V-22 Osprey，revolutionary or mediocre？

1) Is there any significant distance between the vertical taking off range of Osprey and traditional taking off range? Like the gap of range on Harrier being VTOL and STOL

2) Is it possible to makes engine nasele lean to rearwards a little bit so that the Osprey are capable to fly reversely like a traditional choper?

3) Is it save enough or is it hard to fly Osprey due to a basic geometry principle, which is three points determine a plane.

4) Is the Osprey truly successful according to its flying envelop cover the propeller airplane and helicopter to both but reluctant?

Originally posted by emile
1) Is there any significant distance between the vertical taking off range of Osprey and traditional taking off range? Like the gap of range on Harrier being VTOL and STOL

A loaded Harrier needs 400-750' or so of runway to STOVL depending on the runway: flat or ramped at the end; V-22 can take off either vertical or STOVL as well. However, the Harrier can't carry up to three dozen soldiers.

2) Is it possible to makes engine nasele lean to rearwards a little bit so that the Osprey are capable to fly reversely like a traditional choper?

Yes. They can rotate approximately 2.5 degrees over vertical which would allow some rearward motion. Additionally, the rotors on the Osprey have swashplates similar to a helicopter thus can manouevre similarly: fore and aft, lateral motion (to the sides) as well as being able to yaw 360 degrees while hovering.

3) Is it save enough or is it hard to fly Osprey due to a basic geometry principle, which is three points determine a plane.

Well, normal helicopters have only one main rotor and they fly. The Osprey may be a bit more difficult to fly due having two rotors at the sides of the craft, and the different controls between helicopters and planes, but that's what avionics are for.

4) Is the Osprey truly successful according to its flying envelop cover the propeller airplane and helicopter to both but reluctant?

It's a helicopter and plane combined thus can travel faster in level flight than a helicopter and can take off and land vertically which a traditional airplane cannot do. It's hard to say at the moment whether it'd be successful or not but it would likely be of benefit to any operation requiring relatively quick transport of a moderate payload, equipment or personnel, into and out of an area unsuitable for airplane landing. I suppose a joint helicopter / plane mission could be planned but sounds a bit more involved logistically speaking.

The Marines have used the V-22 to great effect, as have a few special forces units (from various branches).

It got a lot of bad press it didn't really deserve a while back. It's a solid and capable design, effective in its role.

It should be noted that it's not designed to replace any airframe out there (rotary or fixed wing). It plays a supplementary/complementary role to rotary and fixed wing aircraft. UH-60s still have their place, as do all other helicopters and fixed-wing transports in service.

As for whether or not the service range is noticeably impacted by a STOL or VTOL mission, I don't really have an answer. The V-22, however, is equipped for IFR, so it is arguably a rather moot point. However, I wouldn't expect the range to be influenced much by the manner of take-off and be more influenced by the mission load.

The V-22 has certainly evolved favorably since its inception and has been proving its versatility in recent years especially in Afghanistan. In the past year or so they have also added belly mounted mini guns and ramp mounted .50's to increase its defensive capabilities.

The V-22 has been the focus of some pretty shameful reporting over the years including a one sided feature piece in Time Magazine a couple of years ago that was trashed and debunked by many experts in the aviation field.

It think it has a viable future in store. Its range and speed are tough to beat given its intended purpose.

I give it

reply to post by emile


Hi Emile,

www.g2mil.com...

I have been reading about this particular 'project' since high school and it did not take particularly long to find not only criticism ( you can always find that) of the tactical/strategic viability but quite a bit related to just how badly this idea has been implemented. Flying this thing anywhere near to where shooting is happening is a sure fire way to get everyone killed ( or at least risking lives American generals hate losing in these little non wars) and flying it at any other time simply does not happen often enough to make this a practical replacement.

I am fairly sure that it has so far killed more Americans, i think 34, than terrorist/insurgents( whatever; killing that could be accomplished with less risk) and while i hope that it does not continue to do so if it's used in the way it was claimed it could be it's going to kill many more Americans and the only way to stop it doing so will be to use it like C-130 which not only cost less and carries 6 times as many troops over ten times the range at close to twice it's operational speed but does so ridiculously safely. In fact hot landings with the C-130 would probably be safer and given how that airframe has been modified over the years i reckon you could make the landing as hot for whoever is waiting in your typical brush non-war scenario. Given the modest crew requirement( say 20) you could armor the aircraft to make it's crew and assault troops quite safe from small arms/50 cal fire and lay down significant fire if it's cheaper to do so than having dedicated escorts. I mean i don't seriously suggest we try this but I'm am just saying that it would be more practical and probably no more costly than your typical airborne/parachute often-suicidal-type assaults and still less ridiculous than the V-22.

If i had plans for world domination this is the sort of contraption i would pray my adversaries spent their resources on.

Stellar

Originally posted by Aim64C
It got a lot of bad press it didn't really deserve a while back. It's a solid and capable design, effective in its role.

The V22 has been astonishingly expensive to develop - upwards of 30 billion dollars. I think Boeing has been taking the proverbial and the US government has been giving out wads of cash in a "sunk decision" based culture. Although the V22 is the first "into production" tilt rotar machine, it is hardly ground breaking as various projects had gone before such as the Canadair CL-84, not to mention the successful civil Bell/Agusta BA609.

It deserves its bad press, having suffered serious crashes serveral time to date...

1992 - 7 killed
2000 - 19 killed (aircraft stalled)
2000 - 4 killed (software failure)
2010 - 4 killed (in operational duties, it hit a hillside)

I am not suggesting it is not a good machine which will eventually fulfill the role it has been developed for, but the value for money and historical reliability is questionable.

Regards

Like others, I've followed the Osprey with interest. A family membe was involved with the program. While you ask sensible and practical questions, I would say they are the wrong questions. It the situation is similar to the question of is the Humvee "better" than the old jeep? (To this last, I would say no. Iraq has shown that the humvee is used far beyond its limits as a replacement for the jeep.

As for the Osprey, its functionality needs to be compared to the Huey. Guess what? They have huge orders to an improved Huey! Is the Osprey going to make the quick, even reckless touch-and-go assalts that the Huey is reknown for? No. You damned well better level the area with some sort of firepower before you take that slow elevator down or up. Plus, it will be XX times more vulnuerable to being disabled by as burst from about any weapon. Huey's had enough range. Forget ship-to-shore ferries of troops, that is a pipe dream of rare occurrance. And need it be mentioned the cost?

I dislike Chaney with a passion, but he was correct in trying to stop that boon doggle. It was nothing but a cover up while they worked on developing the black triangles that will replace virtually all aircraft. (Don't tell me they don't exist, I say one in 1998 over Laramie moving low, slow and silent--and about twenty other folks saw it too.)

reply to post by paraphi


reply to post by paraphi


The service record of this aircraft differs from other rotary and fixed wing designs... how?

We lose more troops to accidents in the supply lines supporting front-line troops than we lose of the front-line troops.

From when I was about ten years old, until about fifteen, I couldn't turn on the news without hearing about some Black Hawk or Chinook going down in some place the map forsook.

Just by giving the order to deploy people - a certain percentage of them are, statistically, going to die. Most of it due to maintenance oversights, accidents, and failure to apply ORM (Operational Risk Management).

The V-22 deserves very little of the bad press it gets. Statistically, it is a safer airframe than just about anything else in service and a better survivability rate (though that could be like saying a fuel truck is more statistically survivable than an M-1 tank - you don't generally expose a fuel truck to the same things you do a tank). The accidents it is going to have by the raw nature of probability are then inflated because it is a 'revolutionary' design. People wonder about how safe and effective it is - since we don't have videos of it flying in, kicking ass, and taking names - we get to have our fill of drama off of the accident reports.

We never really get out of highschool. We all crave drama, and that's all the claims against the V-22 amount to when you stack it up side-by-side with any other machine out there. At the end of the day - it's about ten times more reliable than your car even when it's sucking in sand for three months and over a hundred flight hours past component tolerance ratings.

Developing it has been expensive - I'm not going to defend or attack that point. It merely is what it is. As for whether or not it's been cost-effective... again - it is what it is. Once you're committed to a contract and the need for an airframe to fill a role, you're committed. Stopping at 10 billion dollars as opposed to the alleged 30 billion would have netted us... what? 10 billion dollars and no V-22 with a hole in the arsenal (you could argue that there's not a hole there, but, it's a role that will no longer be capable of being utilized in any strategic plan).

It's an issue of opinion, in that case. I see the craft and mission as more important than the arbitrary cost. I can hound defense contractors for their handling of their responsibility that drives up such arbitrary numbers, but at the end of the day - it's the plane/tank/etc that you want and need. Costs - unexpected or planned, are to be encountered.

I'm not a fan of the way the F-22 was horribly abused. What was worse was deciding to not complete the arsenal. You can't be whimsical about selecting and establishing an arsenal. Once you commit to it - you've got to see it through. Same with things like the V-22. The C-5 was worse - all kinds of stuff, such as $20,000 'special' hammers that "do not damage the aircraft" - that should not have been.

The user "Never Apologize" In his introduction thread said that he worked at Boeing on the Osprey, You can find his thread here Maybe you could PM him and ask him to join in.

Now that the US Mid-term election is over and the US debt is an over growing problem, a committee is recommending several cuts, including in defence spending.

Such program as the Osprey V22, the F-35, etc are targeted:

The chairs would have the Department of Defense cancel projects to build the V-22 Osprey aircraft, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es "for half of the Air Force and Navy's planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft."

In the long run the proposals hope to reduce the US long-term debt to 40 percent by 2037.

The debt to GDP ratio currently hovers close 90 percent.

Source:

uk.finance.yahoo.com...

Do you think the V22 will escape the Ax this time around?

These hunks of junk was and is the worse bang for buck the taxpayer ever got.

There was NO need for them and for 30 billion just in development costs alone we could have designed cheaper and better heavy lift helicopters.

The reason there has not been more crashes and or deaths in them is plain and simple.

The refrain from flying them as much as possible.

If these abortions were such a great idea then you would see other countries with a capability to build their own aircraft developing their own.

I am not even sure if other countries we are friends with are even buying them for their military.

They would have to blind fold me and handcuff me before I would even get in one and fly away.

These hunks of junk was and is the worse bang for buck the taxpayer ever got.

There was NO need for them and for 30 billion just in development costs alone we could have designed cheaper and better heavy lift helicopters.

The reason there has not been more crashes and or deaths in them is plain and simple.

The refrain from flying them as much as possible.

If these abortions were such a great idea then you would see other countries with a capability to build their own aircraft developing their own.

I am not even sure if other countries we are friends with are even buying them for their military.

They would have to blind fold me and handcuff me before I would even get in one and fly away.