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

On Oct 19, 2:06 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:

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

There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?
snip
The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
confuse me with facts" advocates.

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

BB

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

On Oct 19, 2:04 pm, BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:42 am, Vince wrote:



BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:01 am, wrote:
They'll quickly learn that it can only be used in secure areas.
Moving small numbers of men and/or ammo between rear area bases.

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

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

BB

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

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

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

"Vince firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

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

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

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

BB

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

http://www.news.com/2300-11397_3-621...tag=ne.gall.pg

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

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

In article ,
"Gatt" wrote:

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

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

An engine-out combat landing...

The Marines will have relieved themselves before disembarkation.

And those who didn't before...

BlackBeard wrote:


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

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

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

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

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



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

BB

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

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

Andrew Swallow wrote:

Vince wrote:
[snip]


They simulate it by running both engines at reduced power

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

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

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

Kerryn Offord wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

In message , Steve Hix
writes
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:
Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

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

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

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


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Hix
writes
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:
Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually
operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed)

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eugene L Griessel

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

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

In article ,
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:


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

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