Armed Escort Tiltrotor

As one of those GIB's, I don't think that the dimensions on the Citation variant would be all that prohibitive. I work and move around in an area with only about 4' of head room. I realize that the overall cabin shape is much different, but I think that if you want a guy back there it would be doable, especially if you are using crew served weapons instead of A/C weapons systems. If you want one on either side, stagger the stations to allow room for the gunner to traverse their weapons.

Mac

While the GAU-17 is a reliable weapon, you still need someone to monitor them in case a problems does develop. You could get by with 1 crew menber to do so.
While not trying so stir up a hornets nest here, Congress has dictated that the next generation helo gunship(after the Apache/Cobra) must be a joint Army/Marine a/c.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Trigger74 Good point LJ. I hadn't even thought of the parallels between this topic and the evolution of attack helicopters (shhhh....be careful with that replacement for Cobra talk. I know a couple guys here who'd hunt you down for suggesting that).

Yeah, that's why I qualified it with the "What If", but I won't sit with my back to any doors for a while, just to be safe...

Even though I like the gunship concept, that's not really the direction I am going with my config or even had ever intended to go. I am intending to build something somewhere between a Cobra and Harrier. Forward firing rockets/missiles, nose cannon, in-your-face-Marine CAS.

This discussion is really interesting and is causing me to think about my design, but LJ is right in that in the end the important thing is that we'll have a few really bad looking tiltrotors. There's no one right way to do things. Whether an armed tiltrotor escort would be cost effective or perfectly suited to a particular mission isn't really important. I initiated this discussion because I wanted to at least have some basis in reality for it.

So let's go, we need a few more different configurations. Who's next?

Phil

Good point LJ. I hadn't even thought of the parallels between this topic and the evolution of attack helicopters (shhhh....be careful with that replacement for Cobra talk. I know a couple guys here who'd hunt you down for suggesting that).

You hit the nail on the head with wanting to see heavily armed builds - mine as it is right now just doesn't look like it could haul a lot. That's my biggest frustration with it.

I've been thinking over some of the very questions that have been brought up in the last few posts. I see this discussion as going along similar lines of the development of helicopter gunships. First you had armed transports, getting progressively heavier armed, until someone decided to make a mission-specific armed helo, the Cobra.

Originally, I saw the concept as an armed V-22, and how to best go about doing that. I'm still going to build up my idea of an AV-22 as a sort of "mini-spectre" gunship. That's a given, for me. But then we started talking about an escort, and I saw this not as a transport with some guns added (which the Opsrey design seems to severely limit), but as a unique aircraft (even maybe a "What If" eventual replacement for the AH-1Z?) that would utilize tilt rotor technology and have commonality with the V-22.

I know you'd have fighters for CAP and SEAD missions, but I just like the idea of having an armed escort that can fly with and defend the transports enroute to the LZ, soften up any defenses encountered and remain on station while the troops unload to deal with threats as they appear.

I too thought "Why not just upgrade a Bronco or similar to modern standards?" They did the job then, they could sure do the job now, right? I don't have an answer besides the skeptical one of politics getting involved.

Edited to Add:Well, I'd see mine as USMC, and I've gotten a little practice in with painting MARPAT, so I could see going that route with this...

I see mine as a 2-man aircraft with a good sensor/weapons mix so it could act as the forward eyes of the MEU/MEB/MEF at the LZ. I'm not ready to start thinking of it in a tank hunter/killer role like the Cobra, yet. But I could be persuaded.End Edit

Besides, I want to see a bunch of kitbashed, heavily armed tilt-rotors being made out of all these kits...that's going to be so cool.

Whose bird will it be? USMC, Army or USAF? I think you've been talking Marines all along, but this brings us to the issue of your end game ... camouflage. Since the whole project is based on wild scheming and cutting-edge kitbashing, why not go with the new digital-lozenge style that's showing up on the uniforms? We studied this pattern in the 1980s and back then it was called DTG, for Digital Texture Gradient. On that sweet buildup you have going there, it would just take the whole concept one more step into the future.

Actually, reason #2 is a very strong argument, especially regarding the medivac or CSAR mission.

As far as it being cost-effective - the reality is, the Corps already has the Harrier and hopefully, the F-35. The problem is, fast movers can't get down in the dirt like a helicoptor can and with the ever-decreasing bomb loads that seems to be the trend with fighters today and tomorrow (2 JDAMs and maybe a cannon doesn't seem to make for a good CAS platform), but on the other hand, an AH-1Z will have a hard time keeping up with an MV-22. I think that's why there's been discussion here for a while now actually about an escort; because it doesn't look as if the V-22 will be able to "actively" defend itself very much.

Phil
Regarding your side mounted cannon - instead of an aft gunner(s), what about an Apache-style helmet mounted targeting system where the aft gun(s) is slaved to the wearers helmet? When the gunner turns his head to a certain location on either window, tha side's gun will respond to his input commands and targeting. That way the pilot could fly while the gunner shoots. And the smaller crew means fewer people you have to go rescue in case a plane is downed.

I asked myself Trigger's question about the need for this thing to be tilt-rotor too, and came to the general conclusion that there would be two reasons:

1. Tilt-rotors are faster than helicopters, but slower than the fixed-wing aircraft currently in inventory that are able to provide sufficient fire support. If all you want is support at the pick up point, there's no need to match speeds; you could stagger launch times and flight paths to arrange near-simultaneous arrival. But if you want a true escort for the duration of the mission, matching speeds becomes important.

2. Tilt rotors would allow recovery of both types of craft at the same time on the same ship. If the tilt rotors/helicopters were to land first, they would have to be cleared off the deck before fixed-wing craft could land. If the planes land first, then the tilt-rotors could land behind them. But since the tilt-rotors would likely have injured, why should they have to wait?

Both of these reasons seem kind of weak though, and I'm not sure having a special tilt-rotor escort/attack bird would be the most cost effective solution... it would probably be cheaper to substitute existing aircraft or bring along a second aircraft carrier/LHA. It's a nice concept to think about though.

When I did that configuration on mine, I was thinking of a CAS system that would carry a weapons platform desinged along the lines of using a Cobra or Apache as a starting point, that could operate from the deck of a carrier or LHA but that could also keep up with an Osprey on the way in, and be as agile as possible on station to lay down as much iron as it can. I'm not a big fan of a static hover - a "gun in a shopping cart" if you will. There's a reason the phrase "speed is life" is still around and why the guns on a DAP face forward. Don't get me wrong, I love what the AC-130 can do, but it operates at a much higher altitude than your usual CAS platform does to stay out of reach of ground fire. For whatever reason, the A-1H Sandy has been my inspiration for this. Phil and LJ are thinking of the AC-130 as the inspiration for their gunships. So which platform is better suited to the escort mission? I'm not qualified to answer that I apologize, that question is inappropriate for the topic at hand. I don't think their's is a bad idea, I just haven't figured out a way to make sideways firing cannon work with the big@$$ nacelles on the wingtips, so I decided to go a different route.

At one point I asked myself - "Why does this thing have to be VTOL? The original OV-10 was an STOL and could operate off a deck. So why not take the existing Bronco kit and build it as a new-build 21st century Bronco? It's not a completely stupid idea - the C-130 has been around for 50+ years, we're seeing a new generation of Kiowa on the horizon and the Marines are about to deploy an new Huey model. So why not give the Bronco a AH-1Z/UH-1Y-type treatment? I haven't done any major surgery on the Bronco yet so that is still a possibility.

Does anyone know where I can get curved propeller blades?

Yeah, I guess I have to agree. I did some measurements of my own over the weekend of the interior of my Citation and have pretty much abandoned the guy in back. There is really not enough room. The space available would probably be needed for fuel, avionics and structure, not to mention the ammo drum for the nose gun. So I'm going to stick to just forward firing ordnance on pylons on the fuselage.

I still think the gunship idea is a good one though. I don't know what the reliability of the GAU-17 minigun is, but it seems like it would be possible to have a couple in the aft fuselage firing laterally with auto feed so you don't need anyone in back to monitor them. With all the guns facing the left side, the pilot would sight the guns, so there really wouldn't be any blind spots. The nose gun could be fixed in gunship mode to fire with the fuselage guns. Hmmm, laterally fired rockets? I'm not sure that would work, especially at any forward speed.

I have been working on my Citation fuselage. I modified the original wing roots to be very small sponsons and have started on the weapons pylons. I'll post some pics shortly.

Phil

I think that we are getting into at least two distinct versions of this beast. I really like Trigger's 'Dragonfly' and the COIN/CAS mission it looks to be very well suited to. The Bronco concept really got me to thinking and I have so many ideas in my head that I don't know where to start any more. The idea of using the tilt rotor concept for this mission is briliant though, at least IMHO.

The original concept was an armed escort for the Osprey, which seems as though it would have a similar role as the good ol' ARA. They were heavily biased for foreward firing weapons, but had door guns for LZ support while the drop/lift was in progress.

There are alot of ideas out there. What would the OPS guys ask for?

Mac

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that weapons should be deployed from underneath the fuselage.

While a side shooting bird like the AC-130 would certainly be neat, if you want to keep it in scale, I think the biggest weapon you could possibly fit in there would be the 40 mm Bofors, but more likely you're going to want 2-3 gattling guns, the minimum probably required to adequately soften up an area... I can't speak to Trigger's Bronco, but the Cessna Citation numbers I've found so far indicate that cabin dimensions are ~ 5 feet wide and ~ 5' tall in the center... that doesn't leave much room to crawl over the guns, meaning that each guy in the back will need his own door (or you could put just one guy/door between two gun stations)

If you look at current escort helicopters, they essentially can carry up to 16 TOWs/Hellfires, or up to 76 2.75" rockets. That many finned projectiles could be deployed laterally, but given the gun sighting issues discussed earlier, pilots will probably want to be facing their target rather than circling (potentially) semi blind.

Rapid loading of this configuration could be assisted by creating side access panels.

Neat Trigger. Very different look than mine. I think it will look plenty CAS-ugly with some weapons and sensors. Good start.

I really like the gunship idea. It would be really neat to put a couple of side firing miniguns in the back of mine. But maybe too much. Maybe an alternate configuation?

Phil

Not sure where they'd go. I kinda had the sponsons in mind for something like that, but I can't forget COG issues. Maybe the sponsons should be of a larger volume?

While it certainly has an anime look to it, it's not really what I'd call "CAS-ugly." Phil's configuration with the internal volume that comes with it lends itself more to a flying gunship whereas mine looks better suited to the COIN mission.

Good first look, Trigger! Dragonfly seems like a fitting name, too.

Maybe for the fuel issue, you could whip up some conformal fuel cells?

Looks good so far, keep posting

Finally, mock-up pix....









I'm leaning towards the nickname of "Dragonfly"

The outward cant of the tails is intentional. Not sure if this thing would be able to carry enough internal fuel.

Stopped in at the LHS earlier this afternoon and they had neither a 1/72 Osprey or a Bronco, Mohawk or Citation...so I'm debating on ordering the kits online, or maybe making a trip down to Wilmington NC when I go on leave later this week. I'm leaning to the Mohawk just to give us all one more version to debate when/if we get these projects going in earnest.

In the meantime, once the A-10 gets done, I think I'll take a crack at my AV-22.

Sounds like quite a critter you are starting there. I think that I will start collecting parts for one. My only problem is getting the parts from at least three planes to do it.
V-22, Citation? and A-10

Mac

Yeah, me too!

I'm looking into curved blades such as what are used on the C-130J or, prop-fans (supposedly there's an added noise reduction benefit to these) as alternatives. Of course, I need to find curved prop blades. Anyone know of a good source? Phil - am I tilting against windmills with those ideas?

The reason I haven't posted pix is I'm out of masking tape to assemble the mock-up. Hope to get some soone when the corner store opens up.

Trigger74-

I don't think there is a requirement that the rotor span covers the whole wing, Rotor size is driven by hover requirements and I think they just picked the smallest wing the could put the rotors on to make a compact configuration.

Looking foward to seeing your configuration.

Phil

OK, the Osprey's wing looks too short of a span on the Bronco IMO. Phil - you're the aerospace engineer: is there a reason the Osprey's blade discs encompass the entire leading edge of its wing?

Right now I'm leading towards using the Bronco's wing and modifying it to allow the nacelles. It's span is greater and would allow at least one underwing pylon per wing since the rotor disc covers only 2/3 of the leading edge. However the chord seems thin to put a cross-shaft between the two engines. Maybe wing plugs to increase the span.

I'm working on the tail mock-up right now and I think that it will fold for carrier storage since it doesn't look like I'll be able to get the wing to do so.

I guarntee you when and if the V-22 ever sees service use after all the problems are weeded out it will be armed with plenty of M134's and M2's.The USAF MH versions for sure.If you look at any schematics for these they are armed with door guns.

Now as far as armed with pylons or racks with hellfires and other goodies that still remains to be seen but Im quite confident a Heavily armed Spec Ops version will surface.

Regards,

OK, parts survived the Tennessee heat. Good thing I parked under some shade.

First glance - the 1/72 V-22 wing looks too short to use on the 1/48 Bronco...

The body of the Mohawk was used in early concept drawing for the test aircraft

LOL!!!!! so we're BOTH in a hurry-up and wait situation! I got lucky my LHS had a Bronco and Osprey kit.....oh crap... that reminds me.... I gotta go get them out of the car!

Wish me luck!!!

Trigger it's good to see you got the stuff to styart this project.. Don't worry, it'll be a long while before I start one of these. I have so much on my plate as it is, and with a new job starting, it'll take even longer. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Hey, cool guys. I look forward to seeing some variations. I guess when we're all done we'll need to have a fly off and the winner will get a mutli-million dollar contract to develop this for the Marines!!!! OK, maybe not, but I still think it's a neat idea.

Phil

Yep. I bought a AM Pave Hawk weapons set and some odds and ends to make a few more guns for this baby...I just need to keep my eyes peeled for some dome-shapes and the like for the sensors that I think I'll have to add...FLIR, gun radars/camera...that sort of stuff...can't forget the chaff and flares, too.

I tore my feet up on a little 6 mile hike yesterday, so I had to pass on a trip to the LHS today or else I'd probably have my kits too! Maybe a little later today I can hobble in and look at whats on the shelves. Getting old can be a drag.