What's the latest on tilt rotors?
V-22 Haters Batting 1000
To all V-22 haters, "Iraqi Freedom" has proved you correct. The CH-53 continues its excellent record (Cambodia, Desert One, Afghanistan), the CH-46 is great and does not need replacing, and it is OK to let our troops be required to camp out within 10 miles of the enemy (thats to you LU).
Well Done!
The Sultan
Well Done!
The Sultan
You may have posted this one a bit soon - a CH-46 went down with the unfortunate loss of 16 lives.
if it had been a V-22, that would be the end of its chances. Being an old steam-driven 46, though, it might just be an "acceptable" loss. Sad how people think.
if it had been a V-22, that would be the end of its chances. Being an old steam-driven 46, though, it might just be an "acceptable" loss. Sad how people think.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if this had been fifty years ago, you would have been pointing out how the experiments in Korea with the new-fangled Bell 47s were doomed to fail as well?
Come to think of it, what DID happen to the helicopter after that? Anyone care to remind me?
Come to think of it, what DID happen to the helicopter after that? Anyone care to remind me?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arlington, Tx. US The home of bell helicopter
To: The Sultan (Read official spokesperson for Bell helicopter)
By camping out 10 miles from the enemy are you alluding to my comment about the LHA positioning offshore? The positioning of the LHA was a part of the battle scenario and it would operate even closer depending on the enemies’ defensive capability.
I don't know if this plan has been modified to "camping out" over the horizon just because they were going to use the V-22. But even so with the higher speed of the V-22 it is still very vulnerable to enemy fire while in the helicopter mode.
I have worked for most of the major airframe manufacturers and two missile/spacecraft companies and I came to realize that none of the products I worked on were perfect. I would strongly suggest that you loosen up and stop being so defensive about Bell products. Oh yes I also worked for Bell Helicopter and I soon came to realize that none of their products were perfect.
It is my personal opinion that the last good helicopter to come off the Bell production line was the J-2 Ranger.
By camping out 10 miles from the enemy are you alluding to my comment about the LHA positioning offshore? The positioning of the LHA was a part of the battle scenario and it would operate even closer depending on the enemies’ defensive capability.
I don't know if this plan has been modified to "camping out" over the horizon just because they were going to use the V-22. But even so with the higher speed of the V-22 it is still very vulnerable to enemy fire while in the helicopter mode.
I have worked for most of the major airframe manufacturers and two missile/spacecraft companies and I came to realize that none of the products I worked on were perfect. I would strongly suggest that you loosen up and stop being so defensive about Bell products. Oh yes I also worked for Bell Helicopter and I soon came to realize that none of their products were perfect.
It is my personal opinion that the last good helicopter to come off the Bell production line was the J-2 Ranger.
Hilico sez:
Sure. Well, for one thing, we've learned a lot more about "settling with power." We call it "vortex ring state" now because we understand what the rotor is doing when the bottom falls out. We know how it happens, when it's likely to happen, and how to keep it from happening.
Yet it still happens. Crazy, that.
Also, we know more about formation flying, and how the rotor of one helicopter affects the rotor of another flying close by. And we've learned that it takes an enormous amount of computer power (maybe more than is currently available) to make two horizontal rotors fly in close formation especially when they are linked by a wing.
Yet despite this collective knowledge, some people continue their endeavor (futile struggle?) to make such a design work.
The V-22/609 does not introduce any "new" technology. It merely borrows a little from this and that to make a b*stard aircraft. The only envelope it pushes is that of helicopter performance (cruise speed), and it does that by making some very real sacrifices in others (safety being the most important, IMHO).
A helicopter that gets into fully-developed VRS low to the ground will surely crash. But it will probably crash in a level attitude. And that crash can be surviveable if the aircraft is designed well (UH-60 for instance) and the occupants are properly strapped-in.
A tilt rotor has a neat added feature: one proprotor can get into VRS while the other continues to fly. We call this mode "A-VRS" (asymmetrical vortex ring state). If the tilt rotor gets into A-VRS close to the ground it will roll over and hit that ground inverted or nearly so.
This has happened. Everybody onboard died. Everybody onboard the next one that gets into A-VRS will die too.
Tilt rotor fans minimize or trivialize this performance peculiarity as unimportant. "Oh, just teach the pilots how to avoid it," they cluck. I suppose they mean that we'll teach tilt rotor pilots to avoid A-VRS the way we've taught "regular" helicopter pilots to avoid plain-vanilla VRS over the years. Yeah, that ought to work- NOT!
But evidently the cruise performance gains with the tilt rotor are worth the increased risk (over a conventional helicopter) inherent in the design. Some will say that the ends justify the means.
I say: Have we learned nothing from fifty-plus years of helicopter development? Apparently not.
And if this had been fifty years ago, you would have been pointing out how the experiments in Korea with the new-fangled Bell 47s were doomed to fail as well?
Come to think of it, what DID happen to the helicopter after that? Anyone care to remind me?
Come to think of it, what DID happen to the helicopter after that? Anyone care to remind me?
Yet it still happens. Crazy, that.
Also, we know more about formation flying, and how the rotor of one helicopter affects the rotor of another flying close by. And we've learned that it takes an enormous amount of computer power (maybe more than is currently available) to make two horizontal rotors fly in close formation especially when they are linked by a wing.
Yet despite this collective knowledge, some people continue their endeavor (futile struggle?) to make such a design work.
The V-22/609 does not introduce any "new" technology. It merely borrows a little from this and that to make a b*stard aircraft. The only envelope it pushes is that of helicopter performance (cruise speed), and it does that by making some very real sacrifices in others (safety being the most important, IMHO).
A helicopter that gets into fully-developed VRS low to the ground will surely crash. But it will probably crash in a level attitude. And that crash can be surviveable if the aircraft is designed well (UH-60 for instance) and the occupants are properly strapped-in.
A tilt rotor has a neat added feature: one proprotor can get into VRS while the other continues to fly. We call this mode "A-VRS" (asymmetrical vortex ring state). If the tilt rotor gets into A-VRS close to the ground it will roll over and hit that ground inverted or nearly so.
This has happened. Everybody onboard died. Everybody onboard the next one that gets into A-VRS will die too.
Tilt rotor fans minimize or trivialize this performance peculiarity as unimportant. "Oh, just teach the pilots how to avoid it," they cluck. I suppose they mean that we'll teach tilt rotor pilots to avoid A-VRS the way we've taught "regular" helicopter pilots to avoid plain-vanilla VRS over the years. Yeah, that ought to work- NOT!
But evidently the cruise performance gains with the tilt rotor are worth the increased risk (over a conventional helicopter) inherent in the design. Some will say that the ends justify the means.
I say: Have we learned nothing from fifty-plus years of helicopter development? Apparently not.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is the MV-22 going to handle MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) It does not have a gun for self defense - (and if it adds the chin turrent we keep hearing about, it just add more weight - the last thing the Osprey needs...), I doubt if it can fast rope, it is one big target while hovering, and how quickly can it get into a zone - remember, no big manuevers or we get vortex ring state. The price tag (last I heard was $79 million a copy) is JUST a tad expensive. Change the name from Osprey to Albatross....
Guy's
Here I am admitting everything you said is correct, and I get ridiculed. Whats up with that? Feeling defensive?
46Driver: I do not care to see what will happen if 46's lumber into urban combat.
Tiercel: Nick expertise shows on the 609 thread. You would think anyone with even minimal flight test knowledge could recognize the accomplishment of rock solid hovers and low speed maneuvers with a fly-by-wire control system all done on first flight of a revolutionary aircraft. But hey Nick sezs , range does not count, speed does not count. (As long as you have a bunch of tankers).
Lu: You are the highlight of my week. In the future the V-22 will be required so we can fly over or around all of our former friends.
The Sultan
Here I am admitting everything you said is correct, and I get ridiculed. Whats up with that? Feeling defensive?
46Driver: I do not care to see what will happen if 46's lumber into urban combat.
Tiercel: Nick expertise shows on the 609 thread. You would think anyone with even minimal flight test knowledge could recognize the accomplishment of rock solid hovers and low speed maneuvers with a fly-by-wire control system all done on first flight of a revolutionary aircraft. But hey Nick sezs , range does not count, speed does not count. (As long as you have a bunch of tankers).
Lu: You are the highlight of my week. In the future the V-22 will be required so we can fly over or around all of our former friends.
The Sultan
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any helos (or tilt rotors) will do well in urban combat -and if I remember correctly, the V-22's are prohibited from landing in the desert on NVG's due to excessive rotor wash.
At least the 46 has 2 things: 1) machine guns for suppression and 2) it is affordable (the obvious replacement being a version of the H-60). The H-60 is much more versatile (DAP package, troop transport, etc..) so you can put a 4 to 6 helo package over on an LPD and do split-ARG operations 1500 miles away from the MEU (LHA / LHD based). The CH-53E is certainly more capable than the MV-22 (reference Rotor&Wing Jan 2002) - the only unique thing the V-22 can do is self deploy.
NASA made it to the moon with less time and less casualties than the Marine Corps in trying to get the Osprey operational. Face it: the Osprey is simply a jobs program to keep Bell Helicopter afloat.
At least the 46 has 2 things: 1) machine guns for suppression and 2) it is affordable (the obvious replacement being a version of the H-60). The H-60 is much more versatile (DAP package, troop transport, etc..) so you can put a 4 to 6 helo package over on an LPD and do split-ARG operations 1500 miles away from the MEU (LHA / LHD based). The CH-53E is certainly more capable than the MV-22 (reference Rotor&Wing Jan 2002) - the only unique thing the V-22 can do is self deploy.
NASA made it to the moon with less time and less casualties than the Marine Corps in trying to get the Osprey operational. Face it: the Osprey is simply a jobs program to keep Bell Helicopter afloat.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the bottom drops out.
To: The Sultan
When I worked on the V-22 program I had a conversation with several Boeing engineers. When we discussed autorotation they indicated that the ROD on the V-22 was 4-6000 FPM. It would seem to me that it would be very difficult to arrest that vertical descent.
I believe that the 609 was classified as a Powered Lift aircraft so that it would not be developed in accordance with AC: 29-2A which requires the demonstration of the ability to successfully autorotate.
When I worked on the V-22 program I had a conversation with several Boeing engineers. When we discussed autorotation they indicated that the ROD on the V-22 was 4-6000 FPM. It would seem to me that it would be very difficult to arrest that vertical descent.
I believe that the 609 was classified as a Powered Lift aircraft so that it would not be developed in accordance with AC: 29-2A which requires the demonstration of the ability to successfully autorotate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Sultan has his turban wound too tight. Way too tight.
He misquotes me this way: "Nick expertise shows on the 609 thread. You would think anyone with even minimal flight test knowledge could recognize the accomplishment of rock solid hovers and low speed maneuvers with a fly-by-wire control system all done on first flight of a revolutionary aircraft. But hey Nick sezs , range does not count, speed does not count. (As long as you have a bunch of tankers"
Sultan, anytime you want to quote me, do so. Otherwise, try with all your might to stick to what I said. Simply put, tilt rotors do not have more range that helicopters. That is fact, and your wish that helicopters need "a bunch of tankers" to get tilt rotor range is just that, a wish.
Someday tilt rotors might become useful, but it will take a very long time for them to live up to the hype.
When you finish your career in Bell marketing, there is a job for you in Hollywood, I am sure. Bring your pprune posts along as job references.
He misquotes me this way: "Nick expertise shows on the 609 thread. You would think anyone with even minimal flight test knowledge could recognize the accomplishment of rock solid hovers and low speed maneuvers with a fly-by-wire control system all done on first flight of a revolutionary aircraft. But hey Nick sezs , range does not count, speed does not count. (As long as you have a bunch of tankers"
Sultan, anytime you want to quote me, do so. Otherwise, try with all your might to stick to what I said. Simply put, tilt rotors do not have more range that helicopters. That is fact, and your wish that helicopters need "a bunch of tankers" to get tilt rotor range is just that, a wish.
Someday tilt rotors might become useful, but it will take a very long time for them to live up to the hype.
When you finish your career in Bell marketing, there is a job for you in Hollywood, I am sure. Bring your pprune posts along as job references.
Nick, Nick, Nick...
You've got to understand something about the tilt rotor true believers: There are those who have bought-into the idea of the tilt rotor so completely that they minimize or otherwise overlook *anything* that might be detrimental to the design. They believe, man. They believe. Don’t confuse them with facts.
I like how some of them call the tilt rotor "revolutionary." The tilt rotor is certainly *not* revolutionary. If anything, it is evolutionary. Okay, FBW is new to helicopters, but not to fixed-wing.
The V-22 has some very real performance/handling issues. The true believers have absolutely no doubt that these will be satisfactorily and quickly disposed of (this despite fifty years of experimentation by Bell). 5,000 psi hydraulic system? Hey, works fine in the F-16. Asymm-VRS? No problem! Unarmed and can’t defend itself? Aw Jeez, you want everything? (Interestingly, even during all of this down-time we still have had no word of a gun even being experimented with.)
The Marines and Bell are quick to put out any positive tilt rotor news that they possibly can. That is understandable. The future of the U.S. Marine Corps probably hinges on the success of the tilt rotor. We know that the future of Bell Helicopter does. My personal feeling is that any negative news is being discretely squelched or sat-on. For instance, if any of these new flight tests resulted in components having to be replaced, I imagine that news might not be immediately released.
The really strange thing is how the sanity, intelligence and patriotism of those who raise doubts about the viability of the tilt rotor is questioned. I guess I’m just not a true believer.
You've got to understand something about the tilt rotor true believers: There are those who have bought-into the idea of the tilt rotor so completely that they minimize or otherwise overlook *anything* that might be detrimental to the design. They believe, man. They believe. Don’t confuse them with facts.
I like how some of them call the tilt rotor "revolutionary." The tilt rotor is certainly *not* revolutionary. If anything, it is evolutionary. Okay, FBW is new to helicopters, but not to fixed-wing.
The V-22 has some very real performance/handling issues. The true believers have absolutely no doubt that these will be satisfactorily and quickly disposed of (this despite fifty years of experimentation by Bell). 5,000 psi hydraulic system? Hey, works fine in the F-16. Asymm-VRS? No problem! Unarmed and can’t defend itself? Aw Jeez, you want everything? (Interestingly, even during all of this down-time we still have had no word of a gun even being experimented with.)
The Marines and Bell are quick to put out any positive tilt rotor news that they possibly can. That is understandable. The future of the U.S. Marine Corps probably hinges on the success of the tilt rotor. We know that the future of Bell Helicopter does. My personal feeling is that any negative news is being discretely squelched or sat-on. For instance, if any of these new flight tests resulted in components having to be replaced, I imagine that news might not be immediately released.
The really strange thing is how the sanity, intelligence and patriotism of those who raise doubts about the viability of the tilt rotor is questioned. I guess I’m just not a true believer.
Nick,
Hollywood is your venue, not mine. Convincing people that the S-92 is new concept and that a $60M scout helicopter is viable does require the best PR writers Hollywood has.
By the way congrats on VFR certification on the S-92. Hope you can get IFR and Cat A cert sometime in the future.
The Sultan
Hollywood is your venue, not mine. Convincing people that the S-92 is new concept and that a $60M scout helicopter is viable does require the best PR writers Hollywood has.
By the way congrats on VFR certification on the S-92. Hope you can get IFR and Cat A cert sometime in the future.
The Sultan
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Sultan,
At least you didn't misrepresent my words!
The issue you Tilt Rotor fanatics face is to separate beliefs and wishes from facts. When the USMC general lamented that things would have been different in Afghanistan if only he had V-22's serves as an example. I guess nobody told him that the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet. It would be a similar sad story for Iraqi missions as well, where the 53's carry more than twice the payload, with more range, as well.
I do not dislike any new technology, in fact I am strongly supportive of change in all arenas, otherwise I'd have made a pretty lame chief R&D test pilot.
Your post started in the hole when you named it "V-22 Haters batting 1000" as if anyone who disagreed with you did so based on emotion ("haters") as opposed to facts. For the record, I do not "hate" any device, they are only machines, after all. The points I raised in the 609 thread that you misunderstood are statements of fact, but you believe them to be emotionally driven, because you are so driven.
If you woke up and smelled the coffee, you'd see that tilt rotors have certain advantages, are wonderful technology, and promise to help change things. But you'd also see that every day, helicopters take off with more range and more payload than the 609 or V-22, that helicopters don't need tankers to beat the TR's in range, that helicopters have better safety performance, better maintainability and cost less, too. Helicopters are slower, so the marketplace will decide if the extra speed is worth the other penalties.
It is a rough world out there, and Tilt Rotors have certainly earned no special treatment, even with "rock solid hovers". (If it had not been a "rock solid hover" would you have blamed it on pilot error, like the many V-22 accidents?) Expect a critical public, with sharp pencils, to ask you real questions, and compare those answers to real helicopters. If you respond with your invictive, you will only help make the hole you stand in that much deeper.
At least you didn't misrepresent my words!
The issue you Tilt Rotor fanatics face is to separate beliefs and wishes from facts. When the USMC general lamented that things would have been different in Afghanistan if only he had V-22's serves as an example. I guess nobody told him that the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet. It would be a similar sad story for Iraqi missions as well, where the 53's carry more than twice the payload, with more range, as well.
I do not dislike any new technology, in fact I am strongly supportive of change in all arenas, otherwise I'd have made a pretty lame chief R&D test pilot.
Your post started in the hole when you named it "V-22 Haters batting 1000" as if anyone who disagreed with you did so based on emotion ("haters") as opposed to facts. For the record, I do not "hate" any device, they are only machines, after all. The points I raised in the 609 thread that you misunderstood are statements of fact, but you believe them to be emotionally driven, because you are so driven.
If you woke up and smelled the coffee, you'd see that tilt rotors have certain advantages, are wonderful technology, and promise to help change things. But you'd also see that every day, helicopters take off with more range and more payload than the 609 or V-22, that helicopters don't need tankers to beat the TR's in range, that helicopters have better safety performance, better maintainability and cost less, too. Helicopters are slower, so the marketplace will decide if the extra speed is worth the other penalties.
It is a rough world out there, and Tilt Rotors have certainly earned no special treatment, even with "rock solid hovers". (If it had not been a "rock solid hover" would you have blamed it on pilot error, like the many V-22 accidents?) Expect a critical public, with sharp pencils, to ask you real questions, and compare those answers to real helicopters. If you respond with your invictive, you will only help make the hole you stand in that much deeper.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but what about.....
To: The Sultan
How about this? If the V-22 incurs minor structural damage of the aft fuselage that does not effect the structural integrity the Navy specified the method of repair that includes the usage of specified materials. The integrity of the repair is to be verified by X-ray examination. Boeing performed experiments using the specified materials and found them to be opaque to X-ray examination, which made it impossible to verify the integrity of the repair.
If the aft fuselage suffers major structural damage that restricts the V-22 from flying the aft fuselage must be removed and returned to the manufacturing facility for repair and curing in an autoclave using production tooling. This has a major effect on the availability of the V-22 at the squadron level. The V-22 may fly faster than a helicopter but it takes a year and a day to repair it and return it to operational status.
Since Bell and Boeing don’t talk to each other it would appear that you may have been unaware of this problem.
How about this? If the V-22 incurs minor structural damage of the aft fuselage that does not effect the structural integrity the Navy specified the method of repair that includes the usage of specified materials. The integrity of the repair is to be verified by X-ray examination. Boeing performed experiments using the specified materials and found them to be opaque to X-ray examination, which made it impossible to verify the integrity of the repair.
If the aft fuselage suffers major structural damage that restricts the V-22 from flying the aft fuselage must be removed and returned to the manufacturing facility for repair and curing in an autoclave using production tooling. This has a major effect on the availability of the V-22 at the squadron level. The V-22 may fly faster than a helicopter but it takes a year and a day to repair it and return it to operational status.
Since Bell and Boeing don’t talk to each other it would appear that you may have been unaware of this problem.
Nick you said:
"When the USMC general lamented that things would have been different in Afghanistan if only he had V-22's serves as an example. I guess nobody told him that the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet. It would be a similar sad story for Iraqi missions as well, where the 53's carry more than twice the payload, with more range, as well."
So I guess now I am in no danger of ridicule for "misquoting" you.
Now. Lets project that a V-22 can not hover above 10K, I have not seen any UH-60's operating at 10000ft or above in Afganistan with any meaningful load or doing meaningful work. The tail rotor deficiences of the UH-60 apparently kept it out of the game and the Army had to mostly use CH-47's. You like to say V-22 supporters claim pilot error for crashes (which I never have, except maybe for the guy that went the wrong way on the blottle, Grady ?), but the UH-60 lobby sure went out of their way to blame the pilot of the Mount Rainer (?) crash which was filmed from above by a Bell 407. I thought that film clearly showed why 60's are limited in high altitude operations.
As to the USMC general, I am sure he speaks from what he knows, and not as a marketeer. Think like a user, with the V-22 : fewer or no tankers, a significantly greater area of operation on a tank of gas, and I want to get a package at a specific location and the 53's and 60's can not do it without unreasonable support.
If the UH-60 is the end-all why are you trying to sell the USMC the S-92? Why did the FAA have to make a special rule to allow "contingency" engine power for routine commercial operations for an aircraft with no military systems? I bet the S-92 with the same mission equipment as the V-22 (radar, warning systems, flares/chaff, armor, defensive weapons) will really be a great performer. I sure it can beat the V-22 in every category. Well Done!
The Sultan
"When the USMC general lamented that things would have been different in Afghanistan if only he had V-22's serves as an example. I guess nobody told him that the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet. It would be a similar sad story for Iraqi missions as well, where the 53's carry more than twice the payload, with more range, as well."
So I guess now I am in no danger of ridicule for "misquoting" you.
Now. Lets project that a V-22 can not hover above 10K, I have not seen any UH-60's operating at 10000ft or above in Afganistan with any meaningful load or doing meaningful work. The tail rotor deficiences of the UH-60 apparently kept it out of the game and the Army had to mostly use CH-47's. You like to say V-22 supporters claim pilot error for crashes (which I never have, except maybe for the guy that went the wrong way on the blottle, Grady ?), but the UH-60 lobby sure went out of their way to blame the pilot of the Mount Rainer (?) crash which was filmed from above by a Bell 407. I thought that film clearly showed why 60's are limited in high altitude operations.
As to the USMC general, I am sure he speaks from what he knows, and not as a marketeer. Think like a user, with the V-22 : fewer or no tankers, a significantly greater area of operation on a tank of gas, and I want to get a package at a specific location and the 53's and 60's can not do it without unreasonable support.
If the UH-60 is the end-all why are you trying to sell the USMC the S-92? Why did the FAA have to make a special rule to allow "contingency" engine power for routine commercial operations for an aircraft with no military systems? I bet the S-92 with the same mission equipment as the V-22 (radar, warning systems, flares/chaff, armor, defensive weapons) will really be a great performer. I sure it can beat the V-22 in every category. Well Done!
The Sultan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sultan, I hope you're not a flight test engineer for Bell! Wherever you got your degree from, write them and get a refund.
You can't even read, can you? What I said was "the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet". Nothing more and nothing less. You inferred the rest. The Marine Corps can find the right aircraft for the job, so stop proposing helicopter alternatives, OK?
In fact, the V-22 carries less than a Black Hawk at 10,000 feet, period. V-22 also cannot fly at 10,001 feet because that's its altitude limit. It has no yaw authority up there, none, that's why it is limited. Even if it could operate there, the payload of a V-22 is severely limited up there. According to its flight manual, at 10,000 feet, the V-22 hovers at 38,300 pounds gross weight, using 10 minute Interim Power, which leaves only 5,100 pounds for crew, fuel and troops and wishful thinking. The plain vanilla Black Hawk carries 5,500 pounds payload under the same conditions. Since the V-22 needs 11 pounds of gas to go a mile, and the Black hawk needs 8, the payload-range of a V-22 at 10,000 feet is worse than a Black hawk.
You prattle on about rumors of anti-torque limits, but you don't know what you are talking about, do you? At 10,000 feet, the H-60 has 35 knots sideward flight speed. Its in the flight manual.
I think flight manual data beats marketing hype every time. the same way a helicopter out lifts a tilt rotor, and goes farther every time.
Regarding "contingency" power, I guess you should get double your schooling money back. Contingency's what they call the single engine power these days, since about 30 years ago. Same "contingency" power the Bell 609 uses!
You can't even read, can you? What I said was "the V-22 carries less and has shorter range than a Black Hawk when both are operated from 10,000 feet". Nothing more and nothing less. You inferred the rest. The Marine Corps can find the right aircraft for the job, so stop proposing helicopter alternatives, OK?
In fact, the V-22 carries less than a Black Hawk at 10,000 feet, period. V-22 also cannot fly at 10,001 feet because that's its altitude limit. It has no yaw authority up there, none, that's why it is limited. Even if it could operate there, the payload of a V-22 is severely limited up there. According to its flight manual, at 10,000 feet, the V-22 hovers at 38,300 pounds gross weight, using 10 minute Interim Power, which leaves only 5,100 pounds for crew, fuel and troops and wishful thinking. The plain vanilla Black Hawk carries 5,500 pounds payload under the same conditions. Since the V-22 needs 11 pounds of gas to go a mile, and the Black hawk needs 8, the payload-range of a V-22 at 10,000 feet is worse than a Black hawk.
You prattle on about rumors of anti-torque limits, but you don't know what you are talking about, do you? At 10,000 feet, the H-60 has 35 knots sideward flight speed. Its in the flight manual.
I think flight manual data beats marketing hype every time. the same way a helicopter out lifts a tilt rotor, and goes farther every time.
Regarding "contingency" power, I guess you should get double your schooling money back. Contingency's what they call the single engine power these days, since about 30 years ago. Same "contingency" power the Bell 609 uses!
Nick Sez: "Sultan, I hope you're not a flight test engineer for Bell! Wherever you got your degree from, write them and get a refund."
Nick, You do not have to get hysterical here.
Roy thinks I do a great job and some Sikorsky guys think I am pretty good at what I do. I never commented on what I think of your piloting abilities,., so why get personal? I mean any guy that said the Comanche was ready for production after first flight ten years ago (?) can not be wrong.
Relative to your comments:
Why are UH-60's not being used in Afganistan for routine 10K+ operations? It was a briefing at AMCOM that talked about tail rotor issues on the UH-60 at altitude, is this true?. Relative to the Mt. Rainer crash, what was the cause? It must be published by now.
Relative to the use of contingency power on the S-92. I interpreted the FAA bulletin to mean it was for routine twin engine hover operations which is a new definition for contingency. (Note: I remember they said contingency, but they may have said it another way, anyway it required a new categoy of engine power not in the FAR's). The bottom line is the FAA indicates the S-92 routinely requires above spec engine power. As to the 609 engine power requirements you do not have a clue what we are doing so you should not comment on this. The FAA is the one that issued the "special" requirements on the S-92 not me. I did not see a word about the 609 in this document.
Tell Tommy, Steve and Jeff high.
The Sultan
Nick, You do not have to get hysterical here.
Roy thinks I do a great job and some Sikorsky guys think I am pretty good at what I do. I never commented on what I think of your piloting abilities,., so why get personal? I mean any guy that said the Comanche was ready for production after first flight ten years ago (?) can not be wrong.
Relative to your comments:
Why are UH-60's not being used in Afganistan for routine 10K+ operations? It was a briefing at AMCOM that talked about tail rotor issues on the UH-60 at altitude, is this true?. Relative to the Mt. Rainer crash, what was the cause? It must be published by now.
Relative to the use of contingency power on the S-92. I interpreted the FAA bulletin to mean it was for routine twin engine hover operations which is a new definition for contingency. (Note: I remember they said contingency, but they may have said it another way, anyway it required a new categoy of engine power not in the FAR's). The bottom line is the FAA indicates the S-92 routinely requires above spec engine power. As to the 609 engine power requirements you do not have a clue what we are doing so you should not comment on this. The FAA is the one that issued the "special" requirements on the S-92 not me. I did not see a word about the 609 in this document.
Tell Tommy, Steve and Jeff high.
The Sultan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sultan,
When you make as many mistakes in your posts as you do, expect to be criticized.
Your assumptions about Black Hawk uses above 10,000 feet are wrong. Black Hawks continue to be used there routinely. The issues uncovered showed pilots needing to understand how to read the flight manual charts, in environments where the Army had not operated. The Black Hawk does very well up there, and carries more load than a V-22 could.
The Mt. Ranier crash seems to be a weight/power management issue, but it is still under investigation. The fact that you discuss a 407 flying at slow cruise above the crash site as some kind of proof of its better fitness is an example of the loose-cannon aerodynamics you seem to espouse. A Black Hawk can hover OGE with a loaded 407 on its cargo hook at higher altitude than a 407 can hover by itself.
You are also wrong about your home-grown definition of contingency power, and of the S-92's ratings. It shows a basic lack of understanding of thess issues.
When you make as many mistakes in your posts as you do, expect to be criticized.
Your assumptions about Black Hawk uses above 10,000 feet are wrong. Black Hawks continue to be used there routinely. The issues uncovered showed pilots needing to understand how to read the flight manual charts, in environments where the Army had not operated. The Black Hawk does very well up there, and carries more load than a V-22 could.
The Mt. Ranier crash seems to be a weight/power management issue, but it is still under investigation. The fact that you discuss a 407 flying at slow cruise above the crash site as some kind of proof of its better fitness is an example of the loose-cannon aerodynamics you seem to espouse. A Black Hawk can hover OGE with a loaded 407 on its cargo hook at higher altitude than a 407 can hover by itself.
You are also wrong about your home-grown definition of contingency power, and of the S-92's ratings. It shows a basic lack of understanding of thess issues.