Will tilt-rotors replace helicopters in the future?

[James Holland]

Hello all,
I am curious about other peoples opinions on the future of tilt-rotor aircraft such as ospreys. I would like to know if anybody thinks they stand a chance of over taking helicopters in civilian and or military use.

 

[jerromyjon]

Like THIS!

 

[James Holland]

yes i suppose.
not exactly what i had in my mind but that looks good.

 

[jerromyjon]

not exactly what i had in my mind but that looks good.

It's a new spin on it that can be scaled up, I imagine...

 

[James Holland]

yeah i can imagine that being pretty common place pretty soon.

 

[James Holland]

i wonder if they will add some form of landing gear to allow it to taxi ect.

 

[jerromyjon]

yeah i can imagine that being pretty common place pretty soon.

I can see this being very popular for personal aircraft/auto hybrids, no runway required...

 

[James Holland]

but from my experience flying single engine planes this would take a lot of skill to pilot.

 

[jerromyjon]

but from my experience flying single engine planes this would take a lot of skill to pilot.

They will be driving and flying themselves soon.

 

[James Holland]

but wouldn't that take the fun out of it?
i suppose maybe a new version of a limousine/shofer system would work

 

[jerromyjon]

but wouldn't that take the fun out of it?

It would put the fun in it, because the vehicle would intervene before you could lose control.

 

[James Holland]

true

 

[James Holland]

i need to go now

 

[jerromyjon]

me too

 

[berkeman]

Like THIS!

Or this -- http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/0...rtical-takeoff-aircraft-orig-vstop-dlewis.cnn

 

[James Holland]

that looks quite cool
but this is more what i had in mind

 

[cjl]

I can see this being very popular for personal aircraft/auto hybrids, no runway required...

I doubt it, since they need to be tremendously powerful to take off vertically and they need propellers optimized for static thrust, which tends to make them inefficient during cruise.

 

[James Holland]

but take of requires the most power for any aircraft
and besides when has someone who could consider affording such a thing cared about efficiency?
(considering they would be very expensive in the first place)

 

[cjl]

Take off requires the most power, sure, but the amount of power for a fixed wing vs a tilt rotor is rather dramatically different. As for who would care about efficiency? Given the cost of aviation gasoline, I would assume quite a few people, and in addition, poor efficiency means poor range, which is annoying and inconvenient.

For comparison, look at the Bombardier Dash 8 series 400 vs the V-22 Osprey. The Dash 8 has a max takeoff weight of 64,500 pounds compared to the V-22's 60,500 (though it can only take off vertically at weights of 52,600 or lower). Despite this higher weight, it has a pair of 5000 hp engines, compared to the 2 engines on the V-22 which make 6150hp each, and despite the lower power, it cruises at 360 knots, compared to a maximum speed of 275 knots for the V-22 (even though it's lighter and has >20% more power). You give up rather a lot in order to have the vertical take off capability.

 

[James Holland]

Take off requires the most power, sure, but the amount of power for a fixed wing vs a tilt rotor is rather dramatically different. As for who would care about efficiency? Given the cost of aviation gasoline, I would assume quite a few people, and in addition, poor efficiency means poor range, which is annoying and inconvenient.

For comparison, look at the Bombardier Dash 8 series 400 vs the V-22 Osprey. The Dash 8 has a max takeoff weight of 64,500 pounds compared to the V-22's 60,500 (though it can only take off vertically at weights of 52,600 or lower). Despite this higher weight, it has a pair of 5000 hp engines, compared to the 2 engines on the V-22 which make 6150hp each, and despite the lower power, it cruises at 360 knots, compared to a maximum speed of 275 knots for the V-22 (even though it's lighter and has >20% more power). You give up rather a lot in order to have the vertical take off capability.

well considering the point of this forum is for the discussion of future usage of tilt rotors it will likley be that a cheaper fuel or a more efficient engine will have been applied.
also i apologise if there was misunderstanding but like all personnel aircraft this would be very expensive and used only by the super rich hence they will be largely a display of wealth and so less likley to be used very regularly if they are very expensive to run in the same way on a smaller scale a Ferrari is.

 

[cjl]

That's the thing though - you can still put a less powerful (and therefore less fuel hungry) version of that same engine on a fixed wing and get more payload and a higher speed than the tilt rotor would have. Postulating a more efficient engine helps both types of craft equally, so it still doesn't really change matters. As for prospective customers, I was basing my statements off the people who fly light aircraft today, not some hypothetical new set of buyers.

 

[James Holland]

well part of the point is to give the ease of use of a helicopter with the speed of a plane. hence a fixed wing would be unable to fill the role.
and if you read previous comments it is already discussed that it would be probably for moving around without a lot of human piloting necessary hence not used much by people who fly light aircraft currently (of which i am one)

 

[cjl]

I still would be a bit skeptical that it would really have any market though, especially given the cost (both purchase and maintenance), as well as the unreliability (the V-22 hasn't exactly been problem-free). Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up cheaper for a rich aviation enthusiast to own a light helicopter (say, a Robinson R44 or something like that) and a fixed wing rather than having a single tilt rotor.

 

[James Holland]

probably true
but still the idea of tilt rotors in military use hasn't relay been touched on in this discussion.