What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
 

According to news report Osprey has been found suitable , which means it will move to next phase which I assume is Op Eval. Looks like it might make it into service despite the set backs.
Are the figures vs the H46 accurate 6 x range , 3 x payload and are the numbers additive ie 6 times the range with 3 times the payload or is range 6 times with min payload 3 times payload with 1 hr range ?.
What will slinging from the beast be like.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...-OSPREY-DC.XML

And your point is ???????????????

NEO

I think your keyboard is stuck expat .

BA609
 

I had a discussion with Nick not so long ago about the tilt rotors & he gave me the nudge to pose the question to the wider community.

So what are your thoughts on the tilt-rotor's pilot requirements, having spoken to Bell Augusta about the aircraft status & crew requirements, I began considering the nature of the beast & the combination of the skill sets.

I spoke to some people at the recent avalon airshow & asked about the BA609 & its progression, & pilot requirements, they indicated optimally the crew would need ATPL(H) & CPL(A).

Does anyone consider that it would be a benefit having too much time in either fixed or rotary wing-discliplines with this aircraft, or would you consider RW the primary requirement (ATPL) with fixed just a lesser but still required skill?

Would there be a potential benefit for a pilot starting on the aircraft , so that they don't perceivably pick up any motorskills that might be detrimental, or adverse to handling the tilt rotor?

Or the inverse, should only the most experienced pilots with both disciplines be considered/permitted to enter into the realm of tilt-rotor crew.

Unfortunately from the conversations with BA they indicated that arriving with both a CPL(H) & CPL(A) would still require around US$50K (+/- $20K) for the endorsement alone, a pretty cost prohibitive exercise. But there was an indication of orders for around 40 aircraft post-certification (which is now into fixed wing testing as RW has been completd). Whether that is reality of marketing hype I have no means of verifying.

Anyway - as i stated, would appreciate to know what you guys think, & whether you can see this type of aircraft taking a hold in EMS/SAR or surveilance/customs etc, given the cost & performance of the aircraft compared to a standard RW EMS aircraft.

Widge,

No offence mate, just taking the p**s a bit. Technical stuff just baffles me, that's all. Please don't take it personally.

Cheers,

NEO.

Well I am not a pilot type but I would have to say that this machine does present a challenge to go along with it's new capabilities. I wondered about this myself and I thought it might be best as a two pilot machine with one helo type and one fixed wing type driver to cover both regimes.

It is clear that BA has taken the "make an airplane that flies like a helicopter" approach rather than making a helicopter that flies fast like an airplane. This to me is interesting considering Bell is a helicopter manufacturer although they do have roots deep in the airplane world. I wonder if the requirements would be the same if they had gone the other way. I guess we may find out with Sikorsky looking at the coaxial configuration again. Will they have the same crew issues with a high speed rotorcraft?

Max

Being a Chinook pilot at heart.....I tend to ask the question...what can you stuff up the rear end of the thing? Seems to me it (the Osprey) has some shortcomings there. If so...one wonders how it will ever replace the Chinook and that Sikorsky thing....Sea Scallion or whatever it is called.

I do not see where comparing the Frog to an Osprey is a very fair comparison. Comparing Columbia's BV-107's to CH-46's makes sense but not an Osprey.

Cabin Seats:

Osprey 24
Chinook 44
Sea Stallion 55

Osprey cabin: 24 ft long x 5.9 ft wide x 6.0 ft high
Chinook cabin: 33 ft long x 7.6 ft wide x 6.6 ft high
Sea Stallion cabin: 30 ft long x 7.5 ft wide x 6.5 ft high

Humvee Dimensions: 15 ft long x 7.1 wide x 6 ft high

Osprey cannot carry the Humvee vehicle, has 50% litter capacity of the helicopters.

Cargo Hook capacity:

Single Hook Dual Hook

Osprey 10,000 15,000
Chinook 26,000 25,000
Sea Stallion 36,000


Why is it I think we are wasting a pot full of Taxpayer's money on the Osprey?

maxtork wrote:
I guess we may find out with Sikorsky looking at the coaxial configuration again. Will they have the same crew issues with a high speed rotorcraft?

My understanding is that there is no conversion with that Sikorsky coaxial. It is always a rotorcraft, it just goes like the blazes. And, with the little I know about disk loading, wing loading, inertia, vortex ring state, and autorotation, I'd rather keep my family out of tiltrotors in general.

-- IFMU

Top speeds:

Chinook: 159mph
Stallion: 195mph
Osprey: 316mph

Seems strange though not to have something that meets internal cargo standards that already exist.

CAS
 

isn't there also the issue of proving support for the osprey?

i.e: nothing else (RW; cobra's, apaches, etc.) can keep up?

seem to recall reading somewhere about consideration of an armed version of the BA609 for this role.

again unverified, maybe it was just a 'Furphy' :}

Ok...the Marines get the Osprey....for doing Vertical Assault from a ship way offshore....how fast they going to fly with underslung loads? They cannot load squat inside compared to the helicopters....carry half the troops. Anyone remember the lesson of Arnhem about lack of troop lift capacity?

For CSAR....it might be the cats meow...for taking off vertically and going fast and landing vertically...great. But to me ...the gain is wasted when you start acting like a real helicopter ...toting stuff. It is too small in capacity but too big as it is...to make it bigger to tote what you need.

Can you spell B-O-O-N-D-O-G-L-E?

(...Dons k-pot...)

To be fair, the V-22 is not designed to replace the Wokka or Stallion in the transport role - the CV-22 is replacing the AFSOC MH-53J/M in the CSAR role, where response time (i.e. penetration speed) and range is more important than off-loading capability, while SOCOM is retaining and upgrading its MH-47s.

Agree though that it's bizarre the V-22 (6ft hold width) wasn't designed to accommodate the 7ft Humvee, necessitating external carriage (for which there is presumably a dictated airspeed limit), but I guess if the Marines asked for a Frog replacement then that's what they're getting. While the Osprey is out-lifted by the Chinook (despite more installed power), it easily out performs the Frog (7.5 t vs 2 t), and the cabin size is identical.

(And you can pretty much guarantee Bell-Boeing has a design for a 'fat-ass' fuselage ready to be funded... :suspect: )

At this stage, the Corps is probably just glad to receive anything new - I've been told that the Frog's performance is so degraded these days (simply due to old age) that it struggles to lift a dozen grunts on a hot day, let alone a full complement.

The Marines are indeed interested in a high-speed escort (BA609, armed V-22, VTDP'd Cobra or - maybe? - an X2 type vehicle), but having just committed $4 billion to the AH-1Z program I doubt Congress will be overly impressed ! Once the MV-22 is into FRP, we'll probably seen attention focused back on the self-defense armament proposals (50cal nose gun, etc.).

:E

I/C

(Removes k-pot and runs for nearest trench)

I remember when I was a young boy my father worked for AM General on the hummer project. It was a long time ago and I'm not sure what year but I'm wondering if the V22 airframe dimesions were defined before or after the humvee entered service? This may explain why it isn't big enough to swallow a hummer.

As for the armed escort situation I read an article about the V22 some years ago and when the subject came up a high ranking Marine said something to the effect of "we already have that...it is called a harrier". I guess the escort roll requires a speed of 1.5 times that of the aircraft to be escorted as per this same article and that makes a 400 mph plus machine, squarely in harrier territory.

I don't know if I buy the whole thing at all. I think we may have been better off just designing a faster helicopter. This hybrid monster does some great things...but is it really the things we need?

Max

obviously if you want a helicopter you would get one and same with a plane but looking at the statistics above it looks to me like the v22 can deliver the same amount of cargo or pax to the same position as a chinook in the same time but faster from a to b than a sitting duck. somthing could be said about having all your eggs in one basket too. speaking of ducks and eggs, im off to feed the chickens......

id give it a go in a couple of years
:ok:

MV-22: Demo Ride As Tiltrotor Heads For Prime Time
New River, NC., July 13:- USMC pilots demo’d an MV-22 Osprey here for this correspondent taking their aircraft to the currently cleared maneuverability limits in a routine which seemed to re-write the rules of rotorcraft operational capability.
The 34-minute flight, into a practice area near the MCAS New River base for the Osprey test and evaluation squadron showed conclusively the Osprey is rugged, smooth and capable of almost jaw-dropping acceleration to cruise speed from a hover.
The flight – for officials, contractors and media – marked the successful completion of OT IIG, the intense series of tactical and operational trials carried out here to qualify the Osprey for full rate production, most likely beginning this September.
Pilots Lt Col Chris Seymour and Maj Logan Depue lifted Osprey tail number 6484 off the New River runway at 1426 today, immediately accelerating by bringing their proprotors to the full forward position in the early stages of the climb.
Our station in the back of the half-full cabin (fully loaded an Osprey can carry 24 troops) pre-empted seeing the data displayed on the MFD, but a pre-briefing suggested the aim was to reach 250 KTAS as quickly as possible after taking off from the seal-level, 92 deg F runway.
Ground run was minimal – 50 yards at most – but what followed was a thrilling sense of speed building up. Acceleration was linear and strong. A ‘clue’ that cruise flight mode was being set up was the lowering of proprotor RPM to about 85 percent of the take off revolutions.
This is an automatic aspect of tiltrotor flight – one of many new parameters that pilots (and observers) long used to the characteristics of large transport rotorcraft flight will have to get used to.
The aircraft was then put through a card of maneuvers that included an assault approach, numerous hovering exercises and a high speed ‘break’ over the field at 2,000 ft prior to (a similarly thrilling) approach to an approach speed of around 100 KTAS.
The Marines had pulled out the stops on this flight which was accompanied by a sister ship that performed various maneuvers to take up a variety of formatting positions on our aircraft. A lowered rear ramp – as well as an open side door at the crew chief position on the front right side of the aircraft - allowed photographers a unique series of shots of Osprey’s appearance in flight, up to now a commodity that could only be obtained through a controlled process involving program officials.
The new attitude of openness on behalf of these same officials marked a definite first for the Osprey program and was intended to mark – and celebrate – what Lt Gen Mike Hough, USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation called a ‘great day’ for both aviation and the Corps.
In flight (in the cabin) the Osprey appears somewhat quieter than larger helicopters, but its most noticeable characteristic was its nimbleness.
Turns both left and right were reached at a rate of what appeared to be about 60 degree bank angles in less than five seconds - the higher forward speed contributing to a definite sense of ‘g’s felt.
The aircraft has been criticized for a lack of low-level maneuverability, but Seymour and Depue were having none of it: they racked their aircraft around at heights of between 100 and 200 ft AGL.
The aircraft was highly stable in air made gusty by on and off distant thunder storms. Ospreys are currently cleared to bank angles of up to 60 degrees and pitch attitudes of between 20 and 30 degrees, but these envelope limits will be expanded as a two-year program run by Navair at Pax River gets underway.
‘We want to make it more maneuverable – the word is for it to be more ‘evasive,’’ said Col Glenn Walters, CO of VMX-22.
A squadron pilot said the demo ride was ‘close to, but not actually at,’ the maneuverability limits the aircraft is currently capable of .
Following the overhead break into a short landing pattern, the crew slowed the aircraft by pulling torque back to about 30 percent, an act which immediately brought the speed down very noticeably. In the back, the feeling was that the aircraft had perhaps run into mud, so smooth and predictable were the deceleration forces. This writer – mindful of the challenge to yaw control such things present in a conventional helicopter – noticed the aircraft was very precise in this axis.
What more to say about impressions of Osprey flight at this point? Overall it’s clear certain thresholds set by generations of rotorcraft up to now have been decisively breached.
The Osprey flies faster, climbs faster, is smoother – and quieter.
Proponents have long said this was case but up to now have been unable to prove it to anyone outside the pilot/engineering fraternity.
Critics have stood their ground claiming maneuverability issues, inherent handling flaws and overall maintainability will make the Osprey case unsupportable.
OT IIG results – refute all these things and more. But if that’s not enough just one simple maneuver, pick-up off a landing site – like any old helicopter - followed by an immediate boost from zero to 250 knots in just a few seconds – should be enough to convince them a generational change in the way rotary wing aviation does business is at hand.
- David S. Harvey

The tiltrotor is a specialised role machine, optimised for high speed / low volume transport rather than high all-up mass / carrying capacity. It has relatively severe handling limitations in the low speed envelope when compared to a helicopter. Because of the very high cost, it is most unlikely it will ever have as large a market as the helicopter presently enjoys.

Rather than have a squadron of these, why not just use a large helicopter and set off a little earlier? ;)

I understand one of the fundamental design issues with tilt rotors in general is that there are currently only 2 engines certified to run vertically - the Allison in the V22 and the PT6 variant in the 609. That rather limits the sizing of the final aircraft.

Did I mention the HOGE number for the V-22 is 5400 feet?

The last Chinook shot down in Afghanistan was at 10,000 feet or so....where is the CSAR mission now?

80 Million bucks a pop and climbing for this piece of crap.

It is a great concept....the 609 might be useful for long offshore flights but the 22 is too expensive and cannot do the missions that the Sea Stallion and the Chinook can.

Maybe the Marines might get their heads out of their butts and buy Chinooks or Sea Stallions.....they could get a pot full of them for the same amount of money.

Self protection.....50 cals....at a hover....spell R-P-G? Think Blackhawk Down in Moga....think Chinook down in Afghanistan...

The bright side of this....by buying the 22....the Marines can justify keeping the Harrier....which has proven to be a very expensive CAS aircraft in its own right.

Airplanes and helicopters are just two different concepts that cannot be made into one and do well at both.

steve_oc,

The LTC1K-4K variant of the T53 (XV-15) and the T800 (US-2) are also vertical-capable. But as you point out, the sizing options are still limited.

I/C

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73...yer/8xV22s.jpg

Time will tell how good V-22 is.

By the way, OGE ceiling of 5000 feet is at MGW.

Even Ch-47D does not hover OGE at 10K density at MGW!