Posted on 10/16/2006 9:10:13 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
Pilots thrilled by CV-22 capabilities
by Staff Sgt. Jeremy Larlee
Air Force Print News
10/6/2006 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFPN) -- When he talks about his new aircraft, the CV-22 Osprey, the lieutenant colonel's face lights up like a kid opening presents on his birthday.
After 10 years of flying the MC-130H Combat Talon II, CV-22 instructor pilot Lt. Col. Darryl Sheets, from the 8th Special Operations Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Fla., said he has enjoyed his time in the aircraft.
"When it's in the airplane mode, to me this is like a C-130 sports car," he said. "It is probably three times more responsive and is a joy to fly."
The CV-22 has two distinct flying modes. It is able to rotate its rotors in different positions to hover like a helicopter or fly like a traditional prop-based aircraft like the C-130.
Colonel Sheets said it was an amazing feeling when he hovered for the first time.
"I had a smile from ear-to-ear," he said. "The aerodynamics of this aircraft makes it extremely stable in hover and in the transition between the two modes. My hat is off to the engineers who designed it."
Hovering is old news for Capt. Paul Alexander, a CV-22 instructor pilot from the 8th SOS, who has 22 years of experience flying helicopters in the Army and the Air Force. But the ability to fly at altitudes of 25,000 feet, about 15,000 feet higher than the he was accustomed to in helicopters, and fly at cruising speeds about two times faster than a helicopter is exciting, he said.
"It's been a lot of years since I have eagerly looked forward to every flight I take," he said. "This is what is keeping me in the military after 22 years of service."
The two pilots are at Kirtland AFB to create the procedures for how the CV-22 will be deployed.
It is a humbling experience to know that generations of pilots will be using the work they created, Captain Alexander said.
"I'm living the dream," he said. "It is an exciting time for us because we are in on the ground floor and writing the book on how we are going to deploy this aircraft."
Colonel Sheets said learning how to operate the aircraft has been like going back to pilot school again. He believes the CV-22 will be an integral piece of the Air Force's special operation's arsenal for years to come.
"Every day is a challenge at work," he said. "Something new comes up daily and this aircraft never ceases to amaze me."
A CV-22 Osprey lands at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., Oct. 5 after flying an air-refueling mission. This versatile, self-deployable aircraft offers increased speed and range over other rotary-wing aircraft and can perform missions that normally would require both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech Sgt. Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.)
Now I'm imagining an ugly picture: An engine failure followed by a gearbox failure.
Thanks for the info. The Marines are quite picky about their aircraft (notice they don't fly UH-60 Blackhawks) so if they like this one I guess that's that.
"Now I'm imagining an ugly picture: An engine failure followed by a gearbox failure. "
Yes, that would be a bad day. Unlikely though.
TC
Ya know, there once was a passenger airplane named the "Electra". It was a 4-engine turboprop and it initially had a nasty habit of shedding wings and augering in with full loads of passengers.
Of course, it was taken out of service and never amounted to anything, cause it wasn't right the first time.
It is too bad, because the Navy sure could have used an ASW version of it.
After looking at the picture in the article, I notice there is no "bottom" on the wing, i.e, no sheet metal. When the prop and engine is tilted forward for forward flight as in a normal aircraft, how is lift generated if there is no bottom part of the wing? Seems to me that airflow over and under the wing would be significantly different than in a typical aircraft.
> It's really amazing that US tech and innovation does not apply to the auto industry anymore.
History quiz:
What company was responsible for both the Redstone ballistic missile that launched Alan Shepard into space, *AND* the S-I first stage of the Saturn I launch vehicle?
Your are looking at the aircraft with the flaperons extended making the wing seem thicker than normal. The V22 wing is like any other fixed wing aircraft.
Chrysler Corp?
cll: "Now I'm imagining an ugly picture: An engine failure followed by a gearbox failure."
samPaine: "Now I'm imagining a bunch of shredded gears and ORCs before an engine failure."
I'm in agreement, if the Marines like it, then fine. But for me, as an engineer, it sounds like a wide diversion from the principle of K.I.S.S.
More systems == Less Reliable. Period.
Now maybe it's a reasonable trade-off for the added perfomance/capabilities, but it just sounds like a Rube-Goldberg Machine description, not an A-10 "overbuilt tough" description.
OK, I see you point(s) about the wing being "dirtied up" by slats, spoilers, etc; however, if the wing is a normally shaped wing, then it still looks like the driveshafts are still exposed under the wing. If so, I would think that laminar airflow characteristics under the wing would be different, i.e, lift is degraded. What am I missing here?
Like the Harrier ?
As some others pointed it, that is an illusion. I will point out that a wing does not need a bottom to generate lift. It is better with one but not 100% needed.
OK, now your picture came through and I now see the bottom of the wing with no driveshaft visible. No problem. Thanks for the visual.
Ha!
Hey, I don't like to argue with US Marines.
I had to cheat and look it up.Hard to believe the makers of this
made this
Imagine the next NASA competition for a launch vehicle.
Boeing, Lockheed, Chrysler? Ford?
An Air Force pal, commenting on the early Harriers' tendancy to crash, said, "Only the Marines are crazy enough to fly em."
Recently, two from Cherry Point MCAS were making T&G's at the local airstrip. Living right under the downwind leg of the prominently active strip offers plenty of eye time for viewing CPC visitors.
I can say, they are remarkable AC to watch, but there's no way in hades the thing will ever "sneak up" on a living enemy.
I was thumbing through some old magazines while waiting for a friend to get out of a doctor's appointment, and learned from Road & Track that the Japanese have (auto) R&D facilities set up all over the U.S. doing truly groundbreaking work.
I left wondering, "is it possible their Americans are better than our Americans?"
I recall a French fabric two-popper had no bottom of its main airfoil - if I can find a pic of the thing, I'll post it.
The Osprey has sheeting on the underside of all its airfoils.
they claim they are quieter than a Cobra or Chinook. Obviously its not an Apache.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-survive.htm
Compared to both helicopters and conventional turboprops, the Osprey has a lower acoustic signature due to the tiltrotor's reduced rotor rotational speed. It also uses very low thrust for cruise propulsion. The V-22 flying in aircraft mode produces a distinctive sound, described by observers as a "throaty and muted hum - more like a vehicle than a helicopter." The observers noted that, in combined operations, the steady buzz of the MV-22 was frequently masked until the last minute by the "whop-whop noise" of AH-1 Cobras and UH-1 Hueys that were supporting nearby. Overall, as compared to the CH-46, the MV-22 is less noisy while in the aircraft mode, and provides comparable acoustic acquisition cues while operating in the helicopter mode.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.