MV-22 OT-IIG report

Finallyfound it:

http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-v22-dote-092005.pdf

A quick synopsis: OT-IIE safety and
reliability issues have been put to
rest. The Block A a/c used for OT-IIG
still aren't full up with all
operational gear, but most of that is
easily added (and will be in the Block B
full-up a/c); the most obvious of these
are the ramp-mounted M240 and the hoist.
Naturally, the Block B a/c will be
heavier, which will affect performance
for some of the mission profiles. The
Block A a/c will be used for training,
or else brought up to full operational
standard via retrofit.

Performance-wise, it's a mixed bag. For
troop lift missions, the a/c easily
exceeded all the spec profile radii and
cruise speed, and the Block B a/c should
also do so, albeit by a slightly smaller
margin. For the two external lift
missions the Block A a/c exceeded the
radius specs, the Block B a/c is
projected to fall short under the spec
operating conditions.

I've listed the threshold requirement in
the spec, the performance demonstrated
during the tests as well as the
projected performance for both Block A
and B, when the demonstrated performance
is corrected to the spec conditions of
altitude and temperature (the weather
and terrain during the tests refusing to
exactly match the conditions stated in
the specs). All distances given below
are the combat radius, except for the
self-deploy mission which is ferry
range. Mission spec abbreviations used
are as follows:

"AP-AR", Amphibious Pre-Assault Raid,
carrying 18 troops, incl. 30 min. loiter
in target area; "LAEX", Land Assault
External Lift, 10,000 lb. load from
3,000 ft.PA/91.5 deg.F LZ zone to same,
drop and return; "AEXL", Amphibious
External Lift, 10,000 lb.from ship at
SL/103 deg.F to LZ at 3,000
ft./91.5deg.F, drop and return; "ATRL",
Amphibious Troop Lift, 2 round trips
without refueling ea. carrying 24 troops
from SL/103deg.to 3,000 ft./91.5deg.;
"LATL", Land Assault Troop Lift, 24
troops from 3,000 ft./91.5deg.to 3,000
ft.91.5deg, offload and return; "SELD",
Self Deploy, ferry mission with one AAR.

Profile / Req. / Dem. Perf. & % +-/
Block A Proj. & % +-/ Block B Proj. & %
+-

AP-AR / 200nm / 230nm +15% / 247 nm
+23.5% / 247nm +23.5%

LAEX / 50nm / 69nm +38% / 63nm +26% /
29nm -42%

AEXL / 50nm / 89nm(*1) / 115nm +130% /
40nm -20%

ATRL / 2 x 50 nm / 2 x 53nm +6% / 120nm
+140% / 122nm +144%

LATL / 200nm / 210 nm +5% / 279nm +39.5%
/ 228nm +14%

SELD / 2100nm / 2,660nm (*2) / NA /
2,400nm +14.3%

Cruise Speed / 240 kts / 255 kts +6.3%/
255 kts +6.3% / 250 kts +4.2%

*1 6,900lb. vehicle

*2 Extrapolated performance for Block A
with Block B auxiliary fuel tanks

The shortfall in external lift radius,
especially the land external lift
mission @-42%, is fairly major. There
are work arounds, but it seems pretty
clear that barring an engine upgrade the
a/c will fall well short under the spec
conditions. OTOH, for troop lift (which
is, after all, the primary mission of
the a/c), the a/c's performance is
uniformly excellent, with the Block B
exceeding the specs by from 14 to 144%.
Cruise speed and self-deployment ranges
are also well in excess of the spec.

Some other issues include the lack of
flight clearance to carry dual hook
loads at night, owing to the radar
altimeter being blocked by a load on the
forward hook. This has been known about
since OT-IIE in 2000, so I assume they
didn't feel like spending the money to
fix it by relocating the radalt antenna,
until they were sure they got the big
stuff fixed and the a/c was going to go
into full production. I assume the same
reasoning applied to the hoist and ramp
gun. Oddly enough, CH-53s have the same
problem, and given the increased
likelihood of night ops nowadays this
seems to me to be a major operational
limitation for both a/c until it is
rectified.

Minor stuff: Owing to no longer being
able to stow gear under the troopseats
(to allow them to stroke in a crash),
packs etc. either have to go on the
center floor, possibly blocking rapid
egress,or else have to be carried on the
troops' laps, leading to discomfort on
long flights. A contributory factor to
this is that the seat pans are a couple
of inches too short, leaving much of the
load supported only by the troops'
legs. Also, the seatbelts are
unsatisfactory, having releases that are
too small to be easily operated when
wearing gloves, as well as being prone
to falling behind the seats and being
hard to retrieve etc. The seatpans will
be extended and the seatbelts redesigned
in the Block B a/c.

There's a problem involving interaction
between the SINGCARS radio and the
flight displays, which should be cleared
up by a software change to the latter.

Crew chiefs are complaining that the
left-side forward window in the cabin is
too small for them to have a good field
of view for maintaining a defensive
scan, or when checking clearance when in
a confined area. The right side doesn't
have these issues because of the split
pax. door on that side.

The a/c's flight envelope still needs to
be expanded out to its limits. During
the tests, they were restricted to
60deg. of bank (i.e. 2g) and +-30 of
pitch while maneuvering.

Guy