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.

 

Marines to deploy the Osprey tilt rotor into combat within a year.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
Orca - I am stating here and now that you dont know anything about the V-22. Yes, the V-22 can hover with one engine out, it can fly with one engine out, it can land with one engine out. You seem to know nothing about the V-22 other than you dont like it.


Im stating here and now that youre full of it. The V-22 cannot hover with one engine with a useful load. If it is already in airplane mode, it can continue to fly forward with one engine out. It cannot land vertically with one engine out with any kind of useful load. If it is already in airplane mode, it can land with one engine only if a runway is available, but in the process will suffer significant damage.


You also know nothing about simulation. Most of the development for the V-22 was done thru simulations, or have you never heard of computer modeling. I have a good friend who works at Pax River, he was on the V-22 development team. They constructed the simulator, developed the software, and tested the feasability of the V-22, this was done in parallel with the actual aircraft development. You can design a system then model it in a simulator to see if it will work.


Most design of anything is done through simulators. You are also confusing two kinds of simulators. Real time flight simulators, the video games you like to play with, and the actual engineering and design simulators, which require massive amounts of computing power and cannot perform the simulation in real-time due to the massive computation requirements to calculate even a single localized vortex, let alone the complex aerodynamics of an aircraft. But even the engineering "simulators" cannot accurately predict the real world dynamics of a new type of aircraft because there isnt any pre-existing data and there isnt enough computing power in the world to simulate reality.

So basically, your Matrix fantasy ends here.


You are wrong with your rubbish comment. The pilot at Yuma attempted to perform a manuever that took the V-22 outside the flight envelope. He was attempting to do a high speed decent, flareout, and landing. The software was corrected after the crash to prevent the pilots from rotating the nacelles into a no lift zone depending on airspeed and rate of descent.


In other words, the control software was changed to take control away from the pilot because the "simulators" didnt predict how unpredictable the V-22 is at it's limit.


One or two Marines in a rowboat is a weapons platform. I dare you to tell a Marine pilot that his V-22 is not a weapons platform.


So now you are saying rowboats and parachutes are weapons platforms also? Atleast your consistent on this one.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by orca71]




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
I hope that you arent implying that the V-22 cant operate on one engine. Just because the engines are mounted on the wings, that does not mean that they are directly driving the prop-rotors. The aircraft utilizes a gearbox/transmission drive system that will allow the aircraft to fly with one engine out. If damaged in combat, the V-22 can still land like an aircraft in emergencies. The prop-rotors are designed to disintegrate upon impact with the ground.

Good luck with that. Read into it what you will, all I said is that I'm glad I won't be on it.


Originally posted by simtek 22
I have worked in military simulation since the mid 80's and the devices I have worked on have trained hundreds of pilots. They arent "video games" or toys, they have real world applications and we can train pilots on complex and dangerous situations that they may encounter.

Simulators are useful training tools, I won't argue with that.


Originally posted by simtek 22
HeneryHenery - The quirk you talk about is called vortex ring state(VRS). This problem is what caused the Yuma crash, that and pilot error. The flight
control software has been corrected to prevent this from happening again.

How has it been changed? Do you mean that the software has been modified so as to not allow the nacelles to swivel >90 degrees in flight? If so, that's great as it removes the easiest way to get yourself into AVRS, but maybe they should have made sure the pilots never performed such maneuvers to begin with rather than artificially blocking functionality that could be useful under certain circumstances. In any case, it doesn't remove the problem, it only removes one of the conditions that could cause it. It will always be a more prominent risk in a tiltrotor than in a helicopter.

And no, AVRS is not the only quirk the V-22 has.


Originally posted by simtek 22
One of the advantages you left out is range. Air refuelings are also not as demanding as in a helicopter.

Range? The Osprey has no range advantage over a helicopter.


Originally posted by simtek 22
When I talk about weapons platform, I cover a lot of ground. Just because a aircraft is unarmed, that does not mean its not a weapons platform.

Are you Oxford now? Sorry, but you don't get to redefine terms. Unless it has the ability to fire weapons while airborne, it is not a weapons platform. The Osprey has no such ability, unless you fly backwards while the Marines fire their guns out the aft ramp. Face it simtek, the Osprey cannot fly without an escort.


Originally posted by simtek 22
One or two Marines in a rowboat is a weapons platform. I dare you to tell a Marine pilot that his V-22 is not a weapons platform.

Chances are that unless the pilot is brand new, he will tell you that he'd rather have an upgraded H-3 or even Chinooks. The pilots and the grunts do not want the Osprey.

Anyway, like I keep saying... Even if all the technical issues are resolved, the Osprey still will not be the right tool for the job. A helicopter will always outperform the tilt-rotor. The V-22 can be useful in cases where pure speed is more important than payload capacity, but for the majority of tasks it is useless.

I'm still waiting for facts to back these claims up (did I forget any?):
* The V-22 was designed to replace fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters
* The V-22 is not an airplane, it is a cargo helicopter designed to replace the CH-46
* The V-22 significantly outperforms helicopters
* The V-22 significantly outperforms fixed-wing aircraft
* The V-22 is comparable to an HH-60
* The V-22 isn't overcomplicated and unreliable, the pilots just need to concentrate better
* Paying twice as much for an aircraft with half the capacity of current helicopters is worth it just for the 30-50% increase in speed
* The V-22 is a well-honed weapons platform
* The V-22 is the best aircraft in the world, otherwise the military wouldn't spend money on it
* The V-22 has several advantages in combat operations
* A rowboat with a marine in it is a gunship



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Im stating here and now that youre full of it. The V-22 cannot hover with one engine with a useful load. If it is already in airplane mode, it can continue to fly forward with one engine out. It cannot land vertically with one engine out with any kind of useful load. If it is already in airplane mode, it can land with one engine only if a runway is available, but in the process will suffer significant damage.

Takeoffs would be extremely difficult but they are not impossible, even under heavy loads. Both engines are constantly providing power to the prop-rotors. With the loss of a single engine, the remaining one provides power to both rotors. Depending the type of takeoff, either a rolling takeoff or straight from hover, would affect the degree of difficulity. I watched aircrews perform both types in the trainer. With high load rates, a rolling takeoff was commonly used. Engine failures with this type of takeoff weren't as difficult to handle.


Originally posted by orca71
Most design of anything is done through simulators. You are also confusing two kinds of simulators. Real time flight simulators, the video games you like to play with, and the actual engineering and design simulators, which require massive amounts of computing power and cannot perform the simulation in real-time due to the massive computation requirements to calculate even a single localized vortex, let alone the complex aerodynamics of an aircraft.

In the case of most aircraft, flight simulators are used to develop cockpit layout and a general idea of how well the concept would work. They are no match for real world flying, but thats what flight testing is for. You gather your data, and update the simulations (both types) and repeat the process. The actual flight simulators give the pilots a general idea of what to expect. We had the Edwards guys in our trainers about once a month.


Originally posted by orca71
But even the engineering "simulators" cannot accurately predict the real world dynamics of a new type of aircraft because there isnt any pre-existing data and there isnt enough computing power in the world to simulate reality.

I agree, the whole concept of the simulators is to get a general idea of how well it will work. Real world data is always the best.


Originally posted by orca71
In other words, the control software was changed to take control away from the pilot because the "simulators" didnt predict how unpredictable the V-22 is at it's limit.

The Yuma pilot rotated the engine nacells to quickly during a rapid decent. It had nothing to do with unpredictability. It had everything to do with attempting to fly the aircraft outside the flight envelope. Nacelle control thru the flight software was changed to prevent pilots from moving the engines into the hazardous, low lift areas.


Originally posted by orca71
So now you are saying rowboats and parachutes are weapons platforms also? Atleast your consistent on this one.

Sure, you are delivering a weapon aren't you.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
First off, sorry about loosing my temper on my earlier rant at you. Here are my replies.


Originally posted by HenryHenry

I'm still waiting for facts to back these claims up (did I forget any?):
* The V-22 was designed to replace fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters

Not my comment, however: www.globalsecurity.org...
And yes, there is blurb about the problems encountered with the program.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 is not an airplane, it is a cargo helicopter designed to replace the CH-46

Again, not my comment, however, engines rotated forward, wings for lift, sounds like an airplane to me.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 significantly outperforms helicopters

Pick and choose: www.globalsecurity.org...
How much do you classify as significant?


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 significantly outperforms fixed-wing aircraft

Again not my quote. It all depends on the aircraft you are comparing it to though. Cessna yes, C-130 no. Not a good comment to make.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 is comparable to an HH-60

Once again, see the specs on globalsecurity and draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind that the -60 can't carry much of a human payload.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 isn't overcomplicated and unreliable, the pilots just need to concentrate better

The V-22, maintenance wise is very complicated. Unreliable, that remains to be seen though, they havent been in the inventory long enough to compare maintenance data with other airframes. The only flight training I had was 17 years working on simulators. I never flew any rotary types (sims). It took me about 3 days to learn to fly and hover in the CV-22. Just imagine how difficult it is for a real airman (implying that they is smarter than me on flying things).


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* Paying twice as much for an aircraft with half the capacity of current helicopters is worth it just for the 30-50% increase in speed

Not my comment, however, half the capacity? Which helicopter? I would also like to see how much a CH-46 or CH-53 would cost in todays dollars.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 is a well-honed weapons platform

My comment, by this I was referring to working out the bugs. Maybe not to well thought out on my part however. I guess I could have come up with better wording.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 is the best aircraft in the world, otherwise the military wouldn't spend money on it

Not mine! Quite a statement though. If the concept was not valid, it would have been cancelled back a few years ago. Look up the Sgt. York anti-aircraft system sometime. When it couldn't deliver, the program was killed.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* The V-22 has several advantages in combat operations

Here I point to the globalsecurity data once again. Low and slow (helo) or low and 100 knots faster (V-22) overflying hostile territory. Would you really chooes a helo? Range is generally better, payload a little better, quieter in conventional forward flight, altitude if you need it.


Originally posted by HenryHenry
* A rowboat with a marine in it is a gunship

OK, you win that one!

The noise comment is made from personel observation. In conventional flight, the CV-22 was not as loud as a -60 or H-1. All bets are off in hover though. Quiet is good when you enter an area, helos have a tough time sneaking up on you.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
Again, not my comment, however, engines rotated forward, wings for lift, sounds like an airplane to me.

My post was mostly sarcasm. It is a fact that the Osprey is primarily intended to replace helicopters.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Pick and choose: www.globalsecurity.org...
How much do you classify as significant?

I pick the H-53E (or X), and significant would be more than a percent or two.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Again not my quote. It all depends on the aircraft you are comparing it to though. Cessna yes, C-130 no. Not a good comment to make.

At least we agree there. It does not outperform any fixed-wing transport.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Once again, see the specs on globalsecurity and draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind that the -60 can't carry much of a human payload.

Bad Dog claimed I should compare the Osprey to the HH-60. I have no idea what he was talking about. The HH-60 is less than half the size/weight of the V-22 and has less than one third the power.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Not my comment, however, half the capacity? Which helicopter? I would also like to see how much a CH-46 or CH-53 would cost in todays dollars.

It should be obvious even to you that I'm talking about the H-53E (or X). That GlobalSecurity site you keep referring to puts the cost at $25 million a piece back in the mid-1990s. In reality, an H-53 will set you back about $40 million today. Compare that to the ~$80-$100 million for a V-22.



Originally posted by simtek 22
My comment, by this I was referring to working out the bugs. Maybe not to well thought out on my part however. I guess I could have come up with better wording.

I think you're trying to say that the Osprey is evolving into a fairly polished aircraft, which is fair enough. I think you'll agree that it no useful weaponry though.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Not mine! Quite a statement though. If the concept was not valid, it would have been cancelled back a few years ago. Look up the Sgt. York anti-aircraft system sometime. When it couldn't deliver, the program was killed.

Nice try, but the fact that another project was canceled proves nothing. The Osprey has failed to meet most of the project requirements. Not that it matters, because even if it passed with flying colors, it would still be inferior to the H-53.



Originally posted by simtek 22
Here I point to the globalsecurity data once again. Low and slow (helo) or low and 100 knots faster (V-22) overflying hostile territory. Would you really chooes a helo? Range is generally better, payload a little better, quieter in conventional forward flight, altitude if you need it.

Maybe you should read "the globalsecurity data" yourself. First of all, a fully loaded V-22 flying that low is not "100 knots faster." Secondly, I've yet to see any evidence of your claims that the range and payload are better. Infact, how can the payload be better when the H-53 can carry twice as much to any range?



I have quoted the raw numbers several times in this thread without anyone refuting them. What do you think the range and payload capacity of an Osprey is? What do you think its OGE hover and service ceiling is? What makes you think it's better than that of an H-53? This question goes for Bad Dog too, but I guess he ran away with his tail between his legs several posts ago.

For an added challenge, I encourage you to compare the numbers to what the V-22 has been able to demonstrate in real life.

And yes, I would choose a helicopter for nine out of ten missions.



Originally posted by HenryHenry
The noise comment is made from personel observation. In conventional flight, the CV-22 was not as loud as a -60 or H-1. All bets are off in hover though. Quiet is good when you enter an area, helos have a tough time sneaking up on you.

Believe what you want, but the Osprey isn't exactly stealth, especially not when accompanied by an escort due to its lack of defensive capabilities.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by HenryHenry]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by HenryHenry]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by HenryHenry]




top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join