# MV-22 Osprey



## mkloby (Dec 7, 2006)

MV-22 Osprey is a beast. It's an incredibly capable A/C, brand new avionics and digital cockpit, can carry or sling a nice payload, and will be doing special ops...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 7, 2006)

That thing better be good considering the incredible amount of time, resources and lives that went into the development of it.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 7, 2006)

She ought to be... the whole development process has been arduous, hit with many delays, and unfortunately cost several lives... as sadly new aircraft often do. I do believe that the benefits and new capabilities it will bring to the table will be considerable. I trust it will do the Battle Phrog justice...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2006)

I am not a big fan of it. She will become a good aircraft and I am sure that she will serve great but what gets me is I thinkt hey are trying to press her too quick into service. I dont think she is ready and I think many more people will be hurt or die before she is ready.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 8, 2006)

This is one of those programs that Texas congressmen kept alive, and now
20 years in the making I pray it is going to be a success in the field. To be
honest, the gear box and transmission operation when one engine fails and 
the other must pick up the slack without an immediate assymetric control
disaster is something that will always worry me, but then again, it is 
something good Marine Aviators just take in stride.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2006)

Lockheed Martin had to deal with something similar, maybe in reverse, with the V/STOL F35 when the engine must engage the front lift fan. Lots of horses has to be transfered rather quickly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

none of them problems with the harrier


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> none of them problems with the harrier



yeah - the harrier just has a mishap rate 4 times that of conventional A/C


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

and remains one of the most remarkable aircraft in service anywhere in the world  may great aircraft have issues like that, the -109 being a prime example.........


----------



## Twitch (Dec 10, 2006)

The Focke Angelis FA 269 Wesserflug was no doubt the inspiration for the Ospery. A Dr. Rohrbach conceived ideas on VTOL craft in 1933 and joined Wesserflug in 1935 where in 1938 Dipl. Ing. Simon began the P.1003 project which never reached fruition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Um Lanc when the Harrier was being designed it had to overcome problems as well. It was not a British Engineering Marvel...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Also did you know the idea for the Harrier was actually from a Frenchman who brought his design to British.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

yes but that doesn't change the fact it's Rolls Royce with the experience in this area and it's British engineering that made it all work........


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The Focke Angelis FA 269 Wesserflug was no doubt the inspiration for the Ospery. A Dr. Rohrbach conceived ideas on VTOL craft in 1933 and joined Wesserflug in 1935 where in 1938 Dipl. Ing. Simon began the P.1003 project which never reached fruition.



I don't know if that's exactly what the engineers had in mind - it's a relatively common and simple theory - tiltrotor. All that thing was was a wooden mock to my knowledge.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 10, 2006)

Aside from the improvments in technology over 40 years whats the major difference between the CL 84 and Osprey or was it a case that it wasn't made there


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but that doesn't change the fact it's Rolls Royce with the experience in this area and it's British engineering that made it all work........



Um and the fact that the British test pilots had to be sent to the United States so that they could get VTOL exeperience from the US's Bell X-14, which first flew in the 1950s to test VTOL capabilities.

The things learned from the X-14 were given to the British to help build the Harrier. It was knowledge that helped develop the Harriers capabilites.

A test squadron was set up in England made up of 10 test pilots from England, the US and Germany to test the P.1127 which led to the Harrier and decide what needed to be done to develop it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Aside from the improvments in technology over 40 years whats the major difference between the CL 84 and Osprey or was it a case that it wasn't made there



The major difference is that that thing is too damn Ugly to be used by the USMC, USN, USAF, or US Army....


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The major difference is that that thing is too damn Ugly to be used by the USMC, USN, USAF, or US Army....



That and the fact that the MV-22 now has capabilities that it could never be dreamed of then...


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2006)

One thing that would worry me about the Ospray and that would be its engine out performance. Its a heck of a big plane and the engine would produce a lot of drag.
Whilst I am sure they have it covered I wonder how marginal it would be as the wing isn't large enough to produce much lift compared to its size.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

Glider said:


> One thing that would worry me about the Ospray and that would be its engine out performance. Its a heck of a big plane and the engine would produce a lot of drag.
> Whilst I am sure they have it covered I wonder how marginal it would be as the wing isn't large enough to produce much lift compared to its size.



I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on an MV-22 NATOPS manual to solve some of these questions...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

How long till you start flying the beast, mkloby?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The major difference is that that thing is too damn Ugly to be used by the USMC, USN, USAF, or US Army....


Point taken I've seen some of the mugs of your aircrew plastered up against the plexiglass and it wouldn't be nice to see so much ugly at the same time so giving them a pretty airplane equals it out


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)




----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How long till you start flying the beast, mkloby?



I have to put in 70 hours in the TC-12 which should take till april, then another 70 or so in the TH-57, which will take until sep I'm guessing... then it's MV-22 time! I have some ways to go still.



pbfoot said:


> Point taken I've seen some of the mugs of your aircrew plastered up against the plexiglass and it wouldn't be nice to see so much ugly at the same time so giving them a pretty airplane equals it out



those must have been air force guys... naval aviators have to be good looking! If we're not, we just put on the leather jacket and play top gun theme


----------



## MacArther (Dec 11, 2006)

> we just put on the leather jacket and play top gun theme


Amen to that!!! Anyway, I have heard from the rumor mill that the Osprey is being considered for the gunship role, much like the C-130, although probably with less powerful armament. Is there any merit to this rumor? On another not, I have read that the Osprey *can* be equiped with a .50 cal somewhere on the plane, my question is _where_?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2006)

I have heard the same thing and read about Gunship versions to escort the unarmed transport versions. Not sure on the validity of this though.


----------



## MacArther (Dec 11, 2006)

It would be nice if it were true, because imagine the shock on some would be ambushers face when the "transports" land normally, or parachute thier cargo, while the gunships hover and check for hostiles.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 11, 2006)

.50cal ramp gun is in the work. The Air Force just began production of the CV-22 for use w/ special ops command. I'm not sure exactly what they'll be using them for though.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 11, 2006)

mkloby said:


> those must have been air force guys... naval aviators have to be good looking! If we're not, we just put on the leather jacket and play top gun theme




Being from Pensacola, I can tell you that my sister told me that she had never met a bad looking Naval aviator. She didn't say anything about Marines, however. Don't know if that means anything.

As a young guy growing up there, the competition was tough. Lost my first girlfriend to a Naval aviator. Marriage didn't last however. Serves her right! Actually worked out great for me, married a wonderful girl.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 11, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Being from Pensacola, I can tell you that my sister told me that she had never met a bad looking Naval aviator. She didn't say anything about Marines, however. Don't know if that means anything.
> 
> As a young guy growing up there, the competition was tough. Lost my first girlfriend to a Naval aviator. Marriage didn't last however. Serves her right! Actually worked out great for me, married a wonderful girl.



Hey - Marines are still "naval aviators!" It's in our MOS. It's official


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 12, 2006)

As a young Student Naval Aviator 34 years ago, I married a different
girl every weekend. I'm sure things haven't changed! And Marine pilots most
certainly are Naval Aviators...It is their finest quality!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 12, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> As a young Student Naval Aviator 34 years ago, I married a different
> 
> 
> girl every weekend. I'm sure things haven't changed!



34 years ago I was diving C-141s around the world, visiting places like Greenland, Iceland (P-3 Base), England, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Azores, Italy, Greece, Crypus, Lebenon, Jordan, Israel, Iran, Ethopia, Ivory Coast, Japan, Thailand, and of course dear Vietnam. Of course, one concrete runway is just like another. I never found a place nicer than the US. One of my warmest memories was hearing "MACXXXXX, this Boston Center, we have you in radar contact." I could relax, I knew the controllers knew what they were doing.

Two of my cousins married Navy pilots, one a chopper, and another a twin beech (old dude). Both were great guys, but we had typical discussions about the AF and Navy.


> And Marine pilots most
> certainly are Naval Aviators...It is their finest quality!



As an Air Force pilot I can say, gee, that's not saying much about the Marines. Actually, I was a big fan of the Navy and went to all their airshows and watch the Blue Angels practice overhead. If it hadn't been for a Navy Flight Surgeon not signing my flight physical, I would have been in the Navy. Worked out best for me though, no regrets. I got to fly two great planes, the T-38 and the C-141. Air Force life is a better life. Navy has better base locations, though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

Ah the old inter service rivalry. I love it!


----------



## Twitch (Dec 12, 2006)

I certainly wouldn't say the Fa 269 was a common design theory in 1933 when Dr. Heinrich Karl Johann Focke came up with it!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 12, 2006)

Twitch said:


> I certainly wouldn't say the Fa 269 was a common design theory in 1933 when Dr. Heinrich Karl Johann Focke came up with it!



Not a design theory, as the design is complex, taking into account the power and weights needed for military service - but a common aviation theory that received much attention - taking off vertically, and flying like fixed wing.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 13, 2006)

True enough but the reason the Germans couldn't go forward then was that considerable development was needed for the special gearboxes, drives, pivoting mechanisms and prop pitch controls for landing and taking off. Too many other priorities in the Reich at the time.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 13, 2006)

Twitch said:


> True enough but the reason the Germans couldn't go forward then was that considerable development was needed for the special gearboxes, drives, pivoting mechanisms and prop pitch controls for landing and taking off. Too many other priorities in the Reich at the time.




Not to mention the unknown engineering design necessary to make the daggone thing work! Look what tons of computers and talented engineers had to do to make the V-22 work, well, maybe work. Ideas and concepts are dime a dozen and things like VTOL, flying wings and others look good and maybe even be modeled or demonstrated, but turning them into a fighting and working machine is a whole different story.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2006)

Got to go with dave on this one. I dont think the Germans could have gotten it going by 1945. They had to many priorities and look how long the US has been working on the V-22 and how many problems they have had with it and how many have died in the process. It was not a project to be had during the time of WW2.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Got to go with dave on this one. I dont think the Germans could have gotten it going by 1945. They had to many priorities and look how long the US has been working on the V-22 and how many problems they have had with it and how many have died in the process. It was not a project to be had during the time of WW2.



I think first flight was 1989!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

Thought you guys might want to see this. Rather interesting. According to this chart only the development lifecycle has been longer. As I recall (at least a few years ago), a Class A is $1M or more damage.

From THE HELICOPTER PAGE


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Thought you guys might want to see this. Rather interesting. According to this chart only the development lifecycle has been longer. As I recall (at least a few years ago), a Class A is $1M or more damage.
> 
> From THE HELICOPTER PAGE



Class A is 1mil or more in damage, but also a fatality regardless of damage...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

And for those who think this is new technology. Here some aircraft that were conceived late 40s to early fifties. Others from the 60s. First tilt rotor to take off - transition to level flight - land vertically was in 1956.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

Nice pics Matt. THrow on the massive size of the MV-22, it's gross weight capabilities, the power needed for that, and to transmit this power SAFELY and RELIABLY, that's the big problem posing the tiltrotor.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 13, 2006)

Yeah. Good link too, Matt. Thanks.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Class A is 1mil or more in damage, but also a fatality regardless of damage...



Thanks Mkloby. I couldn't remember.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

...and no comments on the Albatross minor mod? Probably did that with an STC or a Form 337.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

Anyone familiar with the Fokker that took a F-104 fuselage and mounted wing tip engines? I've read the story in the past, but wondered if the Forum had discussed it.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 17, 2006)

I can foresee it as useful for fast assault missions where you get the speed of a plane and the hover ability of a helicopter. Anti-drugs missions perhaps... Rapid Response Counter-terrorism perhaps... Probably won't be long before it shows up in other liveries such as Police Departments...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I can foresee it as useful for fast assault missions where you get the speed of a plane and the hover ability of a helicopter. Anti-drugs missions perhaps... Rapid Response Counter-terrorism perhaps... Probably won't be long before it shows up in other liveries such as Police Departments...



I don't think police dept's will be shelling out that kind of loot for a MV-22...


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 18, 2006)

I'd agree with that mkloby. Are there any overseas buyers? Or is just the Marines and the Army (or only the Marines)?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

England and Isreal have expressed interest in buying the Osprey but no official orders have been placed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2006)

Bell did develop a commercial tilt wing aircraft, the "609." I don't think it went anywhere...






The big problem with "Tilt Wing" in the civilian world is how you certificate the aircraft. Is it a helicopter or airplane? I know the Feds here in the US were going nuts over this and the last I heard they were making a tilt wing class and category for the aircraft and pilot's rating.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> England and Isreal have expressed interest in buying the Osprey but no official orders have been placed.



Sorry but I haven't heard a squeak about this anywhere and to be honest I doubt if we would go for it. 
We have the new nuclear subs being ordered, Aircraft carriers, Typhoon and the F35 to pay for whilst we cannot afford decent ammo for our HMG's, enough protection for the soldiers and the Para's are likely not to be trained in parachuting until 2012 to save money.
To cap it all, believe it or not our new Scotish regiments don't have enough kilts to go around and they are having to share.

To say we are going to go for the Osprey sounds like a whistle in the wind.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

yes i've not heard anything about it either, i see no great need for us having them.............


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes i've not heard anything about it either, i see no great need for us having them.............



It is expensive - but it's performance is spectacular. Opens up a whole new capability to rotory wing A/C. It's capabilities are impressive. Many aircraft have had problems and mishaps that cost lives and equipment. Having 2 squadrons of the beast in the fleet, and more just about to transition from phrogs, we will no doubt see the record of the osprey improve.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

Glider said:


> Sorry but I haven't heard a squeak about this anywhere and to be honest I doubt if we would go for it.
> We have the new nuclear subs being ordered, Aircraft carriers, Typhoon and the F35 to pay for whilst we cannot afford decent ammo for our HMG's, enough protection for the soldiers and the Para's are likely not to be trained in parachuting until 2012 to save money.
> To cap it all, believe it or not our new Scotish regiments don't have enough kilts to go around and they are having to share.
> 
> To say we are going to go for the Osprey sounds like a whistle in the wind.



If you go to Global Security's website and that of Boeing they talk about it there.

Notice I said that no official offers or orders have been placed and as for England they probably never will place orders either...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bell did develop a commercial tilt wing aircraft, the "609." I don't think it went anywhere...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was talking to the FAA guy that runs our mil comp exams over in Pensacola, and he said that the FAA is issuing a specific tiltrotor rating for that type of A/C. Good thing about this program for me is that i'll score Single Engine land, multi engine land, rotor, tilt-rotor, and instrument ratings... talk about expensive training!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 18, 2006)

And remember the 609 is a joint Bell-Augusta venture. I hope the technology takes off, pardon the pun. Seems like a lot of promise for such a capable aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I was talking to the FAA guy that runs our mil comp exams over in Pensacola, and he said that the FAA is issuing a specific tiltrotor rating for that type of A/C. Good thing about this program for me is that i'll score Single Engine land, multi engine land, rotor, tilt-rotor, and instrument ratings... talk about expensive training!


It's almost as rare as an ATP Blimp rating!

That's one I hope you never let go!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 18, 2006)

Better yet, I hope the Gov't makes you offers you can't refuse! $. Perks. Good duty stations. Housing. Medical. Bonuses. A lot of money is going into your training and in typical DoD fashion they will probably shortchange you and chase you off to the civil side. Hope they change how they operate. We need more highly trained, educated, and motivated guys like you Mkloby.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Better yet, I hope the Gov't makes you offers you can't refuse! $. Perks. Good duty stations. Housing. Medical. Bonuses. A lot of money is going into your training and in typical DoD fashion they will probably shortchange you and chase you off to the civil side. Hope they change how they operate. We need more highly trained, educated, and motivated guys like you Mkloby.



You know, amazingly - I tried to get in on the ground side before I went in... the recruiter was practically begging me to take the tests and go the aviation side. I thought to myself, "flying would be pretty cool." It really hit me a couple months ago, when I was up flying over Pensacola Beach at dusk courtesy of Uncle Sam, looking at the beautiful sunset and thinking... "holy sh*tballs, I get paid to do this..."


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2006)

mkloby said:


> You know, amazingly - I tried to get in on the ground side before I went in... the recruiter was practically begging me to take the tests and go the aviation side. I thought to myself, "flying would be pretty cool." It really hit me a couple months ago, when I was up flying over Pensacola Beach at dusk courtesy of Uncle Sam, looking at the beautiful sunset and thinking... "holy sh*tballs, I get paid to do this..."



Nice beach to fly over. If you flew left hand pitch out patterns to the East runway at Sherman field (don't know the number) you would have flown right over my homestead at about 90 to final.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 19, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Nice beach to fly over. If you flew left hand pitch out patterns to the East runway at Sherman field (don't know the number) you would have flown right over my homestead at about 90 to final.



Oh you must mean RWs 7L 7R!!!


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 20, 2006)

Oh well, at least for arming a counter-terrorism unit it would be ideal. Ability to have a faster transit to the area, and then hover while the mission is carried out. Could prove a significant factor in Urban Counter-Terrorism faster response, I reckon.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 20, 2006)

I never said the Wesserflug would or could have been viable. The point is that it is quite obvious that it, along with many German aircraft designs, were later incorporated by others around the world. It was the origiator of the concept nothing more. Give credit where credit is due.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 20, 2006)

Twitch said:


> I never said the Wesserflug would or could have been viable. The point is that it is quite obvious that it, along with many German aircraft designs, were later incorporated by others around the world. It was the origiator of the concept nothing more. Give credit where credit is due.



That is true...
With regard to MV-22 armament...
MV-22B are all incorporating .50cal ramp MGs, and MV-22C will have ALE-47 systems. Where's my damn 20mm turret up front!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Where's my damn 20mm turret up front!?



God, what a scary thought!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2006)

i doubt we can give the Germans sole credit for the concept, i doubt they were the first to think of it the theories atleast must have been around for some time...........


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 21, 2006)

Funny you say that, Lanc. I actually went back to Da Vinci and looked through his technical drawings. Close, but didn't find what I was looking for.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 21, 2006)

I think, I can remember Da Vinci did something similar but I don't exactly have it in my collection... I have his steam powered tank though... Da Vinci was trapped in a world where he was ahead of what was technically possible. Ie. Steam Power doesn't really work for a tank- heavy armor and need to power those wheels that could dig in. Flight- Steam Power too heavy, also unsure about the availability of balsa wood or an equivalent...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I think, I can remember Da Vinci did something similar but I don't exactly have it in my collection... I have his steam powered tank though... Da Vinci was trapped in a world where he was ahead of what was technically possible. Ie. Steam Power doesn't really work for a tank- heavy armor and need to power those wheels that could dig in. Flight- Steam Power too heavy, also unsure about the availability of balsa wood or an equivalent...



I could make a technical drawing of a space travel machine... doesn't really mean a thing though...


----------



## armypilot (Dec 21, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I'd agree with that mkloby. Are there any overseas buyers? Or is just the Marines and the Army (or only the Marines)?



The Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force are picking up the Osprey. The U.S. Army currently has no interest in the aircraft.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 21, 2006)

How come? The Osprey will be such a useful aircraft to transport troops in.


----------



## armypilot (Dec 21, 2006)

The Army has given a number of reasons as to why they are not opting for the Osprey as a tactical troop transport. I can give you my perspective as a career army aviator (22 years) as to why I feel the Osprey is not the right airframe for us. First the layout of the tilt-rotor airframe is not really conducive to flying at true Nap of the Earth altitudes (NOE). That environment is where we spend a large percentage of our time. In Iraq we usually operated at anywhere between 25' to 100' during the day and at night under NVG's we were usually between 100' to 200', during our approaches in and out of LZ's during combat air assaults we were lower. Also compared to the Army's primary assault helicopter the UH-60 Blackhawk the Osprey does not have the manueverability that we seek in a tactical aircraft. The Osprey was designed to meet the requirement that the Marine Corps has to move Marines from an amphibious assault ship (LHA) across the ocean at a high rate of speed and to deposit them on shore. We in the Army do not require that speed due to the fact we typically operate fairly close to the LZ/PZ and do not have to traverse great distances to reach our objective. I could go on, but the bottom line is that it just does not fit the needs of the Army. Our mission can best be accomplished with a conventional helicopter. BTW, hope Army JROTC is treating you well. I started out as a JROTC cadet in 1977 and have been in an Army uniform ever since.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 22, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I could make a technical drawing of a space travel machine... doesn't really mean a thing though...



BINGO!! And that's my point. Lanc gets a prize. Only because what I can afford is crappy and I don't want to insult mkloby.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 22, 2006)

But still you know what I mean. You still can find it impressive what Leonardo was able to do in his time. Who knows what he could have done if he were alive today. Invented an anti-gravity device for spacecraft to cancel out gravity perhaps...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 22, 2006)

armypilot said:


> The Army has given a number of reasons as to why they are not opting for the Osprey as a tactical troop transport. I can give you my perspective as a career army aviator (22 years) as to why I feel the Osprey is not the right airframe for us. First the layout of the tilt-rotor airframe is not really conducive to flying at true Nap of the Earth altitudes (NOE). That environment is where we spend a large percentage of our time. In Iraq we usually operated at anywhere between 25' to 100' during the day and at night under NVG's we were usually between 100' to 200', during our approaches in and out of LZ's during combat air assaults we were lower. Also compared to the Army's primary assault helicopter the UH-60 Blackhawk the Osprey does not have the manueverability that we seek in a tactical aircraft. The Osprey was designed to meet the requirement that the Marine Corps has to move Marines from an amphibious assault ship (LHA) across the ocean at a high rate of speed and to deposit them on shore. We in the Army do not require that speed due to the fact we typically operate fairly close to the LZ/PZ and do not have to traverse great distances to reach our objective. I could go on, but the bottom line is that it just does not fit the needs of the Army. Our mission can best be accomplished with a conventional helicopter. BTW, hope Army JROTC is treating you well. I started out as a JROTC cadet in 1977 and have been in an Army uniform ever since.



They wrapped up a huge exercise involving MV-22A's in New River, involving the development of specific employment tactics. These are obviously going to have to be drawn up from scratch. They do plan on using the Osprey in the traditional air assault role also, which is why it's replacing the CH-46E's. You do have a strong point regarding the mobility of the ship vice a Blackhawk. We'll how the tactics work out when the first squadron deploys, which is still a while away. I seem to think that it may be less capable in the air assault role than a traditional rotary wing, but that it's expanded capabilities throughout the operational spectrum will make it a definite boon to Marine Corps aviation. I'll be able to let you all know more when I get sent to an Osprey squadron...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 23, 2006)

Now I see why the army doesent want it. Thanks.



armypilot said:


> BTW, hope Army JROTC is treating you well. I started out as a JROTC cadet in 1977 and have been in an Army uniform ever since.



It is! I love it. Ive been a Cadet Sergeant for some time now and I am the
1st Squad leader, of 1st Platoon, Alpha Company.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 28, 2006)

Still as I was saying it sounds like the perfect counter-terrorism transport. Speed, flexibility, able to hover... What more could you want for this role?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

I dont think that Elite Counter Terrorism forces would want to use it. It is loud and a big target.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think that Elite Counter Terrorism forces would want to use it. It is loud and a big target.


Very true...

I got to see the final assembly facility in Amarillo Texas a few years ago. We also saw one fly. It's a marvelous machine but very noisy and very complicated. From what I seen of it I don't envy the maintainers who have to work on it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

I am sure you can agree with me as a maintainer I would not not want to work on it.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont think that Elite Counter Terrorism forces would want to use it. It is loud and a big target.



That's true - we don't plan on using it for that, obviously. I do think that it's design capabilities far outweigh it's negative aspects. How successful it performs in service will be seen - I'll let you guys know how much the maintenance bubbas hate the darn thing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

From what I remember there was a huge gearbox in the middle of the wing that interconnected both engines through a driveshaft so the aircraft could still function on one engine. Between the driveshaft and gearbox there seemed to be a lot of moving parts, let alone the tilt mechanism.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I remember there was a huge gearbox in the middle of the wing that interconnected both engines through a driveshaft so the aircraft could still function on one engine. .



Yep


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2006)

Yup that's in the NATOPS - maybe after the new year I'll be able to try and track down a copy of that natops, but they may not have any of them over here in corpus...


----------



## Glider (Jan 13, 2007)

I noticed today that in 2006, 16 aircraft were delivered to the US military including 3 to USAF Special Opps.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Marine Corps has 2 squadrons I believe stood up from their old platform(CH-46E) and a third should be up soon.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jan 14, 2007)

Guys.....very interesting stuff on the Osprey...thanks.
Thought you might like to see these pics I took at Fairford (July 2006)
MV-22B 166480/MV-23....VMX-22 (Static)
MV-22B 166391/MV-22....VMX-22 (Flying)


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jan 14, 2007)

Whoops...sorry
Here's pix


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

Wonder if there are any hydraulic lockouts to prevent improper blade position during weight-on-wheels rotorerotor/turbine rotation.

Mkloby?


----------



## mkloby (Jan 16, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Wonder if there are any hydraulic lockouts to prevent improper blade position during weight-on-wheels rotorerotor/turbine rotation.
> 
> Mkloby?



You mean to prevent the nacelles from going to the full fwd position in landing configuration? I would think that there must be, either activated by a WoW switch like you said, or a downlock/uplock switch. Like I said, I don't have the NATOPS for the MV-22 yet, I won't get one until I get back to Pensacola, which will be about April/May and finish up the helicopter syllabus. Then I'll be able to give you specific answers.

Guys - the wife has started labor, so we'll be going to the hospital soon. See ya in a few days!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

Good for you Matt.

I know there has to be an interlock to prevent the forward flight translation of the nacelles/rotors while WoW. What I'm wondering is if there is another system constraint that has logic that states:

IF WoW=Yes Engine N1=0 Ground Speed=0 and Rotor is in position X (where a blade is at 0 degrees);
THEN Move Engine/Nacelle/Rotor parallel with "flight axis".

or:

IF WoW=Yes Engine N1=0 and Ground Speed=0 and Rotor is NOT in position X (where blade is at any other degree deemed to cause ground contact);
THEN DO NOT MOVE Engine/Rotor translation parallel to "flight axis".

Or do they have to just shut down the aircraft and then physically rotate the rotors to ensure that nacelle translation will not result in rotor contact with the ground?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

I dont think they will shut down, but rather not allow you to move them.

It is off topic but this is why I dont think it will let you move them rather than shut them off. The Blackhawks WOW switch disconnects electrical switches so that you can not jettison your external stores such as the ESSS while on the ground. That is just one function of the WOW switch on it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

gentlemen please, it's black magic, and that alone will suffice.........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 17, 2007)

British engineering at it's finest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2007)

Then it would not work...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Oh c'mon Adler. The Comet, the Brabazon, TSR...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

Isambard Kingdom Brunell


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

Gesundheit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

I would have shot my parents if they had named me that.


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 22, 2007)

Quoted from "Inside the Navy":
V-22 DESERT TESTING FINDS PROBLEMS THAT HURT MISSION EFFECTIVENESS: The V-22 Osprey, which may deploy to Iraq with Marines this year, suffered problems that hurt its mission effectiveness when the Air Force tested it for a month in the New Mexico desert, according to a new report from the Pentagon's top weapons tester. The problems are described in the latest annual report from the Defense Department's operational testing directorate, led by Charles McQueary. The V-22 is a helicopter-plane hybrid developed by Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing. During an "operational utility evaluation" conducted last summer in the desert at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, the effectiveness of the Osprey for training missions and potential combat missions was "degraded by poor aircraft availability," says the report, issued January 18. "Frequent part and system failures, limited supply support, and high false alarm rates in the built-in diagnostic systems caused frequent flight delays and an excessive maintenance workload," the report says. Some of the reliability problems "may be attributable to the extended exposure to the desert operating environment" where the assessment occurred, says the report. The Osprey provided only "marginal operational availability" during the 41 flights (74 flight hours), the report says. The report urges the V-22 program to correct the deficiencies noted in the "operational utility evaluation" before the CV-22 begins its initial operational testing and evaluation in FY08. The report also calls on the program to monitor the operational suitability of the Marine Corps' Block B version of the Osprey, which is due to deploy this year, to determine the "discrepancy" between the solid performance reported in the operational evaluation of the Marine Corps version and the problems now coming to light. James Darcy, the Navy's spokesman for the V-22 program, said program officials do not believe these issues will delay fielding plans for the Marine Corps or Air Force versions of the Osprey. (Christopher J. Castelli, Inside The Navy – 1/22)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

As I suspected (and the reason I am not a fan of her) she is a maintaners nightmare.


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 22, 2007)

It makes you wonder just what the Marines were doing different in their
OPEVAL than the Air Force...Is the USAF CV-22 very different than the
USMC V-22 that would cause so many negatives in their desert testing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

I dont think that there can be much of a difference. An Osprey is an Osprey.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

I do know that the Marine program is about a year ahead of the USAF CV-22program. VMX-22 finished a testing program entailing almost 1000 flight hours, and from the actual officers in the MV-22 community, it is on it's way. We shall see how it turns out. I tend to think that it will not be as bad as the naysayers believe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2007)

It is a mechanical nightmare mkloby...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is a mechanical nightmare mkloby...



We'll see how it turns out in service. Of course, that remains to be seen, and only time will tell. Complex - you bet, but not condemned.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2007)

2eagles said:


> Frequent part and system failures,


As a pilot or crewman, that part right there sums it up for me.... 

System Failures??? In a bird like that???

Fu*k that....


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

The Marine Squadrons have not had those types of failures for a while now. You have to take magazine articles with some salt - I take the word of the pilots in the squadrons over magazine reports.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2007)

So do I....

But that quote is from an Official Report from the Defense Department's Operational Testing Directorate, so it does hold some validity....

And as a question, the fellow pilots that u talked to, did they happen to have any harsh desert condition flight hours???


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> So do I....
> 
> But that quote is from an Official Report from the Defense Department's Operational Testing Directorate, so it does hold some validity....
> 
> And as a question, the fellow pilots that u talked to, did they happen to have any harsh desert condition flight hours???



Let me get back to you on the nature/environment of the USMC tests done by VMX-22, because I don't know the exact details...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

American Desert or Middle Eastern Desert. 2 completly different animals.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 24, 2007)

True true, and since having been in both of them, I rate the desert of the middle east a worse enviornment...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 24, 2007)

Just got this emailed to me from Military.com

Hoping to re-energize congressional opposition to the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, critics of the controversial tilt-rotor aircraft released a study Thursday warning that the aircraft is plagued by inherent design flaws and will endanger U.S. lives when it goes into combat this year. 

The study, commissioned by the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank, calls for Congress to scrap the V-22 and replace it with a lower-costing helicopter capable of performing similar missions, although it would be slower. 

Co-manufactured by Bell Helicopter Textron of Fort Worth and Boeing Helicopters of Ridley Park, Pa., the Osprey was near cancellation early in the decade after four crashes killed 30. Two crashes occurred in 2000, resulting in 23 deaths. 

The program has rebounded after a redesign and more than 19,000 hours of flight tests. 

It now has strong support in Congress as Marines move toward sending the first V-22 squadrons into combat -- possibly Iraq or Afghanistan -- by the summer. 

But the center's study, "V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker?" warns that the hybrid aircraft still has "operational, aerodynamic and survivability challenges that will prove insurmountable, and lethal, in combat." 

"We're trying to alert the system that the problems haven't gone away," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the center's Straus Military Reform Project, which monitors military and national-security issues. 

The report prompted a scathing rebuttal from the V-22 manufacturing team and its defenders in the military, who contended that the study rehashed problems that have been corrected. 

"It really baffles us as to why this organization would come out with an anti-V-22 diatribe when clearly the aircraft is performing well," Bell-Boeing spokesman Bob Leder said. "Apparently, they just used a lot of out-of-date information -- or disinformation." 

Among other points, the study says the V-22 remains susceptible to a dangerous aerodynamic phenomenon known as a vortex ring state, which occurs when a rotor becomes enmeshed in its own downwash and loses lift. 

V-22 pilots, under pressure to avoid enemy gunfire, run the risk of triggering a vortex ring by descending too fast under combat conditions, said Lee Gaillard, a Philadelphia science and military writer who authored the report. Rapid descent vertically or at low forward air speed "creates conditions ripe for VRS," the report said. 

"If the Osprey goes into combat, it may cause its own casualties," Gaillard said in outlining the report at a Center for Defense Information briefing. 

A vortex ring state was blamed for one of the crashes in 2000. 

But James Darcy of the Navy's V-22 Joint Program Office said testing and review have proven that the V-22 is far less vulnerable to vortex rings than traditional helicopters and can easily speed through the turbulent air by tilting the engines forward. 

The Marine Corps plans to buy 360 MV-22s to replace aging helicopters to speed troops and supplies into combat. 

The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22s for special operations, and the Navy plans to buy 48 Ospreys for rescue operations.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 24, 2007)

Latest AvWeek has an article on the nextgen helicopter technology. Apparently, "new technology" making use of single shaft dual counter-rotating rotors and pusher propellers is providing a 250mph class helicopter. That's about 45mph faster than current max design speed for some helicopters (I think the CH-47 has a 200+mph max speed). While that did not strike me as "new technology" (counter rotating rotors are currently used by Kaman and Kamov and pusher technology is has been around since late 40s), it is interesting that this validation was published.

AvWeek also posted funded V-22 airframes through 2011, I think. Looked to be about 120 or so if I recall correctly.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 28, 2007)

Couldn't get any specifics regarding the desert package from the USMC opeval of the MV-22. There were extensive desert trials done - as well as other joint exercises. I called up a buddy that's a CH-46E guy, currently in the Fleet Replacement Squadron out at Camp Pendleton, because some of the higher ups there are already qualified in the MV-22. I'll see what he says when he gets back to me.

To the best of my knowledge, the Navy isn't going to go ahead with their HV-22 program, but I could be wrong.

We may just have to wait to see how the maintainability fares in the desert when they deploy the Thunder Chickens to Iraq the end of this year or 2008...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2007)

There was an artical in the Stars and Stripes a few days ago about the MV-22. It was saying that there are many people in the Osprey Program who do not think that it is ready to go into service. It is still plauged with problems and it would be deadly to put her into service. Aparantly the DOD really wants it to go into Service immediatly and is blowing them off.


----------



## Glider (Jan 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There was an artical in the Stars and Stripes a few days ago about the MV-22. It was saying that there are many people in the Osprey Program who do not think that it is ready to go into service. It is still plauged with problems and it would be deadly to put her into service. Aparantly the DOD really wants it to go into Service immediatly and is blowing them off.



I wonder if those in the DOD who are trying to push it through would be so keen if they were the ones flying in it. When desk jockeys start to impose their will on the engineers and experts I start to worry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2007)

I think it will turn out to be a great aircraft, but I think it needs to be tested some more and worked on. Also the guys that are going to fix it need a pay raise.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 28, 2007)

most of the guys involved in the program are pretty gung ho about it. The vast majority of the guys I've met that oppose the program have nothing to do with it. Still - it's a good point that's worth investigating, Chris, as everyone knows the dangers of groupthink mentality. What about the crewchiefs - do they get special pay too???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2007)

Crewchiefs get Flight Pay as well. It is not as much as a Pilot (that is a given, the crew chief is not flying the aircraft). I was payed about 200 dollars extra a month as long as I flew a min of 4 hours each month. Which was easy because 4 hours was the average mission and I flew about 20 or more a month.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Crewchiefs get Flight Pay as well. It is not as much as a Pilot (that is a given, the crew chief is not flying the aircraft). I was payed about 200 dollars extra a month as long as I flew a min of 4 hours each month. Which was easy because 4 hours was the average mission and I flew about 20 or more a month.



Yeah, I know - they're part of the crew, so they sure as hell deserve it. I just met an awesome navy 53E crew chief last week. Our squadron runs a Pilot For a Day program where they take a terminally ill child and run them around base showing them different aircraft - flew some jets in from NAS Kingsville, in addition to our C-12B, T-34C, T-44, CH-53E, coast guard falcons and H-65 Dolphins, and flying some of our simulators.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

Thats cool. We did stuff like that as well. One of the most memorable was when we were in Kosovo. In Kosovo women were percieved to do nothing but house work. Well we flew out to an all girls school ages 7 to 16 aprox to show them that women where we are from can do whatever they want and it should be the same for them. Anyhow my pilot was a Female and the other crewchief was a female as well. 

You should have seen the look on the young girls faces when the pilot took off her flight helmet in front of them and let her long blond hair fall down. 

It was a lot of fun, we played relay games with them and frisby and made a BBQ lunch for them with American food. I really enjoyed it.

We would do stuff like that all the time even back at our home base in Germany. We would sponser sick children or school classes and stuff. I really enjoyed going to the airshows and letting the kids sit in the aircraft and pretend to fly. 

The smiles on there faces really made it worthwile and that is the stuff that I will allways remember from my time in the service.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 30, 2007)

> The smiles on there faces really made it worthwile and that is the stuff that I will allways remember from my time in the service.



I would just like to thank Der and the people you served with, for being good stewards of humanity, and showing the good that resides in all people.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

1


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2007)

Who's the tall geeky looking kid in the middle?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

Ummm I dont know did you say geeky? He must be in the Canadian Navy and play with submarines.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2007)

If he plays with submarines, he's got talent. I just work in the damn things, myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)




----------



## mkloby (Jan 30, 2007)

Yeah - there's nothing like seeing the look on a 10 year old boy's face when he climbs into a jet or helicopter, moving around the controls and pretending that he's flying  They even rig up special children's size flight suits for them - which you just know they love 8)


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)

They give those away?!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 30, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> They give those away?!



For this outreach program - they sure do. The kids love them. Sad thing is that they're all terminally ill children, majority have cancer. Some of them get buried in the little flight suit that we give them...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)

Oh.  In that case nevermind. Lord I hate it when kids get the short stick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Yeah - there's nothing like seeing the look on a 10 year old boy's face when he climbs into a jet or helicopter, moving around the controls and pretending that he's flying  They even rig up special children's size flight suits for them - which you just know they love 8)



Thats how I got into flying. Instead of going to the pool during school break when I was a little kid, I would go with my dad to work and he would put me up in the Huey and I would wear his flight helmet and pretend I was flying all damn day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

there're few opertunities for anything like that down here- although our knock about in cricket today was nicely interrupted by a Hawk and Tornado doing some manouvers low overhead, unfortunately within the next few balls i was so distracted i gave away my wicket- nothing annoys an Englishman as much as loosing his wicket........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

I had a similar thing when I was skiing over the weekend. The Tornado's were flying below the level of the hill top (so below me) before rolling onto their side and out of the valley (literally everyone stopped and stared)...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

well being Scrotish i wouldn't expect you to understand how annoying the loss of a wicket because of it is... oh my, how did that c get there


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

Having played (and sort of still playing) cricket I know perfectly well what you mean...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

You crazy Brits with your silly little games


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

cricket is infinately more skillfull than baseball! you can be at the crease for nearly a day at a time- that is something very impressive!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

Boring....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

impressive


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

Depends on the play though, sometimes if it just defensive it is boring but if it is aggressive it is more interesting (which is why I prefer 1 day or Twenty20)...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2007)

I agree with Chris...it's boring.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Baseball's the greatest!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

Boring...


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 2, 2007)

Any damn game that requires a friggin' "day at the crease" or whatever it is...is a day of your life you'll never get back.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 2, 2007)

By the by. I just read in AvWeek that the Office of the Inspector General (Congress' reporting entity) is recommending that the recent selection of the CH-47 to satisfy the SAR-X program may have been flawed. The report did not go into details, but indicated that the CH/MH-47 may have not been the top performer based upon the SAR-X requirements. Might this open that back up to the MV-22?


----------



## mkloby (Feb 2, 2007)

MV-22 wasn't designed w/ SAR capabilities in the forefront, only as a peripheral capability. Extreme downwash I would imagine might be an issue affecting SAR performance. I'm not familiar with this SAR-X program, and couldn't find much about it... enlighten me please.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

I dont recommend the CH-47 for sar reasons. I will explain tomorrow, I have had to much to drink.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 2, 2007)

Next generation SAR with about 180+ aircraft as I recall. The MH-60, MH-53, MH-47 and MV-22 were the contendenders I think. Not sure if Eurocopter was bidding or not. You are right about MV-22 and it was not deemed a likely candidate. I think it really boiled down to MH-53 and MH-47. Not sure what the qualification parameters were. However, it was done on a ranking system based upon aircraft capabilities, support, recurring costs, etc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Any damn game that requires a friggin' "day at the crease" or whatever it is...is a day of your life you'll never get back.



it's a day spent in the persuit of greatness


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

The CH-47 is too big in my opinon for SAR purposes. It cant get into smaller areas. Plus its cieling is not very high. It can not get up the very hight mountains to rescure people. Better to stick with a UH-60 in my opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Well it was in the Stars and Stripes newspaper today. They have grounded the entire Osprey fleet including the 8 that the Airforce have allready recieved.

A problem with the flight computer chips was found. The problem was that once the chips were exposed to cold weather and climates (even cold from being at high alltitudes) they failed and the aircraft would not be able to operate properly in emergency procedures.

They said they are not sure how long the grounding will be in place. They have to figure out what course of action to take whether it be replace the chips with a different kind or make modifications to the aircraft. It will take a minimum of several weeks however they are sure.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 11, 2007)

I know nothing about this Adler. But I would suspect that the flight computer chip problem is operation "outside of normal operating conditions" and is a software flight control problem that is less of an airframe problem and more of a flight control law issue. Either way. I suspect the issue is minor in the engineering/flight cert scheme of things.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A problem with the flight computer chips was found. The problem was that once the chips were exposed to cold weather and climates (even cold from being at high alltitudes) they failed and the aircraft would not be able to operate properly in emergency procedures.



Amazing. This isn't rocket science. I am sure the MV-22 flight control computers are not unique and should be similar to other aircraft with good temperature performance. Maybe a cost savinb chip change was made, but still should have been enviromentally tested. If this is true someone is in trouble.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 11, 2007)

Yeah I heard this. It is amazing. As if this is the first A/C to ever have computer chips in it... They will replace the chips - shouldn't have anymore problems. Dave - those were the first words out of my mouth when I found out the other day... "someone's getting fired."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

It really should not be a problem at all. I know the AFCS computers on our Blackhawks had some problems as well a while back and they just replaced them with a more effecient and better version. Never really had a problem with them after that. Granted they were grounded until they were replaced which took about 2 weeks due to the computers being shipped and then the aircraft undergoing test flights. If they did fail after that, you just did a reset and 99 percent of the time it went back into normal operation.

Even if it did fail on the Blackhawk, you could still fly the helicopter it was just that you were now flying a Huey.


----------



## Glider (Feb 12, 2007)

The thing that worries me is that you would expect any piece of equipment, let alone one like this, to have gone serious cold weather trials which should have identified problems such as this. If for some reason they didn't, or if the testing wasn't as deep as it should, what else may only be discovered after someone has lost their life?


----------



## mkloby (Feb 23, 2007)

MV-22s are back up flying - been flying for several days already. Decent article in the Jan issue of Military Officers Assoc of America on the Osprey.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2007)

Marine Commandant, General James Conway quoted as saying:

"It is my fervent desire to get the V-22 in the fight as soon as we can, and that is probably going to be this year. I think it's going to prove itself rapidly. There is going to be a crash. That's what airplanes do over time. We're going to have to accept that when it happens. We'll hear some folks who are not fans of the program rise up."

AvWeek March 19, 2007


----------



## mkloby (Mar 24, 2007)

The 3rd MV-22 squadron - VMM-266 was just stood up officially yesterday. From here on out they plan on converting two HMM squadrons to the Osprey a year.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2007)

God Speed mkloby. God Speed.

At least someone in the military brass has the same metallic balls to call it like it is. Just hope that his statement is only an incident and not an accident.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> God Speed mkloby. God Speed.
> 
> At least someone in the military brass has the same metallic balls to call it like it is. Just hope that his statement is only an incident and not an accident.



As long as A/C take to the sky, there will be mishaps. That will never change. The MV-22 has not endured the same number of troubles as some other very successful fleet A/C. I can't wait to get behind the stick of one.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2007)

And I can't wait to hear you tell us about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2007)

Yeap good luck!

I think she will turn into a great aircraft and great design. She just needs some more time in my opinion. Having said that now is better than never to start fielding them.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 30, 2007)

The first MV-22 Osprey squadron - VMM-263 "Thunder Chickens" deployed to Iraq last week. Hopefully this will be the first of many successful MV-22 deployments.

I don't know if anyone caught the recent article in that terrible magazine TIME - they hammered the Osprey in it. Not to mention - the guy that wrote the article was a moron with no idea of how the military works or regarding aviation in general.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 30, 2007)

Good news for u Jarheads Kloby... About time they got her into combat and shut up those meatballs and naysayers...

And we u really surprised by the Time article??? I mean seriously, its Time Magazine...


----------



## ccheese (Sep 30, 2007)

I know you can't wait to get into the right seat of the Osprey, Matt. Just
take it easy. You still have four more helo flights to do, first.

Best of everything...

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 30, 2007)

Good article in the last issue of Smithsonian Air Space Mag; I guess the Osprey is classified by the FAA as being neither rotary wing, nor fixed wing, it's in a class of it's own (so far). They say fixed-wing training is actually more applicable than rotary-wing training.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 27, 2007)

Here are some crappy pics from my cell phone of the Osprey - getting some more from the digital camera in a couple days.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 27, 2007)

Matthew..... Go for it, man !! The best of everyting in all you do !!

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Very cool thanks for the pics man. Cant wait to see some more.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 28, 2007)

I've seen several flying over my campus, my friends thought I was going into a seizure. Seeing it fly over front-tilt was really cool. I've never heard anything like it, it's just sort of a "whooooosh" sound.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 29, 2007)

I saw another Osprey again today. Does anyone know why they would have a prolonged stay in my neck of the woods in College Station, TX? We're sort of close-ish to Fort Hood but not close enough to constantly see flyovers. Mkloby, do you have any idea? There can't be that many out there and I'm wondering why one has been staying here.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2007)

Boeing Bell Helicopter.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 29, 2007)

Matt may be right - could be a cross country... could be going down to Corpus to show the flight studs... I'd probably side w/ Matt, though.

Here are some more pics from the other day.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 29, 2007)

It sure is slick with props forward, that's for damn sure.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 29, 2007)

man... what a monster.. Looks like sumthin outta "Starship Troopers"!

.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 30, 2007)

The props are larger than I would have thought... Good shots Kloby...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 30, 2007)

Yeah. Cool shots.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 30, 2007)

WOW ! Those are *really big* props....

Good shots Matt....

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

Whens your first flight in the Osprey man?


----------



## mkloby (Oct 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Whens your first flight in the Osprey man?



Still gotta PCS up to MCAS New River - then I'm hearing the MV-22 training squadron (VMMT-204) is backed up somewhat, so it'll be a couple months...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 30, 2007)

Sweet! Nice shots . . .

I'm right in the middle of building a 1/48th V-22, so those shots were very helpful . . . the model is based on the prototype, so it's a little off in some areas (a lot less ECM hardware, bulkhead between flight deck and cargo deck is different, jump seats a little different, no in-flight refueling probe, etc.).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Still gotta PCS up to MCAS New River - then I'm hearing the MV-22 training squadron (VMMT-204) is backed up somewhat, so it'll be a couple months...



Cant wait till you go so we can get some more shots including inflight.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 31, 2007)

Ooohh, that'll be nice. Good luck on your training!


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

3 MV-22 Osprey questions:

Are there any close-up photos or diagrams of where the props fold up. I'd like to see how the blades lock into place.

What does "MV" stand for? (Mostly vertical?)

Why not Turbo Fan engines? When are we going to out grow props?

.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 31, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> 3 MV-22 Osprey questions:
> 
> Are there any close-up photos or diagrams of where the props fold up. I'd like to see how the blades lock into place..



Actually, the whole wing rotates through 90 degress so that it's in line with the fuselage.



> Why not Turbo Fan engines?



I don't think turbofans/turbojets would be responsive enough for the Osprey; with props, even turboprops, you can change the pitch of the blades in a split second to manuever.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 31, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, the whole wing rotates through 90 degress so that it's in line with the fuselage.




That's not quite true..... Only the engines and nacelles rotate.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 31, 2007)

ccheese said:


> That's not quite true..... Only the engines and nacelles rotate.
> 
> Charles



So I guess they changed the original specs; the prototype had the capability to rotate the wing through 90-degrees. I guess it got too complicated and they deleted that requirement.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> I don't think turbofans/turbojets would be responsive enough for the Osprey; with props, even turboprops, you can change the pitch of the blades in a split second to manuever.



i suppose but what about thrust vectoring?

.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

I wanna know how those suckers lock in..

.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 31, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> So I guess they changed the original specs; the prototype had the capability to rotate the wing through 90-degrees. I guess it got too complicated and they deleted that requirement.




I think were talking two different things, here, Sod. Your pick shows 
the whole she-bang rotated for storage. I don't know if the newer ones do
that or not. I thought you were talking about the wings rotating for flight.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 31, 2007)

ccheese said:


> I think were talking two different things, here, Sod. Your pick shows
> the whole she-bang rotated for storage. I don't know if the newer ones do
> that or not. I thought you were talking about the wings rotating for flight.
> 
> Charles



Yeah, you're right; I knew it was just the engine nacelles that rotated in-flight. I thought the question was about "how do they store it".


----------



## Graeme (Oct 31, 2007)

Kamov project of the 70s. The V-100 with two turboprops driving wingtip rotors and a pusher propeller. Crew of two with ejection seats. 'Expected' top speed was 400kmph.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 31, 2007)

As far as I know the wings still rotate along the longitudinal axis for shipboard storage.

Comiso - don't think of props as a bad thing. Obviously, these blades are a compromise between props and rotors (hence proprotor). While a turbojet/fan would provide necessary thrust for the airplane configuration, I don't think it would be possible to lift and control the aircraft with necessary maneuverability using thrust vectoring. Don't forget - the proprotors act just like a helo's rotorblades when in heicopter mode; they are the control surfaces. They provide both lift and thrust. Only after sufficient airspeed is reached and the control surfaces and wings are effective, with the nacelles being rotated forward does the aircraft operate like a conventional airplane.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 1, 2007)

Matt, the author of magazine article of 1995 felt that the MV-22 would make a poor rescue craft based on the turbulence produced by the combined downward thrust of the two rotors.

An ex-BAe employee wrote a rebuttal a couple of months later citing experiments with the Bell XV-15 had shown that the 'wash' between the rotors was actually less than produced by a single rotor helicopter.

The author replied that his belief was justified, based on the fact (at the time) that the MV-22's maximum disc loading was 50% more than a CH-53E and 60% higher than the XV-15.

Your thoughts?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> I don't think turbofans/turbojets would be responsive enough for the Osprey; with props, even turboprops, you can change the pitch of the blades in a split second to manuever.



I will take some pics of it this weekend at the Deutsches Museum in Munchen. Dornier built a jet aircraft like the Osprey many years ago. They did successful testing on it but it never entered production.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will take some pics of it this weekend at the Deutsches Museum in Munchen. Dornier built a jet aircraft like the Osprey many years ago. They did successful testing on it but it never entered production.



That would be interesting. Do you recall the name of it? I do not see how it would be able to successfully maneuver at low airspeed relying only upon vectored thrust - but I'm not an engineer.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 1, 2007)

mkloby said:


> That would be interesting. Do you recall the name of it? I do not see how it would be able to successfully maneuver at low airspeed relying only upon vectored thrust - but I'm not an engineer.



I agree with you, mk; I don't see how a turbofan/turbojet would be responsive enough to provide low-speed maneuverability. It usually takes a few seconds for a jet, even a small jet, to spool up or down; by then, the aircraft may be beyond control.

BTW, the Dornier Adler mentioned is the Do 31:


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 1, 2007)

I think the Canadians made a similar aircraft as well, looked a bit like the Osprey just 30 years earlier. They showcased it but we didn't go for it. I could be wrong, I haven't read anything on it in years.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 1, 2007)

I'd just like to point out that Turboprops/shafts are still turbine engines, and have the same spool up problems associated with them that turbojets/fans can have.

It's more of the fact that the rotor blade provides lift, thrust, and acts as the control surface while the Osprey is in helo mode. If you have a turbojet rather than a turboshaft and rotor system, you would have a problem. At hover/low speed (no wind situation) you have no to little wind flowing over the wing. Not only that - airplane control surfaces (ailerons, rudder, elevator) would be very ineffective at low speeds, and useless in a hover. I'm sure that Dornier came up with some solutions for this - as they had people far smarter than me on the job - but I don't see a successful outcome to the problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

mkloby said:


> That would be interesting. Do you recall the name of it? I do not see how it would be able to successfully maneuver at low airspeed relying only upon vectored thrust - but I'm not an engineer.



I dont recall the name. They were able to successfully test it but as you said at low airspeeds it was not the greatest and that is why they canceled the project.


----------



## ccheese (Nov 2, 2007)

Matt: After the Osprey is proven, do you think they will put them on carriers ? Or just assault landing ships ?

Charles


----------



## mkloby (Nov 2, 2007)

ccheese said:


> Matt: After the Osprey is proven, do you think they will put them on carriers ? Or just assault landing ships ?
> 
> Charles



I don't think there is a need for them to operate from carriers. Their mission is assault support, so they will be with the LHAs and LHDs.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 2, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> I think the Canadians made a similar aircraft as well, looked a bit like the Osprey just 30 years earlier. They showcased it but we didn't go for it. I could be wrong, I haven't read anything on it in years.



The Canadair CL-84, which utilised tilt wing technology. This was one proposed mission...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 2, 2007)

Boeing built the VZ-2 tiltwing that first flew in 1958. Bell began the XV-3 tiltrotor program in 1954, which made successful transition from helo-airplane mode also in '58.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 6, 2007)

kloby, just read that the MV-22 will be receiving a "remotely operated turret" in a retractable mounting with the "gun" located on the bottom of the aircraft. The AvWeek article did not mention if this was a fleetwide change or for special forces only, but it implied that rather large retrofit and subsequent insertion into manufacturing lines.

Any insight?


----------



## ccheese (Nov 7, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Aside from the improvments in technology over 40 years whats the major difference between the CL 84 and Osprey or was it a case that it wasn't made there




Looks to me like the biggest difference is the wing of the Osprey doesn't rotate, just the engines/nacelles. And, the tail.... the Osprey's doesn't flop
down for horizontal flight. Where or who made it isn't a deciding factor.

Charles


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> kloby, just read that the MV-22 will be receiving a "remotely operated turret" in a retractable mounting with the "gun" located on the bottom of the aircraft. The AvWeek article did not mention if this was a fleetwide change or for special forces only, but it implied that rather large retrofit and subsequent insertion into manufacturing lines.
> 
> Any insight?



There's been talk of that for a long time - but nothing to come of it... yet. Think AvWeek is just getting a little too excited too soon... unless USAF CV-22s are getting them.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 9, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> kloby, just read that the MV-22 will be receiving a "remotely operated turret" in a retractable mounting with the "gun" located on the bottom of the aircraft. The AvWeek article did not mention if this was a fleetwide change or for special forces only, but it implied that rather large retrofit and subsequent insertion into manufacturing lines.
> 
> Any insight?



The original plans called for a remotely operated turret in a chin position, but this specification was deleted early on due to cost weight considerations.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2007)

Well things have changed SoD. This was a recent AvWeek article and the turrets are nearterm. I too recall the pie in the sky chin turrets. This was not an article about "nice to haves", but rather a declaration of "soon to be's". You don't pay 150quid for a magazine subscription for nothing.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 9, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Well things have changed SoD. This was a recent AvWeek article and the turrets are nearterm. I too recall the pie in the sky chin turrets. This was not an article about "nice to haves", but rather a declaration of "soon to be's". You don't pay 150quid for a magazine subscription for nothing.



Actually, I'm glad to hear that; I don't have my source in front of me, but I'm assuming it's a derivative of the M230 30mm "chain gun", as installed in the AH-64 Apache. Correct me if I'm wrong . . .


----------



## mkloby (Nov 9, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, I'm glad to hear that; I don't have my source in front of me, but I'm assuming it's a derivative of the M230 30mm "chain gun", as installed in the AH-64 Apache. Correct me if I'm wrong . . .



I had thought that they were interested in the 20mm system similar to the Cobra. Not too sure though, we'll see.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 11, 2007)

That was the funny thing about the AvWeek article. There was no mention about the caliber of the weapon. Strange for AvWeek.


----------



## dropship-dvd (Nov 13, 2007)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Don't you hate idiot spammers? Well the mods on this site do and as could see my post was just obliviated. I'm sorry for being such an ignorant low life piece of sh!t but I am on the lower half of the gene pool.

Please forgive me!


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 13, 2007)

Wow, what a change of heart!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 14, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> Wow, what a change of heart!



Gee, he's gone already . . . . and I never even had a chance to meet him (her?)! What a shame . . . .


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 22, 2007)

Since WW2, the West has relied on quality over quantity. For the most part, I think quality has been a good nuetralizer of numerically superior forces. One aspect that has always been a concern is the vulnerability of NATO airfields. 

It doesn't matter how good your F-16's, F-15's or F-22's are if they don't have a place to land. Sure you can argue that highways all over Europe could be impromptu airfields.. (the Swedes and Dane's have done a good job at this).. but logistics and battlefield readiness sustainability is not guaranteed.

Until now! 

I think the Osprey and the F-35 will make a great team. Configure easily transportable WRSK packages ( War Readiness Spare Kits) for the Osprey to service the F-35 and parking lots, play grounds, cemeteries and parks become airfields.... 

The Osprey has it strengths but I wasn't a fan until the F-35.

The F-35 needs the Osprey!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE_

Correct me if I'm wrong but with MAX pay load, the F-35 is STOL, how long a runway does it need?

.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 23, 2007)

You know I don't recall. I do know that the "bring back" is substantial. But then again that is what 40,000lbs+ thrust (with growth from the core) buys you. But max payload? Don't know.


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Since WW2, the West has relied on quality over quantity. For the most part, I think quality has been a good nuetralizer of numerically superior forces. One aspect that has always been a concern is the vulnerability of NATO airfields.
> 
> It doesn't matter how good your F-16's, F-15's or F-22's are if they don't have a place to land. Sure you can argue that highways all over Europe could be impromptu airfields.. (the Swedes and Dane's have done a good job at this).. but logistics and battlefield readiness sustainability is not guaranteed.
> 
> ...



Sounds like a quote from the 60's sales handout for the Harrier.

I have seen the Harrier use an incomplete supermarket as a base during exercises. The carpark made the ideal landing/take of strip and they just towed the planes into the supermarket through the (removed) front windows which was used as a cover.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> It doesn't matter how good your F-16's, F-15's or F-22's are if they don't have a place to land. Sure you can argue that highways all over Europe could be impromptu airfields.. (the Swedes and Dane's have done a good job at this).. but logistics and battlefield readiness sustainability is not guaranteed.
> 
> 
> .



Just and interesting note. There are autobahns over here in Germany that were built during the cold war just for that purpose and they lead to hollowed out mountains that serve as hangers.


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 7, 2008)

Photo rec'd via the Bell rep in Kirkuk within the last day. It looks like
the MV-22 has a stinger in its tail - Matt, what is that pointing rearward?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 7, 2008)

twoeagles said:


> Photo rec'd via the Bell rep in Kirkuk within the last day. It looks like
> the MV-22 has a stinger in its tail - Matt, what is that pointing rearward?



Do you mean the tail tail, or the thing pointing out the rear door/ramp? The pointy thing sticking out of the door/ramp is the on-board defensive .50-cal BHMG. Unfortunately, it's pointed the wrong direction for insertion into a "hot" LZ; there are plans in the works to modify/upgrade the MV-22 with a chin-mounted cannon of some sort (still don't know what type; probably a 30 or 35mm chain gun).


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2008)

Likely just a manned M240 (or similar) like other ramp mounted weapons seen on CH-46, MH-53 or CH-47. I know they have also mounted mini-guns for SpecOps. Kloby and Adler can probably give better information. The AvWeek article noted that it was an automated and retractable turret located amidship. No other details and I have not read anything further.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2008)

That is a door gunner coming out of the rear ramp just like on the Chinook and the CH-53.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2008)

.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 8, 2008)

Okay, looks like my original post was incorrect; it was not a .50-cal BHMG, but a 7.62mm M240B.

Speaking of the M240B, anybody heard about this new "lightened" version of the 240 called a Mk. 48?


----------

