thegunny

It might look like something yet it has no structural reason for being. Just take a look at that link you left, in some respects it proves my point.

Here is the first tank to actually fly and kick ass :

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht11warthog.htm

and now see it in action...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc&feature=related

typhoon

You obviously never had to fly into a hot LZ in 40 and 50 year old helo's. You do know what a hot LZ is?

Just how many times do you think we can rebuild a 40 year old airframe? Our current fleet of CH46's, UH-1's CH-53's are getting way too costly to keep running them through depot level maintenance and on top of that, some critical components aren't being made anymore. We are having to rebuild existing spares. In short, we are running out of parts. You don't seriously think the Army is gonna supply the Marine Corps with all of those spare Chinooks to replace or lift capacity requirements?

Not sure of your references to the A-10 Warthog in this thread? It primary mission is tank killer and yes it does a superb job of it. It has no bearing on the V-22 or helo's for that matter.

thegunny

My reference to the A-10 is just an example of a simple sound idea that works. As for the V-22, it's just an overall nutty idea. Who in their right mind wants to jump in to a double proppeled slow-mo version of a Harrier? For crying out loud it's 2 reasons for flying are on the end of each wing! Take a look at the center as it fly's! One side KO-ED by a bird and everybody is toast. No matter what, everybody is doomed if one side shuts down. Bad odds. Watch it take off here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIR8Up-qQxA

Did you notice the balance of it? I bet the pilot did. That sucker can pop a wheelie anytime. As for LANDING ZONES, you are correct about that. As for that YouTube link, try and tell me you don't get butterflies watching that? It didn't even wipe out and it's still scary.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TYPHOON44,

p.s. did you notice it's reinforced backbone? Hmmm... wonder why that's there? A whole HUNCHBACK of strange aerodynamic " what if's ".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TYPHOON44,

ok, let's talk about when folks are looking to shoot you. If they can hear you coming from a great distance, (which is a well known fact with helo operations especially CH-46 and CH-53's) you can hardly even hear a V-22 in approach to the LZ until it is almost overhead. The V-22 doesn't have traditional rotor blades as does the helo's it is replacing, it has propeller blades. Granted they are rather large, but they do not flex as a rotor blade does.

Never really noticed a hunchback effect on the V-22. The entire wing assembly on the V-22 is designed so that during carrier operations, it rotates a full 90 degrees so that it lines up with the fuselage for parking below decks. The propeller blades all fold as well. Makes for a very compact aircraft below decks.

Ingress and egress to and from a landing zone, hot or not is like taking an express elevator ride. No helo has been able to duplicate this. You are in and out in seconds, rather than spending minutes in range of small arms fire. I know this to be a fact as I have flown in the V-22 and was assigned as a engine mechanic on the prototype.

Each engine is cross-link to the other so that in event on a single engine failure, the other engine with be able to power the failed engines prop. Didn't know that did you? I have flown on V-22 in single engine mode.

Balancing any aircraft in vertical mode is probably one of the most difficult tasks that any pilot can experience. Just ask any helo pilot. Pilots in Harriers and V-22 are assisted by multiple computers that assist in maintaining positive control in all flight modes.

Now perhaps you can see why I am such an advocate for this aircraft?

thegunny the re enforcement was put in there to support the heavy engines it also re-enforces the main frame where it is stretched to bend.Since I was first Inspector on V-22 project I understand but it is hard to explain.

" you can hardly even hear a V-22 in approach to the LZ until it is almost overhead."

thegunny -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtwUfp7ezI8&NR=1

You can hardly even see it too.

" Each engine is cross-link to the other so that in event on a single engine failure, the other engine with be able to power the failed engines prop. Didn't know that did you? "

Yes I read of that too yet who wants to find out? The bottom line is it always keeps showing up with a new " something " stuck to it each year. Structural aerodynamics at it's nuttiest.

clearly you have never been involved in helo-borne military operations. Do you base everything you know on what you see on youtube?

I don't have to be involved with helo-borne military operations to know a structural clunker when I read about and study it.

Here is a non YOUTUBE toss for you :

1. The V-22’s lack of an autorotation capability, or even a demonstrated all engine inoperative safe landing capability, remains cause for concern. V-22 fails to meet the ORD threshold requirement for a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative from a large portion of its operating envelope.
2. V-22 flight characteristics in VRS (vortex ring state) are problematic for roll control and the aircraft is susceptible to un-commanded rolling as a result of saturation in the roll channel of the flight control system when the aircraft is operated into VRS. This aircraft response to VRS phenomenon is drastically different than that of any conventional helicopter.
3. The V-22 is prone to roll PIO (pilot-induced oscillation) in helicopter mode during high gain pilot tasks such as shipboard operations, precision hover in confined areas, or precision hover/landing in obscured visibility.
4. The V-22’s high vibratory loads, coupled with a very flexible structural design and complex hydraulic system, is problematic for hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical systems and is likely to lead to high failure rates for these systems. Many such failures have safety implications.
5. The V-22’s susceptibility to wake or tip vortices from other aircraft is problematic for roll control and can result in un-commanded rolling of the aircraft. At low altitude, this could lead to a loss of an aircraft.
6. The V-22’s high downwash velocity field has the potential to produce significant detrimental effects on hovering operations in desert environments or over water.

geez son, anyone can cut an paste someone elses comments and opinions on a subject. And clearly this is what you are doing. I have posted my references and provided you with my own first hand experiences in my own words. Have you ever even stood next to one of these machines at an airshow? Been within 100 miles of one of these? You really should experience it first hand before condeming it outright.

I and thousands of Marines are extremely thankful and gratefull to have a machine of this design and nature. Its capabilites will save countless Marine lives during it's operational lifetime.

Let me ask you this, when you get in your car to go to work or the store, is the first thought that enters your mind 'am I gonna crash in this?'. I have had that thought countless times when boarding CH-46, CH-53's. But never has that thought entered my mind in a V-22.

One other thing you should probably note: the V-22 is NOT a helocopter, so autorotation is not in play. The Harrier as so many compare and bring up doesn't autorotate either. Should it also be ranked right next to a helo?

Any aircraft is prone to PIO. And it doesn't have to be hovering for it to occur.

Bottomline son...this aircraft is not a helicopter so these folks comparisons you pasted in here really shouldn't be applied to the V-22. Just because it hovers like one, does not make it a helicopter anymore that a Harrier is one. It has propellers versus rotors and is a fixed wing. Helo's are strictly rotary winged aircraft. Like I said, these are only my opinions on the machine and its program.

Sheesh! Now I'm a cut paste artist? How so? I use my own brain to research ( something wrong with that? You do it all the time here >>>>

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/).

I have been to many airshows and the V-22 tends to never be around and even if it was who cares? It's a big clunker. All these arguments about how a propeller is really not a propeller and how it is wrong to compare it to a Harrier is nuts. You want me to compare it to a Sub or something? The bottom line is it's a bad concept which has sucked in billions to supposedly make it even better and better and better I suppose.

GRUMP.

p.s. be honest, you got to wonder why so many people wonder about something...right?

Hey I'm talking here! Where did you go thegunny? Hiding? You afraid?!

quote:

All these arguments about how a propeller is really not a propeller and how it is wrong to compare it to a Harrier is nuts.

We who have worked around aircraft, call that a major difference. It defines the aircraft type.

typhoon

I don't live in here, so I may not be online when you are.

You are armchair quarterbacking on this. Why don't you let those that operate the machine, and those whom it supports during operations make those type of assessments?

For you to sit in your safe world and condemn a program based on things you have read and viewed on the net isn't right. As for the cost? You think our military members lives aren't worth spending money on?

There is a huge difference between propellers and rotary wings. The V-22 has propellers and a fixed wing, which in aviation means that it is not a helicopter. True it has flight charactoristics in that it can take off and land vertically, but then again, so does the Harrier. Surely you can relate and or concede these facts?

As for the cut and paste comment? Those statements were taken from documents created and intended to scuttle this program in reports to the Senate Arms Committee. I have seen them before, and they were not your thoughts put into writing unless you are saying publically that you were part of the congressional committee sent to report its findings after several accidents involving the aircraft? Somehow I don't think so.

As for me being afraid? Honestly, you really think this? The last time I WAS afraid, was when the truck bomb exploded in the hallway in Beruit in 83. Having a discussion on the internet hardly qualifies in my opinion. Do you feel fear when having these types of discussions?

We likely should just agree to disagree on this subject. I'm ok with that.

quote:

For you to sit in your safe world and condemn a program based on things you have read and viewed on the net isn't right. As for the cost? You think our military members lives aren't worth spending money on?

Whats my safe world? Just cause you call me " kid " does not make it so.

That last sentence is a cheap shot. So too is the " Armchair " bit. Are you the official mechanic for all of the V-22's? And save the cut and paste bit please. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what? Of course I know you don't LIVE HERE, I was just being sarcastic.

As for fear? I fear GOD.

The bottom line is I don't like the V-22. I am not alone in that opinion.

This is a link to a very good man whose grandchildren are like family to us.

http://www.104infdiv.org/ALLEN.HTM

I met this man a time or two, not bad for a KID:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley

typhoon

Your safe world? You are a civie correct? Ain't no-one hunting you down are they? Your safe (in my mind) because of all those military men and women serving today. Hence my safe world comment.

I stopped calling you a kid along time ago. You straightened me out on that point and I acknowledged you as an adult.

Just because I answered your questions frankly, you are the one taking offense. I called you out on your statements as I see them, and I answered your questions the best way I know how. Like I said, you and I don't agree on the V-22, simple as that and I can live with it.

Both General Allen and General Bradley were fine men. I'm glad you have the opportunity to know his family, and to have met Gen Bradley. Your exposure to military members isn't questioned by me. Just about everyone has family members that have served. I'm not slamming you for not serving and don't recall doing so.

As for what you fear...GOD. OK, there's plenty that do fear him. I don't personally. I've always felt that if GOD was pissed at me, ain't nothing I'll be able to do about it.

Now to my other statement that you quoted me on that I think is one of your reasons for disliking the program...cost. You didn't answer my question about our Marines lives being worth spending the money on.

Sheesh thegunny,

I know why America is safe because I grew up in a warriors house. I have plenty of friends who are Marines ( Navy pals are the nicer ones ). I'm not here teasing or playing with you whatsoever. Nobody sees my mark on the thread for those who have fallen because I don't feel it's right for me to do that. I do know a thing or 2 about design and I just might be one of the best there is when it comes to certain ideas in my field. Also, it's not fair to put me on the spot with a clever question about our Marines lives being worth spending the money on. I think you know that. Anyhow, enough of the aurguing eh?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TYPHOON44,

done deal, brews are still on you though.