V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq

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).

reply to post by The Winged Wombat

---

Competely agree that stats can be misleading. I was purelly pointing out the stat for max speed which is almost never reached and would most likely destory the aircraft. Some peopel liek to pass judgement based on the max speed instead of cruise though I do think the cruise speed is more important. The actual cruise speed for the Osprey is actually closer to 245 mph instead of a max speed of 275 mph.

Interesting note about the burn pattern as well. A already hot climate or very cold climate may have more problems then normal with the down ward facing exhaust, mind you how much of a problem has "burn patterns" been in testing the X-35 and Harriers?I would assume it would wreck most normal runway surfaces with repeated use.

reply to post by Canada_EH

---

Indeed!

In practice most VTOL aircraft, especially jets, do rolling take-offs unless they are on prepared surfaces such a ship's deck. Even a few yards before vectoring the thrust directly downward makes a huge difference to the visibility.

If the surface is dusty or sandy, then it is absolutely necessary to do a rolling take-off, otherwise you just disappear into a dust cloud with no visual reference. Even helicopters maintain some forward motion under such conditions if they possibly can and initiate some forward motion on take-off as soon as they are off the ground (tilting the plane of the rotors and directing the wash to the rear).

Doing a VTOL landing, or take-off with your eyes closed is not recommended! The same effect can be had by leaving the props of a tactical transport in reverse until you stop on a dusty surface - good for putting an enemy off their aim, but not good for mechanical components or obstacle avoidance.

It does not take much imagination to figure out how that disastrous Iranian embassy rescue mission went wrong under such circumstances - very easy to hit something if you are flying in a cloud of sand.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 12/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

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?

reply to post by Leibolmai

---

The Blackhawk in early years was known to have several crashes caused by flying too closely to radio towers. The Harrier when it was first flown had the best pilots flying it, then they put "normal" pilots in it and they fell out of the sky. They still have one of the highest crash rates of all the planes. Just about ANY plane out there has a high crash rate in the early years, as they find out things going on with it, and problems with them.

Not sure, if I agree with this article (was Vietnam helicopter concerns, no longer valid?).

"No, the days of little Hueys, crewed by some of the bravest aviators in history, spiralling down into gun and rocket fire are probably over."

But I found this:

www.shephard.co.uk...

Also, did any of you, heard how the V-22 is doing in Iraq?

Here are the guys who will make it happen.

Never underestimate the United States Marine Corps.

Found this:

www.pprune.org...

Scroll down, middle of the page, nice photo.



Don't you worry, the US Army will make sure nothing happens to their new toy.

www.youtube.com...

Short, but the first glimpse of the V-22 in Iraq. No major problems reported to date.

More good news on the V22 mission in Iraq, I saw a report on FNC with Rick Leventhal doing an inflight report from the region and checked and found these two articles on the progress of the aircraft.





Hopefully this test will show that the time and money spent on this versatile aircraft was worth it.

That’s simply not true, as I clearly posted on ATS before.

“Ospreys succeeding in Iraq” - Published: Dec 14, 2007 12:30 AM

“Osprey said to be performing well in Iraq” – no date stamp?

Both articles seem to be a mild PR response to this CBS report from October 2007;

cbs2.com...

Report clearly mentions a V-22 from USS Ross (DD-563) which developed mechanical problems and was forced to make an emergency landing to make repairs.

USS Ross is deployed in the Red Sea and has its 10 V-22s flying mission to Iraq over Jordan.

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.

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...

reply to post by iskander

---

Oh yes, ONE of 10 aircraft developing a minor problem and having to land for repairs shows us how horrible it really is. I'd say something about other planes breaking in flight, but it would just open the stage for you to start bashing other equipment. Oh hey, you're gonna do that anyway. Please keep telling us how much our military sucks and how bad our equipment really is.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Minor problems? How do you know what the problem was? Please let me know because I’d really like to know what kind of problem forces yet another Osprey to make an emergency landing.


Usually its heavy hydraulic leaks and what I’ve heard is that crews actually carry extra fluid with them on board.

As for how horrible it is, its “unsafety” record with a death toll of 30 speaks for it self.

As clearly posted on the other thread, Ospreys own test pilots say that it’s a death trap.



Zaphod58, what is it with you, every time I bring factual information from the people that work with the equipment in question, every time you come right back trying to make it look like I’m personally “bashing” something.

Once again I respectfully request that you stop putting words in my mouth and read/watch the sources which I always provide and listen to the people that KNOW what they are talking about, and just shooting of their “opinions”.

If you can’t come up with something constructive to add to the discussion at least stop making it personal, it’ll be very much appreciated.

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]

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Zaphod58, we’ve been over this before, I simply bring the facts from respected sources which are staffed with professionals, and since you simply don’t care to look for your self and keep generalizing me personally, here’s a quote for you;



www.abovetopsecret.com...

You see Zaph, I just read, think and call it as I see it, that’s what analysts do.



That’s because the issues I bring up are simply ALL TRUE! And truth is rarely a comfortable thing, DEFEAT is also a type of truth in ANY conflict.

“The Art of War” will be a good read for you.



If this looks like a “minor” problem to you, then I guess you’re not the type a guy that wears a seat belt just to be a rebel.

www.youtube.com...



It’s true, ignorance is bliss, and you are free to enjoy it as the next guy, because even though we are all here on the “Deny Ignorance” forum, it is a public forum, so go ahead, “deny” and “ignore” all you want!

edit:bracket

[edit on 20-12-2007 by iskander]