V-22 Osprey

TheTanSedan · May 25, 2006

From another thread on airplanes (E4B Boeing) that o/t'd to this bird.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/index.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-history.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

Yeah, the system problems are impressively high for the Osprey. But the tiltrotor is gonna get built, and it will be part of the inventory. It is the future. Military or civilian, it isn't grounded by weather the way a helicopter is and it can carry an impressive payload. Big operators like the Marine Corps (or privately like big oil/gas exploration/production companies) have good reasons to want to see it. It is almost a quantum jump in aviation.

Talked with my son today who is at USMC "The Basic School" at Quantico, VA. He was relating yet another "why this sergeant is harder than the other ones around here" kind of story

wherein not only body armor was required for the run yesterday but the nice addition of the ceramic inserts set them aside from, ahead of, behind

other platoons.

Said a V-22 came roaring overhead and landed just at the point where they were required to finish the run. I asked what it sounded like on approach and rotation, he said it wasn't the heavy thrum of a 'copter but had a discordant whine or harmonic. Could be heard a half-mile out.

The commanding major invited them aboard and gave them the 10-cent tour and said the transition from CH46's (maybe he said CH53's too

) was underway. Possible too, that the V22 would be a single career path in the future. That wouldn't surprise me as it simply cannot be an easy bird to handle.

I'm gonna have to get to an airshow (on a day of less than 80F). I remember the excitement of first getting to see a Fairchild A-10 back in the '70's. I've been wanting to see the V-22 or its predecessors for twenty years.

I think some important questions remain about what can possibly provide air/ground cover for the Osprey as troops debark/embark (jets are too fast, and chopters haven't the speed or range)and I don't know about crew armor and defensive capabilities at this point.

If it is easily shot down, if it can't defend itself (singly or in groups), and is forced into operations too much to bear . . . well, the Huey was cheap. This thing ain't and never will be.

The big hairy balls aspect of flying one of these, and flyin' it well, is akin to the earliest days of aviation.

For some perspective

on that take:

http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_200412523.asp

TheTanSedan · May 25, 2006

And, yeah, I'm aware of the criticisms. Here's a good list and discussion (with links):

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

Matt89 · May 25, 2006

"Talked with my son today who is at USMC "The Basic School" at Quantico, VA. He was relating yet another "why this sergeant is harder than the other ones around here" kind of story wherein not only body armor was required for the run yesterday but the nice addition of the ceramic inserts set them aside from, ahead of, behind other platoons."

LOL, that's awesome. I bet some of those Marines will thank that Sergeant someday.

I've been in the training arena, and I can tell you stories about how training gets dumbed down in the interest of safety. It's a fine line between realism and unnecessary risks!

1sttruck · May 25, 2006

The common saying was 'the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war'. Running with a 'flak jacket' is good training, as I can remember being on guard, being awakened from a peaceful sleep after chow for a drill, running as fast as possible to stations with a full complement of gear including helmet, flak jacket, ammo belt, rifle, etc, and hurling my chow all over the area :^)

You're never in 'too good of shape' :^)

Drew · May 25, 2006

How is the Osprey better than a heli when it comes to weather?

I've launched in 0/0 weather in a heli numerous times.

Mitch Alsup · May 26, 2006

quote:

How is the Osprey better than a heli when it comes to weather?

When you are the enemy....

MarkC · May 26, 2006

"I think some important questions remain about what can possibly provide air/ground cover for the Osprey as troops debark/embark (jets are too fast, and chopters haven't the speed or range)and I don't know about crew armor and defensive capabilities at this point."
Maybe they'll design a modern-day version of the Sandy(Douglas A-1H/J)--anybody remember them?

TheLoneRanger · May 26, 2006

I remember them; Douglas Skyraiders, weren't they?

MarkC · May 26, 2006

Yes they were, and a welcome sight to those on the ground being rescued by Jolly Green Giants and BUFFs.

moribundman · May 27, 2006

I believe the Osprey is much too complex and vulnerable to make a successful and reliable military craft. KISS.

drm7 · May 28, 2006

I saw two of these flying side-by-side around here a couple weeks ago. I'm in the south-middle of VA so I don't know what they were doing around here. We do get military rigs flying through here. I think they may be flying out of Norther VA base for training or something??? They were cool looking flying with the rotors pointed up. Kind of weird to watch because they don't look like anything else you see flying around.

ekpolk · May 28, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by drm7:
I saw two of these flying side-by-side around here a couple weeks ago. I'm in the south-middle of VA so I don't know what they were doing around here. We do get military rigs flying through here. I think they may be flying out of Norther VA base for training or something??? They were cool looking flying with the rotors pointed up. Kind of weird to watch because they don't look like anything else you see flying around.

Most likely MCAF Quantico (aboard MCB). Lotsa interesting stuff happens there. HMX-1, the squadron that operates the President's helos, is based there. V-22s commonly operate from Quantico and if you live anywhere in the vicinity, they will be a more common sight in the future.

ekpolk · May 28, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by moribundman:
I believe the Osprey is much too complex and vulnerable to make a successful and reliable military craft. KISS.

Yes and no. Analyzing the relative merits is, ironically, a complex proposition. Helos are relatively vulnerable as they cruise in to an LZ at low speed and low altitude. V-22s can ingress and egress at high altitude and at high speed, flying profiles helo pilots can only dream about. Anything from the cheapest UH-1 to a Spec Ops V-22 is horribly vulnerable while hovering, period. Yeah, we're probably going to want to do something about door gunners. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think some guns would be a good idea. Of course, they'll have to make sure said door gunners don't start shooting too early (like when the rotors are still down), blasing off a blade or two... That would be bad ... very bad! Sure, the thing is complex, but it's not as if we're not making some dreadfully complicated things work pretty well. Time will tell. I hope you're wrong!

Hey, we're Marines -- we make things work and get the mission done!

ekpolk · May 29, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Are the V22s rated to be able to fly with one engine ? That would be a big advantage, provided the training is there to handle an engine going out.

Anything moving slowly or hovering in the air is a target, jump jets included.

Yes, they can fly single engine. There's a shaft that runs laterally all the way between the two nacelles, and it's purpose is to "share" the torque between the two rotor heads. Therefore, if one engine dies, both rotors continue to receive equal (EDIT -- but obviously reduced) torque. Now, if one nacelle or rotor head sustains heavy damage, things are going to get really interesting real quickly. Of course, the very same thing is true for conventional helos that lose a tail rotor, or for tandems (CH-46 and CH-47) when they take heave damage to one of their two rotors. Usually not a healthy thing for the unfortunate occupants. . .

[ May 29, 2006, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

ekpolk · May 29, 2006

And for those who were thinking that this whole "tilt rotor" thing is a relatively new idea:

1sttruck · May 29, 2006

Are the V22s rated to be able to fly with one engine ? That would be a big advantage, provided the training is there to handle an engine going out.

Anything moving slowly or hovering in the air is a target, jump jets included.

TheTanSedan · May 30, 2006

The link in my second post is to Carlton Meyers site, G2. A series of articles on the problems of the V-22.

A helicopter can auto-rotate to the ground, the V-22 cannot.

The shaft connecting the two engines is not at all simple, it involves dozens of gears.

As with any machinery designed to be used by the military the consequences of partial or complete failure are serious. The V-22 thus far is complex, expensive and fragile.

The performance claims appear to be exaggerated.

ekpolk · May 30, 2006

quote:

The shaft connecting the two engines is not at all simple, it involves dozens of gears.

Didn't mean to suggest it was simple. Few things on this aircraft are. OTOH, the fundamental challenge of this "feature" are not new to naval aviation. For generations, engineers have had to deal with how to design complex mechanicals and plumbing to reliably span the wing fold mechanism. Watching a V-22 fold itself up for storage is boggling. It looks like a flying Rubic's cube solving itself. The torque sharing shaft has to be beefy enough to transmit torque, AND it has to co-exist with the fold-up system.

I'm not a V-22 apologist by any means (though I do believe that in the end, we'll make the program a success). It is interesting to note that many of the same concerns we're hearing about the V-22 today were also leveled at the H-46 early in its life. Here we are almost 50 years later and we still haven't ironed out all the issues with the SeaKnight.

mikemc · May 31, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Matt89:
"Talked with my son today who is at USMC "The Basic School" at Quantico, VA. He was relating yet another "why this sergeant is harder than the other ones around here" kind of story wherein not only body armor was required for the run yesterday but the nice addition of the ceramic inserts set them aside from, ahead of, behind other platoons."

LOL, that's awesome. I bet some of those Marines will thank that Sergeant someday.

I've been in the training arena, and I can tell you stories about how training gets dumbed down in the interest of safety. It's a fine line between realism and unnecessary risks!

Agreed. As a fireman, I want my training as close to the real deal as possible. You don't want the guy next to you in a real fire to be wearing heavy nomex gear and an air-pac and dealing with heat and dark smoke for the first time.

TheTanSedan · May 31, 2006

I added the bit about training because I figured you guys would find it amusing. Those of us who have undergone physical training -- not necessarily just the military -- recognize that habits of the body are learned only by the experience of doing them.

However . . at the time we were having to do it

EKPolk, no, neither of us is being an apologist for a craft 'tis obvious whose time has come yet the proo-of-concept has a long way to go. before anyone is comfortable with it.

The link in the second post connects to [7] articles on the V-22. The author ~~are critics of the bird. (As always, sure beats reading press releases).~~

V-22 Osprey

Similar threads