What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Jack:
FWIW: the OEI H-V I can look at says (in the little box above the diagram)
Model: MV-22B
Date: December 2002
Databasis: Estimated
Configuration: FE = 33.0 Sq Feet
Engine: (2) AE1107C
Fuel: JP-5/JP-8
The Dual Engine Failure chart is based on a 2009 "Piloted Simulation."
I don't remember if that means two test pilots putting the engines in idle, and seeing how soon they got the airspeed/glide/auto performance they desired, of if they were doing it in a simulator. I think it means a couple of pilots were out there checking it out. (If I'm wrong, please advise).
The Single Engine Flight envelope charts I have leafed through are based on work done in 2009. Most of the single engine data, and "Bingo" profile charts, have a label of "Estimated." I suspect that they are well suited to use in the field. The Bingo profiles in the aircraft I flew typically worked out Very Well when put to use, in terms of fuel on board, what you thought you'd burn, and what you actually burned.
I concur with the reluctance by anyone to post NATOPS charts on the internet. I will NOT post what I have found. Call it an old habit if you like, but it doesn't feel right.
FWIW: the OEI H-V I can look at says (in the little box above the diagram)
Model: MV-22B
Date: December 2002
Databasis: Estimated
Configuration: FE = 33.0 Sq Feet
Engine: (2) AE1107C
Fuel: JP-5/JP-8
The Dual Engine Failure chart is based on a 2009 "Piloted Simulation."
I don't remember if that means two test pilots putting the engines in idle, and seeing how soon they got the airspeed/glide/auto performance they desired, of if they were doing it in a simulator. I think it means a couple of pilots were out there checking it out. (If I'm wrong, please advise).
The Single Engine Flight envelope charts I have leafed through are based on work done in 2009. Most of the single engine data, and "Bingo" profile charts, have a label of "Estimated." I suspect that they are well suited to use in the field. The Bingo profiles in the aircraft I flew typically worked out Very Well when put to use, in terms of fuel on board, what you thought you'd burn, and what you actually burned.
I concur with the reluctance by anyone to post NATOPS charts on the internet. I will NOT post what I have found. Call it an old habit if you like, but it doesn't feel right.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21st
The comment was made by Bell following a press inquiry as to why one V-22 had to abort and the back-up used to complete the transatlantic trip to an air show quite a few years back. So there were very few hours on the engines back then and this was directed at Greg's comment that Bell's statement was 'taken out of context', but thanks for the interest.
So, from what I can derive from comments here and Bell regarding compressor stalls, they are normal and I, nor anyone flying accross North America should not be concerned when they hear them while flying(?!). Actually, since they are normal, passengers sould therefore expect to hear them rather than not, since that would be abnormal.
Interesting.
The comment was made by Bell following a press inquiry as to why one V-22 had to abort and the back-up used to complete the transatlantic trip to an air show quite a few years back. So there were very few hours on the engines back then and this was directed at Greg's comment that Bell's statement was 'taken out of context', but thanks for the interest.
So, from what I can derive from comments here and Bell regarding compressor stalls, they are normal and I, nor anyone flying accross North America should not be concerned when they hear them while flying(?!). Actually, since they are normal, passengers sould therefore expect to hear them rather than not, since that would be abnormal.
Interesting.
Estimated vs Flight Test
Lonewolf 50,
Thank you for your response. You are right, it would be difficult establish exactly what estimated means. The H-53E HV charts are also labeled estimated even though the single engine failure data points were verified during contractor flight tests at Patuxent River in the early 1980s.
Also, I believe that some of the data for the E model was brought forward from the D where actual full touchdown autrotations were performed during development. Discussions with one of the pilots that actually did the full touchdown autos lead me to believe that forward ground speed at touchdown was the major issue. The length of the airframe dictated the flare pitch attitude. The higher the pitch attitude resulted in a higher flare altitude above ground. The best combination of pitch attitude/altitude resulted in touchdown speeds between 40 and 60 kts. Anything slower resulted in a significant increase in touchdown rate of sink.
Thank you for your response. You are right, it would be difficult establish exactly what estimated means. The H-53E HV charts are also labeled estimated even though the single engine failure data points were verified during contractor flight tests at Patuxent River in the early 1980s.
Also, I believe that some of the data for the E model was brought forward from the D where actual full touchdown autrotations were performed during development. Discussions with one of the pilots that actually did the full touchdown autos lead me to believe that forward ground speed at touchdown was the major issue. The length of the airframe dictated the flare pitch attitude. The higher the pitch attitude resulted in a higher flare altitude above ground. The best combination of pitch attitude/altitude resulted in touchdown speeds between 40 and 60 kts. Anything slower resulted in a significant increase in touchdown rate of sink.
No matter how you dress it up....averaging 4.44 pax per hour sounds bad
Compared to what????? How can you say its bad? I contend its not bad, because I've never seen anything lower (or higher for that matter).
How many pax per hour does a UH60L get? CH53? CH47?
American Airlines 737? MD80?
[quotebecause I've never seen anything lower (or higher for that matter).][/quote]
That gives you a basis for disputing what I said? Explain that to me Sans....normally in the process of intellectual discourse one provides factual data to challenge the assertation of those with whom he differs.
Your comment is baseless.
Darn Champ....can't you come up with something a bit more interesting that the typical "Oh Yeah?" when someone says something the jolts your preconceived notions?
Jack...if that same airliner was on the Charlotte/Pittsburh run at 1.2 hours....and was fully loaded on every sector...how would your numbers compute?
As Ospreys do not routinely operate on such leg lengths....and one would think they make multiple stops along most runs in the Log mode....a bit of book keeping would show up lots and lots of folks carried.
But...bear in mind...that is not what the Marines reported in that PR piece. They listed two numbers....flight hours and passengers carried. One of two things have happened....they are piss poor at book keeping and documenting the actual number of people carried or they should have used a pax per sortie number which would make far more sense. If we assume a one hour sortie...we still come up with 4.44 pax per hour don't we?
That gives you a basis for disputing what I said? Explain that to me Sans....normally in the process of intellectual discourse one provides factual data to challenge the assertation of those with whom he differs.
Your comment is baseless.
Darn Champ....can't you come up with something a bit more interesting that the typical "Oh Yeah?" when someone says something the jolts your preconceived notions?
Jack...if that same airliner was on the Charlotte/Pittsburh run at 1.2 hours....and was fully loaded on every sector...how would your numbers compute?
As Ospreys do not routinely operate on such leg lengths....and one would think they make multiple stops along most runs in the Log mode....a bit of book keeping would show up lots and lots of folks carried.
But...bear in mind...that is not what the Marines reported in that PR piece. They listed two numbers....flight hours and passengers carried. One of two things have happened....they are piss poor at book keeping and documenting the actual number of people carried or they should have used a pax per sortie number which would make far more sense. If we assume a one hour sortie...we still come up with 4.44 pax per hour don't we?
Dan:
1. How many flight hours do you have in helicopters, or any aircraft that uses turboshaft or turboprop engines?
2. I find your insinuation that Bell considers compressor stalls "normal" to be a bit of word smithing of shady provenance. (Full disclosure: I do not work for Bell, never have, but I do have some time in Hueys and Jet Rangers.)
The fact is that any turbine engine can experience a compressor stall.
That one happens on a particular day cannot lead you to conclude much about an entire aircraft program. If, on the other hand, a particular engine, a particular airfcraft, or a particular combination of aircraft and engine have a history of compressor stalls, you'd want to look at the design to figure out why, and in what flight regime, the airflow gets disrupted. Is it an airframe, a system, an engine, or a combination issue?
There are a variety of reasons (improper vane scheduling being one) that turboprop and turboshaft engines will experience a compressor stall.
I had four compressor stalls during my time flying Naval aircaft, fixed and rotary wing. I also had NATOPS manuals that gave me good procedures for dealing with such an occurrence.
You appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
1. How many flight hours do you have in helicopters, or any aircraft that uses turboshaft or turboprop engines?
2. I find your insinuation that Bell considers compressor stalls "normal" to be a bit of word smithing of shady provenance. (Full disclosure: I do not work for Bell, never have, but I do have some time in Hueys and Jet Rangers.)
The fact is that any turbine engine can experience a compressor stall.
That one happens on a particular day cannot lead you to conclude much about an entire aircraft program. If, on the other hand, a particular engine, a particular airfcraft, or a particular combination of aircraft and engine have a history of compressor stalls, you'd want to look at the design to figure out why, and in what flight regime, the airflow gets disrupted. Is it an airframe, a system, an engine, or a combination issue?
There are a variety of reasons (improper vane scheduling being one) that turboprop and turboshaft engines will experience a compressor stall.
I had four compressor stalls during my time flying Naval aircaft, fixed and rotary wing. I also had NATOPS manuals that gave me good procedures for dealing with such an occurrence.
You appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
That gives you a basis for disputing what I said? Explain that to me Sans....normally in the process of intellectual discourse one provides factual data to challenge the assertation of those with whom he differs.
Your comment is baseless.
Your comment is baseless.
I've never seen this value anywhere for anything else, I cannot find it published anywhere, and you cannot seem to answer how it compares to anything whatsoever, which would support your thoughts on the matter.
In this intellectual discourse, I am simply calling you out. You have ZERO factual data to support your own contention that 4.44 pax/hour is bad. Perhaps if you were to preface it with "compared to the UH60's performance in the last 100,000 hours of flight of 20 pax/hour, the Osprey's 4.44 is seriously deficient"
Instead all we get is "4.44 sounds bad". Coming from a guy who already has displayed his bias against the aircraft in question, boy that's a shocker.
Again, I'll ask simply, bad compared to what?
Sans,
From past experience....Bell 212 with Eleven Seats for Passengers...on a 1.3 hour flight with 3 stops in the field...returning to the Heliport....pax count was 44. All eleven seats full from departure to return. That would equate to 33.84 pax per hour.
Or...say an "A" Model Chinook...33 Pax on an insert and empty return....then six pax and a 105 howitzer and A-22 bag of ammo on the return... 2.0 hours flown..... that provides 19.5 pax per hour plus the Howitzer and Ammo.
Get the point....4.44 pax per flight hour is not an impressive number. No matter how you want to skin this Cat....the PR piece failed its goal...it did not make the case for the Osprey.
In case you missed the other point of the argument extant....it could have been about five ton Trucks and the point of bad stats remains the same.
If they are going to pat themselves on the back....at least produce the stats that earns that back slapping. They did not do that!
From past experience....Bell 212 with Eleven Seats for Passengers...on a 1.3 hour flight with 3 stops in the field...returning to the Heliport....pax count was 44. All eleven seats full from departure to return. That would equate to 33.84 pax per hour.
Or...say an "A" Model Chinook...33 Pax on an insert and empty return....then six pax and a 105 howitzer and A-22 bag of ammo on the return... 2.0 hours flown..... that provides 19.5 pax per hour plus the Howitzer and Ammo.
Get the point....4.44 pax per flight hour is not an impressive number. No matter how you want to skin this Cat....the PR piece failed its goal...it did not make the case for the Osprey.
In case you missed the other point of the argument extant....it could have been about five ton Trucks and the point of bad stats remains the same.
If they are going to pat themselves on the back....at least produce the stats that earns that back slapping. They did not do that!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf
My flight hour history regarding this isn't the subject.
What is though, and particularly at the time Bell's spokesman made the statementis; If they'll make such an assine statement as this, what else that they have said is bogus.
And this has been at the very core of what we hear here. No, or bits of information that cannot be validated. Doesn't sound like something one would be proud of if the facts/data are intentually hidden.
We all know what the manufacturer and their customers will tell us isn't accurate so when they actually do make ANY statement, we have to take it as written. No?
My flight hour history regarding this isn't the subject.
What is though, and particularly at the time Bell's spokesman made the statementis; If they'll make such an assine statement as this, what else that they have said is bogus.
And this has been at the very core of what we hear here. No, or bits of information that cannot be validated. Doesn't sound like something one would be proud of if the facts/data are intentually hidden.
We all know what the manufacturer and their customers will tell us isn't accurate so when they actually do make ANY statement, we have to take it as written. No?
Last edited by Dan Reno; 18th Nov 2011 at 23:11.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real take away from this is that the V-22 detractors have nothing left but to nit pick press releases. First they said it wouldn't go Iraq, then it went. Then it wouldn't see any real action, then it did. Then 'why isn't it in Afghanistan, what are the Marines hiding", then it went.
Now they are left with nothing but to try and make up their own statistics by taking a press release a little to literally. Never mind that the end customer is happy with what they got, because they obviously don't know nearly as much as some ppruner does.
Now they are left with nothing but to try and make up their own statistics by taking a press release a little to literally. Never mind that the end customer is happy with what they got, because they obviously don't know nearly as much as some ppruner does.
Dan:
Having flown a variety of aircraft procured under the general rubric of minimum bid (which as I see it is all I ever flew, with exception of the T-28), I have a reflexive habit of taking anything an aircraft manufacturer says with a grain of salt. It helps that I've never been contaminated by working for an aircraft manufacturer.
As for contamination: having been in the production end of things that I saw later in the press (while in the military) and knowing what I know, I also take with a grain of salt pretty much anything a spokseman in the armed services says. Some of the remarks I see from the field in re the V-22 look a bit, shall we say, manufactured. I had a few issues with 21st century's remarks some months ago about how quiet an Osprey is. (Having seen actual Ospreys in flight in Fort Worth a few years back, I noted that they make noise. There's a shocker ... )
Are you as critical of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation's public utterances as you are of Bell's utterances? I'll ask for an honest assessment.
V-22: it's operating. The operators appear to like it, but for most of them, they don't get to choose another aircraft if they don't like it.
Having flown a variety of aircraft procured under the general rubric of minimum bid (which as I see it is all I ever flew, with exception of the T-28), I have a reflexive habit of taking anything an aircraft manufacturer says with a grain of salt. It helps that I've never been contaminated by working for an aircraft manufacturer.
As for contamination: having been in the production end of things that I saw later in the press (while in the military) and knowing what I know, I also take with a grain of salt pretty much anything a spokseman in the armed services says. Some of the remarks I see from the field in re the V-22 look a bit, shall we say, manufactured. I had a few issues with 21st century's remarks some months ago about how quiet an Osprey is. (Having seen actual Ospreys in flight in Fort Worth a few years back, I noted that they make noise. There's a shocker ... )
Are you as critical of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation's public utterances as you are of Bell's utterances? I'll ask for an honest assessment.
V-22: it's operating. The operators appear to like it, but for most of them, they don't get to choose another aircraft if they don't like it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan says:
Dan,
There is a difference between a "normal problem" and a "normal occurrence." Think about it... A "normal problem" like a compressor stall can and likely has happened on every type of turbine engine being produced today, but it does not happen with great frequency. Regardless of the verbiage, I don't believe anyone is saying that it is a "normal occurrence" that should be regularly expected on a recurring basis.
The compressor stall experiences I had were rectified by a simple bleed valve adjustment!!
Talking about a ‘mole hill’ over and over will not turn it into a ‘mountain.’
Lonewolf says:
Lonewolf,
Fortunately we were able to clear up those concerns and made completely clear that the noise discussed was relative to other aircraft as attested to with firsthand experience from a fellow PPRuner observing side by side CH-53 and MV-22 repeated landings/departures as well as supplemental posted videos.
21stC
So, from what I can derive from comments here and Bell regarding compressor stalls, they are normal and I, nor anyone flying accross North America should not be concerned when they hear them while flying(?!). Actually, since they are normal, passengers sould therefore expect to hear them rather than not, since that would be abnormal.
There is a difference between a "normal problem" and a "normal occurrence." Think about it... A "normal problem" like a compressor stall can and likely has happened on every type of turbine engine being produced today, but it does not happen with great frequency. Regardless of the verbiage, I don't believe anyone is saying that it is a "normal occurrence" that should be regularly expected on a recurring basis.
The compressor stall experiences I had were rectified by a simple bleed valve adjustment!!
Talking about a ‘mole hill’ over and over will not turn it into a ‘mountain.’
Lonewolf says:
I had a few issues with 21st century's remarks some months ago about how quiet an Osprey is. (Having seen actual Ospreys in flight in Fort Worth a few years back, I noted that they make noise. There's a shocker ...
Lonewolf,
Fortunately we were able to clear up those concerns and made completely clear that the noise discussed was relative to other aircraft as attested to with firsthand experience from a fellow PPRuner observing side by side CH-53 and MV-22 repeated landings/departures as well as supplemental posted videos.
21stC
Yes, we were. 
After the Huey....how can anyone describe a helicopter as being "noisey"!
I loved flying the Huey....despite some its shortcomings...it was and still is...a wonderful machiine especially for its time. Its younger sibling....the 212 is also a great machine...but noisy.
The Chinook, 53, and other big machines are "noisy" but then so is the Osprey in certain aspects. When you get to moving all sorts of air around by means of Rotors Blades and Prop Rotors....there is going to be noise created....and until someone figures out an easy way to quieten Tail Rotors and Turbine engines...."noise" is a relative concept when comparing the various aircraft.
I loved flying the Huey....despite some its shortcomings...it was and still is...a wonderful machiine especially for its time. Its younger sibling....the 212 is also a great machine...but noisy.
The Chinook, 53, and other big machines are "noisy" but then so is the Osprey in certain aspects. When you get to moving all sorts of air around by means of Rotors Blades and Prop Rotors....there is going to be noise created....and until someone figures out an easy way to quieten Tail Rotors and Turbine engines...."noise" is a relative concept when comparing the various aircraft.
Comanche was a different story. Pretty quiet, for a helicopter.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LoneWolf,
If the fellow who made that statement is really a "Spokesman" for Bell then they picked a dousey. I'm sure he was pressured to say something good about the compressor stalls and one A/C having to be replaced and when surrounded by the media, he perhaps blurted-out whatever excuse came to mind. Not smart.
I'm confused about your reference to me about 'contamination'.
I certainly would be as critical about any SA product but when the V-22 'discussions' peaked here some years back, common sense and facts prevailed against the V-22 whereas there wasn't a peep of factual info presented from the V-22 side...citing OPSEC. Right.
I am a bit disappointed the S92 didn't incorporate the "Lessons Learned" from ALL other Helos regarding back-up MBG oil supply and hope other LLs were not ignored due to cost and weight concerns.
"V-22: it's operating". Yes. The MC deserved a superior replacement to the H-46 & H-53 and they didn't get it using y tax money to develope it.
If the fellow who made that statement is really a "Spokesman" for Bell then they picked a dousey. I'm sure he was pressured to say something good about the compressor stalls and one A/C having to be replaced and when surrounded by the media, he perhaps blurted-out whatever excuse came to mind. Not smart.
I'm confused about your reference to me about 'contamination'.
I certainly would be as critical about any SA product but when the V-22 'discussions' peaked here some years back, common sense and facts prevailed against the V-22 whereas there wasn't a peep of factual info presented from the V-22 side...citing OPSEC. Right.
I am a bit disappointed the S92 didn't incorporate the "Lessons Learned" from ALL other Helos regarding back-up MBG oil supply and hope other LLs were not ignored due to cost and weight concerns.
"V-22: it's operating". Yes. The MC deserved a superior replacement to the H-46 & H-53 and they didn't get it using y tax money to develope it.