WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 13 May 2025, 23:45

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2004, 20:09 
Offline

Joined: 29 May 2003, 15:17
Posts: 942
Official U.S. Navy file photo of V- 22 Ospreys.

View Larger Download HiRes

Wasp Finishes Osprey Exercise, Heads Home
Story Number: NNS041202-09
Release Date: 12/2/2004 3:22:00 PM


By Journalist 2nd Class Derrick Inglé, USS Wasp Public Affairs

ABOARD USS WASP, At Sea (NNS) -- USS Wasp (LHD 1) completed a 10-day exercise testing the V-22A Osprey off the Mid-Atlantic coast, Nov. 12-23.

The multipurpose amphibious assault ship spent nearly two weeks at sea helping more than 100 flight engineers, contractors, government employees and Marine Corps pilots collect data and aviation information about the military’s future transport aircraft.

“We came out here to perform a series of tests, like how the Osprey interacts with other aircraft in the air and on the flight deck," explained Troy Kindall, a flight test engineer at Naval Air Station Pataxent River, Md. "We tested its short takeoff capabilities with 50,000 pounds of cargo."

"We had problems with the Osprey in the past on board USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7)," Kindall continued. "Whenever another V-22 would come in for a landing, the Osprey parked on the flight deck would suddenly shift from left to right. It was pretty dangerous. We came out to further monitor the aircraft-to-aircraft interaction. This time we didn’t see any movement that resembled what we saw in the past.

"We’ve also done regular launching and landing tests with the crew on the flight deck, while getting a few of our pilots qualified to fly both during the day and at night," he added. "This was a first for us and Wasp. These were our most successful tests in six years.”

Osprey test pilot Marine Maj. Frank Conway was one of five pilots to qualify to fly at night using night vision goggles and night vision devices. The two-year V-22 pilot said he preferred the fleet’s new mode of transportation to its predecessor, the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, because of its jet speed, long-range capabilities and convenient pilot-friendly mechanisms.

“The difference between flying the V-22 and the CH-46 is like night and day,” said Conway of Lindenword, N.J. “The Osprey has top of the line equipment with a computer that pretty much does everything. The V-22 is an airplane that occasionally hovers for takeoffs and landings. You instantly go from hovering vertically off the deck to an airplane that can travel 200 knots in 10-12 seconds. The deceleration is even more impressive. It’s like having ‘Bugs Bunny’ air brakes and stopping in mid-air. The Osprey will better serve the mission of the troops and the Navy/Marine Corps team."

Other pilots and testers agreed. With the Osprey’s ability to go as fast as 272 knots while carrying up to 60,000 pounds, the military’s new hawk may be the best bird for the job.

“When this aircraft hits the fleet, Sailors and Marines better watch out, because it’s going to take us places we’ve never dreamed of,” said Marine Staff Sgt. Craig Maynard, a developmental tester from Marine Unit 22. “I come from a 46 background, yet the V-22 is better for our missions. It carries two times more than its predecessor, it travels three times the distance and the navigation system is better for our pilots.

"We came on board not just to do exercises, but to also get members of the ship’s air department familiar with what they’ll be working with in the future," he added. "I was impressed with how well the Sailors on the flight deck adjusted to the Osprey.”

For Sailors on the flight deck, nothing was taken for granted during the test period. They spent a lot of time studying the Osprey and preparing for its arrival.

“It’s a combination of what we usually work with under way. It lands like a CH-46 and jets off like an AV-8B Harrier, so the adjustment was fairly easy,” said Enlisted Launch Officer Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 2nd Class (AW) Devon Caldeira, of New York City. “We went to numerous safety briefs and watched several videos prior to the Ospreys’ arrival. We were instructed to take extreme caution, even though it’s actually a lot safer than other helicopters. Launching and landing the V-22s these past 10 days was new and exciting. It was a great experience.”

Even Sailors who don’t launch and recover thought working with the 60,500-pound transformer aircraft was a unique experience.

“Moving and chaining aircraft was always exciting for me, especially when I get to work with something new like the V-22,” said Airman Gustavo Reyes, a native of New York City. “It transforms in mid-air, and it can transport more cargo and Marines. I’m looking forward to working with these birds in years to come.”

For related news, visit the USS Wasp (LHD 1) Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/lhd1.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 11:05 
Offline

Joined: 17 Feb 2003, 15:00
Posts: 117
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"We had problems with the Osprey in the past on board USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7)," Kindall continued. "Whenever another V-22 would come in for a landing, the Osprey parked on the flight deck would suddenly shift from left to right. It was pretty dangerous. We came out to further monitor the aircraft-to-aircraft interaction. This time we didn’t see any movement that resembled what we saw in the past.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Did they ever have this problem with the 46s and 53s lifting a wing on the AV-8s?

~Thud


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 14:37 
Offline

Joined: 29 May 2003, 15:17
Posts: 942
Not to my knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 14:58 
Offline

Joined: 17 Feb 2003, 15:00
Posts: 117
How come it's a problem all of a sudden? Seems like a 53 would generate at least as much downwash as a V-22, right? Or am I not looking in the right direction here?

~Thud


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 17:06 
Offline

Joined: 29 May 2003, 15:17
Posts: 942
The Osprey on the deck is having a problem from an Osprey hovering over the deck.


I dont think other aircraft are having a problem.

Although I think the prop wash from an Osprey is much different from conventional helos.



Edited by - rickusn on Dec 04 2004 6:43 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2004, 19:46 
Offline

Joined: 29 May 2003, 15:17
Posts: 942
Easy Big Vette Easy. You dont want to end up a crazed maniac surviving on valium and beer like me do you? LOL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 00:02 
"How come it's a problem all of a sudden? Seems like a 53 would generate at least as much downwash as a V-22, right? Or am I not looking in the right direction here?"

Not even close.

The downwash from an Osprey aka 'kill every marine in sight' transport is equivelant to a Category 3 hurricane.

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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 11:37 
Offline

Joined: 17 Feb 2003, 15:00
Posts: 117
I'm not being skeptical here, I'm just wondering how a lighter aircraft (V-22) produces more downwash than a heavier one (53)? Is jet blast the big factor, or possibly the way that the rotor/prop system is designed?

~Thud


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 13:35 
Two rotors at much higher RPMs is why.

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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 17:23 
Offline

Joined: 29 May 2003, 15:17
Posts: 942
So guys if the Osprey has such serious operational problems. And believe me I tend to agree.

Why is/has the USMC been so adamant about getting this aircraft?

If it cant do SAR why is it being touted as such?

If it cant do SOF work why is the USAF buying it?

If it makes landing zones either afloat or ashore untenable places for human beings how come the USN and USMC are ignoring this?

Im very, very confused.

How do you square it with this from a flight deck person in the article?:

"We were instructed to take extreme caution, even though it’s actually a lot safer than other helicopters."





Edited by - rickusn on Dec 05 2004 4:27 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 19:17 
Offline

Joined: 24 Nov 2003, 18:10
Posts: 375
The only reason the V-22 is still around is potential. IThe aircraft is more more cabale than a medium lift helicopter and so close to being what they want that nobody is willing to give upon it They'll probably spend another decade and billions before they find out there are problems we cannot correct with our present technology. We'd really be better off canning the Ospry and replacing the CH-46s with the winner of the VMX contract.

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 21:36 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
Coast Guard wants the 609, the civil av version much like the XV-15 tech dem from long ago. They want it for it's speed and range.

"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.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2004, 22:35 
That's a much smaller aircraft booms.

Lot less downwash, lot more conservative aircraft.

That probably would be a good buy for them.

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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 08:27 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
How come it's a problem all of a sudden? Seems like a 53 would generate at least as much downwash as a V-22, right? Or am I not looking in the right direction here?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is a problem they uncovered about four years ago in the first sea trials. The V-22 is on the deck with weight on wheels and rotors turning. They found that downwash from other helicopters (not necessaily other V-22's) caused the V-22 on deck to roll alarmingly. It was researched, understood and fixed with software about 3 years ago. Old news. Sometime people confuse this problem with the one where the V-22 is approaching the ship from behind the island and when one rotor passes over the deck a sudden roll tendency was experienced. I believe this problem was fixed with procedure and software also.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The crash that took 19 Marines lives in April 2000 was due to the helocopter pilot flying the aircraft as a helicopter, something Bell told him he could do. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is misinformation. The circumstances for this tragedy are much more complicated than that. I read that in the crash incident, the V-22 was trying to save a missed approach by descending at 2.5x the approved envelope rate in the dark while maneuvering to trail position behind the lead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What IF the V-22 has to come in at a lazy, slow profile so it doesn't lose lift, where as a helicopter can come in at a high angle, high rate of descent and still retain lift for a normal landing, the V-22 will be all but worthless in a combat environment. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What about this?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The V-22 is an airplane that occasionally hovers for takeoffs and landings. You instantly go from hovering vertically off the deck to an airplane that can travel 200 knots in 10-12 seconds. The deceleration is even more impressive. It’s like having ‘Bugs Bunny’ air brakes and stopping in mid-air. The Osprey will better serve the mission of the troops and the Navy/Marine Corps team."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It sounds like a useful performance feature for flying in a hot LZ to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>All that speed the Osprey gained you, leaving your Cobra escort and 53' supplies and equipment behind, is worhtless when your trying to take a hot LZ.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If I am understanding you correctly, we should not take advantage of new technology or tactics because the old systems can not keep up. Is that what you are saying?

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 08:35 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So guys if the Osprey has such serious operational problems. And believe me I tend to agree.

Why is/has the USMC been so adamant about getting this aircraft?

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

Perhaps the V-22 is a victim of a smear campaign organized by those who want the budget for something else. Maybe the USMC is looking at the real performance data and is pleased with the new capability it offers.

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 08:36 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The only reason the V-22 is still around is potential. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It has realized 95% of that potential. Give credit where credit is due.

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 11:28 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How come it's a problem all of a sudden? Seems like a 53 would generate at least as much downwash as a V-22, right? Or am I not looking in the right direction here?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In order to lift the same weight, a smaller (diameter) rotor has to induce a bigger change in the speed (delta v) of the air going across the rotor. The delta v ratio is at least in proportion to the rotor disc loading (weight/disc area) and probably bigger because of better efficiencies that come with span. The hover disc loading ratio (CH-53E/V-22) is about 1.47 so the V-22 downwash speed is at least 50% faster. Throw a little span efficiency factor, say it is proportional to rotor span ratio for arguments sake, for another factor of two. The downwash speed could be 3x more for the V-22. This was understood from the day the first line went on paper. They have long ago decided to live with it. It is similar to the accommodation made for jet aircraft versus piston powered. In order to acheive the desired up and away performance, the wing loading (weight/wing area) had to go way up. Landing and takeoff speeds went up with it, giving potential safety problems to deal with, and runways had to get longer. Air forces delt with the problems to get the performance. It's the way of things.

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 12:56 
Sorry stress, not buying any of that.

The MV-22 is about as useful as a brain tumor.

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


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 13:18 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
Yeah, but you know where I'm coming from. We're cool.

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 13:22 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[
Don't forget about the two vertical jet engines at high RPM's and thereby extremely high temps pointing straight down at the ground when in vertical mode - that combined with the twin rotorwash is a bad combination.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


But AV-8 exhaust seems to be acceptable, around the ship and at forward bases anyway, and its jet wash is even worse.

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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2004, 13:46 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That sounds like bullshit to me Stress; while I haven't read the "official" report I was unaware that they tried to blame the incident on the pilot and not that of the Osprey. The Osprey crashed because it lost lift in its own descent, something that the pilot had done numerous times with his "helicopter" and should have been able to do in this new "replacement." Citing pilot error in that event is cowardly at best.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have found many references on this incident and you could too if you wanted too, but your mind is made up. Here's one but I know I'm wasting my time.

http://www.helicopterpage.com/html/tiltrotor.html

<b>Wasn’t there a crash involving Vortex Ring State and a V-22?</b>
<i>Yes. This is where a lot of the media press has been coming from about the V-22 and Vortex Ring State. The crash was ruled to be pilot error. Now, I know what you are thinking: The military ALWAYS blames the pilots.

In this case, it was pilot error according to the report used in the Senate Hearings on the viability of the V-22. The V-22 that crashed was in a two-ship formation when the lead ship started a rapid deceleration. The trailing ship (The one that crashed) followed the lead ship beyond the point where it was safe and entered a descent that was in excess of 3000 feet per minute (3900+ FPM according to the attached file). When the pilot tried to recover from the excessive descent, the aircraft impacted the ground and all aboard were killed. The families of the crewmembers have filed a lawsuit saying that the aircraft itself was to blame. However, there is no reasonable person who would assume that a pilot induced descent in excess of 10 times the minimum required rate of descent to enter Vortex Ring State would be the fault of the aircraft. While I offer my condolences to the families of those who were killed, I must state that the excessive rate of descent was the problem here, not the aircraft design. Had the pilot broken formation and departed the landing zone to set up for a new approach, he probably would be alive today. Does that mean I am saying that the aircraft is perfect? No. It does have some problems that need to be worked out, but this specific situation is not a case where the aircraft design is at fault. </i>

You can read the entire report on the above link if you want to.





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?"

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group