V-22

[9GClub]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/28/osprey.testing.ap/index.html

 

[USMCmech]

The crewchief in that crash in AZ was my roomate at Quantico.

The V-22 is a great bird, but it is a maintence whore. When I got out, I was told that it was averaging 20-30% dipatch reliablity.

The Marine Corps should have either bought UH-60s or simpley ordered new CH-46s (they are great birds, but our airframes are just old and worn out).

 

[GVFlyer]

The crewchief in that crash in AZ was my roomate at Quantico.

The V-22 is a great bird, but it is a maintence whore. When I got out, I was told that it was averaging 20-30% dipatch reliablity.

The Marine Corps should have either bought UH-60s or simpley ordered new CH-46s (they are great birds, but our airframes are just old and worn out).

Or CH-53E's. Three of the $26mil. E's will carry what 5 of the $40 mil. Ospreys will carry.

GV

 

[satpak77]

what do you do on one engine?

total engine failure glide ratio?

wonder how they would do in the sand-box?

if the "regular" Osprey is so accident prone, I wonder what kind of stats the training squadron is going to have? If this is going to be the USMC "primary troop transport", then "regular" USMC pilots are going to be pipelined into it, no? This is not the F-117 Stealth fighter, where applicants needed like 3000 TT and 1000 in jet fighers (or similar) PRIOR to entry to that program.

etc?

40M each?

one site claims 89M and another claims 73M

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/


http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/MV22fate.html

or will this be another T-3 Firefly, with 100 airplanes bought, paid for, only to be grounded after numerous accidents?

 

[USMCmech]

what do you do on one engine?

total engine failure glide ratio?

wonder how they would do in the sand-box?

In the event of a single engine failure, both rotors can be driven off of the remaining engine, thru a transfer gearbox.


In the event of a dual engine failure in hover mode, it will autorotate just like a normal helo. I'm not sure what it would do if that happened in "airplane" mode.

The hydraulic system is one of the most complex ever designed on any aircraft. In addition to the flight controls, the blades also fol inward along the wing, and the entire wing assembly rotates 90 degrees. This is done to allow for shipboard storage.

Working the bugs out of this aircraft has eaten up a ton of money, including a large chunck of the USMC's R&D budget over the last decade.

 

[Birdstrike]

Working the bugs out of this aircraft has eaten up a ton of money, including a large chunck of the USMC's R&D budget over the last decade.

And too many lives. You would know better than I but this just seems like a bridge too far. Need improved helo capabilities? Then build a better helo. Need better line haul capabilities? Then build a better fixed-wing. Why combine the two and ask for some unique troubles that you didn't have before? And the further along you go, the harder it is to admit a mistake in the first place and pull the plug. You guys in the USMC have weighed all this and decided to press ahead. I sincerely hope the problems are truly fixable given the costs/risks.

 

[satpak77]

who is ram-rodding this thing? McPeak pushed the T-3A, claiming that "fighter pilots shouldnt be training in Cessna's" (T-41 had zero fatalities in its history, but lets skip over that fact...)

 

[9GClub]

T-41 had zero fatalities in its history, but lets skip over that fact...

Apparently not.... a student and his IP were killed in a midair involving two -41s in '74 in Texas:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/t-3.htm

But if you're talking about zero non-pilot-error fatalities in the -41, I guess that flies.....

 

[GVFlyer]

40M each?

one site claims 89M and another claims 73M.

Here's a typically clear response to your question from a Marine General (the Marines are supposed to get 360 Ospreys, it is well suited to their Over-the-Horizon Vertical Envelopment mission):

Q: Can you clear up for us the price tag on this aircraft? I've seen it various reported between $40 (million) and $80 million apiece. How much do they cost?

Lt. Gen. McCorkle: I'll be more than happy to, and this is on the back of an envelope, not something that you can take to the bank on price tag. But the way that I talk about price is what all the DOD aircraft are priced at is '94 dollars. It's -- the last official price on the MV-22 in '94 dollars is $39.9 million. I understand now that that is going to increase to, like, 41.7 or something million dollars, but when I hear somebody say it's $80 million, I'll say, Okay, so what does your aircraft cost and -- when we look at it in the same way? So normally, when you hear prices of $80 million or $100 million, somebody is comparing apples and oranges.

I think the $40 million (actually $39.9) is 1994 dollars cost adjusted for economies of scale for the entire 458 Osprey production run. The V-22s in the 2005 Defence Authorization Bill are priced at $114.8 million each!

GV

 

[satpak77]

ok sounds good, I had data that indicated no accidents, obviously that is in error

 

[satpak77]

Gv

you are correct sir....

FY94 unit cost here

40.1 M

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm

observe Cheney was anti-Osprey under his last administration, wonder how this thing is gonna make it to active duty with him in office...who knows...

 

[satpak77]

McGorkle comments

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2001/t01192001_t119mv22.html

"The flight crew, as most of you know, all served, all four of them, on the Multi-Service Operational Test Team, the MOTT. And the combination represented what I think was our most experienced MV-22 crew that could be assembled. I've run through the flight times with you before in here with Lieutenant Colonel Murphy with over 300 hours in the MV-22, 280 in the simulator; Colonel Sweaney, 280 in the MV-22 and almost 200 in the simulator. And then Staff Sergeant Runnels and Sergeant Buyck both had well over 200 hours in the MV-22.

The aircraft information that I haven't provided to you before: was a Lot 2, a low-rate initial production aircraft. It was number 18. It was accepted from the manufacturer on 26 August 2000; had 160 total hours prior to this mishap; was properly certified safe for flight. And we've checked the aircraft log book and aircraft discrepancy book and have determined that they were properly maintained. And it was a normal configuration for a fam [familiarization]-and- instrument flight.

So the overview: exceptional flight crew; well briefed for instrument-fam warm-up; a new airplane, and weather was not a factor. It was VFR [Visual Flight Rules]."

 

[flint4xx]

Stop dreaming dude, your employer will never get one.

 

[satpak77]

Stop dreaming dude, your employer will never get one.

no, we are too busy buying leased ATR's that are broken all the time

I am having fun in the 350, if somebody can't have fun flying a King Air, they need a head examination

you make Capt yet

 

[flint4xx]

Not yet. Another 1-2 years I guess. I am thinking about buying my own Cessna though, so I can command something...

I've only worked 9 days this month. I'm gettin' lazy.

Say, what are you doing snoopping on the helicopter forum, anyhow?

 

[Birdstrike]

I am thinking about buying my own Cessna though, so I can command something...

Great line.

 

[satpak77]

I've only worked 9 days this month. I'm gettin' lazy.

he11, I worked 4 weekends last month

they also sent 2 newbies to me, one of them thought "PAPI" meant father in Spanish, the other one wanted to lean out the PT-6 via the condition levers, to improve the fuel burn



"you're not stupid, are you?" <----- wonder if that was a rude response

12 more years....12 more years.....12 more....

 

[flint4xx]

the other one wanted to lean out the PT-6 via the condition levers, to improve the fuel burn

Did you let him?

And tell Ixxxxxmann F.Y. for me.

 

[satpak77]

i will pass the pleasantries