V-44. The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane.

Popular Mechanics ^ | FR Post 9-30-2002 | BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY

[vannrox]

V-44

The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane, lands like a helicopterand unloads enough firepower to start—or stop—a 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."

The FTR concept can be traced back as far as the early 1960s when the Curtiss-Wright Corp. built the X-19, a small quad-rotor testbed. After 50 successful test flights, it was destroyed in an accident. A second X-19 was scrapped. Enthusiasm for the FTR, however, is based on the technical success of the V-22 Osprey. These aircraft can be configured to carry 24 combat troops or up to 20,000 pounds of internal or external cargo at twice the speed of a helicopter. U.S. procurement plans call for 360 Marine Corps MV-22 aircraft and 50 U.S. Air Force CV-22 aircraft. Using parts common with the Marine MV-22, the Air Force CV-22 modification includes the addition of internal-wing fuel tanks and terrain-avoidance and terrain-following radars. It also has been given an enhanced electronic warfare suite, additional cockpit seating for a flight engineer, an aerial refueling probe and an internally mounted rescue hoist. The FTR will use a pair of V-22 propulsion systems. Each is based on two Rolls-Royce Allison AE 1107C 6150-shp engines and a computer-controlled rotor coordination system that permits a safe landing if one engine loses power.

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.

[RoughDobermann]

Two 20MM Vulcan, a 30MM Vulcan and a 105MM? Yikes, would not want to be on the receiving end....

[Poohbah]

OK, I think I've got it (on the cutaway perspective). It's not going to be directed up--it's right under a rotor, for crying out loud!

[Brian Allen]

<< I would think that if you lost an engine, you'd simply lose 25% of your power. >>

Because of drive-shaft and gearbox friction etceteras and other inherent inefficiencies, in what we call a "Critical Flight Situation" and particularly when operating within the "Dead Man's Curve" part of the Flight Envelope, [Vertical take off and early climb/accelerate; low-level hover and final approach and landing configurations] probably more like half or more than half of the aircraft's PERFORMANCE.

As the Osprey has well and truly demonstrated, this is not even close to a sensible aircraft type and may never be viable.

Which is not to say the Pentagon, which has ever demonstrated its unsurpassed genius for getting everything totally wrong every darned time; won't squander Scores of Billions -- and maybe another Trillion to match the Trillion it lost to fraud and bad accounting during the KKKli'toon years -- on it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Cae in point - the FB-111. Yes, there were bugs - but it turned into a damn fine airframe with a lot of versatility for a lot of different missions.

[RoughDobermann]

Could this one take off/land with the rotors perpendicular to the ground? IIRC, the Osprey can't?; the diameter of the rotors is to great to allow it??

[Poohbah]

The Osprey can't; I think the V-44 can.

[rangerX]

Actually, on the AH-1S Cobras, the exhaust was vented up toward the rotor to reduce thermal signature. They probably have this configured for the same reason.

[RoughDobermann]

Thanks

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Your link is full of factual errors.

[michigander]

I'm just a factual contributing messenger that offered no commentary whatsoever.

The "V-44" appears to be an add on (next generation) of the V-22. I see no reasonable argument against getting it (the V-22) working properly and in usable production before even considering expending any valuable resources on a follow-up aircraft.

Just MHO.

[FlyVet]

How well does it fly with one rotor taken out? Like a brick.

I'm not smart enough to be an engineer, but I don't understand the relentless pursuit of this design. Same as the Osprey, just looking at it, if it is in the climb or descent phase, and loses an engine either due to malfunction or ground fire, it flips over and kills everybody. Stupid. Someone on FR has posted another design that looks like a helicopter with a pusher-prop. Seems more sensible to me. At least with a helicopter, if it gets hit in the engine, it can auto-gyro downward, and give the troops a chance to survive impact. This thing, no way. It loses an engine, and it flips over, killing everybody. What is up with that? This 4-engine design, maybe it can compensate for loss of 1 engine. But it seems that would still be very difficult.

[Poohbah]

Again--the rotors are cross-connected--losing an engine does not equate to losing the corresponding rotor.

[FlyVet]

Again--the rotors are cross-connected--losing an engine does not equate to losing the corresponding rotor.

Okay, that sounds better. Still seems too dang complicated to me, not enough KISS Principle for a combat vehicle.

[Poohbah]

If the KISS principle were the ultimate expression of a vehicle's combat-worthiness, then everything after the chariot would flunk.

[FlyVet]

If the KISS principle were the ultimate expression of a vehicle's combat-worthiness, then everything after the chariot would flunk.

Maybe so. I think I read a book on every WW II fighter or bomber, and at one time or another it seems most were nicknamed "widowmaker" due to design problems. Case in point the P-38 which had a nasty habit of losing an engine on takeoff early on, instant death for an unskilled pilot. Dubya flew the F-102 and that was also called "widowmaker" due to its ejection seat problems. Maybe they will work the bugs out of the Osprey and this creature, but I guess I'll remain skeptical. It seems there are better avenues than this design. You probably know more than me.

[balrog666]

I'm not smart enough to be an engineer, but I don't understand the relentless pursuit of this design.

Very simple.

1) It's the only forward-based troop transport in development, so it has no competition, and

2) It's components are slated to be produced in 350 different congressional districts, so Congress won't let it be killed.