Posted on 09/29/2007 8:20:50 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
It's hard to imagine an American weapons program so fraught with problems that Dick Cheney would try repeatedly to cancel it — hard, that is, until you get to know the Osprey. As Defense Secretary under George H.W. Bush, Cheney tried four times to kill the Marine Corps's ungainly tilt-rotor aircraft. Four times he failed. Cheney found the arguments for the combat troop carrier unpersuasive and its problems irredeemable. "Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, given the areas where we think the priorities ought to be, the V-22 is not at the top of the list," he told a Senate committee in 1989. "It came out at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided to terminate it." But the Osprey proved impossible to kill, thanks to lawmakers who rescued it from Cheney's ax time and again because of the home-district money that came with it — and to the irresistible notion that American engineers had found a way to improve on another great aviation breakthrough, the helicopter.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
This is just another warmed-over hit piece based on V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker?
"[I]f the plane's two engines are disabled by enemy fire or mechanical trouble while it's hovering, the V-22 lacks a helicopter's ability to coast roughly to the ground — something that often saved lives in Vietnam. In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that the planes be capable of autorotating (as the maneuver is called), with unpowered but spinning helicopter blades slowly letting the aircraft land safely."
For the short flight regime that an Osprey will be in the hover mode, no other helicopter would have much success with autorotation, either. The Thunder Chickens are en route to the theater, so I wish them all Godspeed.
Notice that the dates given were over 18 years ago too. A lot of development has gone into them since then, the ones flying now are far superior to the ones tested way back when.
It wasn’t the contractors (Bell) or the politicians who saved it, it was the USMC Aviation who made it a top priority.
When it was in early development the Army was an interested partner in the Marine Corps development of the Osprey. The Army recommended the effort be stopped and dropped out when it was apparent that it was a disaster waiting to happen. The Marine Corps just refused to give up on it though and forged ahead.
I thought that this plane was deemed a disaster years ago. If I were a serviceman I would refuse to get into it if going to a combat zone.
Amarillo TX Bell facility is shoving em out the hanger like nickles from a slot machine.........they fly here all the time and no crash and burn scenarios have played out thus far............
They are very fast, come into a hover mode easily and having flown, autorotated, and crashed in every thing from loaches, UH1’s to Pavelow HH53’s etc .....I have not seen any issue that would make me refuse to fly in one. But that is easy for me to say as I am retired now and will never HAVE to fly in one. They offer me a free ride tomorrow I’ll be there !!
I think more folks died in Honda’s in the past 12 hours in the US than have perished in the V-22 since it’s inception.
To use a cliché, if Time is against it then I’m for it.
> In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that
> the planes be capable of autorotating ...
Is that true? And did the other services make the
same determination?
As I understand it, autorotation, and wing gliding,
to a power-off landing are theoretically possible
with the V-22, but I suspect they are not taught live,
and it sounds like not even taught in the sim.
Not that a CH-46 is an ideal place to be under fire ...
I'm no pilot, but the mechanical engineer in me says you're right. As I understand it, the idea of a no-power landing (autorotation) is that as the aircraft falls, you actually reverse the pitch on the rotor. This spins-up the rotor - putting energy (converting potential energy as you fall) into kinetic energy - momentum in the rotor. As you near the ground, you bring back in positive pitch, pulling energy out of the rotor, slowing the fall, and landing.
Supposedly helo pilots practice this maneuver at altitude down to a pretend ground level, slowing their rate of decent as they approach the designated altitude. However, I hear the Marine pilots actually practice the maneuver to landing - so it can't be all that bad.
The fundamental idea though is you have enough air under you to put some energy into the rotor... As I understand the con-ops for the V-22, it is supposed to ingress rapidly in airplane mode, transition to hover and land. So you're right. At the notional low altitudes of these maneuvers (who wants to be up high and slow, a sitting duck for ground fire?) no helo would auto-rotate well.
My thinking is more along the lines of: If Cheney is against it, I am against it.
Yes, but Cheney was against it, then became Vice President . . . meaning that he’s no longer against it (to the best of my knowledge). I wonder where Rumsfeld stood?
Wonder whether Time Magazine's style guide actually requires their "reporters" to employ phony leftist stereotypes to kick off each article, or whether they do it merely out of habit...
It must really give their authors a powerful sense of freedom to be unencumbered by any need to abide by pesky and old-fashioned constraints such as sticking to the facts rather than inventing their material out of thin air, huh...
I have friends who are marines who have referred to this thing as a flying deathtrap and an airborn coffin.
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.