Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

[elmayerle]

Evan: Boeing-Bell proposal for a commercial tilt-rotor based on the DHC-8 fuselage.

Having now had a chance to evaluate both the Hobbycraft and Esci V-22 engine nacelles, I reckon I'd do this using the Hobbycraft ones since they lack any evidence of certain systems fit to the V-22 for military usage; Esci doesn't have the nacelles completely perfect, but much better than Hobbycraft's effort.  I see from HLJ's website that Hasegawa has a 1/72 one coming and Platz has a 1/144 one coming; those should be nice.

[finsrin]

Reviewed this whole thread.  Many fantastic tilt concepts real and "artificial".
Wish there was time (skill) to build a couple.
Great work all...... enjoyed doing a review.

[apophenia]

Having now had a chance to evaluate both the Hobbycraft and Esci V-22 engine nacelles, I reckon I'd do this using the Hobbycraft ones since they lack any evidence of certain systems fit to the V-22 for military usage; Esci doesn't have the nacelles completely perfect, but much better than Hobbycraft's effort.  I see from HLJ's website that Hasegawa has a 1/72 one coming and Platz has a 1/144 one coming; those should be nice.

Makes sense to use the one that strays furthest from reality. Hopefully,  Hobbycraft's Dash-8 kit does bear some resemblance to the DHC-8 

[elmayerle]

Well, being as to how it's a Canadian product, they do seem to have made more of an effort at accuracy.

[elmayerle]

I note that I'm now seeing offerings of an Italieri 1/72 V-22 kit.  I'm sorely tempted to buy one to see if it's an Esci re-pop, their own tooling, or a cleaned-up Esci mold.  It might be fun to model some of the various unbuilt proposals; the AEW with the radar in place of the aft ramp sounds good.  Could be fun, too, to do a VV-22 in full HMX-One markings.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I note that I'm now seeing offerings of an Italieri 1/72 V-22 kit.  I'm sorely tempted to buy one to see if it's an Esci re-pop, their own tooling, or a cleaned-up Esci mold.  It might be fun to model some of the various unbuilt proposals; the AEW with the radar in place of the aft ramp sounds good.  Could be fun, too, to do a VV-22 in full HMX-One markings.

I can guarantee that it is not the ESCI/AMT-Ertl kit with the Italeri name on it.  It is an entirely different mold with a better level of details.  As far as emulating the real production version that is an area for which I have no answer.  It used to be a scaled down version of their 1:48th scale kit or the other way around.  They were identical at one point in time but the larger 1:48th scale kit was tweeked to include what were then known modifications to the development aircraft and that is where the two parted company on similarities.  I have both scales in protective custody including both versions of the 1:48th scale kit.   

[elmayerle]

Okay, then I'll definitely need to acquire one.  HLJ looks to have them at the moment and at rather better prices than what's being asked on eBay.

[LemonJello]

Could be fun, too, to do a VV-22 in full HMX-One markings.

It's on my "someday" list, but in 1/48. I pick up the Italeri kit every time I'm near a Hobby Lobby and it's 40% or 50% off coupon time.  I have four in the stash right now.  And only one will actually wear USMC squadron markings.

[elmayerle]

One of the annoying aspects of my present position is that I have access to, but can't share, some interesting items such as one iteration of the VV-22 proposal.  There are some interesting aspects and some that would be a bit more challenging to model, such as more and different cabin windows.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Evan,

Do you have any suggestions on where or how to fit auxiliary fuel tanks to the outside of the aircraft?  Aside from the Esci/AMT-Ertl attempt at creating the SV-22 in 1:72nd scale with some torpedo shapes attached to a very frail looking thing that was supposed to pass for a pair of stores stations mounted on a less than aerodynamic framework.  I have my own ideas for something that would fit on the sponsons with a small wing shape to it to carry a fuel tank but placement so that it is not interfering with the main gear seems to be the problem. 

The easier and obviously and much simpler alternative is to use the fuels cells from the Academy MH-60 Blackhawk and HH-60 Pave Hawk inside the aircraft.  This of course would reduce the capability of carrying anything internally. 

Any suggestions that will not infringe on company secrets?

[Logan Hartke]

Why not NH90-style?



Thanks,

Logan

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Why not NH90-style?

Convinced a friend of mine to do something similar with the HobbyCraft V-22 using the fuel tanks and pylons from the MH-53 mounted adjacent to the main wheels.  It may have been too much fuel tank but it certainly looked good with the other MH-53 parts added on with the exception of the big chin box holding the radar, FLIR, and refueling boom.  If nothing else actually is possible on the real aircraft then I will probably go that same route again for the 1:48th scale project.  It would be nice to know if that is the same solution that Bell/Boeing would use with the real aircraft in the real world.  The internal fuel cells take up a lot of room inside of the troop/passenger compartment just like they do in the MH-60/HH-60 when installed.  That same space could be put to better use for carriage of personnel and equipment if the fuel carried to extend range is carried somewhere else. 

[elmayerle]

Err, that's something I'm really not at liberty to comment on much because I am aware of what's being studied.  The tanks up forward, as shown on the NH-90,  would have to be positioned carefully lest they get hit by the prop-rotor in airplane mode but I don't believe that's the preferred position.  Similarly, underwing tankage with have to stay clear of the full prop-rotor movement envelope and that could minimze just how large a tank you could put there.  The other thought that occurs to me is to extend the LH sponson as far forward as possible and the RH one up to the door.

Jeffry, I'm unfamiliar with the Exci/AMT SV-22 kit, could you scan the boxtop for me and email it.

[kitnut617]

Why not some sort of conformal tank which attaches to the front of the main wheel sponsons -- like an extension of the sponson

[Logan Hartke]

Could you do tanks outboard of the sponsons as on the CH-53E?



Cheers,

Logan

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Could you do tanks outboard of the sponsons as on the CH-53E?

That was what my friend did with his HobbyCraft Osprey kit and parts from an Italeri MH-53 Pave Low kit that I provided to him for that effort. 

The 600 gallon (2271.247 litre) tanks are a bit large and also a problem to source unless you are flush with lottery winnings.  Since I have the parts available it is no problem for me but I still would like to reaffirm that I was going in the right direction, you know, trying to achieve some level of realism instead of what looks good :)

Jeffry, I'm unfamiliar with the Exci/AMT SV-22 kit, could you scan the boxtop for me and email it.

Evan,

I trashed that kit ages ago.  The kit came with two ladder shaped stores pylons that were to be fixed to a location just above or slightly forward of the main landing gear wells.  The ladder shape was quite plain and slanted towards the front but you can envision a ladder with two rungs at an angle and pretty much get the same shape.  Emil has one at the shop (Skyway Models) but the price is now in the kit collector's range. 

Here is a thumbnail image of the box art courtesy of ScaleMates.com:


(Click to view larger image)

[Diamondback]

IIRC, a variant of the Ospery's engine was pitched as a possible powerplant for the CH-53K but declined in favor of the more powerful GE38-1B... so what if the engine-transfer went the other way, a 15,000SHP Super Osprey?

[elmayerle]

Thanks, Jeffry.  Yeah, that's a logical location and, as long as you don't get too long, it keeps stores clear of the prop-rotors.  I wonder, though, why they didn't use a stub wing instead of just an "erector set" rack? (*wink*).

I'm told that the MH-53K engines have been looked at, but considerable redesign would be required to fit them in the Osprey (accessory and drive section) and it's just not cost-effective at the moment.

An extension of the LH sponson for additional tankage is possible while extension of the RH sponson is limited by the presence of the crew door.  There's another approach to conformal tankage under study, but more I can't say.  It's the obvious approach, though.

To fit the CH-53E tanks, you'd need some new structure on the top of the sponsons, including a fairing to extend out and keep the tanks clear of the main gear.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

To fit the CH-53E tanks, you'd need some new structure on the top of the sponsons, including a fairing to extend out and keep the tanks clear of the main gear.

Exactly what my friend Vic Russell did with the HobbyCraft Osprey.  He attached the entire pylon section from the H-53 to include the fairing that attached the entire thing to the sponson on the thing to the Osprey and had it clearing the main landing gear in the process.  It looked convincing enough but the model went MIA in 1989 after it was left behind by accident at a contest held in Evansville, Indiana. 

Thanks, Jeffry.  Yeah, that's a logical location and, as long as you don't get too long, it keeps stores clear of the prop-rotors.  I wonder, though, why they didn't use a stub wing instead of just an "erector set" rack? (*wink*).

Definitely a cheesy approach to the entire concept with that lazy ladder assembly that AMT-Ertl/ESCI came up with. 

[GTX_Admin]

Random ideas:

• Royal Flying Doctor Service V-22 or AB609
• Fire fighting/water bombing V-22

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Kit bash:

CH-54 Skycrane + V-22 Osprey = Tilt-Rotor Skycrane FTW! 

[GTX_Admin]

 :)

[LemonJello]

Kit bash:

CH-54 Skycrane + V-22 Osprey = Tilt-Rotor Skycrane FTW! 

That is something that I'd like to see!

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Kit bash:

CH-54 Skycrane + V-22 Osprey = Tilt-Rotor Skycrane FTW! 

That is something that I'd like to see!

Me too! 

[elmayerle]

I can see a tilt-rotor skycrane as being a challenging derivative, particularly if you keep the wing stowage provisions.  Without the need for that, several things become easier.