What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey? [Archive] - Page 4

FH1100 Pilot

23rd Jan 2010, 15:28

I was in my puny little, unmanly, takes-no-skill-to-fly JetRanger yesterday, departing the Destin, Florida aeropuerto for our hunting camp up in central Alabama. We were leaving way too close to sunset, thanks to my passenger being late (imagine that!). It had been one of those beautifully clear, warm, not-a-cloud-in-the-sky evenings...the days we use to justify and remind ourselves why we moved here to Florida. And now the sunset would be spectacular.

I was about to turn north, to go up the narrow corridor that is provided for general aviation traffic to transit the huge restricted areas surrounding Eglin Air Force Base. Just after making my departure call and lifting off, another guy reported in. "Destin traffic, Raven Three-One, a V-22, 10 east, transiting the area along the beach, 500 or below." This, I had to see. So instead of turning immediately northbound, I paralleled the beach eastbound a bit. Sure enough, there was the V-22, just offshore, scooting along with the nacelles at 45 degrees (or so). I've seen them fly many times, but never from the air, potentially this close.

I told him where I was and we called each other in sight. I couldn't resist. "How you liking that Osprey?" I asked. There was a pause. The pilot keyed the mic and paused again. "It's awesome," he said simply, his voice full of pride. And I smiled. "I'm sure it is," I said, pointing him out to my passenger as the tiltrotor flew by.

For all of the negative things I think about the V-22, for all of the things I could have said to him, none of that mattered right then. Politics aside, here was an U.S. Air Force pilot who was clearly loving what he was doing, loving the machine he was flying. From a pilot's standpoint, I kind of envied him. Not that I have any desire at all to fly the V-22, but I empathize with those who do. It must be super-cool to be able to hover, and then also be able to accelerate up to the speed of a turboprop fixed-wing and go somewhere.

I thought about this as I climbed to 4,500 feet and saw my groundspeed max out at 95 knots, 100 miles still to go. If I had a V-22 the trip would take me less than a half-hour instead of over an hour. And I'd get there while there still was some daylight left instead of after dark. Of course, I wouldn't be able to land the V-22 at our little helipad-in-the-woods at the hunting camp, but hey...we'd just figure something else out. "Have fun flying that thing," I mentally transmitted back to the V-22 pilot. I still don't think that the future of the Osprey is a guaranteed success, but it's sure got to be a blast to fly for the guys in the front seats.

SASless

25th Jan 2010, 12:57

It is official....Channel 14, the local news channel on the TV, featured a segment about the 24th MEU and reported it was the first time the MV-22 has operated on a Humanitarian Mission. No photos or video of the aircraft flying.....but one has to assume they are now supporting USMC operations from the USS Nassau and other fleet units.

21stCen

25th Jan 2010, 13:38

ENC Marines Use Osprey In Haiti In Ground-Breaking Mission
Marines from Eastern Carolina are using MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to help in Haiti, the first time the Osprey is being used in a humanitarian air or disaster relief mission. The 24th MEU is also helping with medical evacuations on helicopters.

Posted:
11:02 AM Jan 24, 2010

Marines Eastern Carolina are using MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to help in Haiti, the first time the Osprey is being used in a humanitarian aid or disaster relief mission.
The Ospreys are from to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Lejeune and New River in Jacksonville and took off from the USS Nassau Sunday morning.
(Click the photo tab to see the Osprey as well as the 24th MEU helping medevac Haitian victims.)
The aircraft, which can take off like a plane or a helicopter, are conducting aerial surveys of population centers and roadways in northern Haiti.
According to officials, the intent of the Osprey mission is to help gain awareness of the current situation on the ground in some of the outlying towns and areas that have not had a U.S. military presence.
The 24th MEU is also helping with medical evacuations on helicopters.
http://media.graytvinc.com/images/moreospreynassau.JPG
Two MV-22 Ospreys tilt-rotor aircraft from Marine Medium Tilt Rotor Squadron 162 (Reinforced), 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, launched from USS Nassau to conduct an aerial reconnaissance of population centers and infrastructures in northern Haiti Jan. 24. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Alex C. Sauceda)

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/ospreyonnassau.JPG
This is the first time the Ospreys are used in a humanitarian aid or disaster relief missions. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Alex C. Sauceda)

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/medivacmeu.jpg

Video Clip:
MADISON: Osprey launched to Haiti (http://www.dibdias.com/2010/01/osprey-launced-to-haiti.html)

21stCen

26th Jan 2010, 13:42

Special Ops activities are not normally reported, even those in conjunction with foreign forces. This apparently took place a few months ago, and note the reference to 'other missions.' As US and foreign troop involvement in Iraq decreases, CV-22 and other Spec Ops activities are apparently on the increase (these are the type of things that mckpave and others cannot talk about without official authorization for release):
Iraqi Special Forces get Osprey support | United States Forces - Iraq (http://www.usf-iraq.com/news/headlines/iraqi-special-forces-get-osprey-support)

Iraqi Special Forces get Osprey support
Saturday, September 12, 2009 07:17
By Petty Officer 2nd Class Jimmy Pan
Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Arabian Peninsula

BAGHDAD — The CV-22 Osprey, the world's first tilt-rotor aircraft, supported Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) during a recent early-morning mission in the Iraqi capital.

The Osprey performed its first mission in support of an operation to apprehend suspected terrorists. Although the new aircraft was flown by U.S. Air Force personnel, the troops and mission were led by the elite ISOF Soldiers.

"Initially, I think that they [ISOF Soldiers] were a little leery of the new aircraft," the Air Force pilot who flew the Osprey during the mission said. "But after using it for the mission, I think we have made the ISOF Soldiers believers in the Osprey."

For take-off and landing, the Osprey operates as a helicopter. However, during flight, it operates as a turboprop airplane. The advanced aircraft, named after a bird of prey also known as the Sea Hawk, can transport 24 Soldiers, 20 thousand pounds of internal cargo or 15 thousand pounds of external cargo. These capabilities provide ISOF and U.S. Special Operations Forces with a fast yet versatile infiltration platform.

The mission partnered with the Iraqi troops was a resounding success.

"The ISOF was positioned at the exact drop-off point they have coordinated [and] they were able to quickly prosecute their target," the Air Force pilot said.

The elite Iraqi team successfully detained two individuals and seized a large weapons cache during the mission.

As U.S. forces have withdrawn from major Iraqi cities, ISOF Soldiers have taken the lead in the fight against terrorists. U.S. forces continue to train and support their colleagues in the ISOF as outlined in the U.S./Iraq Security Agreement that went into effect, Jan. 1. The addition of the Osprey provides Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force – Arabian Peninsula and its partners with another capability to defend the people of Iraq from terrorist groups.

"All of the missions I have flown since arriving in theater are very important, with all the missions assisting in stabilizing Iraq and helping solidify the sovereignty of the Iraqi government," the Air Force pilot concluded.

The ISOF Soldiers were proud of the successful mission and grateful to the Osprey crew for their assistance. They especially appreciated the ride up, the hover down and the flight home.

http://www.usf-iraq.com/images/stories/features/2009/september/090912_fea3_hi.jpg

21stCen

27th Jan 2010, 05:11

The Navy Petty Officer who is the "journalist" may not have any experience in aviation, and possibly not much in writing articles (it could be an assigned 'additional duty').

The advantage of the Tiltrotor is to be able to move in faster and quieter than any other aircraft in theater is capable of, and if necessary, get out quicker!

21stCen

1st Feb 2010, 16:18

Somebody previously questioned approach speeds of V-22s in the transition for landing that Sasless had described. Here is a normal base recovery approach taped by a by-stander of a CV-22 outside the AFB (not a 'high-speed' penetration approach, just a normal approach).
9dtdoiR-NRA&NR=1

There was a big complaint being voiced by the audience at the first Farnborough demo of the MV-22. People in the audience felt that 'even though it was very fast and did things they had never seen before,' it was not as impressive as the jets and helicopter demos in one important area: the biggest complaint was that compared to the load roar of the other impressive jets and helos, 'you could almost not even hear the V-22 until it was right in front of you.'
:rolleyes:

21stCen

3rd Feb 2010, 16:34

Mullen Details What 2011 Budget Request Will Fund

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2010 – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not speak about money today during his testimony on the fiscal 2011 defense budget request before the Senate Armed Services Committee, but rather what that money will do. http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-02/lrs_100202-D-7203C-009c.jpg (http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-02/scr_100202-D-7203C-009c.jpg)
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responds to questions during testimony with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, center, before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, Feb. 2, 2010. DoD photo by Cherie Cullen
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image (http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-02/hrs_100202-D-7203C-009c.jpg) available.Navy Adm. Mike Mullen said the money “is required to win the wars we fight. And the one that needs fighting the most right now is in Afghanistan.”

The area along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan is the epicenter of global terrorism, Mullen said. And the new strategy for the region, he said, makes the safety of the Afghan people the center of gravity and the defeat of al-Qaida a primary goal.

The department is asking for $30 billion for overseas contingency operations and $159 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in fiscal 2011.

“We have already moved nearly 4,500 troops to Afghanistan and expect that about 18,000 of the president’s December 1st commitment will be there by late spring,” Mullen told the committee. “The remainder of the 30,000 will arrive as rapidly as possible over the summer and early fall, making a major contribution to reversing Taliban momentum in 2010.”

If plans hold, by summer there will be more American forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq. “Right now, the Taliban believe they’re winning,” Mullen said. “Eighteen months from now, if we’ve executed our strategy, we’ll know that they won’t – and they’ll know that they can’t.”

Getting to that point will mean hard work, discipline, more sacrifice and bloodshed, the chairman said.

“It’s why we want a 6 percent increase for Special Operations Command,” he said. “And it’s why we need your support to develop and field a next-generation ground combat vehicle to allow us to grow two more Army combat aviation brigades, and to continue rotary wing production – including $2.7 billion dollars for the V-22 Osprey program.”

The wars, the chairman said, are why the department is asking for more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. It’s why the department is asking for more unmanned aerial vehicles – including maxing production of the Reaper version of the Predator UAV.

“Our future security is greatly imperiled if we do not win the wars we are in,” Mullen said. “The outcome of today’s conflicts will shape the global security environment for decades to come.”

Mullen said he is comfortable that U.S. forces can and will “finish well” in Iraq. American forces will transition to an advisory and assistance role in August and be out of the country by the end of 2011.

Meanwhile, Congress needs to continue support for Afghanistan, the chairman said, adding that operations in Afghanistan are not simply a mission of mercy.

“This is the place from which we were attacked in 2001, the place from which al-Qaida still plots and plans,” Mullen said. “The security of a great nation – ours and theirs – rests not on sentiment or good intentions, but on what ought to be a cold and unfeeling appraisal of self-interest and an equally cold and unfeeling pursuit of the tools to protect that interest – ours and theirs.”

Biographies:
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen (http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=9)

Defense.gov News Article: Mullen Details What 2011 Budget Request Will Fund (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57832)

SASless

14th Feb 2010, 02:45

The USMC purhased 147 of these ITV's....purpose built to fit into the Osprey. (Only Pushbikes, Mopeds, or ATV's could fit otherwise!)

The ITV comes in two versions. One is a Light Attack Vehicle configuration that the Marines are buying, jointly with Special Operations Command, for its reconnaissance and special operations units. The second is designed to haul around a 120mm rifled mortar and accompanying ammunition to provide rapid on-call fire support to Marine rifle companies. The ITV and mortar combination pack up small enough to fit inside the Osprey.

The Marines say the ITV in its different variants figures into its “distributed operations” war fighting concept where small, highly mobile, yet hard-hitting, units operate independently over large areas. But the small jeeps don’t come cheap, they cost around $273,000 a copy. That’s a lot of money for a modern version of the “Rat Patrol” Willy’s Jeep.

Future plans are for a total purchase of 647 of the things!!!

Anyone remember the Mini-mite....the $5000 Helicopter portable "Jeep" the USMC had during Vietnam days that proved to be useless!

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2009/02/marine_ITVs_021109w/021109mct_itv2_800.JPG

busdriver02

14th Feb 2010, 07:35

Looks a lot like this:
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/2007/12/polaris-ranger-rzr.jpg

Official Website : Polaris ATV & RANGER Side By Side Vehicles (http://www.polarisindustries.com/en-us/atv-ranger/Pages/Home.aspx)

Lt.Fubar

14th Feb 2010, 13:39

Well the Marines are always forced to look for the smaller and more compact vehicles. The HMMWV would not fit into H-53, so they used the MUTT, and later bought the IFAV (Mercedes G-class). Now the IFAV is to big to fit into the Osprey, so they're buying the ITV.

Give it few more decades and there will be only room for an ATV :}

Jolly Green

15th Feb 2010, 01:41

The vehicle in use when the H-53 was designed was the goood old M-151 Jeep. It could and did fit nicely, but we had to be careful of CG. The Marine general in charge of specs for the V-22 was noted for disregarding the humvee because they already couldn't carry it in their current helicopters and they could design their new vehicle around the new aircraft instead of the aircraft around the vehicle.

Noted today in the newspaper the US Army has decided to not buy any more humvees and is looking towards their next vehicle too. I personally think they would be better off with a wider wheel base and wider cabin, but the V-22 is what it is.

SASless

15th Feb 2010, 03:08

What news of the Osprey in Afghanistan? Major operation underway with a reported 60 helicopters supporting the fight....and taking some hostile fire when doing assault landings. Lots of photos of CH-53's, Chinooks, and UH-60's and UH-1N's. Saw no Phrogs or Osprey so far.

21stCen

15th Feb 2010, 05:14

What news of the Osprey in Afghanistan?

A Brief shot of an Osprey landing in Marjah at the beginning of this clip:
w8UhuPtNk4Y

21stCen

17th Feb 2010, 05:37

Welcome to the club...

Marines in Afghan Assault Grapple With Civilian Deaths - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/world/asia/17afghan.html)
...Within hours, a Marine Corps Osprey, a transport aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter, put down nearby, taking enemy fire as it came in, and the Marines grimly loaded the bodies aboard for the trip to the cemetery.

Top Taliban commander captured in Pakistan - CTV News (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100216/afghanistan_taliban_100216/20100216/)
...U.S. Marines and Afghan National Army soldiers were moving methodically through the town of Marjah, 610 kilometres southwest of Kabul, Wednesday, conducting house-to-house searches, removing bombs and booby-traps as they moved through town.

Marine spokesmen say Taliban resistance in the town seemed to be growing more disorganized and poorly co-ordinated.

Nevertheless, Taliban have not given up. Insurgent snipers hiding in haystacks in poppy fields exchanged fire with Marines and Afghan troops as they swept south.

Insurgents tried but failed to shoot down an Osprey aircraft with rocket-propelled grenades as Cobra attack helicopters fired missiles at Taliban positions, including a machine-gun bunker.

A Taliban spokesman told The Associated Press however that insurgents retain control of the town and that coalition forces who "descended from helicopters in limited areas of Marjah" were now "under siege." ...

Dan Reno

17th Feb 2010, 17:31

Army Aviation Plays Key ‘Moshtarak’ Role

By Army Staff Sgt. Aubree Clute
Special to American Forces Press Service
HELMAND PROVINCE, Afghanistan, Feb. 17, 2010 – When Operation Moshtarak kicked off here Feb. 13, Army helicopter crews from the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade inserted nearly 300 Marines and Afghan security forces into Marja, Afghanistan, under cover of darkness.

http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-02/lrs_100213-A-9920C-%20(59)a.jpg (http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-02/scr_100213-A-9920C-%20(59)a.jpg)
Marines carry their gear out to Army helicopters prior to an air assault into Marja, Afghanistan, Feb. 13, 2010. UH-60 Black Hawk CH-47F Chinook helicopters inserted nearly 300 Marines into the objective area. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Aubree Clute UH-60 Black Hawks, CH-47F Chinooks and AH-64 Apaches from Task Force Pegasus facilitated the air assault of Kilo Company, 3/6 Marines, in seizing their objective area.

“Protected by Apache air weapons teams, the Marines and their partnered Afghan security forces quickly began moving to their initial objective, seizing key terrain and preparing to link up with their parent headquarters scheduled to begin a ground assault into Marja,” said Army Col. Paul Bricker, 82nd CAB commander.

Shortly after the Marine insertion, additional Task Force Pegasus aviation assets assisted a coalition air assault into nearby objective areas in Nad Ali. Task Force Pegasus’s 1st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, 82nd Aviation Regiment -- Task Force Wolfpack -- was one of three helicopter units involved in the operation in support of the British Task Force Jaguar.

“Their air assault was equally effective in seizing key terrain in the city of Nad Ali, located adjacent and northeast of Marja,” Bricker said. “Their operation was even more complex, as it included over 20 rotary-wing aircraft from the U.S., Britain and Canada.”

Task Force Pegasus continues to provide support to operation Moshtarak, but the focus has turned from aerial security to medical evacuation. Casualty evacuation teams are standing by to transport wounded coalition and Afghan forces to appropriate field hospitals as necessary.

“[The CH-47F Chinook] has been specially configured with helicopter cabin litter support systems and manned with TF Pegasus surgeons and medics to conduct critical patient transfers from less-capable combat surgical wards within Helmand province to southern Afghanistan’s largest and most advanced hospital on Kandahar Air Base,” Bricker said.

The 82nd CAB has completed more than 120 air-assault operations throughout southern Afghanistan over the last 10 months in support of operations by the International Security Assistance Force and Afghan forces.

(Army Staff Sgt. Aubree Clute of the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade serves in the Task Force Pegasus public affairs office.)

21stCen

17th Feb 2010, 18:06

Very good dan, the 'light has finally switched on'...

You are right. Helicopters and Tiltrotors are both fighting on the same side of the battle line.

Welcome to the club...

Dan Reno

18th Feb 2010, 00:29

Perhaps Congress was right in that we don't need the MC and their expensive, specialized toys after all as it looks like the Army can pull the MC's part of the load also.

SASless

18th Feb 2010, 02:15

Same side? Sounded to me like the Osprey did not go "down town"....just the Army Blackhawks and Chinooks escorted by Apaches.:E

Aren't Chinooks and Osprey's about the same size overall? One is as wide as the other is long perhaps?

21stCen

18th Feb 2010, 04:09

Sas,
They sent the Blackhawks and Chinooks with Apache escorts 'down town' because the fighting was too intense for them 'up town' where the Ospreys were operating!! :E

busdriver02

18th Feb 2010, 08:20

Given that the video already posted shows an Osprey supporting ops in Marjeh and the flight is maybe 15 minutes from Leatherneck in a Blackhawk and knowing how nasty that place is, I imagine the size of the operation dictates additional support for logistical reasons.

Jeebus, that's a run-on sentence.

SASless

18th Feb 2010, 13:30

7.5 minutes in the Osprey....they could have come and gone before they left almost...wasn't this the latest advantage that was talked about a few pages ago?

21stCen

18th Feb 2010, 15:19

Busdriver02,
You make a good point, but don't worry about Dan not understanding the size/scale of the operation. He is understandably proud of the Army moving 300 troops including Marine Corps and others into the zone, but perhaps didn't remember that there were another 14,700 members of the 15,000 contingent force who were also being transported into the area by other means. Working together is the key...

Sas,
7.5 minutes in the Osprey....they could have come and gone before they left almost...
The Ospreys are not mobilizing troops from Camp Leatherneck (although it is a maintenance base for them). Busdriver02 was using the BlackHawk flight time from Leatherneck to Marjah to educate those of us not operating in the region so we could understand that the Leatherneck/Marjah area is all in close proximity and is all inclusively a 'nasty place' as far as potential risk from the Taliban. The MV-22s operate to/from many locations including a series of FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) that they have been training at since their first arrival (see below).

http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2009/12/05/22/Osprey_Makes_Combat_Debut_12.05.09_5mt5nbZ4_OSPREY1.NE.11290 9.CEL-1.embedded.prod_affiliate.156.JPG
A Marine Corps Osprey lands amid a giant cloud of dust at FOB Hassanabad as it does "touch and go's" at various bases in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The hybrid aircraft, which can land like a helicopter, but fly as a fixed wing aircraft.

21stCen

20th Feb 2010, 07:35

Osprey Used in Marine Force Recon Raid (http://kitup.military.com/2010/02/osprey-used-in-marine-force-recon-raid.html)

February 19, 2010|Christian Lowe (http://www.defensetech.org/about.html)
http://kitup.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ceee153ef01310f1e34f5970c-800wi (http://kitup.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ceee153ef01310f1e34f5970c-pi)

I just got back from a briefing at the Pentagon with Col. Kevin Vest, who is the commander of Marine aviation over in Afghanistan and Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the deputy commandant for aviation. We posted a story this morning on Military.com about a commando raid early this AM (http://www.military.com/news/article/marines-dropped-behind-taliban-lines.html) conducted by Marine Force Reconnaissance troops and Afghan commandos near Marjah. I have a few more details to reveal from my conversation with Gen. Trautman and Col. Vest on that mission.
First of all, this marks one of the first operational uses of the MV-22 Osprey during the Marjah campaign. Vest said he'd held the Ospreys back as a QRF in case the Taliban tried to make trouble in far off spots of the AO while 4,000 Marines were committed to Marjah. The only other high profile time the Osprey had been used during the operation -- which is in day four -- was to extract civilians bodies killed in an errant HIMARS strike from the town during a daylight mission. That's the one where an Osprey came under fire from RPGs and small arms.
For the raid this morning, which took place at 0200 Afghan time, a group of 120 Force Recon and Afghan National Army troops were inserted by three MV-22s in two waves into an "enemy controlled area" to serve as a blocking force for 3/6. The ACE for that raid included Harriers, Hueys and Cobras and a variety of UAVs and C2 platforms to count bad guy heads and keep them down.
The ACE in Afghanistan has a compliment of 10 Ospreys, but will soon receive two more from the squadron attached to the 24th MEU which helped out in Haiti. Those MV-22s will fly from the Red Sea when the MEU moves out of the Suez all the way to Afghanistan making one refueling stop, Trautman said.
Also, Kit Up has learned that three of the Ospreys in theater have the BEA Systems Remote Guardian underbelly gun system, with two more yet to be installed. Trautman said the Corps had received $30 million to buy more. Vest added that the gun hasn't yet been fired in anger.

SASless

20th Feb 2010, 12:50

three MV-22s in two waves into an "enemy controlled area" to serve as a blocking force for 3/6.

Three Ospreys.....Two Waves?

Well....we know the Marines have a great PR ability....but let's get real here!

21st's Osprey photo shows an Infantry platoon loading aboard an Osprey I think...maybe....perhaps....if I am counting weapons correctly.

Begs the question....."What is the make-up of a Marine Corps Rifle Squad?"

One rifleman and six photographers!

FH1100 Pilot

20th Feb 2010, 15:15

Okay, okay...hang on. I'm the biggest skeptic and critic of the V-22, but I've never said that it cannot do the job for which it is tasked, or that it's incapable. Nobody, not even I expected that the V-22 would fall flat on its face right off the bat. And they are telling us that it is doing what they need, and doing it pretty well. Okay. Fine.

However, this is in no way a complete and total vindication of the tilt-rotor concept in general, or the V-22 in particular. Yeah, it works...just like a helicopter...doing some things "better" because it's faster.

Big deal- we knew this going in. The Osprey is not a revolutionary aircraft, just evolutionary. CH-53's (or even CH-46's) could be doing the work, perhaps just as effectively. If what they're reporting is true and complete, in this case the V-22 is just...different.

(My boss is looking to buy a jet to replace the King Air we've been operating. The speed and altitude advantages of the jet are alluring. But on many of the shorter trips we take, like 150 miles or so, the difference in block time would only be one-tenth, maybe a little more. I know this is not an exact apples-to-apples V-22/CH-53 comparison, but it's relevant: Speed advantage diminishes on short trips.)

The military will only tell us what they want us to know. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER release anything bad about the V-22. I mean, even I wouldn't. Criticism of the platform will come from outside sources (like the free press) and it will be roundly derided as false, anti-progress, anti-aviation, or anti-American. That is the trend so far. We are to believe ONLY what the military reliably tells us, and nothing else.

One needn't stretch their imagination greatly to come up with an instance where the military deliberately lied to the American public in the past- distant or recent, your choice.

Not saying they're doing that now. Just saying that I take these rah-rah V-22 stories with a grain of salt. It's operating in the theatre- great. Let's keep an open mind and see how it continues to do.

We'll find out soon enough.

Dan Reno

6th Mar 2010, 13:50

Spec Ops Needs Faster Helos

By Richard Whittle
Arlington, Va.

The Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is feeling the need for speed to contend with the sprawl of Afghanistan, the unit’s commander, Col. Clay Hutmacher, told an Assn. of the U.S. Army aviation symposium here in January The “Night Stalkers”—so-called because most of their missions are flown in darkness—conduct raids to capture or kill enemy leadership. Flying from Bagram AB often puts their MH-6 Little Bird, MH-60 Black Hawk and MH-47 Chinook troop-carrying helicopters 2 hr. from targets. “We’re looking to go farther and faster and carry more stuff,” Hutmacher said The top cruising speed for military helicopters is usually 150-160 kt. One reason is the aerodynamic phenomenon of “retreating blade stall.” The only operational rotorcraft that overcomes it is the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, flown by the Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command. By tilting its wingtip rotors forward after taking off vertically and flying like an airplane, the Osprey escapes retreating blade stall to cruise at around 250 kt. and fly farther, unrefueled, than helicopters. Hutmacher, though, said the V-22 doesn’t seem to be the answer for the 160th because it can’t hover as well as most helicopters.

Above 4,000 ft., there’s a significant [hovering] limitation on the V-22,” he said. Tiltrotor engineers concede that while the V-22 hovers well in many situations, the special twist and size of its “proprotors” leave it unable to carry as much useful load pound-for-pound as most helicopters hovering in similar conditions.

I’m not disparaging the V-22,” Hutmacher said. Hovering ability, however, is critical to the 160th, because “at the end of the day, our mission is going to terminate in a hover.”

Two technologies Hutmacher has seen might provide faster rotorcraft: Piasecki Aircraft Corp.’s X-49A SpeedHawk and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.’s X2 technology. Both are “compound helicopters,” which have an extra means of forward thrust. Compounds have been tried for decades but none has gone into production, partly because the weight of the additional gear used for extra thrust tended to cut into range and payload. Another problem is the dramatic increase in drag a helicopter’s rotor and rotorhead create as speed increases.

Piasecki and Sikorsky say they’ve solved the retreating blade stall and drag problems. The Army, however, has no plan to develop SpeedHawk or X2 technology, and neither will be ready for years in any event .

The SpeedHawk, a modified Sikorsky SH-60F Sea Hawk with a vectored-thrust, ducted propeller on its tail for forward propulsion, might make it first. Piasecki is developing SpeedHawk on an Army R&;D contract. If the military funded a program to put SpeedHawk technology on Black Hawks, “you could transition this technology within five years,” says John Piasecki, president.

The aircraft has a small wing that provides lift so the rotor doesn’t have to provide it all. That delays the onset of retreating blade stall, Piasecki said, and its propeller allows the SpeedHawk to fly forward in level attitude, rather than having to pitch its nose down. Those features, coupled with a rotorhead fairing, he said, significantly reduce high-speed drag The sole SpeedHawk demonstrator has flown 86 hr., reaching 180 kt. indicated airspeed, a limit imposed by the Navy because the aircraft is a modified Sea Hawk. Pending a waiver of that limit, more funding and modifications to the aircraft, Piasecki hopes to soon reach 215 kt. Applying the technology to a new design could produce a helicopter capable of 270 kt. or more, he ventures

Sikorsky’s X2 technology combines two coaxial rotors with an 80-in.-dia. pusher propeller. The coaxial rotors delay retreating blade stall by rotating in opposite directions, eliminating the need to raise the pitch on a blade as it retreats and meets less lift-assisting relative wind. The advancing blades of each rotor create lift in balance, says Chief X2 Engineer Steve Weiner, making it unnecessary to add pitch to retreating blades. Fairings on both rotor hubs and a sleek body hold drag to acceptable levels, Weiner adds
The X2 demonstrator, which was built on a specially designed airframe, has flown only 6.2 hr. and no faster than 106 kt., but Sikorsky plans to take it to 250 kt. this summer. Sikorsky is funding the project, says Program Manager Jim Kagdis, and has no restrictions on reaching its goals if the technology performs as expected. Even so, X2 technology won’t be ready for prime time before 2018.

Spec Ops Needs Faster Helos | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/03/01/DT_03_01_2010_p26-206021.xml&headline=Spec%20Ops%20Needs%20Faster%20Helos)

Dan Reno

16th Mar 2010, 21:34

The Osprey: She is High Maintenance, but Marines Love Her Anyway
April 2010
By Grace V. Jean
Marine Corps officials have raved about the MV-22 Osprey’s recent contributions to operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.
Commanders like the tilt-rotor aircraft’s advanced features and performance. The Osprey, however, is as high maintenance as it gets.
MV-22 maintenance squadrons in Iraq have faced reliability and maintainability challenges “stemming from an immature supply chain not always responsive to the demand for repair parts and aircraft and engine parts lasting only a fraction of their projected service life,” stated a Government Accountability Office report. The operations and support costs for the life cycle of the program, initially estimated at $75.41 billion, are expected to rise. As a leading indicator of potential increases, the GAO singled out the $11,000 cost per flying hour — more than double the target estimate.
“The Osprey’s Iraq experience demonstrated that the rise in cost is due in part to unreliable parts, the cost of some parts and required maintenance,” stated GAO’s Michael J. Sullivan, director for acquisition and sourcing management, last year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “If there is no improvement, overall cost and maintenance hours may remain high.”
Because of the expense and labor associated with the large number of spare parts required to keep it in operations, Marine officials are now trying to come up with more efficient ways to maintain the fleet.
Classified as a medium-lift assault support aircraft, the V-22 carries 24 troops and can take off and land vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane. It has been operating in Iraq since late 2007 and is now flying combat missions in Afghanistan. A squadron en route to a war zone in January was diverted to Haiti to assist with the earthquake relief operations. Officials expect the demand for the aircraft to continue growing in the months ahead.
The Marine Corps’ fleet of combat-deployable Osprey aircraft in the last year has averaged an availability rate of 65 percent. The initial readiness level estimate for the aircraft had been projected at 82 percent. But since the tilt-rotor entered service three years ago, officials have discovered problems with the availability and performance of key parts.
“There are some select components that have not lived up to the reliability of the engineering predictions first conveyed,” said Lt. Col. Robert Freeland, aviation plans and medium-lift requirements officer at Marine Corps headquarters.
The GAO found that 13 components accounted for more than half the spare parts unavailable in Iraq. Of those, six lasted less than 10 percent of their expected service life.
Swash plate actuators, which help the aircraft’s rotor systems to turn and articulate, have topped the list of culprits. Those components were expected to last for 12,000 hours, but marines have discovered that in actual operations, they withstand only several hundred hours before they have to be replaced. Removing and repairing those parts account for almost half of the fleet’s repairable-parts cost, said Freeland.
Because the service designed its maintenance processes based upon the engineering predictions of component failures, it lacked adequate repair and production capability to keep pace with the demand for spare parts when failures occurred.
It took too many parts and cost too much money to fix broken aircraft, Freeland said. “That’s what got our attention,” he said. “That’s what we’re fixing.”
In the process of addressing that problem, marines also discovered a cuff seal that does not work properly on the swash plate actuator. That piece alone accounts for 84 percent of the items that have to be removed from the aircraft for repair or replacement.
Maintainers increased the repair capacity and asked the aircraft’s manufacturer, Boeing Co. and Bell Helicopter, to correct the problem. The Corps also has set up a testing check to monitor the status of those parts.
Marine officials have decided that repairing parts at the fleet readiness center in North Carolina will reduce costs and give them better control over the process. “There are more and more components that we can repair at that facility rather than sending them back to the original equipment manufacturer,” said Freeland. “That is going to take a big bite out of crime. One, we’re going to save a lot of money, two, we’re going to the keep components on the aircraft longer, which is really the goal: To keep the aircraft up for the war fighter to use.”
Despite the maintenance headaches, officials said that the MV-22s continue to meet commanders’ needs with the 65 percent average availability. That percentage is tallied based upon a “24-hour clock” metric based on the level of effort required to supply and maintain the aircraft on a continual basis. Marine air ground task force commanders measure availability with another metric, called an aviation management supply and readiness report, which captures a snapshot of the fleet at a specific time.
For example, during a span of 19 months of operations in Iraq, officials calculated an availability of 64.1 percent on the 24-hour clock. That same time period using the snapshot metric yielded a rate of 71.6 percent. “That tells you that if I’m looking across the fleet over the entire time, I’ve only got six out of 10 [Ospreys] up, but on a daily basis, I had a little better than seven out of 10 up,” explained Freeland. “You can meet your mission with seven out of 10.”
But as demand for the MV-22 grows, the Marine Corps wants to reduce the risk of aircraft not being available to fly missions, Freeland said. “With the proper application of the engineering resources and the funding resources, we know we’re going to get this thing licked,” he said.
Marines continue to defend the fledgling aircraft with a fierce passion. Though still haunted by its rocky 25-year development phase and tragic losses of life during testing, the MV-22 appears to be climbing out of the turbulence into calmer skies. Ensuring that the maintenance piece comes together will help solidify the trajectory, officials said.
Commanders have lauded the aircraft’s speed and reach in both combat and humanitarian operations.
“We’d find ourselves going from the border of Jordan going all the way back to Baghdad and even east of there in the same day, and with the same aircraft. That was something that they hadn’t seen before,” said Freeland, who flew the Osprey in Iraq from January 2008 to May 2008. He deployed on numerous missions that previously required a turboprop aircraft, such as a C-130, and some pre-positioned helicopters to reach out to greater distances. “Now we just send one or two MV-22s in one afternoon to do what previously required two type model series over two days,” he said.
The Corps is excited to have true medium-lift capability again — an aircraft that can transport troops and more supplies at greater distances, officials said. Commanders mostly rely upon the CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter to do the task. Having the MV-22 frees up the CH-53 to return to hauling supplies and equipment.
In Haiti, the Osprey was used to transport marines and assessment teams to outlying areas of the country that were too far and too difficult to reach in a timely manner by conventional means, said Maj. Gen. Cornell Wilson, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South.
“The Ospreys were very critical in checking on some of the other areas that had not been checked on by the government of Haiti or the U.N. forces, or even by our own forces,” he said. The 12 aircraft, sailing aboard the USS Nassau that diverted while en route to a deployment to Afghanistan, also provided food, supplies and medical equipment to areas north of the capital city, Port-au-Prince. The northern part of the country suffered less damage from the magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but towns there required assistance because they were receiving an influx of displaced Haitians seeking shelter, food and safety.
The Osprey flew a total of 149 sorties and 137.2 flying hours in Haiti — the aircraft’s first humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation. In conjunction with the MV-22, Marines flew the UH-1Ns for aerial reconnaissance and also employed the CH-53E and MH-60 to fly assessment teams. Together, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aircraft flew a grand total of 355 sorties and 406.5 hours.
“We had a great reach” with the Osprey, said Wilson. “It’s certainly proving itself to be a capable aircraft.”
After spending two weeks assisting in the relief operations, the Ospreys departed with the Nassau amphibious ready group to resume transiting across the Atlantic Ocean to support U.S. European and Central commands.
The GAO report raised concerns about how the aircraft’s mission capability rate might be affected by the harsher climates and high altitudes in Afghanistan. Failures with the ice protection system, in particular, could jeopardize missions, the report stated.
Reliability of the ice protection system has been problematic, but when it has been used, it performed well, said Col. Kevin S. Vest, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 40, deployed to Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. The Osprey squadron there recently received new rotor blades with heater blankets along with updated hardware for the rotor system. Officials hope those items will improve the system reliability. Vest also pointed out that no other rotorcraft in theater has an ice protection system.
The MV-22 has been involved in a number of assault and support missions in Afghanistan, including an early morning raid that reportedly trapped a number of Taliban fighters in a “kill box” formed by Osprey-deployed marines and AH-1 Cobra helicopters. The aircraft have inserted Special Forces units and Afghan army units in nighttime operations and have ferried injured and wounded Afghan citizens to field hospitals.
“The Ospreys are invaluable and welcome assets in Afghanistan,” said Maj. Carl Redding, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps. Since arriving in early November, the aircraft have flown more than 11,000 hours in 650 sorties and counting. They have transported more than 9,000 passengers and more than 350,000 pounds of cargo. Their mission capable rating has been seven out of 10 each day, a comparable rate to their performance in Iraq.
“The MV-22 is the medium-lift assault craft of choice,” said Redding.
Freeland said marines are applying the lessons that they learned in Iraq about how to employ the aircraft. They understand its capabilities and are leveraging them. More importantly, they are treating the tilt-rotor like any other aircraft in the Marine Corps inventory. “That’s very, very good to see,” said Freeland. “We’re very pleased to see the normalization of the MV-22.”
The Osprey: She is High Maintenance, but Marines Love Her Anyway (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/April/Pages/TheOspreyisHighMaintenance.aspx?PF=1)

oldgrubber

18th Mar 2010, 15:12

"Vest also pointed out that no other rotorcraft in theater has an ice protection system".

Better not tell the Merlin guys that, they might "RIPU" a new one for telling porkies.

IFMU

21st Mar 2010, 02:18

UH60's have deice too.

-- IFMU

oldgrubber

22nd Mar 2010, 11:28

They say never let the truth get in the way of a good story! I suppose saying that no other rotorcraft in theater CAN'T autorotate, doesn't have the same PR effect (laugh).

Dan Reno

5th Apr 2010, 12:49

Try It, You'll Like It

April 2, 2010: The U.S. Marine Corps is trying to persuade SOCOM (Special Operations Command) to buy a squadron or two of marine MV-22 tilt-rotor transports, to augment the more expensive SOCOM CV-22 version. Last year, SOCOM sent its first six CV-22 tilt-rotor ("Osprey") transports to serve for three months of field testing in Iraq. Meanwhile, the marines have had MV-22s in Iraq for two years, and now have them in Afghanistan as well.
The U.S. Air Force component of SOCOM is using the CV-22 to replace the current MH-53J special operations helicopters. Unlike the U.S. Marine Corps version, the SOCOM CV-22s have lots more expensive electronics on board. This will help the CV-22 when traveling into hostile territory. The CV-22 also carries a terrain avoidance radar, an additional 3500 liters (900 gallons) of fuel and more gadgets in general. The 25 ton CV-22 is a major improvement on the MH-53J, with three times the range, and a higher cruising speed (at 410 kilometers an hour, twice that of the helicopter). The CV-22 can travel about nearly a thousand kilometers, in any weather, and land or pick up 18 fully equipped commandoes. The SOCOM CV-22 won't ready for regular service for another year.
The marines believe their cheaper version (because they lack the all-weather flight electronics and other extras) will prove ideal for most SOCOM operations. The marines have already been using their MV-22s for commando type operations, and are very satisfied with the results. Both versions of the V-22 have also been armed.
SOCOM, like the marines, has had a GAU-2B machine-gun fitted to the bottom of a V-22. This is a remote control turret using a six-barrel 7.62mm machine-gun. It has a rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute (50 per second), and max range of 1,500 meters. The system weighs a few hundred pounds and includes 4,000 rounds of ammo. A member of the crew uses a video game like interface to operate the gun. This weapon is part of the Universal Turret System (UTS) for Helicopters.
The need to arm the V-22 has been debated for nearly a decade. The original proposal was for a UTS equipped with a 12.7mm machine-gun. That has a longer range (about 2,000 meters), but the 7.62mm GAU-2B could lay down more bullets more quickly. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicated this would be a more useful defensive measure. The UTS is mounted on CV-22s as needed. The armed SOCOM V-22 provides an option that the other users can easily adopt. The machine-gun turret is mainly there for protection from local threats, not for turning the V-22 into an assault aircraft.
The V-22 is the first application of the tilt-rotor technology in active service. The air force is already working on improvements (to make the V-22 more reliable and easier to maintain), but these won't be installed for another few years. The V-22 gives the marines and SOCOM a lot more capability, but, as is often the case, this is a lot more expensive. The initial production models of the CV-22 cost over $60 million each. SOCOM insists on a high degree of reliability for its aircraft. Commando operations cannot tolerate too many mistakes without getting fatally derailed.
ref: Special Operations: Try It, You'll Like It (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20100402.aspx)

21stCen

18th Apr 2010, 13:13

DATE:17/04/10
SOURCE:Flight International
CV-22 crash not caused by mechanical failure
By Stephen Trimble ([email protected])

The BellBoeing CV-22 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/v-22.html) crash in Afghanistan on 8 April was not caused by a mechanical failure, according to a source familiar with preliminary findings of the US military investigation.

The fatal crash (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/09/340468/four-killed-as-usaf-cv-22-crashes-in-afghanistan.html), which killed four and injured others, occurred after the pilot lost situational awareness while landing in a wadi around 1am under brown-out conditions, the source says.

The incident killed the pilot, a flight engineer, an army Ranger and an unidentified civilian.

Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), which owns the CV-22 fleet, was not immediately available to comment.

US military officials have previously stated the cause of the CV-22 crash in Afghanistan was still under investigation. Military spokesmen, however, have ruled out enemy fire as a potential cause.

The 8 August crash is the first fatal accident involving a V-22 Osprey (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/v-22%20osprey.html) tiltrotor since December 2000, and is the fifth fatal crash in the programme's chequered history.

In 2000, two fatal crashes within eight months caused by a combination of design flaws and mechanical failures forced military leaders to put the programme on hold for two years while contractors re-designed systems and the airframe to improve safety.

After declaring the MV-22 fleet operational in 2007, the US Marine Corps has deployed its version of the Osprey in Iraq and Afghanistan without suffering a fatal crash.

USMC officials have praised the MV-22's performance, although the service has acknowledged concerns about unexpectedly high costs to operate and maintain the unique tiltrotor fleet.

AFSOC, meanwhile, had deployed six CV-22s delivered so far to Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan before sustaining the crash.

The brown-out scenario during landing is recognized as a major safety concern for all rotorcraft operating in areas with loose sand. A recent study by the Office of the Secretary of Defense has concluded that 80% of the US millitary's 320 rotorcraft crashes during the last decade has been caused by degraded visual awareness.

21stCen

5th May 2010, 11:23

Pentagon pleased with V-22 Osprey's performance

Tue, May 4 2010
* Bell-Boeing interested in presidential helicopter contest
* Pentagon working to improve readiness
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is pleased with the performance of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan, but is still working hard to improve its readiness, the Pentagon's program manager said on Tuesday.
Marine Corp Colonel Greg Masiello told reporters that the V-22 or Osprey built by Boeing Co <BA.N> and Textron Inc's <TXT.N> Bell Helicopter unit, had not missed a single operational mission since its first deployment.
He said the Pentagon still wanted to improve the current readiness level of the aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter, but flies like a plane. The aircraft had a readiness level of 68 percent in Iraq, but the goal was to increase that around 80-plus percent by 2018, he said.
The V-22 program was nearly cancelled after several deadly accidents during its development, but officials say it is now winning kudos for the unusual capabilities it offers.
However, the Air Force is still investigating the crash of an Air Force V-22 in Afghanistan in April that killed four people, an incident some reports have blamed on a brownout effect caused when its rotors kicked up fine sand.
Masiello declined comment on the cause of the accident since the investigation is still underway. But he said that neither the Marine Corps nor Air Force grounded their other aircraft after the accident.
Masiello said the Pentagon was beginning to put together a business case for a second five-year multiyear procurement of the aircraft that would begin in fiscal year 2013.
"That should send a message on how confident we are on this platform," he said.
Gene Cunningham, vice president of the Bell Boeing joint venture that builds the aircraft, said production was going well and would reach 35 a year next, growing to 40 by 2014.
Masiello said 106 aircraft had been delivered, and two more were en route, and the government was working closely with the contractors to lower costs on the plane.
Cunningham said the companies expected foreign interest in the aircraft to pick up now that it was being used for military work, and said there could also be interest from other U.S. agencies, civilian and military.
He said Bell Boeing was clearly looking to sell more of the planes, and would respond to a request for information issued by the Navy for a new presidential helicopter competition.
Masiello said the aircraft could land at the White House, despite the fact that it is larger than the other helicopters in the competition.

oldgrubber

6th May 2010, 11:47

Suggesting that the half Indian S-92 is "all American" and is safer than the VH-71 was bizarre enough, but putting Obama in the Osprey is just cruel. Do you yanks really hate him that much, or was it the Spanish Prime minister's suggestion? Even the thought of the presidential airborne cavalcade trying to keep up should be enough to disqualify the tiltrotor as an option. If you can only fly as fast as the slowest aircraft then all the aircraft must be tiltrotors, or none of them (or is that too logical?).
At least TATA have a contract with Boeing as well, so they win either way!
long live free trade.
Laugh!

OFBSLF

7th May 2010, 16:55

21stCen

7th May 2010, 17:28

oldgrubber says:
...putting Obama in the Osprey is just cruel. Do you yanks really hate him that much...

Oldgrubber:
The yanks in the military don't hate Obama -- it is actually Obama who is keen on travelling in the Osprey after his experience in Iraq when he was a Senator (flying fast, and high, and not getting hit by anything from below was a good thing!!).

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_obamacnnarrivingjordan.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_ObamaExitinginIraq.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_ObamaExitinginIraq2.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_SenatorObamaIraq.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_Obama_and_SS_Agent.jpg

Senator McCain also flew in the Osprey on a trip to Iraq during the pre-presidential campaign and is a staunch supporter of the technology:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_McCainIraqMar2008.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_McCainIraqExiting.jpg

I cannot account for why Senator McCain was offered a flak jacket and Obama was not, but I'm sure it was just an oversight...

So again Oldgrubber, there is no attempt to put Obama at risk on the part of the US military by having him travel in the Osprey which will certainly be safe, and offer him shorter travel times and greater distances than would be available to him with any other vertical lift aircraft available in the U.S inventory at this time.

However, there was a reported event where the USAF did in fact take the mickey out of him at Andrews AFB with Air Force One -- see below:

Air Force General: "Mr. President, we've just invented an invisibility cloak for Air Force One."
Obama: "No sh*t?"
General: "That's right, sir. Will you be going along on its maiden flight?"
Obama: "Wouldn't miss it for the world."
General: "Have a good trip, sir..."

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/tiltrotors/VIPs%20in%20V-22/th_ObamaJoke.jpg

SASless

7th May 2010, 17:55

I am all for Barry Boy flying high and fast.....this is my choice of new rides for him!

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/images/OHKA-SUICIDE-ROCKET.jpg

21stCen

7th May 2010, 18:21

Oldgrubber says:
Even the thought of the presidential airborne cavalcade trying to keep up should be enough to disqualify the tiltrotor as an option. If you can only fly as fast as the slowest aircraft then all the aircraft must be tiltrotors, or none of them (or is that too logical?).

With that same "logic," we would have said that when a gas-powered ground vehicle first became available to transport the King of England at higher speeds than the the security forces were capable of (because they were riding on horseback), we should make sure the King continues to ride in a horse-drawn carriage.

In modern day scenarios there are a lot more options. No need to worry Oldgrubber, the Fixed-Wing fighters above, and Rotary-wing assets deployed along the route, will provide high speed and low speed capabilities so somebody will always be "in the neighborhood" to protect Mr. Obama when he travels.

SAS:
What is the a/c you recommended for "Barry Boy's" ride? It looks familar, but need a little more background information...
thanks,
:)

21stCen

7th May 2010, 18:38

Um... lifting says:
Well, unless he makes himself "President for Life", there's no danger he'll ever fly in a new Marine One.

You are exactly right -- He may well need to make himself the "President for Life" to pay off the debt that is accumulating now. So perhaps that is part of the overall "plan"?
:uhoh:

oldgrubber

8th May 2010, 15:33

OFBFLF,
It's a fair cop, my sources of information for US politics are CNN web page and the Simpsons.

As for the rest of the benefits of the Osprey, well....
Higher, not above 12,000 feet I hope, don't want him passing out do we!
I still can't see the White House lawn being big enough to do the famous "nacelles fully horizontal and glide her in". (assuming you're above above 1600 feet according to the POGO report).

21st,
See what your saying, but from what I've read even the military were concerned that the limiting factor in operations was the speed of the supporting aircraft accompanying the beastie. I like your solution, but it does seem to be a bit "resource heavy", what with all those assets positioned along his route. Still it's his train set as they say.
Cheers all

oldgrubber

8th May 2010, 16:49

21st,

Japanese "Cherry Blossom", I think.
Naughty, Naughty SAS.

21stCen

8th May 2010, 20:23

Oldgrubber says:
Japanese "Cherry Blossom", I think.

Correct, SAS advised it is a "WWII Japanese air dropped suicide rocket powered aircraft....750 built....some used.

Had three rocket engines giving about 600mph in a dive towards surface ships....very hard to shoot."

http://www.aviationtrivia.info/images/mxy7.jpg

Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) aircraft, powered by three rocket motors, were the fastest Japanese aircraft of World War II.

When the Japanese started running out of Kamikaze aircraft used in actions against U.S. ships off the coast of Okinawa, they designed the Ohka. The aircraft was easy to mass produce for the one specific function, and inexpensive.

The rocket aircraft was slung under the belly of a bomber. When the host aircraft was within range, it was released. The pilot would ignite the rocket motors and go into a steep dive. Most aircraft failed to reach their destination because the host aircraft that carried it was relatively slow and vulnerable to interception.

Records with regard to the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka in combat are spotty and unclear. It appears that around 750 aircraft were produced. It is uncertain how many were actually launched on missions.

Perhaps six of the aircraft scored hits on U.S. warships off the coast of Okinawa. Three of the ships sustained heavy damage.

The Sultan

8th May 2010, 23:37

21st

With McCain's track record in war and marriage he probably demanded it (never know when an ex-wife or Viet Vet may be around). Does anyone think Adm Stockton would have been surprised.

The Sultan

SASless

9th May 2010, 13:34

With McCain's track record in war and marriage he probably demanded it (never know when an ex-wife or Viet Vet may be around). Does anyone think Adm Stockton would have been surprised.

Sultan,

Why is it you find such pleasure in denigrating combat Veterans of the American military? Is there something in your background that drives you to do this? Say envy perhaps or sour grapes after being rejected for service?

Every single post you make attempts to impugn the service of members of our military it seems. (IMHO)

Vietnam Vets have endured such attempts to steal our "honor" by such folks for decades now....and resent it greatly.

Sultan....if you cannot say something nice about Combat Veterans....please stay silent would you please! They served their country in time of war, fought, bled, died, and in some cases suffered lengthy painful torture and imprisonment. The least you can do is honor that service with a bit of respect and decorum.

OFBSLF

10th May 2010, 14:46

What is the a/c you recommended for "Barry Boy's" ride? It looks familar, but need a little more background information...
It's a WWII Japanese Ohka kamikaze rocket.

IFMU

1st Jun 2010, 01:20

Awesome video of some trees getting knocked down:

Staten Island Helicopter Accident VIDEO: Osprey Blows Tree Branches Into Crowd, Injures 10 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/staten-island-helicopter-_n_595280.html)

NEW YORK � The powerful propellers on a U.S. Marine Corps aircraft doing a Memorial Day demonstration has blown tree branches into people on the ground in a New York City park.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/170464/thumbs/s-OSPREY-large.jpg

Firefighters say ten people suffered minor injuries.

The Osprey MV-22 aircraft was landing at Staten Island's Clove Lakes Park around 8 a.m. Monday as part of Fleet Week. It's an annual event honoring the U.S. military.

Marine Corps spokesman Lt. Josh Diddams says the wind generated by the aircraft's propellers broke branches off a nearby tree. The branches were swept into some people on the ground.

Firefighters say seven people have been taken to Richmond University Medical Center. Three others refused medical attention.

-- IFMU

Lonewolf_50

1st Jun 2010, 15:26

The V-22 coming into an LZ with people not used to big helo operations calls to mind the cautions we got back in the 80's when the CH-53E's were first showing in the shipboard environment. Bigger than usual grounding requirement for hover work, and the LSE's were to have a chain/tether to attach them to a padeye on the deck due to hurricane force winds in the rotor downwash.

Given Max GW for an Osprey being in the 53 class, I'd guess the downwash would be similar. Whoever picked, and marked, the LZ seems to have either guessed wrong on wind direction or the standoff distance for civilians.

More weird PR for the Osprey.

Jolly Green

1st Jun 2010, 19:03

Though the max gross of the V-22 and the 53E are similar, the disk area of the V-22 is smaller making the downwash even greater. We had problems even in the twin straight tails. People with no hlz experience might find out the proper safety zone. Those used to a small helos might think they have the proper frame of reference but would be wrong. Maybe the fire department on scene in Staten Island was used to little ems types(B-206 up to S-76) and wouldn't have a proper frame of reference. Or the jarheads screwed up.

Of interest to me in the video were the adults cowering in fear like little girls. Meanwhile a little girl plays merrily along in the breeze next to them. Well, looked like it to me anyway.

Lonewolf_50

1st Jun 2010, 20:42

Though the max gross of the V-22 and the 53E are similar, the disk area of the V-22 is smaller making the downwash even greater

Good point. Also good point on people assessing helo ops as "one size fits all" based on experience with smaller birds.

As to the little girl, knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss. :eek:

IFMU

2nd Jun 2010, 01:16

The empty weights of the Osprey and CH53E are similar. The gross weights are vastly different, with the CH53 able to hover at some 22,000 lbs heavier. The major difference is disc loading, with the CH53E at about 14 lbs/ft^2, and the V-22 at 21 lbs/ft^2. High disk loading = high downwash. If the CH53 is a hurricane, the V-22 is a tornado.

-- IFMU

JohnDixson

4th Jun 2010, 14:20

Does anyone know what the V-22 flight manual limitations are regarding side slope landings at max weight? That is, with the longitudinal axis of the ship 90 degrees to the slope axis.

Thanks,
John Dixson

SASless

4th Jun 2010, 15:04

Here are some other "limitations" being reported on the Osprey.....it makes for interesting reading. Anyone in the know care to rebut the findings of the article?

I especially liked the GAO findings and later confirmation of the lack of Technical Manuals for maintainers and NATOPS procedures for Flight Crews. If the example of NATOPS telling crews to "Autorotate" following Dual Engine Failure is correct.....it makes the mind boggle!

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/gailliard%20on%20v-22.pdf

FH1100 Pilot

4th Jun 2010, 16:16

SAS, to be fair, that report you referenced was apparently written some time prior to 2007. So it is at least three years old. The actual V-22 crews who sometimes post on this board claim that some envelope expansion has been done since the original tests of which we're all so fond of quoting.

It is interesting though that Gaillard spends so much time on the subject of VRS - which everyone here knows is my favorite weakness of the design.

The problem with VRS is that it won't happen at low gross weight and up at high altitude where you're expecting it, and there is plenty of room and time to recover. It will most likely happen at night, when the ship is heavy and at a low altitude/airspeed combination. As one proprotor "nibbles" at VRS, the pilot will apply roll control in the opposite direction, increasing the collective pitch on the side that is experiencing incipient VRS. As every private helicopter pilot knows, this will make the situation worse. In a worst-case scenario we will have a repeat of Marana.

An experienced helicopter pilot friend of mine whom I respect greatly said, "But Bob, they know about A-VRS now. All the pilot has to do is beep the nacelles forward and they can just fly out of it." Maybe so. But I wonder: How much altitude will be lost in the process? None? Because if this happened at, oh, 300 feet say, there is just no margin and the loss of any altitude is not permissable.

On the other hand, maybe we're expecting too much out of the Osprey. Maybe asking a 60,000 pound rotorcraft to perform "combat assaults" into heavily defended LZ's is simply not realistic, given the immutable laws of nature and aerodynamics.

Gaillard quotes the old NATOPS limitation of an 800 fpm maximum rate of descent, which he converts to a more understandable 9.1 mph which he says is less than the speed of traffic in a school zone. He says this about VRS:So should a pilot choose to descend at 9.1 mph? If he does, he'll get shot out of the sky. Should the pilot go in fast instead? If he does, a crash in imminent. It's a Catch-22. This design anomaly has not been, and probably cannot be, eliminated.

I wouldn't go so far as to say a crash is "imminent." Such hyperbole does nothing to strengthen his case. However, what he says about the design is true.

The airflow through a rotor is chaotic. What can be a "safe" approach for one rotorcraft might result in a crash for the rotorcraft right behind it. Unlike the stalling speed of a fixed-wing, the absolute boundaries and limits of VRS are impossible to define or predict.

All rotorcraft are subject to VRS. Crash-landings resulting from full-blown VRS are generally survivable, given proper airframe and crew seat design because the helicopter hits the ground in a level attitude or nearly so. The Osprey is peculiar (and particularly defective) because it's subject to A-VRS. When one proprotor gets into VRS and the other one does not, the aircraft rolls over and dives for the ground. The crash will not be survivable. We know this.

I read the report of the test pilots who did the additional VRS testing of the V-22 (post Marana). But I never read that those tests resulted in any envelope expansion, other than some vague, unspecific claims by some in this forum who state that the actual information is highly-classified and if they told us they'd have to kill us.

So SASless, I'm with you, what's the real story?

mckpave

4th Jun 2010, 23:32

I'll be glad to make comments when I find the time, and yes I'm still here FH so stop trying to bull**** your way through things, the items are "highly classified" as you once again play with words to make it amusing and entertaining in your typical idiotic fashion. Now go ahead and start throwing your spears again cuz it looks like the game is on again.

ospreydriver

22nd Aug 2010, 03:57

t is interesting though that Gaillard spends so much time on the subject of VRS - which everyone here knows is my favorite weakness of the design.

It's not a weakness of the design though. The V-22 is LESS susceptible to VRS than normal rotorcraft. The rate of descent limitations given for the V-22 mirror those given for almost every other helo--no more than 800fpm at less than 40 knots. Those are the same limits that I was told in the TH-57(B206) and the same as the CH-46E. They are precautionary, and based more upon the limitations of pitot-static airspeed instruments than anything else. Stay above those, and you'll definitely stay out of VRS.

To enter VRS in the V-22, you have to be descending at more than 2000 fpm and nearly vertical. That's crazy fast, and easily avoided. Should you somehow blow through that, the V-22 has an out that no other rotorcraft does--tilting the nacelles.

Granted, the consequences of VRS are worse in a V-22 than a helo, but seeing as it's harder to enter VRS and easier to get out of it, I think that concern is largely mitigated.

I think the cost and reliability criticisms of the V-22 are valid, though both are improving over time. As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it.

21stCen

22nd Aug 2010, 14:25

All valid points OspreyDriver. Welcome to the forum!!
21stC

3top

22nd Aug 2010, 16:37

Hi all,
question for those in the know:

Obviously VRS is extra bad news in the V-22, although it is less susceptible than classic helos.

How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?

Their disc loading is in the range of single rotor machines and therefor downwash is less than V-22 and they should be more susceptible to VRS, shouldn't they?

Any experiences with front or aft rotor going VRS (or both rotors) on any tandem helo?

Cheers,

3top:cool:

Dan Reno

22nd Aug 2010, 17:53

Welcome ospreydriver !

Besides speed, exactly what type of 'performance' did you have in mind when you stated this:

"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."

ospreydriver

22nd Aug 2010, 22:35

Obviously VRS is extra bad news in the V-22, although it is less susceptible than classic helos.

How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?As a former CH-46 guy, I can say I've ever seen VRS or heard of it happening to anyone I knew, though in reality when there is a mishap it can be difficult to say whether a crash was due to power settling or settling with power.

As far as tandem rotors designs go, though, I did know a few guys that encountered retreating blade stall on the aft head only during "high speed" runs--they got it back under control after a few seconds of anxiety.

Besides speed, exactly what type of 'performance' did you have in mind when you stated this:

"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."Speed is the big one, obviously. Pushing in excess of 240 knots at sea level makes a big difference (don't believe the g2mil.com lie that it can't fly fast down low). Having a service ceiling greater than 20K' helps too. Superior countermeasure equipment and much greater maneuverability also help defeat threats.

21stCen

6th Nov 2010, 10:40

Expanding the Battlespace and Replacing the CH-46

An Update on the Osprey from New River (IV)

An Interview With Major Lee York
10/05 /2010 – In a wide-ranging interviews with Osprey pilots and maintainers at New River Air Station discussing their operational experience with the Osprey, one pilot highlighted with a single story the impact of the Osprey’s speed on operating in the battlespace.

Major Lee York (Credit: SLD)

SLD: Could you tell us about your background?
Major Lee York: My name is Major Lee York. I started out as a CH-46 pilot and did two deployments. The first one was in 2002; we deployed on a 24th MEU and participated in OIF and then after that came home (http://www.sldinfo.com)and then we went back out with 24th MEU again. This time in Iraq 2004-2005, set up deployment there, and came home with 263 and stood the squadron down and then transitioned to the V-22 and then I deployed with VMM-263 as a first operational V-22 squadron to Iraq for seven months. After that, we came home and then went to the VMMT-204 to train new students on how to fly V-22 and then I’m back at 263 again.
SLD: What was your operational experience in Iraq with regard to the ability to land the Osprey in spots similar to your helo? Because of your experience of flying rotorcraft in the first deployment and then Osprey’s in the second, your perspective would be definitive on this point.
Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones. The same number of aircraft, two FROGs, two V-22s we put at the same zones and we were able to do it. And I’m talking the same exact place, you know, Ramadi and other cities, on landing zones that we’ve landed earlier with FROGs and now with V-22s. For the guys who said that they couldn’t do it, well, they’re wrong.

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/york2-pic-700.jpg (http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/york2-pic-700.jpg)Three Ospreys Coming Into Land in Close Quarters During USMC Exercise
(Credit: USMC)

SLD: You had an anecdote, which underscores the impact of speed in the battlespace?

Major Lee York: We took some soldiers out to the West of Iraq. The crew chief comes up to us and tells us that the guys won’t get out of the plane. We’re like, what are you talking about? They said we’re not there yet. And we said, “What are you talking about?” He then said, “The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”“The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”
We told him to tell the Marines that “we were cruising at 230 rather than at 120 so we were there. I swear we’re here, you know, we’re not going to send him somewhere where he is not supposed to be.”

Expanding the Battlespace and Replacing the CH-46 | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12691)

SASless

8th Nov 2010, 00:22

Major Lee York: We took some soldiers out to the West of Iraq. The crew chief comes up to us and tells us that the guys won’t get out of the plane. We’re like, what are you talking about? They said we’re not there yet. And we said, “What are you talking about?” He then said, “The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”

Sounds more like a lack of trust in the navigational skills of the pilots to me!:E

hotzenplotz

9th Nov 2010, 12:19

SLD: What was your operational experience in Iraq with regard to the ability to land the Osprey in spots similar to your helo? Because of your experience of flying rotorcraft in the first deployment and then Osprey’s in the second, your perspective would be definitive on this point.

Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones.

Could somebody please explain the limitations of the Osprey's flight envelope?

ospreydriver

9th Dec 2010, 01:59

Can you be more specific as to what you're asking? Within the realm of OPSEC, maybe we can answer your question.

21stCen

20th Dec 2010, 04:55

CV-22 accident investigation board results released (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123235523)
http://defense-update.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cv22.jpg
12/17/2010 - HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFNS) -- Air Force Special Operations Command officials released the results of their investigation into the CV-22 Osprey accident April 9, near Qalat, Afghanistan, that killed four people and injured 16 of the 20 onboard.

The pilot, flight engineer, an Army Ranger, and a civilian contract employee were killed in the crash.

Under the authority delegated to him by the AFSOC commander, the AFSOC vice-commander convened an Accident Investigation Board to investigate the matter, and designated Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, the Air National Guard assistant to the commander, AFSOC, Hurlburt Field, Fla., as the board president.

Concluding the investigation, the board president could not determine the cause of the mishap by the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," in part because the flight incident recorder, the Vibration Structural Life and Engine Diagnostics control unit, and the right engine were destroyed and therefore not available for analysis. After an exhaustive investigation of the available evidence, the board president ruled out multiple possible causes. Items ruled out included loss due to enemy action, environmental brownout conditions and vortex ring state. In addition, a design problem that led to the replacement of the Central De-ice Distributor support bracket found in all Marine Corps and Air Force Ospreys, was not a factor.

The board president determined 10 factors substantially contributed to the mishap. These included inadequate weather planning, a poorly executed, low-visibility approach, a tailwind, a challenging visual environment, the mishap crew's task saturation, the mishap copilot's distraction, the mishap copilot's negative transfer of a behavior learned in a previous aircraft, the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment, an unanticipated high rate of descent and engine power loss. Substantially contributing factors play an important role in the mishap sequence of events and are supported by the greater weight of credible evidence.

The convening authority approved the board president's report, with comments. While legally sufficient, he assessed the evidence in the AIB report did not support a determination of engine power loss as one of the 10 substantially contributing factors. The convening authority made this decision based upon the evidence in the AIB report and additional analysis of the evidence in the report. The convening authority concluded the preponderance of credible evidence did not indicate engine power loss as a substantially contributing factor of the mishap.

After a review of the original AIB report, the convening authority's statement of opinion and additional material obtained after the completion of the AIB report, the chief of staff of the Air Force reopened the investigation and directed the AIB board president to analyze the additional information.

The board president conducted a follow-on investigation to analyze two Naval Air Systems Command reports and the convening authority's analysis of video data. After consideration of the new material the only fact the AIB president changed from his original report was the ground speed of the aircraft at impact from what was believed to be 75 knots to 80 knots at the time of impact. The remainder of the findings was unchanged.

The primary purpose of the board was to provide a publicly releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident. An executive summary of the report is available at http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/index.html (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/index.html).

The entire report is available at http://www.afsoc.af.mil/accidentinvestigationboard/index.asp (http://www.afsoc.af.mil/accidentinvestigationboard/index.asp) or by contacting the AFSOC Public Affairs Office at 850-884-5515.

SASless

20th Dec 2010, 14:26

Excess groundspeed.... exessive tailwind....excessive rate of descent...dark night...no horizion...gee.....only 87 Million Dollars and four people lost! You can do the same thing less the financial costs flying a EMS helicopter.

alexmcfire

23rd Dec 2010, 17:57

So whats about the story that the co-pilot suffered from "amnesia" and the flightrecorder was lost due to a "misunderstanding"?

Missing recorder means CV-22 crash remains a mystery (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/23/351284/missing-recorder-means-cv-22-crash-remains-a-mystery.html)

A paperwork glitch has deprived investigators of the flight incident recorder on board a crashed Bell Boeing CV-22 tiltrotor despite evidence that the critical device survived, according to the president of a US Air Force accident investigation board.
The precise cause of the 9 April crash by a CV-22 attempting to land in wadi at roughly 5,000ft (1,520m) above sea level near Qalat, Afghanistan, remains a mystery because Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) crews were unaware that the CV-22 is equipped with a device that records flight information, says the board's president Brig Gen Donald Harvel (Ret).
AFSOC crews were never told that a flight incident recorder is on board all CV-22s, Harvel says. The instructional manuals for the CV-22s were inherited from the US Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey programme. The manuals needed to be translated from Marine jargon to air force terminology, but the translators made mistakes, Harvel says.
"Somehow in that translation there was nothing in [the AFSOC manual] that showed this aircraft had a [flight incident recorder]," he says. "They had absolutely no idea."
As a result, he adds, the recorder "was never on the list to get that off the airplane" after a crash.
Despite three trips to the crash site by rescue and salvage crews, the recorder was never recovered, fuelling a rare clash in public between safety investigators and AFSOC over opposing theories.
After recovering 16 survivors and four bodies, plus other sensitive equipment, from the crash site, the remains of the CV-22 were destroyed by a bomb, Harvel says. However, the flight incident recorder is designed to survive such an explosion, making it possible the device was still retrievable.
One day after the crash, an army unit arrived at the site to recover what was left of the wreckage, including the left engine nacelle, Harvel says. The army unit also photographed items that would be retrieved the next day. Among the items photographed, there was an object that resembled the structure that contains the flight incident recorder. Several of the items left behind on the first day were missing by the time the army unit returned, Harvel says.
The absence of the recorder means several theories about the cause of the CV-22 crash are possible, he says.
"I could understand how there could be people looking at the same evidence and come to different conclusions," Harvel says.
Harvel, now a Delta Air Lines Boeing 777 captain, believes chances are greater than 50% that the CV-22 crashed because of a mechanical problem.
Specifically, Harvel believes the Rolls-Royce AE1107C engines could have suffered rapidly degraded power - possibly due to compressor stall caused by a 17kt (31km/h), quartering tailwind - in the critical last moments of the flight.
According to Harvel's theory, the CV-22 pilot clearly understood his situation. He attempted to increase power within the final 2s of flight, but realised too late that the CV-22's engines lacked normal power.
AFSOC has dismissed Harvel's theory as unsupported by a "preponderance of credible evidence". The command's internal - and unreleased - investigation report has already blamed the crash on pilot error.
The pilot and flight engineer died in the crash. The co-pilot survived but suffered amnesia. Among the 15 other survivors, nobody knew what was happening in the cockpit in the last moments before the aircraft hit the ground.

FH1100 Pilot

23rd Dec 2010, 20:34

It's fishy, is what it is. The copilot went into full CYA mode. According to his testimony, that approach was by-the-book...right up to 4/10's of a mile out...coincidentally where it all went to sh*t. By the book! Right on the altitudes and speeds and gates. Which it...you know...wasn't. They know that. The MP (mishap pilot) was rushing like mad to make his TOT.

General Harvel seemed awfully peeved that the aircraft was destroyed so quickly and that the FIR and VSLED were not recovered.

So many questions remain unanswered.

mckpave

23rd Dec 2010, 21:17

BULL****!!!!! There is absolutely NOTHING fishy about it. The copilot was ejected from the aircraft, still strapped in his seat and unconscious when found. Amnesia from this exact type of trauma is common, I know personally of two previous examples. He is not covering his ass and I am irate that you even insinuate this!!! Yes, per his recollection after everything he's been through, he believed in his interviews that the approach was normal but we knew from just days after the accident that this wasn't true.

Second, there is again absolutely nothing fishy about the lack of knowledge regarding the FIR, nor was it a "paperwork glitch". There was zero knowledge of the FIR being installed on the aircraft. Before the decision was made to destroy the aircraft, everything of importance was thought to have been removed from the scene, it wasn't until much later before the existence of the FIR was known. Destroying the aircraft was a shock to a lot of people but it was also a common procedure to do so in both Afghanistan and Iraq depending on the location of the site and the disposition of the aircraft. It was a shame that it happened but the decision was made by the leadership in theater who were more aware of the situation than the armchair detectives here.

I've been through both reports thoroughly and agree with parts from both but honestly don't fully understand what happened in those last precious seconds. With all due respect to BG Harvel, his conclusions are based upon sketchy analysis and highlight a lack of CV-22 technical knowledge. I and others know the facts of what happened that night but the "why" of what happened still has us scratching our heads, which is indeed unfortunate. I will state this unequivocally.....there was absolutely no coverup in either one of these reports!

Lastly, I've put up with the rhetoric on this thread for years now. The men on this crew were my close friends, I trained the pilots, and knew the Flight Engineer and his family for nearly twenty years. This is extremely personal to me, If anyone wants to vomit on their graves or reputations like I'm beginning to hear, I will not stand for it!

FH1100 Pilot

23rd Dec 2010, 23:24

Oh, settle down, Mcpave. Do we have to tell you AGAIN to unbunch those panties? Sheesh. From what we understand the MP (mishap pilot) was a cool-under-fire, highly-respected, highly experienced aviator. All things being equal, I guess this could even have happened to you, right? The MP's copilot was fairly well-experienced, with 2,600 hours. So we can't blame this one on the crew's inexperience, like they did with Majors Brow and Gruber (the Marana pilots).

The copilot seems to have selective amnesia. Instead of saying, "I don't remember anything," he seems to recall the flight in pretty good detail, describing every bit of the approach right up to .4 miles from the LZ, where his "amnesia" starts. I mean, his recall is really pretty good. Only...well...let's face it, some of his description is wrong. Like the last part. No matter what he says, they did *NOT* fly a by-the-book low-visibility approach, not at all. But we'll get to that later.

So…what do we have with this here V-22 accident?

1) A experienced crew.
2) Running late.
3) A way-too-fast approach.
4) A way-too-high rate of descent
5) Task-saturation in the cockpit.
6) A tailwind.
7) Crash!

Shades of Marana!

I thought this scenario wasn’t supposed to happen again? I thought everyone figured out how to keep this from happening? I thought all V-22 ops were supposed to be nice and planned-out and predictable and orderly…and we’d never see in the real battlefield a “Marana”-type situation occur? Landing with a tailwind?? What’s up with that! How come none of the pilots in the other two V-22's said something like, "Hey MP, I've got 17 knots of wind blowing up my butt. How's about we swing around and land these babies...you know... INTO the wind? Like they taught us in flight school, lo those many years ago?"

Okay, enough with the sarcasm – I understand it pisses people off. Mcpave and ospreydriver will quickly jump on here telling us that we don't know squat about this accident, but THEY do...but...if they told us they'd have to kill us. Uh-huh. The usual.

I’ve spent literally days poring over the extensive report of this accident by Brig. General Donald Harvel. And I am left somewhat confused. Either the MA (mishap aircraft) flew the LVA profile accurately or it did not. (Well, we know that it did not.) Either it did have a power loss or it did not. Either the first touchdown on the main landing gear was intentional or it was not.

Fact is, they were late for their TOT (Time On Target). Either one minute or five minutes late, depending on which part of the report you believe. Military pilots make a Big Deal about how they can navigate to point on a map in any weather and be there within seconds of the planned time. That's the big difference, they tell us, between manly military pilots and vastly-inferior, effeminate civilian-trained Robbie Rangers. And even though the TOT was not highly-critical in this instance, we must admit that it is a huge matter of pride for military pilots to *not* be late. Add to that the fact that this was one of the MCR’s (mishap crew’s) first combat missions of their deployment. General Harvel made specific note of this pressure, and theorized that it was the reason the MP made such a non-standard, improvised approach. Well duh.

So the V-22 was running late. Apparently, to make up time the MP did a high-speed descent and completely blew the “standard” profile set for such approaches. In fact, at every key point in the approach, he was double (or nearly so) the airspeed he “should” have been at. Complicating this was a 17 knot tailwind. Astonishingly, the MP made up the five-minutes, and managed to be pretty much on-time for the TOT. However, he did it by flying what could be called a “non-standard” approach.

During the last few seconds of flight, the V-22 entered a very high rate-of-descent. Concurrently there reportedly was some unspecified “excited cockpit conversation.” General Harvel presumes that it was between the PIC and Flight Engineer and was with reference to going-around. I'll bet it was! Just about at that point, the main landing gear tires hit the dirt. The accident report is vague on whether this was intentional or unintentional. In either case, the touchdown was downwind at a groundspeed of about 75 knots. The accident report assumes that: a) full power was already applied at that point; and b) there was insufficient power to execute a go-around.

Ultimately, General Harvel goes out on a limb and speculates (based on a number of factors) that *both* engines must have suffered some sort of unexplained simultaneous power loss. You’d have to read the report to understand his logic and how he came to that conclusion. He is being extremely kind to the MP and extremely hard on the V-22, which certainly doesn’t need any more bad publicity when it comes to power/performance issues.

When you read the accident report, you get the impression that General Harvel is simply wrong. The MP was late. He screwed up the approach and crashed. He got the thing slowed down, but let it settle into a horrendous rate-of-descent. When things start going wrong, they go wrong fast! Now, it must be said that the MP almost made it! He almost pulled it off. He was obviously working hard at it. He was probably pulling full power or more. He almost got the rate-of-descent (as high as 1800 fpm) just about arrested when the main landing gear touched. Trouble was, he was still hauling ass at 75 knots when that happened. Even so, everything might’ve been okay except that the nose plowed into a small drainage ditch, causing the V-22 to flip over. Damn. I'll tell you, man, I'm thinking, Settling With Power. Classic case, perhaps.

Unfortunately there are too many unanswered questions. The owner of the “battlespace” quickly called for the V-22 to be destroyed – something that caused General Harvel no small amount of anxiety given that it was a fatal accident. Thus, whatever information could have been gleaned from the wreckage was forever lost. And no matter what Mcpave says, it *is* fishy. It's not like the aircraft was down behind enemy lines in Nazi Germany, or in North Viet Nam where it could have been captured and reverse-engineered by the enemy. It's not like we're at war with all of Afghanistan...just the Taliban...and they're not even an organized Army!

So what was the rush to destruction? They blew it up, then hooked it outta there. Why not just send a '53 in and bring the wreckage pieces back for inspection? It's weird, man. Fishy.

Back to the V-22. When I say something like, "It lands too slowly," the V-22 proponents screech, "Well, it CAN land faster if we need it to." Oh yeah? Well with this accident we see what happens when an experienced V-22 pilot tries to hurry his approach. I suspect that this won't be the last accident of this type. And I wonder: Will they keep blaming them on "engine problems" or "pilot error?" Maybe the real answer is, "This P.O.S. isn't designed and doesn't work well for combat troop insertions into hostile territory."

busdriver02

24th Dec 2010, 01:25

SASless

24th Dec 2010, 01:53

The questions are about the crash....and what caused it....not one another's parentage.

It appears lots of mistakes were made before, during, and after the crash by an array of folks.

We all know the dangers of an unstablized approach in poor vis and the good probability of hitting the ground out of control when we mix high rates of groundspeed combined with steep approach angles with reduced power while trying to get the aircraft slowed down then adding a huge demand for power to arrest the high rate of descent.

As there is no data available to definitively record the final seconds of the flight....we are left to consider the circumstantial evidence. That leaves some very unpleasant outcomes.

If we accept it was mere pilot error....that is tragic for those involved.

If we accept a single engine loss of power....it makes a bad situation due to pilot technique much worse.

If we accept it as being a dual engine loss of power....well we know how the Osprey ends up if that happens below 1600 feet AGL...and that raises concerns about its design.

FH1100 Pilot

24th Dec 2010, 02:18

FH1100, what's your experience with combat troop infiltrations? If I remember correctly you're a civilian pilot with experience flying by military standards very light weight helicopters. What makes you think that you can say the the Osprey lands too slow? Do you really think your Jet Ranger can land fast? I'm not saying you're not a very good helo driver, but if my read on your experience is correct, what makes you think you understand modern combat helo tactics?

Not sure what you're getting at, busdriver*. I can say anything I want with respect to the V-22. And if you go by the rate of descent limits in the NATOPS manual, I say it lands too slowly and makes too vulnerable a target on approach to an LZ. This is a statement that was countered by the Air Force guys who lurk here and only post when someone says something (bad) about the V-22. Only...now we have an accident in which the pilot was deliberately trying to land fast. Hmm. Maybe those NATOPS limits are worth something, eh what?

Oh, and let's leave my JetRanger out of this discussion, mm'kay? Nor do I have to be an expert on combat helo tactics. I just read the accident reports, man.

Have you?

*Although I'm sure some little childish smartypants on JH will quickly - if he has not already - claim that I got "my ass handed to me" by busdriver.

busdriver02

24th Dec 2010, 15:30

FH1100, my point is that you are of the belief that the Osprey is somehow different than any other helicopter in being vulnerable on approach. Every rotary wing aircraft is slow at that stage of flight.

I may have missed it, but where in the report does it say that the pilot was intentionally fast to make a TOT?

SASless is correct, there just isn't enough in formation in the AIB to really know what happened.

busdriver02

31st Dec 2010, 03:02

Wow, I guess I am the destroyer of threads! I didn't mean to demean your jet ranger or discourage you from speaking your mind. In any event, happy new year....

ospreydriver

1st Jan 2011, 03:25

First, The "rate of descent limits in the NATOPS manual" are the same as EVERY OTHER F'G HELO IN THE NAVY AND MARINES! 40/800 is universal!

Second, I do have to pull the, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" bit, because I have gotten the privileged mishap brief, and I'm not about to mix up the publicly available info with the PAO press-release-type stuff.

No cover-ups here, just standard-issue government bureaucracy. That's the truth.

BTW, in case anyone thinks weird **** is unusual over there, during the winter of 2001/2002 alone, my composite squadron (46,53,AH/UH) in Aghanistan had 2 class As (one with fatalities), and at least 3 other incidents with signifant damage to aircraft.

I've flown in OEF in the 46 and (briefly) with the 22. I'll take the 22.

SASless

1st Jan 2011, 20:34

Second, I do have to pull the, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" bit, because I have gotten the privileged mishap brief, and I'm not about to mix up the publicly available info with the PAO press-release-type stuff.

Thus it seems what is being made public is not what is being passed internally!

So now those of us in mufti....have to assume the uniformed mafia are not hiding an embarrassing truth. Is my perception wrong here?

It would seem there is an unclassified summary that exists whereby the public can be correctly informed of the outcome of the investigation....or am I sipping too much Egg Nog?

Perhaps I shall have to take a wander down the street to the bar with all the Dollar Bills and do a canvas of the short haired gentry to see what I can find out.

ospreydriver

1st Jan 2011, 21:11

Maybe a little different but not in a conspiracy theory kind of way. Almost every mishap has this happen, but it only becomes contentious in high-visibility investigations.

Privilege is taken very seriously in military mishap investigations. It distinguishes the reports given by Aviation Mishap Boards (AMB) from the punitive investigations given by Judge Advocate General (JAG) investigations and Field Flight Performance Boards (FFPB in the Marines, not sure of the USAF term).

The AMB gets privileged testimony, i.e. what someone tells the AMB cannot be used against him for punitive action. A pilot can say he screwed up the approach, a mechanic can say he smoked pot, whatever. The point is just to find out what happened in order to prevent it from happening again, not to establish blame. Privileged testimony and reports derived from it are briefed within the military aviation community to enhance safety, but are not supposed to be released generally. That would undermine the whole system of free disclosure.

The reports released to the public are generally based on JAG investigations, so they are generally less revealing and open than the ones briefed internally, which are more "warts and all."

The above is written from a USN/USMC perspective, so I'll leave the USAF particulars to others, though the principles are very similar.

Regardless, what I can say is that this mishap is not an Osprey-particular mishap. It could occur to any platform whose job is flying really f'g low in the desert.

SASless

2nd Jan 2011, 12:47

this mishap is not an Osprey-particular mishap. It could occur to any platform whose job is flying really f'g low in the desert.

Pilot error then is it?

Low Vis...busy inside the cockpit....very little definition over a very flat area...NVG's at lowest capability....altitude alerts ignored...then "Hello Dolly! Where did the ground come from?".

$87,000,000.00 worth of world's most sophisticated vertical flight machine....with top line crews....and we can still fly them into the ground?

Now what about the FLIR....what mode was it in....who was looking at that?

Three guys up front....all sorts of displays showing height above ground, airspeed, distance and time to go....FLIR, NVG's, IR search light for illum....what more can you ask for to keep your SA accurate?

ospreydriver

2nd Jan 2011, 14:36

As long as planes and helos fly low under demanding conditions, some of them will crash. You alternate between crapping on the plane and crapping on the pilots to get a rise out of others. I'm done with this.

Are you going to give the Alaska F-22 crash the same level of conspiracy-theory nuttiness? Military aircrews fly in conditions and missions that few, if any civilian pilots deal with. You want a national defense, you have to expect this to happen occasionally, in spite of the best training and equipment.

TukTuk BoomBoom

3rd Jan 2011, 11:25

Good call! I think Sasless just has a stick up his a$$ about the Osprey and when he slates the crew he really shows his true colors.
Never had a human factors moment Sasless?
Get over yourself and just accept that no one cares what you think of the machine or the crews.

SASless

3rd Jan 2011, 12:00

Tuk,

Did you happen to notice the punctuation mark at the end of the first sentence????????????????????????????????????????????

The Air Force called it Pilot Error....I asked where the real cause lay.

Was it bad crew action, poor SOP's that set them up, improper system performance, bad integration of data between systems, or as some folks think an engine(s) malfunction?

Slating a crew as you call it....is simply admitting the truth if it was in fact a guy dropping the ball if...if....if ... that is what actually happened.

The Osprey may be a wonderful aircraft....but as all aircraft it has its limitations and can find itself in circumstances which it is not capable of handling.

If you care not to participate in the discussion....that is your choice but at least have something to add besides your wry wit.

FH1100 Pilot

3rd Jan 2011, 14:39

I think it's puzzling and more than a little amusing that those within the V-22 community tell us on one hand that the military would *never* lie about the aircraft, and on the other hand they tell us that *they* know the "truth" behind the crashes...but of course cannot tell us.

Remember back when we were discussing the Marana crash, of which a thorough report was issued. But mcpave contradicted it and stated that he knew the "real" cause of that accident, and alluded to it being nothing like what the report stated. But he couldn't tell us because he'd have to kill us afterward. Hush-hush, super-secret, you know!

Now ospreydriver makes the same statement of this latest Osprey accident.

What they're saying is that the military *WILL* lie about the V-22.

Thank you both for telling us what we already knew.

mckpave

3rd Jan 2011, 19:36

You are completely full of crap!!! I never once lied on this thread, nor did I mislead anyone!!! You continue to accuse me and attack my integrity without basis!!! If you had even one day of experience in the military or any programs with classified information you would understand the limitations of discussing sensitive information on an open forum. Note very carefully that I did not say, "classified" information, but sensitive, a term that is not a categorization of the information but rather a description. There is a distinct difference between information that simply should not be discussed in an open forum and classified information, it's part of the profession of being a professional military aviator. Within every aspect of military operations there is plenty of unclassified information that you do not want to discuss outside of your realm, every single military aviator will attest to this fact, plain and simple.

Now, on to your claims towards me with regard to the Marana crash. Here is my explanation. The Marana accident occured fairly early in the tactical development of the aircraft, since then there has been loads more data gathered on the employment of the Osprey, particularly in formation with another Osprey. This is the key aspect to remember. One particular phenomenon that came to light has been termed, "roll-off", where an aircraft behind another Osprey (Dash Two), experiences a sensation similar to rolling off an imaginary "ball" of air. This phenomenon appears to only occur when in conversion mode, above and directly behind another Osprey. A specific incident several years ago prompted a look into the aerodynamics of what was happening in this regime of flight. What was found was that unlike traditional helicopters, there exists a vortex of air above and behind an Osprey when in conversion mode, a condition that can be visually thought of as "Superman's Cape". This vortex is extremely powerful and can indeed cause a trailing aircaft to continue to roll until the limits of the control stick are reached, and very much capable of rolling the aircraft inverted. Transitioning the nacelles or flying out of the vortex are the conditions to exit the phenomenon. This, in my opinion, is actually what happened to the crew at Marana, a situation that at the time they had no idea to expect. In the helicopter formation business, you usually fear getting below the preceding aircraft, not above it.

I'll state again.....this is MY opinion, not some so-called "secret coverup" as those on here would like to claim. But, it is an professional opinion shared by many others in the program. I base this opinion on over five and a half years of flying the Osprey, thousands of formation approaches in both the Osprey and previous helicopters, no evidence of VRS since Marana, and most importantly, the fact that I personally have experienced "roll-off" several times in the Osprey. Every single incident of roll-off that I've encountered or heard about occurred under nearly indentical conditions that existed at Marana, hence my hypothesis. Luckily for myself and others, our experiences, while unnerving, were not nearly as severe as other stories that I've heard. But, since you said it and now that I've told you, yes I'd still like to kill you, just on general principle.

The results of the research done several years ago have made a previously misunderstood phenomenon now widely understood throughout the community. While it is unique to the Osprey it is in no way a major limitation in the employment of the aircraft.

As far as the Afghanistan accident goes, I personally believe neither the AIB or SIB fully explains what happened that night. Mostly because we don't have the luxury of CVRs and FDRs, a fact that has been brought up in numerous accident investigations. The only "facts" that I completely understand are that they were way too fast for the standard Low Visibility Approach profile but I feel this was only partially due to a late TOT. At sea level, the Osprey will stop on a dime but not at higher elevations and you can find yourself behind the aircraft very quickly if you start your approach hot.

I have "thoughts" and "ideas" of what may have occurred, but I'm not willing to share them because without further data, it would be speculation of the highest degree. Did anyone read anything in those comments that said, "secret", or "hush-hush"??? Unfortunately, I feel that we will never fully glean the truth about that night but I see little evidence pointing at the aircraft itself, and what is there is highly speculative. Lastly, there have been tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of approaches flown in the Osprey community under nearly the identical conditions over the past years without incident. I guess these must have been complete miracles in the critics eyes because each one should have resulted in catastrophe.

ospreydriver

4th Jan 2011, 02:29

Look, if you are in any way involved in aviation and you can't understand the concept of privilege during a mishap investigation, you're an imbecile. I'm not going to use information I gained from official sources to self-generate a press release that some morons on the internet will represent as gospel. This doesn't mean anything's covered up. Privilege ensures that necessary safety info gets to those who can USE it, e.g. pilots, crew, maintainers, without wrecking lives and reputations of those involved.

The fact that the publicly released report is harder on the aircraft than in my opinion it should be is testament to this. The USAF has done a very thorough job of disseminating information on this mishap. That internal pilot briefings touch on factors that more directly affect how things should be done better in the future doesn't mean that the released report is a "lie." I'm not going to add my two cents on this just to satisfy internet trolls. Question my integrity? Fine. I'm a Marine officer and combat aviator. I'm confident in my qualification on this subject. I don't need validation from some wanna-be's or has-beens on the Internet.

For the critics, NOTHING will convince them that the Osprey is worth it. I don't know why I try sometimes. I'd venture to say that 100% of Osprey pilots fully endorse the new aircraft. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines at take potshots, but those actually flying the machine do not want to go back to flying helicopters.

Before the V-22 was fielded, people said it would never make it to the fleet. When it came to the fleet, people said it wouldn't succeed in combat. When it succeeded in combat in Iraq, they said the real fight was in Afghanistan. It succeeds in Afghanistan, they say it's just doing milk runs. It does hard hit missions in Afghanistan, they say...well they'll always come up with something they don't like, won't they?

What exactly WOULD satisfy you critics? What do you want this aircraft to do that it hasn't already demonstrated? Please let me know.

FH1100 Pilot

5th Jan 2011, 14:13

I'd venture to say that 100% of Osprey pilots fully endorse the new aircraft.

Oh goody! Of course. Have you ever known any pilot who actively disliked the platform he was assigned to? "Well the pilots like it! Right! Let's keep building the huge waste of money then!"

Dick Cheney knew better. We should have listened to him.

It's very easy to sit on the sidelines at take potshots, but those actually flying the machine do not want to go back to flying helicopters.

Again, just because pilots like the machine does not mean anything- it doesn't validate it. In other words, that recommendation is worthless. Sorry.

Before the V-22 was fielded, people said it would never make it to the fleet.
Not true.

When it came to the fleet, people said it wouldn't succeed in combat.
Again, this is not a true statement.

When it succeeded in combat in Iraq, they said the real fight was in Afghanistan. It succeeds in Afghanistan, they say it's just doing milk runs. It does hard hit missions in Afghanistan, they say...well they'll always come up with something they don't like, won't they?

"Success" in Afghanistan? Jeez, take off the rose-colored glasses and have a TEENY bit of objectivity, willyas? Holy cow! First of all, the accident report issued by Brig. General Harvel (of the USAF I might add- so the report wasn't issued from the USN/USMC perspective as ospreydriver stated) brought to light that the Osprey is fairly...ohhhh, what is the word, "useless" above 5,000 feet. When they have a mission that calls for a landing above 5,000 feet they do *NOT* use the V-22. It's there in black and white.

If this is what you guys call a "success," then I guess our definitions of the word vary. A bit.

I do not recall people - any people and especially not me - saying that the V-22 would never make it to the field, or be an unmitigated failure in the field or that it would be incapable of carrying out even the most basic of missions. To claim otherwise is a lie or a deliberate misrepresentation. We (the opponents of the V-22) have just said that it was unsuited to the task to which it was assigned and that it would crash. Which it has. And will again. And when it does, it will kill people and destroy another $87 MILLION dollars worth of equipment.

Worth it? Some of us believe no.

What exactly WOULD satisfy you critics? What do you want this aircraft to do that it hasn't already demonstrated? Please let me know.
For me, I would like it to cease to exist. I do not like the V-22. I believe it is a flawed design that comes with too high a price tag. You got a problem with that? (Apparently somebody does!)

A little tidbit from mcpave's post:But, since you said it and now that I've told you, yes I'd still like to kill you, just on general principle.
Nice guy, eh? You know Mcpave, as much as we disagree on the V-22, I do not want to kill you. In fact, by advocating the removal of the V-22 from the fleet, you could say I'm trying to save your life. So I'm rather startled to learn that you'd rather kill me on general principle, and admit it openly. Nice f*cking guy. I'm proud to know that you're defending us....just brimming with pride to know that this is the caliber of men in our armed forces (i.e. men who'd like to kill other men over a difference of opinion).

I sincerely wish that you, mcpave and ospreydriver were more experienced aviators. If so, you'd know that helicopter aerodynamics is not an exact science. You'd know that a helicopter can make a certain type of approach (let's say fairly vertical and slightly downwind) 100 times successfully with no problems. But that 101st time it crashes. Why is this?! Because of the chaotic nature of airflow through the rotors. It means that just because you get away with something once...or even 100 times...it doesn't mean that the 101st time won't bite you. So the fact that the V-22 has been doing certain things in the field "successfully" is not vindication of its design. It merely means that crews have been getting away with stuff for the time being.

If either of you had read the report of the pilot who did the VRS testing of the V-22 after Marana, you'd know that when the V-22 gets into A-VRS (this "roll-off" mcpave mentioned, although in a different context) it does so very unpredictably. Which should have been no surprise because even to get a helicopter into VRS is "difficult" in that the exact same results are never dependably repeatable. Meh- that's a helicopter for you. It's not like the predictable stall of an airplane's wing. That's why we don't have VRS indicators in our panels (and never will).

When this "roll-off" happens up at a nice safe altitude it is no problem. Why, just tilt the nacelles forward and go! But it won't happen up there. It'll happen down low, on short-final, when the crew is task-saturated, when what happens will happen so fast that it won't be recoverable.

That's bad enough. But now this latest accident V-22 has shown us something else, another dark side of its behavior. Now we find out that even if you still have a bunch of airspeed, if you get into a momentarily high rate of descent on short-final you might not have the power (either in the engines or proprotors) to abort and go around.

I wonder what other undiscovered skeletons lurk in the V-22's performance envelope closet? No matter how they feel about me personally, I hope neither mcpave nor ospreydriver are the ones who find them. I hope so for them and for the sake of the passengers they'll be carrying.

SASless

5th Jan 2011, 21:17

I skimmed through the 190 pages of the maintenance records portion of the accident report and noticed some interesting information....nothing to wave a red flag on any one thing. What immediately stood out was a 700 hour aircraft having engines with about 200 hours on one and less than a hundred on the other (working from a dim memory here so don't hold me to the exact numbers). I know engine times rarely match airframe times....but when we look at "new" airframes it does seem a bit unusual to have such variations.

In time I will do a proper review and see what the engine history of the aircraft was....and answer some questions I have about reliability and maintenance actions this particular aircraft experienced with a view to consider how reliable these things are compared to other large "helicopter" type aircraft.

A question I do have is what effect does a trend of 91% have on engine performance and is there an effect on operational weights. Can one of you Osprey guys discuss that without going to Leavenworth for the rest of your time in the military?

Belgique

5th Jan 2011, 22:58

Monday, January 3, 2011
Mystery Remains in Fatal CV-22 Osprey Crash

A USAF Accident Investigation Board (AIB) failed to determine conclusively why one of its Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft hit the ground about a quarter of a mile short of its intended landing zone in Afghanistan last April and crashed, killing the pilot, another crew member and two passengers in the first combat loss of an Osprey tiltrotor.

The pilot had lowered his landing gear and begun tilting the helicopter-airplane hybrid's rotors upward to land when the Osprey unexpectedly touched down with its right wheel at 80 knots on April 9 during a nighttime raid near Qalat, Afghanistan. The Osprey rolled 45 feet, then hit a drainage ditch. The nose stuck in soft soil while the aircraft flipped on its back.

The board president could not determine the cause of the mishap by the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," in part because the flight data recorder, the Vibration Structural Life and Engine Diagnostics control unit, and the right engine were destroyed to keep sensitive equipment from falling into enemy hands and therefore not available for analysis.

But the AIB eliminated mechanical failure or enemy fire as causes of the accident. The board also ruled out a "brownout landing," in which dust stirred up by rotors can disorient a pilot, and vortex ring state, the phenomenon that caused an Osprey crash that killed 19 Marines in April 2000, at Marana, AZ. In addition, a design problem that led to the replacement of the Central De-ice Distributor support bracket found in all Marine Corps and Air Force Ospreys, was not considered a factor.

The AIB report said as many as 10 factors substantially contributed to the crash. These included inadequate weather planning, a poorly executed, low-visibility approach, a tailwind, a challenging visual environment, the mishap crew's task saturation, the mishap copilot's distraction, the mishap copilot's negative transfer of a behavior learned in a previous aircraft, the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment, an unanticipated high rate of descent and engine power loss.

The convening authority approved the board president's report, with comments.

He decided the evidence in the AIB report did not support a determination of engine power loss as one of the 10 substantially contributing factors.

The convening authority considered the evidence in the AIB report and additional analysis of the evidence in the report, concluding the preponderance of credible evidence did not indicate engine power loss as a substantially contributing factor of the mishap.

After a review of the original AIB report, the convening authority's statement of opinion and additional material obtained after the completion of the AIB report, the chief of staff of the Air Force reopened the investigation and directed the AIB board president to analyze the additional information.

The board president conducted a follow-on investigation to analyze two Naval Air Systems Command reports and the convening authority's analysis of video data.

After consideration of the new material the only fact the AIB president changed from his original report was the ground speed of the aircraft at impact from what was believed to be 75 knots to 80 knots at the time of impact.

ospreydriver

6th Jan 2011, 00:08

FH, you still haven't said what test it is that the Osprey needs to do that it can't.

I've landed the V-22 comfortably at 10000 DA. I wouldn't try the same in a -46.

The opinions of the pilots are very valid, because 2/3 of them have flown combat sorties in other aircraft(-46,-53, AH/UH, and even F-18, AV-8B, and EA-6B). Their endorsements ARE valid, and certainly more valid that the criticisms of those on this board.

I've been flying for 15 years. I may not have 20000 hours drilling holes in the sky over the UNITED STATES, but I've flown both helos and tiltrotors into contingency ops off ships and overseas, not to mention being an IP in 3 different aircraft. I'm plenty qualified to know about what aircraft do.

The Osprey's a good plane. The aircrew will tell you and the grunts will say the same. They're the ones who know, and are FAR more qualified than most on this board to say so.

SASless

6th Jan 2011, 01:41

I've been flying for 15 years. I may not have 20000 hours drilling holes in the sky over the UNITED STATES, but I've flown both helos and tiltrotors into contingency ops off ships and overseas, not to mention being an IP in 3 different aircraft.

Laddy, while you are doing your King Kong imitation pounding your air medals with your fists....how about some OOHRAH's while you are at it?

More than a few of us have combat experience, decades of flying experience, instructor experience, and probably lived in more countries than you have visited on Liberty Call, hold multiple National Licenses, and flown multiple models of both airplanes and helicopters (not to mention balloons, gilders, motor gliders, and ram air parachutes).

You may have Osprey time and most here do not....but that doesn't make you a Sky God....just a guy flying the machine. That is why we ask questions of you. If you would answer some without getting yer feathers ruffled....it would go a long way to moving the discussion along.

Cut the insults and act as a true professional.....which you claim to be.

You want to have a pissing contest with FH....do it by PM would you?

For a note of reference....read up on Link Luckett landing his Hiller 12E on Mt. McKinley doing rescues then talk about 10,000 feet in an Osprey.

ospreydriver

6th Jan 2011, 02:07

I'm just not going to be talked down to like I'm f'g junior. Seeing as I've actually flown helicopters, airplanes, and tiltrotors, I tend to think I have a bit of expertise on the subject of their relative merits. Being told that the opinions of the pilots flying the Osprey aren't relevant is absolutely insane.

A few of you seem to hate the Osprey just for the sake of hating it. I don't see anything more than the standard Red Ribbon Panel talking points that were debunked years ago.

The Osprey is already bought. We ain't going back. WHY are we still arguing over it?

grumpytroll

6th Jan 2011, 02:09

You are the height of arrogance in aviation. Typical pilots who thinks his sh** doesn't stink. Your assertion that the pilots of the aircraft in question lack experience is bulls.... I am a pilot. Look at my profile. I haven't included all the fixed wing aircraft I have flown... Marchetti SF 260 for example. If I have one more hour of flight time than you, does that mean that I have all the experience and knowledge in aviation necessary to tell you to **ck off? I don't believe that, but apparently that is your belief. I find the reports by the two pilots discussing the Osprey to be unquestionably professional, knowledgable and trustworthy. I thank them for providing their expertise on the aircraft. I thank them for their dedication to the craft and their willingness to provide their expertise. I thank them for their service to America. Get a life. Ratchet it down a notch or two. You are certainly not the end all and be all in this or any other aviation related topic. Sorry to be so frank but I am tired of the all knowing all seeing pilots in the world. You know, the ones who look at one picture of a crashed helo five minutes after the crash, or a myriad of differing reports on aircraft mishaps and immediately show their aviation "knowledge" by solving the mystery because they see a cloud in the distance... and then... the weather... and the manufacturer cut costs so... and he should have... so lets hang him from the highest... f ing loser... can't do it like I can....blah blah blah... If this thinking was respected, the Blackhawk would have been scrapped after the stabilator had problems. The alarmists were out in force. Thankfully the right thinking folks were in charge and the result is the finest aircraft in the history or the military.

I am an old aviator now, 50, and have gained a great respect for the total professionalism, knowledge and dedication in my young peers. I am not afraid to ask them their opinion about any topic. Weather, maintenance, systems etc.

The future of the aviator is intact. Respect your young replacements. They are more capable and professional than their predecessors.(Just like your generation)

Sorry to some of you who don't want to hear that.

Cheers

FH1100 Pilot

6th Jan 2011, 04:55

Grumpytroll, you certainly live up to your screenname! I see that you've been an esteemed member of PPRUNE since October of 2009. Hmm. You know something? THIS THREAD has been running since July of 2005. *BEFORE* shooting your mouth off (oops, too late!) why don't you do yourself a favor and read through the pages and learn something about the V-22, mm'kay? THEN come back and try to impress us with your knowledge of the subject at hand.

Oh, and it's not just your spelling that sucks.

ospreydriver, no matter how much experience you do (or do not) have, it really means nothing. I'm sorry if that makes you angry or bitter. Hey, you wanna kill me too like your butt-buddy mcpave? It'd be like me telling Bell, "Hey, I love the 206! This country needs the 206. You should keep building it!" They would pat me on the head and send me away with a caution that I do not have the Big Picture. Just as we do now with you.

The reality is that no PILOT can assess the real value of any aircraft. Sure, sure, we all know how much you loooooove the V-22. And in your (highly-inflated) opinion of yourself, this means that the V-22 is "worthy." Well guess what? A lot of us here...you know, the taxpayers who have to PAY for the thing...do *not* feel that it is a worthwhile thing to spend money on...no matter how much you like flying it or how valuable YOU think it is to the U.S.

It is not.

It's too hugely expensive and it has too many damn flaws. Yes, it's already in service but it can still be cancelled. And soon will be. No aircraft flies forever. Funding can be cut off. Production lines can be shut down. I believe the Osprey (and its drivers) are already in their sunset years. Another high-profile accident which cannot be definitively attributed to a specific cause could signal the death-knell of the "plane." Then they'll be hauled to the boneyard underneath an H-53. Two at a time.

SAS brought up a good question: How often are we changing V-22 engines in the field? And HOW MUCH do they cost? I think we taxpayers deserve to know. Me, I'm tired of living in a country with such a huge deficit. How much is it now, $1.3 trillion dollars? It doesn't help the situation when we keep crashing $87 million dollar V-22s that are doing the work of an H-53, as the Osprey that crashed back in April was doing.

Speaking of which, after all the BS has been shovelled, nobody has really made the case that the V-22 is doing things that the H-53 *cannot* do. And in fact, there are things that the H-53 *can* do that the V-22 cannot. People like to throw around modern buzzterms like, "It's shrinks the battlespace!" It sounds so futuristic! But the V-22 impresses exactly nobody if it only shrinks the battlespace below 5,000 feet in practical application (see the testimony in Gen. Harvel's report).

How long are those engines lasting in the field again?

SASless

6th Jan 2011, 11:50

Darn....except for the language I would swear I wandered into a MSNBC show.

We have folks that challenge the claims the Osprey is the Bee's Knees and folks that think it is. The dissenters challenge the aircraft not the crews that fly the thing.

It appears to me the discussion is diverted from an exchange of information because one side claims to be in the know but declines to address with specificity the questions raised by the other side and erects a wall referring to OPSEC, Proprietary Information, and not wanting to sully others.

The other side being fully aware of the false advertising done in the past retains skepticism from that time and sometimes wonders if there has not been a gag order put in place due to the absence of response of those in the know.

Thus the discussion evolves into "It is!"...."No It Ain't!"....and an exchange of barbs.

Unfortunately....the claim of privilege of knowledge (without explanation) fails due to prior failures of credence by USMC authorities (and you all know what we are talking about.) So it would appear to me unless the Osprey Lovers begin to back their statements up by something other than mere broad statements of affection, their argument fails.

I love the Chinook....but will freely admit it has had its problems. We lost friends due to Incidence Bolt failures on rotor blades, saw aircraft burn to pieces in flight when Power Turbines disintegrated, and saw more than a few crash due to control rod end failures.....but it is a wonderful machine today.

nimby

6th Jan 2011, 13:50

Engineers can fix structures and systems. One of the Afghan issues is how long the thing sits in transition over the green zone.

Mk9A pilots sit on the ground (having arrived, transitioned and landed blinded by dust already) and wonder at the USMC target still on the approach 30s later.

That's a law of physics problem, not an engineering one (unlike the silly claxon on the '53 which keeps them in transition), though bullet-proof jockeyshorts could be developed ... for a fee!

;)

Jack Carson

6th Jan 2011, 14:11

Let take some of the emotion out of our discussions. The fact is that the V-22 was conceived as a CH-46 replacement. As such, a 12000 hp V-22 would surely surpass anything the CH-46 could do. Any and all comparisons were not allowed to be made with the larger CH-47 or CH-53E.

I believe that much of our skepticism comes from the very long and somewhat secretive nature of the V-22 program. Many of us watched as much needed funding was stripped away from supporting existing fleet aircraft in favor of keeping the Osprey afloat. One specific instance was a program, initiated by a west coast 53E squadron that was to demonstrate long range capabilities of the CH-53E by flying transcontinental (Tustin to Quantico) non stop without refueling. This program was scrubbed within days of the actual flight. To quote Gen. Blott, “I will not allow the CH-53 to do anything that would compromise the V-22 program.” Weeks later a Navy sponsored 53E flew more than 700 NM nonstop without refueling while transporting 8000 lbs. of cargo. Theses events all went unnoticed because pressure from the program office suppressed them.

As an instructor pilot I was privileged to have flown with many of the pilots that sustained fatal injuries in V-22 mishaps. These gentlemen were all consummate professionals assigned the task of testing and fielding this machine. All were very experienced second or third tour aviators more than capable of handling what most aircraft would throw at them. Their mishaps are proof that this machine got the best of them. Having personally experienced many of the growing pains with the development of the CH-53E and having watched many of the early fleet issues with the CH-46 over the years, I have sensed a difference with respect to the flow, timeliness, quality and quantity of information regarding V-22 events.

I truly prey for the success of the program and for the safety of all assigned to operate it.

helonorth

6th Jan 2011, 14:19

I guess if you can't argue effectively (like with boring stuff like facts and information) you can make your posts condecending and insulting. FH has put nothing forth to bolster his "arguements", but that is apparently not his intention. It is just to be an obnoxious ass, which he does exceedingly well. At least I didn't call you a butt buddy. How professional. Could we let the real professionals discuss this now? BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion.

FH1100 Pilot

6th Jan 2011, 14:22

Darn....except for the language I would swear I wandered into a MSNBC show.
I was going to say the same thing, SAS! Except I was going to use Fox News as my example. Then I remembered that Fox generally only airs one side of an issue, not both as are being discussed here. So your MSNBC analogy is spot on!

SAS talks about the two opposing sides of the V-22 controversy, then notes:The other side being fully aware of the false advertising done in the past retains skepticism from that time and sometimes wonders if there has not been a gag order put in place due to the absence of response of those in the know.
Oh, of course there's been a gag order. OF COURSE! You've got to just know that the commanding officers have addressed their V-22 crews and said something along the lines of, "If I *EVER* see anything published about the V-22 that I can trace back to one of you guys, it'll be YOUR ASS! You'll be relieved of your job faster than that guy...that former XO who used to command the Enterprise...what was his name, again? Anyway, him. You'll be GONE that fast. You'll be competing with R-22 pilots for a position with a Las Vegas tour company."

That's why mcpave has to be so circumspect. We know who he is. But since that magazine article, he's been the go-to guy for pithy V-22 quotes. Having said that, I'm sure mcpave's commanding officer is going to be rolling his eyes and slapping his forehead when he reads that mcpave admitted that he wanted to kill someone "on general principle."

"You said WHAT?! Aw, jeez. Go back and friggin' DELETE that post, you imbecile!"

Well, too late. Once you post something on the internets it's there forever, heh-heh. (Come to think of it, I wonder if the Mods here haven't already banned mcpave for saying such a thing. Or are death threats allowed by the rules now?) I digress.

Ospreydriver...well, he's a little more obscure, but I'd bet that even his commanding officer could figure out his identity. And busdriver02...well, nobody cares who he is.

Jack Carson:Let take some of the emotion out of our discussions. The fact is that the V-22 was conceived as a CH-46 replacement. As such, a 12000 hp V-22 would surely surpass anything the CH-46 could do. Any and all comparisons were not allowed to be made with the larger CH-47 or CH-53E.
But should have been! But you're right, Jack. People back then (as now) were saying that *only* the V-22 could replace the '46. And now, all this time later, just what exactly does the V-22 do better than the '53 except get there quicker?

So many opinions about the V-22.
So few people have actually done their homework and learned about it.

helonorth:Could we let the real professionals discuss this now? BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion.Professionals? If only! And no, you didn't call me a butt-buddy. And you didn't say you wanted to kill me either. So I guess for that I'm happy.

Now, as for the economy...uhh, son, I hate to tell you this, but the U.S. annual public DEBT ceiling is around $14 trillion. The DEFICIT is (or shall be shortly raised to) $1.9 trillion. Thanks for playing! Let us hope that your understanding of rotorcraft is better than your understanding of economics.

helonorth

6th Jan 2011, 15:33

Actually the US debt ceiling is $14.3 trillion, soon to be eclipsed. I don't know what your talking about and I don't think you do, either. It's apparent in every post, son!

mckpave

6th Jan 2011, 15:37

From the very beginning I came on this thread and attempted to give a counter viewpoint to the claims being made that I knew were completely false. I've been upfront and honest from the start, as someone actually involved in the program and not sitting in an armchair. What happened? I was attacked both personally and professionally, through this board and PMs. I was accused of lying, hiding under some veil of disinformation, or simply stating the party line. My qualifications and integrity were constantly challenged without one bit of actual evidence to base the claims. Why did this happened?? Because I discounted the ridiculous claims of those on this thread, that's the only reason. I tried at all times to provide detailed, solid explanations around my arguments, I did slip at times and lowered myself to the name calling, but I think it's quite evident that I've been professional more times than not, unlike others on this board. I've given the good and the bad of the Osprey, but the bad isn't enough for the haters, they feel it has to be much worse and claim that I'm lying. The most ridiculous argument was when my credibility was attacked because I didn't have enough posts!!! How insane is that?

My discussions about the Marana accident, VRS, and Roll-Off weren't conjured up in my own mind. They are based upon actual research and tests conducted by experimental test pilots and aerodynamicists who are very highly regarded in the test community. Yet, there are those on this thread who seem to claim that they too are liars or simply don't know what they are talking about. I've read the Marana report many times in detail. To take it a step further, the test pilots who flew they HROD tests were my first instructors in the Osprey and I've spent countless hours discussing the very issues around Marana. These men are of the highest caliber of any pilots in the rotary-wing community with tens of thousands of test flight hours in numerous aircraft and advanced degrees in engineering. My opinions and arguments are based upon these discussions and flights with not only them but the aerodynamicists who have been with the program from the start. I never once claimed that I came up with my conclusions on my own.

I operate in no way under a so-called "gag order". Prove those claims against me!! I can assure you that I stand fully behind my comments towards FH1100 and made them not because of a "difference of opinion" but because of his personal attacks on me. You are once again wrong FH, speaking about something that you know nothing about. "Butt-buddy"??? Now you make another baseless claim that I am a homosexual too?? And you wonder why I'd respond like I did?? I will guarantee you this FH, your comments are there forever as well and you will be held accountable for the personal attacks.

Now I'd also like to see the proof that makes those on here such experts in aerodynamics and allows you to contradict the research done by the test pilots and aerodynamicists I've mentioned earlier, FH1100 answer these questions:

1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?

Now SASless, your current comments are very hypocritical because you too participated in the attacks on me. Is that your definition of "professional" or does it only apply when you want it too?? I actually appreciate you arguments, many times they are genuine questions. But, as usual, you discount my answers because I don't provide flight manual examples or other documentation, my word isn't good enough for you. Now I realize that you come from a military background so even you should understand the issues around both classified and sensitive material, do you not?? The Osprey program is not the only program in the military that abides by these rules. There were many times on here where I wished like hell that I could post the .pdf documents to prove my claims but that would be totally unprofessional as a military aviator. Can you not understand that? I've also noticed how you've posted on other threads and defended military aviators from attacks by others, but for some reason on this thread, you don't show either myself or ospreydriver the same respect. Why is that?

I am not a test pilot nor aeronautical engineer but damn well guarantee you that I have the education and experience to discuss the Osprey issues being presented on this thread. In all honesty, I am nothing more than a messenger relaying the wisdom and experience taught to me by the true pioneers of the Osprey program. What irritates me to no end is the indirect constant berating and slander directed at these very individuals, engineers, pilots, mechanics, etc., that is unwarranted and without merit of any kind. These people are some of the most talented aviation professionals in the world, highly respected by their peers and have devoted much of their careers to the Osprey. Their qualifications destroy anyone commenting on this thread and rival anyone on this entire website, those who know them will back up my claims anyday. But, despite this, there are those on here who make unsubstantiated claims that "they" know better and are the only ones qualified to speak about the Osprey. In my book, that is the very definition of "UNprofessional".

UNCTUOUS

6th Jan 2011, 16:29

are covered quite well in this article:

Another Tilt-Rotor Crash (http://www.tinyurl.com/2anurt6)

"Another Tilt-Rotor Crash - the Why"

jeffg

6th Jan 2011, 16:43

Mckpave ask:

Now I'd also like to see the proof that makes those on here such experts in aerodynamics and allows you to contradict the research done by the test pilots and aerodynamicists I've mentioned earlier, FH1100 answer these questions:

1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?

Mckpave, you must remember that none of this matters as FH1100 with his vast posting history on pprune by definition makes him a much more expert SME on the V-22 then those who have performed experimental flight test on it, those who have done the engineering on it, and those who have flown it operationally.

By the way my early vote for "Dumbest thing said on PPRUNE in 2011" is:

#1 by FH1100
I sincerely wish that you, mcpave and ospreydriver were more experienced aviators. If so, you'd know that helicopter aerodynamics is not an exact science. You'd know that a helicopter can make a certain type of approach (let's say fairly vertical and slightly downwind) 100 times successfully with no problems. But that 101st time it crashes. Why is this?! Because of the chaotic nature of airflow through the rotors. It means that just because you get away with something once...or even 100 times...it doesn't mean that the 101st time won't bite you. So the fact that the V-22 has been doing certain things in the field "successfully" is not vindication of its design. It merely means that crews have been getting away with stuff for the time being.

References to this little aerodynamic gem please. I just perused my Prouty and surprisingly could not find any reference to this.

grumpytroll

6th Jan 2011, 18:04

Two questions immediately come to mind about this report.
1. The author is pushing the VRS hard here but according to his report the aircraft had a forward speed of 80 knots when it first contacted the ground. That speed removes the first and biggest reason for getting into VRS. Zero or low forward airspeed.
2. If there was no black box recovered, where is all this precise data coming from? Rates of descent, wind speed data, nacelle positions, conversations between crew etc.

The author of the report is trying hard to blame this on the aircraft but after reading it I see some glaring problems with the pilots actions. First, landing with a 17 knot tailwind is never a good idea, it doesn't matter what kind of aircraft you are in. The author goes to some lengths describing the entire approach as being outside the accepted parameters and then discounts that fact. He states that military aircraft need to have the ability to operate outside the parameters to offer escape options. That is fine if you believe it but there is always a limit somewhere. (Land a commercial transport aircraft with a 17 knot tailwind. Sure you will probably get it on the ground but the end of the runway will pass under you in most cases. Right after that your final paycheck will be mailed to you. Regardless of any other data about the aircraft you just landed, you exceeded a well understood limitation and thats why you are sitting in the weeds.) From the photos and the article, it appears to me that the pilot was going to do a roll on landing, whether he intended to or not. Roll on landings on the desert floor will rarely be what I would call successful. I don't know what the dust situation might have been at this LZ but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft. My guess is that when the V-22 gets close to terra firma it blows a mighty wind, especially if you're descending at a high rate and then try to stop your descent close to the ground. Speaking from personal experience, landing heavy in the desert and getting into dust and then deciding to go around by pulling the guts out her can put you and your ship in a very odd and surreal position, especially if its dark outside. Since the descent rate is apparently known to the author, what do you suppose would happen if you hit the ground at 600-1200 fpm? You might not stick. As for the co-pilot withholding information purposely to save his career, that is just BS. Recall a Comair CRJ that crashed a few years ago in Lexington, KY. The co-pilot was the only survivor. he has no recollection to this day of the event.

There is always so much more to these incidents that has to be considered and this article leaves out a few key details IMO.

Now of course I am not as smart as most folks on this site and the above post is just my misinformed, misguided and uneducated opinion. After all, I, like many others in the world was brainwashed by the military, I think, but then when I try to think about it I get all confused and, damnit... now I have a headache! :bored:

Cheers

FH1100 Pilot

6th Jan 2011, 18:31

Grumpytroll gets with the program! Nice post, man.From the photos and the article, it appears to me that the pilot was going to do a roll on landing, whether he intended to or not. Roll on landings on the desert floor will rarely be what I would call successful. I don't know what the dust situation might have been at this LZ but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft.
Well...yeah...except that the groundspeed of that V-22 was 75 to 80 knots when the main gear touched. Even with the honking tailwind, we can be sure he was outrunning his dust cloud when the main gear touched.

My guess is that when the V-22 gets close to terra firma it blows a mighty wind, especially if you're descending at a high rate and then try to stop your descent close to the ground. Speaking from personal experience, landing heavy in the desert and getting into dust and then deciding to go around by pulling the guts out of her can put you and your ship in a very odd and surreal position, especially if its dark outside. Since the descent rate is apparently known to the author, what do you suppose would happen if you hit the ground at 600-1200 fpm? You might not stick.
If that V-22 touched down at 75 to 80 knots, then he was certainly still above ETL or whatever the tiltrotor equivalent term is.

As for the co-pilot withholding information purposely to save his career, that is just BS. Recall a Comair CRJ that crashed a few years ago in Lexington, KY. The co-pilot was the only survivor. He has no recollection to this day of the event.
He *says* he has no recollection. That was the accident where they took off on the wrong runway, right? The one where the SIC was the PF on that leg, right? I would say I didn't remember anything too.

There is always so much more to these incidents that has to be considered and this article leaves out a few key details IMO.
You got that right! Sadly, the devices that would have provided those details were lost when the aircraft was inexplicably and hurriedly destroyed before they could be retrieved.

$87 million down the drain. And four lives. Let's not forget the people who died.

...but then when I try to think about it I get all confused and, damnit... now I have a headache!
Maybe that's why you're so grumpy. Take an aspirin already!

grumpytroll

6th Jan 2011, 19:16

The author of the report implies that the pilot decided to do a go-around or that one was discussed. An experienced helicopter pilot could infer that the forward airspeed was attained as a result of the go-around maneuver, after the failed attempt at a hovering landing. If that was the case, then unfortunately, not enough power was pulled or the aircraft was IMC and situational awarerness was further degraded. Therefore, brown out could still play a major roll in the accident. I would like to hear from our V-22 experts about the landing environment where this accident took place. (Course, you won't believe them) I have no idea what you comment about ETL adds to this.

As to your comment about the Comair pilot, yes, correct accident. To bad you again trash a persons character by implying that he purposely lies about the accident. It reminds of an earlier comment you made degrading EMS pilots who have been involved in tragic events such as this.

Interesting that you admit you would lie to investigators if you were the pilot involved in an accident. I take it then, that if in fact the black box was quickly destroyed to evade the truth, you agree with that plan. :ok:

Cheers

Jack Carson

6th Jan 2011, 21:11

I would like to put forth a few numbers for everyone to chew on. They may shed some light on exactly where the V-22 sits in the domain of air vehicles. The following numbers were obtained from a Bell/Boeing pilot’s guide. Calculations were made to provide an unbiased comparison.

Disk Loading - The V-22 with its 38.08 ft. rotors has a disc loading of 23 lbs/sqft at 52600 lbs. Typical helicopter disk loadings run from approximately 9.5 lbs/sqft for the Blackhawk to 14 lbs/sqft for the CH-53E. The higher the disk loading the more power required to lift an equivalent load. Also, a higher disk loading results in a higher rate of descent in an autorotation.

Wing Loading – The wing loading for the V-22 is again calculated for a 52600 lbs aircraft and compared to a few airplanes. It wing loading is calculated to be 174.51 lbs/sqft. For comparison, the wing loading for a Grumman Mohawk (Twin Turbo Prop) is 43.17 lbs/sqft., an F-104 is 105 lbs/sqft. and the Space Shuttle is 120 lbs/sqft. Typically, the higher the wing loading the greater the stall speed. On a good note higher wing loading makes for a better ride in turbulence.

Cost per Pound of Payload - The cost of transporting a pound of payload is another telling metric. The cost for transporting one pound of payload in a V-22 is approximately $4500 per pound based on $88,000,000 aircraft, a maximum VTOL gross weight of 52600 lbs and an empty weight of 33200 lbs. Buy comparison a 24 passenger AS-775 Cougar is $900 per pound.

I hope that this provides some insight as to exactly where the V-22 sits in the scheme of things.:8

FH1100 Pilot

6th Jan 2011, 21:32

grumpytroll:The author of the report implies that the pilot decided to do a go-around or that one was discussed. An experienced helicopter pilot could infer that the forward airspeed was attained as a result of the go-around maneuver, after the failed attempt at a hovering landing. If that was the case, then unfortunately, not enough power was pulled or the aircraft was IMC and situational awarerness was further degraded. Therefore, brown out could still play a major roll in the accident.

Yes, an experienced pilot might infer this. An experienced reader might have gleaned from the voluminous accident report (did you read it yet?) that the V-22 never did slow down to a hover. Good luck with that hypothesis! I doubt even our resident lovers...err, V-22 lovers would put much stock in that.

I have no idea what you comment about ETL adds to this.
Of course you don't. Wait- didn't you say you were a helicopter pilot?? Come on, man!

So what's ETL got to do with it? Ohhhh, I dunno...maybe above that speed they'd be outrunning their dust cloud is all. But I'm just a dumb helicopter pilot.

Interesting that you admit you would lie to investigators if you were the pilot involved in an accident. I take it then, that if in fact the black box was quickly destroyed to evade the truth, you agree with that plan.
Saying one does not remember is not the same as lying. Memory can be faulty, and/or play tricks. One might remember "some" things, but be hazy or confused on others. Good lawyers (and good FAA people) can trip and trick you up. In *any* accident where the pilot survives, the best bet is to just say, "Sorry guys, I really don't remember any of it."

You guys can think what you want about me. Make this about me and not about the V-22 and its inherent weaknesses and faults as a (doomed) combat aircraft. I don't care. I'm just the messenger. And who wants to kill the messenger?

Ohhhhh, that's right: mcpave.

Ian Corrigible

6th Jan 2011, 22:23

Further to the question of whether degraded engines contributed to the CV-22B crash, the fleet does seem to be getting through engines at a prodigious rate. Looking at the DoD contracts for 2010, I see:

Feb - $52M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Mar - $12M for 6 spare CV-22 engines
Aug - $24M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Nov - $30M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Nov - $27M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Dec - $121M for 58 MV-22 engines
Dec - $9M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Dec - $49M for 24 CV-22 engines (14 spares & 10 Lot 15 installs)

Back in early 2008 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204936-whats-latest-news-v22-osprey-14.html#post3989245), the DoD was looking at a new engine to cure the premature removal problems. Did this go anywhere? Av Week ran a story on the CH-53K over the weekend, noting that the first GE38s (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/GE38.jpg) (7,500 shp) will be delivered in the second quarter. Seems to be an obvious fit.

I/C

ospreydriver

7th Jan 2011, 00:35

That article on the crash was bald-faced speculation.

Me, I'm done commenting in regards to this mishap, except to say that there's no f-g conspiracy. For example, as far as the CSMU (flight data recorder) most tactical aircraft DO NOT HAVE THEM. I'm not surprised it was overlooked before the site was destroyed. Boneheaded, maybe. Conspiracy? Let it go. Keep trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll or something.

The pilots in the program are Marines and Airmen who want to provide the best possible support to our troops on the ground. They don't want to endanger their lives or those of their passengers; rather, they want to provide the fastest, most flexible assault support possible. To a man, they'll say that the V-22 does this. Keep in mind that almost all of them save the new lleutenants have already flown combat missions in other rotorcraft. They know what they're talking about.

The V-22s is lightyears ahead of any other rotorcraft currently produced. Its capabilities are far beyond its competitors. The question is really whether this enhanced performance is worth the extra dollars. I can't say. I don't write the checks. I can say that if I was given the choice of doing assault support in an Osprey, or any other rotorcraft in the world today, I'd still pick the V-22.

Besides, it's OBE (overcome by events) anyways. 15 years ago, we might have been able to buy 60s or 101s or whatever off the shelf. We're now almost completely transitioned in the USAF and halfway in the USMC. Do you really think it's remotely cost-effective to replace what's already bought, change the training and logistics pipelines, change milcon facilities planning, etc, etc. Ain't gonna happen, so why are we arguing? Might as well argue that God should've made the sky yellow. There might be some good rationales for it, but it's not going to change anything.

UNCTUOUS

7th Jan 2011, 01:43

re post and article at http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204936-whats-latest-news-v22-osprey-44.html#post6163118
Grumpytroll says: (as endorsed by FH1100 Pilot)
1. The author is pushing the VRS hard here but, according to his report, the aircraft had a forward speed of 80 knots when it first contacted the ground. That speed removes the first and biggest reason for getting into VRS. Zero or low forward airspeed.
Try to think "post-VRS aftermath recovery profile" here when considering the CV22's arrival at circa 80kts. You can do the same nasty thing after/during a classic helo recovery from a vortex ring encounter - due to having to lower the nose cyclically and fly out of the condition near the ground. A horrendous descent rate develops and you meet, unwillingly and unexpectedly, with terra firma. Not hard to envisage this scenario in either a helo or tilt-wing. Especially not hard if you've personally had a close encounter. The VRS recovery profile descent rate is akin to a full-blown autorotation.... pre first flare. However the big difference is that, in the VRS scenario, there's unlikely to be the stored rotor energy to achieve a flare. The recovery maneuver is trying to re-energize the rotor by escaping recirculation. I'm guessing that it's the same terminal phase that the USAF CV22 pilot was in. He just ran out of height but luckily he'd thought out his pre-planned response and had the sense and presence of mind to bump the nacelles forward and go for forward speed (rather than emulate the hapless Marana crew by applying power and risking further (rolling?) development of any incipient hybrid asymmVR trend.
(Land a commercial transport aircraft with a 17 knot tailwind.... Here I think we must concede that it's the wind at height on the approach that's more conducive to setting the "arcing over" stage for VRS, rather than the wind component at ground level (sorta chalk and cheesish).
...but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown-out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft. Drawing a very long bow here methinks (see ETL commentary by FH1100). Quite realistically, the stage was set for this accident much much earlier than that at which brown-out might be encountered. It was quite fairly discounted by the Board of Inquiry as a factor. Not likely to affect vision during a high R.o.D. 80 knot run-on "landing". Concede that - or lose credibility.
Overall, because the concept of incipient/hybrid VRS in a tilt-rotor requires quite a bit of extrapolated imagination, it's a mite indigestible. But you can be sure that it is uppermost in the mind of any V22 flight-crew, particularly if extraneous factors like TOT and "can do" pressures leads them into an unstable approach. Even if it wasn't uppermost, any sign of VRS/asymmVR "departure" (to use the FW autorotative pre-spin term) would make it so.
There will always be tilt-rotor accidents. The unfortunate aspect of this one is the "disappearing" of the recorder. It's starting to smell that same flavor as did the process leading to the earlier (2002?) dismissal of an MV22 Sqn Commander for fudging his fleet's serviceability and operational readiness figures. That investigation never went far enough up the ladder to nail the initiator of the cover-up. The charade would appear to be continuing. "Remember guys, we're all agreed. If we lose one over there, the first priority is to secure the recorder to keep its data out of the "wrong hands". Make sure the relevant personnel are briefed accordingly."
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/272056-osprey.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/88104-tiltrotor-hover.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/88104-tiltrotor-hover.html#post843574
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116124-vortex-ring-settling-power-merged.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/142822-whats-latest-tilt-rotors.html
Unfortunately the very lengthy post-Marana thread appears to be no longer on Pprune. (that I can find anyway).

FH1100 Pilot

7th Jan 2011, 14:10

150 feet, guys. 150 feet.

Unctuous, great post! I agree with everything you wrote.

Based on the accident report, here's what I think happened. And let's remember, this flight was a dynamic situation. It's hard to take "snapshots" of any one point in the approach and draw hard and fast conclusions. Things were happening- and things were happening fast. (And also remember that the whole operation was being filmed by the V-22's themselves, as well as aircraft that were circling overhead. Images from these cameras were relayed back to various places in real time.)

So at the 3.0 mile DP (deceleration point), the V-22 was 100 feet too high and 20 knots too fast (going an astonishing 270 knots across the ground). They should have started decelerating there, but did not - not for another 1/2 mile. At 270 knots GS, that 1/2 mile would have been covered in...what...10 seconds? Less?

Anyway, at around 2.5 miles from the LZ they began slowing down and converting back to helicopter mode. With only .79 miles to go they were at 150 feet (still too high) and 147 knots airspeed. By 1/2 mile they were down to 115 knots indicated (128 kts GS).

Okay, stop right here. 115 knots in a V-22 in helicopter mode? I can see that in a Huey, which has generous flapping capability in the rotor, but isn't that just a tad fast for a proprotor-equipped V-22? I ask this because here is what the V-22 AFM says about landing after a dual engine failure in forward flight. First of all, they call for a fast conversion back to helicopter mode and a target speed of 110 knots.

Note:
Expect large pitching transients and NR decay during reconversion due to edgewise flow through the rotor system.

Expect 4000-5000 fpm rate of descent. Glide ratio is 2:1.

Expect loss of flare effectiveness as wing stalls. Plan approach
for 50-60 KCAS at touchdown.

Okay, the V-22 in Afghanistan did not suffer a dual engine failure. But the AFM note is enlightening. When you're going fast and convert back to helicopter mode, strange things happen- i.e. those "large pitching transients." The accident aircraft in Afghanistan was going around 230 knots when they began their conversion, deceleration and descent. And remember, they were only 300 feet from the ground.

At 1/2 mile they were at 150 feet, still doing 115 knots. And here is where it all came undone. The MP (mishap pilot) was undoubtedly working hard, trying to get that big bastard slowed down. For some reason he allowed a rate of descent to build up. Reports say it may have been as high as 1800 fpm downward. From 150 feet. Okay, momentarily as high as 1800 fpm because they did not hit the ground at that rate of descent.

Okay, stop again. You know, we've all been there. We've all be at the bottom of a really messed-up approach. You get to a point where you finally wake up and go, "Damn! This isn't working out, let's get out of here." And you go! You pull pitch and - depending on whether you're above or below ETL - you either pull or push on the cyclic. "Come on, fly darlin'."

I think that once the V-22 began that descent there simply wasn't enough power in the engines or proprotors to stop it. That thing weighed nearly 45,000 pounds at that point. That's a lot of momentum coming down at 1800 fpm. And all it had for support were those tiny little, highly-loaded proprotors. I'll bet that the MP did recognize how screwed up the approach was, and applied every bit of power he had in trying to make that go-around. From 115 (or 100 or even 75) knots it should have been cake. But there just wasn't the lift reserve left to pull it off.

No VRS.

No brownout.

Just a classic case of SWP. Or settling-with-power, V-22-style.

Why is this important? Why do we obsess over this so? Because very simply, it will happen again. And again. The USAF and USMC are trying to make the Osprey do something for which it is particularly ill-suited.

You don't have to be master V-22 pilots to understand this. Most of you guys are probably helicopter pilots- you intuitively and thoroughly understand how helicopters fly. You know about things like inertia and momentum, and the importance of not putting the aircraft into a position from which it cannot escape. You listen to the military pilots say that the V-22 *can* make fast, helicopter-type approaches into a hot LZ, but you know with every fiber of your being that it's very risky. Dangerous, even.

You know this.

But we've had this "magical" V-22 shoved down our throats. And it keeps killing people. In Afghanistan, it killed four people in April of 2010 when the pilot misjudged what should have been a "simple" straight-in, night approach to an undefended LZ. And again let it be said that this pilot was widely regarded as one of the best V-22 pilots in the Air Force. And even he screwed up. I wonder if mcpave and ospreydriver both privately feel that they are better pilots than the MP? I wonder if they privately feel that they wouldn't have screwed up like that?

Ospreydriver feels that since we've already got the V-22, then we should just accept it. I guess he would also advise a rape victim that if it's inevitable, do not resist but just lay back and enjoy it. No, we should fight! We should fight to get the V-22 canceled, as it should have been from the start. We should continue to fight to stop wasting money on this pig.

Here in the U.S., our new mostly-Republican House of Representatives has vowed that they will cut spending! and help reduce our astonishing deficit. They could start by replacing the V-22s with CH/MH-53s. That would not only save a lot of money, it would save a lot of lives.

(Oh, and speaking of the deficit, one final note to helonorth: You said, "BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion." Son, in class this week, perhaps you could ask your high school teachers to explain the difference between "debt" and "deficit," for you obviously don't understand it. I'm not surprised. You want to be a helicopter pilot, after all, right? Sadly, it is a problem of limited intelligence that afflicts so many in our field. You'll fit right in!)

helonorth

7th Jan 2011, 16:42

You are a nasty bugger, aren't you? Yes, a deficit is the amount of a short fall over a specific time period and a debt is the total negative amount. But I do still think your arm chair analysis should be kept to yourself to prevent further embarrassment. You also cannot argue without personal attacks and insults, which, IMO, destroys any credibility you may have left. Oh yes, mckpave supposedly threatened your life! You can say whatever you want! :ugh:Bravo, man!

Dan Reno

7th Jan 2011, 18:54

helonorth
When you're found wrong you resort to name-calling (nasty bugger)? How mature is that though it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a death treat; which BTW is a felony (communicating a threat). Were you able to bring anything to this discussion about the V-22?

I'm still curious about the V-22 at NR that tried to take off while chained down since the damage was so severe it qualified as a CAT A MISHAP/STRIKE. Never heard anything about it as there was no mention in the papers, no JAG or AI held. The Marines actually circled other V-22s around it so no one could see the damage! YIKES! Another cover-up obviously! Like politicians, V-22 management counts on civilian's short memories.

I'm also curious as to whether pilots other than manufacturer or military did all the in-flight tests that allowed the V-22 to fly again. Anyone know?

helonorth

7th Jan 2011, 23:47

Sorry I called him a nasty bugger, but I was only being kind. The guy is actually a full-blown idiot (more name calling, I know). I guess I'm tired of people with agendas trying to pass them off as a point of view or some kind of informed opinion. It got the best of me. No, I can't bring anything to the table as far as the aircraft, but I would never do that without some real information or first hand experience. Any new press releases you want to post? Cheers.

ospreydriver

8th Jan 2011, 00:11

That plane wasn't chained down and it wasn't a strike.

WHO, other than manufacturer or military, COULD fly the planes? Some FAA rep? YGTBSM.

SASless

8th Jan 2011, 00:18

From the world renown Wikipedia which as any Liberal will tell you is an absolutely accurate reference source.....

Early 2006A V-22 experienced an uncommanded engine acceleration while ground turning at Marine Corps Air Station New River. Since the aircraft regulates power turbine speed with blade pitch, the reaction caused the aircraft to go airborne with the Torque Control Lever (TCL, or throttle) at idle. The aircraft rose 6 feet (1.8 m) into the air, and then fell to the ground with enough force to damage one of its wings; the total amount of damage was around US$ 1,000,000. It was later found that a miswired cannon plug to one of the engine's two Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC) was the cause. The FADEC software was also modified to decrease the amount of time needed for the switch between the redundant FADECs to eliminate the possibility of a similar mishap occurring in the future.[12]

Dan Reno

8th Jan 2011, 00:55

Word from the survey team at the time said it was a strike and/or would never fly again. Just can't trust them sand crabs for accurate word can you?.

So manufacturer and military pilots report that an anomaly is OK and good to go now. But you're right, who is going to say otherwise? Gives one that warm-fuzzy knowing that the foxes are checking the hen house for evidence after a chicken incident.

FH1100 Pilot

8th Jan 2011, 01:35

helonorth (again):You are a nasty bugger, aren't you? Yes, a deficit is the amount of a short fall over a specific time period and a debt is the total negative amount.
Well...still not quite right. Debt is debt. It's not a total negative amount, because debt is offset by revenue. The difference between revenue and debt is the deficit (or surplus). I see now why you confused the terms and told me *I* didn't know what I was talking about - YOU don't understand it! Our national public debt is $14 trillion. Our DEFICIT is around $1.9 trillion. Please don't insult my intelligence while demonstrating a lack of your own.

But even if you were right...even if our deficit were $14 trillion, that would be even MORE reason to cancel the Osprey! Thankfully, our deficit is not nearly that high. ...As if $1.9 trillion isn't a lot of money. Hah!

But I do still think your arm chair analysis should be kept to yourself to prevent further embarrassment. You also cannot argue without personal attacks and insults, which, IMO, destroys any credibility you may have left. Oh yes, mckpave supposedly threatened your life! You can say whatever you want.

Don't you worry about my embarassment. I'm in charge of that, thank you. Frankly, I'd worry about my own embarassment if I were you. You can think what you want about my "armchair analysis." You don't like it? Too bad. Go post on another forum, perhaps one for whiny little girls. If you know something...anything...about tiltrotors, then feel free to contribute to this discussion, mm'kay? Otherwise, maybe you could start an "FH1100 pilot is a nasty bugger!" thread. Let's see how many responses/views it gets!

Oh, and mcpave? Here is what he said to me in his post, #846 in this thread:
...But, since you said it and now that I've told you, yes I'd still like to kill you, just on general principle.
Hmm. Now what would YOU call such a statement? Maybe not a "death threat" per se, but close enough! How would *you* like to walk around knowing that there's someone out there who'd really like to kill you "on general principle?" Should I take him seriously? Should I report that to the police (or worse, the PPRUNE mods)?

I sort of feel sorry for guys like mcpave. I mean, once he gets out of the military, what if he pursues a flying job? There are no civilian tiltrotors, nor are there likely to be in his lifetime. With his disdain for mere, lowly helicopters, can you imagine the poor helicopter pilot PIC that might have to share a cockpit with mcpave as SIC? I can hear him now: "This is how we did it in the Air Force..." No, I imagine that mcpave will probably become a cop or something more in tune with his personality.

This discussion is straying a bit from the V-22. Can we please focus on *it* instead of making personal attacks on me just because you don't like my opinions?

The Sultan

8th Jan 2011, 01:44

Dan, Sas, and I am sure FH will chime in.

What is your point. There was an incident. If another governing concept was used it could have ended up like the HAS Puma or the Qantas 380 with a turbine burst. I have been in many incidents where an engine went into manual or ran away due to fuel control issues. These were analog controlled engines far superior to anything you have, or claimed to have, flown.

All control concepts have benefits and drawbacks. Those who do this recognize it is a balance between responsiveness when needed or reducing future maintenance cost by not letting a pilot pull the power he needs,

I must assume XPlane basic heroes do not recognize this.

The Sultan

henra

8th Jan 2011, 09:01

I have been lurking this thread for quite some time.
It is OK for me to raise questions concerning a very expensive aircraft.
I also have some personal doubts regarding its 'Bang for the Buck'. Read cost vs. Lift capability and real operational benefits compared to a CH-53E

BUT:
The way some posters (FH1100!!, SASless !?) attack people who actually fly these things I consider not acceptable and not constructive.
I'm not surprised that those start to react sometimes a bit harsh after enough of those sometimes rather subtle personal attacks pulling into question their professionalism.
There seems to be a huge amount of envy or something like that which also shows in FH's last post where he speculates about mcpaves potential future behaviour in civil life ('lowly helicopter pilot').
My impression is that here we are really getting to his motivation !

Guys, it is very interesting to discuss merits/drawbacks and properties of these Flying objects but let's stop these pi*****g contests.
So BTT, please !!

SASless

8th Jan 2011, 12:12

Sultan,

I post an excerpt of a Wikipedia entry, make no editorial coment beyond admitting it came from a source that would not be categorized as being definitive, and you suggest I have ulterior motives.

You do seem awfully defensive in your reply however.....saying no matter what happened due to the design of the aircraft and bad things happening....it is no big deal. I took no position on that design....just posted an article that described what happened.

Instead of the knee jerk reaction...how about discussing what happened...what happened....what was learned....what corrective/preventive action was taken?

Or....do you know naught of the Osprey and just like to pop in now and then and stir the pot and bolt for the door?

FH1100 Pilot

8th Jan 2011, 13:51

Nah, see henra, you've got it backwards. I didn't attack anyone. It was guys like mcpave and ospreydriver who came on here attacking *me* because (in their opinion) I can't possibly know ANYTHING about the V-22 because I do not fly one. Therefore I'm stupid. They were the ones who began insulting my intelligence and knowledge while making vague counterclaims with precious little detail due to "operational security." I was just wrong, they said, and we'd just have to take their word on it.

Secondly, I did not call mcpave a "lowly helicopter pilot." I merely mentioned mcpave and ospreydriver's oft-repeated derision and disdain for for "lowly" helicopters, which in their view cannot hold a candle to the magical miracle...this modern marvel called the V-22.

I speculate on mcpave's civilian future because it is relevant. I'm concerned about him. How will such a person adjust to "normal" life, given that there will be no tiltrotors to fly? Here is a person who, when faced with someone who disagrees with his views, admits publicly that he'd like to kill that man on general principle! Certainly the FAA would never see fit to issue him a medical certificate. And I'm thinking..."What kind of civilian job could a person this unstable hold?" Ohhhh right, a cop. Seems a natural fit.

Am I wrong?

henra, your questions regarding the relative merits of the V22 v. H53 are valid. What good is winning a war if the country goes broke in the process? But be prepared for a barrage of criticism, mostly centered around the fact that the V-22 was always intended to replace the H-46, *not* the H-53. ...To which I always ask: How many USAF H-46's did the V-22 replace?

Dan Reno

8th Jan 2011, 14:41

This is just a sampling of the type info we are fed from the V-22 management folks and you lovers of this beast wonder why your data is questioned:

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.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html

BTW, there never was a retraction on this so I assume this may be the cause of some of this POS's engine problems.

ospreydriver

8th Jan 2011, 21:13

"POS?"

This is the kind of crap that is unacceptable.

What do you fly? How about I just roll up to it and, not ever having flown in one, seen it in action, or probably even been to a static display of it, start telling you that it sucks, and that I know more it about its shortcomings than you do?

There's nothing "lowly" about helicopters, but they have a lot of inherent limitations (e.g. speed, maneuverability, altitude, and range) that the tiltrotor addresses. I don't know what I'll be doing outside the big green gun club yet, but I'll be fine.

I know which aircraft I want to be in when Hadji shoots his SA-18 at me. It ain't a helo. That's what it comes down to. All the conspiracy theory BS seems to neglect htat.

Dan Reno

8th Jan 2011, 21:49

Gee, no need to get hysterical. It's only a fly machine with a bad rep.

SASless

9th Jan 2011, 00:29

FH.....give Pave a break....he was just making a joke! There are times I want to "kill" you too...but only in a figurative sense. Ned told us he knew and respected McPave and that as I have said in the past, is good enough for me.

ospreydriver

9th Jan 2011, 00:31

Hysterical? Hardly. I don't think many pilots, from a 747 captain to the guy with a PPL taking out a C-152 would appreciate someone calling their aircraft a POS. There are lots of aircraft that have had very rough starts, then gone on to good things. The F-14 comes to mind, as does the CH-46, for that matter.

Moreover, most of those commenting and throwing darts at the V-22 have not flown assault support missions at all, much less actually been in a V-22. Most of those spouting their knowledge on the topic have little to go on, other than conspiracy-minded internet sites. They've even gone so far as to disregard the opinions of those who've actually flown the machine.

I thought this website was fairly interesting at first glance, since it has a wide audience and international aviation on it as well. I'm a little worn out dealing with people just ****ting on each other, though.

Dan Reno

9th Jan 2011, 01:04

Perhaps it hasn't dawned on you why there has not been ONE
discouraging word about the V-22 from anyone in the military or V-22 management.

V-22 lap dogs pay the rent, send the kids through college and buy vehicles on the backs of the V-22. If they should say just ONE thing bad about it and they would be history and your career flushed. I cannot believe that you have to be reminded of that! You could tell us you just got back from Antartica non-stop without any problems and how could anyone dispute it?
Your program has very little credability because there is no ONE ever able to dispute the obvious. It is no wonder V-22 crews are jittery about the airframe. Civilians who know the V-22's track record get the same jitters whenever one passes overhead.

BTW, did the AF ever drop that ludicrus idea that technically, the V-22 could qualify as a fighter with the pilot controlled belly turret? Only in the AF can a bomber be designated as a fighter so why not an aircraft with a belly machine gun? Amazing!

helonorth

9th Jan 2011, 01:50

Dan, you're sounding a bit shrill.

Dan Reno

9th Jan 2011, 02:54

Still squeeking helonorth about nothing V-22 huh? Here's a place a lot of the Osprey folks visit when down: ttp://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/ (http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/we_listen/)

ospreydriver

9th Jan 2011, 08:38

Bull****. You can think whatever you want. I fly it. I trust my life to it. I don't give a **** about my career. I'm a 2P major. Take that for what you will. I've been DIFOP since the day I left TBS, i.e. CH-46 assault support, then 1000 hours of B206 time, then another 1000 hours of V-22. There is NO aircraft better than the V-22 at medium-lift assault support. Take that to the bank. Believe it. If you don't then **** you. I'm out.

henra

9th Jan 2011, 08:42

ospreydriver

There's nothing "lowly" about helicopters, but they have a lot of inherent limitations (e.g. speed, maneuverability, altitude, and range) that the tiltrotor addresses.

To get back to a more technical discussion:

I have a question regarding these points when comparing it to a normal Helo.
Speed: Ok!
Maneuverability: What are the differences concerning maneuverability?
Are g limits, turn rates, roll limits or roll onset limits different? Wherein lies the maneuverability advantage of the V-22 ?
Altitude: Techincally: OK!! But: Can it operationally fly higher that 10k without pressurization?
Range: Compared to a CH-46 OK, compared to a CH-53E, is there really an advantage for the V-22?

Personally I would rather compare it to a CH-53. Its cost, power and footprint put it rather in that category than that of the much smaller/cheaper/lighter/weaker CH-46.

212man

9th Jan 2011, 12:13

I know which aircraft I want to be in when Hadji shoots his SA-18 at me.

No 'd' in Haji. Not many people pulling the trigger will have done the Hajj either, given the restrictions on Taliban sponsored visa applicants the Saudis have imposed since 1999.

Anyway, enough thread creep - let's get back to willy waving......

SASless

9th Jan 2011, 12:15

212man.....always picking fights you cannot win as you come to the fight completely under armed!

Osprey driver....by 2P do you mean twice passed over for promotion?

As to comparing the 22 to 53's....one should use the D model 53 variant as that is the 53 comparable to the 46's the 22 is supposed to be replacing in terms of improvements. The original PR by the Marines was the 22 would replace the 46 and 53D fleet. The 53E has three engines and much more capability than the D model.

In my view the 53E and now K and UH-60's are what the Marines should have gone with instead of the 22.

Now that the DOD has cut the high speed Amphibious Tractor which was another sink hole for Tax money....that undercuts the premise of the need for the 22 for over the horizion amphibious assault. As the LHA's and other Amphib ships will have to close the shore so the existing Amtracs can reach the beach that means the sector lengths for the aircraft will be shorter as well.

I see that is removing one more leg from the stool that the 22 sets upon.

212man

9th Jan 2011, 13:51

SAS,
Really? You miss my point - deliberately or otherwise - about the Saudi Visa reference. They were trying to stymie the Taliban because of their protection of some guy (number one most wanted terrorist) called Bin Laden. That was in the nineties. Maybe if the US had given more credence to that threat then we wouldn't be discussing V-22 accidents 10 years later! Even Andy McNabb was using Osama as an anti-hero in his novels before 2001!

Anyway, sorry to come to the party unarmed. Judging by some of the posts here, I'm not the first!

helonorth

10th Jan 2011, 01:29

To big Dan:I see you subscribe to the FH1100 school of posting: when cornered on your lack of experience and knowledge, attack. You have nothing to bring to the table, either. I'd just like to see some real discourse.

FH1100 Pilot

10th Jan 2011, 01:31

The question I keep asking is this: What is going to replace the CH-46? The V-22 was intended to be the answer for that question, but through the achingly long development process, so many KPP's were unmet and subsequently changed that it no longer is required to be capable of doing the things the CH-46 could do, and did, in combat.

Lt. General Trautman denies that we did these hairy maneuvers in combat. Au contraire!! He was not there and does not know. The '46 was described as a medium transport and compared to the V-22. But the maneuvering that could be done by the '46 is not in the performance envelope of the V-22. And, to give tactics its due, maybe those maneuvers will never again be required. But 80% of combat losses in helicopters in Viet Nam occurred during final to a zone. That's where we did windup spirals, sideflares, and all the intensive maneuvering required to survive.

When you test an aircraft, you heavily instrument it. It is covered with strain gauges that measure tension, structural loads, etc. With the V-22, in early testing, it was found that those loads were so high that the structural life of the aircraft would be cripplingly reduced if those maneuvers were practiced, so no testing has ever been done in those areas and the V-22 NATOPS manual prohibits such maneuvering.

As I said before, if there is never again a requirement for strenuous combat maneuvering, the V-22 will probably fit the bill. There are still problems, however, if today, the V-22 was required to evacuate the American Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, it could go in and land inside the compound. But in those high/hot conditions, in order to lift a standard load of passengers out, the fuel would have to be so restricted that the V-22 would have to land within 60 miles of Kabul to refuel. I consider that a safety issue.

Now who would say such blasphemous things?! Must be some know-nothing person who's never flown a V-22, right?

Umm, wrong. Sorry, try again.

Could it have been Col. William Lawrence, USMC (Ret.) who just happened to be the commanding officer of one of the first V-22 test squadrons?

DING-DING-DING! Correctamundo!

You'd think that Col. Lawrence would know a thing or two about the V-22, wouldn't you?

Then again...

Col. Lawrence is of the Viet Nam era. So he's "old school." He disagrees with the new school who say that modern tactics eliminate the need for the V-22 to maneuver...(how did he put it?)..."intensively" - which it cannot do anyway.

Lawrence was roundly criticized and rebuked for his views on the V-22. For one thing, his claim that it could not evacuate an embassy in Kabul was refuted. However, we should note that Kabul is up at 5,900 feet msl. From the accident report recently issued by the Air Force on that V-22 that crashed last April we learned that when the mission calls for a landing *above* 5,000 feet, they send a helicopter - not an Osprey. So that theoretical Kabul evac might be a problem after all.

Obviously, not everyone is in love with the Osprey - like that Lawrence fellow for instance. Right now, there are calls within the government to cancel the bloated V-22 program (as well as others) and cut our losses. We should get behind that movement. I mean, really.

The U.S. cannot keep throwing money at any and all weapons systems to counter every conceivable threat that could ever surface anywhere in the world. All that will do is make us go broke. Oh wait- we're already there! What's the deficit again? (Anyone wanna take a stab at it? Helonorth?) We cannot protect the world from every "bad guy" that might be out there. Nor should we try.

I sure wish the U.S. was as good at waging peace as we are at waging war. :hmm:

Dan Reno

10th Jan 2011, 13:25

helonorth

Unlike most here I cannot devulge my aircraft experience because like the V-22, most of it is in the so-called shadow of security, you know...classified, hush, hush and all.

I can tell you this though, Antartica was sunny and 'mild' last week though I certainly didn't think so.

Dan Reno

13th Jan 2011, 14:46

Textron-Boeing V-22 Still Dogged By Bad Parts

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey, five years after it was cleared for full-production, remains dogged by unreliable parts that reduce its availability for missions, according to the Pentagon's top tester.

The Textron Inc. and Boeing Co. V-22, in its most recent testing to evaluate upgrades, was available only 57 percent of the time it was required to fly, rather than the specification of 82 percent, according to a new report by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation. The testing took place between May and July 2009.

"Major contributors to this low mission capable rate included cracking or prematurely failing hinges and access doors, engine and drive components within the nacelle structure, flight control system failures, wiring and swashplate actuators," which help the main rotors turn, the report said.

"Mission-capable rate" is a standard standard metric for aircraft combat reliability.

Gilmore assessed that when the aircraft was flying it "met or exceeded" all but one reliability and maintenance requirement.

The aircraft "demonstrated effectiveness in a wide range of approved high-altitude scenarios reflecting current Marines Corps operations," wrote Gilmore, in a section on the V-22 in the annual report from the testing unit issued today.

The Pentagon test office and U.S. Government Accountability Office have consistently highlighted problems with V-22 parts since 2000. The V-22 is a fixed-wing plane with rotors that tilt so it can take off and land like a helicopter.

Bell Helicopter Textron spokesman William Schroeder and Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Victor Chen had no immediate comment on the test report because they had not seen it.

Improvements
Gilmore recommended that the Marines and Air Force, which is buying a version for to fly U.S. commandos, "aggressively continue integrated development and testing" to improve the aircraft's braking system, engine and drive-train reliability.

The V-22 has been deployed to Iraq and is in Afghanistan, where it transported Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a March 2010 trip.

Congress through fiscal 2010 has approved spending $32 billion on the $52.8 billion program. The Navy plans to spend $20 billion more on upgrades and the purchase of the remaining planes in the 458-aircraft program for the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command.

The program was approved for full-production in September 2005 after four years of additional development to demonstrate it overcame a host of deficiencies, including problems with its design, safety and reliability uncovered after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.

Maintenance Problems
The GAO in a June 2009 report that evaluated the V-22's initial Iraq deployment concluded that, while the aircraft flew its assigned missions successfully, maintenance problems left the planes available for flight at rates "significantly below minimum required levels."

During three periods studied during the V-22's deployment from October 2007 through April 2009, the planes were available for combat operations on average 68 percent, 57 percent and 61 percent of the time, "while the minimum requirement" is 82 percent, said the GAO.

These low rates "were not unique to the Iraq deployment" and were on par with other V-22 squadrons in the U.S., the GAO said.

SASless

13th Jan 2011, 21:37

The US Navy/Marine Corps Over-The-Horizion (OTH) Amphibious Assault Strategy was pinned on three pieces of mutually supportive vehicles. The LCAC ( a hover craft), the MV-22 Osprey, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The concept calls for the Assault fleet of ships to remain more than twenty five nautical miles from the beach thus allowing for increased safety for the fleet of ships and facilitate surprising the defending forces.

The EFV program was cancelled by the Secretary of Defense with the concurrenced of the Commandant fo the Marine Corps on January 5, 2011. The Commandant called for the development of yet another new amphibious assault vehicle to replace the current fleet of amphibious armored tractors.

The question arises.....without the ability to land assault troops from over the horizion in the current fleet of armored tractors ( sea speed....Seven Knots) and the LCAC (too large and vulnerable for assault landings).....just what does the Marine Corps do now?

Can the Osprey carry the total Assault role.....to a defended beach area? If they continue to use the UH-1/CH-46/CH-53 fleet....how does that affect their ability to carry out and suport a significant amphibious assault?

Or....is the OTH Strategy fatally flawed?

NonSAC

13th Jan 2011, 23:05

Whether there is a continuing need for a seperate Marine Corps is a question that periodically resurfaces.

A nice summary of the 1947 'Corps Crisis' can be found here:
The Challenge Of The Post-World War II Era: The Marine Corps, 1945-1957 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/BBR.htm)

The real issue, IMO, is that while there is really no need for a seperate and distinct Marine Corps now, you can't say that this will always be the case going forward. Hence, the folks who lobby to axe it never quite acquire the energy state to overcome the inertia of the existing structure.

It is a fair question though, and you're right to question it.

SASless

14th Jan 2011, 00:01

I am not questioning whether we need a Marine Corps.....but just the OTH concept. The Marines are needed and do a darn good job.

There is an argument within the Marine Corps regard their organizational ability for Amphibious Assault....fleet capacity, gunfire support, and sheer numbers of personnel. With the loss of the EFV....there should be some soul searching on the ability of the Marines to operate to the level the "strategy" requires.....or admit the OTH strategy just does not work with the current equipment. If the OTH concept is canned....there would be a call to dump the Osprey as well I would bet.

NonSAC

14th Jan 2011, 02:29

Ah, I understand.

It's not to suggest that someone is doing a bad job, but rather that the tool, ie. the structure of the force to which they belong, is too specialized to be useful.

Nevertheless, it's a fair question - and logical given the advantage that axing the Corp's costly, specialized kit would bring. The Osprey, the 53K, the turbocharged LAV, the next generation urban assault vehicle, and what have you - these thing all cost money. At some buying special kit within the paradigm of having a service able to conduct a modern day island hopping campaign becomes too silly to perpetuate.

In my view, the Corps' need to distinguish itself from the other services explains its fetish with the Osprey contraption. And the Osprey itself, while technologically interesting, seems more like one of the more outlandish (and ineffective) Nazi technologies that one can find in a history book footnote, ie. Dora, the V1, ect. than a meaningful tool for projecting power.

So the quandry today for the Corps leadership is that the more the Corps seeks to distinguish itself from the other services through specialized kit like the Osprey, the bigger target the Corps becomes due to the associated expense, distraction, and duplication of overhead - and the more vulnerable it becomes to rehash of the 'Do we need a seperate Corps?' question that caused so much kerfuffle between 1945 and 1957.

The only real question is how strong the movement will be in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan retrenchments. America also reflects after conflict, and changes to the force generally follow.

Personally, I doubt a movement to eliminate the Corps will have enough traction this go around, even the current popularity of 'austerity' and smaller government - whatever ultimately turns out to mean. But stranger things have happened.

Cheers!

Dan Reno

17th Jan 2011, 17:55

YouTube - CH-53 K as Logistics Enabler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDgH17Q7caM&feature=related)

21stCen

20th Jan 2011, 12:50

defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20970/?SID=b799acd70bde7c7ec7008ffbbc4a77cb)

http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/52c760de32cfd787d171592f7eba28912adce5a1_big.jpg

V-22 Is Proving Its Unique Potential

16:30 GMT, January 5, 2011 Two months ago the co-chairmen of the president's bipartisan deficit commission issued a series of proposals for narrowing the gap between federal income and expenses. One section of their proposals concerned how annual defense spending could be trimmed $100 billion by fiscal year 2015. That was a reasonable goal, and many of the ideas that the co-chairs advanced for meeting it made sense. However, their findings were marred by a series of "illustrative" weapons cuts that did not make sense. Some of the suggested cuts would raise Pentagon costs rather than reduce them, and others would squander multi-billion-dollar investments made by past administrations.

A case in point was the recommendation to end procurement of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft due to a "troubled history" of developmental and maintenance problems. Whoever wrote the superficial rationale for prematurely terminating Osprey production was ignorant of both the current status of the program and the needs of its prospective users. In their very next recommendation, the co-chairmen contradicted themselves by proposing cancellation of a Marine Corps amphibious vehicle, arguing that the capabilities of the V-22 were more relevant to future warfighting needs. Obviously, somebody on the commission's staff is a bit confused. So here are some basic facts about V-22.

The Osprey is the world's first production tilt-rotor, meaning it is designed to combine the vertical ascent/descent capabilities of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing turboprop. It achieves this unique mix of features by pivoting ("tilting") its two rotors while in flight. The program was conceived in the Reagan years to equip all of the military services with a flexible warfighting system that could execute diverse missions. The Army dropped out early, but the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have remained in the program. The Marine Corps is the lead service, with a stated requirement for 360 MV-22 variants around which it has built its plans for future warfare. The Air Force is purchasing an additional 50 CV-22 variants for special operations missions, and the Navy may buy its own variant for missions such as carrying supplies to aircraft carriers.

The defense department spent $25 billion over 25 years to develop the V-22. An additional $31.8 billion has been expended to manufacture production Ospreys, with $13.6 billion remaining to be spent. In other words, 80 percent of the money needed to meet Air Force and Marine requirements has been expended. The 150th V-22 was delivered in December under a multiyear production contract extending through 2012. The Osprey has flown nearly 100,000 hours to date, including in 13 successful overseas deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The current production version of the MV-22 has a mission-capable rate of 70 percent, which the Marine Corps expects will rise to 80 percent or higher.

Much has been written about the safety of the Osprey, but the aircraft has only suffered one fatal accident in the last ten years despite harsh operating conditions in overseas deployments. In that one accident, an Osprey hit the ground at high speed, killing four of the 20 personnel on board. In general, though, the V-22 has exhibited good performance in all three facets of survivability -- susceptibility to being hit by fire, vulnerability to damage when hit, and crashworthiness in protecting occupants. So the "troubled history" of the tilt-rotor appears to be largely behind it, and it retains the support of its home services. Terminating it now would waste much of the investment past administrations have made to give U.S. warfighters a unique edge in combat.

----
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Forecast International

Dan Reno

23rd Jan 2011, 01:29

http://www.brewtonstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/plane.jpg (http://www.brewtonstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/plane.jpg)
By Lisa Tindell (http://www.brewtonstandard.com/author/lisatindell/)

Military plane made noise over Brewton

Published 11:30am Saturday, January 22, 2011

The crew from “Unsolved Mysteries” won’t be coming to Brewton to investigate strange rumblings heard across the area Wednesday night.
Brewton Municipal Airport Director Earl Lambert said the noises heard throughout the area can be attributed to the massive V22 Osprey — a twin rotor helicopter/airplane owned by the military.
“After hearing the machinery, we began to investigate the source,” Lambert said. “Our investigation lead us to the special ops unit from Hurlburt Field.”
Hurlburt Field, located near Fort Walton Beach, Fla., is home to the Airforce Special Operations Command.
“I spoke to the commander of the squadron and explained their training would not be good since we have so many citizens that live in the area around the airport,” Lambert said. “Those aircraft are extremely noisy with an horrific racket.”
The Brewton Municipal Airport serves as a training area for units from Whiting Field near Milton, Fla., during the day.
“We have a 50-year agreement with the Navy, and you just can’t mix the two,” Lambert said. “It would be prohibitive for them to use the area during the day when it’s being used by the Navy, and it’s just too noisy at night.”
Lambert said a gentlemen’s agreement was reached between himself and the commander Friday that would bring the training missions to a halt.
“The commander offered an apology for any inconvenience their training may have caused in the community,” Lambert said. “He assured me the squadron would not be back in the area to train.”
The Brewton Municipal Airport is a non-controlled facility, meaning there is no air traffic control tower and no after-hours communications system

SASless

23rd Jan 2011, 01:39

The Osprey is too noisy?

Lord have mercy....with all the Huey's and Cobra's beating about the place for years and someone complains about the Osprey?

I would suggest it is simply a case of NIMBY when it comes to night time hours and not the Osprey in particular.....as they rumble by over my head frequently now and I don't find them objectionable in that regard. Granted freight trains are mere background noise to me with my damaged hearing.

Their sound is much different than single rotor helicopters.....and fairly similar to Phrogs or Hooks.....and certainly much more quiet than anything Bell puts out with two rotor blades.

Dan Reno

23rd Jan 2011, 14:45

Generals clash on cause of April Osprey crash (Uh-Oh)
http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/01/air-force-generals-clash-on-osprey-crash-012211w/012211af_osprey_800.JPG (http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2011/01/air-force-generals-clash-on-osprey-crash-012211w/012211af_osprey_800.JPG)
Air Force Two generals are at odds about the cause of a CV-22 crash in April that killed two of the three cockpit crew members and two passengers. Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, the accident investigation board's president, believes engine problems were at fault; Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, to whom Harvel answered during the investigation, blames aircrew errors.

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jan 22, 2011 10:12:48 EST

In a rare public display of disunity, two generals are at serious odds over the cause of a fatal aircraft accident.
The April 9 crash in Afghanistan was the first loss of a CV-22 Osprey in combat. Two of the three cockpit crew members — pilot Maj. Randell Voas, 43, and flight engineer Senior Master Sgt. James Lackey, 45 — died attempting a night landing at a desert landing zone. The co-pilot survived; he has not been indentified. Also killed were a soldier and a contractor — two of 16 passengers in the cargo compartment.
Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, president of the accident investigation board, said he believes engine problems brought down the special operations Osprey on its landing approach. Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, to whom Harvel answered during the investigation, argues aircrew errors caused the crash.
Harvel cited engine problems in his report; Cichowski wrote a dissent that he released with the report Dec. 15.
Cichowski, a fighter pilot, declined to comment on the dispute. He is now the CIA’s associate director for military affairs; Harvel, a mobility pilot, spoke with Air Force Times over the telephone Dec. 28 andJan. 5 from his home near Atlanta. He retired in September from the Air National Guard and now works for Delta Air Lines.
“There was absolutely a lot of pressure to change my report,” Harvel said. “My heart and brain said it was not pilot error. I stuck with what I thought was the truth.”
Harvel said Air Force Special Operations Command wanted him to cite the cause of the crash as pilot error because AFSOC didn’t want old doubts stirred up about the safety of the Osprey program, which had three fatal crashes of prototypes and the Marine Corps variant from 1992 to 2000. The Air Force variant has had one other serious accident, caused when an engine bolt vibrated loose during takeoff. The CV-22, though, managed to land safely.
AFSOC declined to comment on Harvel’s accusation. At the time of the April 9 crash and during the investigation, Cichowski was AFSOC’s vice commander.
The dispute will never be resolved because no irrefutable evidence exists to substantiate either explanation: no black box and no eyewitness testimony.
The CV-22’s flight data recorder probably ended up in little pieces when the service destroyed the Osprey hours after the crash. The airmen and soldiers stripping the wreckage of evidence and classified items before the explosion didn’t know theaircraft had a black box, according to the report.
As for firsthand knowledge of what went on inside the cockpit, the surviving co-pilot told investigators he didn’t have a clear memory of the flight’s last 30 seconds.
Harvel came to his conclusion from watching a video of the CV-22 from a camera onboard an A-10 Thunderbolt that was part of the mission. The footage shows haze coming out of both engines throughout the last 17 seconds of flight; Harvel is convinced the “unidentified contrails,” as they are described in the report, are fuel vapors from engines trying to restart. The Air Force did not release the images.
The stresses of flying in the dirt and dust of Afghanistan probably caused the engine problems, Harvel said.
When maintainers checked the power level of the engines April 6, the right one operated at 95.3 percent and left one ran at 99.5 percent. When an engine fell below 95 percent, it had to be repaired or replaced.
After the power check, the Osprey made four more landings at austere sites. On one, the screening system that protected the left engine from blowing sand failed. Each landing would have reduced engine performance, Harvel said.
“Degraded engines could have led to engine failure, surge/stall or insufficient power when a high power demand was required,” he said, adding that he believes the aircrew members knew about the engine problems and flew the Osprey as best they could to a rolling landing. The CV-22 touched down at 88 mph, the report said; it should have landed like a helicopter, with little forward speed.
The plane’s landing gear absorbed some of the impact, with the tires digging eight inches into the desert sand. The plane rolled and bounced for more than 200 feet until it reached a drainage ditch. As the plane’s nose dipped into the ditch, the Osprey flipped over and began breaking apart before coming to a stop 50 feet away.
In his dissent, Cichowski cited several factors ruling out engine failure:
•No one onboard the Osprey or in radio contact with it heard any discussions about engine problems or warnings from the cockpit.
•An analysis of the recovered left engine showed it was working. The right engine was not recovered.
•The V-22 Joint Program Office, which oversees Air Force and Marine Corps Ospreys, concluded engine failure was highly unlikely.
•The crew made several errors, including the pilot flying too high and too fast in his approach; the failure to obtain a weather report warning of a 17 mph tailwind; distraction over unexpected lighting at the landing zone; and self-imposed pressure to make the mission a success.
Typically, the senior officer who convenes the accident investigation board — Cichowski in this case — agrees with the board president’s opinion.
If the senior officer disagrees with the report, he can ask the board president to consider new evidence. Usually the review resolves the differences.
Cichowski received Harvel’s report Aug. 25. On Sept. 30, Cichowski received an analysis from the joint V-22 Program Office that suggested the report underestimated the CV-22’s speed when it crashed.
In a memo dated Oct. 5, Cichowski stated he accepted the report but believed there wasn’t enough evidence to support the conclusion that at least one engine malfunctioned.
Next, the report and Cichowski’s dissent went to Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, who in the early 1980s served as an MC-130E Combat Talon pilot in the same squadron as the Osprey crew — the 8th Special Operations Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Fla.
On Nov. 15, Schwartz ordered Harvel to review the program office analysis. Harvel spent three days, Nov. 19 to Nov. 21, studying the new information but still came away convinced that engine problems caused the crash.
Despite his strong disagreement with Harvel’s conclusion, Cichowski signed off on the report Nov. 23 because Air Force accident investigation rules left him little choice.
With the investigation finally wrapped up, AFSOC leaders began meeting with families and survivors to explain the conclusions. Usually, the board president handles the duty, but Harvel was not invited.
Harvel was not asked to meet with the service members and families because he had retired, said AFSOC spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Villagran.
Harvel sees the exclusion as AFSOC’s snub of his opinion.
“I thought that they were very wrong not to let me brief the families,” he said. “I had gathered a lot of insight and took extra notes to brief personal stories to each family. I even volunteered to brief the families at no expense to the government. Still, they never even acknowledged me.”

SASless

23rd Jan 2011, 16:09

If the General is correct when he states it appeared "BOTH" engines were trying to restart.....would the aircraft have been able to fly the actual flight path flown?

Any of you Osprey guys want to discuss that? Does the evidence lend itself to supporting that kind of engine failure(s)?

This is a no win situation for the Osprey folks....either it is admit a mechanical problem with the machine or a failure by the crew. Neither of which is pleasant to consider.

Is the Air Force pulling the rug out from under the crew and protecting the machine?

If there is no clear cut evidence to prove either of the conclusions...why can they not just say that and explain why that is the best answer rather than doing as they have done?

Dan Reno

23rd Jan 2011, 16:40

Perhaps it hasn't dawned on some why there has not been ONE discouraging word about the V-22 from ANYONE in the military or V-22 management. V-22 lap dogs pay the rent, send their kids through college, buy vehicles on the backs of the V-22, pay their light bills, Yada-Yada. If ANYONE connected to the V-22 should say just ONE thing bad about it and be known, then they would be history and their career flushed. It's still hard to believe some don't understand that.

The V-22 program has very little credability because there is no ONE ever able to dispute the obvious. It is no wonder V-22 crews are so jittery about the airframe. Civilians who know the V-22's track record get the same jitters whenever one passes overhead.

Perhaps the next time someone connected to the program joins a blog they'd be smart to ensure their true identity remain unknown so they could then be more truthful about this POS.

But, I repeat myself.
---------------------------------------
See original article here as it's already been taken down from one news group:
Generals clash on cause of April Osprey crash - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/air-force-generals-clash-on-osprey-crash-012211w/)

Dan Reno

24th Jan 2011, 16:52

Regs Hinder Osprey Defenses

By Greg Grant (http://www.dodbuzz.com/author/ggrant/)
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway has promised that the controversial MV-22 Osprey will be flying in Afghanistan by the end of the year. He recently told a Washington audience that the Osprey, “has gone from a wounded duck to a poster child in terms of what aircraft with that leap-ahead technology can do.”

Not so, according to some lawmakers on the Hill who are calling for an outright end to V-22 production, claiming the tilt-rotor suffers from low readiness rates and lacks the maneuverability to evade hostile ground fire. One of the plane’s more vocal critics, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said at a hearing last month that the plane is a failure and “its time to put the Osprey out of its misery.”

Osprey critics brandished a June GAO report that cited maintenance and reliability problems and questioned the plane’s ability to fly in “high-threat” environments. Setting aside for the moment the fact that barring extensive air-defense suppression by electronic warfare and strike aircraft, the military doesn’t typically send aircraft into high threat environments, I’m not sure Afghanistan is a high threat environment. I have heard commanders there say that the Taliban has beefed up its air defenses and that it may now have some newer generation shoulder-fired missiles, or MANPADS. High-threat or not, at a minimum, then, the Osprey should have the ability to survive against occasional MANPADS.

Marine sources confirmed to me that a Marine Osprey flying in Iraq successfully evaded a MANPAD, so I have to question GAO’s statement about Osprey vulnerability. One of the reasons GAO gave, was that the Osprey lacks an onboard defensive gun to hose down hot landing zones. Now, the Marines are fitting machine guns to the plane to give it some defensive capability, so that should help out in that area.

GAO also said: “The V-22 had maneuvering limits that restrict its ability to perform defensive maneuvers.” The wording in that sentence sounded odd. Is GAO saying the plane cannot perform defensive maneuvers or is there some regulation against it performing certain maneuvers? Not the same thing.

I asked a Marine officer who is very knowledgeable on the subject of V-22 survivability about the GAO’s findings. The officer requested anonymity so as to speak frankly about a politically charged issue and I thought it important to at least present another voice in the Osprey debate.

The officer said the maneuvering limits in the official Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization were set by engineers who did not carry out the full battery of tests on the plane because of money shortages during the operational test phase. The Osprey’s troubled developmental history meant the focus was on keeping the plane in the air, not on testing it in battlefield situations.

As currently written, those NATOPS forbid pilots from pulling back on the control stick and pitching the plane’s nose up more than 20 degrees in the vertical axis. It’s a simple defensive maneuver and one the plane is more than capable of performing. Stalling is not a factor, the officer said, as the plane is moving much too fast to stall.

The importance of MV-22 pilots being allowed to perform the maneuver, which NATOPS limits say they cannot even practice, is that it is an effective way to evade an anti-aircraft missile. “Every tactical pilot knows that success in defensive maneuver requires two elements: expendables plus maneuver… you’re throwing out a decoy and then you get away from your decoy, you displace yourself in as many axes as you can to provide the biggest solution problem for the missile,” the officer said.
Once a MANPAD missile is decoyed by a flare, and the aircraft successfully evades, contrary to the movies, the missile will not reacquire the aircraft. The missile will fly straight through the decoy flare, continuing along its same flight path until the rocket motor burns out, which happens within a matter of seconds. “You can’t just hang out on the same flight path when the missile was shot at you,” the officer said, “when the missile flies through the last flare, and at the end of that last flare there’s an airplane, it’s going to hit you.”

The seeker on most MANPADS has a very limited field of view, no more than about 5 degrees off the missile’s centerline. When the Osprey pilot hears a missile alert tone, the pilot only has to displace the aircraft 300 feet to be out of the seeker head field of view when it passes the last decoy flare, the officer said. Pulling back on the stick and pitching the nose up 40 degrees for about three seconds will do that. The pilot must then get the nose down and pick up speed so as to do the maneuver again and again until the plane is out of the threat zone. That maneuver was shown to be very effective at evading the most advanced missiles in thousands of test simulations.

The V-22 flies like a fixed wing airplane, it just takes off and lands like a helicopter. Most Marine Osprey pilots are former helicopter pilots. They fly the plane like a helicopter, the officer said, which too often means flying straight and level through a threat area and relying on onboard defensive systems, electronic missile warning and decoy flares, to protect the aircraft from missiles. The danger, the officer said, is that because of the NATOPS limits, Marine pilots are not practicing simple defensive maneuvers that are well within the plane’s abilities.

Read more: DoD Buzz | Regs Hinder Osprey Defenses (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/17/regs-hinder-osprey-defenses/#ixzz1ByZrj44g)

Ian Corrigible

25th Jan 2011, 13:07

For anyone interested, Richard Whittle, author of The Dream Machine (referenced several times in posts back in 2009 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204936-whats-latest-news-v22-osprey-33.html#post5293000)), is fielding questions on the Smithsonian's Air & Space website (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/January-Book-Club-Selection-The-Dream-Machine.html) this week.

I/C

Dan Reno

5th Feb 2011, 12:25

Top 10 Fiscally Responsible Defense Cuts: How to Save $357.8 Billion by 2015 http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/9f79af7252d3625dff63f02f7ebd7333e1937f05_big.jpg

07:28 GMT, February 4, 2011 In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for a five year freeze in non-defense domestic discretionary spending, pledging that he is “willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without.” The president’s efforts to address the deficit are both admirable and important to the long-term well-being of the nation. In July of last year, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen went so far as to call the national debt “the biggest threat we have to our national security.”

Reducing the country’s massive deficit will require spending cuts from all departments, including the Department of Defense.

Here’s a look at 10 ways to reduce defense spending, while safeguarding our vital national security interests:

Terminate the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle ($9-10 billion in savings by 2020)

Let’s start with the low hanging fruit. The Marine Corps' EFV—a swimming tank designed to carry troops up to 25 miles on water and 345 miles on land—is ill-equipped to meet the threats of the 21st century. The EFV’s smooth, low underbelly leaves it highly vulnerable to improvised explosive devices, and its amphibious range is not large enough to keep the ships launching the vehicle safe from modern antiship missile technology. Moreover, it’s an unnecessary investment: The Marines have not conducted an amphibious landing under fire since the Korean War.

In January 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the cancellation of the EFV program. Congress should heed his request. Terminating the EFV and updating the Corps’s current armored amphibious vehicles would save an estimated $9 to $10 billion over the next decade.

Permanently reduce the number of U.S. military personnel stationed in Europe and Asia ($80 billion in savings by 2020)

About 150,000 active duty U.S. troops are assigned to Europe or Asia. In spring of 2010, the Sustainable Defense Task Force found that our nation could save $80 billion over the next decade by shrinking this presence. Given improved U.S. capabilities for long-range strikes and rapid troop transport, the Task Force found that withdrawing 33,000 troops from Europe and 17,000 from Asia would not undermine U.S. security.

Moreover, in recent months, many European countries have dramatically cut defense spending in order to combat rising deficits, suggesting that they no longer view large military forces as necessary for security on the continent.

Redirect the majority of the Department of Defense’s planned efficiency savings to reduce the baseline defense budget ($70 billion through 2015)

In spring of 2010, Secretary Gates began an initiative to trim overhead and increase efficiency at the Department of Defense. Since then, DOD has identified $154 billion in overhead savings and efficiencies through 2015. The Pentagon intends to keep $70 billion of this money to reinvest in other programs. Given the already tremendous size of our defense budget, U.S. security would be better served by utilizing these funds to reduce the baseline defense budget.

Cancel the V-22 Osprey program ($10-12 billion by 2020)

The V-22 Osprey helicopter has been long hampered by cost overruns and technical problems. Opposition to the program is bipartisan: the co-chairs of President Obama’s 2010 deficit commission recommended ending procurement of the V-22; during his stint as secretary of defense, Dick Cheney attempted to cancel the program four times, calling it a “turkey.”

Like the EFV, technical problems have seriously impaired the Osprey’s performance. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that “in Iraq, the V-22’s mission capability (MC) and full mission capability (FMC) rates fell significantly below… rates achieved by legacy helicopters.” Given the V-22’s high price tag—it costs five times as much as other models—and lackluster performance, there is no reason for DOD to continue sinking money into this turkey. Terminating the program would save $10-12 billion in the next decade.

Roll back post-September 11, 2001 efforts to grow the ground forces ($10.1 billion per year)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has openly proclaimed that in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is “unlikely to repeat … forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.” As a result, U.S. ground forces can and should gradually return to their pre-September 11 sizes as these two wars come to a close.

A recent article in Defense News found that each active duty soldier costs DOD between $100,000 and $120,000 per year. Even using the conservative $100,000 number, rolling back 74,200 Army and 27,000 Marine positions would save about $10.1 billion each year.

Reduce the number of civilian DOD personnel concomitant with the reduction in military end strength ($7 billion per year)

The Defense Department is the federal government’s largest civilian employer— of the approximately 1.9 million civilians employed by the government in 2008, 652,000 worked for DOD. As the approaching end of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan make possible a return to the pre-September 11th size of the active duty Army and Marines Corps, policymakers can gradually make an equal reduction in the size of the civilian support staff. In FY 2011, DOD spent $77.07 billion on its civilian work force. As a result, cutting civilian positions by 10 percent would save about $7 billion a year.

Reduce procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($16.8 billion by 2015)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is one of the largest and most troubled DOD acquisition projects. This year in response to “significant testing problems” in the Marine Corps’s variant of the plane, Gates announced a two-year probationary period for the variant and noted that it should be cancelled if the testing issues could not be resolved in that period.

Slowing down this troubled program would allow more time for development and reduce near-term growth in the defense budget. For example, according to their FY 2011 budget estimates, cutting the Air Force’s and Navy’s planned acquisition of JSFs by half through 2015 would save $16.8 billion.

Reform military personnel policies ($11.5 billion per year)

Our troops deserve exceptional compensation for their service. Yet these benefits should be structured in a way that is also fair to the American taxpayer. DOD’s 2008 Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation found that “the average enlisted member earned approximately $5,400 more in 2006 than his or her civilian counterpart when comparing cash [base pay] compensation, but $10,600 more when selected benefits are included in the comparison.” The QRMC recommended that military pay raises be calculated to acknowledge the range of generous benefits that service members receive, a step that could save $5.5 billion a year.

DOD could also obtain some savings by addressing the cost of the military health system, which Gates has noted is “eating the Department of Defense alive.” Active duty troops receive free healthcare. Yet premiums for working age military retirees— many of whom go on to second careers—are wildly out of step with the cost of healthcare nationwide. Retirees covered by DOD’s Tricare Prime program, for example, are paying the same premiums that were put in place when the program was established in 1995. DOD’s 2007 Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care recommended a number of steps that would maintain a generous balance between the cost of care to retirees and taxpayers. Implementing these recommendations could save $6 billion a year.

Retire and do not replace two existing carrier battle groups and associated air wings ($3 billion per year)

Conservative estimates place the cost of operating one carrier group at approximately $1.5 billion per year. Yet even Secretary Gates has questioned whether the United States needs to continue operating 11 aircraft carriers when, “in terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.” Rethinking deployment patterns in order to emphasize the capability to surge forces to particular areas in times of need, rather than maintain assets on the spot, could allow the United States to retire and not replace two existing carrier battle groups. This step would save at least $3 billion a year.

Update the U.S. nuclear arsenal and missile defense systems to counter the threats of the 21st century ($12.7 billion per year)

According to analysts at the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, the United States could maintain effective deterrent capabilities with only 311 strategic nuclear weapons—an approximately 84 percent reduction in current levels. Phasing in these cuts, as well as some reductions in the United States’s tactical stockpile, could save about $11.39 billion this year.

Additionally, cancelling select costly and technologically challenged missile defense programs administered by the Missile Defense Agency and the armed services could reduce spending by another $1.31 billion this year.

Conclusion

More than five decades ago, President Dwight Eisenhower explained that our security as a nation is directly tied to our economic strength. Ike’s “Great Equation” argued that “spiritual force, multiplied by economic force, multiplied by military force is roughly equal to security… If one of these factors falls to zero … the resulting product does likewise.”

In real terms, U.S. defense spending is now higher than at any point since World War II, an enormous 10 percent increase over the peak of President Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup. In the spirit of Obama’s State of the Union, it’s time for the DOD, like the other departments, to look at what “we can honestly afford to do without,” and in terms of the national debt, become a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

BoomOpCT

7th Feb 2011, 22:55

I don't know how to make those quote boxes, so this will have to do:

FH:

"And again let it be said that this pilot was widely regarded as one of the best V-22 pilots in the Air Force. And even he screwed up. I wonder if mcpave and ospreydriver both privately feel that they are better pilots than the MP? I wonder if they privately feel that they wouldn't have screwed up like that?"

I already think you are a complete idiot after reading this entire thread, but hey if you want to believe false information and not take the word of a veteran pilot of the machine you obviously know nothing about...that is your choice. But there is NO excuse for you to say baseless bull**** like what you wrote above. I don't know if you have ever served in the armed forces, but the aviaiton community is a small one. ESPECIALLY within a single airframe. We all know each other, went to the same schools together, fought together, and in some cases even shared laughter and beers together. For you to suggest that McPave and Ospreydriver look at thier dead comrades and think of themselves as superioir is utter bull****. We take the deaths of other airman very seriously and it's not easy. If anything, we seek to learn the ABSOLUTE TRUTH so that we don't lose more our brothers that way. I am an airman and a boom operator on the KC-135R airframe. I am telling you right now, if one of my fellow boomers went down and died, the last thing on my mind would about how stupid they were or how much better I am. This one statement alone discredits anything you've said on this entire thread. It shows you are hot-headed, hateful, and talk about things you don't begin to understand.

"Ospreydriver feels that since we've already got the V-22, then we should just accept it. I guess he would also advise a rape victim that if it's inevitable, do not resist but just lay back and enjoy it."

Again...what the hell kind of anaolgy is this? You could have made your point without bringing RAPE VICTEMS into the conversation. These two subjects are nothing alike, at all.

What ospreydriver said is that the investment is already 80% complete and would be more expensive to cancel, replace, and reorganize from scrath than to to simply fix and adapt the airframe we already have. Planes are ALWAYS being updated. The KC-135 has been around 60 years now and has it's engines replaced with new models 3 or 4 times. It's had nav suites replaced and removed and internal upgrades made regularly. The standard boom was improved with a high speed boom. The current 135 is a VASTLY improved version of it's older self with much greater capabilities. And you can bet your ass that it started with problems and limitations. There is a wall at our training school with the names of booms that died on this plane and it is infinitely longer than those who have died serving on the osprey.

My point here is that every plane starts of being used beneath it's capabilities. As it gets it's taste of war, those limitations are slowly lifted and improvements are made. The Osprey is already one hell of a capable machine...and it will only improve over time.

One of my buddies, a marine, has already had the osprey contributing to his mission overseas, and he swears by that thing. He sees the difference it makes.

And I have so much faith in this machine that I am switching career fields middle of next year...I am going to go to school to become a flight engineer aboard the AFSOC variant of the the Osprey. Nobody hyped me up, I haven't tasted the "osprey kool-aid", I have no gag order...I simply have watched this machine and it's mission over time and want to be part of it.

Killing the Osprey now would be a mistake. And you guys need to listen to McPave and Ospreydriver...they know what they are talking about. They fly this thing firsthand. They know what it can do and what it can't. You don't. They have the support of legitimate experts. You don't. They have the actual manuals and publications. You don't. They know thier actual missions parameters and whether thier aircraft can fit those parameters. You don't.

Why would you sit here and try to argue with people who DO fly the aircradt and have the facts...when you don't have experience with it and only have information you are pulling from the media...which is useless.

God bless our troops and God bless the USA!

SASless

8th Feb 2011, 11:30

Along with not understanding how to use the quotation icon, it appears there are some other things you do not understand.

One does not show up and in one's first post use such offensive language and expect to be taken seriously.

If you disagree with FH's position and comments (which more than a few do here), one should take him to task by attempting to "prove" him wrong. Bring forth your facts, data, link reports, or anything useful in the discussion.

Despite being a "Boomer" and crew member aboard an aircraft....you fail to understand how Pilots see things and themselves. Our mental image of ourselves requires us to believe (even if not necessarily true) that we are able to cope with any situation and if there are better pilots out there...we have not met them yet.

The reality of the matter is there are better pilots out there and there are situations we cannot always handle for whatever reason it might be. To look at accidents and say the other guy diddled the pooch does not mean we think them stupid, inept, or worthy of castigation.....but their mistakes need to be acknowledged and learned from.

In this latest crash.....even the Air Force cannot arrive at a decision as to the actual cause of the tragedy and have laid it on the crew on the one hand and on the aircraft on the other. Can you not see why that adds fuel to the fire?

The Osprey is a controversial aircraft for a range of issues including the USMC failed attempt to falsify its progress. If you cannot understand the skepticism that rightly exists when claims are made but not necessarily substantiated by the production of facts, figures, and hard data then you should rethink your views.

At the very minimum you should rethink you tone.

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 14:52

Sas

I actually did post on here about 6 to 8 months ago before I deployed, and having gone back thread I don't know where my posts went. I'm not sure if there was a trimming down of the thread or what...but all I know is that my posts are gone but my PM box still has it's messages between me and other members. So plese understand I'm not trying to come in as a complete newbie here, I've been following this thread for a while.

And I understand plenty. I honestly don't care that FH has a stance against the osprey. Clearly so do you, but I have no issue with you. What I take issue with is FH can't debate without making taseless insults and or analogies that go far beyond mildly offensive. And no matter what answer you give him...it's wrong. Period. If you prove the machine did it's job, FH takes deliberate jabs at the aircrews by mocking, not analyzing, but MOCKING thier failure to live despite the high tech technologies around them. How are you going to sit around and mock the people dying for what they hope is your freedom, bad machine or not? And of course, being military guys we jump to defend our aircrew's integrity at which point FH switches back to sarcastically insulting the machine....seemingly just to keep our blood boiling.

And I do understand the pilot concept of pilots thinking they cope with any situation. That is NOT how FH painted MckPave in that quote. He painted him as being arrogant and looking down on his fellow service memebers and saying "The aircraft doesn't suck, if I were flying it wouldn't have happened. I would have done better." I have never heard ANY (military) pilot say anything close to that. Prime example was the C-17 that just went down a few months ago. The pilots were discussing the tradgedy of it and the impact on the families, the C-17 community, and wondered at what was missed that led to that crew's untimely end. But nobody sat there saying "If it was me that wouldn't have happend. I'm a better pilot than those pilots". And that is how FH paints MckPave.

And that's how he handles everything. I've read this ENTIRE thread and it seems that the osprey pilots are offering all the information they can and it's GOOD information. But instead of accepting that information or asking questions using that information...you guys belittle them. Call them liars. You focus on the things they CAN'T tell you or might not even know in the first place. What is the point in that? Why can't you say "Hey thanks for that information, now how does that apply in this other situation?" Why instead is it "That is ALL you can tell us!? Conspiracy! Gag order! You are a liar!"

It's subtle jabs like that, that boil my blood. I am sorry my "first post" came off so strong, but after playing catch up for 20-something pages, the things FH says and how he doesn't seem to have any other purpose than to try and get emotional rises out people...it just got the better of me. It's had to have a respectful conversation (or even a respectful reading of this thread) when people like FH are on it.

FH1100 Pilot

8th Feb 2011, 16:03

Well...you know...

I've never known a pilot who disliked the aircraft he was flying. Most pilots *love* whatever turd they're assigned to, even if it's the biggest piece of crap to ever be pooped off an assembly line.

People denigrate the old FH1100. But you know what? I loved flying it. It did what we asked it to do, and did it very well. The brand-spanking-new R-66 won't be leaps and bounds "better" than an FH1100 from the 1970s. It might be a little faster and carry a little more, but I guarantee that it won't be nearly as robust, or as easy to service. The R-66 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Just like the V-22.

But let's back up. Just because a pilot loves an aircraft doesn't mean sh*t. Should we put pilots in charge of military procurement? Of course not, they cannot be objective. They just want what they want. V-22 pilots think that the Osprey is the bestest tool for the job. The truth is that no matter what they claim, in most cases it doesn't provide *that* much of an improvement over a helicopter.

V-22 proponents will trot out specific scenarios in which it betters the capability of a helicopter (the laughable "Shiek needs to be across the country for a meeting with other shieks" thing). Yes, it flies fast. And yes, it can exit the scene with great speed...if it makes it in safely, that is.

Okay, fine. Big deal. Whenver a V-22 goes anywhere, it must do so with other assets. Because when it gets to the destination, it's just a big ol' vulnerable Grayhound bus coming into the station.

At the end of the day, it's still a flawed design. In helicopter mode, it is not "a" helicopter. It's two-helicopters-connected-by-a-stick. Any idiot can see the problems inherent in this design.

One of the original test pilots on the V-22 has told us that they stopped combat-maneuvering tests when they realized how much stress and strain it was putting on the fuselage. But we shouldn't listen to him, eh?

Now we hear reports of mothballed V-22's that are no longer flyable. I suspect that the military and the manufacturer are hiding from us the fact that V-22 airframes are not lasting. I suspect that some V-22's are being retired before they have a catastrophic stuctural failure. We still do not have an accurate accounting of all V-22's that have been built so far and how many are still in service. That information will be hidden from the public for as long as possible.

I cringe when I think about the forces acting on the ends of a V-22's wings during extreme maneuvering. How heavy are those engines and proprotors? And how heavy do they become in a 2g turn? What kind of forces do they exert on the wingspars during maneuvering that might involve both positive and negative-g? Oh, and by the way, in airplane mode the V-22 is limited to negative .75g. Less than 1g negative?? For a combat aircraft??? That's like...what...a Bell 47?

And remember, those aren't just big props out there on the ends of the wings. They're proprotors. How does extreme maneuvering in airplane mode affect those proprotors? What kind of flapping forces are they subjected to? We know that the swashplates aren't lasting anywhere near as long as hoped, so the forces have to be unreal.

The line pilots will never acknowledge the weaknesses of the design. They'll never admit what the real limitations are. We know that the original NATOPS warned pilots that:

Air Combat Maneuvering and aerobatics are prohibited
Abrupt multi-axis control inputs are prohibitedThere are so many other dire warnings and limitations that to publish them here would require more bandwidth than the PPRUNE owners are probably willing to expend. Here's one that caught my eye though- and it's especially noteworthy in light of the most recent accident that we've all been discussing lately:

WARNING: Rapid full forward TCL (full throw in 1 second or less) may result in uncontrollable aircraft nose down pitch tumble departure exhibited during flight simulations.

There are other power limitations too. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that when the pilot of the V-22 realized that his descent rate was too high, he jammed the TCL forward in an effort to save their lives. This may have had an undesireable effect on the aircraft handling, and it may very well have overtorqued/overtemped the engines, causing the smoke/vapor coming from both engines that was visible in the camera footage from the A-10s circling overhead. Because no matter how badly Brig. General Harvel wants to believe otherwise, the likelihood of a dual engine problem in that V-22 at that exact moment just defies belief and stretches logic to the breaking point. Sorry, General.

No what the pilots say about how great the V-22 is, we have to take that with a huge grain of salt. BoomOpCT, you say we need to listen to guys like Mcpave and Ospreydriver? Hmm, they've both been strangely and coincidentally silent lately. I suspect that their commanding officer(s) got wind of their increasingly hysterical, increasingly irrational (and potentially harmful) posts on here and ordered them to back off.

Finally, the V-22 is just too damn expensive for the small increase in capability it provides over a helicopter. That alone justifies its cancellation. Dick Cheney knew this. We should have listened to him back then. At least it's not too late.

BoomOpCT, you ought to rethink your career path in the Air Force. The V-22 will most assuredly be cancelled very soon. This will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. And it will probably save some lives as well. I'm a conservative American: I'm for BOTH of those things. Anyone who isn't does not have the best interests of this country in mind.

Dan Reno

8th Feb 2011, 17:50

BoomOpCT

Perhaps it hasn't dawned on you why there has not been ONE discouraging word about the V-22 from anyone in the military or V-22 management. Like your aircraft, it pays the rent, sends the kids through college and buys vehicles. If you should say just ONE bad thing about it you would be history and your career flushed.

What went wrong with these V-22 guys was they made the BIG mistake of NOT remaining anonymous within the very small V-22 community. I’m sure they were proud and wanted to tell the world about this beast but that dog can’t hunt outside the military bubble. Consequently, they could not bring anything to this thread of value other than the emotionally positive. When non-V-22 types simply asked them to prove their claims, they were not able to so, lost face and became discouraged over the contradictory data in the media.

Imagine the psychological havoc the V-22 folks had to endure with so much negativity backed up by logic and facts. Most whispered too loudly or perhaps not loudly enough, that aircraft was an accident waiting to happen. In their minds this preys hard on them so they get hysterical trying to defend the indefensible. Add the possibility of towel-headed humans trying to do you in also and it makes for a jittery environment.

If someone in the military or an aircraft program wants to post here do this: Remain anonymous here, at home, amongst friends and especially at work and don’t be mission or occurrence specific.

Works for me.

jeffg

8th Feb 2011, 19:42

FH you state that in airplane mode the V-22 is limited to negative .75g. Less than 1g negative?? For a combat aircraft??? That's like...what...a Bell 47?.
may I ask:
-In your opinion what would be an acceptable negative g limit? Under what circumstance do you foresee requiring this limit?
-If less than -1g is to limiting for "combat aircraft" perhaps you or someone else could tell us what the positive and negative g limits are for the UH-60, OH-58, CH-53E, CH-46, CH-47, UH-1N, AH-1W, UH-1Y, AH-1Z?
-If ANY of these aircraft are unable to attain -1g are you also stipulating that they are not capable of being "combat aircraft" or that they are the equivalent of a Bell 47?
-Have you ever flown a helicopter to less than 0gs? If so did you determine this with a g meter or seat of the pants?

You also state We know that the original NATOPS warned pilots that:

Air Combat Maneuvering and aerobatics are prohibited
Abrupt multi-axis control inputs are prohibitedWith respect to the first bullet many USMC and USN helicopters have it in their NATOPS. I also believe that if you look in some of the USA FMs you will find similar words.
With respect to the second bullet I believe it has been pointed out on here before that many USMC and USN helicopters also have similar wording.
Therefore I will again ask you some questions:
-What other NATOPS manuals have you read?
-What is your depth of knowledge with respect to aviation combat tactics? Have you ever conducted a tactical flight?
-Can you define Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM)? Do you know what the difference is between ACM and DM?
-Do you understand how a NATOPS manual is 'built' and the limits, notes, cautions etc are arrived at or agreed upon?

Dan,
You state that When non-V-22 types simply asked them to prove their claims, they were not able to so, lost face and became discouraged over the contradictory data in the media

Simply because you choose not to believe something doesn't mean that person trying to explain it to you is not able to prove their claims. Also the last time I checked the media isn't exactly the best source of information when it comes to aviation. So I will take more seriously the words from someone who actually flies or operates the machine being written about then the words coming from someone who considers g2mil.com a 'reliable' source.

Dan Reno

8th Feb 2011, 20:31

jeffg

I don't want to rehash all of the MANY questions asked of supposed V-22 pilots that were not answered. For now, I'd be happy if V-22 pilots rebutted the GAO studies and reports and then the engineers studies and reports and perhaps REAL COMBAT pilots with actual combat experience in places like Viet Nam where the CH-46 acted like a pogo stick from one hot LZ to another hot LZ all day and all night. That's all..you know, like what it was SUPPOSED to do. Got it?

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 21:04

:mad:

Reposted below

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 21:09

Dan

I think Jeffg has a valid point though...the same limitations people are crying foul about are literally in dozens of other aircraft manuals that are both proven in combat and being toted as "the good" airframes we should have kept in the first place. Why is it ok for THOSE aircraft to have those limitations, but not the osprey? Epecially when the opsery does have some advantages?

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 21:14

...I just literally posted the longest post I've ever written...and it didn't even post. That jsut took a lot of wind out of my sails...ugh. :ugh:

Dan Reno

8th Feb 2011, 21:33

I'm sure you're right....if you're talking military aircraft, but the reasons are primarily BIG money overruns, time it took to get it afield, dissapointment when it was fielded and I believe we now are in the present moment, basically asking questions on subjects we've asked over and over these past years and never gotten answers for. Believe me when I say EVERYONE in this thread would love for this aircraft to be what it was advertised and contrated to do, it has not and can be said it is a failure. Harsh words but true.

You've come late to this thread but if you'd really want to come up to speed and have a better understanding of why there is so much turmoil over this POS, take some time to start at the very first post and wing your way back here. Good luck though because you'll basically see that the military says this and that whereas they cannot prove anything!

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 21:51

Dan

I have read this thread. I've been reading since it started. It just seems to me that you ask questions or point out flaws (like the lack of combat maveuvering, for example) and then actual pilots of the plane explain what those notes and warnings actually mean...and that explanation just gets disregarded.

Or you take things that are NORMAL warnings/notes in the flight manuals that can be found in other flight manuals of other aircraft and make them suddenely dire fatal flaws when applied to the V-22. It doesn't make sense.

I also think some of the posters on here are REALLY confused on how military regulations and aircraft restrictions actually work. And they attack what the percieve to be limitations of poor engineering without a proper understanding of why certain warnings and notes are in place. Or without understanding that there are MULTIPLE books that govern an aircraft and it's mission. Some of those limitations don't apply in combat scenarios or situations of operational nessisty becuase other publications that govern the mission waive those limitations.

BoomOpCT

8th Feb 2011, 22:09

FH

First, thank you for making a post of that calibur. If you posted like THAT more often without all of the sarcastic insults I think people would respond better.

You wrote a lot and I already posted a loooong response...and for some reason it didnt post and I don't have the patience to do that again. So I mostly want to address the part about the pilots word meaning anyhting.

I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree.

It isn't a question of a pilot loving thier plane and having nothing but good things to say about it. It's a question of these pilots expertise on it's capability to fulfill the mission it was designed for.

I don't know if you understand what a military pilot does versus a commercial pilot. It's not about our planes being "more manly" or something superficial like that. It's that they are experts on thier airframe and thier MISSION. Military aircrew is taught thier misison first, long before they fly the plane. Once they know the mission, then they learn to how to use a tool to accomplish it.

They don't just teach us to fly a plane and then say "go do this". The pilot plans, briefs, and executes the mission. If anyone knows what is going on and is an expert of the mission, it's the pilot/aircrew. Not some general at the top or some other desk officer. They make the battleplans, they put together a "big picture". But these high ranking guys make thier decsions based on the advising of the people who know the mission best: The guys flying and operating in the field.

These pilots on this forum who are telling us what the osprey can do are not doing so blindly. You act as if they went to officer training school, were assigned to the osprey, know nothing else and thus can't have an opinion. That is not the case. Thes pilots have flown multiple airframes for the SAME mission as the Osprey does now. And they are telling us given the choice between flying the old helicopters from before or the v-22...they would take the V-22. Why? Not because it's a fancier more comforatable ride. They would choose it BECAUSE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION FASTER AND BETTER, GET THEM IN AND OUT SAFER, AND PROTECT THIER LOVED ONES BETTER. If they truly thought the Pavelows were better aircraft...they can say so. This is no military rule that denies them the right to say what airframe they prefer. So if they say the osprey is the better tool...that should carry some weight.

They know what the misison is. They know what the old planes could do and what this new one can do. How can you say thier advice is irrelevant or useless?

FH1100 Pilot

8th Feb 2011, 23:17

jeffg:-If less than -1g is to limiting for "combat aircraft" perhaps you or someone else could tell us what the positive and negative g limits are for the UH-60, OH-58, CH-53E, CH-46, CH-47, UH-1N, AH-1W, UH-1Y, AH-1Z?

Good question!

But it's kind of irrelevant.

In helicopter mode, the V-22 is limited to a pathetic +2.25g and -.5g. Just like a Bell 47? Well...not really.

For comparison purposes, a helicopter certified under FAR part 27 *or* part 29 (transport category) must endure limits of +3.5g and -1g. So any civilian helicopter can beat a V-22 in maneuvering limits. Let's look at airplanes!

In airplane mode, the V-22 has a limit of a measly +3.0g and -.75g.

Utility Category airplanes certified under FAR part 23 must meet a +4.4g limit and a -1.76g limit (.4 times the positive load factor).

Transport Category airplanes certified under FAR part 25 must meet a +3.8g and -1g limit.

So the V-22 still falls short - isn't even up to the same limits as a transport category fixed-wing. Damn. That's rough.

I did not bring up the lesser negative-g limitation for the V-22 in "converted" (or helicopter) mode. But I'm glad you did, Jeff! Let's leave combat aircraft out. The more appropriate comparison is between the V-22 and other Air Force fixed-wing aircraft. You know, like a C-130. What are its limits?

If the V-22 is flying along up high, which is supposed to be one of the "benefits" it brings to the table over a helicopter, then what good is it if it cannot even avoid missiles fired from the surface?

Dan Reno

9th Feb 2011, 00:00

BoomOpCT

Most every poster here was a military pilot so they know exactly how and why the system works.

Yes, we all point out the flaws in this POS. We leave it up to the pilots and manufacturer to prove us wrong and tell us how wondeful it is. Surely, if you did read all the posts you would know that.

Here's one that the manufacturer told the Europeon Press that was never answered:

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.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html

It is unfortunate that you perhaps are not up to speed on the workings that keep aircraft aloft but this is simply one of dozens that are very important that have never been answered.

If you truly care what America got for it's money then you'd be as interested to know why our country didn't get what it paid for as we are. Kind of a patriotic thing for you to do.

BoomOpCT

9th Feb 2011, 00:01

I think it's a little off to try to compare the osprey in airplane mode to other airplanes and the osprey in helo mode to other helos. It doesn't make sense. It's not boasted to be faster than regular airplanes, nor better at lifting than normal helocopters. The V-22 can't "fall short" of either of those regulations as it doesn't fit into either. Those limits are designed specifically for aircrafts of those exact builds and functions...not a tilt-roter.

The fact is the osprey combines functions in away that grants a tactical advantage. If we sent in a plane, sure it can get there fast, but it can't just stop and load people on and then get out quickly. We could send a helicopter and sure it can do a quick insert/pick-up and then leave...but i won't get there fast or leave fast. The osprey gives the best "hit and run" option. Get there fast, pick 'em up, and leave fast. It may not pick up as well as a helicopter and it may not fly as fast as an airplane, but it does enough of each to make it effecient and a game changer.

Also, you guys vastly underestimate this machine's ability to defend itself. It is allowed to make defensive/evasive maneuvers. Those are not "aerial combat maneuvers." Belly mounted gun and and ramp mounted guns are installed (Now, I am talking USAF, I couldn't tell you for USMC). Also, I don't know how much of this information is sensitive, so I won't name specific equipment, but the USAF version has several anti-missle countermeasure systems installed as well. Those features combined with it's fast escape speeds make it a formidiable option.

Dan Reno

9th Feb 2011, 00:17

And the angels wept.

BoomOpCT

9th Feb 2011, 00:17

Dan

Well then I don't understand. If you were a military pilot, then you would know that those warning and bullets that keep getting posted aren't as dramatic is everyone is making them out the be. At all. You would also know that the flight manual alone does not govern how the aircraft can be flown. And you would also understand why MckPave and Ospreyrider can't simply post the excerpts from the flight manuals on a public internet forum just because a bunch of dudes on a forum demand it.

Yet you guys don't seem to comprehend any of this. You continue to quote the same limitation bullets and continue to cry "conspiracy" and "gag order" everytime someone can't publish sensitve information online. Which makes me question the claims of being military a lot.

And again, you don't know if we got what we paid for...because you aren't flying it or seeing in operation. All you have is a bunch of media fed articles and a single flight manual you don't understand. So I understand why you're interested. What I don't understand is why when a pilot of the aircraft, who KNOWS what it can and can't do, and KNOWS what kind of maintance issues it encounters, and has put it to the test in real operations offers you answers...you ignore him, call him a conspirator, and then trust the MEDIA of all things. It boggles my mind.

Saying that these pilots aren't qualified to to answer your questions or understand thier aircraft is like saying a NASCAR driver doesn't know anything about how different cars handle compare to one another. It's crazy talk! If anyone can attest to whether or not Amrica is getting what it paid for, it's the guys putting these things into action. They know first hand if it performing. Period.

As for that article, I cant really respond to that as the link doesnt work and I don't like to respond to a quote out of context.

BoomOpCT

9th Feb 2011, 00:30

Also, to be fair, there are a few things I do agree with. These planes ARE expensive. But I don't see that so much of an issue as the high maintance costs. It's to be expected...every new plane realeased in the last two decades seems to have suffered high maintance costs. Maybe a combined problem of being unfamiliar with what to expect problem wise and slao that the technology is so advanced that replacing parts is more expensive then usual.

But that *should* improve over time as we understand and are able to start preventing problems ahead of time. Also technology will get cheaper over time.

I also disagree with the marine general fudging his numbers to make his fleet look better. But I feel that's a detriment to the character of the said individual, not the aircraft. Maybe some of the guys up top aren't the best examples...but I don't believe that the pilots are caught up in that game. These guys here are offering you genuine information. They aren't trying to cover up for anyone.

FH1100 Pilot

9th Feb 2011, 13:45

BoomOpCT:I think it's a little off to try to compare the osprey in airplane mode to other airplanes and the osprey in helo mode to other helos. It doesn't make sense. It's not boasted to be faster than regular airplanes, nor better at lifting than normal helocopters. The V-22 can't "fall short" of either of those regulations as it doesn't fit into either. Those limits are designed specifically for aircrafts of those exact builds and functions...not a tilt-roter.

Sorry, son, when the V-22 is in airplane mode it *IS* an airplane. A military airplane at that. Which we would assume to be...you know...tough. Tougher at least than most civilian aircraft.

But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47. But you seem to give the V-22 a pass because of its unique capabilities, eh?

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, kid. (Oh, and it's "rotor," by the way.)

And before I go... BoomOpCT mentioned this to Dan Reno:If you were a military pilot, then you would know that those warnings and bullets that keep getting posted aren't as dramatic is everyone is making them out the be. At all. You would also know that the flight manual alone does not govern how the aircraft can be flown.
Oh really?? BoomOp, you're just a flight engineer or something, right? If you were a pilot you'd know that the AFM absolutely defines and governs how the aircraft can be flown. Those bullet points and warnins are there for a reason. Ignore the AFM and all those warnings in it at your peril...and at the peril of all the innocent SOB's that are riding in the back, trusting you with their lives.

Just sayin'.

jeffg

9th Feb 2011, 17:00

FH,
Actually what’s irrelevant is your source for the V-22s limits. It’s wrong. If I were to guess you probably got an old copy of NATOPS data on G2mil?
What’s also irrelevant is the misquoting of the FAR 27/29 as you either don’t understand it or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Specifically you are speaking to 27/29.337. Unfortunately you only mention paragraph (a) and completely leave out paragraph (b) which allows the applicant to certify to less, +2.0 to -0.5 to be specific. Furthermore if you took the time read the ACs for 27/29.337 you would have a better idea of what you were talking about. As I pointed out your stated limits for the V-22 in ‘helicopter mode’ are incorrect and it not only meets the FAA regs but exceeds the capability of most Part 27 and 29 helicopters and is equal to that of most military helicopters.
Here is a link on the subject which relates the FARs to operational reality. http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-260761.html (http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-260761.html)
I won’t even try and compare the V-22 to a part 23 aircraft. As far as the Part 25 comment, again if you read the entire rule and read the ACs you would understand that the positive load limit “may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8” at maximum design takeoff weight. Again the V-22 would be able to meet the standards.
As far as the C-130 all I could find was a +2.0 g (symmetrical) and +1.5g (unsymmetrical) limit. I could be wrong so please correct me if I am. I could not find a negative limit so I can’t speak to that.
What’s even more irrelevant is your entire argument, which is why I asked the questions I did. You know, the ones you avoided answering. By the way answering a question with a question does not constitute an answer, it only highlights the fact that you can’t answer it. Your whole argument is null and void because you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can copy and paste a limit from a NATOPS manual or a regulation from the FAR out of contetxt. But as you have proven time after time, that does not mean you understand them. It’s obvious that you have no idea how any aircraft is operated in a military/tactical environment or how one is certified under the FAA or NAVAIR system so please stop acting like you do. As you are I’m a pilot by profession. However I’m not corporate pilot like yourself therefore I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you how to do your job or what aircraft you should use. Why don’t you offer the same courtesy to the military pilots on this board?

jeffg

9th Feb 2011, 17:10

But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47.

I believe I saw on here that you currently fly a 206. If you really believe your comment above then I challenge you to get a g meter, attach it to your instrument panel and the next time you fly (preferably without your boss) do a -0.5 g pushover followed by -1.0g pushover. I'll be standing by for your results.

SASless

9th Feb 2011, 17:54

Bell two bladed heads do not like negative G of any sort.....ala both the 47 and 206 models as well as the 204/205/212/ and AH-1 series.

Let's discuss the G limits of the Osprey as it is the topic of the thread.

BoomOpCT

9th Feb 2011, 19:48

Sorry, I know it's rotor, I just didn't catch that in my glance-over of my post.

And I'm not saying the osprey should get any kind of pass over at all. I'm just saying you can't look at the opsrey in airplane mode and say "It's not as good as a C-130" and look at in helo mode and say "it's not as good as a Chinook". Those other other aircraft have very different missions, much larger cargo hauls, and are very good at what they are meant to to do. But ask either of those aircraft to do what the Osprey is meant to to do, and they don't fit the bill. Plus I'm not entirely sure your numbers are right, but I'm not so involved in this argument to figure that out. Jeffg seems to have the same thoughts and the resources to check at his fingertips, so I'll leave the number crunching to you two.

And in response to me "just" being a flight engineer. Fist off I am a boom operator...my job entails a lot more than just watching instruments. And when it comes to the technical areas of the plane, I am VERY knowledgeable about how my plane works, more so than even perhaps my pilots. They know more about flying it, but I know the limits, how the systems work, and the rules invovled in air-to-air refueling.

And you are absolutely dead wrong about the flight manuals. Yes they tell you how to fly the plane and yes they show limits. But you have to understand two things: 1. You have to read the notes and warnings in context. Meaning, why exactly are those things written there? 2. You have to understand that in the MILITARY there are books in addition to the FMs that overridde and waive certain things. Tactic Regulations for example.

I can't speak for osprey regs, so I will use one of our on the KC - 135 as an example. (Note: For opsec reasons, I'm not going to use numerical data here) Our plane cannot exceed a certain amount of degree in bank, it is prohibited. The REASON that is in place isn't because our plane isn't capapble of doing it or even doing it safely. It's that it creates undue stress on the airframe that over time could add up to maintance needs. But then if you dive into our tactics books, it waives that limit and increases our allowable bank angle for operational nessisity, such as evasive manevers or tactical landings. You would never know this by reading the flight manual alone. It doesn't clarify that ANYWHERE. And by taking that warning out of context, one would easily be misled to think that the KC-135 is incabable of making banks larger than the limits presented.

The same goes for air refueling. There are certain conditions and system malfunctions under which I am PROHIBITED to refuel another aircraft. But again, if you look into the regulation which regulates air-to-air refueling, it gives express permission to override those restrictions given a fuel emergency, tactical nessisty, or operational nessissty. Yet again, you would never know that by JUST reading the flight manual.

I would venture to guess that much of the same applies to the V-22. I think you are largely misinterpreting and over amplifying the implications of the warnings in that flight manual (which also may be outdated). And then you also don't have access to the other military regs that co-govern how that aircraft can be flown and what it is capable of.

So I guess I don't understand how when you don't even have access to the full range of documents, don't have a complete understanding of the mission or it's parameters, and have never actually put this machince to the test...you can stand there and tell someone to shut down the program. Without that information, you don't really know anything. You have a few media articles, an expired manual, and from what I can tell no military experience. (I might be wrong on the last one, I forget.) You are the furthest thing from being qulaified to judge this airframe or it's program...yet you will sit there and say the pilots of this plane have NO credibility whatsoever. It's absolutely crazy logic.

You = old manual being read out of context, no other regs, a few MEDIA articles, no experience with the airframe.

V-22 pilots = Current manuals and educated to understand what all those warnings and notes REALLY mean, access to ALL regulations, intel briefings/full safety reports, and have experience with machine AS WELL AS it's predecessors.

How do you get the impression that you are more credible than these other guys?

SansAnhedral

9th Feb 2011, 20:05

Excellent post, Boom.

Dan Reno

9th Feb 2011, 21:10

The Angels & God wept.

FH1100 Pilot

9th Feb 2011, 23:14

Oh for the love of God...

Here's FAR 23.337 which applies to civilian rotorcraft:

27.337 Limit maneuvering load factor.

The rotorcraft must be designed for—
(a) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or
(b) Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which—
(1) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and
(2) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.

Never mind a 47 - it's history. Okay Jeff, how does 337.(b)(1) and (2) - since they both must apply - let the makers of a Bell 206 off the hook for meeting 337(a)?

Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter.

Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g. I'm not sure I would have wanted to be the 206 test pilot who did those conformity flights, but I personally knew the Hiller test pilot who did it for the FH1100, which had to meet the same requirements. And it did.

But even if Bell invoked 23.337(b) (1) and (2), the negative limit is still -.5g, which is the same as the V-22 in helicopter mode.

That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers. It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited!

Unlike the V-22. Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the real limits? Or are you going to pull that, "If I tell you I'll have to kill you" thing? I've shown you mine; you show me yours.

Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments. They may love it, and they'll come up with every reason imagineable that we should make more! of them. Indeed, the V-22 may do certain things very well. But it is not a revolutionary, magical aircraft unlike anything else before. It is a bad, very flawed design which has cost this nation far too much money already. It is high time it was put to rest once and for all. We don't need it.

Dan Reno

9th Feb 2011, 23:21

Amen to that!

jeffg

10th Feb 2011, 17:14

Never mind a 47 - it's history-Then why do you keep bringing it up

Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter. Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g
Not exactly. Since you can’t seem to find the AC (or understand it, so I'll post it for other readers) here it is. I will only post AC27.337 but AC29.337 reads mostly the same:
AC 27.337 (Amendment 27-26) LIMIT MANEUVERING LOAD FACTOR
a. Explanation. The rotorcraft must be designed and substantiated to load factors as specified to provide a minimum level of structural integrity of the rotorcraft airframe
(1) A range of design positive load factors from +3.5 to +2.0 may be used.
(2) A range of design negative load factors from -1.0 to -0.5 may be used.
(3) Load factors inside the range of +3.5 to -1.0 may be used provided the probability of exceeding the design load factors is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote and the selected load factors are appropriate to each weight condition between design maximum and minimum weight.
4) Load factors exceeding these “minimums” may be used
b. Procedures.
(1) The applicant may elect to substantiate the rotorcraft for a design maneuvering load factor less than +3.5 and more than -1.0. Whenever this option is used, an analytical study and flight demonstration are required
(i) The maximum positive design load factor of +3.5 is generally at a
weight below maximum gross weight. The maximum thrust capability of the main rotor, combined with incremental lift of wings or sponsons, if installed, results in a maximum design positive load factor. An example of a load factor-gross weight curve is shown in figure AC 27.337-1. Note the minimum positive design load factor is +2.0 even though the required analysis and flight demonstration may prove the rotorcraft is not capable of achieving this load factor. This curve also illustrates compliance with § 27.321(b)(1) since the design load factor varies with gross weight.
(ii) The largest negative design load factor is -1.0; however, several
rotorcraft designs are not capable of achieving a negative load factor. Therefore, -0.5 has been an acceptable structural design negative load factor for certain rotorcraft designs.
(2) Whenever the applicant analytically substantiates the lower load factors allowed by § 27.337(b), the flight demonstration required by § 27.337(b) must be conducted. The flight test personnel should determine that the demonstration shows the probability of exceeding the selected design load factors (those factors less than +3.5 and more than -1.0) is extremely remote. (See Order 8110.4, paragraph 166c(2)(c)).(3) A numerical value has not been assigned to “extremely remote” in this standard.

That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers
No mention of the ‘actual numbers’ in the RFM because it would become a limit requiring some sort of indication to the pilot (g-meter, stick shaker, etc) that he was about to exceed the limit.

It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited

Again, if you think that because your RFM doesn’t provide you with a g-limit or say you can’t do aerobatics, go for it! Please! If you’re not willing to then quit pretending that you can. Starting with the 206L3 and sub, aerobatic flight is a prohibited maneuver in the RFM. Do a quick search you will find it is also prohibited in the 407, 212, 412, EC135, EC 145 and if I remember correctly the B2/3. I’m sure there are many other helicopters in which it is prohibited. I know it is prohibited in most all USMC RW NATOPS manuals.

Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the real limits

So questioning your depth of knowledge(or lack of) makes me a “V-22 apologists”? As I recall you implied that the “pathetic” limits the V-22 were unacceptable for a ‘combat aircraft’. All I asked was for you tell us what would be acceptable, how the V-22s limits compared to other ‘combat aircraft’, and if you understood how those aircraft were operated. As of yet you refuse to answer. Why? Because you don't know and you are trying to hide that little fact! Instead you try to compare the V-22 to the FARs and a Bell 47. I don’t need to tell you what the real limits are to prove you wrong in that regard, I did that with the limits you think the V-22 has. The fact of the matter FH is that you don't need to know. And if I were to tell you wouldn't believe it anyway. You're a conspiracy nut and will always be looking for the hidden secret even when it's not there. Furthermore don’t accuse anyone of not answering the question until you actually answer one yourself. I refer you back to my original post two or three pages ago. If you are so knowledgeable then you should be able to answer them easily. Let's hear those answers

Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments.

Then who should? You? Congress? The peace corps? The commissioner of the NFL? The winner of Top chef? Who? Honestly FH who knows more about the needs to accomplish a mission than those who fly it? If you think a bunch of pilots get together and 'tell the government' we want this and get it you're more naive than I thought. They do give advice and opinion but don't get to say "I want this".

SansAnhedral

10th Feb 2011, 17:34

Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but here is a little quote from the investigation into the recent V22 mishap

Q36 (PILOT ADVISOR): And sirs, one last question, how have the CV-22s performed since they have been over working under your Task Force?
A36 (WITNESS): Phenomenal, they have been value added. I want to say 13 or 14 missions, don’t quote me on the number, but over 10 missions--certainly over 10 missions to include last night where they performed and in several cases although there are some mission profiles where they are
not as capable as the CH-47 platform, there are other mission profiles where they have proved to be much more capable and, in fact, the desirable platform for execution to include A casualty evacuation mission we had to do during daylight and because of their speed of flight they were able to arrive in the objective area, pick up the casualty and return to the medical treatment facility twice as fast as the CH-47 would have been able to do it.

There are sentiments similar to these all over the record from a diverse array of sources including pilots, operators, commanders, etc.

Gregg

10th Feb 2011, 17:46

As another point of reference:

In the NATOPS for the SH-60B and CH-53E (both out of date copies), both aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic maneuvers.

The 53E (which I think we will all agree is a very capable combat aircraft) is limited to +0.5 to +2.0 gs.

We all need to be careful when interpreting flight manual limitations as a pure indicator of whether an aircraft can accomplish its combat mission.

Dan Reno

10th Feb 2011, 18:22

Well, gosh darn ! There you have it ! Proof positive the V-22 is God’s Gift to most of the military’s air requirements. Who would have known!

jeffg

10th Feb 2011, 18:59

Nobody said it was Dan. People are just pointing out that what you and FH believe to be 'flaws in this POS' are no different than the flaws that exist in any other aircraft. I challenge you to evaluate your beloved 53E and the K that you think will be great with the same critical eye that evaluate the V-22 with. As Gregg pointed out, if you were to use FHs standards the 53E should be grounded, because it's obviously not capable of maneuvering in combat because it is 'limited to a pathetic' +0.5 to +2.0gs, even a civillian Bell 47 is better than that! Either that or FH is just wrong. It can't be both.
As far as rehashing the many questions asked you don't have to. Just because you like to post on pprune a lot does not make you an expert.
How about this, instead of acting like a spoiled brat with you smarta$$ replies why don't you add someting useful to the conversation.

henra

10th Feb 2011, 19:11

But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47.

This is where I stopped reading the post.

How can anyone who pretends to have any knowledge of helicopters can claim a Bell 47 to do a -0.5 g maneuver ???? (Ok- it will do it exactly once :E). And even the +2,0g is purely theoretical. With its power margin the B-47 will shed its RRPM within seconds when doing a 2,0g maneuver.

The same applies for the Helicopter which gave FH1100 his name. -0,5g: :eek:
The crash investigators will have to search for the cabin, the tail and the rotor in different locations....

Regarding all civil helicopters being able to do the +3,5g / -1,0 g:
The number of helicopter type actually capable of this will be surely single digt - low single digit for that matter.
The same applies for 'normal' aircraft. Military transport aircraft are usually limited to max 3,0g and 2,25 - 2,5g with limit load.
So compared to that the V-22 seems to be in line to me.

Agreed the V-22's numbers purported here don't knock me out of my shoes if they are true, but the question is also if these are 'hard' structural limits or risk avoiding operational limits?

Yes this thing is expensive. (maybe even exceedingly expensive), yes the relatively low availability/high maintenance is not really something to brag about either.
But such obviously unprofessional eruptions of hatred don't make an impressive argumentation.

henra

10th Feb 2011, 19:26

A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter. Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g

That coming from a pilot of a 206 worries me !!!!

With that teetering rotor you do NOT want to put it even to 0g !
Please do not try this at home !!
-1 g means flying on its back. Even the fabulous Bo105 is not able/allowed to do this.
You do not want to compare your B206 to a Bo105, do you ?

Okay Jeff, how does 337.(b)(1) and (2) - since they both must apply - let the makers of a Bell 206 off the hook for meeting 337(a)?

All the 2-blade Bell's and legacy Robbies are certified to old grandfathered regulations where no g limits were stated.

Do you really understand what negative g's means ?

jeffg

10th Feb 2011, 20:58

Do you really understand what negative g's means ?

Excellent point. Most RW pilots grossly over estimate the amount of g they put on an aircraft. Nor do they realize how hard and uncomfortable it is to attain -g. Most will swear that they have attained -gs but in reality have not even reached +.5 g.

Dan Reno

10th Feb 2011, 21:07

jeffg

Gee, another V-22 name caller. Why are so many V-22 folks name callers? I shouldn't complain, at least I didn't get a death treat like one V-22 worshipper wished upon a V-22 non-worshper.

I've been bringing V-22 issues to this thread since 2008 and have seen a lot of "Johnny Come Latelys" come and go with no REAL answers either.

I've already said this is "God's answer", so I would assume you'd be happy so many agree with you...unless you also get the jitters in or around it.

Again, it is sooooooooooooooooo fantastic! Jeez.

BoomOpCT

11th Feb 2011, 05:42

After reading Dan Reno's last post, I no longer feel the need to post on this topic with him or FH.

Both Dan and FH have pointedly been asked for a few simple answers. Answers that aren't even difficult, simple "what would be acceptable" and "are you knowledgeble on military aircraft" questions. They can't even answer those easy and DIRECT questions.

What they CAN do is avoid the question and reply with "if you tell us, you have to kill us", "conspiracy", "gag-order", and now the most intelligent reply of all "your a bunch of name callers."

According to FH's own stipulations against the V-22's limits...the other aircraft he suggests to replace the V-22, aren't even good enough to fly. BY HIS OWN ARGUMENT none-the-less.

Dan's last three posts were "God and Angels Wept", "Amen to that", and some mocking statements about how "swell" the V-22 must be.

That is the calibur of people we are arguing with.

Oh, and Dan and FH, just to call you both out a little further on two things:

1. "If you tell us, you have to kill us" - Stop using this as a cop out when you can't argue back. You know why we can't post information from our manuals and tactics publications. So does every other military person out there and so do 90% of americans. It's simple: You armchair detctives aren't the only ones snooping around these sites. And quite frankly, even if one us DID decide to break opsec and post sensitive information that could possibly exploit weakness/intel to the enemy...you wouldn't believe it anyways. You'd probably accusing of doctoring it or lying. So next time someone corner's you with facts or proves you wrong...quit using this as an excuse or way to avoid being wrong.

2. "That other osprey guy threatened me, boo-hoo" - You can quit milking this too. Once again, every time you get proven wrong or are afraid to answer a DIRECT question...you bring this up. Which by the way, I read that post and you deliberately are twisting that into something it's not...just like you do with NATOPS information I'm sure. Fact: You used your infamous line by saying "but I suppose you won't answer that, because if you did you'd have to kill me." to which MckPave then ANSWERED your question and THEN added as SMART ASS follow up, that now that he'd told you, he'd have to kill you. It was a joke. A smart-ass joke. And you know it. But because you like to twist things and make them what they are not, you are playing it up for all it's worth. And why did you do it? Because he answered your question, proved you wrong, and you had no rebuttal.

I strongly suggest anyone who gets either response above instantly assume that what they really mean is "I don't know the answer" or "Crap, you just proved me wrong"

These guys don't know a lick about the Osprey (or the standards of military aircraft/mission parameters) and have no basis on which to damn the program. Thier logic of the PILOTS having no credentials is load of bull and everyone talking to them on here is wasting thier time. The only reason shooting them down again and again is even remotely worthwhile is the fact that it helps alleviate the misiniformation and public slander they have filled this thread with.

That's it, that's all I have to say. At least to Dan and FH. I don't have time to waste on a couple of conspiracy theorists. I will be happy to discuss this with everyone else posting however.

BoomOpCT

11th Feb 2011, 05:50

Gregg, good post man. I agree with you completely. You can't just take data from a flight manual, read a single bullet out of context, and try to judge an entire airframe's ability as a combat aircraft.

Dan Reno

11th Feb 2011, 13:54

BoomOPCt

Looks like that referenced article was pulled right after the latest V-22 crash. I wonder why.

Have there been more compressor stalls and at the most inopurtune times? It that info classified? Anyone....anyone?

Here's another reference you can try:

http://www.allbusiness.com/defense-aerospace/aerospace-industry-military/14639637-1.html (http://www.allbusiness.com/defense-aerospace/aerospace-industry-military/14639637-1.html)

jeffg

11th Feb 2011, 15:46

Wow, A V-22 had a compressor stall 4 and a half years ago. That's damning evidence. Or is that all you've got Dan? I'm sure no other aircraft has ever had one. Oh wait, it's an E.P. in every flight manual there is. In fact I've had several in multiple airframes with engines made by different manufacturers.

Yet another useless and irrelevant post by Dan. But I'm just a "johnny come lately" and no V-22 posting expert like Dan the secret agent man. See Dan, I have read your previous post and despite what you claim it's obvious that you've never been behind the controls of an aircraft in your life!

Shawn Coyle

11th Feb 2011, 16:21

There's a big difference between the design loads and the flight limitations. The structure has to be designed for those loads, but it doesn't mean the aircraft is going to be subjected to them in flight.
The wing on a 747 is designed for 150% of maximum flight load, doesn't mean it ever gets there.

And the Bell 206 was designed and certified under CAR 6, not Part 27.

Dan Reno

11th Feb 2011, 16:38

jeffg

Are you going to answer the question?

jeffg

11th Feb 2011, 18:41

Dan if your question is whether or not a V-22 has a compressor failureI honestly can't tell you. I'm not V-22 pilot nor am I in the community nor am I active duty anymore. Common sense would tell me the answer is probably yes. It would also tell me that in the last 4.5 years a 53 had a compressor stall. As I'm sure a Cobra, a 60,47,46 etc have. Your argument is only relevant if NO other aircraft has EVER had a compressor stall. If that's not the case then who cares? Why do you insist on blowing it out of proportion? There I answered your question the best I could. Your turn. Since FH is unable to answer the questions I asked why don't you? Or simply answer the question of whether or not you are a pilot.

Dan Reno

11th Feb 2011, 19:25

jeffg

This is the V-22 thread and if the prime contractor is saying compressor stalls are "Very normal not only in military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft" then the entire program has been at serious risk right from the 'get-go' through gross incompetence.

The V-22 engine is such a POS that Rolls Royce renigged on the 'Power Per Hour' program that got their POS engine picked in the first place.

Using this very important engine information from such a prime aircraft contractor, your tanker's engines should be experiencing compressor stalls also as it is 'very normal. (Heard any lately?)

And now we have an inkling that one or both engines may have caused the latest crash. That's why this question is important.

So we need someone (other than a tanker type) with V-22 experience to answer my questions.

BTW, my current and past flight status is confidential information, but suffice to say I've been shot at quite a few times in RVN while above the ground and been fortunate enough to never have been disgraced with a NVA Sharp Shooters award.

Again, any answers from V-22 types out there on the crummy V-22 engines?

Hey! Wait a minute! You already know all this! You said you read all prior posts! What are you doing here then? Stirring up sh*t? Nothing for you to see here, "Move along pal"

jeffg

11th Feb 2011, 21:45

Dan I think that was one of funniest post I've ever read. Thank you for the laugh.

This is the V-22 thread and if the prime contractor is saying compressor stalls are "Very normal not only in military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft" then the entire program has been at serious risk right from the 'get-go' through gross incompetence
-Come on Dan. Even you know this was meant for the general public who has no idea what a compressor stall is much less the severity. You know darn well (maybe you don't) that he wasn't trying to say this happens all the time. Be serious.

So we need someone (other than a tanker type) with V-22 experience to answer my questions.

-By the way I think your alzheimer's is catching up to you, I'm not a tanker guy nor ever said I was. That's Boomops. So now only V-22 guys can answer question on this board? Would not the inverse then be true and only V-22 guys can ask questions?

And now we have an inkling that one or both engines may have caused the latest crash. That's why this question is important
-No you don't and you shouldn't speculate.

Hey! Wait a minute! You already know all this! You said you read all prior posts! What are you doing here then? Stirring up sh*t? Nothing for you to see here, "Move along pal"
-Correct me if I'm wrong didn't you bring this subject up? Didn't you ask me specifically for an answer? It must be that alzheimer's again.

BTW, my current and past flight status is confidential information, but suffice to say I've been shot at quite a few times in RVN while above the ground and been fortunate enough to never have been disgraced with a NVA Sharp Shooters award.
-Seriously! Even if that were true you could tell us what you do. Where you were, who you worked/work for and the mission you do might condfidential but what you do is not. Like I am a pilot or I am a crew chief. Saying just that Dan 'the secret agent man' is not confidential. Wait a miniute! If what you do is/was confidential then that would mean you understood the principle of privileged information. If you understood that then you wouldn't be asking Mckpave and others to reveal confidential information on here, would you? In fact when they don't you accuse them of hiding something. So using your logic I can only assume that since you are hiding behind the veil of confidentiality it can only mean that you are completely unqualified to be asking questions on here.
Oh, riding in the back, while I might respect you for it does not make you a pilot. Simple question Secret agent man. Are you a pilot?

Dan Reno

11th Feb 2011, 22:06

jeffg

If that was funny to you, you need to get out more.

If the Europeon & American Press are not supposed to believe a Bell spokesman about the V-22, then who?

Boomops? Have not clue what that is but the AF is notorious for having a specialty for most everything. If you are qualified to answer questions about the V-22 then have at it but don't bad talk the Bell spokesman then.

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.

Yes, but I didn't have to since you lied when you said you read all prior posts.

Words mean something and I think you are a very lonely person with too much time on his / her hands. Come back when you grow up.

jeffg

11th Feb 2011, 22:32

Boomopct is the poster who is the tanker guy. I should have made that more clear.
By the way if someone really has a confidential job and can't tell anyone about it should they be on a public forum posting to the world 'I can't tell you what I do because it's confidential'. Using their first and last name none the less Doesn't that defeat the purpose? or are you really Dan Reno?

Back to the v22 Dan. Why are you avoiding the questions? They were very easy especially for someone with your supposed expertise.

I don't recall attacking the Bell spokesman, only pointing out that you shouldn't take things so literally.

jeffg

11th Feb 2011, 22:50

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.
Actually there were two reports. The one with the better set of data, as any former military pilot would know, found no indication of an engine problem. If I recall that General stated so publicly. Why do you discount that report? Simply because you don't like the answer. Why don't you talk to that General? Until you see that report you have no idea what happened. So any conclusion you come to is just a guess and not fact.

grumpytroll

12th Feb 2011, 01:48

This is the song that never ends...
yes it goes on and on my friends.
Someone started singing it not knowing what it was,
and then they kept on singing it forever just because

This is the song that never ends....

SansAnhedral

14th Feb 2011, 20:15

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.

Dan, so was my reading of the report correct in that the evidence for possible engine degradation came solely from Nr determination from video analysis of IR feeds from A10s at 10,000ft? In addition to proprotor divots in loose sand post impact? Through all the interviews with pax/crew, there was no mention of abnormal sounds/smell/vibration. The repeated statements heavily reiterated that the approach was made much too fast (over 2x acceptable approach speed as close as 1nm).

I agree with the Air Force, this is hardly conclusive enough to finger engine issues as the cause of the incident.

The Sultan

15th Feb 2011, 02:40

Very vertical lift air display. Ospreys and helo's around 17 minutes.

The SultanYouTube - Centennial of Naval Aviation Parade of flight feat. 130+ aircraft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fz_FXE5cPY)

NickLappos

15th Feb 2011, 03:57

FH1100,
I read your interpretation of FAR regarding load factor, and have to pipe in. The load factor maneuver capability of virtually all civil helos is far, far less than the FAR requires, because the rotor and controls simply cannot get either that much positive or negative G. I know of only one helo that can do the +3.5 to -1.0, and that is a light Black Hawk.
Having signed the flight strain surveys and structural demos for a few helos, I can assure you that no helo you have flown meets those numbers, esp when at commercial gross weights.
The "extremely remote" statement is used because if the aircraft can't be made to go to that G, exceedence is by definition extremely remote.

Regarding the V22 accident under discussion, I am not privy to any accident data, but a quick glance at the accident puts it in the category of perhaps 60 helicopter accidents that occurred in low speed operations in the desert environment, much the fault of the environment and cockpits we build than the configuration.
I perhaps understand the V22 as much as anyone, from a maneuver/limitations/control standpoint, and I listen to the guys who fly the machine when I want to know if it is fit for service. Frankly, I was as tough on it as anyone while it was under development. But when the folks who are doing the missions speak as glowingly as they do, after hundreds of hours doing the real job, even I have to listen.

BTW, note that the next gen vertical lift for the US Military will have payload, speed and range criteria that are what the V22 was asked to do (and does) 2 decades ago by the USMC. This seems to say that the USMC vision has been vindicated by all the services. If you don't like high speed, long range vertical lift, the next few decades will be a miserable time for you!

rjtjrt

15th Feb 2011, 04:27

Nick
From reading your posts on V-22 in the first few pages of this thread it seems you now have a vastly different outlook.
What has prompted said change?

NickLappos

15th Feb 2011, 04:45

rjtjrt,
My concerns were always the relative efficiency and cost as compared to a helo. I also objected to the "twice as far, twice as fast, twice the payload" of a helicopter, which was and is pure marketing bunk. I believe my previous observations were correct, and stand the test of time. What I did not appreciate is how the users would value the usable range (speed and time) to change the tactical environment.

In those older posts, many times I also said (against a swell of opinion otherwise) that the V22 would be made safe and would meet a tough US Navy qualification, and that the users will make the ultimate determination. In interviews I have read, and in talking to users personally, the users have expressed their opinion. The users have embraced the speed as its own reward, and the way speed makes usable range (how far can you fly in 3 hours, for example). There is work ahead for the Osprey, to improve its maintenance and its availability, but the same folks who choose to go to battle in it are the ones we must back now.

Lately I have worked with DoD pilots and experts who are writing the next gen requirements, and they are believers, too. Have I changed my opinion? Yep, because our customers have told me what they want, and it is wise to provide what folks want to buy and use!

SASless

16th Feb 2011, 13:03

Nick ol' bean.....

As you have been in such intimate contact with those who are setting the standards for new technology and aircraft needed for the future....hows about answering a question or two please.

The much vaunted and very damn expensive Expeditionary Fighting Vehichle Program (EFV) has been terminated. As we all know, the USMC had to embrace a concept known as Over The Horizion Littoral Assault (OTH), because the USN has refused to approach closer than 25NM to hostile shores out of a need to protect their ships from cruise and anti-ship missles.

The OTH Strategy depends upon three pieces of equipment, the EFV (now Cancelled), the Osprey, and the LCAC. At least that is what the Marine Corps has used as a selling point for the EFV and Osprey Programs.

The LCAC (huge damn hover craft) is not usable as an Assault platform and is limited to logistics support to a secure beach head.

That leaves the Osprey to carry out OTH assaults.

We all know according to our Leatherneck friends that "tactics have changed from Vietnam Days" and Ospreys do not land in hostile landing zones (those under direct fire or known indirect fire and carry minimal defensive weaponry. You noted the lack of defensive armament yourself in the past.

So...what are your Marine colleagues saying about this situation re OTH now that the EFV has been scuttled? How does the Marine Corps accomplish their key mission of being the only service capable of Amphibious Assault to include their core strategy of OTH Littoral Assault?

They ain't got the EFV to do it?

Current Amtrac's are too slow and range limited.

There is not even a new EFV on the drawing board.

What kind Bell give them that will replace the short fall.....Huey's and a reversion to Vietnam Tactics of landing in amongst the Bad Guy's?:E

SansAnhedral

17th Feb 2011, 14:36

SASless

perhaps this (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad79e08a5-6d79-4a85-b76f-37559e1fe368&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) answers a few of those questions

New EFV in 4-7 years.

Dan Reno

17th Feb 2011, 15:34

V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have 19:53 GMT, February 16, 2011 Here's a surprise: the V-22 Osprey has turned into the safest, most survivable rotorcraft the U.S. Marine Corps operates. The Osprey had its first fatal accident in ten years last April during a combat mission in Afghanistan, when an Air Force version hit the ground at high speed. But because of safety features built into the airframe, 16 of the 20 personnel on board survived. If you think that's still one crash too many, then you better not look at the safety records of other rotorcraft in theater, because many of them are not faring as well. After 14 operational deployments and 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is beginning to look like a real life-saver.

That's not the way the V-22 began its history. Conceived as a versatile aircraft that could combine the land-anywhere agility of a helicopter with the speed (280 miles per hour) and range (375 miles) of a fixed-wing aircraft, the Osprey suffered two serious accidents during its development. Those accidents delayed fielding and left a lasting impression on critics, who to this day allege it is a flawed aircraft. The Marine Corps vigorously disagrees, arguing it is a safer and more flexible way of getting troops from ship to shore than any other means available. A mounting body of evidence from operational deployments indicates the Marines are right. Not only is the V-22 less likely to be hit by ground fire than conventional helicopters (because it flies faster and higher), but when it is hit it suffers less damage and if it crashes occupants are more likely to survive.

Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn't do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.

But much of this progress has not been noticed by the political system, which finds it hard to forget the testing accidents that occurred many years ago. In fact, three different amendments are currently pending in Congress to delete some or all of the funding for the Osprey, and the president's bipartisan deficit panel suggested ending production early because the program had a "troubled history" of developmental problems. That's kind of like saying that Mr. Obama does not deserve reelection because he had a tough childhood, without looking at what he's done lately. With only $15 billion left to be spent in a $70 billion acquisition program, it makes no sense to cut the V-22 program just as the Marines are about to reach their inventory goal. Costs are down, readiness is up, and the Osprey has become the safest way of moving troops around combat zones. This is one program that deserves to stay on track.
----
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute

Lonewolf_50

17th Feb 2011, 20:29

Thompson's blog article may be factually correct, but that has never stopped anyone who perceives a particular weapons system as "taking money I should have to spend on XXXX" from trying to find each and every excuse to defame the weapons system.

It is good to remind people who carp about the "troubled history" of the V-22 about the "troubled history" of the F-14, which included the second aircraft built crashing on Long Island thanks to a hydraulic failure (both pilots got out, IIRC) and the Tomcat's long history of engine problems that caused loss of power in high energy maneuvers/dogfighting. (As I understand the problem, pilot technique on throttle movement was the key to not losing power all of a sudden at high AoA, but I may recall incorrectly ...)

The F-14 was a good weapons system with a "troubled history," so maybe the critics might be reminded that all new weapons systems have, whether we like it or not, growing pains.

I agree at it being absurd to trim a program (and thereby automatically driving the unit cost up by the stroke of a pen, and screwing contractors and subs very nicely in the process ... ) that has demonstrated an operational capability that meets real world mission requirements.

Sorry to see the EFV go. I expect that the USMC leadership is willing to reattack at a more propitious time on that leg of the Amphibious / From the Sea / OTH capability requirement.

I recall with some sadness how Comanche, years before it was actually cancelled, had strafing runs taken at it and it's large money pot ... due to it being a large money pot and other systems/programs trying to grab some of it, particularly during the funding starved Clinton years. (One Sec Army said very bluntly in the 90's that "maybe we can't afford Comanche" and it still took until the early 00's for the axe to finally fall).

Dan Reno

18th Feb 2011, 00:59

Awesome V-22 Osprey, Made in Delco, Avoids DOD Cuts

There was good news for Delco today as the House voted down an amendment that would have cut funding for the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Osprey is manufactured in part by the some of the 5,900 Boeing workers in Delaware County.
Unofficial reports indicate that the V-22 Osprey is one of the coolest aircraft in the world.
http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pat-Meehan.jpg (http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pat-Meehan.jpg)The Delco Daily Times has the full story (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/02/17/news/doc4d5befc85292c704376192.txt?viewmode=fullstory), but in summation, the V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey)).
Political and military leaders have endeavored for decades to kill the project, but intrepid lawmakers like U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan and former Rep. Curt Weldon have managed over the years to protect it.
For those of you who say it’s hypocritical to advocate across-the-board spending cuts while protecting a program that many experts say is not worthwhile, you’ve obviously never seen one of these babies in action.

From the Delco Times story: (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/02/17/news/doc4d5befc85292c704376192.txt?viewmode=fullstory)
“This is an instrument that has proven itself in the theater of war,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan, R-7, of Upper Darby.
Meehan vowed to fight for the program in recent months and applauded his congressional colleagues for voting against the amendment Tuesday.
“The success of this program has been validated by commanders in the field and the V-22 has been given high marks for the operational advantages it brings to combat operations,” Meehan wrote in the letter.
“Boeing is grateful for Congressman Meehan’s support of the V-22 Osprey program and we applaud the 325 members of Congress who joined him in supporting the program through yesterday’s vote,” said Andy Lee, spokesman for the Boeing Mobility Division, Wednesday. “The V-22 Osprey continues to receive high praise from the U.S. Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command for its outstanding performance in combat, ship-board and humanitarian deployments around the world. We are pleased that Congress is recognizing the critical role the Osprey is playing for the United States military.”
http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/V-22.jpg (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-The-Multi-Year-Program-04823/) From the Defense Industry Daily

heli1

18th Feb 2011, 15:11

So just how many V22s have been delivered so far?

Lonewolf_50

18th Feb 2011, 20:25

Here's an estimate.

100th was delivered in May 2008.
It is now Feb 2011
Delivery for 2010 was supposed to be 29.

Estimate: 160 delivered to date. ( I wonder how close I got ...)

SASless

19th Feb 2011, 00:27

Thursday morning, Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said the amphibious vehicle goal as "aggressive, particularly at the four-year end."

Defining requirements, Stackley said, will involve a look at the entire amphibious warfare concept of operations, including the anti-ship cruise missile threat, because that will determine how closely the Navy's ships can stand-in. "If we start the new amphibious vehicle with the same requirements as the EFV, we'll likely get the same outcome."

Now that is a wizard speaking!

What the guy means is the Navy and Marine Corps will change the criteria to fit the current equipment and claim they have OTH capability....it seems to me. What they will not do is admit they do not have OTH capability as it would shoot some current programs in the ass.

Dan Reno

20th Feb 2011, 14:54

GI blues command the green, even when ideas don't fly

Arnold Garcia Jr., Commentary

Published: 7:29 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011

All right, all you ex-GIs who never saw government money wasted during your time in the service: Fall out over there.
I hope you don't get too lonely all by yourself.
It might well be that someone left military service without ever having witnessed or been party to a total waste of government dough, but I've never met such an individual. If you're out there, give me a call. I'd be fascinated to hear your story.
I remember NCOs who supplemented their Army pay by selling the chow meant for the troops. In the early 1970s, there was a big scandal involving the black market sale of PX merchandise. More recently, a South Korean man was convicted of paying bribes to Army and Air Force Exchange Service officials to obtain lucrative contracts to sell Internet and phone service to U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.
The Army and Air Force Exchange Service sells deeply discounted and tax-free goods to military families trying to make ends meet on GI salaries. The Army and Air Force runs one program, the Navy and Marines run a separate one that does exactly the same thing. For that matter, the Army has an Air Force, and the Navy has an Army.
What brings all this to mind is the yammering about the federal deficit and all the self-righteous posturing about cutting the national budget and trimming the deficit and so on.
Professionally, I'm supposed to take all this quite seriously, but I find that difficult. I chuckle when I read reports about budget wrangling that note that defense and entitlement spending are pretty much left alone. The Defense Department eats 58 percent of the federal government's discretionary spending. So excluding the Pentagon from cost cutting is as effective as yelling "bang-bang" at the enemy.
The Pentagon is requesting $670.6 billion for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Included in the figure are $553 billion for its base budget and $117.8 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, I know President Barack Obama talks tough about defense cuts in the future and that Secretary of Defense William Gates is talking about a reduction in force in a few years, but throwing a few thousand GIs out in the street is pennies compared to items left on the table.
Take, for example, that Marine-killing V22 Osprey aircraft built in Fort Worth. The government has spent $32 billion on this aircraft that is still not fully mission capable, even after more than 10 years of development. In 2000, two Osprey crashes killed 19 Marines.
According to a recent report by Bloomberg, the Osprey — a fixed-wing aircraft with tilting rotors designed to give it vertical take off capability — is mission ready only 57 percent of the time. Specifications are that it be ready to fly 82 percent of the time. I guess $32 billion doesn't buy much quality these days.
The Osprey isn't much in the field, but it's hell at the conference table. When Dick Cheney was secretary of defense in 1989, he tried to zero out the Osprey's funding. Not only was Cheney overruled by Congress, it also voted to pour more money into the program.
Now, that's tough.
Most business people I know would have quit throwing good money after bad a long time ago or sued the manufacturer for breach of contract and asked for the money back. Uncle Sam, though, gives his nephews and nieces lots of time to try and get it right and almost never asks for the money back when they don't.
The Osprey is protected zealously by members of the Texas congressional delegation who want to end wasteful government spending in somebody else's district.
What the heck: You can always recruit more Marines, right?
After years of effort and billions of dollars down the dumper, Congress finally killed the development of an alternate engine to the Joint Strike Fighter. The bottom line is that defense officials have been saying since 2006 that the alternate engine isn't needed, but Congress kept funding it. The alternate engine was being built in Ohio, a politically important state to both parties and the home state of John Boehner, the newly elected speaker of the House.
Politicians are reluctant to vote against defense spending for fear that someone will holler that they don't support the troops.
Supporting the troops means providing them with the tools they need to do the job and ensuring that those tools work effectively. Supporting the troops means not only providing them with good equipment and decent housing — don't get me started again about those GIs electrocuted in shower facilities built by KBR Inc. — and the best medical care when they need it.
The vote in the House to cut the alternate engine program is huge. And good. It's way past time to take the halos off those cows in the Pentagon's pasture.
The entitlement stuff? Well, that's another story altogether. I can't wait to hear it.

SansAnhedral

21st Feb 2011, 16:02

Boy I dont know where Mr Garcia is getting is facts, but looks like he is rehashing the same old tired and increasingly invalid arguments.

Lets see...

Take, for example, that Marine-killing V22 Osprey aircraft built in Fort Worth. The government has spent $32 billion on this aircraft that is still not fully mission capable, even after more than 10 years of development

Not built it Ft Worth, chief. Last I checked they are still built in Amarillo. And for not being mission capable, they sure seem to be flying them quite a lot. (http://defensetech.org/2011/02/18/mv-22-logs-100000-flight-hours/)

According to a recent report by Bloomberg, the Osprey — a fixed-wing aircraft with tilting rotors designed to give it vertical take off capability — is mission ready only 57 percent of the time. Specifications are that it be ready to fly 82 percent of the time.

A recent report by Bloomberg? Funny how according to the Lexington Institute's article from last week: "Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe."

Come on V22 haters, you can do better than that.

Dan Reno

21st Feb 2011, 17:16

Arnold Garcia (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/arnold-garcia-139079.html)
http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dynamic/00059/garcia300x240_59361u.jpg (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/arnold-garcia-139079.html)
[email protected] ([email protected])
512 445-3667

widow18

22nd Feb 2011, 20:33

Hootnanny

Is the V-22 really five times faster than the CH-53?

Dan Reno

22nd Feb 2011, 21:18

US Unable to Evacuate
Diplomats from Libya !
(Send in the Marines on V-22s)
Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:44:58 PM by Red Badger (http://www.freerepublic.com/~redbadger/)

The United States says it has not been able to move some of its non-essential diplomats from Libya, as governments send airplanes and ships to pick up their citizens stranded by Libya's bloody unrest.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday the United States was looking at various ways to move the diplomats, their families, and other Americans out of Libya. He did not elaborate on why the U.S. was unable to do so on Tuesday.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the safety and wellbeing of Americans there is the highest U.S. priority.
Meanwhile, Britain's foreign secretary says his country has redeployed a warship closer to Libya to aid in the evacuation effort. William Hague says the Royal Navy warship HMS Cumberland has been put on standby to help Britons return home from Libya, should it be needed.
The U.S., European countries and Libya's neighbors are evacuating thousands of foreign citizens trying to flee deadly violence triggered by a Libyan uprising against longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Netherlands and France have confirmed that their planes received permission to land in the city of Tripoli, but the French news agency reports that one of France's three planes has been diverted to Malta.
Italy's ENI natural gas company says it is evacuating all non-essential staff and their families from the country Tuesday. The Associated Press reports that ENI is Libya's largest foreign operator and takes one-third of Libya's oil and gas production.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Tuesday Cairo is sending military and civilian aircraft to Libya to bring home some of the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who live there. But he said the Egyptian planes would not be landing in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi - one of the cities hit hardest by the violence - because its airport has been destroyed. He did not elaborate.
Egyptian security sources say Cairo's new military rulers also ordered troop reinforcements to Egypt's side of the border with Libya in response to the Libyan unrest. Egyptian authorities also have extended the opening hours of the Slum border crossing with Libya and sent medical teams to the site to accommodate thousands of Egyptians fleeing by land.
The Turkish government says it has sent several ships to the Libyan coast to pick up thousands of Turkish workers stranded in Benghazi. Many of the Turkish citizens gathered in a Benghazi stadium Tuesday as they waited for the ships to arrive at the city's port.
Turkey says it has 25,000 citizens in Libya, many of them working in construction. Tunisia says more than 3,000 of its nationals already have fled Libya, mostly by land, and more are waiting to leave by air. The Philippines said Tuesday it will help Philippine workers trying to leave Libya by paying for their flights. At least 26,000 Philippine citizens reside there. South Korea also urged its workers in Libya to return home after looters attacked several South Korean-operated construction sites.

widow18

23rd Feb 2011, 01:29

Hootnanny
V-22 will do three trips in the time it takes the ch-53 to do one.
CH-53 A-B
V-22 A-B-A-B-A-B
Count the dashes.
That disregards loading unloating times and probable refueling, not to mention that the shorter the legs become the worse it gets with a larger percentage of V-22 time taken on climb and approach, like transporting pax across a flooded river.

widow18

23rd Feb 2011, 04:45

Hootnanny
Quote:
"Although the Osprey has a smaller capacity of 25 troops in comparison to the CH-53 helicopter which can carry 55 troops, the V-22 can make three trips (75 troops landed) to every one made by the CH-53. The Osprey has faced development, technical, and political challenges but has become and will remain a very useful tool for military and coast guard application for years to come."

My last post didn't make it for some reason. Lets say a V-22 takes off from point A at the same time as a CH-53, both bound for B. After dropping off troops at B the V-22 returns to A, back to B, back to A and lands the third load at B just as the CH-53 lands. In order to do that the V-22 must fly the A-B distance five times.
That would be five times the speed of the CH-53, except you have to load and unload pax so it would be a bit worse than that, somewhere around the speed of sound.

Dan Reno

23rd Feb 2011, 13:51

Did Mr. Garcia respond to your call for a retraction or correction to his article regarding the data you say wasn't correct?

SansAnhedral

23rd Feb 2011, 14:39

Of course not! Have you ever seen a journalist pull a foot out of his mouth like that?

Dan Reno

23rd Feb 2011, 14:53

What exactly did he say to cover-up his errors? Sending this false info to his boss could get him fired and as you're aware, there's enough false info going around on the V-22 as it is! Please send what he said to his boss. Thanks comrade.

Ian Corrigible

23rd Feb 2011, 15:21

Did Mr. Garcia respond to your call for a retraction or correction to his article
I doubt you'll see a retraction related to the 57% MC rate quoted, given that this came directly from the DOT&E's most recent evaluation (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/01/25/06.xml). This evaluation assessed the MV-22B Block B. The Lexington Institute report quoting the MC rate of 70% (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/v-22-is-proving-its-unique-potential?a=1&c=1171) refers to "the current production version of the MV-22," which would mean Block C. This difference alone would not explain the 13% MC disrepancy, since the Block C's improvements are primarily focused on new capabilities (radar, avionics, CMDS, etc.) not R&M.

Estimate: 160 delivered to date.
Pretty close. Probably nearer to 150.

I/C

SansAnhedral

23rd Feb 2011, 18:01

The testing for that cited bloomberg report was done between may and june of 2009, whereas the article itself was from last month. He conveniently did not mention that fact, and worded his [smear] piece to inidicate that was the current situation, which is clearly not the case.

What exactly did he say to cover-up his errors? Sending this false info to his boss could get him fired and as you're aware, there's enough false info going around on the V-22 as it is! Please send what he said to his boss. Thanks comrade.

Dan, you lost me. :confused:

Lonewolf_50

23rd Feb 2011, 21:16

The testing for that cited bloomberg report was done between may and june of 2009, whereas the article itself was from last month.
He conveniently did not mention that fact, and worded his [smear] piece to inidicate that was the current situation, which is clearly not the case.

Conveniently worded to avoid having to deal with the ongoing improvements and operational lessons learned that lead to better readiness.

Standard journalist/pundit crap. Been reading rubbish like this since the F-18 first ran into various troubles early in its development cycle.

SASless

25th Feb 2011, 02:38

I believe the 70 % Readiness Rate applies to Block B aircraft from some accounts I have read. The Block A machines fall short of that number as they do not have the improvements that come standard on the Block B aircraft.

They achieve that level of Readiness by adopting the definition that the aircraft is Mission Ready so long as it can carry out just one of the multitude of possible missions.

The Army at Fort Rucker used to do the same sort of thing.....an aircraft was flyable if it could lift off the ground under its own power. A Chinook with a single engine attached to the airframe was thus deemed "flyable" for maintenance purposes and the civilian contractor met the terms of the contract for pay purposes.

rotornut

2nd Mar 2011, 17:16

Latest news from Boeing:

Bell Boeing-built V-22 Osprey Fleet Surpasses 100,000 Flight Hours (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1644)

Lonewolf_50

2nd Mar 2011, 20:42

@hootnanny:
What does this mean?
MV 167 delivered Feb 2011
OK, the Marines have taken delivery of 167 Ospreys. Is that right?
CV 1028 delivered Feb 2011
The USAF have taken delivery of One Thousand Twenty Eight Ospreys? Or Twenty Eight?
Obviously not, so, what do your numbers mean in plain English?
(edited for brevity)
R 240403Z FEB 11 UNCLASSIFIED//
ALMAR 006/11
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC//
SUBJ/MV-22 100,000 FLIGHT HOUR MILESTONE//

GENTEXT/REMARKS/

... ON 10 FEBRUARY 2011, AN MV-22 SUPPORTING OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM CROSSED THIS SIGNIFICANT AVIATION THRESHOLD. IT IS FITTING THAT THIS MILESTONE WAS ACHIEVED DURING COMBAT OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN, GIVEN THE CONSTANT OPERATIONAL TEMPO THE OSPREY COMMUNITY HAS MAINTAINED SINCE ITS INCEPTION.

... AS A RESULT OF THE EFFORTS OF THE ENTIRE OSPREY COMMUNITY - AND MARINE AVIATION AS A WHOLE - THIS TRANSFORMATIONAL AIRCRAFT HAS ACHIEVED 100,000 TOTAL FLIGHT HOURS WHILE MAINTAINING THE LOWEST CLASS 'A' FLIGHT MISHAP RATE OF ANY USMC ROTORCRAFT SINCE 9/11. TO ALL THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE PLAYED A PART IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF 100,000 FLIGHT HOURS, THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS.

That's a fleeting data point ... with a "since 9-11" caveat that means ... what?

*shrug*

A bit of noise and cheerleading from the Commandant, that's what I see. About par for the course. He's giving the troops an attaboy. That's a good thing.

When I flew new aircraft, they didn't crash as often as the older models. Still glad to see the V-22 doing well, since it has been a hell of a battle to get it to where it is today.

heli1

3rd Mar 2011, 13:14

I find those delivery figures hard to believe for the CV-22 unless they ramped up production this last year ? They only had 12 a year ago.
Also the Marine figures include the early aircraft which did not enter operational service?

The Sultan

3rd Mar 2011, 13:32

Lone,

It is obvious it means since the start of extended combat operations. Where Op Temps are significantly higher than peace time and conducted in significantly higher risk environments.

The Sultan

Lonewolf_50

3rd Mar 2011, 17:00

Production MV (Marines) start at 0 so MV 167 is the 167th MV aircraft.
Aye.
Production CV (Air Force) start at 1000 so CV 1028 is the 28th CV Aircraft.
Thanks. Understand now.
911 means in 10 years.
Ten years from when? 9-11? That was in September of 2001, it is nine and a half years, almost, since the.
The largest majority of the 100,000 flight hours were achieved in the last couple of years performing missions. The prior years of development were necessary for an aircraft of this level of complexity.
No kidding? :E I am sure you include the grounding ...(what was it, two years? )
They finally got to the point of saying... ok, this is it. Fly it, fix it, improve it and fly it some more. Now we are seeing the payoff.
Yes, which is what most of us expected would come to pass once "we" (the USN/USMC team) could get it into the field.
I was there when the first composite part was cured. I worked with a few of the men that lost their lives in it. Thankfully they did not die in vain.
None of us likes to lose our friends, but as they say, it's the nature of aviation. :(
I believe in service MV starts at around A/C 11 and CV around 5
You'd be in position to know, if you've been with the program for a while, but that sounds like a familiar number to me.

I got to take a peek at some airframes (IIRC it was numbers seven through eleven in various states of construction), and see two birds in the bounce pattern at the Fort Worth facility back in 98 / 99. Our host was Col Grimes, USMC, and DLA his office. We were actually there to discuss some OH-58 and UH-1 issues. However, being there, and being Fling Winged Flyers ourselves, we just had to see the new Rube Goldberg Flying Machine. :ok: Colonel Grimes obliged us. I said then, and I say now: that's a pretty amazing bird.

@ Sultan:

Lone,
It is obvious it means since the start of extended combat operations. Where Op Temps are significantly higher than peace time and conducted in significantly higher risk environments.

Respectfully, no, it isn't obvious, though I am personally aware of what the op tempo does to aircraft risks and mishaps. You have to read into that to arrive at that meaning. I've read enough General Officer and Flag Officer noise blasts, even the ones meant to be encouraging, to not be particularly impressed with that form of communication.

SansAnhedral

3rd Mar 2011, 18:12

BAE Systems to build new weapon system for the Osprey (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotorhub/bae-systems-to-build-new-weapon-system-for-the-osprey/8455/)

Looks like there is going to be an update to the seldom-used RGS (http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_eis_remote_guardian.pdf).

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/MV-22_Osprey_with_RGS_1.jpg

Lonewolf_50

3rd Mar 2011, 19:15

It looks like a little bitty CIWS, upside down! :8

Thought: what a nice little crowd control device for a NEO ...

Ian Corrigible

9th Mar 2011, 22:55

So just how many V22s have been delivered so far?

Estimate: 160 delivered to date.

Pretty close. Probably nearer to 150.

I was a tad high. Latest delivery total from Bell is 142 (125 MV-22 + 17 CV-22).

I/C

Lonewolf_50

10th Mar 2011, 13:58

Thanks Ian! :ok:

Dan Reno

15th Mar 2011, 12:43

One Creature That Deserves Extinction: The V-22 Osprey

Sunday 13 March 2011
by: John Feffer | Foreign Policy in Focus | Op-Ed (http://www.fpif.org/blog/one_creature_that_deserves_extinction_the_v-22_osprey)
http://www.truth-out.org/files/images/031311feffer.jpg
V-22 Osprey conducting urban exercises in Virginia in 2009. Performance by the aircraft, which cost $100 million apiece, has been subpar, but the program was not included in the latest round of budget cuts. (Photo: Pete Souza / Official White House Photo (http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/march-2011-photo-day))
Some animals should be endangered. Consider the V-22 Osprey. The tilt-rotor aircraft, which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane, costs more than a $100 million apiece, killed 30 personnel in crashes during its development stage, and survived four attempts by none other than Dick Cheney to deep-six the program. Although it is no longer as crash-prone as it once was, the Osprey's performance in Iraq was still sub-par and it remains a woefully expensive creature. Although canceling the program would save the U.S. government $10-12 billion over the next decade, the Osprey somehow avoided the budget axe in the latest round of cuts on Capitol Hill.
It's bad enough that U.S. taxpayers have to continue to support the care and feeding of this particular Osprey. Worse, we're inflicting the bird on others.
In a small village in the Yanbaru Forest in northern Okinawa, the residents of Takae have been fighting non-stop to prevent the construction of six helipads designed specifically for the V-22. The protests have been going on since the day in 2007 when Japanese construction crews tried to prepare the site for the helipads. "Since that day, over 10,000 locals, mainland Japanese, and foreign nationals have participated in a non-stop sit-in outside the planned helipad sites," writes Jon Mitchell at Foreign Policy In Focus. "So far, they've managed to thwart any further construction attempts. At small marquee tents, the villagers greet visitors with cups of tea and talk them through their campaign, highlighting their message with hand-written leaflets and water-stained maps."
It's all part of the plan that would shut down the aging Futenma air base in Okinawa, relocate some of the Marines to Guam, and build a new facility elsewhere in Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans oppose this plan. They want to shut down Futenma, and they don't want any new U.S. military bases.
But the Japanese government has essentially knuckled under to U.S. pressure to move forward with the agreement. Building these helipads in a subtropical forest, with a wide range of unusual wildlife, is all part of the deal.
The recently re-elected Okinawan governor Hirokazu Nakaima opposes the relocation plan. And, according to Pacific Daily News, "Nakaima may actually have the authority to disrupt the plan because of his authority under the Japan Public Water Reclamation Act, which gives the Okinawa governor final authority over reclaimed land." Washington has said that it won't move forward on the deal without local support.
The Osprey is a budget-busting beast. The Okinawans don't want it. Both Tokyo and Washington are desperate to trim spending.
The V-22 is one animal well worth driving toward extinction.