Posted on 10/16/2006 9:10:13 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
Lots of old aircraft had no "bottom" to the airfoil, among them I believe the Wright Flyer.
>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...
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
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.
So, what certifications are required to pilot one? helluvacopter? fixed-wing? or a confusion of both?
"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?
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.
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.
Yes, because they don't all live in Detroit, and thus don't succumb to the industry groupthink that "our Americans" do.
>>-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.
"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
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.
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.
Amazing aircraft, hope they got the "bugs" out of it.
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.