MV-22 passes milestone

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I think that just about everybody involved with the V-22 has screwed up royally. 23 years and counting, and still the operators don't have even one operational squadron. It's revolting.

 

Ken, I generally don't hammer the techo-wonks, they're just doing their jobs.  Yep, I am blaming the USMC in this case.  I constantly hear all about being a careful steward of the taxpayer's dollar and we generally do a decent job.  The V22 has brought out a new low in dishonestly and corruption.  People should be shot for this bullshit.  S/F....Ken M

198331[/snapback]

[Ivanhoe]

My name isn't Ken, but I'll weigh in on Osprey politics anyway.

 

I think the real culprits in the con were the Pentagon princes representing the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The "group buy" thing was apparently a hoax from the get-go. Sadly the Corps went for it.

 

On the other hand, I think it can be argued that if the Corps had proposed a new medium lift helo instead of the Osprey, it never would have survived the Pentagon infighting much less the Hill wars. So the Corps wouldn't be looking at new airframes until 46s started falling from the sky in unacceptable numbers anyway. This is one of those cases where the argument for pulling the Corp out from under DN is pretty clear IMHO.

 

Aside from the mistake of going all-in on the initial Osprey program, I think the second major mistake was sticking with it when it was obvious that the White House, Congress, and DOD weren't going to support it properly. I figure there should be a rule of thumb along the lines of "If a program is substantially underfunded or defunded 3 consecutive years, cancel it." For example, the reduction of the original flight test program in dollar and calendar terms was probably an example of the increasingly popular Pushback School of Management. Some dork thinks he is earning his wage by cutting schedule and budget and saying, "Make do, my experts tell me your plan is bloated." Saves money in the short run, but often has long term consequences.

[Corinthian]

<snip> It's going to make bread itself obsolete, let alone slicing it, <snip>

198015[/snapback]

 

I can just imagine (someone throws a loaf of bread to the rotors, then out comes perfectly sliced bread....)

 

OV-10 being used here as a gunship down south against the insurgents, along with the MD-500/550. Before most (if not all) of the OV-10s were based south, they used to do fly-bys above our high school years ago every Air Force day. Man, the sound is just sooooooooooo wonderful....

[gewing]

Way back when I was flight testing the V-22 for Boeing, we didn't do that sort of thing. Now that the weapon system has been turned over the Marines, I don't know for sure. Maybe they are into that stuff.

198242[/snapback]

 

 

 

Did you know Dennis Rude, an engineer for Navairsystemscommand? (iirc)

[gewing]

I'll see if I can find the article.  It was a loooooong time ago, but I do remember discussing it hear on this grate sight.

 

It's actually not that silly ... iirc the writer made a VERY convincing case that it would substantially outperform the AV-8B in the CAS role.

 

--Garth

198395[/snapback]

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised. The F7F could carry a hell of a payload for the time period.

[Garth]

I wouldn't be surprised.  The F7F could carry a hell of a payload for the time period.

198514[/snapback]

 

Got it. Article is "Belay Vertical Landing", in the November 1999 issue of USNI Proceedings (p.50). Author is one Lt.Col. Jay Stout, USMC, an F/A-18 pilot who was serving with the 3rd MAW at the time. The article also lists him as the author of "Hornets Over Kuwait", published by the USNI Press.

 

He presents the F7F (or rather, a new design that uses the F7F as a point of departure) as a better alternative to both the AV-8B and the JSF for USMC requirements. Indeed, he hypothesizes that if F7Fs replaced AV-8Bs on a 1-1 basis, it would represent a 300% gain in firepower.

 

An added benefit to the article is that it's a companion to the USMC Essay Contest Winner on p.36: "How Will We Escort the MV-22?" which discusses the requirements for an "AV-22" variant.

 

--Garth

[larrikin]

It seems to me that at the unit price most often quoted that what it is is a nice SpecOps bird that will be flown by no one but the US. Another thing that interests me is how much deck space do they take up during loading, take off, and landing, compared to a medium lift helo like the Merlin. It seems to me that used off deck you may lose what you gain in transit speed in number of simultaneous individual operations possible.

[CaptLuke]

He presents the F7F (or rather, a new design that uses the F7F as a point of departure) as a better alternative to both the AV-8B and the JSF for USMC requirements.  Indeed, he hypothesizes that if F7Fs replaced AV-8Bs on a 1-1 basis, it would represent a 300% gain in firepower.

 

An added benefit to the article is that it's a companion to the USMC Essay Contest Winner on p.36: "How Will We Escort the MV-22?" which discusses the requirements for an "AV-22" variant.

 

--Garth

198613[/snapback]

 

Once you assume that you'll always have runways, on land or on ship, a CTOL plane is always more efficient than a V/STOL plane. The question is always "what is V/STOL worth to you that offsets its disadvantages?"

 

To give an extreme example, do a quick check on how much more efficiently you can move troops in a 737 compared to a C130 and in a C130 compared to a Chinook. Never the less, people buy C130s because they can go where 737s can't and they buy Chinooks to go where C130s can't.

 

Key questions are:

- how important is it to be able to operate on shore in areas without runways?

- how important is it to be able to operate off small "air capable" ships without the deck space to launch or recover CTOL aircraft?

- how important is it to be able to use nap of the earth tactics, which largely comes back to what does the air defense environment you anticipate look like?

 

The more important these three things are, the more you are going to wind up with V/STOL aircraft. If these factors are less important, the greater efficiency of fixed wing assets, for transport as well as attack, is going to be apparent.

[Miner]

I can't help thinking that VTOL or V/STOL may still be a step to far, economically if nothing else.

 

The advantages of VTOL with fixed wing speeds are obvious and possibly have blinded generations of R&D/procurement types into thinking sucess is just around the corner. For 50+ years (edit - I originally typed that as tears) pretty well every possible configuration has at least attempted flight mainly at the expense of the US taxpayer. The only partial success has been the STO - VL Harrier (originally funded by the US).

 

The XV15 proof of concept first flew 28 years ago yet things like the VRS apparently didn't surface back then, or was brushed aside in the enthusiasm and forgotten.

 

The classic VTOL proposal had to be one of the Brit ideas in the lead up to the TSR2. This was a highly non STOL supersonic a/c with a separate jet lift aircraft/platform (60 jet engines) for the take and landing bit

[Ol Paint]

Once you assume that you'll always have runways, on land or on ship, a CTOL plane is always more efficient than a V/STOL plane.  The question is always "what is V/STOL worth to you that offsets its disadvantages?"

 

To give an extreme example, do a quick check on how much more efficiently you can move troops in a 737 compared to a C130 and in a C130 compared to a Chinook.  Never the less, people buy C130s because they can go where 737s can't and they buy Chinooks to go where C130s can't.

 

Key questions are:

- how important is it to be able to operate on shore in areas without runways?

- how important is it to be able to operate off small "air capable" ships without the deck space to launch or recover CTOL aircraft?

- how important is it to be able to use nap of the earth tactics, which largely comes back to what does the air defense environment you anticipate look like?

 

The more important these three things are, the more you are going to wind up with V/STOL aircraft.  If these factors are less important, the greater efficiency of fixed wing assets, for transport as well as attack, is going to be apparent.

198658[/snapback]

Hold on a second, there, I think you may be jumping the gun, a little bit. By advocating fixed-wing, I am not ignoring the benefits of V/STOL flight. However, for the proposed mission--escort of V-22 formations and general attack duties at ranges of 200nm from the amphib ships, fixed-wing attack aircraft (preferably STOL) make more sense than rotary-wing/tilt-rotor platforms. Delivering airborne firepower to the enemy in support of troops on the ground does not require the ability to hover, or to perform vertical landings at the point of contact. Delivery of ground troops and cargo to and from the battlefield and CASEVAC do require the ability for airframes to perform VTO/VL. By contrast, it is generally accepted that hovering or moving at extremely slow speeds (<50-60tks) above the battlefield is dangerous--see histories of attack/scout operations in Vietnam, ODS, Somalia, etc. Generally speaking, gunship pilots tend to keep their aircraft on the move when over hostile territory to avoid small-arms fire. With a 200-250kt cruise, a STOVL turboprop like a Bronco can cover territory nearly 2x as fast as an 125-150kt AH-1, permitting basing further from the expected battle area--hence, fewer aircraft crowding FARPs. A 350kt A-10-style aircraft could range even further--if you could get it to take off in 600-800ft from an LHD deck or short field...

 

[2nd Edit: Assuming a lift-off speed of 130kts and 1,450ft TO run at a weight of 32,771lb--which is supposedly the rough-field weight for the A-10, I get a takeoff run of 1,050ft with a 25kt WOD. Close, but no cigar, and that isn't paying any attention to the required clearances, which I can guess the A-10 won't meet. A similar-style aircraft, designed for the purpose, could probably do it. Even the A-10 might, if I knew what the actual ground roll was (don't have to worry about a 50' obstacle from an amphib deck, although aborts are still an issue).]

 

By the way, some time back someone referenced Sparky's Attack C-12. I ran across it here:

 

[Edit: I should probably go on record and state that I think the pictured aircraft is unworkable, but I thought it wasn't deserving of a thread of its own.]

 

Douglas

Edited July 25, 2005 by Ol Paint

[Ivanhoe]

The XV15 proof of concept first flew 28 years ago yet things like the VRS apparently didn't surface back then, or was brushed aside in the enthusiasm and forgotten.

 

Err, no. The XV-15, at max gross weight, has a disc loading of about 15 lbf/sq ft. The V-22, at 60,500 lb, has a disc loading of 27 lbf/sq ft. Typical numbers for conventional helos range from about 8 to 15, with exceptions like the OH-6/MD-500E at around 5.5.

 

All rotors will encounter VRS, power settling, and similar undesirable characteristics, its a matter of at what descent rate. Lightly loaded rotors encounter problems at lower descent rates, so the trick is to descent rapidly or descend with a little forward airspeed. The V-22, due to its high disc loading, encounters problems at high descent rates, which is how the military pilots prefer to approach LZs. Again, a little forward airspeed helps clear the rotor wake away from the rotors, but flying within book avoids it as well.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

No

 

Did you know Dennis Rude, an engineer for Navairsystemscommand? (iirc)

198513[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

USAF has been onboard with the V-22 since day 1 in a serious way.

 

I think the real culprits in the con were the Pentagon princes representing the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The "group buy" thing was apparently a hoax from the get-go. Sadly the Corps went for it.

198457[/snapback]

[Ivanhoe]

Err, no. The XV-15, at max gross weight, has a disc loading of about 15 lbf/sq ft. The V-22, at 60,500 lb, has a disc loading of 27 lbf/sq ft. Typical numbers for conventional helos range from about 8 to 15, with exceptions like the OH-6/MD-500E at around 5.5.

 

Correction, I thought 60 klb was a bit heavy, the MTOW for vertical TO is 52,600lb, which brings the disc loading down to 23 lbf/sq ft. Still high compared to conventionals.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

High disk loading = high downwash velocity. The downwash from the V-22 tossed me around like a ragdoll, and only my helmet saved me from getting my skull busted on the ramp.