Gmachine,

My criticisms lie more with the PR and technical problems than the concept. I am open minded despite being a critic of the Osprey as billed by the USMC. I see missions it is exactly suited for but I also see it being placed in roles it really is not cut out to do when compared to standard helicopter designs.

If you read my posts carefully, you will see I question things like cabin size, door opening sizes, speeds when used as a helicopter, non-sea level performance, the lack of O2/pressurization for pax, and a host of other things not ignoring it's maintenance issues.

The fact I have to rely on press reports, congressional data and the like makes me neither blind, dumb, or a tosser. When folks cannot refute those reports or provide questionable data to support their position and I take issue does not make me mean spirited.

Being a Taxpayer does give me ever right to question the expenditure of vast sums of money on projects that never seem to mature and continually fail to meet the original projected cost, performance, and reliability specifications. Throw in known false statements and other efforts to hide failure then one can only develop a feeling that the project management's credibilty is not all it should be.

The Marines have been their own worst enemy in that regard.

If you will notice.....there is scant discussion about the Air Force segment of the Fleet. That should tell you something right there.

But by all means....bring forth all the up to date and accurate information you can....it would be of great benefit to the discussion.

Would you know a recently frocked Captain from the P-3 (now B-737) program at Pax.....he is an Elk hunting buddy.

Ahh, another country heard from!

gmachine:Yes, here's yet one *more* anonymous guy who claims to have all the answers. It's so simple! Even an idiot can figure this out!

Why is it that any critics of the V-22 are always...always...portrayed as irrational, anti-progress, tin-foil-hat-wearing loonies just because we don't drink the tilt-rotor Kool-Aid?

gmachine:Look you nameless putz, nobody said anything about space aliens. If you're going to take that attitude, perhaps your first post on this forum should be your last!

The question arose as to how many V-22 the Marines have. This could not be answered clearly to Congress by the guy who is in charge of the program. Yet "gmachine" comes along and tells us how simple it is to figure out. Why, all we dimbulbs need is that mysterious spreadsheet! Well, okay, anyone care to publish it? Why is it so complicated? Sure, certain early airframes were modified to later specs...I get that. So just answer the question: HOW MANY DAMN V-22's HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE MARINES? Again, it's not like we're talking about thousands...or even hundreds of aircraft for that matter.

Not even the almighty "gmachine" did that. What "gmachine" is trying to make us believe is that one single V-22 can actually be counted two V-22's if it was remanufactured from Block A to Block B.Care to share some of that "trivia" with the public - you know, the ones who are footing the bill for this thing? Oh, and it's not like that general couldn't keep up with the number of V-22's "on any given day." Since they are only receiving "two or three per month," the general should have been able to give a count that is accurate down to two or three. Why couldn't he have said, "Well, we've received 110 aircraft, but some of them count more than once because they've gone back to the factory to be remanufactured and thus appear on the list twice. So it seems like we have more V-22's than we actually do."

Wouldn't that have been so easy? Even a congressman could've understood that.

The V-22 proponents are passionate about "their" aircraft. Unfortunately, most of their enthusiasm for the ship stems from the, Gee-whiz, it's-so-cool! factor. They think that the machine *is* vindicated simply because they've put their "heart and soul" into working on it. (It's not.) They think that "favorable reports from the troops that actually use it" justify the V-22's total existence. (They don't.)

I'm sure the V-22 is just super-duper coolio. I'm sure it's totally awesome, man...the neatest thing since sliced bread. I mean, look at the way the rotors and engines actually tilt!!! OMG!!!

I'm sure the V-22 does some things very well. I don't deny that. And I'm sure that the flight crews love flying it. I'm sure the engineers who've worked on it have a lot of themselves invested in it.

But none of that means anything. None of that matters.

What matters is: What can the V-22 do *better* than the helicopter(s) it is intended to replace?

Is it faster? Yes. Twice as fast? No. It's just...well..."somewhat faster." It can accellerate and decellerate faster!

Can it fly higher? Well, no. It is unpressurized. And it has no airframe and/or proprotor anti-ice.

Can it carry more than a CH-46? Well, no. Not really. Not inside the cabin.

Does it have a personnel hoist? Yes! Well, no. Well, it's supposed to. But...umm...no one has seen any pictures of a V-22 hoisting anybody yet, not even a crash-test dummy. Word is that this capability is "still being tested" or some such thing. (We'll have to leave the jury out on that one.)

Is it "cooler" than a CH-46? Yes!

Is it more expensive than a CH-46? OH HELLS YEAH!

Finally, we have to ask: Is it safer than a helicopter?

Here, the answer to that one is a resounding, "NO!"

When a helicopter gets into VRS it crashes straight down and hits upright, where the landing gear, structure and crash-attenuating seats can make the inevitable hard-landing survivable.

When a V-22 gets into A-VRS, it crashes inverted killing everybody onboard. It has already demonstrated this "unpleasant" characteristic.

V-22 proponents say this will NEVER happen again. EVER! We solved it! See, we know about this phenomenon now. And we've made up these rules that the pilots must fly by. (And pilots always fly by the rules in combat.) And that knowledge, combined with those rules will allow flight crews to forever avoid the dreaded A-VRS. No more "Maranas." Simple!

Heh.

I know I harp on this A-VRS thing like a broken record. But I consider it a fatal flaw in the design. It will kill more soldiers, guaranteed. It is why the civilian version will never see widespread acceptance and use (if it is indeed ever certified).

Tilt-rotor proponents such as "gmachine" like to claim that the V-22 is "only" about 23 years old, originating in 1986. Trouble is, Bell has actually been working on the tilt-rotor design since 1953. And they have not been able to perfect it. Bell even pawned-off the development of the civilian model 609 to the Italians. I'm sure that when they handed over the prototypes and drawings and 5.25" floppy disks and stuff, Bell management said, "Yeah, good luck with that!" with a sarcastic roll of the eyes, happy to be done with it.

Yet we taxpayers are told that we must continue to throw good money after bad...to keep funding this defective, deficient design called the Osprey. But the V-22 is not even close to being workable. Twenty-three years since the first one flew and we're still being given the lame excuse that the design is "not mature," and has "teething pains." And, oh yeah, if you land it out in the field it sometimes starts a brush fire...and might...you know...burn itself up too. Just one of those little..."teething pains" that we'll work out...eventually. (I know! Maybe they'll make a rule that no V-22 shall ever be landed within 100 feet of any vegetation.)

Uh-huh.

"gmachine," I'm sure you've put a lot of hard work into the V-22 over the years. I'm sure you'd hate to think that it was all for naught...that it was all wasted time. But sadly, I must tell you that...it was. So sorry. I hope they paid you well, at least.

I don't care how "cool" it is. I say, enough already! Kill the damn thing! Stomp on it like a fleeing cockroach. Kill it before it kills more Marines.



(Thank you for reading all the way down to here. You're a better man than I am. Even I don't read the crap I write.)

Always entertaining FH , takes me back to the good old days of rec.aviation.rotorcraft.

If i am not mistaken the serial # ( BUNO) stays the same for the life of the airframe ( regardless of mod status ) so can someone list all the serial numbers and current status , as FH said it is not such a large list

and here is one list.
bell v-22 Osprey - Helicopter Database

seems to stop at 2007 , the USAF numbers are easier to understand as the first 2 digits are year of manufacture.

Bob, I mean FH, what's wrong with you?:ooh:
Has retirement taken a chunk out of your psiche? Funny how are getting so wrapped up about this V-22 issue, I always thought you a much more rational being than that.
With that aside, it seems that (since we are all speaking from information received from the latest liberal-anti military-pot smoking-Sunday rag-journalist) we can all say the same.
However, it amazes me that the only new "rotary wing" program that has continued its advance in the US arsenal is being the subject of such a rabid attack, even more so since you guys are just admittedly bashing the USMC for it.

As far as the development of the 609 Bob, Bell has not been able to develop SQUAT since that half ass job of the 407 (the 429 being just another attempt to a B level helicopter).
I bet AW shall get quite a bit out of the 609 when that gets certified, just like they have been building better helicopters than Bell for the last 15 years.
But the last helicopter you flew was the 105, so what would you know other than what you read in the papers.
Just like Mr. Reno here.

Gmachine welcome to this forum, it's a pleasure having individuals who can bring FACTUAL information to the large public, rather than some hearsay as some of those in this thread.

Welcome gmmachine! As tottingol and others have said what is needed is factual data.

Answers to the following should be straightforward.....

1. What has the program (programme) cost so far?
2. How many aircraft has this bought the MC? (The ones that are still usable, excluding the pre-prod/test articles).
3. What is the cost per ac?

4. What was the original budgetted cost?
5. What additional cost is involved in completing the development to achieve the original peformance targets/specs?

This will then reveal whether the funds are being well spent and whether the taxpayer is getting good (ha, ha) value for its money.

Then a decision can be taken whether to continue buying more Ospreys or whether funds would be better spent buying something else that the MC might want instead. The arguement being that the MC doesn't want to end up with 2 squadrons of Ospreys for $xxxxBn when to get the mission done it needs 10 squadrons to maintain the spread of deployments across the world.

More "affordable" aircraft, and perhaps ones with less speed, range, sophistication and technical risk might be much, much better. My advice would be to re-open production on a proven aircraft, with "modern" engines, digital fuel computers, composite blades, a glass cockpit, and the latest self protection kit/armour would be one option.

This would give improved performance due to lighter materials, longer range due to improved sfc, less maintenance, greater reliability, lower risk, faster in-service date and (in these straightened times) a much lower unit cost of procurement. You could even call it "Superphrog"....

Just my $0.02.

MB

Gmachine,
Your input is GREATLY appreciated by the silent majority. Those with 'the facts' like yourself are normally summarily dismissed by those on this forum with an agenda and personal prejudice for whatever reasons. Very few would not agree that the program is way too expensive, but the aircraft is here and the question is: 'now that the money has been invested, what is the best path forward.' Some outside of active duty military will try to convince you that the aircarft does not add valuable mission capability that no other aircraft in service can provide. It is not the best helicopter, and it is not the best aeroplane for a reason -- it was not designed to be either. The people operating the aircraft, particularly those in the US Special Operations role, swear by it for a reason...

Hope we hear from you again...

Interesting follow-up.
 

I received many questions and answers since publication of "40 MV-22s are Missing!" in July. Some inside the program criticized "wild speculation in the media." This was caused by General Trautman's claim last May that only 91 MV-22s had been delivered to the Marine Corps, a comment that was never corrected or explained. In his testimony, he mouthed gibberish that if the V-22 had been in the force in the 1980s, we wouldn't have problems in Iran today. Not only was that comment insane, it is outright false. The cross-country attempt in 2005 to replicate "Eagle Claw", the failed Iran rescue mission, with V-22s failed miserably, even when they cheated and flew at 14,000 ft rather than 300 ft.
His staff spent two weeks playing games with congressional staff, then finally provided a list of 105 MV-22s in June, with incomplete status information. The Marine public affairs officer said he would provide a list to the media, but never did. The CBO's June 2009 report said Congress had funded 156 MV-22s to the Marines through FY2009. Why not just provide Congress and the media with a complete list of the 156, to include those in production? Since the status of all Marine Corps aircraft is compiled daily, why the reluctance to share the "good" news about the V-22? This reluctance to provide data raised suspicions, especially for those who remember history:
CNN August 17, 2001
"Major General Dennis T. Krupp, commander of all Marine Corps aviation units in the eastern United States was "..charged with Dereliction of Duty in that he allegedly knew or should have known of the suspected false (Osprey) maintenance records", a Marine Corps release states. Also charged with offense are three colonels: Col. Lauren P. Eck; Col. James E. Schleining and Col. Phillip L. Newman.
Col. Eck is charged with Violating a Lawful Order for failing to report offenses committed by other Marines. Col. Schneining and Col. Newman are charged with Dereliction of Duty along with Lt. Col. Demetrice M. Babb.
The commander of the Mairine Corps' only Osprey squadron, Lt. Col. Oden Fred Leberman, was charged with Dereliction of Duty, Making False Official Statements and Conduct Unbecoming and Officer for ordering members of the squadron to falsify the maintenance records for the controversial airplane.
Leberman was captured by another Marine on audio tape instructing members of his squadron to falsify the records in an effort to save the foundering Osprey program which is among the Marine Corps' highest priorities."
If one reviews news reports about the V-22's performance in Iraq, Generals had nothing but praise. However, they refused to share many details with GAO investigators, and even tried to stiff arm Congress when asked for basic performance information. When Generals refused to release an full account of the V-22 inventory, one must suspect wrongdoing. Comments in January 2006 by retired Marine Col. Jack Carson are also revealing:
"This is a twenty year old story. The V-22 has been and a will continue to be suspect as long as the USMC continues to champion it without regard for the truth. Technology has been pushed to and past the limits of reasonableness. Fatal accidents aside, the V-22 has never clearly met most of its design goals. Clear technical issues have been side stepped in favor of a public relations push. As a former Marine, Test Pilot and an H-53 pilot, I have witnessed this first hand over the past twenty years.
General Blot blocked a long range demonstration flight of a CH-53E in the 1990’s stating that he would not allow the CH-53E demonstrate anything that may compromise or make the V-22 look bad. The V-22 has always been compared to the CH-46. With 12,300 ESHP and a gross weight approaching 60,000, the V-22 actually exceeds the gross weight of the CH-53D and approaches that of the CH-53E. Comparing the V-22 to the CH-53 line would have closed the gap and made the program less viable, if not totally unworthy."
Production Backlogged
It is now apparent that Bell is far behind in V-22 production, despite assurances than it was ahead of schedule. It hasn't even produced half the aircraft funded in FY2008. Because it lacks capacity, it will onlydeliver 20 V-22sthis year as it expands production. Bell worries that Congress will learn of this backlog and not fund the full FY2010 request for 30 more MV-22s for the Marines.
Another problem is that many spare parts are failing after just a few dozens hours of use, which caused a parts shortage that reached all the way back to the production line. Meanwhile, Bell-Boeing is still getting contracts to design new parts for the V-22 and still tweaking the design. Finally, revelations about missing MV-22s prompted Marine Generals to drag broke down MV-22s out of hangars and send them to Bell for repair, if possible.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22broke.jpgThis has swamped Bell, but that is not bad for them because Bell-Boeing is making billions more dollars to "fix" an aircraft they designed. Even though Bell-Boeing already has a couple years of unfinished work, they want to book more orders because the V-22's future is in doubt. If Congress cuts the FY2010 request to 12 MV-22s, it would have no effect on production since since Bell is over a year behind. This would eliminate the backlog of orders and annual funding could return to 30 MV-22s in FY2011, assuming Congress and Marines haven't chose other options by that time. The money saved could be used for unfunded aviation needs, like the Marine's desire to increase production of the Bell UH-1Y.
The other unanswered question is why the five-year contract has not lowered the unit price to $62 million as promised. Major Dent at HQMC quotes that price, while the FY2010 budget has a unit price of $78 million. Generals spout gibberish about "fly away" costs and "spreadsheets" but one can look at DoD budgets for FY2009 and FY2008 before the contract was signed, and the unit cost was around $80 million each. It is obvious that the five-year contract was not signed to save money, but a corrupt attempt by insiders to lock-in the V-22's future before Congress learned about its dismal performance in Iraq and the dozen new V-22s damaged beyond repair. 48 Extra V-22s?
Another example of games played by those profiting off the V-22 program is a covert attempt to buy 48 extra V-22s. The budget for Marine Corp aviation has doubled the past few years. The Marine Corps procurement objective for the V-22 program has always been 360 MV-22s. However, the Marine Corps requirement for MV-22s has inexplicitly jumped to 408 MV-22s. See page 11 of the CBO report. How did this occur?http://www.g2mil.com/CH-60Ss.jpg
The program always planned for a total of 458 V-22s, for the Marines, Air Force, and Navy. This helped sell it as a "joint" program. However, the Navy was never enthusiastic for 48 HV-22s. The Navy frequently uses helicopters for "vertical replenishment", and the V-22's intense downwash makes external load operations dangerous. In addition, the V-22 is too big to land safely on Navy cruisers and destroyers, and its engine heat warps the flight deck.
As a result, the Navy wisely chose the MH-60S (right) to replace its CH-46Ds for utility roles back in 1999. This aircraft is half the size and half the cost of a V-22, yet can lift the same payload vertically as the newer, heavier "Block C." Note that V-22s can never fly in tight formations lest they blow out one another's "good air" causing a V-22 to instantly snap roll. This required the adoption of assault tactics that are universally viewed as insane. V-22s must fly 250 ft apart as they approach a typical confined landing zone (LZ). They must land one at a time, after they retract their belly gun, and remain on the ground until all have landed, then take-off one at a time! Note; when V-22 spinmasters talk about how fast it can land, they are referring to how fast it can land on a runway like an airplane.
The V-22 program kept the canceled 48 Navy HV-22s on the order book. In 2005, the HV-22s were renamed MV-22s with hopes that Congress wouldn't notice, so that the Marines could get 48 extra MV-22s to compensate for their extremely high attrition rate. Generals may insist that the Navy is still "interested" in 48 MV-22s. Congressmen need only ask which Navy helicopters these MV-22s will replace, and which squadrons are they destine for, and why no Navy personnel are in the V-22 training pipeline. Confused Marine Generals will ask to "provide that later for the record." If Congress wants to save money or redirect funds to critical needs, it should tell Marine Generals that it will not buy 48 MV-22s for the Navy, since it doesn't want them and doesn't need them.
The Pre-Block A Myth
If an aircraft suffers over $1 million damage, a Class A mishap report must be filed with the Navy Safety Center and an independent JAG investigation conducted to determine the cause. Since the two crashes in 2000, only two other Class A mishaps were reported, a broke wing and an engine fire. However, over a dozen other production MV-22s have suffered damage and deemed unflyable. No Class A mishap reports were filed nor the required JAG investigation conducted. If these had been done, the V-22 may have been cancelled years ago. This is the heart of the criminal activity, which the Generals and their buddies at Bell want to hide.
The first six MV-22s were Full Scale Development (FSD) aircraft hand-made by Boeing. The next four were Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) aircraft produced with factory equipment. In 1997, the MV-22 was declared ready for the production of aircraft for use by Marines, and MV-22 No. 11 was the first operational aircraft produced.. However, many problems remained that were highlighted by two crashes in 2000, which led to a 17-month grounding and review, although production continued at a rate of around one per month.
It was announced that a series of upgrades (Blocks A, B, C) were needed to fix all the V-22s problems. Block A was necessary to improve safety. This was simply a software upgrade and the rerouting of some hydraulic lines in the engine nacelles. This could be done quickly at little cost to allow pilot training to resume. Newer aircraft coming off the production line would be called Block As, while the 19 already produced for the Marines would receive this simple upgrade. (This did not include the first ten MV-22 (FSD/EMD) aircraft used for test and evaluation that were retired) Once the more extensive Block B design was tested, all the Block As would be upgraded to Block Bs.
It was then decided that the 20 pilot training aircraft with VMMT didn't need the Block B enhancements, so money could be saved. It was secretly decided that 19 of the first production aircraft would not be upgraded to Block A. Most had suffered damage that was never reported, or were poorly constructed and required extensive repairs. This decision to scrap $2 billion of production MV-22s wasn't exposed until the hearings last June..
The current spin is that these 19 "Pre-Block As" are old test and evaluation MV-22s not suitable for use by troops. This is partly true as continuing problems with the V-22 required more dedicated test aircraft, but these were production aircraft intended by use by Marine operational forces. These "pre-Block As" are not EMD/FSD aircraft. They were produced for use by the Marine Corps, yet were never upgraded. They were stashed in hangars because they reached the end or their usable service lift after just four years of flying around. These were not just $1 million Class A mishaps, but $100 million write offs that were never reported.
Even some Block A aircraft were secretly grounded due to damage, evidenced by the June 38.8% readiness level of the pilot training squadron, VMMT, which has several damaged MV-22s that can't be fixed, yet no Class A mishaps have been filed. There was also a case where a Class A mishap was reported by the Navy Safety Center, but when a reporter asked why no JAG investigation had begun, the mishap was downgraded to Class B. In the two cases where Class A mishaps were reported after minor damage, the aircraft were never repaired.
The DoD IG exists to investigate such misconduct, but it is unclear if they have taken an interest. At the very least, Congress should demand that the Marine Corps file a Class A mishap report on every V-22 that is non-flyable, followed by an independent JAG investigation. In addition, any V-22 that has not flown in the past year obviously has serious damage, so those deserve Class A mishaps reports as well.
MV-22s Missing from Afghanistan

Meanwhile, the 8000-man Marine brigade in Afghanistan has complained that a lack of helicopter support hinders operations and medivacs. For the past three months, they relied on a small squadron of 40-year old CH-53Ds and a reserve squadron of CH-53Es. Since most of the Navy is underutilized, it could deploy a squadron of MH-60Ss to support Marines in Afghanistan today. Marine Generals would veto the idea because Marines would find these more valuable for most missions than MV-22s.

http://www.g2mil.com/CH-47F.jpgThere are three reasons MV-22s have yet to appear to support Marines in Afghanistan: 1) the concrete pads are not finished, which MV-22s need lest they choke their engines with dirt; 2) operations are at altitudes of 3000-6000 feet, where MV-22s with small proprotors can lift little vertically; 3) the MV-22s new complicated belly gun undergoing tests jams too much, is difficult to aim, and doesn't allow external loads; 4) Congress has yet to finalize the FY2010 request for 30 MV-22s for the Marines, and a crash could affect that. As a result, the U.S. Army is providing substantial helicopter support to Marines since no MV-22s are in Afghanistan or Iraq. Pictured is an Army CH-47F landing in a tight spot in Afghanistan, something a V-22 would never attempt. That modern helicopter is 50% smaller than the V-22, with half its rotor downwash, and far more LZ maneuverability. Moreover, it costs half as much, can carry twice the payload of the V-22, and has greater range. It can also descend and land in an LZ much faster. MV-22s can depart an LZ faster, and its cruise speed is 40% greater. Helicopter expert Nick Lappos, ironically now a Vice-President at Bell, once put this one advantage into perspective when he asked a V-22 advocate: "If only speed counts, why don't you own a Lamborghini?"

Carlton Meyer

Rotary & Wing Says "End it"
 

Rotor & Wing - August 2009

Couldn't do a cut and paste but if this link doesn't pass muster, go to the Aug edition of R&W, Page 48 under Eurowatch.

More common sense suggestions from accross the pond on the V-22.

PS I'm just the messenger so if anyone has a beef with the content, email the writer and let us know what you learn. Thanks!

Careful, Dan. You don't want to get Ned on your case. He'll hand your ass to you!

Ned, I have no wish to attack you. The V-22 is my target.

I'm glad you spent so much time in the V-22 sim. We all know how well sims demonstrate things like tail rotor failures and regular ol' VRS, huh? I'm sure the V-22 is different though. I'm sure it can simulate A-VRS really, really, really well. Really!

The FACT is, the V-22 is not all that much faster/more capable/whatever than a helicopter. Pound for pound (or dollar for dollar if you prefer) it is a big waste of money. HUGE waste of money. GIGANTIC waste of money. We American taxpayers deserve better than that.

Another FACT is...a fact you seem to want to deny or downplay...is that Majors Brow and Gruber got into A-VRS that night in Marana. Their ship crashed. (Lead crashed too, but not as spectacularly.) Since A-VRS happened once, it can (and will!) happen again. Period.

If you can refute that "attack" on the V-22 with something you've learned, then I am, as Ross Perot once famously said, all ears.

It is curious to me how emotional the defenders of the V-22 get. It's quite irrational! Me, I have no emotional investment one way or the other. I just think (as I've always said) that it's a defective, deficient, dangerous piece of overpriced crap that should be cancelled before it bankrupts the U.S. of A.

Speaking of which...why hasn't any *other* nation ordered the V-22? Britain? Canadia? Italy?

::::::::crickets::::::::::

Germany? Japan? Venezuela?

::::::::more crickets::::::::

Anyone?

And the world stands around, hands in pockets, rolling eyes and whistling, not wanting to get pinned into buying this ridiculous, junky V-22.

(And don't even say it's because we won't sell them such "advanced technology." We do that all the time - always have. That's how Cheney knew there were WMD's in IRAQ: WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM HUSSEIN!)

Now hold on there, mods!
 

FOR THE RECORD: Someone came on here, guns a-blazin', making some wild claims about the magnificent V-22. They said some unpleasant things about me personally. Additionally, they told me that I had it wrong with respect to the cause of the Marana accident. Well I have read the accident report of Marana, and I do not "have it wrong." I challenged this person to reveal any facts of which he was in possession that did not make it into the official report.

I never go off half-cocked, and I keep *my* objections to the V-22 to certain very specific issues. When those issues are rectified or satisfied, I will be a V-22 Kool-Aid drinker. Until then, I remain skeptical that this machine will ever be successful in the role for which it was intended no matter how many more billions of U.S. dollars we throw at it. (Oh yeah, that was one of my comments to the other poster that got deleted. It's easy to be pro-V-22 when it's the money of some other country that's being spent on it. This other poster is not from the U.S., and so therefore does not see the waste of money from a Yank's point of view.)

The trouble is, the USMC has pretty much put all of their eggs in the V-22 basket. They see it as the only way they can continue to exist as a viable part of the U.S. Armed Forces. (They're probably not wrong.)

Because really. I mean, really, other than for its historic significance, do we really need the Marine Corps? Let's be honest - couldn't the job they do be done just as well by the Army and/or the Navy? And more cheaply...err, "efficiently" at that? The Army has the Rangers and the Navy has the Seals. Do we really need *four* branches of the service? Do we keep the Marine Corps just because of tradition?

This is what probably bothers the top dawgs of the USMC. Without the V-22, they see themselves as...well...redundant. So they defend the Osprey with a disproportionate vehemence that seems odd or at least irrational. They have probably communicated these fears to other members of government who are also former Marines and this is why nobody's been able to kill this albatross...this turkey of an aircraft yet.

Folks, let's keep the personal attacks out of this and keep the focus on the V-22, eh?

FH1100,

You would be surprised what they can replicate in the Sim they have at Kirtland, its a Level D sim and everyone I have spoken to outside of the V22 community says those sims are some of the best around. Am I an expert on sim, nope not at all. But from what I saw during the three hours I had in there with LtCol McKinney I have every reason to believe that they can replicate nearly all of the emergency procedures they need to.

He and I discussed a LOT of the comments on PPRuNe about VRS and autos etc and he showed me how you get into VRS, how to get out of it, and their measures to ensure a crew doesnt get into that situation again. I alluded to a theory that is pretty commonplace around the squadrons about what happened at Marana but I have no desire to post that here and have all those nay sayers attack it and pull it apart. Its a theory that has merit and who am I to doubt these guys, some of whom have been involved with the program since the start, and who have over 500 hours in the V22.

Yes the V22 has its drawbacks but so does every other type of helicopter. Would these guys go out and fly it every day if they thought they wouldnt see their families at the end of the day - I dont think so, but thats just my personal opinion. One of the guys mentioned that it would have been great to have the V22 technology in a slightly different airframe, without some of the compromises they had to make so the Marines could do what they do with it.

Anyway, I got to spend two and a half hours flying around in it, both in the back and in the jumpseat. Was I impressed, yep and who wouldnt be. I know there are a lot of people on this forum who knock the V22 and thats their right to do so. But for me, I had doubts about it before I visited the 71st SOS but after getting to know the aircraft, its capabilties, and its shortfalls, and meeting the guys and gals who are introducing it to the USAF I have a new respect for it. But again thats just my opinon.

As stated by a previous poster I am just a two bit photographer so what would I know, but you know what at least I got to flying in the V22 and not many people outside those who operate it can say that.

Will let you guys continue with your debate.

Ned

Very good idea :ok:

All of the contributors to this thread, please note.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroll...urement_DW.pdf

P64 seems to show planned deliveries as follows:-
2008 24
2009 37
2010 40
2011 42
2012 42

Does anyone know what the actual deliveries were ?.

"A" Ticket ride for 2.5 hours !
 

The best ride most of us can ever experience is an "A" ticket (<$20) on some fantastically designed roller coaster at a theme park. We get off amazed, a little shaken but want to ride it again and again or at least untill our wallets yell Uncle.

So it doesn't surprise me when someone gets an "A" ticket, two and a half hour ride on a multi million dollar machine and is impressed. I think such a ride might turn the head of some of the most vocal V-22 naysayers around. But at the end of the day that thrill is diminished somewhat when you realize you enjoyed it because like the folks on the roller coaster, you knew you were SAFE.

Imagine a two and a half hour simulator ride in a F-22 Raptor! Now that's a real "A" ticket ride and something anyone would go to Congress to fight for! If Bell was to give every Congressman an "A" ticket V-22 ride the skies would be raining V-22 parts in appreciation but not common sense

But see Dan, that's the thing. People who get close to the V-22 develop this irrational emotional attachment to it. Then they get personally insulted when someone criticizes it.

As I've said, I'm sure the V-22 is an awesome aircraft. I'm sure that part of the feeling of awesomeness that people feel about it stem from the fact that it actually works! On one hand are these critics like me who think it's a big, flawed piece of junk. On the other hand is this huge, impressive aircraft that actually takes off and flies! And yes, I'm sure that the V-22 does some things very well, given the physics that it's up against.

People mistakenly believe that the V-22 is revolutionary. It is not. The fact is that the V-22 is evolutionary and not revolutionary. The helicopter... now that was revolutionary compared to the airplane. But the tilt-rotor? What "new" does it bring to the table? Speed? Okay, yeah, it's faster than a helicopter. But we can make fast helicopters - and we can make them cheaper.

The military (particularly the U.S.M.C.) has been enamored with the idea of a tilt-rotor/tilt-wing troop transport since the mid-1950’s. Look back through history at all of the previous attempts at such designs. We see names like Bell (XV-3, ATV, X-14, X-22A), Boeing-Vertol (VZ-2), Canadair (CL-84), Curtiss-Wright (X-19, X-100), Hiller (X-18), Kaman (K-16), Vought-Hiller-Ryan (XC-142), Lockheed (XV-4), Ryan (VZ-3)…

These were not individual inventors working out of their home garage but (many of them at least) large companies with sophisticated engineering staffs. But *NONE* of the designs worked. Some failed spectacularly. Everybody who was working on such a project eventually abandoned the idea. Why? Because the concept is flawed. You end up with a bastard design that’s neither fish nor fowl…one that doesn’t do either job particularly well. It flies, but that ain't enough to sell it. Or shouldn't be.

Getting a tiltrotor to fly is like teaching your dog to walk on his hind legs. At first you go, "Wow! That's cool!" But after the coolness of it wears off, you're forced to ask, "What good is this? He can pee standing up now? He can hand you the newspaper and you don't have to bend down to get it out of his mouth? (Assuming your dog is a German Shepherd and not a poodle, of course.) Oh boy!"

Not to mix too many metaphors, but at the end of the day, the V-22 is a one-trick pony. It does one thing really well: Take off vertically (maybe), then dash from place to place faster than a helicopter and land vertically (maybe) at the other end.

The V-22 also does some things much worse than a helicopter. Their small proprotors are a major impediment at high altitudes. Helicopters typically don't set themselves on fire when they land out in a field. There are all kinds of performance limitations on tilt-rotors. As Carlton Meyer has pointed out, a flight of V-22's cannot land or take-off in formation. They're not even allowed to hover in close proximity to one another! V-22's cannot maneuver sharply in helicopter mode. And Carlton didn't make this stuff up, it comes from NATOPS.

Yes, the V-22 is big and impressive. So was Howard Hughes' H-4 Hercules. So was Hughes' XH-17 "Flying Crane." But neither of them were practical. So too, we should banish the V-22 to the annals of history - a big experiment that failed.

To the staunch defenders of the V-22, it's nothing personal. I'm sure Hughes was just as offended by critics of his H-4 flying boat. But come on, face facts.

Cool Picture:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...ral/8xV22s.jpg

FH1100 I agree with you 100%.

But also missing, (though it means little to the upper ranks) is what it takes to maintain it. The enlisted who do not fly as a crewmember, but as wrench-turners literally HATE this thing as it's a marriage and liberty killer. And with most, perhaps 90% of a squadron supporting the aircraft directly and not flying in it, that's a lot of head and heartache associated with this flying junkpile.

It's mostly a pilot's flying machine. A couple pilots told a friend in NR that the most fantastic feeling they get is doing accelerations to max speed. They expereince what it must be like to be a fast-flyer since I suppose they weren't good enough to become one(?). They relate that feeling to the 'warm-fuzzy' we all occasionaly can get when becoming airborne for a sec at zero Gs. They report the ability to get that warm-fuzzy whenever they want by sudden decels in addition to a sharp decent. So I guess in addition to pilots having a love affair with the aircraft, we can now say it is a 'sexual' love affair of sorts. These pilots would NEVER be able to mimic what a H-46 or H-53 does in a real, bullets-flying atmosphere where going-in and leaving LZs fast like a pogo stick is what it takes to resupply and evac the wounded W/O becoming a statistic yourself. I've heard V-22 fanatics say those type of wars are over (let's all pray) and that the 'new battlefield' doesn't require such flying antics. I can understand these Desert Storm flyboys thinking that but let's hope all our future 'conflicts' are in deserts and on the plains or our marines are screwed and that no one cries into their headphones saying their being overrun and need an immediate emergency extraction. Until you hear that cry for help, you'll never truly understand the helicopter's true reason for being.

Back to this maintenance nightmare's ability to suck-up off-time; the Army demanded the Blackhawk have a 4 MMH to 1 FH ratio. It routinely, to this day, has a 1.5-3.0 MMH to 1 FH ratio! An H-60 is what the MC needs!

Dan Reno says:
Dan, why would you make a derogatory post such as this? Especially since you aren't even a pilot? That statement is akin to me saying to you "since you weren't even good enough to become an officer". Neither statement is appropriate nor true. After FH1100 just asked that we not get personal you make a personal attack on every V-22 pilot by questioning their ability.

Just curious, do think that only applies to V-22 pilots or are all of us rotorheads "not good enough"?

Great picture, Gordy! Too bad Lead couldn't have beeped his rpm up (or down) a little to match the others and get that full Star Wars Effect.

Sloppy formation flying though.

I wonder how long it took to recover them all back onto the Bataan one at a time?

It's not a derogatory statement, it's simply the truth.

All pilot candidates are screened for what they are BEST capable of flying. Those with better natural flying instincts, reaction times and a zillion other things are assigned to aircraft that 1) Match their abilities and 2) Match the MC's needs.

I'm sure you have enough common sense to realize you wouldn't put your worse driver in a race with your only car so I suspect your 'outrage' at how pilots are chosen is simply a childish rant or perhaps you are just one of many who wish they were a fighter pilot, but the goverment found you did better with something slower and more easy to keep ahead of.

Everyone has a place in the MC but it's not what the marine wants or how much $$ he can pay to get that job. That occurs once you're a civilian. But you already know that I bet.