Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2005 5:09:02 PM EDT
Boeing and Bell Helicopter Deliver First Production CV-22 Osprey



ST. LOUIS, September 19, 2005 – The U.S. Air Force has taken delivery of the first production CV-22 Osprey at the Bell Helicopter production facility in Amarillo, Texas.

Produced jointly by Bell Helicopter, a Textron Company [NYSE: TXT] and The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], the CV-22 is the U.S. Air Force Special Operations variant of the V-22 and will be used for long-range special operations missions, contingency operations, and evacuations and maritime operations.

"The CV-22 delivers on its promise," said Bob Kenney, Vice President, Bell Boeing V-22 Joint Program Director. "The combination of vertical lift capability, speed and range provides the special operations warfighter with the aircraft necessary to complete long-range missions."

In addition to the standard communications and navigations suite found on all V-22s, the CV-22 has an advanced electronic warfare suite, a multi-mode radar which permits flight at very low altitude in zero visibility, a retractable aerial refueling probe, four radios and flight engineer seat/crew positions in the cockpit.

The current program calls for the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command to field 50 CV-22s to join the global war on terrorism and other special operations missions. Prior to initial operational capability in 2009, the CV-22 will complete developmental testing at Edwards AFB, Calif., followed by initial operational test and evaluation. Then the aircraft will conduct an operational utility evaluation next year.

VMX-22, the U.S. Marine Corps Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron, recently completed the MV-22 operational test and evaluation, a critical step leading to a full-rate production decision.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:11:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:17:18 PM EDT
maybe it will kill some AF guys guys for a change (heaven forbid)

i refuse to fly, or fly in any aircraft that wants to have a mid-air with itself.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:17:40 PM EDT
I wonder what kind of feeling a person has from "helicopter mode" to "airplane mode"
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:18:32 PM EDT
Some re-assembly required.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:19:01 PM EDT
I thought that project got canned.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:37:35 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:43:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
maybe it will kill some AF guys guys for a change (heaven forbid)

i refuse to fly, or fly in any aircraft that wants to have a mid-air with itself.



This may be of interest to you, maybe not. Note that this is a very long thread, but it has some info directly from men working on the Osprey program for the USMC.

Mega-Osprey thread
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:47:20 PM EDT


You're a few hours late....
Posted :: 9/19/2005 2:01:09 PM PDT

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=391414

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 5:54:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JMR:
I thought that project got canned.




Those aircrafts keep getting canned, but thanks to special interest and Asshats of congress they keep funding them over and over again.

The military doesn't want them. These socalled aicrafts are flying deathtraps.

How many more troops have to be killed in these flying shit cans?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:03:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
maybe it will kill some AF guys guys for a change (heaven forbid)

i refuse to fly, or fly in any aircraft that wants to have a mid-air with itself.



This may be of interest to you, maybe not. Note that this is a very long thread, but it has some info directly from men working on the Osprey program for the USMC.

Mega-Osprey thread


Damm! You sound like the same guys that were around when the Wright Brothers first took flight. Or Bell or Sickorsky helicopter made its first models. Give them a chance, anything that is new and experimental is prone to have a some hiccups and room for improvement. Look at the B26 it was known as the "widowmaker"
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:08:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 6:10:08 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]

Originally Posted By KA3B:
www.vaq34.com/junk/druup.jpg

You're a few hours late....
Posted :: 9/19/2005 2:01:09 PM PDT

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=391414




Well I'll be sumbitch! Lock this sucka down. In my defense however this is from Boeing's website and includes a cool pic!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:18:35 PM EDT
The USAF should over-inflate the Osprey's capabilities so that enemy forces will be force to spend more on equipment, training, and personnel to try to defend against it.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:42:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By JMR:
I thought that project got canned.




Those aircrafts keep getting canned, but thanks to special interest and Asshats of congress they keep funding them over and over again.

The military doesn't want them. These socalled aicrafts are flying deathtraps.

How many more troops have to be killed in these flying shit cans?



So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.

Also a lot fewer than have died taking Afganistan- which we would NOT have had to do if we had had this aircraft. We could do all our Al Qaida hunting from the safety of Tajikistan or the Indian ocean. No need to coddle Pakistan for basing or fly through rights.

There has never been anything wrong with this aircraft. Pilot error, and the stupidity of a Marine Corps Lt Col who ordered riflemen to board a aircraft with a untrained pilot at the stick were behind that one crash.

However, Sikorski has made a lot of propaganda about it... which they have to as in the long run this is going to put them out of buisness.

They USMC has ALWAYS backed this aircraft. And since 2001 when the USAF finally got its head out of its but and realised that air-to-ground and transport missions were going to be their reason for existance they have been itching to get these CV-22's.

It is a blatant LIE to say that the US Military has never wanted this aircraft.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 6:59:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CaptSchofield:
Damm! You sound like the same guys that were around when the Wright Brothers first took flight. Or Bell or Sickorsky helicopter made its first models. Give them a chance, anything that is new and experimental is prone to have a some hiccups and room for improvement. Look at the B26 it was known as the "widowmaker"



Yeah, but the B26 was just an advance in technology and aerodynamics that took a bit of pilot reprogramming to fly safely. The Osprey is a mistake all the way round. Boeing proposed many years ago an upgraded 46 that would have done all the 22 can do, and been a whole lot cheaper.

It's freakin huge and loud, and makes a great target. I snooped around a serviceable one in a hangar at Yuma and the burned remains of another. The PR blather of the people who build it (and sell it) is not reasuring.

Dead is the only way I'd get on one.

I've heard squadron dudes refer to 46's as "Boeing Body Bags", and that's after 50 years of service.
My bet is the '22 earns that name in short order. The first real fight it's in will be a mess if the enemy is anything more than some chump with a bling AK and an RPG.

matthew

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:05:43 PM EDT
SAM magnet.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:13:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By JMR:
I thought that project got canned.




Those aircrafts keep getting canned, but thanks to special interest and Asshats of congress they keep funding them over and over again.

The military doesn't want them. These socalled aicrafts are flying deathtraps.

How many more troops have to be killed in these flying shit cans?



So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.

Also a lot fewer than have died taking Afganistan- which we would NOT have had to do if we had had this aircraft. We could do all our Al Qaida hunting from the safety of Tajikistan or the Indian ocean. No need to coddle Pakistan for basing or fly through rights.

There has never been anything wrong with this aircraft. Pilot error, and the stupidity of a Marine Corps Lt Col who ordered riflemen to board a aircraft with a untrained pilot at the stick were behind that one crash.

However, Sikorski has made a lot of propaganda about it... which they have to as in the long run this is going to put them out of buisness.

They USMC has ALWAYS backed this aircraft. And since 2001 when the USAF finally got its head out of its but and realised that air-to-ground and transport missions were going to be their reason for existance they have been itching to get these CV-22's.

It is a blatant LIE to say that the US Military has never wanted this aircraft.



Since its conception in the 1950's its been a flying brick. Its not design to stay up to long without having a major failure with the tiltrotors.



The Transcendental Aircraft Company was the first to successfully complete a tiltrotor vehicle. They named it the Model 1G. The Transcendental Aircraft Company was comprised of former engineers from the Piasecki Aircraft corporation. It made it's first flight on July 6 1954. It was the first aircraft to show signs of dynamic stability issues. These problems were later found to be inherent to the tiltrotor design. It was lost in an accident on July 20, 1955. The program was finally cut in 1956. The military decided to put more funding into the newer Bell XV-3.



Like I said. They keep throwing money at it. Its standard operating proceedure to blame the crews after the crash.. When you have 55 years with the same bull shit failures of every model of tilt rotors. Its time to give it up, and stop putting our good soldiers in these death traps.

It's pretty bad when you have to start a memorial funds for the victims of the Ospreys.

Link

What about the families of those killed in these flying trash cans filing lawsuits against both the manufactures and the government. They deserve the truth and the pilot and crewmembers names cleared.

The truth hurts. Its obvious you can't handle it.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:18:25 PM EDT
I wonder if they are working on a gunship version, that would be underbar.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:20:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By CaptSchofield:
Damm! You sound like the same guys that were around when the Wright Brothers first took flight. Or Bell or Sickorsky helicopter made its first models. Give them a chance, anything that is new and experimental is prone to have a some hiccups and room for improvement. Look at the B26 it was known as the "widowmaker"



Yeah, but the B26 was just an advance in technology and aerodynamics that took a bit of pilot reprogramming to fly safely. The Osprey is a mistake all the way round. Boeing proposed many years ago an upgraded 46 that would have done all the 22 can do, and been a whole lot cheaper.

It's freakin huge and loud, and makes a great target. I snooped around a serviceable one in a hangar at Yuma and the burned remains of another. The PR blather of the people who build it (and sell it) is not reasuring.

Dead is the only way I'd get on one.

I've heard squadron dudes refer to 46's as "Boeing Body Bags", and that's after 50 years of service.
My bet is the '22 earns that name in short order. The first real fight it's in will be a mess if the enemy is anything more than some chump with a bling AK and an RPG.

matthew




That is a crock of shit.

There is no evidence to support the assertion that there is anything wrong with the tilt rotor. It has strange handling- the first pilots to try to convert to helicopters from fixed wing had the same problems with their "strange" handling when they were introduced.

It is the only craft that can fly 500+ miles to land and recover ground troops without a airfield and do so in a single night.

You cannot argue that that is a capability that we do not need. Just look at the difficulties we have had in getting into and out of places like Afganistan, or Northern Iraq during the invasion.

It is quite the perfect tool for hunting terrorists. And that should not be a surprise because when it was conceved- back in Reagans 1st Term- it was built around the requirements needed to successfuly complete the failed Tehran Hostage Rescue Mission. That mission failed because no helicopter could reach Tehran in a single period of darkness- and still today neither a Super Stallion or a Chinook with all the improvments we have spent can make that flight.

Unfortunately Dick Cheney somehow came to the decision at the end of Gulf War I that we would never need to make such a insertion flight ever again- that somehow terrorists would always choose to take hostages or set up bases within easy Blackhawk flight of a willing frendly country or the ocean

It never seems to of occured to him that they would look at our capabilities and move to a place like Afganistan or the north of Pakistan. Which is exactly what Al Qaida did in the 90's when they found we were on to them and moved from Yemen- in range of USMC helicopters- to Afganistan. Where they could only be reached if Pakistan or Russia were willing to play through and then would require a massive invasion to secure the needed airfields...

If the tilt rotor was not already out there we would right now be spending billions to find something to do the same job right now...
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:20:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
I wonder if they are working on a gunship version, that would be underbar.

There are plans for a gunship version, last I heard.
The Osprey will be a real asset in our inventory.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:22:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JMR:

I thought that project got canned.



You are probably thinking about the COMMANCHE
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:24:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
I wonder if they are working on a gunship version, that would be underbar.

There are plans for a gunship version, last I heard.
The Osprey will be a real asset in our inventory.


Yeah, it will be cool when we have an escort that can keep up with the Osprey.
matthew
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:25:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 7:28:20 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
I wonder if they are working on a gunship version, that would be underbar.

There are plans for a gunship version, last I heard.
The Osprey will be a real asset in our inventory.



They also want to try and build a 4 rotor to handle Stallion sized payloads.

The gunship that they are looking at is based on the littler commercial Augusta-Bell 609- which is the 9 passenger civil version, roughly the size of the XV-15 technology demonstrator.

The thing is they have so much tied up in both capital and physical plant in the bottled up V-22 production run that they just cant physically DO anything more untill they deliver the Ospreys and get paid for them.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:40:07 PM EDT


It has strange handling- the first pilots to try to convert to helicopters from fixed wing had the same problems with their "strange" handling when they were introduced.



Never said a word about handling qualities of the AC. The whole program and the machine itself is fucked. I was at HQMC long enough to get cynical about the whole procurement system, and the V22 is a stellar example of the defense industry deciding with the help of a few soon-to-be-retired GO's we needed one. Like I said, Jane's or Rotory Wing(?) magazine showcased in the early 90's a 46-based solution to the "need" the V22 is supposed to fill, except it would be cheaper, an evolutionary leap in technology vs. revolutionary and any 46'er would need about 30 minutes of training to feel comfortable.

You want a fancy new AC like that? Cool. Just don't use Marines to do your live-fire testing.
matthew
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:40:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 7:50:12 PM EDT by Win_88]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They also want to try and build a 4 rotor to handle Stallion sized payloads.




Been there.. Done that..






In the early ‘60’s the U.S. Navy announced that they were looking to develop a V/STOL transportation aircraft for the primary purpose of research. With the success of the XV-3, Bell Helicopter now set its sites on creating just such an aircraft. In November 1962 Bell Helicopter of Niagara Falls, NY won yet another contract to build the experimental aircraft. Bell used a unique duct fan design to achieve the conversion from aircraft to helicopter mode. Each of the aircraft’s four engines put out 1250 horse power for a total of 5000 horse power.

The first X-22, tail number 1520, was completed on May 25, 1965 and successfully completed its first hover on March 17, 1966. After numerous flights the X-22 suffered a hydraulic component failure and crashed just a few miles from Niagara Falls Airport. The pilots were okay but the airframe was severely damaged.

The aircraft was thoroughly investigated and the needed corrections were made. The second X-22, tail number 1521, made its first flight on January 26, 1967. It spent the next 4 years in constant testing by all three branches of the US military. With the military satisfied with the testing the X-22 was given to Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory for further testing. They spent 10 years testing the various aspects of the V/STOL concept. The X-22’s last flight was in October 1984.






They keep proving my point. Their using good tax dollars for a flying disaster. Hers more info..
Remember. Its was a Democrat controlled houses that overided a Presidential Veto( Bush 1).

Link
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:57:53 PM EDT
Actually the Sea Knight is a very good helo.
It's just worn out.
The Marines really beat the shit out of their H-46's by doing fast zoom approachs, flairing at the last second and using the rotors as giant speed brakes.
120 knots to almost vertical to an almost dead stop to falling out of the sky and slamming on the deck takes its toll after 20 or so years.

The Navy H-46's were beat to shit because of the load slinging for VERTREPS.
Wait till the Navy H-60's get a few years on them.

I agree with you 100%, we need the Osprey and we needed it two years ago.




Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:04:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They also want to try and build a 4 rotor to handle Stallion sized payloads.




Been there.. Done that..

photobucket.com/albums/y22/TractorDre/x-22.gif




In the early ‘60’s the U.S. Navy announced that they were looking to develop a V/STOL transportation aircraft for the primary purpose of research. With the success of the XV-3, Bell Helicopter now set its sites on creating just such an aircraft. In November 1962 Bell Helicopter of Niagara Falls, NY won yet another contract to build the experimental aircraft. Bell used a unique duct fan design to achieve the conversion from aircraft to helicopter mode. Each of the aircraft’s four engines put out 1250 horse power for a total of 5000 horse power.

The first X-22, tail number 1520, was completed on May 25, 1965 and successfully completed its first hover on March 17, 1966. After numerous flights the X-22 suffered a hydraulic component failure and crashed just a few miles from Niagara Falls Airport. The pilots were okay but the airframe was severely damaged.

The aircraft was thoroughly investigated and the needed corrections were made. The second X-22, tail number 1521, made its first flight on January 26, 1967. It spent the next 4 years in constant testing by all three branches of the US military. With the military satisfied with the testing the X-22 was given to Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory for further testing. They spent 10 years testing the various aspects of the V/STOL concept. The X-22’s last flight was in October 1984.






They keep proving my point. Their using good tax dollars for a flying disaster. Hers more info..
Remember. Its was a Democrat controlled houses that overided a Presidential Veto( Bush 1).

Link



Actually that does not prove your point. The X-22 flew for 14 years without a non-human induced misshap.

Untill they actually started gearing up for the V-22 production all the tilt rotor experiments were considered highly successful.


Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:07:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They also want to try and build a 4 rotor to handle Stallion sized payloads.




Been there.. Done that..

photobucket.com/albums/y22/TractorDre/x-22.gif




In the early ‘60’s the U.S. Navy announced that they were looking to develop a V/STOL transportation aircraft for the primary purpose of research. With the success of the XV-3, Bell Helicopter now set its sites on creating just such an aircraft. In November 1962 Bell Helicopter of Niagara Falls, NY won yet another contract to build the experimental aircraft. Bell used a unique duct fan design to achieve the conversion from aircraft to helicopter mode. Each of the aircraft’s four engines put out 1250 horse power for a total of 5000 horse power.

The first X-22, tail number 1520, was completed on May 25, 1965 and successfully completed its first hover on March 17, 1966. After numerous flights the X-22 suffered a hydraulic component failure and crashed just a few miles from Niagara Falls Airport. The pilots were okay but the airframe was severely damaged.

The aircraft was thoroughly investigated and the needed corrections were made. The second X-22, tail number 1521, made its first flight on January 26, 1967. It spent the next 4 years in constant testing by all three branches of the US military. With the military satisfied with the testing the X-22 was given to Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory for further testing. They spent 10 years testing the various aspects of the V/STOL concept. The X-22’s last flight was in October 1984.






They keep proving my point. Their using good tax dollars for a flying disaster. Hers more info..
Remember. Its was a Democrat controlled houses that overided a Presidential Veto( Bush 1).

Link



Right, so they tested a version 40 years ags that looked similar. Lets can it! No advance in technology here!

For that matter, lets can NASA's CRV. After all, we had Apollo capsules 40 years ago that looked just like it!

I'd love to fly the sucker; my only complaint is that it's as yet unarmed. I'm hoping that they get the gunship version in service before I have to select platforms.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:11:35 PM EDT
I wonder if you can autorotate in one of those badboys in the event of an engine failure.....
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:14:33 PM EDT
You can either deadstick it in airplane mode (although you are going to wipe out the props) or else auto-rotate it at a very high rate of speed....

However, it would take a dual engine failure to be put into an auto-rotate situation.


Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
I wonder if you can autorotate in one of those badboys in the event of an engine failure.....

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:16:18 PM EDT
I seriously doubt there's enough wing surface to get much control or lift in the event of engine failure... the wings are there to hold the rotors out away from the fuselage! hehehe
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:19:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.



I'm not sure you can compare an aircraft that has been in-service for 40-some years to one that has yet to enter service, and there are a lot of crewmen who would argue with you about "crappy".
The V22 has an impressive body count so far, though. To bad they are all ours.
matthew
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:21:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
I seriously doubt there's enough wing surface to get much control or lift in the event of engine failure... the wings are there to hold the rotors out away from the fuselage! hehehe



The Osprey actually has quite a decent bit of wing for a aircraft its size. And that wing is also rather wide.

What they thought the old XV-22 would do I don't know, even though it was a biplane, those were some SERIOUSLY short wings.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:23:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.



I'm not sure you can compare an aircraft that has been in-service for 40-some years to one that has yet to enter service, and there are a lot of crewmen who would argue with you about "crappy".
The V22 has an impressive body count so far, though. To bad they are all ours.
matthew



The V22 has killed no one, the USMC has killed 23 men.

Get your facts streight.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 8:28:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 8:30:47 PM EDT by Tromatic]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.



I'm not sure you can compare an aircraft that has been in-service for 40-some years to one that has yet to enter service, and there are a lot of crewmen who would argue with you about "crappy".
The V22 has an impressive body count so far, though. To bad they are all ours.
matthew



The V22 has killed no one, the USMC has killed 23 men.

Get your facts streight.



Huh? So the V22 was ordered to crash? A V22 flew overhead and droped several tons of metal, carbon fiber and roasted Jarhead? Help me here. Do you work for Boeing?
matthew
ETA: ArmdLbrl, I think I missed the sarcasm part!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:00:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 9:01:32 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
I wonder if they are working on a gunship version, that would be underbar.



Looky here.....
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:22:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 9:43:08 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.



I'm not sure you can compare an aircraft that has been in-service for 40-some years to one that has yet to enter service, and there are a lot of crewmen who would argue with you about "crappy".
The V22 has an impressive body count so far, though. To bad they are all ours.
matthew



The V22 has killed no one, the USMC has killed 23 men.

Get your facts streight.



Huh? So the V22 was ordered to crash? A V22 flew overhead and droped several tons of metal, carbon fiber and roasted Jarhead? Help me here. Do you work for Boeing?
matthew
ETA: ArmdLbrl, I think I missed the sarcasm part!



USMC officers ordered 19 enlisted men into a aircraft, whose pilot they then ordered to attempt a simulated night assault landing, when he did not have enough hours in the plane to attempt such a manuver. All because they were trying to look for a short cut to get the aircraft to the fleet. It was the orders of those USMC officers that caused the crash. They orderd the pilot to do something he was not qualified to do and then added 19 more lives to the burden.

What they were trying to do was create a scenerio that would allow them to declare that the small fleet of test and training Ospreys and their test/instructor pilots were operationaly capable in a emergency. They were looking for a way to deploy some Ospreys early and get them into a real world situation- at the expense of safety- to get a 'slam dunk' case that would end all Congressional debate on the subject.

Had they NOT had the crash- had they won their gamble- they could of then waited untill the next emergency situation, like the non-com evacuation of Liberia the next year, to rush out a couple Ospreys USE them operationally and then take the video and go before Congress and say "see it works" at which point all debate would of ended and the project would be secure.

They gambled, with their mens lives at stake, and lost.

The oppositon, led by Sikorski, wants to prove that the tilt rotor concept itself and not just the Osprey, is fundamentally flawed.

If they dont, there will be no medium-helicoptor segment, it will be gone. There are very very few roles for which something like a Blackhawk is more suited to fill than a Osprey. Sikorski does not have a small helicopter like the Jet Ranger or the MD5XX series to fall back on- and its unlikely a tilt rotor can be made that small to replace them, plus there is no real need for something that small to go 300mph. Once the "concerns" about the tilt rotor are cleared Sikorski is out of business.

Lockheed is also probably helping them, since if the Osprey is cleared than a 4 rotor tilt rotor becomes possible and then there will finally be something that can beat the Hercules. Because Lockheed is now out of the airliner buisness, and the fighter market (even though they have both the F-22 and F-35 contracts locked up) is going to be limited THEY also are threatened by a success by Boeing.


Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:39:43 PM EDT
My uncle is at Edwards as a senior (boeing) avionics guy on the Osprey. According to him it's one hell of an aircraft regardless of the media about it. It seems to have growing pains but hopefully the safety record will improve.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:55:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 9:58:39 PM EDT by DvlDog]
Armdlbrl...

As a civilian contractor i was involved with V-22 for 2 years, as a test pilot @ Pax River my father worked on it for 8 years. i probably have more first hand osprey experience than anyone in this thread and i have posted about it at length in the past. my facts are straight, so stick it up your ass.

since your such a cheerleader for the osprey why dont you share some of your first hand experiences with it. can you set us straight or are you just talking out your ass and regurgitating what you read on the internet.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 9:59:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
Armdlbrl...

As a civilian contractor i was involved with V-22 for 2 years, as a test pilot @ Pax River my father worked on it for 8 years. i probably have more first hand osprey experience than anyone in this thread and i have posted about it at length in the past. my facts are straight, so stick it up your ass.



Then if thats true you are a first.

Everyone else I have ever communicated with who has actual experience with the type think its a fundimentally sound craft.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:04:56 PM EDT
I lived in Yuma and worked out at the MCAS gym when that one crashed outside of Tucson. Several of those guys worked out at the gym. None of them liked the things. One of the guys I remember was a radio operator. He was among those killed. I lived and still own a house in the direct flight path of MCAS, across from the Wal-Mart. I remember seeing the Ospreys fly over. They were incredibly loud.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:30:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 10:33:45 PM EDT by Fly-Navy]
Why does the ignorant, un-updated "flying deathtrap" crowd always have to come out of the woodwork on this topic? You might want to re-research the Osprey. The problems have been fixed.

I know an Osprey pilot. He loves it. He came from -46s.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:37:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
I lived in Yuma and worked out at the MCAS gym when that one crashed outside of Tucson. Several of those guys worked out at the gym. None of them liked the things. One of the guys I remember was a radio operator. He was among those killed. I lived and still own a house in the direct flight path of MCAS, across from the Wal-Mart. I remember seeing the Ospreys fly over. They were incredibly loud.



He had good reason to not like them. He was being used as a human guinae pig in tests in a uncertified machine flown by inexperienced people. Why should he enjoy that?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 10:46:25 PM EDT
I remember sitting in Amarillo with my uncle right outside his house just before I left for Basic and watching the Osprey's flit about. Seriously one amazing aircraft. From full steam ahead to a fullstop in no time flat.

I bet this will revolutionize air assault.

John
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:43:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 9:44:07 AM EDT by DvlDog]
it WILL revolutionize airmobility and "vertical envelopment" if its truly ready for primetime. and it should be, theyve been working on this damn thing for almost 2 decades now. it WAS a sound aircraft for years to most of the pilots who have flown her because they never attempted a transition.

it seemed like a slam dunk, to capitalize on the successes of the XV-15 to revolutionize vertical envelopment, and extend over the beach reach in littoral warfare. what F'd everything up was the requirements for folding wings and the ability to operate with 1 engine. as i am told it was these two demandes together. in the early 90s Bell went to the Govt and said "we can fold the wings, or we can have single engine capability" but the quest to have both safely added 10yrs to the whole thing.

now this is all a very simplified "executive summary" but thats about the jist of it.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:19:31 AM EDT
The initial plans on the MV-22 had a belly turret with a three barrel 12.7mm gatling gun for defensive armament. I forget the number of rounds it stored, but it was to be aimed primarily by the pilots. I don't know if crew chiefs could aim looking out the doors. It reduced troop capacity by 2 or 3 I thing since its ammo drum was in the cargo bay. It would have looked exactly like the curret MV-22 with a small clean turret and three gun barrels. Very streamlined approach.

I heard some thoughts that the AFSOC CV-22 might have carried it given their mission, guess not.

I don't see why you couldn't move the ammo storage to an enlarge sponson design. Just have one long chute the length of the a/c instead of a big floor to cabin roof design.

The MV-22 has not killed anyone. Fly ANY aircraft outside approved limits and it will crash. Thats the point of having limits! Troops should not have been used while the a/c was under testing; those same tests where you try and find out what the flight envelope limits are.

The MV-22 flies how it was designed. If you don't like how the requirements (like lack of speedy decents) Boeing has into the machine take it up with the Marine Corp, not the manufacturer.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:06:12 PM EDT
People really need to take this thing into the contex of what it is. It's a new categorey of aircraft. In fact you need a "Powered Lift" FAA rating to fly the civie version. Not Helicopter, not Fixed Wing. It's a new type of aircraft in all reality.

You should think of it more as like the H-21, or the even the H-34. Underpowered, maintenance intensive, hard to fly aircraft, that had low performance. Those also had a capability that didn't exist, and those helicopters blazed the trail for vertical envelopment.

The V-22 is not the last, perfect version of the tilt-rotor. For all purposes, it's the first production one. Think about just how capable the first production helicopter was, or for that matter the first production airplane.

I feel the program could have gone alot better in the way it was managed, and it's timelyness. Alot of it's languishing for ten years was due to it being suspended in limbo for nearly half that time. Much of the problems can only be blamed on the progam managers and the politics involved.

Nearly all aircraft manage to kill people early in the program when you're pushing technology. The Blackhawk was pretty bad for it, and it's the military's back bone now. As far as complexity, etc. even the first UH-1 Hueys suffered from previously unkown ailments and some even said that a helicopter that had a turbine engine and hydraulics was too complex to ever make work. The Huey killed it's share of folks early on with things like cyclic hardovers, and lockups. Back then, no one even knew why it was happening either. Yet mention a Huey now, and everyone says how simple, reliable and safe they are.

The V-22 is simply evolution in action. A screwed up program to be sure, but in the end it's blazing a trail that more capable aircraft will follow.


Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:22:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
it WILL revolutionize airmobility and "vertical envelopment" if its truly ready for primetime.

Definitely! I just hope they don't put too much crap in it that will distract the pilots. Think about a AC-130 escort for an assault force with Osprey's. Faster than helicopters, greater range, more troops, more firepower.

So, who wants to be the ramp gunner on an Osprey? If Blackwater ever gets their hands on one, the naysayers will think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:24:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:25:40 PM EDT by SSeric02]
Phrog apologist




Originally Posted By KA3B:
Actually the Sea Knight is a very good helo.
It's just worn out.
The Marines really beat the shit out of their H-46's by doing fast zoom approachs, flairing at the last second and using the rotors as giant speed brakes.
120 knots to almost vertical to an almost dead stop to falling out of the sky and slamming on the deck takes its toll after 20 or so years.

The Navy H-46's were beat to shit because of the load slinging for VERTREPS.
Wait till the Navy H-60's get a few years on them.

I agree with you 100%, we need the Osprey and we needed it two years ago.




Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far a lot fewer than have died in the crappy Sea Knights.




Is it just me, or has the Air Force CV-22 program been very low-key compared to the Marine program? I knew the AF had an Osprey program, but had no idea they were this far along.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:34:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 4:26:51 PM EDT by KlubMarcus]

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
The initial plans on the MV-22 had a belly turret with a three barrel 12.7mm gatling gun for defensive armament. I forget the number of rounds it stored, but it was to be aimed primarily by the pilots. I don't know if crew chiefs could aim looking out the doors. It reduced troop capacity by 2 or 3 I thing since its ammo drum was in the cargo bay. It would have looked exactly like the curret MV-22 with a small clean turret and three gun barrels. Very streamlined approach.

The OV-10 Bronco had a gunship version back in Vietnam. It was very effective relative to the turret technology, sensors, and tactics back then. Here's a pic of that counter-insurgency aircraft in Marine trim.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:41:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 2:42:25 PM EDT by gunman0]
OK, I have a question about the osprey.

How well does it maneuver in helicopter mode? Every video I've seen shows that it's basically an airplane with VTOL capability. If RPG's are consistantly causing helicopters to be downed, and helicopters can suddenly accelerate from a stop in any direction much faster if RPG/terrorist is spotted, what are these things being parked in the sky while going to do?

I am worried about how it will fair in combat, as well as its problematic testing record. Remember there have been plenty of great new concepts put into service over the years that have failed, sometimes costing many lives.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top