CV-22 Osprey info

[M2]

Here is a link to the full Center for Defence Information (CDI) report:

V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker?

Cheers! M2

[Gryne]

This has been discussed on an other forum as well :

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134138

Read the comments of Phrogfriver who actually flies the thing. His opinion (http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showpost....55&postcount=48) on page 3 is really interesting.

[drewpey]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/osprey/index.html

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.

The plane, which is intended to replace the Corps' 40-year-old fleet of CH-46 helicopters by 2018, can fly like a plane and land like a helicopter, giving the Marines more flexibility in the field, officials said.

The V-22 can carry troops three times as far, twice as fast and has six to seven times more survivability than the CH-46 widely used now in Iraq, the military says.

The Osprey's performance has also been noticed by the Air Force, which has plans to use it as a special operations aircraft.

The aircraft has been redesigned after two fatal accidents in 2000 that killed 23 Marines. Accidents in 1991 and 1992 killed seven other people, but Marines say the plane's problems are in the past.

"It's been through extensive operational testing and evaluation, and it is our fervent feeling that this aircraft is the most capable, survivable aircraft that we carry our most important weapon system in, which is the Marine or rifleman, and that we will successfully introduce this aircraft in combat," said Lt. Gen. John G. Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation.

Critics say the tilt-rotor design may still be too unsafe for the complexities of flying in combat operations.

The Marine Corps maintains it is a much more controllable aircraft in those situations.

Since 2003, the Marines have lost seven aircraft in combat operations. The Marine Corps says the V-22 can better avoid being shot down because it can fly higher than the missiles that have been targeting helicopters. In addition, people on the ground cannot hear the aircraft approaching, giving insurgents less time to prepare to shoot as it flies at low altitude.

"I flown the V-22, and I have taken it and used it in a tactical manner," Castellaw said. "The ability to maneuver this aircraft is far in excess of what we have with the existing helicopters."

They really only talk about the marines. Will be interesting to see how well it does in combat. Noticed they were flying around a lot in florida a few weeks ago...kind of akward looking at first, but I think it's growing on me...

[M2]

The USAF V-22s arrived at Hurlburt back on 16 Nov, I was at JSOU at the time and posted a video in this thread. Honestly, it was interesting to finally see one up close.

Cheers! M2

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Since 2003, the Marines have lost seven aircraft in combat operations. The Marine Corps says the V-22 can better avoid being shot down because it can fly higher than the missiles that have been targeting helicopters. In addition, people on the ground cannot hear the aircraft approaching, giving insurgents less time to prepare to shoot as it flies at low altitude.

Interesting. I guess I misunderstood the standard altitude capabilities of this aircraft as well as the standard operating environment.

We've had the CV-22 pressurization LIMFAC discussion and I don't want to start it over again.

However, I'm curious if anyone knows what altitude block the USMC plans to fly this thing.

[busdriver]

Rainman, your problem is you aren't thinking outside the box. The V-22 can fly high enough that the bad guys will be more likely to see and target one of the dozens of helos stuck flying around low. So in some ways it can overfly the threats out there, as long as there's plenty of suckers willing or forced to fly lower to decoy for them.

[MacGyver]

What's the "CV" stand for naming the Osprey?

Edited October 3, 2007 by MacGyver

[itsokimapilot]

What's the "CV" stand for naming the Osprey?

C=Cargo

V=Vertical takeoff/lift

Its just a guess

[Clayton Bigsby]

I assume it denotes a "Cargo" Mission Design Series, along with "V" for "V/STOL"

Personally I think it's all mixed up - the Air Force should have the MV-22, and the USMC the CV-22. The Air Force flies MH-53s in a SpecOps mission, and the Marines fly CH-53s in a general utility/transport mission.

But hey, I've also had AF instructors tell me with a straight face in tech school that MDS numbers are assigned in numerical program order. So the KC-135 being the 135th Tanker/Transport design procured, and the KC-767 being the 767th...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Guest bg130fe]

AFI 16-401(I) is the Instruction that "assigns" designations to various aircraft based on their missions. In this case C=basic mission cargo and the V=VTOL. Hope this helped.

Rotinaj beat me to it......

Edited October 3, 2007 by bg130fe

[Clayton Bigsby]

I think for "V" to mean staff transpo, it has to come before the basic mission designator - for example, Air Force One is a VC-25, whereas an AV-8B is not a VIP Harrier.

Sputnik, what's funny about that navy thing is they, like the Air Force, operate the HH-60 in a rescue role - however the USAF HH-60 is based off of the Army UH-60 platform, and the USN HH-60 comes from the SH-60 Seahawk platform. Yes I know they're pretty much the same thing, but there are some differences - I don't think the SH-60 has windows for door gunners behind the cockpit, and they've got that large two-wheeled underfuselage tail wheel instead of it being way in back.

I think politicians or staffers decided that the "M" for "MV-22" means "Marines"...

[Guest bg130fe]

AFI 16-401(I) is the Instruction that "assigns" designations to various aircraft based on their missions. In this case C=basic mission cargo and the V=VTOL. Hope this helped.

afi16_401_i_.pdf

[HerkFE]

I am sitting in a hotel room watching History Channel and they are talking about the V-22. I have always had a couple questions about the Osprey that I haven't been able to get answers to. First of all, does it have to land with the rotors up? The times I have asked this question I always get the answer that it can land like a conventional fixed wing aircraft. It sure doesn't look like it can to me. I'll wait for an answer to that question to ask my other questions. Thanks.

[Guest regularjoe]

I am sitting in a hotel room watching History Channel and they are talking about the V-22. I have always had a couple questions about the Osprey that I haven't been able to get answers to. First of all, does it have to land with the rotors up? The times I have asked this question I always get the answer that it can land like a conventional fixed wing aircraft. It sure doesn't look like it can to me. I'll wait for an answer to that question to ask my other questions. Thanks.

Yes has to land with the nacelles up, I can't remember exactly but I think the maximum they can rotate the nacelles on the ground it somewhere between 25-30 degree's forward due to blade clearence. They can shift forward for rolling takeoff/landing options but not all the way forward into airplane mode without relandscaping the scenery and hearing some interesting sounds from the right and left sides.

Edited January 11, 2008 by regularjoe

[HerkFE]

That's what I thought.

So my question is...What happens when the rotor system fails in the down position? I assume there is some type of backup system to get the rotors up.

Also, what about single engine ops? Just thinking about counter-torque problems or should I say the lack of counter-torque. I'm sure this has all been thought of, I'm just curious about how it works.

And yes, I do sit around and think about stuff like this. I haven't lost any sleep over it, just curious.

[Guest regularjoe]

So my question is...What happens when the rotor system fails in the down position?

EP's dictate that in an engine/system failure to immediately transition back to helo mode. Roughly 12 seconds worth of time.

There is a setup in the transmission that transfers power from the good engine to the dead one in the event of a failure.

Also, what about single engine ops?

Single engine operations although somewhat different in this case is like most small twins = good engine takes you to crash site.

Seriously Bell states that single engine ops are possible but the guys that I dealt with there were not interested in testing that theory to much

Just thinking about counter-torque problems or should I say the lack of counter-torque.

Props are counter-rotating so elimates a good portion of torque issues and the dead side will continue to run due to the previously mentioned transmission linkage.

Before anyone freaks out none of this is opsec as it can all be aquired from Bell with little effort and in fact most of it is stuff that is highly touted by Bell as used for selling points.

[Wildo67]

EP's dictate that in an engine/system failure to immediately transition back to helo mode. Roughly 12 seconds worth of time.

There is a setup in the transmission that transfers power from the good engine to the dead one in the event of a failure.

If we were to lose an engine in airplane configuration, then we would be staying in airplane mode most likely as we are getting lift from the wings and will need less total power than in VTOL configuration.

We have an interconnecting driveshaft system (ICDS) which will transmit the power from one engine to both proprotor systems with no loss of RPM, obviously there will be less total torque to both systems combined, but in most all situations (except for high altitude, temp, and weight) it will provide more than enough power to mainain straight and level flight and even to climb.

The two proprotor systems are counter-rotating which is basically why we don't have a need for a tail rotor, but this has nothing to do with single engine ops, due to the ICDS.

We deal with single engine operations in the sim all the time and if we can perform a run on or even no-hover landing then 99.9% of the time it is no big deal.

If we were to land in airplane configuration then the proprotors would strike the runway, but there has been extensive testing to show that the proprotors will splinter away from the aircraft. If this were to occur on a runway, survival should be 100% for personnel.

You are correct there are no problems with our disscussion as it is here and OPSEC. In fact everyone here should understand that while the Osprey is a different technology with its own unique set of problems, you should not take what TIME and many others have to say to heart. The Osprey is a great aircraft that will fill a high-demand mission. It has the ability to do it better and safer than its predecessors as long as it is understood for what it can and cannot provide.

[HerkFE]

EP's dictate that in an engine/system failure to immediately transition back to helo mode. Roughly 12 seconds worth of time.

There is a setup in the transmission that transfers power from the good engine to the dead one in the event of a failure.

Single engine operations although somewhat different in this case is like most small twins = good engine takes you to crash site.

Seriously Bell states that single engine ops are possible but the guys that I dealt with there were not interested in testing that theory to much

Props are counter-rotating so elimates a good portion of torque issues and the dead side will continue to run due to the previously mentioned transmission linkage.

Before anyone freaks out none of this is opsec as it can all be aquired from Bell with little effort and in fact most of it is stuff that is highly touted by Bell as used for selling points.

regularjoe,

Thanks for that info. I'm sure this thing is very well designed and thought out but I don't think I would want to fly this thing. Just sounds like too many areas for failure to me. Maybe when the "C" model comes out.

Wildo67,

Thanks. When I originally replied to regularjoe I couldn't see your response. Not sure how that happened (how it was not there, then was there when I came back). The ICDS was the widget I was looking to hear about. My previously unindoctrinated mind could only invision loosing one engine and having no choice but to spiral to your death.

Edited January 11, 2008 by HerkFE

[Guest regularjoe]

If we were to lose an engine in airplane configuration, then we would be staying in airplane mode most likely as we are getting lift from the wings and will need less total power than in VTOL configuration.

I guess that is the difference from seeing it in the drawing board/testing phases vs the operational phase.

It is interesting to see that the sop is now to stay in airplane configuration vs helo when having an emergency, of course we were worried about replacing a lot of one of a kind equipment and all that money lost vs you guys doing what is best for saving lives.

Glad to hear it is working as designed and you guys like it.

If we were to land in airplane configuration then the proprotors would strike the runway, but there has been extensive testing to show that the proprotors will splinter away from the aircraft. If this were to occur on a runway, survival should be 100% for personnel.

All the same I think I will pass on the real time "testing" part of that trail.

In fact everyone here should understand that while the Osprey is a different technology with its own unique set of problems, you should not take what TIME and many others have to say to heart. The Osprey is a great aircraft that will fill a high-demand mission. It has the ability to do it better and safer than its predecessors as long as it is understood for what it can and cannot provide.

2

Edited January 11, 2008 by regularjoe

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I'm sure there are (and aware of) many teething and operator/user issues with the V-22. It's a familiar story. There's plenty of real criticism that could be made to make the V-22 an effective platform, but unfortunately everyone likes to jump on the bandwagon of the complaints that really don't have much bearing.

The Time article that came out last summer I feel was a pretty one-sided rant, and full of "facts" that are taken out of context. For example, it speaks of the lack of autorotative capability. I flew Hueys and was lucky because the UH-1 had metal rotor blades. During some situations, you would actually have to pull pitch to keep the blades from overspeeding while in the descent. Other aircraft, such as the OH-58D KW, for example, have very poor autorotative characteristics, and friends I knew that flew it said they'd consider themselves lucky to walk away from an autorotation in the KW, and likely it would bend/break the aircraft. And that's in a PURE helicopter! The combination of light-weight low inertia composite blades with it's heavy gross weight made autos sporty.

Then there's the "forward-firing" armament thing. I do know the V-22 has LESS firing capacity with the current ramp arrangement than the side-firing arrangement with most assault ships. BUT, I do not know of any FORWARD-firing capacities among UH/CH helicopter types. The only helos I know that can fire forward are the AH-1, OH-58D and the AH-64. In time the turret gun will likely fix that issue. The Pentagon needs to get off their behinds and field it.

I've heard complaints about VRS (vortex ring state) being a "fault" of the V-22. To the layperson, VRS affects ALL rotary-winged aircraft, and isn't V-22 specific. The Marana crash, to me, was simply failure of SOMEONE to adequately train the aircrew. From what I understand, at least one of the pilots was a former fixed-winger that didn't fully understand and appreciate the VRS phenomenon. They were flying very slow, and had a very high rate of descent in helo mode. Any helo operator would tell you that's a recipe for disaster, and settling with power (entering the VRS envelope) would develop quickly. Simply rotating the nacelles forward rapidly would likely have saved them...although training crews to avoid slow forward speeds with high descent rates would avoid it altogether (all helo crews are trained to avoid this flight regime).

Then I hear from those that understand VRS say "well, helicopters won't have asymmetric VRS and roll like the V-22". You would be mostly correct there...however, the Chinook has a set-up similar to the V-22, except in tandem. My father watched a Chinook nose over and plant itself into an LZ nose first due to VRS as he flew in trail in a Cobra back in the 1970s. Not sure if the crew lived or not...it happened at low altitude, but he said the front rotor system departed the aircraft.

Everyone also needs to get some perspective about the V-22...3-4 fatal accidents over a 20 year period. The H-46 lost nearly 50 aircraft in the first few years it was in service...some for the infamous ability of that helicopter to divide itself into two pieces in flight due to a weak fuselage bulkhead. Yet the V-22 loses 4 aircraft and it's a "deathtrap" and a "flying shame". Two losses were during pure test flights...the other two were operational test flights.

Well, I'll get down from the soapbox. For whatever it's disadvantages and weaknesses (it has some, and some are signficant) I feel it's gotten labeled a deathtrap unfairly. I've seen the wreckage of a UH-60 that decided to play lawn dart in the 1980s (back when they had the stabilator problem that caused many to pitch over and plant themselves firmly in the ground), I've had friends have to auto to the ground when the ole T53 decided to overspeed then shell out (poorly designed spur gear on the accessory gearbox), and let's not talk about the C-130's wing...you HAVE to fly with certain fuel loads and be careful of overstressing the wing, or else you'll get the wing-off light. I never had to worry about wing loading in the C-21, except to heed the g-limits. Every aircraft has had teething problems or some other achilles heel that has resulted in dead aircrews and/or passengers.

[HeloDude]

Hey guys. I know there have been posts made on different thread topics concerning the CV-22, so I figured we can start a new thread for new questions and information.

Here are some questions I have if anybody has any info:

When are they going to officially stand up an operational squadron at Cannon? I have been told by some 53 bubbas that the dates have been pushed back due to slow CV-22 production, etc.

When the squadron at Hurlburt begins to be full up operational, what will their deployments be like? Will they similar to that of the 53 or maybe more to that of the the Talon types (for all I know these could be the same)?

Not that it matters, but has AFSOC or SOCOM released any details cocerning females flying CV-22's? I know they were never allowed to fly 53's, but they have females on AC/MC-130's. Goes back to the question...is the CV-22 more of a helo or more of a fixed wing?

[SCRIMP]

I am pretty sure the only thing they are flying them for right now are airshows. It is like trying to guess when CSAR-X will be up. Hopefully someone does have some answers though because I am interested too.

[ClearedHot]

I am pretty sure the only thing they are flying them for right now are airshows.

Where do you come up with this crap?

[X-Citerbox]

I was speaking with a female engineer recently, who was looking to go the CV-22 way, and she was told no because SOCOM has recently classified or reclassified the -22 as a "direct action” platform like the -53. Like anything in the AF, expect this to change 69 times…

[Guest FierceRabbit]

I was speaking with a female engineer recently, who was looking to go the CV-22 way, and she was told no because SOCOM has recently classified or reclassified the -22 as a "direct action” platform like the -53. Like anything in the AF, expect this to change 69 times…

I don't understand. Don't the Marines have a couple female Osprey pilots? How could the same platform be more dangerous in the Air Force?