What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ron-powell,
You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed. Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, ("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.
I am not an anti-tilt rotor person, I only tell the facts. YOU think I am an anti-tiltrotor person because you dont seem to want the facts. Too bad, because you will discover that facts are stubborn things.
BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a Lamberghini?
Nick
BTW, I flew the ABC, the original design for the X2, and I know a bit about it. IThe X2 will not sacrifice very much cost or range or payload for speed, it is at its core a very efficient helicopter, just one that will cruise at 250 knots!
You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed. Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, ("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.
I am not an anti-tilt rotor person, I only tell the facts. YOU think I am an anti-tiltrotor person because you dont seem to want the facts. Too bad, because you will discover that facts are stubborn things.
BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a Lamberghini?
Nick
BTW, I flew the ABC, the original design for the X2, and I know a bit about it. IThe X2 will not sacrifice very much cost or range or payload for speed, it is at its core a very efficient helicopter, just one that will cruise at 250 knots!
Ron,
I would love to fly the tilt rotor....but not as a SpecOps pilot in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or other hot and high places. I would also like to fly a machine that could do the mission safely and effectively.
The tilt rotor does not meet that test....it will not carry the load required....nor is it flexible enough to take on all the missions that the current helicopter fleet does.
We are paying for less capability at a far higher price. If the Osprey had the lift capability of the 53 or 47....it would be the cats ass but it isn't.
I would love to fly the tilt rotor....but not as a SpecOps pilot in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or other hot and high places. I would also like to fly a machine that could do the mission safely and effectively.
The tilt rotor does not meet that test....it will not carry the load required....nor is it flexible enough to take on all the missions that the current helicopter fleet does.
We are paying for less capability at a far higher price. If the Osprey had the lift capability of the 53 or 47....it would be the cats ass but it isn't.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
me...I just want to fly
I'd settle for a job sling-loading plastic dog ****e out of Hong Kong in a R22...if it meant I was in the air.
I think the 'new' tilt-rotor technology is amazing & the application potential is there, but the aircraft are just not meeting all the benchmarks they were supposed to exceed, except price. When the aircraft perfoms as well as current helo's, then maintains a significant speed, fuel & price advantage, then it will be viable.
No point having to take 2x or 3x (very expensive) V-22 aircraft & do multiple trips albeit a little quicker than other aircraft, when you could do the same job with a single aircraft, in a single trip, moderately slower at a fraction of the cost.
I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed... but I can add (& subtract, & multiple & divide
)
I think the 'new' tilt-rotor technology is amazing & the application potential is there, but the aircraft are just not meeting all the benchmarks they were supposed to exceed, except price. When the aircraft perfoms as well as current helo's, then maintains a significant speed, fuel & price advantage, then it will be viable.
No point having to take 2x or 3x (very expensive) V-22 aircraft & do multiple trips albeit a little quicker than other aircraft, when you could do the same job with a single aircraft, in a single trip, moderately slower at a fraction of the cost.
I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed... but I can add (& subtract, & multiple & divide
)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickLappos:
>You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure >that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed.
And that’s the point of my post. Some people want/need it and are willing to pay.
>Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, >("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf >get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.
No argument there because there are always tradeoffs. I’m just tired of watching the earth go by at 120kts and would like to think every other helicopter pilot feels the same way as I do.
>BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a >Lamberghini?
Don’t want one, but more importantly, can’t afford one. But some people can and do own them for reasons other than purchase price, number of seats, fuel economy and maintenance costs. The same can be said with respect to tilt rotors.
Ron Powell
>You are right, the speed is a strong virtue. What my presentation does is to be sure >that you (and others) recognize the cost of that speed.
And that’s the point of my post. Some people want/need it and are willing to pay.
>Up to now, only the silly tales from tilt rotor advocates have been circulating, >("twice as much, twice as fast, twice as far,") so that poor Mediahawk and Woolf >get to actually think a tilt rotor will take them farther.
No argument there because there are always tradeoffs. I’m just tired of watching the earth go by at 120kts and would like to think every other helicopter pilot feels the same way as I do.
>BTW, if economics are not an issue, and only speed counts, why don't you own a >Lamberghini?
Don’t want one, but more importantly, can’t afford one. But some people can and do own them for reasons other than purchase price, number of seats, fuel economy and maintenance costs. The same can be said with respect to tilt rotors.
Ron Powell
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why compare to a helicopter?? it is not one, nor is it an airplane but the tilt rotor will do a number of things nothing else will do. it will not do all the helicopter jobs or plane jobs but will probly do a few of each. it looks more usefull than the first aireoplane or helicopter would have been, so lets see where technology takes it.
mick
mick
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone hear an echo?
Yes, V22 pales in comparison to H53 as a cargo mover.
Now take a look at all the systems installed, remove all the development costs (that's money that's been spent anyhow, what does one more V22 cost?), check out the survivability, check out the time to get troops on scene, look at the stand off distance that a ship can maintain, look at the deck operating limits such as sea state, footprint.
While its easy to look at high speed and be impressed or high cost and be annoyed, the only applicable examination is a full role suitability study. It certainly won't do the complete job of what its replacing, but that doesn't mean the current aircraft are the most suitable for the role. V22 does open portions of the envelope that will be a gain in some roles. It will not replace the work of a pure helicopter. It will never outlift the H53 or Chinook, nor perform better at altitude.
Don't be fooled by the propaganda into thinking its all singing and dancing nor by the media that its a useless cash cow. Do listen to experts that can provide details on its actual performance, and do consider the job it will be expected to perform.
My opinion, a limited market will appreciate the V22 but most existing helicopter operations will have little use for the different capabilities.
Matthew.
Now take a look at all the systems installed, remove all the development costs (that's money that's been spent anyhow, what does one more V22 cost?), check out the survivability, check out the time to get troops on scene, look at the stand off distance that a ship can maintain, look at the deck operating limits such as sea state, footprint.
While its easy to look at high speed and be impressed or high cost and be annoyed, the only applicable examination is a full role suitability study. It certainly won't do the complete job of what its replacing, but that doesn't mean the current aircraft are the most suitable for the role. V22 does open portions of the envelope that will be a gain in some roles. It will not replace the work of a pure helicopter. It will never outlift the H53 or Chinook, nor perform better at altitude.
Don't be fooled by the propaganda into thinking its all singing and dancing nor by the media that its a useless cash cow. Do listen to experts that can provide details on its actual performance, and do consider the job it will be expected to perform.
My opinion, a limited market will appreciate the V22 but most existing helicopter operations will have little use for the different capabilities.
Matthew.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you think the CV-22 is too complex and expensive, just feast your eyes on this:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-507d64c52d4b&
Methinks someone needs to put down the crack-pipe.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-507d64c52d4b&
Methinks someone needs to put down the crack-pipe.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V22
I would agree with those of you that state its neither a plank nor a Helo.
But, does it then have the vertues of the two or of none ....
From all the published figures I could see only speed is plus, all the other are minusses.
I am curious to see what deployment will bring. It think it is naif to think that a long strain of (re)tuning now suddenly will stop. Due to some intrinsic complexities in the design, I think its early to say how the enveloppe gains will materialize.
OFBSL, i like those monsters. Funny to see, when in a modern helo piezo tabs might be used to reduce BV interaction. I wonder what they will do to reduce rotor interaction. At least it might work on three rotors, that is perhaps an advantage...
d3
But, does it then have the vertues of the two or of none ....
From all the published figures I could see only speed is plus, all the other are minusses.
I am curious to see what deployment will bring. It think it is naif to think that a long strain of (re)tuning now suddenly will stop. Due to some intrinsic complexities in the design, I think its early to say how the enveloppe gains will materialize.
OFBSL, i like those monsters. Funny to see, when in a modern helo piezo tabs might be used to reduce BV interaction. I wonder what they will do to reduce rotor interaction. At least it might work on three rotors, that is perhaps an advantage...
d3
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick one for Nick Lappos ...
I've just been reading your excellent treatise at http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/...comparison.pdf ...
(1) can you tell me why the BA609 on the front cover appears to have Bell/Boeing logo on the nacelle, when the original photo on the AW web-site has no such logo? ... methinks you fiddled in Photoshop or similar after copying this PR photo from the AW web-site (sniggers)!
(2) how come X2 is a good idea, considering your argument on page 16 about disk size? I note that ABC was not proceded with because "... the transmission weight penalties were too high and so the trade study decided that the advantages were outweighed by the weight disadvantage" ... " The rotors had to be well separated and very stiff so that they wouldn't strike at high blade deflections. This resulted in a tall mast, which was very draggy. Inter-rotor fairings were designed and wind tunnel tested, but it was difficult to design a fairing that really resulted in a drag decrease..." and "It was difficult to use the ABC arrangement for anything but an attack helicopter, due to the big, tall gearbox assembly" ... ??? Some of these are your words ... [ref: http://www.synchrolite.com/0891.html]
Bit off topic, but ...?
I've just been reading your excellent treatise at http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/...comparison.pdf ...
(1) can you tell me why the BA609 on the front cover appears to have Bell/Boeing logo on the nacelle, when the original photo on the AW web-site has no such logo? ... methinks you fiddled in Photoshop or similar after copying this PR photo from the AW web-site (sniggers)!
(2) how come X2 is a good idea, considering your argument on page 16 about disk size? I note that ABC was not proceded with because "... the transmission weight penalties were too high and so the trade study decided that the advantages were outweighed by the weight disadvantage" ... " The rotors had to be well separated and very stiff so that they wouldn't strike at high blade deflections. This resulted in a tall mast, which was very draggy. Inter-rotor fairings were designed and wind tunnel tested, but it was difficult to design a fairing that really resulted in a drag decrease..." and "It was difficult to use the ABC arrangement for anything but an attack helicopter, due to the big, tall gearbox assembly" ... ??? Some of these are your words ... [ref: http://www.synchrolite.com/0891.html]
Bit off topic, but ...?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nimby,
Good questions! In turn:
1) You have sharp eyes. I snatched that photo from a Bell web site, it must be an old one, but it was official at one time. Here is a pair I found just now with two different logos, note it is the same shot, probably a few minutes earlier (camera angle identical) it is surely Bell who used the photoshop on the logo:
http://www.mecaer.it/product/flight/ba609.shtml
and here is the one I used, still on the net, at the Dowty web site!
http://www.messier-dowty.com/programs/fr_BA609.asp
2) the disk loading is really not an argument, it is a physical fact, in that higher disk loading means more power needed for the same lift/weight. That being said, the X2 has fairly low disk loading, in tune with a normal single rotor helicopter, so its power needs are roughly the same. The older ABC compared quite favorably to normal helos, but it was slightly heavier than a very good single rotor helo, about 5% empty weight. This robbed payload a bit, so speed costs there, as well, just not as much.
3) Those words are all true, today as they were a few years ago. The question is only that of what speed you want, and what you want to pay for it. If "normal" helicopter speeds were considered, an ABC would be a non-starter, because you would earn 20% less wityh the machine, and your competitors would eat your lunch, or you would carry half the weapons load, and thus fail in your operational evals against a helicopter.
I am amused at the discussions of configuration made here, and virtually everywhere else, that speak of the arrangements as geometries, with shapes and physical properties. Invariably the real choice is between the various designs draws down to three inexerable bits of data for any given design:
First = From a hover takeoff, what is the payload?
Second = What is the cost of the vehicle to purchase and to operate? (cost is almost purely determined by the empty weight, the engine power and the number of finely machined (critical) parts).
A more distant Third = What speed does it provide in cruise?
If one lays it out, the realization is that to move a given number of pounds or people, the 250 knots for a tilt rotor costs the owner between 2 and 4 times what the 150 knots of a single rotor helicopter does (half the payload at some increase in the purchase price). For an X2, the data might project that for 230 knots of cruise (perhaps more, probably not less) the multiplier might be between 20% to 50% more cost.
Only when the real price of the 609 is known, and of the X2 (should it get that far) will this be hard fact and not conjecture. If one simply weighs the empty aircraft, and applies a factor for engine horsepower (which sizes transmissions and rotors and shafts) the 609 probably falls somewhere above the Black Hawk in price (same weight, more complexity for the critical parts, but more efficient Bell manufacturing costs.) For X2, 5% more weight, and a few more critical items put it in between.
Good questions! In turn:
1) You have sharp eyes. I snatched that photo from a Bell web site, it must be an old one, but it was official at one time. Here is a pair I found just now with two different logos, note it is the same shot, probably a few minutes earlier (camera angle identical) it is surely Bell who used the photoshop on the logo:
http://www.mecaer.it/product/flight/ba609.shtml
and here is the one I used, still on the net, at the Dowty web site!
http://www.messier-dowty.com/programs/fr_BA609.asp
2) the disk loading is really not an argument, it is a physical fact, in that higher disk loading means more power needed for the same lift/weight. That being said, the X2 has fairly low disk loading, in tune with a normal single rotor helicopter, so its power needs are roughly the same. The older ABC compared quite favorably to normal helos, but it was slightly heavier than a very good single rotor helo, about 5% empty weight. This robbed payload a bit, so speed costs there, as well, just not as much.
3) Those words are all true, today as they were a few years ago. The question is only that of what speed you want, and what you want to pay for it. If "normal" helicopter speeds were considered, an ABC would be a non-starter, because you would earn 20% less wityh the machine, and your competitors would eat your lunch, or you would carry half the weapons load, and thus fail in your operational evals against a helicopter.
I am amused at the discussions of configuration made here, and virtually everywhere else, that speak of the arrangements as geometries, with shapes and physical properties. Invariably the real choice is between the various designs draws down to three inexerable bits of data for any given design:
First = From a hover takeoff, what is the payload?
Second = What is the cost of the vehicle to purchase and to operate? (cost is almost purely determined by the empty weight, the engine power and the number of finely machined (critical) parts).
A more distant Third = What speed does it provide in cruise?
If one lays it out, the realization is that to move a given number of pounds or people, the 250 knots for a tilt rotor costs the owner between 2 and 4 times what the 150 knots of a single rotor helicopter does (half the payload at some increase in the purchase price). For an X2, the data might project that for 230 knots of cruise (perhaps more, probably not less) the multiplier might be between 20% to 50% more cost.
Only when the real price of the 609 is known, and of the X2 (should it get that far) will this be hard fact and not conjecture. If one simply weighs the empty aircraft, and applies a factor for engine horsepower (which sizes transmissions and rotors and shafts) the 609 probably falls somewhere above the Black Hawk in price (same weight, more complexity for the critical parts, but more efficient Bell manufacturing costs.) For X2, 5% more weight, and a few more critical items put it in between.
Last edited by NickLappos; 26th Sep 2005 at 16:51.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lest we forget
How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 'Vintokryl' ?
. ` . ` . Speed ~ 192 knots
. ` . ` . Payload ~ 36,343 lbs
. ` . ` . Gross weight ~ 65,036 lbs
This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be built today.
A slam-dunk for the Vintokryl?
Nick, this was originally sent to rec.aviation.rotorcraft in response to your posting. For some reason it didn't show up.
Opps! Best I learn how to use the newly installed version of Outlook Express.
. ` . ` . Speed ~ 192 knots
. ` . ` . Payload ~ 36,343 lbs
. ` . ` . Gross weight ~ 65,036 lbs
This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be built today.
A slam-dunk for the Vintokryl?
Nick, this was originally sent to rec.aviation.rotorcraft in response to your posting. For some reason it didn't show up.
Opps! Best I learn how to use the newly installed version of Outlook Express.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 26th Sep 2005 at 17:53.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had done some great things, but the only one crashed twice, and was not rebuilt. Probably due to aeroelastic problems (the real technology leap that V22 had to make IMHO).
It is fundamentally a compound helicopter with a wing, but the 65,000 lb empty weight beast set the record with only (only?) 36,000 lbs of payload, indicating some pretty poor efficiencies, Dave.
It is fundamentally a compound helicopter with a wing, but the 65,000 lb empty weight beast set the record with only (only?) 36,000 lbs of payload, indicating some pretty poor efficiencies, Dave.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As if the Osprey didn't have enough problems with fending-off criticism from plank salesmen (
), Bell-Boeing have had to issue an apology after an 'unapproved' CV-22 ad depicting a fast-roping assault on a mosque was 'accidentally' published in a Capital Hill rag.
The ad (in Adobe Acrobat) can -- for the moment -- be seen here.
(It's a good job that they'd already ditched the 'attack on a Chinese embassy' concept at an earlier stage...)
I/C
), Bell-Boeing have had to issue an apology after an 'unapproved' CV-22 ad depicting a fast-roping assault on a mosque was 'accidentally' published in a Capital Hill rag.The ad (in Adobe Acrobat) can -- for the moment -- be seen here.
(It's a good job that they'd already ditched the 'attack on a Chinese embassy' concept at an earlier stage...)
I/C
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lines are being drawn...
Interesting thread. It seems that the old debate about plank or heli is being replaced by the debate about tiltrotor or counterrotor. My own view is that both will eventually become cost competetive, but that different strengths will be inherent to each. Clearly weight minimisation will be key to either design, with rigid rotor performance.
Tiltrotor will never be as efficient in hover, but counterrotor is unlikely to be as efficient in high speed flight. Once variable RRPM establishes itself as the next enabling technology the lines will become tighter, since counterrotor will offer lower rotor drag. The smaller pusher prop will however never match the tiltrotor for prop loading, so speed may become the next competetion. As emerging rotor technologies for active twist become available, higher speeds become possible with counterrotors.
The interesting thing will be to see how tiltrotor responds to this challenge. Maybe swept tip blades for higher tip, thus overall, speeds. Maybe increased coning for more spanwise flow componenent (similar to swept fixed wings). These technologies can again be fed across to counterrotors.
How far will this competition take rotorcraft development? Dare i ask: Is a supersonic rotorcraft possible?
Mart
Tiltrotor will never be as efficient in hover, but counterrotor is unlikely to be as efficient in high speed flight. Once variable RRPM establishes itself as the next enabling technology the lines will become tighter, since counterrotor will offer lower rotor drag. The smaller pusher prop will however never match the tiltrotor for prop loading, so speed may become the next competetion. As emerging rotor technologies for active twist become available, higher speeds become possible with counterrotors.
The interesting thing will be to see how tiltrotor responds to this challenge. Maybe swept tip blades for higher tip, thus overall, speeds. Maybe increased coning for more spanwise flow componenent (similar to swept fixed wings). These technologies can again be fed across to counterrotors.
How far will this competition take rotorcraft development? Dare i ask: Is a supersonic rotorcraft possible?
Mart
Last edited by Graviman; 30th Sep 2005 at 22:48.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Age: 54
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very sobering reading on the Osprey here:
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
To summarize: it's too sensitive to pilot induced oscillations in roll; it creates such a huge downwash that it's hard to land on all but smooth pavement; it's susceptible to wake turbulence to a greater degree than other aircraft; its electrical, mechanical and hydraulic lines are subject to too much stress and vibration; it is vulnerable to a particularly nasty variation of vortex ring state and, drumroll... it doesn't autorotate, at least not in any practical way.
All these problems to one degree or another are inherent in the tiltrotor concept and cannot be eliminated, just mitigated. That means the BA609 will suffer from the same shortcomings.
I think I'll pass...
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
To summarize: it's too sensitive to pilot induced oscillations in roll; it creates such a huge downwash that it's hard to land on all but smooth pavement; it's susceptible to wake turbulence to a greater degree than other aircraft; its electrical, mechanical and hydraulic lines are subject to too much stress and vibration; it is vulnerable to a particularly nasty variation of vortex ring state and, drumroll... it doesn't autorotate, at least not in any practical way.
All these problems to one degree or another are inherent in the tiltrotor concept and cannot be eliminated, just mitigated. That means the BA609 will suffer from the same shortcomings.
I think I'll pass...