Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL

Yes, they will used the (qty 3) Osprey left after all the other ones were either shot down or crash.

Like the old Seaking that the Canadian Army is still using.

Wow what a high class argument, I'm convinced.

Your freakin comparing the SeaKing to the V-22......... Are you serious?
Also if you knew anything about the SeaKing situation you would know that the crash situations and replacement situations are so different and the fact that the work that the service members do to keep them flying is nothing short of amazing. The Osprey which is still in production not completely done testing in the regards that upgrades are still in development and work being done on it is in no such boat.

Care to provide a actual possible reason why you think there will be only 3 left? what sort of crashes ie. what is the issue with the airframe and powerplants or why will they break down so fast that they will be come the SeaKing.

Want to be taken seriously on these forums then own up and start thinking before you start banging on your key board with your club and grunting.

dont look too much into this, the marines are standing by that aircraft. Its a parts issue mostly. Alot of parts wear down in that climate relitively fast. Then the time to get the parts, as the gov doesnt want unecessary parts just lingering around. its called the LEAN+ program. read about it online. ughhhh i hate when people who dont have first hand knowledge lay speculations out without understanding the process

Originally posted by phd12volt
dont look too much into this, the marines are standing by that aircraft. Its a parts issue mostly.

Which means parts are breaking.

Originally posted by phd12volt
Alot of parts wear down in that climate relitively fast.

Yeap, I think that factor would already have been considered - and I'm also pretty sure it would have been part of the spec.

Originally posted by phd12volt
read about it online. ughhhh i hate when people who dont have first hand knowledge lay speculations out without understanding the process

Are you aware every single rib on every single V-22 is unique?

(Due to the bad dimensional fidelity of the composite spar)

How do you quickly repair one of those with your LEAN+ program?

Originally posted by phd12volt
dont look too much into this, the marines are standing by that aircraft. Its a parts issue mostly. Alot of parts wear down in that climate relitively fast. Then the time to get the parts, as the gov doesnt want unecessary parts just lingering around. its called the LEAN+ program. read about it online. ughhhh i hate when people who dont have first hand knowledge lay speculations out without understanding the process

I guess you assume that everybody who is somewhat critic of the V-22 has never set foot into an aircraft/helicopter manufacturer and everybody in favor of the V-22 has at least 30 years experience in that business.

It is probably not that clean cut.

There are peoples with good understanding of the process who has lot of reserve on the V-22.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Are you aware every single rib on every single V-22 is unique?

(Due to the bad dimensional fidelity of the composite spar)

How do you quickly repair one of those with your LEAN+ program?

If this is the case, it is a spare part nightmare, but ....

Usually if you have both upper & lower wing plank made of composite with a descent thickness variation, the rib will need to be taller or smaller in order to accommodate it.

Now this could be achieved by have the upper & lower cap of the rib separate from the rib web, this way you slam both cap against the inner wing plank surfaces and add fasteners in the descent overlap area between the cap and the web.

You can do the same with a spar, providing that you allow shimming.

For the V-22, I don't know if they choose a one piece rib, made in composite, made in a female mold. If so, it it not very practical for manufacturing tolerance built-up (you can 3D model everything nicely in CATIA, but in real life, sometimes ....

But again our friend "phd12volt" knowns more than me and you combine.

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL

But again our friend "phd12volt" knowns more than me and you combine.

show me where i said anything of that nature??? i was commenting on the fact that some aircraft may not be "service ready" because of parts availability, which if you worked for Boeing, you would understand why it takes so long. Is the v-22 the end all of helicopters??? nope i never said that. i guess being ignorant pricks suits you all though huh?

How many of you work on/build these things here?? i bet not many.

Originally posted by phd12volt
i was commenting on the fact that some aircraft may not be "service ready" because of parts availability, which if you worked for Boeing, you would understand why it takes so long.

I don't work for Boeing, but I do know why they have terrible service rates, terrible manufacture rates, and terrible cost rises.


If there are parts unique to a specific plane, then maintaining any kind of spares inventory is going to be a nightmare, building them is a nightmare, and adapting tooling for every aircraft is a nightmare.

Originally posted by phd12volt

How many of you work on/build these things here?? i bet not many.

Again you are 100% dead wrong here, that's what I do as a living for 30+ years.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

If there are parts unique to a specific plane, then maintaining any kind of spares inventory is going to be a nightmare, building them is a nightmare, and adapting tooling for every aircraft is a nightmare.

Some aircraft parts are made with the proper set of coordinating tooling and tolerance which made them "Interchangeable" (sometimes the level of success for an "Interchangeable" part in the aircraft industry is not as good as in the car industry, not so much for engine part, but for airframe body part).

Other parts are not meant to be "Interchangeable" and some shimming or tapered shim might be required in order to install that part.

You don't really adapt the tooling to produce different part, you try to produce the same part (within a tolerance band) and play with shims afterward.

I don't know if it is quite a lot, or not (can someone shed a light on this), but the V-22 cost $11,000 per hour in operating cost and apparently this single change could slash this by half.

Sound like a bad design to start from.

[url]http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/25/328835/bell-boeing-looks-at-engine-air-particle-separators-as-it-bids-to-cut-v-22-operating.html[ /url]

It is said also that:

The EAPS system is one of the main culprits for the V-22's poor reliability record in Iraq. A new report by the Government Accountability Office criticises the tilrotor for its cost per flight hour and continued operational limitations in certain combat situations.

The GAO report recommended that the Department of Defense consider buying more helicopters and fewer tiltrotors due to the V-22's operating costs.

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL
Other parts are not meant to be "Interchangeable" and some shimming or tapered shim might be required in order to install that part.

You don't really adapt the tooling to produce different part, you try to produce the same part (within a tolerance band) and play with shims afterward.

I know, I know...

But shims have practical limits.


I've been told that every rib on every V-22 is different. Whether that means they did not use shimming (which would be stupid on Boeings part) or whether that means the spars are absolutely terrible I'm not sure.

regrets when the next crash kills all aboard?

The CH-46 had Sync Shaft failures where the rotors would bang into each other. The result was a helo that was snapped in half, mid flight. On top of that, the V-22 is less prone to VRS compared to other twin rotor choppers.

Or when one is shot down as it lands in a combat zone?

Or, will the Marines regret getting the AH-1 when the next one crashes beheading the pilots with the rotors? ... because every other aircraft BUT the V-22 are immune from getting shot down.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Okay, I'm not anaeronautical engineer, I'm not a pilot and I'm not a soldier, but I am a systems administrator (human systems that is), ie a manager. So, I'm going to analyse what I'm reading and give you all the benefit of my great and widely revered (!) insight...

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL

Bart Kesselring: Even at that we ere terrified every time we landed as we were forced to stay inside as the brown out created by the props because (you have to be powered all the way to the ground) was really a sand storm.

Uh-huh, yeah, gotcha, Bart. The desert is sandy. And props throw up that sand. Like a few of those shots of Hueys and Blackhawks I've seen operating in desert conditions. I'm really hoping (REALLY hoping) for your sake that all this hyperbole is proven true when someone shows us some comparative vids of twin-rotor Chinooks and twin-rotor Ospreys landing in the desert...

At that point you are extremely vulnerable to an infrared seeking RPG.

Um, I'm not up on the latest Rocket Projectile Grenade developments, but when did anti-armour weapons need to be infra-red seeking? They did pretty well with the bog-standard issue versions in Mogadishu...

Meaning that the Osprey is no more or less vulnerable to ground fire than the current myriad of "rotary-wing air assets" currently in the Pentagon's playbook.

It is difficult to tell where the Marines end and Boeing begins.

Yeah, that might be true...

It is the plan of every officer involved to get a 6 figure job with Boeing when they retire, to qualify you have to play ball. Mean while us grunts get joy rides.

I'll definitely give you that one.

Now from someone who study and analyze the V22 for year, someone who has "first hand knowledge", even more insight:

... In mountain operations at high density altitudes, both the MV-22 and CV-22 have little or no capability above 8000 feet, density altitudes that are common and tactically relevant in the Afghanistan Theater of operations.

So you have an helicopter limited to 8000 ft in an area where mountains reach 12000 ft. This will not be the "milk run" of Iraq.

Can't argue with it as I haven't been there. So, my question is: taking the fixed-wing DHC4 Caribou out of the equation, how does the CH47 Chinook (the twin-rotor helicopter V22 will replace) fare at 8000 ft over the Hindu Kush?

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL
Since you cannot fool everybody all the time, Rotor & Wing editorial is asking for the cancellation of the V-22:

V-22 It's time to move on:

Clearly, and except for very few, carefully selected missions, the V-22 is not up to the job it was designed for. There are too many things wrong with it to hope it can be fixed. As it has already cost $29 billion, it would be very wasteful to cancel the program, but what else to do? Pretend its shortcomings and faults don’t exist and then express surprise and regrets when the next crash kills all aboard? Or when one is shot down as it lands in a combat zone?

Holy #, it could be shot down? In a combat zone? Say it ain't so, Joe. I mean, the UH1 and the UH 47 have never been shot down. In combat zones. Have they?

It’s time to admit the V-22 is a challenge that hasn’t worked out, and move on to other technologies that will provide fast, efficient and affordable medium lift.

Yeah, like the dirigible...

I mean, after five-and-a-half thousand helicopters were lost in Vietnam, you've got to wonder what the Hell is wrong inside the Pentagon that they hung on to such a vulnerable aircraft system made up of such vulnerable aircraft as the UH1 Iroquois; of whose various models more than 3,000 went down in VN.