>counter-rotating blades>rear blade acts as a push propwhy? wouldn't be better to build something like the osprey?
>>64306529>wouldn't be better to build something like the osprey?you mean like they are?
Probably to reduce rotor load at high speed.>no wingletsmehThe Cheyenne was a better concept.
>>64306529It's the same thing as an osprey without all of the many downsides of an osprey>top rotors to take off vertically and control elevation (i imagine they're feathering most of the time)>rear rotor to make the thing move forward
Fuck off chink
>>64306529The US thought so which is why the tilt rotor won>>64306536IIRC this is the nearly identical chinky copy. They built their own version of both FLRAA prototypes because they aren’t good at coming up with ideas. >>64306663They have significantly less range which is the biggest reason the Valor ended up winning. Also the Defiant had a massive Rube Goldberg gearbox from hell that are up a ton of volume and would’ve been terrible to maintain
Fuck off boscali
>>64306923If you want to design a tilt rotor aircraft it can be really done in only one way
>>64306923The gearbox thing is from an artists cutaway of the thing, it was not representative of the actual design. It's like all those people that saw the cgi model of textrons ngsw some youtuber made and thought it was the official rendering
>>64306923as much as i despise chinks their thing doesn't even look similar to an osprey. If anything it looks like one of those small regional planes.
>>64308017fun fact, the chief reason for the V-280 stationary engines is to keep clearance for the side doors. this copy dosen't have side doors, so the stationary engines are just cargo-cultisim from copying the V-280 without understanding https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/JMR_Bell-Vertiflite.pdf
>>64308024What if they want to land on a helipad?
>>64308042The AW-609 has rotating engines, just with diverters so it doesn't melt anything. You could also rotate the exhaust etc to further this.
>>64308017Kill chinks behead chink babies etc etc, but any fuselage can serve as a prototyping platform and they can take the engine and put it somewhere else. It's not couldn't copy the side doors, they copied the Raider down to the landing gear. If I didn't know any better, I would have said that they're copying their opponent's equipment to see what pretested concepts would work for them and to potentially explore their capabilities.
>>64307211Is this not an accurate representation then? The gearbox in the render would displace the cabin so it's entirely forward of the main rotor axis, which is consistent with pictures showing windows in just the front third of the aircraft.
>>64308099qrd?
>>64308110It might be close enough for representative purposes.I wonder how much of a factor the mass of rear shaft is, it probably has to be a bit more sturdy than traditional tail rotor shafts.
>>64308017Like a more helicoptery pic related.Blackhawk face kind of, is it being made by whoever makes their S-70 clone?
>>64306529i need itGIB NOW!i love me choppers *hugs*fuck planefags. they get too much credit. Army where you at?Ospreywho? they are navy. navy doesn't deal in mud and dirt and flamable african deserts. also jet engines are loud af.no that's more navybecause they like rush tactics.theis chiper is not much slower and its cheaper to make in mass.the osprry has had many machinical issues and army fags are not as well trained as navy if i'm being brutal. and heliptops are more less more useful in the urban landscape.also i want to to see the attack version of this helicopter.this is just search and rescue and influration you don';t need fast, you NEED quiteyes yes radar and all that jazz but quite is always king.always. i hear it can hold 8-10 men and have top speed 290mph/350kphwhich isn't bad.anything beats the old UH1 or blackhawk is a plus.but i doubt this version would be large scale production run :/which would be a bummer.this is why i hate the usa they only make this for special units and never the cool stuff for the general military. :(every time i cry.ui wanted the last era of choper not to be spamed by Stol/ Vtol noobs.fucking young fags,
>>64307211Well, gearbox or fuel tanks, the cabin only occupied half of the fuselage. The SB-1's cabin was about as big as the Black Hawk's with a <>< or sometimes ><>< seating arrangement, the aftmost and optional foremost row only seating 3 Pax compared to the middle rows' 4 (11-14 passengers in total).Sikorsky tried to conceal this somewhat but it shows in some of their promotional material.https://youtu.be/wvd0vxMvhF8The V-280's cabin, on the other hand, is gargantuan, and they're working on making it even bigger for the MV-75. The V-280 comfortably holds 14 guys, picrel.>cgi model of textrons ngsw some youtuber made and thought it was the official renderingIt was by a Chinese 3D artist on Twitter. It's good work and really helped me understand the gun, he obviously studied the patents carefully. I don't know why you guys like to dunk on him so much.Maybe it's because Textron initially submitted an NGSW-R that has a hump in front of the magwell for a chamber return spring, and later a version that relied entirely on the bolt carrier cam, and @xmszeon animated both.
>>64308099meant for >>64308024>>64308117wdym?
>Still no spiritual Dornier Do 31 successorJust design and build a pelican or equivalent dropship already.
i hope they make the chopper versionits smaller and far more practical. but i understand the Vtol version as well but my concern it sreal world use and fuel use over time exspecially if oil supply goes wack. i mean yeah i get the idea. faster is better yada yada and the old rotor thign being on its last legs and limited in scope but this is army we are talking about not navy.idk they said airlift version and attack version yet more and more i see more classified about attack verison. it sounds liek they fully gave up. gods i hope not it was bad enough to lose the a10. i know,i know obsolite yada yada. chopper tech is so laging behindi hope it doesn't get rofl stomped by VTOL fags.but i have to be realistic too its competion and so on.but nmy fuel argument still stands.Vtol is thristy and you can't hide that from me.also i don';t want a craft just as unrelyable as the old osprey was. not in a fire fight.maybe its a trust issue i'm having.idk have to see this thing in a demonstration to make a good guess. jsut looking at images doesn't give me the skinny on the thing.
>>64308203Look up HSVTOL
>>64308024Clearance to use the side doors is obviously a retarded "benefit" there's plenty of clearance with the previous design.Clearly the real reason was a superior gearbox arrangement.
>>64310228Not getting blasted by engine exhaust is nice too.
>>64311105a bit of char never killed anyone
>>64306529Because the Osprey keeps falling out of the sky? Helicopters are already inconveniently complex, no need to go any further than you must.
>osprey has two propellers>this thing has three Truly drooling down the front of my shirt trying to figure out why they would do this
