A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 27th 09, 12:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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....
Ads
  #22  
Old March 27th 09, 10:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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.
  #23  
Old March 27th 09, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

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.
  #24  
Old March 27th 09, 03:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Arved Sandstrom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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
  #25  
Old March 27th 09, 11:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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.
  #26  
Old March 28th 09, 02:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dennis[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

mike wrote:

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


Copying a WWII saying:

Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!

Dennis
  #27  
Old March 28th 09, 06:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

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:[email protected]
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



  #28  
Old March 28th 09, 06:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

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.



  #29  
Old March 28th 09, 06:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

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



  #30  
Old March 28th 09, 06:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Matt Wiser[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes

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
news
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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KX-99 antenna BNC loose [email protected] Owning 1 April 10th 08 04:26 PM
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 50 November 30th 07 05:25 AM
Seaplane Base - 4 - Cut Him Loose-3.jpg (1/1) john smith[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 August 2nd 07 05:11 AM
I met US Navy aircraft during Iran-Iraq war Amir - Iranian F-4 pilot Naval Aviation 0 July 29th 07 08:02 PM
Metric Aircraft Nuts and Bolts John Scott Soaring 6 December 14th 05 08:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.