Is the V-280 Valor better than the V-22 Osprey? | Battle of the Bells

[@Brotallion]

Thank you for your continued support as we grow our channel in order deliver more! Want to help us hit our goal of 1000 subscribers and do a giveaway?

[@johns70]

I think the ferry range of the V-280 Valor is gravely underrated . If true, they can actually fly from San Francisco to Hawaii on their own. Another stop on Midway, and they can fly all the way to Japan, with NO need for an aircraft carrier. That is an insane capability boost.

[@arnoldsherrill2585]

The speed at which the 280 valor can fly is one of its major advantages. Just imagine a couple of decades down the road a civilian version of this built specifically for air ambulance use It will bring a new meaning to the phrase" speed is life"

[@titansboytc]

I don't see them building a civilian version of the valor the rotorwash is no joke that's why the osprey doesn't have a civilian version yet

[@arnoldsherrill2585]

@@titansboytc give the osprey a couple more decades in service and you will probably see a civilian version specifically built for the air ambulance role

[@august1871]

@@arnoldsherrill2585how will a couple more decades in service reduce the force created by the aircraft.

[@chrissmith7669]

@@titansboytc there is a civilian tilt rotor finally entering service. Not as osprey as that airframe is to large and cumbersome with wing fold hardware. The smaller AW609 is more optimal for air ambulance or S&R use.

[@zemog1025]

Sort of like comparing a Chinook to a Blackhawk. But the thing with the V280 is that it's design and development benefits from decades of operational experience from the V22.

[@w8stral]

Well no as Chinook can actually do its job, matching what is on the spec sheet and in many cases exceeds what is written down on paper while the V22 cannot while requiring a huge number of manhours to do so. V22 in reality is an 18 troop carrier, not 24 as claimed and then cannot land near any other Helo or has to have large lag time coming in after other helo's and if there is a long lag time, can still crash, as rotor wash will cause differential lift tilting the craft over and killing all inside when it crashes. V22 cannot do STOVL mode either, or more precisely, if it tries, it quickly destroys its main bearings/hub swash plate and STOVL has in effect been banned out of the V22 operations manual for anything other than emergency use. This in effect means the V22's internal cargo hold is utterly useless. So yes, Bell did learn the lessons from the V22, it scrapped the V22 concept by eliminating STOVL mode using large flaps, slats, folding mechs, using a much lighter fuselage allowing lower rotor loading and better hover viability. Many other problems exist but... well, it is a prototype so who knows if they were ever addressed or not.

[@WorldwideWyatt]

Chinook is Americas fastest helicopter.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

​@@WorldwideWyatt Only because the osprey isnt a helicopter...

[@bnblasercleaning]

the difference in flight time is astounding, I would see that as most likely what sold them on it, the difference between 350nm vs 800nm means the 280 can fly into to the osprey's max distance, twice over with time to spare, in a combat situation ferrying troops and wounded from a hot zone, that is just night and day. (knowledge for my opinion comes from my own military exp)

[@williamwchuang]

Imagine if your quick reaction force can get there in half the time it if they could stage further away and still get there in time.

[@generalrendar7290]

Like you said, the aircraft are simply different and fulfill different roles and needs that the services require.

[@marklipsinic7916]

The V-280 was never intended to replace the V-22. The V-280 was part of the FLRAA program that was intended to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk.

[@merrittorius]

Had the exact same questions. Enjoyed the break out. Nicely done.

[@Brotallion]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@TecnamTwin]

Yes, yes it is. But, it is quite a bit smaller than the V-22 and is its direct descendant - would not exist without the trailblazing Osprey. Excited to see it enter service!

[@cacwgm]

There's already talk of a larger variant to be developed.

[@whirltech8031]

One thing Bell has done a poor job of communicating is that the V280 that has flown was not a direct prototype. It was a technology demonstrator designed for only a guaranteed ~400 hrs of life. The production V280 will be ~20% larger, with attendant increases in lift capacity, with structural redesigns, and improved producability.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

For an attack variant, couldn't you theoretically mount a 20mm vulcan inside the hull like a gunship? You may want a muzzle break to reduce stress on the frame but a precise barrage of 20mm fire could offer better support than the 30mm of an a-10 for less money. Thanks to the tilt rotor you don't have to worry about stall speeds at all and you have a crew to take care of multiple weapon systems simultaneously. You don't even need a runway. Perhaps you could even get away with slower rates of fire and use a more powerful caliber autocannon instead for better performance against light armor. Not only that but that thing has a fixed wing and enough capacity to carry a couple of small paveway bombs for targets that the 20mm can't handle. The fact it can be done in the same hull of a transport aircraft is just the cherry on top.

[@craig4867]

You'd have to use a 30 mm chain gun like the one on the AH-64 Apache helicopter!

[@dphillips4351]

Stall speed, prop speed is it really different?

[@dct124]

This was a good complete breakdown of the new airframes 👍🏾

[@cathiestubes2820]

I followed the development of the competition between the valor and defiant prototypes very closely and am surprised that the valor won. It seemed that the defiant was more stable in hover and more nimble in close maneuvering. I guess they placed range and speed over those specs. But, it will be interesting to see how they turn the valor into a gunship since those huge propellers will make aiming guns to the side an issue.

[@generalrendar7290]

I've followed the program as well. Now from what I saw, the 2 aircraft have gone through different courses to demonstrate their agility. Both flew next to and kept up with jets... which is a cool stunt I guess. The Defiant did a slalom over a runway, did a slalom with a sling load, and landed in a forest. Bell's Valor did a very short hop with a sling load, but did conduct an autonomous flight, also did a full hover mobility routine complete with pirouettes and rapid attitude changes. As far as I'm aware the Valor was flown by multiple US Army test pilots while the Defiant has only been flown by Sikorskey personnel.

[@SmokingGouda]

I think, that the Valor was also able to put in soo many more test hours, also showed it was a much more mature design and thus lower risk too... I agree, it'll definitely be interesting how the aircraft and program evolve!

[@whirltech8031]

Why the surprise? The major design goal was in the program name: "Future LONG RANGE Assault Aircraft"

[@Globalscanningeyes]

@@generalrendar7290 the defiant was in fact tested by army pilots.

[@dphillips4351]

My question is how great is the sling load capabilities of both aircraft?

[@rogerpurcell9444]

I believe the armed forces will also keep the defiant but in much smaller number. Heard the maintenance per flight hour was half the v22. That's huge in usability and readiness. 80 hours maintenance for one hour of flight on v22.

[@kiro9257]

Doubtful that the US military will keep the Defiant in small numbers. Just imagine the logistics of maintaining 2 platforms with overlapping capabilities, that would be expensive and too redundant for the American taxpayers. Moreover, why are you comparing the Defiant with the V-22 Osprey? That’s not a fair comparison since they’re both from different programs. I suggest you compare the Defiant with its adversary, the V-280 Valor.

[@joshschneider9766]

Is an orange superior to an apple? The 280 is a complete adaptation of the idea of tilt rotorcraft proven by the Osprey into another purpose.

[@Brotallion]

Spot on!

[@davidanalyst671]

This makes complete sense. The Marines are famous for needing a big aircraft to send hundreds of soldiers, and the army is famous for sending an elite squad of soldiers to perform a task. Thats why the marines have a big boat, and the army has the kayak

[@umu8934]

I saw some sites and news that the v280 valor's had Rolls-Royce AE 1107F engines and not a GE one lmfao 😹😹😹

[@chrissmith7669]

GE901 is wager

[@arizonawut]

Janes has the engines incorrect for the V-280. That sucker is also rocking some badass Rolls-Royce Engines!!!

[@cacwgm]

I believe RR is already working on more powerful engines for the production model.

[@A.R.77]

That's like comparing a Ferrari to work van. The Valor is sleek and perfect for the US Army.

[@seandigan1676]

V280 is replacing black hawk not osprey

[@Brotallion]

Yes, thank you! If you watch the video, you will learn why exactly we are comparing these two aircraft.

[@rosevitelli5814]

Distance is even more important than speed with both fly bye wire and agility and lifting capacity and more men plus Bell is on time and under cost so to all you are all wrong and especially since Lockheed and it's lobbying lost tell me how great the V280 valor is

[@w8stral]

V22 does not have sand filters. This directly led to several crashes due to siliconization of the turbine blades leading to loss of power. V22B version due to this problem just uprated the engines power and shorter lifespan as they were dying earlier anyways and wrote the problem off as "maintenance"... It was supposed to have them but due to weight when designed, they were left off so it could take 18 troops its rated distance. Yea, unless it is a SHORT mission, V22 cannot carry its 24 passengers and often cannot lift them at all in VTOL mode. Lets assume V280 will have sand/dust filters installed and this problem is fixed, but will still require several hundred pounds of extra weight compared to V22. V22 cannot land near other Helo's due to tip over(differential lift) from other rotor craft rotors wash. Normal helicopters do not have this problem. So, while the landing zone for a SINGLE V280 will in general fit in same spot a Uh60 can fit, multiple V22's cannot do so in close proximity to even each other let alone other rotor craft. I see zero reason why this would not ALSO apply to the v280. This means mass assault is a massive massive problem. True, rotor loading is probably less on V280 which will help some. How much is the question? Spec ops will LOVE V280. Not sure about the actual Army trying to land a company or two of troops in a single LZ. Next thing V22 had massive problems with was proprotor hub bearing failures. Leads to massive massive numbers of hours of maintenance. To partially address this gargantuan deficiency, the V22 was essentially NOT allowed to land or take off in STOVL mode making its internal payload capability, useless as they were never allowed to USE said capability. Thus calling the V22 a medium heavy helo is a joke. It is a Medium and it started its life unable to lift even what a UH60 could lift until said engines were uprated in power as they were dying anyways. V280 has same diameter hubs. This tells me same limitations have been imposed and no solution was found and therefore ditched the larger fuselage as could never truly use its volume anyways. As someone who was consulted on said problems by Bell for a solution along with everyone else in the known world, it would appear zero solutions have been found. Since STOVL mode was in essence eliminated as possible in the case of the V22, the V280 you might notice does NOT have giant drooping flaps nor leading edge slats it would appear with a narrower wing. This actually helps the Hover capabilities in comparison to V22. An improvement. Another change is the smaller rotors which probably also reflects the hub bearing problem that I'll bet was never solved since it would appear the V280 has no STOVL capability other than probably as an emergency landing procedure. This will save a lot of weight and maintenance costs. Oh yea, the folding mechs are gone from V280 which saves??? 1000-->2000lbs? + better aerodynamics without those folding mechs scerwing things up. This lightens the rotor load as well which helps the landing close together problem, the hover problem, etc etc etc. In short, the v280 is what the V22 SHOULD have been instead of the promises made which Bell was unable to design to in the V22. It would not shock me in the slightest if the marines want a navalized folding version of the v280 soon and the v22 will be dumped post haste as one of the driving reasons Sikorsky lost. The navy does get a voice in acquisitions even if it is an Army program.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

So i did not know enough to answer you even though i figured a lot of what you said was BS. So i asked a V-22 pilot who has been flying them for 10+ years. "The V-22 has EAPS which filter out debris. Sand filters have been tested but were found to not be an improvement. The V-22 can lift itself plus ~14,0000 lbs vertically.. that's 24 troops plus another 8,000lbs worth of fuel. For a V-22 that equates to over 400 nautical miles of range, that's hardly a short mission and blows other helos away" "With a STO (less than 50' of ground roll) the V-22 can lift 18,000lbs and with a rolling takeoff of about 2,000 ft it can lift 22,000lbs but only 20,000 of that can be cargo in the cabin with the rest being fuel weight. So yeah, with a short takeoff the V-22 has its max range with a completely full load of troops" "Engines now get thousands of hours on wing. They allowed them to run hotter which increased their lifespan, not decreased. This is because the hotter Temps melt the sand instead of allowing the grains to stay hard and wear down turbine blades. The turbine blades don't turn into silicone lol" "The proprietor bearing hubs thing is just pure fiction we are allowed to land and take off vertically.. he also doesn't use the term "STOVL" correctly and seems to think it means vertical take off instead of short take off. We've always been able to lift over twice what the -60 can" "The V-22 doesn't have leading edge slats? Both aircraft will put the flaps to maximum deflection in vertical mode because they limits the download penalty from the rotor wash. Also the V-280 will be able to do a rolling landing just like the -60 can. The lack of folding mechanism will save weight, that's about the only correct thing that guy said" "And finally, the V-280 will not be replacing the V-22 in any branch if service"

[@w8stral]

The so called "sand filters" they put on were tiny and yes, USELESS as they were NOT allowed to increase drag or weight and why they have never been put on as they are on ALL other Helos! And no, I said nothing about the sand eroding dear idiot. The sand gets in and MELTS onto the blades destroying the lifespan of the blades + the erosion. Running the engines hotter does not improve lifespan of engine, it just moves the silicanizing of the blades from one region to another. Suggest your "friend" learn how to read... but he is a pilot so, not surprised they cannot read. Next your moron "pilot" friend knows damned well I used STOVL correctly and is not exactly allowed and is frowned upon its use as it incrues mainteance expenses, so while those numbers are true, they are severely frowned upon their usage. Lets look at those numbers shall we? I Specificed BEFORE engines were uprated in power and the 60 lifts ~10,000lbs. ... Genius pilot boy can't do math... V22 only lifts in the uprated version 14,000lbs which last I checked is not double 10,000. V22 is never allowed to use its STOVL options for higher payloads unless they have come up with a miracle fix of their main bearings,, but judging by the the fact that now COD now requires 3 V22's what 2 C2's used to do with half the maintenance personnel, no they never fixed the bearing issue either. EDIT: Now it has been a few years since I was involved in the program and for all I know they said, F' it, we have a hanger queen anyways due to no sand filters and lots of extra systems, so what if there is gargantuan amounts of main bear/swashplate bearing wear, lets use it in STOVL mode anyways as the whole damned bird is eternally in the shop anyways. Because the V22 Could not do VTOL worth a shit, REAL sand filters were left off as they would have required another 250lbs and worse yet, vastly increased drag dropping its range which your so called "pilot" friend conveniently "forgot". Then your genius pilot friend once again can't read or ... you can't and you go on about Slats which are critical for STOVL operations and why they have been removed on V280 as shown above STOVL on V22 essentially can never be used without accruing massive wear and slop = differential lift which... kinda bad news on a V22. Other than that your ability to actually read/think is pure genius level and your so called "pilot" friend. Why you trust engineers and NOT PILOTS, they are IGNORANT @@n3v3rforgott3n9

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

"Lol, I mean engine time on wing greatly improved after they reflashed them so that must be a coincidence? With the sand filters, other helicopter don't have to change the angle of their engines or operated from 0-280 knots. Vertical take offs and landings are not restricted in any way, that's just a fact. We do VTOL operations on every single flight. Swashplate bearing wear isn't even a large driver of unplanned maintenance. And again he uses STOVL as if it means "vertical takeoff" instead of "Short take off" so I hokestly dont think he knows what it means. The black hawk max payload is 8-9K so yes we can lift twice what the 60 can if even 50' of pavement is available. The V-22 doesn't have slats? I don't know how they could be removed for the V-280 if the V-22 never had them either. *he showed a picture of the filter on a test aircraft* And the sand filters were appropriately sized and worked fine without any extra weight. It just wasn't projected to actually increase engine time on wing enough to be worth the investment to modify the whole fleet. Like I said, engines are lasting thousands of hours now." Frankly you trying to say "they don't do X" is kinda dumb when there is a direct operator saying they do it all the time.

[@chrissmith7669]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9for production I expect a wing fold. For the Navy & Marines a must. For the army the only way to stuff it in a transport aircraft for quicker deployments.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@chrissmith7669 Except the Navy has shown no interest in it yet although of course bell has a mock up for a wing folding design set aside just like they do for an attack version which is also not asked for yet. For transport the entire point is that is can self deploy anywhere in the world without too much support needed unlike the Black Hawk. They are even planning for AI / programing to fly it to location without a pilot to the units that need it.

[@Robmhaley]

Wow

[@thelonghorncow5084]

V-22 Osprey is a fine machine; if the Army wants a "Lighter" and "Longer Range" machine, why don't they create a New version along the line of V-22 Osprey, which can incorporate many new features of the V-280 into the new version of V22 Osprey! V-22 Osprey wings can be rotated and folded for easy storage (which is very critical for space-critical aircraft carriers), which I have not seen from V-280!!! Would you please consider making a comparison between the V-280 vs the SB-1 Defiant??

[@w8stral]

V22 does not have sand filters. This directly led to several crashes due to siliconization of the turbine blades leading to loss of power. V22B version due to this problem just uprated the engines power and shorter lifespan as they were dying earlier anyways and wrote the problem off as "maintenance"... It was supposed to have them but due to weight when designed, they were left off so it could take 18 troops its rated distance. Yea, unless it is a SHORT mission, V22 cannot carry its 24 passengers and often cannot lift them at all in VTOL mode. Lets assume V280 will have sand/dust filters installed and this problem is fixed, but will still require several hundred pounds of extra weight compared to V22. V22 cannot land near other Helo's due to tip over(differential lift) from other rotor craft rotors wash. Normal helicopters do not have this problem. So, while the landing zone for a SINGLE V280 will in general fit in same spot a Uh60 can fit, multiple V22's cannot do so in close proximity to even each other let alone other rotor craft. I see zero reason why this would not ALSO apply to the v280. This means mass assault is a massive massive problem. True, rotor loading is probably less on V280 which will help some. How much is the question? Spec ops will LOVE V280. Not sure about the actual Army trying to land a company or two of troops in a single LZ. Next thing V22 had massive problems with was proprotor hub bearing failures. Leads to massive massive numbers of hours of maintenance. To partially address this gargantuan deficiency, the V22 was essentially NOT allowed to land or take off in STOVL mode making its internal payload capability, useless as they were never allowed to USE said capability. Thus calling the V22 a medium heavy helo is a joke. It is a Medium and it started its life unable to lift even what a UH60 could lift until said engines were uprated in power as they were dying anyways. V280 has same diameter hubs. This tells me same limitations have been imposed and no solution was found and therefore ditched the larger fuselage as could never truly use its volume anyways. As someone who was consulted on said problems by Bell for a solution along with everyone else in the known world, it would appear zero solutions have been found. Since STOVL mode was in essence eliminated as possible in the case of the V22, the V280 you might notice does NOT have giant drooping flaps nor leading edge slats it would appear with a narrower wing. This actually helps the Hover capabilities in comparison to V22. An improvement. Another change is the smaller rotors which probably also reflects the hub bearing problem that I'll bet was never solved since it would appear the V280 has no STOVL capability other than probably as an emergency landing procedure. This will save a lot of weight and maintenance costs. Oh yea, the folding mechs are gone from V280 which saves??? 1000-->2000lbs? + better aerodynamics without those folding mechs scerwing things up. This lightens the rotor load as well which helps the landing close together problem, the hover problem, etc etc etc. In short, the v280 is what the V22 SHOULD have been instead of the promises made which Bell was unable to design to in the V22. It would not shock me in the slightest if the marines want a navalized folding version of the v280 soon and the v22 will be dumped post haste as one of the driving reasons Sikorsky lost. The navy does get a voice in acquisitions even if it is an Army program.

[@thelonghorncow5084]

@@w8stral Thanks for sharing!

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@thelonghorncow5084 He is wrong about nearly everything he said

[@chrissmith7669]

@@w8stralthe Allison engines have Inlet Particle Separators that have been redesigned half a dozen times by now. The Middle East “talcum powder “ fine sand has defeated all attempts to prolong compressor and hot section life’s.

[@w8stral]

Sure, they have, but limitation of diameter is limitation of diameter and they don't work as they are not allowed to be increased in diameter as that = massive drag = massive loss of range. Same reason the hub bearing diameter is insufficient leading to massive bearing wear problems leading to the fact gargantuan numbers of hours of maintenance are required = hanger queens. @@chrissmith7669

[@WorldwideWyatt]

I hope it’s a huge improvement, the Osprey has killed more marines than most enemy nations.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

no and you are an idiot for saying so.

[@bobbertee5945]

The USMC should have went with a Marine version of the CH-47, flies higher, tougher version of the 46, how are Marines going to be able to get into hot LZ's with this thing, the Osprey has a job but I just don't think it suits the battlefields Marines deploy to, for a Pacific fight, its probably good, its got long legs, is able to self deploy, but with its record these days I think I'd rather be going into a combat situation in an old school '46 or 47, Osprey's scare me

[@chrissmith7669]

Osprey foot print isn’t larger than the CH-46 thanks to the marine requirement to fit in the same space.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

... both the CH-46 and CH-47 have a worse crash rate than the Osprey...

[@ericb.4358]

The VALOR is not as large as the Osprey BUT the Osprey could benefit from retrofitting with the VALOR's STATIONARY engines and rotating propellers. This may avoid the deadly serious problem of the Osprey's overheating gears.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

"This may avoid the deadly serious problem of the Osprey's overheating gears." ... I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[@jerrydosser7031]

No because it still won’t autorotate. Both are killers.

[@IndigenousAmericanTrucker]

The V-280 is ugly and pointless! It looks too civilian! It doesn't look aggressive or too military at all to me!

[@Rohit-cj6eb]

V280 is look very combat friendly even tho it's not for combat🤔

[@craigthescott5074]

The military needs to retire all these type of aircraft the are unsafe and crash way too much.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

I'm assuming you are talking about the Osprey here?

[@craigthescott5074]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 yes

[@RobertPRobinsonJr]

Just by looking at them by bending the nacelle 90° instead of rotating the entire new cell if you look at how far the Nicole hangs down the one that does not bend it look at how far it hangs down close to the ground you have to land an extremely flat areas that is not always going to be the case and that's actually why a couple of accidents actually happened was because of the cells hit the ground because the ground was not flat and that is actually an upgrade aircraft need to be one to themselves they need to be their own thing they need to stop competing with regular helicopters because combat helicopters are a very specific being in the field you need a low profile you need a silhouette that is narrow because The Offspring and the to 80 have a gigantic silhouette which can be knocked out by RPGs would have blind people so honestly it's stupid to have to compete with these when you know they can't go as fast and obviously you're going to take the faster approach vehicle but honestly the Sikorsky dual rotor aircraft is so much better than this in a combat scenario is not even funny if you ask soldiers like me we would rather have the Sikorsky over the 280 but honestly the 280 would be nice for a vehicle to bring us in and out in Mass not for specialized operations this is dumb

[@RobertPRobinsonJr]

The only thing that makes the v-280 better is the missiles that bend at 90° other than that I'd rather have the other one because it has a back ramp you can roll vehicles and s*** on you can do quick exits and quick entrances so no I don't like the v-280 at all it is nothing but a helicopter base like a Blackhawk with Nicole Wings where I can fly like an airplane once you get airborne no one gives a s*** once you're airborne and up in the air and safe it's nice to get home sooner but honestly I'd rather have a smaller low silhouette vehicle or RPGs can't be lived at you and have 84 ft of area which blind silly skinnies can knock you out of the sky