Flying the Osprey

One question I have… what category do you log your time? airplane fixed wing? Helicopter rotor?
 
I am very familiar with them. They are hugely complex. From a pilots perspective, there is a very bright fine line between flying and not. It has no Plan B.
 
It's like a twin engine aircraft where when an engine stops, the wing falls off.
 
LesGawlik said:
It's like a twin engine aircraft where when an engine stops, the wing falls off.
Click to expand...

I believe there is an interconnecting driveshaft for the two engines so either engine can power the opposite propeller/rotor, although at obviously reduced horsepower.

The amazing part of the Osprey to me is how they took an already complicated idea for an aircraft, tilt-rotor, and made it even more complicated with the folding wing, rotor blades, etc. I can't imagine how much more expense, and weight, were added to the aircraft.
 
One of the bigger military acquisition failures. Thing was supposed to replace helicopters. Problem is if you try and come in hot you get to crash instead. Sux for war zones, which is what it's there for. Good for ferrying folks where the bullets don't fly. Good for the makers of helicopters, also good at ferrying people around when the bullets aren't flying.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I believe there is an interconnecting driveshaft for the two engines so either engine can power the opposite propeller/rotor, although at obviously reduced horsepower.

The amazing part of the Osprey to me is how they took an already complicated idea for an aircraft, tilt-rotor, and made it even more complicated with the folding wing, rotor blades, etc. I can't imagine how much more expense, and weight, were added to the aircraft.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty useless yo the Marine Corps if it can’t fit in the hangar decks of ships.
 
steingar said:
One of the bigger military acquisition failures. Thing was supposed to replace helicopters. Problem is if you try and come in hot you get to crash instead. Sux for war zones, which is what it's there for. Good for ferrying folks where the bullets don't fly. Good for the makers of helicopters, also good at ferrying people around when the bullets aren't flying.
Click to expand...

Have you talked to pilots who flew it in combat?
 
LesGawlik said:
It's like a twin engine aircraft where when an engine stops, the wing falls off.
Click to expand...

And, as it looks from the video title, $84 MILLION... holy crap. How many bake sales did the Marines have to get a couple of those?
 
midwestpa24 said:
The amazing part of the Osprey to me is how they took an already complicated idea for an aircraft, tilt-rotor, and made it even more complicated with the folding wing, rotor blades, etc. I can't imagine how much more expense, and weight, were added to the aircraft.
Click to expand...

It was probably a very fun engineering exercise to design.
 
Everything on the aircraft is a design compromise. A crappy airplane. A crappy helicopter. Akin to the aerocar. But I hear they are fun to fly.
Unfortunately the original premise for their purchase is no more. But the aircraft remains.
 
One of the interesting design choices is how to set up the pilots’ controls. Like a helo or a fixed wing? Collective, cyclic, twist grip and rudder pedals or Stick (or yoke), rudder pedals and throttle or some kluge?

Where to get the pilots from, Fixed wing, Helos, anybody?

What you do? This is POA so let the games begin.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Where to get the pilots from, Fixed wing, Helos, anybody?
Click to expand...
Rumor was... when the Marines got their first Harrier Jump Jets the first 3 were wrecked by their greatest fighter jocks in hover mode. So they called up a few rotorwing guys and the rest was history. Seems teaching helicopter pilots to be a jet jock was a 3 day course. Fortunately, for the tiltrotor program it started with helicopter pilots and continues with helicopter pilots even into the civilian side with the 609. As the rotor turns....;)
 
steingar said:
One of the bigger military acquisition failures. Thing was supposed to replace helicopters. Problem is if you try and come in hot you get to crash instead. Sux for war zones, which is what it's there for. Good for ferrying folks where the bullets don't fly. Good for the makers of helicopters, also good at ferrying people around when the bullets aren't flying.
Click to expand...

As usual you speak with authority about things of which you do not know…
 
No doubt, the Osprey has had some of the worst teething pains that I can think of in the current DoD fleet. That was then, this is now. It has one of the safest records in the Marine Corps right now. Still needs to get those OR rates up, still some engine issues, lots of restrictions of certain types of ops, etc. But, it has shown it can do things that no other helo or fixed wing can do. Seems like all the branches tout its capabilities.

I think think there’s some vulnerability there with having a nacelle mounted that far from the CG but only time will tell. I’m still big on the Army going the pusher coaxial over tilt rotor for their FVL. But either design will be a jump in capabilities over a traditional helo. Not a game changer but definitely a significant improvement.
 
Hmmm— a failure?? Hardly. Teething pains and expensive— absolutely. However, we’ve been deploying MV-22s into combat (that’s where people and things get shot at for the uniformed) in my AOR (CENTCOM) going on 15 years now and we continue to deploy both the MV and CV variants to this day into areas where there is combat going on. Furthermore, the CMV variant is now replacing the aging C-2 for COD duty on carriers.
 
Bell206 said:
Rumor was... when the Marines got their first Harrier Jump Jets the first 3 were wrecked by their greatest fighter jocks in hover mode. So they called up a few rotorwing guys and the rest was history. Seems teaching helicopter pilots to be a jet jock was a 3 day course. Fortunately, for the tiltrotor program it started with helicopter pilots and continues with helicopter pilots even into the civilian side with the 609. As the rotor turns....;)
Click to expand...

The Marines transitioned attack pilots into the Harrier. They did not use fighter pilots. They tried from the very start to bring some helo experience into the program but it did not work out well because the Harrier did not fly like a Helo. The other issue was in the Naval Aviation pipeline they split pilots off at about 60 hours into different tracks based on grades. The jet pipeline had a minimum grade point requirement that often meant anyone above that GPA was drafted to jets regardless of what they wanted. That left the rest to go Helo’s or maritime prop. At the time of the Harrier introduction the Marine Corps attack community also had a high percentage of attack pilots who had been force transitioned to helo’s for one tour because of a shortage of helo pilots in Vietnam. Lots of those pilots were in VMA-513 the initial Harrier squadron.
The first 4 accidents the Marine Corps had 3 were in conventional flight. One was in the landing phase doing a short landing. None were hovering .
 
Last edited:
And the amount of downwash is impressive (not to mention noise). At my home field, they are not allowed over the runway below 200' after a bunch of asphalt got ripped up. And at Sebastian, FL, I saw a 6' diameter chunk of taxiway go airborne.
 
Fearless Tower said:
As usual you speak with authority about things of which you do not know…
Click to expand...
So you're going to tell me they don't make a vortex ring state if they come in too fast. Problem with war zones is you have to come in fast if you don't want to get shot up.
 
Similar to most any new aircraft there can be steep learning curves…and I could historically go through all the different problems just in the Aircraft I flew from mast bumping in UH-1s…Ground resonance in TH-55s…Retreating blade stall in AH-1s…Pilot Whirl in OH-58 A/C’s…spindles on UH-60’s … strap packs and chop collars on AH-64’s…wings falling off old Piper Arrows…would not begin to comment on Aircraft I have never flown…as with any military aircraft unfortunately high accident rates with fielding are a part of doing business (this attitude is unacceptable in the modern era by the way).
 
I look up whenever I hear one. Still amazed at the fact that they can fly.
 
steingar said:
So you're going to tell me they don't make a vortex ring state if they come in too fast. Problem with war zones is you have to come in fast if you don't want to get shot up.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up tactical and operational employment.

The CV and MV were never intended as tactical assault platforms. If you are getting "shot up", then you are using them wrong. Note there has never been a CV-22 or MV-22 loss due to enemy fire, because planners understand their correct employment.

They are operational aircraft, designed to increase the reach and speed of rotary wing forces for operational-level maneuver, and to increase flexibility in launch and landing sites. Think of them as a C-130 you do not have to parachute from.

War is all about tradeoffs. No free lunches.
 
Ed Haywood said:
You are mixing up tactical and operational employment.

The CV and MV were never intended as tactical assault platforms. If you are getting "shot up", then you are using them wrong. Note there has never been a CV-22 or MV-22 loss due to enemy fire, because planners understand their correct employment.

They are operational aircraft, designed to increase the reach and speed of rotary wing forces for operational-level maneuver, and to increase flexibility in launch and landing sites. Think of them as a C-130 you do not have to parachute from.

War is all about tradeoffs. No free lunches.
Click to expand...

That and there is nothing covert about the Osprey. You can hear it coming from 20 miles away!

We were on the beach in Florida near Hurlbert Field and they were doing landing exercises down the beachfront from us. You could hear the Osprey long before you could see it come over the horizon from the Gulf.
 
steingar said:
So you're going to tell me they don't make a vortex ring state if they come in too fast. Problem with war zones is you have to come in fast if you don't want to get shot up.
Click to expand...
I admit I don’t know squat about the osprey, but in a helicopter you avoid VRS by coming in with speed, it’s coming straight down that results in VRS.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That and there is nothing covert about the Osprey. You can hear it coming from 20 miles away!
Click to expand...
Yeah, it sounds like some big flappy thing in a hurry...not an airplane, not a helicopter. Its own species for sure.
 
Ed Haywood said:
You are mixing up tactical and operational employment.

The CV and MV were never intended as tactical assault platforms. If you are getting "shot up", then you are using them wrong. Note there has never been a CV-22 or MV-22 loss due to enemy fire, because planners understand their correct employment.

They are operational aircraft, designed to increase the reach and speed of rotary wing forces for operational-level maneuver, and to increase flexibility in launch and landing sites. Think of them as a C-130 you do not have to parachute from.

War is all about tradeoffs. No free lunches.
Click to expand...

Air assault is one of its primary missions.
https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-boeing-v-22
 
Salty said:
I admit I don’t know squat about the osprey, but in a helicopter you avoid VRS by coming in with speed, it’s coming straight down that results in VRS.
Click to expand...

Well “coming in too fast” as in high vertical descent rate. I don’t think they’ve ever fully fixed the VRS issues with the Osprey. It’s just the obvious result that happens with a highly loaded rotor disk during a vertical landing. Friend of mine who flys them said they have a very restricted profile vs the old Ch-46s he flew.

They also want to flip over during formation landings so they came up with even more restrictions on formation spacing. It’s hard enough to do a true air assault with multiple helos at once, I couldn’t imagine trying it in an Osprey.
 
steingar said:
One of the bigger military acquisition failures. Thing was supposed to replace helicopters. Problem is if you try and come in hot you get to crash instead. Sux for war zones, which is what it's there for. Good for ferrying folks where the bullets don't fly. Good for the makers of helicopters, also good at ferrying people around when the bullets aren't flying.
Click to expand...
I tell you what, they look and sound intimidating as hell. I love seeing them come by the hiking spots here low over the desert foothills in groups of 2 or more. The psychological factor is enough in my book! They have a very scifi 'dune' type appeal to them.. especially at night when the blade tips glow


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top