WT Forums

In one of the crashes the pilot did exactly what he was supposed to.

It was the act of following proper proecedure that killed that fellow and his crew.

"One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yes but Stress, the Harrier isn't going to be doing an SAR in the water anytime soon, and neither will the Osprey for that matter!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I mentioned the AV-8 in the context of deck,runway damge resulting from high velocity jet blast because I assume the Marines are dealing with the problems now. The V-22, although different from helicopters, is not in the jet blast class of the AV-8. I certainly do agree that the Osprey is not the optimum machine for the rescue part of SAR, but it can do it with the right equipment & procedures. It has much more capability in the search part because it has more range and can get there faster. It's a tradeoff you wouldn't have made, but it is not without merit. If a helicopter can do the job better, by all means use it, but there are some SAR missions that only a V-22 can do. Here's an old reference from 1996 that has a lot of stuff about the downwash:

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/milita ... 92-01.html

<i>This past summer and fall the ITT also dedicated 10 test flights to evaluate the effect of the V-22's rotor downwash on various rescue and special operations techniques: personnel hoisting, helocast, rope ladder, SPIE rig, fastrope, and rappelling operations. The tests were conducted using experienced military personnel. The test results showed that although the V-22's downwash had an effect that was different from that produced by the helicopters with which test personnel were more familiar, no conditions were encountered which precluded these operations.</i>

I offer these data points for you to consider that the high level conspiracy you describe may not exist. Reasonable people are making informed decisions, and they are fully aware of the pros and cons. They have the real facts way before we do. I thought they were spinning the facts too, but over the years, the demonstrated performance says otherwise, so I changed my mind.

Snipe is correct here:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In one of the crashes the pilot did exactly what he was supposed to.

It was the act of following proper proecedure that killed that fellow and his crew.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The procedure was wrong, and deadly, for that particular hydraulic failure. It was addressed by changing the hydraulic system slightly, modifying the caution/warning/automatic flight control logic software and changing recommended pilot actions. The primary cause of that incident, the chafed hydraulic tube was also addressed. It is tragic that men died finding a weakness. Catastrophic hydraulic failures can occur on all aircraft types. I feel bad, but I'm not going to stop trying to design new and better flying machines.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


The fact is that USMC could have gotten by for one more generation of conventional yet modern and hi-tech helicopters just fine, and saved themselves billions doing so.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Absolutely correct, but how you gonna keep 'em down on the farm now that they've seen Paree. You can't unspend the money, so you might as well make the best of a bad situation.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And where did they test this SAR capability? There is no way the Coast Guard will have any success with this because it's downwash is akin to that of the '53 and perhaps a naval aircrewmember might be able to swim well enough not to be pushed under, but an Osprey on scene with civilans in the water is almost like a death wish. And besides, look at the CG and what not of puting a winch back by the aft ramp, that can't be good and I don't think a hole in the floor a.k.a. the '53 would be the solution for SAR, either.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Once again, the CG ISNT buying Ospreys, The 609 is a somewhat smaller and MUCH lighter ( under 17,000lb gross ) aircraft. It uses different engines and would not likely produce a downwash similar to a 53. I dont believe it even has an aft ramp, the hoist would go next to the door just ahead of the wing, no CG probs there.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

More Osprey news:




040701-N-9999J-001 Atlantic Ocean (July 1, 2004) – V-22 Osprey aircraft operate in close proximity during recent flight deck developmental testing aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7). The Osprey is a tilt-rotor vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL), multi-mission aircraft developed to fill multi-Service combat operational requirements worldwide. U.S. Navy photo by Journalist 1st Class Mike Jones (RELEASED)

View Larger Download HiRes

Osprey Completes Final Shipboard Developmental Testing
Story Number: NNS041207-13
Release Date: 12/7/2004 10:54:00 PM


By Ward Carroll, Naval Air Systems Command (V-22) Public Affairs

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. (NNS) -- The V-22 Integrated Test Team (ITT) conducted Shipboard Suitability Phase IVc for 10 days aboard USS Wasp (LHD 1) beginning Nov. 12.

The primary objective of this phase was to complete interaction testing between a V-22 parked on the flight deck and another V-22 hovering in front of it. Additional test objectives included flight envelope expansion for all port side landing spots aboard the LHD, developing a night short takeoff envelope, and evaluating the latest flight control software version.

“The team was able to get a lot done during our time under way,” said Bill Geyer, the ITT’s lead shipboard suitability engineer. “The data we gathered will help us close the book on MV-22 shipboard developmental test. We’ve given the operational testers and, in turn, the fleet the tools for success at sea.”

While the ITT was busy working on Wasp’s flight deck, a group of maintainers from Tilt-Rotor Operational Test Squadron (VMX) 22, the V-22 operational test and evaluation squadron based at Marine Corps Air Station New River, were in the hangar bay conducting maintenance demonstration testing. Tests included removing both engines, jacking the aircraft and cycling the landing gear, and removing prop-rotor hubs and blade assemblies. The VMX-22 team’s findings will serve them well during the squadron’s upcoming operational evaluation.

Geyer was quick to attribute the ITT’s success to their hosts.

“The Wasp was excellent,” he said. “The bridge team went out of its way to get us the winds we needed, and the Air Department was always willing to go the extra mile to get the job done for us. Overall, it was the best experience I’ve ever had at sea while conducting tests.”

This was the fourth and final underway period for the ITT since the program’s return to flight in May of 2002.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That's a much smaller aircraft booms.

Lot less downwash, lot more conservative aircraft.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


The disc loading (hover weight/rotor disc area) of the 609 is pretty close to the CH-53E (14-15 lbs/sq ft vs. the V-22 20-21 lbs/sq ft) so the downwash shouldn't be that bad.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Once again, the CG ISNT buying Ospreys, The 609 is a somewhat smaller and MUCH lighter ( under 17,000lb gross ) aircraft. It uses different engines and would not likely produce a downwash similar to a 53. I dont believe it even has an aft ramp, the hoist would go next to the door just ahead of the wing, no CG probs there. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not everyone has your "free time" to scrutinize the internet Boomer...

LOL! I get a total of about an hour a day!!

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.