What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Gosh Dan I just don't get it, I've finally come to realize that you guys are much more intelligent and insightful than all of us, and yet you still don't seem appreciative. Just the other day we heard a rumor that a Congressman, (or maybe it was Carlton Meyer), was coming to visit so I was helping move an aircraft into another hangar, (you know what I'm talking about, the ones that are broken and can't fly anymore so we're hiding them), and I was thinking, "Those guys are right, this is so wrong!"
Then, last night I was looking through my flight manual trying to find that "combat maneuvering restriction" and couldn't find it!! That's a cover-up and scandal if I've never seen one, THEY are actually hiding it from us!! Good on you boys, great detective work.
Like I said before, I bow down to you, FH1100 and SASless; your wisdom, experience, intelligence, and omnipotence are superior to all of us "in the program", there is absolutely no credibility to that. You win, I'm sorry for doubting you guys all these years.
Then, last night I was looking through my flight manual trying to find that "combat maneuvering restriction" and couldn't find it!! That's a cover-up and scandal if I've never seen one, THEY are actually hiding it from us!! Good on you boys, great detective work.
Like I said before, I bow down to you, FH1100 and SASless; your wisdom, experience, intelligence, and omnipotence are superior to all of us "in the program", there is absolutely no credibility to that. You win, I'm sorry for doubting you guys all these years.
Periodically, we get new people coming into this forum who are staunch defenders of the V-22. This "mcpave" is just the latest in a long line. They claim to be vague and various things (e.g. pilots or people "associated" with the program) and they never fully identify themselves. However, they tell us we're dead-wrong about the V-22. And they insult and make fun of those of us who haven't drank the Osprey Kool-Aid, telling us that we don't know what we're talking about because we haven't flown the damn thing. Or we haven't been with the program for as long as they. They don't give us any details; they just say we're wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well.
It is true that most of us get our news from third-hand sources - government reports, testimony-under-oath and such. For the most part, we consider these sources to be good and reliable. If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it. Sometimes it's hard to get through the sugar-coating though.
Let's take the infamous NATOPS. Go read an excerpt from them here:
http://www.g2mil.com/Natops%20Extracts.PDF
Yes, it's from Carlton Meyer's g2mil site, but the link takes you to what is apparently a direct copy of the V-22 NATOPS manual.
In mcpave's defense, perhaps the Air Force isn't bound by the NATOPS restrictions. But look what the Navy manual says!
"Abrupt, multi-axis control inputs are prohibited." Geez-Louise! Is that still applicable? How does one come into a "hot" LZ and expect to *not* have to make abrupt, multi-axis control inputs if necessary? I don't get it. Do people really think that the V-22 will ALWAYS be landed in nice, big, quiet, undefended LZ's? In which war and on what planet has this ever happened?
You can read the whole thing if you open the .pdf file. It's very interesting, and sheds some light on the V-22's basic flight characteristics that can probably never be changed due to the twin proprotor design. I particularly liked this one:
Wow, don't be pushing forward on that stick too quickly, boys!
Okay, so this is what we're going by. If these NATOPS restrictions have been reduced, modified or rescinded, then let's hear about it! I'll certainly keep my big mouth shut if that's the case. But if they are still in place, then certain other people need to just shut up.
The V-22 is a HUGE mistake...a HUGE waste of money. That it can do certain things well is undeniable. But that does not justify the high cost in terms of hard money and soldiers' lives.
Well.
It is true that most of us get our news from third-hand sources - government reports, testimony-under-oath and such. For the most part, we consider these sources to be good and reliable. If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it. Sometimes it's hard to get through the sugar-coating though.
Let's take the infamous NATOPS. Go read an excerpt from them here:
http://www.g2mil.com/Natops%20Extracts.PDF
Yes, it's from Carlton Meyer's g2mil site, but the link takes you to what is apparently a direct copy of the V-22 NATOPS manual.
In mcpave's defense, perhaps the Air Force isn't bound by the NATOPS restrictions. But look what the Navy manual says!
4.13 MANEUVERING LIMITATIONS
During maneuvering at low airpspeed, accelerated stall can be acheived at moderate bank angles and/or load factor.
- Air combat maneuvering and aerobatics are prohibited
- Abrupt multi-axis control inputs are prohibited
NOTE
During maneuvering at low airpspeed, accelerated stall can be acheived at moderate bank angles and/or load factor.
You can read the whole thing if you open the .pdf file. It's very interesting, and sheds some light on the V-22's basic flight characteristics that can probably never be changed due to the twin proprotor design. I particularly liked this one:
12.4.23 STALL RECOVERY
Rapid forward TCL (full throw in 1 second or less) may result in uncontrollable nose down pitch tumble departure exhibited during flight simulations.
WARNING
Rapid forward TCL (full throw in 1 second or less) may result in uncontrollable nose down pitch tumble departure exhibited during flight simulations.
Okay, so this is what we're going by. If these NATOPS restrictions have been reduced, modified or rescinded, then let's hear about it! I'll certainly keep my big mouth shut if that's the case. But if they are still in place, then certain other people need to just shut up.
The V-22 is a HUGE mistake...a HUGE waste of money. That it can do certain things well is undeniable. But that does not justify the high cost in terms of hard money and soldiers' lives.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said FH1100 Pilot. These days, whenever Carlton gets bad-mouthed by the Osprey Kool-Aid Kids you can bet he's hit close to home. It really is a shame to learn of so many closed minds these days.
SASless I'm told all the CH-53Ds went to K'Bay and have been feeding the mideast from there. The best way I've found to recognize a "D" from an "E" from afar is to see if the horizontal stabilizer is canted and/or has a support strut running to it from the pylon. BTW, if you like clams, I found the stream/canal accross from LZ Bluebird a great place though you may need to go up it 100 yards towards the inlet to a sandbar for the easy pickings w/o a rake!
SASless I'm told all the CH-53Ds went to K'Bay and have been feeding the mideast from there. The best way I've found to recognize a "D" from an "E" from afar is to see if the horizontal stabilizer is canted and/or has a support strut running to it from the pylon. BTW, if you like clams, I found the stream/canal accross from LZ Bluebird a great place though you may need to go up it 100 yards towards the inlet to a sandbar for the easy pickings w/o a rake!
Hi FH1100, how is your morning going?? Thanks for the timely reply. First off, I'm not "new", a little research on your part would have proven that. Second, I've countered your claims on another board before so you're familiar with me. Lastly, it's spelled "mckpave", with a "k", I spelled your handle correctly so please give me the same courtesy......pretty please?
It's funny but once again the documentation you produce for your argument has absolutely no date on it, wonder how old it is?
Is it quite possible that things change? Hhhmmm, especially in the aviation world? (Don't ya love those little smilies?) Hhhmm, even so, your interpretation of "air combat maneuvering" is not what you think it is.
But you know what? You're right FH1100, I really shouldn't argue with someone of your high caliber and experience, you definitely have a grasp of the demands of combat, I'd love to hear those war stories sometime. And I must apologize that while I'd love to provide the videos, documents, publications, performance charts, etc. that you ask for this is afterall a public message board and it's against my professional judgement, (psst, that means I'm being told to hide it from the critics
) But, I wonder again, would it really matter? Would it really change your mind?? Probably not.
Hey I know, maybe when I'm down in your area again we can get together and I'll give ya all the gouge you want. Heck, how about we trade it for some FH1100 time?? If you think I'm worthy of course.
Be safe, take care.
The dark, suspicious, and anonymous.....mckpave
It's funny but once again the documentation you produce for your argument has absolutely no date on it, wonder how old it is?
Is it quite possible that things change? Hhhmmm, especially in the aviation world? (Don't ya love those little smilies?) Hhhmm, even so, your interpretation of "air combat maneuvering" is not what you think it is. But you know what? You're right FH1100, I really shouldn't argue with someone of your high caliber and experience, you definitely have a grasp of the demands of combat, I'd love to hear those war stories sometime. And I must apologize that while I'd love to provide the videos, documents, publications, performance charts, etc. that you ask for this is afterall a public message board and it's against my professional judgement, (psst, that means I'm being told to hide it from the critics
) But, I wonder again, would it really matter? Would it really change your mind?? Probably not.Hey I know, maybe when I'm down in your area again we can get together and I'll give ya all the gouge you want. Heck, how about we trade it for some FH1100 time?? If you think I'm worthy of course.
Be safe, take care.
The dark, suspicious, and anonymous.....mckpave
Yes, mcpave, I well saw that you joined this site in 2001 and you had a whopping 14 posts to your credit. What a wonderful asset to PPRUNE you are!
But instead of being condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial, how's about next time you try adding some value to this forum? The NATOPS were published whenever they were, and nobody has come along from "your side" to gleefully announce that they've been modified/rescinded. And so as my young friends say, WTF?
But if you think that I, or Dan, or SASless should jump onboard the V-22 train just because...because...*you* say so, well, you know what you can do.
My objections to the V-22 are not merely that it is prohibited from doing any kind of ACM or abrupt multi-axis control inputs. That's just part of it. When you look at the entire platform, anyone can see that it is flawed. Fatally flawed. Its capabilities fall far short of what was advertised. It failed to meet several key performance parameters. The cost per aircraft has ballooned to literally unbelievable levels.
Yes, it's "neat," "cool," and all those other adolescent adjectives. But the V-22's "somewhat faster than a helicopter" capability just comes at too high a cost. It is not what we need.
And in fact, evidently it's not what anybody *else* needs either. The Russians cancelled development of their tilt-rotor. And we have not been able to get even *one* other country (certainly not the Brits, not our "good friends" the Saudis and not even Israel!) to buy the thing. Why is that? Are we hoarding that secret technology for ourselves? Heh.
No. The simple fact is that no other country can afford such a platform. They know they'll go broke. As will we if we keep dumping money down into this black hole called the V-22 Osprey.
P.S. I was involved with the FH1100 program for a long time, and know the ship pretty intimately from the rivets outward. It certainly had its weaknesses, but I quite liked the clever design. I no longer fly it but have kept the SN for purely sentimental reasons. I'm not interested in hearing your unofficial "gouge." If you have valuable, pertinent information, then share it here so we all may learn from your vast knowledge.
But instead of being condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial, how's about next time you try adding some value to this forum? The NATOPS were published whenever they were, and nobody has come along from "your side" to gleefully announce that they've been modified/rescinded. And so as my young friends say, WTF?
- Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
- Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
- Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
- Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
- Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
- Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
- Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
- What are the TBO's on the engines now?
But if you think that I, or Dan, or SASless should jump onboard the V-22 train just because...because...*you* say so, well, you know what you can do.
My objections to the V-22 are not merely that it is prohibited from doing any kind of ACM or abrupt multi-axis control inputs. That's just part of it. When you look at the entire platform, anyone can see that it is flawed. Fatally flawed. Its capabilities fall far short of what was advertised. It failed to meet several key performance parameters. The cost per aircraft has ballooned to literally unbelievable levels.
Yes, it's "neat," "cool," and all those other adolescent adjectives. But the V-22's "somewhat faster than a helicopter" capability just comes at too high a cost. It is not what we need.
And in fact, evidently it's not what anybody *else* needs either. The Russians cancelled development of their tilt-rotor. And we have not been able to get even *one* other country (certainly not the Brits, not our "good friends" the Saudis and not even Israel!) to buy the thing. Why is that? Are we hoarding that secret technology for ourselves? Heh.
No. The simple fact is that no other country can afford such a platform. They know they'll go broke. As will we if we keep dumping money down into this black hole called the V-22 Osprey.
P.S. I was involved with the FH1100 program for a long time, and know the ship pretty intimately from the rivets outward. It certainly had its weaknesses, but I quite liked the clever design. I no longer fly it but have kept the SN for purely sentimental reasons. I'm not interested in hearing your unofficial "gouge." If you have valuable, pertinent information, then share it here so we all may learn from your vast knowledge.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to sum up the 'new news' for today:
(all those presenting 'direct' information are considered innocent until proven guilty on both sides)
In a comparison of the CH53D and MV-22 -- the MV-22 is faster and quieter on the approach to an LZ, but makes more noise and has much greater downwash in the hover and has a greater size profile.
In a comparison of Flight Manual restrictions -- the current USAF CV-22 does not have much in the way of limitations on 'abrubt maneuvering,' while the NATOPS Flight Manual did at least at one time have those restrictions in place.
There are still many interesting questions posed, but we understand that those in the military are often not at liberty to divulge that information, and those on the civilian side do not have direct access to much of that information.
The only thing I could add is that on 'interest from foreign governments,' there are supposedly four countries that are actively pursuing potential future purchases, but have not yet been approved by the US government to do so (that's only 'third hand RUMOR info' at this point, and as such should NOT be considered as 'direct information').
So all in all, some interesting information exhanges... Thanks!!!
Hopefully we can agree that there are people who support the technology, and there are people who do not. But let's agree also that both sides have rights to post their opinions without being attacked, and hopefully all will try to make their posts as 'fact based' as possible while still adding to the 'rumor side' without trying to declare 'rumor as fact' (after all this is a "Rumor Network Forum").
(all those presenting 'direct' information are considered innocent until proven guilty on both sides)
In a comparison of the CH53D and MV-22 -- the MV-22 is faster and quieter on the approach to an LZ, but makes more noise and has much greater downwash in the hover and has a greater size profile.
In a comparison of Flight Manual restrictions -- the current USAF CV-22 does not have much in the way of limitations on 'abrubt maneuvering,' while the NATOPS Flight Manual did at least at one time have those restrictions in place.
There are still many interesting questions posed, but we understand that those in the military are often not at liberty to divulge that information, and those on the civilian side do not have direct access to much of that information.
The only thing I could add is that on 'interest from foreign governments,' there are supposedly four countries that are actively pursuing potential future purchases, but have not yet been approved by the US government to do so (that's only 'third hand RUMOR info' at this point, and as such should NOT be considered as 'direct information').
So all in all, some interesting information exhanges... Thanks!!!
Hopefully we can agree that there are people who support the technology, and there are people who do not. But let's agree also that both sides have rights to post their opinions without being attacked, and hopefully all will try to make their posts as 'fact based' as possible while still adding to the 'rumor side' without trying to declare 'rumor as fact' (after all this is a "Rumor Network Forum").
Last edited by 21stCen; 16th Oct 2009 at 16:59.
Lot's of emotion in there FH1100 Pilot, sounds like you have some spunk!!
"Condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial"!!??? Wow, did I really do that?? Hhhmm, guess all I can say is what goes around comes around. Yes I know my post count isn't nearly up to the astounding levels of others on this fine message board, guess that lowers my credibility even more in your eyes, I'll try to do better, promise. Guess I don't like posting if it's made up of conjecture, rumor, false information, or just plain stupidity.....whoops, there I go again being mean. 
Now FH1100 you said in your last post that you like being proved wrong. Well, like I said, I spent considerable effort on another message board countering your claims some time ago and yet you wouldn't accept any of my contradictions even though I put a lot of effort in my responses. That hurt my feelings.
But more than that it proved to me that despite your assertions, you refuse to be proven wrong....come on, admit to that little fib, come on now.
The truth is that you guys simply won't listen to our counter-arguments. No matter what information we present to you it's not enough, you'll simply find some other angle or attack us personally. Been there, done that. That has happened more than a few times on this thread alone, not to mention other threads. It's become your standard operating procedure, you call us liars, crooks, cheaters, all of that unsavory stuff........don't try to deny it boys because there's plenty of evidence of it on here.
And by the way, yes I could give you responses to the points you made in your last post but once again......IT'S A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD.
Didn't they have OPSEC when you were in the military FH1100??
Well anyway, can't we all just get along?
"Condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial"!!??? Wow, did I really do that??
Hhhmm, guess all I can say is what goes around comes around. Yes I know my post count isn't nearly up to the astounding levels of others on this fine message board, guess that lowers my credibility even more in your eyes, I'll try to do better, promise. Guess I don't like posting if it's made up of conjecture, rumor, false information, or just plain stupidity.....whoops, there I go again being mean. Now FH1100 you said in your last post that you like being proved wrong. Well, like I said, I spent considerable effort on another message board countering your claims some time ago and yet you wouldn't accept any of my contradictions even though I put a lot of effort in my responses. That hurt my feelings.
But more than that it proved to me that despite your assertions, you refuse to be proven wrong....come on, admit to that little fib, come on now. The truth is that you guys simply won't listen to our counter-arguments. No matter what information we present to you it's not enough, you'll simply find some other angle or attack us personally. Been there, done that. That has happened more than a few times on this thread alone, not to mention other threads. It's become your standard operating procedure, you call us liars, crooks, cheaters, all of that unsavory stuff........don't try to deny it boys because there's plenty of evidence of it on here.
And by the way, yes I could give you responses to the points you made in your last post but once again......IT'S A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD.
Didn't they have OPSEC when you were in the military FH1100?? Well anyway, can't we all just get along?
Ohhhhhh, I see! Now it's classified, hush-hush stuff. Okay, I won't ask any more dumb questions about things that have been discussed, published, and testified to IN PUBLIC for years and years now. I'll just have to take your anonymous word there, mcpave.
Sorry I asked.
Oh yeah, it's not about credibility. My comment about your post count was merely to note that with 14 posts in 8 years (and those in only about three threads), you are not really a participant on this rumor board. You are in effect what we used to call a "lurker."
For the record, none of us claims to be a V-22 expert.
Sorry I asked.
Oh yeah, it's not about credibility. My comment about your post count was merely to note that with 14 posts in 8 years (and those in only about three threads), you are not really a participant on this rumor board. You are in effect what we used to call a "lurker."
For the record, none of us claims to be a V-22 expert.
Last edited by FH1100 Pilot; 16th Oct 2009 at 22:28.
McRave.....hold on a second.....how did I get dragged into this latest diatribe?
All I have done is hoist sails, beers, and the odd slushy lime flavored Rum based drink and politely trapsed past some of our uniformed mafia going about their business of training to make this country safe from external tyranny.
In the past I have pointed out issues of concern about the Marine Version of the Osprey....and unlike FH-1100....hate to be proved wrong (unless I am just doing some plain old fashioned pprune fishing...). Please point out where I have erred if you will.....assuming you can.
Your personal opinon falls short of any credible source thus try to use some sort of public reference such as the rest of us do.
Where's the beef in asking questions about the Osprey particularly when there appears to be some validity to the issues extant?
All I have done is hoist sails, beers, and the odd slushy lime flavored Rum based drink and politely trapsed past some of our uniformed mafia going about their business of training to make this country safe from external tyranny.
In the past I have pointed out issues of concern about the Marine Version of the Osprey....and unlike FH-1100....hate to be proved wrong (unless I am just doing some plain old fashioned pprune fishing...). Please point out where I have erred if you will.....assuming you can.
Your personal opinon falls short of any credible source thus try to use some sort of public reference such as the rest of us do.
Where's the beef in asking questions about the Osprey particularly when there appears to be some validity to the issues extant?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry SASless, Mckpave isn't getting personsal. It's like taking some tracers in the MH-53 PAVE LOW--you spray it all with 7.62 or .50 cal suppressive fire and go on about your business. In fact I flew with him years ago in the MH-53 (a HH-53 Super Jolly Green with lots of ballast, um, err, avionics and mission equipment) and know for a fact he isn't a poser or wannabe.
It must be irritating to actually fly the V-22 and have people constantly challenge your veracity based on reports that are outdated or erroneous. I happen to know that Mckpave has a thick skin and is just dealing with naysayerss the best he can. I also happen to know that he's honest and is far removed from whatever shennanigans the Marine Corps may be playing.
I note that he started hitting the message boards about the time he became retirement eligible -- just like I did a few years before him. If you don't want the truth on the CV-22, then just ignor his posts.
It must be irritating to actually fly the V-22 and have people constantly challenge your veracity based on reports that are outdated or erroneous. I happen to know that Mckpave has a thick skin and is just dealing with naysayerss the best he can. I also happen to know that he's honest and is far removed from whatever shennanigans the Marine Corps may be playing.
I note that he started hitting the message boards about the time he became retirement eligible -- just like I did a few years before him. If you don't want the truth on the CV-22, then just ignor his posts.
(BANG!, SLAP!, CRASH!) Okay FH1100 I give up, your punches have me on the ropes. 
Geez, a "lurker", now that's really below the belt. But hey, I guess I'd rather be a "lurker" than a "poser". 
And just for the record, I never said the information was classified but OPSEC doesn't just apply to classified information, thought you'd know that 'ole buddy.
Well, I'll actually try to give you a bit of insight into your inquiries from before. I realize it won't be good enough for you but I'll give it a shot, here goes:
•Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
-- You betcha and still continues to this day. Guess you'd like me to provide the actual test reports now right?
•Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
-- Yes and no. Always could do it but have to be smooth and careful. The why has more to do with the fact that it's an FBW system with Flight Control Computers rather than any design deficiency. FCCs try to keep you in coordinated flight in all aircraft like that, they get a wee bit, shall we say, "freaky" if you start messing with that. Just ask Airbus.
•Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
-- Just like any fixed wing aircraft, accelerated stalls can occur at varying degrees of bank and load, pretty standard airplane stuff there. Get too slow and keep cranking any FW into a bank and sooner or later she'll reach a combination of airspeed and bank angle that stops her from flying. The Osprey actually has some pretty darn low stall speeds, this really is more of a blanket CYA statement than a restriction. It could just as easily read, "If you're stupid and get too slow, then wrap this beastie into a hard bank, she's gonna stop flying!"
•Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
-- Haven't heard this one before so you got me there ya 'ole fox!! Me thinks that once again if it were a major issue we'd hear about it on a grander scale. I know it's hard for you to believe but they are very good, (sometimes too much so), at giving us information we need.
•Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
-- As anyone who has flown dual-engined helos knows....it depends. How high, what's the gross weight, density altitude, etc. More importantly, what's your definition of "crashing"? Exceeding gear limitations? There are a ton of twin-engine helos that will "crash" by your definition depending on the conditions. Actually, the higher the hover the better because that gives me altitude to trade for airspeed. Soooooo, I'm gonna answer YES on that one.
•Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
-- What hydraulic problems?
•Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
-- A "hoist for litter patients"?? I'm assuming that you're referring to a stokes litter and a rescue hoist. Why yes indeedy, every Osprey off the line has a shining new hoist installed above the ramp. And once again, (I know you won't believe me without a video), we use it all the time.
•What are the TBO's on the engines now?
-- Same as they've always been. A better question would have been: Have you changed some engines earlier than the TBO? Yeppers, but there are also quite a bunch that "go the distance" too. Sorry, don't have the documents to provide but I'd give it an educated guess and say it's probably even-steven over the entire program.
Okay now go ahead, call me names, tell me I'm wrong, tell me my word ain't worth a
without giving you the videos and publications. I really don't care to change your mind, or anyone else's for that matter, just trying to raise my post count so I can fit in.
Oh, and SASless, you're right, other than calling me "mcrave" for the second time now, you've shown a bit more class than the others.....but I still didn't resort to calling you names.
You're off the hook.
V/R
The lying, cheating, stealing....but hopefully entertaining......mcpave (damnit, now you got me doing it!!)
Okay FH1100 I give up, your punches have me on the ropes. Geez, a "lurker", now that's really below the belt. But hey, I guess I'd rather be a "lurker" than a "poser". And just for the record, I never said the information was classified but OPSEC doesn't just apply to classified information, thought you'd know that 'ole buddy.
Well, I'll actually try to give you a bit of insight into your inquiries from before. I realize it won't be good enough for you but I'll give it a shot, here goes:
•Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
-- You betcha and still continues to this day. Guess you'd like me to provide the actual test reports now right?
•Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
-- Yes and no. Always could do it but have to be smooth and careful. The why has more to do with the fact that it's an FBW system with Flight Control Computers rather than any design deficiency. FCCs try to keep you in coordinated flight in all aircraft like that, they get a wee bit, shall we say, "freaky" if you start messing with that. Just ask Airbus.
•Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
-- Just like any fixed wing aircraft, accelerated stalls can occur at varying degrees of bank and load, pretty standard airplane stuff there. Get too slow and keep cranking any FW into a bank and sooner or later she'll reach a combination of airspeed and bank angle that stops her from flying. The Osprey actually has some pretty darn low stall speeds, this really is more of a blanket CYA statement than a restriction. It could just as easily read, "If you're stupid and get too slow, then wrap this beastie into a hard bank, she's gonna stop flying!"
•Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
-- Haven't heard this one before so you got me there ya 'ole fox!!
Me thinks that once again if it were a major issue we'd hear about it on a grander scale. I know it's hard for you to believe but they are very good, (sometimes too much so), at giving us information we need.•Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
-- As anyone who has flown dual-engined helos knows....it depends. How high, what's the gross weight, density altitude, etc. More importantly, what's your definition of "crashing"? Exceeding gear limitations? There are a ton of twin-engine helos that will "crash" by your definition depending on the conditions. Actually, the higher the hover the better because that gives me altitude to trade for airspeed. Soooooo, I'm gonna answer YES on that one.
•Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
-- What hydraulic problems?
•Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
-- A "hoist for litter patients"??
I'm assuming that you're referring to a stokes litter and a rescue hoist. Why yes indeedy, every Osprey off the line has a shining new hoist installed above the ramp. And once again, (I know you won't believe me without a video), we use it all the time. •What are the TBO's on the engines now?
-- Same as they've always been. A better question would have been: Have you changed some engines earlier than the TBO? Yeppers, but there are also quite a bunch that "go the distance" too. Sorry, don't have the documents to provide but I'd give it an educated guess and say it's probably even-steven over the entire program.
Okay now go ahead, call me names, tell me I'm wrong, tell me my word ain't worth a
without giving you the videos and publications. I really don't care to change your mind, or anyone else's for that matter, just trying to raise my post count so I can fit in. Oh, and SASless, you're right, other than calling me "mcrave" for the second time now, you've shown a bit more class than the others.....but I still didn't resort to calling you names.
You're off the hook.V/R
The lying, cheating, stealing....but hopefully entertaining......mcpave (damnit, now you got me doing it!!)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless (and whoever else),
When it comes to McPave I can vouch he knows what he is talking about. Wont give much away other than to say he is one of the higher time CV22 guys there and has been around for a while. I have met him and spent numerous hours chatting with him when visiting the Squadron.
He is very well respected by those he works with and works for. Bottom line when it comes to the CV22 he does know what is what.
Just my two cents worth.
When it comes to McPave I can vouch he knows what he is talking about. Wont give much away other than to say he is one of the higher time CV22 guys there and has been around for a while. I have met him and spent numerous hours chatting with him when visiting the Squadron.
He is very well respected by those he works with and works for. Bottom line when it comes to the CV22 he does know what is what.
Just my two cents worth.
Last edited by Ned-Air2Air; 17th Oct 2009 at 06:19.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mckpave,
Great update, much appreciated. Thanks for the info where you can provide it. You are right, there are one or two without any first hand experience here who will not accept the facts you presented, and will continue to believe their own self made theories (i.e., BS), and third hand opinions of others. Don't worry, the silent majority (guess they'd be called 'lurkers' by some) can easily spot who is providing valid info, and who is not.
All the Best...
Great update, much appreciated. Thanks for the info where you can provide it. You are right, there are one or two without any first hand experience here who will not accept the facts you presented, and will continue to believe their own self made theories (i.e., BS), and third hand opinions of others. Don't worry, the silent majority (guess they'd be called 'lurkers' by some) can easily spot who is providing valid info, and who is not.
All the Best...
Last edited by 21stCen; 17th Oct 2009 at 06:40.
As it appears McPave wears blue, and has had to endure Ned's presence, I shall stipulate to his credibility.....McP's not Ned's!
One has to accept the fact one service tends to appear to being polishing a turd whenever their well known PR capabilities are put into action....as in the wake of any kind of incident involving an Osprey. Living close to their main base and thus having access to "local" news outlets, the official PR reports oft times are contradicted by other sources.
One example....remember the small grass fire that was caused by an Osprey after landing out about six months ago.....put out by the Flight Engineer they said. The NC Forest Service fought the fire for several days after that and involved many fire units from around the area.
Are we skeptical after numerous events like that? Sure....and rightfully so!
The Air Force has remained very quiet and thus we have heard little from their perspective.
Ah.....MH-53 days....and all those Fifty Cal bottle openers made from spent casings!
One has to accept the fact one service tends to appear to being polishing a turd whenever their well known PR capabilities are put into action....as in the wake of any kind of incident involving an Osprey. Living close to their main base and thus having access to "local" news outlets, the official PR reports oft times are contradicted by other sources.
One example....remember the small grass fire that was caused by an Osprey after landing out about six months ago.....put out by the Flight Engineer they said. The NC Forest Service fought the fire for several days after that and involved many fire units from around the area.
Are we skeptical after numerous events like that? Sure....and rightfully so!
The Air Force has remained very quiet and thus we have heard little from their perspective.
Ah.....MH-53 days....and all those Fifty Cal bottle openers made from spent casings!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mckpave There, now that wasn't so hard was it.
Unfortunetley, most here still have no way to verify anything you say regarding the AF V-22 as we only have what the Navy investigators tell us in official report format what the airframe was contracted to do. And as you know, a lot of what you bring to this discussion table contradicts what the government reports.
Since we can usually get V-22 particulars from the Navy in writting via a FOIA request but only heresay from the AF, what if anything, would you suggest the college student/reader do if wanting to, say; write a college thesis on the V-22? Stick with the government line or rely on rumor or heresay?
Thanks!
Unfortunetley, most here still have no way to verify anything you say regarding the AF V-22 as we only have what the Navy investigators tell us in official report format what the airframe was contracted to do. And as you know, a lot of what you bring to this discussion table contradicts what the government reports.
Since we can usually get V-22 particulars from the Navy in writting via a FOIA request but only heresay from the AF, what if anything, would you suggest the college student/reader do if wanting to, say; write a college thesis on the V-22? Stick with the government line or rely on rumor or heresay?
Thanks!
Sven you dawg!
Cut to the chase here will ya....and quit beating around the bush!
Very succinctly said Sir!
One cannot compare the 22 to an Air Bus....as the Air Bus returns a profit despite its sometimes very expensive one time cost when it comes apart in the air.
Cut to the chase here will ya....and quit beating around the bush!
Very succinctly said Sir!
One cannot compare the 22 to an Air Bus....as the Air Bus returns a profit despite its sometimes very expensive one time cost when it comes apart in the air.
At $400 a gallon for fuel in Afghanistan the Osprey is going to reduce the deficit by a significant amount as compared to the ancient technology of the 46 and 53.
The Sultan
The Sultan
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MckPave may be writing with less specificity than we'd like because of what happened to the active duty F-22 pilot that posted unclassified (but somewhat sensitive stuff) about the F-22. Or maybe he actually payed attention during the OPSEC class.
Some links about the hoist below. Apparently it's on only the CV, not the MV.
U.S. Air Force AIM Points: Boeing rotorcraft takes delivery of first Goodrich V-22 electric rescue hoist
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-4684K-939.jpg
AF.mil - Media Search hoist&page=6
And for Dan Reno, I would suggest sending your FOIA request to the Air Force for the CV-22. Maybe comparing the documents to the ones you get from the truthiness-challenged naval aviation folks might be enlightening. I remember many hours sitting in the vault redacting the truth from various USAF documents. In the end the journos usually figured it out anyway. Good for them!
Some links about the hoist below. Apparently it's on only the CV, not the MV.
U.S. Air Force AIM Points: Boeing rotorcraft takes delivery of first Goodrich V-22 electric rescue hoist
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-4684K-939.jpg
AF.mil - Media Search hoist&page=6
And for Dan Reno, I would suggest sending your FOIA request to the Air Force for the CV-22. Maybe comparing the documents to the ones you get from the truthiness-challenged naval aviation folks might be enlightening. I remember many hours sitting in the vault redacting the truth from various USAF documents. In the end the journos usually figured it out anyway. Good for them!
Last edited by Jolly Green; 19th Oct 2009 at 01:24.
Am I being obnoxious here by suggesting the angle of the dangle suggests the aircraft is in forward flight? The prop rotors and pitch attitude of the aircraft seems to suggest it is at a steady state hover but the meat on the string sure is lagging behind the ramp at a noticeable angle.
Can it be Rotor Wash that provides the push that swings them PJ's out where they will not hit the ramp on the way up?
If so....what a novel idea!
Them Bell-Boeing Engineers are pretty swift folks aren't they!
Huge image file
Can it be Rotor Wash that provides the push that swings them PJ's out where they will not hit the ramp on the way up?
If so....what a novel idea!
Them Bell-Boeing Engineers are pretty swift folks aren't they!
Huge image file
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 19th Oct 2009 at 20:07. Reason: Image too big
Stokes litter. STOKES litter. STOKES litter!
Yes, yes, we've all seen pictures and video of V-22's doing hoist and fast-rope work. Can we PLEASE see a picture or video of an injured person being hoisted aboard a V-22 in a STOKES litter? Or are they all going to be hoisted like a PJ?
Here's what Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge in the universe) says about helicopters and Stokes litters:
These baskets have been notorious for spinning under the downdraft from the rotating helicopter blades.
The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency is the Executive Agent for policy regarding rescue of all DoD (Department of Defense) personnel. It seems that they don’t like the V-22 very much. Here's what they said in a recent report:
The V-22’s “excessive” rotor downwash makes it impractical to use a hoist to lift people onboard, ruling out the Osprey for rescues at high altitudes where it couldn’t land…