Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/28/2006 11:47:46 AM EDT
Aside from being twice as fast as helicopters, is there any survivability advantage in the V22?

Since its been demonstrated that hovering, rotor supported aircraft, which the V-22 becomes when deploying troops, are vulnerable even to unguided munitions such as RPG's and heavy machine gun fire, are there any survivability enhancments that would allow this beast to survive?

Can it fly with one engine? What happens if it's hovering and one engine is damaged/stopped? It seems to me likely that it would crash as fast as shit.

In the face of shoulder fired or more advanced SAM battery fire, is their any hope for this plane? I know we need to get troops quickly to and from the battlefield, but I can't imagine anything less safe than a V-22 Osprey.

Finally, would you rather get in one of these or a good old black hawk for forward deployment?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:10:48 PM EDT
Well, if one rotor stops on a CH-53 or a CH-46, the aircraft is going down as well, so I don't see the V-22 being any more of a liability in that case. If the rotors stop mid-cruise, theoretically the pilot could dead-stick/glide the aircraft in to a controlled crash, instead of autogyroing a regular chopper which is a sort of semi-controlled crash. I don't know if it can fly conventionally on one rotor.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:22:01 PM EDT
Yes.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:27:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Yes.



A simple answer would have sufficed
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:34:36 PM EDT
To answer one of your questions: The CV-22's engines are cross linked, so if one takes a dump (or gets hit, ect) the other engine keeps the rotors spinning. All bets are off if the rotors are dammaged. As far as I know the CV-22 can not fly with only one set of rotors turning.

Personally, I dont think the gains outweigh the risks for the CV-22 vs conventional helicopters. Yes it is faster, but it can't autorotate and violates the "keep it simple stupid" principle.

I could be proven wrong, but we'll see.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:34:59 PM EDT
V-22= Jack of all trades, master of none.

I'm sooOOOOooooo glad it Withdrew from the CSAR-X (PRV) program. Come on HH-47! There's no way I'll ride in one of those things. I'll go back to loading bombs before I'm a crew member on an Osprey.

~Dg84
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:42:50 PM EDT
I am a licensed A&P, Skydiver and all around thrill seeker... I don't think I'd be getting on one of them things 'tall!
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:57:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RED_5:
I am a licensed A&P, Skydiver and all around thrill seeker... I don't think I'd be getting on one of them things 'tall!



x2.

done some stupid shit in my time, but I wouldn't get in one of those things no matter how much you paid me.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 4:58:12 PM EDT
Thanks for the replies. My inspiration to post this was the hoopla that followed the published advertisment from boeing that showed a V-22 dropping troops onto a mosque of all things!

The caption was something like 'it descends from the heavens, ironically, it unleashes hell'

I remember thinking that any intelligent enemy could probably find 10 different ways to knock that overly complex slow ass high flying weird thing from the sky. It seems to me less of a practical solution to battlefield needs than a high profile boondoggle/pork project.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:06:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 5:28:11 PM EDT by Planerench]
I have been following VTOL including tilt rotors since the XV-15 (Textron's 1970s concept). The Osprey is a first of it's kind to get to production. There has to be a first of kind in this configuration and it will have problems. I am not a fan of this aircraft but must support it to develop the configuration. I am of the opinion that it would be easier to send the space shuttle into combat than the CV-22. I pray I am mistaken.

I have personally designed a tilt rotor and run my design by helicopter pilots and engineers and have simplified many aspects of the configuration but have not built a model yet (and may never). I do speculate that the failures of the CV-22 will most likely be hydraulic in nature. Just a hunch.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:11:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:
To answer one of your questions: The CV-22's engines are cross linked, so if one takes a dump (or gets hit, ect) the other engine keeps the rotors spinning. All bets are off if the rotors are dammaged. As far as I know the CV-22 can not fly with only one set of rotors turning.

Personally, I dont think the gains outweigh the risks for the CV-22 vs conventional helicopters. Yes it is faster, but it can't autorotate and violates the "keep it simple stupid" principle.

I could be proven wrong, but we'll see.



The system that interconnects the engines makes the income tax code look straight-forward by comparison. Any damage to a nacelle sufficient to take out an engine WILL cripple the rotor.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:12:28 PM EDT
We won't have too long to wait to see now will we....

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:15:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:
There has to be a first of kind in this configuration and it will have problems. I am not a fan of this aircraft but must support it to develop the configuration. I am of the opinion that it would be easier to send the space shuttle into combat than the CV-22. I pray I am mistaken.

.



Why does there have to be a first of the kind in this configuration? I totally agree with you that it doesn't appear suitable for combat, lacking survivability, simplicity, etc. You appear to support the general concept, though.

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:18:56 PM EDT
geez these things fly around Lejeune all the time, just becuase some crashed in inital testing everyone hates them. I personally would much rather fly in one than the 30 year old 53s and 46s that we were flying around in in Iraq.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:20:16 PM EDT
Can it land on a runway like a plane if it is in forward flight mode when it loses an engine? That would definitely help survivability, at least if it took ground fire while cruising to or from the LZ...

Most conventional multi-engine planes can be landed relatively drama-free with a dead engine after all. Perhaps they could feather the props before touchdown and somehow orient them horizontally so they don't hit the runway on landing...
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:21:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
My inspiration to post this was the hoopla that followed the published advertisment from boeing that showed a V-22 dropping troops onto a mosque of all things!



And as we all know, the enemy never deploys from mosques.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:37:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
There has to be a first of kind in this configuration and it will have problems. I am not a fan of this aircraft but must support it to develop the configuration. I am of the opinion that it would be easier to send the space shuttle into combat than the CV-22. I pray I am mistaken.

.



Why does there have to be a first of the kind in this configuration? I totally agree with you that it doesn't appear suitable for combat, lacking survivability, simplicity, etc. You appear to support the general concept, though.




I edited my post to read that it is the first of the configuration to make it to production. "They" will learn about its faults and the following examples in the configuration will be simpler and more rugged.

I favor a heavy lift gyrodyne concept like the Fairley of the 1950s for a faster replacement for the Stallion and Chinook and a simplified version of the Osprey for special operations.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:41:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
Can it land on a runway like a plane if it is in forward flight mode when it loses an engine? That would definitely help survivability, at least if it took ground fire while cruising to or from the LZ...

Most conventional multi-engine planes can be landed relatively drama-free with a dead engine after all. Perhaps they could feather the props before touchdown and somehow orient them horizontally so they don't hit the runway on landing...



The nacelle angle can be set to an intermediate angle for conventional landings in an emergency.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:48:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
Can it land on a runway like a plane if it is in forward flight mode when it loses an engine? That would definitely help survivability, at least if it took ground fire while cruising to or from the LZ...

Most conventional multi-engine planes can be landed relatively drama-free with a dead engine after all. Perhaps they could feather the props before touchdown and somehow orient them horizontally so they don't hit the runway on landing...



I think the short answer there is no. The wing alone doesn't provide enough lift to land like an airplane. It would have to land ridiculously fast. Maybe somewhere in the conversion stage, with the nacelles between horizontal and vertical would be possible, but I'm not sure.


As for tilt-rotors in general, I think they're here to stay. The first umanned VTOL aircraft certified by the FAA- also a Bell product, the TR918 -made its first flight on Thursday, and it's a tilt-rotor as well. I've never seen a more stable hover in my life. I would not hesitate at all to get on a tilt-rotor. Strangely, I've seen V-22s fly and never thought anything was strange about it, but I saw a couple Chinooks last week and couldn't help but wonder how the hell that thing got into the air.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:52:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
Can it land on a runway like a plane if it is in forward flight mode when it loses an engine? That would definitely help survivability, at least if it took ground fire while cruising to or from the LZ...

Most conventional multi-engine planes can be landed relatively drama-free with a dead engine after all. Perhaps they could feather the props before touchdown and somehow orient them horizontally so they don't hit the runway on landing...



I think the short answer there is no. The wing alone doesn't provide enough lift to land like an airplane. It would have to land ridiculously fast. Maybe somewhere in the conversion stage, with the nacelles between horizontal and vertical would be possible, but I'm not sure.


As for tilt-rotors in general, I think they're here to stay. The first umanned VTOL aircraft certified by the FAA- also a Bell product, the TR918 -made its first flight on Thursday, and it's a tilt-rotor as well. I've never seen a more stable hover in my life. I would not hesitate at all to get on a tilt-rotor. Strangely, I've seen V-22s fly and never thought anything was strange about it, but I saw a couple Chinooks last week and couldn't help but wonder how the hell that thing got into the air.



The disk loading has a lot do do with the stability along with the aircraft being supported by two rotors (makes the craft less squirley than a conventional single rotor).
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:52:39 PM EDT
Best to order a shitload of UH-2's.

I will be thst that the Osprey will come to the budget ake after a couple of "mishaps."

CMOS
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:07:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
geez these things fly around Lejeune all the time, just becuase some crashed in inital testing everyone hates them. I personally would much rather fly in one than the 30 year old 53s and 46s that we were flying around in in Iraq.



I'm not in the service as you are, but I'd rather fly in brand new modern helicopters than in the V-22 or the above.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 6:09:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 6:10:43 PM EDT by CFII]
I would.

Good ol' blackhawk is an oxymoron. Adding good ol' in front of just about every helicopter, except the UH1, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this is just the opinion of a fixed wing intructor pilot
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:17:51 PM EDT
It doesn't say Sikorsky any where on it, So I would pass on the ride


I have some great memories of the Sea Stallion myself
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:00:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
I would.

Good ol' blackhawk is an oxymoron. Adding good ol' in front of just about every helicopter, except the UH1, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this is just the opinion of a fixed wing intructor pilot



Funny, all you fixed wing guys shit all over us Helo guys until your ass is in the breaze and you need picked up.

~Dg84
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:04:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:

Originally Posted By CFII:
I would.

Good ol' blackhawk is an oxymoron. Adding good ol' in front of just about every helicopter, except the UH1, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this is just the opinion of a fixed wing intructor pilot



Funny, all you fixed wing guys shit all over us Helo guys until your ass is in the breaze and you need picked up.

~Dg84



We are just sore about being semi-qualified pilots. (stolen from a good friend and lifetime helo pilot)
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:06:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:

Originally Posted By CFII:
I would.

Good ol' blackhawk is an oxymoron. Adding good ol' in front of just about every helicopter, except the UH1, is an oxymoron.

Of course, this is just the opinion of a fixed wing intructor pilot



Funny, all you fixed wing guys shit all over us Helo guys until your ass is in the breaze and you need picked up.

~Dg84



Pretty much. However, my chosen line of flying so far has left me without the need for a evac on a chopper
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:13:25 PM EDT
Most of the V22 detractors weren't even stains on the bedsheets when the UH60 was suffering the same problems.

What problems? How about the stabiliator programming? When pilots flew into RF interference, the stabilator computer shit the bed and programmed the surface into a full pitch-down configuration. Bad juju and the MTPs bought the farm.

How about the blue blades incidents? They didn't know what the hell happened until an eye witness saw the blades depart the hub. Again, pilots bought the farm.

Anytime you go rotary, you will have troubles. The V22 just needs time to work the bugs out.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:20:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Most of the V22 detractors weren't even stains on the bedsheets when the UH60 was suffering the same problems.

What problems? How about the stabiliator programming? When pilots flew into RF interference, the stabilator computer shit the bed and programmed the surface into a full pitch-down configuration. Bad juju and the MTPs bought the farm.

How about the blue blades incidents? They didn't know what the hell happened until an eye witness saw the blades depart the hub. Again, pilots bought the farm.

Anytime you go rotary, you will have troubles. The V22 just needs time to work the bugs out.



I think there are just too many complexities for the CV-22 to be able to "work it out". It may become a reliable transport craft or perhaps a patrol vehicle, but until I see otherwise, I'd be REALLY leery about taking it anywhere described as "hot"
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:22:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:29:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Most of the V22 detractors weren't even stains on the bedsheets when the UH60 was suffering the same problems.

What problems? How about the stabiliator programming? When pilots flew into RF interference, the stabilator computer shit the bed and programmed the surface into a full pitch-down configuration. Bad juju and the MTPs bought the farm.

How about the blue blades incidents? They didn't know what the hell happened until an eye witness saw the blades depart the hub. Again, pilots bought the farm.

Anytime you go rotary, you will have troubles. The V22 just needs time to work the bugs out.



I think there are just too many complexities for the CV-22 to be able to "work it out". It may become a reliable transport craft or perhaps a patrol vehicle, but until I see otherwise, I'd be REALLY leery about taking it anywhere described as "hot"



Ever compare a UH 1 to a UH 60? Would you believe the original UH 1 was designed as a VFR bird? Now think about running a slug under NVGs in black out mode...

The V-22 has been rushed into service with added media coverage. Had the UH 60 been under the same media hype, we would just now be fielding the Blackhawk.

There were far more people killed in the UH 60 development program than the V 22.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:29:07 PM EDT
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:31:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:31:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Because we all know that PLAYING on a flight simulator GAME is just like operating the real aircraft.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:41:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 9:50:58 PM EDT by Lord_Grey_Boots]
When was the last V-22 crash? 5 years ago?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:47:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?



O dont worry, the 336 and 337 have killed people taking off when they didnt know the rear engine wasnt making power....Ya cant see it, and you cant trust gauges..

Always start your takeoff roll with the rear engine. Just to make sure its still attached
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:49:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?



O dont worry, the 336 and 337 have killed people taking off when they didnt know the rear engine wasnt making power....Ya cant see it, and you cant trust gauges..

Always start your takeoff roll with the rear engine. Just to make sure its still attached



Hey, don't knock my baby! (love/hate relationship with a P337).
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:51:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?



O dont worry, the 336 and 337 have killed people taking off when they didnt know the rear engine wasnt making power....Ya cant see it, and you cant trust gauges..

Always start your takeoff roll with the rear engine. Just to make sure its still attached



Hey, don't knock my baby! (love/hate relationship with a P337).



Let me guess. You love flying it, and you hate fixing it?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:52:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?




An engine failure on any twin (except recips) is a non event, unless the pilot lacks skill, or the craft is horribly overweight.
A gearbox failure is another story. One of those can dead you right quick.

Recip twins have no place in the discussion, because our military does not use them.

With the problems the Osprey has had, Every flight is a Combat mission.
Like the Mini 14: Good concept, bad execution.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:53:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Whan was the last V-22 crash? 5 years ago?



And how many of them were caused by pilot error?

IICR half of them were caused by pilot error, including the one that killed 19 Marines.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:55:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?



O dont worry, the 336 and 337 have killed people taking off when they didnt know the rear engine wasnt making power....Ya cant see it, and you cant trust gauges..

Always start your takeoff roll with the rear engine. Just to make sure its still attached



Hey, don't knock my baby! (love/hate relationship with a P337).



Let me guess. You love flying it, and you hate fixing it?

Hey! How did you get inside my mind?! But really, I loved when I was the only guy who COULD fix it. The turbo controlers are the most complicated TCM ever concocted and I can play them like a violin. I leave the grunt work to well.. the grunts! I hate having to defend an aircraft that as a type rarely saw proper maintenance and flys great and safely all the while giving your head a weird throbbing massage.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:56:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillofRights:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
for those of you who like an adventure, download one of the V-22 models for FS2K4, have an engine fail, and try flying.....excercise in futility...



Oh really? How about have an engine failure on takeoff on nearly ANY twin, save a Cessna 337?




An engine failure on any twin (except recips) is a non event, unless the pilot lacks skill, or the craft is horribly overweight.
A gearbox failure is another story. One of those can dead you right quick.

Recip twins have no place in the discussion, because our military does not use them.

With the problems the Osprey has had, Every flight is a Combat mission.
Like the Mini 14: Good concept, bad execution.



Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:59:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Whan was the last V-22 crash? 5 years ago?



And how many of them were caused by pilot error?

IICR half of them were caused by pilot error, including the one that killed 19 Marines.



Caused by what IIRC was the highest time tiltrotor pilot on the planet at the time. Pilot error can be to blame if the wings fall off or the weather turns to crap. If it leave the ground at all it can be traced back to pilot error.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:08:26 PM EDT
When I was flying Cobras, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the 70's, we were still losing them when pilots went into a dive and failed control the rotor RPM during their pullout. The problem was, nobody lived to pass on the information when they screwed up. Test pilots figured it out and knocked 30 knots off our top speed to keep the problem minimized.

It was trained into us in flight school and we just lived with the potential problem and stayed away from the conditions that would induce it.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:31:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 10:43:57 PM EDT by Fast_Jimmy]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
My inspiration to post this was the hoopla that followed the published advertisment from boeing that showed a V-22 dropping troops onto a mosque of all things!



And as we all know, the enemy never deploys from mosques.



Of course they do, and we should destroy/attack mosques if necessary if that's where the enemy is hiding. It's just bad judgment for a defense contractor to pick the most politically supercharged target possible in a gung ho ad like that. Boeing claims someone made a mistake publishing it and that it wasn't intentional on the part of the company.

ETA: There has been a lot of great feedback on this. I can't imagine this aircraft being safe to deliver troops to a combat zone that included any kind of missile threat, and I think we've all seen the vulnerability of hovering aircraft to RPG's and heavy machine gun fire.

Mechanical complexity and failings aside, it seems to come down to which is easier to hit... either of the two rotors on a V-22, or a large single rotor/stabilizer on a helicopter.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:13:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
My inspiration to post this was the hoopla that followed the published advertisment from boeing that showed a V-22 dropping troops onto a mosque of all things!



And as we all know, the enemy never deploys from mosques.



Of course they do, and we should destroy/attack mosques if necessary if that's where the enemy is hiding. It's just bad judgment for a defense contractor to pick the most politically supercharged target possible in a gung ho ad like that. Boeing claims someone made a mistake publishing it and that it wasn't intentional on the part of the company.



So we know they use mosques as staging grounds, but it is offensive to publicly say so? I swear, I will never be able to understand the lefty PC mindset.

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:22:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
My inspiration to post this was the hoopla that followed the published advertisment from boeing that showed a V-22 dropping troops onto a mosque of all things!



And as we all know, the enemy never deploys from mosques.



Of course they do, and we should destroy/attack mosques if necessary if that's where the enemy is hiding. It's just bad judgment for a defense contractor to pick the most politically supercharged target possible in a gung ho ad like that. Boeing claims someone made a mistake publishing it and that it wasn't intentional on the part of the company.

ETA: There has been a lot of great feedback on this. I can't imagine this aircraft being safe to deliver troops to a combat zone that included any kind of missile threat, and I think we've all seen the vulnerability of hovering aircraft to RPG's and heavy machine gun fire.

Mechanical complexity and failings aside, it seems to come down to which is easier to hit... either of the two rotors on a V-22, or a large single rotor/stabilizer on a helicopter.



The problem is instead of redundancy the Osprey simply has more weak points to target. IIRC the CH47 is not generally flown into "hot" zones unless on special missions. If the same is true of CV-22 deployments we may be OK. I would fear getting shot at in an Osprey. Other aircraft you think where would I NOT want a bullet to go through? In the Osprey it is more like were COULD a bullet go through?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:39:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 11:42:24 PM EDT by Teufel_Hunden85]
I work with Ch46's, CH53's and the V22. Ever time I get near a 46 i wonder when its just going to fall out of the sky. And i think just about every 53 that i've worked with has had some sort of failure on it. The military is in need of a NEW medium lift helicopter. The V22 is just what they came up with. I personally think the V22 is hella fun to work with. And I have no problems riding on one. I'd get onto a V22 before I'd ever get onto a 46. The 53E's aren't too bad...but the 53D's are rather scary too.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:51:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 11:52:33 PM EDT by Planerench]

Originally Posted By Teufel_Hunden85:
I work with Ch46's, CH53's and the V22. Ever time I get near a 46 i wonder when its just going to fall out of the sky. And i think just about every 53 that i've worked with has had some sort of failure on it. The military is in need of a NEW medium lift helicopter. The V22 is just what they came up with. I personally think the V22 is hella fun to work with. And I have no problems riding on one. I'd get onto a V22 before I'd ever get onto a 46. The 53E's aren't too bad...but the 53D's are rather scary too.



Its called solid engineering. Age and abuse usually showcase it. I maintain aircraft that are up to 70 years old. Some hold up better than others. Some take use and abuse well. Some shake down the problems and improve around them. The proof of a good design is how many are still doing the job 40 years from now. Yeah they are worn and loose but they still work don't they? The problems encountered in the past should not be repeated again. Alas, too many engineers forget the failures of the past. The CV-22 is necessary but will go through many refits to harden it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:42:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 9:59:33 AM EDT by Fast_Jimmy]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

So we know they use mosques as staging grounds, but it is offensive to publicly say so? I swear, I will never be able to understand the lefty PC mindset.




part of your problem seems to be in identifying 'lefty pc' discourse. You'll notice that I acknowledge that if mosques are used as military staging areas, then they need to be hit.
Do we really want defense contractors in trade magazines framing our future wars as 'unleashing hell' on mosques? Seems like a complete lack of common sense and judgment.

Of course, in an advertisment for special forces, our troops were seen monitoring what was clearly a middle eastern terrorist encampment complete with pickup truck mounted machine gun, and turbans, if I remember clearly. This is an honest and realistic portrayal of current tactical scenarios, from the people authorized to do it right.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:50:38 AM EDT

I don't see it as being much different than a CH-47. Two engines, two rotors. The nacelle geometry on the MV-22 is complex, but so is the CH-47 transmission. The MV-22 is much faster, and the CH-47 can carry more.

I'd take a free ride on either.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top