Kelly,
Thanks for posting this. I had meant to, but the week grabbed hold of me and wouldn't turn loose! You know how that goes.
Ignoring the flatulent tones in the author's diatribe, I have a couple of disagreements with his assessment. Let me burden Y'all...

The malevolent Catch-22 lurks in battlefield aerodynamics and the risks encountered by a revolutionary aircraft attempting transformation of military assault operations. No matter how well-built, each Osprey delivering troops to heavily defended landing zones will court disaster. Why? If it comes in too slowly, it will get badly shot up — like that flight of more than 30 AH-64 Apaches in Iraq — or worse, shot down. If, on the other hand, its vertical descent is too rapid, it will crash and troops will still die. It’s that simple.

Why would the V-22 "come in too slowly"? The thing decelerates rapidly--more so than most heloes making a quickstop. If he's referring to descent rate when he says "comes in too slowly" then he's not familiar with recent test results compared to helicopters. The program is right at the end of Phase 1 of HROD testing, which has included hundreds of flights and many hundreds of test events,in each one of which the V-22 was flown intentionally outside the authorized flight envelope in an attempt to induce vortex ring state and a roll-off. IIRC, 12 roll-offs were encountered, and all were in precisely the same conditions predicted by the engineers in advance. At speeds between 10 and 40 knots, when sink rate was allowed to build up and remain at between 1900 to 4000 feet per minute for 4 to 6 seconds (those conditions include the parameters of the Marana mishap), VRS ensued and roll-off occurred. Each event was recovered in about two seconds by tilting nacelles forward and applying power. Altitude loss was minimal.

Think about what was needed to get into VRS/roll-off: the two pilots had to screw up an approach and set up unnatural conditions (low airspeed, high sink rate) for 4-6 seconds, listening to "Bitchin' Betty" and staring into a flashing warning light all that time, before anything bad happened. I think that the knowledge throughout the V-22 community will certainly instill a healthy respect for these dangerous conditions in every pilot (and crew chief/FE) so deeply that we can reasonably expect that Marana will *never* be repeated. I know: never say "never." You know what I mean.
The things that are different now include:
1. We have tons of test data on VRS/HROD and know the boundaries.
2. The flight simulator will now simulate VRS.
3. The community understands the consequences of VRS.
4. The warning system works.
5. We understand the optimum use of nacelle tilt to recover from VRS.

I'm not ready to say "problem solved" yet, but I'm pretty confident that when OT&E is complete, we'll have a lot of confidence in the aircraft again.

In computational fluid dynamic studies performed last year at the University of Maryland, aerospace engineering professor J. Gordon Leishman found that the V-22’s design allows severe lateral instability during high-speed descent.

UnHmm. But we have actual flight test results that show that, while Dr. Leishman's predictions were generally in the right direction , the amplitudes of the aircraft responses were generally much less than his math model predictions. Which would you trust: math models at U of M, or flight tests performed in an MV-22?:rolleyes:

Although the Osprey’s current operational testing will surely include high-speed vertical insertion under simulated battlefield conditions, there is no comparison with actual combat. The first time a pilot maneuvers through flak and sees real tracers arcing up at his Osprey and its load of troops, we know how fast he will try to get them on the ground. Catch-22.

Well, we're not allowed to shoot at the test airplanes. But the program has tried to simulate a panic reaction by stabilizing in near-VRS conditions and applying drastic control and cross-control inputs like full left stick and right pedal, then full back stick. The results were surprising: even though the data traces showed incipient VRS, meaning that the airplane was about to experience a roll-off, the drastic control inputs seemed to actually upset the VRS airflow, fending off the roll-off. Low-speed combat maneuverability was actually shown to be superior to typical helicopters under those high sinkrate conditions.

So you guys choose who to believe: (a) a reporter (even a former Marine one) reporting on his understanding of how a university professor tried to simulate V-22 vortex ring state on a computer, or (b) actual flight test results.

I'm inclined to go with option B.

Semper Fi

TC

I told Orville it would never work

Every time a new airplane, especially a revolutionary airplane is introduced into service, the doomsayers dream up scenarios where in their considered opinion, disaster will ensue. All I can say about the latest is:

1. It is well known that slow, straight-in approaches are an invitation to be shot down. It is strange but in every new war, this needs to be re-learned.

2. I'd lay money, large amounts of money, that the young hot shot pilots will find a way to get the Osprey into and out of a hot LZ quickly. I guarantee you nobody had heard of a "Buttonhook" back at Morton PA when the H-46 was being designed. It's amazing how being shot at sharpens the mind.

3. If you are a retired General, no-one pays you money to write about how well a program is running. Where's the news in that.

Comparisons of Osprey to Apache is really a reach, but since the comparison of apples to oranges has been made, I thought I would throw this in. It really doesn't deal specifically with Osprey, but does touch on the Apache flight that got hit so hard in Iraq, as well as explain the differences in USMC & US Army doctrine. I don't want to take this off topic, but I would like to hear how tactics will be developed for gunship support of the Osprey. You gunship guys can pic it apart all you want-way out of my league.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=127&rnd=859.9240150069655

Perhaps a better analogy for the article posted by Kelly, would have been the Chinooks involved in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Both a/c (Chinook & Osprey) are transports-both make fairly fast, high approaches. If I remember the news articles correctly, the Chinooks initially took their hits from high ground on both sides, while flying thru a valley without gunship support--- into known hostile terrritory. A recipe for disaster.
It was always reassuring to 463 crews to see Scarface off our wings.

It was true in 1978 and it is still true today

"No system has been created which equals the efficiency of a rotor blade of a helicopter for vertical flight"

Lieutenant Colonel William R. Fails, USMC

Marines and Helicopters 1962-1973

History and Museums Division
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps
Washington, D.C.
1978

Absolutely correct, George; but no helicopter can cruise at 250 knots. The tilt-rotor is a compromise between VTOL and high-speed (and long-range) cruise. That, combined with the need to go aboard LPD/LHA decks, drove the design of the rotor system, and it pretty much can't be changed now.

BTW, I'm not as much of a fan of the idea that the V-22 would have been good in Afghanistan as some people are. The very lack of high efficiency in the rotors means that control margins would be slim at high altitudes like the Tora Bora neighborhood.

Iraq, now...that's another story. 😀

TC

I agree

I'll still a doubter, as all statistics are presented to boister ones position and can be "minipulated" to the presenters idiology. This I am certain of, as I have done it many times myself.

When I see an Osprey hovering at the end of a finger ridge picking up a Recon team and receiving fire from its 5 and 7 o'clock positions in a 10 knot cross wind, THEN and only then will I believe the Ospey has a snow balls chance in the devils playground to replace the 46.

The only way it can replace a "real" helo is, as I have stated before, that the concept of "vertical envelopment" is limited to very large and relitively flat areas that are not under "active acquirement".

I agree!

I have to agree with Roth on this one. It has a lot of pluses but it just is not a helicopter and I think we will have some sort of helicopter with us for a long time to come.

I think we will have some sort of helicopter with us for a long time to come.

Not to state the obvious, but the CH-53E heavy lifter, and the upgraded AH-1Z four-bladed attack helo and the UH-1Y four-bladed light utility helo are all slated to be in the Corps' inventory at least until 2015, and possibly beyond.

My personal opinion is that the hybrid tilt-rotor will only come into its own when the Corps has the opportunity to experiment with tactics and roles/missions of various aircraft in support of shaore-based and sea-based assault and sustainment operations. Thus the birth later this month of VMX-22 at New River. Their role, following OPEVAL II in FY05, will be to continue tactics development to optimize the strengths and work around the weaknesses of the V-22. Operating a tilt-rotor exactly like a helicopter is a huge waste of time, money and lives already tragically lost.
S/F

TC

TC: Speaking of the UH-1Y.....

New Huey completes 20k-hr fatigue test
By John C. Milliman, PMA-276 Public Affairs Officer

NAVAIR PATUXENT RIVER, MD – The Corps’ newest utility helicopter, the UH-1Y Huey, attained a rare and important helicopter milestone July 17 – 20,000 hours of fatigue testing.

Representing twice the required 10,000-hour fatigue life of the SuperCobra and Huey, the test took place at the Bell Helicopter test facility at Fort Worth, Texas.

The AH-1Z SuperCobra completed its 20,000-hour test in November.

“This rigorous testing program is required because the new Huey, under the familiar silhouette, is a vastly improved aircraft structurally,” explained R. L. Hauk, consulting engineer to Bell’s New Product Development Center. “With the addition of the SuperCobra drive train, power plant and rotor system, the aircraft has an additional 1,200 pounds of fuel and maximum useful load of an additional 4,000 pounds. To handle the additional loads, the airframe features full-length, one-piece ‘high speed’ machined main beams and bulkheads. This feature reduced the part count, fabrication time and distributes additional loads in the airframe structure.”

The fatigue testing included low-cycle, or ground-air-ground, tests by placing the structural test article in a fixture and using actuators to place stresses on it in various places to reflect actual load extremes the airframe will experience in flight.

“In the GAG testing, we go to the extremes of the load cycle,” explained Bell’s Bill Evans, an airframe stress engineer. “From sitting on the ground, to full 3G maneuvers and then back to a hard landing. We essentially ran the most extreme normal flight maneuvers back-to-back for 20,000 (accelerated) hours.”

“We started the test April 25, 2001,” explained Mark Woods, a Bell structural test engineering specialist. “We used 24 hydraulic actuators, six to position the aircraft in the test fixture and 18 to input the loads to the airframe. During the course of the test, we applied 1.2 million load conditions while monitoring 192 strain gauges.”

The purpose of all this testing is determining the life and durability of the aircraft, explained Evans, as well as determining inspection intervals. And proving all of it to the Fleet.

“We want to find out where the problems are, and when they occur,” he said. “That way, we’ll fix them in production so they won’t be problems out in the Fleet. To prove to the Fleet that the aircraft is good for 10,000 hours, we go to 20,000.”

Other engineers agree this extensive testing provides real benefit to the Fleet as aircraft platforms are increasing being asked to soldier on long beyond their originally envisioned lifetimes.

“What we have seen out in the fleet,” said Bob Ernst, head of NAVAIR’s Aging Aircraft IPT, “is that we are charting new waters -- we're going where we've never been before in structures and fatigue life. By investing in proactive approaches like fatigue testing, we can remove some of the wizardry and fix potential problems at a fraction of the cost. This platform will age better and a heck of a lot more gracefully than any of its predecessors because we've been to the back side of the age curve, fatigue-wise, before it's even in production.”

Bell Helicopter officials were quick to give credit where it was due.

“This achievement would not have been realized without the hard work of the engineers, mechanics and lab personnel on the floor, maintaining, designing, repairing, and inspecting these test articles,” said John Busch, Bell’s H-1 Structural Test Articles IPT leader. “These guys have truly taken on a personal attachment to these articles, have worked as a real team and have gained much knowledge for the future.”

The team now is in the planning stages of preparing the test article modifications and repairs for the next stage of the UH-1Y’s fatigue testing -- high cycle testing, according to Hauk.

The H-1 Upgrades integrated test team here currently has achieved more than 1,284 flight test hours with five aircraft (three AH-1Z and two UH-1Y test aircraft, of which all but one AH-1Z are production representative). Four of the aircraft are currently undergoing modification to incorporate the moveable elevator and the Thales Top Owl helmet mounted display.

H-1 aircraft have totaled more than 27 million flight hours since Oct. 20, 1956 when the “granddaddy” of all H-1’s, the XH-40, made its first flight. Since then, more than 16,000 H-1 helicopters have been produced by Bell and its licensees -- making it the most successful military aircraft in aviation history.

What do you think the 'ol phrog would be, if Boeing were to put the same time and effort into it.

It seems that George T. Curtis(?) had a blurp on a semi-composite replacement/enhancement for the '46 that was confirmed by a couple others.

I don't doubt the Osprey may be a good thing, it just can't do what a helo can do. I find it somewhat dissapointing that the principles involved keep trying to "push" the Osprey as a replacement for helos.

Roth

I find it somewhat dissapointing that the principles involved keep trying to "push" the Osprey as a replacement for helos.

Well, the fact is that the Phrog is going to die of old age, and the V-22 is what was chosen a very long time ago to replace it. If you focus on what has to be done instead of How it's being done now , you get a different perspective. The mission task is to get Marines from point A to point B ready to fight, then you begin to appreciate the extraordinary flexibility that comes with a tilt-rotor. The future fleet of CH-53E heavy lifters, and V-22 medium lifters, and UH-1Y light utility and AH-1Z light attack aircraft will do things a lot differently than when we were doing it. The tactics and techniques will start getting refined when VMX-22 stands up next month, and I for one think it's exciting to envision all the potential ways there are to accomplish the mission and survive in the current world of assymetric warfare. More and more Marines are beginning to share that vision, but only time will tell.
TC

No doubt that IF the Osprey can ever get to a level that it is reliable, field maintainable, has nice large secure zones to get in and out of, and can survive in a combat zone it will do well.

The issue I have is that it is touted as replacing the helicopter(s). I'm sure that the most ardent supporter will agree that it can't do that. It looks to me as if the Osprey has been designed primarily as a "troop transport".

I agree it will be able to do that mission much better than anything that the Corps has now. It will be able to get into and out of places that a "normal" fixed wing can't.

But I don't think that it should be expounded that the Ospreys' mission will be the same as we did with the "Dogs and Phrogs".

In my humble opinion that is where much of the confusion and controversy eminates.

Once again I have to side with Roth on this one. Just because the powers that be way back when thought that this bird would/should/could replace the Dogs/Phrogs didn't have a clue.

Yes, it will be a zippy transport, but never do the job of a helo.

Agree and Disagree

Now barring that I am still in the Marine Corps and should not talk bad about the V-22: The coment made about it being able to do the job in the later two conflects ODS and OIF I can't coment about ODS but in Iraqi Freedom, I could have done some lifts but not the job that the frog did. I flew with some frogs as there escort(UH-1N) and they go into some tight places fast in and fast out. The fatal flaw of the V-22 ( Vortex ring state) would have been a problem.
Plus the fact thta the frog went into hot LZ's they have 2 .50's the V-22 has nothing.
So it probably could have hauled suplies and stuff but casevac and troop inserts. who knows???????

Brian

Brian,
Welcome, new guy. Thanks for your observation, and thanks for the good work over there.

You said:

I flew with some frogs as there escort(UH-1N) and they go into some tight places fast in and fast out. The fatal flaw of the V-22 ( Vortex ring state) would have been a problem.

Did you know that the V-22 has a minimum 150% margin over the 800 fpm sink rate limit before it encounters the first sign of VRS? That's actual flight test data. The V-22, in over 250 attempts at VRS, never encountered roll-off unless the sink rate exceeded 2100 fpm for at least 4-6 seconds without any control input.

So, given that with the nacelles below about 80 degrees the V-22 cannot enter VRS, why wouldn't a fast approach to an LZ, followed by rapid completion of conversion and final approach within the 800 fpm limit, be effective and survivable?

Regarding the gun situation, I'm with you on that one. That's perhaps the single biggest concern remaining on the V-22 design: how will we protect it from an unexpectedly hot zone?

TC

The faster anything goes into a zone, the bigger the zone has to be. 262 had that problem in one particular zone that I remember in early '67 and it cost them a couple of birds.

High, hot, and heavy isn't conducive to any flying machine.

It would seem that the same aerodynamics that produce VRS under "controlled" conditions can happen "in the heat of the moment".

I realize that some one, some where, has probably looked into the problem.

Let's say it is going into a zone the size of a baseball diamond (not including the outfield) and it has 40 foot trees around it and one way in and one way out.

If nothing else, pulling in a LOT of power to stop the forward movement and sink rate certainly would reduce any margine available.

I still have a gut feeling that the Osprey couldn't perform that type of mission without some dire results.:confused:

The vortex ring state is the biggest consurn ring now up and down the ranks with the V-22. It is the causal factor in the AZ crash it is the reason they are putting a damm warning light in the cockpit for it. The higher up from what I hear are very conserned about Vortex ring state. True the V-22 has the power but in that state less power is better, you have to fly out of it not pull power.

I'm also on board with the UH-1Y but that's because I fly UH-1N.

It's just hard to see the V-22 doing some of the things that the 46 can do.

About safety: They have been flying the V-22 and prototypes for 14 years and have had what 5 crashes. One being engineer miss wirering V-22-1. The other crashes have been pilot error of mech. the last one, in New River, that was a computer anomoly they said.

Look at the F-14 they made 21 test aircraft, the crashed 20 of them. The Ch-53E crashed 10 of it's test aircraft.
What is the difference? It is who is watching and how much it costs. This aircraft is very public, and cost $$$$. So when one goes down people know it.

Brian

You're right, Brian.

The Osprey is a highly visible project, especially in these days of "tight" budgets.

I can't speak of the problems with the '53s, but I can remember having to go out and retorque(sp?) a lot of "Jesus Nuts" on the rotor heads of the A model '46s we had in '66. I can also remember changing out a lot of blades as well for delamination, not to mention the "beef up" of station 410.

All aircraft, be they military or civilian, have their "theething problems". It just that the Osprey has had 14 YEARS of problems!!!!

If those involved with the project would not be trying to make the Osprey a "do all, fit all" aircraft, I believe the project would be a part of the current inventory.

The concept is valid for the "tilt rotor" (although it should be called a "tilt propeller") if it would just be utilized in the mission profiles it is good at.

True, they are trying to do too much,
Plus it doesn't help that almost 8 years ago someone tryed to kill the project that didn't help any.

You should see what Bell has in the pipeline once the V-22 gets in the inventory.
Its called the QTR
or Quad tilt rotor?
Oh Boy

This is all we really need

Im not one sided or nothing but

Just glad to be part of the rocket and gun club

A little off topic....BUT: I always wanted to fly a Cobra!! Still do.... just to bald, and to fat nowadays.... hehehe.

I sure hope that the manufactures get it right with the Osprey before they try something that has a lot more "monkey motion" involved.;)

As luck would have it, I'm responsible for oversight of the H-1 Upgrades Program testing as well as the V-22. Was down at the hangar at Pax River Monday and both a V-22 and an AH-1Z and a UH-1Y were all bouncing and/or testing right in front of the hangar. It was easy to squint my eyes and envision "the future of Marine rotary-wing aviation" right there. 😀

TC

Did you know that the four-bladed AH-1Z has achieved 266 knots TAS in flight test?

Sounds like that one is a "keeper", just like the Osprey would be if everyone would only take a step back and use it for what it CAN do, and not try to make it into something it isn't.