WT Forums

Weight, Balance Issues Put Program Further Behind, but Marines Say V-22 Is Still Their Top Aviation Priority

By JOSEPH NEFF, Staff Writer

The Marines fought in Iraq with Vietnam-era helicopters, and they'll likely fly the 40-year-old aircraft when they fight next. The replacement, the V-22 Osprey, is years from being battle-ready -- and it may never be.
Internal program documents obtained by The News & Observer show that the groundbreaking tilt-rotor aircraft -- 20 years and $14.7 billion in the making -- is failing two critical tests it was supposed to have passed several years ago:

* carrying a 5-ton cannon, an essential part of its mission;

* keeping its balance with the maximum load of fuel necessary for making 2,100-mile trips across the Atlantic.

http://newsobserver.com/osprey/story/24 ... 6427c.html


A damning USAF study on Osprey...

http://newsobserver.com/osprey/story/24 ... 0669c.html




"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Apr 28 2003 11:35 AM

You mean Good news for Osprey-haters, bad news for the Osprey<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

I'm kind hoping for everything to go well; it couldn't hurt to have this asset on the battlefield.

[quote]

Internal program documents obtained by The News & Observer show that the groundbreaking tilt-rotor aircraft -- 20 years and $14.7 billion in the making -- is failing two critical tests it was supposed to have passed several years ago:

* carrying a 5-ton cannon, an essential part of its mission;

* keeping its balance with the maximum load of fuel necessary for making 2,100-mile trips across the Atlantic.
-----------

It's a piece of crap and Marine Aviation is suffering. They still haven't done a complete vortex ring state test. Those 5,000 PSI hydraulic lines leak too easy. It doesn't have any deice or antice systems that any fixwing transport has. Let alone even trying to find a stall speed in the horizontal mode. Downwash is so severe that even fast roping is beyond being dicey.

Maintenance is a nightmare. Takes 14 manhours just to pull the cowls for an engine inspection.

The last crash, the HAC was trying to reboot the puters on the way down to a fatal impact.

Check in www.g2mil.com or www.pogo.org for some long reads on Osprey problems.

Marines could had bought a 1,000 Blackhawks by now for the price of the Osprey so far.

Osprey variants have been in test since 1954. First clue it's a little dicey.

Jack

No secret here, i think the Osprey is a shit box, and i have been lobbying anyone who will listen to have it cancelled since the last crash.

I wrote at least a dozen detailed letters to my senator and reps(It is built here), but of course, i have no shot of being listened too.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

What would you like to replace it with?
I don't know too much about the two contenders but I would like to see the US-101 fulfill the role.



Edited by - Tritonal on Apr 28 2003 1:26 PM

The News and Observer is a Raleigh, NC newspaper. They are not always known for their “fair and balanced” military reporting. If you had read the op/ed page before and during the war, you would have thought 95% of the country was against the war and the President. All in all, it's a rag...

All the way...

[quote]
No secret here, i think the Osprey is a shit box, and i have been lobbying anyone who will listen to have it cancelled since the last crash.

I wrote at least a dozen detailed letters to my senator and reps(It is built here), but of course, i have no shot of being listened too.

---------

You ran into the MIC head on.

Some common ground we all can agree on. Osprey has had 4 fatal crashes with 30 dead souls. Plus probably a hard landing and a Class A mishap with the second bird at Yuma.

Marines were caught lying about it's ability in order to get it into production.

Osprey is just a transport. Marines bet huge they could make it work and pick up more missions. Army bailed from the Osprey in 1980 or so, they saw the handwriting on the wall and went big with the Blackhawk.

I can't recall a fatal crash and certainly not 4 in flight test for a fixwing transport or a chopper in decades.

As one former Osprey test pilot stated, it's a hybrid, it's not real good in either fixwing or vertical work. It can't even autorotate. Fuel specs suck and that VRS is really dicey. I know more than a few combat chopper pilots, that wouldn't fly it, because in a hot LZ, they couldn't maneuver enough.

Jack

Nothing new there?

You don't consider the revelation that in order to haul a 5 ton howitzer that the Osprey has to carry so little fuel the low fuel light is lit before it leaves the tarmac?

Or that it has been verified that the Osprey falls short of it's personnel hauling specification by 25%?

Or that the USAF was so troubled by the report prepared for them by one of their own former test pilots that they decertified his study and dismissed him?

Or that two USMC Officers were formally disciplined for falsifying the maintenance logs?

Hmmm.....

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

There is dire need for a replacement. Inlieu of the Osprey what would you pick?

minor question what is the glide ratio for the Osprey. Some thing tells me you would be better off auto rotating.

[quote]
Mostly the critics seem petty and unwilling to admit the amazing feats this thing can do. -------

4 fatal crashes and 1 hard landing would indicate to anyone that is doesn't work well at all. Let alone the USMC lying about it's performance to justify production.

Navy is going to the new Nighthawks, Marines should go in for the same thing and upgrade their chopper fleet and park the Osprey fleet into musuems.

Osprey is a FRED and it hasn't been fully flight tested.

How would you escort an Osprey into a hot LZ?

Jack

seems to me the osprey will be a special ops bird if it every makes, because it will need specially trained flight crews and a lot of maintenance. Beyond that of normal operational squadron. Cant imaging a pilot comming straight out of flight training and flying this.

LOL, i respect your opinion A-10 S, highly in fact.

However, i just don't see how this thing is ever going to work.

As far as adding wieght, they're not even through yet. Seems they are still bedeviled with hydraulic failures- so need heavier hyd's., there is still no mandated gun in place, the hoist has yet to be fitted, and the NBC system was indefinitely suspended.
the troop capacity was specified to be 24 men, and has since been reduced(politicly), the top speed claims have turned out to be overly optomistic, and so far, the farthest they have moved any gun with it is 25 meters, after the 25 minute hover. The concrete slab is not nearly as aerodynamicly limiting as the gun itself(according to these reports).
Now we hear reports of a poor and faulty fire suppression system. This in an aircraft that has been flight testing for what...a decade?

Whatever promise it had is not worth $105 million per aircraft....even if it did work right. So yup....i want it cancelled yesterday.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Sounds good A-10.

Even if we didn't iron out the problems, we would at least get a nice buzz going.



"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

[quote]
As far as adding wieght, they're not even through yet. Seems they are still bedeviled with hydraulic failures- so need heavier hyd's., there is still no mandated gun in place, the hoist has yet to be fitted, and the NBC system was indefinitely suspended.
the troop capacity was specified to be 24 men, and has since been reduced(politicly), ----------

Snipe were preaching to the choir. I doubt many have ever turned a wrench or understand that 5,000PSI hydraulic system is almost double of most choppers.

In a real flight test program, test pilots are supposed to take it to the edge of the envelope, not pussyfoot around.

Recall the MH-47 raid in Afghan, they took some serious hits and kept trucking. If a 5,000PSI line takes a hit, it's going to piss out fluid in a nanosecond.

IMO, they will keep running 47s and 53s in SpecOps, because of the range, load capacity, and the ramp. MH-60s are pretty awesome but don't have the ramp and load capacity.

Sorry sportsfans, Osprey just doesn't fly and survive long.

Jack

Would you rather have this?
<img src="http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/g_images/merlin03.jpg" border=0>

Looks good to me.

Edited by - Tritonal on Apr 30 2003 12:43 PM

Eventually though, the ragged edge of the flight envelope is tested, AFTER it has been validated throughout.

Problem for the Ospret is that the ragged edge coincides with the needed operational parameters.

Not good.

"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

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

In a real flight test program, test pilots are supposed to take it to the edge of the envelope, not pussyfoot around.

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

Not in my experience. In a real flight test program, test pilots open the envelope slowly --------

Concur, assuming we ever get a real flight test program on the F-22 and V-22. My point basically was a flight test program needs to find the limits.

I have flown 3 homebuilt projects for first flights and some other test work.

Tomcats and Eagles were somewhat rushed to the Squadrons. Tomcats had turbine problems and burner blowouts. This is something that flight test should had caught. Good buddy of mine from flight school, had a burner blowout on a Tomcat catshot and died. Tomcats are the only TacAir bird you have engine limitations vice airframe.

Have also read on the F-22, it compares to 104s and some other birds for acceleration. Ut oh.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Good buddy of mine from flight school...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


You went to flight school, what did you fly?


Edited by - Tritonal on Apr 30 2003 10:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote] Good buddy of mine from flight school...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


You went to flight school, what did you fly?
------------

12 years flying in the Navy. Single seat to 4 motors. No burner time. Had a 3 year gig ferrying aircraft to depots, picking up a few new birds, and some long one time flights to repair broke birds.

It was probably 1980 or so in Dallas when I met an Army test pilot for the Osprey. He told me then they were bailing from the program because it wasn't going to fly well.

Jack

That's interesting, thanx for sharing sir.
It's upsetting to hear they were saying that back in 1980.