What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
mcpave, you *should* take those statements as threats! Threats issued to you by your aircraft! But if you are so paranoid as to think some well-known-by-name internet poster (me - check my profile) is "threatening" some other anonymous internet weenie (you - check your profile), then you have some serious...I say SERIOUS issues. You, like your buddy usmc_helo need to grow up, just focus on the facts and not make this personal.
But hey, sincerely, thanks for posting the current AFM info for the Air Force V-22. Err, but why did it take an act of Congress to get it? Like I said, the V-22 community is horrible at promoting their aircraft.
Oh, and if you run across a video of a V-22 hoisting a Stokes litter, be sure and let me know, huh? I mean, if the V-22 is going to be doing all this search-and-rescue stuff...
P.S. If you were trying to bust my balls, you'll have to try a lot harder than that.
But hey, sincerely, thanks for posting the current AFM info for the Air Force V-22. Err, but why did it take an act of Congress to get it? Like I said, the V-22 community is horrible at promoting their aircraft.
Oh, and if you run across a video of a V-22 hoisting a Stokes litter, be sure and let me know, huh? I mean, if the V-22 is going to be doing all this search-and-rescue stuff...
P.S. If you were trying to bust my balls, you'll have to try a lot harder than that.
You called me a "weenie", naughty boy. Actually those threats (BY YOU) are personal. 
By the way, when are you going to get around informing us of your military experience?? Because that's when the real fun begins.
I'm not one bit afraid of your stokes litter comment, we carry them on each aircraft and use them all the time. Kinda hard to shoot video from the front seats but when I do post a video of the stokes being employed what will be your next ridiculous comment? I know, here's one for you, we don't use the rescue strop, that can be your next bandwagon to jump on, how's that? I know, I know, I'm obviously lying about our stokes litters as well, you got me again.
By the way, when are you going to get around informing us of your military experience?? Because that's when the real fun begins.
I'm not one bit afraid of your stokes litter comment, we carry them on each aircraft and use them all the time. Kinda hard to shoot video from the front seats but when I do post a video of the stokes being employed what will be your next ridiculous comment? I know, here's one for you, we don't use the rescue strop, that can be your next bandwagon to jump on, how's that? I know, I know, I'm obviously lying about our stokes litters as well, you got me again.
Gentlemen....pray silence please!
Play the ball....not the player how about it!
Use that other forum or blog for the bickering and make your points about the Osprey on this one can you?
Enough already!
Play the ball....not the player how about it!
Use that other forum or blog for the bickering and make your points about the Osprey on this one can you?
Enough already!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100,
You asked that we not make personal attacks. I would make the same request of you.
I have one simple question. You stated the following:
If this is true, then why do you continue to accuse mckpave of being dishonest and disregard everything he tells us when two other users(Ned and Jollygreen) have vouched for his credibility? Also remember that Sasless has vouched for Ned. If you standby you assertion that Mckpave is dishonest does that imply that all of them are dishonest?
You asked that we not make personal attacks. I would make the same request of you.
I have one simple question. You stated the following:
“If we are told by someone associated with the V-22 that the aircraft can or cannot do X, then we believe it.”
You're right, SAS. It's not about personalities, it's about the V-22. Or should be. mcpave makes a big deal about people pretending to be experts at this or that - he claims that nobody who hasn't flown the V-22 could possibly know anything about it. He denies what's been written, published and testified about the machine without (until his most recent post) providing ANY substantive information at all. Just a screeching, "YOU GUYS ARE WRONG!"
Well, who the hell is "mcpave?" Let's find out, shall we? Take my hand as we stroll down memory lane. mcpave joined PPRUNE in 2001. However, his first post was not until 2002. In a thread about formation flying, the very first line of mcpave's very first PPRUNE post reads:
Oh? And what line of work would that be? Hard to tell, for his profile is blank and he does not give us any information as to who he is or what he does. We're just supposed to take him at his word that he's done a "ton" of formation flying.
mcpave's second appearance on PPRUNE comes in 2003 in a thread about helicopter air-to-air refueling. The very first line of his very first post in the thread reads:
Gee, for someone who doesn't like people acting all expert and stuff, mcpave sure does exactly that!
Now he's an expert on the V-22.
Look, this is an anonymous internet forum - one of thousands. Anybody can be anyone they want here. If mcpave wants us to think he's a V-22 driver now, fine. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. But it's kind of...I don't know...stupid(?) for some anonymous internet weenie to righteously claim credibility while attacking the credibility of those who actually put their identitites up for all to see.
Me? My real name is in my profile. I began flying in 1973, cutting school to hike out to Zahn's Airport on Long Island to take lessons in a beat-up Piper Cherokee. I've been flying commercially since 1982. I've got 11,000 hours, most all of that in helicopters, most all of that in Bell 206's (or it's ugly cousin, the overweight, skinny-blade, underpowered BO105). If there's ONE thing I'm expert at, it's coaxing every ounce of lift out of a rotor system of a helicopter that is at or over MGW. I am who I am. You want my cell phone number? 850-512-2663. (I've published my phone number before in case anyone wanted to discuss something I've written. No one has ever called.)
I don't attack the V-22 simply to attack guys like mcpave. For a whole bunch of reasons I think it's the wrong aircraft at the wrong time for the very wrong price. But the V-22 community takes criticism of "their" aircraft very, very personally. Then they "go underground" and refuse to provide information that might counter some of the confusing, outdated information that's out there. Then they blame guys like me for not knowing the "truth" because I haven't flown the thing. Uhhh....yeah.
Case in point, why did it take so long for someone to publish a current copy of the V-22 AFM with respect to maneuvering limitations? Obviously they have changed, as things do in aviation. But instead of providing them, the "V-22 community" merely shouted, "YOU'RE WRONG!" and wanted us to take them at their dubious, anonymous word. Yeah, right. Or they try to cloud the issue by making it personal and attacking the critics. "You've never flown the V-22, Bob. How would you know ANYTHING about it??" I might turn that question around and ask it of mcpave: Have YOU ever flown it in combat?
I suspect that the USMC needs the V-22 in a very profound way. I suspect that without it and the capability it gives that particular branch of the armed forces, the American people might legitimately question why we need the Marine Corps at all! Do we really need FOUR branches of the service? Even SASless alluded to it recently - we won't be storming anymore beaches like in WWII. So what does the Marine Corps do? Can't their job be done just as effectively by the Army and Navy?
Not as long as the Marine Corps has the V-22!
The Marines must think that money is unlimited - that there is an unending supply for ridiculous programs like the V-22 *and* every other thing that the USMC needs. Heh. The military should keep in mind that the U.S. is...still...a country run by civilians. And ironically, what may ultimately kill the V-22 is not the inherent deficiency of the design but the overall cost.
Well, who the hell is "mcpave?" Let's find out, shall we? Take my hand as we stroll down memory lane. mcpave joined PPRUNE in 2001. However, his first post was not until 2002. In a thread about formation flying, the very first line of mcpave's very first PPRUNE post reads:
I've flown a ton of formation, pretty much standard operations for my line of work.
mcpave's second appearance on PPRUNE comes in 2003 in a thread about helicopter air-to-air refueling. The very first line of his very first post in the thread reads:
I've done quite a bit of helo air refueling, it's a unique capability pretty much monopolized by the US right now.
Now he's an expert on the V-22.
Look, this is an anonymous internet forum - one of thousands. Anybody can be anyone they want here. If mcpave wants us to think he's a V-22 driver now, fine. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't. But it's kind of...I don't know...stupid(?) for some anonymous internet weenie to righteously claim credibility while attacking the credibility of those who actually put their identitites up for all to see.
Me? My real name is in my profile. I began flying in 1973, cutting school to hike out to Zahn's Airport on Long Island to take lessons in a beat-up Piper Cherokee. I've been flying commercially since 1982. I've got 11,000 hours, most all of that in helicopters, most all of that in Bell 206's (or it's ugly cousin, the overweight, skinny-blade, underpowered BO105). If there's ONE thing I'm expert at, it's coaxing every ounce of lift out of a rotor system of a helicopter that is at or over MGW. I am who I am. You want my cell phone number? 850-512-2663. (I've published my phone number before in case anyone wanted to discuss something I've written. No one has ever called.)
I don't attack the V-22 simply to attack guys like mcpave. For a whole bunch of reasons I think it's the wrong aircraft at the wrong time for the very wrong price. But the V-22 community takes criticism of "their" aircraft very, very personally. Then they "go underground" and refuse to provide information that might counter some of the confusing, outdated information that's out there. Then they blame guys like me for not knowing the "truth" because I haven't flown the thing. Uhhh....yeah.
Case in point, why did it take so long for someone to publish a current copy of the V-22 AFM with respect to maneuvering limitations? Obviously they have changed, as things do in aviation. But instead of providing them, the "V-22 community" merely shouted, "YOU'RE WRONG!" and wanted us to take them at their dubious, anonymous word. Yeah, right. Or they try to cloud the issue by making it personal and attacking the critics. "You've never flown the V-22, Bob. How would you know ANYTHING about it??" I might turn that question around and ask it of mcpave: Have YOU ever flown it in combat?
I suspect that the USMC needs the V-22 in a very profound way. I suspect that without it and the capability it gives that particular branch of the armed forces, the American people might legitimately question why we need the Marine Corps at all! Do we really need FOUR branches of the service? Even SASless alluded to it recently - we won't be storming anymore beaches like in WWII. So what does the Marine Corps do? Can't their job be done just as effectively by the Army and Navy?
Not as long as the Marine Corps has the V-22!
The Marines must think that money is unlimited - that there is an unending supply for ridiculous programs like the V-22 *and* every other thing that the USMC needs. Heh. The military should keep in mind that the U.S. is...still...a country run by civilians. And ironically, what may ultimately kill the V-22 is not the inherent deficiency of the design but the overall cost.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100
Bob,
No offense, but do you take drugs? If you do, then that explains it. If not, then maybe you should talk to a doctor about starting...
(OK, I admit it, I am now adding about as much 'worthwhile information' to this thread as you do...)
Sas and others are right in that it is time to leave the personal attacks behind, and concentrate on the aircraft...
No offense, but do you take drugs? If you do, then that explains it. If not, then maybe you should talk to a doctor about starting...
(OK, I admit it, I am now adding about as much 'worthwhile information' to this thread as you do...)
Sas and others are right in that it is time to leave the personal attacks behind, and concentrate on the aircraft...
Last edited by 21stCen; 23rd Oct 2009 at 17:27.
Good Lord....Balloons on Sticks at five paces.....let's get a real duel going!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Manual Limits
On a non-personal note, many people seem to be confusing flight manual limits and aircraft capabilities. Many very capable and proven combat aircraft have the same sort of limits in their manuals that the V-22 does.
Here are some limits I have pulled from various manuals, many of which were available online here. Most are out of date, so wording may have changed.
I have always looked to the CH-53E as a very capable workhorse- If its limits have not changed I wonder how it manages to succeed in Afghanistan with a g limit of 1.5 and an angle of bank limit of 45 degrees (since the whole country is above 3000 ft DA). I have not heard that it is unable to perform its missions over there.
How can the CH-46 or the SH-60 succeed with 45° angle of bank limits?
Somehow they do- and just maybe we should wait and see if the V-22 can succeed as well.
Here are some limits that resemble the oft quoted limits that "prevent" the V-22 from safe and efficient combat operations:
CH-46 (Rev 21- 1998)
1. No acrobatic maneuvers are approved.
2. Coordinated turns.-
a. For all gross weights and density altitudes, 45°
or the CGI limit. whichever is lower
SH-60B (Rev 50, 2000)
4.5.3 Bank Angles Limitation. Bank angles
shall be limited to a maximum of 45° in normal operations
4.5.6 Prohibited Maneuvers. The following
maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic ight (e.g., rolls, loops, inverted ight)
2. Abrupt movement of the ight controls
3. Bank angles greater than 45°
CH-53E (Rev 21, 1990)
4.4.2 Angle of Bank Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 or <130 KIAS- 60 degrees
GW<56,000 lbs and DA>3000 or >130 KIAS- 45 degrees
GW > 56,000 lbs – 30 degrees
4.4.3 Acceleration Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 – 2.0 g
GW>56,000 lbs OR DA >3000 – 1.5 g
4.4.4 Maneuvering Limitations
Warning
Rapid forward cyclic and reduced collective setting may cause blade/fuselage contact.
Aerobatics such as loops, rolls, etc. are prohibited. Evasive maneuvering training and air combat maneuvering training are prohibited.
UH-1Y (May 2008)
4.11.3 Prohibited Maneuvers
The following maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic maneuvers as defined by OPNAVINST 3710.7 series.
7. Abrupt, simultaneous collective and cyclic inputs while maneuvering are prohibited.
15.9 Vortex Ring State
Increasing collective has no effect toward recovery and will aggravate
power settling. During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates
exceeding 800 fpm.
(Same limits in AH-1Z manual of same date)
OH-58 A (Chg 9, 1997)
5-22- Aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited.
5-23 Abrupt control movements are prohibited. This in no way prohibits normal control application.
TH-57C (April 1989)
4.18 Prohibited Maneuvers
1. No aerobatic maneuvers are permitted.
2. Angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees are prohibited.
11.6 Power Settling (Vortex Ring State)
Helicopter rotor theory indicates that it is most likely to occur when descent rates exceed 800 feet per minute during (1) vertical descents from a hover and (2) steep approaches at less than 40 KIAS.
Warning:
During approaches less than 40 KIAS, do not exceed 800 feet per minute descent rate.
US Army AH-1S (1991)
5-14 Prohibited Maneuvers
b. No aerobatic maneuvers permitted or intentional maneuvers beyond attitudes of +/- 30 degrees in pitch or +/- 60 degrees in roll are prohibited.
Here are some limits I have pulled from various manuals, many of which were available online here. Most are out of date, so wording may have changed.
I have always looked to the CH-53E as a very capable workhorse- If its limits have not changed I wonder how it manages to succeed in Afghanistan with a g limit of 1.5 and an angle of bank limit of 45 degrees (since the whole country is above 3000 ft DA). I have not heard that it is unable to perform its missions over there.
How can the CH-46 or the SH-60 succeed with 45° angle of bank limits?
Somehow they do- and just maybe we should wait and see if the V-22 can succeed as well.
Here are some limits that resemble the oft quoted limits that "prevent" the V-22 from safe and efficient combat operations:
CH-46 (Rev 21- 1998)
1. No acrobatic maneuvers are approved.
2. Coordinated turns.-
a. For all gross weights and density altitudes, 45°
or the CGI limit. whichever is lower
SH-60B (Rev 50, 2000)
4.5.3 Bank Angles Limitation. Bank angles
shall be limited to a maximum of 45° in normal operations
4.5.6 Prohibited Maneuvers. The following
maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic ight (e.g., rolls, loops, inverted ight)
2. Abrupt movement of the ight controls
3. Bank angles greater than 45°
CH-53E (Rev 21, 1990)
4.4.2 Angle of Bank Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 or <130 KIAS- 60 degrees
GW<56,000 lbs and DA>3000 or >130 KIAS- 45 degrees
GW > 56,000 lbs – 30 degrees
4.4.3 Acceleration Limitations
GW<56,000 lbs and DA <3000 – 2.0 g
GW>56,000 lbs OR DA >3000 – 1.5 g
4.4.4 Maneuvering Limitations
Warning
Rapid forward cyclic and reduced collective setting may cause blade/fuselage contact.
Aerobatics such as loops, rolls, etc. are prohibited. Evasive maneuvering training and air combat maneuvering training are prohibited.
UH-1Y (May 2008)
4.11.3 Prohibited Maneuvers
The following maneuvers are prohibited:
1. Aerobatic maneuvers as defined by OPNAVINST 3710.7 series.
7. Abrupt, simultaneous collective and cyclic inputs while maneuvering are prohibited.
15.9 Vortex Ring State
Increasing collective has no effect toward recovery and will aggravate
power settling. During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates
exceeding 800 fpm.
(Same limits in AH-1Z manual of same date)
OH-58 A (Chg 9, 1997)
5-22- Aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited.
5-23 Abrupt control movements are prohibited. This in no way prohibits normal control application.
TH-57C (April 1989)
4.18 Prohibited Maneuvers
1. No aerobatic maneuvers are permitted.
2. Angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees are prohibited.
11.6 Power Settling (Vortex Ring State)
Helicopter rotor theory indicates that it is most likely to occur when descent rates exceed 800 feet per minute during (1) vertical descents from a hover and (2) steep approaches at less than 40 KIAS.
Warning:
During approaches less than 40 KIAS, do not exceed 800 feet per minute descent rate.
US Army AH-1S (1991)
5-14 Prohibited Maneuvers
b. No aerobatic maneuvers permitted or intentional maneuvers beyond attitudes of +/- 30 degrees in pitch or +/- 60 degrees in roll are prohibited.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If mcpave wants us to think he's a V-22 driver now, fine. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't.
So yes I would say he is a CV22 driver
Ned sez:
Oh, I don't doubt that about *him*, Ned, as you've already vouched for him specifically. The point I was making was about internet anonymity, and how anyone can *claim* to be anything. I was just using mcpave as an easy example.
But you have to admit, look at his current profile, then look at some of his pompous claims from back in 2002 and 2003 and tell me why you'd give any of them the credibility he demands? Same with that usmc_helo guy. Absolutely blank profiles, but YOU VILL LISSSTEN TO MEEEE! Uh-huh. Right you are, General.
It's just silly internet stuff that some take way too seriously.
The V-22 will continue to be a controversial aircraft. But I think that once everyone gets past the "gee-whiz" aspect of it, we'll start to evaluate it more objectively.
In testimony to Congress, Lt. General George Trautman said this about the V-22 swashplate actuator.
How's that again? The swashplate acuator was only predicted to last 195 hours?? And it didn't?! I think we need to find out just what this swashplate actuator is, and how much it costs? And why it's not even making it to TBO? Is it replaceable in the field?
So yes I would say he is a CV22 driver.
But you have to admit, look at his current profile, then look at some of his pompous claims from back in 2002 and 2003 and tell me why you'd give any of them the credibility he demands? Same with that usmc_helo guy. Absolutely blank profiles, but YOU VILL LISSSTEN TO MEEEE! Uh-huh. Right you are, General.
It's just silly internet stuff that some take way too seriously.
The V-22 will continue to be a controversial aircraft. But I think that once everyone gets past the "gee-whiz" aspect of it, we'll start to evaluate it more objectively.
In testimony to Congress, Lt. General George Trautman said this about the V-22 swashplate actuator.
Failed at 149 hours actual, versus 195 predicted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it is not a problem as the interval between major inspections is probably only 10 hrs 
. What is the latest on the 609 , is the minimum crew one pilot and one mechanic ?.
. What is the latest on the 609 , is the minimum crew one pilot and one mechanic ?.
How does one predict a TBO or MTBF of 195 hours?
Better yet....why would we want to accept a 195 hour TBO or MTBF on a combat aircraft designed with the latest in technology.
If it was a B-17 flying into Germany....with their loss rate....maybe no problem but nowadays?
Better yet....why would we want to accept a 195 hour TBO or MTBF on a combat aircraft designed with the latest in technology.
If it was a B-17 flying into Germany....with their loss rate....maybe no problem but nowadays?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gregg,
VERY good post that really puts things into perspective. Perhaps others could update the restrictions for various aircraft as some of the dates you have access to are not current.
The famous quote "During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates exceeding 800 fpm" that those who do not support tiltrotor technology continuously point to as a reason why the V-22 is not "combat capable" is actually a restriction that applies to other service helicopters is a real "eye opener." Add to that all the other restrictions and we appear to see some parity across the board. Wow...
Incoming!!!
VERY good post that really puts things into perspective. Perhaps others could update the restrictions for various aircraft as some of the dates you have access to are not current.
The famous quote "During approaches at less than 40 knots, avoid descent rates exceeding 800 fpm" that those who do not support tiltrotor technology continuously point to as a reason why the V-22 is not "combat capable" is actually a restriction that applies to other service helicopters is a real "eye opener." Add to that all the other restrictions and we appear to see some parity across the board. Wow...
Incoming!!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21stCentury
Actually, it was Nick who brought that to this forum's attention over 2 years ago which is another reason why I always suggest folks new here read through all the back posts so that there would be no reason for "Incoming";
but primarily so we don't have to re-hash the same BS from both sides.
Actually, it was Nick who brought that to this forum's attention over 2 years ago which is another reason why I always suggest folks new here read through all the back posts so that there would be no reason for "Incoming";
but primarily so we don't have to re-hash the same BS from both sides.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
It appears obvious that it needs to rehashed, as seen by comments made by some since the first posting. It is clear that some either missed it the first time around, or simply don't want to acknowledge that flight manual limitations on maneuvering are not unique to the V-22.
It appears obvious that it needs to rehashed, as seen by comments made by some since the first posting. It is clear that some either missed it the first time around, or simply don't want to acknowledge that flight manual limitations on maneuvering are not unique to the V-22.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that its been established that the V-22 is just as combat capable as ALL other helicopters, it looks like it's sorely need NOW. It will be interesting to see how much Bang for the Buck it brings to the Afghanistan War as I'd bet someone is saying somewhere that the incidents below might have been avoided had the V-22 been there to Go-Faster & Farther:
Copter Crashes Reveal Achilles’ Heel of Afghan War
Afghanistan is a country the size of Texas, with only a handful of major roads. So when the U.S. military wants to haul gear, supply isolated outposts, reposition forces, or evacuate wounded troops, the first, best and sometimes only option is to do so by helicopter.
Which means that the demand for helos at most U.S. bases far outstrips the supply. And the helicopters that do fly operate under unforgiving and often dangerous conditions, as we saw in Monday’s twin copter calamities, which killed 14 Americans. In short, helicopters are the irreplaceable connective tissue of the Afghanistan war effort — and its potential Achilles’ heel. “It’s our strategic weak point,” a defense official told Danger Room.
In the 1980s, the U.S. famously supplied Afghan militants with Stinger missiles that began to threaten the Soviets’ helo fleet at risk. It drove up the cost of operating in Afghanistan, and contributed to the Red Army’s eventual defeat.
For years, commanders have complained that helicopters were the one thing they couldn’t get enough of, and coalition forces in Afghanistan have often had to rely on outsourcing to fill in the gaps. “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters,” British Foreign Office Minister Lord Maloch Brown recently said, before issuing a quick “clarification.”
NATO decided to lease civilian helicopters in late 2007. In some cases, that has meant relying on contracted Soviet-bloc helicopters that might have less-than-stellar maintenance records. Back in July, 16 civilians working under contract to Western forces were killed when their Russian-made helicopter plunged to the ground just after takeoff at Kandahar airfield. That incident came just days after a Moldovan-owned Mi-26 helicopter was downed in Helmand Province; six Ukrainian contractors were killed.
Even if more military helicopters are sent to Afghanistan, there’s a much bigger issue: Operating rotary aircraft in Afghanistan can be extremely difficult.
Earlier this year, Popular Mechanics reporter Joe Pappalardo spent some time with the wrench-turners who keep the helicopters flying in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan,” he concluded, “is hell on helicopters.” Here’s a list of just a few of the things he noted that can go wrong: Temperature extremes that destroy seals and gaskets; “high/hot” flying conditions that reduce engine performance; dust and sand that ruin rotor blades and clog up hydraulics. And, of course, there’s the enemy. (Soviet helicopter operations were also vulnerable, albeit for a different reason: The delivery of the Stinger missile, courtesy of the United States.)
Those tough conditions are not unique to Afghanistan: In the run-up to the Iraq war, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, then-commander of the 101st Airborne Division, ordered thousands of cans of spray paint to help slow the shredding of rotor blades. But Iraq now has a well-established network of bases with paved airstrips, sparing helicopters from having to do a lot of extreme dust landings. In Afghanistan, that’s not the case.
A former Army Apache pilot told Danger Room that these austere flying conditions might have been a factor in the collision of two coalition helicopters earlier today.
“These guys are operating from fairly austere forward bases — even the larger ones, and generally under ‘Visual Flying Conditions’ and Visual Flying Rules (VFR),” the aviator said. “In the tactical environment, if weather goes bad quickly, the pilots have to adjust to an IFR [Instrument Flying Rules] flight plan and landing approach. This usually means that tactical operations cease; Individual aircraft on planned instrument flights from point to point will continue, but there are no instrument formation flights.”
In such cases, pilots flying in formation have rules to separate from each other when they inadvertently go into IFR: The lead aircraft might go straight and climb to a certain altitude, and the second might turn right 15 degrees and fly to a higher altitude. But if there are multiple formations in the air, they might not be able to de-conflict their flight paths when they scatter. “I don’t know what the ATC [air traffic control] capability is there, but if several aircraft went inadvertent IFR at the same time or close to the same time, it would take a bit to sort them out, assign transponder codes, and prioritize them for a controlled (radar) approaches in,” the aviator said.
Add to that a number of other factors — low-light conditions, flying under night-vision goggles, sudden dust swirls, enemy ground fire — and you’ve put one of the centerpieces of this war at even greater risk.
– Nathan Hodge and Noah Shachtman
Copter Crashes Reveal Achilles’ Heel of Afghan War
- By Noah Shachtman
- October 26, 2009 |
- 1:57 pm |
Afghanistan is a country the size of Texas, with only a handful of major roads. So when the U.S. military wants to haul gear, supply isolated outposts, reposition forces, or evacuate wounded troops, the first, best and sometimes only option is to do so by helicopter.
Which means that the demand for helos at most U.S. bases far outstrips the supply. And the helicopters that do fly operate under unforgiving and often dangerous conditions, as we saw in Monday’s twin copter calamities, which killed 14 Americans. In short, helicopters are the irreplaceable connective tissue of the Afghanistan war effort — and its potential Achilles’ heel. “It’s our strategic weak point,” a defense official told Danger Room.
In the 1980s, the U.S. famously supplied Afghan militants with Stinger missiles that began to threaten the Soviets’ helo fleet at risk. It drove up the cost of operating in Afghanistan, and contributed to the Red Army’s eventual defeat.
For years, commanders have complained that helicopters were the one thing they couldn’t get enough of, and coalition forces in Afghanistan have often had to rely on outsourcing to fill in the gaps. “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters,” British Foreign Office Minister Lord Maloch Brown recently said, before issuing a quick “clarification.”
NATO decided to lease civilian helicopters in late 2007. In some cases, that has meant relying on contracted Soviet-bloc helicopters that might have less-than-stellar maintenance records. Back in July, 16 civilians working under contract to Western forces were killed when their Russian-made helicopter plunged to the ground just after takeoff at Kandahar airfield. That incident came just days after a Moldovan-owned Mi-26 helicopter was downed in Helmand Province; six Ukrainian contractors were killed.
Even if more military helicopters are sent to Afghanistan, there’s a much bigger issue: Operating rotary aircraft in Afghanistan can be extremely difficult.
Earlier this year, Popular Mechanics reporter Joe Pappalardo spent some time with the wrench-turners who keep the helicopters flying in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan,” he concluded, “is hell on helicopters.” Here’s a list of just a few of the things he noted that can go wrong: Temperature extremes that destroy seals and gaskets; “high/hot” flying conditions that reduce engine performance; dust and sand that ruin rotor blades and clog up hydraulics. And, of course, there’s the enemy. (Soviet helicopter operations were also vulnerable, albeit for a different reason: The delivery of the Stinger missile, courtesy of the United States.)
Those tough conditions are not unique to Afghanistan: In the run-up to the Iraq war, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, then-commander of the 101st Airborne Division, ordered thousands of cans of spray paint to help slow the shredding of rotor blades. But Iraq now has a well-established network of bases with paved airstrips, sparing helicopters from having to do a lot of extreme dust landings. In Afghanistan, that’s not the case.
A former Army Apache pilot told Danger Room that these austere flying conditions might have been a factor in the collision of two coalition helicopters earlier today.
“These guys are operating from fairly austere forward bases — even the larger ones, and generally under ‘Visual Flying Conditions’ and Visual Flying Rules (VFR),” the aviator said. “In the tactical environment, if weather goes bad quickly, the pilots have to adjust to an IFR [Instrument Flying Rules] flight plan and landing approach. This usually means that tactical operations cease; Individual aircraft on planned instrument flights from point to point will continue, but there are no instrument formation flights.”
In such cases, pilots flying in formation have rules to separate from each other when they inadvertently go into IFR: The lead aircraft might go straight and climb to a certain altitude, and the second might turn right 15 degrees and fly to a higher altitude. But if there are multiple formations in the air, they might not be able to de-conflict their flight paths when they scatter. “I don’t know what the ATC [air traffic control] capability is there, but if several aircraft went inadvertent IFR at the same time or close to the same time, it would take a bit to sort them out, assign transponder codes, and prioritize them for a controlled (radar) approaches in,” the aviator said.
Add to that a number of other factors — low-light conditions, flying under night-vision goggles, sudden dust swirls, enemy ground fire — and you’ve put one of the centerpieces of this war at even greater risk.
– Nathan Hodge and Noah Shachtman
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
I'll assume that by 'folks new here' you are speaking of FH1100 since myself, mckpave and Gregg have post on this thread much older than his. In fact while you assume that many of us are new just because we are not prolific posters does not mean we haven't been following this thread since it's inception. Just to refresh my memory I have reviewed this thread from start to finish, particlarly looking at Nicks post and found no reference to the topic of control inputs and the similarity of limitations between platforms. I fully admit that I may have missed it. Could you please point me specifically to which post you are referring? Could you also clarify why a warning/limitation that some deem as a deficiency in combat operations for th V-22 is not viewed as a deficiency in other RW paltforms? i.e. the 40kts/800fpm and abrupt/rapid control inputs.
I'll assume that by 'folks new here' you are speaking of FH1100 since myself, mckpave and Gregg have post on this thread much older than his. In fact while you assume that many of us are new just because we are not prolific posters does not mean we haven't been following this thread since it's inception. Just to refresh my memory I have reviewed this thread from start to finish, particlarly looking at Nicks post and found no reference to the topic of control inputs and the similarity of limitations between platforms. I fully admit that I may have missed it. Could you please point me specifically to which post you are referring? Could you also clarify why a warning/limitation that some deem as a deficiency in combat operations for th V-22 is not viewed as a deficiency in other RW paltforms? i.e. the 40kts/800fpm and abrupt/rapid control inputs.
Last edited by usmc helo; 28th Oct 2009 at 17:21.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
usmc helo
Actually, after I wrote the reply to 21st Century I said to myself I better see if I can find that statement. I looked quick and couldn't but noticed there were a bunch of Nick's posts missing and I couldn't get his reference to some posts to work. Perhaps some of this is due to his hiring on with Bell..don't know. I recall he said (paraphrasing) "The 40kts/800fpm pertains to ALL helos." As far as the "abrupt/rapid control inputs" I 'think' I recall him saying the V-22's airframe isn't able to tolerate this type actuation whereas 'regular helos' are more forgiving due to their type rotor system and somewhat flexible airframes.
I'm hoping Nick is reading this and can comment again and, due to all the past grief that's come about on 'particulars' involving the V-22, I'm going to look through each V-22 post and will hopefully be able to get back with you today.
Actually, after I wrote the reply to 21st Century I said to myself I better see if I can find that statement. I looked quick and couldn't but noticed there were a bunch of Nick's posts missing and I couldn't get his reference to some posts to work. Perhaps some of this is due to his hiring on with Bell..don't know. I recall he said (paraphrasing) "The 40kts/800fpm pertains to ALL helos." As far as the "abrupt/rapid control inputs" I 'think' I recall him saying the V-22's airframe isn't able to tolerate this type actuation whereas 'regular helos' are more forgiving due to their type rotor system and somewhat flexible airframes.
I'm hoping Nick is reading this and can comment again and, due to all the past grief that's come about on 'particulars' involving the V-22, I'm going to look through each V-22 post and will hopefully be able to get back with you today.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
usmc helo
You're right! I went through every V-22 post that Nick and others wrote and could not find that specific post. Until/if Nick responds to this I can only apologize for leading you on a wild goose chase.
Please check this reference out as it does touch upon this a little:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116124-vortex-ring-settling-power-merged.html
You're right! I went through every V-22 post that Nick and others wrote and could not find that specific post. Until/if Nick responds to this I can only apologize for leading you on a wild goose chase.
Please check this reference out as it does touch upon this a little:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116124-vortex-ring-settling-power-merged.html