Warbird Information Exchange

This guy is no fan of the Osprey:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070927/u ... lyingshame

I was hoping to see one at Geneseo this year. It was supposed to come in on Friday before the show during a cross-country, but cancelled.

I'm not certain all of that article is accurate.

I was an alternate for the latest round of initial cadre, but was not selected. Since then, I've learned a lot about it (the USAF schoolhouse is here at Kirtland) & there are a few things I'm not a big fan of.

I think it will be a good airplane...one day. I don't think it's quite there yet.

They're grounded again too!

I totally agree. It's a really cool plane, they've flown into here a few times while on stopovers so I got a few pics. That being said, of the three or four I've seen one had to stay a few days because it was broken....

Having read the article, it never occurred to me that the things can't autorotate. But I guess that's physically impossible because the pilot would have to shut down both engines to do so. The machine gun part was also interesting. I think a three-barrelled .50 cal would be a great thing to have from a combat perspective; but from an aerodynamic view I wonder what that extra 1,000 lbs in the nose would have done to the CG in airplane mode?

Just my $0.02

_________________
ATC: "Oscar 2, cleared to engage wildlife at your discretion..."

I believe that is one of the big hold-ups on the gun - CG. There were supposed to be some newer technologies that haven't matured like they expected too, so a combination of factors, from what I understand.

Lots of issues surrounding Osprey. It would be a different bird if AFSOC was lead on it. In fact, there was a GAO audit about two years ago that almost resulted in the Marines losing lead service status because of some of the discrepancies in acquisition and DT&E to date...

Bell approached AFSOC first, but AFSOC wasn't in the market for enough of them to bring the R&D costs to a reasonable level & since no other agency in USAF was interested, they had to pass. After the Marines signed up, AFSOC got onboard, but many of the basic parameters were already cast in stone, so AFSOC, and ultimately SOCOM, has had to compromise what they want/get out of it...

Personally, I think it's better than any pure rotary asset for CSAR-X. Speed, agility, & flexibility. But I doubt it will get the nod - or even compete for that matter. I also believe that was one of the political reasons Rescue was removed from AFSOC - to ensure mainstream AF would be deciding CSAR-X and the money that comes with it. There are other reasons, of course, but I believe that was a motivating factor...

I think I'll wait for the C model...

CSAR-X was decided early this year and the MH-47 was awarded the contract over new-build MH-53s, an upgraded HH-60, and the UH-101.

I'm still trying to rectify the idea that the MH-47 is going to replace the HH-60 but not the MH-53 and the CV-22 will suppliment the other two. How do you get an aircraft that is BIGGER than the MH-53 to fill a roll that in the competition specifications was specifically looking for a SMALLER aircraft than the MH-53.

Oh well, such is the modern acquisition programs - the aircraft that makes sense automatically gets a 100% handicap against it.

CSAR-X is being re-bid due to a successful protest by all of the competitors. Like the tanker fiasco, all this means is current aircraft are in "legacy" status, not getting life-cycle updates, more wear, & replacement is further down the road...

The US-101 actually makes a lot of sense.

The MH-47 does not.

Osprey makes sense too, but was never a competitor - I believe it should be despite my misgivings about the plane.

I actually think that the H-92 makes more sense than the US-101 for one major reason - commonality. It uses a similar cockpit and cabin construction to the HH-60 (which it is an extensive redesign of), the same engines as the HH-60, and basically solves most of the HH-60s deficiencies.

I think the truth of the matter is that the USAF wanted the CH-47F to replace the aging MH-53s and the CV-22 to replace the HH-60 but the DoD wouldn't approve an MH-53 replacement competition.

What would make the most sense though - expand the CV-22 buy to replace the HH-60s, then contract Sikorsky to build new MH-53N aircraft based on the CH-53K. But politicians can't think logically so such a decision would never fly with Congress or the civilian leadership.

Yes - you might be right. I hadn't thought of it that way...makes sense from a warped political view!

S92 - you know, I think that's the one I was thinking of...not being a helo guy, sometimes these things get mixed up in my head.

Paves should've gotten the 3-engine version long ago...

There is a story about the problems with the 22 in the current issue of Time. Cap flyer, when you write "politicians can't think logically" you are missing the point. Programs like the Osprey accomplish their main objective which is to make a lot of money for the defense contracto , Boeing, Bell, and those that fund the politician and for his supporters back home. Doing the military job of protecting Marines is not going to put money in anyone's pocket. It might be regretful, but a military program has a lot more chance of being cancelled if it is not profitable enough, rather than if it is just not technically sucessful.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

My sisters step-son got his wings last year and was acceptted into the Osprey program. He loves the a/c and hopes to be going to Iraq when he finishes his rag training.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

When I was talking to the AFSOC V-22 crews at Dayton, they were quite happy with the aircraft. Most were ex-PaveHawk guys, but a couple were ex-PaveLow guys and they all agreed that the aircraft had some great advantages and only a few disadvantages, but ones that could easily be worked around. They said they're still having some issues with maintenance, but they don't see it as anything worse than they had with the HH-60's or MH-53's when they first entered the fleet. The big problem for AFSOC is that they're only getting 50. That means no display team and they're going to have some problems with meeting demand because they're already wanted by USSOCOM for operations.

The introduction to service challenges for the Osprey are no different than any other new design acft.

I recall the early '90s when we called the C17 Buddha because it was big, fat, sat around & did nothing, but everyone worshipped it. The entire MAF thought it was a joke, heard it couldn't do X or Y, yada yada yada. Once it got in service, it proved itself over & over. Sure, there have been upgrades along the way, but that's typical.

I think the J-model Herk & Osprey have at least one common issue that is impacting them adversely - excessively long development. I won't go into why I think those were (I have my opinions), but will say that every little hiccup seems to be exagerrated and blown out of proportion by nay-sayers. No amount of logical debate surrounds these discrepancies - it's purely emotional.

I say let the OT&E and DT&E processes work - find flaws & fix them. Then introduce the aircraft to service. Let it prove itself...I'm sure it will.

I'm still waiting for the C-model Osprey!

I reread the Time article. It seems like it ought to have a forward firing gun. If the remote controlled 50 cal is too heavy or complex, why not just a manned 30 cal.? Having to open the rear door to fire out doesn't seem smart. As for the lack of low speed safe vertical operation, that maybe a lot harder to cure and a risk inherent in the design.A good malfunction warnign system, temps,etc for the engines may help.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

They made it....http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071008/wl_mcclatchy/20071008bcusiraqospreyexclusive_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

And of course...according to the article this must be the first aircraft to ever deploy and have a mechanical problem....one of ten had to stop for a repair...sounds like 90% made it ok..And the rate for CH-46's?

I found this blurb...Touring Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 26, operating the CH-46 and 53 type-model from January 2002 to present, the average yearly readiness rate increased from 72 to 77...

And this...Marine Corps has touted the MV-22Bs' near 78-percent mission capable rates during operational testing in desert conditions for the squadron that deployed to Iraq earlier this month. Last year, the Marines' 40-year-old CH-46s, the aircraft the MV-22 will replace, had a stateside mission readiness rate of approximately 76 percent.

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

There is a very lively discussion I've been participating in over on this website:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=294936

Rather than repeat myself a bunch, here's some highlights:

The Time article, while not necessarily inaccurate, is certainly biased. It's like watching the highlight reel of a football team & thinking they're unstoppable - 10 great plays don't make a game. Same with Osprey in the negative.

That said, it has its share of problems. I'll hit a few of the big ones:

Gun - USMC never asked for a gun for the Osprey. AFSOC asked for a gun. AFSOC wanted state-of-the-art, chin-mounted, helmet-cued, .50 cal. USMC said, "Hey! We want one of those too!" Late add-on.

AFSOC gun is based on future technology that hasn't matured quickly enough. Options are already being evaluated - one is belly-mounted retractable - 7.62 is fully concealable, .50 cal requires internal floor clearance. Both cued by pilots, but discussion of being able to transfer control to crewmember in back for rear cueing vs std tail gun.

VRS - Vortex Ring State. ALL helos are succeptible, Osprey just has very ill manners when VRS encountered - uncommanded roll that when countered exacerbates it. VRS requires very high rates of sink & very low forward airspeed. Bitching Betty yells "sink rate" at about halfway point, normal approach is half of Bitching Betty call (1/4 ROD required to enter VRS).

Lack of autorotation - had there been no requirement to fold proproters for below-deck stowage, proprotors would have been ever bigger & consequently stored enough energy to assist autorotation. Dual engine failure requires forward airspeed of 45-60kts minimum - fine on prepared surface, really sucks on unprepared surface - lots of tumbling due to high center of gravity. Single engine performance is on par with most medium-heavy lift helos. One engine takes you to the scene of the crash in a controlled manner.

Size - USMC dictated size to be equal to CH-46. Had AFSOC been in a position to begin V22 program, it would have been bigger.



Oh yeah, MC rates are often radically different at home vs deployed. It seems aircraft of every type fly better once they're downrange.