Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/27/2006 5:12:40 PM EDT
Marines to Deploy Troubled Osprey Aircraft


By ESTES THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 27, 5:40 PM ET

RALEIGH, N.C. - The Marine Corps plans to send the troubled Osprey aircraft into combat zones within a year and is activating a squadron of the tilt-rotor planes this week.

"Obviously, due to operational concerns we don't want to tell exactly when they will deploy," said spokesman Master Sgt. Phil Mehringer at Marine Corps Air Station New River, where the squadron will be based. "But it's certainly going to happen in the near future. Definitely, within a year."

The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane, had a troubled start.

Four Marines died in a 2000 crash in North Carolina that was caused by a ruptured titanium hydraulic line. Nineteen others were killed in a crash that year in Arizona that investigators blamed on pilot error.

The Pentagon approved full production of the Osprey in a $19 billion program last year, and the Marines have been showing them off. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flew aboard one last week.

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, which will carry the Vietnam-era "Thunder Chickens" nickname of the helicopter unit it is replacing, is to be formally activated Friday. There are about 250 people in the squadron and nine aircraft, Mehringer said.

The Ospreys will replace the aging, Vietnam-era fleet of CH-46E twin-rotor helicopters. The newer aircraft can carry more cargo and fly five times farther at speeds around 300 mph


LINK
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 5:17:24 PM EDT
I am glad to see it finally deploy but cringe to think of how many marines could die during the debug stage. I mean you lose a Tomcat and the two crewmen have ejection seats and you risk one airframe and two men, you lose an Osprey and damn.....
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:31:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 7:36:16 PM EDT by Talyn]
They've been debugging it for the last four years & have passed OPEVAL like every other aircraft.

And how is a CH-46, CH-47, CH-53 or C-130 going down with troops (like they have) any different?

Considering how ancient the CH-46's are right now the MV-22B is a major improvement.

I love it when a flunky AP reporter who can't tell the difference between a 747 and a 737 calls the Ospery a "troubled" aircraft.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:48:19 PM EDT
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:53:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Usually until just before it's replacement is concieved....

Funny how we just had a thread on that huge autogyro being developed to replace the Osprey, and only now do we hear this...
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:56:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:02:46 PM EDT
They should have used turbine engines like this.

Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:20:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Talyn:

Considering how ancient the CH-46's are right now the MV-22B is a major improvement.




I think that's why the push for the Osprey.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:15:57 AM EDT
day crew bump
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:19:41 AM EDT
V-22 Osprey Program Update


(Source: Bell Helicopter; dated Feb. 20, released Feb. 27, 2006)


With the planned delivery of the first Block 10 aircraft to Air Force Special Operations Command next week and the delivery of the first Block B version of the V-22 Osprey to the U.S. Marine Corps last month, the Bell Boeing V-22 is in Full Rate Production. Both the Block B and Block 10 aircraft have software upgrades, reliability and maintainability improvements over existing V-22 aircraft.

Currently there are some 50 V-22 aircraft on flight status throughout the country. They are in service at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, MCAS New River, North Carolina, Edwards AFB, California as well as at the Bell Boeing V-22 manufacturing center in Amarillo, Texas.

The V-22 program was approved for full rate production (FRP) in September 2005, after the operational evaluation verified that the Osprey had achieved all the “key performance parameters” identified by the Marine Corps as essential to its mission. Recommendations from that OPEVAL validated the program’s roadmap for follow-on test and evaluation, to add capabilities as the aircraft progresses toward its deployment date.

With FRP, the U.S. Government has authorized Bell, a Textron company and Boeing to increase current low-rate production up to 48 aircraft per year. The FRP decision by the Defense Acquisition Board followed the successful completion of extensive Operational Evaluation testing, conducted last summer by the USMC.

Secretary of the Navy Dr. Donald C. Winter logged his first flight hour aboard an MV-22 Osprey at MCAS New River, (Jan. 9 2006). Winter made the flight with VMX-22, the Marine Corps squadron that conducted the successful operational evaluation of the tiltrotor aircraft last summer. VMX-22 shares a flight line with VMMT-204, the training squadron that is preparing Marine aviators for the start of Osprey combat operations in late 2007.

“This aircraft proves that transformation is more than just a buzzword,” Winter said. “The combination of range, speed and operational flexibility the Osprey provides is going to change all the rules for how our Marines engage the enemy. As central as these capabilities are to our Sea Strike concept of future operations, I wanted to come see it for myself.”

“With twice the speed, three to five times the range, and the ability to carry twice as many Marines, the Osprey will permit joint force commanders to execute large Marine Air Ground Task Force operations in a single period of darkness,” said Col. Bill Taylor, V-22 joint program manager.

Under the current program of record, the Marine Corps will purchase 360 MV-22s for missions including amphibious assault, ship-to-objective maneuvers and sustained operations ashore. The Navy is also slated to get 48 MV-22s, which could be used for fleet logistic support and search and rescue.

The Air Force Special Operations Command will acquire 50 CV-22 variants, with enhanced capabilities tailored for their unique mission requirements. The CV-22 will reach initial operational capability in 2009, while the Marines’ variant will be ready to deploy in late 2007.

The first operational Marine Osprey squadron, VMM-263, will stand up at New River in March, with many of its pilots going through training now at VMMT-204.

The revolutionary tiltrotor technology combines fixed-wing airplane and vertical lift capabilities into one efficient and extremely capable aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter and fly like an airplane, providing military customers with significant improvements in combat capabilities - including speeds and range two to three times more than that of conventional helicopters, as well as increased payloads, survivability and reliability.


Link Posted: 2/28/2006 12:50:37 PM EDT
Monday, February 27, 2006

By ESTES THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. - The Marine Corps plans to send the innovative Osprey
aircraft into combat zones within a year and will take a step toward that
this week by activating a squadron of the tiltrotor craft.

"Obviously, due to operational concerns we don't want to tell exactly when
they will deploy," said spokesman Master Sgt. Phil Mehringer at Marine Corps
Air Station New River, where the squadron will be based. "But it's certainly
going to happen in the near future. Definitely, within a year."

A ceremony is planned Friday to formally activate Marine Medium Tiltrotor
Squadron 263, which will carry the Vietnam-era "Thunder Chickens" nickname
of the helicopter unit it is replacing. There are about 250 people in the
New River-based squadron and at least a dozen aircraft.

Ospreys will replace the aging, Vietnam-era fleet of CH-46E twin-rotor
helicopters that are so worn that they can't carry a full payload. The
Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an
airplane, can carry more cargo and fly five times farther at speeds around
300 mph.

The squadron preparing to be activated has trained for several months
training and will continue training before its deployment, Mehringer said.

"It's the standard training package that any Marine aviation squadron would
conduct prior to deployment," he said. "This one is a little longer in that
all of the Marines coming together are new. They are starting this from
scratch."

The Marines have been testing the Ospreys at New River for several years as
part of a testing squadron.

The program's future fell into doubt for a time after four Marines died in a
2000 crash in North Carolina and 19 were killed in a crash that year in
Arizona.

The North Carolina crash near Jacksonville in December 2000 was caused by a
ruptured titanium hydraulic line. The Arizona crash was blamed by
investigators on pilot error.

Last year, the Pentagon approved full production of the Osprey in a $19
billion program and the corps has been showing off the aircraft.

Just last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flew from New River to
nearby Camp Lejeune in an Osprey to attend a military ceremony and the
aircraft flew over the base several times.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 12:54:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



You didn't see the V-22 flying in 1986.
Its first flight was in 1989.

What you saw was the XV-15.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:02:38 PM EDT

The North Carolina crash near Jacksonville in December 2000 was caused by a
ruptured titanium hydraulic line. The Arizona crash was blamed by
investigators on pilot error.



Idiot media.

The hydraulic line wearing through didn't cause the crash, there are at least THREE hydraulic systems.

What caused the crash was the computer system failing to switch automaticaly to another hydraulic system. The investigation found that large parts of the computer code for the FBW software simply had been written bad and never properly tested.

One of SEVERAL cases of subcontractor cheating on this project, the nacelle blower fan problem being another.

Which they largely got away with due to Bill Clinton's "delayed procurement program", which resulted in development schedules where YEARS went by after delivery before subcontractors components were ever integrated into the actual machine. By which time they were, and found not to work, the people responsible for the fraud had left the company, or (like with the blowers) the company ITSELF had declared bankrupcy and ceased to exist, and millions of taxpayer dollars just went poof...
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:15:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

The North Carolina crash near Jacksonville in December 2000 was caused by a
ruptured titanium hydraulic line. The Arizona crash was blamed by
investigators on pilot error.



Idiot media.

The hydraulic line wearing through didn't cause the crash, there are at least THREE hydraulic systems.

What caused the crash was the computer system failing to switch automaticaly to another hydraulic system. The investigation found that large parts of the computer code for the FBW software simply had been written bad and never properly tested.



Was this the incident where, in response to the hydraulic problem, the pilot repeatedly pressed the reset button, thus continuously restarting the reset before it could complete?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:18:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



No, the XV-15 had cross drive transmissions.

That had to be in the tilt rotor from the start.

The only real delay was by Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney.

Cheney first for cancelling it when he was Defence Secretary in 1991 and trying to force the USMC to take the inadequate Blackhawk.

Then Bill Clinton, who was elected by kissing up to defense workers who either had lost their jobs due to Bush Admin defense cutbacks, brought it back- but largely on paper. Clinton had no intention of actually paying for a proper defense, but he needed the votes of those who had been injured by defense cutbacks. Hence the "delayed procurement program" for the V-22, the F-22, the RAH-66, the D model Apache, and many other big ticket programs, which kept the programs "in being" while shoving back the military actually receving them by as much as a DECADE- and also kept Clintons administration from having to PAY for them, and allowing a for a fake budget surplus and fake.

All the actual flying and testing for the V-22 program could fit in 4 or 5 years.

The rest of the time the prototypes were sitting on the ground idle.

IOC of the Osprey was 1997. And at the time Cheney tried to cancel it, it was on time and on budget.

It is going to have been delayed almost exactly TEN YEARs. For NO technical reason. None.

Although it has not had any crashes, the F-22 has suffered the exact same delays and cost overruns, and supplier problems as the Osprey has had. And its delay in entering service wil be almost as long.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:24:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

The North Carolina crash near Jacksonville in December 2000 was caused by a
ruptured titanium hydraulic line. The Arizona crash was blamed by
investigators on pilot error.



Idiot media.

The hydraulic line wearing through didn't cause the crash, there are at least THREE hydraulic systems.

What caused the crash was the computer system failing to switch automaticaly to another hydraulic system. The investigation found that large parts of the computer code for the FBW software simply had been written bad and never properly tested.



Was this the incident where, in response to the hydraulic problem, the pilot repeatedly pressed the reset button, thus continuously restarting the reset before it could complete?



It may have been. That WAS the basic problem, it kept switching back and forth between the hydraulic system channels and did not switch over completely to any of them resulting in a loss of control. I dont know if there is a "reset" button or if the crew made any attempt to do such a thing.
But the effect was to get stuck in a "loop" where the damaged system was disconnected and neither of the backup circuts responded. Or at least responded completely.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:27:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

The North Carolina crash near Jacksonville in December 2000 was caused by a
ruptured titanium hydraulic line. The Arizona crash was blamed by
investigators on pilot error.



Idiot media.

The hydraulic line wearing through didn't cause the crash, there are at least THREE hydraulic systems.

What caused the crash was the computer system failing to switch automaticaly to another hydraulic system. The investigation found that large parts of the computer code for the FBW software simply had been written bad and never properly tested.



Was this the incident where, in response to the hydraulic problem, the pilot repeatedly pressed the reset button, thus continuously restarting the reset before it could complete?



It may have been. That WAS the basic problem, it kept switching back and forth between the hydraulic system channels and did not switch over completely to any of them resulting in a loss of control. I dont know if there is a "reset" button or if the crew made any attempt to do such a thing.
But the effect was to get stuck in a "loop" where the damaged system was disconnected and neither of the backup circuts responded. Or at least responded completely.




Good ole manual revision control....(a switch or a valve)
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:28:17 PM EDT
Cool. I just saw that my old high school buddy accepted the keys to the first B-Block.
Pretty kick-ass.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:35:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Although it has not had any crashes, the F-22 has suffered the exact same delays and cost overruns, and supplier problems as the Osprey has had. And its delay in entering service wil be almost as long.



Sure it has:



Nevada crash grounds F-22 fighters
Pilot unhurt after ejecting over desert during training mission

From Mike Mount
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An F-22 Raptor, the Air Force's next-generation fighter, crashed Monday night while on a training mission in the Nevada desert, according to U.S. Air Force officials.

The pilot ejected and was not hurt, though the $133.3 million aircraft was destroyed, officials said.

The cause of the crash is not yet known and is under investigation. However, as a precaution, the Air Force grounded the F-22 fleet until further notice. Wednesday's crash was the first for fleet.

The Air Force is still in the testing and evaluation phase for the F-22, which is expected to begin service in 2006. The fighter has been riddled with mechanical and political problems from the start.

Billed as the fighter of the future, the plane was designed in the 1980s as a stealthy method to enter Soviet air space and strike Soviet bombers heading toward the West in a potential nuclear strike.

Once the Cold War ended, the Air Force found a new mission for the F-22 as a long-range fighter with a sophisticated stealth design and state-of-the-art equipment that no other plane could rival.

However, the rising cost of the plane and numerous design and software problems threatened the program, which was almost killed by Congress.

In the end, the aircraft survived, and most of the problems were fixed -- except for the price tag, which forced the Air Force to buy fewer aircraft.

The Air Force has been training the first generation of Raptor pilots at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and expects the first delivery of fully operational F-22s to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia by late 2005 or early 2006.




edition.cnn.com/2004/US/12/22/fighter.crash


The F-22 crash didn't kill a couple cargo compartments full of Marines though, and didn't get the bad press the V-22 did.


I'm glad to see the V-22 finally getting into service, as well as the F-22. They are both sorely needed to replace the now very long in the tooth legacy aircraft.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:43:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Talyn:
They've been debugging it for the last four years & have passed OPEVAL like every other aircraft.

And how is a CH-46, CH-47, CH-53 or C-130 going down with troops (like they have) any different?

Considering how ancient the CH-46's are right now the MV-22B is a major improvement.

I love it when a flunky AP reporter who can't tell the difference between a 747 and a 737 calls the Ospery a "troubled" aircraft.



OK, I am a Airframe and Powerplant mechanic with Inspection Authorization, over 6000Hrs of commercial flight time and minor engineering work including a patent and have been following tiltrotors for about 25 years and I think it is a troubled aircraft. I am glad to see progress in this configuration but would sooner see the space shuttle taken into combat. Planerench.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:46:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:49:18 PM EDT
Should have built a modern Fairley Rotodyne and then gone to tilt rotor......
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:49:36 PM EDT
I just wonder if the Osprey is ever going to get its chance to perform now.

It wasnt available when we needed it when we had a chance to kill Bin Laden in 1997.

It wasnt available when we needed it to attack Afghanistan in 2001.

It wasnt available for the trip to Baghdad in 2003.

Since we have gone ahead and bothered to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, are there now any potental enemies outside of normal helicopter range?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:49:53 PM EDT
Mighty unstable with lots of prop-warsh during final descent. Hopefully the pilots will have simulators realistic enough to deal with this, and not learn about it when landing with an aircraft full of souls.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:56:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.



I agree 100%, there is no reason to rotate the whole damn engine and nacelle, you add the complexity of fuel connections, high current electrical connections, engine control, etc. to the unavoidable hydraulic and mechanical couplings. Notice they "fixed" the design on the Eagle Eye UAV. The main bitches I heard from the AFSOC guys that have operated around the V-22 was the scorching hot nasty engine exhaust burning up the LZs, and the vicious prop/rotorwash under a hovering V-22.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.



I have wondered what was wrong with the engine location on the XV-5 tilt-fan built back in the 60's.

I can only guess its because the Marines wanted the Osprey's wings to rotate to run along the fuselage axis so it would fold up into the same space as the CH-46. If the engines were inboard the hydraulics for the wing rotating system would have had to squeeze in either under or between the engines.

Theres a lot of things on the Osprey that ONLY benefit handling on board ship.

If it werent for all the POLITICAL delays and the resulting cost overruns the USAF version could of edited these things out. It doesnt need a pivoting wing or power folding rotors, but because that would mean too many changes and more cost the CV-22 gets stuck with them too.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:16:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.



I have wondered what was wrong with the engine location on the XV-5 tilt-fan built back in the 60's.

I can only guess its because the Marines wanted the Osprey's wings to rotate to run along the fuselage axis so it would fold up into the same space as the CH-46. If the engines were inboard the hydraulics for the wing rotating system would have had to squeeze in either under or between the engines.

Theres a lot of things on the Osprey that ONLY benefit handling on board ship.

If it werent for all the POLITICAL delays and the resulting cost overruns the USAF version could of edited these things out. It doesnt need a pivoting wing or power folding rotors, but because that would mean too many changes and more cost the CV-22 gets stuck with them too.



Not to mention that centrally locating both engines means they're susceptible to the same combat damage.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:37:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Mighty unstable with lots of prop-warsh during final descent. Hopefully the pilots will have simulators realistic enough to deal with this, and not learn about it when landing with an aircraft full of souls.




How is the prop wash any worse than that of the CH-46 with its two rotors?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:42:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.



I have wondered what was wrong with the engine location on the XV-5 tilt-fan built back in the 60's.

I can only guess its because the Marines wanted the Osprey's wings to rotate to run along the fuselage axis so it would fold up into the same space as the CH-46. If the engines were inboard the hydraulics for the wing rotating system would have had to squeeze in either under or between the engines.

Theres a lot of things on the Osprey that ONLY benefit handling on board ship.

If it werent for all the POLITICAL delays and the resulting cost overruns the USAF version could of edited these things out. It doesnt need a pivoting wing or power folding rotors, but because that would mean too many changes and more cost the CV-22 gets stuck with them too.



Not to mention that centrally locating both engines means they're susceptible to the same combat damage.



Hasen't really been a problem on the CH-53, CH-47, H-60, CH-46, EH-101 etc etc etc. One on each side of the fuselage as on a traditional heli design doesn't seem to be a problem.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:44:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Mighty unstable with lots of prop-warsh during final descent. Hopefully the pilots will have simulators realistic enough to deal with this, and not learn about it when landing with an aircraft full of souls.




How is the prop wash any worse than that of the CH-46 with its two rotors?



Smaller prop/rotors supporting a similar weight must create more downforce to stay aloft. The vortex ring state that caused the "big" V-22 accident is something that all rotorcraft can encounter, the pilots weren't adequately prepared to avoid it at the time though.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:51:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Mighty unstable with lots of prop-warsh during final descent. Hopefully the pilots will have simulators realistic enough to deal with this, and not learn about it when landing with an aircraft full of souls.




How is the prop wash any worse than that of the CH-46 with its two rotors?



The H-46 (or 47 for that matter) has far less rotor wash than an equivalent weight main/tail rotor equipped helo. It takes the same amount of air movement per unit of time to lift a given weight. The tandem rotors of a 46 have a much larger surface area than the single main rotor of an H-60. The 60 has far more severe (faster) downwash when loaded to an equal weight.

Osprey downwash is very high velocity because the rotor area is far smaller than that of an equal weight conventional or tandem rotor helicopter.



Theres a lot of things on the Osprey that ONLY benefit handling on board ship.



The engines were not located outboard to enhance ship board handling. In fact their location required fixes to the aircraft's stabilization system because one rotor-prop is in ground effect (over the flight deck) and the other rotor-prop is out of ground effect (past the edge of the flight deck). In 2000-2001 there were problems if the relative wind blew rotor wash from another aircraft into the V-22s rotor-props as this increased the lift imbalance between the two rotor-props.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
They've been flying them for at least 20 years. I saw some at MCAS New River in 1986. How F'n long does it take to "de bug" these things?



Well, a lot of time was added to the development cycle when the military decided that a cross feed capability was needed so that an engine out would be surviveable. This meant they had to re-engine the thing and then engineer it to allow for drive shafts to cross feed across the wing.



We worked on conceptual tilt rotor stuff and the engine package should have been centrally located to begin with. The interconnecting of drive and location of hydraulic and electrical systems that now have to be rotated vertically through 95% would have been avoided.



I have wondered what was wrong with the engine location on the XV-5 tilt-fan built back in the 60's.

I can only guess its because the Marines wanted the Osprey's wings to rotate to run along the fuselage axis so it would fold up into the same space as the CH-46. If the engines were inboard the hydraulics for the wing rotating system would have had to squeeze in either under or between the engines.

Theres a lot of things on the Osprey that ONLY benefit handling on board ship.

If it werent for all the POLITICAL delays and the resulting cost overruns the USAF version could of edited these things out. It doesnt need a pivoting wing or power folding rotors, but because that would mean too many changes and more cost the CV-22 gets stuck with them too.



Not to mention that centrally locating both engines means they're susceptible to the same combat damage.



As someone else posted, it wouldn't be any more dangerous than they are on existing helicopters. But I also wasnt considering them being THAT close together. I was thinking mounted over the fuselage with a space between them like the arrangement of the jets on a A-10. They would be protected by both the wing and the fuselage and would be very hard to reach, and could still be isolated from each other.

There must have been SOME reason why the departed from the configuration that had already been successfuly tested on the earlier Bell X-craft. Maybe more than one.

Its also possible that after TWENTY-FIVE years since the design was chosen, the concerns of the time may no longer be valid.
Top Top