Yes, it is hover near OGE, no, it is not hoist operations. That is Fastrope from the aft ramp, with a thethered line.
The USAF specified that hoist operations had to be conducted where the pilot can view operations directly. The V22's designed hoist location is at the side door, forward. Hoist operations require a free line, which is more subject to the downwash, and a Stokes litter, again, more likely to react to downwash.
However, if they changed their requirements, this surely shows promise for a hoist off the ramp.
Regarding speed of transit, the V22 clearly has advantages where that is the issue, in SpecOps, the extra hour spent at 400 NM getting to the scene might be worth something. TR advocates are telling us that hour is worth an extra 50 million (at least) per aircraft. I would say then that they should redesign the entire aircraft operations system, because at that rate, the 1 minute spent for the Corporal to make a phone call is worth about $1 million, and the run for the pilots to the airplane is worth $500,000.
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Oct. 25, 2005)
(See Editor’s Note at bottom)
WASHINGTON --- An Air Force version of the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft last week experienced a condensation stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems, sources have told the Project On Government Oversight. The aircraft, CV-22 #6, was on a routine flight to Edwards Air Force base in California. It did not recover from the stall until it had descended to warmer air at about 10,000 feet, the sources said.
As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona.
“This is very disturbing. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production,” said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. “And now we find out the aircraft can’t even fly into a cloud.”
At the time of this release, it was not known whether the aircraft that experienced the stall had a de-icing system onboard. It’s also unclear just how much, or if any, de-icing system testing has been performed on the CV-22. A report of testing issued last month by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation on the Marines V-22 did not address the issue of icing. A 2000 DOT&E report said that icing testing on the Marines V-22 had been waived by the Navy. Sources have speculated to POGO that the V-22 cannot take on extra weight without impacting its performance, and a de-icing system would add weight.
The requirement that the aircraft be able to operate in icing conditions was waived during the first phase of operational testing in 2000. The report also predicted that there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the 2002 report to Congress said.
There is another concern raised by the dual-engine failure. Because the Pentagon and defense contractors have been saying that the loss of both engines in the V-22 is “remote, but possible,” they have deleted the original requirement that the V-22 be able to autorotate like nearly all other helicopters to a soft landing in the event of engine failure. In the event of a single engine failure, V-22 flight procedures require the pilot to transition to aircraft mode and in the event of a second engine failure perform a “fixed wing glide approach to an emergency landing site,” according to an April 2002 report to Congress.
In fact, had the emergency dual engine stall over Arizona been below 1,600 feet, it would “not likely” be survivable, according to the recent DOT&E report.
The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22’s to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations force from enemy areas. Although the CV-22 is on a different development and testing track than the Marines MV-22, it team of developers and testers work together on many common areas.
The Air Force version of the V-22, the CV-22, is a modified version of the Marines MV-22 to perform longer-range, special operations missions. The CV-22 is modified to have long-range fuel tanks, advanced radar, and more sophisticated situational awareness and radio frequency countermeasures. These modifications are designed to improve operations during night and low altitude flights in bad weather.
The report to Congress also said there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the report said.
POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends)
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The V-22 program office confirmed the Oct. 18 icing accident, which prompted an unscheduled landing in Prescott, Arizona, Reuters reported Oct. 25. It quoted spokesman James Darcy as denying that either engine stalled, adding that the crew was never in any danger: "The POGO report is completely false. The aircraft was never out of controlled flight, the engines never lost power, the landing was precautionary," Darcy was quoted as saying.
Is it true that the Osprey can blast-off its rotorblades to perform a running landing?
Does the wing produce enough lift for a glide landing?
Last edited by hotzenplotz : 27th October 2005 at 11:51.
If the V22 adds payload by making running takeoffs, when they use that weight from a ship, the V-22 will have to issue water wings to its passengers, cause it will hit the water at the lip of the deck, and sink like a stone, and will need sonar to navigate. The weights I have published are those it can hover with.
Here is that discussion of V22 performance, again. The V22 carries half the payload of a helicoipter, has no range advantage, and does not have the transport productivity of a helicopter:
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Oct. 25, 2005)
(See Editor’s Note at bottom)
WASHINGTON --- An Air Force version of the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft last week experienced a condensation stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems, sources have told the Project On Government Oversight. The aircraft, CV-22 #6, was on a routine flight to Edwards Air Force base in California. It did not recover from the stall until it had descended to warmer air at about 10,000 feet, the sources said.
As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona.
“This is very disturbing. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production,” said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. “And now we find out the aircraft can’t even fly into a cloud.”
At the time of this release, it was not known whether the aircraft that experienced the stall had a de-icing system onboard. It’s also unclear just how much, or if any, de-icing system testing has been performed on the CV-22. A report of testing issued last month by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation on the Marines V-22 did not address the issue of icing. A 2000 DOT&E report said that icing testing on the Marines V-22 had been waived by the Navy. Sources have speculated to POGO that the V-22 cannot take on extra weight without impacting its performance, and a de-icing system would add weight.
The requirement that the aircraft be able to operate in icing conditions was waived during the first phase of operational testing in 2000. The report also predicted that there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the 2002 report to Congress said.
There is another concern raised by the dual-engine failure. Because the Pentagon and defense contractors have been saying that the loss of both engines in the V-22 is “remote, but possible,” they have deleted the original requirement that the V-22 be able to autorotate like nearly all other helicopters to a soft landing in the event of engine failure. In the event of a single engine failure, V-22 flight procedures require the pilot to transition to aircraft mode and in the event of a second engine failure perform a “fixed wing glide approach to an emergency landing site,” according to an April 2002 report to Congress.
In fact, had the emergency dual engine stall over Arizona been below 1,600 feet, it would “not likely” be survivable, according to the recent DOT&E report.
The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22’s to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations force from enemy areas. Although the CV-22 is on a different development and testing track than the Marines MV-22, it team of developers and testers work together on many common areas.
The Air Force version of the V-22, the CV-22, is a modified version of the Marines MV-22 to perform longer-range, special operations missions. The CV-22 is modified to have long-range fuel tanks, advanced radar, and more sophisticated situational awareness and radio frequency countermeasures. These modifications are designed to improve operations during night and low altitude flights in bad weather.
The report to Congress also said there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the report said.
POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends)
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The V-22 program office confirmed the Oct. 18 icing accident, which prompted an unscheduled landing in Prescott, Arizona, Reuters reported Oct. 25. It quoted spokesman James Darcy as denying that either engine stalled, adding that the crew was never in any danger: "The POGO report is completely false. The aircraft was never out of controlled flight, the engines never lost power, the landing was precautionary," Darcy was quoted as saying.
If I have ever posted inaccurate info, it has been in error, and I have corrected it. If you feel that I "always bash other manufacturers" then you haven't read "all" my posts.
Last edited by NickLappos : 27th October 2005 at 21:54.
I find it interesting that you state the V-22 has never flown at 60,500 pounds. Both Boeing and Bell have on their web sites press releases that claim the V-22 has flown at 60,500 pounds.
Remember the fuss about the Osprey not being able to do the job of the CH-47 and CH-53. Let's add this latest silliness to the list of "We told you so!'s"
Where will this end?
December 29th, 2005 5:47 pm
Corps pays $100K for retooled jeep
By Steven Komarow / USA Today
WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps is paying $100,000 apiece for a revamped Vietnam-era jeep as part of its program to outfit the hybrid airplane-helicopter V-22 Osprey, Pentagon records show.
That's seven times what a deluxe commercial version of the vehicle costs. It's also three times what U.S. Export-Import Bank records show the Dominican Republic paid four years ago for a military version of the vehicle, called the Growler, a recycled version of the M151 jeep.
The Marines and the contractor, General Dynamics, say the vehicle has been thoroughly revised with modern automotive parts and adapted to fit on the V-22.
"Yes, it did start off with jeep technology, and it does look like a jeep in a lot of ways," says John Garner, the Marines project manager. But he says it's now "state of the art."
Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit group that monitors Pentagon contracts, says taxpayers are getting a deal that "stinks" on an unarmored vehicle that makes no sense for today's missions, where troops face ambushes and roadside bombs.
"In a time of war, we should not be wasting money on a junker which will not protect our troops," Brian says. Under current military safety rules, the Growler would be barred from service in Iraq except as a utility vehicle that doesn't leave the security of a base.
The Marines have budgeted to buy more than 400 Growlers, along with a French mortar and ammunition that it would tow, under a contract that could total $296 million.
The Growler beat two other vehicles for the contract, Garner says.
Built by Ocala, Fla.-based American Growler, the original Growler is made partly from salvaged M151 jeep parts and is available in several versions for as little as $7,500 in kit form. At the high end, there's a $14,500 upgraded "tactical dune buggy" with a "bikini top."
The Marines' version has considerable upgrades from the commercial and Dominican Republic models, the Corps and contractor say, including a turbo-diesel engine, disc brakes and other systems adapted from modern vehicles.
"It's not your grandfather's jeep," says Kendell Pease, a General Dynamics spokesman.
The Osprey is a twin-engine airplane that turns its rotors up for vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter.
Under development since 1986, the V-22 is scheduled to go into service in 2007. It has a history of technical problems and several fatal crashes.
The Growler is expected to be deployed with the V-22 in 2007, Pease says.
Linear Mode
