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
  #41  
Old March 28th 09, 06:14 PM 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 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.
Ads
  #42  
Old March 28th 09, 07:52 PM 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 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
  #43  
Old March 28th 09, 09:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Peter Skelton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need

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
  #44  
Old March 29th 09, 12:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dan[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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
  #45  
Old March 29th 09, 12:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dan[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

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:[email protected]
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
  #46  
Old March 29th 09, 05:37 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

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:[email protected]
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



  #47  
Old March 29th 09, 05:39 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

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



  #48  
Old March 29th 09, 05:42 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'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


  #49  
Old March 29th 09, 11:23 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 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.
  #50  
Old March 29th 09, 03:02 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:
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.
 




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 09:50 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.