FYI

http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/aircraft/rotary/w0004388.html

V-22 cabin

length 24 ft 2 in ( 7.37 m)
width 5 ft 11 in ( 1.55 m)
height 6 ft 0 in ( 1.57 m)
volume 858 cu ft (24.3 cu m)

Stan,

I see many discrepancies like this listed for various aircraft, both civilian and military.

I some times think the "true" demensions" are driven depending on if you are in sales, enginering, or the purchaser....

H-46 Cabin

The dimensions stated by George Curtis for the V-22 are the same figures in the Natops Manual for the H-46.

I was given a tour of the V-22 prototype in the American Helicopter Museum in West Chester PA, a suburb of Philadelphia and about 20 miles from Morton where the H-46 was designed. The guide was a retired Piasecki/Vertol/Boeing employee. Standing in the V-22 fuselage he remarked "Anything familiar"? It's the H-46 in carbon fibre instead of aluminum, even the crew chief's position is the same". So the cabin is the same size as the H-46.

USMC study

Yes, varied websites often give varied stats.

But they one linked above is a very specific and detailed study by the Marine Corps Systems Command, the real purchaser, which says the cabin is 25% smaller. I would think that is a very accurate and reliable independent source. Its basically a guidebook for Marine users.

--------------------
I had to come back and edit because the link to the Marine Corps Systems command study was deleted by the moderator; I forgot about links to that banned website. Anyway, I found a direct link to the Marine Corps study at a Marine Corps website.

http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ctq/PEFSS/Download/V22%20ICD.PDF

Here is another from the Navy with the same smaller cabin size described:

"Generally, the cargo space in helicopters is limited. For example, V-22 cargo space is about 68 inches wide, 66 inches high and 200 inches long. Therefore, fitting inside the V-22, or any helicopter, is a challenge."

http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/1999/transveh10.html

CH-46E cabin size

DIMENSIONS, INTERNAL

Length, max, ft (m) 24.17 (7.37)

width, max, ft (m) 6.00 (1.83)

Height, max, ft (m) 6.00 (1.83)

Source: Boeing CH-46E web page:
CH-46E Sea Knight

H-46 Cabin Size

A possible explaination is the dimensions given are the largest dimension in each direction. The opening at the rear is 6ft by 6ft but it would be impossble to load a container with that cross section. As a pactical matter, there has to be some clearance and there is some radius at the corners.

But this wouldn't amount to a 25 % reduction.

I guess we are back to the position that it depends who is giving the dimensions and for what reason.

Quit Questioning Marines Motives

This post has been deleted because it is in violation of NOTAM Board policy as published on the Read & Initial Board.

V-22 Cabin Size

My time in Vietnam was long ago and far away and I got far more out of it than I ever gave. I also did a tour with the US Navy, on Yankee Station in 7th Fleet. But I don't see the relevance to the present discussion except possibly I've earned the right to my opinion.

For the life of me, I can't see where my comment questions the motives of the Marines at Pax River. Even if I disagreed with them and frankly I don't know enough to agree or disagree, I would always believe that their only motive is to get the best aircraft possible, given the state of the art. Frankly I resent any implication otherwise.

I am now a retired old man who envies the young engineers and service personnel working on the V-22 and wishes he was starting his career instead of looking back on a reasonably sucessful one.

Pray tell me where you fit in the V-22 program.

Hear, Hear, John

Semper Fidelis
Bill Weaver

Blackhawks

John,

I don't "fit in" the V-22 program in any way. I don't work for any contractor and I'm not a retired Boeing rotorcraft rep like yourself. I'm just a taxpayer who took an interest in this program since it seems to never end.

I was looking at specs for the UH-60Ls which began production in the late 1980s. They can move 9000 lbs 60 nm. They are coming out with the UH-60M which can pick up 11,000 lbs, almost its own empty weight, which is about what the V-22 can lift. I saw where a test V-22 once lifted 11,700 lbs, but I've read they've added some 2000 lbs of empty weight since then for stronger floors and fuel tanks, so its payload is proabably below 10,000 lbs now. So now the V-22 weighs more than a CH-53, and three times more than the latest Blackhawk, yet it carries the same payload as a Blackhawk and costs four times. There is a new "marinized" US Navy variant --the MH-60S Knighthawk.

6 months old, but still interesting.I think they are going wwith a wet wing to solve the fuel tank/cog problem.

How many Marines fit?
Some doubt that the Osprey can accomplish another core mission: carrying 24 fully-equipped Marines into battle. The inside of the Osprey is smaller than the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, which has room for 24. The close quarters drew some critical comments from crew members during test flights in 1999 and 2000, according to excerpts from a database maintained by the Commander Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Force:

Decades of structural and metal fatigue have limited the Sea Knight to 14 passengers or 2 tons externally. Still, the Sea Knight flies on. Marine pilots flew several earlier this month as part of the Special Forces rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who was held captive in an Iraqi hospital. One helicopter snagged a heavy support cable on a radio antenna near the hospital and almost crashed. The pilot regained control after 15 seconds and was able to deliver a squad of Army Rangers to the hospital. The Marines began planning to replace the Sea Knight in early 1978. The first contract for the tilt-rotor was awarded in 1983. Even program officials acknowledge that the V-22 may be the longest developmental program in military history. "I first flew it in 1989, and we've still got years to go," Lawrence said. "It's staggering, I can't get my mind around this. It's the most ill-conceived program, and they are throwing gargantuan amounts of money at it." Congress has the final say whether a weapons system gets money.

This post was edited by Moderator on 27 September 2003

Osprey News
http://boatcoach.tripod.com/flightline/id100.html

Edited by the Moderator on September 28, 2003

I did come across this June 24, 2002 letter in the Marine Corps Times by retired Marine Colonel Bill Hammerle:

Osprey is no revolution

"Put me down as a “no” vote on the MV-22 Osprey [“Make or break time,” June 10]. The bottom line is that we will be paying $68 million apiece for the CH-46 Sea Knight replacement. That is an unaffordable cost for 1980s technology.

The argument by Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group (who are they?) that helicopter alternatives are a return to 1950s technology is only one of the tired talking points meant to kill opposition to this aircraft. Other talking points — “a revolutionary way to fly,” “any alternatives just don’t cut the mustard” and “V-22 is the only alternative that meets the requirements” —ring hollow.

The requirement ain’t revolution, baby. It is dirty, sweaty, close-in combat support and all that comes with it. After all of these years, to continue to hold to the position that the MV-22 is so revolutionary that we simply must have it is reaching the point of silliness. There will always be something newer, sleeker and more capable in the pipeline. The problem is not the lack of alternatives. The problem is that we have been chasing this self-fulfilling prophecy for so long with our heads buried in the sand that we haven’t looked for alternatives.

In 1988, when I was the senior Marine at the Air Force Command and Staff College, my students debated the merits of the Osprey, because fleet introduction was imminent and the tired CH-46 was going to be replaced. In 1992, as the commanding officer of HMT-204, I received regular briefings from two of my pilots assigned to work on the Osprey training syllabus. The arrival of the V-22 was imminent and the tired CH-46 finally was going to be replaced. In 1996, when I was the CO of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, Calif., we also were planning for the imminent transition of our tired 46 squadrons into the V-22.

Fast forward to 2002. The arrival of the V-22 is imminent and the tired CH-46 finally is being replaced. But now we have fixed all the problems — at least until the next accident.

The one certainty in all of this is that there will be more accidents. Unfortunately, that is the hazardous reality of this demanding occupation.

Gosh, if only there was an alternative."

Opinion oh the Osprey

Stan:

I "retired" from Boeing in 1971 at the ripe old age of 33.

The present day Boeing Company bears very little resemblence to the company I knew and none of the people I knew still work there. I don't support Boeing any more or less than any other company trying to push the state of the art. That said, I'm proud of my service with Boeing and I'm equally sure I'd be as proud if I'd worked for Sikorski or Bell or Lockheed Martin or any of the others. I'm especially proud of my time attached to the Marines and the Navy. I did the best job I could and I believe that the guys working on the Osprey, both military and contractor, are doing the same.

I have my doubts about the Osprey, it's such a big jump in the state of the art and all the services tend to underestimate the maintenance required for a new and more complex piece of equipment. But very few aircraft that push the envelop are trouble free. Thr dreaded Unknown unknowns (unk unks) rear their ugly heads. The H-46 ( my beloved Phrog) had a very bad time when it was first introduced and the early helicopters had aerodynamics that left a great deal to be desired. We must have been more tolerant of risk in those bygone days.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and have the right to express them forceably without anyone questioning your motives. I've been quite vocal when I believed I needed to be and I thought I knew what I was talking about. In return you are expected not to question the motives of the other participents without very good and strong evidence. And I suspect George Curtis would get to that long before you would.

Being a prior -46 guy, now a V-22 guy, I will say that the cabin is slightly longer, taller, and wider. It makes it a little easier for a 5-11 guy like me to move around in it. The V-22 is a great plane, and I am glad I made the move over to it. Of course, crewing it is slightly different than a phrog(we get nasty prop-rotor wash at the crew door while calling it to the deck), the ICS is unbelieveable in clarity, and the ride the aircraft gives is incredible...radical acceleration and air braking! I miss the Phrog, because after all, its my roots(2000-2004), but I think the V-22 will make a awesome replacement for the -46.

"THANKS" Brian “GREAT FIRST HAND INFORMATION from a CH- 46 Air Crew transitioning to the V-22.