Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Old 1st Jul 2016, 21:55
  #601 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC USA
Posts: 350
Why the Over Sensitivity?

Lonewolf 50 This was never meant to be the beginning of a witch hunt. I do not agree completely with your logic. While approaching that point where dinosaur is the term most used when describing my aviation career, like yourself I have witnessed many systematic issues with most models of the aircraft I was blessed to have flown. Examples include, mast bumping with the entire Bell line off U/A – 1s, years of Boeing CH-46 rotor blade problems, Sikorsky issues with the CH-53 vertical and horizontal hinges and early Blackhawk spindle problems. The single issue that surprised me with this article was the sheer magnitude of the number of machines that have been removed from service. Having survived Ed Hume of the “Orange County Register” and his attack on the H-53E I look to understanding what issues the V-22 may have. My intent is to understand the V-22 issues and hopefully that someone is seriously working to make these machines better for the Marines and Airmen that operate them. My heart and soul are with the airmen that fly by daily and you are right it is the beautiful sound off freedom.
Jack Carson is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2016, 23:50
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,239
Somewhere I heard that some of the crashes were due to "Roll Off" rather than the causes cited in the Accident Reports....anyone have knowledge of that?
SASless is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 07:32
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,035
Japan V-22 about to fly


https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/2...de-of-the-u-s/



Cheers

Last edited by chopper2004; 28th Aug 2017 at 14:34.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 23:47
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 545
Sweet retro US Navy paint scheme.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2017, 21:21
  #605 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 605
For those interested on the professional level in the V-22, there is a thread in Mil Aviation you may wish to contribute to or at least follow. It appears that another V-22 has had a notable "hard landing" but no fatalities. (Thankfully).
T28B is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 12:02
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Univers
Posts: 34
From Wikipedia

The V-22 Osprey had 10 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had six crashes including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in twelve fatalities.[4]

The toll for this new technology is a little be high, may be too much.
Margins is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 14:39
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 601
Originally Posted by Margins View Post
The V-22 Osprey had 10 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had six crashes including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in twelve fatalities.[4]

The toll for this new technology is a little be high, may be too much.
To put it in perspective, the CH-53 series has killed over 375 servicemen in its operational lifetime in accidents alone.

I simply do not understand how people are unable to look at these statistics objectively. 10 years of operation and 6 crashes is considered too high a toll for the technology? The CH-53 had a single week of accidents in the mid 1980s that saw almost that many crashes.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 14:37
  #608 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC USA
Posts: 350
I agree any accident is one too many. It will be argued that I have just dug up old bones as a V-22 hater. That is far from the truth. I hope our US servicemen and women have the best and safest equipment available but let us not bend the statistical truth for the sake of argument. The truth is that since March 2007 to the present the V-22 fleet has experienced 13 reported Class A mishap while 6 additional mishaps were not specifically reported that resulted in the loss of 12 lives. None of this information is available on the Navy’s safety web site. H-53E mishap information is readily available showing a similar number of total mishaps. During the period FY 2010-2012 in Afghanistan the V-22 and the CH-53E each lost 8 aircraft. The CH-53E fleet flew 19400 hour during this period resulting in a mishap rate of 41/100000 flight hours. During the same period the V-22 flew 724 flight hours resulting in a mishap rate of 1105/100000 flight hours.

Serious (Class A) Mishaps of Marine Corps V-22 Aircraft
Serial Number MV-22 Number Mishap Date Description of Class A Mishap
163911 01 1999 Not reported; damaged, stored at Hickory Museum
163914 04 20 Jul 1992 Reported; crashed near Quantico VA; 4 killed
163915 05 11 Jun 1991 Reported; test aircraft crashed on runway; (photo)

164939 07 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164941 09 Unknown Not reported; scrapped in 2008
164942 10 12 Feb 2003 Not reported; overstressed (photo); scrapped 2006

165433 11 08 Apr 2000 Not reported; hard landing at Marana; scrapped 04 Apr 06
165434 12 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 02 Oct 2007
165436 14 08 Apr 2000 Reported; crashed after roll over at Marana, AZ; 19 killed
165437 15 08 Sep 2005 Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo

165438 16 Unknown Not reported; GIA at New River, NC; photo

165439 17 Unknown Not reported; scrapped 13 Sep 2004

165440 18 11 Dec 2000 Reported; crashed near New River, NC; 4 killed
165441 19 Unknown Not reported; GIA at Pensacola FL

165442 20 17 May 2010 Not reported; stored at NAVAIRSYSCOM
165444 22 28 Jun 2004 Misreported as Class B; scrapped 2 Feb 2012

165837 23 Unknown Not reported: retired to Quantico museum

165839 25 31 Oct 2013 Not reported; retired to USAF museum

165844 30 11 Apr 2012 Reported; crashed in Morocco; two killed
165948 49 6 Nov 2007 Reported; in flight engine fire; stored at New River, NC

166385 52 28 Mar 2005 Misreported as Class B; hydraulic/engine fire; stored at New River, NC photo; crewman permanently disabled

166388 55 21Aug 2007 Misreported as Class B; nose wheel collapse during emergency landing at Yuma, AZ
166389 56 27 Mar 2006 Misreported as a ground mishap; scrapped 14Jul09.

166390 57 7 Dec 2006 Misreported as Class B; fire damage

166390 57 19 May 2014 Reported; Crew Chief fell out while in flight

166480 59 10 Jul 2006 Misreported as Class B; engine destroyed by compressor stalls; emergency landing in Iceland
166482 61 01 May 2006 Not reported; engine fire at New River; scrapped 21 April 2010

166488 67 2008 Damaged in 2008; stripped of parts at New River; photo

166735 100 21 Jun 2013 Reported; destroyed by fire after emergency landing

VMM-263 Unknown 21 Jun 2008 Misreported as Class B; engine disintegrated during flight; emergency landing in Jordan.

168005 135 April 2001 Not Reported; Landing gear collapse required depot repair

167902 113 11 Jul 2011 Reported; crewman killed by cargo while in flight, Afghanistan

Unknown Unknown 27 May 2009 Not reported; swamp take-off crash causes fire damage

167910 121 May 2009 Misreported as Class B; Engine seizure and fire while in flight

Unknown Unknown 09 Jul 2012 Cross-shaft failure required emergency landing at Wilmington NC

168234 184 01 Oct 2014 Power loss upon take off, crewman drowned at sea

VMM-365 Unknown 2013 Not reported; crash landing in Afghanistan

168241 191 26 Aug 2013 Reported; destroyed after fire and hard landing

VMM-161 Unknown Sept 2014 Not reported; serious damage required rebuild

168014 144 27 June 2014 Not Reported; in Japan, details withheld

168020 150 17 May 2015 Reported; crash in LZ, two dead, destroyed by fire

Unknown Unknown 26 Oct 2016 Reported then removed; nose gear collapse at NAS Patuxent River

168027 157 13 Dec 2016 Reported; crash landed near Okinawa.

Unknown Unknown 29 Jan 2017 Reported; crash landing in Yemen after engine failure.
Unknown Unknown 5 Aug 2017 Reported; power lacking upon launch, lost at sea with 3 dead.

Unknown Unknown 29 Sep 2017 Reported; crash landing in Syria, two injured, destroyed.

168026 155 9 Dec 2015 Reported; set down short of flight deck, fuselage cracked.
Jack Carson is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 15:10
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 117
Jack C., when you mention the -53 and -22 "fleets" and "in Afghanistan", do you mean aircraft in country? There seems to me to be a disconnect between either the loss of 8 V-22s in Afghanistan in those three years (and your list doesn't include any), or the fact that the entire V-22 fleet only operated a total of 724 hours over the 3-year period.
Vzlet is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 17:41
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 601
First of all, Jack, congratulations for copying and pasting Carlton Meyer's propaganda list (with ZERO sources, particularly for the dubious repeated claims of "misreported") for the umpteenth time. Do either of you happen to have the full list of all the other "unreported" or "misreported" incidents for the -60, -53, or -47?

Secondly, the -53 comparison below does not compute and again, you're parroting some very dubious reporting from the vehemently anti-Osprey Ryuku Shimpo. Also notice they are showing class A thru D incidents....not "lost aircraft". A class D accident is damage $2k to $50k or even an injury from cutting a finger! To frame an aircraft safety record this way is textbook spin.

Originally Posted by Jack Carson View Post
During the period FY 2010-2012 in Afghanistan the V-22 and the CH-53E each lost 8 aircraft. The CH-53E fleet flew 19400 hour during this period resulting in a mishap rate of 41/100000 flight hours. During the same period the V-22 flew 724 flight hours resulting in a mishap rate of 1105/100000 flight hours.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=4514

The V-22 Joint Program Office announced that the V-22 Osprey surpassed 100,000 flight hours in February (2011) while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan.

During the past decade, the MV-22 has the lowest Class A mishap rate of any currently fielded tactical Marine Corps rotorcraft, according to Naval Safety Center records. The aircraft’s reduced susceptibility, lower vulnerability and advanced crashworthiness have made it the most survivable rotorcraft ever introduced.

MV-22 and CV-22 Ospreys amassed the flight hours performing combat operations, humanitarian assistance, training, and test and evaluation missions. Almost half of the total hours were flown during the last two years. The milestone marks the latest significant achievement for a program that has had 14 successful combat and humanitarian deployments in theater and aboard ship since the Osprey was first declared operational in 2007.
Also...50,000 hours from 2009-2011 and only 724 flown in Afghanistan from 2010-2012? That doesn't pass the smell test. I can't seem to find the referenced data from Naval Safety center showing this value either. Shockingly, Ryuku Shimpo takes a book out of old Carlton's book and provides ZERO references or links to data...
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2017, 18:55
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 545
Jack

If you want hard numbers, in the Mayaquez fiasco 7 of 11 53’s were lost or had mission ending damage. If all had flown the four hours the mission was planned for (they did not) that is 15000 Class A’s per 100000 hours. Desert One obviously much higher with 100% mission killing losses/aborts.

Last edited by The Sultan; 5th Oct 2017 at 03:54. Reason: Fixed missing text
The Sultan is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2017, 03:43
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,337
The handbags are out and swinging, to be sure ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2018, 21:35
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,035
Bell-Beoing to start CMV-22B production

Bell Boeing to start production of the COD variant CMV-2BB for the Navy. It is replacing the legacy Grumman C-2A Greyhound...

Bell Boeing to begin U.S. Navy CMV-22B production work under $4 billion contract - Bell (news)



cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 23:57
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 357
Are you truly independent!

Jack Carson,
I am now fairly old and wrinkly, at 73 well retired. But in my past have had quite a bit of exposure to the company competitive aspect of aviation politics ! Your posts are very detailed, and can I say more than a little one sided! So can you assure me that you have no connection whatsoever with any other aviation constructor, and that your posts are entirely independent of any company, however connected with the aviation world? Frankly to me, you appear to be tainted with the attitude of someone who has an axe to grind!
So please convince me of your total independence on this subject!

TF
tigerfish is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 01:42
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,239
Reading the laundry list of crashes one thing does give me pause to think.....the large number of events involving “Fire”.

Reminds me of the early years with Huey’s and the frequency they burned before the Army decided crashworthy fuel systems might be a nice Idea.
SASless is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 11:26
  #616 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Durham, NC USA
Posts: 350
Tigerfish,
As a 70 something with more than 40 years flying experience in a wide variety of machines, I can assure you that I do not have an axe to grind concerning the V-22. You are correct in that I have had more that 20 years of affiliation with a Sikorsky. Any concerns that I have expressed with the V-22 fleet are purely grounded with the safety of those that operate this machine. I take it personally when those I knew and flew with have been lost in any mishap regardless of the aircraft type. I also experienced the degradation of the CH-53 fleet as the V-22 absorbed funds sorely needed to support fleet readiness throughout the Navy and Marines. The V-22 is here to stay as a military aviation asset. I do hope that any issues with the fleet are rectified and the its operators experience a long safe life.
Jack Carson is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 17:59
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,337
@Tigerfish, I am pretty sure that Jack lived through the "crowd killer" years of the CH-53. A lot of my Marine friends referred to the E as both "the shitter" and "the crowd killer." I was given to understand that the latter nickname was in honor of an accident in the 80's where we lost one in WestPac with all hands (30+ dead), with a tail problem. Your questioning his objectivity is not well played.
Some years later, when I had occasion to be involved in things like depot level maintenance and SLEP, the CH-53 was still "enjoying" oil canning problems in the tail boom. (Not sure if the K design has figured that out but I hope it did). For all of the difficulty, the CH-53E is a magnificent beast, and formed the back bone of USMC heavy lift for 3 decades and still is. Flying one, when I got the chance, was an eye opener.
Osprey has found its niche, and is a performer. Don't look back, the future looks pretty good.

JackCarson: V-22 versus spare parts and ECP's ... those were different pots of money. The O&M funds would get raided first while APN-1 funds (and a few other categories of acquisition money) could be protected. (Were that not the case Comanche would never have gotten as far as it did ...) We had similar problems in the 90's with O&M funds being raided for yet another OOTW boondoggle, thanks to our academics who want to save the world and shut up CNN's Christiania Amanpur (they never succeeded in that) killing our spares for P-3's and SH-60's to name but two TMS that I am painfully familiar with. It wasn't Osprey's fault, and it wasn't F-18 E/F's fault. It was how money can and can't be "changed of color" by the rules Congress provides ... and then there's the shell game. *better stop, getting a bad flashback*
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 23:57
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 357
OK Guys, happy with that response ! Jack - Respect for your experience and attitude. Over the years I have become alarmed by the way that some others have adopted a totally partizan approach to criticising competing companies products, hence my question. Company politics is one thing, but genuinely seeking to protect the lives of our fellow companions is honourable. I just wanted to test that position.

TF
tigerfish is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2019, 17:25
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,035
On this day 30 years ago

On this day 30 years ago, the V-22 took flight for the first time

Cheers

chopper2004 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2019, 17:51
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,239
The Bell 200 (XV-3) first flew in 1955 and was followed by the XV-15 then the V-22.

Most days I get to see at least one V-22 fly near my house....as there are two large USMC bases near me where quiet a number of them are located.

Last edited by SASless; 20th Mar 2019 at 17:39. Reason: FH1100 noticed a Typo!
SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.