Tilt Craft still not ready to fly.

[yasin_khan]

After nearly twenty years of development -- and $19 billion -- it's still unclear whether a controversial, ultra-pricey, tilt-rotor aircraft "can perform all the maneuvers that several pilots [say] are necessary in combat," the Dallas/Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reports.

For an eternity, it seems, the Pentagon has been pushing the V-22 Osprey as "twice as fast, three times the payload capacity, and six times the range" of traditional helicopters. But the advantages of this "revolutionary" machine have been greatly exaggerated, critics say. (The Pentagon disputes this, of course.) "The V-22 might have only one significant performance advantage over helicopters: speed," according to the paper. "Important mechanical components continue to fail, reinforcing long-standing concerns about reliability and maintenance costs."

During recent tests, pilots weren't allowed to take the V-22 on "extreme maneuvers" like sharp banks and U-turns. Why? Because "program officials feared the maneuvers would damage the aircraft," according to the Star-Telegram.

Back in April 2000, a V-22 crashed in Marana, Ariz., killing 19 Marines. It's one of several major mishaps that've happened during the Osprey's two decades of testing.


Some veteran pilots and aviation scientists said the accident exposed an inability in the V-22 to descend rapidly and abruptly change directions, key requirements for combat aircraft. Aerodynamic experts advising Christie and his predecessor, Philip Coyle, argued for additional tests. The Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency, called for "realistic" tests.

Some testing was done. But a series involving specific, sharp defensive maneuvers was skipped after Bell engineers warned that it would severely damage the rotors, according to a source within the testing program who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job.



http://64.207.156.228/

 

[gf0012-aust]

Look at the source - do you suspect that they have a constituency issue at stake and may well be interested in a competitor surviving rather than Osprey?

It's interesting to note that the non milspec version being field tested by USCG has been fault free. An associate of mine is one of the lead test pilots and the Osprey has just passed through a movement and certification test that is critical to pass.

Perhaps the newspaper is remisss in not publishing the results of that?

Most of these morons don't actually understand that the Osprey is more complicated than most 3.5 and some 4th generation fighters to build and develop.

I wish people would do their homework before making comments like that - it just exposed how stupid and ignorant they are.

1st rule of survival and integrity - if you don't know - don't make it up as you'll get caught out.

 

[highsea]

The Osprey did have some problems, but I think they were somewhat overblown. The hydraulics and software issues seem to be resolved, and since resumption of testing in 2002, there have been no major mishaps that I am aware of, and they have logged over 3,000 hours in the AC. The expectation is that approval for full rate production should come towards the end of next year.

As to hard manuevers or rapid decents, we'll have to wait and see, I guess. All AC have an "envelope" that they have to operate within, and the Osprey is no different. Go outside the envelope, and you bend the aircraft. I have read that rapid vertical descents can cause rotor stall, but then again, those reports were written by critics, not supporters of the program.

But it's a cool AC, I built some parts for them way back when I was still in aerospace.

 

[Gremlin29]

The mishap that ocurred last year was due to "settling with power" which is a phonemena ALL rotory wing aircraft can easily enter. A high rate of descent and little or no forward airspeed will induce settling with power. In laymans terms, the aircraft is descending through the already downward moving column of air the rotors are producing. Eventually, the aircraft will not be able to "grab" enough air (pulling collective) to arrest it's descent. At altitude it's easy to recover from by simply nosing the aircraft over which will instantly and quickly increase airspeed. Unfortunately, you will increase your rate of descent quite a bit nosing over and you will require some recovery altitude. Rapid descents with minimum airspeed are to be avoided and if anyone were to suggest the Osprey should be able to perform a maneuver condusive to settling with power,...well they just don't know how to fly and shouldn't have any input on such matters.

Pesonally, and I've discussed this on another board I don't think the Osprey has what it takes to serve as a tactical aircraft. Coast Guard, yeah I can see it working for them. Marines or Army, definately not. I think it's too big and slow to operate at altitudes to permit safe recovery from partial or total loss of power. At extreme low level altitudes (that's as low as you can possibly go in helicopters, typically 2 to 3 feet above obstructions) the Osrpey will be doomed if it encounters any sort of power issues at all, aside from zoom climbing which would be pretty dangerous forward of the FEBA. I also suspect that it's high cost will will make the Pentagon reluctant to allow it to work in high threat areas which is exactly what happened with the CH-53's when they entered service in Vietnam. So, if it can't operate in the battlefield it's totally useless for anything other than delivering mail and soft drinks to the REMF's. It's a neat airplane, but I'm not convinced that it's going to be able to do any serious soldiering. If it can't operate in a tactical high threat environment it is a disasterous waste of money.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't promoted the notion of fitting a GAU underneath it. You certainly don't have to worry about synchronising it woth the props.

I spoke to people last week who were advocating their use in support of a Caribou replacement. personally, I can't see them fulfilling that role.