What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
I have read this thread. I've been reading since it started. It just seems to me that you ask questions or point out flaws (like the lack of combat maveuvering, for example) and then actual pilots of the plane explain what those notes and warnings actually mean...and that explanation just gets disregarded.
Or you take things that are NORMAL warnings/notes in the flight manuals that can be found in other flight manuals of other aircraft and make them suddenely dire fatal flaws when applied to the V-22. It doesn't make sense.
I also think some of the posters on here are REALLY confused on how military regulations and aircraft restrictions actually work. And they attack what the percieve to be limitations of poor engineering without a proper understanding of why certain warnings and notes are in place. Or without understanding that there are MULTIPLE books that govern an aircraft and it's mission. Some of those limitations don't apply in combat scenarios or situations of operational nessisty becuase other publications that govern the mission waive those limitations.
I have read this thread. I've been reading since it started. It just seems to me that you ask questions or point out flaws (like the lack of combat maveuvering, for example) and then actual pilots of the plane explain what those notes and warnings actually mean...and that explanation just gets disregarded.
Or you take things that are NORMAL warnings/notes in the flight manuals that can be found in other flight manuals of other aircraft and make them suddenely dire fatal flaws when applied to the V-22. It doesn't make sense.
I also think some of the posters on here are REALLY confused on how military regulations and aircraft restrictions actually work. And they attack what the percieve to be limitations of poor engineering without a proper understanding of why certain warnings and notes are in place. Or without understanding that there are MULTIPLE books that govern an aircraft and it's mission. Some of those limitations don't apply in combat scenarios or situations of operational nessisty becuase other publications that govern the mission waive those limitations.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH
First, thank you for making a post of that calibur. If you posted like THAT more often without all of the sarcastic insults I think people would respond better.
You wrote a lot and I already posted a loooong response...and for some reason it didnt post and I don't have the patience to do that again. So I mostly want to address the part about the pilots word meaning anyhting.
I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree.
It isn't a question of a pilot loving thier plane and having nothing but good things to say about it. It's a question of these pilots expertise on it's capability to fulfill the mission it was designed for.
I don't know if you understand what a military pilot does versus a commercial pilot. It's not about our planes being "more manly" or something superficial like that. It's that they are experts on thier airframe and thier MISSION. Military aircrew is taught thier misison first, long before they fly the plane. Once they know the mission, then they learn to how to use a tool to accomplish it.
They don't just teach us to fly a plane and then say "go do this". The pilot plans, briefs, and executes the mission. If anyone knows what is going on and is an expert of the mission, it's the pilot/aircrew. Not some general at the top or some other desk officer. They make the battleplans, they put together a "big picture". But these high ranking guys make thier decsions based on the advising of the people who know the mission best: The guys flying and operating in the field.
These pilots on this forum who are telling us what the osprey can do are not doing so blindly. You act as if they went to officer training school, were assigned to the osprey, know nothing else and thus can't have an opinion. That is not the case. Thes pilots have flown multiple airframes for the SAME mission as the Osprey does now. And they are telling us given the choice between flying the old helicopters from before or the v-22...they would take the V-22. Why? Not because it's a fancier more comforatable ride. They would choose it BECAUSE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION FASTER AND BETTER, GET THEM IN AND OUT SAFER, AND PROTECT THIER LOVED ONES BETTER. If they truly thought the Pavelows were better aircraft...they can say so. This is no military rule that denies them the right to say what airframe they prefer. So if they say the osprey is the better tool...that should carry some weight.
They know what the misison is. They know what the old planes could do and what this new one can do. How can you say thier advice is irrelevant or useless?
First, thank you for making a post of that calibur. If you posted like THAT more often without all of the sarcastic insults I think people would respond better.
You wrote a lot and I already posted a loooong response...and for some reason it didnt post and I don't have the patience to do that again. So I mostly want to address the part about the pilots word meaning anyhting.
I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree.
It isn't a question of a pilot loving thier plane and having nothing but good things to say about it. It's a question of these pilots expertise on it's capability to fulfill the mission it was designed for.
I don't know if you understand what a military pilot does versus a commercial pilot. It's not about our planes being "more manly" or something superficial like that. It's that they are experts on thier airframe and thier MISSION. Military aircrew is taught thier misison first, long before they fly the plane. Once they know the mission, then they learn to how to use a tool to accomplish it.
They don't just teach us to fly a plane and then say "go do this". The pilot plans, briefs, and executes the mission. If anyone knows what is going on and is an expert of the mission, it's the pilot/aircrew. Not some general at the top or some other desk officer. They make the battleplans, they put together a "big picture". But these high ranking guys make thier decsions based on the advising of the people who know the mission best: The guys flying and operating in the field.
These pilots on this forum who are telling us what the osprey can do are not doing so blindly. You act as if they went to officer training school, were assigned to the osprey, know nothing else and thus can't have an opinion. That is not the case. Thes pilots have flown multiple airframes for the SAME mission as the Osprey does now. And they are telling us given the choice between flying the old helicopters from before or the v-22...they would take the V-22. Why? Not because it's a fancier more comforatable ride. They would choose it BECAUSE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION FASTER AND BETTER, GET THEM IN AND OUT SAFER, AND PROTECT THIER LOVED ONES BETTER. If they truly thought the Pavelows were better aircraft...they can say so. This is no military rule that denies them the right to say what airframe they prefer. So if they say the osprey is the better tool...that should carry some weight.
They know what the misison is. They know what the old planes could do and what this new one can do. How can you say thier advice is irrelevant or useless?
jeffg:
Good question!
But it's kind of irrelevant.
In helicopter mode, the V-22 is limited to a pathetic +2.25g and -.5g. Just like a Bell 47? Well...not really.
For comparison purposes, a helicopter certified under FAR part 27 *or* part 29 (transport category) must endure limits of +3.5g and -1g. So any civilian helicopter can beat a V-22 in maneuvering limits. Let's look at airplanes!
In airplane mode, the V-22 has a limit of a measly +3.0g and -.75g.
Utility Category airplanes certified under FAR part 23 must meet a +4.4g limit and a -1.76g limit (.4 times the positive load factor).
Transport Category airplanes certified under FAR part 25 must meet a +3.8g and -1g limit.
So the V-22 still falls short - isn't even up to the same limits as a transport category fixed-wing. Damn. That's rough.
I did not bring up the lesser negative-g limitation for the V-22 in "converted" (or helicopter) mode. But I'm glad you did, Jeff! Let's leave combat aircraft out. The more appropriate comparison is between the V-22 and other Air Force fixed-wing aircraft. You know, like a C-130. What are its limits?
If the V-22 is flying along up high, which is supposed to be one of the "benefits" it brings to the table over a helicopter, then what good is it if it cannot even avoid missiles fired from the surface?
-If less than -1g is to limiting for "combat aircraft" perhaps you or someone else could tell us what the positive and negative g limits are for the UH-60, OH-58, CH-53E, CH-46, CH-47, UH-1N, AH-1W, UH-1Y, AH-1Z?
But it's kind of irrelevant.
In helicopter mode, the V-22 is limited to a pathetic +2.25g and -.5g. Just like a Bell 47? Well...not really.
For comparison purposes, a helicopter certified under FAR part 27 *or* part 29 (transport category) must endure limits of +3.5g and -1g. So any civilian helicopter can beat a V-22 in maneuvering limits. Let's look at airplanes!
In airplane mode, the V-22 has a limit of a measly +3.0g and -.75g.
Utility Category airplanes certified under FAR part 23 must meet a +4.4g limit and a -1.76g limit (.4 times the positive load factor).
Transport Category airplanes certified under FAR part 25 must meet a +3.8g and -1g limit.
So the V-22 still falls short - isn't even up to the same limits as a transport category fixed-wing. Damn. That's rough.
I did not bring up the lesser negative-g limitation for the V-22 in "converted" (or helicopter) mode. But I'm glad you did, Jeff! Let's leave combat aircraft out. The more appropriate comparison is between the V-22 and other Air Force fixed-wing aircraft. You know, like a C-130. What are its limits?
If the V-22 is flying along up high, which is supposed to be one of the "benefits" it brings to the table over a helicopter, then what good is it if it cannot even avoid missiles fired from the surface?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoomOpCT
Most every poster here was a military pilot so they know exactly how and why the system works.
Yes, we all point out the flaws in this POS. We leave it up to the pilots and manufacturer to prove us wrong and tell us how wondeful it is. Surely, if you did read all the posts you would know that.
Here's one that the manufacturer told the Europeon Press that was never answered:
Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing."
"These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html
It is unfortunate that you perhaps are not up to speed on the workings that keep aircraft aloft but this is simply one of dozens that are very important that have never been answered.
If you truly care what America got for it's money then you'd be as interested to know why our country didn't get what it paid for as we are. Kind of a patriotic thing for you to do.
Most every poster here was a military pilot so they know exactly how and why the system works.
Yes, we all point out the flaws in this POS. We leave it up to the pilots and manufacturer to prove us wrong and tell us how wondeful it is. Surely, if you did read all the posts you would know that.
Here's one that the manufacturer told the Europeon Press that was never answered:
Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing."
"These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html
It is unfortunate that you perhaps are not up to speed on the workings that keep aircraft aloft but this is simply one of dozens that are very important that have never been answered.
If you truly care what America got for it's money then you'd be as interested to know why our country didn't get what it paid for as we are. Kind of a patriotic thing for you to do.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a little off to try to compare the osprey in airplane mode to other airplanes and the osprey in helo mode to other helos. It doesn't make sense. It's not boasted to be faster than regular airplanes, nor better at lifting than normal helocopters. The V-22 can't "fall short" of either of those regulations as it doesn't fit into either. Those limits are designed specifically for aircrafts of those exact builds and functions...not a tilt-roter.
The fact is the osprey combines functions in away that grants a tactical advantage. If we sent in a plane, sure it can get there fast, but it can't just stop and load people on and then get out quickly. We could send a helicopter and sure it can do a quick insert/pick-up and then leave...but i won't get there fast or leave fast. The osprey gives the best "hit and run" option. Get there fast, pick 'em up, and leave fast. It may not pick up as well as a helicopter and it may not fly as fast as an airplane, but it does enough of each to make it effecient and a game changer.
Also, you guys vastly underestimate this machine's ability to defend itself. It is allowed to make defensive/evasive maneuvers. Those are not "aerial combat maneuvers." Belly mounted gun and and ramp mounted guns are installed (Now, I am talking USAF, I couldn't tell you for USMC). Also, I don't know how much of this information is sensitive, so I won't name specific equipment, but the USAF version has several anti-missle countermeasure systems installed as well. Those features combined with it's fast escape speeds make it a formidiable option.
The fact is the osprey combines functions in away that grants a tactical advantage. If we sent in a plane, sure it can get there fast, but it can't just stop and load people on and then get out quickly. We could send a helicopter and sure it can do a quick insert/pick-up and then leave...but i won't get there fast or leave fast. The osprey gives the best "hit and run" option. Get there fast, pick 'em up, and leave fast. It may not pick up as well as a helicopter and it may not fly as fast as an airplane, but it does enough of each to make it effecient and a game changer.
Also, you guys vastly underestimate this machine's ability to defend itself. It is allowed to make defensive/evasive maneuvers. Those are not "aerial combat maneuvers." Belly mounted gun and and ramp mounted guns are installed (Now, I am talking USAF, I couldn't tell you for USMC). Also, I don't know how much of this information is sensitive, so I won't name specific equipment, but the USAF version has several anti-missle countermeasure systems installed as well. Those features combined with it's fast escape speeds make it a formidiable option.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
Well then I don't understand. If you were a military pilot, then you would know that those warning and bullets that keep getting posted aren't as dramatic is everyone is making them out the be. At all. You would also know that the flight manual alone does not govern how the aircraft can be flown. And you would also understand why MckPave and Ospreyrider can't simply post the excerpts from the flight manuals on a public internet forum just because a bunch of dudes on a forum demand it.
Yet you guys don't seem to comprehend any of this. You continue to quote the same limitation bullets and continue to cry "conspiracy" and "gag order" everytime someone can't publish sensitve information online. Which makes me question the claims of being military a lot.
And again, you don't know if we got what we paid for...because you aren't flying it or seeing in operation. All you have is a bunch of media fed articles and a single flight manual you don't understand. So I understand why you're interested. What I don't understand is why when a pilot of the aircraft, who KNOWS what it can and can't do, and KNOWS what kind of maintance issues it encounters, and has put it to the test in real operations offers you answers...you ignore him, call him a conspirator, and then trust the MEDIA of all things. It boggles my mind.
Saying that these pilots aren't qualified to to answer your questions or understand thier aircraft is like saying a NASCAR driver doesn't know anything about how different cars handle compare to one another. It's crazy talk! If anyone can attest to whether or not Amrica is getting what it paid for, it's the guys putting these things into action. They know first hand if it performing. Period.
As for that article, I cant really respond to that as the link doesnt work and I don't like to respond to a quote out of context.
Well then I don't understand. If you were a military pilot, then you would know that those warning and bullets that keep getting posted aren't as dramatic is everyone is making them out the be. At all. You would also know that the flight manual alone does not govern how the aircraft can be flown. And you would also understand why MckPave and Ospreyrider can't simply post the excerpts from the flight manuals on a public internet forum just because a bunch of dudes on a forum demand it.
Yet you guys don't seem to comprehend any of this. You continue to quote the same limitation bullets and continue to cry "conspiracy" and "gag order" everytime someone can't publish sensitve information online. Which makes me question the claims of being military a lot.
And again, you don't know if we got what we paid for...because you aren't flying it or seeing in operation. All you have is a bunch of media fed articles and a single flight manual you don't understand. So I understand why you're interested. What I don't understand is why when a pilot of the aircraft, who KNOWS what it can and can't do, and KNOWS what kind of maintance issues it encounters, and has put it to the test in real operations offers you answers...you ignore him, call him a conspirator, and then trust the MEDIA of all things. It boggles my mind.
Saying that these pilots aren't qualified to to answer your questions or understand thier aircraft is like saying a NASCAR driver doesn't know anything about how different cars handle compare to one another. It's crazy talk! If anyone can attest to whether or not Amrica is getting what it paid for, it's the guys putting these things into action. They know first hand if it performing. Period.
As for that article, I cant really respond to that as the link doesnt work and I don't like to respond to a quote out of context.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, to be fair, there are a few things I do agree with. These planes ARE expensive. But I don't see that so much of an issue as the high maintance costs. It's to be expected...every new plane realeased in the last two decades seems to have suffered high maintance costs. Maybe a combined problem of being unfamiliar with what to expect problem wise and slao that the technology is so advanced that replacing parts is more expensive then usual.
But that *should* improve over time as we understand and are able to start preventing problems ahead of time. Also technology will get cheaper over time.
I also disagree with the marine general fudging his numbers to make his fleet look better. But I feel that's a detriment to the character of the said individual, not the aircraft. Maybe some of the guys up top aren't the best examples...but I don't believe that the pilots are caught up in that game. These guys here are offering you genuine information. They aren't trying to cover up for anyone.
But that *should* improve over time as we understand and are able to start preventing problems ahead of time. Also technology will get cheaper over time.
I also disagree with the marine general fudging his numbers to make his fleet look better. But I feel that's a detriment to the character of the said individual, not the aircraft. Maybe some of the guys up top aren't the best examples...but I don't believe that the pilots are caught up in that game. These guys here are offering you genuine information. They aren't trying to cover up for anyone.
BoomOpCT:
Sorry, son, when the V-22 is in airplane mode it *IS* an airplane. A military airplane at that. Which we would assume to be...you know...tough. Tougher at least than most civilian aircraft.
But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47. But you seem to give the V-22 a pass because of its unique capabilities, eh?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, kid. (Oh, and it's "rotor," by the way.)
And before I go... BoomOpCT mentioned this to Dan Reno:
Oh really?? BoomOp, you're just a flight engineer or something, right? If you were a pilot you'd know that the AFM absolutely defines and governs how the aircraft can be flown. Those bullet points and warnins are there for a reason. Ignore the AFM and all those warnings in it at your peril...and at the peril of all the innocent SOB's that are riding in the back, trusting you with their lives.
Just sayin'.
I think it's a little off to try to compare the osprey in airplane mode to other airplanes and the osprey in helo mode to other helos. It doesn't make sense. It's not boasted to be faster than regular airplanes, nor better at lifting than normal helocopters. The V-22 can't "fall short" of either of those regulations as it doesn't fit into either. Those limits are designed specifically for aircrafts of those exact builds and functions...not a tilt-roter.
But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47. But you seem to give the V-22 a pass because of its unique capabilities, eh?
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, kid. (Oh, and it's "rotor," by the way.)
And before I go... BoomOpCT mentioned this to Dan Reno:
If you were a military pilot, then you would know that those warnings and bullets that keep getting posted aren't as dramatic is everyone is making them out the be. At all. You would also know that the flight manual alone does not govern how the aircraft can be flown.
Just sayin'.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it's kind of irrelevant
FH,
Actually what’s irrelevant is your source for the V-22s limits. It’s wrong. If I were to guess you probably got an old copy of NATOPS data on G2mil?
What’s also irrelevant is the misquoting of the FAR 27/29 as you either don’t understand it or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Specifically you are speaking to 27/29.337. Unfortunately you only mention paragraph (a) and completely leave out paragraph (b) which allows the applicant to certify to less, +2.0 to -0.5 to be specific. Furthermore if you took the time read the ACs for 27/29.337 you would have a better idea of what you were talking about. As I pointed out your stated limits for the V-22 in ‘helicopter mode’ are incorrect and it not only meets the FAA regs but exceeds the capability of most Part 27 and 29 helicopters and is equal to that of most military helicopters.
Here is a link on the subject which relates the FARs to operational reality. http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-260761.html
I won’t even try and compare the V-22 to a part 23 aircraft. As far as the Part 25 comment, again if you read the entire rule and read the ACs you would understand that the positive load limit “may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8” at maximum design takeoff weight. Again the V-22 would be able to meet the standards.
As far as the C-130 all I could find was a +2.0 g (symmetrical) and +1.5g (unsymmetrical) limit. I could be wrong so please correct me if I am. I could not find a negative limit so I can’t speak to that.
What’s even more irrelevant is your entire argument, which is why I asked the questions I did. You know, the ones you avoided answering. By the way answering a question with a question does not constitute an answer, it only highlights the fact that you can’t answer it. Your whole argument is null and void because you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can copy and paste a limit from a NATOPS manual or a regulation from the FAR out of contetxt. But as you have proven time after time, that does not mean you understand them. It’s obvious that you have no idea how any aircraft is operated in a military/tactical environment or how one is certified under the FAA or NAVAIR system so please stop acting like you do. As you are I’m a pilot by profession. However I’m not corporate pilot like yourself therefore I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you how to do your job or what aircraft you should use. Why don’t you offer the same courtesy to the military pilots on this board?
Actually what’s irrelevant is your source for the V-22s limits. It’s wrong. If I were to guess you probably got an old copy of NATOPS data on G2mil?
What’s also irrelevant is the misquoting of the FAR 27/29 as you either don’t understand it or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Specifically you are speaking to 27/29.337. Unfortunately you only mention paragraph (a) and completely leave out paragraph (b) which allows the applicant to certify to less, +2.0 to -0.5 to be specific. Furthermore if you took the time read the ACs for 27/29.337 you would have a better idea of what you were talking about. As I pointed out your stated limits for the V-22 in ‘helicopter mode’ are incorrect and it not only meets the FAA regs but exceeds the capability of most Part 27 and 29 helicopters and is equal to that of most military helicopters.
Here is a link on the subject which relates the FARs to operational reality. http://static.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-260761.html
I won’t even try and compare the V-22 to a part 23 aircraft. As far as the Part 25 comment, again if you read the entire rule and read the ACs you would understand that the positive load limit “may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8” at maximum design takeoff weight. Again the V-22 would be able to meet the standards.
As far as the C-130 all I could find was a +2.0 g (symmetrical) and +1.5g (unsymmetrical) limit. I could be wrong so please correct me if I am. I could not find a negative limit so I can’t speak to that.
What’s even more irrelevant is your entire argument, which is why I asked the questions I did. You know, the ones you avoided answering. By the way answering a question with a question does not constitute an answer, it only highlights the fact that you can’t answer it. Your whole argument is null and void because you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can copy and paste a limit from a NATOPS manual or a regulation from the FAR out of contetxt. But as you have proven time after time, that does not mean you understand them. It’s obvious that you have no idea how any aircraft is operated in a military/tactical environment or how one is certified under the FAA or NAVAIR system so please stop acting like you do. As you are I’m a pilot by profession. However I’m not corporate pilot like yourself therefore I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you how to do your job or what aircraft you should use. Why don’t you offer the same courtesy to the military pilots on this board?
Last edited by jeffg; 9th Feb 2011 at 20:18.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47.
Last edited by jeffg; 9th Feb 2011 at 19:17.
Bell two bladed heads do not like negative G of any sort.....ala both the 47 and 206 models as well as the 204/205/212/ and AH-1 series.
Let's discuss the G limits of the Osprey as it is the topic of the thread.
Let's discuss the G limits of the Osprey as it is the topic of the thread.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I know it's rotor, I just didn't catch that in my glance-over of my post.
And I'm not saying the osprey should get any kind of pass over at all. I'm just saying you can't look at the opsrey in airplane mode and say "It's not as good as a C-130" and look at in helo mode and say "it's not as good as a Chinook". Those other other aircraft have very different missions, much larger cargo hauls, and are very good at what they are meant to to do. But ask either of those aircraft to do what the Osprey is meant to to do, and they don't fit the bill. Plus I'm not entirely sure your numbers are right, but I'm not so involved in this argument to figure that out. Jeffg seems to have the same thoughts and the resources to check at his fingertips, so I'll leave the number crunching to you two.
And in response to me "just" being a flight engineer. Fist off I am a boom operator...my job entails a lot more than just watching instruments. And when it comes to the technical areas of the plane, I am VERY knowledgeable about how my plane works, more so than even perhaps my pilots. They know more about flying it, but I know the limits, how the systems work, and the rules invovled in air-to-air refueling.
And you are absolutely dead wrong about the flight manuals. Yes they tell you how to fly the plane and yes they show limits. But you have to understand two things: 1. You have to read the notes and warnings in context. Meaning, why exactly are those things written there? 2. You have to understand that in the MILITARY there are books in addition to the FMs that overridde and waive certain things. Tactic Regulations for example.
I can't speak for osprey regs, so I will use one of our on the KC - 135 as an example. (Note: For opsec reasons, I'm not going to use numerical data here) Our plane cannot exceed a certain amount of degree in bank, it is prohibited. The REASON that is in place isn't because our plane isn't capapble of doing it or even doing it safely. It's that it creates undue stress on the airframe that over time could add up to maintance needs. But then if you dive into our tactics books, it waives that limit and increases our allowable bank angle for operational nessisity, such as evasive manevers or tactical landings. You would never know this by reading the flight manual alone. It doesn't clarify that ANYWHERE. And by taking that warning out of context, one would easily be misled to think that the KC-135 is incabable of making banks larger than the limits presented.
The same goes for air refueling. There are certain conditions and system malfunctions under which I am PROHIBITED to refuel another aircraft. But again, if you look into the regulation which regulates air-to-air refueling, it gives express permission to override those restrictions given a fuel emergency, tactical nessisty, or operational nessissty. Yet again, you would never know that by JUST reading the flight manual.
I would venture to guess that much of the same applies to the V-22. I think you are largely misinterpreting and over amplifying the implications of the warnings in that flight manual (which also may be outdated). And then you also don't have access to the other military regs that co-govern how that aircraft can be flown and what it is capable of.
So I guess I don't understand how when you don't even have access to the full range of documents, don't have a complete understanding of the mission or it's parameters, and have never actually put this machince to the test...you can stand there and tell someone to shut down the program. Without that information, you don't really know anything. You have a few media articles, an expired manual, and from what I can tell no military experience. (I might be wrong on the last one, I forget.) You are the furthest thing from being qulaified to judge this airframe or it's program...yet you will sit there and say the pilots of this plane have NO credibility whatsoever. It's absolutely crazy logic.
You = old manual being read out of context, no other regs, a few MEDIA articles, no experience with the airframe.
V-22 pilots = Current manuals and educated to understand what all those warnings and notes REALLY mean, access to ALL regulations, intel briefings/full safety reports, and have experience with machine AS WELL AS it's predecessors.
How do you get the impression that you are more credible than these other guys?
And I'm not saying the osprey should get any kind of pass over at all. I'm just saying you can't look at the opsrey in airplane mode and say "It's not as good as a C-130" and look at in helo mode and say "it's not as good as a Chinook". Those other other aircraft have very different missions, much larger cargo hauls, and are very good at what they are meant to to do. But ask either of those aircraft to do what the Osprey is meant to to do, and they don't fit the bill. Plus I'm not entirely sure your numbers are right, but I'm not so involved in this argument to figure that out. Jeffg seems to have the same thoughts and the resources to check at his fingertips, so I'll leave the number crunching to you two.
And in response to me "just" being a flight engineer. Fist off I am a boom operator...my job entails a lot more than just watching instruments. And when it comes to the technical areas of the plane, I am VERY knowledgeable about how my plane works, more so than even perhaps my pilots. They know more about flying it, but I know the limits, how the systems work, and the rules invovled in air-to-air refueling.
And you are absolutely dead wrong about the flight manuals. Yes they tell you how to fly the plane and yes they show limits. But you have to understand two things: 1. You have to read the notes and warnings in context. Meaning, why exactly are those things written there? 2. You have to understand that in the MILITARY there are books in addition to the FMs that overridde and waive certain things. Tactic Regulations for example.
I can't speak for osprey regs, so I will use one of our on the KC - 135 as an example. (Note: For opsec reasons, I'm not going to use numerical data here) Our plane cannot exceed a certain amount of degree in bank, it is prohibited. The REASON that is in place isn't because our plane isn't capapble of doing it or even doing it safely. It's that it creates undue stress on the airframe that over time could add up to maintance needs. But then if you dive into our tactics books, it waives that limit and increases our allowable bank angle for operational nessisity, such as evasive manevers or tactical landings. You would never know this by reading the flight manual alone. It doesn't clarify that ANYWHERE. And by taking that warning out of context, one would easily be misled to think that the KC-135 is incabable of making banks larger than the limits presented.
The same goes for air refueling. There are certain conditions and system malfunctions under which I am PROHIBITED to refuel another aircraft. But again, if you look into the regulation which regulates air-to-air refueling, it gives express permission to override those restrictions given a fuel emergency, tactical nessisty, or operational nessissty. Yet again, you would never know that by JUST reading the flight manual.
I would venture to guess that much of the same applies to the V-22. I think you are largely misinterpreting and over amplifying the implications of the warnings in that flight manual (which also may be outdated). And then you also don't have access to the other military regs that co-govern how that aircraft can be flown and what it is capable of.
So I guess I don't understand how when you don't even have access to the full range of documents, don't have a complete understanding of the mission or it's parameters, and have never actually put this machince to the test...you can stand there and tell someone to shut down the program. Without that information, you don't really know anything. You have a few media articles, an expired manual, and from what I can tell no military experience. (I might be wrong on the last one, I forget.) You are the furthest thing from being qulaified to judge this airframe or it's program...yet you will sit there and say the pilots of this plane have NO credibility whatsoever. It's absolutely crazy logic.
You = old manual being read out of context, no other regs, a few MEDIA articles, no experience with the airframe.
V-22 pilots = Current manuals and educated to understand what all those warnings and notes REALLY mean, access to ALL regulations, intel briefings/full safety reports, and have experience with machine AS WELL AS it's predecessors.
How do you get the impression that you are more credible than these other guys?
Last edited by BoomOpCT; 9th Feb 2011 at 20:05.
Oh for the love of God...
Here's FAR 23.337 which applies to civilian rotorcraft:
Never mind a 47 - it's history. Okay Jeff, how does 337.(b)(1) and (2) - since they both must apply - let the makers of a Bell 206 off the hook for meeting 337(a)?
Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter.
Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g. I'm not sure I would have wanted to be the 206 test pilot who did those conformity flights, but I personally knew the Hiller test pilot who did it for the FH1100, which had to meet the same requirements. And it did.
But even if Bell invoked 23.337(b) (1) and (2), the negative limit is still -.5g, which is the same as the V-22 in helicopter mode.
That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers. It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited!
Unlike the V-22. Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the real limits? Or are you going to pull that, "If I tell you I'll have to kill you" thing? I've shown you mine; you show me yours.
Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments. They may love it, and they'll come up with every reason imagineable that we should make more! of them. Indeed, the V-22 may do certain things very well. But it is not a revolutionary, magical aircraft unlike anything else before. It is a bad, very flawed design which has cost this nation far too much money already. It is high time it was put to rest once and for all. We don't need it.
Here's FAR 23.337 which applies to civilian rotorcraft:
27.337 Limit maneuvering load factor.
The rotorcraft must be designed for—
(a) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or
(b) Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which—
(1) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and
(2) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.
The rotorcraft must be designed for—
(a) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or
(b) Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which—
(1) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and
(2) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.
Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter.
Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g. I'm not sure I would have wanted to be the 206 test pilot who did those conformity flights, but I personally knew the Hiller test pilot who did it for the FH1100, which had to meet the same requirements. And it did.
But even if Bell invoked 23.337(b) (1) and (2), the negative limit is still -.5g, which is the same as the V-22 in helicopter mode.
That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers. It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited!
Unlike the V-22. Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the real limits? Or are you going to pull that, "If I tell you I'll have to kill you" thing? I've shown you mine; you show me yours.
Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments. They may love it, and they'll come up with every reason imagineable that we should make more! of them. Indeed, the V-22 may do certain things very well. But it is not a revolutionary, magical aircraft unlike anything else before. It is a bad, very flawed design which has cost this nation far too much money already. It is high time it was put to rest once and for all. We don't need it.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind a 47 - it's history
Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter. Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g
AC 27.337 (Amendment 27-26) LIMIT MANEUVERING LOAD FACTOR
a. Explanation. The rotorcraft must be designed and substantiated to load factors as specified to provide a minimum level of structural integrity of the rotorcraft airframe
(1) A range of design positive load factors from +3.5 to +2.0 may be used.
(2) A range of design negative load factors from -1.0 to -0.5 may be used.
(3) Load factors inside the range of +3.5 to -1.0 may be used provided the probability of exceeding the design load factors is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote and the selected load factors are appropriate to each weight condition between design maximum and minimum weight.
4) Load factors exceeding these “minimums” may be used
b. Procedures.
(1) The applicant may elect to substantiate the rotorcraft for a design maneuvering load factor less than +3.5 and more than -1.0. Whenever this option is used, an analytical study and flight demonstration are required
(i) The maximum positive design load factor of +3.5 is generally at a
weight below maximum gross weight. The maximum thrust capability of the main rotor, combined with incremental lift of wings or sponsons, if installed, results in a maximum design positive load factor. An example of a load factor-gross weight curve is shown in figure AC 27.337-1. Note the minimum positive design load factor is +2.0 even though the required analysis and flight demonstration may prove the rotorcraft is not capable of achieving this load factor. This curve also illustrates compliance with § 27.321(b)(1) since the design load factor varies with gross weight.
(ii) The largest negative design load factor is -1.0; however, several
rotorcraft designs are not capable of achieving a negative load factor. Therefore, -0.5 has been an acceptable structural design negative load factor for certain rotorcraft designs.
(2) Whenever the applicant analytically substantiates the lower load factors allowed by § 27.337(b), the flight demonstration required by § 27.337(b) must be conducted. The flight test personnel should determine that the demonstration shows the probability of exceeding the selected design load factors (those factors less than +3.5 and more than -1.0) is extremely remote. (See Order 8110.4, paragraph 166c(2)(c)).(3) A numerical value has not been assigned to “extremely remote” in this standard.
That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers
It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited
Again, if you think that because your RFM doesn’t provide you with a g-limit or say you can’t do aerobatics, go for it! Please! If you’re not willing to then quit pretending that you can. Starting with the 206L3 and sub, aerobatic flight is a prohibited maneuver in the RFM. Do a quick search you will find it is also prohibited in the 407, 212, 412, EC135, EC 145 and if I remember correctly the B2/3. I’m sure there are many other helicopters in which it is prohibited. I know it is prohibited in most all USMC RW NATOPS manuals.
Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the real limits
Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments.
Last edited by jeffg; 10th Feb 2011 at 17:59.
Relying on military pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments.
Q36 (PILOT ADVISOR): And sirs, one last question, how have the CV-22s performed since they have been over working under your Task Force?
A36 (WITNESS): Phenomenal, they have been value added. I want to say 13 or 14 missions, don’t quote me on the number, but over 10 missions--certainly over 10 missions to include last night where they performed and in several cases although there are some mission profiles where they are
not as capable as the CH-47 platform, there are other mission profiles where they have proved to be much more capable and, in fact, the desirable platform for execution to include A casualty evacuation mission we had to do during daylight and because of their speed of flight they were able to arrive in the objective area, pick up the casualty and return to the medical treatment facility twice as fast as the CH-47 would have been able to do it.
A36 (WITNESS): Phenomenal, they have been value added. I want to say 13 or 14 missions, don’t quote me on the number, but over 10 missions--certainly over 10 missions to include last night where they performed and in several cases although there are some mission profiles where they are
not as capable as the CH-47 platform, there are other mission profiles where they have proved to be much more capable and, in fact, the desirable platform for execution to include A casualty evacuation mission we had to do during daylight and because of their speed of flight they were able to arrive in the objective area, pick up the casualty and return to the medical treatment facility twice as fast as the CH-47 would have been able to do it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another point of reference:
In the NATOPS for the SH-60B and CH-53E (both out of date copies), both aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic maneuvers.
The 53E (which I think we will all agree is a very capable combat aircraft) is limited to +0.5 to +2.0 gs.
We all need to be careful when interpreting flight manual limitations as a pure indicator of whether an aircraft can accomplish its combat mission.
In the NATOPS for the SH-60B and CH-53E (both out of date copies), both aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic maneuvers.
The 53E (which I think we will all agree is a very capable combat aircraft) is limited to +0.5 to +2.0 gs.
We all need to be careful when interpreting flight manual limitations as a pure indicator of whether an aircraft can accomplish its combat mission.