Now I'm confused.
 

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Would somebody please clarify the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist'?

Hollywood made it too easy for simple-minded people like me. It gave the 'good guys' white hats and the 'bad guys' black hats.

In the real world, it seems that all hats are shades of gray. Then politicians paint the hats with propaganda to 'whiten' or 'blacken' their appearance.

Ah, the wonderous V-22! To listen to some of these military geeks talk, you'd think that the tiltrotor was some magical new device. Either that or the executives from Bell-Boeing were giving them some serious handjobs.

I guess they like that it can lift off vertically and go...zip!...long distances and land vertically at the other end. Never mind that it will land with a complete inability to defend itself. In fact, it will land with less defensive capability than your basic Viet Nam-era UH-1H, which could at least lay down suppressing fire on the way in. The V-22 can lay down suppressing fire on the way out.Interesting... You'd think that Bell would have discovered some of the negative aspects of the tiltrotor design before The Big V-22 Crash...the one in Yuma that was the real eye-opener. One can imagine the Bell engineers slapping themselves on their collective foreheads, going, "Hmm, asymmetric vortex-ring state? D'OH! Why didn't WE think of that?!" Well, it's understandable guys. I mean, you had only been working on tiltrotors since 1953. Blame it on your fathers! You young guys would have discovered it eventually. Oh wait...you did...right after 17 Marines were killed in your wonderful product. I wonder what other little "surprises" the V-22 holds in store for us? I'll say this: Rumsfeld has a big set to get in and actually go up in one.

Just wait until these tiltrotors start being used in real combat situations, where people are ready and waiting to shoot at them as they "stealthily" arrive (oh yeah, I'm sure those two proprotors hardly make any noise). I just wonder how long the military's schoolgirl giddiness over the V-22 will last?

New Found MV-22 Surprises
 

Asymmetric Blottle perhaps?
.
Marine Corps' Osprey damaged in 'hard landing'
09:50 PM CST on Monday, March 27, 2006
Associated Press
Source; http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032806dnnatospreymishap.d2c8a87.html
*
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION NEW RIVER, N.C. – The Marine Corps said Monday it was investigating an accident with an MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft that damaged its right wing and engine.
No one was injured, either on board the aircraft or on the ground at the air base at Jacksonville, the Corps said in a statement.
"The aircraft damage resulted from an inadvertent takeoff followed by a hard landing" during a test flight following maintenance on the Osprey, according to the statement from the Cherry Point public affairs office.
The statement offered no further details. A base spokesman couldn't be reached by telephone.
The Osprey was assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204, which is based at Marine Corps Air Station New River in Jacksonville.
Earlier this year, the Corps said it would begin deploying the Osprey in combat zones within a year and activated a squadron of the aircraft, which are designed to replace Vietnam-era CH-46E twin rotor helicopters.
The aircraft takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like an airplane.
The aircraft program was halted for a review after crashes in 2000 that killed four Marines in North Carolina and 19 in Arizona. But the $19 billion program was restarted by the Pentagon last year.

Lemon-Alert.
 

It’s reported below, that the most recent V-22 mishap involving an uncommanded take-off and subsequent hard landing was most likely caused by an engine going into overspeed which causes the engine’s Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) to automatically increase rotor/prop pitch so as to offset it. This is a designed-in response and would be of little consequence in-flight but since this V-22 was on the ground when this occurred, the aircraft went about 20-30 feet airborne due to the FADEC’s response to the engine OS. One would think that over the two decades of development, this situation would have dawned on someone and been addressed! Perhaps by simply routing a FADEC's response to an engine OS through the landing gear weight-on-wheel switch might have prevented this. I bet another billion $$ and a decade more of study will get the V-22 safe or as blogged elsewhere, this particular FADEC was simply a development version for the proposed V-22 UAV model! Yikes! Related: Rumor is that in addition to a CBS 60 Minutes Team being barred entrance onto New River following this mishap, the History Channel is looking to do a segment under the Modern Marvels, Engineering Disasters episode on the V-22.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_s...id=news/INV04066.xml

As Rolls Royce, who makes the government supplied engine for the V-22, is a British company should it not be lemons but limes. As I see it this issue, it is Limey management at its best.

The Sultan

A slippery slope.
 

The article below says that if pilots experience an unexpected takeoff in the future to simply "go with it" and go higher.

Does this include when chained down on a flight deck?

Hmmmm. Better break out another billion $$.


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...id=18177&rfi=6

6 foot, not 30 foot drop
 

The article below states the recent V-22 mishap caused the RH wing to snap-off after the A/C dropped from a height of
6-feet and went on to tout the wing seperation as another designed-in feature for passenger safety. I recall Blackhawk hard-
landing test video that seemingly surpassed a 6-foot fall with the airframe receiving no structural damage and was flyable afterwards.
I would assume the V-22 had to pass a similar crash-worthiness test and would be interested to know if a 6-foot drop causing
Class A (unflyable) damage met the spec. Anyone care to do the math or speculate?

http://www.newbernsunjournal.com/Sit...&Section=Local

Mission Performance Vs Survivability
 

The specifications that the Blackhawk and the Apache were built to in the 1970's were not applied to the V-22 or to the ECP that results in the Bell Super Huey and Super Cobra. I believe that the burden of these requirements would have resulted in a dramatic reduction in mission performance due to empty weight increases. Mission performance trumps survivability in the 21st century.

A bitter pill to swallow.
 

Not doubting you Jack but what's up with all the surviability talk these days? Is the Army more concerned with their people than the MC? Though I realize the military must take certain risks with their people, it seems like those 3 Marine A/C have taken a step backward in safety. Then again, I would have thought the H-92 more surviable than the H-101 as a VIP A/C with the fuel being external (amongst other things) but perhaps these days it is: "Mission first, safety second" even for the most important people(?!).

Blackhawk/S-92 A Higher Standard
 

Bill, you make a very good and pertinent enquiry. The UH-60 was designed to Mil – 1290. Some of the elements of this specification are:
• Energy Absorbing Landing Gear (30 FPS Limit)
• High Mass Components Retained in 20/20/18G Crash Condition
• Load Limiting Troop Seats (14/13/12G)
• Crashworthy Fuel Cells (65 ft Drop)
• Anti-plow Keel Beams
• Load Limiting Crew Seats
Most of these attributes were retained or improved in the S-92. I believe that the S-92 fuel cells were drop tested from 100 ft. with all of the hardware in the tank. The latest JAA flaw/fault tolerance requirements were incorporated in all critical component design and fabrication. On the flip side, the EH-101 is basically a blown up S-61. Five bladed 61 ft. rotor, fuel tanks under the cabin floor, engine drive through MGB for accessories. The list goes on and on to include a utility hydraulic system powered rotor brake system that has resulted in the loss of at least two machines.

For my money, if I am getting shot at or for what ever reason going to crash I want to be strapped to a Blackhawk.:ok:

Politics & comfort over safety.
 

Yes, the Blackhawk certainly has a lot more going for its passengers than anything out there now iin a crash. I can understand wanting a larger VIP cabin but it kinda makes you wonder if a tradeoff for comfort over safety was smart. Can't understand why anyone these days would want a VIP sitting atop a load of fuel in a crash!

MV-22 Osprey at RIAT and Farnborough
 

Something for the guys in England to see.
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/images...x250_46558.jpg

Any idea what date this will be?

Maybe http://www.airtattoo.com/ and http://www.farnborough.com/ might give you a clue ?

Nr - I am sure we are aware when the shows are, but I too wonder when they will actually land at Farnborough.

The original statement issued last month said that the aircraft will be departing on 7/10, attending RIAT (7/15 - 7/16) prior to being showcased at Farnborough (7/17 - 7/23).

I/C

Class "B" V-22 mishap
 

Heard earlier today there was a V-22 Class B mishap but without any details. Has anyone heard or know more of the same?
------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:


Apparently the V-22 PAO won't respond to questions over this however, perhaps it's due to another revelation recently uncovered regarding engine compressor stalls. See new post..

V-22 Osprey makes precautionary landing en route to U.K. air show


WASHINGTON -- A U.S. military V-22 Osprey made a precautionary landing in Iceland on Monday, delaying its journey to the U.K. for the Farnborough International Air Show, the U.S. Marine Corps said.

The Pentagon is sending two Ospreys to the show as the aircraft's first overseas journey. Contractors Bell Helicopter, part of Textron Inc. (TXT), and Boeing Co. (BA) are sharing the cost of the trip and will pay for all of the exhibition flights at the event.

The V-22 is a tilt-rotor aircraft that can take off like a helicopter and fly like a plane. The aircraft is expected to become officially combat capable by September 2007, when it is scheduled to be deployed for the first time.

In this week's transatlantic journey, one of the aircraft made it all the way to the U.K. with no problems. The other V-22 experienced "right engine compressor stalls" and made a precautionary landing at a U.S. military base in Iceland.

A V-22 program spokesman said the incident did not indicate any serious problems with the aircraft, nor would it put a big crimp in the schedule. The diverted aircraft should finish its journey later this week, he said.

Yeah Right....another prevarication about the Osprey!
 

That's why the contractors are paying part of the costs for the trip.....could not be anything to do with a sales pitch or anything I guess?

Reckon they will bring along some of those 200,000 USD special built jeeps the Marines bought to tow French mortars?

Bell says engine compressor stalls "are very normal"
 

Ref: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html
The article above reportis that one of the 2 V-22s (actually 3) experienced a compressor stall and was having the engine replaced, Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing." "These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.

REALLY! I wonder what else Bell puts out that's "very normal" like this?

And perhaps the worse is news that all 3 V-22s participating in this effort experienced compressor stalls over a 4-day period!

Is this what they call "Breaking News" or is this "really nothing" and "very normal" with Bell products or perhaps it's because the V-22 has had only 2 decades to go from dream to reality?:\

EOR