Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

The one famous accident they had, due to vortex ring state, happened in
conditions that normal helos wouldn't normally even *attempt* (very high
descent rate, about 2.5 times the normal max).

The Chinook and F-14 had very high accident rates when they were in
development, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too. The V-22 is hardly
a new concept as tilt-rotors have been under "development" since
what...1951?!

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too.

Then you're going to have to start screaming about that horrible "F-14
deathtrap," which had about the same number of crashes per flight hour
in development, and was, by no means, anything like the first swing-wing
plane.

The V-22 is hardly a new concept as tilt-rotors have been under
"development" since what...1951?!

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system. One gyro wired
backwards, some hydraulics issues, and the discovery that you could get
it into vortex ring state if you flew it downwards faster than any big
helos are allowed to fly...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.

Fascinating, tell us more.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.

Fascinating, tell us more.

There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
tiltrotor tech.

The vortex ring state crash was really interesting, because it happened
when they took it in a descent that was *way* faster than any normal
cargo helo would even attempt. They've also found out since then that
the V-22 can get *out* of VRS by tilting the rotors forward, which
normal helos can't do.

On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.

The Chinook liked catching on fire...

Overall, the V-22 is doing pretty darned good.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused
by design problems with the tilt-rotor system.

Fascinating, tell us more.

There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one
from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to
tiltrotor tech.

I was thinking there was only the one YF-22 crash.

Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose
its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way.

This hasn't changed - the Huey has a teetering rotor, which looses its
head moment at low and negative G conditions. Once the head moment is
gone, control of the rotor is lost and it starts thrashing and
eventually mast bumps. If the mast bump is severe enough, the mast
breaks and rotor departs.

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about.

That is a common thread in Irby's posts.

There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

The Blackhawk has served America well.

In article ,
David Lednicer wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early
deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues.

Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one
heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of
the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked
up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the
high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash,
killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of
descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a
broken tail wheel.

There were later problems with the Blackhawk with RF interferencecausing
unwanted stabilator inputs, which caused more crashes after deployment.
They fixed it pretty soon, but it *was* a real problem with early
versions. Of course, after a couple of decades of deployment, they're
great copters.

The point is that we've seldom built *any* new combat aircraft that
didn't have one or more major issues along the way, and damned few major
new systems that didn't have one or more crashes or *severe* safety
problems.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too.

Then you're going to have to start screaming

Ay? Whose "screaming?"

about that horrible "F-14 deathtrap," which had about the same number
of crashes per flight hour in development, and was, by no means, anything
like the first swing-wing plane.

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of
fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have
been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14
was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft,
some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have
been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete!
And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which,
unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades.
Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes
if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all
that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially
when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing
counterparts.