Article

2014-07-18 Science & Technology

Your Periodic Reminder That the V-22 Is a Piece of Junk

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-07-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Pure operations issues. This is the only aircraft that can induce settling with power with an unrecoverable outcome. Put a fully loaded aircraft on approach, 30 feet from touching down they are called to slide left to avoid and obstacle. The pilot slides the aircraft left, the left side rotor dips into wing tip vortices IE settling with power. The split second the rotor loses lift, the right side is acting like a lever as it is producing continuous power and the aircraft flips. This was the initial issue with the Marines crashing when they were new. Now they have to stay on a straight approach until landed. They have also placed some electronic countermeasures to help. But in combat its a trick to manage without killing everyone. You also cant fast rope out of it, the engine exhaust cooks the rope!

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-07-18 00:29|| 2014-07-18 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 The author forgets it isn't designed to completely replace the helicopter. For what it does, i.e. get a larger load farther inland faster and can land in most small clearings the V-22 works extremely well. There will always be a need for the helos, like to fastrope out of and to hover. But that was never what the V-22 was meant to do.

For its mission, it performs extremely well. Better to have 4 V-22s drop a company in rather than using 6-12 helos (depending on type).

Posted by DarthVader 2014-07-18 01:23|| 2014-07-18 01:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Every notice who DOES NOT fly on them? That's right, senior executives.

Posted by BesoekerOnTheRoadAgain 2014-07-18 07:44|| 2014-07-18 07:44|| Front Page Top

#4 The problem with it 'not replacing helicopters' is that's how the project was sold, as in "the Sea Knights are falling apart, we gotta have something new".
I hate to tell them, but what they're likely to end up with is SeaHawks, at this point.

Posted by ed in texas 2014-07-18 07:58|| 2014-07-18 07:58|| Front Page Top

#5 I PCS'd to the Beltway in 1988 and met a retired USMC aviator who had been working the V-22 project as a contractor for a few years at that time. It would be very interesting to see a tally of the R&D dollars spend on this airframe from initial concept to 'roll-out' and fielding. I suspect some very interesting questions might arise from such a discussion.

Posted by BesoekerOnTheRoadAgain 2014-07-18 08:12|| 2014-07-18 08:12|| Front Page Top

#6 USMC needs to swallow its pride, and talk to the Army about setting up a program to produce navalized CH47.

Posted by OldSpook 2014-07-18 10:40|| 2014-07-18 10:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Maybe Congress could specify funding for Marine One so as to limit operations to V-22?

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-07-18 12:43|| 2014-07-18 12:43|| Front Page Top

#8 One thing the V22 does well is going deep. It was sold as a penetrating aircraft. With that it can. The V-22 has a smaller cargo compartment than the CH-47. The Navy should have gone to the 47 as their primary, not the V-22.
Tilt rotor still has many engineering evolutions before it will be a viable platform. It uses too much gas, the transition from flight to hover is still a mess, forward flight under 50kts is still a mess, settling with power is still broke, as is the flight control problems.
The 46's needed to go, the Navy gambled with a futuristic aircraft and now it is going to suffer with it. Good luck.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-07-18 13:08|| 2014-07-18 13:08|| Front Page Top

#9 The current inventory of 46s needed to go as they were all used up, but the 46 was and still is the perfect size for naval ops, especially vertreps, the 60 cannot do it and is more maintenance intensive. the 47s are too big for the gator navy. the V 22 was Bell, then Boeing's answer to the navy's '' what is as fast and sexy as the air force only in a rotary wing size? "question.
With all the multi-tasking the Boeing propaganda shows this bird doing, you might think they are confusing it with the one size fits all Lawn Dart.....

Posted by USN, Ret. 2014-07-18 14:59|| 2014-07-18 14:59|| Front Page Top

#10 USN, the new Super Puma's are an incredible aircraft. And they will fit into most Navy ships.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-07-18 16:50|| 2014-07-18 16:50|| Front Page Top

#11 you might think they are confusing it with the one size fits all Lawn Dart.....

Ya know, if they added tilt-rotor capabilities to our beloved Hornet, it would become the first multi-role multi-role aircraft.

Posted by SteveS 2014-07-18 18:57|| 2014-07-18 18:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Pan, agree about the Super Pumas, but I do not think they have the cross wind hover envelope the 46s and 47s have. The Kaman K-Max is an ideal vert rep bird, but if you have to fill more than one role, it won't work.
SteveS: please don't say that too loud around Boeing-ville; weirder things have happened. Saw a model of a C-130 flying boat, from Lockheed's own studios. was supposed to be an insertion vehicle for SF.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2014-07-18 20:24|| 2014-07-18 20:24|| Front Page Top

#13 KMax is a great vert rep aircraft. We looked at it for our vert rep program. It wont blade fold, so it wont fit in the hold of the supply ship. And then it cant do SAR or med evac. We used the Puma 223. Great old bird. The new Super Puma is going to the North Atlantic for oil work and SAR work. It will fly in some pretty harsh weather. It also has the most state of the art flight control systems. I have never been a big fan of Eurocopter, but they hit a home run with this one. It can radar lock to the deck of a ship in gale force winds and follow it as it maneuvers through the storm. It keeps the aircraft into the wind and the bucket over the deck. I took off in it and flew a few miles away and then activated the AFS and it flew me back to my take off point and terminated at a 6 foot hover. It is as expensive as the S76, big bucks.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-07-18 21:53|| 2014-07-18 21:53|| Front Page Top

23:20 Procopius2k
23:19 Alaska Paul
23:18 Procopius2k
23:17 Albert Noodleman2094
23:07 Albert Noodleman2094
23:07 Alaska Paul
23:00 Uncle Phester
22:45 Flick Snore3762
22:25 JohnQC
21:53 49 Pan
21:41 link building
21:09 Thineng Angailet7166
20:55 Charles
20:51 KBK
20:47 Charles
20:41 Frank G
20:27 USN, Ret.
20:24 USN, Ret.
20:07 Frank G
19:51 Thineng Angailet7166
19:50 spano bellingbo3665
19:45 spano bellingbo3665
19:44 spano bellingbo3665
19:38 Frank G