Tilt Rotor Aircraft Since 1955

delft said:

The ancestors of V-22 were a failed project at Weser Flugzeugbau in 1944 and ten years later the Bell XV-3 before at last the Bell XV-15 in the late '70's showed the time for this concept had come..

Click to expand...

Well, Delft, the XC-142A was a 1960s aircraft, and it worked. Lots of testing, in lots of different conditions and missions. It did have a significant flaw that led to the total loss of one aircraft and the damaging of two others, but it was identified and resolved.

In retrospect, after all that went into making the V-22 successful (and there were a lot of crashes and a lot of lives lost) if they had put that kind of effort into the XC-142, it would have become a very versatile and prolific aircraft, and with a lot less loss of life.

But that's history...and I am, admittedly biased..

As it was, NASA continued testing the aircraft until 1970.

There is one aircraft (XC-142A AF Ser. No. 65-5924) on display at Wright Patterson to this day.

SinoSoldier said:

Looks it could've evolved into a groundbreaking platform had it been allowed to mature.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right, Sino. If 1/10 the effort (and cost in lives and treasure) had been put into this aircraft as what ultimately went into the Osprey to get it to the point it is today...then yes, it most certainly would have.

no_name said:

Was this plane intended to serve a similar role as the Osprey?

Click to expand...

Yes, similar. As equation noted regarding its potential role regarding Chinooks.. Note that the Osprey's are replacing the Sea Knights on LHDs (similar to Chinooks, but quite a bit smaller) - Thanks to Scratch for clarifying this..

This aircraft was meant from the start to be Tri-Service (just like the Osprey is becoming).

I expect it would have matured into several roles.

But, alas, it did not and all of that is history now. I build it to honor my father who was one of the lead engineers on the project in the area of dynamics.

Jeff Head said:

You are exactly right, Sino. If 1/10 the effort (and cost in lives and treasure) had been put into this aircraft as what ultimately went into the Osprey to get it to the point it is today...then yes, it most certainly would have.

Click to expand...

Do you know why it was ultimately cancelled? If it was due to budget concerns, then it would be quite unfornuate as many revolutionary military ideas were stifled that way (such as in the case of the YF-23).

SinoSoldier said:

Do you know why it was ultimately cancelled? If it was due to budget concerns, then it would be quite unfornuate...

Click to expand...

At the time, with the Vietnam War really beginning to build up in 1966 with men, material, and spending...and with the US Navy not wanting the type of downdraft a four engine vertical landing would necessitate...they simply decided not to go with a VSTOL aircraft at the time.

I personally believe they missed out on an opportunity (and in retrospect I believe that feeling is borne out)...but at the time that type of opportunity was just not very high on the priority list.

Jeff Head said:

At the time, with the Vietnam War really beginning to build up in 1966 with men, material, and spending...and with the US Navy not wanting the type of downdraft a four engine vertical landing would necessitate...they simply decided not to go with a VSTOL aircraft at the time.

I personally believe they missed out on an opportunity (and in retrospect I believe that feeling is borne out)...but at the time that type of opportunity was just not very high on the priority list.

Click to expand...

Ironically, a V/STOL transport would have helped greatly with the Vietnam war effort.

SinoSoldier said:

Ironically, a V/STOL transport would have helped greatly with the Vietnam war effort.

Click to expand...

Yes...as I say, in retrospect, it would have been a very good aircraft.

Would have been a good transport. Would have been a good Air Assault. Would have been a good SAR aircraft. Would have developed into a good SPECOPS aircraft. Would have developed into a good COD aircraft. And, IMHO, could have been developed into a good ASW aircraft as well.

Lots of possibilities.

Now, those same possibilities exist for the Osprey and are being exploited. Transport, Air Assault, SAR, SPECOPS and COD are already on the table for the Opsrey.

I well imagine the objections of the Navy against the use of a VTOL aircraft with a disk loading much higher than a helicopter. But in STOL mode it should have been valuable aircraft.
I would have preferred to combine two engines in one nacelle driving a contra-rotating prop. This engines of this configuration ware used in the Convair R3Y Tradewind flying boats as well as in the two VTOL fighter aircraft by Convair and Lockheed in the '50's, the Allison T-40.

delft said:

I well imagine the objections of the Navy against the use of a VTOL aircraft with a disk loading much higher than a helicopter. But in STOL mode it should have been valuable aircraft.

Click to expand...

My thinking too, Delft. In STOL mode it would have been a very nice landing capability for the carriers.

Oh well...it's water under the bridge long ago.

Maybe just nitpicking, but that XC-142A would have complemented, or filled a similar role to, the CH-46 Sea Knight, wich the V-22s are replacing. Not the CH-47 Chinook, wich is larger in pretty much every conceivable aspect and in use with the army.
While looking fairly similar at first glance, these two are really different choppers, as I understand it.