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

On Mar 27, 7:57*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
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.

Did I say they did? I said "new" H-46. It's called competition

"Dennis" wrote in message
.4...
mike wrote:

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

Copying a WWII saying:

Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!

Similar things are happening with recently introduced helicopters. The crash
of the Cougar Helicopters flight off Newfoundland has prompted the FAA to
issue an airworthiness directive to replace titanium bolts with steel on one
of the gearboxes, and the Cormorant SAR birds have a significant problem with
their tails. This reportedly has been successfully re-engineered for the all
singing, all dancing, slicing, dicing version EH is trying to flog as the next
presidential transport, but the cost to sort out the Cormorants has caused
some chest pains among the air staff.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dow...714/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundlan...d-replace.html
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

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

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"Dennis" wrote in message
.4...
mike wrote:

Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
Copying a WWII saying:

Loose Bolts Crash Choppers!

Similar things are happening with recently introduced helicopters. The crash
of the Cougar Helicopters flight off Newfoundland has prompted the FAA to
issue an airworthiness directive to replace titanium bolts with steel on one
of the gearboxes, and the Cormorant SAR birds have a significant problem with
their tails. This reportedly has been successfully re-engineered for the all
singing, all dancing, slicing, dicing version EH is trying to flog as the next
presidential transport, but the cost to sort out the Cormorants has caused
some chest pains among the air staff.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dow...714/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundlan...d-replace.html

As far as the S-92s go, apparently fretting and galling of the bolts is
suspected with the Cougar crash as well as in another incident; hence
the switch to steel from titanium.

AHS

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.


Peter Skelton

"Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...
Peter Skelton wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:11:06 GMT, 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

On what basis do you reject subspecification manufacture, and
improper original installation?

1) news reports describe "loose bolts" and only in some of the aircraft
in Iraq. Aircraft are rapidly returned to service. No one has suggested
either that the bolts are being replaced or that new or different
installation techniques are being used. Either the bolts are kept in
inventory, in which case checking and replacing is maintenance. Or they
are not a routine inventory item in which case in which case they cannot
be substandard or they would not reuse them. This means they coudl have
a design problem which they don't understand


2) bolt tightness prediction and checking is always a maintenance issue,
and maintenance is specifically designed to check on improper
installation. Many aircraft maintenance procedures are designed to catch
installation errors prior to disaster, These aircraft have been babied
in every possible way. Failure to schedule maintenance at a rate that will
find such a problem is a screw up in an aircraft of this age.



"Two days later, however, a US Marine Corps MV-22 crew in Iraq heard
unusual noises after landing, and discovered four bolts had shaken loose
inside one of the engine nacelles, said a spokesman for the US Naval Air
Systems Command. The missing bolts are supposed to hold in place a fixed
swashplate that transmits flight control inputs governing the V-22’s blade
pitch during helicopter mode, according to NAVAIR.

As a safety precaution, NAVAIR grounded all 73 MV-22s and 11 CV-22s in the
inventory. Loose bolts, although still in place, have been found in three
more of the 76 aircraft inspected through Wednesday morning. All four
affected aircraft were based in Iraq, the NAVAIR spokesman said.
Two of the four aircraft with loose bolts have been repaired and return to
service, along with the 72 other aircraft that cleared inspection, the
spokesman added. Eight more aircraft remain grounded until they can clear
inspection, which is expected by end-week."


NAVAIR is investigating whether defects in either the maintenance,
manufacturing or design of the aircraft are to blame for the bolts coming
loose, the spokesman said.

Vince


Repeat after me, slowly and clearly: "Safety Wire"

Tie those suckers down 'till they can't move a hair!

That (used to be) SOP in the aviation industry.

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.

Roger Conroy wrote in :

Repeat after me, slowly and clearly: "Safety Wire"

Tie those suckers down 'till they can't move a hair!

That (used to be) SOP in the aviation industry.

Don't they do that any more? If not, why not?

--
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

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.

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.