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?

Nothing that the Chinook couldn't do better. Pork.

The Commanche, on the other hand, had a range of independant offensive capabilities which could have been expanded on.

John70t,

Actually while the -47 series of helicopters are very good helos they do not adapt well to the naval environment, their foot print is too big.

Wayne,

The question remains what is the -22 good for? I can see limited use in long range raids and in theater augmentation of medevac requirements. The range issue is kind of moot at best as it and helos will need aerial refueling. The redundancy factors with the -22 both in terms of aircraft and tankers results in a much larger package, thus easier to detect.

S/F, FOG

Be able to act like a helicopter to bring troops where there is no runway. Since it can fly like a plane, it can go higher and escape some gun fire, small missiles...

Dave

Slodave,

The -22 is limited to a maximum rate of descent into the zone of 800 FPM. Most others are above 4,000 FPM and I believe the CH-53E bubbas have the best being above 6,000 FPM. Plus the helos can utilize defensive maneuvering tactics while descending.

As far as being able to fly above AA and man pads I call at least a partial BS. ManPads reach over 10,000’ from sea level, even larger deltas when fired from higher elevations. You need oxygen above 10,000’ msl for all aircrew and anybody who is going to work when they get out. Everybody when you get to 13,000’ msl and above. You need to pre-breath pure oxygen if you go above 18,000’ msl. In other words not very practical with troops or otherwise.

I (and others as well) can see a battlefield role in medevac. If the zone is safe enough you can drastically reduce the transit time and hopefully save more people or return them in better condition. Certain types of long range raids, though it and other helos will still need aerial re-fueling support.

S/F, FOG

I was only reiterating two points that I had read about, that answered the other post about what advantages the V-22 has over other aircraft.

As for being shot out of the sky, again, I mentioned smal arms fire - stuff that you read about in the paper taking out helicopters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia...

There was something about how the rotors worked normally and how they could still function if a gear box that ties the two together fails.

I don't know much about the aircraft, other than what the guys at the hydraulic company have told me and from what I have read over the years.

Battlefield exposure will ultimately tell the future of the V-22.

Dave

No forward or side armament, can't autorotate, large propellers that hit the ground and shred or fragment (at best) if a fixed wing mode landing is required and heavy engine nacelles and high thrust out on the wingtips making roll recovery from an assymetric vortex ring state more difficult.

I'm wondering if this 110 to 130 M$ per copy aircraft will truly be put in harms way or will it be limited to relatively "safe" missions.

Slodave,

Without going into TTPs the only people above small arms windows as a matter of course are the HVAs and fast jets.

The -22 uses a free turbine principle. So if the synch shaft is lost and you have power on both engines you should be able to get it down w/o killing everyone on board in the acft configuration. If you loose one engine and the sync shaft you can’t use power on the one engine for anything put hydraulics and electric, i.e. basically dead stick it in.

S/F, FOG

Something about "dead sticking" a -22 most anywhere does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1193017516.jpg

I have a couple of hundred hours in a helo but personally am a big fan of wings...

I understand your sentiment. But, in all fairness, it might be premature to celebrate that the aircraft is "finally working." You're probably not the first to say that in the last 20 years.

Joe,

The -22 doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy period. Just think of all the extra asymetric power considerations above and beyond normal aircraft. Makes my head hurt.

Harriers and Skyhawks have been dead sticked. The F-16 has has HAPL procedures.

S/F, FOG