What do you think about the new Osprey?

Personally, I would like to see a more heavily armored helicopter. Combat in Iraq is showing the need for more robust military equipment, from Humvees to tanks.

Plus, the Ospreys appear to be difficult to pilot, seeing that the wings rotate from an aiplane position to helo position. I'd hate to see a couple of those go down with twenty Marines aboard each!

Osprey photo:
http://www.militaryspot.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101

I think it's RPG food.

I agree Thud.

I dont see any benfits from this machine that would justify its dangerous track record in testing.

While its popular to bash the Osprey program, I have yet to see any meaninful dialog as to what to do if the program gets canceled. I have heard that we should keep on rebuilding the 46's. Just how many times can one completely rebuild an airframe? As far as I know most of the 46's have been through re-work 3 times already. I've been at Air Rework Depots and seen first hand the depth of what they do while the aircraft is being rebuilt. Yes, it's impressive, however, short of rebuilding each and every part of the aircraft, a large majority of the airframe will always be original. There are components or sections of the airframe that can never be reworked because we no longer possess the tools and dies to make new structural members. Davis-Mothan AirForce Base is full of aircraft that have exceeded rebuild capability.

We still have the operational requirements to move large quantities of men and materials into and out of the theater of operations. The aging 53 and 46 fleet are being taxed beyond thier operational limits. Some point at the Chinook and say buy more of them.....geez, they are as old as the 46's. Same scenerio as the 46's and 53's.

That the Osprey is difficult to fly, isn't an issue as far as I can tell. Thats simply a matter of pilot training. We have aircraft in our inventory that are tens times more difficult to fly than the Osprey ever was.

As for its track record in testing, it has a better testing record than the CH-46 and CH-53 combined, yet people keep pointing at it as reason to cancel the program. Besides, whether or not one is in a 46, 53 or V-22 when an RPG hits it..... is irrevelent. Every vehicle in the theater of operations is RPG bait. The only ones that survive RPG's on a regular basis is the M-1 tanks. Still haven't figured out how to make that an airborne platform.
Semper Fi
The Gunny

Personally, I'm a Phrog Lover. 10 years of my Navy career, I worked on them things. I've had plenty of shipmates die in them, too. Hopefully, the Osprey will prove itself, however I don't feel that it will ever live up to the rep that the 46 has. The newer MH-53Es sure have a lot of potential, too. I did a short tour with them.

Thor...while I too, have a certain affinity for Phrog's....the V-22 has to establish its own rep to live up to. Perhaps in thirty years some forum wil be having the exact same discussion about some new aircraft slated to be the replacement for the V-22!


It should at least get that chance to do so.

I heard an interesting viewpoint on why those things go down a lot. Could it be they are putting airplane pilots in a system that has helo capabilites, and the pilots just aren't getting the proper training?

The pilots on the V-22 Program are the best of the best. These guy's and a few gals are all highly qualified test pilots. Most of them have well over several thousand hours piloting various types of aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary. Having said that, loss of lift in close proximity to the ground, offers little chance of recovery...no matter who is piloting the aircraft.

It's not like these guy's come out of flight school on fixed wing and get placed in the cockpit of a V-22.

you know.... I've never read anything that suggested that the V22 could autorotate. Anybody know firsthandedly ??

quote:

---

Originally posted by thegunny:
While its popular to bash the Osprey program, I have yet to see any meaninful dialog as to what to do if the program gets canceled. I have heard that we should keep on rebuilding the 46's. Just how many times can one completely rebuild an airframe? As far as I know most of the 46's have been through re-work 3 times already. I've been at Air Rework Depots and seen first hand the depth of what they do while the aircraft is being rebuilt. Yes, it's impressive, however, short of rebuilding each and every part of the aircraft, a large majority of the airframe will always be original. There are components or sections of the airframe that can never be reworked because we no longer possess the tools and dies to make new structural members. Davis-Mothan AirForce Base is full of aircraft that have exceeded rebuild capability.

We still have the operational requirements to move large quantities of men and materials into and out of the theater of operations. The aging 53 and 46 fleet are being taxed beyond thier operational limits. Some point at the Chinook and say buy more of them.....geez, they are as old as the 46's. Same scenerio as the 46's and 53's.

That the Osprey is difficult to fly, isn't an issue as far as I can tell. Thats simply a matter of pilot training. We have aircraft in our inventory that are tens times more difficult to fly than the Osprey ever was.

As for its track record in testing, it has a better testing record than the CH-46 and CH-53 combined, yet people keep pointing at it as reason to cancel the program. Besides, whether or not one is in a 46, 53 or V-22 when an RPG hits it..... is irrevelent. Every vehicle in the theater of operations is RPG bait. The only ones that survive RPG's on a regular basis is the M-1 tanks. Still haven't figured out how to make that an airborne platform.
Semper Fi
The Gunny

---

What are those stats comparing the 22 vs 46 & 53 losses during testing.

Thanks

Autorotation is not required with this aircraft. Both engines are connected to each side creating the redundacy. If an engine fails, the other engine assumes the entire load, and is fully capable of landing the aircraft safely.

I stand corrected...the claim that the V-22 is not able to autorotate from a high hover. I have read articles on the Boeing and Bell web sites where people have claimed that the rotors will not freewheel should both engines fail. On the Bell web site there is a series of V-22 newsletters entitled “Osprey Facts”. The January 2001 issue has an article written by Col. Nolan Schmidt who states very clearly that the freewheeling units that had been claimed to be removed early on in the development of the V-22 were in actuality, still installed in every Osprey that has ever flown. The nice thing about the V-22 is that it has two engines, which are interconnected. If one should fail, the aircraft can fly safely on one engine. If both engines should fail (Which is very rare), then it can glide down should it have sufficient forward airspeed. Also, if you have sufficient airspeed and one engine working, you can make a running landing with the nacelles at a 60-degree pitch (As recommended by the manufacturer). If you are at a low airspeed, high altitude hover, or a number of other situations and you lose both engines, then it is just not your day. That is not just in a V-22, that is in any rotary wing aircraft.

Wait a sec. Are you saying that if it is in a hover and loses one engine the other will pick of the slack without problems? If they are in the verticle position and one fails wouldn't the torque of the other pull it into a flip. Imagine holding out two 10g buckets in either of your hands w/ your arms stretched out. Now drop one, and the arm that still has a bucket will drop rapidly to the ground(if your not strong enough). I thought that is why they were crashing, b/c that is what would happen. If the systems in the aircraft allowed for the other engine to shutdown if one was lost then there wouldn't be as serious of a problem.

quote:

---

Autorotation is not required with this aircraft. Both engines are connected to each side creating the redundacy. If an engine fails, the other engine assumes the entire load, and is fully capable of landing the aircraft safely.

---

But when your hovering w/ two engines and you lose one on one side there is no auto rotation correction; the other can't pick up the slack of the one that lost power, b/c that would just add more torque, thus as explained earlier has caused the crashes. If one fails while straight and level than that is not an autorotation it is just losing an engine, and the other engine could pick up for what is lost as long as the pilot corrects w/ rudder, stick, and power. A helicopter autorotates a plane does not.

quote:

---

The nice thing about the V-22 is that it has two engines, which are interconnected. If one should fail, the aircraft can fly safely on one engine. If both engines should fail (Which is very rare), then it can glide down should it have sufficient forward airspeed. Also, if you have sufficient airspeed and one engine working, you can make a running landing with the nacelles at a 60-degree pitch (As recommended by the manufacturer).

---

Remember, this is a hybrid aircraft, that takes advantage of both fixed wing and rotary wing capabilities. The 60 degrees on the nacelles is the minimum for a straight in approach before blade strike on the runway. No one ever said it would land vertically on one engine. Single engine landings have been performed without problems on many occassions during testing. (it was one of the many tests performed to establish the procedure)

There was no way to incorporate all of the helo and all of the fixed wing capabilities into one aircraft. Die hard rotor heads, still point to this as a failure in this aircraft. I ain't saying they are wrong mind you, but this aircraft is not a helicopter.

OK. . .when I quoted you in my response I thought you were saying that if autorotation happens the other engine will pick it up. But it could only autorotate in the up position b/c that is what a helo does. but thanks for the response I am on track now. Thanks. JOE

When I started in on this thread, I was going from memory on the details, as I've had this conversation before. Once the interest peaked, I had to double check what I was saying with some facts from some buddies currently on the test program.

Sometimes just getting rotary wing types, and fixed wing types to accept the idea of this hybrid aircaft can be a challenge at best!

Myself, I'm a fixed wing type, but only because that's all I worked on. I've flown in Huey's, Phrog's, 53's, prior to becoming a jet eng mech while I was in 1st Mar Div, so I'm kinda attached to both. Reckon that accounts for me being so pro-Osprey?

If it gets you in and out faster than usual, then its got got to be a good move.

Huey's have taken RPG hits to the engine and everybody aboard walked away. The vulnerability of the Osprey will be well known in a combat situ and the gunners will wait for that opportune moment.

I don't want to ride one.

If they cancel the Osprey, then we'll never know. The real question that isn't getting answered: where will the Huey's and 46's, 53's be in twenty years?

Myself, I think they are gonna be:
1) on gate guard with a pole shoved up their ass
2) in the boneyard
3) in a museum

We HAVE to look forward, not back to what was.

Got to agree with you on that gunny. We've got to move forward. It's just that I'm not convinced the Osprey is the answer.

The whole problem seems to come from having to rotate the engines.

I'm just a simple-assed grunt but I'd rater it be a jet where you can divert the thrust vector instead of moving the whole engine. I've heard the Air Force has been working on a system to replace the Harrier and it's been pretty succesful and not as hairy to operate.