Bell V-280 Valor Demonstration Flight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лис 2021
- Bell’s V-280 Valor on its second to last demonstration flight on April 15, 2021, at the company’s Flight Research Center in Arlington, Texas. After one more flight in late April, the aircraft was withdrawn from flight testing and torn down to determine wear and tear on the prototype that flew 214 hours and achieved a top speed of 305 knots - 350 mph. The aircraft, which is competing for the US Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competition, first flew in December 2017.
Thanks for no music, I love hearing the roar of the engines!
Im agree with you 100%
Love how it has the MD NOTAR shrieking noise and somehow a rotor beat like a Eurocopter. Bell covered all the bases. Congrats on getting the contract!
from observing the shutdown sequence i think that NOTAResque whine may be the transmission, you can hear it prominently wirring down in sync with the rotors speed but out of sync with the turbines winding down noise (could potentially also be the oil cooler fans if it has any hahaha, the ones on the Bell 412 are very prominent)
Got to admit I hear the euro outer sound, love hearing the Northumbria police ec135 on look out, hovering the streets filling them with rotor beat 😍
This aircraft is going to revolutionise search and rescue, disaster relief, and air ambulance operations. And that’s not even counting what the private sector will do with it.
It's going to be a long time before they make this available for the private sector.
this thing BETTER win the FLAARA, its faster and just as agile as the Boeing SB-1 is. Did I also say it's 70 MPH's faster!!?
@@Defender78 It won. But Lockheed is objecting.
Bell stated that the V-280 would be focused on the military, while the AW609 (in which Bell is a subcontractor) would be for civil operations.
@@VigilanteAgumon It's priced at 30 million dollars. So it's not going to replace helis anytime soon.
Dude we need your interviews now more than ever man.
Great demo.
So beautiful...sleek and precise. I can finally rest on the death of the RAH-66 Comanche, the next coolest thing we ever built.
The best video footage
Multi=generation specialized equipment can focus on optimization without having the toothing pains of prior problems. This seems to be very mature especially in the software-motion side of things. It looks much more agile also...amazing.
@@darylguberman4242 China is a long and complex story. Few get it. They copy what they can, adapt it to their "The Art of War" and that is China.
i dont think you guys understand how grandbreaking this moment is. this thing can fly autonomusly.
More shit that can break which will happen. Just watch.
@@yeabuddy6070 Sounds like a hater.
@@boydrobertson2362 .... It's big brother has such a successful record doesn't it .
@@yeabuddy6070 The V-22 isn't a big brother to the V-280. The V-280 is a separate design and shares zero lineage to the V-22 Osprey. The only relation is that the V-280 program is learning from the mistakes of the V-22.
@@yeabuddy6070 And to be clear, yes, the V-22 is extremely successful at this point. Lowest rotorcraft mishap rate in the military since those teething issues, and so capable the Navy replaced the C-2 with it entirely.
Love hearing that Heli sound
It looks so stable when he's strafing.
açıklama yok, müzik yok sadece orjinal görüntü, zaman kaybı da yok, güzel olmuş, teşekkür ederim.
very impressive aircraft !!
I am biased though having quite a bit if experience with the UH 60 L Blackhawk, as thar was and still is an extremely capable aircraft, very very maneuverable, very versatile, and very crashworthy [10g]
plus field serviceable.
That being said I'm a fan of the V22, also the CH 46 and 47s... and I like the design of this aircraft being shown here as the successor for the Blackhawk, good luck !!
@@stevensko9153 The V-22 has been very successful... even the navy said it is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies and the stats prove that.
@@stevensko9153 and multiple other aircraft have terribly starts and aren't failures.
0:44 Those engines wow nice.
Chinese Copycat.? Bell's V-280 Valor and Boeing Sikorsky Defiant X Unveiled in Zhuhai Air Show WTF! ua-cam.com/video/-bxH_eDpDJc/v-deo.html
China: Sikorsky and Boeing Challenge Army Decision to Replace Black Hawk with Bell V-280 Tiltrotor ua-cam.com/video/QML6r2x5vcc/v-deo.html
Americans ALWAYS make the coolest shit. This is such a badass aircraft! Well done!
With a speed so fast, the range is significantly increased even if the oil tank design are nothing new or improved, Interesting thing is that it can be modified like a gunship, significantly improved the firepower support of a medevac/casevac situation but I doubt the military would allowed to waste a budget to those situation rather than following the usual procedure
Amazing aircraft , it’s a dancer in sky
Excellent fit for army
They need to choose this simply for the intimidation factor
i love VTOL aircraft
What happened to the channel? I really enjoy the interviews.
Great❤
Is the same v_22osprey???? Little bit of modify
Bell V-280 Valor👍
With the wing span and width of the rotors I think it really limits where they can get this thing into. In jungle and urban environments it is going to be handy capped by that more than helicopters in my opinion.
Its so stupid this thing could not even land in so many areas where a black hawk can with ease
Exactly - seems to prefer the looks over function
V-280 is a cool and capable aircraft. But, not the right one. Just buy more ospreys if needed. The Defiant is a better choice.
@@iansmith3406 it’s faster and has longer range than the defiant, so it doesn’t suck.
That’s why I’m still choosing the Defiant X over this.
I think Ride of the Valkeries was in order
i hope you win
i really dont know much about this new aircraft, are the two propellers completely independently powered?
if so, wouldn't that be a huge liability? for example can this thing fly for an appreciable amount of time with only one functioning engine?
There is a shaft that connects the two propellers through the main wing; such that one engine can drive both props if necessary. This is similar to the Osprey and earlier efforts like the Chinook.
In forward flight it can fly on a single engine, no problem. Range stays the same and, on theory, it should have more than enough power to land in hover mode in such event.
are there any stats of this vehicle? max airspeed? service ceiling? flight time? very interesting looking piece! hull looks like some resemblance to that stealth bomber desing... rotors from Osprey design.... some mixture!
It’s a jet helicopter, I would assume it’s got a high speed + max ceiling
The valor can fly at over 320 miles an hour, much faster than the defiant X by 60 mph. Sikorsky-Boeing did not get the contract as of December 5th 2022
320 mph, 6000 feet (it isn't pressurized), flight time will vary significantly depending on flight mode but in horizontal flight it should easily beat any traditional helicopter, and both the defiant and Osprey.
@@user-pq4by2rq9y the 6K ft is the max hover height btw the V-22 for example has a max ceiling of 25k FT and is pressurized so they would likely do the same.
Taken from Reddit
"The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h), hence the name V-280. It has a top speed of 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km). Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg). In one major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt."
Cant wait to see it win the flraa contract
I’m praying as I own Rolls Royce stock and it’s their engines that power it
@@mcpraveen Their next engine is scalable for narrowbody, which is a good thing. Getting out of the narrowbody market was a very poor decision but lucky for me I invested in them during Covid and not 10 years ago because if I did that I’d be in real trouble.
@@mcpraveen at the time I think they saw the money for wide body and they were doing fine with that model before Covid happened but without being in narrowbody, they completely lost all their revenue during Covid. Had they stayed in narrowbody they probably wouldn’t of suffered that badly. The good thing is they are definitely going to return to narrowbody at some point within the next few years. Don’t think they’ll make that mistake again.
@@mcpraveen this contract is worth $80 billion or more, Rolls-Royce can really use this as a sign of confidence.
@@mcpraveen I think UltraFan will be quite the engine, as it can scale from 25,000 to 100,000 in thrust. Versatility and 25% more fuel efficient. RR is smart to diversify away from being so reliant on civil aerospace, which is what put them in this position in the first place.
Agile!
It looks very similar to an Osprey. Perhaps this will be the replacement.
No completely different role.
Yeah but does it fit inside a C5 Galaxy’s?
Yes, the wings are removable. However, you don't need to do that because it has a ferry range of over 2000 miles. Faster and cheaper to just fly it to wherever you want it deployed than to take it apart.
make more videos. content for my viewing. PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
Setting duck coming in like that to a hot lz
I miss the Huey
*Fortunate son starts playing*
Me too, man
Me too.
The Marine still using UH-1Z tho and the Huey is too slow for these kind of task. Yes the blade's noise of the Huey is unbeatable.
👍👍
Ok so I'm, confused are the Invictus, Defiant and Valor all competing for the same role? I get the future vertical lift program, but it does not seem they are all equally by any stretch. To me it seems as if the Valor and Defiant are competing against eachother for the vertical lift and the Invictus is the future light scout helicopter.
Defiant and Valor are competing for FLRAA - basically next gen Blackhawk. Raider and Invictus are competing for FARA, which will be light recon sort of like Kiowa.
@@stevensko9153 Raider is a smaller version with less internal space meant for weapons or 6 troops with the weapons removed.
What you're seeing is the only real problem with tilt rotors. That level of maneuvering performance at slow speed is about as good as it gets. Much more radical maneuvers normally seen in helicopters, quickly puts its stability outside the flight envelope. This would be good for transportation of troops and supplies quickly, but not so good for a highly active battlefield. I have a feeling Sikorsky's Defiant and Raider will most likely be the winners. Their speed is almost as fast, yet far more reliable and capable under heavy combat scenarios.
I think there are two different contracts now, though. I think the Army loked both designs so much they chose to go ahead with both.
@@Noisy_Cricket Actually, I can see the Marines wanting some of the V-280's for small rapid night insertions under low threat scenarios. Using them for many of the Marines activities seems logical. Like relief operations overseas, etc.
But, for day to day use, and hot zone operations, the Sikorsky's will most likely be SOCOM and the Army's go to. As for the Marines, I can see them sticking to using the newer Huey's and Vipers for hot zone activity. They're much less expensive, and could probably last at least another decade before they are completely obsolete.
@yo yo ...Ah, very good point. If it doesn't fold up nice and tidy like the V-22 for an amphibious assault ship, then they'd have virtually no use for it.
@condor1970 yeah but the thing is, this is like the ch47, I can see this being the replacement for that. The army needs something like this, fast/durable/decent cargo space. This won’t be the replacement for the uh-60 I think Sikorsky won that, but this has the potential to allow the us army and surrounding Allie’s to help build fob’s/mob’s quickly. Fast transport for resources as cargo seems similar to the 47 maybe a bit smaller, and troop transport on the mass. I think the helicopter is designed to be a support helicopter and I think it could do it better than anything we currently have.
@@Yeetusdeleetus979 Believe it or not, the Defiant has the same cargo capacity, but not as fast. The Chinooks can fold the rotors to fit nice and tidy in a small space, but if the V-280 does not fold the wing, then it really has no place on a ship.
THats some out of the box thinking.
Easy win for Bell.
Would love to see a hot LZ demo. While I think it has a place in the inventory, I think the defiant-x is a better combat helicopter.
Is there such a thing anymore? Honestly? How many hot LZs have our soldiers been in the last 35 years?
What happens when one engine fails while in flight?
@Jaques Meissen thanks for the answer !
Both engines turn both rotors at all times so just like the Chinook and Osprey it will still be able to fly at a reduced capability
Two observations. The weight of the engines concentrated at the end of the wings prevent maneuverability, huge moment forces. Must also impact quick flight corrections. Secondly, the landing gear is quite narrow in respect to where the engines sit at the end of the wings. This creates stability issues on landing too. Maybe this is all offset by the horizontal flight speed. That angular momentum though... Hmmm? I can see why it failed as a heavy weapons platform. For transport, in non action roles I see the point, but the footprint is quite large.
1. It's not meant to be a stunt plane.
2. The engines at the ends of the wings act like a balance bar that tightrope walkers use. It lowers the center of gravity.
It meets or exceeds all of the army standards for maneuverability which means it is at the level of the Blackhawk or better.
Он прекрасен!!!!!!!
TRUELY!
How does rotor wash on this compare to say a Blackhawk?
Airwolf would kick its ass
honestly i kinda prefer both the Valor and DefiantX to be in service, the valor can serve the same role the V-22 osprey serve and the deviant X can serve to replace the BlackHawk. these two Helicopters are absolutely beautiful
Valor is just better than the defiant in nearly everyway and neither aircraft can perform the ospreys role.
How does it fly on one engine??
@@stevensko9153 Why do you doubt it? Yes, both engines are interconnected, just like on the V-22, because it would be dumb not to. It probably cannot hover on one engine, but most twin helicopters can't.
@@stevensko9153 Problems which the USMC has continued flying through and lead to increased maintenance requirements. From my understanding, the V-280 doesn't actually need a clutch, as the clutch on the V-22 is only there to facilitate the entire power section rotating: on the V-280 both engines can be directly mechanically interconnected with breakaway pins like on most twin engine helos.
@@MillionFoul It can hover on one engine just at reduced capacity as 1 engine turns both rotors. If it loses a rotor it can atleast glide unlike a heli
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 If a helo loses the main rotor it's kind of like a plane losing a wing. Not much design work you can do to make that work. Similarly, a tiltrotor can only lose a rotor in forward flight and stay airborne, of they lose it in a hover they're dead.
As for hovwring on one engine I'd be interested to see at what weights it can do that. Tiltrotors tend to have pretty limited one engine performance due to the tranmission requirements from the live engine to such relatuvely light and fast rotor disks.
@@MillionFoul You are wrong... 1. a tilt rotor can auto rotate and glide 2. It is far safer to make an emergency landing while gliding than auto rotating so if you are at a high enough altitude + speed you can turn the rotors forward again to try and glide to a better spot as long as the entire rotor didn't come off which in that case it wouldn't matter the aircraft. 3. The osprey has a restricted weight not tilt rotors... this is because of design choices made by the marine corps. Also its current released max takeoff weight is 30,865 lbs with its empty weight at 18,078 lbs although these are bound to change. Its current engine power is at 5k shp(10k shp total) but an upgrade scheduled in 2021 should have brought that up to 7k shp or there is even testing on a 10k shp engine. Either way unless you are carrying cargo underneath like a M777A2 near the front you should have plenty of power to at least stay airborne.
It seems like that large twin rotor arc would make for an easy target by even non sophisticated AA like the technical vehicles commonly used by insurgents. Not to mention strikes to the nacelles which would cause control issues. I'm sure they have the usual redundant systems, still just looks fragile to me.
The V-22 has shown that it is far more survivable in combat than other helo platforms, there has been actual RPG and AA fire against it and it has still made it home or to a safe place to land. I’m a CV22 mechanic, have been for 10 years, and as much of a bad rap that the osprey has taken, I would rather hop in the back of an osprey than a 60.
@@mikebarker6628 theres no way its eating an RPG. small arms fire to the rotors would ground this thing, of which there are 2 to choose from. and it needs both for stability. it would be like shooting the tailfin off of a normal heli.
also those lines that allow the swivel motions of the heli pods are likely very fragile.
@@cerberus1166 actually, since there are 2 rotors and it usually flies in airplane mode, it's almost guaranteed to be safer so long as it isn't hovering. Plus, just putting a bullet (or 15) through the rotors will give it a hell of a lot of vibration, but it won't necessarily kill thrust. Kill the turbine on one side, there's a shaft running through the wing so the turbine on the other side can take up the slack. Kill both engines while it's flying, you've got a glider. Overall it's safer, so long as you train your pilots to remember this is an airplane that can become a helicopter instead of the other way around.
And the swivel points are about as likely likely to be as fragile as your average military transmission. Which is not at all, by design.
@@mage3690 youd have a point. but it seems you dont comprehend that it has to hover to land and takeoff in general. so its not any safer. as far as i can tell the design is to take off and land like a helocopter not like a plane.
putting a hole in those rotors would be as detremental as any helocopter if not worse.
@@cerberus1166I mean it really just depends on the situation, in all reality nothing on this green earth will take a rpg to the rotor while hovering and live that’s just common sense, the rotors on these just like the osprey have proven to be able to take some hits though and still hover, and like the other bro said while it’s in its “plane mode” I guess you could say a rotor can go down and the other picks up the slack. This is really meant to be a quick in and quick out type of aircraft so it looks to be really good for it’s intended purpose so just because of bad biases on the osprey on the crashes in it’s early years of flight I don’t think it’s fair to not give this aircraft a straight negative connotation yet, we still have yet to see what this thing can pull off and technology on this stuff has gotten extremely advanced beyond most peoples comprehension so I think it’s going to do fairly good
*Wishing you a Wonderful Winter Solstice, the reason for the season.*
A traditional celebration dating back more than 5000 years in which the Sun is literally rebirthed in the passageway of an ancient tomb, (where have you heard that before?)
The Grand Passage Tomb", a World Heritage site. Witness the rebirth in person.
A celebration of life and renewal, peace and camaraderie with food, song, dance, drink and good cheer.
Happy Holidays.
Let the Sunshine In...
*Be Happy*
It’s small compared to V22 Osprey. What is the point? Will lift less soldiers or gear to the battlefield
It can fit on coast guard cutters, frigates, destroyers, and the new large cruisers being designed.
@@kyee7k
But the US army funded it not the Navy. There is a lot of wastage of resources & duplication between the services
@@ricky1231 True and true. I would not be surprised if there are Air Force and Naval liason officers there gathering data for their respective services. Both helicopters used by the Air Force and Navy were based on the Blackhawk and are around 42 and 37 years. Whoever wins this contract for the army will also be the winner for the other services, with minor changes based on service needs. By the time the other services start replacing their helicopters, the oldest ones will be over 50 years old.
I'd recommend reading the FLRAA objective documents from the Army/Marines. They are both funding it because they need an integrated, high-speed(280+knots), maneuverable future war machine. Most of the helicopters in service are Pre-Reagan Area, I.e Chinook-1961/Apache-1975/UH60-1972, the fleet needs to modernized, and not another zulu model (even though the AH-1Z is glorious). Imagine if in WW2 they used weapons that were 50-60+ years old developmentally.
@yo yo You are wrong, in a Breaking Defense press release in 2018, Bell shared a Marine variant that would have an folding wings, and inverted V-tail, and internal weapon bays.
💕💕💘💘❤❤
Ah yes, a Vertibird.
We've got the vertibirds, now we need the power armor
блатные атрибуты
About landing size clearance bigger than blackhawk?
19% larger footprint only
Sound quieter than the Osprey. Those booming propeller on osprey is annoying
not limited by Marine corps' requirements for size so it can have a better rotor diameter for its size meaning the blades don't have to spin as fast.
Nice. Now do that at 13,000ft on the side of a mountain in a 40kt crosswind. Gonna be fun trying to get the doors close to the ground with those rotors sticking out so far. This is why the V-22 has a tail ramp...
Rear ramp was added to fit large cargo, don't overthink it.
Doesn't matter the craft, its the skill of the pilot that matters. Look at the bin laden raid and the gobshite that crashed a black hawk in optimal conditions.
And if you use an osprey for tactical insertion on a mountain you're using the wrong aircraft.
@@skrrt_cobain The point is that the V-280 has the same rotor clearance issue as an Osprey, not that the Osprey is the right aircraft for everything.
Maybe once this will happen in the future. Most of the time they are landing at airfields or actual fields
@@vmpgsc You are wrong... it only has a 19% larger footprint than a Blackhawk but can carry 23% more troops at over twice the speed and twice the distance.
Like the Osprey, this aircraft isn't going to win the element of surprise when confronting enemy ground forces. I wonder if Army & Marines would ever consider fitting these aircraft with toroidal propellers?
... You think that is what helicopters are for? Also it would be quieter than traditional helicopters while its nacelles are forward.
toroidal propelers won´t work for a rotor, the blades need to be able to adjust their angle
I don't see how that light ass hair frame is going to be able to handle caring anything more than personnel
...
The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h), hence the name V-280. It has a top speed of 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km). Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg). In one major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt.
でけえな
19% larger footprint then the Black Hawk...
I’m still rolling with the Defiant X.
Very nice. I don’t think this setup is practical for the army though. But very cool.
In the Cold War the Army was mostly optimized to fight in the North European Plain. The Army now needs to be configured to fight in the Indo-Pacific. In that theater range and speed are king, and army aviation will need both of those to remain relevant.
@@ajbridgewater I think that if this design could possibly have amphibious ability ( like a seaplane) it would be absolutely PERFECT, especially for the USMC.
as well as the USCG...
@@ajbridgewater Army has no clearly defined role in IndoPacific. Army needs next gen helos but Marines have already adapted for IndoPacific.
Russia is still a threat to NATO’s eastern flank - you may have noticed.
@@omarn6989 The Army has a critical and well defined role in the Indo-Pacific that is largely based around their unique Long Range Precision Fires and air defense capabilities among other things. Just supplying and securing these locations locations which will be highly dispersed, will require some very long legs. Just from a numbers perspective, I served in the Marine Corps, with only 4 divisions, we're not going to single handedly take on all 118 infantry divisions of the PLAN.
Even in Europe, range and speed will be critical. The proliferation of drones capable of ground strikes, and accurate long range rocket artillery will push the basing of air assets further and further back.
When is this gonna crash like it’s predecessor?
The v-22 is one of the safest aircraft the navy flies.
I hate, that this won. As mentioned by one. The stability issues at slow speed and hover maneuvers is terrible. They should have stayed for a more agile SB-1. Although I don’t know the score nor the issues each had. But from the looks… if the army wanted a transport jet… they coulda just borrowed one from the Air Force. They also just lost any ability to do urban operations or small opening insertions.
I don't think you understand how big a UH-60 or AH-64 is. They're medium sized helicopters, not small ones, and their rotor diameter is significantly larger than most four lane roads. Similarly, the V-280 is wider than a four lane road, though notably not longer: the footprint is very comparable to a UH-60, but sideways. And hitting the tail on something won't kill you.
The V-280 carries more than a Blackhawk, faster, and further. It's faster and longer ranged than the SB-1 (which is also not small), and it's a more mature design which is lower risk for the Army. It can also ferry itself around the world (it has a ferry range comparable to small international turboprops, and similar cruise speed to boot), where an SB-1 has the range of a helicopter and is too tall to be shipped into theater on a cargo plane.
Those props make a lot more noise than the defiant's rotors.
Show me the decibel reading results
they almost sound like a radial in flybys, though. that’s a plus for me, maybe not SOCOM, but it sure is for me!
You think a helicopter is quiet? I think you are missing the point of this class of helicopter...
seems a bit....fragile
As do all helicopters
Fore and aft rotors would be better.
How would they rotate forward then
Or replace the rotors with jet turbines?
@@xaptus that’d definitely be too fuel intensive, loud, and would likely have problems with starting up, not something you want in a transport VTOL
@@xaptus There is a reason this isn't done...
SB1 Defiant is better
But, it can’t fly on a single motor! One stray bullet.
It acutally can. the 2 motors are geared together so 1 engine can support both propellers.
It can and all critical system are triple redundant.
@@stevensko9153 Bell. The people who make it. The same ones who made the V-22, which also has both engines linked together because believe it or not, they're not retarded and aren't going to deliver an aircraft which becomes uncontrollable if an engine fails.
@@stevensko9153 UA-cam deletes most links. However, Bell has mentioned (back in 2014, you'll have to google yourself) that the straight wing eliminates the need for a mid-wing gearbox like on the V-22, which implies a straight shaft connection. As a quote form a Bell employee during an interview about the V-280 program “When you put dihedral and sweep in there, you get some complex angles that you have to address with your driveshafts that go from rotor to rotor to keep the interconnect working."
Furthermore, again, Bell is not staffed entirely by retards. The Army would never buy a twin helicopter that is guaranteed to lose control and crash in the event of an engine failure, which would be the case without a mechanical interconnection. That would be like ordering a UH-60 that self destructs if an engine fails, it's asinine. It's such a basic required design feature of any tiltrotor aircraft nobody even bothers to mention it, and indeed engineers will act like you're a moron for suggesting it might be designed otherwise.
@@MillionFoul Dude your responses have me howling. "Bell is not staffed by retards".
this thing is a missile bait
Anything is a missile bait if you want it to be.
Congratz you described all helicopters.
What happened if one of the engines fails?
Helicopter can land on autorotation.
With the plane, too, everything is clear ..
But…this one?
The engines are geared together so if 1 fails the other can support. It’s also a plane so it has some gliding capability.
Very disappointing what’s with this tiltrotor bullshit. All it’s good for is making something half as robust and twice as expensive
And giving it several timesthe range, payload, and faster time on target. Y'know, things which make it infinitely more useful as a tactical aircraft.
Disappointed for you but for a lot of people this is a revolutionary achieved. Just accept the fact that we have reached the limit of conventional helicopter.
LMAO it is a good thing people like you aren't in charge or we would still be stick in the past.
Try flying NOE with this ugly thing