Osprey to deploy to Iraq

[+Zurawski 33]

Typically hybrid vehicles suffer a deficit on one side or the other...

 

In this case The Osprey gives up load capacity for higher speed and altitude.

 

In a nutshell the Osprey is a case of "right tool for the right job"... In particular the Marines want to ingress and egress troop and cargo in a speedy fashion with as little loiter time in transition. The Osprey is intended to get them in fast and get back up and at a safe altitude and speed as quickly as possible... You just can't do that with the present CHs.

 

I don't see the CH-46 or a CH-53 going anywere... they still have their roll in the military.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Zurawski

[arf16 0]

I'd be interested in seeing any references about Boeing not giving it an auto-rotation capability as I'm not even sure that's possible. Auto-rotation is a function of how helicopters work it's just the engines aren't powering the rotors, airflow is. I have heard the rate of descent in auto is very high for a V-22, somewhere the wrong side of 5000' per minute due to the relatively small disc size, but that just makes the bit at the end more interesting.

 

Here are some sources on its (lack of) auto-rotaion capabilities:

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-22-survive.htm (towards the bottom of the page)

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001837.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1666282,00.html

Edited October 12, 2007 by arf16

[+Zurawski 33]

Here are some sources on its (lack of) auto-rotaion capabilities:

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-22-survive.htm (towards the bottom of the page)

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001837.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1666282,00.html

 

Wow... was it just me or did that first link read like it was penned by a PR person for the competing CH manufacture?

 

Middle two links were well written and expressed concern about areas without climbing on a soap box and outright condemning the V-22...

 

The TIME article was written exactly as I expected...

[+SkippyBing 8]

Yeah, having read those it appears that it can kind of auto but the high rotor load and small rotors make it 'interesting' to say the least so it's not considered a viable option which is fair enough. You'd still have to be really unlucky to suffer a double engine failure so I can't see it being a major problem.

[eraser_tr 29]

Wow... was it just me or did that first link read like it was penned by a PR person for the competing CH manufacture?

 

Middle two links were well written and expressed concern about areas without climbing on a soap box and outright condemning the V-22...

 

The TIME article was written exactly as I expected...

 

Well if you notice, its origins and original destination are XXXXXXXX, I would not be surprised if it was a PR person.

[JediMaster 451]

While the 53's aren't going anywhere, and indeed a new/upgraded model the 53K is in the works, the 46 is out of production for quite some time now and will be retired.

[+Gocad 26]

Hmm, Looks like CNN has developed an interest in the Osprey:

 

New article: Giving the Osprey more firepower.

[atoll1 0]

Hmm, Looks like CNN has developed an interest in the Osprey:

 

New article: Giving the Osprey more firepower.

 

 

Yes, what about this angle? The TIME article seems to push that the original forward firing gun will be replaced with a rearward firing one, meaning that the osprey would not be able to clear the drop zone ahead before reaching it. Do you think this is a setback? wouldn't the Osprey be flown in tandem with AH64s or the like?

[Hawk MMS 0]

More likely AH-1 Cobra's. My brother in law just back from his second tour in Anbar. He saw Ospreys flying all over and involved in ops.

[+Gocad 26]

...wouldn't the Osprey be flown in tandem with AH64s or the like?

 

I'm not sure, but somehow I doubt that an Apache or Cobra could keep up with an Osprey.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Gocad

[+SkippyBing 8]

I'm not sure, but somehow I doubt that an Apache or Cobra could keep up with an Osprey.

 

They don't need to, they just need to turn up at the LZ at the same time.

[JediMaster 451]

I heard a report of a belly-mounted turret with 360 degree arc (only usable when gear is up, of course) being test installed. That could work out.

[+SkippyBing 8]

My limited knowledge of twin engined aircraft is in helicopters. Which should be a fairly straight transfer to the Osprey due to the interconnect between the engines making it essentially a twin helo with the gearbox spread out a bit. In the Lynx our engines have two ratings, one for twin ops, where you want to limit the power going into the gearbox to avoid damaging it, and the second for when you lose an engine and you don't want to kill the one that still works. However if you do lose an engine ultimately you'll pull whatever you can out of the one that works, and generally they'll give a lot more than the maker says it will.

The problem with the Osprey is it's a fairly unique rotor configuration and you can't test it for failure in every possible configuration. Well you could but life's too short.

As to a total engine failure I think the rate of descent for auto was in excess of 5000 feet per minute which is f*****g scary if you ask me!

[JediMaster 451]

Well, if you're down to one engine and you only need it to run for another 30 mins to get clear, you hardly care if the process will make the engine a pile of scrap metal in an hour. Better to replace both engines later (the down one and the overused one) than the entire craft, both engines, AND crew later.

[JediMaster 451]

Most of what you described won't happen because it's not like a twin-engined plane, with each engine powering one prop. They're interconnected and one engine can turn both. Only with loss of an engine AND the interconnect could that happen. I'm sure it could with battle damage, but again no twin-prop helo can stay aloft with only one prop working anyway.

While I'm sure in airplane mode it will fly fine, I don't know about hovering especially under max weight conditions. Hopefully they could dump fuel/cargo or at least land safely. Remember, it can't land in airplane mode, only helo mode, although the engines could be tilted forwards for a "rolling" landing. In airplane mode, though, the props would be slamming into the ground before all wheels touched down.

[+SkippyBing 8]

In airplane mode, though, the props would be slamming into the ground before all wheels touched down.

 

I'm 99% sure that the design allows for that with the blades being designed to break off at the appropriate point and due to the spin direction fly away from the fuselage, I'll see if I can dig out the reference. In helo mode you'd probably end up having to do a running landing, which is fairly standard for a twin engine helo with an engine out as unless you're having a good day you won't have enough power to hover.

[tw7222 0]

I guess this add stirred the pot some. it appears to be hovering in front of a mosque.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495637/posts

[Buzzard 72 0]

I've been reading this thread (essentially the same as another I've read elsewhere). I'm not sure wher some of these numbers are coming from about payloads and what not. The V-22 has apatented advantage in all operational aspects of importance: Range, Payload, Speed. As with all new designs problems arise and lives get taken in the process of these developments (not that it makes this good or exceptable, just unavoidable). I dare say the number of lives lost due to Sea knight incidents far exceeds what any of us realizes.

 

My uncle(a 30+ veteran of the US Army and a Warrant Officer in The USAR) has flown Chinooks (as well as flying DHL 727's) for over a dozen years now nad eggbeaters in general for 20+. Spent 19 months flying CH-47's in Iraq for SOC. Started his career as a Crew Chief in a UH-1 during Operation Pipesmoke(aircraft wreckage recovery and disposal) and later flew Hueys for the Reserves. He has commented that there is a definite need for a better platform with VTOL capabilities or at VSTOL capabilities. While he agrees that the V-22 has it's problems and needs those rectified(some of which may not have presented themselves yet) it has been the same with every aircraft design ever devised by man and the platform that is the V-22 is the next generation of prop driven VSTOL aircraft.

 

V-22 (FAS)(Boeing)

PAYLOAD

47,500 lb Vertical Takeoff/Landing (VTOL)

55,000 lb Short Takeoff/Landing (STOL)

60,500 lb Self Deploy STO

 

RANGE

200nm Pre-Assault Raid with 18 troops

200nm Land Assault with 24 troops

50 nm (x2) Amphibious Assault

500 nm Long Range SOF Missions (USAF/CV-22)

2100 nm Self Deploy (with one refueling)

50 nm External Lift Operations with 10,000 lb load

 

Criusing Speed

240 kts (MV-22)

230 kts (CV-22)

 

CH-46 Sea Knight (FAS)(Boeing)

Maximum takeoff weight: 24,300 pounds (11,032 kilograms)

Range: 132 nautical miles (151.8 miles) for an assault mission

Speed: 145 knots (166.75 miles per hour)

Payload:

Combat: maximum of 14 troops with aerial gunners

Medical evacuation: 15 litters and 2 attendants

Cargo: maximum of 4,000 pound (2270 kilograms) external load

Introduction date: January 1978

 

Now by looking at the above numbers...I guess I'm not reading them right.

[sparkomatic 7]

the V-22 is cool...every airplane has its issues and given the fact that this is such new technology, it is doing remarkably well. Hey, just remember that when the first airplanes entered military service the reception that awaited them, and same goes for "jet" propulsion