V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II
Just such a thread exists 
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/456...ltrotor-4.html
And yes differences abound - collective stick instead of TCL, no lateral rotor flapping input, no rudder, among other things
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/456...ltrotor-4.html
And yes differences abound - collective stick instead of TCL, no lateral rotor flapping input, no rudder, among other things
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 13th Aug 2013 at 16:57.
Classified Audit on Fleet Availability Rates about to be issued.....this should prove interesting.
Pentagon watchdog to release classified audit on V-22 Osprey | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com
Pentagon watchdog to release classified audit on V-22 Osprey | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com
Those are some odd numbers they quote at the conclusion of the article...
From Seapower March 2011 - SPECIAL REPORT / MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & OVERHAUL:
By 2011, the Air Force improved to have its Ospreys ready 58 percent of the time and the Marine Corps 63 percent. Last year, those figures were up to 62 percent and 68 percent, respectively.
While the availability rate of the Osprey in the field has remained
constant at just under 72 percent, the Marine Corps would like to
see 75 percent across the board
constant at just under 72 percent, the Marine Corps would like to
see 75 percent across the board
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Stunning Reversal!!
The Star-Telegram which is known to be the most anti-tiltrotor, anti-V-22 Print Publication on the planet has done a 180 degree complete reversal!! In the past they have ignored the truth completely disregarding the facts instead choosing to print statements of misinformation and fact-twisting at every corner to try and discredit the technology. Have the magnetic poles of the world reversed!?
New mission proves Osprey the real thing | Editorials | Fort Worth, Arlington, Northeast Tarr...
New mission proves Osprey the real thing
Posted Friday, Aug. 16, 2013
At one point, the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft was the “ugly duckling” of the American military’s flying fleet.
Some people didn’t trust it. In addition to being considered too expensive to build and maintain, it had a questionable safety record early on, was grounded for a while after two fatal crashes and threatened with never being deployed for military use.
But since its redesign and receiving clearance for deployment in 2005, the MV-22 Osprey has turned into a swan, winning approval from officers in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan and chalking up a performance record that outshines the helicopters that it replaced.
Among the attributes of this hybrid,which can take off and land like a helicopter but fly like an airplane, are its ability to “fly twice as fast, carry three times as much and fly four times the distance of the older CH-46 helicopter,” according to a statement from the U.S. Marines.
The aircraft, developed by Fort Worth-based Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co., has now been tested in actual combat and in the extreme weather and terrain conditions of Middle Eastern countries. It has performed as it was designed, so much so that the military in June announced it would purchase 99 more of the aircraft, 92 for the Navy and Marines and seven for the Air Force.
Though now combat-proven, perhaps the Osprey’s greatest commendation came just a few days ago when the futuristic craft joined the presidential fleet that transports the chief executive, secret service, reporters and VIPs. It made its debut last weekend when the Obama family left Washington to begin a vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.
Note that the president himself will not be a passenger on the Osprey, but it will fly the press corps, security personnel and others who travel wherever he goes, probably because the president’s Marine One is equipped with other security, medical and communications equipment that’s not yet built into the Osprey.
Still, this latest development bodes well for an aircraft originally designed and tested in Fort Worth that has had a rocky past.
Posted Friday, Aug. 16, 2013
At one point, the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft was the “ugly duckling” of the American military’s flying fleet.
Some people didn’t trust it. In addition to being considered too expensive to build and maintain, it had a questionable safety record early on, was grounded for a while after two fatal crashes and threatened with never being deployed for military use.
But since its redesign and receiving clearance for deployment in 2005, the MV-22 Osprey has turned into a swan, winning approval from officers in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan and chalking up a performance record that outshines the helicopters that it replaced.
Among the attributes of this hybrid,which can take off and land like a helicopter but fly like an airplane, are its ability to “fly twice as fast, carry three times as much and fly four times the distance of the older CH-46 helicopter,” according to a statement from the U.S. Marines.
The aircraft, developed by Fort Worth-based Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co., has now been tested in actual combat and in the extreme weather and terrain conditions of Middle Eastern countries. It has performed as it was designed, so much so that the military in June announced it would purchase 99 more of the aircraft, 92 for the Navy and Marines and seven for the Air Force.
Though now combat-proven, perhaps the Osprey’s greatest commendation came just a few days ago when the futuristic craft joined the presidential fleet that transports the chief executive, secret service, reporters and VIPs. It made its debut last weekend when the Obama family left Washington to begin a vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.
Note that the president himself will not be a passenger on the Osprey, but it will fly the press corps, security personnel and others who travel wherever he goes, probably because the president’s Marine One is equipped with other security, medical and communications equipment that’s not yet built into the Osprey.
Still, this latest development bodes well for an aircraft originally designed and tested in Fort Worth that has had a rocky past.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shut Down Both Engines?
It's been decades since I've flown and with too much time on my hands I took an interest in this V-22 thing. This is the first source of real technical debate I've found. I've spent over a hour skimming though these threads, and learned others have lots of time too!
I found this article by a V-22 pilot of interest:
Flying the V-22 | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry
I apologize if you all have discussed this before, but he mentions something odd:
"At this point, the Osprey is cruising along essentially as a twin-engine turboprop airplane, flying at the same speeds, altitudes and flight rules as traditional turboprops. The primary difference is the lack of ability to fly with one proprotor feathered, (which is one of the major training obstacles of multi-engine airplane transitions). Should a proprotor gearbox fail in airplane mode, causing the related proprotor to stop, the only recourse is to shutdown both engines and conduct a power-off glide and emergency landing; the adverse yaw is just too great for the rudders to overcome, leaving few options."
____________
That would seem to make long flights over water dangerous. A problem with just one gearbox requires that both engines shut down?
I found this article by a V-22 pilot of interest:
Flying the V-22 | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry
I apologize if you all have discussed this before, but he mentions something odd:
"At this point, the Osprey is cruising along essentially as a twin-engine turboprop airplane, flying at the same speeds, altitudes and flight rules as traditional turboprops. The primary difference is the lack of ability to fly with one proprotor feathered, (which is one of the major training obstacles of multi-engine airplane transitions). Should a proprotor gearbox fail in airplane mode, causing the related proprotor to stop, the only recourse is to shutdown both engines and conduct a power-off glide and emergency landing; the adverse yaw is just too great for the rudders to overcome, leaving few options."
____________
That would seem to make long flights over water dangerous. A problem with just one gearbox requires that both engines shut down?
CD
Troll somewhere else. Ospreys are significantly safer than the tandems they replace as it only takes a single interconnect shaft drive failure to be catastrophic on tandems (like a $100 bearing). The Osprey can easily survive a similar failure or an engine failure. The secret is two rotors which are primarily driven by their own engines and linked by a backup interconnect shaft in case of a failure of an engine. The front rotor of tandems have no independent drive source so blades collide and everyone dies.
As to the main drive gearbox no vertical lift aircraft can survive an in flight main rotor transmission failure which seizes rotor drive. Some like the 92 can not even survive loss of tail rotor drive.
The Sultan
Troll somewhere else. Ospreys are significantly safer than the tandems they replace as it only takes a single interconnect shaft drive failure to be catastrophic on tandems (like a $100 bearing). The Osprey can easily survive a similar failure or an engine failure. The secret is two rotors which are primarily driven by their own engines and linked by a backup interconnect shaft in case of a failure of an engine. The front rotor of tandems have no independent drive source so blades collide and everyone dies.
As to the main drive gearbox no vertical lift aircraft can survive an in flight main rotor transmission failure which seizes rotor drive. Some like the 92 can not even survive loss of tail rotor drive.
The Sultan
". Some like the 92 can not even survive loss of tail rotor drive."
Well Sultan can't say I agree with that statement.
It can if ECL is followed.
I assume you are refering to the NF accident.
Well Sultan can't say I agree with that statement.
It can if ECL is followed.
I assume you are refering to the NF accident.
Few ever agree with Sultan about anything he has to say.
RAF Mildenhall CV22
Three weeks ago, at the end of July, I was fortunate enough to be granted permission to tag along with the media including a couple of editors and reporters from various aviation publications, the Beeb and the local spotters, to 352nd Media Day to see the new MC130J and CV-22 pair now based here (my photos below). Great to see vertical lift come back to SOCEUR after a 6 year absence from when the Pave Lows retired.
Cheers
Cheers
". Some like the 92 can not even survive loss of tail rotor drive."
Well Sultan can't say I agree with that statement.
It can if ECL is followed.
I assume you are refering to the NF accident.
Well Sultan can't say I agree with that statement.
It can if ECL is followed.
I assume you are refering to the NF accident.
A loss of a single gearbox on a conventional helo requires a full auto to ground (if its the TR GB that goes) and possibly even drops like a stone if the MR gearbox croaks and the overrunning clutch seizes. The latter is what is would cause a need for feathering on the tiltrotor.
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 19th Aug 2013 at 14:59.
That mean one rotor on the Osprey can be feathered to reduce drag and control windmilling but the aircraft would be restricted to Airplane mode only (last part intuitively obvious!), assuming the free wheeling unit for the feathered prop is functional?
Last edited by SASless; 19th Aug 2013 at 15:24.
The proprotor does not feather on the Osprey. A PRGB failure is a very high risk event, requiring quick action by the aircrew should one occur. Essentially equivalent to a main transmission failure in a helo. Because of this there is an Emergency Lube System that will supply up to 30 min of oil to either PRGB and is activated automatically.
Airplanes do have some advantages don't they!
SAS, albatross
Yes I do mean NF. Watch the video reconstruction! You clearly see when the tail rotor drive failed. The resultant significant pitch up and roll due to the highly canted tail rotor busted any chance of a controlled soft landing. The main rotor was still being driven by two good engines until impact. It was the loss of the tr drive that sealed their fate.
As to the Osprey one loss of an engine or interconnect shaft is just a minor inconvience as demonstrated on a precautionary diversion to Iceland on a transatlantic flight after an engine was shutdown. Another Osprey had an interconnect shaft failure due a non-hardware problem. It just landed at the nearest airport with no collateral damage or injuries.
SAS can you site a tandem that was not destroyed by a loss of an interconnect shaft while in flight?
The Sultan
Yes I do mean NF. Watch the video reconstruction! You clearly see when the tail rotor drive failed. The resultant significant pitch up and roll due to the highly canted tail rotor busted any chance of a controlled soft landing. The main rotor was still being driven by two good engines until impact. It was the loss of the tr drive that sealed their fate.
As to the Osprey one loss of an engine or interconnect shaft is just a minor inconvience as demonstrated on a precautionary diversion to Iceland on a transatlantic flight after an engine was shutdown. Another Osprey had an interconnect shaft failure due a non-hardware problem. It just landed at the nearest airport with no collateral damage or injuries.
SAS can you site a tandem that was not destroyed by a loss of an interconnect shaft while in flight?
The Sultan
Last edited by The Sultan; 19th Aug 2013 at 23:42.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 for COD
I was not comparing the V-22 to helicopters, but to fixed-wing like the C-2. As you all may know, there is talk of buying V-22s for COD (i.e. shore to carrier shuttle flights). The C-2 is the same size as the V-22, but half the cost with 2-3 time more range.
V-22 salesmen are pressing the idea that it can do VertRep too, bypassing the need for the carrier stop. I was involved in Navy decision in the late 90s to drop the plan for 50 HV-22s in favor of the MH-60S. The V-22 was far more costly with many times the downwash.
If one googles "vertrep", you find this short video of H-60s doing impressive, agile vertrep.
From what I've read, a V-22 can do externals, but not well. I found only one video of a V-22 performing vertrep, and it explains why the Navy was right to dump the HV-22, and why it will stay with C-2s for COD.
And C-2s don't have to ditch should a gearbox fail.
V-22 salesmen are pressing the idea that it can do VertRep too, bypassing the need for the carrier stop. I was involved in Navy decision in the late 90s to drop the plan for 50 HV-22s in favor of the MH-60S. The V-22 was far more costly with many times the downwash.
If one googles "vertrep", you find this short video of H-60s doing impressive, agile vertrep.
From what I've read, a V-22 can do externals, but not well. I found only one video of a V-22 performing vertrep, and it explains why the Navy was right to dump the HV-22, and why it will stay with C-2s for COD.
And C-2s don't have to ditch should a gearbox fail.
Carlos, I will hope you recall that in the late 90's, it was still called the CH-60S Knighthawk. 
I still have a coffee cup with that nomenclature on it. .
Yes, a Hawk can do Vertrep. (But it's no Phrog) Hell, I did occasional Vertrep missions in a Seahawk (SH-60B) ... doable but hardly optimal. All the internal weight cut the max we could lift on the hook ...
As to your "ditch if the gearbox fails" if > then statement, I think you neglected to read mcpave's post. He knows whereof he speaks, when it comes to the Osprey.
On the other hand, the C-2 is a proven capability, and IIRC still has numerous parts on common with the E-2, which won't be leaving the fleet any time soon. I see no reason to replace the C-2 with the V-22. Maybe I'm a dinosaur.
I still have a coffee cup with that nomenclature on it. . Yes, a Hawk can do Vertrep. (But it's no Phrog) Hell, I did occasional Vertrep missions in a Seahawk (SH-60B) ... doable but hardly optimal. All the internal weight cut the max we could lift on the hook ...
As to your "ditch if the gearbox fails" if > then statement, I think you neglected to read mcpave's post. He knows whereof he speaks, when it comes to the Osprey.
On the other hand, the C-2 is a proven capability, and IIRC still has numerous parts on common with the E-2, which won't be leaving the fleet any time soon. I see no reason to replace the C-2 with the V-22. Maybe I'm a dinosaur.
Sounds like you already have an established opinion and history with the subject matter...
Firstly, the "half the cost" label is dubious. The current fleet of C-2A aircraft were built in the mid 1980s @ $38 million each. Thats right around $80 million in today's dollars. And that is not to mention whatsoever how much the propsed modernized C-2 concept will cost, with upgraded 427A Rolls engine from the E-2D (along with a bunch of other E-2D systems, none of which are for free).
And yes, as with any rotorcraft, a gearbox failure is going to be a very rare event and probably a bad day.
In the end, the argument is whether or not you want the ability to replenish anything outside of a full deck supercarrier.
Mr Danger.....you wouldnt have any relation to the infamous Carlton Meyer, who often posts on internet message/comment boards under the moniker Carlos and is from SoCal...do you?
Firstly, the "half the cost" label is dubious. The current fleet of C-2A aircraft were built in the mid 1980s @ $38 million each. Thats right around $80 million in today's dollars. And that is not to mention whatsoever how much the propsed modernized C-2 concept will cost, with upgraded 427A Rolls engine from the E-2D (along with a bunch of other E-2D systems, none of which are for free).
And yes, as with any rotorcraft, a gearbox failure is going to be a very rare event and probably a bad day.
In the end, the argument is whether or not you want the ability to replenish anything outside of a full deck supercarrier.
Mr Danger.....you wouldnt have any relation to the infamous Carlton Meyer, who often posts on internet message/comment boards under the moniker Carlos and is from SoCal...do you?
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 20th Aug 2013 at 13:18.