It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

V-22 Osprey is a Go: Mass Production Approved

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Looks like the V-22 Osprey will now be mass produced...

news.yahoo.com...

360 are to be built for the Marines, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force.

Hope they prove worth the cost.

-koji K.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by koji_K]




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The V-22 is a good plane and will do just fine. Compared to other aircraft its had a better test record by far. Its just tainted because just one of the accidents killed 19 alone.

I am excited about this, I wonder how far off tilt turbojets are?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
tilt turbo jets eh? sounds awesome. does anyone know if there are plans for one? Oh and happy about the Go for production been following the V-22 for awhile and its about time they went into full production.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I'd guess due to the inertial effects of the higher rotational rates in turbojets, along with the fact they are pretty inefficient at low speeds (essentially useless for vertical take-off/landing then) they will never be developed.

Even a Ultra-High BPR turbofan I don't see being developed, but a propfan is a possibility...



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
You ever seen the new GE-90's on the 777, you think those babies dont have low speed power, 130,000 pounds of thrust max, even at low speed, its so powerful, it will throw anything into the air.

Train



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
You ever seen the new GE-90's on the 777, you think those babies dont have low speed power, 130,000 pounds of thrust max, even at low speed, its so powerful, it will throw anything into the air.



Definitely nice engines those. But would the V-22 be able to hand the stress on the wings/tilt joints with that much power going through them? And what about fuel? Wouldn't that be a disadvantage since jets take higher grade fuel, and more of it to push the thing along?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Not to mention the Harrier uses distilled water to circulate to cool things down while it hovers. You'd have to add weight to have a cimilar system in a jet version of the Osprey.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Could someone present me the advancements that the Osprey V-22 has over the helicopters currently in service?

[edit on 30-9-2005 by COWlan]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Apeed, flexibility, payload. Since they are airplanes, they can fly at 300 mph or so, as opposed to the super los speed of a helicopter. They can carry a bigger payload, and take off and land like an airplane, as opposed to helicopter mode, and they're big enough to carry a good sized number of troops.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
V-22s are big right? Do they have the ability to land on frigates and destroyers?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
They aren't THAT big. It's just that they have a long wingspan, and big rotor diameter.


Dimensions (External)

* Length, fuselage, ft (m) : 57.3 (17.48)
* Width, rotors turning, ft (m) : 84.6 (25.55)
* Length, stowed, ft (m) : 63 (19.20)
* Width, stowed, ft (m) : 18.4 (5.61)
* Width, horizontal stabilizer, ft (m) : 18.4 (5.61)
* Height, nacelles fully vertical, ft (m) : 22.1 (6.73)
* Height, vertical stabilizer, ft (m) : 17.9 (5.46)
* Height, stowed, ft (m) : 18.3 (5.56)

Dimensions (Internal)

* Length, max, ft (m) : 24.17 (7.37)
* Width, max, ft (m) : 5.92 (1.80)
* Height, max, ft (m) : 6.00 (1.83)

Weights

* Empty, lbs (kg) : 33,459 (15,177)
* Takeoff, verical, max, lbs (kg) : 52,600 (23,495)
* Takeoff, short running, max, lbs (kg) : 57,000 (25,909)
* Takeoff, self-deploy mission, lbs (kg) : 60,500 (27,443)
* Cargo hook, single, lbs (kg) : 10,000 (4,536)
* Cargo hook, dual, lbs (kg) : 15,000 (6,804)

Fuel Capacity

* MV-22 (including aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 1,448 (5,481)
* CV-22 (including aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 2,040 (7,722)

Fuel Capacity with wing tanks

* MV-22 (including wing tanks, no aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 1,724 (6,526)



If they CAN'T land it on a Frigate or Destroyer, they can sling cargo onto their deck underneath the fuselage.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

I am excited about this, I wonder how far off tilt turbojets are?


Oh, about 40 years in the past!




external image

[edit on 1-10-2005 by waynos]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Oh wow!!!! Bravo to the Germans, this again proves the superiority of German engineering (I'm biased towards German engineers, they are the best even though I'm not German).



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by skippytjc

I am excited about this, I wonder how far off tilt turbojets are?


Oh, about 40 years in the past!


[edit on 1-10-2005 by waynos]


What about the Bell (22?), the original US tilt(rotor)? Didn't it have 4 turbofans?



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
If you mean the Bell X-22, they were ducted fans, which are basically propellers with shrouds around them, ducted fans fans, turbofans and turbojets (which is what skippy was asking about) are all very different and the VJ-101 pictured above was the first tilt turbojet. The X-22 was not the first 'tilt -rotor' type however, it was beaten by a couple of years by the Curtiss Wright X-19.

The X-19 and the X-22 were both 'four poster' designs but the twin, tip-mounted tilt rotor design as used in the XV-15 and V-22 can be traced back to late '60's designs by Westland called the WE.01 and WE.02. The WE.01 was a small scale test vehicle directly comparable to the XV-15 whilst the WE.02 was to be a large transport, bigger than the current V-22. Being British however money, as always, was the problem and they remained unbuilt.

I'm not sure if a tilt turbfan has yet flown at all, anyone?

[edit on 2-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I have been flying it in my Real Flight Sim, out of all the planes it flies the best.

www.realflight.com...
external image

[edit on 2-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Thanks, Waynos, that was exactly what I was thinking of. Couldn't remember the details, I was just sure that I'd seen a picture of something that looked a hell of a lot like a til-turbofan to me.

If I remember correctly, they abandoned it because it wasn't stable enough.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I concur ,I have worked at Boeing's Military Helicopter Plant in Ridley Park since
1984.I have worked on The V-22 since that time ,In alot of Phases and even tho
it has had it's share of terrible times in testing and the real world . I also think in
the long run that it will be be a great AirCraft and Asset.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

I'm not sure if a tilt turbfan has yet flown at all, anyone?

[edit on 2-10-2005 by waynos]


Moller SkyCar maybe?



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The skycar seems to have ducted fans alright, but these are powered not by a turbine but a wankel engine (apparently).

The Heinkel Wespe also used ducted propellors, powered by a turbine.

I would expect the high gyroscopic forces of a turbofan the speed it would force a cross shaft to rotate at, and the fact it is not, and never will be the most efficient solution to the problem will mean it probably won't be developed. But hey, never say never I suppose




top topics



 
0

log in

join