What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
I will not bore you with the details....but this document sums up the situation pretty nicely. The Marines say the machine is a treat. Non-Marines freely discuss and document their criticisms. Read it and form your own opinions!
I say it is still a Turkey!
Read the Casevac example for the US Embassy in Kabul.....that alone shows you the fallacy of the Marine Corps argument about how capable this thing is. The GAO and several other US Government Agencies tasked to review the Osprey Program pointed out other glaring problems in the anticipated replacement of CH-53D and CH-46 Helicopters by the Osprey.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31384.pdf
I say it is still a Turkey!
Read the Casevac example for the US Embassy in Kabul.....that alone shows you the fallacy of the Marine Corps argument about how capable this thing is. The GAO and several other US Government Agencies tasked to review the Osprey Program pointed out other glaring problems in the anticipated replacement of CH-53D and CH-46 Helicopters by the Osprey.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31384.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
That's a GOVERNMENT report and not actually how the V-22 does when out of sight of the public. It's all Hush-Hush you know, which makes it all very convienent when trying to do a cover-up.
That's a GOVERNMENT report and not actually how the V-22 does when out of sight of the public. It's all Hush-Hush you know, which makes it all very convienent when trying to do a cover-up.
The interesting part of the report to me was the concern shown to the USMC decision to do away with Medium Helicopters and replace them in total with MV-22's at a much greater cost per aircraft but without a real ability to duplicate the missions the Medium Helicopters do so much better and cheaper. My take is the better solution would have been to have fewer 22's but retain a fleet of medium helicopters. The report also cites a concern that the MV-22 is being compared only to the "old tech" CH-53D and CH-46 airframes rather than to "New Tech" aircraft like the EH-101, UH-60 and similar aircraft. Add in the poor performance of the MV-22 in high elevation operations (landing and takeoff in the helicopter mode) and it appears to become a very limited aircraft for such a huge cost.
I also like the comments about how the NBC and other spec's had to be rescinded due to weight issues and when the new all aspect gun is installed the aircraft loses yet more payload. If the spec is re-written to accurately portray the actual capability of the aircraft......how would that sound to the critics?
Better yet....how does one defend the new...reduced weights?
I also like the comments about how the NBC and other spec's had to be rescinded due to weight issues and when the new all aspect gun is installed the aircraft loses yet more payload. If the spec is re-written to accurately portray the actual capability of the aircraft......how would that sound to the critics?
Better yet....how does one defend the new...reduced weights?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commanders are taught that the absolute best way to improve morale is to formally chair an all-squadron, enlisted meeting with guards conspicuously posted at all doors and tell everyone that ‘this or that’ has now been deemed ‘Classified’ and then read off the penalties authorized should anyone discuss or divulge ‘this or that’ to anyone outside the squadron, including family.
So, when you let them in on a little secret like: ‘there are civilians spies who would die and/or are paid BIG bucks to know how the V-22 is doing’ or: ‘the enemy is all around this base and they look and dress like us’, and then you top it off with the BIGGIE (for Air Force or Navy enlisted) and order: “All enlisted personnel will requalify within 10 days with weapons” (cameras authorized at the range for the John Wayne photos).
Almost immediately, morale, production, military appearance and bearing improves.
The Air Force is notorious for this type of motivation especially when it comes to ‘this or that’ piece of aircraft equipment that’s been declassified by other services for years. (civilians use cash or job loss as a motivator) Yep, all show, no go. It’s in their mindset, so it is no surprise when you ask an airman particulars about the V-22 that they stick their chest out blowing the “it’s classified” smokescreen.Besides, asking such silly questions might make them late for a photo op alongside some weapon system they can say proves “they’re in the fight” to the hand-wringing folks back home.
Seen it, heard it and participated in this type scam but I can’t give you any more info because it’s, well, you know…
So, when you let them in on a little secret like: ‘there are civilians spies who would die and/or are paid BIG bucks to know how the V-22 is doing’ or: ‘the enemy is all around this base and they look and dress like us’, and then you top it off with the BIGGIE (for Air Force or Navy enlisted) and order: “All enlisted personnel will requalify within 10 days with weapons” (cameras authorized at the range for the John Wayne photos).
Almost immediately, morale, production, military appearance and bearing improves.
The Air Force is notorious for this type of motivation especially when it comes to ‘this or that’ piece of aircraft equipment that’s been declassified by other services for years. (civilians use cash or job loss as a motivator) Yep, all show, no go. It’s in their mindset, so it is no surprise when you ask an airman particulars about the V-22 that they stick their chest out blowing the “it’s classified” smokescreen.Besides, asking such silly questions might make them late for a photo op alongside some weapon system they can say proves “they’re in the fight” to the hand-wringing folks back home.
Seen it, heard it and participated in this type scam but I can’t give you any more info because it’s, well, you know…
And there it is, more attempts on your part to discredit us by making bull**** comments and accusations, great job guys, your true colors come out again. 
That was exactly my point in coming back here, to play to your ignorance and arrogance and let everyone on this thread see how you react. You boys did a bang up job, when confronted with counter claims you decide to sling **** at the poster, it's become your standard operating procedure.
Thanks Dan for your ridiculous comments about the military and especially the USAF, you've obviously shown us your true personality. I just love how you make these comments and personal attacks. By the way, since we are in the "cutting and pasting" game again, here are some comments directed at me in the past for everyone so that all of you can see the type of "professionals" these men really are.
From FH1100 on another board:
[I]"To claim that this known design deficiency is inconsequential is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance. Mike, if you say that you are "routinely" flying the V-22 in flight regimes that are known to be dangerous (and I'm sure you've studied the Marana crash), then God be with you for you are extremely uncautious."[/I]
...and again,
[I]"Mike, that was a very well-thought-out reply. But you're not being completely honest."[/I]
From Dan Reno on this board:
"MCKPAVE's identity is known in the unit where he's assigned therefore he's actually commenting to them and telling them that he's a team player regardless of all the facts, PR and BS"
...and again,
"Kissing up to superiors is a favorite amongst the AF types and some in the MC who usually just keep quiet about this flying pork rind or do their time quietly in fear of the UCMJ and get out. Your comments are damaged goods and DOA here because everyone knows you are simply singing to your superiors Sir. Sullied data is of little use when lives are at stake and lets hope you're not whistling in the dark over your personal doubts about this beast without gonads.."
....and thrice,
[I]"You asked Pave for more insight and he's done that already by parroting Bell and customer gibberish so I thought you should go directly to the source rather than what we've already heard from him."[/I]
I'm sure the mods won't like my tactics but it should stand as a testament to the lack of professionalism exhibited by these idiots. It bares justice to them to illustrate the credibility of their claims. If this post is removed, or myself banned, then these posts and many others, should serve as evidence to have them removed as well.
I take these attacks on my integrity and credibility VERY personal gentlemen, and I don't forget! They are completely rude and unfounded. I'll be glad to discuss your accusations against me in person anywhere, anytime!! I'm quite sure you won't like my response.
That was exactly my point in coming back here, to play to your ignorance and arrogance and let everyone on this thread see how you react. You boys did a bang up job, when confronted with counter claims you decide to sling **** at the poster, it's become your standard operating procedure.
Thanks Dan for your ridiculous comments about the military and especially the USAF, you've obviously shown us your true personality. I just love how you make these comments and personal attacks. By the way, since we are in the "cutting and pasting" game again, here are some comments directed at me in the past for everyone so that all of you can see the type of "professionals" these men really are.
From FH1100 on another board:
[I]"To claim that this known design deficiency is inconsequential is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance. Mike, if you say that you are "routinely" flying the V-22 in flight regimes that are known to be dangerous (and I'm sure you've studied the Marana crash), then God be with you for you are extremely uncautious."[/I]
...and again,
[I]"Mike, that was a very well-thought-out reply. But you're not being completely honest."[/I]
From Dan Reno on this board:
"MCKPAVE's identity is known in the unit where he's assigned therefore he's actually commenting to them and telling them that he's a team player regardless of all the facts, PR and BS"
...and again,
"Kissing up to superiors is a favorite amongst the AF types and some in the MC who usually just keep quiet about this flying pork rind or do their time quietly in fear of the UCMJ and get out. Your comments are damaged goods and DOA here because everyone knows you are simply singing to your superiors Sir. Sullied data is of little use when lives are at stake and lets hope you're not whistling in the dark over your personal doubts about this beast without gonads.."
....and thrice,
[I]"You asked Pave for more insight and he's done that already by parroting Bell and customer gibberish so I thought you should go directly to the source rather than what we've already heard from him."[/I]
I'm sure the mods won't like my tactics but it should stand as a testament to the lack of professionalism exhibited by these idiots. It bares justice to them to illustrate the credibility of their claims. If this post is removed, or myself banned, then these posts and many others, should serve as evidence to have them removed as well.
I take these attacks on my integrity and credibility VERY personal gentlemen, and I don't forget! They are completely rude and unfounded. I'll be glad to discuss your accusations against me in person anywhere, anytime!! I'm quite sure you won't like my response.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mckpave
Sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands for someone on active duty with the V-22. Perhaps you're just lonely and need someone to listen to you, I won't anymore: Talk to Me - I WIll Listen
Sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands for someone on active duty with the V-22. Perhaps you're just lonely and need someone to listen to you, I won't anymore: Talk to Me - I WIll Listen
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mckpave,
My hat's off to you Colonel. I know it's frustrating, and you feel like you are hitting your head against a brick wall when presenting 'facts against fiction and opinions' of those without first hand experience. But trust me, the silent majority (i.e., the 'Lurkers') are getting a clearer picture instead of the one-sided biased opinions of those not flying the aircraft that have been the only source of information on this forum for a long time. There are a handful of people that you will never convince no matter what you say and they will always need to engage in endless non-stop whining and venting (some of it justified).
You know as well or better than the rest of us that there are some VERY big negatives about the V-22 with cost on the top of the list, and lack of hot and high capabilities close behind, as well as lift capability/payload limitations when compared to some available helicopters. Nobody will deny these truths, but the fact that there is a vital mission role for the a/c particularly on the Spec Ops side is undeniable to anyone who understands the unique mission capability of high speed, deep penetration/extraction in low to medium intensity environments that no other a/c in the inventory can provide other than the CV-22. As has been said many times before, the tiltrotor is not the best helicopter, and it is not the best airplane (just as helicopters and airplanes are not the best tiltrotors). The tiltrotor is a very small percentage of vertical lift aircraft in the US military inventory as most would agree is appropritate, but it also has the capacity to offer an unequealed capability which would otherwise not be available to Spec Ops commanders and the Marines.
It is interesting to note that you have never presented the V-22 as an "incredible/awesome aircraft." You have only descibed the realities that you have experienced working with the aircraft. When I hear those describing the ugly/boxy V-22 as 'sexy,' I can only wonder how they choose their (oops, never mind...)
My hat's off to you Colonel. I know it's frustrating, and you feel like you are hitting your head against a brick wall when presenting 'facts against fiction and opinions' of those without first hand experience. But trust me, the silent majority (i.e., the 'Lurkers') are getting a clearer picture instead of the one-sided biased opinions of those not flying the aircraft that have been the only source of information on this forum for a long time. There are a handful of people that you will never convince no matter what you say and they will always need to engage in endless non-stop whining and venting (some of it justified).
You know as well or better than the rest of us that there are some VERY big negatives about the V-22 with cost on the top of the list, and lack of hot and high capabilities close behind, as well as lift capability/payload limitations when compared to some available helicopters. Nobody will deny these truths, but the fact that there is a vital mission role for the a/c particularly on the Spec Ops side is undeniable to anyone who understands the unique mission capability of high speed, deep penetration/extraction in low to medium intensity environments that no other a/c in the inventory can provide other than the CV-22. As has been said many times before, the tiltrotor is not the best helicopter, and it is not the best airplane (just as helicopters and airplanes are not the best tiltrotors). The tiltrotor is a very small percentage of vertical lift aircraft in the US military inventory as most would agree is appropritate, but it also has the capacity to offer an unequealed capability which would otherwise not be available to Spec Ops commanders and the Marines.
It is interesting to note that you have never presented the V-22 as an "incredible/awesome aircraft." You have only descibed the realities that you have experienced working with the aircraft. When I hear those describing the ugly/boxy V-22 as 'sexy,' I can only wonder how they choose their (oops, never mind...)
Last edited by 21stCen; 19th Oct 2009 at 19:02.
Absence of opposition can be perceived to be support.
I know for a fact the proposed replacement of MH-53's by CV-22's gave rise to questions about some of the Air Force's mission set being transferred to the Army 160th SOAR. As voiced to me by then currently serving MH-53 folks.
I know for a fact the proposed replacement of MH-53's by CV-22's gave rise to questions about some of the Air Force's mission set being transferred to the Army 160th SOAR. As voiced to me by then currently serving MH-53 folks.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then absence of approval can be perceived to be non-support?
Questions of whether mission reassignments were the right decision should now be posed to the MH-53 and CV-22 drivers that have gone through the transition to gauge whether or not wise decisions were made in the past (for instance, you might ask mckpave who had 12 years in the MH-53 before moving to the CV-22)? It is understandable that there would be apprehension to mission reassignments in the early stages of any transition.
Questions of whether mission reassignments were the right decision should now be posed to the MH-53 and CV-22 drivers that have gone through the transition to gauge whether or not wise decisions were made in the past (for instance, you might ask mckpave who had 12 years in the MH-53 before moving to the CV-22)? It is understandable that there would be apprehension to mission reassignments in the early stages of any transition.
It is a public forum....I reckoned anyone could post a response without having need of a personal invitation. As you recall....I have stipulated to McPave's credibility based upon Ned's support. Thus, McP and anyone else with access to such information would be welcome to hold forth as they wish.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless is absolutely correct about the MH-53 crew force dislike of moving all helicopter special operations to the Army. The Air Force Chief of Staff agreed to it in 1987 and it finally happened in 2008. A lot of us don't like it, but thats the way it is.
The CV-22 certainly has less cube than the MH-53M, but it really doesn't haul much less (if any) weight due to the increase in empty weight of the 53 over the years. It will be interesting to follow the V-22 variants to see how much weight gain throughout various modifications affects the capability.
The CV-22 certainly has less cube than the MH-53M, but it really doesn't haul much less (if any) weight due to the increase in empty weight of the 53 over the years. It will be interesting to follow the V-22 variants to see how much weight gain throughout various modifications affects the capability.
mcpave (quoting me):
...and again,
Well mcpave, if you are the "Mike" to whom I was referring, I stand by those statements. I still hope God is with you, and I still think you're not being completely honest.
So what's the problem?
To claim that this known design deficiency is inconsequential is the height of irresponsibility and ignorance. Mike, if you say that you are "routinely" flying the V-22 in flight regimes that are known to be dangerous (and I'm sure you've studied the Marana crash), then God be with you for you are extremely uncautious.
Mike, that was a very well-thought-out reply. But you're not being completely honest.
So what's the problem?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big V-22 Bucks Keep Rolling In (& wasted)
(Perhaps they can fix those pesky compressor stalls Bell reports as normal and low hour replacements)
Rolls-Royce could employ up to 500 in Prince George
P. KEVIN MORLEY/TIMES-DISPATCH
Guests at the Rolls-Royce groundbreaking checked out a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey that uses engines manufactured by the company.
JOHN REID BLACKWELL TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: October 20, 2009
One of Virginia's most lauded and long-awaited industrial projects is getting under way, with its priorities shuffled somewhat because of the economic recession.
About 200 people turned out yesterday for a groundbreaking ceremony at the site of Rolls-Royce Plc's planned aircraft-engine components plant in Prince George County, first announced nearly two years ago.
"The world has changed since we launched this project," Rolls-Royce North America President and Chief Executive Officer James M. Guyette said in an interview after the ceremony. "The macroeconomic circumstances are much different than anyone envisioned."
Rolls-Royce, a British company with its North American headquarters in Reston, initially is planning to invest $170 million and hire 140 people at the plant in the Crosspointe Centre Industrial Park. Eventually, it could employ 500 people, and the investment could reach $500 million.
When Rolls-Royce announced in November 2007 that it intended to build the plant, the company said it would use it to test and assemble components for mid-size corporate jets. Since then, the economic recession has hurt the market for corporate jets, Guyette said.
"That market was very hard hit, but we do much more than that," he said.
Rolls-Royce reordered it priorities and now is focusing the first phase of the project on components for commercial aviation engines, Guyette said. The first phase, a 140,000-square-foot building to make disc components for aviation engines such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, is expected to be operating by early 2011. A second, 130,000-square-foot phase will produce blisks, engine components for military aircraft.
The crowd at yesterday's groundbreaking got a look at the type of technology that Rolls-Royce produces for the military, as a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, piloted by Marines from the Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, soared over the trees and made a vertical landing in the open field. The aircraft's components include two Rolls-Royce 1107C turboshaft engines.
The Marines then assisted Guyette and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in raising the Virginia flag and the Rolls-Royce flag at the site.
Kaine called the start of construction at Crosspointe good news in challenging economic times.
"This investment means a lot of things," Kaine said. "For those who wonder about whether manufacturing in the United States is dead or being offshored, this is a strong investment on the ground to say, 'No, manufacturing is not only alive, manufacturing is thriving with innovation and technology and educational partnerships.'"
To lure the Rolls-Royce investment, the state provided an incentives package worth $56.8 million, most of it linked to employment and investment targets that the company must meet over 16 years. The incentives package included a $35 million performance grant, to be paid in installments from 2014 to 2023.
Kaine also pledged $6 million from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to help pay for roads, water and sewer service, and utilities. The state also committed $8.7 million to assist in employee training.
The University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and the Virginia Community College System also are developing a research and training partnership with Rolls-Royce and plan to open a center for advanced manufacturing at the site.
State and local economic-development officials said they are continuing to work on recruiting suppliers and vendors to locate operations near the Rolls-Royce site, but no major announcements have been made.
The Rolls-Royce investment, along with a $363 million investment by Northrop Grumman and Areva in Newport News to manufacture large components used in the nuclear-power industry, represent two of the most significant industrial investments in the state in a generation, said Hugh Keogh, president of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
"No question there will be suppliers coming in," he said.
The projects should attract global investments, Keogh said, comparing them to Japanese-owned Canon Inc.'s announcement in 1985 that it would open a copier plant employing 1,000 people in Newport News.
Since then, the state has attracted investments from about 100 other Japanese companies, he said.
"About 20 percent or even a quarter of those are linked to Canon or came here because of Canon," he said
Rolls-Royce could employ up to 500 in Prince George
P. KEVIN MORLEY/TIMES-DISPATCHGuests at the Rolls-Royce groundbreaking checked out a Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey that uses engines manufactured by the company.
JOHN REID BLACKWELL TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: October 20, 2009
One of Virginia's most lauded and long-awaited industrial projects is getting under way, with its priorities shuffled somewhat because of the economic recession.
About 200 people turned out yesterday for a groundbreaking ceremony at the site of Rolls-Royce Plc's planned aircraft-engine components plant in Prince George County, first announced nearly two years ago.
"The world has changed since we launched this project," Rolls-Royce North America President and Chief Executive Officer James M. Guyette said in an interview after the ceremony. "The macroeconomic circumstances are much different than anyone envisioned."
Rolls-Royce, a British company with its North American headquarters in Reston, initially is planning to invest $170 million and hire 140 people at the plant in the Crosspointe Centre Industrial Park. Eventually, it could employ 500 people, and the investment could reach $500 million.
When Rolls-Royce announced in November 2007 that it intended to build the plant, the company said it would use it to test and assemble components for mid-size corporate jets. Since then, the economic recession has hurt the market for corporate jets, Guyette said.
"That market was very hard hit, but we do much more than that," he said.
Rolls-Royce reordered it priorities and now is focusing the first phase of the project on components for commercial aviation engines, Guyette said. The first phase, a 140,000-square-foot building to make disc components for aviation engines such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787, is expected to be operating by early 2011. A second, 130,000-square-foot phase will produce blisks, engine components for military aircraft.
The crowd at yesterday's groundbreaking got a look at the type of technology that Rolls-Royce produces for the military, as a V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, piloted by Marines from the Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, soared over the trees and made a vertical landing in the open field. The aircraft's components include two Rolls-Royce 1107C turboshaft engines.
The Marines then assisted Guyette and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in raising the Virginia flag and the Rolls-Royce flag at the site.
Kaine called the start of construction at Crosspointe good news in challenging economic times.
"This investment means a lot of things," Kaine said. "For those who wonder about whether manufacturing in the United States is dead or being offshored, this is a strong investment on the ground to say, 'No, manufacturing is not only alive, manufacturing is thriving with innovation and technology and educational partnerships.'"
To lure the Rolls-Royce investment, the state provided an incentives package worth $56.8 million, most of it linked to employment and investment targets that the company must meet over 16 years. The incentives package included a $35 million performance grant, to be paid in installments from 2014 to 2023.
Kaine also pledged $6 million from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to help pay for roads, water and sewer service, and utilities. The state also committed $8.7 million to assist in employee training.
The University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and the Virginia Community College System also are developing a research and training partnership with Rolls-Royce and plan to open a center for advanced manufacturing at the site.
State and local economic-development officials said they are continuing to work on recruiting suppliers and vendors to locate operations near the Rolls-Royce site, but no major announcements have been made.
The Rolls-Royce investment, along with a $363 million investment by Northrop Grumman and Areva in Newport News to manufacture large components used in the nuclear-power industry, represent two of the most significant industrial investments in the state in a generation, said Hugh Keogh, president of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
"No question there will be suppliers coming in," he said.
The projects should attract global investments, Keogh said, comparing them to Japanese-owned Canon Inc.'s announcement in 1985 that it would open a copier plant employing 1,000 people in Newport News.
Since then, the state has attracted investments from about 100 other Japanese companies, he said.
"About 20 percent or even a quarter of those are linked to Canon or came here because of Canon," he said
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100
“Periodically, we get new people coming into this forum who are staunch defenders of the V-22.”
“They claim to be vague and various things (e.g. pilots or people "associated" with the program) and they never fully identify themselves.”
“If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it.”
“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”
4.13 MANEUVERING LIMITATIONS
During maneuvering at low airpspeed, accelerated stall can be acheived at moderate bank angles and/or load factor.”
- Apparently your source is out of date, those have been removed or modified and that NATOPS is at least 5 years old which means it’s gone thru at least one if not two updates (as have all NATOPS manuals).
"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?”
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”
4.13 MANEUVERING LIMITATIONS
- 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.”
- Apparently your source is out of date, those have been removed or modified and that NATOPS is at least 5 years old which means it’s gone thru at least one if not two updates (as have all NATOPS manuals).
"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?”
I looked up several NATOPS manuals of helicopters currently operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here’s what I found:
- Prohibited maneuvers: Abrupt movement of the flight controls (control movement through full throw in 2 seconds or less)
- ACM/EVM flying or abrupt or extremely aggressive maneuvers are prohibited except in emergency or actual combat conditions
- Warning: During steep approaches at less than 40 kts, do not exceed 800 fpm descent rate.
- ACM/EVM flying or abrupt or extremely aggressive maneuvers are prohibited except in emergency or actual combat conditions
- Warning: During steep approaches at less than 40 kts, do not exceed 800 fpm descent rate.
“This performance limitation is lethal to the aircraft as well as its crew and human cargo. Equally bad, combat pilots trying to insert troops urgently into a “hot” landing zone, where the enemy is shooting, may try to descend more quickly, thus encountering VRS, which will likely roll the aircraft into an inverted dive toward the ground and lose everyone on board in the process. So should a pilot choose to descend at 9.1 mph? If he does, he’ll get shot out of the sky. Should the pilot go in fast instead? If he does, a crash is imminent. It’s a Catch-22.”
Low g maneuvers and abrupt or rapid control movements may cause mast bumping.
Which was accompanied by the following warning:
If mast bumping occurs in flight, catastrophic results are highly probable.
Geez-Louise FH1100! Is that still applicable? How does one come into a "hot" LZ and expect to *not* have to make abrupt control inputs if necessary? How can one make an approach at 9.1 MPH and survive? I don't get it. Do people really think that helicopters will ALWAYS be landed in nice, big, quiet, undefended LZ's? In which war and on what planet has this ever happened? I guess we’re fortunate that there isn’t a shooting war going on now.
Or maybe, just maybe the aircrew were able to train to these deficiencies? Maybe they were able to develop tactics that exploited the helicopters strengths and minimized it’s weaknesses?
Last edited by usmc helo; 20th Oct 2009 at 20:56.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
usmc helo said:
"Or maybe, just maybe the aircrew were able to train to these deficiencies? Maybe they were able to develop tactics that exploited the helicopters strengths and minimized it’s weaknesses?"
I think the only way for that to work is for the enemy to agree to whatever TACTICS the V-22 developes !!
Comfy, hard, dirt free LZs are scarce in the real battlefield.
My limited experience found us entering HOT LZs that were all different in regard to how they needed to be entered and exited due mostly to hostile gunfire and not some airframe or flight control limitation a bunch of incompetant engineers designed in. The only TACTIC that was universal was to simply yank & bank any which way possible to get the hell out alive and hope that the airframe held together.
It sounds like the V-22 is incapable of this type combat and therefore will be forced to go into HOT LZs with that proverbial "hand tied behind its back" that it never had!
We owe our armed forces something a lot better than this.
"Or maybe, just maybe the aircrew were able to train to these deficiencies? Maybe they were able to develop tactics that exploited the helicopters strengths and minimized it’s weaknesses?"
I think the only way for that to work is for the enemy to agree to whatever TACTICS the V-22 developes !!
Comfy, hard, dirt free LZs are scarce in the real battlefield.
My limited experience found us entering HOT LZs that were all different in regard to how they needed to be entered and exited due mostly to hostile gunfire and not some airframe or flight control limitation a bunch of incompetant engineers designed in. The only TACTIC that was universal was to simply yank & bank any which way possible to get the hell out alive and hope that the airframe held together.
It sounds like the V-22 is incapable of this type combat and therefore will be forced to go into HOT LZs with that proverbial "hand tied behind its back" that it never had!
We owe our armed forces something a lot better than this.
Hey usmc_helo, just a few corrections.
If NATOPS has removed the aforementioned prohibitions, then the V-22 community is extremely lax for not publicizing it. Because as of Congressional hearings that were held earlier this very year, this "myth" was again perpetuated and was unchallenged. Then again, the V-22 community has been typically poor at defending and generating support for the aircraft.
But wait...'ang on a tick! Even if those limitations have been removed from NATOPS (which I highly doubt), the prohibition against ACM, DCM, EVM and aerobatics is still in the Air Force V-22 flight manual! Perhaps mcpave should study it a little more closely. Likewise, "abrupt, large amplitude" control inputs are still prohibited, and no exception is made for actual combat conditions, as is the case for the helicopters.
BZZZZZT! Sorry, try again.
You bring up the H-1. Uhh, why compare the V-22 to a helicopter design that dates back to the 1950's? Oh, right, LOL...because the V-22 does also! But seriously, aren't we trying to field improved aircraft? Don't we all know about the ability of the UH-1 to get into mast bumping? Aren't we trying to produce better designs than the ones that came before?
And no, the V-22 ain't one of them.
So don't be silly. We don't fly troops around in UH-1H's anymore. We put them in more-crashworthy Blackhawks...and more-crashable V-22's. In fact, with the advent of the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, the two-blade system will be a thing of the past. Manuevre as necessary, lads!
It will be interesting to see when mcpave has to fly his V-22 into an actual combat zone...you know, where he might need to make some abrupt, large amplitude and/or multi-axis control movements to avoid ground fire but cannot because of the prohibition in the AFM. He will in all likelihood make them anyway. He will do whatever is necessary to get the ship down and the troops out and the mission accomplished. And if - God forbid - he crashes and kills himself (along with everyone else onboard), it will go down as "pilot error." Bell-Boeing will wash their hands of it with a swift, "Hey, we warned you! This thing can't maneuver like a '53."
Finally, if you think I am narcissistic for having a blog...something you manly men wouldn't even consider...then so be it. I don't care. Lots of my friends have blogs - many of them ex-military guys just like you, usmc_helo. I like to fly, I like to read, and I like to write, and I don't make excuses for any of that. If I put out a magazine, would you call me similarly narcissistic? If I wrote a monthly column for a magazine, would you call me narcissistic? Grow up.
If you don't like my blog, then you're welcome to not read it. And I most heartily suggest you do just that. (Apparently, PPRUNE's programming doesn't allow links to blogs, but if you're masochistic enough to want to see mine, it's in my profile (as is my name, and what city I live in). Be warned, I am unbearably narcissistic!
Now, can we please get back to the V-22? Can someone...ANYONE...show me a picture or (preferably) a video of a V-22 hoisting someone on a Stokes litter? I mean, what if that famous "injured sailor" had been on something other than the Bataan - you know, what if he'd been on a ship that wasn't big enough to allow the V-22 to land?
Still waiting....
If NATOPS has removed the aforementioned prohibitions, then the V-22 community is extremely lax for not publicizing it. Because as of Congressional hearings that were held earlier this very year, this "myth" was again perpetuated and was unchallenged. Then again, the V-22 community has been typically poor at defending and generating support for the aircraft.
But wait...'ang on a tick! Even if those limitations have been removed from NATOPS (which I highly doubt), the prohibition against ACM, DCM, EVM and aerobatics is still in the Air Force V-22 flight manual! Perhaps mcpave should study it a little more closely. Likewise, "abrupt, large amplitude" control inputs are still prohibited, and no exception is made for actual combat conditions, as is the case for the helicopters.
BZZZZZT! Sorry, try again.
You bring up the H-1. Uhh, why compare the V-22 to a helicopter design that dates back to the 1950's? Oh, right, LOL...because the V-22 does also! But seriously, aren't we trying to field improved aircraft? Don't we all know about the ability of the UH-1 to get into mast bumping? Aren't we trying to produce better designs than the ones that came before?
And no, the V-22 ain't one of them.
So don't be silly. We don't fly troops around in UH-1H's anymore. We put them in more-crashworthy Blackhawks...and more-crashable V-22's. In fact, with the advent of the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, the two-blade system will be a thing of the past. Manuevre as necessary, lads!
It will be interesting to see when mcpave has to fly his V-22 into an actual combat zone...you know, where he might need to make some abrupt, large amplitude and/or multi-axis control movements to avoid ground fire but cannot because of the prohibition in the AFM. He will in all likelihood make them anyway. He will do whatever is necessary to get the ship down and the troops out and the mission accomplished. And if - God forbid - he crashes and kills himself (along with everyone else onboard), it will go down as "pilot error." Bell-Boeing will wash their hands of it with a swift, "Hey, we warned you! This thing can't maneuver like a '53."
Finally, if you think I am narcissistic for having a blog...something you manly men wouldn't even consider...then so be it. I don't care. Lots of my friends have blogs - many of them ex-military guys just like you, usmc_helo. I like to fly, I like to read, and I like to write, and I don't make excuses for any of that. If I put out a magazine, would you call me similarly narcissistic? If I wrote a monthly column for a magazine, would you call me narcissistic? Grow up.
If you don't like my blog, then you're welcome to not read it. And I most heartily suggest you do just that. (Apparently, PPRUNE's programming doesn't allow links to blogs, but if you're masochistic enough to want to see mine, it's in my profile (as is my name, and what city I live in). Be warned, I am unbearably narcissistic!
Now, can we please get back to the V-22? Can someone...ANYONE...show me a picture or (preferably) a video of a V-22 hoisting someone on a Stokes litter? I mean, what if that famous "injured sailor" had been on something other than the Bataan - you know, what if he'd been on a ship that wasn't big enough to allow the V-22 to land?
Still waiting....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 arrival in winter well planned and NEEDED !
Texas-built Osprey tilt-rotors heading to Afghanistan
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By RICHARD WHITTLE / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON The Texas-built V-22 Osprey, a helicopter-airplane hybrid military transport whose reputation still suffers from its troubled 25-year development, is on its way to its toughest test yet – the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
VMM-261, a Marine Corps V-22 squadron based in North Carolina, will take 10 to 12 Ospreys to Afghanistan in November, the announcement said. Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Matt Morgan said the Osprey would carry troops and supplies and evacuate casualties in Helmand province, where Marines have been fighting insurgents regularly.
The Osprey, a "tilt-rotor" that swivels two large rotors on its wingtips upward to fly like a helicopter and forward to fly like an airplane, is built partly in Fort Worth and Amarillo by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and partly by Boeing Co. in Pennsylvania.
The program provides more than 500 jobs in Fort Worth and a similar number in Amarillo, Bell spokesman Tom Dolney said.
The Marines previously used the Osprey in Iraq, where it defied predictions by critics who said it would suffer crashes akin to three that killed 30 people during the aircraft's lengthy development.
Afghanistan's high altitudes and hot climate – problems for any rotorcraft – and the ferocity of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents there figure to make this deployment far more strenuous.
The Osprey was rarely shot at in Iraq, which is barely above sea level.
"Afghanistan is certainly a unique operating environment, but we do feel the aircraft has unique capabilities and is uniquely capable of operating in that environment," Morgan said. The Osprey's ability to fly like an airplane gives it a cruising speed of around 275 mph, more than twice the top speed of most military helicopters.
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By RICHARD WHITTLE / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON The Texas-built V-22 Osprey, a helicopter-airplane hybrid military transport whose reputation still suffers from its troubled 25-year development, is on its way to its toughest test yet – the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
VMM-261, a Marine Corps V-22 squadron based in North Carolina, will take 10 to 12 Ospreys to Afghanistan in November, the announcement said. Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Matt Morgan said the Osprey would carry troops and supplies and evacuate casualties in Helmand province, where Marines have been fighting insurgents regularly.
The Osprey, a "tilt-rotor" that swivels two large rotors on its wingtips upward to fly like a helicopter and forward to fly like an airplane, is built partly in Fort Worth and Amarillo by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and partly by Boeing Co. in Pennsylvania.
The program provides more than 500 jobs in Fort Worth and a similar number in Amarillo, Bell spokesman Tom Dolney said.
The Marines previously used the Osprey in Iraq, where it defied predictions by critics who said it would suffer crashes akin to three that killed 30 people during the aircraft's lengthy development.
Afghanistan's high altitudes and hot climate – problems for any rotorcraft – and the ferocity of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents there figure to make this deployment far more strenuous.
The Osprey was rarely shot at in Iraq, which is barely above sea level.
"Afghanistan is certainly a unique operating environment, but we do feel the aircraft has unique capabilities and is uniquely capable of operating in that environment," Morgan said. The Osprey's ability to fly like an airplane gives it a cruising speed of around 275 mph, more than twice the top speed of most military helicopters.
Oh FH1100 you've tried once again to discredit me but failed. Here is exactly what the CURRENT flight manual states on page 5-11. BTW, it's dated Oct 2008, so you should either check your sources or make correct statements. 
"ACM and aerobatics are prohibited" Do you see "DCM" or "EVM" anywhere in that sentence?? And, just so you and everyone else understands, ACM stands for Air Combat Maneuvers which specifically pertains to air-to-air combat maneuvers. Also, aerobatics refers to bank angles greater than 60 degrees. Yes, we cannot do either one of these.....yet, for two reasons. 1. Testing has not been accomplished on air-to-air maneuvers and 2. 60 degrees of bank is a standard restricition to non-fighter aircraft in the USAF, I've lived with that restriction on every aircraft I've flown.
"Abrupt large amplitude control inputs are prohibited". Do you see "multi-axis" in that sentence?? I'll give you credit at least you got some of it correct so I'm not sure why you added the "multi-axis" bit in your argument. And once again, don't know about your background, but it's been a standard procedure not to abruptly move the controls over their range of motion in every aircraft I've flown. That's pretty much basic flying knowledge. What's "abrupt" or "large"? Well, that's the question, and why this statement is so vague because it's included more as a CYA issue than a flying qualities issue. I'm sure others on this thread will be happy to back me up on these two points.
So FH1100, why don't you post the date of your flight manual source because it will either a) prove what I've been saying all along that most of your arguments and those like you come from outdated or blantantly incorrect material or b) you've decided to add a little "literary license" to your comments which we all know now is incorrect as well. Which one is it 'ole boy?
Finally, since you've now twice alluded to my imminent doom as a V-22 pilot, I will warn you that I consider those statements as threats, and will act accordingly. But, what I'm most impressed with is your intimate knowledge of helicopter combat tactics. So, once and for all, why don't you share to the wonderful people on this board how you became such a diety on the subject?? I can only assume it's from your military aviation background right? Please enlighten us.
There, that post has both some REAL V-22 data and some ball-breaking, entertainment for all those involved.
"ACM and aerobatics are prohibited" Do you see "DCM" or "EVM" anywhere in that sentence?? And, just so you and everyone else understands, ACM stands for Air Combat Maneuvers which specifically pertains to air-to-air combat maneuvers. Also, aerobatics refers to bank angles greater than 60 degrees. Yes, we cannot do either one of these.....yet, for two reasons. 1. Testing has not been accomplished on air-to-air maneuvers and 2. 60 degrees of bank is a standard restricition to non-fighter aircraft in the USAF, I've lived with that restriction on every aircraft I've flown.
"Abrupt large amplitude control inputs are prohibited". Do you see "multi-axis" in that sentence?? I'll give you credit at least you got some of it correct so I'm not sure why you added the "multi-axis" bit in your argument. And once again, don't know about your background, but it's been a standard procedure not to abruptly move the controls over their range of motion in every aircraft I've flown. That's pretty much basic flying knowledge. What's "abrupt" or "large"? Well, that's the question, and why this statement is so vague because it's included more as a CYA issue than a flying qualities issue. I'm sure others on this thread will be happy to back me up on these two points.
So FH1100, why don't you post the date of your flight manual source because it will either a) prove what I've been saying all along that most of your arguments and those like you come from outdated or blantantly incorrect material or b) you've decided to add a little "literary license" to your comments which we all know now is incorrect as well. Which one is it 'ole boy?
Finally, since you've now twice alluded to my imminent doom as a V-22 pilot, I will warn you that I consider those statements as threats, and will act accordingly.
But, what I'm most impressed with is your intimate knowledge of helicopter combat tactics. So, once and for all, why don't you share to the wonderful people on this board how you became such a diety on the subject?? I can only assume it's from your military aviation background right? Please enlighten us.There, that post has both some REAL V-22 data and some ball-breaking, entertainment for all those involved.
Are you both quoting the same manual.....NATOPS being Navy/USMC and the USAF being not NATOPS?