New ingestion issue found with V-22s

The only sources are subscription, but it appears that a new ingestion problem has been found with the V-22s. The accident in Hawaii appears to be related to sand being ingested, possibly through the bleed doors, while the aircraft was in a hover. This means that they're going to have to take another look at the 2010 Afghanistan crash that killed four people. The cause of the crash has been put down to pilot error, but if they were in a hover at the time, and ingested sand or dirt, leading to a power loss, then there wasn't much the crew could have done. Currently the word is that the military is going to restrict operations in conditions that could lead to an ingestion. They're also saying that it could be years before a fix is figured out.

More will be provided once non-subscription sources are available.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Another problem? Oh, its the same problem… down draft.

Another reminder...

a reply to: intrptr

No, it's not the same problem. The crash in Hawaii was caused by the engine actually ingesting foreign objects, NOT from downwash. The two problems are not the same, no matter how you try to make them the same thing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Osprey is a piece of crap. Read my link…

a reply to: intrptr

I've read your link 10 or 15 times. Every time there's an Osprey thread it gets posted.

War Is Boring is one of many "expert analysis" sites that thinks new sucks. I haven't seen them yet have anything good to say about a new system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And ironically, at one point and time every "old" system was "new"...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

Read my link…

...Oh, your link is from War is Boring?




No thank you.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Amazing isn't it. You read about how great these systems are now, but they were new and had the same problems we're seeing with the new equipment that's in testing, or still fairly early in operational stages.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's a vicious cycle isn't it? We get the laughable blogs/postings bashing the "new" stuff, then when the "new" stuff is "old" stuff, those same blogs/posters proclaim it's absolutely the bee's knee's and the best there ever was and way better than the "new" new, stuff.

We were still figuring out problems with the Sea King helicopter in the 80"s and they were designed and built in the early 60's.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Well, heck, the cure for this new problem is to tell the Marines to not use the Osprey in a place with sand and loose dirt. Fly 'em where they were developed and test, on concrete!

Are we to assume that the now recognized problem was never even considered very much knowing that low-level hovered flight is not without its pitfalls?

I honestly thought they had intake sorted as it has been a known issue for over a decade.

a reply to: howmuch4another

It looked like they did. They didn't have any major issues with the majority of them in Afghanistan during the deployment there. Nothing really jumped out to the maintenance crews.

a reply to: Aliensun

Yeah, we should can every program that ever has problems and a less than perfect development program.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Agreed. Their consistency in desert ops seemed to support that. I think water is the bigger concern.

The Osprey has been around since I was a kid, It demonstrated every year at Moffett Field. And every year it failed to impress because its always had the same old problems.

a reply to: intrptr

And as was pointed out above, there are helicopters flying that had the same old problems year after year 20 years on.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And as was pointed out before… the thing is a piece of junk.

a reply to: intrptr

Well I'm convinced. You and a blogger on the Internet decided it sucks so it must. Who cares what the actual operators think, some guy on the Internet knows better.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well I'm convinced. You and a blogger on the Internet decided it sucks so it must. Who cares what the actual operators think, some guy on the Internet knows better.

Like you?