Originally posted by BlueRaja
As for their utility, their speed and relative silence while in flight compared to helicopters, gives them a huge advantage with regards to the element of surprise. It allows for quicker reaction times to intel, or for evacuation purposes of injured Marines too.

I had the chance of seeing the Bell XV-15 (also a tilt-rotor) flying from a very close distance.

In horizontal mode (flying mode) it is unbelievably quiet (far less than a small aircraft), in helicopter mode, it is noisy, like an helicopter is, usually.

If the V-22 is the same, you should hardly heard it, in forward flight.

As far as the rest (Time article), I don't know, if all of it is true (perhaps some).

Burn Pattern, I believe this refers to V-22's tendcy to strip grass off lawns. Its downwash is significantly greater then a normal helicopter. It was one of the requirements it couldn't meet on the CSAR-X contract, and therefore bowed out. During one demonstration in D.C., the V-22 caused signicant damage to the lawn below it.
Also, its very unfair to compare the V-22 to the Blackhawk crash in August. That aircraft was already near its max life hours, when something craps the bed on your 1985 car are you surprised? Preliminary indications from that investigation I believe are rumored due to incorrect maintence procedure. So when your 1985 car's dies because your mechanic's screw up, is it really your old vehicle's design at fault?

The V-22 has killed more in its test program then most. With brand new airframes with low hours.

For those that don't realize it as well, the V-22 will have the same fuselage vunerabilities as the Ch-46. Its not well publicized, but its the same airframe with modifications. Its up for debate if its tilt rotor system is more vunerable then Ch-46's rotor system, but at least the 46 can still autorotate with damage that doesn't directly shear a blade.

The comparison that is sorely lacking from previous is between the V-22 and the Ch-53.

The V-22 is smaller in length,width, rotor diameter, but it weighs more. And Carries less. Its rate of climb is less then the 53's, which translates to more time in the line of fire. The top ceiling is very decieving, the requirements for a pressurized cabin were dropped. So they will not be flying to 26,000 feet with troops on board, they will be at the same max height as the 53.

Its Range is greater then the 53's at first glance, but that's a trick. Its combat range, is significantly less. The range listed for the 53 is its combat range though its not stated. So 53 with full 55/gear troops can go 540nmi, and the V-22 with 24 troops/gear can only go 380nmi.
It also comes with a far greater price tag.

In the end, its only benefit is its top speed.


Ch-53
Crew: 2 Pilots, 1 or more Crew Chiefs
Capacity: 37 troops (55 in alternate configuration) or 24 stretchers
Length: 88 ft 6 in (26.97 m)
Rotor diameter: 72 ft 2.7 in (22.01 m)
Height: 24 ft 11 in (7.6 m)
Empty weight: 23,628 lb (10,740 kg)
Loaded weight: 33,500 lb (15,227 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric T64-GE-413 turboshaft engines Axial, 3925 hp () each
Width (overall): 28 ft 4 in (8.64 m)
Width (fuselage): 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)
Maximum takeoff (Internal Load): 69,750 lb (31,666 kg)
Maximum takeoff (External Load): 73,500 lb (33,369 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 130 kn (240.76 km/h)
Range: 540 nmi (1000 km)
Service ceiling: 16,750 ft (5,106 m)
Rate of climb: 2,460 ft/min (750 m/min)
Armament
Two Door Mounted XM218 .50 BMG machine guns, Some have RMWS (Ramp Mounted Weapon System) GAU-21 .50 BMG machine gun


V-22
Crew: two pilots
Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or 10,000 pounds of cargo
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Wingspan: 46 ft (14 m); 84 ft 7 in (including rotors))
Height: 22 ft 1 in (overall - nacalles vertical) (17 ft 11 in 5.5 m (at top of tailfins))
Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)
Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison Rolls-Royce T406 (AE 1107C-Liberty) turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 275 knots (316 mph, 509 km/h)
Cruise speed: 214 knots (246 mph, 396 km/h) at sea level
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km) (unrefueled)
Combat radius: 370 nmi (430 mi, 690 km)
Ferry range: 2,417 nm (2,781 mi, 4,476 km)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² @ 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/

As I've stated before I'm not sure how the V-22 will fair against replacing standard MH-53's, but for the Air Force, the CV-22's will replace the aging Pave Lows because the CV-22's are better suited for Special Forces operations.

Shattered OUT...

It's not a helicopter. Period. End of discussion.

Yes, the USMC wants to replace the CH-46 because they're old. They bought the Osprey. It will do the -46 mission, but that doesn't mean it's a -46 replacement.

Too much semantics? Perhaps. But if you want heavy lifting, get the CH-46.

You need sinkrates in excess of 1600-1800fpm to enter VRS in V-22. Most aproaches end up with no more than 400fpm sink/flare. At roughly 1000fpm, bitching betty comes on & yells, "sink rate" - should you choose to ignore it, & find yourself entering VRS, a 3-second application of Forward Nacelle & add power to fly out of it results in virtually no altitude loss. Now, explain to me guys, why exactly is a Osprey going to be in vertical flight with sink rates of 1800fpm at above 2000 feet?

Here are the guys who will make it happen.

Never underestimate the United States Marine Corps.

A quote from the report;

“The Marines kept the flight secret because they don’t want to draw attention to what is sure to become a trophy target for the enemy.”

V-22s real enemy is not an Iraqi with an RPGs but it self and budget cuts.

Ospreys opponents are sure looking forward to killing it off before it kills more Marines.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
While some may see the Osprey as a helicopter, in reality it is a combination of the roles of tactical transports such as the DHC Caribou and Buffalo (ironically the span across the rotors is just about the same as the span of a Caribou) with the VTOL capabilities of a heavy lift helo. While the Caribou and Buffalo have much greater range than a helo, they are not much faster than a Chinook due to the design considerations to meet their STOL requirements. That is, those aircraft must use slow speed wing sections to achieve STOL, whereas the Osprey can have a medium speed wing and achieve VSTOL as a helicopter.

And this is why some in Australia have been closely watching the Osrpey since it bagen flight testing (and, obviously, before). DHC 4 is awfully close to retirment age and there isn't a plane in the world that can do exactly what it does. Sure, you can fly Pave Lows and Merlins with large underslung loads and put Land Rovers in Chinooks, but helos fall out of the sky far more often than 'planes do.

Plus, being a piston-engined aircraft, the Caribou is virtually unique in current military service...

As for testing problems, the Royal Navy and Air Force initially had little faith in Harrier...

Because it HAS been personal with you. You have had ONLY negative things to say about the M-1, the M-16, the V-22.... I have NEVER seen you have anything positive to say about ANY American equipment, or any US projects. It's always how the US had to buy information from Russia, or how the Russians were testing it first, or how many prolems it has.

As for the "emergency" landing, I have seen PLENTY of minor problems that require pilots to declare an emergency and put the plane on the ground to fix it before continuing the flight.

Don't worry, I'm done with you anyway. You won't ever see me post anything in reply to you ever again.

Because it HAS been negative with you. You have had ONLY negative things to say about the M-1, the M-16, the V-22.... I have NEVER seen you have anything positive to say about ANY American equipment, or any US projects. It's always how the US had to buy information from Russia, or how the Russians were testing it first, or how many prolems it has.

As for the "emergency" landing, I have seen PLENTY of minor problems that require pilots to declare an emergency and put the plane on the ground to fix it before continuing the flight.

Don't worry, I'm done with you anyway. You won't ever see me post anything in reply to you ever again.

[edit on 12/20/2007 by Zaphod58]