Osprey makes unwanted big arrival

euroastar350 said:
I hate the Osprey with a passion?
Click to expand...


Why? Because it's perfect for air assault, clandestine, CSAR and SAR operations, is incredibly hard to engage with the profiles it flies, is efficient, fast, has an appreciable loiter time and unprecedented all weather capabillity, can IR, can slingload, is reliable or cool?

hatersgon.jpg
 
tigisfat said:
Why? Because it's perfect for air assault, clandestine, CSAR and SAR operations, is incredibly hard to engage with the profiles it flies, is efficient, fast, has an appreciable loiter time and unprecedented all weather capabillity, can IR, can slingload, is reliable or cool?
Click to expand...

Left out a few vital strengths .... it can hover and perform VTOL or VSTOL landings and takeoffs.

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
Left out a few vital strength .... it can hover and perform VTOL of VSTOL landings and takeoffs.

Ken
Click to expand...

Anecdote:

Speaking of hovering. I was a flight instructor at the Arlington, Texas airport back in 1989 and 1990. Bell Helicopter had a test facility on the west side of the airport, and the flight schools were on the east side. About two to three times a week, Bell would roll the red and white Osprey out and hover taxi up and down the runway for 30 minutes to an hour...very annoying when you're already in the pattern or about to go up. They didn't announce the test schedule either, so you just didn't know when it was going to happen. But, I have to say it was cool to watch, and even cooler when you were a few miles south out in the practice areas, and the Osprey was flying around doing their thing in the same airspace. It's a good thing it was red and white...
 
Bone said:
Here's a look at some of the things Bell would do when the pattern was full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1c4YsWTLRw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaB9...269CE424&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27
Click to expand...


While watching your links, I found a video of that BA-609 thing at Farnborough 2008. The video is obviously not a fake and shows it at Farnborough, but I worked at Farnborough 2008 in what was called the DOD corral, and I never once saw the BA-609. I've lost it.
 
I'm wondering if the tilt-rotor is not a bit like the flying car:
Not Very Good at either mode.
Certainly the civilian model has had a prolonged gestation period - almost 15 years.
I suspect the economics might not work out all that well.
As far as I know the US Marines are the only tilt-rotor customers to date.
Their special requirements might not be all that cost-sensitive.
 
Wing_Z said:
I'm wondering if the tilt-rotor is not a bit like the flying car:
Not Very Good at either mode.
Certainly the civilian model has had a prolonged gestation period - almost 15 years.
I suspect the economics might not work out all that well.
As far as I know the US Marines are the only tilt-rotor customers to date.
Their special requirements might not be all that cost-sensitive.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but there are a lot of errors in what you just posted.

The USAF and the USMC both currently fly the Osprey operationally. It was co-developed by the Marines and also by Air Force Special Operations Command.

The Osprey is about twice as fast as the fastest of operational helicopters. In fact, it is only marginally slower than a C-130! It has excellent range and is capable of in-flight refueling with a C-130.

Yes, the airframe had a number of developmental issues, but it seems those have been worked out. The Osprey is another classic example of a revolutionary type of aircraft experiencing a series of development problems and being criticized by many people. It suffered a number of deaths and I do agree that for a while the program was frankly mismanaged some.

But, those problems have been worked out.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term, "cost-sensitive?" Do you mean, "cost effective?"

If so, then my reply would be to realize that with the speed advantage and range advantage, the Marines can put a lot more troops ashore faster and farther than they could with the helicopters. The Marines love the Osprey. So, it's here to stay. It's fully operational now, and AFSOC is expanding the number of units flyng it. A squadron worth is soon to stand up at Cannon AFB.

Cheers,

Ken
 
I never liked the design of tilt-rotors. Sure they are advanced aircraft for todays battlefield, but they don't appeal to me.
 
I didn't think the USAF CV-22, nor the US Navy's HV-22, had become operational.

I accept that for the Marines mission it does the job: speed and payload are prime objectives, almost irrespective of cost. It appears tailor-made to that specific task.
The USMC are also the prime movers of the project, scheduled to get 4 times the number of Navy and AF combined, which tells me the other services see it as an expensive way of doing the job.
Around double the cost of a Chinook, say. Twice as good?
Don't know, that is why I used the term cost-sensitive, which defines only whether a project is go or no-go, not whether it is a good way of doing the job.

It will certainly be a very thirsty beast.
The civilian role is different, and it might be a very expensive toy to buy and to operate.
Be interesting to see if tilt-rotors succeed in the marketplace.
Bit like the flying car ;)

Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...
 
Wing_Z said:
Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...
Click to expand...

No kiddin', eh? That sure sounds like a lot of developmental or test projects. You don't test the extreme limits of an aircraft immediately, and waivers are given specifically for DT flights that involve pushing limits. I'm sure the F-16 wasn't walked out to 8gs on its first flight. There was probably a formal g-limit placed on initial F-16 operations, and that wasn't indicative that F-16s would be dangerous under g loading.
 
Wing_Z said:
I didn't think the USAF CV-22, nor the US Navy's HV-22, had become operational.
Click to expand...

The Navy doesn't fly it. The Marines and the USAF (AFSOC) do. And yes, they are operational.

I am retired USAF, spent 24 years in AFSOC, and it is one of my former squadrons who has deployed the CV-22 to Afghanistan.

Ken
 
Wing_Z said:
Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...
Click to expand...

Again, that is very misleading. During the initial test phase (which is concluded) those were true. But, limitations are placed on aircraft during testing all the time. Your very own quote says it was not cleared to hover "over unprepared landing zones until OT." OT means Operational Testing, which again, has been completed!

What are you trying to do here?

Ken
 
Just an observation really...you're right: on re-reading it sounds misleading.
However it was flagged at an early stage in the programme, and presumably would be in the manual now in some form.
It does have a formidable downwash, and you'd need to be aware of it, operationally.
Same would be true for hovering over water, it must make a hell of a bow wave.
 
Wing_Z said:
Same would be true for hovering over water, it must make a hell of a bow wave.
Click to expand...

I sure hope that noone finds out whether the Ospreys make bow waves or not, because that would mean the nose was submerged.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top