Engineering research is so very satisfying, even though one does not go into production to make many of the same plane. This aircraft looks very stable and all achieved without the use of microprocessors and gyros and accellerometers,
Thanks for posting I saw the photos in a leading aviation magazine on the testing of the tilt rotor system and the adys for the new Bell Convertiplane but never knew it flew due to the type of engines at the time. History is amazing at times as we only see a small part of it in our life time , Just take those who saw the birth of radio as a kid and then came TV , The aircraft went from a biplane in WW2 to the aircraft like the SR71 and who knows what's truly hiding in privet complains or US Gov- labs after all its more that possible we have flying disc- Type aircraft or trade for UFO craft from others worlds in time & space just as people did 200- 500 years ago when new lands were found across the mountains or across the seas were ships would sail One has to thank all those test pilots who risk so much putting strange aircraft through flight test and never knowing for sure at times if the dam thing was going to come apart at any time, and we have to thank all those who have work on aircraft like those for it was pure math & Slide rules along side the drafting table were engineers work day and night to produce new aircraft. And thanks to the men that build them as well Thanks for posting I love it
One (XV-15) use to overfly me in the early 1980s during test flights at NASA/Ames. I didn't see a V-22 until decades later. According to the video, the XV-3 was also tested here, probably in the big 40' x 80' wind tunnel too. EDIT: Verified....Photos here: images.nasa.gov/search-results?q=xv-3&page=1&media=image,video,audio&yearStart=1920&yearEnd=2019
By what I understand when the Osprey program began the developers couldn’t make it fly properly with many crashers but now with more advanced computers it can fly. Take away the computers and see what happends.
One potential problem might be if the rotor mechanism was in its horizontal flight mode (or somewhere close to horizontal mode), and there was some kind of mechanical problem which prevented returning the rotor mechanism to vertical mode, it would be impossible to land the aircraft without the rotors striking the ground due the very large radius of the rotors compared to the usual radius of a standard airplane propeller. I guess they resolved this problem on the Osprey by decreasing the rotor radius while still maintaining sufficient thrust for vertical (helicopter type) flight.
The XV-3 seems to be the backbone that ushered the V-22 as well as the in-development V-280 Valor. The V22 in relation to the XV-3 design differs in achieving VTOL to forward flight and vice versa as the Osprey relied on rotating the entire engine nacelle with the rotor. While the Valor mirrors this craft in achieving VTOL and forward flight by rotating thr rotor shafts itself.
@@kinchan3334 I think that the original tilt-rotor/engine(s)-in-fuselage layout wasn't practical in that it would have taken up cargo-/passenger-carrying space in the fuselage: otherwise, it was a good idea from a weight-distribution viewpoint. It seems that they found a way of ensuring that the rotor-support shafts were strong enough to take the strain of all rotor positions. The podded-engine alternative allows for more available power and hence much-smaller diameter rotors, making the layout more compact and the only option for military cargo/troop-carrying. .I wouldn't like to have to risk my life by flying in one of these compromise aircraft (or in one of those big, software-dependent military helicopters like the "Chinook".
@@crushingvanessa3277 No problem. I don't know if the arishow demo is a viable option, though, even if the plane could've been made airworthy - being a prototype, it wasn't exactly the safest machine to fly, with excessive vibrations being the main problem.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Even flying airshow would have been prohibitively expensive as this aircraft was never in production. Spare parts would not be readily available and be very expensive.
I heard that this type of aircraft was only put under consideration after a helicopter rescue attempt of Americans during 1979 Iran Revolution went wrong with a crash, and that was in part how the Boeing V-22 Osprey came about. Didn't know Bell was making something like this 20 years earlier.
I built the model back then, by Aurora I think... looked cool but boy what a large slow target it would have made. Full load tests made it even more clumsy and slower, especially if the occupants were moving about inside. I believe the blades flung off once, cutting through the fuselage... I may be wrong.
I have to wonder why since these designs had been being developed into operable aircraft since shortly after the war, how nobody put craft like this into production many years before the Osprey. This is a pretty useful and smaller design and looks like it was well tested and could have been approved for a short production run to prove it's safety and usability, so what happened?
The auto-rotation capability and low disc loading of the XV-3 makes it a much safer aircraft compared to the V-22 Osprey. Imagine what happens on the Osprey if you lose both engines in combat or your fully loaded and have to rely on only one engine along with the drive shaft that connects both rotors.
Dan Peoples A single engine out is not too bad a deal, as both rotors will continue to provide lift, if reduced, providing the ability to make a controlled landing if flight can no longer be maintained. As for autorotation, the good news is that the USMC has a procedure for V-22 autorotations... The bad news is that reading through the bureaucratese indicates it's gonna be a "challenging" day for the crew... See Sec 2.5, pg 27 of this report: fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v22-report.pdf
Dan Peoples isn't disc loading related to overall weight? If it is then this little aircraft wil always have a lower disc loading than the much larger CV-22. With its single engine there's more chance that this'll be auto-rotating to the ground, provided that the pilot can get it into helicopter mode.
Neil, the disc loading is dependent on weight yes. But its dependence on weight is in relation to the "disc size". Since this air craft has two lifting rotors it would have a much lower disc load compared to a similar weight aircraft with a single rotor....
i KNEW i've Seen This , {DESIGN}, B E F O R E !!!!.....not unlike the B-2, should'a Stayed with the ORIGINAL,....then think How Much FURTHER we would BE NOW !!!!
if there's no wheel, what's that gonna do? helicopters are already able to take off vertically. but it is very useful for an airplane on short tracks or battleships.
But helicopters are limited in their forward flight speed and efficiency. Like the Osprey this was an attempt to give a helicopter high forward speeds and efficiency like a conventional winged plane. "Best of two worlds kind of thing."
This aircraft's problems were what made the Osprey so hard to develop. The level of computing power and complex dynamics of the airflow made the Osprey expensive to develop, right in the middle of the post Cold War drawdown. So development got extended. Other than that,the Osprey was pretty well done.
Then they would have said it cost $ millions, yet it any good workshop can build one. This type of aircraft would be very useful in the outbacks of Alaska, Australia and Africa for different roles including search and rescue.
So true but the new breed of light LSA aircraft are flooding the world aviation market place some are pure aircraft and others will be total Electra or a mix of elect / gas engine used to power a generator or light turbine Ever so often things go wild one time aviation was hot with new ideals and inventors some made it , some flop big time and others lost there life on the first flight and then came WW2 were avation went into high gear and latter on we had a whole slew of aircraft like the 337/ Cessna Sky Master that were STOL aircraft and along came the Jets and helicopters have move into a mix with fix wing aircraft and behold the V 22 Now we have Drones that can help Search & Rescuer, spy on people at 10,000 feet or higher and even lunch attacks and the birth of small light aircraft both electoral and gas power has open up new markers for cheep low cost air taxis in places like NY were traffic is slower that walking at times The aviation world is changing and has change so much from the 60,s
@@terriecotham1567 A German designer in WW2 planned a coal-fired*-ramjet powered delta-winged supersonic jet interceptor. The airframe-design was flight-tested in glider form while the engine, which used gases from a rotating drum of heated coal-granules, was a ramjet that could achieve supersonic speeds and was found to ve viable in postwar tests. * Germany was short of aviation fuel.
I believe that this project never worked out for two reasons: very expensive and complex maintenance and too slow to be a plane and too heavy to be a helicopter.
This was built in the 1960s without the aid of computers so why did they have so much trouble bringing the Osprey on line? Maybe engineers need to go back to using just their brains instead of a computer?
Engineering research is so very satisfying, even though one does not go into production to make many of the same plane. This aircraft looks very stable and all achieved without the use of microprocessors and gyros and accellerometers,
Apparently it actually sucked, there's a comment somewhere explaining why
And 30yrs later, the V-22 Osprey appeared...history does indeed repeat itself...
I remember reading about this when I was a kid.
Bell é seu pioneirismo. Já nasceu para fazer sucesso.
Thanks for posting I saw the photos in a leading aviation magazine on the testing of the tilt rotor system and the adys for the new Bell Convertiplane but never knew it flew due to the type of engines at the time.
History is amazing at times as we only see a small part of it in our life time , Just take those who saw the birth of radio as a kid and then came TV , The aircraft went from a biplane in WW2 to the aircraft like the SR71 and who knows what's truly hiding in privet complains or US Gov- labs after all its more that possible we have flying disc- Type aircraft or trade for UFO craft from others worlds in time & space just as people did 200- 500 years ago when new lands were found across the mountains or across the seas were ships would sail
One has to thank all those test pilots who risk so much putting strange aircraft through flight test and never knowing for sure at times if the dam thing was going to come apart at any time, and we have to thank all those who have work on aircraft like those for it was pure math & Slide rules along side the drafting table were engineers work day and night to produce new aircraft.
And thanks to the men that build them as well
Thanks for posting I love it
New version with improved colour, and cleaner audio.
The father of the Osprey !
Great to see scenes of the old Globe plant flight test facility.
real slick looking craft. very nice.
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Grandpa!!!
Fascinating! thanks for sharing.
The Father of V 22 Osprey!!!
Grandfather
I'm gonna write that!
The XV15 came before the V22.
@@manifestman132 Uau! Really? I didn't know.
One (XV-15) use to overfly me in the early 1980s during test flights at NASA/Ames. I didn't see a V-22 until decades later.
According to the video, the XV-3 was also tested here, probably in the big 40' x 80' wind tunnel too.
EDIT: Verified....Photos here: images.nasa.gov/search-results?q=xv-3&page=1&media=image,video,audio&yearStart=1920&yearEnd=2019
Great old videos...keep em coming
I didn't know they had a version of the Osprey that went that far back.
Eddie Lane There is nothing new under the sun
@Andrew Heller that's right. I had forgotten about that.
Its not an Osprey
By what I understand when the Osprey program began the developers couldn’t make it fly properly with many crashers but now with more advanced computers it can fly. Take away the computers and see what happends.
Thank you for the English lesson!!!
One potential problem might be if the rotor mechanism was in its horizontal flight mode (or somewhere close to horizontal mode), and there was some kind of mechanical problem which prevented returning the rotor mechanism to vertical mode, it would be impossible to land the aircraft without the rotors striking the ground due the very large radius of the rotors compared to the usual radius of a standard airplane propeller.
I guess they resolved this problem on the Osprey by decreasing the rotor radius while still maintaining sufficient thrust for vertical (helicopter type) flight.
Actually, it is not.
Osprey's rotore di not allow horizontal take-off or landing
I had forgotten all about this bird. It's really great to see a video of it actually flying, even if it was destined not to go into production.
Interesting little aircraft. Not sure I'd trust the three gear boxes enough to want to fly in it.
Neil Dahlgaard-Sigsworth a chinook has 5 transmissions!
Joseph lancaster yes and all of them don't move....
Thank you for posting this.
The XV-3 seems to be the backbone that ushered the V-22 as well as the in-development V-280 Valor. The V22 in relation to the XV-3 design differs in achieving VTOL to forward flight and vice versa as the Osprey relied on rotating the entire engine nacelle with the rotor. While the Valor mirrors this craft in achieving VTOL and forward flight by rotating thr rotor shafts itself.
It seems that there was too much strain on the shafts that carried the rotor-blades in this early design.
@@None-zc5vg What are your thoughts on the configuration differences between the Tilt Rotor configurations of tilting rotor vs the tilting nacelles?
@@kinchan3334 I think that the original tilt-rotor/engine(s)-in-fuselage layout wasn't practical in that it would have taken up cargo-/passenger-carrying space in the fuselage: otherwise, it was a good idea from a weight-distribution viewpoint. It seems that they found a way of ensuring that the rotor-support shafts were strong enough to take the strain of all rotor positions.
The podded-engine alternative allows for more available power and hence much-smaller diameter rotors, making the layout more compact and the only option for military cargo/troop-carrying.
.I wouldn't like to have to risk my life by flying in one of these compromise aircraft (or in one of those big, software-dependent military helicopters like the "Chinook".
What I find most amazing is how they pulled this off before they had even invented the ability to pronounce acronyms as words.
N-a-s-a lol
I like it "convertiplane" its catchy, this is the future today
Rick Maldoo Where do you think fallout got inspiration from the vertibird from?
Imagine if all these test aircraft were successful and bought my the military. Wonder if this one still exists somewhere? Be a neat airshow demo.
The only surviving XV-3 is in National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.
@@Jan_Strzelecki thanks.
@@crushingvanessa3277 No problem.
I don't know if the arishow demo is a viable option, though, even if the plane could've been made airworthy - being a prototype, it wasn't exactly the safest machine to fly, with excessive vibrations being the main problem.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Perhaps not, just be nice to see something different.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Even flying airshow would have been prohibitively expensive as this aircraft was never in production. Spare parts would not be readily available and be very expensive.
"The Ames research center at N-A-S-A". lol
great video , shows there are actually very few new ideas.
id hate to have to bail out of it though.
I heard that this type of aircraft was only put under consideration after a helicopter rescue attempt of Americans during 1979 Iran Revolution went wrong with a crash, and that was in part how the Boeing V-22 Osprey came about. Didn't know Bell was making something like this 20 years earlier.
I have that Hobbytime Model Kit (still in its box) shown in the intro…sadly it’s too rare to build…
I built the model back then, by Aurora I think... looked cool but boy what a large slow target it would have made. Full load tests made it even more clumsy and slower, especially if the occupants were moving about inside. I believe the blades flung off once, cutting through the fuselage... I may be wrong.
First video I've ever seen with 0 dislikes.
Reza Salimi,
yeah, you would “dislike” a one ounce solid Gold Bar just because it had “America” stamped on it!
It appears that 51 communists have watched this video since your comment.
Y’all ever find something so aggressively fallout
i love this stuff.
I have to wonder why since these designs had been being developed into operable aircraft since shortly after the war, how nobody put craft like this into production many years before the Osprey. This is a pretty useful and smaller design and looks like it was well tested and could have been approved for a short production run to prove it's safety and usability, so what happened?
Like seen dont step Thank you Sir .
This is early, notice the way he refers to NASA as N. A. S. A., ( individual letters).
I noticed that too. I though first, hmm, that abbreviation sounds familiar, wait, you mean NASA? 😅
REALLY?! I wouldn’t have known this was an old video till you pointed that out
An idea before its time
!!!!
Like the Lockheed AH-56 "Cheyenne".!!!
And the OV-22
"Osprey".!!!
Check it out.
Powered by 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1 radial piston engine, 450 hp.
Ahh I was born when this began flying same year I guess not bad
The auto-rotation capability and low disc loading of the XV-3 makes it a much safer aircraft compared to the V-22 Osprey. Imagine what happens on the Osprey if you lose both engines in combat or your fully loaded and have to rely on only one engine along with the drive shaft that connects both rotors.
Dan Peoples A single engine out is not too bad a deal, as both rotors will continue to provide lift, if reduced, providing the ability to make a controlled landing if flight can no longer be maintained.
As for autorotation, the good news is that the USMC has a procedure for V-22 autorotations... The bad news is that reading through the bureaucratese indicates it's gonna be a "challenging" day for the crew... See Sec 2.5, pg 27 of this report: fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v22-report.pdf
jimmbbo "the probability of a successful
autorotational landing from a stable autorotative descent is very low.” That's pretty scary!
Dan Peoples welll if the cv-22 gets hit at all it's game over and the pilots know it.
Dan Peoples isn't disc loading related to overall weight? If it is then this little aircraft wil always have a lower disc loading than the much larger CV-22. With its single engine there's more chance that this'll be auto-rotating to the ground, provided that the pilot can get it into helicopter mode.
Neil, the disc loading is dependent on weight yes. But its dependence on weight is in relation to the "disc size". Since this air craft has two lifting rotors it would have a much lower disc load compared to a similar weight aircraft with a single rotor....
😎🇺🇸Looks Like an Early Version Of The Osprey
Gracious old bird.
We need these Chopper craft in our Indian Air force since our MiGs are falling off the skies because of Kerosene Oil combustion in MiGs engines
i KNEW i've Seen This , {DESIGN}, B E F O R E !!!!.....not unlike the B-2, should'a Stayed with the ORIGINAL,....then think How Much FURTHER we would BE NOW !!!!
Inspiration for the Vertibird
A two-rotor death trap.
if there's no wheel, what's that gonna do? helicopters are already able to take off vertically. but it is very useful for an airplane on short tracks or battleships.
But helicopters are limited in their forward flight speed and efficiency. Like the Osprey this was an attempt to give a helicopter high forward speeds and efficiency like a conventional winged plane. "Best of two worlds kind of thing."
Best of Osprey
What is the plane in the background at 11:06?
Old technology? Why was there so many problems with the osprey?
Completely different aircraft
This aircraft's problems were what made the Osprey so hard to develop. The level of computing power and complex dynamics of the airflow made the Osprey expensive to develop, right in the middle of the post Cold War drawdown. So development got extended.
Other than that,the Osprey was pretty well done.
F5D-1 skylancer at 11:06?
Condictions to fly as low range .
This is the older brother of the ospray.
از شرکت BELL HELICOPTER و دیگر شرکتهای بزرگ و کوچک که پایه گذاران این صنعت هوایی هستند تشکر میکنم
Then they would have said it cost $ millions, yet it any good workshop can build one.
This type of aircraft would be very useful in the outbacks of Alaska, Australia and Africa for different roles including search and rescue.
So true but the new breed of light LSA aircraft are flooding the world aviation market place some are pure aircraft and others will be total Electra or a mix of elect / gas engine used to power a generator or light turbine
Ever so often things go wild one time aviation was hot with new ideals and inventors some made it , some flop big time and others lost there life on the first flight and then came WW2 were avation went into high gear and latter on we had a whole slew of aircraft like the 337/ Cessna Sky Master that were STOL aircraft and along came the Jets and helicopters have move into a mix with fix wing aircraft and behold the V 22
Now we have Drones that can help Search & Rescuer, spy on people at 10,000 feet or higher and even lunch attacks and the birth of small light aircraft both electoral and gas power has open up new markers for cheep low cost air taxis in places like NY were traffic is slower that walking at times
The aviation world is changing and has change so much from the 60,s
@@terriecotham1567 A German designer in WW2 planned a coal-fired*-ramjet powered delta-winged supersonic jet interceptor. The airframe-design was flight-tested in glider form while the engine, which used gases from a rotating drum of heated coal-granules, was a ramjet that could achieve supersonic speeds and was found to ve viable in postwar tests.
* Germany was short of aviation fuel.
GENIAL
It could have been done with a single properly mounted rotor.
10:58 "The en a ess a"!
Show
I believe that this project never worked out for two reasons: very expensive and complex maintenance and too slow to be a plane and too heavy to be a helicopter.
This will never take on ;)
And it didn't use FUEL.
見ると、日本人のコメントがないですね。
ベルは、こういうコンフィギュレーションが好きですね。
プロップローターを観てみると、捩り下げが小さく、オスプレイと比べると、よりローターに近い形状の様です。
ここから察するに、XV3は、先ずヘリコプターのローターが、推進機(プロペラ)の代わりになるか？。という実験の様に思います。
オスプレイは、捩り下げも大きくなっていて、よりプロペラ寄りになっています。
この事から考えても、オスプレイは、主翼の揚力を使った水平飛行がメインで、ヘリコプターモードは、離着陸時の移動と、離着陸そのものに限定されていると考えるべきでしょう。
👏👏👏🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
This robotic 1960 voice, were is OPTIMUS PRIME
how many marines have been killed so far in a osprey flight crash
If you think the V-22 is unsafe, I recommend you look up fatalities in the UH-1 during the Vietnam War era -- combat deaths versus accidental deaths.
Why this design wasn't persued earlier, ILL NEVER kNOW!!!
"pursued"
@@None-zc5vg Oh a human spell check, get a life douche...
@daniel lettermanYou still here, didn't I tell you to go fuck yourself!!! And,
a (u) belongs after f
@daniel letterman Obviously
これがメスプレイか
ベルチバー…ド？
En eh es eh
Nao estou entendo nada dessa linguagem estrana
enn A ess A
This was built in the 1960s without the aid of computers so why did they have so much trouble bringing the Osprey on line? Maybe engineers need to go back to using just their brains instead of a computer?
Fale portugues que eu entendo