Comments from a V-22 pilot

This is from the CV-22 pilot, posted from another list. He's
responding to questions from someone else. I don't have the original
questions.
"I'm sorry I haven't replied in awhile about our airplane and it's
teething problems, a bit of biting my tongue I guess. I've read the
report that is out from CDI and must say that is complete and utter
crap. My biggest issue, and those like me, is that the critics of
this airplane continue to harp on the same issues time and time again
and refuse to accept the answers of those
in the program. Vortex Ring State is stated as being a major problem
and will be the downfall of the airplane, this is just not true. The
facts are that after the crash at Marana and subsequent flight tests,
the envelope was actually EXPANDED, not found to be worse. In
helicopter mode it's no different than any other helo, it will
definitely get into VRS if allowed to but it occurs around 2500 fpm
rate of descent, pretty darn high. To satisfy the safety nazis and
critics we have a warning cue on our VVI display that gives us an
aural and visual warning if our ROD exceeds 800 fpm with certain
nacelle/airspeed combinations. It's there only to please the
naysayers but to us it's an annoyance. There are two issues with VRS
in this airplane: first if you do actually encounter it, there is
indeed a very good chance that it will roll
violently due to assymetric thrust, this has been proven in flight
test. Second, should you recognize the symptoms, all you need to do
if roll the nacelles forward a couple of degrees and you are
immediately out of the condition, this too has been proven. The
final word about VRS is that the brave men who
died at Marana, of which I was a good friend of one, got themselves
into a very bad aerodynamic condition which directly led to their
accident, sad but true.
I'm not about to sugar coat this airplane, it definitely has problems
but they are not nearly as critical as the media likes to describe.
This latest issue with the FCCs is actually a good thing. The
problem was found prior to an incident as is supposed to happen. We
constantly have little issues pop up
that give us headaches but the reason behind them is really that the
airplane truly has not been "rung out" like we are doing now. While
the program has been around for a long time, in reality very little
good, operational testing was done because of all the political
delays. So much effort was centered on simply keeping the program
alive that very little real research could be done due to funding.

I'll state right now that this airplane is an awesome machine, it's a
blast to fly and has revitalized my career. As far as the Air Force
goes, our biggest gripe is that we weren't allowed to be the major
player is the design. Probably the biggest drawback is lack of
pressurization, something we could desperately use yet the Marines
could care less about. That directly leads to
an oxygen system that is less than stellar for our missions. It's
things like this that drive us nuts, not catastrophic issues like the
critics want us to believe, but little "ass pain" problems that in
all honesty limit the true potential of this machine. Also, if you
notice in my text, I call it an "airplane" and not a "helicopter".
I've flown helos my entire career but the
V-22 is much more an airplane than a helicopter, one fact the critics
fail to understand. We spend very little time in helo mode yet the
critics tend to use this mode as their basis for so many arguments.
It must be thought of as a turboprop airplane that just so happens to
take off and land like a helo. We can indeed conduct operations like
a helo, i.e. hoist, fast rope, etc., but on a real missions we'd
spend probably 90% of our time as an airplane and therefore must deal
with airplane-like issues, hence pressurization.
I'm starting to ramble a bit here but I think you can tell from my
response that I've become very frustrated with several things, 1. the
critics who will not under any circumstances believe those of us
closest to the program, and 2. the fact that politics plays a larger
role in the overall success of this machine than exploiting the
capabilities. The V-22 is really an amazing airplane, yet could be
exponentially better with very minor improvements. The most
important thing I believe everyone should know is that we have some
incredible Americans working very hard on this program, doing our
damndest to
make it successful and constantly answering to critics that don't
believe our answers anyway, is dragging us down. If they'd like to
argue the actual issues we have with the airplane then I'm all for it
but they would find out that these issues aren't sensational enough
for them."

Here's an excerpt of the original email to the pilot;

Saw your address on an email about the V-22. The email indicated you
were quite pleased with the development and progress of the V-22
program in the Air Force (even though you have to live with some of
the Marine requirements).
I just want to thank you for your insight on this revolutionary
design. I'm one who has been a bit of a skeptic on this birds
capabilities for the Air Force SOF mission. However, I must admit
that nearly all of my knowledge of the bird has come from the media,
which as you indicated has mostly been negative. We all want you and
your fellow service men and women to have the very best tools to
complete your missions and hope the V-22 is just such a tool. I've
heard from a couple of maintainers on the V-22 and they seem to have
overall
satisfaction with the V-22, even though it has it's growing pains and
learning curve.
With your insight and that of others who I know, I'm beginning
to believe that our country is doing what it should...that's
providing you guys with the very best there is to do your job.
I know you must be very busy and I don't expect a
reply....however as a former GIB, I've got one question....what kind
of defensive firepower will be on this bird?

The pilot's reply came back the next day as follows;
"Hi _______,
No worries, I'd be honored to reply to your email and concerns. I,
or I should say WE, understand the concerns of those outside the
program and realize that people have the right to know the truth about
the capabilities of the airplane. I do have several gripes about it
however, none of them are the
issues argued by the media and the critics. They tend to grasp onto
and harp on things that truly aren't big problems but they simply
will not believe the answers given to them by either the contractors
or program office. Our complaints really do center around the fact
that we have accepted an airplane that
has been built for the Marine mission. Unfortunately, they do not
employ airpower the same way Special Operations does and this is a
huge undersight. In all honesty the airplane really is too much for
the way the Marines intend to use it because they have failed to
change their doctrine and mindset that this machine is not a
helicopter. We, on the other hand, are trying to exploit all the
unique capabilities yet are limited in some areas. Probably my
biggest complaint is the lack of pressurization. The airplane is
quite capable of flying at 25K and performs very well up there but is
unpressurized, mostly because the challenge of pressurizing the
aircraft was given up years ago, again, a lack of foresight in my
opinion. That forces us to use oxygen above 10K all the time and try
to find a means to supply O2 to our troops in back since the oxygen
system is only spec'd to 7 people. This is all great if your whole
intent is to transport troops from ship to shore but again doesn't
fit our mission.

That's just one example of capability limiting issues that drive us
crazy. Our maintainers actually love the airplane but I will admit
that the folks we have are truly top notch maintainers. I've never
been around a better bunch of maintenance troops in my career, I've
been extremely impressed with how they've learned this very unique
and new technology quickly. Our maintenance rates are much higher
than the Marines and I feel it's a direct result of the great troops
and leadership we have.

In the end, this airplane will provide some great capabilities but
it's sad to see how much better it could be with just some minor
changes. Unfortunately, so much money was spent on wasted efforts
previously and just trying to keep the program alive that it's
difficult to redesign anything without considerable scrutiny from the
critics. This program continues to operate with it's
tail between it's legs because of the past, we sit on pins and
needles sometimes because folks just don't understand the truth.
Thanks for the interest, we're pretty darn honest about the bird,
it's got some quirks but it's honestly an awesome machine and I'm
having a blast flying it. It's proven to me that tiltrotor
technology is sound and could provide huge leaps in vertical lift
capability if given half the chance."

Another missive from the pilot:
"I've received a lot of emails from everyone since airing my views
about the V-22 and its critics. I'm going to try and answer
everyone's questions in this one email, hope it works. I'm always
happy to oblige, sometimes it takes me a bit to respond but I'll get
back to you for sure.

First, there's been a lot of concern over defensive armament on the
V-22. The original concept called for a chin mounted turreted weapon
with a helmet-mounted sight. Great thought but massive engineering
feat, especially on the CV-22 due to the terrain following radar in
the nose. My personal opinion is that this was far too risky to
pursue, we could have dumped millions into finding a solution only to
find that it wouldn't work, or if it did, it would be so far in the
future that it would be useless. Now, the Marines have just fielded
a ramp mounted M240 on a swing out arm that mounts to one side of
the fuselage. Again, my personal opinion, it's worthless. Yes, it
gives them something, especially to appease the politicos that gripe
about no weapon but it just isn't a good system. To understand the
dynamics, you have to not think as a helo guy. First off, we don't
fly with the ramp down, too much drag penalty and loud as hell.
Second, even if we did, to acquire and accurately target the enemy at
low level and 240 knots would be a miracle. You'd be outside the
effective range of the 7.62 weapons well before that happens.
Lastly, the weapon really only comes into play during the last 45
seconds or so on the approach, then must be stowed to deploy troops.
Just not a good option but at least it's something. The right door
is out because you cannot open the door until the nacelles go past 45
degrees, it's electronically locked. Once again, that means the
gunner would have to open the door, pull the weapons into position,
then start scanning all within about 45 seconds, not practical. This
airplane stops so quickly that we are at about 220 knots, 3 miles out
when we start our decel. To the ground from that point is about 1.5
minutes, not a lot of time to do anything extra.

The Air Force is looking at several options with the most promising
probably being some kind of turreted system that would drop down into
our aft hellhole where the aft cargo hook sits now. Basically, we
probably will never use the cargo hook system and the space is huge,
why not put it to good use. The system would be self contained with
it's own infrared camera
so a flight engineer could target with some kind of Playstation-
thingy. Again, this is years down the road but very possible. My
only concern is that we'll not have the punch to be effective. I'd
like to have at least the ballistics of a .50 cal but the rate of
fire of a minigun. I equate it to when the police departments went
out and found a replacement round for their old .38/.45 weapons.

A bigger concern of mine is armor, there isn't any. The major
components, gearboxes and driveshafts have been tested to withstand up
to 23mm impacts but I'd still like to have some reassurance. The
problem is weight, you simply can't bolt on steel plates without huge
performance penalties. Once again,
I'd like to see industry come up with some gee-whiz, light weight,
super armor that could be molded to fit our existing nacelle panels.
In the end though, what it really means is that we must adapt our
tactics to answer for this lack of protection. We in AFSOC are lucky
to have a particularly awesome CAS platform in the AC-130 and I like
the fact that they can sanitize the area before we even arrive, then
see, and kill, the enemy before they shoot at us. Their ability to
do this is quite impressive, I've seen it many times.

I've very familiar with Mr. Harry Dunn, I spent several hours at his
home in Virginia several years ago listening to him shred the V-22.
I think my biggest complaint about him is the tone of his argument,
he's unwavering and unwilling to listen to anyone with a different
view. He completely believes that he's right, and on some issues he
very well may be, but just like all
the other critics, he harps on the same issues despite evidence that
disproves his theories.

That is possibly my greatest complaint that I have about the V-22
critics that they seem to automatically label supporters as either
liars or ignorant fools. In particular, Mr. Dunn's arrogance towards
the issues completely contradicts his test pilot background. He is
an incredibly smart man and one would have to go a long way to
discredit his contributions to USAF helicopter history. I don't mean
to do that at all.

Program-wise, the V-22 suffers from simply having to struggle to stay
alive. This has meant that despite what you hear in the press, the
money train is just enough to produce airplanes and very minimal
upgrades or improvements. Much of the technology is thus very old in
design, late 1980s at best. Compared with the F-22, which is being
fielded at a much greater rate than us, that airplane is leap years
ahead in technology.

To close, I guess the main idea I'd like to leave with all of you is
that you really cannot think of this machine as a helicopter because
it's much more an airplane. It flies 95% of the time in airplane
mode, only converting to land or takeoff. Therefore, most of the
issues and tactics must revolve around C-130-like mentalities. This
is why I stated in the previous email that the lack of pressurization
is so important, because it limits the capabilities quite a bit. The
V-22 is simply a twin engine turboprop that just happens to takeoff
and land vertically and can operate vertically like a helo. Both
communities must be addressed, and we brainstorm that stuff all the
time but it still seems to come back to answering airplane questions
more than the helo ones.
Hope that answers some questions, I'm not sure I got them all but
we'll see. Like I've said before, we're pretty open about the issues
in the program, mostly because they aren't as dramatic as the critics
like to make of them."


from others:
I've seen a couple of CV-22s flying around here, probably out of
Hurlburt Field. They have a very distinctive sound. One of the CV-22
pilots has said that he likes the aircraft. He does say it
has some drawbacks since it was designed for the USMC.
USAF would have liked the cabin pressurized. It has an oxygen
system, but only stations for 7, IIRC. For infil/exfil ops with
troops in the back, that means they have to operate at lower
altitudes than they would like, reducing the aircraft's efficiency.
USAF would also have liked a weapon system. He said they are
exploring the idea of a retractable, remotely operated gun that would
mount in the aft cargo hook well.

USAF is the reason the V-22 is not pressurized. Originally, Army
wanted a version of the Osprey for its Special Equipment and Missions
Aircraft. It would have had slightly bigger proprotors and a
pressurized fuselage, and would normally operate at higher altitudes
than the USMC aircraft. USAF decided that infringed on their "roles
and missions" and lobbied hard to get that version killed. Once it
was, Army backed out of the V-22 program, reasoning that if they
decided to adopt the Osprey they'd just buy the Marines version
(assuming USAF
didn't lobby against that). Regarding a gun, probably the V-22's
biggest weakness, space and weight was reserved in the nose for a
remote turret. Originally the multi-purpose GECAL 50 was being
developed for that and ground based uses. However, the GECAL
threatened other programs, and more importantly "postponing" the
turret looked like an instant cost
"savings", so it went away. The turret was revived for a while for
the CV-22, but then was dropped again because among other things USAF
didn't want to fund the development by itself. At this point, it's
just one of th things that's "out there". I don't know if the space
and weight is still reserved.
I'll revise what I said: the USAF pilot said that the current USAF
operators would like pressurization and blamed it on the USMC. He may
not be aware of the USAF vs Army issue. Now that you mention it, I
vaguely recall it. I had forgotten that the Army was once
interested in the V-22. I've forgotten what the USAF pilot said about
the nose turret, but it doesn't seem to be a viable option now

I'm not able to comment on the specifics of his comments, but I see them
flying here at Hurlburt Field, and I have flown the simulator, and all I can
say is that it must be a blast to fly the real thing.

Les
F-4C, D, E., G/AC-130A, MC-130E EWO (ret)