V-44. The Pentagon’s next transport flies like a plane.

Popular Mechanics ^ | FR Post 9-30-2002 | BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY

[RoughDobermann]

Two 20MM Vulcan, a 30MM Vulcan and a 105MM? Yikes, would not want to be on the receiving end....

[Poohbah]

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!

[Brian Allen]

<< 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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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.

[RoughDobermann]

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??

[Poohbah]

The Osprey can't; I think the V-44 can.

[rangerX]

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.

[RoughDobermann]

Thanks

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Your link is full of factual errors.

[michigander]

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.

[FlyVet]

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.

[Poohbah]

Again--the rotors are cross-connected--losing an engine does not equate to losing the corresponding rotor.

[FlyVet]

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.

[Poohbah]

If the KISS principle were the ultimate expression of a vehicle's combat-worthiness, then everything after the chariot would flunk.

[FlyVet]

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.

[balrog666]

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.