Sasless,

I guess you're trying to imply that everytime you flew an insertion into an LZ back in your day if you dropped off X passengers you always picked up X passengers for the return flight? You never rtb'd with an empty ship and you never flew cargo only resupply missions? 40,000 passengers and 9,000 hours are two mutually exclusive variables, that should be pretty obvious to an observer with pracatical experience which I know you have.

Or perhaps you are just a Army CWO who didn't have the commonsense to read what the heck he was writing?

Well now....I reckon one can argue all one wants to about loading of the vaunted Osprey...but averaging fewer passengers than a loaded UH-1N can carry does not show a passenger centric tasking does it?

Thus...it must be cargo they are carrying....which begs the question what kinds of cargo are they carrying and why is it mission essential for the vaunted Osprey to carry it rather than trucks, airplanes, and helicopters? What is it that demands such a cargo focus as I always thought the Osprey was the Battlefied Force Multiplier by being able to tote Mud Marines far, fast, and rapidly.

If one is dedicated to Medevac....hopefully the passenger count remains as small as possible as that would tell us only a few Marines are being hurt...which is a good thing....the fewer the better.

If one is dedicated to Air Assault....I would prefer to see a fairly high passenger count...as in most cases...our guys ride both ways usually.

If one is doing logistical support....then it shoud be a mixed bag of folks and freight.

As you must be a Marine....I will try to re-phrase the comment so you can understand it maybe.

There appears to be lots of flying going on....for very few passengers being moved per average flight hour.

I wonder why that is?

Can any of you Marines out there provide a better statistical analysis of Iraqi/Afghanistan Osprey Flight Operations than the garbage thrown at us by these USMC PR pieces that are all big on self praise but very short on proof?

Has anyone in the USMC ever done a comparative analysis of utilization of the various types in the combat zone to detail the application of assets to tasks so as to document the effective utilizataion of assets available when applied to demand?

I would suggest with an average load rate of 4.44 passengers per flight hour...there is damn little getting done for a lot of expense. Osprey's are a very expensive way of moving ordinary freight about the AO.

Is that really so? Whats your benchmark? This data is nowhere to be found for any other service rotorcraft. You have absolutely nothing to compare 4.44 passengers/hour to. You just see a pair of numbers, generate a rate, and claim its substandard compared to a nonexistent baseline.

I tried to re-phrase my former comment so you could understand it.

Maybe because it's part of the assault support mission? Just like the 46s were probably carrying more cargo than Marines if you averaged it out over time. Or maybe because there are more resupply frag request than insert/extraction frags? In fact in my recent experience the assault supports generally make the initial insert and then spend the rest of the day conducting resupply, generally 2 to 4 resupply sorties for every insert/extract sortie. Factor that into your analysis and see what numbers you get.

Not when the last time you flew an assault support mission in combat was, but normally they stay for awhile and are picked up hours or days later. Do you think the aircraft shutdown and sit in the zone or depart and either refuel or get new tasking?

I'll ignore that as you were probably already drunk when you wrote this.

This is a USMC combat aircraft, not American Airlines. Passenger/hour count isn't a usefull stat. Again, two mutually exclusive s]numbers that you are trying to turn into something they are not.

Sultan....we resolved your doubts about my bonafides a while back as I recall. You were told by others here to accept the fact (and remember it as well...) that I have served in the military and in combat. You again seem to be unable to accept the truth as it is. As you have a major problem in dealing with folks that have combat experience ( is it a case of Penis Envy you are dealing with here?)....and have an established record of being told to mind your manners....perhaps you might take a minute or two and reconsider your comments. Argue with the point I make all you wish....but you walk on very thin ice when you denigrate anyone's military service around here.

JeffG....I am sure the aircraft are used for all sorts of tasks and as in any airmobile/air assault/ vertical envelopment (whatever term you wish to describe helicopter combat operations) do not live with the Guys on the Ground all day long. I also understand the support lifts start as soon as the first casualty occurs or immediately after the troops are inserted. The level of that support varies directly with the size of the force being supported and the pace of operations.

The key point being made....once you get past the bait that being thrown out....is the stats the Marines put out in their PR pieces are useless...and given any kind of review such as mine....actually put them in a position to be criticized. No matter how you dress it up....averaging 4.44 pax per hour sounds bad. There are no State Secrets in a discussion about flight hours per category of task....as there are no State Secrets in having a discussion on NATOPS Emergency Procedures for the Osprey.

There does appear to be a huge concern by the USMC to openly discuss anything about the Osprey....and in light of the previous instances of there being a concerted effort to hide and mis-lead the true performance of the aircraft....all of which lead even impartial folks to wonder what the real situation might be.

What I continue to do....is simple. I delight in pointing out how silly the PR Pieces sound.....it starts with the PAO at Camp Lejeune talking about the Forest Fire that was caused by the Osprey to such things as have been posted here at pprune. The Marines just cannot get their act together when it comes to the Osprey and publicizing its progress. The Osprey Program for whatever reason causes lots of problems for the Marine PR folks....and it appears the Order has been given but was not well thought out.

Sans,

I do have something to compare.....the USMC PR Piece.....using the numbers they posted in their article. Their data...their article....right there in front of your eyes too. You may not like the way it turns out....and if I were an Osprey program participant I would not like those numbers either.

The numbers are crap data....not the calculation. They posted the numbers....not me. I just did one very simple bit of math....divided one number by another to arrive at an average number of passengers per flight hour. Show me the error in my math?

V-22 Productivity and HV
 

It may have been missed in the discussion that the V-22 was to also replace the CH-53D. With the V-22 probably getting to 40,000 lbs with just the crew and a full bag of fuel, the ability to move the USMC ( and Army ) new 155mm M777 ( 9300 lbs ) is limited in hot/high conditions. Might be the reason why the USMC has increased the buy of the 53K to somewhere in the 220 range.

Re Jack's observation on the HV charts: my guess would be that the charts marked as Data Basis: Estimated, simply means that the charts are from very early in the test program, when not all of the testing had been completed.

Sultan: I see you are from Arlington TX. Suggestion: meander around to the Bell Pilots Office, where there may be some white haired guys who flew in Vietnam and ask them about resupplying firebases, troops in the field, mountain top positions and the whole spectrum of what helicopters did after the troops were lifted in. The main difference that distinguishes Afghanistan is that it is higher, thus hover performance at altitude becomes the critical factor, a design attribute that wasn't a major requirement when the V-22 was initiated.

Thanks,
John Dixson

Perhaps because V-22 detractors tend to take statements out of context and make an issue out something that isn't really an issue? Just a thought.

Jeff....in the absence of accurate, bonafide, proveable information....anything less suffices as data in the discussion.

The gist of the detractor's argument has long been ....enlighten us. Do you see that happening? We are not talking about violating OPSEC criteria here....just a discussion amongst Pilots and Engineers of the flying of the Osprey in normal and mechanical emergencies.

I suppose if one were to lay out a specific task loading....say....12 Man Spec Ops Team, total weight of load, fuel loading for the mission, all the pertinent weather information....then discuss what the max AEO Hover OGE weight was.....it might have some use to the Bad Guys.

A generic question of what the OEI Hover OGE height limit is for the Osprey...might not provide any use to the Bad Guys....as it has nothing to do with the "Operational Capability" of the aircraft but does provide the rest of us with some understanding of its performance following an engine failure.

Most of us here are prior military and understand the difference between Mission information subject to OPSEC and ordinary aircraft performance information. I suppose one could take a wander through various web sites and compile dozens of examples of what I am saying.

Again....the whole absence of any input from the Osprey community in such discussions begs the question....."Why the stunning silence?"

How does one take "out of context" something as simple as a OEI HOGE weight limit/density altitude chart?

Hi SAS,
Unfortunately I have the answer for you. We have a large contingent of V-22 pilots from the Marines and AFSOC here this week in Dubai for the Airshow and I asked exactly the same question. Some were not aware of PPRune forums at all, but those that were said 'they looked at it and laughed' at the 'ridiculous claims and lack of knowledge' on the forum and do not believe it is worth their effort to post. That is a sad commentary that resulted from a few very vocal individuals who previously thought it was best to 'chase away' those who were involved in general operational and combat missions in the aircraft. As a result those with combat experience who possess a pro-tiltrotor attitude no longer take us seriously on this forum.

Hopefully things will move to a more open and balanced discussion of the true facts in the future, but that will not happen until those who are actually flying successful combat missions on a daily basis see that their comments will be taken seriously and not dismissed by those with little or no knowledge of the operational capability of the aircraft.

V-22 HOGE Chart
 

Hello 21st Century,

Perhaps you could hit up one of the V-22 pilots for a copy of their HOGE Chart and paste it here?

Thanks,
John Dixson

Hi John,
You've been around long enough to know that the guys on the operational end are not authorized to do that.
21stC

21st.....interesting thought that it was not worth their time in their view.

As to taking them seriously.....it is hard to take something seriously that does not exist.

I distinctly recall standing up for one of the active duty guys....and seconded what Ned Dawson had to say about the guy. I told all present that if Ned said a fellow was someone to listen to....then I was fully prepared to accept that reference without any hesitation.

As I am portrayed as being one of the worst for criticizing the Osprey Program...that should mean something about how Osprey Pilots would be accepted should they not only show up but actually contribute. We have had a very few show up...but the general response was simply "we cannot say anything about that....because of OPSEC....or some other excuse why they could not or would not respond with specificity to some question.

With the looming budget cuts coming down the road...it would behoove them to start lobbying with folks to get people interested in saving the program should (more like "when" it comes under the budgetary axe) pressure be brought to seriously curtail if not end the program altogether. There are not a lot of Tiltrotor jobs out here on civvie street and even those shall disappear if the program gets axed.

For comparison....speak ill of the Chinoook, 53, or Blackhawk and see how quick you get a response in defense of the them.

SAS you are mixing up your conversations. I've stayed out of the OEI conversation as I'm not a V-22 pilot and therefore have nothing to offer wrt it's performance. I was however a Marine pilot and can comment on you taking out of context the 40,000 passengers and 9,000 hours statement as I can also comment as a pilot in general on others who still take out of context a statement made wrt a compressor stall.

Maybe people are concerned about posting RFM information on here because statements like these on the title page of every NATOPS:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C — Distribution authorized to U.S. Government
Agencies and their contractors to protect publications required for official use or for
administrative or operational purposes only (30 Sep 2009). Other requests for
this document shall be referred to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command,
PMA-275, RADM William A Moffett Bldg, 47123 Buse Rd, Bldg 2272, Suite 149,
Patuxent River, MD 20670

I don't think PPRUNE falls under a Govt agency or contractor. Of course you could always make your request to the address above and get your own copy.

Perhaps as a show of good faith someone could paste the Army -10 HOGE charts for the H-60 the NATOPS HOGE charts for the 53?

21st....

It would appear it just isn't here at pprune where this Osprey debate goes on.....


http://defensetech.org/2010/04/15/af...-a-hypothesis/



Jeff...dig out a Ten Dollar Bill and hit this site....you too can own your very own Chinook -10....you can also buy the -20 as well if you want to have a maintenance manual.

No US Army -10 or -20 are considered Classified Documents to my knowledge. I am sure some of the equipment installed on the aircraft are considered classifed and thus their related manuals.

As to the NATOPS warning you posted....each service can make the decision to classify whatever they want. But recall within classifed documents...not all the information is in and of itself classified and normally within the document each classified section is well marked by its classification.

The question I would pose to you....is the MV-22 NATOPs Flight Manual a classified document? If so...what level is it classified?

FOUO, SECRET, TOP SECRET, or BURN BEFORE READING?

The Caveat without a classification attached would seriously challenge the legal aspects of the issue.

Again...no one is asking for sensitive classified information.

I think we can all safely assume the Osprey is very vulnerable following a single engine failure at or very near an Out of Ground Effect Hover as it is not a helicopter and the emergency procedures that are in the public domain do not describe a small narrow H-V diagram....but rather a large broad one.

Jeff,

What part of the Bell spokesman's statement regarding compressor stalls was 'taken out of context"?

Bell says engine compressor stalls "are very normal"
Ref: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html
The article above reportis that one of the 2 V-22s (actually 3) experienced a compressor stall and was having the engine replaced, 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.

REALLY! I wonder what else Bell puts out that's "very normal" like this?

Dan,
I've experienced compressor stalls in two different helicopter types, and don't think there is a problem with characterizing it as a "normal problem" (with emphasis on the word 'problem' of course!). It is not a life threatening condition in almost all flight regimes (I experienced it in the hover both times), but it can definitely jeopardize a given mission even though it is most often a 'brief encounter,' it lets you know you don't want that to happen at a critical moment (ie., exiting a hot LZ). None of the V-22 guys I have asked the question of have ever experienced a compressor stall in the Osprey, so it is certainly NOT a "normal occurrence."

Two or three compressor stall events out of 130,000 hours of operations with over 150 a/c in service does not seem alarming particularly in light of the fact that the events are a thing of the past and have not been reported in recent years. How many years ago was the last event reported (your link is no longer active)?

Customer Interest in the Middle East
 

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey to make Dubai Air Show debut
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey to make Dubai Air Show debut | Textron | AMEinfo.com


The Bell Boeing V-22 Program, a strategic alliance between Bell Helicopter, a Textron Company and The Boeing Company announced that the V-22 Osprey titlrotor will be featured at the Dubai International Air Show in the United Arab Emirates from November 13 - 17.

• http://static.amefiles.com/images/ne...-image004C.jpg
  V-22 Osprey.

"The Dubai Air Show is one of the world's fastest growing aerospace events and it presents an excellent opportunity for Bell Boeing to showcase the tiltrotor Osprey's one-of-a-kind capability, unique value proposition and outstanding record of operational performance with a new audience," said John Rader, executive director of the Bell Boeing V-22 Program. "The V-22 is the right solution for Middle East customers seeking range, speed, payload, and mission flexibility for military and humanitarian operations."

The Dubai International Air Show is a biennial show held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It is organized in cooperation with the Government of Dubai, the Department of Civil Aviation and Dubai International Airport in collaboration with the UAE Union Defense Forces. Now in its 22nd year, the show is a key international aerospace show.

The V-22 Osprey is a joint service, multirole combat aircraft that uses tiltrotor technology to combine the vertical performance of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft. With its nacelles and rotors in vertical position, it can take off, land and hover like a helicopter. Once airborne, its nacelles can be rotated to transition the aircraft to a turboprop airplane capable of high-speed, high-altitude flight.

The Osprey is currently flown by the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and the operational fleet has amassed more than 130,000 flight hours, nearly half of which have come in the past two years. A total of 10 Marine Corps and two AFSOC squadrons are operational today, and the two services have together logged 16 successful combat, humanitarian, ship-based or Special Operations deployments since 2007.

"The V-22 is proven and forward-deployed, supporting combat operations and responding to contingency operations around the world," said Marine Corps Col. Greg Masiello, head of the V-22 Joint Program Office (PMA-275) at the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). "The Osprey brings unprecedented range, speed and survivability to the warfighter and will continue to excel in combat and remain ready, effective and survivable."

According to Naval Safety Center records, the MV-22 has had the lowest Class A mishap rate of any rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade. The aircraft's reduced susceptibility, lower vulnerability and advanced crashworthiness have made it the most survivable military rotorcraft ever introduced.

"At 130,000 flight hours, safety, survivability and operational efficiency have become standards of the operational fleet," said Willie Andersen, deputy program director for the Bell Boeing V-22 Program.

In early November, the Naval Air Systems Command Joint V-22 program office was awarded a U.S. Department of Defense Packard Award for efforts in reducing cost-per-flight-hour. Fiscal Year 2010 Navy flight-hour cost data also show that the Osprey has the lowest cost-per-seat-mile (cost to transport one person over a distance of one mile) of any U.S. Navy transport rotorcraft.

More than 150 Osprey tiltrotors are currently in operation. Marine Corps MV-22s are currently deployed in Afghanistan supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit supporting contingency operations, while AFSOC CV-22s are deployed in support of ongoing Special Operations missions.



Bell-Boeing Sees Mideast Interest For V-22 Military Aircraft Executives
Bell-Boeing Sees Mideast Interest For V-22 Military Aircraft Executives
DUBAI (Zawya Dow Jones)--The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor military transport aircraft, is likely to get its first international customer from the Middle East, where its debut at the Dubai Airshow received interest from United Arab Emirates royals, program executives said Sunday.
"The first international customer will come from the Middle East," said John Garrison, president and chief executive of Bell Helicopter, which runs the program in an alliance with Boeing Co (BA).
"While I can't share names, we continue to work closely with countries in the region," Garrison said as part of a presentation at the show.
Jean Chamberlin, vice president and general manager of Boeing Mobility, said some U.A.E. sheiks at the Dubai show "found it quite interesting."
A third executive, the V-22 Joint Program Manager Col. Greg Masiello, said: " Our confidence level is quite high for international customers beyond the U.S. to be flying the V22."

V-22 in Dubai
 

This past week I was fortunate enough to catch a ride on the jump seat of the MV-22 visiting Dubai to provide a little working knowledge of the local airspace environment during a dressed rehearsal prior to customer demo flights. The crew were incredibly professional and did an outstanding job of demoing the a/c to middle east customers who were lining up for the opportunity to ride in the back (I'd rather be up front for the view!). We got to do the only things I miss from my fixed-wing days: doing almost 90 deg bank turns, pulling Gs, and going over 270kts!! Lots of fun... (see below)

Today we did a three-ship multi-type air to air photo flight with the Osprey that would have made Ned jealous! Will post when I receive photos.



http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00004.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00005.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00007.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00009.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00012.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00013.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00015.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1112-00016.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...1114-00022.jpg

Compressor stalls are common events...they happen. If they are only a temporary situation then little problem but at certain critical points in flight they can be a real problem. Engineering (design) being what it is today...compressor stalls should not be a serious proble as they are well understood by those who desing and build the engines.

Sasless,

You are right, for $10 I can buy a 47D -10, but not a 47F or the 60M. Nor can I get a NATOPS for the 53E, UH-1N, UH-1Y, AH-1W, AH-1Z. I wonder what they are trying to hide? Again, if it's no big deal perhaps someone (how about you Sas? ) would be willing to cut and paste the IGE/OGE perfromance pages for the 53E, 47F, and 60M as a show of good faith? I've searched the web and oddly enough no one has seen fit to copy and paste performance data for the above listed aircraft to any forum site. Maybe you know of some I don't? If not then just maybe our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving today don't see any a just reason to post -10 or NATOPS data on forum site which has as part of it's name 'rumor' so some unnamed guy who goes by Sasless can use the data as he sees fit? The reality is it's none of your nor my business.