"Seeking Foreign Buyers For Osprey"

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince
wrote:

BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince wrote:
don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
Vince
Please clarify "china doll."
As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
systems.
BB
It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
this turkey is a political airplane.
It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq

The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.


The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.

BB

you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem


"The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.

The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...reys_Cargo.htm


That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
wide, so it won't fit anyway.


Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince
wrote:

BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince wrote:
don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
Vince
Please clarify "china doll."
As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
systems.
BB
It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
this turkey is a political airplane.
It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq

The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.

The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.

BB
you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem


"The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.

The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...reys_Cargo.htm


That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
wide, so it won't fit anyway.


Peter Skelton

if you are driving around in the face of the enemy I suspect you want
the armor

and 5200 is the empty weight not the GVW

The M998 A0 series has a curb weight of approximately 5,200 lbs., a
payload of 2,500 lbs. (GVW 7,700 lbs.), and a 6.2 liter V-8 diesel
engine with a three-speed automatic transmission. The current comparable
model, the M1097A2, weighs only 700 lbs. more but can carry almost twice
the payload at 4,400 lbs. (GVW 10,300 lbs). It has a 6.5-liter V-8
diesel with a four-speed automatic transmission. The current production
Expanded Capacity Vehicle (ECV) model M1113 has a payload of 5,100 lbs.
That is over 2 ½ tons, or very nearly the M1113's own weight of 6,400
lbs. The M1113 has a turbocharged 6.5-liter V-8 diesel. The up-armored
variant M1114 is produced by AM General with the armor package installed
by O'Gara Hess and Eisenhart.

On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Vince wrote:

they have noticed that

What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
blinding the pilot.

This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?

"5/9/2007 - EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force Research
Laboratory Rapid Reaction Team has successfully integrated and tested
a science and technology solution to the Air Force Special Operation
Command helicopter brownout problem.

In late 2005, Lt. Gen. Michael Wooley, AFSOC commander, asked the AFRL
commander to find a solution to a problem that is killing his Airmen
-- rotary wing brownouts.

More than 30 AFSOC rotary wing aircraft and 60 servicemembers have
lost their lives due to reduced visibility conditions during landing
in desert environments. Many of the aircraft losses have been
attributed to a condition that helicopter pilots refer to as
"brownout."

"Brownout conditions occur during landing and take-offs from sand or
dirt. The sand and dirt is blown up off the ground and blinds the
helicopter pilots to the surrounding area, much like being in a
whiteout during a blizzard," said Eric Werkowitz, the effort's program
manager who is from the Munitions Directorate here. "

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:34 -0400, Vince
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince
wrote:

BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince wrote:
don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
Vince
Please clarify "china doll."
As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
systems.
BB
It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
this turkey is a political airplane.
It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq

The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.

The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.

BB
you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem


"The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.

The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...reys_Cargo.htm


That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
wide, so it won't fit anyway.


Peter Skelton

if you are driving around in the face of the enemy I suspect you want
the armor

and 5200 is the empty weight not the GVW

My bad.

The M998 A0 series has a curb weight of approximately 5,200 lbs., a
payload of 2,500 lbs. (GVW 7,700 lbs.), and a 6.2 liter V-8 diesel
engine with a three-speed automatic transmission. The current comparable
model, the M1097A2, weighs only 700 lbs. more but can carry almost twice
the payload at 4,400 lbs. (GVW 10,300 lbs). It has a 6.5-liter V-8
diesel with a four-speed automatic transmission. The current production
Expanded Capacity Vehicle (ECV) model M1113 has a payload of 5,100 lbs.
That is over 2 ½ tons, or very nearly the M1113's own weight of 6,400
lbs. The M1113 has a turbocharged 6.5-liter V-8 diesel. The up-armored
variant M1114 is produced by AM General with the armor package installed
by O'Gara Hess and Eisenhart.





Peter Skelton

BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Vince wrote:

they have noticed that
What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
blinding the pilot.

This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?

very very high disk loading with yaw effects


6. HIGH DOWNWASH VELOCITY

Because of the high disk-loading of V-22, the downwash velocity is about
twice that of any conventional helicopter, and because of the
side-by-side placement of the prop-rotors there are two distinct
downwash wakes that are transverse to the flight direction. This has
several operational implications that bear on safety issues. The most
critical one, I believe, is the effects of downwash on landings at night
in a desert environment – a challenge in any helicopter, but more
difficult, and potentially dangerous, in the V-22.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

On Jun 15, 6:27 am, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:

Please clarify "china doll."

?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

Pat Flannery wrote:


Vince wrote:

The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry

they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor

it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts

Could be worse...could be this:
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.

Pat

Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:


Vince wrote:

The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry

they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor

it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts

Could be worse...could be this:
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.

Pat

Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in autorotation
during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it wouldn't be
able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

the v-22 cannot safely auto rotate

1. LACK OF AUTOROTATION CAPABILITY

Although it was initially believed that V-22 would have a full
autorotation capability, it is now generally agreed that the V-22 cannot
autorotate in any practical sense. Although the V-22 has performed an
autorotation in a technical sense, the test procedure was carefully
structured to allow for a safe entry (the engine power was slowly
removed to allow the aircraft to establish a stable autorotation.) In a
practical autorotation, the aircraft must be able to enter a stable
autorotative state following an abrupt power interruption. Although an
abrupt removal of engine power in V-22 has never been done, such an
event would probably result in loss of control because of the inability
to maintain rotor RPM. This is especially true if the failure occurs in
transition mode (60 deg nacelles)[1], the common configuration used for
“slinging” external loads.

The single autorotation test in V-22 also demonstrated that the attempt
to recover from autorotation to a safe landing by using stored rotor
energy to arrest the rate of descent failed markedly. The test data
indicate that the aircraft would have impacted the ground at a rate of
descent of about 3700 ft/min (61.7 ft/sec) ¾ a fatal rate-of-descent.
Authoritative proponents, e.g., the NASA Review Team, have argued that
autorotation is not a needed capability for the V-22 due to the low
probability of a two-engine failure. My analysis of Navy safety data
shows that the Navy/USMC experiences a dual engine failure in a
helicopter about once every 3 to 4 years due to fuel contamination
onboard a ship. Historically, such accidents have usually been
survivable because the helicopter autorotates into the water and the
crew and passengers quickly scramble out. If such an event were to
occur in V-22, it will probably be fatal to crew and passengers because
the aircraft will not smoothly enter autorotation, but most probably
depart from controlled flight, and because the cabin is too cramped for
a rapid egress.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

Vince wrote:
Dan wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:


Vince wrote:

The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry

they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt
rotor

it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts

Could be worse...could be this:
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.

Pat

Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

the v-22 cannot safely auto rotate

snip

Vince, once yet again you are way off mark. I was responding to
Flannery's link to a Soviet aircraft not V-22.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Jun 15, 2:55?am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt wrote:



Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.

And this is different from any other aircraft how?

Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,

As in any troop carrying helicopter...

but

since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
fire at low altitude.

Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG.

The escorts (still some form of a Cobra) can't operate where the V-22
operates.

It can't be efficiently escorted. It's the worst boondoggle ever
invented.

Walt