Quoted: 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.

Just wait until the Marines match the V-22 with their new heavy-lift helo, the CH-53K.

Quoted: 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?

You mean the Death trap??? Fu$k that I much rather take anything but that I know a guy who was on the crash of two osprey around 1998 or so and he lost 14 friends. He was lucky to make it out a live.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Just wait until the Marines match the V-22 with their new heavy-lift helo, the CH-53K.

Oh yeah!   I'd definately take a free ride on the CH-53K  

Quoted: 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.

Except when the cross drive shaft (whatever the acronym is) is damaged and one engine is out = crash.

First day with the new fingers.

Quoted: 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...

Well, since the Marines are up to the "N" model now and seem to fly very well at night, I'd say it compares well to a 60.

I'd much rather climb into a V-22 than a 40 year old 40K pound over gross MH-53.  That goes for the well-past-its-prime automated shark feeder aka H-46 too.  I think the concept of the -22 is good, the executions sucks, but its still a good airframe.  It should have the engines mounted on the fuselage like a "normal" helo, to help with IR suppression and make them harder to hit.  There would be way less mass at the wingtips, and less connections to swivel (bleed air, fuel, etc).  I'd be curious what changes planerench would make in his design.  

Quoted: I'd much rather climb into a V-22 than a 40 year old 40K pound over gross MH-53.  That goes for the well-past-its-prime automated shark feeder aka H-46 too.  I think the concept of the -22 is good, the executions sucks, but its still a good airframe.  It should have the engines mounted on the fuselage like a "normal" helo, to help with IR suppression and make them harder to hit.  There would be way less mass at the wingtips, and less connections to swivel (bleed air, fuel, etc).  I'd be curious what changes planerench would make in his design.

(uninformed reply)

Two engines near top going to T gear box to drive the rotor "pods".  Have drive tube in some kind of "armored" tube for protection (ceramic/angled to deflect round).  W/ engine near center, less exposed....

Or go to a fan type thing like on that one new VTL jet.......forgot what it was called.

IIRC when the celebrated osprey crashes happened as soon as one engine stalled or failed the second one torqued the aircraft on its back very rapidly.

Even in the cases of Robert's Ridge, for example, when C-47s took hits and began losing power the effect was to go straight down, at least land on your belly.  I dont know how 47s and 46s do it but in a UH60 if the engine starts to fail you can free it from the rotor and autorotate, yes?  Hypothetically speaking, if an Osprey was in a hover over an urban area, and took an RPG hit a la the blackhawk down helicopters, instead of spinning onto its belly and suffering 20-30% KIA in the crashes, would it not want to flip on its back?

The last issue was I have had helicopters fly around me a lot in a tactical environment and it is a rare event that one flys right over your head.  SO if you see one, say at 100 feet AGL, 200 yds away, and pop some rounds at it you are aiming for a flank shot and those engines are right in the way.  The engines shield the airframe, from bullets,and they are the most vulnerable part.

I always thought (and someone please correct me) that the most battle resistant helicopters were the contra rotating ones, like the Sov Kirovs, as there were no tail booms and since the engines and rotors were so close together the smaller target could be armored heavier with less weight.

That being said, I think most Ospreys that go down will cartwheel or flip.  But I could be wrong.

Quoted: It should have the engines mounted on the fuselage like a "normal" helo, to help with IR suppression and make them harder to hit.

Because the existing drivetrain isn't complex enough?  More transmissions?

Quoted: Quoted: It should have the engines mounted on the fuselage like a "normal" helo, to help with IR suppression and make them harder to hit.   Because the existing drivetrain isn't complex enough?  More transmissions?

No, just one transmission, and two gearboxes (one on each wing).  The exact same number of parts that can fail as an H-60 for instance.  The cross shaft to link the two proprotors already exists, you would just move the engines to the fuselage around the CG, and feed them into a common transmission with gearboxes exactly like you do on any multiengine helo.  You eliminate the transition gearbox and 90 degree for the tail rotor, so those are replaced by the two at the wingtips.  Notice on the eagle eye tiltrotor UAV the engine (single I know) is mounted inboard in the fuselage, where it belongs.  You want to dismount the V-22 and run under the engine exhaust when you exfil the LZ?  It makes it a crap CSAR platform, and will make it a sitting duck for IR missiles too.  


ETA:  Not to mention the field of fire for door mounted guns when in hover mode.  With those big ass engines hanging out there you better hope the stops are set correctly!  

Quoted: Quoted: 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.

I tend to agree but I can also imagine these same sentiments when the first Piasecki flying bananas appeared.  Same goes for CH-46s and CH-47s.  "Hell no I'm not getting in that crazy contraption."

Quoted: 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.

Yep, I'll err on the side of extra range and speed. The only time the Osprey is vulnerable like a helicopter is when it is flying like a helicopter. So if you get hit in that situation, it won't matter if you are in a conventional rotorcraft of an Osprey.

My take is that the Osprey is not a good aircraft for the mission at hand.  It is a novel concept but with the threat of simple weapons like RPGs and heavy machine guns, I shudder to think what it will do with an aircraft that is heavily reliant on flight control systems.  

Hopefully I am proved wrong but time will tell.

That being said, I am not riding one of these anytime soon.  I'll take a CH46 or 53 anyday.  Hell I'll ride a damn 7 ton or humvee.

Max