Skip to comments.
V-44.
The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane.
Popular Mechanics ^
| FR Post 9-30-2002
| BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY
Posted on 09/30/2002 2:20:06 PM PDT by vannrox
V-44 |
The Pentagons next transport flies like a plane, lands like a helicopterand unloads enough firepower to startor stopa war. |
BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY |
Illustrations by Mark McCandlish and John Batchelor (cutaway) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some planes are so beautiful they could hang in art museums even if they couldn't fly. Others--the Wart Hog tank-killer comes to mind--are as homely as their names. And then there is the Pentagon's next wonder-plane, the V-44. It's ugly, coyote ugly, with wings. Four wings to be exact. Each is tipped with a tilting nacelle that converts the V-44 from a helicopter that can land or take off wherever a truck can make a U-turn to a 300-mph fixed-wing transport, troop carrier or gunship. Still on the drawing board, the plane we've informally designated the V-44 derives from the V-22 Osprey, a two-wing tiltrotor that is now undergoing final evaluations by the Marine Corps. The need for a quad-rotor version stems from what defense analysts predict will be fundamental changes in the nature of war in the 21st century. Desert Storm was your father's war. Tomorrow, low-intensity conflicts will be the rule as the anointed battle the infidels, plant police take on drug barons, and taxmen shoot it out with money launderers. Uncle Sam has decided to step into the fray as the policeman of this new world disorder. His billy club will be a new military deployment strategy that puts ready-to-fight brigades on the ground in 96 hours. American armed forces will get into the action on a new type of plane, the V-44 Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR).
|
|
|
|
|
A quad tiltrotor could be put into production as early as 2010. |
|
Twice A V-22 The FTR will provide a capability that does not exist anywhere in the world today--and perhaps will replace the helicopter for military operations.
The concept for the aerial assault platform comes from Bell Helicopter Textron. Having teamed with Boeing on the twin-engine V-22 Osprey tiltrotor program, Bell has developed the concept for a larger fuselage. Envisioned to be about the size of a stretched C-130 Hercules, the FTR would feature two V-22-type wings, each having an engine and a combination rotor-propeller mounted at the outboard tips. The exact configuration has yet to be determined. Some versions show a tailless aircraft, others have an airframe more along the lines of a C-130.There is no disagreement about the interior. The V-44 is designed to be a heavy hauler. "Imagine this aircraft with a cabin large enough to internally carry an 8 x 8 x 40-ft. container, several helicopters, all types of high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, eight standard loading pallets, or 70 [medivac] litters," reads an industry analysis describing the concept. "Imagine an aircraft that could transport 80 to 100 troops or 10 to 20 tons of equipment and supplies at speeds greater than 300 mph over distances from 1000 to 2000 miles and then safely land vertically, without the need for runways or airports." |
|
|
|
|
|
An obvious question is whether the four rotors could operate in such close proximity without creating turbulence that would shake apart the aircraft or make it impossible to control. To answer this question, Bell draws on data reaching back to its X-22 ducted propeller quad tiltrotor, which flew 500 flights between 1966 and 1988. The results encouraged Bell to test a pair of V-22s at a distance approximating the spacing between the fore and aft wings of a V-44. According to Dick Spivey, Bell's director of advanced concepts, the test was a success. Water tunnel tests showed that the rotor wakes from the front engines flowed down and inboard--below and inboard of the rear rotors. Technically, there is no reason this bird shouldn't fly. Thus configured, it could carry twice the payload and eight times the internal volume of cargo transported by the V-22. A true multiservice aircraft, it would reportedly meet the expanded needs of the Marine Corps' Ship-To-Objective Maneuver operations, support Air Force Aerospace Expeditionary Force units and meet many Army requirements for a future Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR). In the Army's case, officials envision a JTR that will replace some of the aging CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The Navy has its eye on the quad tiltrotor to make deliveries to its oceangoing fleet, much as the C-2A Greyhound now services carriers. Early requirements issued by the Defense Department call for the ability to transport 8 to 12 tons of cargo over 600 miles with return at cruise speeds of 300 knots. Bell Helicopter engineers believe that their FTR concept would come very close to meeting these criteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Formidable Gunship In addition to the FTR's cargo-hauling abilities, the possibility of putting tiltrotor technology into combat can be seen in another industry analysis. With advanced laser weapons and precision fire control, the craft could provide protection for overtaking a captured or damaged airport or seaport, making such sites accessible to allied forces. Gunship applications are just one of several ideas being explored. A joint panel is looking at all of the rotorcraft possibilities. "They're looking at joint common lift replacement aircraft, to include a medium assault, a utility and an attack and anti-armor aircraft," explains Marine Corps Capt. Aisha Bakkar-Poe. "The Marine Corps' view is that tiltrotor is the way of the future because it has such a longer range and goes so much faster that it almost makes a helicopter obsolete." |
|
|
Troop buildups would no longer require runways. |
|
|
|
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airforce; bush; military; missle; plane; transport; v44
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Interesting.
1
posted on
09/30/2002 2:20:06 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
To: vannrox
Veley interesting!
To: All
4 rotors equaling 4x the risk of equipment failure?
How well does it fly with one rotor taken out?
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Keeps on crashing? What, like, four times?
5
posted on
09/30/2002 2:36:20 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: vannrox
They're still trying to push that tilt-rotor pipe dream?
6
posted on
09/30/2002 2:42:17 PM PDT
by
IronJack
To: Jason Kauppinen
How well does it fly with one rotor taken out? Like a brick.
7
posted on
09/30/2002 2:50:54 PM PDT
by
balrog666
To: vannrox
bump.
8
posted on
09/30/2002 2:55:51 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
To: balrog666; Jason Kauppinen
<< How well does it fly with one rotor taken out?
Like a brick. >>
Nah.
That's on all four.
Lose one and it flies like a brick outhouse in a thermal.
To: Jason Kauppinen
How well does it fly with one rotor taken out?About as well as a traditional helicopter that loses its main rotor.
However, loss of an engine isn't instantly fatal--the rotors are dual-connected to both the engine they're attached to and to the opposite side engine.
10
posted on
09/30/2002 3:04:23 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Poohbah
However, loss of an engine isn't instantly fatal--the rotors are dual-connected to both the engine they're attached to and to the opposite side engine.If it won't be used to defend our borders, the program should be axed.
To: Poohbah
Gee Poohbah, why does the military even try to develop new systems? It seems like every time a new one is announced, the "experts" come out and tell us how worthless it is.
I remember experts like these telling us that the Apache was a death trap and the development of the M1 was useless because the tank was obsolete.
Dang, we should have listened to them. ;-)
12
posted on
09/30/2002 3:11:21 PM PDT
by
TomB
To: Brian Allen
Notice the 4 ea engines are interconnected by driveshafts.
I would think that if you lost an engine, you'd simply lose 25% of your power.
If the rotor itself gets whacked, it'll probably still fly better than any helicopter that's lost a rotor.
I think it's PURDY!!
To: Poohbah
Why do the "Exhaust Duct Doors" re-direct exhaust upward, as the port aft engine shows. What purpose could that serve?
To: misanthrope
bmp
To: misanthrope
That's not exhaust--that's a blade tip.
16
posted on
09/30/2002 3:37:40 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
17
posted on
09/30/2002 3:38:22 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: 1rudeboy
Losses
11 June 1991 -- An Osprey crashed three minutes into its maiden demonstration flight at a Boeing helicopter flight test center in Wilmington, DE. There were no serious injuries in the crash, which was blamed on gyro wiring problems. Two crew members safely ejected, and the aircraft was badly damaged the accident. 20 July 1992 -- Seven crewmembers lost their lives when a prototype of the V-22 Osprey fell into waters off the Quantico, VA, Marine Corps Air Station. The crash occurred after an engine caught fire as the aircraft was completing a 700-mile non-stop flight from Eglin Air Force Base. mechanical failure was found to have triggered a fire that disabled an engine. The identified design deficiencies were corrected and incorporated in all production aircraft.
08 April 2000 -- An MV-22 crashed during a noncombatant evacuation evaluation mission. The crash claimed 19 lives -- the deadliest air disaster for the Marines since 22 died in a helicopter crash in 1989. The Osprey was one of four flying from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. It crashed at Marana Airport near Tucson. The mishap aircraft was one of five production aircraft delivered to the Marine Corps for operational use. Officials said that an examination of data did not indicate any mechanical or software failures. In the last seconds of its flight, the mishap aircraft was in a high rate of descent at a relatively low forward airspeed. These characteristics can lead to a condition known as power settling (or vortex ring state) which can result in a loss of lift on the rotor system. Power settling is a phenomenon common to helicopter flight. The primary cause of the crash was the pilot descended too quickly -- 250 percent the acceptable rate.
11 December 2000 -- An MV-22 Osprey crashed in North Carolina during a night training mission. Four Marines were killed when the MV-22 crashed in a remote wooded area about 10 miles outside Jacksonville. The crash was the fourth accident involving the tilt-rotor aircraft since 1991. The Navy and Marine Corps grounded all MV-22 Osprey flights until further notice. The accident investigation concluded that a leak in a chafed hydraulic line, coupled with a software glitch, had caused the crash. The software problem contributed to the aircraft going out of control, rather than compensating for the hydraulic leak.
To: Poohbah
No, it's not.
Left rear engine, on the bottom.........
To: michigander
The Marana crash involved a former KC-130R pilot who had little experience in rotary-wing flight.
20
posted on
09/30/2002 3:48:44 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson