V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon Or Widow Maker?

scottrobts

New Member
Lenny said:
Democrat Congress

republican President. and who cares a rat's hiney you moron? they work great now, same as the M-1 Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, yet al sucked and were hated when they were released, stop being an idiot with the democrat and republican tags.
 

LordStanley

I know nothing
Ponytail said:
Prop-rotors.

Rotors if yer orderin' parts. :wink:


I know.... I was trying to make a funny... When I first looked at it, I was like, WTF is a pro pro tor?

then the light came on... Ahh idiot, its prop-rotor. I forgot to take my smart pills this morning.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Ponytail said:
10,000 lb single, 15,000 lb if both are used for one load.

And not useful? How far do you expect that they'd need to carry an armored HMMWV???


Besides, they are working on the HLR (heavy lift replacement) now, that would be a job for it
 

jetmonkey

New Member
Marines Respond to V-22 Study Our study, “V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker,” is available by clicking here. The Marine Corps Times story, “Report Blasts Osprey Testing, Readiness” appears below.

"Report blasts Osprey testing, readiness," Marine Corps Times, Dec. 11, 2006

The V-22 Osprey is unfit for combat and needs to be scrapped altogether, according to a new report from a defense think tank.

The Center for Defense Information report, titled "V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker? They warned us. But no one is listening," includes nearly 50 pages of text sharply criticizing the tilt rotor's combat capability and lack of testing.

"If deployed in combat, the price could be fatalities inflicted not just by enemy fire, but by flaws that were the result of omitted tests and basic design deficiencies pointed out but never addressed," wrote Lee Gaillard, a former Marine reservist who has published more than 100 articles and book reviews on defense issues and aviation.

A spokesman for the program said a majority of Gaillard's report deals with earlier versions of the Osprey that are no longer in service and the author has omitted important information about testing and modifications to the aircraft currently flying.

From all indications, the Corps has no plans to halt its Osprey program, and it is set to be operational next year. The hybrid aircraft that promises to fly faster, farther and longer is a common sight in the skies over eastern North Carolina around Marine Corps Air Station New River.

Commandant Gen. James Conway flew in one during a Nov. 29 visit to Camp Jejune and spoke highly of the aircraft.

"A couple of options, it could go aboard ship with the [Marine expeditionary unit], it could go into Al Assad [Air Base]," Conway said. "It could go elsewhere or not go, but our belief is it's a great airplane. We need to get it into the fight as soon as we can. It's going to give us an enhanced capability well beyond our legacy aircraft, the venerable CH-46."

The Corps is phasing out the third of six CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons at New River. The West Coast transition will likely begin around late 2009 or early 2010, followed by overseas squadrons. There are six squadrons on the West Coast and two on Okinawa, Japan.

But Gaillard wrote that the Marine Corps should replace the Osprey with modern helicopters, which he claims would be safer and cheaper. He suggests three options:

* Augusta Westland's US101 (EH-101), which has three engines, a single rotor and was recently selected as the presidential transport helicopter.

* Boeing's CH-47F Chinook, which has two engines, two rotors and carries up to 33 combat-equipped troops.

* Sikorsky's H-92 Superhawk, which has two engines, a single rotor and carries up to 22 combat-equipped troops.

Vortex-ring state

One reason he suggests the Corps turn to one of these aircraft instead of the Osprey is because of the aerodynamic phenomenon known as vortex-ring state. This condition is caused when a helicopter descends too rapidly without enough forward air speed, putting the helicopter in its own rotor wash.

"This is the primary reason why the maximum vertical descent speed of 800 feet per minute -- that's just 9.1 mph -- is mandated for this aircraft," Gaillard wrote. "It is so slow it will make the V-22 an easy target."

Osprey pilots landing in a hot zone may try to descend more quickly and encounter vortex-ring state, he said.

That's not so, said James Darcy, spokesman for the V-22 Joint Program Office for Corps and Navy aircraft acquisition and testing.

"The V-22 is less vulnerable to VRS than any other helicopter," he said.

Extensive testing following an April 2000 Osprey crash in Marana, Ariz., the third of four crashes since 1991, which killed all 19 Marines onboard, has proven the tilt rotor can descend faster than 800 feet per minute without going into vortex-ring state, Darcy said.

"We don't see the initial onset of VRS until at least 1,600 feet per minute," he said.

Testing, most of which was conducted in 2002, also proved that pilots can get out of VRS by rotating the nacelles slightly forward. Since then, the Osprey has been modified with a safety feature no other helicopter has -- a descent rate warning system in the ####pit.

"That sounds good, but it makes no mention of the altitude at which those recovery exercises were run, where the nacelle would be able to tilt forward 16 degrees over a 2-second period, resulting in probably abort of any descent profile in progress," Gaillard wrote.

He criticizes other tests, including one engine operative testing. During 17 years of evaluation, he wrote, the V-22 has never been tested to take off or land with one engine shut down. That's the kind of landing or takeoff a pilot would need to make from a small clearing or on a mountainside, Gaillard wrote.

"Basically, he's refuting a claim that nobody's making," Darcy said. "To my knowledge, at the program office level, we certainly never had a request to further explore a single-engine takeoff issue. It comes down to a question of who gets to decide whether there's been adequate testing. The users have the final say in whether or not this aircraft is ready to be fielded."
 

jetmonkey

New Member
Marine Corps Times letters





<form id="hidden"> <input id="headline" value="Marine Corps Times letters" type="hidden"> <input id="body" value="You have been sent an online news article as a courtesy of www.navytimes.com. To view the contents go to:" type="hidden"> <input id="url" value="http://www.navytimes.com/community/opinion/ONLINE.MC.LETTERS.1.8/" type="hidden"> </form> In response to the Center of Defense Information report, “V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker” [“Report blasts Osprey testing, readiness,” Dec. 11], I would like to start by telling you a little about myself: My military occupational specialty is 6176, MV-22 “Osprey” crew chief.

I’ve been with the program for four years and have 690 flight hours on the MV-22. Before that, I was a CH-46E Sea Knight crew chief and flew more than 800 hours on that platform.

I was attached to Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 at Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C., for Operation Evaluation in 2002. During that time, the squadron performed a number of required tests to prove this platform was operationally ready for fleet use.

That would explain the MV-22 program spokesman’s response about Lee Gaillard’s Center for Defense Information report: “The author has omitted important information about testing and modifications to the aircraft currently flying.”

Let me tell you what I know about the MV-22 from actually flying on the aircraft and not just reading about it in reports. First, Gaillard said the aircraft was limited to “800 feet per minute vertical rate of descent” because of vortex ring state, but what he fails to say or does not know is that most descents are performed from 200 feet and below in airplane mode.

The total time from airplane mode at 200 feet to wheels on deck is two minutes, give or take a few seconds. That is based on four years of flying on the aircraft and performing more than 300 hours of confined area landings.

Next, Gaillard says that the V-22 has never been tested to take off or land with one engine shut down during 17 years of evaluation.

However, during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if nothing had happened.

The aircraft’s ability to provide lift comes from its torque available vs. torque required — simply put, if you limit the amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and simulated single-engine performance.
 

Ponytail

New Member
He goes on to slam the manufacturing mistakes or inadequacies and in the same paragraph, AGAIN mentions 4 accidents that had nothing to do with manufacturing problems.

I hope this guy didn't get paid much. He sure isn't even a good read, even if he can't be factual.

Looks like another "nobody" trying to make a name for himself. I'm trying to get ahold of his other articles including something about his investigation of the faulty Flight 587 crash investigation and another one concerning fuselage cracks of composite commercial aircraft. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
The thing I hate about the aircraft is that it was built by two prime contractors. Whenever you have two big dogs you get finger pointing, the old "its not us its them".
 

Ponytail

New Member
czygvtwkr said:
The thing I hate about the aircraft is that it was built by two prime contractors. Whenever you have two big dogs you get finger pointing, the old "its not us its them".

Who's pointing at who? :popcorn:
 

Ponytail

New Member
And I read the entire report. It's not worth the paper that it's written on. Not even if it were perforated for use at a later time. But, it gave me something to do today. :coffee:
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
Ponytail said:
Who's pointing at who? :popcorn:

Not talking about anything specific, just pretty much anything that has more than one contractor involved and something isn't right this always seems to happen. But involving as many contractors (in as many voting districts) as possible is the political thing to do.
 

Ponytail

New Member
czygvtwkr said:
Not talking about anything specific, just pretty much anything that has more than one contractor involved and something isn't right this always seems to happen. But involving as many contractors (in as many voting districts) as possible is the political thing to do.

Damn Skippy. Involve as many voting districts as possible. Representatives will always fight for jobs in their districts first. It also brings the cost of the aircraft WAY down. Quality Control becomes the only unknown and has proven to cause many problems across many different aircraft assembly lines. better to be fighting Quality Control issues though, than looking for a job. :yay:
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
I disagree with bringing costs down, but it sure does get you funding.
 

bad1032

New Member
widow maker, lost 2 good friends on one of the first ones to crash in teh potomac, refurbish a real helo, CH46E
 
Top