V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator

V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...efender-s.html
V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of
Roger Williams, the executive director and site leader at Bell
Helicopter Military Aircraft Assembly Center in Amarillo, Texas
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/1007..._8622521.shtml , wrote the
following in the Amarillo Globe News on Mark Thompson's critical TIME
magazine article on the V-22 Osprey http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...65835,00.html:

The Time article contends the Pentagon eliminated the autorotation
requirement for the V-22. The "autorotation requirement" has in fact
never changed, as it was never a specific requirement. Why? Because
the Osprey is not a helicopter.

The Pentagon's list of requirements for "Survivability and
Crashworthiness" from 1994 states:

"Power-off glide/autorotation: The JMVX (1994-era designation for the
V-22) must be capable of a survivable emergency landing."

The current requirements document says the V-22 "must be capable of
performing a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative
(Threshold/Block A/10)." [emphasis added]

What I don't get is Williams' claim that "autorotation" was never a
specific requirement, yet then he quotes from the Defense Department's
1994 list of requirements for the V-22 which explicitly states
"autorotation" as a means of achieving a survivable emergency landing
when the V-22 is in helicopter mode (when in plane mode, it will need
to be able to glide with the power off; note that it won't be able to
switch between helicopter mode to plane mode if the power is down).

CORRECTION: A reader writes that the V-22 can switch from helicopter
to plane mode if the engines lose power:

The reason is that as long as the rotors are turning (and they
would keep turning), there is power to the hydraulic system -- and
it is the hydraulic system that provides the power to convert.
Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical generators
still operate, providing electrical power to the flight control
system for stability and control.



-- Nick Schwellenbach

October 10, 2007 in Defense | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/22330512

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference V-22 Defender Strikes
Back on Autorotation, Sort of:

Comments
I love this "Retired Naval Aviator" opinion like that's some holy
grail of knowledge. News break for you, there are hundreds of Naval
Aviators on both side of this debate. Most of the ones in favor are
actually flying it now (their life at stake) or recently retired after
years of working on it. Many of the those that don't like it are
crusty old "Nam era guys that can't find their ass with both hands.
The grey beards are so far removed from reality that they don't
warrant being taken seriously. Thanks boys, if it was up to you, we'd
buy some 1950 technology Phrog and it be just like the good old days
right? You'd be eating AAA and MANPADS up the ass, as you putt-putted
around at 100kts, but you could auto-rotate provided you didn't
desynch and die instantly and burn up on the ground. Great. Thanks for
the support.

The fix-wing guys have gone through 4 generations of front line
fighters but here you are supporting your rotary wing brethen's
attempt to modernize with an endorsement for the same old piece of
crap you flew in the 60s. Hay, thanks for weighing in. Better idea,
shut up and stop doing damage to the Corps.

Survivability is a complex subject. Often times you need to sub-
optimize in some areas in order to take advantage of others. No A/C
has been as thoroughly tested ballistically and done so well. The IR
and noise signature is non-existant relative to the CH-46. Exposure
time in the zone is also much less. Pay no attention to those that
assert it to be a lumbering giant. It's VN diagram performance exceeds
that of the UH-60. Of course, IT"S NOT A HELICOPTER !!! so stop
constantly comparing it to one.

For all things in life there is a bottom line and for THIS retired
Naval Aviator, it's that I'd rather fly in harm's way today in a V-22
than in a CH-46 or any other helo. Can't give a stronger personal
endorsement than where you'd risk your life.


Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:39 PM

Check your facts before mouthing off, wise guy. The V-22 is very
capable of converting from airplane to helicopter mode and back, if
needed, without engine power. The reason is that as long as the rotors
are turning (and they would keep turning), there is power to the
hydraulic system -- and it is the hydraulic system that provides the
power to convert. Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical
generators still operate, providing electrical power to the flight
control system for stability and control. We should all be glad that
we had real engineers and, not idiots with nothing to do but write
blogs, designing the V-22. (Of course, you also probably don't have
the guts to post this one.)

Posted by: Jim | Oct 10, 2007 7:37:02 PM

It's not even proven that the V-22 CAN'T autorotate - maybe it will be
able too, but the power regulating systems do not allow a large build-
up of Nr (rotor speed) above normal range to aid in the auto. The
"blue ribbon panel" has already researched this. It would take A LOT
of things to go wrong for the V-22 to find itself in a perdiciment
where an auto would be necessary anyways. That's the beauty of triple-
redundancy. Everyone stresses how important the auto is, because helo
guys practice it routinely. I don't have any figures on it, but I feel
that an auto is seldom used - nice to have - but practiced and not
utilized. I'm sure that in the building of events that would
neccessatate an auto would already have the pilots in airplane mode
for gliding - if they weren't already. I would take my chances with a
V-22 on glide than a CH-46 or CH-53 in an actual auto - anyday!



http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...ssessment.html
V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
UPDATE: A friend says that Les Horn is wrong when it comes to the cost
benefit trade-off, in particular his comparison of the H-46 and the
V-22:

A, you can't buy H-46s anymore. B, it never carried 20-24 soldiers (I
don't believe) or the weight of a V-22 and existing ones fly half-full
about 100-plus miles, which is why Marines always compare V-22 to
H-46. See the Fort Worth Star Telegram story "V:22 Ready for Combat,"
which I believe has comparisons with S-92 and EH101, better
comparisons. It doesn't do any good to attack this thing with
inacurrate data.

The Star Telegram article does include the following comparison:

When loaded with cargo or 24 troops, the V -22 has a documented round-
trip range of about 460 miles. The Marines' CH-53 helicopters can fly
about 552 miles carrying 35 to 45 troops. The newer US101 helicopter,
which carries at least as many troops as the V -22 , can fly more than
690 miles. All three aircraft can be refueled in midair.

Ok here's what was passed along earlier today...

The following excellent, concise assessment of the MV-22 program was
written by Les Horn, a retired Naval aviator, following a series of
articles about the aircraft's deployment to Iraq.

Autorotation. I talked with a number of helo drivers I know. All
condemned the elimination of the V-22's autorotation capability.
They see it as an unacceptable compromise of safety to meet cost &
weight targets of an inherently flawed design. One helo driver --
disabled twice by enemy gunfire in 'Nam, is alive today (he sez) only
because he was able to autorotate to a safe landing.

Cost Benefit Trade-off. You can buy ten H-46s for the cost of one
V-22, yet the H-46 can carry more than twice the personnel and has
twice the cargo weight/cube capacity of the Osprey.

Air Order of Battle. The V-22 has a Deck Multiple of 2.2, compared to
1.0 for the F/A-18A/B, 1.2 for the F-18E/F, and 2.0 for the H-46.
Irrespective of the insurmountable cost "barrier," how many V-22's
could actually be deployed on our-ever diminishing inventory of
available deck space? Given the V-22's reduced carrying capacity,
what does that portend for the Marine Corp's capability to project
offensive force inland from offshore platforms? The obvious answer is
that by embracing this platform, the Marines have abandoned the
classical concept of "Vertical Envelopment," and the V-22 will be
consigned to limited special forces-type insertions, or to low cost-
benefit logistic support into low threat AORs. Face it --we will never
be able to build & deploy enough of these platforms to make any real
difference in a pitched battle against a determined and well equipped
adversary.

Survivability. Many unacceptable trade-offs & compromises:

a. Armor: minimal to none. Weight limited. (Remember the 1000+ lbs of
ceramic armor we packed into our A-7s?)

b. Redundancy: Highly vaunted, but many necessarily non-redundant
systems are on critical path; e.g., damage to cross shafting, with
loss of engine, and no autorotate capability, would result of loss of
aircraft. Further, many dual-path redundant systems converge (or are
housed) in series in single non-redundant system components & black
boxes as a weight-saving measure.

c. Exposu A large, tender target during ground insertions, with
excessive time on deck required to debark combat loads. For example,
the light, thin-walled fuselage construction (another weight-saving
measure), lacks sufficient strength for conventional tie-down
hardpoints; consequently, twenty-four (24) tethers required to safely
secure one lightweight specially designed wheeled vehicle. Over three
to seven minutes have been required in OPEVAL demos to unhitch and
clear all tethers -- forcing the aircraft to remain on deck in a
highly vulnerable configuration, without sufficient self protection
(as reported in the Time article) for a dangerously long time.

Combat Equipage: The fuselage is too narrow to accept conventional
helo-transportable wheeled mobility equipment. A special short and
necessarily narrow wheel-based vehicle -- designed especially for the
Osprey -- is unarmored, lightly armed, and a rollover hazard.

Pilot Acceptance: The favorable reports you mentioned are
understandable and predictable. Few military pilots would turn down
the opportunity to fly such a high viz, new production platform, or
concede any doubts they may harbor about its operational challenges
and flight limitations. (Consider how the Marines still proudly uphold
their commitments to the Harrier, despite an accident rate exceeded by
only a few modern warbirds, such as the ME-193!)
The V-22, (like the F-22, the F-35, and the forced retirement of the
F-14) speak loudly of all that is wrong with DoD's aircraft
acquisition process. An overhaul of the bidding rules and protocols
is overdue to level the playing field to enable the smaller (even
small business) aircraft design-build houses to bid competitively
against the mega-corporations on big-ticket platform buys (evocative
of the Willys vs. GM "contest" of WWII). As borne out by the new
patents issued stats, small business have proven to be the
acknowledged repository of a preponderance of creative & risk-taking
intellectual capital in the nation. The challenge is to find
acquisition executives with the gonads to try. The system regrettably
tends to purge itself of its "non-conforming" out-of-the-box thinkers,
as you well know.

October 10, 2007 in Defense | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/22329476

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference V-22 Assessment by a
Ret. Naval Aviator:

Comments
CH-46 Trade off: The 46's are carrying 8-10 troops now!!! and can
barely get 3k lbs off the deck! Those engines and airframes are worn
out. The last one that I flew on had the fwd hat splitting off and the
410 had a 2" hole in it!!
AOB: the V-22 folds and neatly fits onto ship in the same fashion that
CH-46's did.
Armor: You don't need as much when you can fly at 25k vice CH-46 at
10k. Redundancy: Come on! much more than any helo I know of! Exposu
reduced significantly when you're flying at 240-260 kts vice 110; and
not a factor when your range allows you to go around hostiles. "Combat
equippage?": the cargo space of a V-22 is same envelope as a CH-46 -
check your stats - that's ACQ101... and it outfits newer and better
gear. Pilot Acceptance: You're quite the opposite - many reluctantly
transition from CH-46's to V-22's - the "phrogs forever" mentality is
stronger than commitment to duty. All that is waved off when
transition pilots realize the CAPABILITIES of this aircraft. Don't be
a dog to the naysayer... Even the CH-46 was reluctantly accepted, but
back then they didn't have to deal with so much media spin.

Posted by: Craig | Oct 10, 2007 6:07:08 PM

I wonder how many civil war cannons you could buy for the cost of one
V-22? It's easy to compare the V-22 unfavorably to existing, seasoned
equivalents. A more objective comparison would be with the first
helecopter to fly for the military. I'm sure there were many narrow-
minded doubters of that invention as well.

Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.


Walt

Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.


Walt, lay off the cooking sherry. Most, if not all, helicopter
assault landings are accompanied by armed escorts. Cobras and Apaches
are used to suppress fire. Armed helicopters like H-60 and H-53 can land
without escort if needed and the LZ isn't too hot, but once on or near
the ground their guns are only good for close defense where air escort
can extend perimeter defense.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:38 -0700, Walt wrote:


Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

By this reasoning the B-17 was useless because it suffered catatrophic
losses without fighter escort.

And that would make the Mosquito about the sole, successful bomber of
WWII.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.

You don't like the program. That's pretty clear. But it seems to me
that you're allowing your prejudices to overcome reason. Every new
technology has problems. Whether or not this technology works out
will be known in 25 years or so, not now.

Some of that history will be written in blood, too. That's part of
the life of being a Marine (or any other member in the sevice of the
Constitution).

So why don't you drain your Vitriol tank and give it a rest?

Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.

Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the
terrorists to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

As for armed escort, how about the B-2 plus SDB?

How many other escort aircraft carry 216 bombs?

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.

Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the terrorists
to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Henry J Cobb wrote:
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.

Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the
terrorists to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

As for armed escort, how about the B-2 plus SDB?

How many other escort aircraft carry 216 bombs?

-HJC

It can't raid any location a helicopter can't raid

At higher altitude its carrying capacity drops faster than a helicopter


Vince

On Oct 12, 7:49 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
You don't like the program. That's pretty clear. But it seems to me
that you're allowing your prejudices to overcome reason. Every new
technology has problems. Whether or not this technology works out
will be known in 25 years or so, not now.

You are aware that it's been in developement for 25 years already
right?

So you could easily say that "in 25 years or so" is now, not in
another 25 years.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:08:37 -0700, Duwop wrote:

On Oct 12, 7:49 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
You don't like the program. That's pretty clear. But it seems to me
that you're allowing your prejudices to overcome reason. Every new
technology has problems. Whether or not this technology works out
will be known in 25 years or so, not now.

You are aware that it's been in developement for 25 years already
right?

Ayup.

So you could easily say that "in 25 years or so" is now, not in
another 25 years.

No, Sir, becauase "developoment" is not "deployment." Everything to
date is theoretical. Maybe the practice will show strengths not yet
appreciated and maybe we'll see weaknesses not yet identified.

Until you put it to work in the hands of Naval Aviators on a day to
day basis you really don't know if it will work or not.

William Black wrote:
Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

The local warlord will be happy to tell you who his enemies are.

"What's the matter? Your air force bombs the Canadians all the time."

"Yes, but not for destroying poppy fields."

-HJC