"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"

[Mike[_7_]]

Philadelphia Inquirer
October 9, 2007

First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks

By Jay Price, McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD-- The V-22 Osprey has arrived in a combat zone for the first
time.

It was an epic trip for the tilt-rotor plane, one that took more than
25 years of development and cost 30 lives and $20 billion. Even the
last short hop - from an aircraft carrier into Iraq - went awry, U.S.
military officials said yesterday.

A malfunction forced one of the 10 Ospreys that were deployed to land
in Jordan on Thursday. The Marines flew parts to it from Iraq and
repaired it.
After it took off again Saturday, the problem recurred, and it had to
turn back and land in Jordan a second time, said Maj. Jeff Pool, a
U.S. military spokesman in western Iraq. The Osprey finally was
repaired and arrived at Asad air base in western Iraq late Sunday
afternoon.

Maj. Eric Dent, an Osprey spokesman at Marine headquarters in
Washington, declined to identify the problem.

"The nature of the malfunction was a minor issue, but our aircrews are
top-notch when it comes to safety," Dent said in an e-mail. "Rather
than continue, the aircrew opted to land at a predetermined divert
location and further investigate the issue."

Now the Osprey is on the world stage, and the burden of proving it is
safe and effective in combat lies with the North Carolina-based Marine
Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, nicknamed the "Thunder Chickens." The
unit's mission will be transporting troops and cargo in western Iraq.

It will perform that mission in ways that no other military
transporters have done in combat. The Osprey - which costs $110
million each, including development costs - takes off and lands like a
helicopter but tilts its engines forward to fly like an airplane. It
is jointly produced by the Boeing Co. in Ridley Township, Delaware
County, and Bell Helicopter Textron of Fort Worth, Texas.

Its arrival in Iraq is aviation history, said Bob Leder, a spokesman
for the Bell-Boeing partnership.

"This is a big thing - the introduction of a new type of aircraft into
combat, totally different from the way things have been done before,"
he said.

Leder said the company believed that the Osprey and the squadron would
do well but that years of criticism and heavy media attention were
putting huge pressure on the unit to perform.

The aircraft's problems have generated a gallery of vocal detractors,
who say that not only is it too expensive and too dangerous but that
it performs poorly and has become little more than an extraordinarily
expensive bus.

The Osprey made the cover of Time magazine last week in a highly
critical article that called it "A Flying Shame."

The problem with the flight into Iraq recalled one of the V-22's first
big journeys, a transatlantic flight last year to an English air show.
One Osprey suffered engine problems and had to make a precautionary
landing in Iceland.

The aircraft has had worse moments, though, including three fatal
crashes:

In 1992, seven crew members died when a tilt-rotor crashed into the
Potomac River.

In April 2000, a V-22 with 19 crew and Marine passengers aboard
crashed in Arizona, killing all.

In December 2000, a mechanical problem compounded by a software glitch
caused a crash in North Carolina that killed the crew of four.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 6:24 am, Mike > wrote:
> Philadelphia Inquirer
> October 9, 2007
>
> First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks
>



It will probably prove far easier to shoot down than helos
particularly when it's in the transition phase.

[Tiger]

The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

[[email protected]]

On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...


How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
combat zone?

[Dave[_6_]]

wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
>
> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> combat zone?
>
>

AV-8?

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:53:09 -0400, Tiger
> wrote:

>The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

Sure, but how many went decades and billions in development for
roles which are only moderately useful or better done by other
means?

The reason the bashing is getting old is the stubborness of the
program, not unfairness by the media.


Peter Skelton

[Tiger]

Peter Skelton wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:53:09 -0400, Tiger
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>
>>
>
>Sure, but how many went decades and billions in development for
>roles which are only moderately useful or better done by other
>means?
>
>The reason the bashing is getting old is the stubborness of the
>program, not unfairness by the media.
>
>
>Peter Skelton
>
>
Granted it's been a pricey ride. However I think the big hurtles are
past. I'd still take my chances with the V-22 over a flying Greyhound
bus with rotors. The tilt rotor is a tech leap that has no real turnback.

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>

The B 58 What a great example

everything sacrificed to high speed
everything had to be gold plated
andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone


Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
(in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly).

By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.

While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
reprieve, proceeded on schedule.


sounds like the V-22

Vince

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:53:09 -0400, Tiger
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but how many went decades and billions in development for
>> roles which are only moderately useful or better done by other
>> means?
>>
>> The reason the bashing is getting old is the stubborness of the
>> program, not unfairness by the media.
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>>
> Granted it's been a pricey ride. However I think the big hurtles are
> past. I'd still take my chances with the V-22 over a flying Greyhound
> bus with rotors. The tilt rotor is a tech leap that has no real turnback.
>

All transports are greyhound busses

That is the mission

The V-22 is right up there with the amphicar , the battleship/carrier
and other hybrids
It has to convert to a really crappy helicopter to take off or land

Vince

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 4:14?pm, wrote:
> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> > accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> > histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> combat zone?

How many of those will lose 24-26 men instead of 1-10 if shot down?
None in US aviation inventory history. And, don't say heavy transports
have either b/c the V-22 is not one of them and is completely
vunerable in transitional flight as compared to evasive maneuvering,
ditching, and a controlled crashed landing in the big transports.

In the Osprey, you are a sitting duck in transition- take-off or
landing.

Rob

[Bill Kambic]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:06:42 -0700, Rob Arndt >
wrote:

>On Oct 17, 4:14?pm, wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>> > The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>> > accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>> > histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>
>> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
>> combat zone?
>
>How many of those will lose 24-26 men instead of 1-10 if shot down?
>None in US aviation inventory history. And, don't say heavy transports
>have either b/c the V-22 is not one of them and is completely
>vunerable in transitional flight as compared to evasive maneuvering,
>ditching, and a controlled crashed landing in the big transports.
>
>In the Osprey, you are a sitting duck in transition- take-off or
>landing.

Hell Fire and Brimstone, EVERY aircraft is a "sitting duck" when
taking off or landing. It's low, slow, dirty and as easy a mark at it
gets.

The difference is that the V-22 will be going in harm's way where
bigger aircraft like the C-130 or C-17 don't get so close to the
action.

But you fight wars near the source of the action. Otherwise why be
there?

Damne airplane has beens studied to death. Now it's in the field.
Time will tell who's right.

[Kerryn Offord]

Dave wrote:
> wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
> @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>
>> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
>> combat zone?
>>
>>
>
> AV-8?

Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 4:24?pm, Dave > wrote:
> wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
> @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
> >> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> >> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> >> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
> > How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> > combat zone?
>
> AV-8?

Does the AV-8 haul 24 soldiers???

Rob

[Tiger]

Rob Arndt wrote:

>On Oct 17, 4:24?pm, Dave > wrote:
>
>
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>>>accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>>>histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
>>>combat zone?
>>>
>>>
>>AV-8?
>>
>>
>
>Does the AV-8 haul 24 soldiers???
>
>Rob
>
>
>
No, but we could does the ch 46 or 47 feel any safer? Hell would could
be still be death trap flying gliders. The helos are big, slow, fly low
and are being shot down by ordinary rpgs. The Helo has techinical limits
in speed & altitude that your never going to best. Lets see how it does,
before dissing the thing.

[Tiger]

Vince wrote:

> Tiger wrote:
>
>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>
>
> The B 58 What a great example
>
> everything sacrificed to high speed
> everything had to be gold plated
> andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone
>
>
> Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
> than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
> (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
> more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
> considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
> which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
> against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
> in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
> cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
> thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
> its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
> performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to
> fly).
>
> By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
> interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
> McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
> system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
> became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
> extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
> altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.
>
> While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
> do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
> design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
> the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
> ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
> reprieve, proceeded on schedule.
>
>
> sounds like the V-22
>
> Vince
>
Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was
my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical
of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be
more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems
to get more heat than deserved.


Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday?

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Kerryn Offord > wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> > wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
> > @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
> >>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> >>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> >>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
> >>
> >> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> >> combat zone?
> >
> > AV-8?
>
> Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
> operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
though.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Oct 18, 12:14 am, Tiger > wrote:
> Vince wrote:
> > Tiger wrote:
>
> >> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> >> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> >> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
> > The B 58 What a great example
>
> > everything sacrificed to high speed
> > everything had to be gold plated
> > andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone
>
> > Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
> > than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
> > (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
> > more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
> > considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
> > which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
> > against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
> > in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
> > cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
> > thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
> > its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
> > performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to
> > fly).
>
> > By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
> > interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
> > McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
> > system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
> > became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
> > extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
> > altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.
>
> > While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
> > do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
> > design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
> > the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
> > ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
> > reprieve, proceeded on schedule.
>
> > sounds like the V-22
>
> > Vince
>
> Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was
> my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical
> of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be
> more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems
> to get more heat than deserved.
>
> Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday?

Is the Minuteman silo still there?

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>
>> Tiger wrote:
>>
>>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>>
>>
>> The B 58 What a great example
>>
>> everything sacrificed to high speed
>> everything had to be gold plated
>> andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone
>>
>>
>> Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
>> than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
>> (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
>> more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
>> considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
>> which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
>> against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
>> in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
>> cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
>> thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
>> its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
>> performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to
>> fly).
>>
>> By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
>> interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
>> McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
>> system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
>> became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
>> extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
>> altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.
>>
>> While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
>> do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
>> design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
>> the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
>> ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
>> reprieve, proceeded on schedule.
>>
>>
>> sounds like the V-22
>>
>> Vince
>>
> Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was
> my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical
> of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be
> more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems
> to get more heat than deserved.
>
>
> Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday?
>

Normally we junk the stinking maggot filled carcass, this one has been
left to rot far too long

Vince

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(Steve Hix) wrote:

> There was always some level of noise about operating them with
> reduced loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have
> actually done it, though.

Never been very practical. There's never been a Harrier or AV-8 with
enough thrust to lift a worthwhile combination of fuel and bombs in a
vertical takeoff. And a ski-jump takeoff involves plenty of forward
speed.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[Kerryn Offord]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810
>>> @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>>>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>>>>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>>>>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>>> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
>>>> combat zone?
>>> AV-8?
>> Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
>> operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)
>
> There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
> loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
> though.

The British used to forward deploy them, but for various values of
"forward".. They don't go hover mode in a combat area (Where they are
being shot at)

[Peter Stickney]

Tiger wrote:

> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

So, for that matter, did the CH-46 that the V-22 is replacing.
The CH-46's bigger brother, the CH-47 was a killer in its early days.
CH-47As would just "stop flying" usually with fatal results.
(Never heard if that habit ever actually stopped, either)
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Peter Stickney]

wrote:

> On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
>
> How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> combat zone?

Every helicopter ever made. They don't just hover while the Earth rotates
below them, after all.
All rotorcraft are vulnerable in the transition between hovering and forward
flight.
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[[email protected]]

On Oct 17, 6:06 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 4:14?pm, wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > > The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
> > > accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
> > > histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>
> > How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a
> > combat zone?
>
> How many of those will lose 24-26 men instead of 1-10 if shot down?
> None in US aviation inventory history. And, don't say heavy transports
> have either b/c the V-22 is not one of them and is completely
> vunerable in transitional flight as compared to evasive maneuvering,
> ditching, and a controlled crashed landing in the big transports.
>
> In the Osprey, you are a sitting duck in transition- take-off or
> landing.
>
> Rob



They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas. Moving
small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.

A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
will live.
One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and it's game over.

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
>
> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas. Moving
> small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>
> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
> will live.
> One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and it's game over.

One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
flight test.

BB

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

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
>> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
>> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>>
>> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
>> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
>> it's game over.
>
> One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
> flight test.
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
> you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>

When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?

"V-22s can supposedly make vertical takeoffs or landings with one engine
inoperable, yet during 17 years of testing, this maneuver has never been
attempted."

http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Gaillard%20V%2022%20Final.pdf

Vince

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
> >> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
> >> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>
> >> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
> >> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
> >> it's game over.
>
> > One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
> > flight test.
>
> > BB
>
> > I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
> > you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>
> When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?

No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
not in the discussion.
OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.

"Vince <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Henry J Cobb <hcobb@xxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> :before rolling off the side of the ship. This is why the program
has no
:> :plans to test a one engine out vertical landing aboard ship.
:>
:> And yet it was tested in 1999. By the way, a V-22 with one engine
out
:> does NOT autorotate to land. One engine power both rotors and they
:> just set it down.
:
:in general yes but if it fully loaded its marginal for vertical
flight.

That's why it's called an 'emergency condition', Vinnie.

Most planes are 'marginal' when fully loaded if you blow an engine.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls
to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden"

BB

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

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
>>>> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
>>>> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>>>> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
>>>> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
>>>> it's game over.
>>> One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
>>> flight test.
>>> BB
>>> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
>>> you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>> When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?
>
> No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
> not in the discussion.
> OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.

The test was a "simulated" oei

Test pilots also conducted simulated OEI (one engine inoperative)
vertical landings, vertical takeoffs, and short takeoffs.
http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/mv22b_exercises_sea_legs.htm


The sea trials test plan requires the V-22 to do practice landings on
five of the ship's 10 helicopter spots to see how it handles in a
variety of conditions, such as strong winds or rough seas. In addition,
the pilots will practice a simulated OEI (one engine inoperative) which
is a no hover vertical landing to the aft end of the ship, vertical
take-offs from a helo spot, and shipboard short take-offs.

They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power


"Although a V-22 program spokesperson told me that its testing regimen
has included a number of one engine inoperative (OEI) transitions in
level flight and in steeply angled descents to roll-on landings (and
equivalent rolling short takeoffs),16144 it is disturbing to note that
during its 17 years of evaluation, the V-22 has never been tested in
this purely vertical OEI landing or takeoff mode with one engine
completely shut down, exactly the kind of landing or takeoff necessary
from a small clearing in a jungle or on a mountainside. Since this key
test was omitted, the report's claim cannot be considered seriously.
Furthermore, because any OEI situation will immediately deprive the
aircraft of 50 percent of its previous max power capability, and given
that the V-22's prop design does not permit a helicopter-type
pre-landing flare, vertical landing of a loaded OEI Osprey would result
in substantial landing impact with probable damage to the aircraft."

V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
Corps Times, however, says that:

"...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
its torque available vs. torque required – simply put, if you limit the
amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
simulated single-engine performance."

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

This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.


Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On Oct 19, 2:57 pm, Vince > wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
> >> BlackBeard wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
> >>>> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
> >>>> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
> >>>> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
> >>>> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
> >>>> it's game over.
> >>> One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
> >>> flight test.
> >>> BB
> >>> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
> >>> you live in Kansas or Tibet...
> >> When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?
>
> > No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
> > not in the discussion.
> > OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.
>
> The test was a "simulated" oei
>
> Test pilots also conducted simulated OEI (one engine inoperative)
> vertical landings, vertical takeoffs, and short takeoffs.http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/mv22b_exercises_sea_legs.htm
>
> The sea trials test plan requires the V-22 to do practice landings on
> five of the ship's 10 helicopter spots to see how it handles in a
> variety of conditions, such as strong winds or rough seas. In addition,
> the pilots will practice a simulated OEI (one engine inoperative) which
> is a no hover vertical landing to the aft end of the ship, vertical
> take-offs from a helo spot, and shipboard short take-offs.
>
> They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power
>
> "Although a V-22 program spokesperson told me that its testing regimen
> has included a number of one engine inoperative (OEI) transitions in
> level flight and in steeply angled descents to roll-on landings (and
> equivalent rolling short takeoffs),16144 it is disturbing to note that
> during its 17 years of evaluation, the V-22 has never been tested in
> this purely vertical OEI landing or takeoff mode with one engine
> completely shut down, exactly the kind of landing or takeoff necessary
> from a small clearing in a jungle or on a mountainside. Since this key
> test was omitted, the report's claim cannot be considered seriously.
> Furthermore, because any OEI situation will immediately deprive the
> aircraft of 50 percent of its previous max power capability, and given
> that the V-22's prop design does not permit a helicopter-type
> pre-landing flare, vertical landing of a loaded OEI Osprey would result
> in substantial landing impact with probable damage to the aircraft."
>
> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
> Corps Times, however, says that:
>
> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
> simulated single-engine performance."
>
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>
> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>
> Vince

This is a second posting of this

http://www.news.com/2300-11397_3-6212364-5.html?tag=ne.gall.pg

Notice the ability of the rope to keep the V-22 airborne and steady,
despite having the rotors stopped.

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince > wrote:
>
> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
> Corps Times, however, says that:
>
> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
> simulated single-engine performance."
>
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>
> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>
> Vince

No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.

BB

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

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Vince wrote:
[snip]

>
> They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power

With one engine out the I would expect the Osprey to roll
badly at low speed. An effect that reducing both engines
would not simulate.

Andrew Swallow

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince > wrote:
>> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
>> Corps Times, however, says that:
>>
>> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
>> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
>> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
>> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
>> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
>> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
>> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
>> simulated single-engine performance."
>>
>> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>>
>> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>>
>> Vince
>
> No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.
>
> BB

no it's not
among other things
it puts no stress on the engine to engine drive shaft
It does not simulate rotating one engine at full speed while the other
idles.
It does not test the cut out mechanism for isolating the non functioning
engine

Vince

[Vince]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Vince wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power
>
> With one engine out the I would expect the Osprey to roll
> badly at low speed. An effect that reducing both engines
> would not simulate.
>
> Andrew Swallow

The drive shaft is supposed to prevent this, if it works

AFAIK they have never tested whether it works in landing or take off


Vince

[Bill Kambic]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:56 -0700, BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince > wrote:
>>
>> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
>> Corps Times, however, says that:
>>
>> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
>> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
>> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
>> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
>> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
>> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
>> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
>> simulated single-engine performance."
>>
>> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>>
>> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>>
>> Vince
>
>No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.

Well, Don Q., I think the windmills are winning!!! ;-)

There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?

When I transitioned into P-3s one of the simulator items was a single
engine, boost out landing. This was ONLY done in the simulator
because it was an untrahazarous manuever. You do it right or you make
a smoking hole. It took me few times to do it without crashing the
aircraft (and I was about Fleet Average).

The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
confuse me with facts" advocates. You can overlay a general anti-Bush
feeling (as anything that damages Bush's credibility is good, no
matter that it's based upon lies, innuendo, and highly suspicious
science). I figure we've spent the money, now let's see what we
bought. If it works then we've made a big leap foreward. If it
doesn't then the V-22 can join the ranks of other failed experiments
like the rigid air ship.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Oct 19, 5:06 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:56 -0700, BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince > wrote:
>
> >> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
> >> Corps Times, however, says that:
>
> >> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
> >> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
> >> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
> >> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
> >> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
> >> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
> >> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
> >> simulated single-engine performance."
>
> >>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>
> >> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>
> >> Vince
>
> >No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.
>
> Well, Don Q., I think the windmills are winning!!! ;-)
>
> There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
> are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
> hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?
>
> When I transitioned into P-3s one of the simulator items was a single
> engine, boost out landing. This was ONLY done in the simulator
> because it was an untrahazarous manuever. You do it right or you make
> a smoking hole. It took me few times to do it without crashing the
> aircraft (and I was about Fleet Average).
>
> The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
> confuse me with facts" advocates. You can overlay a general anti-Bush
> feeling (as anything that damages Bush's credibility is good, no
> matter that it's based upon lies, innuendo, and highly suspicious
> science). I figure we've spent the money, now let's see what we
> bought. If it works then we've made a big leap foreward. If it
> doesn't then the V-22 can join the ranks of other failed experiments
> like the rigid air ship.

Ironically, Cheney is the guy who wanted to cancel the V-22 and
Congress kept reviving it.

[Kerryn Offord]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
>>>> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
>>>> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>>>> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
>>>> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
>>>> it's game over.
>>> One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
>>> flight test.
>>> BB
>>> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
>>> you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>> When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?
>
> No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
> not in the discussion.
> OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.

But they have been talking about engine out on approach to a combat
landing.. I assume it will be carrying a full load of 24 Marines when
landing in a combat zone

[Gatt]

"Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
...
> BlackBeard wrote:

> But they have been talking about engine out on approach to a combat
> landing.. I assume it will be carrying a full load of 24 Marines when
> landing in a combat zone

An engine-out combat landing...

The Marines will have relieved themselves before disembarkation.

-c

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

>I figure we've spent the money, now let's see what we bought. If it works then we've made a big leap foreward. If it doesn't then the V-22 can join the ranks of other failed experiments like the rigid air ship.


Pretty much my thoughts as well. This thread has developed the classic Usenet characteristic of having value inverse to its duration and bellicosity.

--
Mike Kanze

"Golf can best be defined as an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle, followed by a good bottle of beer."

- Anonymous

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message ...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:56 -0700, BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince > wrote:
>>
>> V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
>> Corps Times, however, says that:
>>
>> "...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
>> single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
>> nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
>> its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
>> amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
>> training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
>> profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
>> simulated single-engine performance."
>>
>> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-03930/
>>
>> This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.
>>
>> Vince
>
>No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.

Well, Don Q., I think the windmills are winning!!! ;-)

There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?

When I transitioned into P-3s one of the simulator items was a single
engine, boost out landing. This was ONLY done in the simulator
because it was an untrahazarous manuever. You do it right or you make
a smoking hole. It took me few times to do it without crashing the
aircraft (and I was about Fleet Average).

The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
confuse me with facts" advocates. You can overlay a general anti-Bush
feeling (as anything that damages Bush's credibility is good, no
matter that it's based upon lies, innuendo, and highly suspicious
science). I figure we've spent the money, now let's see what we
bought. If it works then we've made a big leap foreward. If it
doesn't then the V-22 can join the ranks of other failed experiments
like the rigid air ship.

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 1:32 pm, Vince > wrote:

>
> no it's not
> among other things
> it puts no stress on the engine to engine drive shaft
> It does not simulate rotating one engine at full speed while the other
> idles.
> It does not test the cut out mechanism for isolating the non functioning
> engine
>
> Vince

All those, and more were tested in LFT&E. Once they were proven to
work, the simulated OEI test is valid.

BB

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

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 3:58 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > BlackBeard wrote:
> > But they have been talking about engine out on approach to a combat
> > landing.. I assume it will be carrying a full load of 24 Marines when
> > landing in a combat zone
>
> An engine-out combat landing...
>
> The Marines will have relieved themselves before disembarkation.

Please be more careful with your attributions, I wrote none of that.

BB

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

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 19, 1:32 pm, Vince > wrote:
>
>> no it's not
>> among other things
>> it puts no stress on the engine to engine drive shaft
>> It does not simulate rotating one engine at full speed while the other
>> idles.
>> It does not test the cut out mechanism for isolating the non functioning
>> engine
>>
>> Vince
>
> All those, and more were tested in LFT&E. Once they were proven to
> work, the simulated OEI test is valid.
>


nonsense
The system was not tested


"The Navy is conducting an aggressive LFT&E program on representative
V-22 components and assemblies, in compliance with a DOT&E-approved
alternative LFT&E plan. The V-22 program was granted a waiver from
full-up, system-level LFT&E in April, 1997. The vulnerability testing
that the program is performing is appropriate and will result in the
improvement of aircraft survivability."

http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/eng/v22.htm

I've spent years teaching how the sum of the parts is not the same as
the whole

If they are so sure it works, its a piece of cake to test

Fill it with sandbags, put a test pilot on board and cut off the engine

Vince

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 19, 2:06 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> Well, Don Q., I think the windmills are winning!!! ;-)
>
> There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
> are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
> hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?
> <snip>
> The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
> confuse me with facts" advocates.

And that's fine, some of the anti-Osprey points are valid and will
only be proven after it's been fielded for awhile. I just get tired
of the hyperbole, ignorance, and in some cases (not this one) outright
lies about the capabilities, vulnerabilities, and survivability.
There have been crashes, deaths, and problems with almost every
aircraft we've developed. It seems some of the anti-Osprey crowd
believe the Tom Clancy books are something other than fiction, where
everything works great everytime.
Aircraft development has historically been a drama of trade-offs,
sacrifices, and tragedy.

BB

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

[Jack Linthicum]

On Oct 19, 2:04 pm, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>
> > BlackBeard wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
> > >> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
> > >> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>
> > >> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
> > >> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
> > >> it's game over.
>
> > > One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
> > > flight test.
>
> > > BB
>
> > > I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
> > > you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>
> > When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?
>
> No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
> not in the discussion.
> OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.
>
> "Vince <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> :> Henry J Cobb <hcobb@xxxxxx> wrote:
> :>
> :> :before rolling off the side of the ship. This is why the program
> has no
> :> :plans to test a one engine out vertical landing aboard ship.
> :>
> :> And yet it was tested in 1999. By the way, a V-22 with one engine
> out
> :> does NOT autorotate to land. One engine power both rotors and they
> :> just set it down.
> :
> :in general yes but if it fully loaded its marginal for vertical
> flight.
>
> That's why it's called an 'emergency condition', Vinnie.
>
> Most planes are 'marginal' when fully loaded if you blow an engine.
>
> --
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls
> to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden"
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

http://www.news.com/2300-11397_3-6212364-5.html?tag=ne.gall.pg

This must be one very strong rope, to hold that large an aircraft in
place like that

http://www.news.com/2300-11397_3-6212364-1.html

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Gatt" > wrote:

> "Kerryn Offord" > wrote in message
> ...
> > BlackBeard wrote:
>
> > But they have been talking about engine out on approach to a combat
> > landing.. I assume it will be carrying a full load of 24 Marines when
> > landing in a combat zone
>
> An engine-out combat landing...
>
> The Marines will have relieved themselves before disembarkation.

And those who didn't before...

[Peter Stickney]

BlackBeard wrote:


> That's why it's called an 'emergency condition', Vinnie.
>
> Most planes are 'marginal' when fully loaded if you blow an engine.

In fact, most helicopters are worse.
From my Standard Aircraft Characteristics collection:
The CH-3E (Jolly Green Giant) Can't hover out of ground effect at Sea Level
with a full load at max weight with _both_ engines running. and, at that
weight, can flutter down to the ground (extended glide, if you will) with
one engine out. That's on a Standard, 59 deg F/ 15 deg C day.

The CH-46A is in the same boat.
and the SH-3H.
The twin-pac UH-1N can fly oon 1 engine, but can't hover at max weight.
If it loses an engine when heavy, it had better be alredy in full forward
flight.
According to Jane's, the UH-60 is in the same boat as the UH-1N. It'll fly
on one engine, but not hover or, of course, take off.

Of course, in all cases, the only time the aircraft is at max weight is when
it's taking off to start the mission. What's more important is its excess
power when it's burned off about 40% of its fuel.



> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls
> to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden"
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Peter Stickney]

Andrew Swallow wrote:

> Vince wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power
>
> With one engine out the I would expect the Osprey to roll
> badly at low speed. An effect that reducing both engines
> would not simulate.

Why? The engines are cross-shafted. Each engine drives both proprotors.
One engineout = half the horsepower, not one prop stops turning.
This is not unique. All tandem rotor helicopters work that way.
(The only one I can't speak for is the Mi22)

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Peter Stickney]

Kerryn Offord wrote:

> BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince > wrote:
>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>> On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
>>>>> They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
>>>>> Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.
>>>>> A helo losing power can auto-rotate and possibly most or all aboard
>>>>> will live. One engine gone from the Osprey during transition and
>>>>> it's game over.
>>>> One engine gone in transition has been tested, and passed during
>>>> flight test.
>>>> BB
>>>> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb. It's just fate whether
>>>> you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>>> When did they test a fully loaded V-22 with an engine out?
>>
>> No one, prior to you, said anything about "fully loaded." That was
>> not in the discussion.
>> OEI was tested in 1999, as you have acknowledged previously.
>
> But they have been talking about engine out on approach to a combat
> landing.. I assume it will be carrying a full load of 24 Marines when
> landing in a combat zone

But not a full load of fuel.
Unless, of course, they're assaulting their own base.
Figure them to have burned off 40% or so of their fuel, and you'll
be more in the ballpark.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Steve Hix
> writes
>In article >,
> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>> Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
>> operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)
>
>There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
>loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
>though.

"Forward zone" means "far enough behind the FEBA that nobody's shooting
at you or dropping much nastiness on the base". The USMC moved AV-8Bs up
to highway strips during Desert Storm, from memory, with reasonable
success: put them a lot closer to the action, allowed them to carry more
ordnance and less fuel, and the logistic problems were manageable over a
couple of days. You certainly wouldn't be basing Harriers out of a
location exposed to direct enemy fire, though, and for the same reason
Harriers don't transition to or from the hover where anyone might shoot
at them. (Besides, on highway strips the preferred option is apparently
short rolling takeoffs and landings: more payload and less FOD)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Brian Sharrock]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Steve Hix
> > writes
>>In article >,
>> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>>> Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
>>> operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)
>>
>>There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced
>>loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it,
>>though.
>
> "Forward zone" means "far enough behind the FEBA that nobody's shooting at
> you or dropping much nastiness on the base". The USMC moved AV-8Bs up to
> highway strips during Desert Storm, from memory, with reasonable success:
> put them a lot closer to the action, allowed them to carry more ordnance
> and less fuel, and the logistic problems were manageable over a couple of
> days. You certainly wouldn't be basing Harriers out of a location exposed
> to direct enemy fire, though, and for the same reason Harriers don't
> transition to or from the hover where anyone might shoot at them.
> (Besides, on highway strips the preferred option is apparently short
> rolling takeoffs and landings: more payload and less FOD)
>




During the sixties , MoD thinking was that 'concrete' runways would be
rendered inoperable within hours of the 'balloon going up'; so the emphasis
was on fielding an expeditionary air force capable of operating from 'rough'
and dispersed fields. Although the integrated grand design was scuppered by
Wilson's government with (amongst others) the cancellation of TSR2 , the
Supersonic 'Harrier / Kestrel' P1154, and a STOL freighter the feeling
amongst the RAF was towards a move away from fixed airfields and towards a
more expeditionary force. Many 'air-relocatable' groups, wings squadrons and
units were formed including, but not limited to, 38 Grp with its 1 Air
Traffic Control Unit and its embedded Airmobile Radar Station , etc. etc.

Against this background , I recall, but have been unable to find a reference
for, units were anxious to engage in 'my aircraft is more 'rough field' than
yours!' stunts.

I recall Harriers being scattered under trees in a married patch in Germany
and being marshalled through the streets while kids wended their way to
school. "See! _We_ don't need a runway!".

The Sepecat Jaguar advocates demonstrated their prowess by using a completed
but not connected portion of a Motorway [I believe it was the M55 ,more or
less adjacent to the Warton airfield]
to operate Jaguars from ; ' See!, We can use a motorway/highway!'

When the Harrier crowd retorted; 'We can use Motorways too!', the Jaguar
adherents cried' True! But we didn't have to resurface it afterwards!'

All from memory of three(?) decades ago .... facts may have changed !

[I was in Canberra when a four-ringer said , when "If they think I'm gonna
plonk down a Harrier in the middle of the ulu, they must think I'm mad!"}

MAG32 did deploy AV8A to some God-forsaken part of North Carolina for 'rough
field' trails and may have used an Erector-kit launching ramp. 1973(?)

--

Brian

[Eugene Griessel]

"Brian Sharrock" > wrote:

>Against this background , I recall, but have been unable to find a reference
>for, units were anxious to engage in 'my aircraft is more 'rough field' than
>yours!' stunts.
>
>I recall Harriers being scattered under trees in a married patch in Germany
>and being marshalled through the streets while kids wended their way to
>school. "See! _We_ don't need a runway!".
>
>The Sepecat Jaguar advocates demonstrated their prowess by using a completed
>but not connected portion of a Motorway [I believe it was the M55 ,more or
>less adjacent to the Warton airfield]
>to operate Jaguars from ; ' See!, We can use a motorway/highway!'
>
>When the Harrier crowd retorted; 'We can use Motorways too!', the Jaguar
>adherents cried' True! But we didn't have to resurface it afterwards!'
>
>All from memory of three(?) decades ago .... facts may have changed !

SEPECAT ran a series of ads in magzines like Flight showing the Jaguar
on a motorway. Which wasn't such a big deal because Swedish Drakens
and Viggenst had been routinley operating from motorways.

My all time favourite, and one has to bend the imagination here,
aerospace ad was the one that claimed, "Softly, silently the Harrier
steals in on Dowty landing gear."

Eugene L Griessel

A man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, sail a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialisation is for insects.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:

>
> My all time favourite, and one has to bend the imagination here,
> aerospace ad was the one that claimed, "Softly, silently the Harrier
> steals in on Dowty landing gear."

Is that referring to being towed slowly down a local road?

[At Where]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:59:31 -0400, Vince > wrote:

>Tiger wrote:
>> The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
>> accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
>> histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...
>>
>
>The B 58 What a great example
>
>everything sacrificed to high speed
>everything had to be gold plated
>andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone
>
>
>Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
>than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
>(in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
>more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
>considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
>which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
>against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
>in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
>cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
>thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
>its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
>performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly).
>
> By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
>interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
>McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
>system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
>became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
>extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
>altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.
>
> While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
>do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
>design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
>the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
>ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
>reprieve, proceeded on schedule.
>
>
>sounds like the V-22
>
>Vince

Beancounter. What else did you (conveniently) forget to list?

It was also a stepping stone,
An advancement in technology in powerplant and airframe,
It set speed records,
It reduced the crew size,
It posed problems that had to be overcome,
Problems that passed the advantage of technology to subsequent
generations of aircraft.

It made the Russians scared that they could be attacked faster than
they could defend.

It became obsolete partly because it existed. Its own design and
operation propelled technology forward.

XB-70 as well.

Aircraft don't have to be an operational success to contribute.