V-22 Osprey, should it stay of should it go?
 

If it stays there will be trouble... if it goes there will be double...

I know we have some aviation folks here, and some military, so I ask you.

To keep it short and sweet... in your opinion should we continue to develop the aircraft or should we dump it and start over?

:confused:

It is a piece of crapolla...I will never fly one or ride in one. Bell couldn't manage a two cheerleader pep rally, let alone a major, new aircraft development. Google the new presidential helo program,

Remember, this albatross is over twenty years in development. The sorry history of this aviation pig will be dwarfed by future mishaps.

Chuck it.

Let’s see, the Marine Corps would need to double it’s KC-130 fleet just to support it. It’s maximum rate of descent into a LZ is only about a quarter of what other helos have (Seahawk will have to verify this). It has unique issues with aerial re-fueling that require some mods to the KC-130 which in turn negatively impact on the KC-130’s ability to re-fuel other aircraft. It cannot aerial re-fuel with an engine out like either -53s or -60s, thus severely impacting overwater and long distance mission profiles. To get it’s greater range it needs to fly high, where o2 is needed but there is o2 only for the crew and it’s not pressurized. These are the polite things.

Gotta disagree with Seahawk on Bell’s ability to produce. The Z series of skids are a large improvement.

S/F, FOG

It was a bad idea, engineered to a level of adequacy.
Scrap the POS and spend the time and money on something that will work better.

As Seahawk alludes, the Osprey has taken it's toll on a disproportionately high number of pilots. Some think it's a flying coffin.

It's manufacture has been good to those who build it, but that shouldn't be the compelling reason to keep this program alive. IMHO Osprey funding would be best spent on more viable projects.

Sherwood

Fog,

I was the production manager for the Y and Z for Col Islieb in the Cobra Huey Program Office. My team got the Z into Low Rate Rate Initial Production. Bell's thick composite scrap rate is horrific. And they not longer bend metal, they outsource it.

Fog, they ain't what they were.

Seahawk,

I’m a fixed wing bubba, not a rotor head. Had some ancillary contact with the Z out at YPG and was impressed.

Even more impressed that it was decided to buy new vice spend more money on “upgrading” to the Z standard.

Boot Brow was a good friend of mine. The engineers said his mishap couldn’t happen that way until it did. The simulator when flown with the mishap parameters didn’t crash, it does now and they admit the ring vortex and asymmetric issues.

Just my uninformed fixed wing opinion we would have had more useful capability and cheaper with SH-60 variants.

S/F, FOG

That is what I thought, everything I have see or read about the plane says it is bad news.

And now we are sending them to Iraq :rolleyes:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The military's controversial V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft will head to Iraq for its first combat tour later this year, Marine officials announced Friday.

After 18 years and $20 billion in development, the plane will deploy to western Iraq in September to support Marine Corps combat operations for seven months, Marine officials said.

And
CNET news
Oct 9
The Osprey has landed--in Iraq, and in the history books. One of the most controversial aircraft in recent aviation history, the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey has come in for criticism over the many years of its development for reasons ranging from financial costs to fatal crashes to its novel and rather ungainly design: it flies like both a helicopter and a fixed-wing plane.

Funny, I can't find the article that prompted me to start this post... something about them not having adequate weapons systems due to budget constraints. :(

No issue, Fog...my best friend is a retired Marine who was the Program Office Chief Engineer during my time in the Y/Z PMA. I actually wrote the brief that started the build new effort with him.

Most Marine rotor heads share the opinion that the new Navy MH-60S (a program I also worked to first flight in the late 90's, early 2000) remains the answer.

I pray for the men who will fly and ride this thing. As an aside, my wife was a young engineer who worked on the V-22 from 1987 to 1992. She knew all the folks who have perished.

I'm no pilot, nor do I have any military experience. But I recall flipping through military magazines in my high school library, and reading about some revolutionary new craft called the Osprey. That was 20 years ago. If we still haven't figured out how to make this thing work, just give it up.

Osprey=Albatross.

I do IT work for a company that makes a lot of the hydraulic parts. They have a blueprint of it on the wall. Every time I comment on it, the owners always respond "if someone ever offers you a ride in the V-22, turn it down."

They still make the same hydraulic parts for it today. The Marines really want this project to work and even though they are just now being put into service, they have been test flying them for all these years and need parts.

What you have to consider is that this was a major piece of engineering concept and design. Sure it has taken a long time to develop the machine until it finally works reliably but nothing like this has ever been made before so the project encountered several problems that were unanticipated and were not simple to fix. It is obviously a useful piece of equipment and the Marines are very keen to put it into action.
I don't understand why you would suggest scrapping it now that it's finally working?

I think it was a neat IDEA, but it's optimum "window of opportunity" in timing has long passed. Maybe in the future someone will try again (re: B2 "Flying Wing")...Mr. Northrup had a great idea, but I feel the engineering just was not up to the platform at that time.

If you have to force an idea to work. . .

There's a fine line somewhere between tenacity and bull-headed obstinance.

The article that brought the Osprey to my attention was in the LA Times a few years ago. Primarily an article about the high crash rate of the Harrier attack jet, also a vertical takeoff jet, the article also talked about the V-22. My earlier reference should have referred to the Harrier as the "flying coffin", not the Osprey, but both planes have their issues.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3720/is_200305/ai_n9203424

FYI, here's an account of the military and political controversy surrounding the V-22:

http://wais.stanford.edu/General/general_v22osprey040204.htm

Sherwood

I say we give them to Iran, you can figure out the reasons if you really think about it.

Todd SmileWavy

Great links.

So, what advantages is the Osprey supposed to bring to the theater?