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.

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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 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.