V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor

QUOTE: Originally posted by DYNOSOAR Bell had originally proposed using an AH1S airframe as a prof of concept demo machine but went with the XV-15 instead. There used to be a mag out called "Aerophile" which ran an article on the proposals and on the tiltrotor's final configurationas XV-15. Anyway if you can find a copy it would be interesting reading to augment the Norton book .

Some of the Bell's conceptual tiltrotor designs can be found at the AIAA website.

http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/bell_tlt/index3.html

Some neat configurations.

Phil

I'll get some materials together and post them. My concept is called the Rotorjet and is ridiculously simple and balanced ... using several existing technologies simply arranged in a new way. All proven, mature systems. And it has a broader range of applications than even helicopters have, from drones and UAVs to transport, heavy lift, rescue or attack, all at higher speeds. It's been reviewed and the concept endorsed by Sergei Sikorsy and the head of DARPA. I'll post something by tomorrow ...

The last I heard the FAA was going to certify the aircraft in a seperate catagory. My experence with the Tiltrotor (XV-15) was in a support role at NASA Ames. An interesting machine to be sure. Bell had originally proposed using an AH1S airframe as a prof of concept demo machine but went with the XV-15 instead. There used to be a mag out called "Aerophile" which ran an article on the proposals and on the tiltrotor's final configurationas XV-15. Anyway if you can find a copy it would be interesting reading to augment the Norton book .

Regards to all.

Yeah, you can't say you've got a better mousetrap and not share something. You can't tease us on something like that. What is it, an actual working Drop Ship from Aliens?

To do the same mission? Is it something you can share?

Phil

I have a patent pending on a design far superior to the V-22.

Yeah guess they could be used as a transport vehicle if they cant use it for any kind of firefight situations.They've spent too much money on it to just let it go now.

Maybe we just need to leave the Osprey alone with the mission it was designed for, which is the ability to take-off and land like a helo, but has the speed and range of a transport.
Maybe we should crank up the old production lines and make new 46's and 53's. Same basic design but more modern features(composites, avonics, engines, etc.)

LemonJello,
I here ya....as an ex-11B I agree with you to a certain extent. I just can't warm up to the V-22 as a do all/replace many airframe. "Jack of all trades, specialist in none"
I remember working with a USMC "Big Iron" driver back in 97 during a JTFEX. During one of those long mission planning nights we got to BSing about the V-22. He said that he and many other -53 drivers wanted nothing to do with it. Now I'm sure that there are many that want to get into the new airframe (there always are), but that's what was the sentiment as he expressed it.

As far as chiming in on stuff, same goes for you brother. I count on you and many others on this forum to chime in with insight based on your background an operational experiences.

Sal,
Guess I was thinking as an old Marine 0311, we tend toward the "kick in the door, and bring all the guns you can to the fight" mentality. You make great points about not drawing attention to the CSAR guys while they do their thing. I just was throwing ideas out there as to how the V-22 could possibly do the job, but it would need an escort until the armament question can be addressed.

I really appreciate your insights, Sal, as one who does the job, you give the rest of us a better idea of what really goes on. Thanks.

Sorry Grant, but I had to chime in...

From a USAF perspective, the powers that be see the aquisition of the CV-22 as a replacement for both the Pave Low and MC-130P tankers. Personally I don't agree and am of the opinion of many other members of this forum. Considering Special Ops, I don't see where you're improving things when you have little self-protection armament. Yes, there are many other self protection measures (RAW gear, IR supressions, etc..) however do YOU want to put all your eggs in that basket? As a guy who works out of them, I know I sure as hell don't. Now someone in this post said that we'll go back to the big package CSAR like we did in Vietnam. As a USAF CSAR guy, that's not feasible. You don't want to increase assets for a CSAR package rather lessen them. Hell, I love Sandy's and the RESCORT they provide for us (A-10's or otherwise), but I will say as a guy who un-asses the Helo and snags the survivor, I also don't like a couple A-10's orbiting around the survivors position highlighting it for the bad guys. It's a dual edge sword. The best CSAR missions are when we go in, score a touchdown and nobody knew we were there. More assets on scene mean more potential survivors. So the big CSARTF is out.

Is the V-22 pretty much a given for the US DOD.....Yep

Is it expensive.....yep

Has there been lot's of problems in the OT&E...yep

Are the Phrogs and Pave Lows reeeaaallllyyyyy old and need to be replaced...yep

I'm just not sure what the most effective application is going to be. I can only speak from a CSAR perspective and say that it's not in my line of work. We need a new HELICOPTER and newer H/MC-130's. The vulnerability I see as a package of V-22's comes to a hover in a hostile LZ doesn't give me a warm fuzzy and I see the need for a bunch of other assets being necessary.

Just my 2 cents worth.

WARNING: The following comment and question is based on NO ACTUAL SAR experience, but info gleaned from this and several other forums, news reports and being a fan of USCG ops. Got it? I admit up front, I don't know what I'm talking about!!!!

Triggger: If rotor wash is a big problem with the Osprey enough to cause brown outs and what not, as reported, wouldn't it also hinder USCG SAR actvities? I'm thinking if it causes a brown out, then it would stir up water enough to cause similar issues and prevent rescue swimmers from doing their thing.

I think if the Osprey was to be used in the CSAR role, it would be in a more "cooperative" way. That is, it wouldn't be a solo mission, more of a team...the V-22, armed escorts, maybe CAP and a FAC as well. Kinda like the old Jolly Green/Skyraider teams I've read about. Too often people look for the "all-in-one" answer to the problem and you don't get what you really need, but a collection of compromises and concessions that instead of doing one or two things really well does everything really poorly.

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandadjohn Grant I really don't know where else the Army might use the Osprey except as a supply a/c(replacing the Sherpa). Like you I found like to hear what others might think or know

Same thiing crossed my mind - but that's a pretty expensive Sherpa replacement. What would the Army use the Osprey for - that's the $20K question for the day.

QUOTE: Originally posted by LemonJello I've heard that there are issues with attempting to fast-rope from the Osprey, that may make it less attractive to SpecOps units, but I think CSAR work would be right up it's alley?

I've heard that rotor downwash is a big problem with FRIES. As for CSAR - the problem with that is the same with a "standard" infil/exfil - self defense. You can only put a gun on the rear ramp and that's a limited field of fire. And like putting a .50 in the main door of a Black Hawk, it works, but it hinders entry and exit. I can't help but notice that the Air Force isn't planning on using the CV-22 as an HH-60 replacement and is instead looking at the US101 or getting stretched Pave Hawks.

Now, civilian SAR is another thing. If the Osprey doesn't turn out to be a white-elephant-flying-coffin, then it could turn out to be a great platform for the USCG. (Provided of course they actually get any funding in our lifetime.)

Don't get me wrong, I want the Osprey to be a great machine, I like the idea of the potential, but I have my doubts in the design. Only time will tell.

MBT70, I respect your opinion, you bring up good points, so don't feel you have to "conform" or be shouted down. History may prove you right and the V-22 will be a big bust, who knows? I, for one, would like to catch a ride on one, someday (round trip, please!) I've ridden in the majority of USMC vehicles, so I might as well add this one to the list.

I've heard that there are issues with attempting to fast-rope from the Osprey, that may make it less attractive to SpecOps units, but I think CSAR work would be right up it's alley?

Grant
I really don't know where else the Army might use the Osprey except as a supply a/c(replacing the Sherpa). Like you I found like to hear what others might think or know

I don't recall any mention of SOAR operating it and Cobrahistorian and I were chewing the fat over that idea a while back. While your suggestion makes perfect sense (Air Force is doing that with the CV-22B), we had our doubts as to if the 160th would ever want to fly the Osprey. But what do I know, right? A faded black Osprey would look pretty mean though.

I haven't heard anything but it would make some sense at least for Special Ops

I recall reading recently something about the Army starting to take interest in the Osprey program again now that it's been redesigned and the bugs seem to have been worked out. I can't remember where I read that and I'm not making that up to "stir the pot" either. Any truth to that rumor or am I going crazy (Gino, Sal - DON'T answer that!)

Computer augmentation and redundant systems have significantly expanded the capabilities of many aircraft and some, like the F-117, could barely fly without it. The Osprey will be well-served with digital stabe and fly-by-wire. I sense that my position on the issue of the Osprey, however, has hit a few nerves and I'd rather post among friends than become a contentious, argumentive member of the group. So I'm just going to accept your comments and appreciate your insights and drop the issue. I value friendships more ....

One thing I think we have all forgotten on this topic is the civilian application for this type of aircraft. May private companies have expressed an interest in the civil use of a tilt-rotor but the cost would be prohibitive without the government(military) funding the R&D and development costs in the beginning.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MBT70 I'm dead set against the V-22 and I'll tell you why it will never be a viable military aircraft. ..snip

Surely you exaggerate. Modern computer control and stability augmentation systems make it possible to fly aircraft that are inherently unstable. There are several military aircraft in service today that are unstable, and all modern aircraft have stability augmentation systems. Also the V-22 is cross-shafted to prevent a power loss in one engine from causing a loss of control. A "strong gust" is not going to cause the V-22 to lose control. Sure, there have been plenty of technical challenges to overcome, but that's not too surprising trying to field a new technology.

Phil, a Navy "slide-rule boy"

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandadjohn Found were Agusta/Bell are testing a civilian tilt-rotoer... ...think it could be used for military use also

Hmmm... maybe there's the basis for an armed escort conversion. I'll have to look and see if anyone makes a kit of the BA609

The '46 and '47 essentially hang underneath two rotors aligned on a common axis along the centerline of the fueslege, pulling it forward, not in opposition to a fulcrum. The Osprey's rotors not only are outboard of the fueselage and centerline, but mounted on wings which are the weakest part of the overall airframe structure. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the medium-lift fleet is woefully outdated and needs replacement. And yes ... who can forget all those sheared drive shafts and cracked fuselages in the CH-47As and the teething pains of the '46s ... which only reinforces my concerns about the vulnerability of the Osprey in actual service when the slide-rule boys aren't around to check the details. You are spot on about needing something new ... I just don't think Osprey is the answer.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MBT70 I'm dead set against the V-22 and I'll tell you why it will never be a viable military aircraft. The two engines and rotors and all the tilting machinery are mounted on two axis at the extreme radius from the center ... the fulcrum. Anyone with a simple knowldge of leverage knows that the farther from the fulcrum that force is applied, the more effective the applied force becomes. For this simple reason, if any single component of either engine or rotor goes out of synch with the other one, the aircraft flips over and crashes because the pull on one side becomes greater by an exponential degree. This doesn't mean a component has to fail, it only needs to momentarily lose synchronization with the opposing engine or rotor. Simple things like a strong gust of wind can cause this delicate equilibrium to fail and throw the aircraft out of control. Consider, too, the amount of stress placed on the wing when the huge rotors, driven by powerful engines and under the forces of gyroscopic inertia, start to tilt forward to change the flight condition. Here again, a disymmetry of motion could twist the wing right off. In a commercial state, where conditions are under better control and maintenance is constant, the V-22 might have a limited role, but as a military aircraft that must be robust and safe under extreme conditions, this poorly-designed deathtrap is no place to put our finest young Marines at risk. The only thing keeping it in the air is powerful politicians. The other services dumped it not because of the cost, but because they don't want people to die before they can even get to the fight. You rotorheads out there know how fast things can go wrong with a sling-wing ... the V-22 makes it happen even faster.

Doesn't all the above apply to the CH-46 and CH-47 also? Funny how people complain about putting Marines in a brand new aircraft that has probably undergone the most stringent testing ever but they have no problem with Marines flying around in 40 year old 46s (which also had more than their fair share of crashes (broke in half) when they were first fielded.

QUOTE: Originally posted by AH1Wsnake QUOTE: Originally posted by squidsson2003 Yeah might have to wait,thanks for the info though. Another question is about the canopy on the Osprey.My kit has a gold tinted canopy but dont see the gold tint on the vehicle itself in all the pictures I've seen of it.Does the bird have the gold tint? From this view, you can see the rainbow-colored spectrum from the anti-laser coating the production windscreens have: So I don't think the gold tint you have is terribly accurate. Which kit is that again? My dad's 1/72 Osprey had a clear windscreen, while my Italeri 1/48 version comes with the smoke tinted canopy, which looks a little better, and is fine by me.

Thanks for the info and picture!This really helped me with my question.
I have the first 1/48 Testers kit that came out years ago.Looks like I might have to get the newer Italari kit.Seems like everyone says that its a more updated version.

Found were Agusta/Bell are testing a civilian tilt-rotoer

think it could be used for military use also

QUOTE: Originally posted by squidsson2003 Yeah might have to wait,thanks for the info though. Another question is about the canopy on the Osprey.My kit has a gold tinted canopy but dont see the gold tint on the vehicle itself in all the pictures I've seen of it.Does the bird have the gold tint?

From this view, you can see the rainbow-colored spectrum from the anti-laser coating the production windscreens have:

So I don't think the gold tint you have is terribly accurate. Which kit is that again? My dad's 1/72 Osprey had a clear windscreen, while my Italeri 1/48 version comes with the smoke tinted canopy, which looks a little better, and is fine by me.

I'm dead set against the V-22 and I'll tell you why it will never be a viable military aircraft. The two engines and rotors and all the tilting machinery are mounted on two axis at the extreme radius from the center ... the fulcrum. Anyone with a simple knowldge of leverage knows that the farther from the fulcrum that force is applied, the more effective the applied force becomes. For this simple reason, if any single component of either engine or rotor goes out of synch with the other one, the aircraft flips over and crashes because the pull on one side becomes greater by an exponential degree. This doesn't mean a component has to fail, it only needs to momentarily lose synchronization with the opposing engine or rotor. Simple things like a strong gust of wind can cause this delicate equilibrium to fail and throw the aircraft out of control. Consider, too, the amount of stress placed on the wing when the huge rotors, driven by powerful engines and under the forces of gyroscopic inertia, start to tilt forward to change the flight condition. Here again, a disymmetry of motion could twist the wing right off.
In a commercial state, where conditions are under better control and maintenance is constant, the V-22 might have a limited role, but as a military aircraft that must be robust and safe under extreme conditions, this poorly-designed deathtrap is no place to put our finest young Marines at risk. The only thing keeping it in the air is powerful politicians. The other services dumped it not because of the cost, but because they don't want people to die before they can even get to the fight.

You rotorheads out there know how fast things can go wrong with a sling-wing ... the V-22 makes it happen even faster.