Osprey

[xsbank]

According to Time, the R22 Osprey is being deployed in Iraq now without the ability to autorotate (In helicopter mode below 1600 feet, engine failure would not be survivable) and without the ability to glide in airplane mode. It will also not have a nose-mounted machine gun but will have a rear-ramp mounted 7.65.

You would have to be in the military to use those things as I would only get on one at gunpoint.

[Concestor 0]

xsbank wrote:

In helicopter mode below 1600 feet, engine failure would not be survivable

There are few rotary wing aircraft that are as safe as fixed wing but the Osprey's common drive shaft allows it to fly (or at least make a safe landing)on one engine. So as long as the pilot doesn't run out of gas a double engine failure is unlikely.

It's probably a good thing that the military is gaining experience with this technology prior to it's use in the private sector.

This is my expert opinion

[xsbank]

Battle damage might kill 2 engines...apparently, 90% of the helicopter losses in Vietnam occurred in landing or take-off.

[Phaedrus]

That's too bad- I was hoping out military might by a few down the road for northern service.

The advertised "range and speed of a fixed wing a/c, versatility of a rotary", sounds like a pretty sweet deal for some of our territories we can't always get to otherwise.

Or do we just need the Americans to break 'em in first??

[co-joe]

I think it's a V-22 not an "R-22"

and didn't 22 marines die in one that had an engine failure at low altitude? I think that had something to do with the cancellation of the 609 tilt-rotor plans but not sure.

[sky's the limit]

xsbank wrote:

In helicopter mode below 1600 feet, engine failure would not be survivable

There are few rotary wing aircraft that are as safe as fixed wing

Well.....

Having flown both extensively, I have to fully disagree with that sentiment. I'll take a single engine helicopter over a single engine fixed wing in an engine failure any day. Period. The new CAT A twin engined helis can hover on one at MAUW, pretty nice feeling there too.

Statistically, the Bell 206 is the so called "safest" single engined aircraft ever produced in terms of fleet hours flown vs accidents. That's a pretty powerful stat considering what we do with them is a far cry from straight and level.

As for the Osprey, I'm with XS on that one - ONLY AT GUNPOINT would you get me in one! Looks like a bad idea on every level.

stl

[Nark]

They are on the way.

They are no more "scary" than the CH-46's, -47's and 53's I've flown in.

I'm more weary of the 53's than the -22's. Kind of hard to explain why.


Stand by for pics.

[Mark_space]

Frankly, I'm more concerned the Marine Corps has taken to rear-ramp mounting 7.65mm pistols...NATO-standard not good enough for them?

[Nark]

I can only guess 2R meant 7.62mm.

As far as armament, I know that what I've seen on websites and what I've seen with my two little eyes have been very different.

The aircrew in the MV-22B will have a chance to "get some" just like the rest of us.

[goates]

I think it's a V-22 not an "R-22"

and didn't 22 marines die in one that had an engine failure at low altitude? I think that had something to do with the cancellation of the 609 tilt-rotor plans but not sure.

I seem to remember there was something about it getting caught in its own downdraft. Here we go:

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

[sky's the limit]

goates,

The Osprey had/has some significant Vortex Ring State issues(your video), not sure if they've solved it, I don't think so. I'm sure they've amended the Flight Manual to avoid certain flight conditions. It would be fun to play with, until something goes wrong with it. If you want a helicopter build a helicopter, if you want an airplane, build an airplane.

The 609(civi version) has received a very cool reception in the industry, as it's not a very good helicopter, it's horrifically expensive, and it doesn't haul a big enough load. Be interesting to see what comes of it.

stl

[co-joe]

That Wikipedia is something else.

STL do you practice VRS recovery in your training? I've heard of practicing autos but never VRS.

[sky's the limit]

That Wikipedia is something else.

STL do you practice VRS recovery in your training? I've heard of practicing autos but never VRS.

Co-joe,

That's a bit of a debate in the industry actually. There are those who think practicing the actual thing in necessary, but there are many who feel that learning about it, how to avoid it, and practicing an "approach to" VRS is adequate. Much like stalling and airliner, why go through with it?

Transport does not require it, but in some initial training outfits and company training, guys will do it. There is another, but different phenomenon called "settling with power," and that can happen occasionally in long line work, especially production jobs such as logging, seismic, and water bucketing. Same gross feeling, helicopter drops like a stone there too, slightly different cause.

Hope that helps.

stl

[2R]

7.62 is the worst kind of Flu

Only ever flew on civilian chinooks .You have never seen more nervous passengers than the pax on a chinook. The Chinook vibrations were horrific .A bucket of bolts in formation .The worst aircraft i have ever flown in as a pax .They said relax there are only forty five pax on this flight the military version (with a different gearbox)flies with 80 pax and gear .Three out of six chinook aircraft came to grief in two years with massive loss of life.
The men eventually refused to fly on it and they brought back the safer 61's ,Puma's ,76's and super-tigers.

Any aircraft that can have a mid-air collision with itself should be avoided

[ch135146]

That's a bit of a debate in the industry actually. There are those who think practicing the actual thing in necessary, but there are many who feel that learning about it, how to avoid it, and practicing an "approach to" VRS is adequate. Much like stalling and airliner, why go through with it?

My instructor demonstrated it. My opinion: that should be the minimum requirement.

Osprey? No thanks. I'd even be nervous if one appeared at an air show I was watching.

[MichaelP]

They should build the Fairey Rotordyne with two bullet proof Darts...

It would be interesting to compare the performance of the Osprey and the Rotordyne.

Canada was ahead of everybody in tilt wing research with the CL84... I saw a film of this aircraft fitted with a minigun spurting bullets into a target...
But of course that was innovation in Canada... Innovation is government outlawed in this country...

For all Canadians may I take this moment to mention the Avro Arrow

Sorry!

There was of course TSR2

[Snagmaster E]

I've seen the Osprey flight a fair few times during it's icing trials...
And I've seen it with the hubs off of the prop-rotors - that is a lot of very complex metal inside of it there.

The only real thing I can say about it is that it's very very loud. Not high freq loud like a fighter - like 10 hueys loud.

[co-joe]

Thanks STL.

Perhaps it's on par with the Vmc demo in the multi rating. Demo only is enough.


If what you say is true snagmaster about the V-22's noise then that alone could kill a project. Or at least limit its usage.

[sky's the limit]

Thanks STL.

Perhaps it's on par with the Vmc demo in the multi rating. Demo only is enough.


If what you say is true snagmaster about the V-22's noise then that alone could kill a project. Or at least limit its usage.

Yes, I guess it's the rotary equivalent to VMC, both being pilot killers in close proximity to the ground. That said, I've done both in training numerous times, and VRS is a lot more violent and given the situations it tends to occur in, much more frightening. VMC is something 99% of pilots will never see out side SIM training, whereas VRS is something a large percentage of rotary pilots will encounter in the working environments, particularly in the production long line jobs. (That's not to say that we can't avoid it, yes we can, but there are more situations where it'll present itself in daily Ops)

Neither are too pleasant, but I feel both should be taught/experienced in controlled training environments.

stl

[rigpiggy]

And I've seen it with the hubs off of the prop-rotors - that is a lot of very complex metal inside of it there.

The only real thing I can say about it is that it's very very loud. Not high freq loud like a fighter - like 10 hueys loud.

That's because it folds up like a transformer, I'd like to see a version without all the folding mechanism's/hydraulics and other systems for said. Wonder how much lighter, more reliable it would be?

http://re3.mm-a10.yimg.com/image/329032620

[twinpratts]

... and they look $hit hot .

[sky's the limit]

Giving the Osprey More Firepower By MARK THOMPSON
Sat Oct 20, 8:50 AM ET



After investing $20 billion over 25 years and losing 30 lives in the development of the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey, the U.S. military might like to think that its long-awaited combat debut would go relatively smoothly. But even as 10 Marine V-22s have just arrived in Iraq, the Air Force - which is buying V-22s for special operations missions - has decided the gun on the marine's version isn't good enough for an aircraft expressly designed to ferry troops into hot landing zones.

The Marines now flying the $120 million aircraft have insisted that the small gun slung from the aircraft's opened rear ramp is adequate for war. That's a claim disputed by retired Marine general James Jones, who ordered a beefed-up, forward-firing gun for the V-22 when he was serving as the Corps' top officer from 1999 to 2003. The requirement evaporated after Jones stepped down as commandant, but the Air Force, which is buying 50 V-22s for the Special Ops command, seems to agree with Jones.


"It is critical that the CV-22 possess a self-defense capability that will provide maximum protection from threats in the vicinity of the landing zone," the Special Op Command says in a recent message to contractors seeking an improved gun. Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" - in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun. The special-ops V-22 is slated to enter service in 2009.


This dispute is just the latest chapter in a troubled program begun in 1981 to provide a troop transport for all four military services; the Army dropped out two years later for cost reasons, and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, also citing cost, failed to kill it over objections from Congress - and the Marines. The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Co., was deemed ideal for carrying troops because it can take off and land like a helicopter, then tilt its engines and rotors forward to fly like a turboprop airplane. After three fatal crashes, numerous delays and compromises that some inside the military believe endanger those on board, the 10 V-22s are finally based at al Asad air base in western Iraq (the Marines have clamped down on all information about their operations, but expect a formal Iraqi unveiling of the V-22s soon).


At least one contractor agrees with the Air Force that the interim gun aboard the V-22 is wanting. BAE Systems has been investing in the development of a remotely-aimed gun that could be slung from the V-22's belly and installed starting in about a year, BAE officials say. The gun, which could range in size from 7.62 mm (the size of the current gun) to .50-cal. (the size Jones wanted) would protrude from the V-22's belly, just forward of the swiveling gun. A V-22 crew member located in the passenger compartment would fire the gun, based on the video images displayed, with a hand-held controller. A Pentagon official says this design, while perhaps adequate for special-ops V-22s, wouldn't replace the need for a final weapon for the Marine V-22 that would be integrated into the aircraft's internal electronic and computer systems. The Pentagon is seeking $82 million to develop a permanent gun, on top of the $45 million it already spent trying to meet Jones' requirement for one.


V-22 pilots like Marine Lieutenant Colonel Anthony "Buddy" Bianca know their aircraft is heading off to war with inadequate firepower. "It says right there in the ORD" -- the Operational Requirements Document specifying what the aircraft must be able to do -- that "the aircraft is supposed to have 360 degrees field of fire with a defensive weapon," says Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22 over the past eight years. "I don't care if its a turret, you stick it out of a window or you patch it on with bubblegum, but we've got to find a way to do that." Bianca, 40, told TIME that the current rear gun is "not the answer," and that Marines are planning on installing a better gun eventually. He pauses when asked if he thinks the V-22 should be sent to Iraq with the small, ramp-mounted gun as its only weapon. "That question," he says, "is not mine to say."


But as has always been the case in war, the more junior the officer, the less concerned he is about the weapon he is bringing to the fight. The gun doesn't faze Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney from Albany, Georgia, who has spent nearly 200 hours flying the V-22 over the past year. McKinney, 30, and his fellow "Thunder Chickens" of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from Jacksonville, N.C., are now in Iraq. "I think the weapon," he said as he readied for the deployment, "is very sufficient."


Bianca recalls why Jones' original scheme for a bigger gun was scrapped. "It was primarily cost, to be honest with you," he said. "I was in the room when (the contractors) were basically told that `this was our price-tag limits to develop this weapon' and they came back with a price tag and were told, `Well guys, you just designed yourself out of a weapons system.'" The gun's ultimate cost - $1.5 million a copy - ended up being too expensive in the Pentagon's eyes. That price - barely more than 1% of the V-22's current cost - ultimately doomed it, and sent the aircraft to Iraq sporting a weapon some Marines deride as a "peashooter."

[Northern Skies]

I was always curious about this: What is the procedure if the rotors won't tilt back up?

[sky's the limit]

I was always curious about this: What is the procedure if the rotors won't tilt back up?

That, is a very good question.... Not exactly a "belly landing" is it?


stl

[Walker]

I know that the new generations of these things the blades are made out of some funky fiber composite, so if they have contact with ground they loose their structural form but the fibers remain attached to the hub, so its sort of like waving a fist full of wet spaghetti around and around.
Also I believe that not all versions of the V-22 have the folding wing, but don’t quote me on that. Also apparently it floats!

But I have to admit the V-22 is BY FAR my most favorite aircraft! I even considered moving state side getting citizenship joining the air force JUST so I could fly one.

PS: Nark im very much envious that you've gotten a chance to ride in that thing