PDA

View Full Version : V22 Osprey



goldman
05-29-2005, 11:59 PM
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/v22/v22jump.jpg
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/osprey%20hovering%203.jpg
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/osprey%20at%20sunset.jpg
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/desertosprey.jpg
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/ospreydust.jpg
http://www.dynabil.com/v22.jpg
http://aerostories.free.fr/dossiers/ADAV/V22.JPG
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-osprey-usmc.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-pic01461.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic280.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic281.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_Howitzer_lift-off.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V22_sunset_over_the_bay.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic279.jpg
http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/cockpits/v-22_1.jpg
http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/documents/wasp%20and%20v22%20(forward).jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/v22_03.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/v22_10.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/v22_18.jpg
http://www.helicopassion.com/images/V22/V22-101c.jpg
http://parisairshow.free.fr/walkaround/v22/001.JPG
http://www.chez.com/ereshkigal/mv22.jpg
http://www.chez.com/ereshkigal/v-22atyou.jpg
http://www.chez.com/ereshkigal/v22-3.jpg

Aerosoul
05-29-2005, 11:59 PM
Cool pics.

As for the actual aircraft, I haven't heard many good words about it. :|

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 12:08 AM
Awsome picks

I dont really now much about the Osprey program. It is a awsome looking plane. If we can make it work as reliably as a conventional plane - it will be like the be like the original introduction of the helicopter into military use and the new tactics and abilities it made available to us.

LordHalbert
05-30-2005, 12:17 AM
Apparently it's almost impossible to shoot from a V-22.

Some might argue that you don't need to shoot from a V-22 but what about landings and take-offs?

At least with Blackhawk, you can defend your self.

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 12:30 AM
Apparently it's almost impossible to shoot from a V-22.

Some might argue that you don't need to shoot from a V-22 but what about landings and take-offs?

At least with Blackhawk, you can defend your self.

never thought about that angle before, interesting - thanks

Malarky
05-30-2005, 01:16 AM
This aircraft has a long and troubled past. Mechanical issues, pilot error and the like caused a few dozen people to lose their lives...but that was all during an EARLY testing phase. Since then it has been worked over time and again to smooth out the rough edges. Since the near cancelation of the program, there have been ZERO deaths. If this thing is even CLOSE to what Boeing and Bell Helicopter claim it is (in terms of operational capabilities, variants, and overall KICK ASS attitude) then it should serve the US military well in its upcoming roll of replacing the venerable Chinhook. I have had the pleasure of working on a project directly related to its manufacure and had the opportunity to see one up close and personal. I wish they would have let us have cameras, but oh well. This is a LARGE aircraft and I cannot wait to see it in aciton.

Ratamacue
05-30-2005, 01:21 AM
This aircraft has a long and troubled past. Mechanical issues, pilot error and the like caused a few dozen people to lose their lives...but that was all during an EARLY testing phase. Since then it has been worked over time and again to smooth out the rough edges. Since the near cancelation of the program, there have been ZERO deaths. If this thing is even CLOSE to what Boeing and Bell Helicopter claim it is (in terms of operational capabilities, variants, and overall KICK ASS attitude) then it should serve the US military well in its upcoming roll of replacing the venerable Chinhook. I have had the pleasure of working on a project directly related to its manufacure and had the opportunity to see one up close and personal. I wish they would have let us have cameras, but oh well. This is a LARGE aircraft and I cannot wait to see it in aciton.
I've never heard of it being intended to replace the Chinook. I know for a fact that the Marines are intending to replace the Sea Knight with it, and the CH-53E's they have will be upgraded to the CH-53X. The Osprey doesn't really have the payload, internal or external, to replace the Chinook or Sea Stallion.

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 01:21 AM
Will it have the same or more internal cargo volume as the chinook?

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 01:27 AM
Will it have the same or more internal cargo volume as the chinook?
less i think.... :|

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 01:29 AM
wait a minute - only army uses chinook - as far as I know - unless there are some airforce spec ops units - and I dont think the army is getting it. So does it equal the marines sea knight in payload?

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 01:40 AM
good question...I think the army was supposed to use it originally but they dropped out early.....only the airforce and marines are getting it now.

CH 46 .....Cargo max payload 4000 pounds external load

Combat: 14 troops plus areial gunners

V22 ....Cargo max payload n/a

Combat: 24 troops

So it looks like it can carry more than the Sea Knight

DongFangBuBai
05-30-2005, 02:07 AM
I don't know the actual figures for both but one cannot equate internal and external payload. In other words, if the Sea Knight can carry 4000lbs external, that does not mean that it will (it still can though) carry 4000lbs internal. The reason is simply you can cut away the external load if something goes wrong. So the tendancy is to carry more externally than internally. For internal loads, more safety margin is required.

The Osprey is not meant to carry external loads.

Ratamacue
05-30-2005, 02:20 AM
The Osprey is not meant to carry external loads.
According to Naval-Technology.com (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/V22_osprey/)...

The aircraft can provide VTOL with a payload of 24 troops, or 6,000lbs of cargo at 430 nautical miles combat range, or VTOL with a payload of 8,300lbs of cargo for a range of 220 nautical miles. The helicopter is self-deployable world wide with a ferry range over 2,100 nautical miles. Normal operating range is up to 1,100 nautical miles.
This doesn't specify what can be carried internally vs. externally, but...

USMC Fact File (http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/006111164d72c407852562de00720540?OpenDocument)

200nm Pre-Assault Raid with 18 troops
Land Assault with 24 troops
50 nm (x2) Amphibious Assault
500 nm Long Range SOF Missions (USAF/CV-22)
2100 nm Self Deploy (with one refueling)
50 nm External Lift Operations with 10,000 lb load
So apparently it can be used with an external payload. In fact, here's two pictures of it doing just that.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/album95/aan.sized.jpg
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/album95/aao.sized.jpg

Deuterium
05-30-2005, 02:35 AM
Are any of the pics Air Force Ospreys?

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 02:37 AM
How are the airforce V-22 going to do inflight refueling? will the use a droug line like marine or will they use the normal airforce boom?

orko_8
05-30-2005, 04:01 AM
http://xs31.xs.to/pics/05221/osprey.jpg

Probe - drogue system is used in Osprey.

I can't imagine what would be the result when pilot makes a miscalculation during the rendezvous with the boom :)

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 04:04 AM
http://xs31.xs.to/pics/05221/osprey.jpg

Probe - drogue system is used in Osprey.

I can't imagine what would be the result when pilot makes a miscalculation during the rendezvous with the boom :)

I can not think of any airforce plane that uses drogue - so they are going to be a burden on the logistical system

OldRecon
05-30-2005, 04:05 AM
Though the concept is interesting, it looks like a fat, vulnerable duck to me, if it's to be used in assault type roles where it can be subjected to ground fire.
Also with the crosswise centraly mounted engines longitudal stability (nose-tail), while the machine is in the hover, must be an issue.
I would not like to fly this duck if I were to drop off a load of troops on a cliff edge, with a wandering c-g while in the hover, A-stan style.

The plane could be a great COD plane for the US navy though, combining the roles of the Greyhound and the Sea Knight.
Also could be a good machine for delivery of SF assets from Navy ships.

LordHalbert
05-30-2005, 04:09 AM
One major problem with the Osprey design is the likelyhood of one of the engines (or blades) to malfunction in combat resulting in asymetrical lift resulting in total loss of the aircraft.

The achilles heal of traditional helicopters is the tail rotar. Helicopters like the CH-46/47 probably have their own issues too.

OldRecon
05-30-2005, 04:14 AM
http://xs31.xs.to/pics/05221/osprey.jpg

Probe - drogue system is used in Osprey.

I can't imagine what would be the result when pilot makes a miscalculation during the rendezvous with the boom :)

I can not think of any airforce plane that uses drogue - so they are going to be a burden on the logistical system

The USAF ARRS HH-3, HH-53 and HH-60 all use the probe and drouge system for airborne refueling (from MH-130 Hercules aircraft), and in the case of the HH-3 and HH-53 have done so since the Vietnam war.
USMC also use probe and drouge for some of its CH-53's I believe, as does the US Navy with its MH-53's.
In fact I think prope and drouge would be better suited for airborne refueling of the Osprey than the flying boom solution otherwise favoured by the USAF

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 04:16 AM
http://xs31.xs.to/pics/05221/osprey.jpg

Probe - drogue system is used in Osprey.

I can't imagine what would be the result when pilot makes a miscalculation during the rendezvous with the boom :)

I can not think of any airforce plane that uses drogue - so they are going to be a burden on the logistical system

The USAF ARRS HH-3, HH-53 and HH-60 all use the probe and drouge system for airborne refueling (from MH-130 Hercules aircraft), and in the case of the HH-3 and HH-53 have done so since the Vietnam war.
USMC also use probe and drouge for some of its CH-53's I believe, as does the US Navy with its MH-53's.
In fact I think prope and drouge would be better suited for airborne refueling of the Osprey than the flying boom solution otherwise favoured by the USAF

ach I forgot about those chopters - thanks for the answer

Bugalugs
05-30-2005, 04:36 AM
looks like a ***** to fly - both pilots will be working their asses off keeping up

Zoomie
05-30-2005, 07:13 AM
Apparently it's almost impossible to shoot from a V-22.

Some might argue that you don't need to shoot from a V-22 but what about landings and take-offs?

At least with Blackhawk, you can defend your self.
You don't shoot from a C-130 either. Keep in mind that the Osprey flies at a speed that's One Hundred Knots FASTER than the Blackhawk, so they're not exactly a sitting duck. This thing is meant to replace in the Navy and Marines the slow lumbering transport helos that drop off the troops inland for securing a area of land or whatever.

Zoomie
05-30-2005, 07:15 AM
And here's some of my own photos of it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/SgtSniper/v22/v22a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/SgtSniper/v22/v22b.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/SgtSniper/v22/v22c.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/SgtSniper/v22/v22d.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/SgtSniper/v22/v22e.jpg

Bugalugs
05-30-2005, 07:17 AM
Its a thing of beauty, IMHO

Killtokk
05-30-2005, 07:31 AM
this Plane Rocks rofl

sp2c
05-30-2005, 07:42 AM
Probe - drogue system is used in Osprey.

I can't imagine what would be the result when pilot makes a miscalculation during the rendezvous with the boom :)

the boom will snap off ... aside from the osprey running out of fuel because it wasn't able to refuel when it was supposed to that should be the only result

tomcat1974
05-30-2005, 07:45 AM
well it seems that only USAF is dumb enough to use the Boom for refueling.:) The real pilots use the drogue - chute (USMC and USN ) :) . Heck the rest of the world use the drogue systems .

RGRBOX
05-30-2005, 09:03 AM
great pics.. thank again Goldman...

Gremlin29
05-30-2005, 11:25 AM
Some incorrect facts have been put out here in regards to the CH-46. It can carry 25 grunts plus crew (not 14 as stated above), cargo hook limitation is 10,000 lbs (not 4,000 as stated above).

Drogue versus boom? The boom was brought into being because the big heavies are pretty sluggish and chasing that bouncing basket around with a B-52 is...well it's retarded so they went to the boom. Rotorcraft for obvious reasons can not be refueled via boom. Even so, the KC135's (boomers) are also equipped with baskets. It's not a question of skill, it's a question of practicallity.

Regarding the V-22, I am terribly skeptical of this ship. As an aircraft it's neat and interesting, as a tactical ship I don't think it has the chops to fly combat missions. Below 3,500 feet AGL it is incapable of performing an autorotational landing. Losing both engines in tactical fligh will be disasterous. I chatted with one of the V-22 program pilots on another forum awhile back and he agreed that it was impossible to recover from total power failure at low altitudes. Scary stuff. Of course the optimists will say that a dual engine failure is highly unlikely....must be why they spend all that money putting autorotational capability in all the twin helos like the UH-60, CH-53, CH-46/47 etc don't you think?

As mentioned earlier in this thread I agree the V-22 will make a great COD ship etc. Personally I don't see that it's going to survive in the tactical environment. They are so expensive and now under such scrutiny that losing them in combat will be a political disaster for all involved. I suspect they will be husbanded very carefully and wouldn't expect to see them very near the FEBA. They can get to tight spots quicker that's certain, but most tactical helicopters are staged within 15 minutes of the FEBA anyway so how much quicker is a V-22 really gonna get there? In any case they still have to slow down and land just like every other helicopter and that my friends, is where all the fun begins for a helicopter crew.

iflu
05-30-2005, 11:28 AM
Apparently it's almost impossible to shoot from a V-22.

Some might argue that you don't need to shoot from a V-22 but what about landings and take-offs?

At least with Blackhawk, you can defend your self.

how impossible?

RGRBOX
05-30-2005, 11:29 AM
Some incorrect facts have been put out here in regards to the CH-46. It can carry 25 grunts plus crew (not 14 as stated above), cargo hook limitation is 10,000 lbs (not 4,000 as stated above).

Drogue versus boom? The boom was brought into being because the big heavies are pretty sluggish and chasing that bouncing basket around with a B-52 is...well it's retarded so they went to the boom. Rotorcraft for obvious reasons can not be refueled via boom. Even so, the KC135's (boomers) are also equipped with baskets. It's not a question of skill, it's a question of practicallity.

Regarding the V-22, I am terribly skeptical of this ship. As an aircraft it's neat and interesting, as a tactical ship I don't think it has the chops to fly combat missions. Below 3,500 feet AGL it is incapable of performing an autorotational landing. Losing both engines in tactical fligh will be disasterous. I chatted with one of the V-22 program pilots on another forum awhile back and he agreed that it was impossible to recover from total power failure at low altitudes. Scary stuff. Of course the optimists will say that a dual engine failure is highly unlikely....must be why they spend all that money putting autorotational capability in all the twin helos like the UH-60, CH-53, CH-46/47 etc don't you think?

As mentioned earlier in this thread I agree the V-22 will make a great COD ship etc. Personally I don't see that it's going to survive in the tactical environment. They are so expensive and now under such scrutiny that losing them in combat will be a political disaster for all involved. I suspect they will be husbanded very carefully and wouldn't expect to see them very near the FEBA. They can get to tight spots quicker that's certain, but most tactical helicopters are staged within 15 minutes of the FEBA anyway so how much quicker is a V-22 really gonna get there? In any case they still have to slow down and land just like every other helicopter and that my friends, is where all the fun begins for a helicopter crew.

Well said. and thanks for the info.

§nake
05-30-2005, 11:33 AM
Nice pics goldman, thanks
I think the plane looks kinda "funny"

TuNeRsHaRk
05-30-2005, 11:42 AM
Damn How i Love that plane, i always fly carrier ops with it in fs2004

ridenrain
05-30-2005, 11:44 AM
This thing has a lot of advances, bundled up into one aircraft so it's no wonder that it's got problems. It's also a highly charged political football so there is a lot of dis-information on both sides.
I like it and think it's advantages outweigh the problems but because we don't need it now, I'd rather they test more.

platform389
05-30-2005, 12:14 PM
Yikes! Could the Space Shuttle be more complicated...?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic281.jpg

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 01:21 PM
Yikes! Could the Space Shuttle be more complicated...?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic281.jpg

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif

I was thinking along the same lines - look at all those moving parts

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 01:56 PM
Some incorrect facts have been put out here in regards to the CH-46. It can carry 25 grunts plus crew (not 14 as stated above), cargo hook limitation is 10,000 lbs (not 4,000 as stated above).


Hey take it up with globalsecurity.org

Gremlin29
05-30-2005, 02:45 PM
Hey take it up with globalsecurity.org

Well I knew those figures were wrong so I checked Boeing's site out, which is just a little more relevant than global security (cough cough).

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 03:25 PM
rofl
touche.....

Gremlin29
05-30-2005, 03:34 PM
Glad to see you have a great sense of humor ronin2172 :D

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 05:07 PM
Glad to see you have a great sense of humor ronin2172 :D
Arguing about the cargo capacity of a sea knight is hardly anything to get my ******s in a bunch over!lol

Rishon
05-30-2005, 07:40 PM
From what I've heard, the MV-22 Osprey carries less troops in one go than a Sea Knight but, it gets 3 trips for every one of the CH-53.

I could be wrong though..

Kap
05-30-2005, 07:53 PM
Yikes! Could the Space Shuttle be more complicated...?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic281.jpg

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif

I was thinking along the same lines - look at all those moving parts

No wonder why there was a span of Osprey deaths some years ago. A lot of them were crashing.

McLane
05-30-2005, 08:10 PM
What we need is:

http://sonic.czechcore.cz/sonic_page_first/pictures/C&C/vehicles/ORCACARRYALL.jpg

And:

http://sonic.czechcore.cz/sonic_page_first/pictures/C&C/vehicles/ORCATRANSPORT.jpg

;)

Airborneranger4israel
05-30-2005, 08:26 PM
although intial testing of this bird was attrocious i think it can work , however there really needs to be a replacement for the chinook, that thing crashes all the time, its very dangerous.

xmas
05-30-2005, 08:40 PM
Thanks for the cool pic collection!!

Does V-22 beat up so much dust, or it was something else??
http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/ospreydust.jpg

LordHalbert
05-30-2005, 08:42 PM
The Osprey really needs a couple of miniguns to protect itself when landing and taking off.

It can't land fast like a C-130 because of the way it was designed.

I'm trying to figure out where one would mount miniguns on it but there doesn't seem to be any real good place that's not obstructed by the engines or blades.

Berkut
05-30-2005, 08:51 PM
Nice looking machine!

JTAR7242
05-30-2005, 08:58 PM
Any armament would have to be fixed forward, or nose mounted. Firing out of the side ports would have issues with the location of the engines and their tilt.

I'd imagine eventually they will have to arm these things.


My biggest wonder about this aircraft is that while its speed and versatility could be revolutionary in terms of battlespace accessibility, what is going to escort it? They are too fast for even the Zulu Cobras, so that means harriers (and eventually the F35). A full replacement of the CH-46 means a loss of a medium transport that has full combat escort.

And if they do use the Cobras to escort them, the Osprey loses its tactical advantage of speed.

ronin2172
05-30-2005, 09:00 PM
although intial testing of this bird was attrocious i think it can work , however there really needs to be a replacement for the chinook, that thing crashes all the time, its very dangerous.
uhhh...no it isn't any more dangerous than any other whirly bird.

When you operate on the edge in dangerous situations (as the military tends to) crashes will occur.

When rotor blades, engines, critical parts of the fuselage fall off IN FLIGHT, then you can say it's dangerous....

Name Taken
05-30-2005, 09:45 PM
The initial cost for each Osprey was projected to be $39 million a piece, no wonder Rumsfeld wanted it cancelled then and now, but the USMC are pushing so hard he just gave in.

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 10:11 PM
Any armament would have to be fixed forward, or nose mounted. Firing out of the side ports would have issues with the location of the engines and their tilt.

I'd imagine eventually they will have to arm these things.


My biggest wonder about this aircraft is that while its speed and versatility could be revolutionary in terms of battlespace accessibility, what is going to escort it? They are too fast for even the Zulu Cobras, so that means harriers (and eventually the F35). A full replacement of the CH-46 means a loss of a medium transport that has full combat escort.

And if they do use the Cobras to escort them, the Osprey loses its tactical advantage of speed.

I remember reading a popular science or mechanis that showed concepts of a AC-130 - style Osprey gunship

ridenrain
05-30-2005, 10:30 PM
It is more dangerous than a single rotor or dual rotor helo because it cannot auto-rotate.
If a helo is moving fast enough or high enough and the power is cut, it can auto-rotate down and flair at the last moment to land in a somewhat safe manner.
The osprey cannot auto-rotate and I'd guess it's because the rotors are too small. If the power is cut to both motors, it would glide, after a fashion, and crash land like a conventional airplane.
It has the ability to drive both rotors from one motor but it's ability to hover is extremely limited, depending on the cargo load. The vortex ring state is another problem, when the downwash from the props interferes with the other prop. On any other helo, this is manageable but here it produces a roll that is difficult to recover from.

http://www.helicopterpage.com/html/tiltrotor.html

Shiftyfive
05-30-2005, 10:39 PM
It is more dangerous than a single rotor or dual rotor helo because it cannot auto-rotate.
If a helo is moving fast enough or high enough and the power is cut, it can auto-rotate down and flair at the last moment to land in a somewhat safe manner.
The osprey cannot auto-rotate and I'd guess it's because the rotors are too small. If the power is cut to both motors, it would glide, after a fashion, and crash land like a conventional airplane.
It has the ability to drive both rotors from one motor but it's ability to hover is extremely limited, depending on the cargo load. The vortex ring state is another problem, when the downwash from the props interferes with the other prop. On any other helo, this is manageable but here it produces a roll that is difficult to recover from.

http://www.helicopterpage.com/html/tiltrotor.html

thanks for the link

interesting




“What makes the V-22 so amazing?”
This aircraft has safety built into every aspect of its design. Some examples of this are the triple redundant hydraulic systems with an added nitrogen bottle emergency blow down for the landing gear should everything else fail. The composite fuselage structure has a metallic wire mesh built into it to dissipate lightning strikes. The prop-rotors have lights in the rotor tips for night safety and de-icing blankets built into them. They are designed to fail in such a way that they will turn into strands of composite material upon impact (Broom Stranding). This eliminates the hazard of large chunks of flying rotor traveling in every direction in a crash situation. The engine and transmission systems have double, triple and quadruple redundancy built into them. The aircraft can fly with any degree of nacelle tilt in both single and multi engine modes. This would pose a lubrication problem for the engines if a dual lubrication system were not installed for the level and tilted engine modes of flight. Should the lubrication system run completely dry, the aircraft could fly for an additional 30 minutes without oil. The nose of the aircraft was designed as an anti-plowing structure and the panels on both sides of the cockpit are ballistically jettisonable for rapid egress of the cockpit crew. In a high impact landing, the wings are designed to fail outboard near the engines so wing structures will not contact the fuselage. The self-sealing fuel system has self-closing safety fittings and breakaway fuel lines designed to contain the fuel in a high impact situation and reduce the hazard of post crash fire. Dual automatic flight control systems monitor and adjust control inputs to reduce the workload on the pilots. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many safety systems built in to this aircraft, one person could not begin to tell you all about them.

Zoomie
05-30-2005, 10:56 PM
The initial cost for each Osprey was projected to be $39 million a piece, no wonder Rumsfeld wanted it cancelled then and now, but the USMC are pushing so hard he just gave in.
Which is almost the same price for a new Chinook.