Author Topic: V-22 enter service in Iraq (Read 1034 times)

33Vortex · « **on:** October 11, 2007, 02:39:51 AM »

V-22 Osprey entered combat service in Iraq. Link to article. Yes this is aviation history, as it is a type of a/c never seen before in front line service, if one can talk about front lines in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how it perform under combat conditions.

rpm · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2007, 03:15:55 AM »

The Osprey has lots of potential.

Rollins · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2007, 05:54:34 AM »

Lots of potential- yeah it does. It was pushed out there by how much money has been thrown at it. God help our troops stick with choppers.
-D

BBBB · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2007, 06:38:38 AM »

This is a program that should have been shut down years ago. What is it's mission in Iraq going to be? This is nothing but a PR move. There is no mission in Iraq right now, that can not be solved by our conventional cargo planes and helicopters. This is a waste of money, time and maybe even more lives.

PS. That squadrons nick name is very fitting. Chickens can't really fly.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2007, 06:39:49 AM »

I too am leery of this machine.
But I will stop just a hair short of being a nay sayer about it. Just a hair.
Other then to be able to say. "We have an aircraft that can take off and land like a helicopter and fly like a plane."
What is the great need and advantage to having this aircraft. OR I should say this particular aircraft?
Yes I understand it is supposed to be able to fly faster and have greater range. But how much?

And how much faster and farther can it go at its most important stage? Which would be transferring from helo to fixed wing style flight when taking off and leaving an active combat area? Or landing at one for that matter? In which the question would be vise verse.

With its history of problems. I would have insisted on a complete A-Z redesign of the entire aircraft till it worked right the first time every time.

For our soldiers sake I hope it does well. Too much at stake for it not to.

but again. with its history of problems Im thinking that sometimes you have to put the facts ahead of personal wants and ego

And simply recognize a lemon as being a lemon that wont change to an orange no matter how much money you throw at it.

BBBB · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2007, 06:52:16 AM »

In the end it is all about the Marine corps wanting a new toy. That has always been the issue. The only call I agree with on this new toy issue is the call to upgrade their UH-1Ns to UH-1Ys and their AH-1W to AH-1Z. This upgrade will save money and push the Huey and Cobra though 2025.

The V-22 is supposed to be replacing the CH-46 Sea Knight which the Marine Corps is looking to retire around 2015. This is an aircraft that can be upgraded by Boeing and would push the CH-46 into 2020, but the Marines sunk to much of their budget into the V-22 program and the F-35 program. Which, the Marines plan to replace their F/A-18s with..all of them. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Heater · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2007, 07:43:22 AM »

What a waste of Lifes and money....this program should have been killed a long time ago... so far 30 + people have died in a very unreliable platform.

what a shame

Nilsen · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2007, 07:56:19 AM »

Great concept, but im worried about the fact that it cannot autorotate down to a safe landing incase of engine failiure or damage. Doubt its any good at gliding to a safe landing either.

If i had any say i would rather spend the money on more helicopters and smaller cargo planes that use short runways like the Spartan.

33Vortex · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:17:12 AM »

Agree with Dredirock and Nilsen. The inherent problems of having 2 engines, one on each end of the wing, plus the rotary engine design leaving the plane unable to glide to a safe landing. It all makes for a certain crash if one engine fails. No autorotation there baby, oh no, if one engine die it's bye bye. Still, it could work given the a/c get the service needed for safe operation. If it doesn't recieve the attention it needs, well... it's a ticking bomb. Anyone said expensive toys? This is a prestige project for sure. Still curious to see how it will perform in deployment.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:20:27 AM »

A V-22 can't auto-rotate because it would be an extremely rare situation in which it would need to. If the V-22 loses an engine, the other engine will still turn both props.

The only time a V-22 would need to autorotate is if it lost both engines at the same time below 1600ft in helicopter mode. But even real helicopters have an altitude range at which autorotation will fail. For the Huey, I think this is inbetween 500 and 1000 feet.

Nilsen · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:41:23 AM »

And the drive connection between engine one and two cant get damaged due to groundfire?

Nilsen · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:48:51 AM »

Im not in any way against the thing, I just think its too expensive and "fragile" for frontline combat/SR duty. Its clear advantages over a helicopter is not large enough to justify it. History may prove me wrong, but im no supporter of it just yet.

deSelys · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2007, 08:52:14 AM »

About as much as the drive connection between main and tail rotor in an helicopter, Nils.

However, the rotating engine pods add a whole new level of complexity.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2007, 09:04:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Heater
What a waste of Lifes and money....this program should have been killed a long time ago... so far 30 + people have died in a very unreliable platform.

what a shame

Agreed!

Nilsen · « **Reply #14 on:** October 11, 2007, 09:16:13 AM »

A little reading material. Adds several other issues like heavy downwash, poor visibility, carrying capacity etc

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/