CV-22 down at Eglin AFB

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 

a rocket deployed chute or chutes would probably help with high altitude recovery, but from what i understand, most incidents are at low altitude, and if you were suggesting ejection seats for the pilots, what about the 20 marines in the cargo hold, what do they get? a big fluffy pillow?




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by chopperswolf
 


a rocket deployed chute or chutes would probably help with high altitude recovery,,,yes a matter of altitude sensor,,

big fluffy pillows ,,hmmmmm


i like it

all about keeping them safe.
not cost effective.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 
most aircraft incidents are a matter of the pilot running out of airspeed, altitude and ideas, all about the same time during the flight, and like twin engined helicopters, the extra engine gives you all the power you need to fly the aircraft safely all the way to the crash sight.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chopperswolf
reply to post by BobAthome
 
most aircraft incidents are a matter of the pilot running out of airspeed, altitude and ideas, all about the same time during the flight, and like twin engined helicopters, the extra engine gives you all the power you need to fly the aircraft safely all the way to the crash sight.



Now that is not always true. The C-130's have 3 extra engines!! They can land with just one. I agree with you though, I prefer a fast single engine with a good glide rate over an extra engine on any day!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
can the osprey land conventionally like a twin engine plane with one engine out, on a runway, if it has to? i really dont know, and would like to know, can anyone answer this on this thread?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by chopperswolf
 


Nope.


At this point, the Osprey is cruising along essentially as a twin-engine turboprop airplane, flying at the same speeds, altitudes and flight rules as traditional turboprops. The primary difference is the lack of ability to fly with one proprotor “feathered,” (which is one of the major training obstacles of multi-engine airplane transitions). Should a proprotor gearbox fail in airplane mode, causing the related proprotor to stop, the only recourse is to shutdown both engines and conduct a power-off glide and emergency landing; the adverse yaw is just too great for the rudders to overcome, leaving few options.


Flying the V-22. Pretty good article!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 
thanks for the link, i got a buddy who just came back from afghanistan who has some time in one of these in addition to the pave hawk, and pave low, he also got to train afghan pilots on the mi-24, i cant wait to grill him on his most recent adventures in the osprey.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


www.bellhelicopter.com...

For anyone interested.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
As I read this thread I can't help wondering if the old Rotodyne, or a modern equivalent alog those lines, might be a better, safer option?

Not going to happen, of course, just wondering.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Major Brian Luce, and Tsgt Christopher Dawson have been released from the hospital already. The base stood down CV-22 operations for one day to show support for the injured airmen and their families, but doesn't intend to ground the aircraft.

There will be two boards assigned to the accident. One will investigate the crash, and release the report on the cause. The second will be a safety board, to investigate whether any force-wide changes need to be made in operational procedures. The AIB has 90 days to release a preliminary report.
edit on 6/16/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
A planned deployment first to Iwakuni Japan, and then to Okinawa has been placed on hold until the cause of the accident is determined. There has been a lot of opposition to the deployment of the Osprey in Japan, due to the safety record of the aircraft.


Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said at a press conference Thursday that Tokyo has asked the United States to investigate the details of the crash as quickly as possible.

"The Japanese government will take no further action [on the Osprey deployment] unless details [of the crash] are shared," he added.

In talks with U.S. Ambassador John Roos, Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto said, "The accident is very regrettable, and I hope the United States will provide as much information as possible about the incident."

The crash in Florida came on the heels of a series of accidents involving the Osprey aircraft, including a fatal crash in Morocco in April.

Noting the accident rate is very high for the Osprey, Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima told reporters, "The aircraft cannot be deployed in Okinawa."

Ginowan Mayor Atsushi Sakima also reiterated his stance against the deployment, saying the latest accident fueled his opposition. On Sunday, Ginowan is slated to hold a rally against the deployment.

Yamaguchi Gov. Sekinari Nii told Morimoto at their meeting in Tokyo that he wants the planned temporary MV-22 Osprey deployment at the Iwakuni base to be "shelved until the cause of the accident is fully investigated." The city of Iwakuni is also withholding its response to the central government's request for cooperation in the temporary deployment plan.

www.yomiuri.co.jp...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Now this is interesting. AFSOC relieved the commander of the 8th SOS, "because of a loss of confidence in his ability to effectively command the unit."

One crew member is still hospitalized but it is still said his injuries are non-life threatening. The squadron was on a stand down until sometime last week "to meet the needs of the families involved".

Several V-22 veterans have said that one possible cause is "roll off". This is caused when multiple aircraft are flying formation, and one aircraft gets too close to the one in front of it. The rotor wash from the aircraft in front sucks the lift out from under one rotor of the aircraft behind it. This can cause a sudden roll to one side, and if there isn't enough altitude to recover, the aircraft can crash.

Link to article



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Maj. Brian Luce was also the pilot of a CV-22 Osprey that crashed in Afghanistan that killed 4 of 19 onboard the aircraft. The aircraft made a hard landing, caught the nosegear in a ditch and flipped. The AIB report stated that the crew was distracted while pressing for the LZ, had a 17 knot tailwind, and a possible power loss, although the last was overruled by commander of AFSOC. Several engineering studies showed both engines were operating normally at the time.

At the time of this accident, both aircraft were flying in helicopter mode, doing gunnery practice out the back door of the aircraft. It's not clear who was flying the aircraft that crashed.

theaviationist.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


it has been unreliable, but the sea knight that it was build to replace, had even more crashes than this at this stage of development.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The crash of a Marine V-22 in Morocco in April, that left two dead, and two injured has been put down to "bad flying". The copilot was a qualified, but inexperienced pilot, with a more experienced aircraft commander. Neither pilot noticed that when they took off, they had a tailwind that came up unexpectedly, and they tried to drop the nacelles to horizontal flight at low altitude and low airspeed. When they did this, the combination of the change of CG, and the tailwind pushed the nose down, and they nosed into the ground. Both pilots, being strapped tightly into their seats survived with serious injuries, while both crew chiefs, who tend to stand in the back, with a strap to hold them in if the door is open, were killed.


Just prior to the accident, with the less experienced but fully trained copilot at the controls, the Osprey had set down helicopter-style to drop off at least the second load of troops its crew had delivered that day to the same austere landing zone. As the pilots took off to return to a temporary on-shore base, the following events unfolded in quick succession:

Under a clear, daylight sky and with no dust interfering with the crew's view, the pilot at the controls lifted the Osprey into a hover 20 or 30 feet above the ground with the plane's nose pointing into the wind, as it had been when the aircraft landed a few minutes earlier.
The pilot flying then used his foot pedals to turn the Osprey in a half-circle to the right, rotating in mid-air to head in the direction from which they'd arrived. As the aircraft turned, it climbed to about 50 feet.
As the Osprey turned, the pilot pitched the aircraft's nose down about 10 degrees by pushing the control stick forward with his right hand. At the same time, using his left hand, he turned a small thumbwheel on the Osprey's throttle, or Thrust Control Lever, to tilt the nacelles and rotors down from 90 degrees and brought them to an angle significantly less than 75 degrees – a position that violated flight manual limits on nacelle angles at low forward airspeed. The effect was to shift the Osprey's center of gravity too far forward, causing the nose to plunge downward.

As the nose went down, the pilot was unable to hold it where he wanted by pulling back on the control stick because the horizontal stabilizer at the aircraft's tail was being pushed up and forward by a 20-knot tailwind. The tailwind's speed and direction were depicted on a digital map inside the cockpit, but vegetation in the area was too sparse to alert the pilots to the wind as they looked outside the aircraft during takeoff. The tailwind pressure on the horizontal stabilizer reduced the stick's "aft control authority" while adding downward leverage on the nose. "By the time the pilot realized he was out of back stick authority, it was too late," one source observed.

defense.aol.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by chopperswolf
 


Nope.


At this point, the Osprey is cruising along essentially as a twin-engine turboprop airplane, flying at the same speeds, altitudes and flight rules as traditional turboprops. The primary difference is the lack of ability to fly with one proprotor “feathered,” (which is one of the major training obstacles of multi-engine airplane transitions). Should a proprotor gearbox fail in airplane mode, causing the related proprotor to stop, the only recourse is to shutdown both engines and conduct a power-off glide and emergency landing; the adverse yaw is just too great for the rudders to overcome, leaving few options.


Flying the V-22. Pretty good article!


To be clear, that only applies in the advent of a failure of the gearbox. If an engine fails in any flight mode, there is a cross-shaft that provides power to both proprotors enabling a normal landing.




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join