What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
birddog:
Oh dear. Birddog, would you undo the 50 years of development Bell has put into this design? How complicated do you want to make it? You think the engineers at Bell just casually said, "Hey, let's put the engines out under the proprotors, whaddya say?" and then did it without trying anything else? In fact, the original XV-3 had a big, honkin' radial engine in the fuselage, with a gearbox here and a couple of shafts that ran out to a couple of more gearboxes there... It was a gearbox nightmare!
Good God, there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.
In our dreams, it's a great aircraft. Best of both worlds! Blah blah blah. Only...it's not...because practical realities interfere with theoretical fantasies. For instance, the V-22 still cannot manuever abruptly in the helicopter mode. Ouch. Once you convert the proprotors back to vertical, you're very limited in what you can do. It ain't no Loach! In fact, it ain't no CH-53 either.
Speaking of which, did you guys ever see the re-enactment of the rescue of that downed F-16, Scott O'Grady in Bosnia back in 1995? Did you see the way those CH-53 pilots were honking that big monster around? Heh. Try to do *THAT* with a V-22. NOT!
Oh, but the V-22 would never need to do that! It can zoom in and zoom out much faster than a helicopter! It can be in and gone before the opposing ground forces even know it was there!
Uh-huh. Sure.
Yeah, and it can do that because the V-22 is sooooo much quieter than a helicopter! NOT! Hey, I live in Pensacola. We see V-22's flying around all the time. You can hear them babies coming from MILES away. And by "miles" I mean "minutes." Very distinctive sound, too.
Every time I see a V-22 hover it always seems so unstable in roll...so twitchy. And then I think of those early model 24 Learjets. Remember all the trouble they had because of their short wings and the weight of all that fuel out in the tiptanks? It was something pilots really had to be careful of. The polar moment could get you. The V-22 just boggles my feeble mind with all the weight of the engines and proprotors out on the ends of those short, stubby wings. And nevermind the hover! Get a good roll rate going in the high-speed-airplane mode and how would you stop it? Don't tell me it's got some super-powerful ailerons.
I know, I know...the magic of computers!
I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a picture/video of a V-22 doing a stretcher hoist job. I mean, you'd think by now...
Wouldn't it make more sense, for a MK II with engines fitted on the side of the fuselage, or under the wings?
It would require new gearboxes and hard points though would seem to solve several of the criticisms with the current design....
It would require new gearboxes and hard points though would seem to solve several of the criticisms with the current design....
Good God, there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.
In our dreams, it's a great aircraft. Best of both worlds! Blah blah blah. Only...it's not...because practical realities interfere with theoretical fantasies. For instance, the V-22 still cannot manuever abruptly in the helicopter mode. Ouch. Once you convert the proprotors back to vertical, you're very limited in what you can do. It ain't no Loach! In fact, it ain't no CH-53 either.
Speaking of which, did you guys ever see the re-enactment of the rescue of that downed F-16, Scott O'Grady in Bosnia back in 1995? Did you see the way those CH-53 pilots were honking that big monster around? Heh. Try to do *THAT* with a V-22. NOT!
Oh, but the V-22 would never need to do that! It can zoom in and zoom out much faster than a helicopter! It can be in and gone before the opposing ground forces even know it was there!
Uh-huh. Sure.
Yeah, and it can do that because the V-22 is sooooo much quieter than a helicopter! NOT! Hey, I live in Pensacola. We see V-22's flying around all the time. You can hear them babies coming from MILES away. And by "miles" I mean "minutes." Very distinctive sound, too.
Every time I see a V-22 hover it always seems so unstable in roll...so twitchy. And then I think of those early model 24 Learjets. Remember all the trouble they had because of their short wings and the weight of all that fuel out in the tiptanks? It was something pilots really had to be careful of. The polar moment could get you. The V-22 just boggles my feeble mind with all the weight of the engines and proprotors out on the ends of those short, stubby wings. And nevermind the hover! Get a good roll rate going in the high-speed-airplane mode and how would you stop it? Don't tell me it's got some super-powerful ailerons.
I know, I know...the magic of computers!
I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a picture/video of a V-22 doing a stretcher hoist job. I mean, you'd think by now...
FH1100pilot . . . .
Re: " . . . there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.”
Maybe you’re too young to have been around for this – we even brought it to Florida so you guys could try it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84
Re: " . . . there have been so many different designs for tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing aircraft over the years. NONE of them proved satisfactory. The only one that has come close is the one that Bell has doggedly been pursuing.”
Maybe you’re too young to have been around for this – we even brought it to Florida so you guys could try it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84
grizzled, I assure you that at age 54, and having studied rotorcraft all my life, I'm well aware of the CL-84.
While the design of the -84 is neat...how is it relevant? Four were built, two crashed, and two ended up in museums. The ship remains just a footnote, another one of many interesting designs that never caught on. Proponents blame this or that. I'm sure if the design had serious merit, Canadair could have interested a U.S. partner. That Howie Hughes fellow was always looking at unconventional solutions to stealing money from Bell.
Ultimately, the '84 would've had to grow to V-22-size proportions. Even in the prototype stage, it was already a 14,500 pound MAUW airframe powered by two 1500 hp engines (limited to 12,600 if you actually wanted to hover). With armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and all the other crap that the military requires, one can easily imagine...well...a V-22 with a tilting wing.
CL-84: Interesting design, yes. Viable? Not so much.
While the design of the -84 is neat...how is it relevant? Four were built, two crashed, and two ended up in museums. The ship remains just a footnote, another one of many interesting designs that never caught on. Proponents blame this or that. I'm sure if the design had serious merit, Canadair could have interested a U.S. partner. That Howie Hughes fellow was always looking at unconventional solutions to stealing money from Bell.
Ultimately, the '84 would've had to grow to V-22-size proportions. Even in the prototype stage, it was already a 14,500 pound MAUW airframe powered by two 1500 hp engines (limited to 12,600 if you actually wanted to hover). With armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and all the other crap that the military requires, one can easily imagine...well...a V-22 with a tilting wing.
CL-84: Interesting design, yes. Viable? Not so much.
FH1100 wrote: "For instance, the V-22 still cannot manuever abruptly in the helicopter mode. Ouch. Once you convert the proprotors back to vertical, you're very limited in what you can do."
Really?? And tell me just how do you know that oh wise and all-knowing one?
Really?? And tell me just how do you know that oh wise and all-knowing one?
FH1100
"How is it relevant?"
It's relevant because you said that no tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing desgn had proved satisfactory. The design (and engineering) of the "84" was, by ALL accounts (including the US military), completely satisfactory. Most of the all-wise all-knowing (to borrow a phrase) decision makers of the time thought there was no need nor use for a "tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing" aircraft. Perhaps others believed that US designers / engineers could do a better job.
Chill . . .
grizz
"How is it relevant?"
It's relevant because you said that no tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing desgn had proved satisfactory. The design (and engineering) of the "84" was, by ALL accounts (including the US military), completely satisfactory. Most of the all-wise all-knowing (to borrow a phrase) decision makers of the time thought there was no need nor use for a "tilt-rotor/tilt-thrust/tilt-wing" aircraft. Perhaps others believed that US designers / engineers could do a better job.
Chill . . .
grizz
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newcomers to this thread should read back about 100 pages before coming up with 'new' thoughts/ideas. (Pretty please) and perhaps this statement may be of use also:
3. Lack of Combat Maneuvering Capability
The V-22 is flown by a flight control computer – not the pilot. The pilot merely asks the computer for a given change of flight path, and the computer obliges by applying the necessary aerodynamic inputs to generate the requested change. Under near-equilibrium flight conditions, i.e., straight and level flight, steady turns, climbs, and descents, etc., the pilot’s request and the computer’s response are nearly simultaneous and the delivered inputs are exactly those requested by the pilot. However, under non-steady state conditions such as during evasive maneuvering, entry into autorotation, or unusual flight conditions such as vortex ring state, the flight control computer will attempt to protect the aircraft from structural overloads and other dynamical limits such as the flapping of the rotors (rotor disk not perpendicular to spindle shaft) by not producing the commands requested by the pilot’s controls positions. This tends to significantly reduce the severity of any hard maneuver commanded by the pilot - the goal of evasive maneuvering.
The fact that the pilot has enough control authority to damage the aircraft during hard maneuvering is the reason why the flight manual places restrictions on how much flight control inputs can be used during evasive maneuvering. That a pilot actually has enough control authority to “break” the aircraft is unique to V-22. Concerns over this issue in V-22 have resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of control authority given to the pilot, making the aircraft less and less maneuverable. Key tests of combat evasive maneuvering scheduled in 2002 remain, to my knowledge, to be completed. Sending V-22 into real combat situations without the completion of these critical tests is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Proponents argue that V-22 has been “combat proven” given its operational experience in Iraq. I cannot agree with this position as the mission in Iraq was largely one of “combat circulation”, a euphemism for the logistical support of carrying passengers and cargo from one base to next in bus-route fashion. Combat assault, the mission for which V-22 was designed, remains unproven under realistic conditions. A deployment to Afghanistan would certainly serve that purpose but the risks associated with such a mission and the lack of lift capability in the Afghanistan Theater would seem to preclude such a deployment. Indeed, despite the rhetoric heard over the past five years about how V-22 is the ideally suited aircraft for combat operations in Afghanistan, the aircraft has not been deployed into that Theater to date. One could speculate on the reasons for this. I believe the principal reason is that operators and decision makers fully understand the risks involved both operationally and politically. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20090623104701.pdf
Last edited by Dan Reno; 8th Oct 2009 at 15:59.
Gosh Dan Reno, that's a great read, you did an excellent job of cutting and pasting, thanks for putting me in my place. 
Please accept my sincerest apologies for not going back myself and reading all of the other cut and paste articles, it's obvious to me now that you guys know more about this scandal than anyone else.
I say let's see some more!
Please accept my sincerest apologies for not going back myself and reading all of the other cut and paste articles, it's obvious to me now that you guys know more about this scandal than anyone else.
I say let's see some more!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning mckpave!
The purpose of my post was twofold, not to have to rehash old problems (over 2 decades old in some cases) and, report back on what the flight control system was designed to do, and not to do. Believe me, that one simple paragraph has settled some long, drawn out ‘discussions’ here in rather simple terms. I apologize for a ‘cut & paste’ but the Investigator’s input at the Hearings would have looked the same had I just copied it off the report. if you perceived the information I posted to have “put you in your place” please know, that was not the intent. Again, a lot of issues have been covered and settled here by prior posts and we just like to keep things moving forward by not stopping to rehash them over and over (and over) again.
No need to apologize for not reading all prior posts. You’re like most who come to just vent over the V-22’s terrible record as found during House Hearings and Investigations (and RUMOR) to be false. Actually, some of the best comments come from individuals such as yourself who have flown or maintained the A/C. Most here only know what the people we elected tell us, and what we read, and the rest is all RUMOR. Replacing RUMOR with facts is a lot of what tries to occur here. Like you, we’re kinda tired of hearing all the lies, false RUMORS and cover-ups.
I also agree with your statement; “Let’s see some more” . Yes! Lets! As long as it’s new, relevant and not any of the usual personal attacks by those experiencing a sort of symbiotic, V-22 relationship. Please enlighten us (if you can) Sir.
PS Here’s something you may be able to comment on(?); Are engine compressor stalls still occurring and/or are they still being considered as ‘just normal’? Thanks for any input!
The purpose of my post was twofold, not to have to rehash old problems (over 2 decades old in some cases) and, report back on what the flight control system was designed to do, and not to do. Believe me, that one simple paragraph has settled some long, drawn out ‘discussions’ here in rather simple terms. I apologize for a ‘cut & paste’ but the Investigator’s input at the Hearings would have looked the same had I just copied it off the report. if you perceived the information I posted to have “put you in your place” please know, that was not the intent. Again, a lot of issues have been covered and settled here by prior posts and we just like to keep things moving forward by not stopping to rehash them over and over (and over) again.
No need to apologize for not reading all prior posts. You’re like most who come to just vent over the V-22’s terrible record as found during House Hearings and Investigations (and RUMOR) to be false. Actually, some of the best comments come from individuals such as yourself who have flown or maintained the A/C. Most here only know what the people we elected tell us, and what we read, and the rest is all RUMOR. Replacing RUMOR with facts is a lot of what tries to occur here. Like you, we’re kinda tired of hearing all the lies, false RUMORS and cover-ups.
I also agree with your statement; “Let’s see some more” . Yes! Lets! As long as it’s new, relevant and not any of the usual personal attacks by those experiencing a sort of symbiotic, V-22 relationship. Please enlighten us (if you can) Sir.
PS Here’s something you may be able to comment on(?); Are engine compressor stalls still occurring and/or are they still being considered as ‘just normal’? Thanks for any input!
Last edited by Dan Reno; 9th Oct 2009 at 11:03.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mckpave,
It must be interesting from your perspective to see "reports" and opinions repeatedly being shown on this thread that are presented as 'facts' that say it is not possible to do things in a V-22 that you and others do on a routine basis. It would be nice if those with first hand knowledge and experience like yourself were not ridiculed and chased away while trying to tell others what the a/c truly can and cannot do. Unfortunately I don't see that changing here any time soon...
It must be interesting from your perspective to see "reports" and opinions repeatedly being shown on this thread that are presented as 'facts' that say it is not possible to do things in a V-22 that you and others do on a routine basis. It would be nice if those with first hand knowledge and experience like yourself were not ridiculed and chased away while trying to tell others what the a/c truly can and cannot do. Unfortunately I don't see that changing here any time soon...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 Ready for Action: Boeing
By Colin Clark Monday, September 14th, 2009 10:47 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval
After calls for a V-22 production halt from a House committee because of problems with parts and logistics, and with the Marines planning to deploy about a dozen planes to Afghanistan, Boeing and the Marines came under intense pressure to prove they could fly the aircraft and maintain it at reasonable cost.
Boeing says the aircraft are ready for Afghanistan and other deployments, and the logistics issues are under control, although readiness rates and parts management will not soar immediately as the maintenance and logistics changes the company has made will work their way through the program over the next few years.
“Obviously, we want to hit the availability requirements that the Navy and Air Force has for all its systems out there. We think we’ll reach those targets in a couple of years as the component changes work their way through the system, Gene Cunningham, Bell Boeing’s VP for the V-22 program, said in an exclusive interview with DoD Buzz before the start of the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “I believe we have taken a very aggressive posture on moving ahead on readiness improvements in a way that I don’t think any other program has done in the past.”
Bell Boeing has completely reworked its logistics planning based on data gathered during the V-22 deployment to Iraq, Cunningham said. Most of the logistics and maintenance snafus for the planes in Iraq were caused by the fact that the company based its planning on fixed wing and rotorcraft performance — and not on actual V-22 performance — since the V-22 had never deployed for combat before.
“We went out and projected what we thought would be the issues with the airplane. Some we got right, and some we got wrong,” he said in a bit of understatement. To fix things, the company poured through the Iraq deployment data to see what how long parts really last under the intense pressure of bad conditions and combat and has rebuilt its logistics model to take that into account.
He said they also “have identified low or no cost items that can improve reliability” to help keep costs down as the aircraft is deployed aboard both Marine ships and on the front lines of Afghanistan.
Also, Cunningham said that one crucial concern that recently resurfaced — the effects of downwash from the V-22s engines on troops as they deploy from the aircraft and as the plane lands on Marine ships — does not pose any new problems to using the aircraft.
“Obviously, some folks weren’t satisfied with the answers or would like to see different answers from us,” he said. “The downwash is what the downwash is. We believe the downwash concerns are addressable and can be mitigated. We are not convinced there is a downwash problem
By Colin Clark Monday, September 14th, 2009 10:47 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval
After calls for a V-22 production halt from a House committee because of problems with parts and logistics, and with the Marines planning to deploy about a dozen planes to Afghanistan, Boeing and the Marines came under intense pressure to prove they could fly the aircraft and maintain it at reasonable cost.
Boeing says the aircraft are ready for Afghanistan and other deployments, and the logistics issues are under control, although readiness rates and parts management will not soar immediately as the maintenance and logistics changes the company has made will work their way through the program over the next few years.
“Obviously, we want to hit the availability requirements that the Navy and Air Force has for all its systems out there. We think we’ll reach those targets in a couple of years as the component changes work their way through the system, Gene Cunningham, Bell Boeing’s VP for the V-22 program, said in an exclusive interview with DoD Buzz before the start of the Air Force Association’s annual conference. “I believe we have taken a very aggressive posture on moving ahead on readiness improvements in a way that I don’t think any other program has done in the past.”
Bell Boeing has completely reworked its logistics planning based on data gathered during the V-22 deployment to Iraq, Cunningham said. Most of the logistics and maintenance snafus for the planes in Iraq were caused by the fact that the company based its planning on fixed wing and rotorcraft performance — and not on actual V-22 performance — since the V-22 had never deployed for combat before.
“We went out and projected what we thought would be the issues with the airplane. Some we got right, and some we got wrong,” he said in a bit of understatement. To fix things, the company poured through the Iraq deployment data to see what how long parts really last under the intense pressure of bad conditions and combat and has rebuilt its logistics model to take that into account.
He said they also “have identified low or no cost items that can improve reliability” to help keep costs down as the aircraft is deployed aboard both Marine ships and on the front lines of Afghanistan.
Also, Cunningham said that one crucial concern that recently resurfaced — the effects of downwash from the V-22s engines on troops as they deploy from the aircraft and as the plane lands on Marine ships — does not pose any new problems to using the aircraft.
“Obviously, some folks weren’t satisfied with the answers or would like to see different answers from us,” he said. “The downwash is what the downwash is. We believe the downwash concerns are addressable and can be mitigated. We are not convinced there is a downwash problem
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21stCentury
You are right to question these Congressional Investigations especially if mckpave is seeing opposite data and his aircraft are actually doing things contrary that the Flight manual says it can't! This would once and for all show all that the Osprey can do better than what's being reported in print and this news would go a long way in bettering the PR for this much malighned aircraft! Perhaps we are all a little guilty in bad-mouthing the V-22 but if you squadron folks have data that is different than what these investigators and "expert" witnesses are swearing to at the hearings, then there is Government Fraud going on and by being a good citizen and reporting it to the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform perhaps we can get some FACTS straightened out on the V-22! Please contact them at: Contact the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
'Rewards based on cost savings can be gotten should wanton fraud be uncovered by your information.'
You are right to question these Congressional Investigations especially if mckpave is seeing opposite data and his aircraft are actually doing things contrary that the Flight manual says it can't! This would once and for all show all that the Osprey can do better than what's being reported in print and this news would go a long way in bettering the PR for this much malighned aircraft! Perhaps we are all a little guilty in bad-mouthing the V-22 but if you squadron folks have data that is different than what these investigators and "expert" witnesses are swearing to at the hearings, then there is Government Fraud going on and by being a good citizen and reporting it to the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform perhaps we can get some FACTS straightened out on the V-22! Please contact them at: Contact the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
'Rewards based on cost savings can be gotten should wanton fraud be uncovered by your information.'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
From the perspective of those who actually fly and support the aircraft, nobody has 'pulled the wool over your eyes.' You have 'pulled the wool' over your own eyes and do not want to hear what the aircraft can or cannot do.
Don't feel bad, your 'government fraud' payments are in the mail...
From the perspective of those who actually fly and support the aircraft, nobody has 'pulled the wool over your eyes.' You have 'pulled the wool' over your own eyes and do not want to hear what the aircraft can or cannot do.
Don't feel bad, your 'government fraud' payments are in the mail...
Last edited by 21stCen; 14th Oct 2009 at 18:38.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21stCentury
Lots of people come here claiming "Their" aircraft can do this or that which is contrary to what the government investigators find when they gather the data and visit the Units. A Congressional Oversight Hearing is held and the data is brought forth and entered into record. Simple. Now comes others who say differant. Where were they when the Investigators were there gathering the data? It sounds like the folks living anf breathing with the V-22 don't like their pride and joy bad-mouthed but the Government has determined they didn't get what they paid for. It sounds like incompetent engineering to me and you should be happy that someone's looking out for your tax dollars and the ftroops forced to ride in the back. But, if these folks can produce data contray to what the Investigators gathered then there's a chance FRAUD has taken place. Do you get it now? Like I said before, if you have a bone to pick, tell the GAO and pick up a few bucks since you apparently believe your data is more factual. There's no one here to help you do that and like we've said in the past, it gets very boring having to listen to the same whining about this or that when you won't at least bring it to the proper authority. If all you want to do is vent your frustrations about the V-22 and have everyone agree with you then go to the military.com V-22 thread. There are plenty of lonely V-22 folks there wanting to flap their gums with you.
Lots of people come here claiming "Their" aircraft can do this or that which is contrary to what the government investigators find when they gather the data and visit the Units. A Congressional Oversight Hearing is held and the data is brought forth and entered into record. Simple. Now comes others who say differant. Where were they when the Investigators were there gathering the data? It sounds like the folks living anf breathing with the V-22 don't like their pride and joy bad-mouthed but the Government has determined they didn't get what they paid for. It sounds like incompetent engineering to me and you should be happy that someone's looking out for your tax dollars and the ftroops forced to ride in the back. But, if these folks can produce data contray to what the Investigators gathered then there's a chance FRAUD has taken place. Do you get it now? Like I said before, if you have a bone to pick, tell the GAO and pick up a few bucks since you apparently believe your data is more factual. There's no one here to help you do that and like we've said in the past, it gets very boring having to listen to the same whining about this or that when you won't at least bring it to the proper authority. If all you want to do is vent your frustrations about the V-22 and have everyone agree with you then go to the military.com V-22 thread. There are plenty of lonely V-22 folks there wanting to flap their gums with you.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Dan, relax and calm down -- you're getting a bit over emotional. Go back and read what I said. The first point I was making is that those with first hand experience with the aircraft do in fact know better what the aircraft can or cannot do than somebody with third hand opinions testifying in front of Congress or anywhere else. Secondly, I defend the right of anyone with that first hand information to come onto this forum and pass on that information to those of us that would like to hear it. I stand by those points.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I guess we'll never know the truth if their unwilling to repute the data through official channels because it's only RUMOR at this point. The Government data or some mystery person's data.
Private Air Show!
I am anchored at Mile Hammock Bay on the Camp LeJeune Marine Base here in eastern North Carolina.....listening to the thump of things going bang....and the rattle of small arms and the occasional drum beat of .50 caliber MG's. All around the boat, the Recon guys are doing their swim ops and a CH-53D (remember the Osprey was to replace those) is practicing landings at a field site about a quarter a mile away. As I am typing this post....an Osprey is doing night landings a bit closer than the 53D did.
Observations....
The 53D is a classic!
The 22 is fast, quiet approaching, but noiser than the 53D at a hover.
The 22 is huge compared to the 53D.....function of the prop rotors being on the wings and the downwash (and all the stuff being blown into the air) is much more noticeable during the 22's hovering.
I just pray these aircraft go home early....as there will be no sleep with either of them operating right next door!
Observations....
The 53D is a classic!
The 22 is fast, quiet approaching, but noiser than the 53D at a hover.
The 22 is huge compared to the 53D.....function of the prop rotors being on the wings and the downwash (and all the stuff being blown into the air) is much more noticeable during the 22's hovering.
I just pray these aircraft go home early....as there will be no sleep with either of them operating right next door!