume a missile that works on a Cobra also works on an Apache, or that something you can hang on an F-15 automatically works if you hang it on an F/A-18 because these aircraft pairings have very different flight characteristics and combat systems. The aircraft has to be able to recognize what weapon is on what rail or bomb rack and indicate that to the pilot. The aircraft has to know what target is loaded in the weapons mission plan if the weapon is that kind of weapon and cue the pilot where to launch it according to the mission plan. If the weapon is cued by sensors on the aircraft then the weapon and aircraft have to be able to communicate and give the pilot the right launch cues. You want to make sure the weapon doesn't hit anything when you launch it. You need to know if, for example, you have to fire weapons on the outboard hard points before you can safely fire something inboard. Do aerodynamic forces cause adjacent weapons to rub each other? Or does the buffet created by something on one station vibrate the living daylights out of whatever is on an adjacent station? And then you have a ton of software integration. Each weapon is different and so is each aircraft so the process is iterative. Range time is limited and scheduling all this work requires a lot of coordination across different aircraft programs, weapons programs the range operators and the operational sponsors of these new systems.
@@philsalvatore3902 I think you have seen the problems you listed because US military has NEVER done the double grant before. If you really want it done, then there are tons of ways to make it more efficient. For example, you can define a common installation regulation for all the weapons and softwares and ........., then ask Sikorsky and Bell to comform to the same regulation. Well, if the government is lazy, then it is lazy. What can I say?
@@AkiraNakamoto I can tell you from experience that even if you have a common data bus architecture the underwing environment of every aircraft, buffet and vibration, vary greatly from one aircraft to another. If you have an all aspect low observable aircraft like an F-35 weapons behave differently when launched from the weapons bay than they behave when launched from an underwing station. Find out what bomb bay resonance is. You open the bay doors and a Helmholz resonance starts shaking the daylights out of everything inside the weapons bay. Most missiles slide off a rail, but if the wing tip is shaking like crazy due to perfectly normal aerodynamic forces the missile may or may not slide nicely down the launch rail. Sometimes you get surprises like that. Or the buffet breaks things on the missile, or the load of the missle combined with aerodynamic buffet breaks things on the launch rail. Stuff like that is only revealed by testing. If you have an infrared guided something like a Sidewinder or IRIS-T, it has to be out in the breeze to acquire a target. That makes deploying IR guided weapons from a weapons bay hard to do. It can be done and is done but it's a lot harder than shooting one off an exposed but non stealthy external launch rail. Getting all of that right takes time and money. As for the US not doing two new aircraft at once, that is laughable. The US developed the F-14, F-15 and F-16 pretty much simultaneously. The US Navy and USAF are both developing 6th gen fighter aircraft right now. The Chair Force even has flying prototypes they are calling NGAD, while at the same time the Navy is developing their MQ-25 drone for use on aircraft carriers and the Chair Force is getting ready to fly the first B-21. Meanwhile the Navy is finishing the development of the CH-53K and the Army developing the CH-47F (which is a major upgrade to the old hard working Chinook).
This is simple a battle between two concepts. 1. SB-1 Defiant - using a helicopter and literally pushing it as fast as possible. 2. V-280 - using a plane and making it able to land vertically in an efficient way. For bringing cargo from A to B in an efficient and fast way, a helicopter, no matter how fast, simply cannot compete. Half of each rotor is generating just drag and there is no way of making this efficient.
Hmmmm.... I was up at my South Sierra cabin when I heard something going over pretty fast. It was late twilight and all I could see was a blinking red light and a dark outline. I live near Inyokern airport, and we get V-22 flying overhead all the time. This sounded different, and not a plane for sure. It was going fast and low, headed up north and contoured west around Crag Peak, I guess about 800 feet to ground. Later in full dark it came back heading south. I ran out with binoculars, but it was too dark. It was black and no light on it's starboard side, I could barely pick it up. No idea what it was. It was going about 200 knots, and it was pretty quiet. Definitely not a helo, definitely not a plane. I still guess it was a V-22, there were four of them at Inyokern airport at the time. But who knows, China Lake NAS is right to the east, Edwards a bit to the south, we get military flight action all the time.
Except that they were both offered as the solution to the exact same problem, and in the end the V280 was selected because it better fulfilled the requirements that the military was going for. Not to mention the V280 program passed most of its flight tests with flying colors, whereas the SB1 has far less flight hours due to technical issues.
If they could make folding rotors the blades could be put into a delta configuration with the blade on one side rotated so that there were essentially two swept wings. And the third blade would be in the middle rotated blade up, so it played the part of a tail. Thus the jet engines could provide maximum thrust after the blades were folded into a delta wing configuration after reaching 100 to 120 km / hr.
It is hoped that SB-1 can be mass-produced immediately after adopting an unmanned driving system and improving defects/increasing the speed to 520 kilometers per hour.
It was refreshing to see a a video on this subject that did not constantly show the wrong models while they were talking about them. Kudos to you guys for the only defiant-x/valor video I've ever thumbs up!
the Defender/Defiant design is impressive in that it can fly the way a submarine dives ... it can hover while pointing downward, and accelerate or go backwards without tilting forward or back. The horizontal propeller design (I would think) has a smaller radar cross section on approach than the Valor with it's large props pointing forward (of course the high central propeller shaft tower may negate this advantage). IDK - either way, I would prefer to see something a little quieter and even less conventional than any of the current offerings to really make a leap forward.
Valor can do same as Defiant with ability to "point" , and in lateral movements it's better due to rotors offset on wings. Defiant needs slightly more reaction time laterally but is simpler to fly, so probably equal in evals by ARMY.
They need to drop the drive shaft connection to the pusher prop and add a generator to power electric motors to drive the pusher prop. And possibly the rotors. They would gain efficiency and probably drop a lot of weight. A hybrid set up with smaller motor would give them a huge advantage. And the single smaller high horsepower motor for power generation would give them the weight advantage as well as space advantage without having two huge motors.
A combination of generator, controller, inverter, and motor is less efficient than a mechanical driveline transmitting the same continuous power... and much heavier and more expensive.
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t put some stub wings on the SB1/Defiant. Seems to me like offloading the main rotors at speed would allow additional power to be out to the prop and therefore allow greater speed.
A blade on a tilt rotor experiences the same forces as it goes round no matter what the tilt orientation is so there isn’t a vibration or oscillating force. The contra-rotating blades will have aerodynamic forces flexing the blades due to the relative wind speed on every rotation and the problem gets worse with speed. This is a nasty fatigue stress situation. I’m sure that it’s been taken into account and designed around but the tilt rotor is more elegant in this respect.
i think the final decision was in favor of the V-280 because it has a larger combat range, thinking that the next possible combat theater is the South China Sea
In all honesty, for the future wars the US is looking at fighting in the next 20 years, the V-280 fits it much better, while the Defiant looks like it was built for the previous generation of insurgency wars. I do hope they are able to get the S97 tenor and maybe the apache replacement, at those seem like excellent options where the smaller size required would give it a better edge.
I'm not so sure. The incredibly large frontal area of this aircraft seems more than vulnerable to MANPADs. Hitting one of these large rotors head on would probably lead to the catastrophic crash of the entire aircraft.
The Defiant derivatives should also be more agile due to a more compact weight distribution. I can see the Bell design being a good fit for a utility role while the Sikorsky design gets more of a combat role
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Your right that this would be better than the Bell 280 but you are wrong overall. The reason they need that range is because when fighting near peer opponents, you have to face missiles. That means the airbase needs to be far away. So you need a fast, long range helicopter to get there. This is the reason they chose the 280. They protecting the air base at the expense of the attack role.
The USCG should be exploring the posibility of replacing the MH-60T Jayhawks in the future with this platform. If the SB-1 Defiant is too long and heavy then use the S-97 Raider.
Looks like it could be the new Air Wolf Now to mount some retractable guns and missile pods with a different engine exhaust ports to make it look like it can go way faster
The Airwolf design wasn't real, and it couldn't be. As for speed, the limiting factor remains the phenomenon of retreating blade stall. That's why they don't just slap on more/more powerful turbine engines. That being said, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that a solution to that problem could soon be worked out.
@@Tom-zs6bb I agree that Air Wolf is fictional, always has been. There has been rumblings that a new series is in the works. And my comment was that it would make a great new platform for the series, especially since congess is not going to fund it as a warfighting aircraft, after the entire ficaso of eastern europe
Having worked on the CH-53 A & D, the gearbox on the SB-1 looks huge, performance is one thing, but maintenance is critical, and maintenance support equipment is also critical, it looks like the SB-1 would make field repair challenging, sure you can airlift it stripped down to a better maintenance area, SB-1 doesn't look like a mechanics dream, but a maintenance challenge (Busted knuckles')
The Russians have been flying those co-axial Kamovs for 60-70 years now. They are popular logging helos outside the US. I was in Papua New Guinea when the then Soviet Union sent over six Ka-32s and an Mi-26 to work the Kutubu Oil Field project as a demonstration. They shipped the Kamovs over inside an AN-124 with the transmissions and rotors removed. They reassembled them all on the flight line at the international airport in Port Morseby and flew them to the work site in the central highlands. Halfway through their first year there the USSR dissolved and nobody knew what country they belonged to. We kind of felt badly for them. Two of their wrenches were Afghan vets and let's say everyone gave them a wide berth.
I like the KA-32 and Mi-26, but when the bullets start flying, it's all about fixing and getting the bird back in the air fast, the support equipment for the SB-1 will have a large footprint, large enough crane to lift the gearbox, work stands, support equipment. We had for the CH-53 A & D seemed a lot, but compared to what I've read about the SB-1, it's going to be a challenge in the field to fix. This is an aircraft that's replacing light transport, UH-60, but it's the compact dimensions of a CH-53 A or D fuselage wise, and small in internal volume, a lot of fuselage and hardware for a small capacity.@@philsalvatore3902
After all the work and money Sikorsky put into this I imagine the tech will find its way into some kind of role this time around, as opposed to the first time in the 60s.
If the Valor can get into service quickly and cost effectively and fulfil a need, then it’s the right choice. But they really need to continue working on the defiant, it looks excellent .
The technology behind it needs to mature more yea. The Raider might be a good option for the scout attack role which will let them further advance the platform.
Thank you for a very informative video about the SB-1. The US military's investment in tilt rotor aircraft is their solution to more speed and range in their support aircraft for the future.
i say the defiant feels so superior enough to meet the army's needs, the speed and agility + good design in my opinion, if it won the competition, i would love to see the attack variant and see china look with envy
It’s about speed and range. The V-280 will Island hop a lot faster and further than the SB-1 Defiant. Each aircraft has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the V-280 is ready now, not later.
Good luck landing that fucking hog in vegetated jungle environment and operating in such theater, 2nd the near peer adversary not going to send anything to contest a aerial threat flying around? 3rd what happens to its so call pros when near peer is no longer needed.
@@thh4584 fool... the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric. The Valor only has a 19% larger footprint than the Black Hawk and can land nearly everywhere the Black Hawk can.
Maybe they could be used together in the future, Valor tilts it rotors up for weapons deployment provides security/support, then Defiant lands/hovers to drop assault teams and secure LZ, then Defiant could stay and extract or take off to take over security/attack duty while Valor lands/hovers to drop additional teams in a secured LZ and/or extract teams/personal. They would compliment/mitigate each others strengths/risks.
The pusher propeller was supposed be created right after the jet engine version. The company said no and waited 30 years to fund the prototype itself without gov support.
It seems like the Valor can be a great troop transport, special ops, humanitarian machine as well as a fantastic medivac. Whereas with some reshaping, the defiant could be a nasty killing machine.
The Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every test and metric. The Defiant also had multiple technical issues and was not a mature platform as it even had a crash which delays more flight testing for 18 months.
I see the Army eventually using the Raider as scout, Spec Ops, and a light attack craft, while the Valor will cover the utility as well as the heavy attack role, almost crossing into CAS territory. I also think the Army should be responsible for the Sky Warden instead of the Air Force.
The main problem of helicopters is low speed - is typical mistake. The problem is small range due to low efficiency during horizontal flight. This concept does solve this problem.
It (or something like it) might still find a spot in the Navy. The hangars of Destroyers and Frigates don't have the space or even shape for tilt-rotors.
There's a couple things that're for certain with the Defiant; it'll cost *several* times more to operate than the UH-60Ms, and will *at least* be just as maintenance intensive as the Apache was in the early 2000s. Even just coaxial rotor helicopters such as the Ka-52 are considered to be 'maintenance intensive' compared to their more conventional single-rotor alternatives. The Defiant, despite using coaxial rotors, it also features the equivalent of a tail-rotor, has a fully retractable landing gear (AH-64 doesn't), has RAM coating that must be maintained, and its composite air frame is *significantly* more complex to repair in the field than aluminium air frames are the biggest issues.
SB-1 has an unusual rotor dampening system that has not performed well, limiting performance and causing their loss. As these stiff blades rotate, the lift on each advancing blade changes in it's aspect or angle of attack. All helicopters use this system to shift lift around the disc generating the ability to pitch aircraft up down or side to side. Unfortunately that makes the rotor blades "flap" or act like a diving board as lift changes from positive to neutral in this craft vs positive to slightly negative. This generates severe vibrations that the damping system is hopefully able to control or reduce to manageable levels.
One simple way to make the SB-1 faster and have longer range is to give it some wings so that so much of the engine power and fuel isn't spent just on the lift rotors keeping the aircraft airborne in level flight. Let the wings do that. Then give the rear rotor a more powerful engine to fly faster.
In many ways they are far more efficient than a single rotor. A tail rotor wastes about 20% of the helicopter's power just to keep the nose pointed where the pilot wants it. On tandem rotor and co-axial rotor helicopters all your power is available for lift. On a co-axial system like Kamov has the rotor vortex from the lower rotor cancels the vortex from the upper rotor in a hover improving hover performance over what would be possible with any other configuration given the same power and weight. Drawbacks are the masts are draggy and the control systems are diabolically complicated.
@@philsalvatore3902 yes, I already knew about the tail rotors power requirements, that they are more complex to make and more draggy. I was more interested in problems due to flow field interactions equivalent to those of multi-wing aircraft.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Like I said, in a hover the vortex of the lower rotor basically cancels out the vortex of the upper rotor so they are extremely efficient in an out of ground effect hover. In forward flight the rotor vortexes trail the rotor disc and don't give any advantage. I had a ride in a Ka-32 once. I had an engine failure in my BV-107 and had to jettison an external load to land. The load stuck in some mud and it was too much for another BV-107 to pull out. The BV-107 has two 1,500 shp engines while the Kamov had a pair of 2,200 shp engines. We begged the Russians to help us out (and they were eager to prove themselves) so I hopped into one of their funky Kamovs to show them where I dropped my load. Everything in the cockpit was in Cyrillic and the gauges had metric units, including airspeed, altitude and vertical speed. They hooked up to my load and pulled power. Nothing, load wouldn't budge. They pulled more power until the engine overtemp horns and lights came on. They ignored them. They pulled so much power the rotor system rpm drooped to 65%. You could almost count the blades passing in front of the windscreen and I was starting to wonder how low you can drag the rotor rpm before it stops flying. Suddenly the load popped out of the mud and we shot up several meters. Rotor rpm returned to 100%. Whew!
In tight spaces may be the normal 2 rotor helicopter with tailpropellar would be my option, but the 2 propellar would be my option for long range projects.
Because tiltrotors become propeller planes in forward flight, it will always be more fuel efficient than a helicopter. Unfortunately, a tiltrotor is succeptsble to fouling each other if two are landing close to each other. So the Valor wins the utility helicopter competition, while i expect the Defiant to become the next search and rescue helicopter. The next attack helicopter is up for grabs
The replacement of the UH-60 with the tiltrotor will be viewed as one of the biggest mistakes the US Army has ever made. The tiltrotor just doesn't have the performance at slower airspeeds and at a hover that a helicopter has. That is where the majority of Army aviation operates in. The transition times and susceptibility to Settling with Power are big negatives especially when conducting Air Assault operations and Sling Load operations. Add to all that is the size of the aircraft. Its footprint is larger than a helicopter complicating LZ/PZ operations as well as Air Assault Operations. Tiltrotor aircraft would make a good complement to the SB-1 force in order to fill certain niches in a battlefield environment, but replacing rotorcraft altogether is a recipe for disaster.
It’s becoming very apparent that some in the various committees are openly giving the defiant an unfair advantage in what could be a potential game changer in saving lives of soldiers who ride in them when they’ve forgotten the one fact, and that is to save lives and instead they’re concentrating on the almighty dollar
The next main limitation on helicopter speed is that since the blade is always advancing faster than the fuselage air speed, it starts entering the transonic region before the aircraft does, and it is difficult to create a supersonic rotor for various reasons. And if you did, it almost definitely would be inefficient at lower speeds, where you need the lift the most. And it would be incredibly loud, like supersonic props. The Tu-95 is notoriously loud because of this. Since the greater airspeed theoretically doesn't require such a high blade speed to generate the same lift, i bet when a coaxial rotor they could use computer control to regulate the rotor speed and slow the blades down as it nears the transonic region. When the two discs it shouldn't cause any problem with there not being enough blade speed on the retreating side to sustain lift. Though it just occurred to me that that is probably exactly what they did and i should have watched the whole video first.
I hope the Defiant wins, the title rotor is neat, but a proper helicopter and can land and take off much faster. And when there is a chance to be shot at by an enemy, minimizing the time as a easy target is very important.
Yeah I'm not happy they are using a tilt rotor plane for helicopter work. Just seems like such a category error. I really like the way the Defiant X is developing.
"Yeah I'm not happy they are using a tilt rotor plane for helicopter work." ... why? If it can perform the role better that a helicopter than why not? Shouldn't you want the best equipment for the job.
chinook has been doing what these copters have been designed to do since the sixties. in fact in afghanistan and iraq the apache pilots had to ask the chinook pilots to slow down lol. because the blades counter rotate it can fly pretty quick . only beaten by the v-22 osprey with its tilt rotor.
This would make an amazing option for a private helicopter. In "gyrocopting" mode, this thing could switch its upper rotors to mostly passive rotation and receive only propulsion from the propeller in the back. Gyrocopters are more fuel efficient than helicopters. It would be faster and have twice the range of a helicopter, have all the functionalities of a helicopter, while none of the massive constraints of a plane. Having twice the range of a helicopter it would match the range of most private jets and would match 70% of their cruising speed. Given that it can fly from anywhere to anywhere, and not from airport to airport, this would not be even a net increase in travel time.
The V-280 won due to the two most important words the Army wanted to hear. "Self Deployable". While in theory the Defiant has some things it does better than the V-280 Valor, the Valor can still get just about anywhere in the world faster. Because it can get there mostly on its own, with limited logistical support needed. It doesn't need to be crated and stuffed aboard an Air Force Transport. It may need fuel stops of aerial refueling rendezvous. But that's a hell of a lot easier to setup than flying 2 dozen helicopters somewhere aboard AF transports. The Defiant was an entirely new technology that Boing and Sikorsky were trying to work through. Slowly and badly. The Valor was basically everything learned from the Navy and Marine V-22 Osprey, evolved to the next level. The Defiant Prototype only ever got a handful of hours of flight testing time. It was offline dealing with issues constantly. The V-280 Prototypes have been almost constantly in the air for years now. Bell delivered a production ready prototype. Boeing/Sikorsky delivered an interesting X plane that still needs years of major refinement before it will ever be ready for production let alone front line service.
try landing one in a standard 4 lane wide intersection to drop off troops. Not gonna fit with a 50ft wingspan + rotors.
the V-280 would be great for open terrain, it's an amazing machine with more range and speed, the SB-1 has better footprint and maneuverability.
@@Will-W This is a common misconception. The V-280's landing profile is smaller than a CH-47, and not remarkably larger than a Blackhawk. Roughly the equivalent to the Defiant's. You're just looking at it without rotating it 90 degrees.
@@Will-W The V-280 is shorter in overall length but wider, the landing footprint is only about 20% larger in area. The Army used a measure of an NFL football field (not without precedant, the plan for the Iran hostage rescue involved landing helicopters in the soccer stadium in Tehran which was an even larger area) as to why the 280 was superior. In the available field space, you can land 12 Blackhawks or 10 Valors. At full troop and crew loads, the 10 Valors can carry 8 more total troops than the 12 Blackhawks, to a point further away or in less time. Or put another way, the standard US Army infantry rifle platoon is 42 men. To move them together requires four blackhawks or three valors.
@@Will-W SB-1 can't reach the LZ
On paper maybe but the unspoken dark answer is Bell was much more willing to give away IP, LMCO/SAC/Boeing stood firm on retaining IP. Gov’t wants ownership of all IP.
I definitely prefer the design of the SB-1 and I think as a helicopter it's the better of the two, being able to land in a smaller footprint and transition from hover to horizontal flight quicker. But the design is limited and it's never going to beat the range and fuel efficiency of the V-280 which is ultimately what a military is going to be more interested in. The attack helicopter variant will be very interesting to see be developed and if both were to be adopted the cost and logistics savings from the commonalities between the two would be great for a military. Maybe there's hope another military might adopt both
It would be an incremental improvement but the army was looking for more and the navy/marines had already been using V22 with similar design to the V280 Valor for decades.
Boeing couldn't get it's bid straight. They promised lower acquisition and operating costs but failed to provide details on how it arrived at their promised figures. A failure of paperwork.
@@sfpesq I thought it was also having some trouble meeting the milestones for the program while the Valor hit them all and even smashed them.
😮6yy6yy
There wouldn't be much, if any, parts commonality between FARA and FLRAA if both designs were accepted. However, the Sikorsky design is superior in FARA for exactly the reasons you stated. Particularly, it makes a superior replacement for the little bird, and on par with Bell's design for an Apache replacement.
Thanks for the coverage on this topic. My own conclusion is that the US Army wanted an airplane that could hover rather than a helicopter that could fly fast.
This seems so well formulated.
In reality the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric and was a more mature platform as the Defiant had multiple technical issues that caused many moths of delays and even a crash.
@@monstrok it’s easier to make an airplane hover, than it is to get a rotary wing aircraft to the speeds they would like. There are aerodynamic limits on the helo’s prop that put a pretty firm limit on how fast they can go. Airwolf is not actually possible in the real world.
A video on the v280 would be great and why it was the winner.
Well the Raider seems exactly like a smaller Defiant. That still has a chance of winning the other competition versus the Invictus.
Wonder why he didn't do a video on an aircraft that will actually might have a chance of becoming a production platform!
Traditional rotary aircraft have basically reached theroitical limits without having a slew of issues.
Tilt powdered aircraft are the future whether people like it or not. Better to chop your teeth early!
So many haters on the V-280 already. Saying it is dangerous like the Osprey when the Osprey has best safety record of any rotary aircraft- and many fixed wing in service!
Or that tilt rotors are complex... Oh yeah like a dual rotor, pusher propeller aircraft is any less complex*sarcasm* The transmissions and power train alone a miracle of precision mechanical engineering FFS, and are very complex! Damn ignorant haters!
Anyway yeah a video of the Valor is always nice. I want to see what the attack variants will look like as the Army I guess will replace the Apache with the Valor as a base platform.
From memory it was really quite close. The biggest benefit the V280 had was easier maintenance with the engines and rotors being closer to the ground.
@@dianapennepacker6854they should go with the raiderx and bells tilt rotor. They seem to be the better choices
@@ZaphodHarkonneneh? The Valor flies further faster. That’s the main advantage. Which is why the Raider will beat the Invictus.
I was rooting hard for the Defiant, but the V280 Valor had better speed and range.
EXCELLENT explanation of the Raider evolution with accurate details including its problems, mentioned with wry humor. Thank you. My nephew was part of the civilian evaluation program that ended up choosing the Bell Valor tilt rotor entry. Hey, fast is good! And longer range for Pacific island hopping is a must.
I think the Sikorsky "Push-me Pull-u" entry may, with the new engines, be the better choice FOR AN ATTACK HELICOPTER but only IF it can keep up with the Bell Valor. Next put the new Sikorsky engines in the Valor once they are proven. Lighter & slimmer = attack version with more speed and range.
Don't worry about a V-280 attack version, it won;'t happen because the Air Force will point to the Key West agreement and start complaining that the V-280 is a VTOL fixed wing. If they complained about the AH-56's stub wings (and they actually did manage to get it cancelled) they will for sure complain about the V-280 and they'll have a stronger case here. Everyone including the US Army seems to have forgotten this.
the ridiculously continent sized rotor hub is prohibitive for an "Attack" Helicopter., too vulnerable and too obvious a target. Not that Valor would do much better as it also seems doomed if ever forced to work asymetrically due to one gondola having been sieved by bullets, but Defiant is a no go from the start.
@@Ugly_German_TruthsThe V-280 attack version is doomed because the USAF will claim it's a fixed wing VTOL, and a strong case can be made for that because tiltrotors mostly operate in airplane mode. If they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56 they will for sure do the same about an armed V-280. The USAF have not as far as I know changed their stance that the Key West Agreement prohibits the army from fielding armed fixed wing aircraft.
A video on the helicopter that holds the World Speed Record for a conventional helicopter, The Westland Lynx would be interesting. In 1986 it managed to clock up a speed of 400.87 km/h (249.10 mph)
Or 216 knots so not much slower the the x 2
Also one on the new Wildcat, and why it was chosen while still being slower than the original Lynx. Another cool video would be purely on the original BERP program and how it revolutionised rotor design worldwide.
I have been upside down in a Lynx once, some RN pilots were demonstrating to us during a port visit to Diego Garcia.
Such old things are not qualified to be compared here.
The airwolf got to mach 2.
I keed.
This configuration of aircraft always captivated me, a simpler way to create a vtol aircraft than going full tilt rotor, while also retaining much more agility in vertical flight, but it fundamentally can never be a very efficient design, since during high speed horizontal flight those massive coaxial rotors don't do much except generate enormous amounts of drag
When I found out the SB-1 lost to the V-280 my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined.
However Sikorsky might get the contract with their -Ka-52- Raider X to replace the Apache
I was unaware that it lost. I am now sad.
Great job sky!
"..my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined." shout out reviewbrah!
yeah, i was pretty bummed too. both are rad, but i think the v280's larger landing area requirement (or even hover to rope drop) is a big downer.
i do have a broner for both though.
The V-280's greater range, endurance and speed will benefit when hauling personnel & cargo.
I remember being in the back of a Chinook and having to slow down because the Apaches and Blackhawks couldn't keep up with us. I learned that day that the Chinook was the fastest vtol in our inventory. Something about dual rotors.
Loved every second of this video! Great job on the production.
Saw this flying on ADS-B last week and it was cruising 243 Knots!
I think the video poster confused knots for MPH.
Crewed Cobra AH-1G model,74-76, Germany, 175th AHC, Storck Barracks, Illesheim. Nothing like flying NOE in the front seat of a Cobra in beautiful Bavaria!
The Army gets what the Army wants. A competition was held and the Bell product performed better...and not just by a little bit. It's an amazing aircraft that has a place. The engineers, and technicians on both side have done amazing work.
Literally never heard of these craft until now.
A very well-presented documentary. Thanks
Good day thanks for the support and help 🙂
Pretty pleased on your take for this one because while I strongly prefer the look of the SB-1 or any of it's 'siblings' I can't deny the on paper numbers of the V-280 and it just seems like the obvious choice for most situations. On the one hand it's kind of a shame because I find it relatively ugly, but on the other it's capabilities are undeniable
Feel the same, but if this is to be a Balckhawk/Seahawk replacement I can't figure out what they are going to do for the Navy. The Bell V280 isn't going to fit in frigates and destroyers.
@@daemonllama78 It will probably replace the Ospreys that the Navy uses. People forget how much of a workhorse it is for the navy.
@@daemonllama78V-280 would probably just have V-22 folding system. It will fit.
@@aizseeker3622Hmmm I wonder if that’s something they could add to the V280’s design. I don’t think they planned for that kind of folding system initially.
@@KC_Smooth it has the folding system. I've seen pictures of it with the wing rotated.
Thanks Sky, great report as always!
Just for interest: Kamov started the two-rotor counter rotating design shortly after WW2.
But they didn't. Going on wiki you can see the idea for counter rotating helicopters was already thought of in *1754* by Mikhail Lomonosov (notably not named Kamov).Then in the 1930s some French guys cooked up a gyro copter using the counter rotating design. Arguably, they were ones who actually pioneered the concept. It wouldn't be until late 1947 when Kamov would actually create the Ka-8 helicopter using counter rotating blades. This makes it the 4th functioning design after the first French one and three other American prototypes.
In fairness, of Kamov he helped mature the design until his death and arguably did most of the work to make it a production helicopter but it is not fair to say that _he_ started the design.
@@d0mram-02 Your knowledge is deeper than mine, but Kamov is building helicopters with counter-rotating blades for decades.
from the Smithsonian web site:
"In 1944, at the age of 19, Stanley Hiller, Jr. designed, built, and test flew the first helicopter with coaxial rotors to fly successfully in the United States. The XH-44 was also the first helicopter to fly successfully with all-metal blades and a rigid rotor. Hiller used the counter-rotating coaxial configuration to distinguish his designs from Sikorsky's single main rotor designs that dominated the helicopter industry in the mid-1940s."
its in the Air and Space museum now
The critical difference between the Sikorsky and Kamov designs is that the latter uses conventional rotor blades which need a lot of vertical separation to prevent them from hitting each other when they are moving slowly and drooping significantly. That means a tall rotor shaft which adds a lot of drag. The Sikorsky designs use much more rigid rotor blades that don't droop as much, and can therefore be mounted closer together.
Yeah, not mentioning Kamov helicopters in the history section is a big blunder, also not explaining the rigid rotors. Pretty weak video.
It's a shame they couldn't pick both really, since each has strengths and weaknesses in different areas. The V-280's speed and range is undoubtedly an advantage when operating in the Pacific and South China Sea, but I can't help thinking it'sd choice of landing grounds is a lot more restricted than the SB-1's, and the latter is probably more agile and better at nap-of-the-Earth flying in high threat environments.
I really think the Raider is going to end up being used as a gunship to replace the Apache. The big drawback with tilt-rotor aircraft is those big rotors make it impossible to mount forward firing weapons on them. Even mounting a door gun on that side door risks shooting off rotor blades. The Marines have been tearing their buzz cut hair out trying to mount weapons on the V-22 and not shoot the blades off or burn them with hot rocket exhaust in the process. Something like the Raider is much easier to integrate with weapons and a rotor mounted sensor system.
Agree. Unless it's common to have a single-copter flying unit, I don't see the reason why the military wants to make a black-and-white single-sided decision.
Whenever a military unit has more than two copters, it's always possible to have 1 or more V-280 and 1 or more SB-1 working as a team. The CO can make decisions based on real-time needs.
The funding is not a problem. Just split the money half-half between Sikorsky and Bell.
@@AkiraNakamoto As someone who has made a career in the military development world, funding and scheduling are two big problems. To qualify an aircraft as safe for flight requires a certain amount of hard work and that costs money. The amount of money necessary to bring a new aircraft into service is more or less fixed. If you want to develop two aircraft then double the money. No way around it. Every new aircraft has to undergo the same rigorous test regimen to prove it is safe to fly and can do the mission. Each new development test program is a billion dollar or more proposition.
Second to hang weapons on an aircraft, fire them safely and hit the desired target requires a certain amount of effort. I am not going to say the number or time period in public but it is a significant effort and each weapon has to be integrated in a separate program to each aircraft that will carry it. You can't assume a missile that works on a Cobra also works on an Apache, or that something you can hang on an F-15 automatically works if you hang it on an F/A-18 because these aircraft pairings have very different flight characteristics and combat systems. The aircraft has to be able to recognize what weapon is on what rail or bomb rack and indicate that to the pilot. The aircraft has to know what target is loaded in the weapons mission plan if the weapon is that kind of weapon and cue the pilot where to launch it according to the mission plan. If the weapon is cued by sensors on the aircraft then the weapon and aircraft have to be able to communicate and give the pilot the right launch cues. You want to make sure the weapon doesn't hit anything when you launch it. You need to know if, for example, you have to fire weapons on the outboard hard points before you can safely fire something inboard. Do aerodynamic forces cause adjacent weapons to rub each other? Or does the buffet created by something on one station vibrate the living daylights out of whatever is on an adjacent station? And then you have a ton of software integration. Each weapon is different and so is each aircraft so the process is iterative. Range time is limited and scheduling all this work requires a lot of coordination across different aircraft programs, weapons programs the range operators and the operational sponsors of these new systems.
@@philsalvatore3902 I think you have seen the problems you listed because US military has NEVER done the double grant before.
If you really want it done, then there are tons of ways to make it more efficient. For example, you can define a common installation regulation for all the weapons and softwares and ........., then ask Sikorsky and Bell to comform to the same regulation.
Well, if the government is lazy, then it is lazy. What can I say?
@@AkiraNakamoto I can tell you from experience that even if you have a common data bus architecture the underwing environment of every aircraft, buffet and vibration, vary greatly from one aircraft to another. If you have an all aspect low observable aircraft like an F-35 weapons behave differently when launched from the weapons bay than they behave when launched from an underwing station. Find out what bomb bay resonance is. You open the bay doors and a Helmholz resonance starts shaking the daylights out of everything inside the weapons bay. Most missiles slide off a rail, but if the wing tip is shaking like crazy due to perfectly normal aerodynamic forces the missile may or may not slide nicely down the launch rail. Sometimes you get surprises like that. Or the buffet breaks things on the missile, or the load of the missle combined with aerodynamic buffet breaks things on the launch rail. Stuff like that is only revealed by testing. If you have an infrared guided something like a Sidewinder or IRIS-T, it has to be out in the breeze to acquire a target. That makes deploying IR guided weapons from a weapons bay hard to do. It can be done and is done but it's a lot harder than shooting one off an exposed but non stealthy external launch rail. Getting all of that right takes time and money.
As for the US not doing two new aircraft at once, that is laughable. The US developed the F-14, F-15 and F-16 pretty much simultaneously. The US Navy and USAF are both developing 6th gen fighter aircraft right now. The Chair Force even has flying prototypes they are calling NGAD, while at the same time the Navy is developing their MQ-25 drone for use on aircraft carriers and the Chair Force is getting ready to fly the first B-21. Meanwhile the Navy is finishing the development of the CH-53K and the Army developing the CH-47F (which is a major upgrade to the old hard working Chinook).
This is simple a battle between two concepts.
1. SB-1 Defiant - using a helicopter and literally pushing it as fast as possible.
2. V-280 - using a plane and making it able to land vertically in an efficient way.
For bringing cargo from A to B in an efficient and fast way, a helicopter, no matter how fast, simply cannot compete.
Half of each rotor is generating just drag and there is no way of making this efficient.
I thought it was cool of Boeing to let Sikorsky take first billing in the SB - 1 Defiant, until I thought of the alternative.
BS-1 isn’t as bad as BS-2.
Been following this beauty, since the X-2 beginnings. A Gator Hunter .
Hmmmm.... I was up at my South Sierra cabin when I heard something going over pretty fast. It was late twilight and all I could see was a blinking red light and a dark outline. I live near Inyokern airport, and we get V-22 flying overhead all the time. This sounded different, and not a plane for sure. It was going fast and low, headed up north and contoured west around Crag Peak, I guess about 800 feet to ground. Later in full dark it came back heading south. I ran out with binoculars, but it was too dark. It was black and no light on it's starboard side, I could barely pick it up. No idea what it was. It was going about 200 knots, and it was pretty quiet. Definitely not a helo, definitely not a plane. I still guess it was a V-22, there were four of them at Inyokern airport at the time. But who knows, China Lake NAS is right to the east, Edwards a bit to the south, we get military flight action all the time.
That could make a cool Marine One. Osprey is too harsh on the White House south lawn.
IMO the SB1 and V280 are 2 different solutions to 2 different problems
Except that they were both offered as the solution to the exact same problem, and in the end the V280 was selected because it better fulfilled the requirements that the military was going for. Not to mention the V280 program passed most of its flight tests with flying colors, whereas the SB1 has far less flight hours due to technical issues.
If they could make folding rotors the blades could be put into a delta configuration with the blade on one side rotated so that there were essentially two swept wings. And the third blade would be in the middle rotated blade up, so it played the part of a tail.
Thus the jet engines could provide maximum thrust after the blades were folded into a delta wing configuration after reaching 100 to 120 km / hr.
The idea that you must support one or the other. When they both have a role to play. Defiant and the Valor.
No, they’re both occupying the same niche, the valor is better.
It is hoped that SB-1 can be mass-produced immediately after adopting an unmanned driving system and improving defects/increasing the speed to 520 kilometers per hour.
I love this thing! I just hope the Raider X at least wins over the Invictus at least.
Invictus is a better design. LM doesnt need anymore contracts.
nah the Raider is better because I said so.@@VectorGhost
The military didn't want a helicopter.
They wanted a VTOL airplane.
The range and speed requirements tell you that's what was desired.
Notice how quite this helicopter is , very useful when dealing out massive amounts of pain upon our enemies.
It was refreshing to see a a video on this subject that did not constantly show the wrong models while they were talking about them. Kudos to you guys for the only defiant-x/valor video I've ever thumbs up!
the Defender/Defiant design is impressive in that it can fly the way a submarine dives ... it can hover while pointing downward, and accelerate or go backwards without tilting forward or back. The horizontal propeller design (I would think) has a smaller radar cross section on approach than the Valor with it's large props pointing forward (of course the high central propeller shaft tower may negate this advantage). IDK - either way, I would prefer to see something a little quieter and even less conventional than any of the current offerings to really make a leap forward.
Valor can do same as Defiant with ability to "point" , and in lateral movements it's better due to rotors offset on wings. Defiant needs slightly more reaction time
laterally but is simpler to fly, so probably equal in evals by ARMY.
Excellent presentation. Looking forward to your detailed coverage of the V-280!
The SB-1 lost to the V-280 because V-280 has a better speed 345 Knots, a lot longer range 800 miles, and more lift 1,000 lbs more.
Don't forget less maintenance since the Valor prototype alone was flying way more often than the Defiant.
They need to drop the drive shaft connection to the pusher prop and add a generator to power electric motors to drive the pusher prop. And possibly the rotors. They would gain efficiency and probably drop a lot of weight. A hybrid set up with smaller motor would give them a huge advantage. And the single smaller high horsepower motor for power generation would give them the weight advantage as well as space advantage without having two huge motors.
A combination of generator, controller, inverter, and motor is less efficient than a mechanical driveline transmitting the same continuous power... and much heavier and more expensive.
Great video. 🤙🏾🤙🏾🤙🏾
Saw one fly over, definitely has a unique sound to it.
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t put some stub wings on the SB1/Defiant. Seems to me like offloading the main rotors at speed would allow additional power to be out to the prop and therefore allow greater speed.
A blade on a tilt rotor experiences the same forces as it goes round no matter what the tilt orientation is so there isn’t a vibration or oscillating force. The contra-rotating blades will have aerodynamic forces flexing the blades due to the relative wind speed on every rotation and the problem gets worse with speed. This is a nasty fatigue stress situation. I’m sure that it’s been taken into account and designed around but the tilt rotor is more elegant in this respect.
The pusher prop should be counter rotating also
i think the final decision was in favor of the V-280 because it has a larger combat range, thinking that the next possible combat theater is the South China Sea
In all honesty, for the future wars the US is looking at fighting in the next 20 years, the V-280 fits it much better, while the Defiant looks like it was built for the previous generation of insurgency wars. I do hope they are able to get the S97 tenor and maybe the apache replacement, at those seem like excellent options where the smaller size required would give it a better edge.
I'm not so sure. The incredibly large frontal area of this aircraft seems more than vulnerable to MANPADs. Hitting one of these large rotors head on would probably lead to the catastrophic crash of the entire aircraft.
Here's an idea ... don't start any wars for 20 years. See can they do that. Little experiment. Just one tiny little generation.
The Defiant derivatives should also be more agile due to a more compact weight distribution. I can see the Bell design being a good fit for a utility role while the Sikorsky design gets more of a combat role
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Your right that this would be better than the Bell 280 but you are wrong overall. The reason they need that range is because when fighting near peer opponents, you have to face missiles. That means the airbase needs to be far away. So you need a fast, long range helicopter to get there. This is the reason they chose the 280. They protecting the air base at the expense of the attack role.
@@Ohnothisisbad You won't get there when you have a square kilometer of rotors in the front that will catch every missile and small arms fire.
The USCG should be exploring the posibility of replacing the MH-60T Jayhawks in the future with this platform. If the SB-1 Defiant is too long and heavy then use the S-97 Raider.
Looks like it could be the new Air Wolf
Now to mount some retractable guns and missile pods with a different engine exhaust ports to make it look like it can go way faster
The Airwolf design wasn't real, and it couldn't be. As for speed, the limiting factor remains the phenomenon of retreating blade stall. That's why they don't just slap on more/more powerful turbine engines. That being said, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that a solution to that problem could soon be worked out.
@@Tom-zs6bb I agree that Air Wolf is fictional, always has been. There has been rumblings that a new series is in the works. And my comment was that it would make a great new platform for the series, especially since congess is not going to fund it as a warfighting aircraft, after the entire ficaso of eastern europe
Having worked on the CH-53 A & D, the gearbox on the SB-1 looks huge, performance is one thing, but maintenance is critical, and maintenance support equipment is also critical, it looks like the SB-1 would make field repair challenging, sure you can airlift it stripped down to a better maintenance area, SB-1 doesn't look like a mechanics dream, but a maintenance challenge (Busted knuckles')
The Russians have been flying those co-axial Kamovs for 60-70 years now. They are popular logging helos outside the US. I was in Papua New Guinea when the then Soviet Union sent over six Ka-32s and an Mi-26 to work the Kutubu Oil Field project as a demonstration. They shipped the Kamovs over inside an AN-124 with the transmissions and rotors removed. They reassembled them all on the flight line at the international airport in Port Morseby and flew them to the work site in the central highlands. Halfway through their first year there the USSR dissolved and nobody knew what country they belonged to. We kind of felt badly for them. Two of their wrenches were Afghan vets and let's say everyone gave them a wide berth.
I like the KA-32 and Mi-26, but when the bullets start flying, it's all about fixing and getting the bird back in the air fast, the support equipment for the SB-1 will have a large footprint, large enough crane to lift the gearbox, work stands, support equipment. We had for the CH-53 A & D seemed a lot, but compared to what I've read about the SB-1, it's going to be a challenge in the field to fix. This is an aircraft that's replacing light transport, UH-60, but it's the compact dimensions of a CH-53 A or D fuselage wise, and small in internal volume, a lot of fuselage and hardware for a small capacity.@@philsalvatore3902
After all the work and money Sikorsky put into this I imagine the tech will find its way into some kind of role this time around, as opposed to the first time in the 60s.
Another amazing video .
If the Valor can get into service quickly and cost effectively and fulfil a need, then it’s the right choice. But they really need to continue working on the defiant, it looks excellent .
The technology behind it needs to mature more yea. The Raider might be a good option for the scout attack role which will let them further advance the platform.
SB-1 Defiant...Dear Santa,
I've been really REALLY good this year and so I am asking for....;)
Thank you for a very informative video about the SB-1. The US military's investment in tilt rotor aircraft is their solution to more speed and range in their support aircraft for the future.
i say the defiant feels so superior enough to meet the army's needs, the speed and agility + good design in my opinion, if it won the competition, i would love to see the attack variant and see china look with envy
It’s about speed and range. The V-280 will Island hop a lot faster and further than the SB-1 Defiant. Each aircraft has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the V-280 is ready now, not later.
Good luck landing that fucking hog in vegetated jungle environment and operating in such theater, 2nd the near peer adversary not going to send anything to contest a aerial threat flying around? 3rd what happens to its so call pros when near peer is no longer needed.
@@thh4584 fool... the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric. The Valor only has a 19% larger footprint than the Black Hawk and can land nearly everywhere the Black Hawk can.
In reality all 3 aircraft require 50 meters separation from each vehicles center or nearest obstructions per regulations of ARMY Ops
@@michaellove9831 yup people see movies and think that is reality.
Put the SB-1 Defiant in a museum! It is inefficient, gad guzzler. The Bell 280 Valor is a more versatile and efficient design.
The SB-1 should be marketed as a MH-60 replacement for frigates/destroyers/cruisers/coast guard cutters
Go Sikorsky!
Maybe they could be used together in the future, Valor tilts it rotors up for weapons deployment provides security/support, then Defiant lands/hovers to drop assault teams and secure LZ, then Defiant could stay and extract or take off to take over security/attack duty while Valor lands/hovers to drop additional teams in a secured LZ and/or extract teams/personal. They would compliment/mitigate each others strengths/risks.
Can't go wrong with more horsepower 🙂
More horsepower is good, but only up to the point when the law of diminishing returns becomes a factor.
The pusher propeller was supposed be created right after the jet engine version. The company said no and waited 30 years to fund the prototype itself without gov support.
It seems like the Valor can be a great troop transport, special ops, humanitarian machine as well as a fantastic medivac. Whereas with some reshaping, the defiant could be a nasty killing machine.
The SB1 is great for a military that does not need to deploy helicopters to the other side of an ocean
Having worked on helicopters, I think the defiant is the better choice, both for maintainers and the safety of everyone on-board it
there is a reason why only the Russians went with co-axial and everyone else passed.
The Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every test and metric. The Defiant also had multiple technical issues and was not a mature platform as it even had a crash which delays more flight testing for 18 months.
great video thank you
Raider X. technological solution is perfect for the Apache helicopter.
Sikorsky should hire hollywood artists to design its new helicopter(s).
Perhaps a safer option to the crash prone V-22 Osprey.
The eventually MV-280 gunship variant will be utterly badass.
I see the Army eventually using the Raider as scout, Spec Ops, and a light attack craft, while the Valor will cover the utility as well as the heavy attack role, almost crossing into CAS territory. I also think the Army should be responsible for the Sky Warden instead of the Air Force.
Yes, right up until the entire fleet is grounded...
this machine is hot
The v280 valor won the contract all ready
The main problem of helicopters is low speed - is typical mistake. The problem is small range due to low efficiency during horizontal flight.
This concept does solve this problem.
Great video...👍
It (or something like it) might still find a spot in the Navy.
The hangars of Destroyers and Frigates don't have
the space or even shape for tilt-rotors.
There's a couple things that're for certain with the Defiant; it'll cost *several* times more to operate than the UH-60Ms, and will *at least* be just as maintenance intensive as the Apache was in the early 2000s.
Even just coaxial rotor helicopters such as the Ka-52 are considered to be 'maintenance intensive' compared to their more conventional single-rotor alternatives. The Defiant, despite using coaxial rotors, it also features the equivalent of a tail-rotor, has a fully retractable landing gear (AH-64 doesn't), has RAM coating that must be maintained, and its composite air frame is *significantly* more complex to repair in the field than aluminium air frames are the biggest issues.
there is no RAM coating... these aren't stealth helicopters.
Sikorski must surely be working on a toroidal propeller by now. I bet THAT bird will FLY ! ! !
They should pitch the idea for this helo to the Navy. After the problems the Osprey is having it would be an option for the branch.
5:08 stunning
Realy I like this powerful helicoptere
The Army chose the Valor. Hope it's not a mistake.
SB-1 has an unusual rotor dampening system that has not performed well, limiting performance and causing their loss. As these stiff blades rotate, the lift on each advancing blade changes in it's aspect or angle of attack. All helicopters use this system to shift lift around the disc generating the ability to pitch aircraft up down or side to side. Unfortunately that makes the rotor blades "flap" or act like a diving board as lift changes from positive to neutral in this craft vs positive to slightly negative. This generates severe vibrations that the damping system is hopefully able to control or reduce to manageable levels.
One simple way to make the SB-1 faster and have longer range is to give it some wings so that so much of the engine power and fuel isn't spent just on the lift rotors keeping the aircraft airborne in level flight. Let the wings do that. Then give the rear rotor a more powerful engine to fly faster.
Looks like Toothless from ‘How to Train your Dragon’
I wonder how much aerodynamic interference between the rotors there is on the co-axial rotor designs.
In many ways they are far more efficient than a single rotor. A tail rotor wastes about 20% of the helicopter's power just to keep the nose pointed where the pilot wants it. On tandem rotor and co-axial rotor helicopters all your power is available for lift. On a co-axial system like Kamov has the rotor vortex from the lower rotor cancels the vortex from the upper rotor in a hover improving hover performance over what would be possible with any other configuration given the same power and weight.
Drawbacks are the masts are draggy and the control systems are diabolically complicated.
@@philsalvatore3902 yes, I already knew about the tail rotors power requirements, that they are more complex to make and more draggy. I was more interested in problems due to flow field interactions equivalent to those of multi-wing aircraft.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Like I said, in a hover the vortex of the lower rotor basically cancels out the vortex of the upper rotor so they are extremely efficient in an out of ground effect hover. In forward flight the rotor vortexes trail the rotor disc and don't give any advantage.
I had a ride in a Ka-32 once. I had an engine failure in my BV-107 and had to jettison an external load to land. The load stuck in some mud and it was too much for another BV-107 to pull out. The BV-107 has two 1,500 shp engines while the Kamov had a pair of 2,200 shp engines. We begged the Russians to help us out (and they were eager to prove themselves) so I hopped into one of their funky Kamovs to show them where I dropped my load. Everything in the cockpit was in Cyrillic and the gauges had metric units, including airspeed, altitude and vertical speed. They hooked up to my load and pulled power. Nothing, load wouldn't budge. They pulled more power until the engine overtemp horns and lights came on. They ignored them. They pulled so much power the rotor system rpm drooped to 65%. You could almost count the blades passing in front of the windscreen and I was starting to wonder how low you can drag the rotor rpm before it stops flying. Suddenly the load popped out of the mud and we shot up several meters. Rotor rpm returned to 100%. Whew!
In tight spaces may be the normal 2 rotor helicopter with tailpropellar would be my option, but the 2 propellar would be my option for long range projects.
Because tiltrotors become propeller planes in forward flight, it will always be more fuel efficient than a helicopter. Unfortunately, a tiltrotor is succeptsble to fouling each other if two are landing close to each other. So the Valor wins the utility helicopter competition, while i expect the Defiant to become the next search and rescue helicopter. The next attack helicopter is up for grabs
I think they should build Airwolf.
The helicopter of the future, based on helicopter technologies that already existed in the 1970s lol.
The replacement of the UH-60 with the tiltrotor will be viewed as one of the biggest mistakes the US Army has ever made. The tiltrotor just doesn't have the performance at slower airspeeds and at a hover that a helicopter has. That is where the majority of Army aviation operates in. The transition times and susceptibility to Settling with Power are big negatives especially when conducting Air Assault operations and Sling Load operations. Add to all that is the size of the aircraft. Its footprint is larger than a helicopter complicating LZ/PZ operations as well as Air Assault Operations. Tiltrotor aircraft would make a good complement to the SB-1 force in order to fill certain niches in a battlefield environment, but replacing rotorcraft altogether is a recipe for disaster.
Probably should have mentioned the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne that could do 212kn without jet engines.
It’s becoming very apparent that some in the various committees are openly giving the defiant an unfair advantage in what could be a potential game changer in saving lives of soldiers who ride in them when they’ve forgotten the one fact, and that is to save lives and instead they’re concentrating on the almighty dollar
You can only go so fast before the advancing blade goes supersonic.
I still like this Chopper!
The next main limitation on helicopter speed is that since the blade is always advancing faster than the fuselage air speed, it starts entering the transonic region before the aircraft does, and it is difficult to create a supersonic rotor for various reasons. And if you did, it almost definitely would be inefficient at lower speeds, where you need the lift the most. And it would be incredibly loud, like supersonic props. The Tu-95 is notoriously loud because of this.
Since the greater airspeed theoretically doesn't require such a high blade speed to generate the same lift, i bet when a coaxial rotor they could use computer control to regulate the rotor speed and slow the blades down as it nears the transonic region. When the two discs it shouldn't cause any problem with there not being enough blade speed on the retreating side to sustain lift.
Though it just occurred to me that that is probably exactly what they did and i should have watched the whole video first.
I hope the Defiant wins, the title rotor is neat, but a proper helicopter and can land and take off much faster. And when there is a chance to be shot at by an enemy, minimizing the time as a easy target is very important.
Yeah I'm not happy they are using a tilt rotor plane for helicopter work. Just seems like such a category error.
I really like the way the Defiant X is developing.
"Yeah I'm not happy they are using a tilt rotor plane for helicopter work."
...
why? If it can perform the role better that a helicopter than why not? Shouldn't you want the best equipment for the job.
I think it could make a great Cilivan transport craft; for airports and short haul trips.
Defiant to reasonable budgets, maintenance expectations and requirements, and battlefield capabilities...
chinook has been doing what these copters have been designed to do since the sixties. in fact in afghanistan and iraq the apache pilots had to ask the chinook pilots to slow down lol. because the blades counter rotate it can fly pretty quick . only beaten by the v-22 osprey with its tilt rotor.
Dude not even close ....47 does 160 on a good day, this does 300, and with way more efficiency and range
Perhaps there's a role for the Defiant's concept as an attack helicopter
This would make an amazing option for a private helicopter. In "gyrocopting" mode, this thing could switch its upper rotors to mostly passive rotation and receive only propulsion from the propeller in the back. Gyrocopters are more fuel efficient than helicopters. It would be faster and have twice the range of a helicopter, have all the functionalities of a helicopter, while none of the massive constraints of a plane. Having twice the range of a helicopter it would match the range of most private jets and would match 70% of their cruising speed. Given that it can fly from anywhere to anywhere, and not from airport to airport, this would not be even a net increase in travel time.