What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the desert southwest
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't think to simple FH
The author of the report implies that the pilot decided to do a go-around or that one was discussed. An experienced helicopter pilot could infer that the forward airspeed was attained as a result of the go-around maneuver, after the failed attempt at a hovering landing. If that was the case, then unfortunately, not enough power was pulled or the aircraft was IMC and situational awarerness was further degraded. Therefore, brown out could still play a major roll in the accident. I would like to hear from our V-22 experts about the landing environment where this accident took place. (Course, you won't believe them) I have no idea what you comment about ETL adds to this.
As to your comment about the Comair pilot, yes, correct accident. To bad you again trash a persons character by implying that he purposely lies about the accident. It reminds of an earlier comment you made degrading EMS pilots who have been involved in tragic events such as this.
Interesting that you admit you would lie to investigators if you were the pilot involved in an accident. I take it then, that if in fact the black box was quickly destroyed to evade the truth, you agree with that plan.
Cheers
As to your comment about the Comair pilot, yes, correct accident. To bad you again trash a persons character by implying that he purposely lies about the accident. It reminds of an earlier comment you made degrading EMS pilots who have been involved in tragic events such as this.
Interesting that you admit you would lie to investigators if you were the pilot involved in an accident. I take it then, that if in fact the black box was quickly destroyed to evade the truth, you agree with that plan.
Cheers
No Ax to Grind Just Numbers
I would like to put forth a few numbers for everyone to chew on. They may shed some light on exactly where the V-22 sits in the domain of air vehicles. The following numbers were obtained from a Bell/Boeing pilot’s guide. Calculations were made to provide an unbiased comparison.
Disk Loading - The V-22 with its 38.08 ft. rotors has a disc loading of 23 lbs/sqft at 52600 lbs. Typical helicopter disk loadings run from approximately 9.5 lbs/sqft for the Blackhawk to 14 lbs/sqft for the CH-53E. The higher the disk loading the more power required to lift an equivalent load. Also, a higher disk loading results in a higher rate of descent in an autorotation.
Wing Loading – The wing loading for the V-22 is again calculated for a 52600 lbs aircraft and compared to a few airplanes. It wing loading is calculated to be 174.51 lbs/sqft. For comparison, the wing loading for a Grumman Mohawk (Twin Turbo Prop) is 43.17 lbs/sqft., an F-104 is 105 lbs/sqft. and the Space Shuttle is 120 lbs/sqft. Typically, the higher the wing loading the greater the stall speed. On a good note higher wing loading makes for a better ride in turbulence.
Cost per Pound of Payload - The cost of transporting a pound of payload is another telling metric. The cost for transporting one pound of payload in a V-22 is approximately $4500 per pound based on $88,000,000 aircraft, a maximum VTOL gross weight of 52600 lbs and an empty weight of 33200 lbs. Buy comparison a 24 passenger AS-775 Cougar is $900 per pound.
I hope that this provides some insight as to exactly where the V-22 sits in the scheme of things.
Disk Loading - The V-22 with its 38.08 ft. rotors has a disc loading of 23 lbs/sqft at 52600 lbs. Typical helicopter disk loadings run from approximately 9.5 lbs/sqft for the Blackhawk to 14 lbs/sqft for the CH-53E. The higher the disk loading the more power required to lift an equivalent load. Also, a higher disk loading results in a higher rate of descent in an autorotation.
Wing Loading – The wing loading for the V-22 is again calculated for a 52600 lbs aircraft and compared to a few airplanes. It wing loading is calculated to be 174.51 lbs/sqft. For comparison, the wing loading for a Grumman Mohawk (Twin Turbo Prop) is 43.17 lbs/sqft., an F-104 is 105 lbs/sqft. and the Space Shuttle is 120 lbs/sqft. Typically, the higher the wing loading the greater the stall speed. On a good note higher wing loading makes for a better ride in turbulence.
Cost per Pound of Payload - The cost of transporting a pound of payload is another telling metric. The cost for transporting one pound of payload in a V-22 is approximately $4500 per pound based on $88,000,000 aircraft, a maximum VTOL gross weight of 52600 lbs and an empty weight of 33200 lbs. Buy comparison a 24 passenger AS-775 Cougar is $900 per pound.
I hope that this provides some insight as to exactly where the V-22 sits in the scheme of things.
grumpytroll:
Yes, an experienced pilot might infer this. An experienced reader might have gleaned from the voluminous accident report (did you read it yet?) that the V-22 never did slow down to a hover. Good luck with that hypothesis! I doubt even our resident lovers...err, V-22 lovers would put much stock in that.
Of course you don't. Wait- didn't you say you were a helicopter pilot?? Come on, man!
So what's ETL got to do with it? Ohhhh, I dunno...maybe above that speed they'd be outrunning their dust cloud is all. But I'm just a dumb helicopter pilot.
Saying one does not remember is not the same as lying. Memory can be faulty, and/or play tricks. One might remember "some" things, but be hazy or confused on others. Good lawyers (and good FAA people) can trip and trick you up. In *any* accident where the pilot survives, the best bet is to just say, "Sorry guys, I really don't remember any of it."
You guys can think what you want about me. Make this about me and not about the V-22 and its inherent weaknesses and faults as a (doomed) combat aircraft. I don't care. I'm just the messenger. And who wants to kill the messenger?
Ohhhhh, that's right: mcpave.
The author of the report implies that the pilot decided to do a go-around or that one was discussed. An experienced helicopter pilot could infer that the forward airspeed was attained as a result of the go-around maneuver, after the failed attempt at a hovering landing. If that was the case, then unfortunately, not enough power was pulled or the aircraft was IMC and situational awarerness was further degraded. Therefore, brown out could still play a major roll in the accident.
I have no idea what you comment about ETL adds to this.
So what's ETL got to do with it? Ohhhh, I dunno...maybe above that speed they'd be outrunning their dust cloud is all. But I'm just a dumb helicopter pilot.
Interesting that you admit you would lie to investigators if you were the pilot involved in an accident. I take it then, that if in fact the black box was quickly destroyed to evade the truth, you agree with that plan.
You guys can think what you want about me. Make this about me and not about the V-22 and its inherent weaknesses and faults as a (doomed) combat aircraft. I don't care. I'm just the messenger. And who wants to kill the messenger?
Ohhhhh, that's right: mcpave.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Further to the question of whether degraded engines contributed to the CV-22B crash, the fleet does seem to be getting through engines at a prodigious rate. Looking at the DoD contracts for 2010, I see:
Feb - $52M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Mar - $12M for 6 spare CV-22 engines
Aug - $24M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Nov - $30M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Nov - $27M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Dec - $121M for 58 MV-22 engines
Dec - $9M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Dec - $49M for 24 CV-22 engines (14 spares & 10 Lot 15 installs)
Back in early 2008, the DoD was looking at a new engine to cure the premature removal problems. Did this go anywhere? Av Week ran a story on the CH-53K over the weekend, noting that the first GE38s (7,500 shp) will be delivered in the second quarter. Seems to be an obvious fit.
I/C
Feb - $52M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Mar - $12M for 6 spare CV-22 engines
Aug - $24M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Nov - $30M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Nov - $27M for 12 spare CV-22 engines
Dec - $121M for 58 MV-22 engines
Dec - $9M for MV/CV-22 engine support
Dec - $49M for 24 CV-22 engines (14 spares & 10 Lot 15 installs)
Back in early 2008, the DoD was looking at a new engine to cure the premature removal problems. Did this go anywhere? Av Week ran a story on the CH-53K over the weekend, noting that the first GE38s (7,500 shp) will be delivered in the second quarter. Seems to be an obvious fit.
I/C
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article on the crash was bald-faced speculation.
Me, I'm done commenting in regards to this mishap, except to say that there's no f-g conspiracy. For example, as far as the CSMU (flight data recorder) most tactical aircraft DO NOT HAVE THEM. I'm not surprised it was overlooked before the site was destroyed. Boneheaded, maybe. Conspiracy? Let it go. Keep trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll or something.
The pilots in the program are Marines and Airmen who want to provide the best possible support to our troops on the ground. They don't want to endanger their lives or those of their passengers; rather, they want to provide the fastest, most flexible assault support possible. To a man, they'll say that the V-22 does this. Keep in mind that almost all of them save the new lleutenants have already flown combat missions in other rotorcraft. They know what they're talking about.
The V-22s is lightyears ahead of any other rotorcraft currently produced. Its capabilities are far beyond its competitors. The question is really whether this enhanced performance is worth the extra dollars. I can't say. I don't write the checks. I can say that if I was given the choice of doing assault support in an Osprey, or any other rotorcraft in the world today, I'd still pick the V-22.
Besides, it's OBE (overcome by events) anyways. 15 years ago, we might have been able to buy 60s or 101s or whatever off the shelf. We're now almost completely transitioned in the USAF and halfway in the USMC. Do you really think it's remotely cost-effective to replace what's already bought, change the training and logistics pipelines, change milcon facilities planning, etc, etc. Ain't gonna happen, so why are we arguing? Might as well argue that God should've made the sky yellow. There might be some good rationales for it, but it's not going to change anything.
Me, I'm done commenting in regards to this mishap, except to say that there's no f-g conspiracy. For example, as far as the CSMU (flight data recorder) most tactical aircraft DO NOT HAVE THEM. I'm not surprised it was overlooked before the site was destroyed. Boneheaded, maybe. Conspiracy? Let it go. Keep trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll or something.
The pilots in the program are Marines and Airmen who want to provide the best possible support to our troops on the ground. They don't want to endanger their lives or those of their passengers; rather, they want to provide the fastest, most flexible assault support possible. To a man, they'll say that the V-22 does this. Keep in mind that almost all of them save the new lleutenants have already flown combat missions in other rotorcraft. They know what they're talking about.
The V-22s is lightyears ahead of any other rotorcraft currently produced. Its capabilities are far beyond its competitors. The question is really whether this enhanced performance is worth the extra dollars. I can't say. I don't write the checks. I can say that if I was given the choice of doing assault support in an Osprey, or any other rotorcraft in the world today, I'd still pick the V-22.
Besides, it's OBE (overcome by events) anyways. 15 years ago, we might have been able to buy 60s or 101s or whatever off the shelf. We're now almost completely transitioned in the USAF and halfway in the USMC. Do you really think it's remotely cost-effective to replace what's already bought, change the training and logistics pipelines, change milcon facilities planning, etc, etc. Ain't gonna happen, so why are we arguing? Might as well argue that God should've made the sky yellow. There might be some good rationales for it, but it's not going to change anything.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criticism of the above ref'd Article's assertions......
re post and article at http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204...ml#post6163118
Grumpytroll says: (as endorsed by FH1100 Pilot)
Try to think "post-VRS aftermath recovery profile" here when considering the CV22's arrival at circa 80kts. You can do the same nasty thing after/during a classic helo recovery from a vortex ring encounter - due to having to lower the nose cyclically and fly out of the condition near the ground. A horrendous descent rate develops and you meet, unwillingly and unexpectedly, with terra firma. Not hard to envisage this scenario in either a helo or tilt-wing. Especially not hard if you've personally had a close encounter. The VRS recovery profile descent rate is akin to a full-blown autorotation.... pre first flare. However the big difference is that, in the VRS scenario, there's unlikely to be the stored rotor energy to achieve a flare. The recovery maneuver is trying to re-energize the rotor by escaping recirculation. I'm guessing that it's the same terminal phase that the USAF CV22 pilot was in. He just ran out of height but luckily he'd thought out his pre-planned response and had the sense and presence of mind to bump the nacelles forward and go for forward speed (rather than emulate the hapless Marana crew by applying power and risking further (rolling?) development of any incipient hybrid asymmVR trend.
Here I think we must concede that it's the wind at height on the approach that's more conducive to setting the "arcing over" stage for VRS, rather than the wind component at ground level (sorta chalk and cheesish).
Drawing a very long bow here methinks (see ETL commentary by FH1100). Quite realistically, the stage was set for this accident much much earlier than that at which brown-out might be encountered. It was quite fairly discounted by the Board of Inquiry as a factor. Not likely to affect vision during a high R.o.D. 80 knot run-on "landing". Concede that - or lose credibility.
Overall, because the concept of incipient/hybrid VRS in a tilt-rotor requires quite a bit of extrapolated imagination, it's a mite indigestible. But you can be sure that it is uppermost in the mind of any V22 flight-crew, particularly if extraneous factors like TOT and "can do" pressures leads them into an unstable approach. Even if it wasn't uppermost, any sign of VRS/asymmVR "departure" (to use the FW autorotative pre-spin term) would make it so.
There will always be tilt-rotor accidents. The unfortunate aspect of this one is the "disappearing" of the recorder. It's starting to smell that same flavor as did the process leading to the earlier (2002?) dismissal of an MV22 Sqn Commander for fudging his fleet's serviceability and operational readiness figures. That investigation never went far enough up the ladder to nail the initiator of the cover-up. The charade would appear to be continuing. "Remember guys, we're all agreed. If we lose one over there, the first priority is to secure the recorder to keep its data out of the "wrong hands". Make sure the relevant personnel are briefed accordingly."
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...56-osprey.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/881...tor-hover.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/881...tml#post843574
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116...er-merged.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/142...lt-rotors.html
Unfortunately the very lengthy post-Marana thread appears to be no longer on Pprune. (that I can find anyway).
Grumpytroll says: (as endorsed by FH1100 Pilot)
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.
(Land a commercial transport aircraft with a 17 knot tailwind....
...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.
Overall, because the concept of incipient/hybrid VRS in a tilt-rotor requires quite a bit of extrapolated imagination, it's a mite indigestible. But you can be sure that it is uppermost in the mind of any V22 flight-crew, particularly if extraneous factors like TOT and "can do" pressures leads them into an unstable approach. Even if it wasn't uppermost, any sign of VRS/asymmVR "departure" (to use the FW autorotative pre-spin term) would make it so.
There will always be tilt-rotor accidents. The unfortunate aspect of this one is the "disappearing" of the recorder. It's starting to smell that same flavor as did the process leading to the earlier (2002?) dismissal of an MV22 Sqn Commander for fudging his fleet's serviceability and operational readiness figures. That investigation never went far enough up the ladder to nail the initiator of the cover-up. The charade would appear to be continuing. "Remember guys, we're all agreed. If we lose one over there, the first priority is to secure the recorder to keep its data out of the "wrong hands". Make sure the relevant personnel are briefed accordingly."
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...56-osprey.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/881...tor-hover.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/881...tml#post843574
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/116...er-merged.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/142...lt-rotors.html
Unfortunately the very lengthy post-Marana thread appears to be no longer on Pprune. (that I can find anyway).
150 feet, guys. 150 feet.
Unctuous, great post! I agree with everything you wrote.
Based on the accident report, here's what I think happened. And let's remember, this flight was a dynamic situation. It's hard to take "snapshots" of any one point in the approach and draw hard and fast conclusions. Things were happening- and things were happening fast. (And also remember that the whole operation was being filmed by the V-22's themselves, as well as aircraft that were circling overhead. Images from these cameras were relayed back to various places in real time.)
So at the 3.0 mile DP (deceleration point), the V-22 was 100 feet too high and 20 knots too fast (going an astonishing 270 knots across the ground). They should have started decelerating there, but did not - not for another 1/2 mile. At 270 knots GS, that 1/2 mile would have been covered in...what...10 seconds? Less?
Anyway, at around 2.5 miles from the LZ they began slowing down and converting back to helicopter mode. With only .79 miles to go they were at 150 feet (still too high) and 147 knots airspeed. By 1/2 mile they were down to 115 knots indicated (128 kts GS).
Okay, stop right here. 115 knots in a V-22 in helicopter mode? I can see that in a Huey, which has generous flapping capability in the rotor, but isn't that just a tad fast for a proprotor-equipped V-22? I ask this because here is what the V-22 AFM says about landing after a dual engine failure in forward flight. First of all, they call for a fast conversion back to helicopter mode and a target speed of 110 knots.
Note:
Expect large pitching transients and NR decay during reconversion due to edgewise flow through the rotor system.
Expect 4000-5000 fpm rate of descent. Glide ratio is 2:1.
Expect loss of flare effectiveness as wing stalls. Plan approach
for 50-60 KCAS at touchdown.
Okay, the V-22 in Afghanistan did not suffer a dual engine failure. But the AFM note is enlightening. When you're going fast and convert back to helicopter mode, strange things happen- i.e. those "large pitching transients." The accident aircraft in Afghanistan was going around 230 knots when they began their conversion, deceleration and descent. And remember, they were only 300 feet from the ground.
At 1/2 mile they were at 150 feet, still doing 115 knots. And here is where it all came undone. The MP (mishap pilot) was undoubtedly working hard, trying to get that big bastard slowed down. For some reason he allowed a rate of descent to build up. Reports say it may have been as high as 1800 fpm downward. From 150 feet. Okay, momentarily as high as 1800 fpm because they did not hit the ground at that rate of descent.
Okay, stop again. You know, we've all been there. We've all be at the bottom of a really messed-up approach. You get to a point where you finally wake up and go, "Damn! This isn't working out, let's get out of here." And you go! You pull pitch and - depending on whether you're above or below ETL - you either pull or push on the cyclic. "Come on, fly darlin'."
I think that once the V-22 began that descent there simply wasn't enough power in the engines or proprotors to stop it. That thing weighed nearly 45,000 pounds at that point. That's a lot of momentum coming down at 1800 fpm. And all it had for support were those tiny little, highly-loaded proprotors. I'll bet that the MP did recognize how screwed up the approach was, and applied every bit of power he had in trying to make that go-around. From 115 (or 100 or even 75) knots it should have been cake. But there just wasn't the lift reserve left to pull it off.
No VRS.
No brownout.
Just a classic case of SWP. Or settling-with-power, V-22-style.
Why is this important? Why do we obsess over this so? Because very simply, it will happen again. And again. The USAF and USMC are trying to make the Osprey do something for which it is particularly ill-suited.
You don't have to be master V-22 pilots to understand this. Most of you guys are probably helicopter pilots- you intuitively and thoroughly understand how helicopters fly. You know about things like inertia and momentum, and the importance of not putting the aircraft into a position from which it cannot escape. You listen to the military pilots say that the V-22 *can* make fast, helicopter-type approaches into a hot LZ, but you know with every fiber of your being that it's very risky. Dangerous, even.
You know this.
But we've had this "magical" V-22 shoved down our throats. And it keeps killing people. In Afghanistan, it killed four people in April of 2010 when the pilot misjudged what should have been a "simple" straight-in, night approach to an undefended LZ. And again let it be said that this pilot was widely regarded as one of the best V-22 pilots in the Air Force. And even he screwed up. I wonder if mcpave and ospreydriver both privately feel that they are better pilots than the MP? I wonder if they privately feel that they wouldn't have screwed up like that?
Ospreydriver feels that since we've already got the V-22, then we should just accept it. I guess he would also advise a rape victim that if it's inevitable, do not resist but just lay back and enjoy it. No, we should fight! We should fight to get the V-22 canceled, as it should have been from the start. We should continue to fight to stop wasting money on this pig.
Here in the U.S., our new mostly-Republican House of Representatives has vowed that they will cut spending! and help reduce our astonishing deficit. They could start by replacing the V-22s with CH/MH-53s. That would not only save a lot of money, it would save a lot of lives.
(Oh, and speaking of the deficit, one final note to helonorth: You said, "BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion." Son, in class this week, perhaps you could ask your high school teachers to explain the difference between "debt" and "deficit," for you obviously don't understand it. I'm not surprised. You want to be a helicopter pilot, after all, right? Sadly, it is a problem of limited intelligence that afflicts so many in our field. You'll fit right in!)
Unctuous, great post! I agree with everything you wrote.
Based on the accident report, here's what I think happened. And let's remember, this flight was a dynamic situation. It's hard to take "snapshots" of any one point in the approach and draw hard and fast conclusions. Things were happening- and things were happening fast. (And also remember that the whole operation was being filmed by the V-22's themselves, as well as aircraft that were circling overhead. Images from these cameras were relayed back to various places in real time.)
So at the 3.0 mile DP (deceleration point), the V-22 was 100 feet too high and 20 knots too fast (going an astonishing 270 knots across the ground). They should have started decelerating there, but did not - not for another 1/2 mile. At 270 knots GS, that 1/2 mile would have been covered in...what...10 seconds? Less?
Anyway, at around 2.5 miles from the LZ they began slowing down and converting back to helicopter mode. With only .79 miles to go they were at 150 feet (still too high) and 147 knots airspeed. By 1/2 mile they were down to 115 knots indicated (128 kts GS).
Okay, stop right here. 115 knots in a V-22 in helicopter mode? I can see that in a Huey, which has generous flapping capability in the rotor, but isn't that just a tad fast for a proprotor-equipped V-22? I ask this because here is what the V-22 AFM says about landing after a dual engine failure in forward flight. First of all, they call for a fast conversion back to helicopter mode and a target speed of 110 knots.
Note:
Expect large pitching transients and NR decay during reconversion due to edgewise flow through the rotor system.
Expect 4000-5000 fpm rate of descent. Glide ratio is 2:1.
Expect loss of flare effectiveness as wing stalls. Plan approach
for 50-60 KCAS at touchdown.
Okay, the V-22 in Afghanistan did not suffer a dual engine failure. But the AFM note is enlightening. When you're going fast and convert back to helicopter mode, strange things happen- i.e. those "large pitching transients." The accident aircraft in Afghanistan was going around 230 knots when they began their conversion, deceleration and descent. And remember, they were only 300 feet from the ground.
At 1/2 mile they were at 150 feet, still doing 115 knots. And here is where it all came undone. The MP (mishap pilot) was undoubtedly working hard, trying to get that big bastard slowed down. For some reason he allowed a rate of descent to build up. Reports say it may have been as high as 1800 fpm downward. From 150 feet. Okay, momentarily as high as 1800 fpm because they did not hit the ground at that rate of descent.
Okay, stop again. You know, we've all been there. We've all be at the bottom of a really messed-up approach. You get to a point where you finally wake up and go, "Damn! This isn't working out, let's get out of here." And you go! You pull pitch and - depending on whether you're above or below ETL - you either pull or push on the cyclic. "Come on, fly darlin'."
I think that once the V-22 began that descent there simply wasn't enough power in the engines or proprotors to stop it. That thing weighed nearly 45,000 pounds at that point. That's a lot of momentum coming down at 1800 fpm. And all it had for support were those tiny little, highly-loaded proprotors. I'll bet that the MP did recognize how screwed up the approach was, and applied every bit of power he had in trying to make that go-around. From 115 (or 100 or even 75) knots it should have been cake. But there just wasn't the lift reserve left to pull it off.
No VRS.
No brownout.
Just a classic case of SWP. Or settling-with-power, V-22-style.
Why is this important? Why do we obsess over this so? Because very simply, it will happen again. And again. The USAF and USMC are trying to make the Osprey do something for which it is particularly ill-suited.
You don't have to be master V-22 pilots to understand this. Most of you guys are probably helicopter pilots- you intuitively and thoroughly understand how helicopters fly. You know about things like inertia and momentum, and the importance of not putting the aircraft into a position from which it cannot escape. You listen to the military pilots say that the V-22 *can* make fast, helicopter-type approaches into a hot LZ, but you know with every fiber of your being that it's very risky. Dangerous, even.
You know this.
But we've had this "magical" V-22 shoved down our throats. And it keeps killing people. In Afghanistan, it killed four people in April of 2010 when the pilot misjudged what should have been a "simple" straight-in, night approach to an undefended LZ. And again let it be said that this pilot was widely regarded as one of the best V-22 pilots in the Air Force. And even he screwed up. I wonder if mcpave and ospreydriver both privately feel that they are better pilots than the MP? I wonder if they privately feel that they wouldn't have screwed up like that?
Ospreydriver feels that since we've already got the V-22, then we should just accept it. I guess he would also advise a rape victim that if it's inevitable, do not resist but just lay back and enjoy it. No, we should fight! We should fight to get the V-22 canceled, as it should have been from the start. We should continue to fight to stop wasting money on this pig.
Here in the U.S., our new mostly-Republican House of Representatives has vowed that they will cut spending! and help reduce our astonishing deficit. They could start by replacing the V-22s with CH/MH-53s. That would not only save a lot of money, it would save a lot of lives.
(Oh, and speaking of the deficit, one final note to helonorth: You said, "BTW, I believe the US deficit is 13-14 trillion." Son, in class this week, perhaps you could ask your high school teachers to explain the difference between "debt" and "deficit," for you obviously don't understand it. I'm not surprised. You want to be a helicopter pilot, after all, right? Sadly, it is a problem of limited intelligence that afflicts so many in our field. You'll fit right in!)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are a nasty bugger, aren't you? Yes, a deficit is the amount of a short fall over a specific time period and a debt is the total negative amount. But I do still think your arm chair analysis should be kept to yourself to prevent further embarrassment. You also cannot argue without personal attacks and insults, which, IMO, destroys any credibility you may have left. Oh yes, mckpave supposedly threatened your life! You can say whatever you want! 
Bravo, man!
Bravo, man!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helonorth
When you're found wrong you resort to name-calling (nasty bugger)? How mature is that though it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a death treat; which BTW is a felony (communicating a threat). Were you able to bring anything to this discussion about the V-22?
I'm still curious about the V-22 at NR that tried to take off while chained down since the damage was so severe it qualified as a CAT A MISHAP/STRIKE. Never heard anything about it as there was no mention in the papers, no JAG or AI held. The Marines actually circled other V-22s around it so no one could see the damage! YIKES! Another cover-up obviously! Like politicians, V-22 management counts on civilian's short memories.
I'm also curious as to whether pilots other than manufacturer or military did all the in-flight tests that allowed the V-22 to fly again. Anyone know?
When you're found wrong you resort to name-calling (nasty bugger)? How mature is that though it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a death treat; which BTW is a felony (communicating a threat). Were you able to bring anything to this discussion about the V-22?
I'm still curious about the V-22 at NR that tried to take off while chained down since the damage was so severe it qualified as a CAT A MISHAP/STRIKE. Never heard anything about it as there was no mention in the papers, no JAG or AI held. The Marines actually circled other V-22s around it so no one could see the damage! YIKES! Another cover-up obviously! Like politicians, V-22 management counts on civilian's short memories.
I'm also curious as to whether pilots other than manufacturer or military did all the in-flight tests that allowed the V-22 to fly again. Anyone know?
Last edited by Dan Reno; 7th Jan 2011 at 19:28.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I called him a nasty bugger, but I was only being kind. The guy is actually a full-blown idiot (more name calling, I know). I guess I'm tired of people with agendas trying to pass them off as a point of view or some kind of informed opinion. It got the best of me. No, I can't bring anything to the table as far as the aircraft, but I would never do that without some real information or first hand experience. Any new press releases you want to post? Cheers.
From the world renown Wikipedia which as any Liberal will tell you is an absolutely accurate reference source.....
Early 2006A V-22 experienced an uncommanded engine acceleration while ground turning at Marine Corps Air Station New River. Since the aircraft regulates power turbine speed with blade pitch, the reaction caused the aircraft to go airborne with the Torque Control Lever (TCL, or throttle) at idle. The aircraft rose 6 feet (1.8 m) into the air, and then fell to the ground with enough force to damage one of its wings; the total amount of damage was around US$ 1,000,000. It was later found that a miswired cannon plug to one of the engine's two Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC) was the cause. The FADEC software was also modified to decrease the amount of time needed for the switch between the redundant FADECs to eliminate the possibility of a similar mishap occurring in the future.[12]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word from the survey team at the time said it was a strike and/or would never fly again. Just can't trust them sand crabs for accurate word can you?.
So manufacturer and military pilots report that an anomaly is OK and good to go now. But you're right, who is going to say otherwise? Gives one that warm-fuzzy knowing that the foxes are checking the hen house for evidence after a chicken incident.
So manufacturer and military pilots report that an anomaly is OK and good to go now. But you're right, who is going to say otherwise? Gives one that warm-fuzzy knowing that the foxes are checking the hen house for evidence after a chicken incident.
helonorth (again):
Well...still not quite right. Debt is debt. It's not a total negative amount, because debt is offset by revenue. The difference between revenue and debt is the deficit (or surplus). I see now why you confused the terms and told me *I* didn't know what I was talking about - YOU don't understand it! Our national public debt is $14 trillion. Our DEFICIT is around $1.9 trillion. Please don't insult my intelligence while demonstrating a lack of your own.
But even if you were right...even if our deficit were $14 trillion, that would be even MORE reason to cancel the Osprey! Thankfully, our deficit is not nearly that high. ...As if $1.9 trillion isn't a lot of money. Hah!
Don't you worry about my embarassment. I'm in charge of that, thank you. Frankly, I'd worry about my own embarassment if I were you. You can think what you want about my "armchair analysis." You don't like it? Too bad. Go post on another forum, perhaps one for whiny little girls. If you know something...anything...about tiltrotors, then feel free to contribute to this discussion, mm'kay? Otherwise, maybe you could start an "FH1100 pilot is a nasty bugger!" thread. Let's see how many responses/views it gets!
Oh, and mcpave? Here is what he said to me in his post, #846 in this thread:
Hmm. Now what would YOU call such a statement? Maybe not a "death threat" per se, but close enough! How would *you* like to walk around knowing that there's someone out there who'd really like to kill you "on general principle?" Should I take him seriously? Should I report that to the police (or worse, the PPRUNE mods)?
I sort of feel sorry for guys like mcpave. I mean, once he gets out of the military, what if he pursues a flying job? There are no civilian tiltrotors, nor are there likely to be in his lifetime. With his disdain for mere, lowly helicopters, can you imagine the poor helicopter pilot PIC that might have to share a cockpit with mcpave as SIC? I can hear him now: "This is how we did it in the Air Force..." No, I imagine that mcpave will probably become a cop or something more in tune with his personality.
This discussion is straying a bit from the V-22. Can we please focus on *it* instead of making personal attacks on me just because you don't like my opinions?
You are a nasty bugger, aren't you? Yes, a deficit is the amount of a short fall over a specific time period and a debt is the total negative amount.
But even if you were right...even if our deficit were $14 trillion, that would be even MORE reason to cancel the Osprey! Thankfully, our deficit is not nearly that high. ...As if $1.9 trillion isn't a lot of money. Hah!
But I do still think your arm chair analysis should be kept to yourself to prevent further embarrassment. You also cannot argue without personal attacks and insults, which, IMO, destroys any credibility you may have left. Oh yes, mckpave supposedly threatened your life! You can say whatever you want.
Oh, and mcpave? Here is what he said to me in his post, #846 in this thread:
...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 sort of feel sorry for guys like mcpave. I mean, once he gets out of the military, what if he pursues a flying job? There are no civilian tiltrotors, nor are there likely to be in his lifetime. With his disdain for mere, lowly helicopters, can you imagine the poor helicopter pilot PIC that might have to share a cockpit with mcpave as SIC? I can hear him now: "This is how we did it in the Air Force..." No, I imagine that mcpave will probably become a cop or something more in tune with his personality.
This discussion is straying a bit from the V-22. Can we please focus on *it* instead of making personal attacks on me just because you don't like my opinions?
Dan, Sas, and I am sure FH will chime in.
What is your point. There was an incident. If another governing concept was used it could have ended up like the HAS Puma or the Qantas 380 with a turbine burst. I have been in many incidents where an engine went into manual or ran away due to fuel control issues. These were analog controlled engines far superior to anything you have, or claimed to have, flown.
All control concepts have benefits and drawbacks. Those who do this recognize it is a balance between responsiveness when needed or reducing future maintenance cost by not letting a pilot pull the power he needs,
I must assume XPlane basic heroes do not recognize this.
The Sultan
What is your point. There was an incident. If another governing concept was used it could have ended up like the HAS Puma or the Qantas 380 with a turbine burst. I have been in many incidents where an engine went into manual or ran away due to fuel control issues. These were analog controlled engines far superior to anything you have, or claimed to have, flown.
All control concepts have benefits and drawbacks. Those who do this recognize it is a balance between responsiveness when needed or reducing future maintenance cost by not letting a pilot pull the power he needs,
I must assume XPlane basic heroes do not recognize this.
The Sultan
I have been lurking this thread for quite some time.
It is OK for me to raise questions concerning a very expensive aircraft.
I also have some personal doubts regarding its 'Bang for the Buck'. Read cost vs. Lift capability and real operational benefits compared to a CH-53E
BUT:
The way some posters (FH1100!!, SASless !?) attack people who actually fly these things I consider not acceptable and not constructive.
I'm not surprised that those start to react sometimes a bit harsh after enough of those sometimes rather subtle personal attacks pulling into question their professionalism.
There seems to be a huge amount of envy or something like that which also shows in FH's last post where he speculates about mcpaves potential future behaviour in civil life ('lowly helicopter pilot').
My impression is that here we are really getting to his motivation !
Guys, it is very interesting to discuss merits/drawbacks and properties of these Flying objects but let's stop these pi*****g contests.
So BTT, please !!
It is OK for me to raise questions concerning a very expensive aircraft.
I also have some personal doubts regarding its 'Bang for the Buck'. Read cost vs. Lift capability and real operational benefits compared to a CH-53E
BUT:
The way some posters (FH1100!!, SASless !?) attack people who actually fly these things I consider not acceptable and not constructive.
I'm not surprised that those start to react sometimes a bit harsh after enough of those sometimes rather subtle personal attacks pulling into question their professionalism.
There seems to be a huge amount of envy or something like that which also shows in FH's last post where he speculates about mcpaves potential future behaviour in civil life ('lowly helicopter pilot').
My impression is that here we are really getting to his motivation !
Guys, it is very interesting to discuss merits/drawbacks and properties of these Flying objects but let's stop these pi*****g contests.
So BTT, please !!
Sultan,
I post an excerpt of a Wikipedia entry, make no editorial coment beyond admitting it came from a source that would not be categorized as being definitive, and you suggest I have ulterior motives.
You do seem awfully defensive in your reply however.....saying no matter what happened due to the design of the aircraft and bad things happening....it is no big deal. I took no position on that design....just posted an article that described what happened.
Instead of the knee jerk reaction...how about discussing what happened...what happened....what was learned....what corrective/preventive action was taken?
Or....do you know naught of the Osprey and just like to pop in now and then and stir the pot and bolt for the door?
I post an excerpt of a Wikipedia entry, make no editorial coment beyond admitting it came from a source that would not be categorized as being definitive, and you suggest I have ulterior motives.
You do seem awfully defensive in your reply however.....saying no matter what happened due to the design of the aircraft and bad things happening....it is no big deal. I took no position on that design....just posted an article that described what happened.
Instead of the knee jerk reaction...how about discussing what happened...what happened....what was learned....what corrective/preventive action was taken?
Or....do you know naught of the Osprey and just like to pop in now and then and stir the pot and bolt for the door?
Nah, see henra, you've got it backwards. I didn't attack anyone. It was guys like mcpave and ospreydriver who came on here attacking *me* because (in their opinion) I can't possibly know ANYTHING about the V-22 because I do not fly one. Therefore I'm stupid. They were the ones who began insulting my intelligence and knowledge while making vague counterclaims with precious little detail due to "operational security." I was just wrong, they said, and we'd just have to take their word on it.
Secondly, I did not call mcpave a "lowly helicopter pilot." I merely mentioned mcpave and ospreydriver's oft-repeated derision and disdain for for "lowly" helicopters, which in their view cannot hold a candle to the magical miracle...this modern marvel called the V-22.
I speculate on mcpave's civilian future because it is relevant. I'm concerned about him. How will such a person adjust to "normal" life, given that there will be no tiltrotors to fly? Here is a person who, when faced with someone who disagrees with his views, admits publicly that he'd like to kill that man on general principle! Certainly the FAA would never see fit to issue him a medical certificate. And I'm thinking..."What kind of civilian job could a person this unstable hold?" Ohhhh right, a cop. Seems a natural fit.
Am I wrong?
henra, your questions regarding the relative merits of the V22 v. H53 are valid. What good is winning a war if the country goes broke in the process? But be prepared for a barrage of criticism, mostly centered around the fact that the V-22 was always intended to replace the H-46, *not* the H-53. ...To which I always ask: How many USAF H-46's did the V-22 replace?
Secondly, I did not call mcpave a "lowly helicopter pilot." I merely mentioned mcpave and ospreydriver's oft-repeated derision and disdain for for "lowly" helicopters, which in their view cannot hold a candle to the magical miracle...this modern marvel called the V-22.
I speculate on mcpave's civilian future because it is relevant. I'm concerned about him. How will such a person adjust to "normal" life, given that there will be no tiltrotors to fly? Here is a person who, when faced with someone who disagrees with his views, admits publicly that he'd like to kill that man on general principle! Certainly the FAA would never see fit to issue him a medical certificate. And I'm thinking..."What kind of civilian job could a person this unstable hold?" Ohhhh right, a cop. Seems a natural fit.
Am I wrong?
henra, your questions regarding the relative merits of the V22 v. H53 are valid. What good is winning a war if the country goes broke in the process? But be prepared for a barrage of criticism, mostly centered around the fact that the V-22 was always intended to replace the H-46, *not* the H-53. ...To which I always ask: How many USAF H-46's did the V-22 replace?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just a sampling of the type info we are fed from the V-22 management folks and you lovers of this beast wonder why your data is questioned:
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
BTW, there never was a retraction on this so I assume this may be the cause of some of this POS's engine problems.
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
BTW, there never was a retraction on this so I assume this may be the cause of some of this POS's engine problems.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"POS?"
This is the kind of crap that is unacceptable.
What do you fly? How about I just roll up to it and, not ever having flown in one, seen it in action, or probably even been to a static display of it, start telling you that it sucks, and that I know more it about its shortcomings than you do?
There's nothing "lowly" about helicopters, but they have a lot of inherent limitations (e.g. speed, maneuverability, altitude, and range) that the tiltrotor addresses. I don't know what I'll be doing outside the big green gun club yet, but I'll be fine.
I know which aircraft I want to be in when Hadji shoots his SA-18 at me. It ain't a helo. That's what it comes down to. All the conspiracy theory BS seems to neglect htat.
This is the kind of crap that is unacceptable.
What do you fly? How about I just roll up to it and, not ever having flown in one, seen it in action, or probably even been to a static display of it, start telling you that it sucks, and that I know more it about its shortcomings than you do?
There's nothing "lowly" about helicopters, but they have a lot of inherent limitations (e.g. speed, maneuverability, altitude, and range) that the tiltrotor addresses. I don't know what I'll be doing outside the big green gun club yet, but I'll be fine.
I know which aircraft I want to be in when Hadji shoots his SA-18 at me. It ain't a helo. That's what it comes down to. All the conspiracy theory BS seems to neglect htat.