Experimental Chopper Loses Part of Blade (Lands in NS, Canada)

The Daily News ^ | November 24, 2004 | Chris Lambie

[Fierce Allegiance]

Not at all. Based on the flight hours, the Osprey has a disproportionately high failure rate. The others do not. Many of the 40 year old hueys are safer than a low-hour Osprey.

BTW, what's your deal that you defend this killer so vehemently? Or do you just dislike living Marines?

[Southack]

As an engineer, my first thought about the myriad Osprey problems is that the design is overweighted.

The basic concept of engines & props at the ends of a rotating wing is a valid design idea, however, you are limited to how much weight the whole craft can realistically handle simply because that design, with engines/props that close together while vertical, is going to have large vibrations inherent in the structure.

So while "bigger engines" and fatter props really will work together to lift Pentagon-levels of required payload, you'll also get metal-fatigue-inducing vibrations that increase geometrically as you scale up for more weight capacity.

Or put another way, the more weight that design is forced to haul, the faster the craft will deteriorate.

In my opinion, you could make that identical *design* work without any of the current Osprey headaches and deaths if it was simply scaled down to about half its current weight, payload capacity, and engine power.

...And the reason that it would work if it was scaled down is because it would have less stress and less vibrational issues.

[rlmorel]

I disagree strongly. From what I know (and I will admit, I don't have any experience flying in them in combat, I am a former jet mechanic in the USN and aviation buff), the most dangerous part of the flight for a combat helicopter is ingress/egress. Stands to reason, I guess. The Osprey has such a fast transition to full speed forward flight at top speeds much greater than a standard helicopter, that its window of vulnerablity is greatly reduced.

If you add the ability to get this craft to nearly anywhere in the world by flying it there, instead of having to stick it on a ship or inside a C-5 or C-17, the mission readiness of the platform is so far ahead of a standard helicopter that it will radically change the logistical planning for interdiction/rescue missons.

This aircraft does have extensive teething pains, but the payoffs are enormous if our country can make it work. We need to go the extra mile to ensure our military has every single advantage we can supply them with, because they are going to need it in the next 25 years.

[Stopislamnow]

Jeez, this thing is still in the works?

Talk about governmental stupidity.

This thing was in the works 13 years ago when I joined the army. I'm very suprised it's still going on. This is one system that should have been scrapped long ago.

[Stopislamnow]

Clueless bureaucrats.

Comanche was hot stuff.

[GBA]

"...Blackhawks/Seahawks/Hueys/Cobras/Apaches/Chinooks/Sea Knights/Stallions/Super Stallions/Kiowas/Sea Rangers/Sea Kings from service based on the number of fatalities associated with them."

And that's just the rotor aircraft. If you add fatalities associated with fixed wing to that criteria, we won't have any aircraft at all and would have to buy them from the Russians.

Has there ever been an aircraft that didn't have fatalities associated with its prototype testing phase? I'm sure there are a few, but it's a sad fact of life that prototypes crash. Being a test pilot is a risky occupation, though it's probably driving to work is probably more dangerous than the job.

[GBA]

"Comanche was hot stuff."

I heard that it was also a very soft airframe and would be very easy to knock down. Is that true?

[GBA]

Dang. Meant to say: "Being a test pilot is a risky occupation, though driving to work is probably more dangerous than the job."

[Fierce Allegiance]

So we agree the concept is great. It seems as though this particular execution of the concept is lacking. Hopefully there is a next generation that will perform as intended.

Thanks for your service!

[SC Swamp Fox]

Actually, I'm incredibly impressed that it could lose that much of a rotor, and the first indication was was cockpit indicators. I would have guessed it would have shook like a wet dog.

Yup, I'm surprised they were able to make it back and land safely, especially since the V-22 can't land with the engines horizontal.

[Stopislamnow]

I never heard that about it. I know that it was not supposed to be a replacement for the apache.

The way I heard it from everyone(pilots, test pilots, mechanics, company reps) was that is was going to replace the aging OH-58 and OH-58D systems as a scout and limited weapons platform. It was going to have high stealth characteristics combined with weapons capability and observation package much like the 58D.

Some of the aging 58D's, while I was in, 90-96, were already fitted with weapons systems and performed well. There were also stealth mods being tested(I was a part of it), that just didn't pan out very well.

It was not designed to be a hard to kill system any more than the regular 58's were, it was more or less a new scout platform. As I understand it, but I was just a crewchief who heard alot of knowledgable folks discussing it, many, many times.

The Apache Longbow was the new tank killer on the block and everyone agreed it would be around a long time.

[Dick Vomer]

Q: How many hours do you have flying in the V-22 and how many hours have you spent doing FMEA on the technology? A: ZERO

I thought so.

Any qualms about letting your, or anyone elses, son fly into combat on 40 year old CH-46Es, AKA Boeing Body Bags?

.....Glad to hear that the aircraft and crew were able to land is .....problems will be fixed and almost certainly a similar aircraft will be adapted for civilian applications

The comment at the end about civilian adaptability covers my concern for the military use of the Osprey. Lawyers will have to be tranquilized after the first couple of these go down in "civilian" use and is why they only use them in the Military... cause the Marines who die can't sue for crappy engineering and piss poor planning.

I don't have a problem with the ramp up of weapon and transport systems, I have a problem when the Pentagon and those feeding at the trough start out with something complex (helicopter) and then exponentially make it more complex (rotation of wing/props), then years after the initial design in order to change the characteristics of the Osprey to pass congressional and Armed Forces critics (heavier payload/faster transport) they've made a very complicated vehicle that isn't going to do what we need it to do... fly 'reliably' into a hot combat zone.... I thought initially it was for transport into an area, but I'm told that this will be used to transport into hot LZ's and just scoot away.

I'm not a pilot, not brave enough, even though the potential of retreating at 600-700 mph is kinda enticing. I'd rather stick to a 5 to 6 foot high observation platform with a top speed around 12-15 mph (a little faster if shot at), low pay load (max out at about 120lb carrying) but real low maintanence water and beef jerky in a pinch.

. I think this is a program that just needs to wait until the engineering catches up with the idea.... of course that's only my opinion and I could be wrong.

[B4Ranch]

The $hithook if a great bird that should be caged, dried and photographed to provide reference to it's extinction for the EPA/ESA.

[B4Ranch]

>>Yup, I'm surprised they were able to make it back and land safely, especially since the V-22 can't land with the engines horizontal.<<

WHAT?

[B4Ranch]

>>The Comanche was basically a tank killer, there are too many ways to kill tanks right now.<<



A Tank Killer in Action.

[Haro_546]

HUH?

[2111USMC]

I also agree.

These things scare the he!! out of me. Too many Marines have been killed just in the testing phase. If need be, stick with the Chinooks.

[SC Swamp Fox]

It can't land with the engines horizontal, the props will not clear the ground.

[FreedomPoster]

>>The other one i want canceled is the F-22. Is just a pork barrel for boeing.

Umm - try LMASC.

[B4Ranch]

Interesting picture. I had assumed that they would have a strut landing gear that would lift the fuselage higher than normal, landing with the props set at a 45 deg angle or such.

Thank you for the clarification.