What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, if you are in any way involved in aviation and you can't understand the concept of privilege during a mishap investigation, you're an imbecile. I'm not going to use information I gained from official sources to self-generate a press release that some morons on the internet will represent as gospel. This doesn't mean anything's covered up. Privilege ensures that necessary safety info gets to those who can USE it, e.g. pilots, crew, maintainers, without wrecking lives and reputations of those involved.
The fact that the publicly released report is harder on the aircraft than in my opinion it should be is testament to this. The USAF has done a very thorough job of disseminating information on this mishap. That internal pilot briefings touch on factors that more directly affect how things should be done better in the future doesn't mean that the released report is a "lie." I'm not going to add my two cents on this just to satisfy internet trolls. Question my integrity? Fine. I'm a Marine officer and combat aviator. I'm confident in my qualification on this subject. I don't need validation from some wanna-be's or has-beens on the Internet.
For the critics, NOTHING will convince them that the Osprey is worth it. I don't know why I try sometimes. I'd venture to say that 100% of Osprey pilots fully endorse the new aircraft. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines at take potshots, but those actually flying the machine do not want to go back to flying helicopters.
Before the V-22 was fielded, people said it would never make it to the fleet. When it came to the fleet, people said it wouldn't succeed in combat. When it succeeded in combat in Iraq, they said the real fight was in Afghanistan. It succeeds in Afghanistan, they say it's just doing milk runs. It does hard hit missions in Afghanistan, they say...well they'll always come up with something they don't like, won't they?
What exactly WOULD satisfy you critics? What do you want this aircraft to do that it hasn't already demonstrated? Please let me know.
The fact that the publicly released report is harder on the aircraft than in my opinion it should be is testament to this. The USAF has done a very thorough job of disseminating information on this mishap. That internal pilot briefings touch on factors that more directly affect how things should be done better in the future doesn't mean that the released report is a "lie." I'm not going to add my two cents on this just to satisfy internet trolls. Question my integrity? Fine. I'm a Marine officer and combat aviator. I'm confident in my qualification on this subject. I don't need validation from some wanna-be's or has-beens on the Internet.
For the critics, NOTHING will convince them that the Osprey is worth it. I don't know why I try sometimes. I'd venture to say that 100% of Osprey pilots fully endorse the new aircraft. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines at take potshots, but those actually flying the machine do not want to go back to flying helicopters.
Before the V-22 was fielded, people said it would never make it to the fleet. When it came to the fleet, people said it wouldn't succeed in combat. When it succeeded in combat in Iraq, they said the real fight was in Afghanistan. It succeeds in Afghanistan, they say it's just doing milk runs. It does hard hit missions in Afghanistan, they say...well they'll always come up with something they don't like, won't they?
What exactly WOULD satisfy you critics? What do you want this aircraft to do that it hasn't already demonstrated? Please let me know.
I'd venture to say that 100% of Osprey pilots fully endorse the new aircraft.
Dick Cheney knew better. We should have listened to him.
It's very easy to sit on the sidelines at take potshots, but those actually flying the machine do not want to go back to flying helicopters.
Before the V-22 was fielded, people said it would never make it to the fleet.
When it came to the fleet, people said it wouldn't succeed in combat.
When it succeeded in combat in Iraq, they said the real fight was in Afghanistan. It succeeds in Afghanistan, they say it's just doing milk runs. It does hard hit missions in Afghanistan, they say...well they'll always come up with something they don't like, won't they?
If this is what you guys call a "success," then I guess our definitions of the word vary. A bit.
I do not recall people - any people and especially not me - saying that the V-22 would never make it to the field, or be an unmitigated failure in the field or that it would be incapable of carrying out even the most basic of missions. To claim otherwise is a lie or a deliberate misrepresentation. We (the opponents of the V-22) have just said that it was unsuited to the task to which it was assigned and that it would crash. Which it has. And will again. And when it does, it will kill people and destroy another $87 MILLION dollars worth of equipment.
Worth it? Some of us believe no.
What exactly WOULD satisfy you critics? What do you want this aircraft to do that it hasn't already demonstrated? Please let me know.
A little tidbit from mcpave's post:
But, since you said it and now that I've told you, yes I'd still like to kill you, just on general principle.
I sincerely wish that you, mcpave and ospreydriver were more experienced aviators. If so, you'd know that helicopter aerodynamics is not an exact science. You'd know that a helicopter can make a certain type of approach (let's say fairly vertical and slightly downwind) 100 times successfully with no problems. But that 101st time it crashes. Why is this?! Because of the chaotic nature of airflow through the rotors. It means that just because you get away with something once...or even 100 times...it doesn't mean that the 101st time won't bite you. So the fact that the V-22 has been doing certain things in the field "successfully" is not vindication of its design. It merely means that crews have been getting away with stuff for the time being.
If either of you had read the report of the pilot who did the VRS testing of the V-22 after Marana, you'd know that when the V-22 gets into A-VRS (this "roll-off" mcpave mentioned, although in a different context) it does so very unpredictably. Which should have been no surprise because even to get a helicopter into VRS is "difficult" in that the exact same results are never dependably repeatable. Meh- that's a helicopter for you. It's not like the predictable stall of an airplane's wing. That's why we don't have VRS indicators in our panels (and never will).
When this "roll-off" happens up at a nice safe altitude it is no problem. Why, just tilt the nacelles forward and go! But it won't happen up there. It'll happen down low, on short-final, when the crew is task-saturated, when what happens will happen so fast that it won't be recoverable.
That's bad enough. But now this latest accident V-22 has shown us something else, another dark side of its behavior. Now we find out that even if you still have a bunch of airspeed, if you get into a momentarily high rate of descent on short-final you might not have the power (either in the engines or proprotors) to abort and go around.
I wonder what other undiscovered skeletons lurk in the V-22's performance envelope closet? No matter how they feel about me personally, I hope neither mcpave nor ospreydriver are the ones who find them. I hope so for them and for the sake of the passengers they'll be carrying.
I skimmed through the 190 pages of the maintenance records portion of the accident report and noticed some interesting information....nothing to wave a red flag on any one thing. What immediately stood out was a 700 hour aircraft having engines with about 200 hours on one and less than a hundred on the other (working from a dim memory here so don't hold me to the exact numbers). I know engine times rarely match airframe times....but when we look at "new" airframes it does seem a bit unusual to have such variations.
In time I will do a proper review and see what the engine history of the aircraft was....and answer some questions I have about reliability and maintenance actions this particular aircraft experienced with a view to consider how reliable these things are compared to other large "helicopter" type aircraft.
A question I do have is what effect does a trend of 91% have on engine performance and is there an effect on operational weights. Can one of you Osprey guys discuss that without going to Leavenworth for the rest of your time in the military?
In time I will do a proper review and see what the engine history of the aircraft was....and answer some questions I have about reliability and maintenance actions this particular aircraft experienced with a view to consider how reliable these things are compared to other large "helicopter" type aircraft.
A question I do have is what effect does a trend of 91% have on engine performance and is there an effect on operational weights. Can one of you Osprey guys discuss that without going to Leavenworth for the rest of your time in the military?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 77
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's another "Report" Circulating (hope someone will post link here)
Monday, January 3, 2011
Mystery Remains in Fatal CV-22 Osprey Crash
A USAF Accident Investigation Board (AIB) failed to determine conclusively why one of its Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft hit the ground about a quarter of a mile short of its intended landing zone in Afghanistan last April and crashed, killing the pilot, another crew member and two passengers in the first combat loss of an Osprey tiltrotor.
The pilot had lowered his landing gear and begun tilting the helicopter-airplane hybrid's rotors upward to land when the Osprey unexpectedly touched down with its right wheel at 80 knots on April 9 during a nighttime raid near Qalat, Afghanistan. The Osprey rolled 45 feet, then hit a drainage ditch. The nose stuck in soft soil while the aircraft flipped on its back.
The board president could not determine the cause of the mishap by the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," in part because the flight data recorder, the Vibration Structural Life and Engine Diagnostics control unit, and the right engine were destroyed to keep sensitive equipment from falling into enemy hands and therefore not available for analysis.
But the AIB eliminated mechanical failure or enemy fire as causes of the accident. The board also ruled out a "brownout landing," in which dust stirred up by rotors can disorient a pilot, and vortex ring state, the phenomenon that caused an Osprey crash that killed 19 Marines in April 2000, at Marana, AZ. In addition, a design problem that led to the replacement of the Central De-ice Distributor support bracket found in all Marine Corps and Air Force Ospreys, was not considered a factor.
The AIB report said as many as 10 factors substantially contributed to the crash. These included inadequate weather planning, a poorly executed, low-visibility approach, a tailwind, a challenging visual environment, the mishap crew's task saturation, the mishap copilot's distraction, the mishap copilot's negative transfer of a behavior learned in a previous aircraft, the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment, an unanticipated high rate of descent and engine power loss.
The convening authority approved the board president's report, with comments.
He decided the evidence in the AIB report did not support a determination of engine power loss as one of the 10 substantially contributing factors.
The convening authority considered the evidence in the AIB report and additional analysis of the evidence in the report, concluding the preponderance of credible evidence did not indicate engine power loss as a substantially contributing factor of the mishap.
After a review of the original AIB report, the convening authority's statement of opinion and additional material obtained after the completion of the AIB report, the chief of staff of the Air Force reopened the investigation and directed the AIB board president to analyze the additional information.
The board president conducted a follow-on investigation to analyze two Naval Air Systems Command reports and the convening authority's analysis of video data.
After consideration of the new material the only fact the AIB president changed from his original report was the ground speed of the aircraft at impact from what was believed to be 75 knots to 80 knots at the time of impact.
Mystery Remains in Fatal CV-22 Osprey Crash
A USAF Accident Investigation Board (AIB) failed to determine conclusively why one of its Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft hit the ground about a quarter of a mile short of its intended landing zone in Afghanistan last April and crashed, killing the pilot, another crew member and two passengers in the first combat loss of an Osprey tiltrotor.
The pilot had lowered his landing gear and begun tilting the helicopter-airplane hybrid's rotors upward to land when the Osprey unexpectedly touched down with its right wheel at 80 knots on April 9 during a nighttime raid near Qalat, Afghanistan. The Osprey rolled 45 feet, then hit a drainage ditch. The nose stuck in soft soil while the aircraft flipped on its back.
The board president could not determine the cause of the mishap by the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," in part because the flight data recorder, the Vibration Structural Life and Engine Diagnostics control unit, and the right engine were destroyed to keep sensitive equipment from falling into enemy hands and therefore not available for analysis.
But the AIB eliminated mechanical failure or enemy fire as causes of the accident. The board also ruled out a "brownout landing," in which dust stirred up by rotors can disorient a pilot, and vortex ring state, the phenomenon that caused an Osprey crash that killed 19 Marines in April 2000, at Marana, AZ. In addition, a design problem that led to the replacement of the Central De-ice Distributor support bracket found in all Marine Corps and Air Force Ospreys, was not considered a factor.
The AIB report said as many as 10 factors substantially contributed to the crash. These included inadequate weather planning, a poorly executed, low-visibility approach, a tailwind, a challenging visual environment, the mishap crew's task saturation, the mishap copilot's distraction, the mishap copilot's negative transfer of a behavior learned in a previous aircraft, the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment, an unanticipated high rate of descent and engine power loss.
The convening authority approved the board president's report, with comments.
He decided the evidence in the AIB report did not support a determination of engine power loss as one of the 10 substantially contributing factors.
The convening authority considered the evidence in the AIB report and additional analysis of the evidence in the report, concluding the preponderance of credible evidence did not indicate engine power loss as a substantially contributing factor of the mishap.
After a review of the original AIB report, the convening authority's statement of opinion and additional material obtained after the completion of the AIB report, the chief of staff of the Air Force reopened the investigation and directed the AIB board president to analyze the additional information.
The board president conducted a follow-on investigation to analyze two Naval Air Systems Command reports and the convening authority's analysis of video data.
After consideration of the new material the only fact the AIB president changed from his original report was the ground speed of the aircraft at impact from what was believed to be 75 knots to 80 knots at the time of impact.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH, you still haven't said what test it is that the Osprey needs to do that it can't.
I've landed the V-22 comfortably at 10000 DA. I wouldn't try the same in a -46.
The opinions of the pilots are very valid, because 2/3 of them have flown combat sorties in other aircraft(-46,-53, AH/UH, and even F-18, AV-8B, and EA-6B). Their endorsements ARE valid, and certainly more valid that the criticisms of those on this board.
I've been flying for 15 years. I may not have 20000 hours drilling holes in the sky over the UNITED STATES, but I've flown both helos and tiltrotors into contingency ops off ships and overseas, not to mention being an IP in 3 different aircraft. I'm plenty qualified to know about what aircraft do.
The Osprey's a good plane. The aircrew will tell you and the grunts will say the same. They're the ones who know, and are FAR more qualified than most on this board to say so.
I've landed the V-22 comfortably at 10000 DA. I wouldn't try the same in a -46.
The opinions of the pilots are very valid, because 2/3 of them have flown combat sorties in other aircraft(-46,-53, AH/UH, and even F-18, AV-8B, and EA-6B). Their endorsements ARE valid, and certainly more valid that the criticisms of those on this board.
I've been flying for 15 years. I may not have 20000 hours drilling holes in the sky over the UNITED STATES, but I've flown both helos and tiltrotors into contingency ops off ships and overseas, not to mention being an IP in 3 different aircraft. I'm plenty qualified to know about what aircraft do.
The Osprey's a good plane. The aircrew will tell you and the grunts will say the same. They're the ones who know, and are FAR more qualified than most on this board to say so.
I've been flying for 15 years. I may not have 20000 hours drilling holes in the sky over the UNITED STATES, but I've flown both helos and tiltrotors into contingency ops off ships and overseas, not to mention being an IP in 3 different aircraft.
More than a few of us have combat experience, decades of flying experience, instructor experience, and probably lived in more countries than you have visited on Liberty Call, hold multiple National Licenses, and flown multiple models of both airplanes and helicopters (not to mention balloons, gilders, motor gliders, and ram air parachutes).
You may have Osprey time and most here do not....but that doesn't make you a Sky God....just a guy flying the machine. That is why we ask questions of you. If you would answer some without getting yer feathers ruffled....it would go a long way to moving the discussion along.
Cut the insults and act as a true professional.....which you claim to be.
You want to have a pissing contest with FH....do it by PM would you?
For a note of reference....read up on Link Luckett landing his Hiller 12E on Mt. McKinley doing rescues then talk about 10,000 feet in an Osprey.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just not going to be talked down to like I'm f'g junior. Seeing as I've actually flown helicopters, airplanes, and tiltrotors, I tend to think I have a bit of expertise on the subject of their relative merits. Being told that the opinions of the pilots flying the Osprey aren't relevant is absolutely insane.
A few of you seem to hate the Osprey just for the sake of hating it. I don't see anything more than the standard Red Ribbon Panel talking points that were debunked years ago.
The Osprey is already bought. We ain't going back. WHY are we still arguing over it?
A few of you seem to hate the Osprey just for the sake of hating it. I don't see anything more than the standard Red Ribbon Panel talking points that were debunked years ago.
The Osprey is already bought. We ain't going back. WHY are we still arguing over it?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fh1100, Sas
You are the height of arrogance in aviation. Typical pilots who thinks his sh** doesn't stink. Your assertion that the pilots of the aircraft in question lack experience is bulls.... I am a pilot. Look at my profile. I haven't included all the fixed wing aircraft I have flown... Marchetti SF 260 for example. If I have one more hour of flight time than you, does that mean that I have all the experience and knowledge in aviation necessary to tell you to **ck off? I don't believe that, but apparently that is your belief. I find the reports by the two pilots discussing the Osprey to be unquestionably professional, knowledgable and trustworthy. I thank them for providing their expertise on the aircraft. I thank them for their dedication to the craft and their willingness to provide their expertise. I thank them for their service to America. Get a life. Ratchet it down a notch or two. You are certainly not the end all and be all in this or any other aviation related topic. Sorry to be so frank but I am tired of the all knowing all seeing pilots in the world. You know, the ones who look at one picture of a crashed helo five minutes after the crash, or a myriad of differing reports on aircraft mishaps and immediately show their aviation "knowledge" by solving the mystery because they see a cloud in the distance... and then... the weather... and the manufacturer cut costs so... and he should have... so lets hang him from the highest... f ing loser... can't do it like I can....blah blah blah... If this thinking was respected, the Blackhawk would have been scrapped after the stabilator had problems. The alarmists were out in force. Thankfully the right thinking folks were in charge and the result is the finest aircraft in the history or the military.
I am an old aviator now, 50, and have gained a great respect for the total professionalism, knowledge and dedication in my young peers. I am not afraid to ask them their opinion about any topic. Weather, maintenance, systems etc.
The future of the aviator is intact. Respect your young replacements. They are more capable and professional than their predecessors.(Just like your generation)
Sorry to some of you who don't want to hear that.
Cheers
I am an old aviator now, 50, and have gained a great respect for the total professionalism, knowledge and dedication in my young peers. I am not afraid to ask them their opinion about any topic. Weather, maintenance, systems etc.
The future of the aviator is intact. Respect your young replacements. They are more capable and professional than their predecessors.(Just like your generation)
Sorry to some of you who don't want to hear that.
Cheers
Last edited by grumpytroll; 6th Jan 2011 at 02:28. Reason: spelling, it sucks sometimes
Grumpytroll, you certainly live up to your screenname! I see that you've been an esteemed member of PPRUNE since October of 2009. Hmm. You know something? THIS THREAD has been running since July of 2005. *BEFORE* shooting your mouth off (oops, too late!) why don't you do yourself a favor and read through the pages and learn something about the V-22, mm'kay? THEN come back and try to impress us with your knowledge of the subject at hand.
Oh, and it's not just your spelling that sucks.
ospreydriver, no matter how much experience you do (or do not) have, it really means nothing. I'm sorry if that makes you angry or bitter. Hey, you wanna kill me too like your butt-buddy mcpave? It'd be like me telling Bell, "Hey, I love the 206! This country needs the 206. You should keep building it!" They would pat me on the head and send me away with a caution that I do not have the Big Picture. Just as we do now with you.
The reality is that no PILOT can assess the real value of any aircraft. Sure, sure, we all know how much you loooooove the V-22. And in your (highly-inflated) opinion of yourself, this means that the V-22 is "worthy." Well guess what? A lot of us here...you know, the taxpayers who have to PAY for the thing...do *not* feel that it is a worthwhile thing to spend money on...no matter how much you like flying it or how valuable YOU think it is to the U.S.
It is not.
It's too hugely expensive and it has too many damn flaws. Yes, it's already in service but it can still be cancelled. And soon will be. No aircraft flies forever. Funding can be cut off. Production lines can be shut down. I believe the Osprey (and its drivers) are already in their sunset years. Another high-profile accident which cannot be definitively attributed to a specific cause could signal the death-knell of the "plane." Then they'll be hauled to the boneyard underneath an H-53. Two at a time.
SAS brought up a good question: How often are we changing V-22 engines in the field? And HOW MUCH do they cost? I think we taxpayers deserve to know. Me, I'm tired of living in a country with such a huge deficit. How much is it now, $1.3 trillion dollars? It doesn't help the situation when we keep crashing $87 million dollar V-22s that are doing the work of an H-53, as the Osprey that crashed back in April was doing.
Speaking of which, after all the BS has been shovelled, nobody has really made the case that the V-22 is doing things that the H-53 *cannot* do. And in fact, there are things that the H-53 *can* do that the V-22 cannot. People like to throw around modern buzzterms like, "It's shrinks the battlespace!" It sounds so futuristic! But the V-22 impresses exactly nobody if it only shrinks the battlespace below 5,000 feet in practical application (see the testimony in Gen. Harvel's report).
How long are those engines lasting in the field again?
Oh, and it's not just your spelling that sucks.
ospreydriver, no matter how much experience you do (or do not) have, it really means nothing. I'm sorry if that makes you angry or bitter. Hey, you wanna kill me too like your butt-buddy mcpave? It'd be like me telling Bell, "Hey, I love the 206! This country needs the 206. You should keep building it!" They would pat me on the head and send me away with a caution that I do not have the Big Picture. Just as we do now with you.
The reality is that no PILOT can assess the real value of any aircraft. Sure, sure, we all know how much you loooooove the V-22. And in your (highly-inflated) opinion of yourself, this means that the V-22 is "worthy." Well guess what? A lot of us here...you know, the taxpayers who have to PAY for the thing...do *not* feel that it is a worthwhile thing to spend money on...no matter how much you like flying it or how valuable YOU think it is to the U.S.
It is not.
It's too hugely expensive and it has too many damn flaws. Yes, it's already in service but it can still be cancelled. And soon will be. No aircraft flies forever. Funding can be cut off. Production lines can be shut down. I believe the Osprey (and its drivers) are already in their sunset years. Another high-profile accident which cannot be definitively attributed to a specific cause could signal the death-knell of the "plane." Then they'll be hauled to the boneyard underneath an H-53. Two at a time.
SAS brought up a good question: How often are we changing V-22 engines in the field? And HOW MUCH do they cost? I think we taxpayers deserve to know. Me, I'm tired of living in a country with such a huge deficit. How much is it now, $1.3 trillion dollars? It doesn't help the situation when we keep crashing $87 million dollar V-22s that are doing the work of an H-53, as the Osprey that crashed back in April was doing.
Speaking of which, after all the BS has been shovelled, nobody has really made the case that the V-22 is doing things that the H-53 *cannot* do. And in fact, there are things that the H-53 *can* do that the V-22 cannot. People like to throw around modern buzzterms like, "It's shrinks the battlespace!" It sounds so futuristic! But the V-22 impresses exactly nobody if it only shrinks the battlespace below 5,000 feet in practical application (see the testimony in Gen. Harvel's report).
How long are those engines lasting in the field again?
Darn....except for the language I would swear I wandered into a MSNBC show.
We have folks that challenge the claims the Osprey is the Bee's Knees and folks that think it is. The dissenters challenge the aircraft not the crews that fly the thing.
It appears to me the discussion is diverted from an exchange of information because one side claims to be in the know but declines to address with specificity the questions raised by the other side and erects a wall referring to OPSEC, Proprietary Information, and not wanting to sully others.
The other side being fully aware of the false advertising done in the past retains skepticism from that time and sometimes wonders if there has not been a gag order put in place due to the absence of response of those in the know.
Thus the discussion evolves into "It is!"...."No It Ain't!"....and an exchange of barbs.
Unfortunately....the claim of privilege of knowledge (without explanation) fails due to prior failures of credence by USMC authorities (and you all know what we are talking about.) So it would appear to me unless the Osprey Lovers begin to back their statements up by something other than mere broad statements of affection, their argument fails.
I love the Chinook....but will freely admit it has had its problems. We lost friends due to Incidence Bolt failures on rotor blades, saw aircraft burn to pieces in flight when Power Turbines disintegrated, and saw more than a few crash due to control rod end failures.....but it is a wonderful machine today.
We have folks that challenge the claims the Osprey is the Bee's Knees and folks that think it is. The dissenters challenge the aircraft not the crews that fly the thing.
It appears to me the discussion is diverted from an exchange of information because one side claims to be in the know but declines to address with specificity the questions raised by the other side and erects a wall referring to OPSEC, Proprietary Information, and not wanting to sully others.
The other side being fully aware of the false advertising done in the past retains skepticism from that time and sometimes wonders if there has not been a gag order put in place due to the absence of response of those in the know.
Thus the discussion evolves into "It is!"...."No It Ain't!"....and an exchange of barbs.
Unfortunately....the claim of privilege of knowledge (without explanation) fails due to prior failures of credence by USMC authorities (and you all know what we are talking about.) So it would appear to me unless the Osprey Lovers begin to back their statements up by something other than mere broad statements of affection, their argument fails.
I love the Chinook....but will freely admit it has had its problems. We lost friends due to Incidence Bolt failures on rotor blades, saw aircraft burn to pieces in flight when Power Turbines disintegrated, and saw more than a few crash due to control rod end failures.....but it is a wonderful machine today.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers can fix structures and systems. One of the Afghan issues is how long the thing sits in transition over the green zone.
Mk9A pilots sit on the ground (having arrived, transitioned and landed blinded by dust already) and wonder at the USMC target still on the approach 30s later.
That's a law of physics problem, not an engineering one (unlike the silly claxon on the '53 which keeps them in transition), though bullet-proof jockeyshorts could be developed ... for a fee!
Mk9A pilots sit on the ground (having arrived, transitioned and landed blinded by dust already) and wonder at the USMC target still on the approach 30s later.
That's a law of physics problem, not an engineering one (unlike the silly claxon on the '53 which keeps them in transition), though bullet-proof jockeyshorts could be developed ... for a fee!
Facts not Emotions Please
Let take some of the emotion out of our discussions. The fact is that the V-22 was conceived as a CH-46 replacement. As such, a 12000 hp V-22 would surely surpass anything the CH-46 could do. Any and all comparisons were not allowed to be made with the larger CH-47 or CH-53E.
I believe that much of our skepticism comes from the very long and somewhat secretive nature of the V-22 program. Many of us watched as much needed funding was stripped away from supporting existing fleet aircraft in favor of keeping the Osprey afloat. One specific instance was a program, initiated by a west coast 53E squadron that was to demonstrate long range capabilities of the CH-53E by flying transcontinental (Tustin to Quantico) non stop without refueling. This program was scrubbed within days of the actual flight. To quote Gen. Blott, “I will not allow the CH-53 to do anything that would compromise the V-22 program.” Weeks later a Navy sponsored 53E flew more than 700 NM nonstop without refueling while transporting 8000 lbs. of cargo. Theses events all went unnoticed because pressure from the program office suppressed them.
As an instructor pilot I was privileged to have flown with many of the pilots that sustained fatal injuries in V-22 mishaps. These gentlemen were all consummate professionals assigned the task of testing and fielding this machine. All were very experienced second or third tour aviators more than capable of handling what most aircraft would throw at them. Their mishaps are proof that this machine got the best of them. Having personally experienced many of the growing pains with the development of the CH-53E and having watched many of the early fleet issues with the CH-46 over the years, I have sensed a difference with respect to the flow, timeliness, quality and quantity of information regarding V-22 events.
I truly prey for the success of the program and for the safety of all assigned to operate it.
I believe that much of our skepticism comes from the very long and somewhat secretive nature of the V-22 program. Many of us watched as much needed funding was stripped away from supporting existing fleet aircraft in favor of keeping the Osprey afloat. One specific instance was a program, initiated by a west coast 53E squadron that was to demonstrate long range capabilities of the CH-53E by flying transcontinental (Tustin to Quantico) non stop without refueling. This program was scrubbed within days of the actual flight. To quote Gen. Blott, “I will not allow the CH-53 to do anything that would compromise the V-22 program.” Weeks later a Navy sponsored 53E flew more than 700 NM nonstop without refueling while transporting 8000 lbs. of cargo. Theses events all went unnoticed because pressure from the program office suppressed them.
As an instructor pilot I was privileged to have flown with many of the pilots that sustained fatal injuries in V-22 mishaps. These gentlemen were all consummate professionals assigned the task of testing and fielding this machine. All were very experienced second or third tour aviators more than capable of handling what most aircraft would throw at them. Their mishaps are proof that this machine got the best of them. Having personally experienced many of the growing pains with the development of the CH-53E and having watched many of the early fleet issues with the CH-46 over the years, I have sensed a difference with respect to the flow, timeliness, quality and quantity of information regarding V-22 events.
I truly prey for the success of the program and for the safety of all assigned to operate it.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if you can't argue effectively (like with boring stuff like facts and information) you can make your posts condecending and insulting. FH has put nothing forth to bolster his "arguements", but that is apparently not his intention. It is just to be an obnoxious ass, which he does exceedingly well. At least I didn't call you a butt buddy. How professional. Could we let the real professionals discuss this now? BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion.
Darn....except for the language I would swear I wandered into a MSNBC show.
SAS talks about the two opposing sides of the V-22 controversy, then notes:
The other side being fully aware of the false advertising done in the past retains skepticism from that time and sometimes wonders if there has not been a gag order put in place due to the absence of response of those in the know.
That's why mcpave has to be so circumspect. We know who he is. But since that magazine article, he's been the go-to guy for pithy V-22 quotes. Having said that, I'm sure mcpave's commanding officer is going to be rolling his eyes and slapping his forehead when he reads that mcpave admitted that he wanted to kill someone "on general principle."
"You said WHAT?! Aw, jeez. Go back and friggin' DELETE that post, you imbecile!"
Well, too late. Once you post something on the internets it's there forever, heh-heh. (Come to think of it, I wonder if the Mods here haven't already banned mcpave for saying such a thing. Or are death threats allowed by the rules now?) I digress.
Ospreydriver...well, he's a little more obscure, but I'd bet that even his commanding officer could figure out his identity. And busdriver02...well, nobody cares who he is.
Jack Carson:
Let take some of the emotion out of our discussions. The fact is that the V-22 was conceived as a CH-46 replacement. As such, a 12000 hp V-22 would surely surpass anything the CH-46 could do. Any and all comparisons were not allowed to be made with the larger CH-47 or CH-53E.
So many opinions about the V-22.
So few people have actually done their homework and learned about it.
helonorth:
Could we let the real professionals discuss this now? BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion.
Now, as for the economy...uhh, son, I hate to tell you this, but the U.S. annual public DEBT ceiling is around $14 trillion. The DEFICIT is (or shall be shortly raised to) $1.9 trillion. Thanks for playing! Let us hope that your understanding of rotorcraft is better than your understanding of economics.
Last edited by FH1100 Pilot; 6th Jan 2011 at 14:37.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the US debt ceiling is $14.3 trillion, soon to be eclipsed. I don't know what your talking about and I don't think you do, either. It's apparent in every post, son!
From the very beginning I came on this thread and attempted to give a counter viewpoint to the claims being made that I knew were completely false. I've been upfront and honest from the start, as someone actually involved in the program and not sitting in an armchair. What happened? I was attacked both personally and professionally, through this board and PMs. I was accused of lying, hiding under some veil of disinformation, or simply stating the party line. My qualifications and integrity were constantly challenged without one bit of actual evidence to base the claims. Why did this happened?? Because I discounted the ridiculous claims of those on this thread, that's the only reason. I tried at all times to provide detailed, solid explanations around my arguments, I did slip at times and lowered myself to the name calling, but I think it's quite evident that I've been professional more times than not, unlike others on this board. I've given the good and the bad of the Osprey, but the bad isn't enough for the haters, they feel it has to be much worse and claim that I'm lying. The most ridiculous argument was when my credibility was attacked because I didn't have enough posts!!! How insane is that?
My discussions about the Marana accident, VRS, and Roll-Off weren't conjured up in my own mind. They are based upon actual research and tests conducted by experimental test pilots and aerodynamicists who are very highly regarded in the test community. Yet, there are those on this thread who seem to claim that they too are liars or simply don't know what they are talking about. I've read the Marana report many times in detail. To take it a step further, the test pilots who flew they HROD tests were my first instructors in the Osprey and I've spent countless hours discussing the very issues around Marana. These men are of the highest caliber of any pilots in the rotary-wing community with tens of thousands of test flight hours in numerous aircraft and advanced degrees in engineering. My opinions and arguments are based upon these discussions and flights with not only them but the aerodynamicists who have been with the program from the start. I never once claimed that I came up with my conclusions on my own.
I operate in no way under a so-called "gag order". Prove those claims against me!! I can assure you that I stand fully behind my comments towards FH1100 and made them not because of a "difference of opinion" but because of his personal attacks on me. You are once again wrong FH, speaking about something that you know nothing about. "Butt-buddy"??? Now you make another baseless claim that I am a homosexual too?? And you wonder why I'd respond like I did?? I will guarantee you this FH, your comments are there forever as well and you will be held accountable for the personal attacks.
Now I'd also like to see the proof that makes those on here such experts in aerodynamics and allows you to contradict the research done by the test pilots and aerodynamicists I've mentioned earlier, FH1100 answer these questions:
1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?
Now SASless, your current comments are very hypocritical because you too participated in the attacks on me. Is that your definition of "professional" or does it only apply when you want it too?? I actually appreciate you arguments, many times they are genuine questions. But, as usual, you discount my answers because I don't provide flight manual examples or other documentation, my word isn't good enough for you. Now I realize that you come from a military background so even you should understand the issues around both classified and sensitive material, do you not?? The Osprey program is not the only program in the military that abides by these rules. There were many times on here where I wished like hell that I could post the .pdf documents to prove my claims but that would be totally unprofessional as a military aviator. Can you not understand that? I've also noticed how you've posted on other threads and defended military aviators from attacks by others, but for some reason on this thread, you don't show either myself or ospreydriver the same respect. Why is that?
I am not a test pilot nor aeronautical engineer but damn well guarantee you that I have the education and experience to discuss the Osprey issues being presented on this thread. In all honesty, I am nothing more than a messenger relaying the wisdom and experience taught to me by the true pioneers of the Osprey program. What irritates me to no end is the indirect constant berating and slander directed at these very individuals, engineers, pilots, mechanics, etc., that is unwarranted and without merit of any kind. These people are some of the most talented aviation professionals in the world, highly respected by their peers and have devoted much of their careers to the Osprey. Their qualifications destroy anyone commenting on this thread and rival anyone on this entire website, those who know them will back up my claims anyday. But, despite this, there are those on here who make unsubstantiated claims that "they" know better and are the only ones qualified to speak about the Osprey. In my book, that is the very definition of "UNprofessional".
My discussions about the Marana accident, VRS, and Roll-Off weren't conjured up in my own mind. They are based upon actual research and tests conducted by experimental test pilots and aerodynamicists who are very highly regarded in the test community. Yet, there are those on this thread who seem to claim that they too are liars or simply don't know what they are talking about. I've read the Marana report many times in detail. To take it a step further, the test pilots who flew they HROD tests were my first instructors in the Osprey and I've spent countless hours discussing the very issues around Marana. These men are of the highest caliber of any pilots in the rotary-wing community with tens of thousands of test flight hours in numerous aircraft and advanced degrees in engineering. My opinions and arguments are based upon these discussions and flights with not only them but the aerodynamicists who have been with the program from the start. I never once claimed that I came up with my conclusions on my own.
I operate in no way under a so-called "gag order". Prove those claims against me!! I can assure you that I stand fully behind my comments towards FH1100 and made them not because of a "difference of opinion" but because of his personal attacks on me. You are once again wrong FH, speaking about something that you know nothing about. "Butt-buddy"??? Now you make another baseless claim that I am a homosexual too?? And you wonder why I'd respond like I did?? I will guarantee you this FH, your comments are there forever as well and you will be held accountable for the personal attacks.
Now I'd also like to see the proof that makes those on here such experts in aerodynamics and allows you to contradict the research done by the test pilots and aerodynamicists I've mentioned earlier, FH1100 answer these questions:
1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?
Now SASless, your current comments are very hypocritical because you too participated in the attacks on me. Is that your definition of "professional" or does it only apply when you want it too?? I actually appreciate you arguments, many times they are genuine questions. But, as usual, you discount my answers because I don't provide flight manual examples or other documentation, my word isn't good enough for you. Now I realize that you come from a military background so even you should understand the issues around both classified and sensitive material, do you not?? The Osprey program is not the only program in the military that abides by these rules. There were many times on here where I wished like hell that I could post the .pdf documents to prove my claims but that would be totally unprofessional as a military aviator. Can you not understand that? I've also noticed how you've posted on other threads and defended military aviators from attacks by others, but for some reason on this thread, you don't show either myself or ospreydriver the same respect. Why is that?
I am not a test pilot nor aeronautical engineer but damn well guarantee you that I have the education and experience to discuss the Osprey issues being presented on this thread. In all honesty, I am nothing more than a messenger relaying the wisdom and experience taught to me by the true pioneers of the Osprey program. What irritates me to no end is the indirect constant berating and slander directed at these very individuals, engineers, pilots, mechanics, etc., that is unwarranted and without merit of any kind. These people are some of the most talented aviation professionals in the world, highly respected by their peers and have devoted much of their careers to the Osprey. Their qualifications destroy anyone commenting on this thread and rival anyone on this entire website, those who know them will back up my claims anyday. But, despite this, there are those on here who make unsubstantiated claims that "they" know better and are the only ones qualified to speak about the Osprey. In my book, that is the very definition of "UNprofessional".
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most likely facts surrounding the Afghanistan crash
are covered quite well in this article:
Another Tilt-Rotor Crash
"Another Tilt-Rotor Crash - the Why"
Another Tilt-Rotor Crash
"Another Tilt-Rotor Crash - the Why"
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subject Matter Expert
Mckpave ask:
Mckpave, you must remember that none of this matters as FH1100 with his vast posting history on pprune by definition makes him a much more expert SME on the V-22 then those who have performed experimental flight test on it, those who have done the engineering on it, and those who have flown it operationally.
By the way my early vote for "Dumbest thing said on PPRUNE in 2011" is:
#1 by FH1100
References to this little aerodynamic gem please. I just perused my Prouty and surprisingly could not find any reference to this.
Now I'd also like to see the proof that makes those on here such experts in aerodynamics and allows you to contradict the research done by the test pilots and aerodynamicists I've mentioned earlier, FH1100 answer these questions:
1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?
1. Are you a Certified Flight Instructor? Have you taught at a formal flight school? Have you given platform instruction on aerodynamics??
2. Do you have an Aeronautical Engineering degree? How about a degree in any type of engineering??
3. Have you attended any Test Pilot School?? How many years of flight test experience do you have?
4. Do you have an ATP? What is your level of professional pilot certification?
5. Describe the advanced education you've received in aerodynamics, how many formal classes have you attended and where?
6. What is your experience in multi-engine helicopters?
7. How much experience do you have in helicopters weighing over 6500 lbs.? How about 12,000 lbs?
8. How much military aviation experience do you have? Formation flight, NVG, Brownouts, tactical approaches and departures?
By the way my early vote for "Dumbest thing said on PPRUNE in 2011" is:
#1 by FH1100
I sincerely wish that you, mcpave and ospreydriver were more experienced aviators. If so, you'd know that helicopter aerodynamics is not an exact science. You'd know that a helicopter can make a certain type of approach (let's say fairly vertical and slightly downwind) 100 times successfully with no problems. But that 101st time it crashes. Why is this?! Because of the chaotic nature of airflow through the rotors. It means that just because you get away with something once...or even 100 times...it doesn't mean that the 101st time won't bite you. So the fact that the V-22 has been doing certain things in the field "successfully" is not vindication of its design. It merely means that crews have been getting away with stuff for the time being.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
questions about this report
Two questions immediately come to mind about this report.
1. The author is pushing the VRS hard here but according to his report the aircraft had a forward speed of 80 knots when it first contacted the ground. That speed removes the first and biggest reason for getting into VRS. Zero or low forward airspeed.
2. If there was no black box recovered, where is all this precise data coming from? Rates of descent, wind speed data, nacelle positions, conversations between crew etc.
The author of the report is trying hard to blame this on the aircraft but after reading it I see some glaring problems with the pilots actions. First, landing with a 17 knot tailwind is never a good idea, it doesn't matter what kind of aircraft you are in. The author goes to some lengths describing the entire approach as being outside the accepted parameters and then discounts that fact. He states that military aircraft need to have the ability to operate outside the parameters to offer escape options. That is fine if you believe it but there is always a limit somewhere. (Land a commercial transport aircraft with a 17 knot tailwind. Sure you will probably get it on the ground but the end of the runway will pass under you in most cases. Right after that your final paycheck will be mailed to you. Regardless of any other data about the aircraft you just landed, you exceeded a well understood limitation and thats why you are sitting in the weeds.) From the photos and the article, it appears to me that the pilot was going to do a roll on landing, whether he intended to or not. Roll on landings on the desert floor will rarely be what I would call successful. I don't know what the dust situation might have been at this LZ but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft. My guess is that when the V-22 gets close to terra firma it blows a mighty wind, especially if you're descending at a high rate and then try to stop your descent close to the ground. Speaking from personal experience, landing heavy in the desert and getting into dust and then deciding to go around by pulling the guts out her can put you and your ship in a very odd and surreal position, especially if its dark outside. Since the descent rate is apparently known to the author, what do you suppose would happen if you hit the ground at 600-1200 fpm? You might not stick. As for the co-pilot withholding information purposely to save his career, that is just BS. Recall a Comair CRJ that crashed a few years ago in Lexington, KY. The co-pilot was the only survivor. he has no recollection to this day of the event.
There is always so much more to these incidents that has to be considered and this article leaves out a few key details IMO.
Now of course I am not as smart as most folks on this site and the above post is just my misinformed, misguided and uneducated opinion. After all, I, like many others in the world was brainwashed by the military, I think, but then when I try to think about it I get all confused and, damnit... now I have a headache!
Cheers
1. The author is pushing the VRS hard here but according to his report the aircraft had a forward speed of 80 knots when it first contacted the ground. That speed removes the first and biggest reason for getting into VRS. Zero or low forward airspeed.
2. If there was no black box recovered, where is all this precise data coming from? Rates of descent, wind speed data, nacelle positions, conversations between crew etc.
The author of the report is trying hard to blame this on the aircraft but after reading it I see some glaring problems with the pilots actions. First, landing with a 17 knot tailwind is never a good idea, it doesn't matter what kind of aircraft you are in. The author goes to some lengths describing the entire approach as being outside the accepted parameters and then discounts that fact. He states that military aircraft need to have the ability to operate outside the parameters to offer escape options. That is fine if you believe it but there is always a limit somewhere. (Land a commercial transport aircraft with a 17 knot tailwind. Sure you will probably get it on the ground but the end of the runway will pass under you in most cases. Right after that your final paycheck will be mailed to you. Regardless of any other data about the aircraft you just landed, you exceeded a well understood limitation and thats why you are sitting in the weeds.) From the photos and the article, it appears to me that the pilot was going to do a roll on landing, whether he intended to or not. Roll on landings on the desert floor will rarely be what I would call successful. I don't know what the dust situation might have been at this LZ but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft. My guess is that when the V-22 gets close to terra firma it blows a mighty wind, especially if you're descending at a high rate and then try to stop your descent close to the ground. Speaking from personal experience, landing heavy in the desert and getting into dust and then deciding to go around by pulling the guts out her can put you and your ship in a very odd and surreal position, especially if its dark outside. Since the descent rate is apparently known to the author, what do you suppose would happen if you hit the ground at 600-1200 fpm? You might not stick. As for the co-pilot withholding information purposely to save his career, that is just BS. Recall a Comair CRJ that crashed a few years ago in Lexington, KY. The co-pilot was the only survivor. he has no recollection to this day of the event.
There is always so much more to these incidents that has to be considered and this article leaves out a few key details IMO.
Now of course I am not as smart as most folks on this site and the above post is just my misinformed, misguided and uneducated opinion. After all, I, like many others in the world was brainwashed by the military, I think, but then when I try to think about it I get all confused and, damnit... now I have a headache!
Cheers
Grumpytroll gets with the program! Nice post, man.
Well...yeah...except that the groundspeed of that V-22 was 75 to 80 knots when the main gear touched. Even with the honking tailwind, we can be sure he was outrunning his dust cloud when the main gear touched.
If that V-22 touched down at 75 to 80 knots, then he was certainly still above ETL or whatever the tiltrotor equivalent term is.
He *says* he has no recollection. That was the accident where they took off on the wrong runway, right? The one where the SIC was the PF on that leg, right? I would say I didn't remember anything too.
You got that right! Sadly, the devices that would have provided those details were lost when the aircraft was inexplicably and hurriedly destroyed before they could be retrieved.
$87 million down the drain. And four lives. Let's not forget the people who died.
Maybe that's why you're so grumpy. Take an aspirin already!
From the photos and the article, it appears to me that the pilot was going to do a roll on landing, whether he intended to or not. Roll on landings on the desert floor will rarely be what I would call successful. I don't know what the dust situation might have been at this LZ but with 17 knots blowing at your back, the possibility of a brown out is very likely and may have contributed greatly to the events that followed regardless if the fault was eventually that of the aircraft.
My guess is that when the V-22 gets close to terra firma it blows a mighty wind, especially if you're descending at a high rate and then try to stop your descent close to the ground. Speaking from personal experience, landing heavy in the desert and getting into dust and then deciding to go around by pulling the guts out of her can put you and your ship in a very odd and surreal position, especially if its dark outside. Since the descent rate is apparently known to the author, what do you suppose would happen if you hit the ground at 600-1200 fpm? You might not stick.
As for the co-pilot withholding information purposely to save his career, that is just BS. Recall a Comair CRJ that crashed a few years ago in Lexington, KY. The co-pilot was the only survivor. He has no recollection to this day of the event.
There is always so much more to these incidents that has to be considered and this article leaves out a few key details IMO.
$87 million down the drain. And four lives. Let's not forget the people who died.
...but then when I try to think about it I get all confused and, damnit... now I have a headache!