Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pilots thrilled by CV-22 capabilities
Air Force Print News ^ | 6 October 2006 | Staff Sgt. Jeremy Larlee

Posted on 10/16/2006 9:10:13 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: All

41 posted on 10/16/2006 10:29:57 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
another cool pic. The thing is like a Transformer when its wings & props fold up


42 posted on 10/16/2006 10:31:11 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

43 posted on 10/16/2006 10:32:14 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud

Lots of old aircraft had no "bottom" to the airfoil, among them I believe the Wright Flyer.


44 posted on 10/16/2006 10:37:26 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

>Imagine the next NASA competition for a launch vehicle.

> Boeing, Lockheed, Chrysler? Ford?

Ford used to have aerospace divisions. The Aeroneutronic Division of Philco-Ford was responsible for a lot of avionics in the Apollo-Saturn days; Philco built, IIRC, the first "mission control" in Houston.

Ford also built the Trimotor, but that was obviously a little bit earlier...


45 posted on 10/16/2006 10:38:19 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: miele man

Obviously, there are exciting photos of the Osprey on this thread, and posting this pic would be like pitting a pedal car to a Formula One racer, so I'll let a link suffice...;) http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/nieuport_1_1909_01_1000.jpg


46 posted on 10/16/2006 10:38:46 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

It's a totally different type of aircraft. BTW, the Osprey cannot autorotate in an emergency. Guess thats why they have the APU and drive transmission for emergencies.


47 posted on 10/16/2006 10:41:08 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

So, what certifications are required to pilot one? helluvacopter? fixed-wing? or a confusion of both?


48 posted on 10/16/2006 10:48:04 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
The technology is great, but I have some serious questions:

"What will its mission be"?
-Is it intended to take the place of an existing aircraft of any type?
-It cannot land in (or near) a hot LZ like a helicopter.
-Its internal cabin capacity is pretty small (much smaller than a CH-53 or -47)
-Is there an armed version? mini-guns, rocket pods?
-How close can their in-flight formations be?

49 posted on 10/16/2006 10:48:49 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Wonderful and hopeful, as this aircraft has exactly the capabilities the Marines and Navy need now. I want to know what has been done engineering wise to correct the faults that precipitated the disastrous and tragic Marana AZ. crash and other early mishaps.

Please enlighten me regarding this if possible, and what part pilot error might have played in those early setbacks, if any. I remember the incidents, but I don't remember reading anything about any followup reports.

I truly hope that these and even more powerful 4 engine transports will be in the offing, as it will enable really quick and overwhelming deployment of Marines and Special Ops forces, and much quicker extraction of downed pilots and ground forces in tough positions.

50 posted on 10/16/2006 10:53:02 AM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
My Dad worked for Curtiss Wright for 40 years as a machinist. He was very proud of their history in aviation and when the X-19 was launched it appeared that their airframe business would be maintained but alas....

Tilt Wing Transport

51 posted on 10/16/2006 10:53:30 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
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

Ah! I see! When I was observating them, I had no "whop-whop noise" of AH-1 Cobras and UH-1 Hueys confusing my ears.

52 posted on 10/16/2006 10:53:39 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Yes, because they don't all live in Detroit, and thus don't succumb to the industry groupthink that "our Americans" do.


53 posted on 10/16/2006 10:58:34 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

>>-It cannot land in (or near) a hot LZ like a helicopter.

That's a big issue I haven't seen addressed. There are plenty of accounts of Chinooks going into hot LZs during OIF in The March Up and in Ollie North's book (can't remember the title).

I guess we'll retire the CH-47s, use CH-53s for hot zone situations, and these for medium-range haul.


54 posted on 10/16/2006 11:01:43 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

"What will its mission be"
"Is it intended to take the place of an existing aircraft of any type?"
Medium-lift replacement for the CH-46E and the older CH-53D. Troops and supplies in-theater.
"It cannot land in (or near) a hot LZ like a helicopter" Untrue. The Block B aircraft being delivered now have an interim, ramp-mounted M240 Squad Automatic Weapon (machine gun) on a pedestal. They're still investigating what the final defensive weapon will be. Mind, if you KNOW an LZ is hot, you'd likely either suppress hostiles first, or go elsewhere.
"Its internal cabin capacity is pretty small (much smaller than a CH-53 or -47)" That's because it replaces the 46 in a MEDIUM-LIFT mission.
"Is there an armed version? mini-guns, rocket pods?" See above re: the SAW. A gunship version isn't really too practical a concept, as the proprotors block the forward quadrant from either under the wing or the sponsons.
"How close can their in-flight formations be?" About the same as most helicopters in VTOL mode; in airplane mode, the operators seem to prefer a "loose-deuce" type formation.


Folks, it's very tempting to compare the V-22 to a specific helo or airplane, which is a mistake. It's a hybrid aircraft, meaning it has some capabilities (and limitations) associated with each type aircraft. But no other aircraft can take off from a ship, fly 250 miles, land in an LZ to pick up Pax or cargo, and return, all in about two hours. Think of medevac from the battlefield, or after Katrina.

TC


55 posted on 10/16/2006 11:05:46 AM PDT by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
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?"

Fundamentally, Americans do breakthrough technology, whereas the Japanese make refinements to that technology. The auto industry's technology is mature - this is why the Chinese can make cars, but there's only one Microsoft. And two major computer CPU firms - both American.

Let's face it - auto manufacturers are not primarily in the technology business - there are no fundamental capabilities cars have today that they did not have during the Model T era - they're in the business of making better-looking interiors and sheet metal. The Osprey is a completely new animal - a helicopter that can both hover and fly like a plane. You gotta to hand it to American engineers - it's not that they know their stuff - any dipstick can learn from a book - it's that they can come up with completely new things that nobody else ever figured out. Credit it to good old American ingenuity - and a $100b defense procurement budget.
56 posted on 10/16/2006 11:08:29 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse; Al Simmons
How did they work out the bugs re: controlling this aicraft? I recall that it killed dozens of Marines in accidents...

I heard the one crash that killed those Marines out in Arizona was pilot error. Don't know how to fix human error--I haven't seen anyone who hasn't made a mistke misatkemitsake mistake or three...

Global Security has a good summary of the problem with that crash, which was descending at 250% of the rate of descent that they are supposed to use while also having very low forward air speed.  That resulted in a condition that also affects regular helicopters, but the V-22 responds differently to the problem and pilots needed to learn a new way to recover from it.

There was also a severe design problem with the hydraulics that led to another crash and some severe problems with the control software for the aircraft.  This article has a good summary of the crashes and what they did to fix the problems.

57 posted on 10/16/2006 11:11:32 AM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cll
"I would just like to see what is the emergency procedure for a single engine failure. Just curious."

Accoridng to the air show announcer - it's fully capable of turning both on a single engine.
Of course lots of aircraft, about any with more than one engine, can fly with one cold but I've never met a pilot or mission planner who was in favor of the idea.

Side note: Saw a USMC MV-22 demonstrated yesterday - looks pertty good out there. All the stand bys, Seastallion/Cobra/Slick looked like they were at anchor.

58 posted on 10/16/2006 11:13:54 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck
But no other aircraft can take off from a ship, fly 250 miles, land in an LZ to pick up Pax or cargo, and return, all in about two hours. Think of medevac from the battlefield, or after Katrina.

This is amazing - the helo returns to its roots - I believe the first Sikorskys were used to evac WWII wounded from the battlefield (and for search and rescue).
59 posted on 10/16/2006 11:21:40 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

Amazing aircraft, hope they got the "bugs" out of it.


60 posted on 10/16/2006 11:28:35 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson