V-22 are up and running

Anybody bought the "re-released" Testors V-22 in 1/48. I think it is supposed to have been "updated". I have a couple of the first ones released. What are the "extras" in the "updated" kit? I had thought of doing one as a "SAR" bird with mini-guns in the windows, doors, and on the ramp. Shades of "Jolly Greens"!

Good to hear that they are up and running again. 2 years ago, I fabricated
3 FLIR composite turret covers for the V - 22. The customer sent me a picture
with it installed.



Regards, Dan

I'm a believer that the V-22 would bring a significant capibility to Special Ops for deep penetration operations where air-to-air refueling is not an option. I don't see how they would be the best choice for vertrep ... just to complicated, expensive and not enough payload (compared to other options) from what I've heard. For you guys that know the system better than I, is it true the civil versions have not had any of the serious problems the military version has? Could it be the complexity that's added as a result of the blade and wing folding systems is the difference if the civil version is doing better?
Just a thought.
Paul

I've been either with or near the V-22 Program for the past 13 years and am currently working the AH-1Z/UH-1Y Programs hangared with the V-22.

If you go back and take a close look, the USMC originally did not want the V-22, but had it rammed up their kazoo's by Congress. Dick Cheyney tried to cancel their ticket when he was SECDEF, however they spread the manufacturing out over so many states that to kill the program would have taken, not an act of Congress...but an act of God. Now, the Marines have nothing to fall back on...the 46's have been SLEP'ed so many times, that it's a wonder the airframes still get off the deck (still the best VERTREP bird around). The 60's would have come nowhere near filling the Marines need for vertical envelopment so, by default, all their hopes lay with the success of the V-22. This is new technology and there is a price to pay....sorry to say two good friends and a lot of others paid the ulitmate price in the developement of this aircraft and, if for no other reason than their memory, I hope fervently that the bird is a success.

One thing all need to take into account is the the current V-22 is almost a brand new bird and has to go back and achieve every data point that was missed during the "abbreviated" testing that Bell-Boeing recommended and the USMC bought into. Totally different management philsophy as well and I think, geared toward success.

Bottom line is that Bell-Boeing garnered a wealth of technical data both flight and ground collected and all of this will be used to serve them well on the civilian variant.

wolfdad sends...

Don & Mel,
Yeah, I guess I forgot my place. It's kinda funny. I've worked on several USAF and Joint DOD projects relating to "new" or "improved" CSAR systems. I've actually been fortunate enough to witness SOME changes based on recommendations from the operator point of view. But for the most part you're exactly on target. The company reps and the brass say "thank you very much, your imput is very valuable" and then they don't change a thing. A new survival radio comes to mind, which I have been involved with for 8 years!!! The PRC-90 and -112 really need to be replaced. This system incorperates an over-the-horizon, UHF SATCOM secure transmitter receiver (text messages) coupled to a GPS. It also retains the line of site features. Initial problem was Boeing made the thing so damn complicated you had to be a nuclear physcist to run it. They made some changes based on our recommendations, but there's still many of the same problems we the operators identified 7 years ago.
But your right Don. When it comes to the V-22, they'll field the damn thing and WE will work the bugs out with lots of sweat, and hopefully not too much blood.

Sal & Don,

I agree with both of you. I worked aviation for 10 years and now have been in the Oil industry for 20 offshore. If it's new and improved it will fail more often and you can't get to it to fix it! PHI has lost several 207's and pilots and it's looking like a possilbe contribution to the accidents is a button moved from prior models position. The engineers never have to work on what they design. We have to "adapt, improvise and overcome"! They didn't start calling me Melgyver for nothing! The V-22 is a great concept, but it's awfully complicated to be a "lead magnet"! Looking forward to the day to see one in flight.

I sincerly hope that they get the V-22 to work. I think it is a remarkable piece of machinery. I love it. It is big yes but i think they could figure out a way to get around that with proper training. Good luck to all who will work them and fly them.

Sal,
When was the last time someone solicited the crewdogs (Mech)point of view and actually listened? My guess is never.
When a mech gets asked a question such as "What do you think about. . ." They don't want a real answer, they want the pat answer, or a hearty 'YESSIR!"
The first time something went 'wrong' with a system on an new aircraft in my area of maintenance, I was told to fix it. . .but it wasn't in any maintenance manual and the company that made both the aircraft and the component insisted it never could malfunction, They forgot about pilot error. That and the fact the system operated by pressing a button located next to a button used all the time.
The V22 will most likely make it to production and the crews will "love" them. It is so written.

Don

I'm sure we'll learn a lot from the V-22, but as I stated earlier there's not a lot of faith being held in it from most if not all of the operational types I've spoke with. Yes the Marines NEED a replacement for the Phrogs but that doesn't mean it has to be a V-22. What about the improved -53 someone mentioned. We (USAF SAR) are currently looking for a near future replacement for the HH-60G Pavehawk. Great bird, lots of power and good systems but not a lot of room to work in. the EH-101, H-92 and maybe even others are all being considered. Whay wouldn't they work for the Marines? I'll tell you why, because there's already been too much of an investment in the V-22.

I was an avionics tech on CH-53E's a few years ago. And one thing we had a constant problem with, was the slipring. It seemed like it was always dirty, and failing, needing to be sent in for repair. The Osprey has 7 of these said sliprings, and as an avionics tech, that sounds scary. When I was getting out they were trying to get people into school to fix the Osprey.....back then not too many people wanted to go....There's still a lot of love for the Phrog and the .......well, there's a nickname for the 53 that I'm sure all of the Marines here know of as well. I've had quite a few friends die in crashes in 46's, and 53's. I'm sure there will be more in the Osprey as well....it's inevitable. I too wish that they would have went along with a newer H-60, or even a few years ago there were rumors of a new and improved CH-53E, that was supposed to replace both birds...I can't remember the full designation...I think a CH-53R??? Only a guess there, don't quote me. It's just a shame to count on such a piece. I truly hope that they do make it a success, if only for the Marines flying in them. I could care less if the top brass get their "kudos"!!!

The thing with the Osprey is the fact that we NEED them, not just want them for a cool factor. The Phrogs are very old. Many still have patch work from the Vietnam War and, if memory serves, the newest ones are 1978-era. You can only do so many so many SLEP's before the airframe is worn out. With the op-tempo of the modern Marine Corps, it becomes harder and harder on the older airframes.

As far as safety goes, the Osprey has improved greatly. The issues brought to light in the three crashes have since been resolved and it's been flying again for a while. The hydraulic systems have been upgraded and moved, and the flight envelope more thouroghly tested. The big crash in AZ was the vortex-ring-state one. It can happen to any helicopter. The mishap investigation found that the pilot was descending to rapidly and the shifting airflow from the tiltrotor caused a greater vacuum on the wings which lead to reduced lift, thus amplifying the problem.

The early issues were due to a timeline driven program - there was a lot of pressure to get the aircraft to the fleet and the rushed schedule lead to shortcuts in testing, and ultimately to the death of 30 people. Since the initial grounding, the program has been moved to a results-based timeline. We NEED the aircraft, so we are willing to wait . To make up the gap, theres been another ERIP for the CH-46Es to keep them performing for a good bit longer.

As the Osprey gains mishap-free hours, the confidence will be restored. As of now, the training pipeline isn't even open for new V22 pilots, so the "no one wants to fly them" point is kind of negligable. I know of several people who would like to fly them given the chance, and there are obviously some Marines (the test pilots) who believe enough in them to risk their lives for them. Granted, I have no desire to fly them... the lack of a gliding OR autorotating ability is kind of a turnoff. Also, I have my own doubts about their combat survivability based on my very limited knowledge of them.

The CMC came to our Wing and talked to all of us about the Osprey and other news in Marine aviation. The future is pretty promising for it.

/jarhead in flight training

Having just gotten back to NC after being in Oki, I spent a few minutes out by Onslow Beach watching one of these doing "touch and go's" at one of the LZs just the other day. I'm a grunt turned data geek, not a pilot, but they were fun to watch. There's got to be a replacement for the old Bullfrogs, those are some tired birds.

I agree that the V-22 is a cool looking bird. Even with it's technical problems, I believe that it will be an important vehicle from which important data will be derived for future aviation technologies. I am happy that it's finally getting off the ground again after being put on shelf for quite some time now. However, I am not sure whether it will succeed in the testing or not. Or whether it will eventually see service or not. All I am sure of is that like the Valkerie, Cheyenne (maybe I mispelled it, sorry), and others, it will become part of aviation history.

Good luck to the V-22.

I've seen these things folded in hangers for months, because they didn't move for months at a time. Even with the prop/rotors and wing folded they take up alot of room. I'd say that they take up more room than the CH-53E with tail and rotors folded, which is no where near the size of a 46 with rotors folded. They are pretty big planes, but they have surprizingly small cabins. I don't think that they could very much internally at one time. As for externalling, they can't go into airplane mode while externalling loads. The lift is not great enough from the wings to external. I just don't think they are worth the money and effort. Their best feature is that they look cool.

For what it's worth, I have a couple fellow STS buddies who were involved in fast roping trials for the USAF on the V-22. They said the rotor wash under the aircraft is unbelievable, to the point where they recommeded against certifying the aircraft for such ops. I also worked a JTFEX out of Barksdale AFB with a USMC 53E driver. He said (inside gouge) that nobody in the corps really wants to fly them. Yes the wings fold to assist with STORAGE on the LHA's but during trials they could only have two V-22's at a time when up loading marines topside, due to the size when the wings were unfolded. I also heard of problems with the ECM suite interferring with comm systems. Also, when trying to AR from the co-pilots position, it was impossible due to lack of visibility of the probe.
Now that's straight from the sources I mentioned, since I know there's some die hard V-22 fans out there, but I can also tell you that the operational folks (read crewdogs) in the USAF aren't real thrilled with the idea.
Bottom-line is this...beware when anybody tries to sell you the do all jack of all trades aircraft. It's like the saying goes, "jack of all trades, specialist at none". At least from a USAF SOF and CSAR point of view, the CV-22 is being sold by the upper echelons as a replacement for both the H/MC-130P/H/N and the Pave Pig. While I agree that the V-22 can do SOME things the Herk can do and SOME things the Pave Low can do, but it will never replace a Helo/fixed-wing tanker combo.

there was an article in FSM a couple of months ago on building a MHV-22. There is also
a book on the v-22 (I have it some where in my library).

I could see the use and further development of the V22. Like any new technology, it takes awhile to work the kinks out and learn how to use it properly. The harrier was not an overnight success either, but look at it now.

Still looking for details to build the osprey. Got some pages from olpmaster and still searching. Waana build this plane with folded props, tilted wing and open crew entrance to save room and avoid damage of the props. Who can tellme where to find the details I need ? By the way, normally I bild fixed wing planes. Helos only as there is a chance not to brake the rotors, inline withe fuselage, folded a.s.o.

I think that vortex ring will be an ongoing problem.
If only one rotor systems goes into vortex ring the thing will roll so fast it will be fascinating to be sure. I would think a crosswind or quartering tailwind would be cause one to be very alert. Proper technique could be developed to minimize risk.
That is my opinion anyhow. I have never flown one so what do I know. Our company has some delivery positons on 609 however so may get a chance at one. If and when they are produced!!!!!!
It is however a neat a/c I don't think pressurization will preclude cabin manned armament at low level.

ridleusmc,

I was under the impression that the entire wing could be rotated so that it was in-line longitudinally with the fuselage for storage on carriers. I have, in fact, seen pictures of a V-22 in this configuration, so that should alleviate any space problems on a carrier. The blades also fold to help with the storage issue. As far as defensive armament, external gun packs and/or missiles (Sidewinders, maybe?) could possibly be carried. I'm sure that it will carry ALE-29/39 flare/chaff pods, and maybe ECM/DECM equipment, like most choppers now do. I think that the Osprey will be a big improvement over today's antiquated (but DAMNED good) helicopters. It has more range and load-carrying capabilites than either the CH-46 or the CH-53, based on what I've read. A couple of Super Cobras are really all it needs for defense....................

As for the Vortex thing. I heard something about Engine RPM that will prevent that, but I'm no expert. I also heard that they corrected the hydraulic problems.

Honestly, I don't think they are a good aircraft for military service. They're much larger than the CH-46E which they're meant to replace. Space is a big factor when it comes to helicopter carriers. They also can't get into or out of a landing zone as fast as any helicopter, which is also a major factor. Since they have pressurized cabins, they can't carry defensive armorment. I guess the powers that be believe that speed and range are more important than these factors. I can't blame them for that. However, I believe the Marine Corps would have been better off with something along the lines of the H-60 series. I have to admit that the V-22 is a cool looking bird, especially in flight.

As a marine, I figured you'd probably not like them. They look cool and it's an interesting concept, but I don't think they're going to work out. I can't believe that they'll ever really fix the vortex problem and I've heard that they're quite fragile birds.

demono69