Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

[mike]

Inside the Navy

Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

March 24, 2009 --

Naval Air Systems Command this week ordered the temporary grounding of
84 Navy and Air Force V-22 Osprey tiltrotors after an inspection of
one of 12 V-22s in Iraq revealed that loose bolts were causing damage
to components in the aircraft's rotor assembly, according to a NAVAIR
spokesman.
The March 22 grounding was a “precautionary measure” after all four
bolts in the rotor assembly were found loose in one of the V-22s in
Iraq on March 21, said the spokesman, Mike Welding. Since then, 52
aircraft have cleared their inspections, although four aircraft in
Iraq required repairs, he said.
“Loose bolts were discovered while the aircraft was on the ground and
did not cause an in-flight incident,” Welding told Inside the Navy.
“The grounding bulletin spells out new inspection procedures on
certain components in the prop rotor assembly. All aircraft that
passed the inspection will immediately return to normal flight status.
Any aircraft found with loose bolts will receive replacement parts and
be returned to flight.”
The grounding affected 84 aircraft -- 73 Marine Corps MV-22s and 11
Air Force CV-22s. At press time, 43 MV-22s and nine CV-22s had been
cleared, although Air Force Special Operations Command spokeswoman
Capt. Laura Ropelis said the Air Force expected that all 11 CV-22s
would be cleared by the end of today without any problems.
All four of the aircraft that did not pass inspection were among the
12 currently serving in Iraq. Welding declined to speculate on a
cause, saying the investigation is ongoing.
Two of those aircraft have been repaired and cleared, including the
initial aircraft. Welding was unsure of the status of the other two.
Eleven of the 12 aircraft had been inspected at press time.
The inspection takes about two hours, and the fix takes about two
days, Welding said.
The problem came to light when pilots assigned to the squadron noted
“some unusual noises and vibrations when shutting down their aircraft
following a routine flight,” Welding said.
“Subsequently, the problem was discovered by squadron mechanics when
they detected the cause of the noise and vibration,” he added.
“Squadron mechanics had discovered four bolts had separated from the
stationary swash plate trunnion,” causing some damage to nearby
components.
Although the other aircraft had some loose bolts, the problem was not
as severe, Welding said.
The grounding was done mainly for safety reasons as damage was very
minor, according to Welding. Although he said it would be difficult to
speculate exactly what would have happened if the problem had worsened
significantly, control of the rotor could have been compromised.
With the new precautions in place, there is no risk of that now,
Welding said.
“We believe that is not going to happen, especially with the new
enhanced procedures we will have in place,” he said. “[The procedures]
will certainly provide us with enough early detection.”

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 25, 9:21*am, mike > wrote:
> Inside the Navy
>
> Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
>
> March 24, 2009 --
>
> Naval Air Systems Command this week ordered the temporary grounding of
> 84 Navy and Air Force V-22 Osprey tiltrotors after an inspection of
> one of 12 V-22s in Iraq revealed that loose bolts were causing damage
> to components in the aircraft's rotor assembly, according to a NAVAIR
> spokesman.
> The March 22 grounding was a “precautionary measure” after all four
> bolts in the rotor assembly were found loose in one of the V-22s in
> Iraq on March 21, said the spokesman, Mike Welding. Since then, 52
> aircraft have cleared their inspections, although four aircraft in
> Iraq required repairs, he said.
> “Loose bolts were discovered while the aircraft was on the ground and
> did not cause an in-flight incident,” Welding told Inside the Navy.
> “The grounding bulletin spells out new inspection procedures on
> certain components in the prop rotor assembly. All aircraft that
> passed the inspection will immediately return to normal flight status.
> Any aircraft found with loose bolts will receive replacement parts and
> be returned to flight.”
> The grounding affected 84 aircraft -- 73 Marine Corps MV-22s and 11
> Air Force CV-22s. At press time, 43 MV-22s and nine CV-22s had been
> cleared, although Air Force Special Operations Command spokeswoman
> Capt. Laura Ropelis said the Air Force expected that all 11 CV-22s
> would be cleared by the end of today without any problems.
> All four of the aircraft that did not pass inspection were among the
> 12 currently serving in Iraq. Welding declined to speculate on a
> cause, saying the investigation is ongoing.
> Two of those aircraft have been repaired and cleared, including the
> initial aircraft. Welding was unsure of the status of the other two.
> Eleven of the 12 aircraft had been inspected at press time.
> The inspection takes about two hours, and the fix takes about two
> days, Welding said.
> The problem came to light when pilots assigned to the squadron noted
> “some unusual noises and vibrations when shutting down their aircraft
> following a routine flight,” Welding said.
> “Subsequently, the problem was discovered by squadron mechanics when
> they detected the cause of the noise and vibration,” he added.
> “Squadron mechanics had discovered four bolts had separated from the
> stationary swash plate trunnion,” causing some damage to nearby
> components.
> Although the other aircraft had some loose bolts, the problem was not
> as severe, Welding said.
> The grounding was done mainly for safety reasons as damage was very
> minor, according to Welding. Although he said it would be difficult to
> speculate exactly what would have happened if the problem had worsened
> significantly, control of the rotor could have been compromised.
> With the new precautions in place, there is no risk of that now,
> Welding said.
> “We believe that is not going to happen, especially with the new
> enhanced procedures we will have in place,” he said. “[The procedures]
> will certainly provide us with enough early detection.”

"Although he said it would be difficult to speculate exactly what
would have happened if the problem had worsened significantly,
control of the rotor could have been compromised. With the new
precautions in place, there is no risk of that now,"

Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
Wishing or making sure?

[vaughn]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...

>Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
>have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
>finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
>Wishing or making sure?

This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We "learn
by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the Osprey, we
will probably see a significant list of these issues. And yes, some of them
will probably cause accidents before the learning is all over.

Vaughn

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> vaughn wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
>>> have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
>>> finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
>>> Wishing or making sure?
>>
>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
>> "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the
>> Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these issues. And
>> yes, some of them will probably cause accidents before the learning is
>> all over.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>
> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> Vince


by the time the V-22 is perfected anti-gravity flight systems will be
online.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

First flight is one thing: actual operational use is another matter
altogether. Sometimes things are discovered with some Fleet use. Problems
are noticed, diagnosed, and fixed, often in the field. By your reasoning,
the B-29 shouldn't have been fielded as it had so many problems. But those
issues were fixed, and the plane served well.
"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> vaughn wrote:
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> >
...
> >
> >> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
> >> have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
> >> finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
> >> Wishing or making sure?
> >
> > This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
"learn
> > by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the Osprey,
we
> > will probably see a significant list of these issues. And yes, some of
them
> > will probably cause accidents before the learning is all over.
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
> >
> >
>
> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> Vince

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
...
> First flight is one thing: actual operational use is another matter
> altogether. Sometimes things are discovered with some Fleet use. Problems
> are noticed, diagnosed, and fixed, often in the field. By your reasoning,
> the B-29 shouldn't have been fielded as it had so many problems. But those
> issues were fixed, and the plane served well.

it didn't take 20+ years to perfect the B-29.
the V-22 has had it's chance.how many more decades will you give it?

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.
"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First flight is one thing: actual operational use is another matter
> > altogether. Sometimes things are discovered with some Fleet use.
Problems
> > are noticed, diagnosed, and fixed, often in the field. By your
reasoning,
> > the B-29 shouldn't have been fielded as it had so many problems. But
those
> > issues were fixed, and the plane served well.
>
> it didn't take 20+ years to perfect the B-29.
> the V-22 has had it's chance.how many more decades will you give it?
>
>

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
...
> As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on
> procurement,
> so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's
> been
> a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines
> killed),
> and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got
> an
> alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow
> the
> above advice.
>


there comes a point when it's obvious the thing doesn't work as advertised.
the V-22 passed that 5 years ago.
the B-29 had no more than normal teething troubles and was soon enough
sorted out.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

Then explain its record in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. No combat losses or
crashes in-country. Like I said, if you have an alternative platform to
replace the H-46s, let's hear it. Otherwise, either get on board or get out
of the way.
"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on
> > procurement,
> > so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's
> > been
> > a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines
> > killed),
> > and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've
got
> > an
> > alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow
> > the
> > above advice.
> >
>
>
> there comes a point when it's obvious the thing doesn't work as
advertised.
> the V-22 passed that 5 years ago.
> the B-29 had no more than normal teething troubles and was soon enough
> sorted out.
>
>

[Kerryn Offord[_2_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> Then explain its record in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. No combat losses or
> crashes in-country. Like I said, if you have an alternative platform to
> replace the H-46s, let's hear it. Otherwise, either get on board or get out
> of the way.

doing what kind of operations at what kind of tempo..

last we heard (SMN) it was doing the mail runs.. and running through
their engines at a high rate of knots...

As for alternatives.. any number of proper helicopters... Things that
can carry the same cargo with a third of the power requirements.. And
can fly quite easily with a slung load... (If the V-22 fly with a slung
load you'd be better off using helicopters... they're only any good if
you can fly with internal cargo only.. and even then it gets a bit
cramped....

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 26, 3:58*am, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > Then explain its record in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. No combat losses or
> > crashes in-country. Like I said, if you have an alternative platform to
> > replace the H-46s, let's hear it. Otherwise, either get on board or get out
> > of the way.
>
> doing what kind of operations at what kind of tempo..
>
> last we heard (SMN) it was doing the mail runs.. and running through
> their engines at a high rate of knots...
>
> As for alternatives.. any number of proper helicopters... Things that
> can carry the same cargo with a third of the power requirements.. And
> can fly quite easily with a slung load... (If the V-22 fly with a slung
> load you'd be better off using helicopters... they're only any good if
> you can fly with internal cargo only.. and even then it gets a bit
> cramped....

First crash with real troops on board and it gets on the "history"
list. One of the concepts of the V-22 was its ability to switch from
vertical to horizontal. The loose bolts seem to suggest that might not
work every time.

[Curt]

"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> vaughn wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
>>> have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
>>> finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
>>> Wishing or making sure?
>>
>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
>> "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the
>> Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these issues. And
>> yes, some of them will probably cause accidents before the learning is
>> all over.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>
> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> Vince

I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. 'course, it's only been
flying since 1956.
"Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft ... are turning up cracks in
the nuts and bolts used to attach the wings to the planes' fuselages. The
order to inspect the fleet came late Thursday after cracks were found in
some upper wing joint barrel nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has
ordered that every C-130 in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which
includes the older..."
--
Curt
KVPS

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 26, 6:38*am, "Curt" > wrote:
> "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > vaughn wrote:
> >> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> ....
>
> >>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
> >>> have seen *military blogs that say that all of the production must be
> >>> finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
> >>> Wishing or making sure?
>
> >> * *This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. *We
> >> "learn by doing". *With something as complex and as "different" as the
> >> Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these issues. *And
> >> yes, some of them will probably cause accidents before the learning is
> >> all over.
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> > "new" *? *any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> > First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> > 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> > Vince
>
> I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. *'course, it's only been
> flying since 1956.
> "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft ... are turning up cracks in
> the nuts and bolts used to attach the wings to the planes' fuselages. The
> order to inspect the fleet came late Thursday after cracks were found in
> some upper wing joint barrel nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has
> ordered that every C-130 in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which
> includes the older..."
> --
> Curt
> KVPS

There is a discernible difference between a device that has been used
successfully for that 53 years and is now showing signs of that age
and a device which shows signs of age without being old.

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:21:41 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
...
>> As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on
>> procurement,
>> so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's
>> been
>> a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines
>> killed),
>> and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got
>> an
>> alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow
>> the
>> above advice.
>>
>
>
>there comes a point when it's obvious the thing doesn't work as advertised.
>the V-22 passed that 5 years ago.
>the B-29 had no more than normal teething troubles and was soon enough
>sorted out.
>
The development of the B-29 was long, expensive and difficult for
the time. There was a direct and urgent need that made it worth
the trouble. Under similar pressure the V-22 might have worked
two decades ago.


Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 3:58*am, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>> > Then explain its record in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. No combat losses or
>> > crashes in-country. Like I said, if you have an alternative platform to
>> > replace the H-46s, let's hear it. Otherwise, either get on board or get out
>> > of the way.
>>
>> doing what kind of operations at what kind of tempo..
>>
>> last we heard (SMN) it was doing the mail runs.. and running through
>> their engines at a high rate of knots...
>>
>> As for alternatives.. any number of proper helicopters... Things that
>> can carry the same cargo with a third of the power requirements.. And
>> can fly quite easily with a slung load... (If the V-22 fly with a slung
>> load you'd be better off using helicopters... they're only any good if
>> you can fly with internal cargo only.. and even then it gets a bit
>> cramped....
>
>First crash with real troops on board and it gets on the "history"
>list. One of the concepts of the V-22 was its ability to switch from
>vertical to horizontal. The loose bolts seem to suggest that might not
>work every time.

April 8, 2000


Peter Skelton

[Bill Kambic]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:21:48 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>vaughn wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
>>> have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be
>>> finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur.
>>> Wishing or making sure?
>>
>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We "learn
>> by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the Osprey, we
>> will probably see a significant list of these issues. And yes, some of them
>> will probably cause accidents before the learning is all over.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>>
>>
>
>"new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
>First flight was 19 March 1989
>
>20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after
an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had
been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series.

We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more
than 20 years after fleet introduction.

I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users
from time to time.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 26, 8:11*am, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> vaughn wrote:
> >>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> ....
>
> >>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to
> >>>> me. I have seen *military blogs that say that all of the
> >>>> production must be finished and accepted before the first major
> >>>> *accident can occur. Wishing or making sure?
> >>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. *We
> >>> *"learn by doing". *With something as complex and as "different"
> >>> as the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these
> >>> issues. *And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents
> >>> before the learning is all over.
>
> >>> Vaughn
>
> >> "new" *? *any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> >> First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> >> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> >> Vince
>
> > I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. *'course, it's only
> > been flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft
> > *... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the
> > wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came
> > late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel
> > *nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130
> > in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the
> > older..."
>
> the *suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that
> happens with any new aircraft"
>
> The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part
>
> "Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing
> joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage.
> * The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect"
> * after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures
> * in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide
> * inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts
> * with the faulty design before the planes could fly again."
>
> The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design problem
>
> Vince- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most likely the former. They're still finding occasional issues with
C-130s, P-3s, F/A-18s, etc. If you've got an existing helo that can
match the range, performance, and other requirements that the V-22
meets, name it. Otherwise, get on board or get out of the way.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 26, 2:17*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:11*am, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Curt wrote:
> > > "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> vaughn wrote:
> > >>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to
> > >>>> me. I have seen *military blogs that say that all of the
> > >>>> production must be finished and accepted before the first major
> > >>>> *accident can occur. Wishing or making sure?
> > >>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. *We
> > >>> *"learn by doing". *With something as complex and as "different"
> > >>> as the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these
> > >>> issues. *And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents
> > >>> before the learning is all over.
>
> > >>> Vaughn
>
> > >> "new" *? *any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>
> > >> First flight was 19 March 1989
>
> > >> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>
> > >> Vince
>
> > > I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. *'course, it's only
> > > been flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft
> > > *... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the
> > > wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came
> > > late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel
> > > *nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130
> > > in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the
> > > older..."
>
> > the *suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that
> > happens with any new aircraft"
>
> > The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part
>
> > "Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing
> > joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage.
> > * The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect"
> > * after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures
> > * in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide
> > * inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts
> > * with the faulty design before the planes could fly again."
>
> > The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design problem
>
> > Vince- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Most likely the former. They're still finding occasional issues with
> C-130s, P-3s, F/A-18s, etc. If you've got an existing helo that can
> match the range, performance, and other requirements that the V-22
> meets, name it. Otherwise, get on board or get out of the way.

Might recommend getting out of the way, V-22's greatest quality is
speed, an overrated quality in a combat situation.

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:11:06 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>Curt wrote:
>> "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> vaughn wrote:
>>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to
>>>>> me. I have seen military blogs that say that all of the
>>>>> production must be finished and accepted before the first major
>>>>> accident can occur. Wishing or making sure?
>>>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
>>>> "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different"
>>>> as the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these
>>>> issues. And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents
>>>> before the learning is all over.
>>>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>>>
>>> First flight was 19 March 1989
>>>
>>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>>>
>>> Vince
>>
>> I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. 'course, it's only
>> been flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft
>> ... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the
>> wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came
>> late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel
>> nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130
>> in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the
>> older..."
>>
>the suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that
>happens with any new aircraft"
>
>The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part
>
>"Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing
>joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage.
> The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect"
> after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures
> in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide
> inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts
> with the faulty design before the planes could fly again."
>
>
>
>
>The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design problem
>
On what basis do you reject subspecification manufacture, and
improper original installation?

..

Peter Skelton

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
> so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
> a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
> and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
> alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
> above advice.
[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
> > so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
> > a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
> > and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
> > alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
> > above advice.
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
> suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
> manufacture an improved CH-46.
>
> One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
> problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
> radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
> design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
> but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
> or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
> entirely new ones.
>
> AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Matt Wiser wrote:
> > > As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
> > > so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
> > > a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
> > > and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
> > > alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
> > > above advice.
>
> > [ SNIP ]
>
> > New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
> > suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
> > manufacture an improved CH-46.
>
> > One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
> > problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
> > radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
> > design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
> > but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
> > or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
> > entirely new ones.
>
> > AHS
>
> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
"new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
close.

[Bill Kambic]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>>>
>>> First flight was 19 March 1989
>>>
>>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after
>> an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had
>> been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series.
>>
>> We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more
>> than 20 years after fleet introduction.
>>
>> I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users
>> from time to time.
>>
>
>very true but a different issue.

No, I don't think so.

>The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new
>aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e.
>operational problems which are fixed without redesign

In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3)
the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign.

I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a
maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of
bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together.

In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the
Wright Flyer.

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>>> As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
>>> so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
>>> a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
>>> and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
>>> alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
>>> above advice.
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>> New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
>> suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
>> manufacture an improved CH-46.
>>
>> One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
>> problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
>> radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
>> design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
>> but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
>> or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
>> entirely new ones.
>>
>> AHS
>
> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990

AHS

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 27, 2:06*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
> > > Matt Wiser wrote:
> > > > As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
> > > > so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
> > > > a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
> > > > and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
> > > > alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
> > > > above advice.
>
> > > [ SNIP ]
>
> > > New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
> > > suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
> > > manufacture an improved CH-46.
>
> > > One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
> > > problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
> > > radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
> > > design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
> > > but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
> > > or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
> > > entirely new ones.
>
> > > AHS
>
> > I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> > AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> > produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> > would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> > consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> > the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> > recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> > they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
>
> You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
> military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
> "new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
> close.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The New York Twits follow the Gary Hart school on defense. They did so
in the '80s and continue to do so today.

Sikorsky didn't build the H-46: Boeing-Vertol did.

[Dennis[_6_]]

mike wrote:

> Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

Copying a WWII saying:

Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!

Dennis

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
tools likely destroyed?
"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> >> Matt Wiser wrote:
> >>> As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on
procurement,
> >>> so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's
been
> >>> a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines
killed),
> >>> and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've
got an
> >>> alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not,
follow the
> >>> above advice.
> >> [ SNIP ]
> >>
> >> New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
> >> suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
> >> manufacture an improved CH-46.
> >>
> >> One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
> >> problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
> >> radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need
to
> >> design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
> >> but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of
helicopters
> >> or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
> >> entirely new ones.
> >>
> >> AHS
> >
> > I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> > AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> > produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> > would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> > consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> > the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> > recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> > they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
>
> David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
> Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
> Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
>
> AHS

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

Don't say that to the crowd that's against the V-22: they'll seize on
anything to argue for killing the program (justified or not).
"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > wrote:
>
> >>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
> >>>
> >>> First flight was 19 March 1989
> >>>
> >>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after
> >> an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had
> >> been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series.
> >>
> >> We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more
> >> than 20 years after fleet introduction.
> >>
> >> I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users
> >> from time to time.
> >>
> >
> >very true but a different issue.
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> >The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e.
> >operational problems which are fixed without redesign
>
> In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3)
> the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign.
>
> I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a
> maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of
> bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together.
>
> In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the
> Wright Flyer.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

As far as squadron service, it is a new aircraft. And yes, glitches do come
up after a type's service introduction, either immediately, or years later.
"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Kambic wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
> >>>>
> >>>> First flight was 19 March 1989
> >>>>
> >>>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after
> >>> an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had
> >>> been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series.
> >>>
> >>> We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more
> >>> than 20 years after fleet introduction.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users
> >>> from time to time.
> >>>
> >> very true but a different issue.
> >
> > No, I don't think so.
> >
> >> The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >> aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e.
> >> operational problems which are fixed without redesign
> >
> > In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3)
> > the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign.
> >
> > I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a
> > maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of
> > bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together.
> >
> > In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the
> > Wright Flyer.
>
>
> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >> aircraft."
>
> It's not a "new aircraft"
>
> Vince
>

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

You're still not saying which helo you'd rather have the USMC buy in place
of the Osprey. Name a helo that could do the job as the H-46s head off to
the parking lot in the desert.
"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:11 am, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
> >> Curt wrote:
> >>> "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> vaughn wrote:
> >>>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> >>>>>
...
> >>>>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to
> >>>>>> me. I have seen military blogs that say that all of the
> >>>>>> production must be finished and accepted before the first major
> >>>>>> accident can occur. Wishing or making sure?
> >>>>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
> >>>>> "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different"
> >>>>> as the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these
> >>>>> issues. And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents
> >>>>> before the learning is all over.
> >>>>> Vaughn
> >>>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
> >>>> First flight was 19 March 1989
> >>>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>> Keep making excuses for the turkey
> >>>> Vince
> >>> I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. 'course, it's only
> >>> been flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft
> >>> ... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the
> >>> wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came
> >>> late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel
> >>> nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130
> >>> in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the
> >>> older..."
> >> the suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that
> >> happens with any new aircraft"
> >>
> >> The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part
> >>
> >> "Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing
> >> joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage.
> >> The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect"
> >> after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures
> >> in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide
> >> inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts
> >> with the faulty design before the planes could fly again."
> >>
> >> The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design
problem
> >>
> >> Vince- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Most likely the former. They're still finding occasional issues with
> > C-130s, P-3s, F/A-18s, etc. If you've got an existing helo that can
> > match the range, performance, and other requirements that the V-22
> > meets, name it. Otherwise, get on board or get out of the way.
>
> Nonsense. I can tailor any specification to match the device I want
> to buy anyway
>
> The V 22 cannot match the lifting performance of any helicopter in its
> Horsepower range.
>
> normal requirements met by helicopters, including auto rotation were
> deleted so this turkey could fly.
>
> Twice as much cost for half as much cargo as a helicopter of the same
> horsepower.
>
> Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 27, 7:57*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:06*am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>
> > > > Matt Wiser wrote:
> > > > > As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
> > > > > so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
> > > > > a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
> > > > > and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
> > > > > alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
> > > > > above advice.
>
> > > > [ SNIP ]
>
> > > > New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
> > > > suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
> > > > manufacture an improved CH-46.
>
> > > > One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
> > > > problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
> > > > radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
> > > > design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
> > > > but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
> > > > or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
> > > > entirely new ones.
>
> > > > AHS
>
> > > I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> > > AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> > > produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> > > would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> > > consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> > > the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> > > recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> > > they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
>
> > You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
> > military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
> > "new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
> > close.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The New York Twits follow the Gary Hart school on defense. They did so
> in the '80s and continue to do so today.
>
> Sikorsky didn't build the H-46: Boeing-Vertol did.

Did I say they did? I said "new" H-46. It's called competition

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Dennis" > wrote in message
.4...
> mike wrote:
>
>> Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
>
> Copying a WWII saying:
>
> Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!

Similar things are happening with recently introduced helicopters. The crash
of the Cougar Helicopters flight off Newfoundland has prompted the FAA to
issue an airworthiness directive to replace titanium bolts with steel on one
of the gearboxes, and the Cormorant SAR birds have a significant problem with
their tails. This reportedly has been successfully re-engineered for the all
singing, all dancing, slicing, dicing version EH is trying to flog as the next
presidential transport, but the cost to sort out the Cormorants has caused
some chest pains among the air staff.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/downing+Tusker+Prologue/1406714/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/20/helicopter-stud-replace.html
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
> 1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
> tools likely destroyed?

> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
> news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
>> Matt Wiser wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>>> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
>>> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
>>> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
>>> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
>>> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
>>> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
>>> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
>>> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

>> David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
>> Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
>> Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
>>
>> AHS

I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
seems to be quite acceptable.

AHS

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "Dennis" > wrote in message
> .4...
>> mike wrote:
>>
>>> Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
>> Copying a WWII saying:
>>
>> Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!
>
> Similar things are happening with recently introduced helicopters. The crash
> of the Cougar Helicopters flight off Newfoundland has prompted the FAA to
> issue an airworthiness directive to replace titanium bolts with steel on one
> of the gearboxes, and the Cormorant SAR birds have a significant problem with
> their tails. This reportedly has been successfully re-engineered for the all
> singing, all dancing, slicing, dicing version EH is trying to flog as the next
> presidential transport, but the cost to sort out the Cormorants has caused
> some chest pains among the air staff.
>
> http://www.vancouversun.com/news/downing+Tusker+Prologue/1406714/story.html
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/20/helicopter-stud-replace.html

As far as the S-92s go, apparently fretting and galling of the bolts is
suspected with the Cougar crash as well as in another incident; hence
the switch to steel from titanium.

AHS

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:38:06 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:


>
>http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004298.html
>
>In other words a 1/3 power loss in one engine put this turkey on the
>ground.
>
>
Power goes with the square root of torque in most applications.
The engine was running at 4/9 power, (which I find pretty
impressive given what had happened to it).

In this case, the system drgraded gracefully. If the plane was
light, it should have been able to continue for some time on one
engine, if heavy, not. This is typical of VTOL twin-engines.

I'd need to know whether the aircraft was in horizontal or
vertical mode and how heavy it was before getting upset.


Peter Skelton

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:11:06 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Curt wrote:
>>>> "Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> vaughn wrote:
>>>>>> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I
>>>>>>> have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must
>>>>>>> be finished and accepted before the first major
>>>>>>> accident can occur. Wishing or making sure?
>>>>>> This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We
>>>>>> "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as
>>>>>> the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these issues.
>>>>>> And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents before the
>>>>>> learning is all over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething?
>>>>>
>>>>> First flight was 19 March 1989
>>>>>
>>>>> 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep making excuses for the turkey
>>>>>
>>>>> Vince
>>>> I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. 'course, it's only been
>>>> flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft
>>>> ... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the
>>>> wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came
>>>> late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel
>>>> nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130
>>>> in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the
>>>> older..."
>>>>
>>> the suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that
>>> happens with any new aircraft"
>>>
>>> The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part
>>>
>>> "Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing
>>> joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage.
>>> The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect"
>>> after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures
>>> in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide
>>> inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts
>>> with the faulty design before the planes could fly again."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design
>>> problem
>>>
>> On what basis do you reject subspecification manufacture, and
>> improper original installation?
>
> 1) news reports describe "loose bolts" and only in some of the aircraft
> in Iraq. Aircraft are rapidly returned to service. No one has suggested
> either that the bolts are being replaced or that new or different
> installation techniques are being used. Either the bolts are kept in
> inventory, in which case checking and replacing is maintenance. Or they
> are not a routine inventory item in which case in which case they cannot
> be substandard or they would not reuse them. This means they coudl have
> a design problem which they don't understand
>
>
> 2) bolt tightness prediction and checking is always a maintenance issue,
> and maintenance is specifically designed to check on improper
> installation. Many aircraft maintenance procedures are designed to catch
> installation errors prior to disaster, These aircraft have been babied
> in every possible way. Failure to schedule maintenance at a rate that will
> find such a problem is a screw up in an aircraft of this age.
>
>
>
> "Two days later, however, a US Marine Corps MV-22 crew in Iraq heard
> unusual noises after landing, and discovered four bolts had shaken loose
> inside one of the engine nacelles, said a spokesman for the US Naval Air
> Systems Command. The missing bolts are supposed to hold in place a fixed
> swashplate that transmits flight control inputs governing the V-22’s blade
> pitch during helicopter mode, according to NAVAIR.
>
> As a safety precaution, NAVAIR grounded all 73 MV-22s and 11 CV-22s in the
> inventory. Loose bolts, although still in place, have been found in three
> more of the 76 aircraft inspected through Wednesday morning. All four
> affected aircraft were based in Iraq, the NAVAIR spokesman said.
> Two of the four aircraft with loose bolts have been repaired and return to
> service, along with the 72 other aircraft that cleared inspection, the
> spokesman added. Eight more aircraft remain grounded until they can clear
> inspection, which is expected by end-week."
>
>
> NAVAIR is investigating whether defects in either the maintenance,
> manufacturing or design of the aircraft are to blame for the bolts coming
> loose, the spokesman said.
>
> Vince
>

Repeat after me, slowly and clearly: "Safety Wire"

Tie those suckers down 'till they can't move a hair!

That (used to be) SOP in the aviation industry.

[Bill Kambic]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:


>What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
>was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >> aircraft."
>
>It's not a "new aircraft"

"New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
service.

[Alex Potter]

Roger Conroy wrote in > :

> Repeat after me, slowly and clearly: "Safety Wire"
>
> Tie those suckers down 'till they can't move a hair!
>
> That (used to be) SOP in the aviation industry.

Don't they do that any more? If not, why not?

--
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 28, 8:38*am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>
> > wrote:
> >What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> >was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> > >> aircraft."
>
> >It's not a "new aircraft"
>
> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> service.

Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 28, 5:32*am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
> > 1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
> > tools likely destroyed?
> > "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
> >news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
> >> Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> >>> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> >>> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> >>> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> >>> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> >>> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
> >>> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> >>> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> >>> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
> >> David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
> >> Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
> >> Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
>
> >> AHS
>
> I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
> seems to be quite acceptable.
>
> AHS

If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 28, 1:28*pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:38*am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>
> > > wrote:
> > >What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> > >was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> > > >> aircraft."
>
> > >It's not a "new aircraft"
>
> > "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> > service.
>
> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.

Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
interesting.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 28, 3:44*pm, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> >> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> >>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >>>>>> aircraft."
> >>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
> >>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> >>> service.
> >> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
>
> > Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> > interesting.
>
> This turkey needs every excuse it can find
>
> Vince

Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants
to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due
to retirees up for grabs

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:26:33 -0400, Peter Skelton
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:38:06 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004298.html
>>
>>In other words a 1/3 power loss in one engine put this turkey on the
>>ground.
>>
>>
>Power goes with the square root of torque in most applications.
>The engine was running at 4/9 power, (which I find pretty
>impressive given what had happened to it).
>
>In this case, the system drgraded gracefully. If the plane was
>light, it should have been able to continue for some time on one
>engine, if heavy, not. This is typical of VTOL twin-engines.
>
>I'd need to know whether the aircraft was in horizontal or
>vertical mode and how heavy it was before getting upset.
>
Anyone else notice my senior math moment above?


Peter Skelton

[Dan[_12_]]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>>> > wrote:
>>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
>>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
>>>>>> aircraft."
>>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
>>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
>>> service.
>> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
>
> Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> interesting.


I think "new" in this case is relatively low operational hours.

I was in the first Air Force unit to get UH-60A which type the Army
had already been flying for several years. Ours were new from the
factory. I no longer recall the specifics, but the entire fleet, Army
and Air Force, was grounded due to an Army mishap. The Air Force fleet,
small as it was, was grounded for over a year. If memory serves it was
over a year and a half. We had the helicopters a relatively short time
before the grounding.

H-60 is a much simpler system, but these things happen and we did
wind up with a good helicopter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>>> Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
>>> 1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
>>> tools likely destroyed?
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
>>> news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
>>>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>>> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
>>>>> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
>>>>> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
>>>>> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
>>>>> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
>>>>> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
>>>>> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
>>>>> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
>>>> David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
>>>> Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
>>>> Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
>>>> AHS
>> I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
>> seems to be quite acceptable.
>>
>> AHS
>
> If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
> restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.


One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is
there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a
bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of
funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line
started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how
long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet
along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple
of years.

The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor
would take at least that long.

If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better
get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will
have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational
life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep
H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which means,
like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other replacement;
being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
(the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s are
going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come off
the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom > wrote:
> >> Matt Wiser wrote:
> >>> Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol
line in
> >>> 1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with
production
> >>> tools likely destroyed?
> >>> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
> >>> news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
> >>>> Matt Wiser wrote:
> >> [ SNIP ]
> >>
> >>>>> I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
> >>>>> AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
> >>>>> produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
> >>>>> would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
> >>>>> consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet
when
> >>>>> the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
> >>>>> recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
> >>>>> they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
> >>>> David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
> >>>> Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
> >>>> Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
> >>>> AHS
> >> I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
> >> seems to be quite acceptable.
> >>
> >> AHS
> >
> > If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
> > restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.
>
>
> One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is
> there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a
> bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of
> funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line
> started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how
> long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet
> along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple
> of years.
>
> The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor
> would take at least that long.
>
> If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better
> get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will
> have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational
> life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep
> H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

To Vkince and the rest of the anti-Osprey crowd, that alone justifies
cancellation.
"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> >> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> >>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >>>>>> aircraft."
> >>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
> >>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> >>> service.
> >> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
> >
> > Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> > interesting.
>
>
> I think "new" in this case is relatively low operational hours.
>
> I was in the first Air Force unit to get UH-60A which type the Army
> had already been flying for several years. Ours were new from the
> factory. I no longer recall the specifics, but the entire fleet, Army
> and Air Force, was grounded due to an Army mishap. The Air Force fleet,
> small as it was, was grounded for over a year. If memory serves it was
> over a year and a half. We had the helicopters a relatively short time
> before the grounding.
>
> H-60 is a much simpler system, but these things happen and we did
> wind up with a good helicopter.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to the
core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate, he
always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is
going to vote for V-22 on that basis.
"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> >> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> >>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> >>>>>> aircraft."
> >>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
> >>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> >>> service.
> >> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
>
> > Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> > interesting.
>
> This turkey needs every excuse it can find
>
> Vince

Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants
to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due
to retirees up for grabs

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 29, 12:42*am, "Matt Wiser" > wrote:
> You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to the
> core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate, he
> always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is
> going to vote for V-22 on that basis."Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> > >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this
> > >>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> > >>>>>> aircraft."
> > >>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
> > >>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in
> > >>> service.
> > >> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
>
> > > Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> > > interesting.
>
> > This turkey needs every excuse it can find
>
> > Vince
>
> Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants
> to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. *and at least six more due
> to retirees up for grabs

I recommend you to the recent doings in the U.S. Senate. Obama had to
promise more than he wished to, because he lacked two Senators. One
sits in Minnesota, waiting for the losing candidate to admit defeat.
That person admits only that he wants to keep Franken out of the
Senate. Add two or more in 2010 and the promises necessary to buy
those three Republican votes go out the window and the real DoD budget
crunch descends.

[Arved Sandstrom[_2_]]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which means,
> like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
> shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other replacement;
> being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
> (the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s are
> going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come off
> the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
> replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
[ SNIP ]

That's one thing I haven't suggested - getting rid of the Osprey. As far
as I am concerned it works well enough, we're getting it, so live with it.

My observation wrt the CH-46 was for the early '90's period. The problem
with the helicopters then was substantially that they were getting old,
not that they were crappy (*). _At that time_, _if_ a decision had been
made to restart production (basic airframe, but avionics improvements),
new CH-46s would have been available to replace aged CH-46s now and over
the next few years.

That decision was not made, so it's the MV-22 or bust.

AHS

* You can almost always argue that something can be improved, or that
there's a more capable replacement. What often doesn't get argued is why
do you need something better if the current thing is good enough.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

You really think that any Senator is going to vote against a major DOD
program if it means losing jobs (and thus votes) in their home state? That's
why Cranston put his nuclear-freeze ideology aside and voted for the B-1B.
And you're assuming that Kay Bailey Hutchinson decides to run for Governor
of Texas. If she doesn't, and stays in the Senate...
"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 12:42 am, "Matt Wiser" > wrote:
> You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to
the
> core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate,
he
> always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is
> going to vote for V-22 on that basis."Jack Linthicum"
> wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
>
> > >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>> What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that
this
> > >>>> was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
> > >>>>>> aircraft."
> > >>>> It's not a "new aircraft"
> > >>> "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time
in
> > >>> service.
> > >> Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.
>
> > > Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
> > > interesting.
>
> > This turkey needs every excuse it can find
>
> > Vince
>
> Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants
> to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due
> to retirees up for grabs

I recommend you to the recent doings in the U.S. Senate. Obama had to
promise more than he wished to, because he lacked two Senators. One
sits in Minnesota, waiting for the losing candidate to admit defeat.
That person admits only that he wants to keep Franken out of the
Senate. Add two or more in 2010 and the promises necessary to buy
those three Republican votes go out the window and the real DoD budget
crunch descends.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
news:DbLzl.19022$Db2.14441@edtnps83...
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which
means,
> > like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
> > shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other
replacement;
> > being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
> > (the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s
are
> > going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come
off
> > the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
> > replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
> [ SNIP ]
>
> That's one thing I haven't suggested - getting rid of the Osprey. As far
> as I am concerned it works well enough, we're getting it, so live with it.
>
> My observation wrt the CH-46 was for the early '90's period. The problem
> with the helicopters then was substantially that they were getting old,
> not that they were crappy (*). _At that time_, _if_ a decision had been
> made to restart production (basic airframe, but avionics improvements),
> new CH-46s would have been available to replace aged CH-46s now and over
> the next few years.
>
> That decision was not made, so it's the MV-22 or bust.
>
> AHS
>
> * You can almost always argue that something can be improved, or that
> there's a more capable replacement. What often doesn't get argued is why
> do you need something better if the current thing is good enough.

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:22:20 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>Kerryn Offord wrote:
>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>>> Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit
>>> that.
>>> They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
>>> alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
>> and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
>> troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.
>>
>> The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
>> the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).
>>
>
>Right
>
>the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALLL THE MONEY ONE THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
>TO BUY IT"
>
>No you don't
>
>You dont reinforce failure
>
How much is your share of AIG?

Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:45:01 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:22:20 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>>> Matt Wiser wrote:
>>>>> Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit
>>>>> that.
>>>>> They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
>>>>> alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
>>>> and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
>>>> troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.
>>>>
>>>> The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
>>>> the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).
>>>>
>>> Right
>>>
>>> the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALLL THE MONEY ONE THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
>>> TO BUY IT"
>>>
>>> No you don't
>>>
>>> You dont reinforce failure
>>>
>> How much is your share of AIG?
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>The AIG bailout per se is not reinforcing failure, it is damage control.
>
>Dunkirk comes to mind
>
The AIG bailout is like rewarding the leadership that led to
Dunkirk. I can understand why Ramsay deserved his reward, but
Gamelin desrved none.


Peter Skelton

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 31, 2:11*am, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit that.
> > They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
> > alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
> and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
> troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.
>
> The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
> the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).
>
> NH-90http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHI_NH90
> Specifications
> General characteristics
> * * ** Crew: 2 pilots and a mechanic
> * * ** Capacity: 20 troops/12 stretchers
> * * ** Length: 16.13 m (52 ft 11 in)
> * * ** Rotor diameter: 16.30 m (53 ft 5¾ in)
> * * ** Height: 5.23 m (17 ft 2 in)
> * * ** Empty weight: 5,400 kg (11,900 lb)
> * * ** Max takeoff weight: 10,600 kg (23,370 lb)
> * * ** Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9 turboshaft,
> 1,662 kW (2,230 shp) each, or:
> * * ** Powerplant: 2× General Electric T700-T6E turboshafts, 1,577 kW
> (2,115 shp) each
> Performance
> * * ** Maximum speed: 300 km/h (162 knots, 186 mph)
> * * ** Range: 800 km, 497 mi (TTH); 1,000 km, 621 mi (NFH) ()
> * * ** Service ceiling: 2,960 m (9,711 ft)
> * * ** Rate of climb: 480 m/min (1,574 ft/m)
>
> and EH-101 (medium lift..)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EH-101
> Specifications (Merlin HM1)
> RAF Merlins testing flares
>
> General characteristics
>
> * * ** Crew: 4
> * * ** Capacity:
> * * * * * *o 24 seated troops or
> * * * * * *o 45 standing troops or
> * * * * * *o 16 stretchers with medics
> * * ** Length: 22.81 m (74 ft 10 in)
> * * ** Rotor diameter: 18.59 m (61 ft 0 in)
> * * ** Height: 6.65 m (21 ft 10 in)
> * * ** Disc area: 271 m² (2,992 ft²)
> * * ** Empty weight: 10,500 kg (23,150 lb)
> * * ** Useful load: 5,443 kg (12,000 lb)
> * * ** Max takeoff weight: 15,600 kg (32,188 lb)
> * * ** Powerplant: 3× Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322-01 turboshafts, 1,725
> kW (2,312 shp) each
> Performance
> * * ** Never exceed speed: 309 km/h (167 knots, 192 mph)
> * * ** Range: 1,389 km (750 nm, 863 mi)
> * * ** Service ceiling: 4,575 m (15,000ft)
> * * ** Rate of climb: 10.2 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
> * * ** Disc loading: 53.8 kg/m² (11.01 lb/ft²)
> * * ** Power/mass: 284.9 W/kg (0.174 shp/lb)
> Armament
> * * ** Guns: 5× general purpose machine guns
> * * ** Bombs: 960 kg (2,116 lb) of anti-ship missiles (up to 2), homing
> torpedoes (up to 4), depth charges and rockets
> Avionics
> * * ** Smiths Industries OMI SEP 20 dual-redundant digital automatic
> flight control system
> * * ** Navigation systems:
> * * * * * *o BAE Systems LINS 300 ring laser gyro, Litton Italia
> LISA-4000 strapdown AHRS (naval variants)
> * * * * * *o Tactical air navigation (TACAN), VHF Omnidirectional Radio
> range (VOR), instrument landing system (ILS)
> * * ** Radar:
> * * * * * *o Selex Galileo Blue Kestrel 5000 maritime surveillance radar
> (ASW RN EH101s)
> * * * * * *o Eliradar MM/APS-784 maritime surveillance radar (ASW
> Italian EH101s)
> * * * * * *o Eliradar HEW-784 air/surface surveillance radar (AEW variants)
> * * * * * *o Officine Galileo MM/APS-705B search/weather radar (Italian
> Navy Utility EH101s)
> * * * * * *o Telephonics RDR-1600 weather avoidance radar (Royal Danish
> Air Force EH101s)
> * * * * * *o Galileo APS-717 search/surveillance radar (Portuguese Air
> Force EH101s)
>
> Meanwhile the V-22...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22
> Specifications (MV-22B)
> Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[49] Naval Air Systems
> Command,[50] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[51] and Norton[52]
> General characteristics
> * * ** Crew: two pilots
> * * ** Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to
> 15,000 lb of cargo
> * * ** Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
> * * ** Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
> * * ** Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)
> * * ** Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)
> * * ** Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft
> 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)
> * * ** Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
> * * ** Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)
> * * ** Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
> * * ** Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
> * * ** Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
> * * ** Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty
> turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each
> Performance
> * * ** Maximum speed: 305 knots (351 mph, 565 km/h) max operating at
> 15,000 ft[53]
> * * ** Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
> * * ** Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
> * * ** Combat radius: 370 nmi (430 mi, 690 km)
> * * ** Ferry range: 2,417 nmi (2,781 mi, 4,476 km)
> * * ** Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
> * * ** Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
> * * ** Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² @ 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
> * * ** Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

The EH-101 will be license-built here as the VH-71 "Marine One" helo,
and will probably be adopted by the USAF for a CSAR requirement (a do-
over was ordered after Boeing's problems surfaced re: the HH-47). NIH
is very strong, and you'd have to have a very good reason to buck that
trend. A coproduction arrangement with most assembly work done here
helps do that. The AF's CSAR community, from what the various aviation
magazines have said, prefers the HH-71 variant, and that it was
strongly implied that the HH-47 was a sop to Boeing for having that
tanker lease deal fall flat. The USMC, though, insists on V-22. And
the AF version is also entering service for Spec Ops work.

[Dennis[_6_]]

Vincent Brannigan wrote:

> the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
> TO BUY IT"
>
> No you don't
>
> You dont reinforce failure

"That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"

Dennis

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Dennis" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Vincent Brannigan wrote:
>
>> the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
>> TO BUY IT"
>>
>> No you don't
>>
>> You dont reinforce failure
>
> "That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"

I gather, then, that you're not using a Microsoft product to post.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Dennis[_6_]]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

>>> the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
>>> TO BUY IT"
>>>
>>> No you don't
>>>
>>> You dont reinforce failure
>>
>> "That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"
>
> I gather, then, that you're not using a Microsoft product to post.

Actually I'm not. :-) I avoid Megasloth products when I can.

I should have put a smiley with that. :-)

Dennis