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

gadgetguru

13th Jul 2005, 21:25

I had a discussion with Nick not so long ago about the tilt rotors & he gave me the nudge to pose the question to the wider community.

So what are your thoughts on the tilt-rotor's pilot requirements, having spoken to Bell Augusta about the aircraft status & crew requirements, I began considering the nature of the beast & the combination of the skill sets.

I spoke to some people at the recent avalon airshow & asked about the BA609 & its progression, & pilot requirements, they indicated optimally the crew would need ATPL(H) & CPL(A).

Does anyone consider that it would be a benefit having too much time in either fixed or rotary wing-discliplines with this aircraft, or would you consider RW the primary requirement (ATPL) with fixed just a lesser but still required skill?

Would there be a potential benefit for a pilot starting on the aircraft , so that they don't perceivably pick up any motorskills that might be detrimental, or adverse to handling the tilt rotor?

Or the inverse, should only the most experienced pilots with both disciplines be considered/permitted to enter into the realm of tilt-rotor crew.

Unfortunately from the conversations with BA they indicated that arriving with both a CPL(H) & CPL(A) would still require around US$50K (+/- $20K) for the endorsement alone, a pretty cost prohibitive exercise. But there was an indication of orders for around 40 aircraft post-certification (which is now into fixed wing testing as RW has been completd). Whether that is reality of marketing hype I have no means of verifying.

Anyway - as i stated, would appreciate to know what you guys think, & whether you can see this type of aircraft taking a hold in EMS/SAR or surveilance/customs etc, given the cost & performance of the aircraft compared to a standard RW EMS aircraft.

Nigerian Expat Outlaw

13th Jul 2005, 21:33

Widge,

No offence mate, just taking the p**s a bit. Technical stuff just baffles me, that's all. Please don't take it personally.

Cheers,

NEO.

maxtork

13th Jul 2005, 22:37

Well I am not a pilot type but I would have to say that this machine does present a challenge to go along with it's new capabilities. I wondered about this myself and I thought it might be best as a two pilot machine with one helo type and one fixed wing type driver to cover both regimes.

It is clear that BA has taken the "make an airplane that flies like a helicopter" approach rather than making a helicopter that flies fast like an airplane. This to me is interesting considering Bell is a helicopter manufacturer although they do have roots deep in the airplane world. I wonder if the requirements would be the same if they had gone the other way. I guess we may find out with Sikorsky looking at the coaxial configuration again. Will they have the same crew issues with a high speed rotorcraft?

Max

SASless

13th Jul 2005, 22:59

Being a Chinook pilot at heart.....I tend to ask the question...what can you stuff up the rear end of the thing? Seems to me it (the Osprey) has some shortcomings there. If so...one wonders how it will ever replace the Chinook and that Sikorsky thing....Sea Scallion or whatever it is called.

I do not see where comparing the Frog to an Osprey is a very fair comparison. Comparing Columbia's BV-107's to CH-46's makes sense but not an Osprey.

Cabin Seats:

Osprey 24
Chinook 44
Sea Stallion 55

Osprey cabin: 24 ft long x 5.9 ft wide x 6.0 ft high
Chinook cabin: 33 ft long x 7.6 ft wide x 6.6 ft high
Sea Stallion cabin: 30 ft long x 7.5 ft wide x 6.5 ft high

Humvee Dimensions: 15 ft long x 7.1 wide x 6 ft high

Osprey cannot carry the Humvee vehicle, has 50% litter capacity of the helicopters.

Cargo Hook capacity:

Single Hook Dual Hook

Osprey 10,000 15,000
Chinook 26,000 25,000
Sea Stallion 36,000

Why is it I think we are wasting a pot full of Taxpayer's money on the Osprey?

IFMU

14th Jul 2005, 02:47

maxtork wrote:
I guess we may find out with Sikorsky looking at the coaxial configuration again. Will they have the same crew issues with a high speed rotorcraft?

My understanding is that there is no conversion with that Sikorsky coaxial. It is always a rotorcraft, it just goes like the blazes. And, with the little I know about disk loading, wing loading, inertia, vortex ring state, and autorotation, I'd rather keep my family out of tiltrotors in general.

-- IFMU

wishtobflying

14th Jul 2005, 03:02

Why is it I think we are wasting a pot full of Taxpayer's money on the Osprey?

Top speeds:

Chinook: 159mph
Stallion: 195mph
Osprey: 316mph

Seems strange though not to have something that meets internal cargo standards that already exist.

gadgetguru

14th Jul 2005, 03:44

isn't there also the issue of proving support for the osprey?

i.e: nothing else (RW; cobra's, apaches, etc.) can keep up?

seem to recall reading somewhere about consideration of an armed version of the BA609 for this role.

again unverified, maybe it was just a 'Furphy' :}

SASless

14th Jul 2005, 03:55

Ok...the Marines get the Osprey....for doing Vertical Assault from a ship way offshore....how fast they going to fly with underslung loads? They cannot load squat inside compared to the helicopters....carry half the troops. Anyone remember the lesson of Arnhem about lack of troop lift capacity?

For CSAR....it might be the cats meow...for taking off vertically and going fast and landing vertically...great. But to me ...the gain is wasted when you start acting like a real helicopter ...toting stuff. It is too small in capacity but too big as it is...to make it bigger to tote what you need.

Can you spell B-O-O-N-D-O-G-L-E?

Ian Corrigible

14th Jul 2005, 04:10

(...Dons k-pot...)

To be fair, the V-22 is not designed to replace the Wokka or Stallion in the transport role - the CV-22 is replacing the AFSOC MH-53J/M in the CSAR role, where response time (i.e. penetration speed) and range is more important than off-loading capability, while SOCOM is retaining and upgrading its MH-47s.

Agree though that it's bizarre the V-22 (6ft hold width) wasn't designed to accommodate the 7ft Humvee, necessitating external carriage (for which there is presumably a dictated airspeed limit), but I guess if the Marines asked for a Frog replacement then that's what they're getting. While the Osprey is out-lifted by the Chinook (despite more installed power), it easily out performs the Frog (7.5 t vs 2 t), and the cabin size is identical.

(And you can pretty much guarantee Bell-Boeing has a design for a 'fat-ass' fuselage ready to be funded... :suspect: )

At this stage, the Corps is probably just glad to receive anything new - I've been told that the Frog's performance is so degraded these days (simply due to old age) that it struggles to lift a dozen grunts on a hot day, let alone a full complement.

The Marines are indeed interested in a high-speed escort (BA609, armed V-22, VTDP'd Cobra or - maybe? - an X2 type vehicle), but having just committed $4 billion to the AH-1Z program I doubt Congress will be overly impressed ! Once the MV-22 is into FRP, we'll probably seen attention focused back on the self-defense armament proposals (50cal nose gun, etc.).

:E

I/C

(Removes k-pot and runs for nearest trench)

maxtork

14th Jul 2005, 04:49

I remember when I was a young boy my father worked for AM General on the hummer project. It was a long time ago and I'm not sure what year but I'm wondering if the V22 airframe dimesions were defined before or after the humvee entered service? This may explain why it isn't big enough to swallow a hummer.

As for the armed escort situation I read an article about the V22 some years ago and when the subject came up a high ranking Marine said something to the effect of "we already have that...it is called a harrier". I guess the escort roll requires a speed of 1.5 times that of the aircraft to be escorted as per this same article and that makes a 400 mph plus machine, squarely in harrier territory.

I don't know if I buy the whole thing at all. I think we may have been better off just designing a faster helicopter. This hybrid monster does some great things...but is it really the things we need?

Max

vorticey

14th Jul 2005, 04:49

obviously if you want a helicopter you would get one and same with a plane but looking at the statistics above it looks to me like the v22 can deliver the same amount of cargo or pax to the same position as a chinook in the same time but faster from a to b than a sitting duck. somthing could be said about having all your eggs in one basket too. speaking of ducks and eggs, im off to feed the chickens......

id give it a go in a couple of years
:ok:

21st Century

14th Jul 2005, 08:02

MV-22: Demo Ride As Tiltrotor Heads For Prime Time
New River, NC., July 13:- USMC pilots demo’d an MV-22 Osprey here for this correspondent taking their aircraft to the currently cleared maneuverability limits in a routine which seemed to re-write the rules of rotorcraft operational capability.
The 34-minute flight, into a practice area near the MCAS New River base for the Osprey test and evaluation squadron showed conclusively the Osprey is rugged, smooth and capable of almost jaw-dropping acceleration to cruise speed from a hover.
The flight – for officials, contractors and media – marked the successful completion of OT IIG, the intense series of tactical and operational trials carried out here to qualify the Osprey for full rate production, most likely beginning this September.
Pilots Lt Col Chris Seymour and Maj Logan Depue lifted Osprey tail number 6484 off the New River runway at 1426 today, immediately accelerating by bringing their proprotors to the full forward position in the early stages of the climb.
Our station in the back of the half-full cabin (fully loaded an Osprey can carry 24 troops) pre-empted seeing the data displayed on the MFD, but a pre-briefing suggested the aim was to reach 250 KTAS as quickly as possible after taking off from the seal-level, 92 deg F runway.
Ground run was minimal – 50 yards at most – but what followed was a thrilling sense of speed building up. Acceleration was linear and strong. A ‘clue’ that cruise flight mode was being set up was the lowering of proprotor RPM to about 85 percent of the take off revolutions.
This is an automatic aspect of tiltrotor flight – one of many new parameters that pilots (and observers) long used to the characteristics of large transport rotorcraft flight will have to get used to.
The aircraft was then put through a card of maneuvers that included an assault approach, numerous hovering exercises and a high speed ‘break’ over the field at 2,000 ft prior to (a similarly thrilling) approach to an approach speed of around 100 KTAS.
The Marines had pulled out the stops on this flight which was accompanied by a sister ship that performed various maneuvers to take up a variety of formatting positions on our aircraft. A lowered rear ramp – as well as an open side door at the crew chief position on the front right side of the aircraft - allowed photographers a unique series of shots of Osprey’s appearance in flight, up to now a commodity that could only be obtained through a controlled process involving program officials.
The new attitude of openness on behalf of these same officials marked a definite first for the Osprey program and was intended to mark – and celebrate – what Lt Gen Mike Hough, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation called a ‘great day’ for both aviation and the Corps.
In flight (in the cabin) the Osprey appears somewhat quieter than larger helicopters, but its most noticeable characteristic was its nimbleness.
Turns both left and right were reached at a rate of what appeared to be about 60 degree bank angles in less than five seconds - the higher forward speed contributing to a definite sense of ‘g’s felt.
The aircraft has been criticized for a lack of low-level maneuverability, but Seymour and Depue were having none of it: they racked their aircraft around at heights of between 100 and 200 ft AGL.
The aircraft was highly stable in air made gusty by on and off distant thunder storms. Ospreys are currently cleared to bank angles of up to 60 degrees and pitch attitudes of between 20 and 30 degrees, but these envelope limits will be expanded as a two-year program run by Navair at Pax River gets underway.
‘We want to make it more maneuverable – the word is for it to be more ‘evasive,’’ said Col Glenn Walters, CO of VMX-22.
A squadron pilot said the demo ride was ‘close to, but not actually at,’ the maneuverability limits the aircraft is currently capable of .
Following the overhead break into a short landing pattern, the crew slowed the aircraft by pulling torque back to about 30 percent, an act which immediately brought the speed down very noticeably. In the back, the feeling was that the aircraft had perhaps run into mud, so smooth and predictable were the deceleration forces. This writer – mindful of the challenge to yaw control such things present in a conventional helicopter – noticed the aircraft was very precise in this axis.
What more to say about impressions of Osprey flight at this point? Overall it’s clear certain thresholds set by generations of rotorcraft up to now have been decisively breached.
The Osprey flies faster, climbs faster, is smoother – and quieter.
Proponents have long said this was case but up to now have been unable to prove it to anyone outside the pilot/engineering fraternity.
Critics have stood their ground claiming maneuverability issues, inherent handling flaws and overall maintainability will make the Osprey case unsupportable.
OT IIG results – refute all these things and more. But if that’s not enough just one simple maneuver, pick-up off a landing site – like any old helicopter - followed by an immediate boost from zero to 250 knots in just a few seconds – should be enough to convince them a generational change in the way rotary wing aviation does business is at hand.
- David S. Harvey

ShyTorque

14th Jul 2005, 08:42

The tiltrotor is a specialised role machine, optimised for high speed / low volume transport rather than high all-up mass / carrying capacity. It has relatively severe handling limitations in the low speed envelope when compared to a helicopter. Because of the very high cost, it is most unlikely it will ever have as large a market as the helicopter presently enjoys.

Rather than have a squadron of these, why not just use a large helicopter and set off a little earlier? ;)

steve_oc

14th Jul 2005, 11:56

I understand one of the fundamental design issues with tilt rotors in general is that there are currently only 2 engines certified to run vertically - the Allison in the V22 and the PT6 variant in the 609. That rather limits the sizing of the final aircraft.

SASless

14th Jul 2005, 12:24

Did I mention the HOGE number for the V-22 is 5400 feet?

The last Chinook shot down in Afghanistan was at 10,000 feet or so....where is the CSAR mission now?

80 Million bucks a pop and climbing for this piece of crap.

It is a great concept....the 609 might be useful for long offshore flights but the 22 is too expensive and cannot do the missions that the Sea Stallion and the Chinook can.

Maybe the Marines might get their heads out of their butts and buy Chinooks or Sea Stallions.....they could get a pot full of them for the same amount of money.

Self protection.....50 cals....at a hover....spell R-P-G? Think Blackhawk Down in Moga....think Chinook down in Afghanistan...

The bright side of this....by buying the 22....the Marines can justify keeping the Harrier....which has proven to be a very expensive CAS aircraft in its own right.

Airplanes and helicopters are just two different concepts that cannot be made into one and do well at both.

Ian Corrigible

14th Jul 2005, 12:49

steve_oc,

The LTC1K-4K variant of the T53 (XV-15) and the T800 (US-2) are also vertical-capable. But as you point out, the sizing options are still limited.

I/C

zdfwflyer

14th Jul 2005, 17:02

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/zdfwflyer/8xV22s.jpg

Time will tell how good V-22 is.

By the way, OGE ceiling of 5000 feet is at MGW.

Even Ch-47D does not hover OGE at 10K density at MGW!

Robbo Jock

14th Jul 2005, 17:26

Looks like Darth Vader's attacking. That lot should drop their cameras and reach for their Light Sabres.

SASless

14th Jul 2005, 18:02

zd,

I would love to see the what the 22 will hover out-of-ground effect at 10,000 feet would be...in the summer? Then....compare that to both the 47 and 53 both in raw numbers and as a percentage of MAUW for vertical takeoff at sea level.

Graviman

14th Jul 2005, 19:34

"Allison in the V22 and the PT6 variant in the 609 ... LTC1K-4K variant of the T53 (XV-15) and the T800 (US-2) ... vertical-capable."

I'm suprised they haven't got a 3 or 4 engine version on the drawing board, to push up payload. This would also help with the eng-failure during transition problem, which i imagine could be a real problem with low speed low level work over unfriendly territory.

There is going to be some good competition once Sikorsky aim their coaxial development towards V-22 performance figures. A lot of research will be needed to get the rotors to be as efficient as a fixed wing at speed though, requiring active twist and variable RPM. Much better in hover efficiency though.

Mart

SASless

14th Jul 2005, 19:46

There once was a competition was there not....ABC versus Tiltrotor? Seems I recall hearing of some flying going on over at Mother Rucker or somewhere betwist the two machines.

As I recall...a kind of squatty, curly headed Greek looking fella was in the ABC.

Just testing the waters....."Mark Twain!" (In the mail Nick....)

Ian Corrigible

14th Jul 2005, 20:27

The 4-engine version is the quad tilt rotor or QTR - a good summary is at AHS QTR page (http://www.vtol.org/vertiflite/BellTiltrotors.htm).

Lots of fun stuff on Bell's other tilt studies at AIAA unbuilt VSTOL (http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/bell_tlt/index3.html). Pretty rare so see concept work like this released for public consumption.

I/C

blave

14th Jul 2005, 22:06

Coincidentally I just got done reading a writeup about the V22 in the July Wired magazine (of all places!). It's actually a pretty good article, other than its title ("Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane"!).. It covers the program's history, some details about the four crashes that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and focuses on the work that's gone on since those accidents.

I have been very critical of the tiltrotor in the past - at least for tactical military stuff (I have to admit that I think the BA609 is a helluva nice looking ship and would love the opp to fly one!). I will still be watching with great interest as they deploy the aircraft in large numbers, but I came away from the article thinking that it's not *as much* of a boondoggle and terrible idea as I thought before. But at $105M per copy (this is GlobalSecurity.org's estimate of the *real* cost), every one they lose due to "whatever" is going to hurt.

Dave Blevins

SASless

14th Jul 2005, 23:15

The MH-47E...fanciest version and equivalent to the CSAR version of the Osprey goes off the lot for about 40 Million Dollars vice the 105 million Dollar price tag of the Osprey. Price creep is bound to happen on the Osprey....so we can assume about a 3:1 ratio of top line Chinooks for the price of one Osprey based upon purchase price alone. The Sea Stallion would be about the same price....and again about a 3:1 advantage in numbers.

In the first six months of the war against terrorism, Night Stalker Chinooks flew more than 200 combat missions totaling about 2,000 flight hours. The Chinooks flew as high as 16,000 feet (which forced crews to use oxygen systems) for as long as 15 hours. More than 70 of these missions, flown in the war's first three months, involved infiltration or removal of special operations troops behind enemy lines. Throughout, the Chinooks maintained a 99-percent mission readiness rate.

Again...know where my vote goes....sorry Bell....no Osprey for this guy.

Graviman

15th Jul 2005, 01:21

"The 4-engine version is the quad tilt rotor or QTR"

With a shaft required from front wing/rotor set to rear wing/rotor set, that would have to be some drivetrain - unless they "assume" no total front/rear eng failure... :uhoh:

"Lots of fun stuff on Bell's other tilt studies at AIAA unbuilt VSTOL."

Interesting stuff here. I guess they opted early on for a distributed powertrain to keep drivetrain mass down (torque limit on one engine operation). I still bet that G/Box and Drivelines make up a significant proportion of the empty weight.

"MH-47E ... 40 Million Dollars vice the 105 (plus creep) million Dollar price tag of the Osprey"

Tandems have been around a while now since Piasecki's "Flying Banana". I imagine that time will (eventually) see this technology cheapen too, as it proves itself (or otherwise :hmm: ).

"Chinooks maintained a 99-percent mission readiness rate."

That's an impressive statistic!

Mart

SASless

15th Jul 2005, 02:16

Think of the engineering it took to design the Osprey for shipboard service....and either engine drive of the rotors...with rotor translation and blade fold capability. Someone probably has an ulcer by now.

One look at the CH-46 heads or the CH-53 heads with blade fold will give you headaches too.

Ian Corrigible

15th Jul 2005, 03:05

The $100M price tag for a vanilla MV-22 sounds high - most estimates are closer to $71-74M, with NAVAIR demanding a reduction to $58M by 2010. The mission-equipped CV-22 is probably closer to the $100M mark (just as SOAR's birds cost $20M to upgrade from Ds or Fs).

The oft-quoted 99% mission readiness rate for the MH-47E (during 72 missions over a three month period in OEF) indicates a carefully-planned schedule and a hard-worked ground crew ! Publicly-released mission capable rates for the CH-47D in OEF are closer to 60%, and 80% for OIF.

That said, the Chinook’s achievements in-theater have been spectacular, and the uprated donks have substantially improved the fleet’s performance (it wasn't that long ago that Congress and the media were taking pot shots at the MH-47E for its lack of high-alt performance).

SASless - you're spot-on with the blade folding comments. While it does meet the Corps' spotting requirements, that little trick doesn't come cheap, and the weight penalty is significant.

Graviman - it'll really get interesting once the electric drive systems now entering mass production for automotive and marine applications begin to improve in efficiency, reliability and weight. That then opens up the possibility of a mission-optimized powerplant located on the aircraft's fuselage driving motor-driven proprotors, thereby doing away with the cost and complexity of individual powertrains on each wing.

I/C

SASless

15th Jul 2005, 03:45

Excellent presentation Nick....I feel vindicated on my comments about the Osprey versus the equivalent helicopters.

The one thing you did not address was the airspeed of the Osprey in the external cargo mode. How does that affect the numbers? Commonsense says the external load being carried will determine the airspeed the machine can fly (in general) and thus any airspeed advantage the Osprey had would evaporate like fried chicken at a family reunion.

rotorrookie

15th Jul 2005, 06:59

Good point SaSless,
But how much forward speed does the V-22 need for it's wings to create the lift needed to stay in the air ?? 70-80knots maybe??
and that speed is over Vne of most external loads.

Is it only able to sling in "hover mode" then??

I think the number would affected then, increasing the helicopters advantage even more. just a thought:confused:

Can't help it but sometimes this whole tiltrotor thing reminds me of the movie "Pentagon Wars"
does anyone else remember that one ???

PPRUNE FAN#1

15th Jul 2005, 13:03

I may be wrong (do please let me know!) but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the V-22 did a slingload demonstration of 6,000 pounds to 220 knots. Impressive!

21st Century

15th Jul 2005, 13:15

OSPREY ESTABLISHES SEVERAL NEW RECORDS
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
Bell-Boeing's MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor transport has set an unofficial load-carrying world record for rotorcraft by carrying a 10,000-pound external load at a speed of 220 knots. The load was attached to the Osprey's aft cargo hook by a Marine helicopter support team, using procedures developed during 15 prior hookups.
During a series of 20 flights in 10 days, the Osprey eventually had reached the required speed of 220 knots while carrying a load of 6,000 pounds. The 10,000-pound load was carried on a later flight.
"It was basically transparent that there was an external load once the V-22 was airborne from the hookup, into forward flight, and during the transition into the airplane mode," said Bill Leonard, a developmental test pilot. "The V-22 was remarkably easy to operate and handled the 6,000-pound load extremely well."
"The demonstration of the V-22's ability to carry external loads at very high speeds is a significant accomplishment," said John Buyers, Bell-Boeing's V-22 program director at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. "This is the fastest airspeed any rotorcraft has carried an external load, no matter what the weight."
"What is significant about the V-22 external loads testing is not so much the weight ... [the tiltrotor] is carrying but the coupling of the weight and the speed," said Steve Grohsmeyer, Boeing's senior V-22 experimental test pilot. "Helicopters have lifted much heavier external loads but have not reached speeds of 220 knots while carrying these loads." The external load-carrying capability of the MV-22B is considered critical to the amphibious-lift requirements postulated by the Marine Corps for the 21st century.
In a later test flight, Osprey No. 8 carried a 6,500-pound HMMWV (high-mobility multiwheeled vehicle, or "Humvee") in an inverted V-sling at 120 knots and at a 60-degree engine nacelle angle. "The aircraft was very stable in the hover and forward flight," said Grohsmeyer, who flew the test mission with Maj. Bill Witzig. "It was well-damped following acroservoelastic and flying qualities excitations--both the aircraft and the load flew very well. We should feel very confident about taking this load faster if we want to."
"Like previous external load tests, this test went without a hitch and is a testament to the professionalism and efficiency of all those involved," said Phil Dunford, Bell-Boeing's director of flight test for the V-22 program.
Further tests will involve carrying--at 220 knots--15,000 pounds suspended from the forward and aft cargo hooks.
The first time a tiltrotor was used to carry external loads occurred earlier in the decade when an FSD (full-scale development) V-22A carried 4,000 pounds while reaching a speed of 174 knots.

Graviman

15th Jul 2005, 16:47

Interesting presentation Nick. Puts the facts into perspective.

"Someone probably has an ulcer by now."

Certainly looks like some serious engineering has been required...

"... electric drive systems ... improve in efficiency, reliability and weight.... a mission-optimized powerplant located on the aircraft's fuselage driving motor-driven proprotors..."

I'm a complete convert of the hybrid helicopter, primarily for reasons of improved efficiency without mission compromise (generally through v-RRPM). Best power/weight is using NdFeB magnet technology, in a disk motor to reduce the iron reluctance circuit mass. Commercial units already exceed kW/kg by running at very high rpm (couldn't find an exact figure by googling).

My only concern is that you will always need to design for failsafe operation, primarily due to the controller complexity required for brushless DC motors (magnet rotates, while static windings are switched). In a tilt-rotor this means you always need the tip-to-tip driveshaft, in case one motor fails. You can triple up of course, but i will be interested to see which way the technology goes...

Mart

paco

15th Jul 2005, 17:49

I think all the lifting, etc arguments are irrelevant - I can see a real niche market for this already and would be more interested in comparisons between a 609 and a 76, or any other typical corporate helicopter.

Phil

maxtork

15th Jul 2005, 18:05

I understand that the V-22 is capable of carrying external loads at pretty high speed and that is fine but the question is can the load itself survive it? A humvee is not meant to go 200 mph! In fact I recall some problems in testing the Army's new FMTV vehicle doing sling loads. The chinnok pilots were able to cruise along at a pretty good clip with the truck in tow....so fast that it would crack the windshields from wind forces against it. It was decided that the truck should be carried backwards so as to reduce the wind force on the front. This may work for a planned mission but I doubt the marines would want to remove all their tarp and bow kits and put braces on the windows and doors to keep from ruining their vehicles just so the V-22 can sling them into a hot LZ or beach at 200 knots. This would leave a bunch of Marines sitting on the beach trying to put their wheels back together while being shot at....not a good scenario in my mind.

From the numbers I have read the 609 and the 76 have similar useful loads but the power required is drastically different. You can get (or used ot be able to get) a PT6 powered S-76 which has about 980HP each. The PT6 in the 609 puts out I think somethig like 1680 HP each. I would assume that HP increase would be needed in the helicopter mode but I'm not sure how much less it will be for the airplane mode.

Max

Dave_Jackson

15th Jul 2005, 19:22

http://www.unicopter.com/confused.gif http://www.unicopter.com/confused.gif

Graviman,

In the thread 'Future rotorcraft control systems' the question was;
"Why could not a reasonably large diameter, linear induction disk motor be an integral part of a special rotor hub...?"

Your reply was;
"Why not, but aerospace motors and generators run at 80'000 rpm regardless of shape. Any less and you are just introducing unecessary weight."

In this thread you say.
"Best power/weight is using NdFeB magnet technology, in a disk motor to reduce the iron reluctance circuit mass."

http://www.unicopter.com/chairshot.gif

Back to the thread

Graviman

15th Jul 2005, 23:14

Dave,

That's easy: you need both! Since the application is aerospace propulsion i was making the assumption that the motor/gen would already be geared to run at as high RPM as practical. Having got the most power for a given torque, the ideal design then seeks to reduce the mass for that torque. This is accomplished by minimising NdFeB magnetic circuit length, which is the objective of disk motors.

To get partly up to speed check out www.uqm.com

I have read about higher performance developments for various applications, but couldn't find any of the ones i was thinking of in my quick google session...

For a rotor hub application you would still need to gear the motor down, requiring a serious epicyclic reduction gearbox. In a tiltrotor this drivetrain rotates into the airflow, in an interleaving heli the drivetrain would likely present a serious drag element. Notice i still state that a mechanical drivetrain would be required in the tiltrotor. Your application was also to try to remove the mechanical drivetrain, which i still believe to be impractical.

Mart

NickLappos

16th Jul 2005, 01:58

junglyAEO,
Your logic seems to be interesting. I think what you said is that when we find a cheaper, similarly sized vehicle that does better, we are wrong. Or does that mean when the USMC managed to find a machine that had half the efficiency at twice the price that they were wrong?

If your Doctor used the logic you use, he would amputate your feet to cure your hangnail.

With similar logic, several Marines said to me that the 53E is a "heavy helicopter" and a V-22 is a "medium" so they don't compare! Same deck spot factor, half the cost, twice the payload, 150% of the transport capability, but not a better choice.

Paco, Of course we should compare the 609 to an S-76, otherwise we would have no contest! How about comparing it to a 206 to be sure it looks good? Or maybe a Bell 47?

paco

16th Jul 2005, 03:39

I'm not thinking of trying to make it look good - we should look at the mission first then worry about what machine is best for the job, in the same way that you should get your software first then buy the computer. There's no need to be ridiculous by bringing in the Bell 47. If a 609 had been available some years ago, I can guarantee that one of the corporates I was working for would have bought one.

Phil

NickLappos

16th Jul 2005, 04:52

Paco,

What if you found out that the tilt rotor had a Catagory A landback distance could never fit in a heliport?
What if your study showed that with the same payload and range, the helicopter always had an OEI envelope that was 1/3 the landback distance, and twice the rate of climb?
What if you found out that the tilt rotor had 3 times the flight critical parts and took twice the maintenance?
What if the helicopter had twice the interior volume
These are not wise-guy comments, they are quite probably true (anyone ever seen a Cat A estimate for the 609?) and certainly important virtues for a people-mover.

I often discuss trade-offs in this way. The bottom line is that, to get the quite legitimate 50% increase in speed, you will pay in a number of ways. One way to make the penalties seem smaller is to compare the tilt rotor with a much smaller, cheaper, less powerful helicopter. This certainly "evens" the contest.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way, I believe there is a large tilt rotor market, and buyers will determine how large. Informed buyers.

Matthew Parsons

16th Jul 2005, 10:23

With similiar logic, we'd be evaluating a Harrier against a Chinook and determine it's OEI performance is unacceptable, cargo capacity is unsatisfactory, etc.

The point has been made over and over again. The V22 is not a heavy lift helicopter. Like Nick said, there could be a very large tilt rotor market, but it won't be heavy lift.

I'm certain the people advertising capabilities of the V22 understand that it's limitations and capabilities quite well. Because it is replacing the H46, that leads people to compare the two. Not realistic, but understandable.

With the restructuring of Western Militaries towards littoral ops and smaller fighting forces the requirements of support helicopters are changing towards the capabilities of the V22. But that's a whole different thread that's probably more suitable at a different site.

The 609 market will be very interesting to see evolve. The points about Cat A performance may prove a point about safety legislation I tried to make some time ago. When Corporate Executives see the capability of a 609 from rooftop heliport in Dallas to rooftop heliport in New York they may quickly lobby to omit the Cat A requirements to place convenience over safety. (might want to check the distances involved, but you get the point)

As far as skill requirements for the pilots, the helicopter side is easily the critical training. Some fixed wing flying should occur, but single engine is sufficient. The sync shaft (?) ensures both proprotors will always be turning, so assymetric thrust is not an issue. That gives a basic skill set, the licences sought should be PPL(H) then CPL(V) (vectored?), with time on type requirements to upgrade to an ATPL(V). Credits given to dual licence holders at each level as well as special skills such as Harrier endorsements.

giveitsome

16th Jul 2005, 11:34

wish they would hurry up and get the fu- - ing thing certified so we can all fly the 609.

;)

GIS

PPRUNE FAN#1

16th Jul 2005, 12:45

I guess the way the military looks at it is- the MV-22 doesn't "directly" replace anything, the way a 9mm Berretta could replace a .45 calibre 1911. The tiltrotor brings new capabilities to the table that have been heretofore unavailable. Yes, it may take over the roles of some aircraft that are being phased-out anyway (CH-46), but that is not the intention nor it's primary mission which may still be publicly and intentionally undefined.

Yes, it is horribly expensive...and horribly complicated. Yes, it's flight envelope may hold as-yet undiscovered "surprises." Yes, arming it is going to be a problem. But ultimately it is an interestingly capable device that no other military force has. And that just has to be irresistably tantalizing for the guys who work in that big five-sided building in Washington D.C.

I am not a big fan of the V-22, but when I look at it in this way I have to soften my stance.

paco

16th Jul 2005, 17:21

All those fast insertions......;)

More seriously, the customers I refer to would certainly not have bought a Blackhawk, even assuming your Cat A comments are correct, which a "source close to 609 development" tells me they are not. I'm sure they will improve the product.

Would the 609 necessarily use a heliport anyway? I spent a lot of time in Suffield (a strong competitior for the *rsehole of the world) operating a Beaver because the resident helicopters did not have the range to get to Calgary for casevacs. If the 609 is able to improve on that situation just a little in large countries like Canada, and take over where helicopters leave off, I can see a big market for it, especially where runway space is limited. Perhaps we are now talking about ESTOL (Extremely Short Takeoff & Landing).

Phil

SASless

16th Jul 2005, 19:51

What is shorter than "vertical"

For ESTOL we have the Pilatus, Heliocourier and Maule...all would do the job.

Rotorcraft

16th Jul 2005, 21:07

From Bell Agusta website about 609:
(www.bellagusta.com faq's)

"Is a special license required to pilot the BA609 Tiltrotor?

Yes. A BA609 pilot requires a FAA pilot certificate with a category rating in the "Powered Lift" category (this is an additional category which is different from the Airplane and Rotorcraft category ratings). In addition, a type rating in the BA609 is a required endorsement to the pilot certificate."

Yes please, :D

Rotorcraft

Heliport

20th Sep 2005, 06:12

The first production CV-22 built expressly for the US Air Force has been delivered to the service. The tilt-rotor CV-22 was turned over to the Air Force on Monday, Sept. 19, at CV-22 production plant in Amarillo, Texas.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2004-12/10/xinsrc_43212011014597752981812.jpg

The CV-22 is the U.S. Air Force Special Operations variant of the V-22 and will be used for long-range special operations missions, contingency operations, and evacuations and maritime operations.

In addition to the standard V-22 nav and comms, the CV-22 has an advanced electronic warfare suite, a multi-mode radar which permits flight at very low altitude in zero visibility, a retractable aerial refuelling probe, four radios and flight engineer seat/crew positions in the cockpit.

This CV-22 will be assigned to the 58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., the schoolhouse unit for CV-22 crews, Air Force officials said.

The Air Force is already flying two CV-22s as test platforms at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Those aircraft were originally built as Marine Corps MV-22s and then retro-fitted as CV-22s.

http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2004/0407-08/images/runwayCV22.jpg

The two versions of the aircraft have several differences. For example, the Air Force version flies with a flight engineer while the Marine Corps aircraft doesn’t have an engineer crew position.

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Global/4/44296C93-1703-41A7-8D1F-11D98ECD71CC/0/chp_cv22.jpg

The Air Force Special Operations Command expects to acquire 50 of the aircraft, built by Bell and Boeing, to replace its MH-53J Pave Low helicopters and take over some missions now flown by MC-130 special operations airplanes.

--------------------------------

Story from the Air Force Times
Pictures added from various sources

ShyTorque

20th Sep 2005, 07:23

Someone has GOT to start the rumour that the pilot got unsure of his position on hi sway back to the plant and was forced to sing a certain Tony Christie song............... :E

Be interesting to see how this aircraft works out in service.

SASless

20th Sep 2005, 07:38

Don't hold yer breath on a lot of success. The three engined CH-53 does all.....repeat....all of the SpecForces missions but the new fangled pipe dream does not. That is a step backwards in capability anyway you measure it.

The working stiffs who fly the missions want the upgraded CH-53 and not this new piece of crap.

For simple issues...compare the cabin dimensions and volume data....and compare it to either the CH-47 or the CH-53.

The missions capability that is being shifted to the US Army and the MH-47E from the Air Force will overwhelm the Army's capability to provide airframes. When that demand exceeds assets.....and it will....what happens then?

Politics has gotten in the way of reality in my view.

ShyTorque

20th Sep 2005, 07:39

Yup! ;)

Woolf

20th Sep 2005, 07:56

Surely speed and range will count for something?

NickLappos

20th Sep 2005, 10:48

No increase in range, at all. Just 50% more speed, at twice the price, and half the payload.

See:
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf

Mediahawk

20th Sep 2005, 12:10

Wow, super-detailed analysis! :ok:

But you forgot fuel burn. Is a helicopter more effecient pr. weight-unit? Will the wings of the tilt-rotor help in saving fuel pr. mile flown?

- M

SASless

20th Sep 2005, 12:57

Media,

It does not matter how efficient the machine is on fuel...if it cannot accomplish the mission....it is the wrong aircraft for the job. The key point is the loss of mission by the Air Force and the overburdening of the Army as a result. Just why would a former Special Ops Squadron mission be going to a helicopter and one from another service of all things?

Throw in the consideration of Spec Ops missions in Afghanistan and other high altitude locations....just how is the Osprey supposed to do the work?

The MH-53M cannot...two engines...but the three engine version is the cats meow...or the Chinook with the right avionics fit.

Mediahawk

20th Sep 2005, 14:16

I beg to differ. It's quite relevant how fuel efficient ANY aircraft is. From an operational standpoint, it's one of the least important issues, but from a ROI perspective it makes a difference. How can you completely ignore this aspect when you attempt to get the whole picture of the merits of the aircraft?

Not to mention the impact on pollution and depleting fossil fuel reserves! :ouch:

- M

BlenderPilot

20th Sep 2005, 14:45

I think that as newer technologies become available, it will keep improving until it becomes superior to helicopters.

Think of the model A of anything and you'll know what I am talking about.

Clearly speed it the main advantage here, and isn't this why most people fly, to get there faster?

I would still be very impressed to see one come in to land, its an impressive machine to see flying around!

SASless

20th Sep 2005, 15:42

Media,

I would suggest when one is engaged in the business of killing people and breaking things....depletion of fossil fuel reserves is way down on the list of priorities. Return on investment is an accounting concept and does not have much merit when considering warfighting capabilities beyond making sure enough money gets spent to buy the most effective kit possible so that one can achieve mission success.

The Osprey is not the solution to this puzzle....enhanced 47's and 53's are.

ron-powell

20th Sep 2005, 19:26

Greetings from New Mexico,

There’s one thing I’ve never understood about the anti tilt-rotor attitude from the rotary-wing community. Aren’t we all tired of flying around at 100-150kts? How many times during a flight do you look at the GPS ground speed readout, wishing you were going faster?

Any cursory examination of vertical flight R&D in the past 50 years will show a near complete focus on high-speed flight. Why? And then, when something comes along that is actually faster than a regular helicopter and goes into production, we piss and moan about it.

Looking ahead, do we somehow think Sikorsky is building X2 for cost efficient vertical heavy lift applications? Get real. They, like everyone else want to go FASTER. Why else would they revive the ABC technology? That’s why there’s that little pusher prop on the back end of that thing. Rest assured, if they ever sell an aircraft based on X2 technology it will have that prop on the back. Why? More speed. Otherwise, it’s just another helicopter. I can already hear the salesman now, “I know it cost twice as much, but it goes twice as fast as your old S-76.” If they’re able to build it cheaper than a tilt-rotor, fine. But the point of the exercise always was more speed.

One obvious problem here is there is no appreciation for being on the other end of a V-22, AB609 or for that matter, an X2 flight. Everyone likes to talk in terms of economics. Explain the economics of flying a couple of people in a Gulfstream G5 or S-76? Anyway, if you’re the SpecOps team in a firefight needing extraction or a fisherman hundreds of miles offshore needing rescue, what do you want to come get you? Don’t know about you, but if it was me I could care less about what it cost to buy or how much fuel it uses. At that point I’m saying to myself, “Man, I wish I was someplace else.” and just wanting my situation to change for the better as fast as possible.

There are a couple of things I accept. Tilt rotors or anything, for that matter, that goes faster than a helicopter will be expensive. Geez, fast helicopters are more expensive than slow ones are they not? They will crash, just like every other helicopter. So what? People paid the hefty price for a Concorde ticket because they wanted to be someplace NOW. Moreover, Concordes have been known to crash from known and fatal flaws as well.

I’m not ignoring the economics here. I just accept the fact there will always be someone willing to pay a higher price for speed and being “first adopter” of something new.

Therefore I welcome the V-22 as I will welcome any aircraft based on any technology which takes vertical flight to the next speed level.

Ron Powell

NickLappos

20th Sep 2005, 19:58

ron-powell,

You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed. Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, ("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.

I am not an anti-tilt rotor person, I only tell the facts. YOU think I am an anti-tiltrotor person because you dont seem to want the facts. Too bad, because you will discover that facts are stubborn things.

BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a Lamberghini?

Nick

BTW, I flew the ABC, the original design for the X2, and I know a bit about it. IThe X2 will not sacrifice very much cost or range or payload for speed, it is at its core a very efficient helicopter, just one that will cruise at 250 knots!

SASless

20th Sep 2005, 20:14

Ron,

I would love to fly the tilt rotor....but not as a SpecOps pilot in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or other hot and high places. I would also like to fly a machine that could do the mission safely and effectively.

The tilt rotor does not meet that test....it will not carry the load required....nor is it flexible enough to take on all the missions that the current helicopter fleet does.

We are paying for less capability at a far higher price. If the Osprey had the lift capability of the 53 or 47....it would be the cats ass but it isn't.

gadgetguru

20th Sep 2005, 20:59

I'd settle for a job sling-loading plastic dog ****e out of Hong Kong in a R22...if it meant I was in the air.

I think the 'new' tilt-rotor technology is amazing & the application potential is there, but the aircraft are just not meeting all the benchmarks they were supposed to exceed, except price. When the aircraft perfoms as well as current helo's, then maintains a significant speed, fuel & price advantage, then it will be viable.

No point having to take 2x or 3x (very expensive) V-22 aircraft & do multiple trips albeit a little quicker than other aircraft, when you could do the same job with a single aircraft, in a single trip, moderately slower at a fraction of the cost.

I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed... but I can add (& subtract, & multiple & divide:ok: )

ron-powell

20th Sep 2005, 21:30

NickLappos:

>You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure >that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed.

And that’s the point of my post. Some people want/need it and are willing to pay.

>Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, >("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf >get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.

No argument there because there are always tradeoffs. I’m just tired of watching the earth go by at 120kts and would like to think every other helicopter pilot feels the same way as I do.

>BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a >Lamberghini?

Don’t want one, but more importantly, can’t afford one. But some people can and do own them for reasons other than purchase price, number of seats, fuel economy and maintenance costs. The same can be said with respect to tilt rotors.

Ron Powell

vorticey

20th Sep 2005, 23:54

why compare to a helicopter?? it is not one, nor is it an airplane but the tilt rotor will do a number of things nothing else will do. it will not do all the helicopter jobs or plane jobs but will probly do a few of each. it looks more usefull than the first aireoplane or helicopter would have been, so lets see where technology takes it.;)

mick

TheFlyingSquirrel

21st Sep 2005, 03:36

Yeah, but is it a bird or a plane ? Do we need a new forum somewhere in the middle for it ?

Matthew Parsons

21st Sep 2005, 08:40

Yes, V22 pales in comparison to H53 as a cargo mover.

Now take a look at all the systems installed, remove all the development costs (that's money that's been spent anyhow, what does one more V22 cost?), check out the survivability, check out the time to get troops on scene, look at the stand off distance that a ship can maintain, look at the deck operating limits such as sea state, footprint.

While its easy to look at high speed and be impressed or high cost and be annoyed, the only applicable examination is a full role suitability study. It certainly won't do the complete job of what its replacing, but that doesn't mean the current aircraft are the most suitable for the role. V22 does open portions of the envelope that will be a gain in some roles. It will not replace the work of a pure helicopter. It will never outlift the H53 or Chinook, nor perform better at altitude.

Don't be fooled by the propaganda into thinking its all singing and dancing nor by the media that its a useless cash cow. Do listen to experts that can provide details on its actual performance, and do consider the job it will be expected to perform.

My opinion, a limited market will appreciate the V22 but most existing helicopter operations will have little use for the different capabilities.

Matthew.

OFBSLF

21st Sep 2005, 16:11

And if you think the CV-22 is too complex and expensive, just feast your eyes on this:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=ef6e6dfe-e832-45a9-882c-507d64c52d4b&

Methinks someone needs to put down the crack-pipe.

delta3

21st Sep 2005, 16:52

I would agree with those of you that state its neither a plank nor a Helo.

But, does it then have the vertues of the two or of none ....

From all the published figures I could see only speed is plus, all the other are minusses.

I am curious to see what deployment will bring. It think it is naif to think that a long strain of (re)tuning now suddenly will stop. Due to some intrinsic complexities in the design, I think its early to say how the enveloppe gains will materialize.

OFBSL, i like those monsters. Funny to see, when in a modern helo piezo tabs might be used to reduce BV interaction. I wonder what they will do to reduce rotor interaction. At least it might work on three rotors, that is perhaps an advantage...

d3

nimby

26th Sep 2005, 15:49

Quick one for Nick Lappos ...

I've just been reading your excellent treatise at http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf ...

(1) can you tell me why the BA609 on the front cover appears to have Bell/Boeing logo on the nacelle, when the original photo on the AW web-site has no such logo? ... methinks you fiddled in Photoshop or similar after copying this PR photo from the AW web-site (sniggers)!

(2) how come X2 is a good idea, considering your argument on page 16 about disk size? I note that ABC was not proceded with because "... the transmission weight penalties were too high and so the trade study decided that the advantages were outweighed by the weight disadvantage" ... " The rotors had to be well separated and very stiff so that they wouldn't strike at high blade deflections. This resulted in a tall mast, which was very draggy. Inter-rotor fairings were designed and wind tunnel tested, but it was difficult to design a fairing that really resulted in a drag decrease..." and "It was difficult to use the ABC arrangement for anything but an attack helicopter, due to the big, tall gearbox assembly" ... ??? Some of these are your words ... [ref: http://www.synchrolite.com/0891.html]

Bit off topic, but ...?

NickLappos

26th Sep 2005, 16:37

nimby,

Good questions! In turn:

1) You have sharp eyes. I snatched that photo from a Bell web site, it must be an old one, but it was official at one time. Here is a pair I found just now with two different logos, note it is the same shot, probably a few minutes earlier (camera angle identical) it is surely Bell who used the photoshop on the logo:

http://www.mecaer.it/product/flight/ba609.shtml
and here is the one I used, still on the net, at the Dowty web site!

http://www.messier-dowty.com/programs/fr_BA609.asp

2) the disk loading is really not an argument, it is a physical fact, in that higher disk loading means more power needed for the same lift/weight. That being said, the X2 has fairly low disk loading, in tune with a normal single rotor helicopter, so its power needs are roughly the same. The older ABC compared quite favorably to normal helos, but it was slightly heavier than a very good single rotor helo, about 5% empty weight. This robbed payload a bit, so speed costs there, as well, just not as much.

3) Those words are all true, today as they were a few years ago. The question is only that of what speed you want, and what you want to pay for it. If "normal" helicopter speeds were considered, an ABC would be a non-starter, because you would earn 20% less wityh the machine, and your competitors would eat your lunch, or you would carry half the weapons load, and thus fail in your operational evals against a helicopter.

I am amused at the discussions of configuration made here, and virtually everywhere else, that speak of the arrangements as geometries, with shapes and physical properties. Invariably the real choice is between the various designs draws down to three inexerable bits of data for any given design:

First = From a hover takeoff, what is the payload?

Second = What is the cost of the vehicle to purchase and to operate? (cost is almost purely determined by the empty weight, the engine power and the number of finely machined (critical) parts).

A more distant Third = What speed does it provide in cruise?

If one lays it out, the realization is that to move a given number of pounds or people, the 250 knots for a tilt rotor costs the owner between 2 and 4 times what the 150 knots of a single rotor helicopter does (half the payload at some increase in the purchase price). For an X2, the data might project that for 230 knots of cruise (perhaps more, probably not less) the multiplier might be between 20% to 50% more cost.

Only when the real price of the 609 is known, and of the X2 (should it get that far) will this be hard fact and not conjecture. If one simply weighs the empty aircraft, and applies a factor for engine horsepower (which sizes transmissions and rotors and shafts) the 609 probably falls somewhere above the Black Hawk in price (same weight, more complexity for the critical parts, but more efficient Bell manufacturing costs.) For X2, 5% more weight, and a few more critical items put it in between.

nimby

26th Sep 2005, 16:44

Thanks Nick.

I for one think I would rather live with co-ax over tandem, intermeshing or tilt, better still, a little bit of add-on compound does wonders ...

Dave_Jackson

26th Sep 2005, 17:39

How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 'Vintokryl' ? (http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm)
. ` . ` . Speed ~ 192 knots
. ` . ` . Payload ~ 36,343 lbs
. ` . ` . Gross weight ~ 65,036 lbs

This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be built today.

A slam-dunk for the Vintokryl? :D

Nick, this was originally sent to rec.aviation.rotorcraft in response to your posting. For some reason it didn't show up.

Opps! Best I learn how to use the newly installed version of Outlook Express.

NickLappos

26th Sep 2005, 17:51

It had done some great things, but the only one crashed twice, and was not rebuilt. Probably due to aeroelastic problems (the real technology leap that V22 had to make IMHO).

It is fundamentally a compound helicopter with a wing, but the 65,000 lb empty weight beast set the record with only (only?) 36,000 lbs of payload, indicating some pretty poor efficiencies, Dave.

AlanM

26th Sep 2005, 17:54

I wonder if it will get it's first (I think?) outings in the UK at the Farnbrough airshow next July. (Maybe even RIAT Fairford too?)

Ian Corrigible

30th Sep 2005, 22:03

As if the Osprey didn't have enough problems with fending-off criticism from plank salesmen (:E), Bell-Boeing have had to issue an apology after an 'unapproved' CV-22 ad depicting a fast-roping assault on a mosque was 'accidentally' published in a Capital Hill rag.

The ad (in Adobe Acrobat) can -- for the moment -- be seen here (http://www.cair.com/mosqueattackad.pdf).

(It's a good job that they'd already ditched the 'attack on a Chinese embassy' concept at an earlier stage...)

:E

I/C

Graviman

30th Sep 2005, 22:36

Interesting thread. It seems that the old debate about plank or heli is being replaced by the debate about tiltrotor or counterrotor. My own view is that both will eventually become cost competetive, but that different strengths will be inherent to each. Clearly weight minimisation will be key to either design, with rigid rotor performance.

Tiltrotor will never be as efficient in hover, but counterrotor is unlikely to be as efficient in high speed flight. Once variable RRPM establishes itself as the next enabling technology the lines will become tighter, since counterrotor will offer lower rotor drag. The smaller pusher prop will however never match the tiltrotor for prop loading, so speed may become the next competetion. As emerging rotor technologies for active twist become available, higher speeds become possible with counterrotors.

The interesting thing will be to see how tiltrotor responds to this challenge. Maybe swept tip blades for higher tip, thus overall, speeds. Maybe increased coning for more spanwise flow componenent (similar to swept fixed wings). These technologies can again be fed across to counterrotors.

How far will this competition take rotorcraft development? Dare i ask: Is a supersonic rotorcraft possible?

:E

Mart

Aesir

1st Oct 2005, 00:25

Boeing apologizes for mosque attack ad (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/30/news/fortune500/boeing_ad.reut/index.htm)

I don´t see the problem:confused:

Revolutionary

1st Oct 2005, 00:46

Some very sobering reading on the Osprey here:

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

To summarize: it's too sensitive to pilot induced oscillations in roll; it creates such a huge downwash that it's hard to land on all but smooth pavement; it's susceptible to wake turbulence to a greater degree than other aircraft; its electrical, mechanical and hydraulic lines are subject to too much stress and vibration; it is vulnerable to a particularly nasty variation of vortex ring state and, drumroll... it doesn't autorotate, at least not in any practical way.

All these problems to one degree or another are inherent in the tiltrotor concept and cannot be eliminated, just mitigated. That means the BA609 will suffer from the same shortcomings.

I think I'll pass...

TheFlyingSquirrel

1st Oct 2005, 02:49

That ad is fantastic - you just couldn't make it up could you ? Good old Boeing !

TFS

NickLappos

1st Oct 2005, 04:22

revolutionary,

I honestly believe the V22 will (and probably does) fly quite nicely, and so will the 609. There is no way the folks at Bell will let it fly so poorly as to be unpleasant.

The other points will be solved, as well, like the hydraulics and complexity, so that in the end it will be expensive to run, but not unsafe, I think.

What cannot be fixed is the payload disadvantage it suffers with regard to helicopters. It will carry only half the load of an equivilent helo, no matter what magic is used, as long as that same magic is allowed to be used on the helo. In the end, customers will decide if the cost is worth the speed, but the fundamental handling will not be a determinent, I think.

Dave_Jackson

1st Oct 2005, 05:08

Mart,

"Tiltrotor will never be as efficient in hover, but counterrotor is unlikely to be as efficient in high speed flight."They both have latterly located counter-rotating twin main rotors. The concern is; which configuration can significantly improve high-speed flight without jeopardizing hover (payload).

The primary differences between the tilt-rotor configuration and the ABC-rotor configuration are the means of propulsion and the means of lift.

Tilt-rotors ~
~ Hover ~ Uses the rotors.
~ Forward flight ~ Uses the rotors (props) for propulsors, and separate wings for lift.
~ The prop/rotors are not ideal as rotors nor are they ideal as propellers.

ABC-rotors ~
~ Hover ~ Uses the rotors.
~ Forward flight ~ Uses separate props for propulsors, and the rotors as wings.
~ The ABC-rotors are not ideal as rotors nor are they ideal as wings.

For reasonable fast forward flight, my money is on the ABC-rotors over the tilt-rotors.

For very fast forward flight, my money is on Reverse-velocity-rotors over the tilt-rotors. It will be a lot easier to produce a craft with reverse-velocity-rotors and fan-jets then trying to morph the tilting rotors into fan-jets during transition. :D

The next question then becomes Coaxial, Interleaving, Intermeshing or Side-by-side?

Graviman

1st Oct 2005, 17:38

"For reasonable fast forward flight, my money is on the ABC-rotors over the tilt-rotors."

Agreed, but there are many dynamic and mechanical problems to overcome first.

"For very fast forward flight, my money is on Reverse-velocity-rotors over the tilt-rotors."

Agreed that seperating thrust and lift function allows the optimum design and diameter (as you pointed out) of each system.

"The next question then becomes Coaxial, Interleaving, Intermeshing or Side-by-side?"

Well, pure interleaving is still on shakey ground, for same reasons as V-22. I would wait to see how Sikorsky get on, regarding rotorwash dynamics, and keep Stepniewski intermesher in mind.

Mart

Dave_Jackson

1st Oct 2005, 19:36

Your own tilt-rotor?

VTOL airplane with only one tiltable prop-rotor (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=45&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&d=ptxt&s1=tilt-rotor&s2=tiltrotor&OS=tilt-rotor+OR+tiltrotor&RS=tilt-rotor+OR+tiltrotor). Then click on [Images].

Revolutionary

1st Oct 2005, 22:25

Nick,

Some items on that list, such as the vulnerability of hydraulic and mechanical lines, could be fixed, I agree. But the assymetrical VRS problem and the near impossibility of autorotating are things that are inherent in the design and will never completely go away.

We all want a faster ride but maybe we should just accept that helicopters are slower than airplanes, just as wheelbarrows are slower than motorcycles, and stop trying to crossbreed aircraft types.

I mean, you don't see anybody trying to mate a wheelbarrow to a motorcycle to speed up backyard chores, do you?

Dave_Jackson

1st Oct 2005, 23:54

[Very fast 'rotorcraft' flight] will require [Reverse velocity blades] will require [Large active blade twist].

[Large active blade twist] will allow the use of the Interleaving configuration; with its low disk loading, short rotor-to-rotor span, and negligible downwash on the fuselage.

Propelled by turbo-fan engines.

http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/1441_Small.gif

Flingwing207

2nd Oct 2005, 15:04

I mean, you don't see anybody trying to mate a wheelbarrow to a motorcycle to speed up backyard chores, do you? Well...
Muck-Truck (http://www.severnsideplant.co.uk/)
Haulz-All (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=11071099&whse=BC&topnav=&cat=21076&hierPath=114*2801*)
Dr. Powerwagon (http://www.ruralcompanion.com/powerwagon.html)
Hey, you asked!

Revolutionary

3rd Oct 2005, 02:18

Flingwing207,

Nice one... I stand corrected. But, does the Muck Truck do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds? I mean, we're talking about speeding up backyard chores, not just about motorizing 'em.

Flingwing207

4th Oct 2005, 13:03

Hey it's only a matter of time before you see something turn up on one of The Discovery Channel's plethora of modder shows - perhaps "The Kustomizer" (currently turning a scrapped S-61R into a luxury limo-coach).

widgeon

21st Oct 2005, 21:23

SO Bell/ Boeing are not gonna submit a CSAR X bid for the V-22 , I guess you don't get too many points for exceeding the requirements .

http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=c6528976-199c-4934-843f-c82e586e9d1a
Bell issued the following statement late Thursday:-

The Bell-Boeing V-22 team has made the decision to not submit a proposal for the U.S. Air Force CSAR-X competition.

Quote attributed to Bob Kenney, vice president of the V-22 joint program

"After thorough review of the revised Air Force request for proposal, it was clear that the CSAR-X program's requirements and funding profile did not call for the advanced speed and range offered by the V-22 Osprey, and instead leaned toward capabilities found in more-traditional helicopter-type aircraft.

"The V-22 continues to excel in its role of deep-strike combat insertion and search and rescue for the Air Force Special Operations Command and expeditionary medium-lift for U.S. Marine Corps, offering unmatched capabilities for these missions. We continue to focus on these customers to ensure we meet our commitments to them."

SASless

22nd Oct 2005, 02:02

Nick,

What am I missing here?:uhoh:

"The V-22 continues to excel in its role of deep-strike combat insertion and search and rescue for the Air Force Special Operations Command

Please explain to the unwashed of us what the difference between CSAR-X and Search and Rescue for Air Force SpecOps is?

Seems the selling point of the Osprey has been amongst others....SAR capability....and now they do not care to compete for the CSAR-X program?

BigMike

22nd Oct 2005, 08:17

So the only thing the V-22 will be any good at, is the high speed insertion of a small SF group where time is critical?
Lot of money for one mission...

SASless

22nd Oct 2005, 12:26

....or a Vertical Envelopment USMC style where anything bulky at all has to be hauled on a sling....no Humvees inside...no Howitzers inside...wonder how fast they haul things that way as compared to the helicopter?

How does one spell P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S?

mckpave

22nd Oct 2005, 12:48

I hate to burst the bubble but the CV-22 will do the mission just fine. Just as it was said, "don't believe the hype", I can say don't believe the negative hype either. It flies and operates quite well actually. Does it have problems, yes, but they're not nearly as dramatic as some folks want you to believe.

B Sousa

22nd Oct 2005, 13:39

How does one spell P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S?

Come on Sasless, thats Texas T........How else can some EEElected official work for 50k a year and be a Millionaire in 4 years.......... Simplfy the word. B-E-L-L.
Dont forget all those surplus aircraft that hit the crusher?? Thank you B-E-L-L

NickLappos

22nd Oct 2005, 14:29

mckpave,

No bubble burst yet, mckpave, untill you give us a reason to believe you. Who are you, what do you know? If it does the mission fine, as you say, when will we see someone actually hoisted into it? It has been 20 years so far in development, and the hoist isn't even fitted.

SASless

22nd Oct 2005, 14:44

Other than very small helicopters like the Robbies and maybe a 206, is there a helicopter that does not have a winch/hoist fitted at some time?:E

BigMike

22nd Oct 2005, 15:53

Winch on a 206? Yep. Many years ago PHS in Oz used to do training with the Jetranger and a winch. State of the art rescue machine back then.

Dave_Jackson

22nd Oct 2005, 18:20

BigMike said;So the only thing the V-22 will be any good at, is the high speed insertion of a small SF group where time is critical?Nothing will be as good as the V-22 for defeating the NeoCon's worst enemy.

What other craft can get the General, his propagandist, and the embedded reporter to the scene and back, before the 6:00 news?

hotzenplotz

22nd Oct 2005, 18:41

Is this OGE hover?

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/av_images/med/1000000827.jpeg

NickLappos

22nd Oct 2005, 19:17

Yes, it is hover near OGE, no, it is not hoist operations. That is Fastrope from the aft ramp, with a thethered line.

The USAF specified that hoist operations had to be conducted where the pilot can view operations directly. The V22's designed hoist location is at the side door, forward. Hoist operations require a free line, which is more subject to the downwash, and a Stokes litter, again, more likely to react to downwash.

However, if they changed their requirements, this surely shows promise for a hoist off the ramp.

Regarding speed of transit, the V22 clearly has advantages where that is the issue, in SpecOps, the extra hour spent at 400 NM getting to the scene might be worth something. TR advocates are telling us that hour is worth an extra 50 million (at least) per aircraft. I would say then that they should redesign the entire aircraft operations system, because at that rate, the 1 minute spent for the Corporal to make a phone call is worth about $1 million, and the run for the pilots to the airplane is worth $500,000.

hotzenplotz

22nd Oct 2005, 19:30

I wonder how the downwash effects for the Infanterists would be, in a IGE fastrope from the aft ramp.

NickLappos

22nd Oct 2005, 20:04

Hotz,
My guess is the ramp works even better close to the aircraft IGE, but moving away from the aircraft might involve knowing the best azimuth.

widgeon

22nd Oct 2005, 21:45

ref the pic , are they running to avoid ground fire or coz thay are scared the machine will fall on their heads ;)

John Eacott

22nd Oct 2005, 22:11

Looking at the jackets of the guys on the rope and the red hat supervising, there's a fair bit of breeze to be lifting their jacket hems like that.

Mind you, if the red hat had a fluoro yellow safety vest, it obviously wouldn't be a problem, would it Nick :rolleyes: ;)

hotzenplotz

23rd Oct 2005, 00:10

Is the Osprey capable of performing a "running take-off"?
I mean a STOVL as a normal procedure.

Of course the fans would have to be at an 45° angle.

But is it possible?

NickLappos

23rd Oct 2005, 01:05

hotz,
Yes, and it gains, like a helo, about 20% increase in gross weight.

hotzenplotz

27th Oct 2005, 08:53

V-22 Engines Freeze: Can’t Fly Through Clouds

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Oct. 25, 2005)

(See Editor’s Note at bottom)

WASHINGTON --- An Air Force version of the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft last week experienced a condensation stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems, sources have told the Project On Government Oversight. The aircraft, CV-22 #6, was on a routine flight to Edwards Air Force base in California. It did not recover from the stall until it had descended to warmer air at about 10,000 feet, the sources said.

As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona.

“This is very disturbing. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production,” said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. “And now we find out the aircraft can’t even fly into a cloud.”

At the time of this release, it was not known whether the aircraft that experienced the stall had a de-icing system onboard. It’s also unclear just how much, or if any, de-icing system testing has been performed on the CV-22. A report of testing issued last month by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation on the Marines V-22 did not address the issue of icing. A 2000 DOT&E report said that icing testing on the Marines V-22 had been waived by the Navy. Sources have speculated to POGO that the V-22 cannot take on extra weight without impacting its performance, and a de-icing system would add weight.

The requirement that the aircraft be able to operate in icing conditions was waived during the first phase of operational testing in 2000. The report also predicted that there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the 2002 report to Congress said.

There is another concern raised by the dual-engine failure. Because the Pentagon and defense contractors have been saying that the loss of both engines in the V-22 is “remote, but possible,” they have deleted the original requirement that the V-22 be able to autorotate like nearly all other helicopters to a soft landing in the event of engine failure. In the event of a single engine failure, V-22 flight procedures require the pilot to transition to aircraft mode and in the event of a second engine failure perform a “fixed wing glide approach to an emergency landing site,” according to an April 2002 report to Congress.

In fact, had the emergency dual engine stall over Arizona been below 1,600 feet, it would “not likely” be survivable, according to the recent DOT&E report.

The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22’s to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations force from enemy areas. Although the CV-22 is on a different development and testing track than the Marines MV-22, it team of developers and testers work together on many common areas.

The Air Force version of the V-22, the CV-22, is a modified version of the Marines MV-22 to perform longer-range, special operations missions. The CV-22 is modified to have long-range fuel tanks, advanced radar, and more sophisticated situational awareness and radio frequency countermeasures. These modifications are designed to improve operations during night and low altitude flights in bad weather.

The report to Congress also said there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the report said.

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends)

EDITOR’S NOTE:

The V-22 program office confirmed the Oct. 18 icing accident, which prompted an unscheduled landing in Prescott, Arizona, Reuters reported Oct. 25. It quoted spokesman James Darcy as denying that either engine stalled, adding that the crew was never in any danger: "The POGO report is completely false. The aircraft was never out of controlled flight, the engines never lost power, the landing was precautionary," Darcy was quoted as saying.

Is it true that the Osprey can blast-off its rotorblades to perform a running landing?

Does the wing produce enough lift for a glide landing?

The Sultan

27th Oct 2005, 13:14

Nick, like most comments on the V-22 you do not know what you are talking about.

Relative to weight. The V-22 has been tested in the STOL mode which adds another 7.5+ tons of payload.

The Sultan

hotzenplotz

27th Oct 2005, 13:55

Takeoff Weights :

47,500 lb Vertical Takeoff/Landing (VTOL)
55,000 lb Short Takeoff/Landing (STOL)
60,500 lb Self Deploy STO

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm

What does "self deploy short take off" mean?

NickLappos

27th Oct 2005, 14:23

Gotta watch those V22 salesmen!

If the V22 adds payload by making running takeoffs, when they use that weight from a ship, the V-22 will have to issue water wings to its passengers, cause it will hit the water at the lip of the deck, and sink like a stone, and will need sonar to navigate. The weights I have published are those it can hover with.

Here is that discussion of V22 performance, again. The V22 carries half the payload of a helicoipter, has no range advantage, and does not have the transport productivity of a helicopter:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf

D O'Brien

27th Oct 2005, 14:50

Sorry Nick but your last comments was way outa line.

Gotta watch those V22 salesmen!

Are you kidding me, did you not help sell the 92. I believe that salemans may have over sold this piece of kit.

Why must you always bash others manufactuers?

D O'

BigMike

27th Oct 2005, 15:41

Do all versions of the V-22 have an inflight re-fueling capability?

hotzenplotz

27th Oct 2005, 15:41

NickLappos

27th Oct 2005, 15:55

DO,

If I have ever posted inaccurate info, it has been in error, and I have corrected it. If you feel that I "always bash other manufacturers" then you haven't read "all" my posts.

Gregg

27th Oct 2005, 17:32

Nick,

I find it interesting that you state the V-22 has never flown at 60,500 pounds. Both Boeing and Bell have on their web sites press releases that claim the V-22 has flown at 60,500 pounds.

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/companyInfo/pressReleases/pr_farnb_bellboeing_01.cfm

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/tilttimes/jan01.pdf

The Sultan

27th Oct 2005, 19:46

Nee 'k

Your ignorance should not be any reason to call me a liar. What I said was true. All people close to the V-22 know that it has doen the STOL testing.

Just because you are pissed because you are sitting on the sidelines picking interior colors does not give you the right to question my integrity.

The Sultan

NickLappos

27th Oct 2005, 19:53

Gregg,
Thanks for that documentation, I stand corrected! The last published weight I could find was 54,000 in a test report from that OT&E.

I have taken the liberty of erasing my previous "over the top" comments, and will serve several days in the penalty box.

Nick

Matthew Parsons

27th Oct 2005, 20:24

Nick said, "it will hit the water at the lip of the deck, and sink like a stone, and will need sonar to navigate"

Oh great, now a vehicle that flies like a helicopter, a plane and a submarine. Just think how the development costs will climb now.

SASless

30th Dec 2005, 02:34

Remember the fuss about the Osprey not being able to do the job of the CH-47 and CH-53. Let's add this latest silliness to the list of "We told you so!'s"

Where will this end?

December 29th, 2005 5:47 pm
Corps pays $100K for retooled jeep

By Steven Komarow / USA Today

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps is paying $100,000 apiece for a revamped Vietnam-era jeep as part of its program to outfit the hybrid airplane-helicopter V-22 Osprey, Pentagon records show.

That's seven times what a deluxe commercial version of the vehicle costs. It's also three times what U.S. Export-Import Bank records show the Dominican Republic paid four years ago for a military version of the vehicle, called the Growler, a recycled version of the M151 jeep.

The Marines and the contractor, General Dynamics, say the vehicle has been thoroughly revised with modern automotive parts and adapted to fit on the V-22.

"Yes, it did start off with jeep technology, and it does look like a jeep in a lot of ways," says John Garner, the Marines project manager. But he says it's now "state of the art."

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit group that monitors Pentagon contracts, says taxpayers are getting a deal that "stinks" on an unarmored vehicle that makes no sense for today's missions, where troops face ambushes and roadside bombs.

"In a time of war, we should not be wasting money on a junker which will not protect our troops," Brian says. Under current military safety rules, the Growler would be barred from service in Iraq except as a utility vehicle that doesn't leave the security of a base.

The Marines have budgeted to buy more than 400 Growlers, along with a French mortar and ammunition that it would tow, under a contract that could total $296 million.

The Growler beat two other vehicles for the contract, Garner says.

Built by Ocala, Fla.-based American Growler, the original Growler is made partly from salvaged M151 jeep parts and is available in several versions for as little as $7,500 in kit form. At the high end, there's a $14,500 upgraded "tactical dune buggy" with a "bikini top."

The Marines' version has considerable upgrades from the commercial and Dominican Republic models, the Corps and contractor say, including a turbo-diesel engine, disc brakes and other systems adapted from modern vehicles.

"It's not your grandfather's jeep," says Kendell Pease, a General Dynamics spokesman.

The Osprey is a twin-engine airplane that turns its rotors up for vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter.

Under development since 1986, the V-22 is scheduled to go into service in 2007. It has a history of technical problems and several fatal crashes.

The Growler is expected to be deployed with the V-22 in 2007, Pease says.

NickLappos

30th Dec 2005, 18:04

For even more fun, see this web site for a discussion of the V-22's performance at altitude. At 10,000 feet, a Black Hawk carries more troops and goes farther (at 10% of the cost and half the gross weight):

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf

Dave_Jackson

30th Dec 2005, 19:56

Come-on Nick, don't be a Neo-Luddite (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html).

Darwin's 'LAW of evolution' shows that an airfoil [rotor or wing] is required for lift.
Darwin's 'LAW' also shows that an airfoil [rotor or propeller] is required for forward motion.

Intelligent Design then theorizes that there are only two logical configurations for Generation II rotorcraft.
Want to bet on the winner?

Proprotor for Hover ~ Proprotor plus Wing for Forward Flight:
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22ill.gif

Rotor for Hover ~ Rotor plus Prop for Forward Flight:
http://www.unicopter.com/1441_small.gif

Ain't symmetry beautiful?
http://www.unicopter.com/DrawSmile.gif

slowrotor

30th Dec 2005, 21:49

Nick
I reviewed your website above with interest. I am currently considering the tilt-prop configuration for sport personal use.
Comments on your website:
1)The fuel used per pound of payload needs to be addressed in your comparison. If you did that, it was confusing to me.
2) The chart that shows the disc size clearly gives the advantage of a helicopter in hover but I dont think the tiltrotor was intended to be efficient in hover. Does the V-22 carry each pound of payload in cruise more efficiently than a helo? If not, then the V-22 must have been poorly designed (overweight).

The basic idea of a proprotor that converts to a prop seems to be the way of the future. We simply need a more efficient and lighter configuration. Like a single tilt-rotor and tailrotor configuration is what I think might work.
slowrotor

Matthew Parsons

31st Dec 2005, 07:47

slowrotor, you're right about the hover efficiency. Nick's comparison is entirely accurate, and somewhat valid as it compares the V22 to what aircraft it would replace and the roles flown by that aircraft. However, I think most of us understand that the V22 shines when time and distance are critical factors rather than cargo weight, volume, or rate.

I looked at the numbers and set up different scenarios. The V22 did become a clear winner where we would expect it to shine. Of course, for both the -53 and the V22 I had to use glossy brochures to come up with numbers.

I didn't factor cost into it at all. I have no doubt the V22 will come up high on that one. I would like to know what it will cost the US to buy one more airframe, i.e. incremental cost without the developmental costs included.

I'm a bit of a V22 supporter, but then I tend to support new technology especially when it isn't my $$ (or ££) being spent. ;)

Matthew.

Matthew Parsons

31st Dec 2005, 12:39

Nick,

I realized I was setting myself up for your question. I did that a few years ago and posted the results. I'll look and see if I still have those numbers. For now, unfortunately, all I can offer is my word.

Matthew.

PPRUNE FAN#1

31st Dec 2005, 15:13

As is Matthew, I am also a big fan of new technology. Having said that, I am no fan of the V-22 tiltrotor. (And yes, it is strange standing on the same side of this particular fence as N.L.)

The V-22 is the wrong answer to the wrong questions. And in fact it is not "new technology." At least, not if you look at it's development track. I see a lot of literature referring to the V-22 as "in development since 1986..." which is more than a little misleading. Yes, that particular, specific make and model has been in development since the mid-1980's. But the V-22 is just an outgrowth of the XV-15 (1970's) which itself can trace it's roots directly back to the XV-3 which had it's genesis in...ready?...1953.

"New technology?" My arse. Bell has been working on this concept for over fifty years! and still hasn't been able to perfect it, despite what the V-22 lovers claim. It is a concept fraught with technical difficulties, and the V-22's capabilities could easily and more efficiently be equalled with more conventional VTOL designs. Right, Nick? Right, Dave?

But for some reason, the tiltrotor concept simply has this incredible momentum that inexplicably keeps it alive. And by now we've put so much time, money and effort into the thing that it would just seem irresponsible for the government to cancel it. Too embarassing to admit that we were- well, no other way to say it- wrong.

I think back to the original Lockheed Electras, and how one of those turboprop engines would get a-vibrating in a way that fed on itself until the wings cracked and flew off like those of a seaplane that's had too many rough-water landings. Of course we know more about vibration and how to deal with it now, but still I can envision numerous and awful scenarios for those proprotors on the V-22. I don't think the tiltrotor has shown us all of it's bad sides yet.

But maybe it's all worth it. Maybe the ability to send a speedy, unarmed aircraft with a squad of Marines (and a Growler!) off to a covert insertion in a remote "hot-spot," is the wave of the future. Maybe it'll be worth the half a century of development and billions of dollars invested. And maybe it'll keep the U.S. Marines in existence. Which, come to think of it, is probably the V-22's raison d'etre all by itself.

UNCTUOUS

5th Jan 2006, 11:25

http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm

I took note that "Aviation Week" had run several very negative letters about the V-22 in recent weeks. As you all may know, they depend on the defense industry for advertising money, so they rarely mention anything negative about any major program. I knew they had read my recent article, so maybe this is their way of getting the word out. It must have angered Bell-Boeing, so it looks like they cut a deal. The 1-02-06 "Aviation Week" has a very unusual 16 full-page advertisement about the great V-22, it must have cost Bell-Boeing a million dollars, oh I mean American taxpayers. What is strange is that it is written as an article, but according to very small print at the bottom of the first pay, and only the first page, it notes this is a special advertising section.

That section quotes the head of Marine Aviation, General Michael Hough, about what he told all Marines about the second operational evaluation: Hough stated: "And we have to do things in such a way that we can show unequivocally that this capability is safe." As a result, Hough should be fired and possibly arrested for criminal conspiracy. He doesn't understand or doesn't care if it is truly safe, which is why he put out the word that "we have to do things in such a way." He should have stated that we will have to see if the contractor has built a safe aircraft that meets the performance they promised. However, he is quoted several times saying about what "we" needed to prove. He sounds likes someone working for Bell-Boeing because they are the ones who needed to prove the V-22 to the Marine Corps. So Marines followed orders and did things "in such a way" like skipping tests and having a loyal "friend" at DOT&E falsify the results.

All the evidence is here for a criminal indictment: http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm The reaction I get from many people who read it that it cannot be true because it is so blatant. In addition to safety, the performance just didn't fail to meet goals, it only demonstrated half the payload and range promised. That advertising section shows that Bell-Boeing is going all out to keep this undercover, making sure Aviation Week knows who pays their salaries, indirectly at least. They know the V-22 is unsafe, why else would they substitute sandbags to simulate Marines grunts for most of their "demonstrations" during OPEVAL? Why else would they skip important tests, but state they know it is safe? Why else would they run a 16-page advertisement disguised as an article in a respected aviation magazine?

Carlton Meyer

Ian Corrigible

5th Jan 2006, 12:00

I think it's time for a new "V-22: it's crap/No it isn't" sticky... :ooh: :E

I/C

Jack Carson

5th Jan 2006, 14:13

This is a twenty year old story. The V-22 has been and a will continue to be suspect as long as the USMC continues to champion it without regard for the truth. Technology has been pushed to and past the limits of reasonableness. Fatal accidents aside, the V-22 has never clearly met most of its design goals. Clear technical issues have been side stepped in favor of a public relations push. As a former Marine, Test Pilot and an H-53 pilot, I have witnessed this first hand over the past twenty years. Gen Blot blocked a long range demonstration flight of a CH-53E in the 1990’s stating that he would not allow the CH-53E demonstate anything that may comprise or make the V-22 look bad. The V-22 has always been compared to the CH-46. With 12,300 ESHP and a gross weight approaching 60,000 the V-22 actually exceeds the gross weight of the CH-53D and approaches that of the CH-53E. Comparing the V-22 to the CH-53 line would have closed the gap and made the program less viable if not totally unworthy. I invite Nick Lappos, Shawn Coyle and anyone else with real perspectives on the technical issues that have been unreported to date and enter into a real discussion of topics (i.e. disc loading, power loading, OEI power loading, actual conversion envelope, HV development ….) concerning the V-22.:ok:

Shawn Coyle

5th Jan 2006, 14:42

At the risk of being made the target of a US Marine corps-level attack, the problem is that the Marines are so good at working with what they've been given that they have to make it work.
There is no independent evaluation process for US military equipment - by an organization that is not concerned with whether the particular service needs it or not, but whether the equipment meets something equivalent to the civil certification requirements. Failure effects are an example - civil requirements are pretty strict on this, but the military can accept the risk and make work-arounds on something the civil world wouldn't accept.
And this is nothing against the US Marines - one of the world's finest military (non-special forces) organizations. They are simply doing what they need to do to work with the equipment that has been procured for them.
And there have been lots of other military aircraft that were bought for more political than military reasons - the Tornado comes to mind - didn't meet the range or payload requirements, but that didn't stop it being bought and used.
Is the V-22 perfect? Certainly not. It was conceived, designed and made by humans.
Do we need to go through this process to further the development of vertical flight aircraft? Certainly. I know of no other way to make things better.
Again, the Tornado comes to mind. Developments of the avionics, radar and weapons systems were flown in different versions of the Bucaneer, but were never all put together in one Bucaneer, because it would have been obvious that the Bucaneer, old as it was, could have carried more bombs farther and faster than the Tornado, (at least that's what I've been told).
So, while the V-22 isn't perfect, it's a necessary step on the way to getting something much better.
Carry on Marines.

The Sultan

5th Jan 2006, 17:27

Unc,

I see your still full of $hit. V-22 passed Op-eval and is in full rate production. Just because you hate looking the fool you are, don't hat the player.

The Sultan

widgeon

5th Jan 2006, 22:54

Sultan did you read the light bulb thread ? I am in this case one of the syntax police that is talked about . His what is full of $hit ? and I have never heard hat used as a verb before. Anyway keep up the well reasoned discussions.

AngloPepper

6th Jan 2006, 01:28

From an aviation point of view, it's nice to see the boundaries being pressed, especially when someone else is paying the bills.

But the thing that always has confused me with the V22 is the doctrine. How do the USMC use the improved cycle time of this aircraft when all of the heavy equipment is being moved by CH53, LCAC and conventional landing craft? Regardless of the distance from ship to LZ/beachhead, surely this results in more troops on the ground in a given time, but short of heavy equipment which will still be in the process of offloading in slowmo. Given the cost and deck impact of this large aircraft, it should be possible to deploy a (slightly) larger fleet of medium helicopters at considerably lower cost, and still get the same number of boots on the ground by the time the heavy equipment has arrived. So what is the scenario/doctrine that places such a high premium on high speed?

blave

6th Jan 2006, 05:58

So, while the V-22 isn't perfect, it's a necessary step on the way to getting something much better.
Carry on Marines.

Why should the US taxpayer (that would be me, etc.) have to fund this enormously expensive aircraft just to get to something better? Why can't we skip this step. modernize (or build new!) the models that are already in the fleet, and continue R&D on a suitable replacement?

I am not looking forward to the first time the Osprey descends onto a field, under heavy fire, trying to unload troops. Or maybe it will be the second time, or the twentieth... But sooner or later someone's not going to be paying attention and is going to do the same thing that the experimental one did (asymmetrical VRS if I'm not mistaken), or something similar. It will cost a bunch of lives and a bunch of money.

At any rate my point is that I can't see how this is a necessary step.

dave

griffinblack

6th Jan 2006, 06:45

Nick, at face value, your presentation certainly does no favours in advancing the V22. I can’t really understand why the USMC is so hell bent on it.

Sultan, perhaps you are correct and the op-eval was signed off. But did it meet all KPP’s? Was it required to? Is the premise of Uncs original post correct?

3top

9th Jan 2006, 17:24

Hi all,

my view on the Osprey is whatever I heard/read in the past years on it, I am not a US-taxpayer, so I am just surprised on what s**t citizens take from their government.

Nick, one question:
On your comparison.pdf - page 26, the graph puts
tilt-wing below tilt-rotor on an efficiency scale.
My uneducated opinion was, that they a pretty equal - the tiltrotor having an edge on maneuverbility as it needs a complete rotor control over a tiltwing, that might get away with a pitch control only and using flaps on the wings in the downwash - probably less effective though.
Efficiencywise I thought them equal, with the wing having an edge as the wing is streamlined with the downwash.
What's the explanation?

To the V-22:

What I don't get is that (supposedly) the V-22 should be able to go into a hot LZ WITHOUT cover, but has NOTHING to shoot forward/sideways - how is that going to work?
If it was decided that it will go in WITH cover after all, where is all the (supposed) speed-advantage, if the V-22 has to wait or slow down for its cover (Apaches or Cobras presumable), and all the rest of disadvantages hit again....

It's amazing how blatantly ignorant people are, even when the lives of their own troops are at stake!! You think the very doctrine of the Marines would put the lives of their own units before anything else - well I guess money speaks just louder.....

I guess some V-22s could be used for Special Forces ops, IF they start to rip out all the folding gear, replace it with Fast-assembly-moduls. This would save tons (literately) of weight and still keep the machines transportable to some hot spots around the world.

I still find it amazing that not ever anybody pulled the plug on this....

Oh well, USA, the land of limitless opportunities - anything is possible!!

3top:cool:

BlenderPilot

9th Jan 2006, 21:44

After reading Mr. Lappos's presentation I have realized today I am giving the Osprey as good use as anybody will get to, desktop ornament, I really like the way it looks on my desk.

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/V22DesktopOrnament.jpg

BigMike

9th Jan 2006, 21:49

Whoa!... is that another one of you hanger staff on the laptop screen-saver BP!

NickLappos

10th Jan 2006, 00:27

3 top,
That plot shows purely the effects of the disk loading, where the smaller disk eats more power to create a given amount of lift, and so needs more engine power. If it were plotting total efficiency of the configuration, it might show the tilt wing and tilt rotor closer, because the large vertical drag of the tilt rotor wing (about 10% of the total aircraft weight) is much reduced in a tilt wing (where the wing is rotated around so its leading edge is aligned with the downwash.) Nonetheless, the smaller props of the tilt wing usually make its disk loading so high the reduction in vertical drag is only just cancelled.

the concepts of disk loading are so poorly understood that I made it a primary thrust in the discussion, because it is the biggest headache for VTOLs to overcome as they try to compete with helicopters. Other factors are important, but not so easily handled:
1) Stiffness of the wing requiring much heavier wing structure and lost payload. The tilt rotor has to have a very stiff wing, aeroelastic response of the wing is the biggest design effort to solving the tilt rotor problem, since a wiggly wing quickly gets excited by the rotors and a major structural failure can result. The success of the V22 is greatly due to the ability to predict and quell these vibrations, and the wing depth, chord and stiffness are not designed for cruise efficiency, they are designed to assure that it all is stiff enough to stay together without giving itself a case of the flutters. Similarly, a tilt wing must have this isolation, or it will fail. The tilt wing also has to have a very strong, slop-free pivot joint if it is to succeed, and this is a major design problem. Rotating primary structures in flight may seem easy, but the resultant designs are heavy, complex and often unsuccessful.

2) Vertical drag - the wing sits in the downwash, and "weighs" more as a result, for a tilt rotor this is at least 8% of the weight of the aircraft and can be as high as 12%. For a conventional cabin=class helo, it can be 4 to 5% of the gross weight. That means a V22 could carry 5,000 lbs more payload in a hover if that vertical drag disappears. Big factor

3) Dual controls and a tilt mechanism. The stuff that drives a twin rotor helo ina hover, and an airplane in cruise and a tilt mechanism in conversion must all be carried around all the time, and it is heavy, expensive and high maintenance stuff. The V-22 has all the parts of an F-111 and a Chinook at the same time! It has three times the number of flight critical actualtors as a helicopter.

4) Horsepower systems - The cost and weight of a flying machine is driven by the power it needs and the fuel it burns, this is what the design starts with. Since a tilt rotor needs about 50% more power for the same payload, it must spend quite a bit more on engines, and on all the power transmissions, as well as the extra weight of this stuff.

None of this makes the tilt rotor impossible, but all of it makes the explanation of why the tilt rotor carries so little with so much power. How much the customer wants to spend for the job is the real issue, of course.

3top

10th Jan 2006, 01:11

Thanks Nick,

for the detailed answer!

Do you see ANY use for the V-22?
Civilian/Military/Special Forces/SAR, even with major changes, like eliminating complex folding mechanisms, eliminating the military role for eg. SAR, that should reduce weight for the lack of armor....
I know, its just fishing for ANY use....

If the project would be srapped finally, is there any new Tilt design on the horizon that would evolve/learn from the V-22 at this stage?

3top

Graviman

11th Jan 2006, 20:33

Here's where i get confused:

The pure helicopter speed record still stands at 400 kph, set by the Westland Lynx G-LYNX in 1986. The machine is, so i'm reliably informed, due to be shipped from the Helicopter Museum in Weston-Super-Mare back to Yeovil for a factory restoration to it's record setting livery. The real trick was using the BERP tips to allow faster rotor speed, and improved retreating tip lift at high AOA (and high dAOA/dt - ie vortex shedding).

Now 400 kph works out at 216 kts, which is pretty good for a pure heli. The V-22 demonstrated speed at OPEVAL II is 240 kts which is only an 11% improvement in speed. For the target of 300 kts, the problem is really just one of avoiding the retreating rotor limitations. This is bread and butter for any of the counter rotating heli configs, previously discussed on many threads.

Surely wouldn't a design based on coaxial, such as the proposed Sikorsky X-2 make much more sense!?! More particularly, since the S-69 ABC is a proven design concept a program could be put together reasonably quickly. At this stage, even as a practical back pedaling excercise, i'm amazed this doesn't get the attention it deserves...

Mart

Ian Corrigible

11th Jan 2006, 21:15

Graviman,

The demo'd MV-22 cruise speed during OPEVAL was actually 255 kts (against a 240 kt target). Not bad when compared to the 150 kts cruise speed of the today's helos (e.g. US101), but I agree it'll be interesting to see how the X2 and the other alternative high-speed designs do.

(The other tricks used by G-LYNX included red-lined donks (Gem 60s with water-methanol), reprofiled exhausts and aerodynamic refinements)

I/C

NickLappos

12th Jan 2006, 01:19

The payload of the record-setting Lynx was the pilot's clipboard, with a full cargo load, the speed would have been less than 200 MPH. Any comparison of the stunt of one type to the bread and butter capability of another is just not proper.

IFMU

12th Jan 2006, 01:46

Surely wouldn't a design based on coaxial, such as the proposed Sikorsky X-2 make much more sense!?! More particularly, since the S-69 ABC is a proven design concept a program could be put together reasonably quickly. At this stage, even as a practical back pedaling excercise, i'm amazed this doesn't get the attention it deserves...
Mart
I thought the X2 was the next generation of the S-69 technology. And, they announced at AHS last year that they are putting it together quickly. Maybe it is getting the attention it deserves. What I wonder is what will happen to potential military and commercial tilt-rotor customers if Sikorsky succeeds, and can deliver a high speed rotorcraft, with a sensible disk loading, and autorotation capability. Will people stick to their tilt rotor guns, or run screaming?
-- IFMU

SASless

12th Jan 2006, 03:00

IC,

A 105 knot advantage as demonstrated is still far less than two times the speed of the helicopter and for the V22 to carry the same payload as the Sikorsky or Chinook....it will take three sorties not one. (That is for small cube loads internally as well) Please remember the cube inside the cabin is much smaller on the V22.

I have also heard that the V22 engine removal and replacement has to be done on the flight deck because it is too tall for the hangar deck when in the required configuration. Factor that into a tactical situation requiring light discipline not to mention the howling gale that usually blows along the flight deck.

This is one of those situations that only gets worse with effort.

Bluntly....it is a Boondogle! In the Army we would call it FUBAR!

Dave_Jackson

12th Jan 2006, 20:58

IFMU,

Apparently, much of the S2, which Sikorsky is currently building, is an assemblage of components from various existing craft and outside companies. For instance, the blades are to be supplied by Emitt Wallace, the person who brought out the AirScooter http://www.eagleaviationtech.com/airscooter.htm The S2 may be just a 'teaser' for government funding on the heavy lift contract.

I can envision a situation where Bell submits the V-44 quadrotor.
Then Sikorsky submits the S2 coaxial, and Bell chokes.
Then Boeing submits the interleaving configuration, and Sikorsky and Bell both choke. :D

Perhaps we will know a bit more next week after the AHS Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Conference. http://www.vtol.org/vla06program.html

NickLappos

12th Jan 2006, 22:05

The Heavy Lift is not at all related to this Dave. That program is precisely what it appears to be and what the USMC is paying for, an upgrade of the CH-53E.

The X2 is a company funded small demonstrator that will explore high speed vertical lift, and is championed personally by Sikorsky senior management, with no current government funds.

Dave_Jackson

13th Jan 2006, 01:58

Nick. Thanks.

It may have been the; Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR), or the Future Transport Rotorcraft (FTR), or the Air Maneuver Transport (AMT). :rolleyes:

Whichever, it is the program where Bell is proposing the V-44, Sikorsky is proposing two versions of the X2, and Boeing is proposing two craft, one of which is by its newly acquired small rotorcraft company.

My understanding is that the government is spliting 20 to40 million dollars between the five projects, for the companies to develop their proposed concepts.

slowrotor

13th Jan 2006, 16:15

The local helicopter medivac company here had two crashes that destroyed both ships in just one month (last October). Considering that the cost per hour to operate the helo is about ten times(just a guess) what a land based ambulance would be, an unbiased observer might wonder why helicopters are used at all.

The reason is speed might save a life.
A similar argument could be put forth in support of the tiltrotor. If the extra speed saves lives then maybe some would want to spend the money.

It is odd that the helo people on this forum are so against a new technology that has advanced performance. I think Sikorsky probably had a hard time promoting helo capability in the early development days as well. The naysayers must have said helos were too dangerous and cost to much.

On the other hand, the Bell V-22 may be poorly designed and overweight because of folding mechanisms. I agree with 3top.
The technology needs to evolve with better ideas from multiple designs.
slowrotor

Dave_Jackson

13th Jan 2006, 17:32

For fast response;-

How about buying high lift dirigibles and taking the hospital to the accident?

Matthew Parsons

13th Jan 2006, 19:40

Nick, impressive numbers. However, I'm quite certain the V22 was meant to be used for more than ONE 200nm trip. :ooh:

NickLappos

13th Jan 2006, 19:47

Matthew,
I was not specific enough, it is a $2,000,000 investment per minute, which could buy a waterfront mansion in Miami for the USMC for each V22 dispatcher if that guy saved 1 minute per call.

Matthew Parsons

14th Jan 2006, 00:00

Nick, if the V22 makes 1000 trips during its service life, then the time savings would be 30 000 minutes, making the value of one minute $2,000. You're right that it costs a lot, but it's a good idea to avoid "the distortion of the COST of that speed ".

Graviman

14th Jan 2006, 10:29

Are there any cost or payload estimates for the Sikorsky X-2 approach yet? I realise S-69 was a prototype machine with associated costs, and X-2 is not yet directly comparable. Since S-69 has already demonstrated 269 kts, and the X-2 pusher prop will reduce hub/trim drag, this has the time saving capability of V-22...

BTW good point well made about comparing stunt with bread-and-butter capabilities, Nick.

Mart

NickLappos

14th Jan 2006, 13:50

Graviman,
The cost for an X2 might be 10% more than a regular helo of the same general size, and the payload might be 10% less, due to the increased empty weight for the "extra" rotorhead and the auxiliary propulsion/propellor.
Also, the cruise fuel flow at 240-ish would be higher than a tilt rotor because the rotor is just not as efficient as a wing at high speed.

So the X2 would take off with about 50 to 75% more payload than a tiltrotor, but would burn more fuel per mile, so the range would be no better, and maybe worse. Devilish tradeoffs, these.

Matthew Parsons

14th Jan 2006, 14:05

Nick, how to generate a statistic is entirely in the hands of its creator. However, it is important to ensure that everyone using the statistic understands it fully. I don't think your $2 million minute will be well understood after a few iterations along the grapevine.

For example, consider a comparison between a $40 million helicopter and a $100 million Osprey, which has had its initial 200nm flight. The $60 million difference was paid for at $2 million per minute. Now however, with the difference gone, the V22 is faster with the only cost of that speed being the increased incremental costs (ie fuel, maintenance, etc).

Another way to look at it is if the first flight wasn't 200nm but was 400nm. Then the V22 comes in at the cut rate price (50% off) of $1 million per minute.

Either way you run it, those numbers are just shocking statistics that aren't based on any business sense. Nobody would buy a V22 for one flight, and nobody would spread the initial purchase price completely over a single flight.

SASless

14th Jan 2006, 14:17

Nick,

You better head for the bunker, grab yer Kevlar underwear.....sully the "Concorde"? Yikes...."Incoming!"

IFMU

14th Jan 2006, 14:37

So the X2 would take off with about 50 to 75% more payload than a tiltrotor, but would burn more fuel per mile, so the range would be no better, and maybe worse. Devilish tradeoffs, these.

Nick,

How would the X2 stack up if there was any amount of hovering in the mission?

-- IFMU

Matthew Parsons

14th Jan 2006, 14:42

Nick, I'm beginning to see your approach. When planning the machine, if you seperate the procurement costs from the operating costs, it doesn't matter if you spread procurement costs over one mission or over the life of the machine.

However, I doubt an operator would ever work that way. I was comparing a North American built sporty family sedan to a similiar performing German one. Operating costs (mostly mileage) were approximately the same, but the German one cost twice as much. However, the safety and reliability of the German car and the quality of the engineering convinced me that it was worth more than twice the North American one. The first trip home would have been safer but (using your statistic) that would have cost me $4,000 per mile for that safety. Had I considered your statistic rather than the decrease in the long term operating costs due to the reliability I wouldn't have ever thought that the German was the better choice.

Not a very good story because in the end I bought the North American one because my wife liked the color choices better.

If by some miracle the V22 proves to need $1 of maintenance for every 900 flight hours, then that fact would never appear in your stats, but would be very influential in choosing a machine.

The point is that the decision of which machine to procure should ultimately compare overall performance and suitability with average hourly cost of operation over the vehicle's lifetime. That average hourly cost would not have a $120 million increment (60 minutes x $2 million/minute) due to the purchase price of $100 million.

NickLappos

14th Jan 2006, 14:43

IFMU,
I am not privy to the latest info, but flew the ABC back when, and understand the concept well. The counter rotating coaxial design is at home in the hover, and is very efficient, as well as having unlimited yaw control. Dave Jackson can go on from here!

It is optimized for hover, except for the +10% lost payload it suffers from carrying the propulsor and shroud that allow it to go to high speed.

Matthew Parsons

14th Jan 2006, 15:09

Nick, how was the yaw control response of the ABC?

slowrotor

14th Jan 2006, 15:17

Nick,
I agree the V-22 is a giant vortex ring for sucking up money. The U.S. gov has put in 12 billion and since the gov is probably the only customer the true cost need to apportion the development cost into each unit. That would be staggering.
But that is how the U.S. does things. The design should have been put out to bid for several companies to compete. And they should have started small first in my opinion.
slowrotor

Graviman

14th Jan 2006, 15:44

You better head for the bunker, grab yer Kevlar underwear.....sully the "Concorde"? Yikes...."Incoming!"

Hehehe, damn straight! I live in a country where we handed the space race over to Ariane, before it began (they are not technically minded in Westminster). Concorde is proof that we could still deliver cutting edge technology right up there with the Space Shuttle. The Apollo program also inspired a generation of engineers - and still does by the way!

My concern is that technically the V-22 is not the best approach for it's mission requirements.

Also, the (X-2) cruise fuel flow at 240-ish would be higher than a tilt rotor because the rotor is just not as efficient as a wing at high speed.

I imagine that the development of active blade twist, and rotors stable at low RRPMs, will go a long way to helping with this.

Mart

NickLappos

14th Jan 2006, 15:46

Matthew,
Yaw response in the ABC was reasonable, a little slower than a tail rotor aircraft, more in keeping with a NOTAR feel. Yaw is achieved by differential torque, so the feel is not as fully crisp as a tail rotor, but every bit as good at what I have read about NOTAR and tiltrotors.

Ian Corrigible

14th Jan 2006, 15:49

Slowrotor,

The V-22 was competitively bid (as the JVX) back in 1981/2. As already mentioned by Nick, Sikorsky was amongst the bidders.

I/C

slowrotor

14th Jan 2006, 16:29

I/C,
When I say compete, I mean really compete, with each company building a flying prototype that is fully tested and funded by the company. With five different designs to choose from the government would get a design with true cost for value. It is the government bidding process that is to blame for billions in cost overruns. There should not be just one design under development. The procurement should be divided among several companies to create an incentive to improve.

I think some type of tiltprop design is the future. But the V-22 has muddied the water for future development. That's the sad part. In other words, I think the direct lift airplane is something that needs to be invented. The V-22 needs some competition with some new and better ideas and configurations that make better economic sense. Maybe this will come from private business.

Dave_Jackson

14th Jan 2006, 19:46

Nick, Matthew has this one.

The military may not know the future usage and life of its vehicles, but commercial companies have to consider the estimated usage when doing cost accounting.

special02

23rd Jan 2006, 19:25

I was based at Farnborough when the the first version of the osprey was delivered to carry out flight tests before the airshow. When you consider that was within 5 years of the end of the vietnam war and consider the time it takes for an aircraft to get off the drawing board to that stage. It is no wonder that the aircraft was developed with vietnam era or even earlier vehicles in mind.:)

hotzenplotz

23rd Jan 2006, 21:08

What do you think about this aproach?

What about flying in turbulent air whith the rotor unloaded?

Funding may block X-49 progress
Piasecki Aircraft has completed ground vibration testing of its X-49A compound helicopter demonstrator, but uncertainty over funding is threatening plans to flight test the modified Sikorsky YSH-60F by early 2007.
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/42/750242/1024_6139303531663938.jpg
X-49
The Seahawk prototype has been fitted with a wing and Piasecki’s vectored thrust ducted propeller (VDTP), which replaces the tailrotor and provides both anti-torque control and forward thrust. The “ring tail” VTDP includes elevator and rudder control surfaces, as well as a deployable visor that vectors propeller thrust to counter torque and provide yaw control in vertical and low-speed flight.
The modification is expected to boost the helicopter’s maximum speed from 150kt (280km/h) to 200kt, says director programme requirements Joe Cosgrove. Transferring lift to the wing as forward speed increases allows the rotor to be unloaded, avoiding retreating-blade stall.
The YSH-60F’s tailrotor driveshaft has been replaced by a strengthened shaft capable of delivering 2,100shp (1,560kW) to the ducted propeller, Cosgrove says. At high forward speed this is the majority of the power generated by the helicopter’s two General Electric T700-701Cs. A production VTDP would draw 2,700shp, he says.
To overcome concerns about the impact on empty weight and hover payload of the VTDP, Piasecki is proposing to replace the helicopter’s auxiliary power unit with a supplementary power unit based on the Rolls-Royce T703 turboshaft. This would provide an additional 650shp in the hover, and would idle in the cruise, says Cosgrove.
Essington, Pennsylvania-based Piasecki is now installing instrumentation on the X-49A, and plans to begin ground testing by mid-year, but flight testing depends on Congress adding money to the US Army’s budget. “We need $8.8 million to get to flight test, but don’t know what we will get in [fiscal year] 2006,” says Cosgrove.
Originally a US Navy programme, but transferred to the US Army in 2004, the X-49A technology demonstration has survived on Congressional “plus-ups”. The House voted $5 million for this year, but the FY2006 US defence budget has yet to be agreed by Congress.
“Five million dollars is short of the stated requirement,” says Cosgrove, who believes “some service money” could be found to fly the X-49A early in 2007.
GRAHAM WARWICK/WASHINGTON DC

http://www.vtol.org/news/VTDP.jpg

hotzenplotz

27th Jan 2006, 14:22

Israel considers V-22 acquisition

By Alon Ben-David JDW Correspondent
Tel Aviv

The Israel Air Force (IAF) is seriously considering procurement of Bell/ Boeing V-22 Osprey multimission tiltrotor aircraft, defence sources have told JDW.

The IAF is preparing to issue a request for information in the coming months and is sending its Chief of Air Directorate for Helicopters, Brigadier General 'Tamir', to fly the aircraft in the US.

Offering a range greater than 1,000 km and a speed of 275 kt - much faster than most helicopters - the V-22 is being considered by the IAF for special forces missions as well as search and rescue. "It could provide new dimensions to IAF capabilities, especially now that Israel is facing a distant developing threat from Iran," an industry source told JDW. "With the V-22's air-to-air refuelling capability, the range could even be further extended, providing the IAF with new deterrent capabilities."

However, its unit cost, estimated at USD70 million, might impede such a procurement. "The Osprey is indeed an expensive platform, but it could relieve the IAF from the need to upgrade all of its Hercules and Sea Stallion fleet and [allow it to] decommission some of them," said the industry source.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw060125_1_n.shtml

Graviman

27th Jan 2006, 17:01

What do you think about this aproach?

Been done by Lockheed as part of the Cheyenne program. Trouble is the wings cause a sizable downforce in hover (Disc area less wing area). Rotor drag is seriously reduced by unloading rotor though, but new developments in blade twist will eventually overcome this problem. For my money X-2 represents the design with highest performance potential.

Pusher props make sense, since they present the minimum aero profile for the rotor hub. The size can also be optimised in terms of minimum parasitic drag.

What about flying in turbulent air whith the rotor unloaded?

Not a problem, since rotor head is rigid. Pilot probably controls roll/pitch through unloaded rotor, at high speed, so there is no risk of rotor strikes. Usually the rotor is not fully unloaded, but the retreating tip AOA is well below stall (ie nearer optimum AOA). Rigid rotor counterrotators can achieve higher speed though.

Worth bearing in mind that the controls will never be as easy as a fixed wing, since pilot is still flying a helicopter control system. Ailerons and elevators effectively control roll/pitch velocity, while rotor systems control pitch/roll acceleration (or more accurately torque, but for small inputs it's effectively acceleration).

Mart

SASless

29th Jan 2006, 20:56

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/osprey_line_up.jpg

Aser

29th Jan 2006, 21:19

The second machine... is an UAV? :}

Nice pic.

Gregg

30th Jan 2006, 14:03

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/gshimp/IMG_2913.jpg
Here is the UAV version...........

Ian Corrigible

30th Jan 2006, 16:01

She's got uglier as she's got older... :E What happened to the Eagle Eye's neat blended empennage ?

I/C

SASless

10th Feb 2006, 03:14

http://www.newsobserver.com/689/story/386297.html

Lengthy article discusses shortcomings of V22 as a Marine Assault Support aircraft. Notes two aircraft are required to carry the same load a CH-46 can for the same distance. Definitely worth reading if you are not a US Taxpayer.

widgeon

10th Feb 2006, 08:01

Did it not say half load of H53 not the h-46 , still interesting comparison though. Why don't they give each marine one of them strap on jet packs instead.

SASless

10th Feb 2006, 12:44

The Growler was chosen because it fits into the Osprey's cabin. It will take two Ospreys to fly in one mortar with 30 rounds of ammunition and six Marines to operate the system. One Sea Stallion could handle the same load, though slower.

I stand corrected. One two many foaming ales at the Marine Corps League Hut before posting!

Dan Reno

2nd Mar 2006, 16:34

I read that since the proposed chin-mounted gun is too pricey (& heavy), V-22s will go into combat with a ramp-mounted 50 cal machine gun since: “…it could provide at least some suppressive fire during the retreat.”

Due to the V-22’s restrictive cabin size, marines were forced to procure a French mortar towed behind an unarmored jeep that can’t leave the protection of the base (IAW current US Force's rules in Iraq and Afghanistan). However, I’d be willing to bet that not unlike most of theV-22’s pre-production goals, that rule will be eroded or abolished altogether in the name of “positive V-22 propaganda” but paid for in marine blood (again).

What a slippery slope the marines have found the V-22 dragging them down!

21st Century

3rd Mar 2006, 07:31

US Air Force welcomes arrival of first combat-configured CV-22 Osprey

Air Force leadership accepted the keys for the first combat-configured CV-22 Osprey from Bell Boeing March 1 in a ceremony at the Bell manufacturing facility in Amarillo, Texas.

While earlier versions of the CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft are in use as test assets, this is the first of the "Block B/10" aircraft, representing the configuration that the Air Force Special Operations Command will take into combat in 2009.

Senior DoD leaders taking part in the ceremony included Army Gen. Doug Brown, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command; Air Force Lt. Gen. John L. Hudson, commander of Aeronautical Systems Center; and Air Force Maj. Gen. Donald Wurster, vice commander of AFSOC. The man to receive the keys to the aircraft, however, was Air Force Lt. Col. Jim Cardoso, commanding officer of the 71st Special Operations Squadron, which will get this Osprey to support aircrew training at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.

The Air Force will purchase 50 CV-22s for long-range infiltration, exfiltration and re-supply of special operations forces in hostile or denied territory. The Osprey provides twice the speed, up to five times the range and significantly enhanced survivability over other conventional rotary wing platforms.

At the same time, it retains the operational flexibility of a helicopter, with the ability to take off and land vertically, and insert troops via "fast rope" capability onto rooftops or decks of ships.

"This aircraft is the single most significant transformation of Air Force Special Operations since the introduction of the helicopter," said Wurster. "Nearly every mission we have faced in the last 20 years could have been done better and faster with the V-22."

Wurster also spoke of the positive impact the aircraft would have on protecting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

"Our ability to move point to point by air, over extended distances at high speed, would reduce our exposure to the roadside attacks" that are responsible for so many casualties, he said.

The CV-22 is about 85 percent common with the MV-22 Osprey that the Marine Corps will deploy with in 2007, but possesses a number of additional capabilities tailored to the demands of its unique mission.

A Multi-Mode Radar with terrain following/terrain avoidance modes allows aggressive, terrain-masking ingress routes to be flown safely under cover of darkness. The Suite of Integrated Radio-Frequency Countermeasures and the Directed Infrared Countermeasures systems detect and defeat radar-guided and heat-seeking missiles, respectively. The CV-22 also has additional internal fuel capacity and enhanced navigation systems, communications and avionics gear when compared to the MV-22.

"This gives us global reach," Brown said of the CV-22. "We can reach out and touch bad guys wherever they live around the world."

On Feb. 24, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rode in the jump seat of an MV-22 Osprey on a short flight from Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., to Camp Lejeune, N.C. The Defense Department approved full rate production of the Osprey in September 2005, following successful completion of an operational evaluation in which the Osprey demonstrated all the key performance parameters for the Marine Corps mission. Additional operational test will begin later this year for those systems and mission profiles unique to the CV-22.

Brown said his troops would like to have the aircraft in theater today. "I never go to visit them without getting the question, 'When are we going to get the CV-22?'" he said.

Positive feedback has also come from operators fresh from the field during recent trials with the aircraft at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

"I spent the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan and led 22 direct-action air assaults," said one Navy SEAL team leader who asked not to be identified. "Coming in on the helos, the enemy would hear us when we were still [minutes] out. That was time they had to flee or to get ready to shoot at us. With the Osprey, my experience has been that you don't hear it until it's already over your head."

Brown acknowledged that it has been a long road to get the V-22 from earlier designs to a mature technology that's ready for war.

"This is not the same aircraft that was flying six years ago," said Marine Corps Col. Bill Taylor, head of the V-22 Joint Program Office. "Both the aircraft and the program have been reengineered, and more than ten thousand flight hours over the last three-and-a-half years have validated those changes. And we will continue to make improvements for as long as this aircraft is in the inventory."

On March 3, the Marine Corps will stand up the first operational V-22 squadron, VMM-263, at MCAS New River. The Marines' MV-22 reaches initial operational capability, meaning it is ready to deploy for combat, in summer 2007, though the squadron will be airborne with its full complement of Ospreys at New River within the year. Initial operational capability for the Air Force's CV-22 follows in 2009.

Dave_Jackson

3rd Mar 2006, 18:08

"The Air Force will purchase 50 CV-22s for long-range infiltration, exfiltration and re-supply of special operations forces in ... denied territory." :confused: :confused: :confused:

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

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

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

PPRUNE FAN#1

4th Mar 2006, 01:56

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

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

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

TheShadow

31st Mar 2006, 11:36

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

Dan Reno

7th Apr 2006, 11:39

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

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_s...id=news/INV04066.xml (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_story.jsp?id=news/INV04066.xml)

The Sultan

7th Apr 2006, 18:10

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

The Sultan

Dan Reno

10th Apr 2006, 18:00

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

Does this include when chained down on a flight deck?

Hmmmm. Better break out another billion $$.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16456680&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18177&rfi=6

Dan Reno

6th May 2006, 12:50

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

http://www.newbernsunjournal.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=27662&Section=Local

Jack Carson

9th May 2006, 14:37

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

Dan Reno

10th May 2006, 08:59

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

Jack Carson

10th May 2006, 13:15

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

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

Dan Reno

10th May 2006, 16:12

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

Bronx

16th Jun 2006, 07:46

Something for the guys in England to see.
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/images/CV22_main_750x250_46558.jpg
MV-22 Osprey Tiltrotors to Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Air Shows

U.S. Marines will fly two MV-22 Ospreys to England for the Royal International Air Tattoo at Fairford and Farnborough International Air Show.

Bell Boeing pilots will fly the aircraft during daily flight demonstrations at both RIAT and Farnborough.

The Ospreys will depart Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC, and fly to Goose Bay, Newfoundland, where the crews will remain overnight. The next day they will depart Goose Bay and fly across the Atlantic to Farnborough with two Marine Corps KC-130J tanker aircraft from VMGR-252.

The Marine Corps' purpose for going to RIAT and FAS is to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for long-range, over-water movements of V-22s. VMX-22 will validate the Osprey's long-range fuel system capability and aerial refueling data, with the goal of supporting future VMM unit-level deployments.

Under the current program of record, the Marine Corps will purchase 360 MV-22s for missions, including amphibious assault, ship-to-objective maneuvers, and sustained operations ashore. The Navy is also slated to get 48 MV-22s, which could be used for fleet logistic support, and search and rescue.

The Air Force Special Operations Command will acquire 50 CV-22 variants, with enhanced capabilities tailored for their unique mission requirements. The CV-22 will reach initial operational capability in 2009, while the Marines' variant will be ready to deploy in late 2007.

chevvron

16th Jun 2006, 20:03

Any idea what date this will be?

The Nr Fairy

16th Jun 2006, 21:11

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

AlanM

16th Jun 2006, 22:38

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

Ian Corrigible

17th Jun 2006, 00:40

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

I/C

Dan Reno

21st Jun 2006, 14:51

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

UPDATE:

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

Bronx

11th Jul 2006, 23:18

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

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

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

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

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

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

SASless

11th Jul 2006, 23:29

The Marine Corps' purpose for going to RIAT and FAS is to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for long-range, over-water movements of V-22s.

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

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

Dan Reno

13th Jul 2006, 15:33

Ref: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/0711dnbusv22.17ad314.html
The article above reportis that one of the 2 V-22s (actually 3) experienced a compressor stall and was having the engine replaced, Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing." "These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.

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

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

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

EOR

chevvron

13th Jul 2006, 16:55

Second V22 arrived Farnborough this pm.

Ian Corrigible

15th Jul 2006, 01:16

Heard earlier today there was a V-22 Class B mishap but without any details. Has anyone heard or know more of the same?
Incident now confirmed by Inside the Pentagon as being a class C mishap related to a 'hung' nose landing gear event at MCAS New River. Pilot spent 2 hours trying to lower the gear without success, and the aircraft was eventually landed on padded matting, cracking the FLIR turret in the process.

I/C

Dan Reno

15th Jul 2006, 10:32

Thanks Ian, though I couldn't locate the article for myself via Google. (link?)

It's also rumored that a lot of the engine changes are actually due to a problem that killed Marines and was reported as fixed by Bell which then gave them the green light for production....5K PSI misting within the engine cowl. If this is true, there'll be a Congressional investigation.

R22DRIVER

17th Jul 2006, 07:14

Question for you tech guys.

Are the 2 rotor systems on the V22 Osprey linked together ( Drive Wise ), like a normal tandem rotor system on a vertol, chook?

If not, how do you control the machine if you have a single engine failure, especially in the helicopter rotor configuration?

R22 :confused:

Phoinix

17th Jul 2006, 08:03

Yes, the sides are linked. Our experts will tell you how exactly. :E

Garfs

18th Jul 2006, 19:53

Not sure if this has been posted here before.

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Bell-Boeing-Vertol_V-22_Osprey-Airline_Untitled_Aviation_Video-6669.html

Quite Impressive I thought

Garfs

HOSS 1

18th Jul 2006, 19:56

Hey, for such a great aircraft, could someone explain why there's only ONE V-22 at Farnbrough this week? Sure glad it wasn't anthing more than a dog & pony mission...

TiPwEiGhT

18th Jul 2006, 20:46

What exactly happens if one of the donks stops? Can the V-22 autorotate?

TiP
:confused:

Encyclo

18th Jul 2006, 22:58

There are two V-22s in Farnborough this week; one is on the static area as you come in to the show grounds with the rest of the Textron family (Bell 407, Bell 430, EZ Go golf cart, Citation XLS and CJ3 and Caravan). The other usually does at least two flights a day; one with customers or media in the morning and one as part of the airshow in the afternoon.
Very impressive flight demo:eek: :D :ok:

Flingwing207

19th Jul 2006, 02:48

What exactly happens if one of the donks stops? Can the V-22 autorotate?
TiP
:confused:The engines are cross-connected - either engine can drive both prop-rotors. Not sure what hover capability the aircraft has in that configuration, but I'm sure it can fly away fine in airplane mode.

IFMU

19th Jul 2006, 10:34

The engines are cross-connected - either engine can drive both prop-rotors. Not sure what hover capability the aircraft has in that configuration, but I'm sure it can fly away fine in airplane mode.
I'm still curious about TiP's question. Can it auto? If both donks stop, what are your options? Does it land like a FW?

-- IFMU

Algy

19th Jul 2006, 18:46

Love it or hate it, these are nice pix. (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/19/Navigation/177/207952/Pictures+Bell+Boeing+V-22+Osprey+tiltrotors+fly+over+downtown.html)

SASless

19th Jul 2006, 19:26

Being as how it was a Jarhead flying the thing....it probably took him a couple of hours to figure out how the Gear Lever worked....too many moving parts for him to handle in one go.:uhoh:

Encyclo

19th Jul 2006, 23:24

Was pretty amazing seeing the v-22s flying formation over downtown London on Sunday night. Lot's of folks were wondering what the hell they were:confused: :confused: :confused: .
The display aircraft continues to fly customers/media in addition to it's airshow display around 15:30 every day. Really the star of the show...apart from maybe the MIG 29 with new thrust vectoring system that allows him to do incredible stuff (double summer sault, flat spin and 90 Deg AOA pass).

Dan Reno

20th Jul 2006, 15:55

The Marines did the overwater portion of this mission while Bell pilots did the overland portion to include the Air Shows & demos.

SF

SASless

24th Jul 2006, 16:43

Delores Etter, the Navy's chief weapons buyer, acknowledged that the V-22's availability rate is only 35%, according to one measure. But she said the program looks better using standard evaluation metrics and is consistently improving.
"I really am not concerned at this point," Etter said in an air show interview.
"We're having issues we've got to work through," she added. "But if you look at where we're at in the program, where the plan has been for reliability, when we get ready to actually deploy it, we're well on the path to get there."
Lt. Gen. John Castellaw, head of Marine Corps aviation, said the companies are working on changes to make maintenance easier. The military also is just starting to get the hang of its new planes before their first combat deployment next year.
"When I get a new car it takes me a while to learn how to change the oil," he said, by way of example, during a press conference.
Bell Helicopter Chief Executive Michael Redenbaugh said the companies have a designed a number of forthcoming improvements. "I think that's the natural teething pains that we go through," Redenbaugh said in an interview, when asked about the maintenance concerns.
One of the V-22's next challenges is to get cheaper. New aircraft cost about $70 million each right now, but the companies have a goal of $58 million per plane. To help bring costs down, the Pentagon seeks a multi-year production contract and also is showing off the aircraft to prospective foreign buyers.
"Once you have aircraft designed and ready to go, the best thing you can do in terms of affordability is buy more of them," Etter said.

Now there is a load of Bovine Feces for you!

They get "cheaper" if you buy more of them....errrr...maybe they still cost too damn much even then.

35% availability rate....and "we are not concerned"....oh, dear!

Dave_Jackson

24th Jul 2006, 17:45

At $70 million each and an availability rate of 35%, does this mean $ 200 million for each 'Available'? :)

SASless

24th Jul 2006, 18:16

Dave,

One should factor into the equation some other variables as well. The Osprey cannot land adjacent to the "island" on the Amphib Carriers thus they lose the use of that spot(s) unlike the CH-53E which can land on all spots.

The V-22 cannot haul any standard US Military Vehicle internally. (Discounts commerical ATV's) but does have the ability to haul the 120,000 USD special built M-151 jeep derivative that was chucked because of its record of killing Marines and Soldiers in car crashes (mostly rollovers).

Engine changes have to be done on the open flight deck because of height restrictions. Can you imagine the light discipline problems that will incur?

Bell and the DOD procurement folks can dress it up all they wish....but one cannot disguise a pig by putting an evening dress on it.:ugh:

Grainger

24th Jul 2006, 20:04

I'm still curious about TiP's question. Can it auto? If both donks stop, what are your options? Does it land like a FW?
As I understand it, the V22 can autorotate, although the RoD is around 6000 fpm. Should get the pucker factor going :eek:

What you really, really don't want to do is to vortex ring it. At least in a single rotor you'd have some chance of recovery, but with two side by side almost certainly one will go before the other, and that's the end of you . . .

NickLappos

25th Jul 2006, 14:00

The concept of autorotation has two phases, descent and landing. The V22 can make an autorotational descent from powered flight (but probably not enter one from sudden dual engine failure). However, it cannot make an autorotational landing, due primarily to low rotor inertia and high disk loading, both of which make it very hard to terminate survivably. In helicopter mode, if a dual engine failure occurs, the V-22 will very likely crash. Most tiltrotor arguments about the lack of survivable helo mode autorotation tend to say (inaccurately) that all rotorcraft have great problems surviving total power loss.

It does have a wing, however, so if the engines quit while it is in airplane mode it can land power-off like many airplanes, albeit at fairly high speed, since its wing loading is like a jet's. That is the solution presented when people ask if it can autorotate.

The fundamental strength of its fuselage is high, and it was designed for occupant safety in a crash, so its overall safety should be like most military transports, or better.

paco

25th Jul 2006, 14:11

You would have to be descending pretty fast to get into VR, though, wouldn't you?

Phil

Aser

25th Jul 2006, 14:12

Nick, what about OEI landing or flyaway from approach in helo config...

NickLappos

25th Jul 2006, 15:22

The V22 can easily fly OEI (the cross shafting is qualified for the full single engine power). I have heard no bad things about its OEI capability, at all.

Dave_Jackson

27th Jul 2006, 18:27

Bell Helicopter joins Urban Aero to launch X-Hawk flying car (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/18/Navigation/245/207933/Bell+Helicopter+joins+Urban+Aero+to+launch+X-Hawk+flying+car+using+fancraft+technology+for.html)

"X-Hawk Urban Warfighter disk loading would be about 40 lb/sq ft, twice that of the V-22 tilt rotor." ~ from AHS Breaking News.

How well will this Autorotate? :)

Jack Carson

27th Jul 2006, 19:44

Nick,
I never doubted if the V-22 could fly OEI. What is your take on its ability to withstand a single engine failure at a high total power setting? With both engines running and the torques matched the connecting shafts see little or no torque. Should one engine suddenly quit that shafting would have to very steeply ramp up to match the torque required at the failed engine prop/rotor gearbox. That would be similar to going from full right pedal to full left in less than 2 seconds along 40 feet of shafts and couplings. I have my doubts as to the V-22’s ability to handle a sudden engine failure.:8

SASless

27th Jul 2006, 20:05

Jack,

A second thought is the last engine suddenly failing while at max power demand....being a low inertia rotor system....rotor rpm decay would rather interesting. In forward flight with considerable airspeed perhaps not a major crisis but in a OGE hover.....Wow! Somewhat like a Harrier almost with the exception of no ejection seats.

Jack Carson

27th Jul 2006, 20:19

SASless,

The disc loading of a light Harrier's big turbo fan may be lower than the V-22's rotors at 60,000 lbs.

SASless

24th Aug 2006, 01:43

The link will take you to an article about the USMC trying to figure out how to load internally the special design Jeep....the only military vehicle besides ATV's and Motorcycles that will fit inside the Osprey.

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/2AA2EADAFEA23822852571D20055AAC9?opendocument

Baldegret

24th Aug 2006, 17:28

I was flying my R44 across the Rockies last week and on arriving at Gunnison airport (near Crested Butte), I was joined in the pattern by an Osprey. This aircraft had a test pilot and telemetry crew and was doing high density altitude trials in order to develop the operating envelope. I met the pilot (Chuck) after I had landed and he invited me for a look around the aircraft which was fascinating. To my question, he didn't think the autorotational qualities were worth relying on in the hover or rotor transition from vertical to horizontal and would always go for an aircraft-type glide approach if feasible.

Very impressive beast indeed!

I have some pictures but someone will need to tell me how to post them....

Thanks very much for the photo help to John Eacott; here they are:

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20077.jpg

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20078.jpg

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20079.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20080.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20081.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20082.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20083.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20084.JPG

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/August%202006%20Heli%20Trip%20(2)%20085.jpg

helinone

25th Aug 2006, 10:57

What is going to happen to the "rotors"if you attempt an aeroplane type landing?

22clipper

26th Aug 2006, 04:59

Looking at that V22 in the shed make me think the concept came originally from a hangar company looking for a design that takes up the maximum amount of space per aircraft?

SASless

3rd Jan 2007, 02:12

Since we are talking about the V-22's little brother....we might want to bring up this thread again.

Way back when Lu Zuckerman (Lord Bless Him!) brought up the issue of the fallacy of the V-22 replacing helicopters for the Beach Assault mission of the USMC.

The USMC has decided Vertical Envelopment relying solely upon helicopters was not the way beach assaults are done. They decided a combination of resources including helicopters, conventional landing craft, and the LCAC (Landing Craft, Air Cushion) would be the correct approach. Thus, the modern amphibious ships would all have helidecks/flight decks for aircraft and well decks for boats and LCAC's.

The introduction of the LCAC was designed to allow an "over the horizion" assault capability. LCAC's can carry very heavy loads of vehicles and equipment as well as large numbers of troops. LCAC's can travel at 40-50 knots across water and land. V-22's are said to have a 200nm range for troop lifts and pre-assault SOF Ops.

The V-22 Osprey was designed to meet a 50NM range for external cargo flights. It would follow, it seems, the Osprey operations in direct support of an amphibious assault would have to work in conjunction with the other means of transportation, those being boats, helicopters, and LCAC's.

The current LHA's (largest of the amphib ships much like an aircraft carrier without the angled deck) were not designed to accomodate the V-22.

Throw in the need for the Harrier squadrons for CAS and it seems there is a shortage of deck space for all the aircraft and operations.

A digram of the USS Tarawa shows there are three landing spots adjacent to the ship's island that are too narrow for the V-22. The ships beam is 106' and the width of the Osprey with rotors running is just over 84'.

What is it I seem to be missing? Any Marines out there that can explain how all this is going to work?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/tarawa.gif

Jolly Green

3rd Jan 2007, 02:35

Since this is a rumour network . . .

I heard the proprotor on the V-22 were sized to provide exactly the same clearance from the tower as the H-53E. Also the shipboard fold should give it about the same deck footprint as the H-46 for parking.

I wonder if any Marines out there could confirm or deny.

SASless

3rd Jan 2007, 02:50

CH-53 M/R Diameter is 79 feet vice 84.5 feet for the Osprey

Here is a chart for the K model....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/ch-53k-image08-s.jpg

Robbo Jock

3rd Jan 2007, 08:50

Looking at those landing spots, would the fact that one rotor's out over the water while the other's over the deck cause any handling problems?

Gregg

3rd Jan 2007, 12:08

There are some pictures on this web link that show the V-22 deployed on a ship and can provide you with a good idea of how the aircraft fits onboard ships.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=gallery.main&pageIdx=6&galleryId=-1

SASless

3rd Jan 2007, 14:12

As one of the photos from the linked site below show, the deck is pretty cluttered just with the V-22's much less any 53's, UH-1's, or Harriers it would seem. The one photo of the 22 running with just a few feet of deck to its Port side shows how far off center the aircraft must be. Just compare the deck centerline markings to how the aircraft are positioned.
Now add in darkness, rain, blowing snow, a rolling, heaving deck and imagine how much fun that would be.

Jolly Green

4th Jan 2007, 02:37

Photo looks like the V-22s are all parked right on the port helo spots. They only use one of the starboard spots, and only for one parked sideways.

During the first shipboard trial the fly by wire computer had trouble with one proprotor over the deck IGE and the other OGE. I'm sure it was an exciting cockpit for the test pilots. They fixed the software before trying again.

usmc helo

4th Jan 2007, 20:45

SASless,

The V-22's are spotted on the deck exactly where they are supposed to be. See the links below showing CH-53E's and 46's on the deck. Notice the similarity? The yellow centerline is only for the AV-8's. I also count 3 V-22's abeam the island, thus discounting your earlier statement that:

"The Osprey cannot land adjacent to the "island" on the Amphib Carriers thus they lose the use of that spot(s) unlike the CH-53E which can land on all spots".

The clearance between the rotor tips and the island are very similar to the CH-53E and it can land on all the same spots (I've seen it do so).

The AV-8's and the RW assets do perform launch/recovery ops concuncurrently (occasionally a AV-8 will land with RW's on the forward spots, but rarely). Therefore deck cycles will remain the same. During RW ops it's not uncommon for all port deck spots to be used with aircraft slashed starboard.

The LHD is the latest amphib (the ship that Gregg's pics are from, however it has the same beam (106') as the LHA.

http://www.usmc.mil/15thmeu/images/2006/060603_ace_arrival_1st_at_sea/060602-M-5538M-067.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/index.html#wasp8

http://www.lhd6.navy.mil/images/Sep%2013,%202006/Rimpac/images/burial003_jpg.jpg

HawkEyez

10th Feb 2007, 20:09

Low and behold another faulty part on the V-22. This time it's a computer chip. What next?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16669929.htm

NickLappos

10th Feb 2007, 23:19

"There but for the grace of God goes..." any new machine. Not a chargable foul, guys!

Graviman

11th Feb 2007, 11:39

When i was an automotive powertrains man we used to use an exponentially decaying curve to estimate the expected number of faults per test hour. It is suprisingly true in other areas of engineering. The problems never go away, but as more "unknowns" reveal themselves the development team can identify and solve the root cause.

Given the statistical nature of this development process, it always amazes me that it is generally the money men who struggle to get it...

Mart

Two's in

11th Feb 2007, 14:01

Graviman, no point in explaining stuff like Bath-tub reliability curves to the unbelievers, it only ruins a good story about how crap the V-22 is.

The Sultan

11th Feb 2007, 16:07

Actually, I think it only means how crappy limey vendors are.

The Sultan

nimby

12th Feb 2007, 16:24

Sorry, is TI an English company? Or did BAE Systems (limey, but in denial) change supplier to a US one to provide pork?

Dan Reno

6th Jun 2007, 08:01

So you'd like to use a V-22 at your airport or pad huh, well make sure it only operates over concrete. (Oh yeah, it will also warp USN carrier decks)
---------------------------------------
AL ASAD,Iraq (June 5, 2007) -- The Marine Corps’ MV-22 “Osprey” now has an easier target to sight in when landing at Camp Ramadi. Thanks to a group of Marines, the forward operating base now has a true expeditionary airfield to receive frequent troop movements and re-supplies.

The expeditionary airfield technicians and heavy equipment operators of Marine Wing Support Squadron 371 began building two landing pads for the Osprey and other air assets at Camp Ramadi, April 25.

“The Osprey is coming into theater and we’re building two landing pads so they can bring troops and supplies into Ramadi,” said Staff Sgt. Joseph B. Hague, an expeditionary air field technician with MWSS-371.

Although the MV-22 has increased troop carrying capacity and the ability to fly further and faster than other helicopters, the Osprey needs additional landing space because of the wide rotor span.

“This project is specifically for the Osprey,” said Lance Cpl. Roberto Zepeda III, an expeditionary airfield technician with MWSS-371. “Most helicopters only need a 96 by 96 foot pad, but we expanded to 120 by 120 so the Osprey can land.”

Marines came from various sections at ‘371 comprising a 31 man team, created to help the expeditionary air field section lay two 120 foot by 120 foot AM-2 matting landing pads.

“The matting itself is used universally for landing zones and runways,” said Hague, a Gainesville, Fla. native. “It’s very durable so it can be put anywhere. Basically if there’s ground there, you can put this matting down. It can be used for temporary or permanent airfields.”

Prior to this project, Ramadi’s only landing pad was made of asphalt which can be melted by the heat produced when the Osprey takes off or lands vertically. The AM-2 matting is made of high grade aluminum and can stand up to elements like extreme heat and cold. The matting can be laid on any type of flat terrain and can be utilized by any military aircraft.

The scheduled 30 day project consisted of two phases; surveying the terrain and constructing two landing pads with heavy equipment, then laying the AM-2 matting. The EAF Marines then painted and lighted the new landing pads.

“Matting is simple, it’s like putting together a big puzzle,” said Hague. “You stake it down, then paint it, light it, and certify it. The minute it’s built and certified, you can land on it.”

The AM-2 matting was installed specifically to support the Osprey, but every aircraft landing in Ramadi will welcome the change.

The airfield was a dirt lot with a small existing asphalt pad, according to Hague. The asphalt pad can only sustain two aircraft, any additional aircraft land in the dirt. With the new pads, the extra aircraft will be able to come in and land on pads while they’re waiting to refuel and load or unload passengers.

While increasing aircraft efficiency the new landing pads will also cut down brown out conditions making it safer for aircrews.

“It’s going to help out with all the aircraft traffic,” said Hague. “They’ll be able to bring in more aircraft for supplies, moving troops, and transport between bases.”

nimby

7th Jun 2007, 13:26

Looks like they've put the fuselage on sideways on that tri-plane!

Reminds me of the old joke about Airfix kits - the one about "add glue to the box and shake well".

Nimby

21st Century

16th Nov 2007, 10:08

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=de240468-7ef9-4381-8a1e-b2423975f034
(Amarillo, Tex., Nov. 13, 2007) – Calling the Bell Boeing V-22 a “two-in-one marvel,” POPULAR SCIENCE has named the Osprey to its list of “The Best of What’s New” for 2007.
Now in service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, the V-22 is a tiltrotor aircraft with engine nacelles at the tips of both wings. With the nacelles in the vertical position the V-22 can take-off, hover and land like a helicopter. With the engine nacelles in the horizontal or forward position the V-22 can fly more than 300 mph with the long range of a fixed wing turboprop airplane.
“We’re delighted and honored that POPULAR SCIENCE has chosen the V-22 for recognition this year,” said Bell Boeing Program Director Bob Kenney. “This is a tribute to the thousands of Bell and Boeing employees who work on the V-22 as well as the hundreds of young men and women with the Marines and Air Force who operate and fly the Osprey.”
Each year, the editors of POPULAR SCIENCE review thousands of products in search of the top 100 tech innovations of the year; breakthrough products and technologies that represent a significant leap in their categories. The winners—the Best of What’s New—are awarded inclusion in the much-anticipated December issue of POPULAR SCIENCE, the most widely read issue of the year since the debut of the Best of What’s New in 1987. Best of What’s New awards are presented to 100 new products and technologies in 10 categories. The V-22 Osprey is part of the Aviation & Space category.
Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, a division of The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], and Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc. [NYSE: TXT], share responsibility for production of the V-22. At its Rotorcraft Systems factory in suburban Philadelphia, Boeing builds and ships completed Osprey fuselages to Bell’s Amarillo, Texas, facility for installation of aircraft wing and tail assemblies and delivery to U.S. armed forces customers.
The V-22 Osprey program is slated to deliver 458 tiltrotors in the next decade to the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command and the U.S. Navy.

21st Century

22nd Nov 2007, 07:35

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/112007/opi_8957330.shtml
ESCONDIDO, Calif. - Unlike most of the V-22 critics, I have actually flown the MV-22 Osprey.
I flew hundreds of hours in this remarkable aircraft when I commanded the Marine Corps' test and evaluation squadron from 2003 to 2006, and I am obliged to tell the truth.

The truth is the Osprey is the most thoroughly tested aircraft in the history of aviation for one fundamental reason: the safety of its passengers. Our nation expects the military to use the best engineered, maintained and operated equipment available. Our troops deserve it.

The Osprey we are flying today is just that. Critics say we haven't flown the Osprey in the desert. Not true.

My squadron flew in desert environments on multiple occasions, totaling months of tests. The squadron now in Iraq completed several desert training periods prior to deploying. In fact, we just had another squadron of MV-22s in California and Arizona doing more of the same.

Not only can the Ospreys fly in the desert, the aircraft's advanced technology makes it easier than in any other rotorcraft to land in brownout conditions. Other critics point out that the MV-22 does not have a forward-firing weapon, but none puts this in context: No medium or heavy-lift aircraft in the U.S. inventory has a forward-firing weapon. MV-22s flying in Iraq have ramp-mounted machine guns, which have become the standard on our aircraft in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the threat.

That, and the inherent capabilities of the aircraft (range, speed and altitude), give the MV-22 the ability to reduce susceptibility and vulnerability to many threats. The MV-22 has limited visibility through the cabin windows, much like the CH-46 and the CH-53E, but what most critics do not know is that the troop commander, who rides in the back of the Osprey, has unparalleled situational awareness from the onboard precision navigation system, with moving maps and a significant communications capability.

These capabilities are not an option in existing Marine Corps aircraft. The MV-22 is the most maneuverable medium-lift assault support platform in the world.

Conventional helicopters are limited to standard rotary wing tactics and airspeeds, while the MV-22 has the ability to fly like a turboprop airplane as well as a conventional helicopter. As an airplane, it can climb or descend at a significantly faster rate than any helicopter and transit at much higher speeds. Vortex Ring State is a phenomenon experienced by all rotorcraft - not just the Osprey.

While the MV-22 is the only aircraft with a warning system that alerts pilots to VRS conditions, it is the least susceptible to this phenomenon. To argue whether the aircraft is worth the money spent is an unending debate.

To the injured Marine or soldier whose life is saved due to the unparalleled capabilities of the MV-22, I would posit that the aircraft is worth every penny.

Col. Glenn Walters heads the Marine Corps' aviation plans section in the Pentagon and previously commanded Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22).