What's the latest on tilt rotors?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 Takes Two Hits!
Two recent press reports on the V-22's woes:
http://newsobserver.com/osprey/story...-2316427c.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/osprey/s...-2320669c.html
http://newsobserver.com/osprey/story...-2316427c.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/osprey/s...-2320669c.html
Also #1 Osprey critic!
Hoo-man! This would all be funny if not for the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars wasted on this turkey of an aircraft so far.
I loved the bit about the Air Force commissioning a study of the V-22 by a guy they knew and respected for a long, long time: Everest Riccioni. Then, when they didn't like the results of his study, they simply ended his contract and fired him. Priceless! Don't tell the U.S. Air Force anything it doesn't want to hear, you might get fired! I'm sure the USAF will insist now that it wasn't really a "study." Nah. Just a...oh...interoffice memo. Nothing important. "We just, you know, asked Riccioni to email us his thoughts."
Sure.
Then I had to laugh at the reliability studies. The one article stated:
That's precious.
So the Osprey isn't even any more reliable than the 40-year old Sea Knights it's supposed to replace? Why am I not surprised. But you've got to love the chutzpah of the U.S. Air Force. "We're not going to tell you what the reliability rates are NOW, but believe us when we tell you that the aircraft will meet them if you just give us two more years."
Yes, and in that two years, the Osprey will surely get heavier and more expensive. The first article linked in RJ Squirrel's post makes it clear that the Osprey is falling miserably short of its Great Expectations. But none of that matters to those who are sold on the V-22. Heck, it could have the lifting capability and range and speed of a Bell 47 and they'd still think it was essential to the modern battlefield or some such nonsense.
Let's let Bill Lawrence, a pilot and former V-22 test program manager have the last word, because he puts it as succinctly as anyone:
I loved the bit about the Air Force commissioning a study of the V-22 by a guy they knew and respected for a long, long time: Everest Riccioni. Then, when they didn't like the results of his study, they simply ended his contract and fired him. Priceless! Don't tell the U.S. Air Force anything it doesn't want to hear, you might get fired! I'm sure the USAF will insist now that it wasn't really a "study." Nah. Just a...oh...interoffice memo. Nothing important. "We just, you know, asked Riccioni to email us his thoughts."
Sure.
Then I had to laugh at the reliability studies. The one article stated:
Any advantage the Osprey gains in speed is canceled by the aircraft's poor reliability. It requires more maintenance and is less available for missions than the aging helicopters it will replace, according to reports from the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation.
The Marines point out that 19 studies have shown the Osprey to be more effective than helicopters. But the last of these reports was completed in 1994, and all were based on the assumption that the Osprey would work as promised.
Col. Dan Schultz, the Osprey program manager, said his engineers project that the Osprey will meet its reliability rates within the next two years.
The Marines point out that 19 studies have shown the Osprey to be more effective than helicopters. But the last of these reports was completed in 1994, and all were based on the assumption that the Osprey would work as promised.
Col. Dan Schultz, the Osprey program manager, said his engineers project that the Osprey will meet its reliability rates within the next two years.
So the Osprey isn't even any more reliable than the 40-year old Sea Knights it's supposed to replace? Why am I not surprised. But you've got to love the chutzpah of the U.S. Air Force. "We're not going to tell you what the reliability rates are NOW, but believe us when we tell you that the aircraft will meet them if you just give us two more years."
Yes, and in that two years, the Osprey will surely get heavier and more expensive. The first article linked in RJ Squirrel's post makes it clear that the Osprey is falling miserably short of its Great Expectations. But none of that matters to those who are sold on the V-22. Heck, it could have the lifting capability and range and speed of a Bell 47 and they'd still think it was essential to the modern battlefield or some such nonsense.
Let's let Bill Lawrence, a pilot and former V-22 test program manager have the last word, because he puts it as succinctly as anyone:
"If we don't get a machine to do the key performance parameters, then it won't do the missions we need it to do," Lawrence said. "That raises the question: Why are we buying this aircraft?"
Well the results are in. As one of his final acts Pete Aldridge has given two thumbs up to the program. Flight tests have, once again, proven the concept and all milestones have been met.
The Sultan
The Sultan
Last edited by The Sultan; 24th May 2003 at 11:30.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we read two different versions, Sultan.
I heard that they approved another few aircraft, and permitted more testing. They decided not to cancel, yet, as I heard it. No?
I heard that they approved another few aircraft, and permitted more testing. They decided not to cancel, yet, as I heard it. No?
Wonder if some of our technical experts....Shawn Coyle and that erstwhile Tee-Totaller Nick Lappos could provide a summary of the problems being encountered by the V-22 program....and describe the changes/modifications being made to the machine and flight techniques to counter the problems.
I realize Nick might be in a sensitive position here and not want to make any posts that are critical of the competition.....professional courtesy and all that being considered....but would be interesting to hear a "critical" analysis of the problems from a few who are involved in such issues on a daily basis.
I realize Nick might be in a sensitive position here and not want to make any posts that are critical of the competition.....professional courtesy and all that being considered....but would be interesting to hear a "critical" analysis of the problems from a few who are involved in such issues on a daily basis.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NL has commented on the V22 here before iirc. Perhaps a search will reveal? From memory the phrase 'damning with faint praise' was my impression of what he wrote.
Apologies to NL in advance if I misinterpreted his remarks.
Apologies to NL in advance if I misinterpreted his remarks.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V22 Article
G'day All,
Came across this article on the Osprey HERE and thought some of you may be interested. It's all negative unfortunately, which may suggest that the author has his own axe to grind. The tilt rotor concept has always excited me, so hopefully the BA609 can survive even if the military version looks doomed currently.
Cheers,
MPT
Came across this article on the Osprey HERE and thought some of you may be interested. It's all negative unfortunately, which may suggest that the author has his own axe to grind. The tilt rotor concept has always excited me, so hopefully the BA609 can survive even if the military version looks doomed currently.
Cheers,
MPT
This is the same old s*** from the same old bunch of hysterical anti-V22 fanatics. They have continuously been proven wrong in the past and this feces laden article is just a continuation of their bias.
Now they criticize the V-22 team for catching and correcting vendor quality issues before any problems are encountered on an aircraft. Also any hydraulic leak becomes a "major crisis" to these morons. Lets ground any model of aircraft that has had a hydraulic leak in the last 12 months. OPPS, nothing will ever fly again.
The Sultan
Now they criticize the V-22 team for catching and correcting vendor quality issues before any problems are encountered on an aircraft. Also any hydraulic leak becomes a "major crisis" to these morons. Lets ground any model of aircraft that has had a hydraulic leak in the last 12 months. OPPS, nothing will ever fly again.
The Sultan
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the seal/rotor technology we have now I don't see why the concept of the "Fairey Rotordyne"(spelling) couldn't be rehashed, after all, the prospect of turning the rotors/engine packs of the V22 at the exact same deg/sec would seem to be always suspect and if happened would create a very large heap of Aloominum scrap! tinted with red
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was fortunate enough to talk with a V-22 test pilot when visiting a flight school a while back. (His friend was the Chief Instructor Pilot there). Anyway, he said there are too many political struggles for the program to survive - mostly because of the engineering problems.
He gave me an example of when a V-22 crashed because the control systems were accidently put in backwards! As far as a civilian model, I can't see how it would be cost effective.
He gave me an example of when a V-22 crashed because the control systems were accidently put in backwards! As far as a civilian model, I can't see how it would be cost effective.
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
Who or, is it whom is wrong?
To: The Sultan
It is difficult for a loyal employee to recognize and / or accept that there are problems relating to a program in which the employee is or might be involved in.
Some of the problems with the hydraulic system other than abrading of lines or possible deficiencies in tube wall thickness may be due to high cycle rates from the servo system.
When I worked at Boeing on the V-22 I consistently brought this subject up at each weekly design meeting. I mentioned repeatedly that one of the problems with high cycle rates had to do with the Proprotor©. Boeing management stated that it was a Bell problem. However Boeing designed the entire hydraulic system. Boeing never conveyed my complaints to Bell and even if they did, Bell could not make any changes. I left the program and nobody championed the solution to the problem.
This is the same old s*** from the same old bunch of hysterical anti-V22 fanatics. They have continuously been proven wrong in the past and this feces laden article is just a continuation of their bias.
Some of the problems with the hydraulic system other than abrading of lines or possible deficiencies in tube wall thickness may be due to high cycle rates from the servo system.
When I worked at Boeing on the V-22 I consistently brought this subject up at each weekly design meeting. I mentioned repeatedly that one of the problems with high cycle rates had to do with the Proprotor©. Boeing management stated that it was a Bell problem. However Boeing designed the entire hydraulic system. Boeing never conveyed my complaints to Bell and even if they did, Bell could not make any changes. I left the program and nobody championed the solution to the problem.
Tiltrotor proponents laud the speed/range of the V-22 and its ability to "self-deploy" anywhere in the world. They might grudgingly admit that it is indeed not as big inside as the CH-46. But they carefully sidestep the importance and/or mere feasability of adding a gun, not to mention where to put such gun. And they downplay virtually every other demonstrated weakness of the design, either confidently claiming that the particular problems will definitely be solved, or dismissing them as simply not an issue given the incredibly compelling need for the "new" aircraft. Too, they do not brook any criticism of the aircraft at all (it is far too important to be criticized).
Very well.
I am not a fan of the V-22. I do not believe that it is "revolutionary" in any way. It might have been back when it was first being developed in the 1950's, but it is not now. I think the basic design is poor.
Mind you, I had to laugh at myself for not asking the most basic pilot-type questions about the V-22's purported performance: "At what altitude were the numbers derived?" It turns out that those very impressive figures were acheived at the unrealistically high altitude of 18,000'? In reality, the V-22 will live below 10,000 feet. Which makes all of its performance claims suspect. The ramifications of this are interesting. At least interesting insofar as how the V-22 proponents will rationalize them.
Speaking of laughing, the number of Marine officers who were key V-22 players until their retirement and who then ended up in high positions with V-22 contractor companies is more than humourous, it's astounding. If there was any objective good-will to be granted to the V-22, it is lost now. The fact that the project lives at all is a testimony to political pull than anything else. (Where did Freddy McCorkle end up again?)
My predictions:
1. The V-22 will not have a gun of any kind, nor a hoist, ever;
2. The V-22 will not even come close to meeting its design goals or objectives in terms of speed, distance or load-carrying capability;
3. Each individual V-22 will cost U.S. taxpayers about a kajillion dollars;
4. More V-22's will crash, killing all on board. Its fatal-accident rate will be shocking;
5. Items #1 through #4 will not matter one whit.
6. The V-22 program will continue, full speed ahead.
Very well.
I am not a fan of the V-22. I do not believe that it is "revolutionary" in any way. It might have been back when it was first being developed in the 1950's, but it is not now. I think the basic design is poor.
Mind you, I had to laugh at myself for not asking the most basic pilot-type questions about the V-22's purported performance: "At what altitude were the numbers derived?" It turns out that those very impressive figures were acheived at the unrealistically high altitude of 18,000'? In reality, the V-22 will live below 10,000 feet. Which makes all of its performance claims suspect. The ramifications of this are interesting. At least interesting insofar as how the V-22 proponents will rationalize them.
Speaking of laughing, the number of Marine officers who were key V-22 players until their retirement and who then ended up in high positions with V-22 contractor companies is more than humourous, it's astounding. If there was any objective good-will to be granted to the V-22, it is lost now. The fact that the project lives at all is a testimony to political pull than anything else. (Where did Freddy McCorkle end up again?)
My predictions:
1. The V-22 will not have a gun of any kind, nor a hoist, ever;
2. The V-22 will not even come close to meeting its design goals or objectives in terms of speed, distance or load-carrying capability;
3. Each individual V-22 will cost U.S. taxpayers about a kajillion dollars;
4. More V-22's will crash, killing all on board. Its fatal-accident rate will be shocking;
5. Items #1 through #4 will not matter one whit.
6. The V-22 program will continue, full speed ahead.
Say LeftHanded_Rock_Thrower, you might do well to conjure up some HOGE charts of your own. As little as Bell knows about the real, demonstrated performance of the 609, theirs would be as theoretical as yours.
As for the checklists, I doubt they're completely written yet. Last I heard, the lawyers, engineers, test pilots and salesmen were still wrangling over the exact wording of this part:
Asymmetrical Vortex-Ring State (A-VRS):
A. 2,500 FEET AGL AND ABOVE, AIRSPEED <60 KNOTS
1. At any time a lateral control input results in an increase of roll rate in the opposite direction, immediately perform:
a) Move stick in direction of roll;
b) Reduce power;
c) Beep nacelles forward;
d) Sign of the cross.
B. Successful recovery from fully-developed A-VRS at altitudes lower than (*unknown value*) feet has not been demonstrated.
The lawyers want it to read "2,500" and the engineers obviously want something lower. The test pilots are kind of quiet, shuffling their feet over in a corner.
The salesmen assure everyone that as long as there is a sufficient little warning in the AFM, pilots won't ever experience A-VRS at low altitudes, because as they put it, "...Pilots don't EVER make mistakes, and if they do make that mistake and kill the CEO of a Fortune 100 company - hey, it'll be their fault for violating the AFM in the first place! So there. Our conscience is clear. It's like regular helicopters! You don't hear about S-76's and Pumas ever crashing from pilot-error, do ya?"
Bell management is reported to have contemplated mass suicide over this "feature" of their new aircraft.
As for the checklists, I doubt they're completely written yet. Last I heard, the lawyers, engineers, test pilots and salesmen were still wrangling over the exact wording of this part:
Asymmetrical Vortex-Ring State (A-VRS):
A. 2,500 FEET AGL AND ABOVE, AIRSPEED <60 KNOTS
1. At any time a lateral control input results in an increase of roll rate in the opposite direction, immediately perform:
a) Move stick in direction of roll;
b) Reduce power;
c) Beep nacelles forward;
d) Sign of the cross.
B. Successful recovery from fully-developed A-VRS at altitudes lower than (*unknown value*) feet has not been demonstrated.
The lawyers want it to read "2,500" and the engineers obviously want something lower. The test pilots are kind of quiet, shuffling their feet over in a corner.
The salesmen assure everyone that as long as there is a sufficient little warning in the AFM, pilots won't ever experience A-VRS at low altitudes, because as they put it, "...Pilots don't EVER make mistakes, and if they do make that mistake and kill the CEO of a Fortune 100 company - hey, it'll be their fault for violating the AFM in the first place! So there. Our conscience is clear. It's like regular helicopters! You don't hear about S-76's and Pumas ever crashing from pilot-error, do ya?"
Bell management is reported to have contemplated mass suicide over this "feature" of their new aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many V-22 have been built?
I really want to know how many V-22's have been built, I saw aircraft # 50 in Texas in Jan, does that mean there are more than that?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more than 50 have been built. Aircraft #53 flew its first flight last week. There are several more getting close to first flight and several more on the assembly line.