What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
With McCain's track record in war and marriage he probably demanded it (never know when an ex-wife or Viet Vet may be around). Does anyone think Adm Stockton would have been surprised.
Why is it you find such pleasure in denigrating combat Veterans of the American military? Is there something in your background that drives you to do this? Say envy perhaps or sour grapes after being rejected for service?
Every single post you make attempts to impugn the service of members of our military it seems. (IMHO)
Vietnam Vets have endured such attempts to steal our "honor" by such folks for decades now....and resent it greatly.
Sultan....if you cannot say something nice about Combat Veterans....please stay silent would you please! They served their country in time of war, fought, bled, died, and in some cases suffered lengthy painful torture and imprisonment. The least you can do is honor that service with a bit of respect and decorum.
Blow me down!
Awesome video of some trees getting knocked down:
Staten Island Helicopter Accident VIDEO: Osprey Blows Tree Branches Into Crowd, Injures 10
-- IFMU
Staten Island Helicopter Accident VIDEO: Osprey Blows Tree Branches Into Crowd, Injures 10
NEW YORK � The powerful propellers on a U.S. Marine Corps aircraft doing a Memorial Day demonstration has blown tree branches into people on the ground in a New York City park.
Firefighters say ten people suffered minor injuries.
The Osprey MV-22 aircraft was landing at Staten Island's Clove Lakes Park around 8 a.m. Monday as part of Fleet Week. It's an annual event honoring the U.S. military.
Marine Corps spokesman Lt. Josh Diddams says the wind generated by the aircraft's propellers broke branches off a nearby tree. The branches were swept into some people on the ground.
Firefighters say seven people have been taken to Richmond University Medical Center. Three others refused medical attention.
Firefighters say ten people suffered minor injuries.
The Osprey MV-22 aircraft was landing at Staten Island's Clove Lakes Park around 8 a.m. Monday as part of Fleet Week. It's an annual event honoring the U.S. military.
Marine Corps spokesman Lt. Josh Diddams says the wind generated by the aircraft's propellers broke branches off a nearby tree. The branches were swept into some people on the ground.
Firefighters say seven people have been taken to Richmond University Medical Center. Three others refused medical attention.
Funny and not funny at the same time
The V-22 coming into an LZ with people not used to big helo operations calls to mind the cautions we got back in the 80's when the CH-53E's were first showing in the shipboard environment. Bigger than usual grounding requirement for hover work, and the LSE's were to have a chain/tether to attach them to a padeye on the deck due to hurricane force winds in the rotor downwash.
Given Max GW for an Osprey being in the 53 class, I'd guess the downwash would be similar. Whoever picked, and marked, the LZ seems to have either guessed wrong on wind direction or the standoff distance for civilians.
More weird PR for the Osprey.
Given Max GW for an Osprey being in the 53 class, I'd guess the downwash would be similar. Whoever picked, and marked, the LZ seems to have either guessed wrong on wind direction or the standoff distance for civilians.
More weird PR for the Osprey.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though the max gross of the V-22 and the 53E are similar, the disk area of the V-22 is smaller making the downwash even greater. We had problems even in the twin straight tails. People with no hlz experience might find out the proper safety zone. Those used to a small helos might think they have the proper frame of reference but would be wrong. Maybe the fire department on scene in Staten Island was used to little ems types(B-206 up to S-76) and wouldn't have a proper frame of reference. Or the jarheads screwed up.
Of interest to me in the video were the adults cowering in fear like little girls. Meanwhile a little girl plays merrily along in the breeze next to them. Well, looked like it to me anyway.
Of interest to me in the video were the adults cowering in fear like little girls. Meanwhile a little girl plays merrily along in the breeze next to them. Well, looked like it to me anyway.
Though the max gross of the V-22 and the 53E are similar, the disk area of the V-22 is smaller making the downwash even greater
As to the little girl, knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss.
The empty weights of the Osprey and CH53E are similar. The gross weights are vastly different, with the CH53 able to hover at some 22,000 lbs heavier. The major difference is disc loading, with the CH53E at about 14 lbs/ft^2, and the V-22 at 21 lbs/ft^2. High disk loading = high downwash. If the CH53 is a hurricane, the V-22 is a tornado.
-- IFMU
-- IFMU
V-22 Slope Landing Capability
Does anyone know what the V-22 flight manual limitations are regarding side slope landings at max weight? That is, with the longitudinal axis of the ship 90 degrees to the slope axis.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Thanks,
John Dixson
Here are some other "limitations" being reported on the Osprey.....it makes for interesting reading. Anyone in the know care to rebut the findings of the article?
I especially liked the GAO findings and later confirmation of the lack of Technical Manuals for maintainers and NATOPS procedures for Flight Crews. If the example of NATOPS telling crews to "Autorotate" following Dual Engine Failure is correct.....it makes the mind boggle!
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/gailliard%20on%20v-22.pdf
I especially liked the GAO findings and later confirmation of the lack of Technical Manuals for maintainers and NATOPS procedures for Flight Crews. If the example of NATOPS telling crews to "Autorotate" following Dual Engine Failure is correct.....it makes the mind boggle!
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/gailliard%20on%20v-22.pdf
SAS, to be fair, that report you referenced was apparently written some time prior to 2007. So it is at least three years old. The actual V-22 crews who sometimes post on this board claim that some envelope expansion has been done since the original tests of which we're all so fond of quoting.
It is interesting though that Gaillard spends so much time on the subject of VRS - which everyone here knows is my favorite weakness of the design.
The problem with VRS is that it won't happen at low gross weight and up at high altitude where you're expecting it, and there is plenty of room and time to recover. It will most likely happen at night, when the ship is heavy and at a low altitude/airspeed combination. As one proprotor "nibbles" at VRS, the pilot will apply roll control in the opposite direction, increasing the collective pitch on the side that is experiencing incipient VRS. As every private helicopter pilot knows, this will make the situation worse. In a worst-case scenario we will have a repeat of Marana.
An experienced helicopter pilot friend of mine whom I respect greatly said, "But Bob, they know about A-VRS now. All the pilot has to do is beep the nacelles forward and they can just fly out of it." Maybe so. But I wonder: How much altitude will be lost in the process? None? Because if this happened at, oh, 300 feet say, there is just no margin and the loss of any altitude is not permissable.
On the other hand, maybe we're expecting too much out of the Osprey. Maybe asking a 60,000 pound rotorcraft to perform "combat assaults" into heavily defended LZ's is simply not realistic, given the immutable laws of nature and aerodynamics.
Gaillard quotes the old NATOPS limitation of an 800 fpm maximum rate of descent, which he converts to a more understandable 9.1 mph which he says is less than the speed of traffic in a school zone. He says this about VRS:
I wouldn't go so far as to say a crash is "imminent." Such hyperbole does nothing to strengthen his case. However, what he says about the design is true.
The airflow through a rotor is chaotic. What can be a "safe" approach for one rotorcraft might result in a crash for the rotorcraft right behind it. Unlike the stalling speed of a fixed-wing, the absolute boundaries and limits of VRS are impossible to define or predict.
All rotorcraft are subject to VRS. Crash-landings resulting from full-blown VRS are generally survivable, given proper airframe and crew seat design because the helicopter hits the ground in a level attitude or nearly so. The Osprey is peculiar (and particularly defective) because it's subject to A-VRS. When one proprotor gets into VRS and the other one does not, the aircraft rolls over and dives for the ground. The crash will not be survivable. We know this.
I read the report of the test pilots who did the additional VRS testing of the V-22 (post Marana). But I never read that those tests resulted in any envelope expansion, other than some vague, unspecific claims by some in this forum who state that the actual information is highly-classified and if they told us they'd have to kill us.
So SASless, I'm with you, what's the real story?
It is interesting though that Gaillard spends so much time on the subject of VRS - which everyone here knows is my favorite weakness of the design.
The problem with VRS is that it won't happen at low gross weight and up at high altitude where you're expecting it, and there is plenty of room and time to recover. It will most likely happen at night, when the ship is heavy and at a low altitude/airspeed combination. As one proprotor "nibbles" at VRS, the pilot will apply roll control in the opposite direction, increasing the collective pitch on the side that is experiencing incipient VRS. As every private helicopter pilot knows, this will make the situation worse. In a worst-case scenario we will have a repeat of Marana.
An experienced helicopter pilot friend of mine whom I respect greatly said, "But Bob, they know about A-VRS now. All the pilot has to do is beep the nacelles forward and they can just fly out of it." Maybe so. But I wonder: How much altitude will be lost in the process? None? Because if this happened at, oh, 300 feet say, there is just no margin and the loss of any altitude is not permissable.
On the other hand, maybe we're expecting too much out of the Osprey. Maybe asking a 60,000 pound rotorcraft to perform "combat assaults" into heavily defended LZ's is simply not realistic, given the immutable laws of nature and aerodynamics.
Gaillard quotes the old NATOPS limitation of an 800 fpm maximum rate of descent, which he converts to a more understandable 9.1 mph which he says is less than the speed of traffic in a school zone. He says this about VRS:
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 in imminent. It's a Catch-22. This design anomaly has not been, and probably cannot be, eliminated.
The airflow through a rotor is chaotic. What can be a "safe" approach for one rotorcraft might result in a crash for the rotorcraft right behind it. Unlike the stalling speed of a fixed-wing, the absolute boundaries and limits of VRS are impossible to define or predict.
All rotorcraft are subject to VRS. Crash-landings resulting from full-blown VRS are generally survivable, given proper airframe and crew seat design because the helicopter hits the ground in a level attitude or nearly so. The Osprey is peculiar (and particularly defective) because it's subject to A-VRS. When one proprotor gets into VRS and the other one does not, the aircraft rolls over and dives for the ground. The crash will not be survivable. We know this.
I read the report of the test pilots who did the additional VRS testing of the V-22 (post Marana). But I never read that those tests resulted in any envelope expansion, other than some vague, unspecific claims by some in this forum who state that the actual information is highly-classified and if they told us they'd have to kill us.
So SASless, I'm with you, what's the real story?
I'll be glad to make comments when I find the time, and yes I'm still here FH so stop trying to bull**** your way through things, the items are "highly classified" as you once again play with words to make it amusing and entertaining in your typical idiotic fashion. Now go ahead and start throwing your spears again cuz it looks like the game is on again.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t is interesting though that Gaillard spends so much time on the subject of VRS - which everyone here knows is my favorite weakness of the design.
To enter VRS in the V-22, you have to be descending at more than 2000 fpm and nearly vertical. That's crazy fast, and easily avoided. Should you somehow blow through that, the V-22 has an out that no other rotorcraft does--tilting the nacelles.
Granted, the consequences of VRS are worse in a V-22 than a helo, but seeing as it's harder to enter VRS and easier to get out of it, I think that concern is largely mitigated.
I think the cost and reliability criticisms of the V-22 are valid, though both are improving over time. As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
question for those in the know:
Obviously VRS is extra bad news in the V-22, although it is less susceptible than classic helos.
How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?
Their disc loading is in the range of single rotor machines and therefor downwash is less than V-22 and they should be more susceptible to VRS, shouldn't they?
Any experiences with front or aft rotor going VRS (or both rotors) on any tandem helo?
Cheers,
3top
question for those in the know:
Obviously VRS is extra bad news in the V-22, although it is less susceptible than classic helos.
How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?
Their disc loading is in the range of single rotor machines and therefor downwash is less than V-22 and they should be more susceptible to VRS, shouldn't they?
Any experiences with front or aft rotor going VRS (or both rotors) on any tandem helo?
Cheers,
3top
Last edited by 3top; 22nd Aug 2010 at 16:38. Reason: gramar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome ospreydriver !
Besides speed, exactly what type of 'performance' did you have in mind when you stated this:
"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."
Besides speed, exactly what type of 'performance' did you have in mind when you stated this:
"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously VRS is extra bad news in the V-22, although it is less susceptible than classic helos.
How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?
How about the CH-46 and/or Chinook?
As far as tandem rotors designs go, though, I did know a few guys that encountered retreating blade stall on the aft head only during "high speed" runs--they got it back under control after a few seconds of anxiety.
Besides speed, exactly what type of 'performance' did you have in mind when you stated this:
"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."
"As far as performance, though, nothing else holds a candle to it."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expanding the Battlespace and Replacing the CH-46
An Update on the Osprey from New River (IV)
An Interview With Major Lee York
10/05 /2010 – In a wide-ranging interviews with Osprey pilots and maintainers at New River Air Station discussing their operational experience with the Osprey, one pilot highlighted with a single story the impact of the Osprey’s speed on operating in the battlespace.
Major Lee York (Credit: SLD)
SLD: Could you tell us about your background?
Major Lee York: My name is Major Lee York. I started out as a CH-46 pilot and did two deployments. The first one was in 2002; we deployed on a 24th MEU and participated in OIF and then after that came home and then we went back out with 24th MEU again. This time in Iraq 2004-2005, set up deployment there, and came home with 263 and stood the squadron down and then transitioned to the V-22 and then I deployed with VMM-263 as a first operational V-22 squadron to Iraq for seven months. After that, we came home and then went to the VMMT-204 to train new students on how to fly V-22 and then I’m back at 263 again.
SLD: What was your operational experience in Iraq with regard to the ability to land the Osprey in spots similar to your helo? Because of your experience of flying rotorcraft in the first deployment and then Osprey’s in the second, your perspective would be definitive on this point.
Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones. The same number of aircraft, two FROGs, two V-22s we put at the same zones and we were able to do it. And I’m talking the same exact place, you know, Ramadi and other cities, on landing zones that we’ve landed earlier with FROGs and now with V-22s. For the guys who said that they couldn’t do it, well, they’re wrong.
Three Ospreys Coming Into Land in Close Quarters During USMC Exercise
(Credit: USMC)
Major Lee York: We took some soldiers out to the West of Iraq. The crew chief comes up to us and tells us that the guys won’t get out of the plane. We’re like, what are you talking about? They said we’re not there yet. And we said, “What are you talking about?” He then said, “The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”
Expanding the Battlespace and Replacing the CH-46 | SLDInfo
An Update on the Osprey from New River (IV)
An Interview With Major Lee York
10/05 /2010 – In a wide-ranging interviews with Osprey pilots and maintainers at New River Air Station discussing their operational experience with the Osprey, one pilot highlighted with a single story the impact of the Osprey’s speed on operating in the battlespace.
Major Lee York (Credit: SLD)
SLD: Could you tell us about your background?
Major Lee York: My name is Major Lee York. I started out as a CH-46 pilot and did two deployments. The first one was in 2002; we deployed on a 24th MEU and participated in OIF and then after that came home and then we went back out with 24th MEU again. This time in Iraq 2004-2005, set up deployment there, and came home with 263 and stood the squadron down and then transitioned to the V-22 and then I deployed with VMM-263 as a first operational V-22 squadron to Iraq for seven months. After that, we came home and then went to the VMMT-204 to train new students on how to fly V-22 and then I’m back at 263 again.
SLD: What was your operational experience in Iraq with regard to the ability to land the Osprey in spots similar to your helo? Because of your experience of flying rotorcraft in the first deployment and then Osprey’s in the second, your perspective would be definitive on this point.
Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones. The same number of aircraft, two FROGs, two V-22s we put at the same zones and we were able to do it. And I’m talking the same exact place, you know, Ramadi and other cities, on landing zones that we’ve landed earlier with FROGs and now with V-22s. For the guys who said that they couldn’t do it, well, they’re wrong.
Three Ospreys Coming Into Land in Close Quarters During USMC Exercise(Credit: USMC)
SLD: You had an anecdote, which underscores the impact of speed in the battlespace?
Major Lee York: We took some soldiers out to the West of Iraq. The crew chief comes up to us and tells us that the guys won’t get out of the plane. We’re like, what are you talking about? They said we’re not there yet. And we said, “What are you talking about?” He then said, “The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”
“The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”
We told him to tell the Marines that “we were cruising at 230 rather than at 120 so we were there. I swear we’re here, you know, we’re not going to send him somewhere where he is not supposed to be.”Expanding the Battlespace and Replacing the CH-46 | SLDInfo
Last edited by 21stCen; 6th Nov 2010 at 10:52.
Major Lee York: We took some soldiers out to the West of Iraq. The crew chief comes up to us and tells us that the guys won’t get out of the plane. We’re like, what are you talking about? They said we’re not there yet. And we said, “What are you talking about?” He then said, “The last time we did this flight it took an hour and a half. We’ve only been in the plane for 40 minutes so we can’t be there yet.”
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLD: What was your operational experience in Iraq with regard to the ability to land the Osprey in spots similar to your helo? Because of your experience of flying rotorcraft in the first deployment and then Osprey’s in the second, your perspective would be definitive on this point.
Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones.
Major Lee York: I have read all stories, all the naysayers, that the V-22 can’t replace the FROG. But my experience says the opposite. The landing zones if used in ‘04-’05 with the FROG, we went back in ‘07 with V-22 and we landed in I would say 95 percent of the same zones.