Skip to comments.
V-44.
The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane.
Popular Mechanics ^
| FR Post 9-30-2002
| BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY
Posted on 09/30/2002 2:20:06 PM PDT by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 last
To: vannrox
Two 20MM Vulcan, a 30MM Vulcan and a 105MM? Yikes, would not want to be on the receiving end....
To: misanthrope
OK, I think I've got it (on the cutaway perspective). It's not going to be directed up--it's right under a rotor, for crying out loud!
22
posted on
09/30/2002 3:51:49 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: misanthrope
<< I would think that if you lost an engine, you'd simply lose 25% of your power. >>
Because of drive-shaft and gearbox friction etceteras and other inherent inefficiencies, in what we call a "Critical Flight Situation" and particularly when operating within the "Dead Man's Curve" part of the Flight Envelope, [Vertical take off and early climb/accelerate; low-level hover and final approach and landing configurations] probably more like half or more than half of the aircraft's PERFORMANCE.
As the Osprey has well and truly demonstrated, this is not even close to a sensible aircraft type and may never be viable.
Which is not to say the Pentagon, which has ever demonstrated its unsurpassed genius for getting everything totally wrong every darned time; won't squander Scores of Billions -- and maybe another Trillion to match the Trillion it lost to fraud and bad accounting during the KKKli'toon years -- on it.
To: TomB
Cae in point - the FB-111. Yes, there were bugs - but it turned into a damn fine airframe with a lot of versatility for a lot of different missions.
To: Poohbah
Could this one take off/land with the rotors perpendicular to the ground? IIRC, the Osprey can't?; the diameter of the rotors is to great to allow it??
To: RoughDobermann
The Osprey can't; I think the V-44 can.
26
posted on
09/30/2002 3:56:57 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Poohbah
Actually, on the AH-1S Cobras, the exhaust was vented up toward the rotor to reduce thermal signature. They probably have this configured for the same reason.
27
posted on
09/30/2002 3:56:59 PM PDT
by
rangerX
To: Poohbah
Thanks
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Your link is full of factual errors.
To: Poohbah
I'm just a factual contributing messenger that offered no commentary whatsoever.
The "V-44" appears to be an add on (next generation) of the V-22. I see no reasonable argument against getting it (the V-22) working properly and in usable production before even considering expending any valuable resources on a follow-up aircraft.
Just MHO.
To: balrog666
How well does it fly with one rotor taken out? Like a brick.I'm not smart enough to be an engineer, but I don't understand the relentless pursuit of this design. Same as the Osprey, just looking at it, if it is in the climb or descent phase, and loses an engine either due to malfunction or ground fire, it flips over and kills everybody. Stupid. Someone on FR has posted another design that looks like a helicopter with a pusher-prop. Seems more sensible to me. At least with a helicopter, if it gets hit in the engine, it can auto-gyro downward, and give the troops a chance to survive impact. This thing, no way. It loses an engine, and it flips over, killing everybody. What is up with that? This 4-engine design, maybe it can compensate for loss of 1 engine. But it seems that would still be very difficult.
31
posted on
09/30/2002 4:10:44 PM PDT
by
FlyVet
To: FlyVet
Again--the rotors are cross-connected--losing an engine does not equate to losing the corresponding rotor.
32
posted on
09/30/2002 4:12:02 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Poohbah
Again--the rotors are cross-connected--losing an engine does not equate to losing the corresponding rotor.Okay, that sounds better. Still seems too dang complicated to me, not enough KISS Principle for a combat vehicle.
33
posted on
09/30/2002 4:26:14 PM PDT
by
FlyVet
To: FlyVet
If the KISS principle were the ultimate expression of a vehicle's combat-worthiness, then everything after the chariot would flunk.
34
posted on
09/30/2002 4:27:17 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: Poohbah
If the KISS principle were the ultimate expression of a vehicle's combat-worthiness, then everything after the chariot would flunk.Maybe so. I think I read a book on every WW II fighter or bomber, and at one time or another it seems most were nicknamed "widowmaker" due to design problems. Case in point the P-38 which had a nasty habit of losing an engine on takeoff early on, instant death for an unskilled pilot. Dubya flew the F-102 and that was also called "widowmaker" due to its ejection seat problems. Maybe they will work the bugs out of the Osprey and this creature, but I guess I'll remain skeptical. It seems there are better avenues than this design. You probably know more than me.
35
posted on
09/30/2002 4:38:30 PM PDT
by
FlyVet
To: FlyVet
I'm not smart enough to be an engineer, but I don't understand the relentless pursuit of this design. Very simple.
1) It's the only forward-based troop transport in development, so it has no competition, and
2) It's components are slated to be produced in 350 different congressional districts, so Congress won't let it be killed.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-36 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson