MV-22 Osprey

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Charles
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

 
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.
 
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?
 
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
Click to expand...


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
 

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.
 

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.
 
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 . . .
 
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 . . .
Click to expand...

I had thought that they were interested in the 20mm system similar to the Cobra. Not too sure though, we'll see.
 
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F-22 Mishap
Replies
5
Views
694
GreenKnight121
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
155
Thumpalumpacus
M
F-22 Crumbling Skin
Replies
4
Views
840
Admiral Beez
A
M
USAF Reviewing the V-22 Role
Replies
0
Views
537
MIflyer
M
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
920
GTX
Menu
Log in
Register