V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor

I've fastroped/SPIE'd/and rappelled from 53s, 46s, and Hueys, and they are all doable (or we wouldn't do it obviously). I've never gone out of a V-22. Yes they have a lot of downwash but the vector diagrams I've seen show deadzones (or lesser zones) in the right areas and those who have done it say it isn't a problem.

Just passing on what i've been told from guys I worked with, and yeah...every helicopter I've ever been under produced varying degrees of rotorwash, but these 3 guys said it was prettty damn bad. Were they able to conduct the testing...yep. But that was even a previously noted problem even form the USMC OT&E side of the house.

Supercobra....hoist ops, rappelling, SPIE/FRIES and drops (squares and rounds) are how we get to where we do our job (except of course for strolling out the door). But hell I thought by your tag you were a Whiskey driver. How did you get the rope time, by starting off in Force Recon?

Here's the bottom line guys...as with any airframe there's going to be folks both pro and con. I'm just saying that from a CSAR perspective (what I do for a living) and one from someone operating in and out of the bird, most of the consent that i've heard is con. I'm leaning that way but then again I haven't worked out of the V-22. I also understand the apprehension when considering change. A new airframe is no different, but I still have to say that given it's troubled past and the comments I've heard from folks involved with OT&E (on the USAF side of the house)...I'm far from sold on the concept for military use in a SOF or CSAR role. The only Marine I talked to about it was a 53 Echo driver (Major) who said that he wanted nothing to do with it. According to him that was pretty much the pulse of the 53 driver community. Now that was back in 1997...has it changed??? Riddle??? The major also said something about RHAW gear/Comm gear interference and something about the co-pilot having problems when making boom contact (during A/R). Something about his view of the probe.
We're supposed to get one up here this October for a Demo during our annual Arctic SAREX. We've been having this exercise for over 10 years now with my unit here in Alaska, the Canadians and the Russians. Each year the location revolves between Alaska, Canada and Russia.

I'll be sure to pass on any observations (both mine and others) and pics if I can remember to take them. Word is we'll also have a CH-149 (EH-101) participating.

The main reason the helo backs off in USCG Rescue Swimmer ops is to get a better view of the situation and to let the swimmer do his job.
Rotor wash is not really an issue when the swimmer is in the water as it has enough resistance to keep you from getting blown away and the mask keeps the spray out of your face.
On cliffs, ice and land however, the rotor wash is bad in a '65 and worse in the '60. On ice you will get blown back a long way. For Ice rescues the swimmer (used to anyway) puts on crimpons to help dig in. Also the helo can go higher than the normal 25 foot approach to a hover to reduce the wash until over the swimmer then decend to a lower altitude.
The wash directly under the helo isn't nearly as bad as just outside the blade path.

Don

Thanks for the lowdown Don!

QUOTE: Originally posted by salbando Supercobra....hoist ops, rappelling, SPIE/FRIES and drops (squares and rounds) are how we get to where we do our job (except of course for strolling out the door). But hell I thought by your tag you were a Whiskey driver. How did you get the rope time, by starting off in Force Recon?

Nope, long story short I got my ropemaster certification because I was instructing the pilots and thought it would help.

I realize I'm joining the conversation a bit late, with reference to defense issues, does anybody know if a retractable belly turret or two has been considered for weaponry? There'll still be some field of fire issues, but certainly not as many as trying to fire from the fuselage. And if you put it relatively up front just behind the pilots, I don't think it'd obstruct operations in the cabin that much.

I think the follow question to that would be, what does the turret retract up into? Is there enough room in the airframe for such a device (gun, the mechanics of the lift and ammo) so that it doesn't interfere with the main cabin or cause displacement of any avionic boxes in the cockpit area?

The location of avionics boxes or other electronics is something I hadn't considered.

I was originally thinking an unmanned Sperry-type ball turret that only has to be partially retracted so that the landing gears have clearance (a la the B-17 or B-24). I don't know the square footage taken up by one of those systems, but having it unmanned would certainly assist in reduction of footprint. Also, if you put it up right behind the cockpit, it would minimize effect on operations in the cabin, much like how a lot of the important lifesaving stuff in ambulances is placed right behind the driver so that it doesn't impede moving the gurneys in and out. On the other hand, a better option may be an Apache-style cannon.

With the number of hydraulic systems going to electronic motors, I'd guess you could probably get a system that cuts into the cabin 1-2 vertical feet, with the housings creating permanent seats/benches (though at the loss of some carrying capacity since they couldn't be folded up like the webbed seats). I'm also guessing there's a gap between the floor and the skin of the fuselage, and taking advantage of it as much as possible would be a better scenario. Ammo could also be run up the walls in conduits (imagine a vertical P-51 wing). But like I said, I hadn't considered how much of this space may already be taken up by black boxes and control lines.

(Oh, and by the way, I'll be graduating soon and don't have a job yet, so if Bell or Boeing or the military wants to hire me to work on this, I can start ~October... e-mail me )

I was wondering about the Apache cannons myself.They could have a couple gunners with the Apache style helmet targeting system connected to a couple of cannons mounted on the bottom of the bird.
Is it just too complicated or is there weight factors involved I wonder?

squidsson - you're close, but I think you overshot a bit (no pun intended)... users of the Apache-style helmets need a lot of visibility... that's going to be tough for a gunner riding in the back... let the pilots control the guns.

If they begin to suffer sensory overload, gunner in the back would be the approach, though he'll probably end up with a CCTV system. Extra electronics and weight factors are concerns, but if it proves to be valuable enough, I think they'd make the tradeoff.

Yeah i guess they'll have to wait for a virtual targeting system to be perfected.That way they would have a veiw of the whole enviorment around the aircraft.That way they could have a weapon on the top of the craft if needed also.

. . ."let the pilot control the guns. . ."
What are you mad!!!
That's insane! He has enough to do without trying to hit something with a weapon. Besides giving the guns to the enlisted guy gives him an instant scapegoat. . .

Don