osprey helicopter?

[DarkTalon]

If we took the 2 concepts discussed in this thread (V-22 and C-130)
and they had babies...


I suspect it would look something like the V-44

[Teek]

If we took the 2 concepts discussed in this thread (V-22 and AC-130)
and they had babies...


I suspect it would look something like the AV-44

It
Has
guns
!

[Clypp]

The Hydraulics issue addressed:

The hydraulic leaks that had plagued the Osprey - and caused the last crash - required an entirely different kind of problem-solving. Engineers on the ground would have to rip the engines apart and start over. The investigation into the 2001 accident showed that a tangle of tubes in a nacelle had chafed against a main hydraulics line. Chafing had been a problem for years; the titanium hydraulic tubes are ultralightweight but brittle and relatively fragile.

The solution seemed obvious: Rejigger the plane's hundreds of feet of hydraulic lines so none of them touch. But that meant remodeling the guts of the nacelles, finding new space for fuel and electrical lines as well. "The technology wasn't in question," says Don Courson, the lead hydraulic engineer. "It was more of a design issue."

So Courson's team stripped a nacelle down to its frame and panels. Then, system by system, they started replacing parts - the prop rotor gearbox, the tilt axis mechanism, the engine. Finally, they redesigned and reinstalled the hydraulics lines.

The Vortex Ring State problem that caused the second crash:

The third and fourth accidents, though, were trickier. Even two years after the third Osprey went down, pilots and designers worried about the mysterious aerodynamic problem of vortex ring state. The problem was that nobody knew much about VRS. When airplane wings or helicopter rotor blades cut through the air, they create a region of low pressure above them and high pressure below. That differential creates lift, but maintaining it depends on the smooth flow of air over both surfaces. Spinning helicopter blades turn the air beneath that high-pressure zone into chop - drop into that turbulence and the air stops sticking to the blades. The prop stops pushing, and the bird stops flying.

Lead test pilot Tom MacDonald of Boeing was assigned the VRS problem. "It was this mystery area," he says. "So little research had been done on it. People wondered: Would it swallow planes alive?"

MacDonald and the engineers worked out a system. He'd take the plane to 10,000 feet, putting enough air between him and the ground so he'd be able to recover if he got into trouble. Then he'd pull the nacelles back until they were almost vertical, in helicopter conformation, slow his forward airspeed, and try to induce VRS.

"We'd fly all day long," says Gross, copilot on a few of the test runs. "We'd fall 2,000 or 3,000 feet and recover. We'd fly back up to 10,000 feet, repeat the exercise at 1,000 feet per minute, then 1,500, then 2,000, all the way up to 5,000 feet per minute. Then we'd do it again, this time changing our airspeed." (A typical rate of descent for a 747 passenger jet on runway approach is 700 to 800 feet per minute.) In the process MacDonald, a former Marine pilot, quadrupled the published knowledge base on VRS.

What he found was that vortex ring state is surprisingly hard to induce. He had to fly slower than 40 knots while keeping the plane in a steady position for at least five seconds, and then descend at a hot 2,200 feet per minute. He also found that in an Osprey, he could recover from the condition relatively easily, provided he had 2,000 feet of altitude to play with. In the end, the team didn't alter the aircraft. Solution: Install a simple warning system. When a pilot pushes an Osprey toward VRS, a light flashes in the cockpit and a voice cautions, "Sink rate." And Osprey pilots now know to pay attention to those warnings.

What do you know? It survives better than Helocopters. Anything else from TIME Magazine you would like to repeat? There is deliberate misinformation and repeats of old test/accidents that negate new tech and fixes the bird has recieved. Really now, 2000 was the last accident the Osprey had regarding system failures and issues with the dual rotor config. If it needs to land while in plane mode, the rotors are designed to crumple and bend in accordance to a safe crash landing as opposed to ripping apart the craft as they careen into the side of the fuselage.

If the bird has to go down in hover, it will be no different than a Blackhawk, Apache, Chinook, etc.. except for the fact that it can continue to fly on one rotor. Hmm, something those other birds cannot do.

If it fails, then I will agree, but we need to see how it works in the field. I mean, I can go on a real tangent and discuss the failures of the M-1 Abrams as it was released to the success it is today. The tank that rolled off the assembly line day one is not the same beast.

Unsafe Airframe? Let's give it a chance.

References:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.0 ... topic_set=

[Prydain]

And i dont beleive the Kiowa or Super Stallion are becuase there are no other clear cut MEC, Chinese or British helos taht could fill those roles for those factions.

I can help you compare with British equipment.
Kiowa: No, we have the WAH-64 Apache Longbow that does not need assistance from another helicopter so an equivalent to the Kiowa is not needed. The Lynx and Future Lynx may have versions that have the abilitys of the Kiowa, the Lynx compares with a cross between the MH-6 and UH-60. The Lynx is bigger, faster and more agile than the Littlebird but not as big as a Blackhawk.

Super Stallion: The Merlin is medium lift, it is more powerfull and spacious than the Blackhawk too. The next biggest helicopter in the UK arsenal is the Chinook.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Heres a pic of when my reserve unit got to work with the Osprey earlier this month. There was one humvee and on the other side of the LZ was a waterbowl. Only could find this picture.

[Liquid_Cow]

There is deliberate misinformation and repeats of old test/accidents that negate new tech and fixes the bird has recieved.

AMEN Brother!

Welcome to main stream American Journalism 101. Just spin the facts until they fit your vision of what the news should be.

When you get down to it, 3 of the 4 crashes were human error, something you'll never get rid of. Did you see the coverage of the flight into Iraq?

First Ospreys land in Iraq; one arrives after 2 setbacks

BAGHDAD - The V-22 Osprey has arrived in a combat zone for the first time.

It was an epic trip for the tilt-rotor plane, one that took more than 25 years of development and cost 30 lives and $20 billion. Even the last short hop - from an aircraft carrier into Iraq - went awry, U.S. military officials said yesterday.

A malfunction forced one of the 10 Ospreys that were deployed to land in Jordan on Thursday. The Marines flew parts to it from Iraq and repaired it. After it took off again Saturday, the problem recurred, and it had to turn back and land in Jordan a second time, said Maj. Jeff Pool, a U.S. military spokesman in western Iraq. The Osprey finally was repaired and arrived at Asad air base in western Iraq late Sunday afternoon.

Maj. Eric Dent, an Osprey spokesman at Marine headquarters in Washington, declined to identify the problem.

"The nature of the malfunction was a minor issue, but our aircrews are top-notch when it comes to safety," Dent said in an e-mail. "Rather than continue, the aircrew opted to land at a predetermined divert location and further investigate the issue."

I've personally grounded USMC aircraft for a burned out light bulb, planes get grounded all the time. One of the reasons flying commercial airlines scares the **** out of me is that they don't ever ground a plane for mechanical issues. Its no big deal people. I'd love to get a couple of these dumb reports up in a CH-46 for a few hours, then let them fly and Osprey and see which they prefer.

[motherdear]

i don't think that the big proble with the osprey is the crashes it has had, but the problem is if it gets hit and a rotor malfunctions it crashes, where as a helicopter can half hover to the ground unless the rotor gets completely cut of. so the critical thing about the V-22 is the off loading of the troops, where a rpg can hit one rotor and it's dead, and if it had been a heli it would have done a crash landing and would have survived.

[Teek]

mother dear, I will quote Clypps post because I cant say it better and he sound like he know a bit more.

If it needs to land while in plane mode, the rotors are designed to crumple and bend in accordance to a safe crash landing as opposed to ripping apart the craft as they careen into the side of the fuselage.

If the bird has to go down in hover, it will be no different than a Blackhawk, Apache, Chinook, etc.. except for the fact that it can continue to fly on one rotor. Hmm, something those other birds cannot do.

If it fails, then I will agree, but we need to see how it works in the field. I mean, I can go on a real tangent and discuss the failures of the M-1 Abrams as it was released to the success it is today. The tank that rolled off the assembly line day one is not the same beast.

Unsafe Airframe? Let's give it a chance.

References:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.0 ... topic_set=

[00SoldierofFortune00]

i don't think that the big proble with the osprey is the crashes it has had, but the problem is if it gets hit and a rotor malfunctions it crashes, where as a helicopter can half hover to the ground unless the rotor gets completely cut of. so the critical thing about the V-22 is the off loading of the troops, where a rpg can hit one rotor and it's dead, and if it had been a heli it would have done a crash landing and would have survived.

Osprey's are much faster then the conventional helicopters, which is better because it will save lives by not making it an easy target for RPGs.

[TexLax]

the V-22 is better suited for fast transportation into non-hostile zones.

[Teek]

the V-22 is better suited for fast transportation into non-hostile zones.

This comment agrees with SOFs statement, because there is no front line, and thus no place where it is 100% clear in Iraq/A-stan.

[Polka]

We're not actually going to use it but don't worry. There's still a lovely surprise in store

o_O Just wait and see then i guess

[Warmagi]

Thats C-130 I assume Some other thread another Dev posted a movie with C-130 take off.

[DarkTalon]

maybe instead of tail rotor failure when you get damaged we could have main rotor failure .

[Liquid_Cow]

where as a helicopter can half hover to the ground unless the rotor gets completely cut of... where a rpg can hit one rotor and it's dead, and if it had been a heli it would have done a crash landing and would have survived.

All helicopters have two rotors and a drive shaft which runs the second rotor. A conventional helicopter needs its tail rotor to counteract the main rotor's torque, without the tail rotor it starts violently spinning out of control (they actually did a somewhat decent job showing this in Blackhawk Down).

In the case of tandom rotor choppers (CH-46 and 47), the drive shaft runs the front rotor, loose the shaft and go splat in a really nasty way.

The chances of an RPG hitting the exact spot needed to cause complete rotor failure on one side is about the same as taking a tail rotor out.

The "worse case" scenerio for an Osprey is not the RPG hit, but rather a mechanical failure which siezes the rotor box as it transisions to hover. The transion is usually done at a high enough altitude to clear terrain and trees. A loss of propultion at this height would result in a high rate of decent crash where a helicopter could autorotate, slowing its decent enough to reduce the speed of the crash to survivable levels (though it is still a crash and people are not likely to walk away from it).

Marines will die in this bird, and the media will have a field day with it. Al Queda has already made it known they are gunning for the Osprey, they know that NBC and Time can't wait to say "See, I told you so!" and would be more than happy to see an asset with such capabilities go away.