@mang8219 undergoing certification currently. It takes years for that to happen. same with any other new aircraft. the only other tiltrotor is strictly military but they are looking at it to be equipped for civilian use
@dooglelgood I hardly believe this would help, as the airplane itself isnt controllable anymore, so in fact it would just take somewhat longer to crash, but eventually it will
@YourFatClownAss That would be clever. Probably hugely limited performance, though. I saw that in a factual paper once, a proposed low speed turboprop cargo plane, with a single propeller powered by two PT6 engines.
@Tjita1 Yeah limited performance but somewhat safer than autorotation.
Two engines one prop, possible but don't think that would be good idea. Two engines two props have better redundancy options. I mean what if the prop gets damaged from debris on take off or in a bird strike?
@YourFatClownAss Autorotation with assymmetrically mounted rotors, one of them being out, would probably be completely unflyable, so yeah, a bit safer. :) One big issue with this thing is of course that it can't land like a normal plane, due to the big propellers/rotors.
As for that thing I saw in the magazine, I think the idea was to create a cheap, simple and efficient way to haul cargo shorter distances. Don't think they ever made it.
@YourFatClownAss I checked now: according to Wikipedia they are: "The V-22's two Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines are connected by drive shafts to a common center gearbox so that one engine can power both proprotors if an engine failure occurs."
Ladys and Gents, we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Lets not loose focus here. Like all aircraft developed by man made to go against all that is made to make it fail, does, but we learn by our fails and proceed to the next one till we know what not to do to prevent the fail. That is how we succeed. What this aircraft means to humans- the next best this to time travel. simple terms Washington DC Vertiport to NYC Vertiport in 38 mins. Do the math. Check out X2 project- NYC to DC 28
Ladys and Gents, we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Lets not loose focus here. Like all aircraft developed by man made to go against all that is made to make it fail, does, but we learn by our fails and proceed to the next one till we know what not to do to prevent the fail. That is how we succeed. What this aircraft means to humans- the next best this to time travel. simple terms Washington DC Vertiport to NYC Vertioport in 38 mins. Do the math. Check out X2 project- NYC to DC 28
@germany2010ful $12 Million I believe. Considering the Osprey was 60-70 million a unit, this should be much more effective, and aimed at the civilian market. Let's hope the Italians get it right, because this can change everything from corporate suit's zooming around to much faster Coast Guard and Air Ambulance responses. I doubt this'll get it perfect, but in cost alone it's a big step forward, let's see if it works in the field however.
@IUkorinI Ever heard of how helicopers bank side by side? Use two main rotors having the lift in different direction on the rotors and turning can be achieved.
AircraftCompare DOTcom provides exact details of around every aircraft in the world from the past present to the FUTURE FLYING CARS, with photos specs price and everything else. Compare side by side the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380 or the MIG with the F16 etc, get access to category wise airplane and helicopter rankings, meet the prominent figures from the aerospace industry through the community..
This thing seems very un realistic, just saying the engine size and blade size would be half that for a forward flying plane. Well I guess they are using them so they must come in handy for carriers, or a ship with no landing surface.. But then wouldn't a helicopter work? Is it because these can go faster in the air in airplane mode?
This has greatly increased range, speed, and load over a standard helicopter. Its very realistic if you knew anything of the actual limitations of typical helicopters. Helicopters are the least economical mode of flight ever devised, the saving grace has always been that they can land without a runway.
Think of this as a small plane that simply stole a helicopter's only strength.
That exactly it, these can go over 350 mph in airplane mode, the fastest helicopters in the world would consider 220 mph very dangerous. I can see these being used for rescue missions... saving lives can use faster vehicles.
What type of licence I need to fly it???...ATPL(H) or ATPL(A)??....I'm confused......by the way I think that an helicopter pilot can fly much better than a aeroplane pilot in it cause it land and take-off vertically...
@zulu3006 They are not safer than helicopters which have the ability to effectivly autorotate from low altitudes and low airspeeds. Power failure in a tilt rotor in a low and slow scenario will result in a crash as there is not inherent safety measure built into the design. It can neither glide as effectively as a fixed wing a/c nor can it autorotate as a helicopter.
Yeah, but it's a hell of a lot safer to be going 250kts as opposed to 100. Plus, the likely hood of having a duel engine failure in a multi-engined aircraft is extremely rare.
@nakazatoGTR Not only does the Space Shuttle have larger wings, its fuselage type is that of a lifting body AND it travels at an extremely high rate of speed to attain its glide slope. As I said, in a low and slow situation the a tilt rotor cannot safely autorotate like a helicopter can nor can it safely glide like a fixed wing aircraft can making it less safe than either type of aircraft in the event of a low and slow engine failure. What does astrophysics have to do with anything?
@li7in6 do you even read articles by the manufacturer or read crap from hater's site?
On the Bell web site there is a series of V-22 newsletters entitled “Osprey Facts”. The January 2001 issue has an article written by Col. Nolan Schmidt who states very clearly that the freewheeling units that had been claimed to be removed early on in the development of the V-22 were in actuality, still installed in every Osprey that has ever flown.
@nakazatoGTR The nice thing about the V-22 is that it has two engines, which are interconnected. If one should fail, the aircraft can fly safely on one engine. If both engines should fail (Which is very rare), then it can glide down should it have sufficient forward airspeed. Also, if you have sufficient airspeed and one engine working, you can make a running landing with the nacelles at a 60-degree pitch (As recommended by the manufacturer).
@li7in6 having that smart ass attitude of talking online like you built the osprey yourself and making remarks that the osprey platform kill and really a stupid piece of carbon fiber really makes you look more the funnier.
looking at your profile and friends, you seem to be the "expert" anti-government GREENWASHER.
sorry, i dont support Peta, Not Vegetarian, Love Meat, Hate Communism.
@nakazatoGTR How is stating clear fact about the deficiencies in design of a tilt rotor type aircraft anything like claiming i built the damn thing? Tilt rotors are limited, they are less safe in the event of an engine failure in low and slow situations in addition to being needlessly complex. This is a fact.
Make all the baseless half assed assumptions you'd like. I own 8 firearms, also hate pita, drive a V8 pickup, love meat, never eat anything green, and have a love for capitalism.
@nakazatoGTR "facts' from people on the payroll of the company trying to sell the tiltrotor concept. Do you call those reliable unbiased sources? Tilt rotor deficiencies have been known for decades. Likely why no one has put much thorough towards them till recently. Also likely why the V-22 program is so horrendously over budget.
@li7in6 oh now you are taking the same assumptive position as those conspiracy theorists as those people who tend not to agree with you are under the government payroll?
and still you talk like you have all the testing data, the flight hours and the experience of flying a V-22.
all helicopters and planes had at least 2 or three class 3 crashes. and here you are, the naysayer with no basis whatsoever. at least i have bell test pilot's comments. what do you have troll?
@nakazatoGTR I'll spell it out for you. It is ignorant to take a companys claims of its products at face value. It is not a conspiracy theory. A company isnt going to truthfully and willingly tell you the drawbacks, negatives, or inherent limitations of a product it is trying to sell you. Go to a car dealership, do you honestly think that everythig the salesman says is 100% accurate and true? Pick up a car pamphlet and look for the 'drawbacks and limitations' section. Bet you wont find it.
@nakazatoGTR Again, you made baseless half assed assumptions. I'm a member of PITA because I own dogs? Some dude has an avatar that says something about being green and I'm a anti-gov "greenwasher". Give me a break... I don't mention my guns to scare you, simply to prove a point. You attempt to paint me as some sort of radical liberal communist environmentalist based on a 10 second look at my profile. Clearly I'm not, your ad hominem attacks do nothing but make you look silly.
@nakazatoGTR You get your information strait for the bell website? Well now, That must be as unbiased a source as they come.
Here's a little tip. A company will never down talk something they are trying to sell. Of coarse Bell is going to have nothing but good to say about their V-22, BA-609, and the tiltrotor concept as a whole. Ask someone at Chevy who makes the best cars/trucks. Then go ask someone at Ford.
@nakazatoGTR Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. Or maybe you just don't grasp the concept of "low and slow". 125 knots is not low and slow. Below 125 knots (the V-22 spend sa lot of time at these speeds in transitional flight and takeoff/landing) and with insufficient altitude if a V-22 experiences catastrophic engine failure it cannot glide, nor can ti autorotate effectively. This is a severe design and safety deficiency.
@nakazatoGTR I'll say it again, just in case you missed it the first 7 times I said it. A tilt rotor a/c is much less safe than a fixed wing a/c or helicopter in low and slow situations. It cannot glide nor can it autorotate effectively in the event of catastrophic engine failure under these conditions.
@nakazatoGTR Yes, a V-22 can glide, BUT while vertical taking off/landing and operating bellow stall speed it CANNOT glide without a good amount of altitude. It is safe to say while taking off/landing and other low speed operations, a VTOL transports bread and butter, a V-22 will NOT have sufficient altitude to gain enough speed to begin a glide.
@li7in6 your simply over exaggerating the one single deficiency of a hybrid aircraft. harriers has the same deficiencies so is the newer F-35B, and why is the harrier one of the most preferred marine "Bomb truck"?
your all to much on the negative side here. yes you got a point in hovering survivability, but heck the engines are covered with armor tested to withstand several 20mm hits? much less some obscure insurgent 7.62 RPK.
you suppose you knew these and i know how you love the attention.
@nakazatoGTR The 'single design deficiency' is one of the most important given the V-22 intended mission. Low and slow is when it will likely see fire and is when catastrophic engine failure is most likely to occur. You're telling me an aircraft pretty much falling out of the sky with no ability to glide/autorotate should it take sufficient fire or have a malfunction is acceptable?
@nakazatoGTR As for the armored nacelles argument. The AH-64 is supposed to be able to withstand up to 23mm cannon fire but has been brought down with small arms fire(7.62x39 and 7.62x54r) more than once. Armor on an aircraft is a hoakie concept in and of itself due to the weight limitations imposed. Additionally armor is never 100% effective to its limits. Would you trust a 20mm direct hit to a V-22's nacell in flight? Would you trust a 23mm cannon round to an AH-64 cockpit?
@li7in6 that AH64 brought down by a farmer's 7.62 hit the crew compartment, not the engine, hit Sgt. Frank Sandoval in the head. hah. that starts to prove you more and more the obnoxious internet hater eh?
so judging from all your posts anything military based to you is a fail machine. all. 35, AV8, every craft the military has you simply focus on the half empty side, not wanting you to be on my side of things but so far all your conclusion of any military aircraft seems to be not acceptable..
@nakazatoGTR My point about the AH-64 was this: claiming a component can take "20mm hits" and that component actually taking 20mm hits and the aircraft staying in the air are two very different things. The AH-64 is supposed to be able to take 23mm cannon fire to the crew compartment as well as the engines. That 64's crew compartment was breached by the smallest caliber cartridge it would likely encounter. That's not to say the 64 is a bad bird, just that armor claims are all but worthless irl.
@nakazatoGTR The AV-8 has proven itself as a bad bird on its own unreliable, finicky, and dangerous merits and is hated/feared even by its own pilots. The VTOL F-35 has yet to prove itself one way or the other so I reserve judgment, I do know it hasn't claimed even close to as many lives as the V-22 during its development so that counts for something.
@nakazatoGTR Not all military aircraft are bad. Many modern a/c have proven to be greater successes than they were even intended to be such as the AH-1, F-15, A-10, and F-16. All came in within budget, did the job they were designed to well, and were redesigned for missions they never were intended for and succeeded at those too. A key designed for many locks within budget is a success. A key that needs its one lock designed around it that is way over budget AND kills marines is not a success.
@li7in6 You don't seem to realize the long term impact these aircraft will have on mankind but years from now you will. And if you want to tout around a body count I'm pretty sure more people have died from fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft then tilt-rotor aircraft. Hell more people have died from car crashes caused by faulty parts but mankind still drives. When you invent an entirely NEW way of flying there's going to be some accidents and failures in the developmental stages.
@SixCeroSix Comparing the death toll from over 100 years of powered very high throughput commercial and military flight starting in an era with nonexistant safety standards and going through two world wars and countless smaller scale wars along with billions of person/air miles compared to the death toll from just over 20 years of mostly test flights is a ludicrous straw man argument.
@SixCeroSix Your assertion that 'the ends justify the means' due to the profound effect tilt rotor technology may or may not have on humanity is also debatable. As I said from the beginning, tilt rotor aircraft have major safety deficiencies compared to fixed and rotor wing aircraft. If a loss of power occurs in a large portion of their flight envelope they simply fall out of the air.
@li7in6 And in the event of a power failure tilt rotor aircraft do in fact glide contrary to popular belief. All of the "safety deficiencies" you've noted are no different from the kind you'd find on any other aircraft out there. If a helicopter loses its rotor it "falls out of the air" as well. And if a fixed wing craft loses its wings it also "falls out of the air" the risk with this aircraft are really the same as with any other. If it worries you so much don't fly at all.
@SixCeroSix Losing engine power is far more likely than a complete airframe failure as with the case of a aircraft losing a wing or helicopter losing its rotor. A tilt rotor CANglide provided it has sufficient speed/altitude. But considering the majority of a tilt rotors flight envelope is low and slow it cannot glide and is incapable of autorotation creating a very dangerous situation that isn't present on a fixed wing a/c or helicopter.
@SixCeroSix Instead of solving these problems we are fielding a compromised over budget design that still fails any low and slow recovery ability. If military funding were handled in any rational way the V-22 project would have been canceled long ago. But like most big military projects. If things under perform and go over budget the solution is to throw more money at it just like the F-22 and now the F-35. This kind of fiscal irresponsibility if one of the reasons we're in such a financial bind
@li7in6 That still doesn't change the fact that what i said is true and your comment about the ludicrous straw man argument only further supports my own. Its still to early to tell weather over the course of the next 100 years tilt rotor technology will prove to be safe or not. Instead of just writing it off as a failure why don't you just wait a coulpe of years. There have been no tilt-rotor crashes since the aircraft entered service in Afghanistan.
@li7in6 You miss the whole point of the aircraft, which is two fold Standoff and Capability.. They worked the bugs out of the chip and they seem to be performing quite well. There is inherent danger anytime you go up in anything, however there is a measure of acceptable risk that is taken into account when weighing the operational gains. This craft is a whole new ballgame operationaly and strategic wise and it fits the needs not the wants of the Marine Corps quite well.
@nakazatoGTR um.. no they had a 30mm fire up through the underside of the Apache at less then 100meters. Choppers are not tanks but they can take some hits.
@nakazatoGTR Also, the harrier is one of the most dangerous aircraft in US inventory for its own pilots because of its hybrid design. Its 'hybrid' design gives it no real advantage with a full combat loadout but in turn makes it an odd handling, comparatively slow, and comparatively under armed aircraft when set beside aircraft like the F-18A/B and C/D. The marines choice bomb truck is actually the F18-C/D due to its greater range, speed, and combat load when compared to the Harrier.
@li7in6 speed is not the actual necessity, A10 flies slower that a bugatti veyron's max speed, but why up to now there is a newer iteration in the A10C?
facts av8 and F18cd:
> 1200nmi 1089nmi
i agree on other points but still you are not marine, ive listened to other marines.
@215alessio : No, at least I have a reason to call you idiot. It's not too unsafe for civillian flight. It's probably even safer than a normal helo or plane.
still prefer the airbus a 340, 380 or the boeing 777 :) I if 1 rotor spins out of controll the whole thing is doomed to crash. the small wings and heavy engines don't allow it to glide and it isn't fuel efficient either.
Tilt-rotors are cool, but fall between two chairs when it comes to safety.
2000 feet is not much, and within that timeframe the aircraft have to shift-tilt the engines AND gain airspeed to get sufficient lift. Oh, and if you care... I'm a chopper pilot..
I agree, any aircraft that is completely dependant on engine power to fly safely is a big risk. There is no built-in safety in the system, a chopper has a good chance to land safely despite engine failure, a airplane too. With this aircraft, forget it. Unless you have some sort of ballistic chute that can reduce rate of descent to survivable speeds, and that very quickly, but I find that solution unlikely.
You don't know much about flying then do you? Most aircrafts, even rotary-wing, can land safely without engine power. You see gliding is not limited to gliders.
Where'd you get your aerospace degree, Doctor? Even with the stubby thin wings on this aircraft, it would glide as well as a helicopter will autorotate. Likely better.
That's a very selective point of view and grossly simplified. It depends on the situation. This configuration is very vulnerable to engine failure when in hover mode or transitioning between flight and hover. A inherently stable and flying design, with or without engine power, is safer. There's no way around that.
That is an interesting idea. I hope so. Are you certain the engine nacelles would rotate up in the event of midflight engine failure? If they are locked in the forward position, autorotation wouldn't then would it?
@aaron8862006 All tilt rotors have a large danger zone when traveling low and slow such as shortly before landing or shortly after takeoff. During this time the A/C does not have the altitude or the speed to initiate a glide/autorotation should there by a catastrophic power failure. Fixed wing aircraft can safely glide in such situations and helicopters will have sufficient head speed to autorotate to a safe landing. A tilt rotor will simple fall out of the sky in such situations.
They are cool, but too bad tiltrotors can't autorotate, or make a successfull emergency landing below 2000 feet. If both enignes fail... Nice knowing ya, you are going to die...
Typical uninformed response to tilt-rotor technology. First of all, the props and engines are cross-connected - lose one engine, both props still rotate. Lose both engines - transition to airplane mode and glide down. Second, auto-rotate can only be used in a narrow set of circumstances. It's not a cure-all
Typical I-know-better answer from someone who actually doesn't. I know the engines are cross-connected, that is why I said lose "both" engines. If you are in 'copter mode BELOW 2000 feet, you do not have the airspeed+altitude=potential energy to make a successful glide. The wings give poor lift with no engine power, the glide number for tilt-rotors are b-a-d. The rotor blades are also too short and heavy for it to autorotate like a normal chopper.
The 'uninformed' comment refers to the fact that the Osprey can't auto-rotate because it was never required, advertised, designed, engineered or built to do so. It also can't float like a boat or quack like a duck.
BTW, there are almost no aircraft/flight envelopes where a power loss below 2000 won't result in LOAA/loss of crew.accident.
I actually do know better, but anybody can say anything so it's admittedly hard to prove. Suffice to say I am part of the V-22 program.
Well, I can tell you this much, I practiced autorotations from 300-600 feet extensively when in training, and I did in fact have a real engine failure (piston engine) from 600 feet. No aircraft or crew damage. Fixed wings might end up crashing or landing on a road if there is no suitable areas so I'll give you that. I find if fascinating that the V-22 was never required to handle emergencies from below 2000 feet, I'm glad I don't fly it.
Finmeccanica said on Sunday 6 11 2009 that its helicopter unit AgustaWestland should sell about 500 of the new BA609 Tiltrotor aircraft it is making with Textron's Bell for 20 million euros each from 2013.
Italy could kick off orders by buying between 40 and 50 for the police, Finmeccanica Chief Executive Pierfrancesco Guarguaglini said in the northern town of Cernobbio, where he hosted a demonstration of the aircraft, The Bell Agusta will be built in USA Texas and Italy
If one engine fails, there is double redundancy as both powerplants are connected by a drive shaft through the wing. You run on one engine until you land.
No barrell roll...
arayashikinoshaka 2 weeks ago
like the osprey nothing new
Irishpreacherman 3 weeks ago
@Irishpreacherman ofc its new... its civilian.
Doowoo 1 week ago
@Doowoo what dose ofc mean
Irishpreacherman 1 week ago
@Irishpreacherman Similar...not the same though.
TexasKoz 1 week ago in playlist More videos from nameourboarddotcom
Hats off to this pilot!
Squarerig 3 months ago
Thats cute :3.
tom211t 3 months ago
Nice bird, great future.
RalPHCABO 3 months ago
Amazing Video & Fantastic Aircraft, Excellent!!! Regards
sablebayonetas 3 months ago
Hm, more than five years have passed since this demonstration video, but why don't we see these plane/helicopter-hybrids FAR MORE these days yet?
mang8219 4 months ago
@mang8219 undergoing certification currently. It takes years for that to happen. same with any other new aircraft. the only other tiltrotor is strictly military but they are looking at it to be equipped for civilian use
AeroSail727 3 months ago in playlist AeroSail727's Favorited Videos
@AeroSail727 also there are some delays and what not that have added time before the craft becomes available
AeroSail727 3 months ago in playlist AeroSail727's Favorited Videos
Sweet!
jaggsmann 5 months ago
anyone knows which date the qtr is ready for testing? for help quad tilt rotor
majstealth 5 months ago
a civilian V22 nice!!!
t22films 5 months ago
and if it has an ...engine failure... then what ???
truck501 7 months ago
@truck501 Sex
Halonerdful 7 months ago
@truck501 autorotation and transfer of power to the other rotor.
dooglelgood 6 months ago
@dooglelgood aaaaaaar thanks buddy
truck501 6 months ago
@dooglelgood I hardly believe this would help, as the airplane itself isnt controllable anymore, so in fact it would just take somewhat longer to crash, but eventually it will
flyffxtreme 6 months ago
@truck501 Let's just hope it doesn't have an engine failure while in vertical mode, shall we?
Tjita1 5 months ago
@Tjita1 ha ha lol ok
truck501 5 months ago
@Tjita1 I believe the two engines are interconnected, which mean in case of single engine failure it would still be able to flay/land.
YourFatClownAss 5 months ago
@YourFatClownAss That would be clever. Probably hugely limited performance, though. I saw that in a factual paper once, a proposed low speed turboprop cargo plane, with a single propeller powered by two PT6 engines.
Tjita1 5 months ago
@Tjita1 Yeah limited performance but somewhat safer than autorotation.
Two engines one prop, possible but don't think that would be good idea. Two engines two props have better redundancy options. I mean what if the prop gets damaged from debris on take off or in a bird strike?
YourFatClownAss 5 months ago
@YourFatClownAss Autorotation with assymmetrically mounted rotors, one of them being out, would probably be completely unflyable, so yeah, a bit safer. :) One big issue with this thing is of course that it can't land like a normal plane, due to the big propellers/rotors.
As for that thing I saw in the magazine, I think the idea was to create a cheap, simple and efficient way to haul cargo shorter distances. Don't think they ever made it.
Tjita1 5 months ago
@YourFatClownAss I checked now: according to Wikipedia they are: "The V-22's two Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines are connected by drive shafts to a common center gearbox so that one engine can power both proprotors if an engine failure occurs."
Tjita1 5 months ago
@Tjita1 This is not V-22 but I think these have similar layout.
YourFatClownAss 5 months ago
It's not a Plane it's not a Helicopter!!! it's Tilt Rotor!!!
(yeah) *clap* *clap*
What's that?? xDDD
i like it the point of the nose looks agressive, very nice
RoyAndrew911 8 months ago
@RoyAndrew911 It's not a helicopter! It's a VTOL aircraft. What do you think the harrier jump jet is a helicopter? lol
viper8red 7 months ago
@viper8red ?
RoyAndrew911 7 months ago
wonderful technology - Mike w Riyadh
mikegmdw1 9 months ago
The problem with these tilt rotor craft is - unlike conventional aircraft - when they fail, the fail BIG TIME.
19Truth53 9 months ago
awesome landing!!!
praetorian2150 10 months ago
Ladys and Gents, we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Lets not loose focus here. Like all aircraft developed by man made to go against all that is made to make it fail, does, but we learn by our fails and proceed to the next one till we know what not to do to prevent the fail. That is how we succeed. What this aircraft means to humans- the next best this to time travel. simple terms Washington DC Vertiport to NYC Vertiport in 38 mins. Do the math. Check out X2 project- NYC to DC 28
vertiport 11 months ago
Ladys and Gents, we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Lets not loose focus here. Like all aircraft developed by man made to go against all that is made to make it fail, does, but we learn by our fails and proceed to the next one till we know what not to do to prevent the fail. That is how we succeed. What this aircraft means to humans- the next best this to time travel. simple terms Washington DC Vertiport to NYC Vertioport in 38 mins. Do the math. Check out X2 project- NYC to DC 28
vertiport 11 months ago
they need to use these to shuttle oil rig workers get out to the rig in half the time .
saltire546 1 year ago
Now that they have better computers the safety of this type of aircraft will continue to inprove, helps to have a good programmer too.
budyzr63 1 year ago
HALO REACH FALCON!!!!!!
3daysgracefann 1 year ago
@3daysgracefann No.
Just,
No.
shadowblade145 1 year ago
Modern day Halo Falcon/ Fallout 3 Vertibird :D
Spitefox 1 year ago
@Spitefox No.
Just,
No.
shadowblade145 1 year ago
it was a Bell/agusta project but now is developed just by agusta : is an italian tiltrotor!
agusta develop its crashworthiness sistems in partnership with politecnic of Milan
into the LaST lab, the best crashworthiness lab in the world
ingdolci 1 year ago
What happens when one engine fails?
Aviat92 1 year ago
@Aviat92 look a few posts below yours. . .
BrettVisionSLR 1 year ago
@Aviat92 Not sure about this one, but Ospray has both rotors linked with one shaft and it can land with one engine propelling both rotors.
DrSid42 1 year ago
@DrSid42 really? That's cool!
Aviat92 1 year ago
anyone know the price of this plane?
germany2010ful 1 year ago
@germany2010ful $12 Million I believe. Considering the Osprey was 60-70 million a unit, this should be much more effective, and aimed at the civilian market. Let's hope the Italians get it right, because this can change everything from corporate suit's zooming around to much faster Coast Guard and Air Ambulance responses. I doubt this'll get it perfect, but in cost alone it's a big step forward, let's see if it works in the field however.
s2k997 1 year ago
A Beechcaft and an osprey were smoking crack and shooting heroine and they had a baby! Did I mention they were sister and brother?
YF681 1 year ago
Very interesting aircraft...how long until it's mass produced????
AlmightyAs87th 1 year ago
This...is the future of aircraft.
alanwalker95 1 year ago
awright, now a one engine VT landing...
Paxmax 1 year ago
@Paxmax No problem, both rotors are connected to both engines through a very complicated gearbox.
A gearbox failure is also the one thing I'd be very concerned about when in one of these.
But as long as they are not loaded to the brink, they will land on one engine.
lesleyhenriquez 1 year ago
@lesleyhenriquez OMG! they have a shaft connection!? Well.. solves the problem, but GEEZ, it gotta weigh a ton!
Paxmax 1 year ago
if i ever got one id make it jet black not red and white
TheCosway 1 year ago
Рульный тилтротор!
InT33Stormer 1 year ago
I guess the pilot feels like hes flying a chopper and a plane at the same time.
fordgt402 1 year ago
It can only carry 12 ppl because its need the rest of the space for the guns when killing nazis
Gohma1234 1 year ago
@Gohma1234 lol
balletluver4eva 1 year ago
That's sick!
techguy3000 1 year ago
SWEEEEET!
LOVE THAT AIRCRAFT!
unserdeutschland 1 year ago
so, where can i buy it?
TheMrExot 1 year ago
is it noisy?
Maexle1234 1 year ago
what the music?
sobgaz 1 year ago
its a beauty. How much for it???
qimag1 1 year ago
excellent video.
gafanhotoinstrutor 1 year ago
How does it turn without a rear rotor or whatever?
IUkorinI 1 year ago
@IUkorinI Ever heard of how helicopers bank side by side? Use two main rotors having the lift in different direction on the rotors and turning can be achieved.
The front is pointing this way ---->
Going left has the lift going like this:
<---
--->
Turning right is the opposite.
legox50 1 year ago
so do you need a special licence for this aircraft? that pilot has got soo much control btw
scubis 1 year ago
cool aircraft, but ugly paint job (red, white and blue.. yuck!)
tropicalintoronto 1 year ago
@tropicalintoronto and black:P
NoWayImStupid 1 year ago
see this one: Heligirocast (Spanish)
215alessio 1 year ago
if they do emergency landing the propellers would first touch the terrain...
heberorozco 1 year ago
This IS the solution for flying like a plane and to land/take off without runaway at all... After the Harrier. :-)
deimos2k6 1 year ago
wow the rotors are massive compared to the plane.
AsiansFTW1993 1 year ago
Is this in production now?
ccrich100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AircraftCompare DOTcom provides exact details of around every aircraft in the world from the past present to the FUTURE FLYING CARS, with photos specs price and everything else. Compare side by side the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380 or the MIG with the F16 etc, get access to category wise airplane and helicopter rankings, meet the prominent figures from the aerospace industry through the community..
aircraftcompare 1 year ago
lol look at flaps! russian flag)))
player1diao 1 year ago
as i see it can't do emergency landing like normal plane. even if rotors are able to be shot off
player1diao 1 year ago
@player1diao: It can. And it can autorotate like a helicopter.
Helge129 1 year ago
Of course, it only takes four passengers due to the gas tank it needs for a commuter flight...
NVanWendy 2 years ago
It can carry 9.
Nohomers48 1 year ago
@Nohomers48 Now I know. Mine was a sarcastic comment because I suspect it is one big gas hog.
NVanWendy 1 year ago
Impressive and a true future aircraft. Look forward to being a passenger one day...dream on :)
solarday 2 years ago
Great footage and fantastic piloting!
Dajida 2 years ago
This thing seems very un realistic, just saying the engine size and blade size would be half that for a forward flying plane. Well I guess they are using them so they must come in handy for carriers, or a ship with no landing surface.. But then wouldn't a helicopter work? Is it because these can go faster in the air in airplane mode?
freespeachrulez 2 years ago
This has greatly increased range, speed, and load over a standard helicopter. Its very realistic if you knew anything of the actual limitations of typical helicopters. Helicopters are the least economical mode of flight ever devised, the saving grace has always been that they can land without a runway.
Think of this as a small plane that simply stole a helicopter's only strength.
AxisAnalysis 2 years ago
That exactly it, these can go over 350 mph in airplane mode, the fastest helicopters in the world would consider 220 mph very dangerous. I can see these being used for rescue missions... saving lives can use faster vehicles.
borbor122 1 year ago
no airports need and no heli need =)
lmaodzen 2 years ago
does this one have a one way bearing so it can do auto rotations?
helipilot94 2 years ago
yes.
vijil 2 years ago
wow.. thats great.. i want one now
helipilot94 2 years ago
Made in Italy and the US. Ship 1 is US. Ship 2 is Italian. Same aircraft design.
TexasKoz 2 years ago
A snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in the marketplace.
schlusselmensch 2 years ago
The music sure has nothing to do with the content. Video editing software enables music soundtracks but does not require them....
chuanist 2 years ago
Haha no pushback truck needed!
727freak 2 years ago
Can I have one ?
Alexvideoclip 2 years ago
This could replace the Dash-8. Runways? What steeking runways?
bluehazer 2 years ago
Not a chance. The 609 only carries between 6-9 passengers and the dash 8 between 37-78.
Air420 2 years ago
What type of licence I need to fly it???...ATPL(H) or ATPL(A)??....I'm confused......by the way I think that an helicopter pilot can fly much better than a aeroplane pilot in it cause it land and take-off vertically...
blekoldshaflo2 2 years ago
It's considered a powered lift aircraft and I don't believe there are any in service yet.
C172Pilotdude 2 years ago
no there aren't..my question was hilarious....
blekoldshaflo2 2 years ago
You'll need both licenses.
Air420 2 years ago
It's the lightweight civilian version.
jtfunkymojo 2 years ago
people bitch about tiltrotors being dangerous. They're a heck of alot safer than helicopters were, even going back to vietnam era
zulu3006 2 years ago 9
@zulu3006 They are not safer than helicopters which have the ability to effectivly autorotate from low altitudes and low airspeeds. Power failure in a tilt rotor in a low and slow scenario will result in a crash as there is not inherent safety measure built into the design. It can neither glide as effectively as a fixed wing a/c nor can it autorotate as a helicopter.
li7in6 1 year ago 2
Yeah, but it's a hell of a lot safer to be going 250kts as opposed to 100. Plus, the likely hood of having a duel engine failure in a multi-engined aircraft is extremely rare.
zulu3006 1 year ago
@li7in6 dud the space shuttle has smaller wings but routinely lands anywhere it can be scheduled to land.
dont talk like your an astrophysicist. youre not
nakazatoGTR 1 year ago
@nakazatoGTR Not only does the Space Shuttle have larger wings, its fuselage type is that of a lifting body AND it travels at an extremely high rate of speed to attain its glide slope. As I said, in a low and slow situation the a tilt rotor cannot safely autorotate like a helicopter can nor can it safely glide like a fixed wing aircraft can making it less safe than either type of aircraft in the event of a low and slow engine failure. What does astrophysics have to do with anything?
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 do you even read articles by the manufacturer or read crap from hater's site?
On the Bell web site there is a series of V-22 newsletters entitled “Osprey Facts”. The January 2001 issue has an article written by Col. Nolan Schmidt who states very clearly that the freewheeling units that had been claimed to be removed early on in the development of the V-22 were in actuality, still installed in every Osprey that has ever flown.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR The nice thing about the V-22 is that it has two engines, which are interconnected. If one should fail, the aircraft can fly safely on one engine. If both engines should fail (Which is very rare), then it can glide down should it have sufficient forward airspeed. Also, if you have sufficient airspeed and one engine working, you can make a running landing with the nacelles at a 60-degree pitch (As recommended by the manufacturer).
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@li7in6 having that smart ass attitude of talking online like you built the osprey yourself and making remarks that the osprey platform kill and really a stupid piece of carbon fiber really makes you look more the funnier.
looking at your profile and friends, you seem to be the "expert" anti-government GREENWASHER.
sorry, i dont support Peta, Not Vegetarian, Love Meat, Hate Communism.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR How is stating clear fact about the deficiencies in design of a tilt rotor type aircraft anything like claiming i built the damn thing? Tilt rotors are limited, they are less safe in the event of an engine failure in low and slow situations in addition to being needlessly complex. This is a fact.
Make all the baseless half assed assumptions you'd like. I own 8 firearms, also hate pita, drive a V8 pickup, love meat, never eat anything green, and have a love for capitalism.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 what i posted are clear facts written by actual test pilots from bell.
im not saying you are some engineer but you seem to act and speak online like some know it all.
your latest statement completely contradicts what people see on your profile, you friends etc.
owning firearms doesnt make you scary to me. i dont get scared by people who thinks who knows it all.
your clear facts are more bassed on assumptions than those of mine, straight from bell's documentation letters.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR "facts' from people on the payroll of the company trying to sell the tiltrotor concept. Do you call those reliable unbiased sources? Tilt rotor deficiencies have been known for decades. Likely why no one has put much thorough towards them till recently. Also likely why the V-22 program is so horrendously over budget.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 oh now you are taking the same assumptive position as those conspiracy theorists as those people who tend not to agree with you are under the government payroll?
and still you talk like you have all the testing data, the flight hours and the experience of flying a V-22.
all helicopters and planes had at least 2 or three class 3 crashes. and here you are, the naysayer with no basis whatsoever. at least i have bell test pilot's comments. what do you have troll?
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR I'll spell it out for you. It is ignorant to take a companys claims of its products at face value. It is not a conspiracy theory. A company isnt going to truthfully and willingly tell you the drawbacks, negatives, or inherent limitations of a product it is trying to sell you. Go to a car dealership, do you honestly think that everythig the salesman says is 100% accurate and true? Pick up a car pamphlet and look for the 'drawbacks and limitations' section. Bet you wont find it.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR Again, you made baseless half assed assumptions. I'm a member of PITA because I own dogs? Some dude has an avatar that says something about being green and I'm a anti-gov "greenwasher". Give me a break... I don't mention my guns to scare you, simply to prove a point. You attempt to paint me as some sort of radical liberal communist environmentalist based on a 10 second look at my profile. Clearly I'm not, your ad hominem attacks do nothing but make you look silly.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR You get your information strait for the bell website? Well now, That must be as unbiased a source as they come.
Here's a little tip. A company will never down talk something they are trying to sell. Of coarse Bell is going to have nothing but good to say about their V-22, BA-609, and the tiltrotor concept as a whole. Ask someone at Chevy who makes the best cars/trucks. Then go ask someone at Ford.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 @li7in6 shuttle may be lifting body but heck the thing weighs 151,000lbs empty, while the v22 weighs 15,000lbs both empty.
shuttle glide ratio? 4.5:1
V-22 glide ratio? 8-10:1
stall speed for shuttle is 150-170KTS
stall speed for V-22 is 125 knots.
both dependent on angle of attack and G's
funny now you are shifting your arguments into people under a companie's payroll rather than what the V22/BA-609 can survive.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR Apparently you are incapable of reading comprehension. Or maybe you just don't grasp the concept of "low and slow". 125 knots is not low and slow. Below 125 knots (the V-22 spend sa lot of time at these speeds in transitional flight and takeoff/landing) and with insufficient altitude if a V-22 experiences catastrophic engine failure it cannot glide, nor can ti autorotate effectively. This is a severe design and safety deficiency.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR I'll say it again, just in case you missed it the first 7 times I said it. A tilt rotor a/c is much less safe than a fixed wing a/c or helicopter in low and slow situations. It cannot glide nor can it autorotate effectively in the event of catastrophic engine failure under these conditions.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR Yes, a V-22 can glide, BUT while vertical taking off/landing and operating bellow stall speed it CANNOT glide without a good amount of altitude. It is safe to say while taking off/landing and other low speed operations, a VTOL transports bread and butter, a V-22 will NOT have sufficient altitude to gain enough speed to begin a glide.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 your simply over exaggerating the one single deficiency of a hybrid aircraft. harriers has the same deficiencies so is the newer F-35B, and why is the harrier one of the most preferred marine "Bomb truck"?
your all to much on the negative side here. yes you got a point in hovering survivability, but heck the engines are covered with armor tested to withstand several 20mm hits? much less some obscure insurgent 7.62 RPK.
you suppose you knew these and i know how you love the attention.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR The 'single design deficiency' is one of the most important given the V-22 intended mission. Low and slow is when it will likely see fire and is when catastrophic engine failure is most likely to occur. You're telling me an aircraft pretty much falling out of the sky with no ability to glide/autorotate should it take sufficient fire or have a malfunction is acceptable?
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR As for the armored nacelles argument. The AH-64 is supposed to be able to withstand up to 23mm cannon fire but has been brought down with small arms fire(7.62x39 and 7.62x54r) more than once. Armor on an aircraft is a hoakie concept in and of itself due to the weight limitations imposed. Additionally armor is never 100% effective to its limits. Would you trust a 20mm direct hit to a V-22's nacell in flight? Would you trust a 23mm cannon round to an AH-64 cockpit?
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 that AH64 brought down by a farmer's 7.62 hit the crew compartment, not the engine, hit Sgt. Frank Sandoval in the head. hah. that starts to prove you more and more the obnoxious internet hater eh?
so judging from all your posts anything military based to you is a fail machine. all. 35, AV8, every craft the military has you simply focus on the half empty side, not wanting you to be on my side of things but so far all your conclusion of any military aircraft seems to be not acceptable..
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR My point about the AH-64 was this: claiming a component can take "20mm hits" and that component actually taking 20mm hits and the aircraft staying in the air are two very different things. The AH-64 is supposed to be able to take 23mm cannon fire to the crew compartment as well as the engines. That 64's crew compartment was breached by the smallest caliber cartridge it would likely encounter. That's not to say the 64 is a bad bird, just that armor claims are all but worthless irl.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR The AV-8 has proven itself as a bad bird on its own unreliable, finicky, and dangerous merits and is hated/feared even by its own pilots. The VTOL F-35 has yet to prove itself one way or the other so I reserve judgment, I do know it hasn't claimed even close to as many lives as the V-22 during its development so that counts for something.
li7in6 11 months ago
@nakazatoGTR Not all military aircraft are bad. Many modern a/c have proven to be greater successes than they were even intended to be such as the AH-1, F-15, A-10, and F-16. All came in within budget, did the job they were designed to well, and were redesigned for missions they never were intended for and succeeded at those too. A key designed for many locks within budget is a success. A key that needs its one lock designed around it that is way over budget AND kills marines is not a success.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 You don't seem to realize the long term impact these aircraft will have on mankind but years from now you will. And if you want to tout around a body count I'm pretty sure more people have died from fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft then tilt-rotor aircraft. Hell more people have died from car crashes caused by faulty parts but mankind still drives. When you invent an entirely NEW way of flying there's going to be some accidents and failures in the developmental stages.
SixCeroSix 9 months ago
@SixCeroSix Comparing the death toll from over 100 years of powered very high throughput commercial and military flight starting in an era with nonexistant safety standards and going through two world wars and countless smaller scale wars along with billions of person/air miles compared to the death toll from just over 20 years of mostly test flights is a ludicrous straw man argument.
li7in6 9 months ago
@SixCeroSix Your assertion that 'the ends justify the means' due to the profound effect tilt rotor technology may or may not have on humanity is also debatable. As I said from the beginning, tilt rotor aircraft have major safety deficiencies compared to fixed and rotor wing aircraft. If a loss of power occurs in a large portion of their flight envelope they simply fall out of the air.
li7in6 9 months ago
@li7in6 And in the event of a power failure tilt rotor aircraft do in fact glide contrary to popular belief. All of the "safety deficiencies" you've noted are no different from the kind you'd find on any other aircraft out there. If a helicopter loses its rotor it "falls out of the air" as well. And if a fixed wing craft loses its wings it also "falls out of the air" the risk with this aircraft are really the same as with any other. If it worries you so much don't fly at all.
SixCeroSix 9 months ago
@SixCeroSix Losing engine power is far more likely than a complete airframe failure as with the case of a aircraft losing a wing or helicopter losing its rotor. A tilt rotor CANglide provided it has sufficient speed/altitude. But considering the majority of a tilt rotors flight envelope is low and slow it cannot glide and is incapable of autorotation creating a very dangerous situation that isn't present on a fixed wing a/c or helicopter.
li7in6 9 months ago
@SixCeroSix Instead of solving these problems we are fielding a compromised over budget design that still fails any low and slow recovery ability. If military funding were handled in any rational way the V-22 project would have been canceled long ago. But like most big military projects. If things under perform and go over budget the solution is to throw more money at it just like the F-22 and now the F-35. This kind of fiscal irresponsibility if one of the reasons we're in such a financial bind
li7in6 9 months ago
@li7in6 That still doesn't change the fact that what i said is true and your comment about the ludicrous straw man argument only further supports my own. Its still to early to tell weather over the course of the next 100 years tilt rotor technology will prove to be safe or not. Instead of just writing it off as a failure why don't you just wait a coulpe of years. There have been no tilt-rotor crashes since the aircraft entered service in Afghanistan.
SixCeroSix 9 months ago
@li7in6 You miss the whole point of the aircraft, which is two fold Standoff and Capability.. They worked the bugs out of the chip and they seem to be performing quite well. There is inherent danger anytime you go up in anything, however there is a measure of acceptable risk that is taken into account when weighing the operational gains. This craft is a whole new ballgame operationaly and strategic wise and it fits the needs not the wants of the Marine Corps quite well.
215jami 7 months ago
@nakazatoGTR um.. no they had a 30mm fire up through the underside of the Apache at less then 100meters. Choppers are not tanks but they can take some hits.
Dogmeat1950 10 months ago
@nakazatoGTR Also, the harrier is one of the most dangerous aircraft in US inventory for its own pilots because of its hybrid design. Its 'hybrid' design gives it no real advantage with a full combat loadout but in turn makes it an odd handling, comparatively slow, and comparatively under armed aircraft when set beside aircraft like the F-18A/B and C/D. The marines choice bomb truck is actually the F18-C/D due to its greater range, speed, and combat load when compared to the Harrier.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 speed is not the actual necessity, A10 flies slower that a bugatti veyron's max speed, but why up to now there is a newer iteration in the A10C?
facts av8 and F18cd:
> 1200nmi 1089nmi
i agree on other points but still you are not marine, ive listened to other marines.
nakazatoGTR 11 months ago
@zulu3006 people love to talk about things they "suppose" to know...
Tecnobingo 1 year ago
Itlooks more stable than the v 22 but too dangerous for civilian use
215alessio 2 years ago
no its not more dangerous. imagine this as the civilian version of the osprey
bartybum 2 years ago
@215alessio : Idiot.
Helge129 1 year ago
@Helge129
arrogant bull
215alessio 1 year ago
@215alessio : No, at least I have a reason to call you idiot. It's not too unsafe for civillian flight. It's probably even safer than a normal helo or plane.
Helge129 1 year ago
@215alessio
still prefer the airbus a 340, 380 or the boeing 777 :) I if 1 rotor spins out of controll the whole thing is doomed to crash. the small wings and heavy engines don't allow it to glide and it isn't fuel efficient either.
215alessio 1 year ago
@Helge129 thx and you too...
Chowbizful 1 year ago
can i bring dat bird down with Ak's??
Akinyamok 2 years ago
@Akinyamok why?
215alessio 1 year ago
Tilt-rotors are cool, but fall between two chairs when it comes to safety.
2000 feet is not much, and within that timeframe the aircraft have to shift-tilt the engines AND gain airspeed to get sufficient lift. Oh, and if you care... I'm a chopper pilot..
Norgesmann 2 years ago
I agree, any aircraft that is completely dependant on engine power to fly safely is a big risk. There is no built-in safety in the system, a chopper has a good chance to land safely despite engine failure, a airplane too. With this aircraft, forget it. Unless you have some sort of ballistic chute that can reduce rate of descent to survivable speeds, and that very quickly, but I find that solution unlikely.
33vortex 2 years ago
Huh? Other than a glider, what aircraft is not dependent on engine power? That is stupid.
Forensource 2 years ago
You don't know much about flying then do you? Most aircrafts, even rotary-wing, can land safely without engine power. You see gliding is not limited to gliders.
33vortex 2 years ago 2
No, your comment was about aircraft being dependent on engines, not about being able to glide. Yeah, go fly something.
Forensource 2 years ago
What's your point other than arguing for the sake of arguing?
33vortex 2 years ago
Where'd you get your aerospace degree, Doctor? Even with the stubby thin wings on this aircraft, it would glide as well as a helicopter will autorotate. Likely better.
aaron8862006 2 years ago 5
That's a very selective point of view and grossly simplified. It depends on the situation. This configuration is very vulnerable to engine failure when in hover mode or transitioning between flight and hover. A inherently stable and flying design, with or without engine power, is safer. There's no way around that.
33vortex 2 years ago
That is an interesting idea. I hope so. Are you certain the engine nacelles would rotate up in the event of midflight engine failure? If they are locked in the forward position, autorotation wouldn't then would it?
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@aaron8862006 All tilt rotors have a large danger zone when traveling low and slow such as shortly before landing or shortly after takeoff. During this time the A/C does not have the altitude or the speed to initiate a glide/autorotation should there by a catastrophic power failure. Fixed wing aircraft can safely glide in such situations and helicopters will have sufficient head speed to autorotate to a safe landing. A tilt rotor will simple fall out of the sky in such situations.
li7in6 1 year ago
They are cool, but too bad tiltrotors can't autorotate, or make a successfull emergency landing below 2000 feet. If both enignes fail... Nice knowing ya, you are going to die...
Norgesmann 2 years ago
Typical uninformed response to tilt-rotor technology. First of all, the props and engines are cross-connected - lose one engine, both props still rotate. Lose both engines - transition to airplane mode and glide down. Second, auto-rotate can only be used in a narrow set of circumstances. It's not a cure-all
jsmaye 2 years ago
Typical I-know-better answer from someone who actually doesn't. I know the engines are cross-connected, that is why I said lose "both" engines. If you are in 'copter mode BELOW 2000 feet, you do not have the airspeed+altitude=potential energy to make a successful glide. The wings give poor lift with no engine power, the glide number for tilt-rotors are b-a-d. The rotor blades are also too short and heavy for it to autorotate like a normal chopper.
Norgesmann 2 years ago 2
The 'uninformed' comment refers to the fact that the Osprey can't auto-rotate because it was never required, advertised, designed, engineered or built to do so. It also can't float like a boat or quack like a duck.
BTW, there are almost no aircraft/flight envelopes where a power loss below 2000 won't result in LOAA/loss of crew.accident.
I actually do know better, but anybody can say anything so it's admittedly hard to prove. Suffice to say I am part of the V-22 program.
jsmaye 2 years ago
Well, I can tell you this much, I practiced autorotations from 300-600 feet extensively when in training, and I did in fact have a real engine failure (piston engine) from 600 feet. No aircraft or crew damage. Fixed wings might end up crashing or landing on a road if there is no suitable areas so I'll give you that. I find if fascinating that the V-22 was never required to handle emergencies from below 2000 feet, I'm glad I don't fly it.
Norgesmann 2 years ago
Agreed, I'd never want to fly a tilt-rotor a/c. The concept is inherently dangerous.
33vortex 2 years ago
thats what i call a cooooooooooooooool aircraft.. sensational !!
airbutz 2 years ago
like the osprey but cooler! =D
MrTyrannosaurusRex 2 years ago
way before the osprey...
jbyrd0861 2 years ago
BA-609 Bell Agusta
Finmeccanica said on Sunday 6 11 2009 that its helicopter unit AgustaWestland should sell about 500 of the new BA609 Tiltrotor aircraft it is making with Textron's Bell for 20 million euros each from 2013.
Italy could kick off orders by buying between 40 and 50 for the police, Finmeccanica Chief Executive Pierfrancesco Guarguaglini said in the northern town of Cernobbio, where he hosted a demonstration of the aircraft, The Bell Agusta will be built in USA Texas and Italy
br96022 2 years ago
i notice that they don't show the part when it switches from Vertical to forward -- maybe it doesn't look so smooth at that time?
Talmide 2 years ago
I live in Arlington and I see this thing fly over my house from time to time. Sounds like a chopper flies like a plane, weird.
noahdh 2 years ago
If one engine fails, there is double redundancy as both powerplants are connected by a drive shaft through the wing. You run on one engine until you land.
BlueBugTDI 2 years ago
Imagine they make A380 this way imao...
loveplusrespect 2 years ago