This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bell V-280 Valor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The article mentions that (unlike the star-crossed V-22 Osprey) this newer tiltrotor aircraft has engines that remain stationary in all modes of flight, as well as a system that can keep both rotors spinning in the event that one engine fails.
But what if both engines fail? Can the V-280's rotors (like, for instance, those of the UH-1 Iroquois but, again, unlike the Osprey's) "autorotate"?
Either way, it seems like something that we ought to include in the article.
Pine (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Autogyro operation usually implies the props rotating in the opposite direction (airflow bottom to top) as opposed to powered helicopters. The propellor shape would have to invert. Not going to happen. Wizzy…☎ 11:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the tiltrotor that the V-280 is based on (V-22) can not autorotor either. The V-22's pilot would use its wings for lift and glide as best as possible. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A table comparing main features to the Osprey would be helpful. I guess the text is full of it anyway, but a table would be much better me thinks. JB. --62.8.186.8 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison tables are not generally recommended for aircraft articles. You can view the specs of each and compare them that way. BilCat (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not even sure I agree with you in general, but even if ... In this case the table would provide the motivation for the development which would be a critical element of the entire presentation. And while I agree that one could open two windows - an additional column would be much cleaner and easier to read. Personally I must say that I always appreciate the availlability of such tables very much as they optimally transfer the data for me. Sometimes I wonder ... JB. --92.195.21.239 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone describe how the gear works? The big gear that pivots and converts the turbo prop rotation into the propeller? Looks like it must be a very interesting gear that can withstand all the forces and tilt nearly 90°.
The V22 tilting mechanism looks more understandable because the whole engine rotates. Any one have a diagram of the V280 gear and pivot?
2603:8001:5901:4100:F5E1:331A:2774:9E5C (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Lockheed Martin was a partner through one if its subsidiaries, probably LM Oswego, when Bell started the V-280 project. Since then, LM has bought Sikorsky, and thus is also a partner on the SB-1. We need to find out for certain if LM is still a major partner on the V-280, or if they've downgraded to a subcontractor. BilCat (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
