Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
V-22 Osprey Info
- Thread starter MJG
- Start date
- Watchers 5
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
We should start assigning the Osprey out of flight school within the next 2 years. Also, they will start transitioning squadrons starting at MCAS New RIver sometime within 2 years as well.
For more info on the Osprey, go to http://newsobserver.com/collections/osprey/osprey.pdf
For more info on the Osprey, go to http://newsobserver.com/collections/osprey/osprey.pdf
Is it working as advertised?
For those in the know, or at least with some knowledge of the Osprey program, is the aircraft performing as advertised? I also have not heard anything about the program since the crash a number of years ago that killed the Marines on board. From my very limited knowledge (watching Doscovery Wings and reading a few things here and there) the V-22 is a much needed replacement for the aging -46's that the Marines are using. Thanks for any replys.
For those in the know, or at least with some knowledge of the Osprey program, is the aircraft performing as advertised? I also have not heard anything about the program since the crash a number of years ago that killed the Marines on board. From my very limited knowledge (watching Doscovery Wings and reading a few things here and there) the V-22 is a much needed replacement for the aging -46's that the Marines are using. Thanks for any replys.
I suggest reading the link I provided in the post above. The Osprey can do some things, but you need to check the truth behind the advertising. For example, one big problem is that it is unarmed. Eventually, they want to add a gun but you can't do it on the side due to the wing and nacelles. A chin mounted nose turrent is the solution but the Opsrey is having weight problems and then the turrent PLUS some weight added to the rear to maintain Center of Gravity is really going to decrease its performance.
Quite a few other missions the Osprey can't do either. The Corps desperately needs a replacement for the CH-46E (and even more for the ancient CH-53D's) but the Osprey is extremely expensive and not suited for some of the missions it will be asked to perform. Its ironic that the Corps is replacing the CH-46E because the "future is the tiltrotor" but at the same time rebuilding the Huey and the Cobra which are just as old as the CH-46E.
Quite a few other missions the Osprey can't do either. The Corps desperately needs a replacement for the CH-46E (and even more for the ancient CH-53D's) but the Osprey is extremely expensive and not suited for some of the missions it will be asked to perform. Its ironic that the Corps is replacing the CH-46E because the "future is the tiltrotor" but at the same time rebuilding the Huey and the Cobra which are just as old as the CH-46E.
I would say that so many Marine Corps generals and colonels have staked their careers on the Osprey. Just as importantly, look at the number of high level Marine officers that go to work for Bell Helicopter after leaving active duty - you might say they have a vested interest in the Osprey.
The other thing that I forgot to mention earlier is the comparison. The Corps continues to compare the new 55,000 MV-22 to the 1960's era 24,000 lb CH-46E. You compare the Osprey to the 73,000 lb CH-53E, the 55,000 lb CH-47, or new medium lift helos like the EH-101 or the Sikorsky S-92 and the Osprey looks MUCH less cost effective.
The other thing that I forgot to mention earlier is the comparison. The Corps continues to compare the new 55,000 MV-22 to the 1960's era 24,000 lb CH-46E. You compare the Osprey to the 73,000 lb CH-53E, the 55,000 lb CH-47, or new medium lift helos like the EH-101 or the Sikorsky S-92 and the Osprey looks MUCH less cost effective.
Rolling-Thunder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Posts
- 66
Came across this link thru a helicopter forum.
Interesting read............
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm
Interesting read............
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22struggles.htm
HueyPilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 207
Well, I'll probably be flamed for this, but here's my pitch from a guy who's both RW and FW qual'ed.
One of my old friends who I flew UH-1s with also was a chief pilot for a fairly large helo operator in the southern US. He had the opportunity to take a ride in the XV-15, which is a smaller and less complicated version of the V-22. He said it flew great...easy to handle, and was just an all-round great ship to fly.
The V-22 is very complicated, and yes it does suffer from some setbacks and operational limitations. But I really do believe that tiltrotor technology can and will mature, IF the chorus of naysayers will allow it to. If we all go back to the beginning of every major jump in aviation technology, you'll see the same things. Jets in the 1950s were very noisy, drank gas like crazy, and didn't offer very good high altitude performance compared to todays jets. Yet the technology grew because people had the foresight to understand that jet technology was the future.
As for things that the media has latched on to, like Vortex Ring State (VRS), that's just media hype. Every helicopter I've ever flown or read about can get into serious trouble with VRS (some call it "settling with power"). It's a dangerous flight regime to be avoided, just like you avoid stalling and spinning an airplane.
There is some truth to the rumor that the Marines were forced to take the V-22....but in the same breath, there are plenty of Marine folks who WANT to see the V-22 suceed. I think the "forced" situation occurred after the V-22's development was delayed due to Congressional foot shuffling, and instead of having the aircraft in mid-1990s like they wanted, they were told it would take more time. So the Corps wanted to investigate an alternate to the V-22, or at the very least look at stop-gap measures (like remanufacturing the H-46)...but instead were told to shut up and color. It was only after the fatal Arizona crash that the Corps was allowed to spend a little cash to look into viable alternates.
I think the V-22 will ultimately grow into a very capable aircraft. Maintenance hog notwithstanding (ask any AH-64 maintainers about a mx hog, and you'll get an earfull), it is a very remarkable technology that still has some growing to do. Once the folks figure out improvements and get a mx routine down (and identify areas to keep an eye on), the aircraft will perform well and will serve the Marines, AF and Navy well.
I can list a number of aircraft that have serious drawbacks, but have still contributed greatly to the overall force...the AV-8B, C-5, B-1, AH-64...all of those aircraft have serious issues with fatigue, range, speed, handling, mx problems, and other things that have drawn those airframes considerable flak. But again, they've all matured to a point.
If we can deal with those limited airframes, we can deal with an early technology tilt-rotor and hope that the V-23 (or whatever) will bring the next step in the technology. And remember this...the V-22 is NOT a helicopter. It is NOT an airplane. It is a tilt-rotor, and must be flown and operated like one. What are those parameters? I don't know. But it will find a niche just like everything else.
Just my .02 cents
One of my old friends who I flew UH-1s with also was a chief pilot for a fairly large helo operator in the southern US. He had the opportunity to take a ride in the XV-15, which is a smaller and less complicated version of the V-22. He said it flew great...easy to handle, and was just an all-round great ship to fly.
The V-22 is very complicated, and yes it does suffer from some setbacks and operational limitations. But I really do believe that tiltrotor technology can and will mature, IF the chorus of naysayers will allow it to. If we all go back to the beginning of every major jump in aviation technology, you'll see the same things. Jets in the 1950s were very noisy, drank gas like crazy, and didn't offer very good high altitude performance compared to todays jets. Yet the technology grew because people had the foresight to understand that jet technology was the future.
As for things that the media has latched on to, like Vortex Ring State (VRS), that's just media hype. Every helicopter I've ever flown or read about can get into serious trouble with VRS (some call it "settling with power"). It's a dangerous flight regime to be avoided, just like you avoid stalling and spinning an airplane.
There is some truth to the rumor that the Marines were forced to take the V-22....but in the same breath, there are plenty of Marine folks who WANT to see the V-22 suceed. I think the "forced" situation occurred after the V-22's development was delayed due to Congressional foot shuffling, and instead of having the aircraft in mid-1990s like they wanted, they were told it would take more time. So the Corps wanted to investigate an alternate to the V-22, or at the very least look at stop-gap measures (like remanufacturing the H-46)...but instead were told to shut up and color. It was only after the fatal Arizona crash that the Corps was allowed to spend a little cash to look into viable alternates.
I think the V-22 will ultimately grow into a very capable aircraft. Maintenance hog notwithstanding (ask any AH-64 maintainers about a mx hog, and you'll get an earfull), it is a very remarkable technology that still has some growing to do. Once the folks figure out improvements and get a mx routine down (and identify areas to keep an eye on), the aircraft will perform well and will serve the Marines, AF and Navy well.
I can list a number of aircraft that have serious drawbacks, but have still contributed greatly to the overall force...the AV-8B, C-5, B-1, AH-64...all of those aircraft have serious issues with fatigue, range, speed, handling, mx problems, and other things that have drawn those airframes considerable flak. But again, they've all matured to a point.
If we can deal with those limited airframes, we can deal with an early technology tilt-rotor and hope that the V-23 (or whatever) will bring the next step in the technology. And remember this...the V-22 is NOT a helicopter. It is NOT an airplane. It is a tilt-rotor, and must be flown and operated like one. What are those parameters? I don't know. But it will find a niche just like everything else.
Just my .02 cents
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
