Osprey down in Australia-Breaking

A US Marine MV-22B, with 20 personnel on board has crashed in Australia. At least six survivors have been identified, and a significant fire was reported. The aircraft was flying as DUMPTRUCK12 crashed on Melville Island. Search and Rescue is ongoing.

taskandpurpose.com...

A UH-1Y flying with the Osprey reported the crash and stayed on station. The first group of personnel has been flown from the crash site to a local hospital. Currently no fatalities are being reported, but it’s only been about an hour since the crash happened.

Officials are currently reporting all 20 have been rescued.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh no!
I love the Osprey, but if they can't figure out the root of the failures they shouldn't fly anymore.

a reply to: Peeple

The El Centro crash was a dual hard clutch engagement. They’ve been working clutch problems for several years but haven’t successfully come up with a solution for them, beyond changing some parts within 800 hours.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could you explain that in a way us simpleton will understand.
I'm no mechanic.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Rest in peace to the lives lost. I've never liked that airframe. I have several Marine friends who didn't trust it during their time in but had no choice because orders are orders.

Good to hear they weren't all killed.

a reply to: EternalShadow

I was under the impression that the airframe has seen significant safety overhaul over the past several years?

I can't recall any service friends making any complaints in its regard.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

A clutch helps smooth out the power transfer from the engine to the drive shaft, in the case of the Osprey this leads to the propeller blades.

If the clutch is not working properly, either too much or not enough power goes down the drive chain. In either case this leads in instability in controlling the aircraft.

Three are confirmed dead, five were transported in serious condition.

The only aircraft I truly dreaded during my service

Semper Fi Marines
RIP

That clutch thing sounds like a simile of an automatic transmission.

Is it vulnerable only when transferring V-H, H-V ?

If it was most vulnerable in a hover, wonder if they could have emergency chutes jettisoned fore and aft, so it just does not pancake hard.

I hope they get the bugs out of this bird as the Marines are committed to it, for a while anyway.

a reply to: charlyv

It seems to be shortly after takeoff, or transition when it’s hitting, but it can happen at any time. They’re replacing the quill assembly before 800 hours, but basically the clutch slips, resulting in a momentary loss of power, followed by a hard regain of power. In the 2022 crash near El Centro, both engines had an HCE, and the power transfer system, that would provide power to both rotors from one engine failed. This resulted in a catastrophic loss of power to one rotor.

originally posted by: charlyv
That clutch thing sounds like a simile of an automatic transmission.

Is it vulnerable only when transferring V-H, H-V ?

If it was most vulnerable in a hover, wonder if they could have emergency chutes jettisoned fore and aft, so it just does not pancake hard.

I hope they get the bugs out of this bird as the Marines are committed to it, for a while anyway.

The Osprey has one motor/rotor assembly at each wingtip. If one motor failed and there was no backup system, that rotor would stop getting power and the vehicle would be uncontrollable and would crash. Unlike with a conventional, twin engine, fixed-wing aircraft, losing a motor is a single point failure that would result in loss of aircraft. This was recognized very early on in the development of the Bell tilt rotors (as early as the XV-15 in the 1970s). The solution was to have a driveshaft going through the length of the wing connecting one rotor gearbox to the other. If both motors are producing power, there is no power required to be transmitted through the driveshaft. However, if one motor fails, the clutch for that motor is supposed to disengage, the clutch for the other motor engages, and power is supposed to flow smoothly and instantaneously from the one motor that is still working to both gearboxes, thereby keeping both rotors turning. If that system is ever needed, that could make either of the clutches a single point failure. I guess the idea was that the probability of both a motor AND a clutch failing at the same time was so low that the risk was worth taking. I'm not sure what the exact failure mode is in this accident, but obviously there's a hidden failure path in there somewhere.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: EternalShadow

I was under the impression that the airframe has seen significant safety overhaul over the past several years?

I can't recall any service friends making any complaints in its regard.

What do you want me to say?

YMMV? 🤷🏻

Before you ask, that stands for "Your mileage may vary." Not everyone shares the same opinion and safety overhauls don't guarantee anything, obviously.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

In the early 2000s, after all the development accidents, they redesigned a bunch of things and called it Osprey 2.0 afterwards. It has seen a much improved safety record, but any aircraft will have accidents. It has a lot of distrust because of the early accidents, and the fact that it’s neither fish nor fowl but tries to be both.

The aircraft belonged to VMM-363, based at Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Base. They're part of 1 MAW, MAG 24. Killed in the crash were Corporal Spencer R Collart, 21. He was the crew chief of the aircraft. Captain Eleanor V LeBeau, 29. She was one of the pilots, and Major Tobin J Lewis, 37. He was the Executive Officer of VMM-363. Three Marines remain hospitalized, 1 critical and two stable. Seventeen were taken to the hospital with minor injuries and released.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Firstly, as a new member, I want to thank you for all your expertise, contribution, and level-headed approach to ATS.
I have certainly enjoyed your input/content, and ALWAYS look forward to your next post. Ok, enough gushing...

I live near an assembly plant for the Ospreys, and have enjoyed witnessing their development & subsequent testing in our area. Although the program got-off to a shaky start, it seems they've worked-out many of the issues, and appears this will be the new replacement platform for many of the old birds.

Although impressed; I can't say I'm convinced as to why it seems we're "putting all our eggs in the Osprey basket".
I am fully a novice regarding aircraft, but hoping you might be able to shed some light on the apparent preference for this platform?

What is your opinion on the Osprey (&variants)?
Are there other, viable platforms in development/use?

Thanks again for your input, much appreciated!

a reply to: Caecus

The Osprey, and eventually Valor, which was selected by the Army under the FLRAA program, offer the advantages of helicopters, with the speed of aircraft. So it lets them get troops into an area faster than a helicopter, but without any kind of prepared landing area. The UH-60M has a cruise speed of about 175 mph, with a combat radius of 370 miles, with a maximum speed of 180 mph. The MV-22B on the other hand has a cruise speed of around 300 mph (311 mph or so), with a maximum speed of 351 mph at 15,000 feet. Its ceiling is 25,000 feet compared to 19,000 feet for the UH-60, and it has a combat radius of 450 miles. While being able to land in a slightly larger landing zone.

The V-280 Valor is smaller than the Osprey, and is similar in size to the UH-60. The required landing zone is roughly the same size as that required by a UH-60, with the cabin being about the same size. It has a cruise speed of 320 mph, with a combat radius in excess of 580 miles, and a maximum take off weight of just under 31,000 pounds, compared to 22,000 for the UH-60, and 47-55,000 for the Osprey depending on what mode they take off in.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting... I wouldn't have guessed a cruising speed almost double that of the UH-60, thanks for the info!

Do you think we will see an 'armed' variant in the near future, similar to the AH-1Z?

Seems as though (locally) they have ramped-down production on AH-1Z's (for US, still a few being produced for Bahrain & Czech Republic).

Thanks again sir for your insights!

a reply to: Caecus

The Osprey has some armed capability, but strictly guns. I suspect we'll see an armed Valor with APKWS or something similar, but the Osprey isn't really suited for it.

The last AH-1Z for the Marines has been produced, with the Marines getting 189. The last of the H-1s (UH-1Y and AH-1Z) for the US have been produced. Slovakia will receive 12, Nigeria was finally approved by the State Department last year, and the Philippines was approved for either the AH-1 or AH-64, but no deal has been announced I believe. Thailand was interested previously, but I haven't heard of any replacement deal being reached.