Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/6/2006 4:09:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:13:56 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]
USAF takes delivery of first combat-configured Bell Boeing CV-22 Osprey

The US Air Force took delivery earlier this week of its first combat-configured CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor from Bell/Boeing in a ceremony at the Bell Helicopter manufacturing facility in Amarillo, Texas.

The aircraft handed over was the first full USAF special operations Block B10 configuration and is due to enter active service in 2009. Earlier versions of the V-22 are still in use in the test programme.

Receiving the aircraft was Lt Col Jim Cardoso, commanding officer of the 71st Special Operations Squadron, which will use the Osprey for crew training at its Kirtland AFB in New Mexico.

The USAF has ordered 50 CV-22s, which will be used for long-range infiltration missions for special forces personnel.

Maj Gen Donald Wurster, vice commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command says the aircraft represents "the single most significant transformation of Air Force special operations since the introduction of the helicopter". "Nearly every mission we have faced in the last 20 years could have been done better and faster with the V-22," he says.

The CV-22 has around 85% commonality with the Maritime version MV-22 Osprey that the US Marine Corps will use from 2007. Differences include a multi mode radar with terrain following/terrain avoidance modes allowing nighttime low flying exit missions in unknown territories. The CV-22 also has additional internal fuel capacity and enhanced navigation systems

The US Department of Defense approved full rate production of the Osprey in September last year following the completion of mission test flights for the MV-22. The CV-22 will undergo additional test flights this year.

The photo below shows the Block B/10 CV-22 converting between forward and helicopter modes during a flight at the Amarillo Bell Helicopter facility.

(from flightinterantional.com)
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:11:33 PM EDT
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:41:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.



Why would the Osprey be worse than any other aircraft in regards to ground fire?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:43:40 PM EDT
it's slower and can't run on one engine (well, it can, sorta, but both props have to be turning
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:45:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
it's slower and can't run on one engine (well, it can, sorta, but both props have to be turning


Considering it's replaceing a medium lift helo, it's faster and try flying a frog on one engine.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:45:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
it's slower and can't run on one engine (well, it can, sorta, but both props have to be turning



I wouldn't want to be at the controls when it suddenly begin yawing about the x-axis.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:58:59 PM EDT
I'm sure it will get a nickname soon.

Probably flying coffin
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:04:05 PM EDT
I'm guessing not to many of you guys would have joined Columbus on his voyage.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:25:22 PM EDT
Awesome. I saw the XV-15 demonstrator fly when I lived on the Left Coast.

BTW, thanks for the link.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:29:18 PM EDT
Hey, do y'all remember the Stryker debate? That vehicle was called some pretty awful names.

And now, we have a favorite. BUT, probably because it is being employed by people competent to understand how to employ it such that it will maximize strengths, and minimize weaknesses.

So too shall the Osprey, IMHO.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:31:34 PM EDT
lets see its how many DECADES late? how many billions over budget? you couldn't pay me to fly in it. how many marines has Bell murdered with that POS?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:33:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:34:01 PM EDT by KA3B]
Dupe.

Air Force Receives Its First Combat-Spec Osprey
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=442612
Posted :: 3/3/2006 2:10:12 PM PST
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:33:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darth_pavoris:
lets see its how many DECADES late? how many billions over budget? you couldn't pay me to fly in it. how many marines has Bell murdered with that POS?


Considering it was on again off again, it's not decades late. Show me a program not overbudget. None.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:35:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
it's slower and can't run on one engine (well, it can, sorta, but both props have to be turning



Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:38:24 PM EDT
Got to watch one of these go through the motions over at NAS Norfolk last year. Very cool!

The thing is way overdue. The last ride I took in a 46 it felt like a rainstorm in the cabin with all the hydaulic fluid dripping from the overhead. Nasty.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:38:44 PM EDT
I used to work out in the gym at MCAS-Yuma with several of the KIDS who were killed on that piece of shit. Very young guys. They were all terrified of it. Their nightmare came true. Fuck that piece of shit. I can't believe they are still trying to put that abomination into service after all the lying and crashes the program has had.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:40:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
I used to work out in the gym at MCAS-Yuma with several of the KIDS who were killed on that piece of shit. Very young guys. They were all terrified of it. Their nightmare came true. Fuck that piece of shit. I can't believe they are still trying to put that abomination into service after all the lying and crashes the program has had.


I see working out with people who were killed, as a result of pilot error IIRC, makes you an expert on the airframe. Got it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:41:25 PM EDT
+1 one the piece of shit ruling. I don't care if it was on again/off again. Boeing still had it in the pipeline for over 20 years! 20 years!! Wayy tooo long, and its a still a piece of stink......
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:42:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:48:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:53:29 PM EDT by KA3B]

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
I used to work out in the gym at MCAS-Yuma with several of the KIDS who were killed on that piece of shit. Very young guys. They were all terrified of it. Their nightmare came true. Fuck that piece of shit. I can't believe they are still trying to put that abomination into service after all the lying and crashes the program has had.



I went to Aircrew School with a large group of Marines who were to become H-53 crewmen.
Three of them died in a CH-53E crash in California in 1987.

In 1989 another guy I went to Aircrew School was in the CH-53E that crashed in Korea in 1989.
He lived, but 18 others died.

I don't hear guys like you whining about how the CH-53E should be taken out of service and what a piece of crap it is.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:49:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Dupe.

Air Force Receives Its First Combat-Spec Osprey
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=442612
Posted :: 3/3/2006 2:10:12 PM PST



Son-of-a-bitch, that's twice today.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:49:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
I used to work out in the gym at MCAS-Yuma with several of the KIDS who were killed on that piece of shit. Very young guys. They were all terrified of it. Their nightmare came true. Fuck that piece of shit. I can't believe they are still trying to put that abomination into service after all the lying and crashes the program has had.



They aren't trying to put it into service. They ARE putting it into service. And not a minute too soon.

I'd rather fly in that than a CH-46, bucko.

The Osprey represents a giant technological leap forward. What it brings to the table tactically is incredible. Unfortunately, when taking giant leaps in aviation development, test units and early production aircraft will suffer casualties. That's the way it's been since the Wright Flyer.

Our business is not for the meek or the weak.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:51:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.



What helicopters do we have currently that aren't complex and have an ejection system?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:53:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.



See US Navy CH-46
See US Army CH-47

So if either the -46 or the -47 takes enough damage it's linked rotor heads will be operational.
So the -46 and the -47 have ejection seats. Interesting.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:53:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:54:06 PM EDT by VTwin60]

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
I used to work out in the gym at MCAS-Yuma with several of the KIDS who were killed on that piece of shit. Very young guys. They were all terrified of it. Their nightmare came true. Fuck that piece of shit. I can't believe they are still trying to put that abomination into service after all the lying and crashes the program has had.



I went to Aircrew School with a large group of Marines who were to become H-53 crewmen.
Three of them died in a CH-53E crash in California in 1987.

In 1989 another guy I went to Aircrew School was in the CH-53E that crashed in Korea in 1989.
He lived, but 18 others died.

I don't hear guys like you whining about how the CH053E should be taken out of service and what a piece of crap it is.



Uh you're aware that the CH-53's have been flying for 30+ years right? You're of course also aware that they've had their trial by fire in just about every operation from Vietnam forward proving thier durability and self worth time and time again. So what exactly does two crashes in 20 years have to do with an equal comparison to the V-22?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:56:43 PM EDT
"Our business is lean and mean. . . ." What a bunch of BS. But I get your point: "Acceptable losses" right?

Fuck that thing. Have you ever heard one? It's loud as a freight train, and you can hear it for miles. It starts rattling the windows from 3 miles out. Not only does it not work, it's so huge getting a shot on it would not be that difficult.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:58:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
USAF takes delivery of first combat-configured Bell Boeing CV-22 Osprey

The US Air Force took delivery earlier this week of its first combat-configured CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor from Bell/Boeing in a ceremony at the Bell Helicopter manufacturing facility in Amarillo, Texas.

The aircraft handed over was the first full USAF special operations Block B10 configuration and is due to enter active service in 2009. Earlier versions of the V-22 are still in use in the test programme.

Receiving the aircraft was Lt Col Jim Cardoso, commanding officer of the 71st Special Operations Squadron, which will use the Osprey for crew training at its Kirtland AFB in New Mexico.

The USAF has ordered 50 CV-22s, which will be used for long-range infiltration missions for special forces personnel.

Maj Gen Donald Wurster, vice commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command says the aircraft represents "the single most significant transformation of Air Force special operations since the introduction of the helicopter". "Nearly every mission we have faced in the last 20 years could have been done better and faster with the V-22," he says.

The CV-22 has around 85% commonality with the Maritime version MV-22 Osprey that the US Marine Corps will use from 2007. Differences include a multi mode radar with terrain following/terrain avoidance modes allowing nighttime low flying exit missions in unknown territories. The CV-22 also has additional internal fuel capacity and enhanced navigation systems

The US Department of Defense approved full rate production of the Osprey in September last year following the completion of mission test flights for the MV-22. The CV-22 will undergo additional test flights this year.

The photo below shows the Block B/10 CV-22 converting between forward and helicopter modes during a flight at the Amarillo Bell Helicopter facility.
www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=11795
(from flightinterantional.com)



At one time they were talking about using them for offshore crew transport, but the cost caused it to get kicked.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:00:37 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:06:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTwin60:
Uh you're aware that the CH-53's have been flying for 30+ years right? You're of course also aware that they've had their trial by fire in just about every operation from Vietnam forward proving thier durability and self worth time and time again. So what exactly does two crashes in 20 years have to do with an equal comparison to the V-22?



So why did H-53's start falling out of the sky once the Echo came out?
Could it have been that "someone" wanted the Echo rushed into production and that it was fully tested and that "someone" lied about the performance and reliability of the Echo?

Nawww, they had 30 years to work the bugs out of the H-53 after all.

Ever wonder why they called the H-2 the Kaman Killer or the Kaman Coffin?

I am not saying that the development of the V-22 wasen't fucked up, nor am I saying that there weren't problems with the DEVELOPMENT aircraft or the DEVELOPMENT program, and I am not saying that there won't be issues with the OPERATIONAL aircraft.

The V-22 that is going into production is a different aircraft than the preproduction versions that were flown before, much like the YF-22 and and the X-35 were.

I would love to be with the Navy development team as a crewmember on the V-22.
I flew A-3's, jet powered carrier aircraft with no ejection seats, the V-22 would be a walk in the park.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:07:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
"Our business is lean and mean. . . ." What a bunch of BS. But I get your point: "Acceptable losses" right?

Fuck that thing. Have you ever heard one? It's loud as a freight train, and you can hear it for miles. It starts rattling the windows from 3 miles out. Not only does it not work, it's so huge getting a shot on it would not be that difficult.



I take it you've never been around an H-47 or an H-53 then.....
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:10:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.



Why would the Osprey be worse than any other aircraft in regards to ground fire?



6000PSI hydraulic system for starters. Fly by wire for seconds.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:15:58 PM EDT
Does the Osprey have any guns/missiles on it?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:22:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:26:50 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]

Originally Posted By natedog375:
Does the Osprey have any guns/missiles on it?



IIRC there is a gun on the tail ramp and provison for a nose mounted turret, GAU-19 .50 cal multi-barrel gun.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:25:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.



Hmm, sounds a lot like a chopper... I guess I fail to see your point.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:45:10 PM EDT
I have an idea!

We should scrap this multi-billion dollar program because of a few crashes related to pilot error, and then continue flying outdated, obsolete, deteriorating airframes for the foreseeable future. Sure, we'll lose a bunch of servicemen because of equipment failure and vulnerabilities, but we sure saved a couple of them from dying in a new more advanced and more capable aircraft. We can save the lives of a few at the expense of many, how's that sound? That makes a lot of sense doesn't it? It is a great idea to save our soldiers from new tachnology isn't it. If you people were the ones making the decisions in the past, aircraft like the F-14, F-15, F-16 would have never seen the light of day.

The absolute shortsightedness of so many people on this board is frustrating at best. Without the Osprey, what will we have? There is a reason that a replacement for the 53's and 47's, and it isn't just because the generals want a new toy. Those airframes have been falling apart for decades. Think back to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many of our boys were killed when these old deteriorating airframes dropped out of the sky? Incidents like that will continue to happen until they are replaced. For the foreseeable future, the Osprey is our best, and only bet. Most of the failures have been worked out of the aircraft, and training has been increased which should further reduce pilot related crashes, one of the primary causes of the crashes in the developmental stage.

This reminds me of all of those people on this board who seem to think that cancelling the Raptor would be a great idea. Nevermind that what we have on the table right now is nearly 40 year old technology. Sure, it's great now, but in another 5 to 10 years we will be at a distinct disadvantage should we only continue to operate obsecent F-15s and F-16s. But why does that matter, we're never going to fight another nation with a respectable air force are we? So quickly we forget the lessons of the past.

There are risks involved in the testing of new concepts, technologies and airframes. Unfortunately those costs can be measured in lives, but the cost of merely retaining the status quo will be significantly higher.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:19:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.



Why would the Osprey be worse than any other aircraft in regards to ground fire?



6000PSI hydraulic system for starters. Fly by wire for seconds.



Why is fly-by wire bad? The Blackhawk and AH-64 are both going to upgrade to fly-by-wire systems.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:55:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.



Why would the Osprey be worse than any other aircraft in regards to ground fire?



6000PSI hydraulic system for starters. Fly by wire for seconds.



Why is fly-by wire bad? The Blackhawk and AH-64 are both going to upgrade to fly-by-wire systems.



The AH-64 has had fly-by-wire since the begining. The BUCS (Back Up Control System) is FBW. It's used all the time. I know of a couple times without the crew never even knowing it. It's that good.

There are three hydrualic systems. Same as on the Balckhawk. You folks do understand that the UH-60, AH-1, CH-46, CH-47, and CH-53 can't fly without hydraulics either, right?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:24:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

try flying a frog on one engine.



BTDT GTTS late 2001.

Absolutely no fun. Running through my head - "I'm not going to be the last M-F to die in one of these things.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:28:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.



The results are no different than what would happen if a helicopter transmission or main drive shaft took damage.

Engines - maybe live to fly again depending on density altitude, gross weight, and terrain.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Considering that it is MADE to opertate both props on one engine.....



through a very complicated cross linkage system. if one engine takes enough dammage to take it out, chances are REALLY good that the cross link won't be operational either. There's no way to eject from it, and with one engine running, that thing will hit the ground at a REALLY awkward angle, leading to death.



What helicopters do we have currently that aren't complex and have an ejection system?




He's just talking out of his post-whoring ass again. Pay no attention.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:26:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:44:58 AM EDT by Ross]
Let's kill a few of the myths that people seem to be passing here.

The cross drive-shaft IS NOT complicated. In fact it's less complicated than the CH-53E and on par with the UH-60 Blackhawk. The props are not bolted directly to the engines that they share the nacell with. In fact the engines could be located anywhere on the aircraft, Bell just placed them in the nacell with the main transmissions (I'll get to why in a second).

There are two main transimissions, one for each engine. The engine drives the transmission, which has two outputs (just like the tranny on the ultra-reliable Huey). One goes to the rotor that's in the same nacell, the other goes to the other main transmission. That driveshaft is the ONLY cross-drive shaft in the wing. ONE, UNO, EIN. THAT'S IT! One driveshaft connects the two transmissions.

There is a gearbox in the middle of the wingbox, which is used to redirect the driveshaft. Same as the 42 deg T/R gearbox on the Huey is used to change directions. This is requried because the wings on the V-22 are forward swept, so the single cross-driveshaft runs from one tranny, slightly rearward, to the mid gearbox, and then slightly forward to the other main transmission. On the Huey, there's actually still one more gearbox that the drive has to go through before getting to the tail rotor, so really this isn't any more complicated than the rotor system on the UH-1Y with two engines.

The engines DO NOT drive only one engine. Each engine drives both engines.Each engine does not only drive one prop. Each engine drives both props. The no.1 engine drives both props, the no. 2 simply adds power to the system (or the other way around depending on throttlepower setting). Just because it looks like each prop has it's own dedicated engine, doesn't make it so. Each engine drives both rotors as per throttle setting EXACTLY LIKE A BLACKHAWK!

When one engine fails, the main transmission in front of it disconnects from it through a sprag clutch, the same as EVERY helo in the world. There's no "clutch pedel", no switch to flip, nothing to do. A sprag clutch is like the ratchet in a socket. It drives one way under power and freewheels the other when it's not. The cross drive shaft from the other main transmission continues to drive that other transmission. The EXACT same thing happens in a Blackhawk if one engine fails.

The CH-53E is actually more complicated than the V-22 because of the third engine.

Now skip a beat and think about WHY the CH-53E has three engines...Yeah, because IT NEEDS three engines. No aircraft just carries "spare" engines that it doesn't need. So single-engine operation on the V-22 will be restricted in performance. Just like any aircraft is. You still have power. There's alot you can do, even with limited power. Even if you can't hover because you're loaded, you can use that power to slow your descent. There's a big difference between an autrotation at 2000fpm and a forced landing at 300fpm. That's what partial power can do for you. Just loosing an engine doesn't turn the V-22 into a meteorite. Loosing and engine is an emergency, and that means the guys up front have to do that pilot shit. Pure and simple.

The cross driveshaft will not automatically be taken out if an engine is. It's isolated from the enignes by the transmissions. Take out the transmission of any helo, and it's done for. No argument there. Take out an engine, and it's isolated. Combat damage to twin engine helos (remember power-train 101 above, it's the same set-up), has shown twin engine aircraft to be more survivable. If destroying the engine also automatically destroyed the transmission it was connected to, there'd be alot more dead helo pilots in Iraq. One Apache lost an engine. Not as in failed, but as in compeletly shot OFF. Damage like that didn't destroy the transmission and didn't effect the other engine, nor the cross shaft that's as complicated as the one on the Osprey.

The aircraft is going to work out fine.

Edited to use the correct term "power setting".
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:28:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:36:05 AM EDT by Ross]
Oh, I forgot to tell you why the engines are out there.

That postion, where they feed a main transmission directly, actually reduces the stress on the cross shaft.

There are only three gearboxs in the V-22 No1 main, No2 main, and mid. There are five gearboxes in the UH-60. Which is more complicated?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:34:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By dport:

try flying a frog on one engine.



BTDT GTTS late 2001.

Absolutely no fun. Running through my head - "I'm not going to be the last M-F to die in one of these things.


How much were you carrying?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:36:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:

The engines DO NOT drive only one engine. Each engine drives both engines. ".




You mean prop right?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:42:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By Ross:

The engines DO NOT drive only one engine. Each engine drives both engines. ".




You mean prop right?



Yeah should be:

Each engine does not only drive one prop. Each engine drives both props.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:44:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
i hope the usaf has better luck with those things than the marines have.

and i still wouldnt trust that thing to take any kind of ground fire.



Why would the Osprey be worse than any other aircraft in regards to ground fire?



6000PSI hydraulic system for starters. Fly by wire for seconds.



Why is fly-by wire bad? The Blackhawk and AH-64 are both going to upgrade to fly-by-wire systems.



The AH-64 has had fly-by-wire since the begining. The BUCS (Back Up Control System) is FBW. It's used all the time. I know of a couple times without the crew never even knowing it. It's that good.

There are three hydrualic systems. Same as on the Balckhawk. You folks do understand that the UH-60, AH-1, CH-46, CH-47, and CH-53 can't fly without hydraulics either, right?



Fly by wire is not all bad. The operating pressure of the hydraulic system is troubling. I am in the business and I have experience in this area.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:45:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
Oh, I forgot to tell you why the engines are out there.

That postion, where they feed a main transmission directly, actually reduces the stress on the cross shaft.

There are only three gearboxs in the V-22 No1 main, No2 main, and mid. There are five gearboxes in the UH-60. Which is more complicated?



Really?

I had wondered, in the last thread about the Osprey I had even asked, why the engines had been moved out there from the seemingly safer over the wing cener position that the old Bell XV-5 "tilt fan" of the 60's had used.

And now that you mention that, yeah, it would require FIVE gear boxes to do this with the engines over the center, not just three.

Thanks for clearing up why that compromise was made!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:45:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
I'm guessing not to many of you guys would have joined Columbus on his voyage.



Hah!

So true.

I would love to read a parody of Arfcom bashing the voyage.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:50:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Ross:
Oh, I forgot to tell you why the engines are out there.

That postion, where they feed a main transmission directly, actually reduces the stress on the cross shaft.

There are only three gearboxs in the V-22 No1 main, No2 main, and mid. There are five gearboxes in the UH-60. Which is more complicated?



Really?

I had wondered, in the last thread about the Osprey I had even asked, why the engines had been moved out there from the seemingly safer over the wing cener position that the old Bell XV-5 "tilt fan" of the 60's had used.

And now that you mention that, yeah, it would require FIVE gear boxes to do this with the engines over the center, not just three.

Thanks for clearing up why that compromise was made!



It's not without cost. Having the weight out there creates more of a moment when rolling. Directing hot exhaust down has problems as well. Having them in the nacell may provide thrust from the engines themselves in VTOL.

I think in the end, it was the design that had the most flight and wind tunnel testing available on it, and the design was locked in pretty early on.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:50:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GTLandser:
Hey, do y'all remember the Stryker debate? That vehicle was called some pretty awful names.

And now, we have a favorite. BUT, probably because it is being employed by people competent to understand how to employ it such that it will maximize strengths, and minimize weaknesses.

So too shall the Osprey, IMHO.



I still remember the "Crashhawk" blabbering when we were replacing the UH-1!

Newsflash folks: The military is an inherently UNSAFE profession. It is all abit managing and calculating risks.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:53:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 3:55:49 AM EDT by Planerench]

Originally Posted By Ross:
Let's kill a few of the myths that people seem to be passing here.

The cross drive-shaft IS NOT complicated. In fact it's less complicated than the CH-53E and on par with the UH-60 Blackhawk. The props are not bolted directly to the engines that they share the nacell with. In fact the engines could be located anywhere on the aircraft, Bell just placed them in the nacell with the main transmissions (I'll get to why in a second).

There are two main transimissions, one for each engine. The engine drives the transmission, which has two outputs (just like the tranny on the ultra-reliable Huey). One goes to the rotor that's in the same nacell, the other goes to the other main transmission. That driveshaft is the ONLY cross-drive shaft in the wing. ONE, UNO, EIN. THAT'S IT! One driveshaft connects the two transmissions.

There is a gearbox in the middle of the wingbox, which is used to redirect the driveshaft. Same as the 42 deg T/R gearbox on the Huey is used to change directions. This is requried because the wings on the V-22 are forward swept, so the single cross-driveshaft runs from one tranny, slightly rearward, to the mid gearbox, and then slightly forward to the other main transmission. On the Huey, there's actually still one more gearbox that the drive has to go through before getting to the tail rotor, so really this isn't any more complicated than the rotor system on the UH-1Y with two engines.

The engines DO NOT drive only one engine. Each engine drives both engines.Each engine does not only drive one prop. Each engine drives both props. The no.1 engine drives both props, the no. 2 simply adds power to the system (or the other way around depending on throttlepower setting). Just because it looks like each prop has it's own dedicated engine, doesn't make it so. Each engine drives both rotors as per throttle setting EXACTLY LIKE A BLACKHAWK!

When one engine fails, the main transmission in front of it disconnects from it through a sprag clutch, the same as EVERY helo in the world. There's no "clutch pedel", no switch to flip, nothing to do. A sprag clutch is like the ratchet in a socket. It drives one way under power and freewheels the other when it's not. The cross drive shaft from the other main transmission continues to drive that other transmission. The EXACT same thing happens in a Blackhawk if one engine fails.

The CH-53E is actually more complicated than the V-22 because of the third engine.

Now skip a beat and think about WHY the CH-53E has three engines...Yeah, because IT NEEDS three engines. No aircraft just carries "spare" engines that it doesn't need. So single-engine operation on the V-22 will be restricted in performance. Just like any aircraft is. You still have power. There's alot you can do, even with limited power. Even if you can't hover because you're loaded, you can use that power to slow your descent. There's a big difference between an autrotation at 2000fpm and a forced landing at 300fpm. That's what partial power can do for you. Just loosing an engine doesn't turn the V-22 into a meteorite. Loosing and engine is an emergency, and that means the guys up front have to do that pilot shit. Pure and simple.

The cross driveshaft will not automatically be taken out if an engine is. It's isolated from the enignes by the transmissions. Take out the transmission of any helo, and it's done for. No argument there. Take out an engine, and it's isolated. Combat damage to twin engine helos (remember power-train 101 above, it's the same set-up), has shown twin engine aircraft to be more survivable. If destroying the engine also automatically destroyed the transmission it was connected to, there'd be alot more dead helo pilots in Iraq. One Apache lost an engine. Not as in failed, but as in compeletly shot OFF. Damage like that didn't destroy the transmission and didn't effect the other engine, nor the cross shaft that's as complicated as the one on the Osprey.

The aircraft is going to work out fine.

Edited to use the correct term "power setting".



The configuration negates some of the complexity argument. Directional control of a helicopter in cruise can be controlled managed even in the event of tail rotor damage. The configuration of the Osprey will not abide damage to one of the prop-rotors as it lacks sufficient arm for the rudders to compensate for a lack of thrust on one wing.

I have said it before and will say again now. The configuration is sound, the V-22 is a poor execution of it (due in part to the length of its development program). It is a necessary evil and the next generation of tilt rotor aircraft will be leaps and bounds beyond it as with any aircraft development.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top