quad tiltrotor

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 885

Hi,

I'd like to discuss this quad tiltrotor. It is a candidate for the US Army Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR) programme, designed at replacing the CH-47 (amongst others?). It is also proposed for use by the USAF and USMC.
It is sometimes called V-44, because it uses 2 V-22 wings. I doubt that it will be developed, given the problems the V-22 is encountering (both technical and political). Any thoughts???

See below for an article about it from Popular Mechanics:

The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane, lands like a helicopter
and unloads enough firepower to start—or stop—a war.
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).

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 ##### 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.”

Some pics:

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/0009STAVD.jpg

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/0009STAVC.jpg

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/0009STAVF.jpg

Best regards,

Ference.

Original post

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 2,907

RE: quad tiltrotor gunship

i've herd about this before but this is much more detailed -thanks.
i dunno how it will go down though - i mean look at the love for the v-22 - only the USMC wants it with the USN, USAF(?) and US army giving a very "lukewarm" response.
rabie :9

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 609

RE: quad tiltrotor gunship

Well as mentioned above it will deppend on what happends to V22... if it manages to pull its selfe together then yes there might be possibility of bigger versons and "quad-prop" versions,the fact that most of the tech would have been researched and tested on v22 would make it lot easier and cheaper. But if v22 drops the ball then that would put end on tilt rotors for some time to come.

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 46

RE: quad tiltrotor gunship

As long as they(the manufacturer) can get it to work it will be an amazing piece of 'kit'.

Roll out a proto type soon:).

regards.

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 152

RE: quad tiltrotor

Very nice indeed.....

And the price?????? :)

Regards Richa , portugal

PS
the USS ENTERPRISE was in TEJO this week ... a very nice MH-53 in a Black Sheme ( "Black Stallion" ) flew over my house a few times...

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 2,907

RE: quad tiltrotor

its alright for some -the price will be a bit more of a v22 is noiw cos less money on development , but more cos its bigger - thats a rough guss by me. of course this is dependant on the v22 and cheney is the VP }>
rabie :9

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 3,131

RE: quad tiltrotor

They should've done a quad first then a twin....now the quad have to fight all this bad publicity of "tilt" rotor designs. It's pretty obvious that the physics of a quad is different from a twin, but people are locked on to the Osprey's "deficiencies". Just think about this simple fact, a quad is a self stabilizing design, but the twin is a destabilizing design...

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 1,400

RE: quad tiltrotor

Very true Vortex. Technical difficulties with the quad, if indeed they appeared, would have been far easier to overcome as compared to the twin. The experience gained from producing the quad could then be applied to the more difficult to engineer twin. All round, you would have had a quad in service entry quite some time ago, with a twin just about to enter service at a far lower price than it will...

MinMiester

RE: quad tiltrotor

Very good question as to why they didn't build this one first.
Imagine the loadmaster trying to balance the load on a V-22, compared to a V-44?
I think the cost (in lives) will be much lower for the V-44. Is it just me or are the blades smaller?
Do you guys think this is a compromise to save the tilt rotor idea by allowing it to land with the engines in a horizontal position?
If the rear set of engines were to fail the V-44 could land like a conventional aircraft with the front engines horizonal, instead of the inevidible crash if you tried to land vertically with the rear engines not working.

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 2,228

RE: quad tiltrotor

quads would work well, with no need for any other flying surfaces that the rotors, except perhaps lateral stability fins, independant tilt controls would be good for control, using improved technology from the V22, I think it was the natural way to develop this system, in the progress from 2 to 4 engine, it is unfortunate that they have come across the faults that they have, but then the faults in a quad tilt rotor may well have been doubled! I doubt whether the quad rotor sytem could work conventionally if the rear two rotors fail, or in fact if any two rotors fail, because the wind milling effect would have enormous drag consequences, if the rotors were anywhere near verical, then it is possible they could have an auto gyro effect, and help give some lift, from the back wash of the conventionally placed front rotor, or it being pushed through the air, if it was the front rotor.

coanda:7

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 1,400

RE: quad tiltrotor

If the quad did go ahead, I wonder how they'll get past the fact that the air behind those giant front propellers is going to be pretty dirty?

MinMiester

Member for

24 years 8 months

Posts: 2,228

RE: quad tiltrotor

if you are on about the front pair, I dont think it will really matter because it will be directly absorbed by the rear two props, and it will only be in full conventional flight that this occurs, the backwash from the whole aircraft is going to be quite large-and turbulent-four props, or two Mega props as it would be would develop a big pair of vortices that would interact, I'm willing to bet nothing lighter than it could follow in line astern for some distance, because of that turbulence-perhaps in extreme cases 'unstarting' jet engines.

coanda:7

RE: quad tiltrotor

I don't think windmilling effect will be a problem.
I think the Yanks know enough about props to be able to set them to auto-feather if there is a problem. The only time I could see that as a problem would be if the failure occured during a hover or during transition.
Regarding crap being blown in the air, it couldn't be any worse that a modern (and much slower) heavy lift Helo.
If you mean disturbed airflow I don't see it as being worse that with coaxial blades like on the Bear, or the Hokum.