V-22 Osprey is the Cover Story for the Current Issue of Time Magazine



endlessly
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> : Bruce Burden wrote: :> Reference, please. It was a fixed wing. It will glide, for :> some suitable definition of "glide", so long as there is air :> passing over the wing and generating lift. :> : : Reference - I'm a degreed aeronautical engineer. The V-22 does not have : enough surface area to sustain a true glide the way a fixed-wing : aircraft can. :     Rufus, if you have been on the 'net for any length of time, you should understand why it is bad for to argue from authority. If you are an aeronautical engineer, finding a source that states the V-22 can't glide should be trivial.
    The problem we seem to have is that you fundimental view of the V-22 is that it is a helo, my view is that it is a v/stol airplane.
    A reference I found on the web indicates that the V-22 can auto-rotate, when in vertical flight configuration, much like a helo. Sorta. Maybe. When configured with the engines horizontal, the V-22 can glide. What I have not found is whether the "normal" aircraft flight controls work when the engines are rotated vertical, or more than around 45 degrees above the horizontal. That cound affect the ability of the V-22 to glide to a landing in an engine failure event.
    Since you are a degreed aeronautical engineer, and closely interested in the V-22, finding references should be trivial. : : The possibilities for failure modes are far more numerous compared to a : standard helo...have no idea how they drive the tilt - hyd, electric, : pneumatic...or what systems there are to fail, or cascade failures. :     I am well aware that the more complex the system, the more that can and will go wrong. I am also well aware that duplicating systems serves to increase the number of things that can go wrong. The real question is - what is the likelyhood of such an occurance. I deal with chaos theory (specifically, not knowing your precise entry/start conditions) every day. : :> <re can't land w/rotars tilted> : : Thats pretty obvious, if you've ever seen one in operation...as I have. : The rotor radius simply grossly exceeds the height of the rotors from : the ground. :     Bunk. The rotars are designed to shear at the hubs. This is as silly as arguing that prop driver aircraft can't belly land because the props will hit the ground.
    The overriding concern is to get the machine on the ground. Whether it flies again is not important at the moment. : : All Starships were leased, not sold - and so Beech simply took them all : back and destroyed them. All but one - which belongs to Burt Rutan, who : had a hand in the design. His is the only one left flying - I'll ask : him about it if I run into him again...I get to about once every few : years. His brother's a hoot, too. :     Name dropping is also considered to be a very bad form of arguement. And, no, Burt does not own the Starship that was used as a chase plane for SpaceShipOne (N514RS), it is registered to Bob Scherer.
                            Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce Burden wrote:

It damn sure ain't no airplane...and it ain't a helo either - go watch one fly. I just had two in my back yard a few weeks ago.

That's still not a "glide" in the true sense - it's an altered auto-rotation. I still don't buy your source...I'll ask Boeing. I can do that.

No, I'm distinctly NOT interested in the V-22 for engineering and common sense reasons of my own. But that doesn't stop me from knowing people that are.

That all depends on the system, and what it is used for. You want chaos, go study combat survivability.

Double bunk - you obviously haven't seen the crash films I've seen. And yes - it makes a big diff if the props are rotating or not, even for a prop aircraft. That's speaking as a pilot myself.

That is true - but if the only way to get the aircraft to the ground is in pieces, you get a lot of people killed..just like they have been in this thing. And nobody was even shooting at it at he time.

Hey, you want authority, I'll give you authority. And registration and ownership are also two different matters - but I would expect the aircraft to owned by Scaled Composites. Anyway, I still think the Rutan brothers are interesting people.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce Burden wrote:

We had a couple of those also way, way, back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_X-18 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-142.htm I once talked to a pilot in the Navy aircraft test section (he went way back to the Tripartite Evaluation Squadron that flew the Kestrels in competition with the VAK-191) His story of what happened to the Osprey was this; the tilting wing design was much superior to the swiveling engine idea, in that it increased lifting power by not having the downwash of the prop/rotors fall on top of the wing, pushing it downward, allowed easy cross shafting of the engines, and allowed the wing control surfaces be used in vertical flight for easy control of the vehicle. But after LTV-Hiller-Ryan couldn't get a production contact for the XC-142, they sold the swiveling-wing patent to Canadair, as they were working on a VTOL cargo plane idea also: http://www.exn.ca/FlightDeck/Aircraft/Milestones/cl84.cfm When it came time to compete for the V-22 contract, an attempt was made to buy back the patent from Canadair, but they realized how important it was, and quoted a sky-high figure for it. Since the Bell XV-15 had proven successful during tests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15 The V-22 had its design based on it. Unfortunately, the XV-15 didn't need to have a wing that would rotate 90 degrees to lay on top of the fuselage, a folding tail, or blades on its rotors that could be folded for storage; all of which were needed for compact storage on a helicopter carrier, and the ability to fit on its elevators. So something simple turned into something very complex, and we've been paying the price for it ever since. What the test pilot was really torqued off about was the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II; he had done a lot of work on that program, and said that it would have been a great aircraft...but with the end of the Cold War the Navy wanted to put funds elsewhere and screwed over McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics to free up funds for other projects by claiming the plane was no good. He was getting very close to retirement, so felt he could get away with saying stuff like that. The reason he was at the airshow was to see one of the first appearances of the MiG-29 in America and see what he thought of it from a trained test pilot's perspective, so as to figure out what its potential was in air-to-air combat. He flew in in a TA-4J with a new Navy pilot; the kid was so awed by this guy that he was almost strewing rose petals in front of him when he walked. I think his having served three combat tours in Vietnam as a Skyhawk pilot and returning to the carrier on more than one occasion with his aircraft so shot up it had to be scrapped probably helped. :-)
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have seen cartoon versions of them in Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex (phew!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think most of the negative press is political.
Admittedly it is unusual for a transport to have the cutting edge technology that the Osprey has, but it IS new technology.
It certainly has teething problems, but that is inherent in new tech. Look at how long the F-22 has been in development. I think when early teething problems caused a drop in funding, this was detrimental to getting the bugs out quickly.
The Harrier went through very similar teething problems and IT was almost cancelled also.
The CH-46 that the opponents want to just keep using is not the most reliable thing around anymore either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

We'll find out in a big hurry when they get to Iraq.

The V-22 has been in development since 1982, and is now actually going to get operationally deployed, 25 years later. To give some meaning to that, the B-29 was also a state of the art pushing program technologically, that was first promulgated in January of 1940. This program pace means that it would have been ready to bomb Japan in 1965. The V-22's development phase was longer than than many of the aircraft that have served in the U.S. inventory's entire development period and operational service life.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, need to point out that 1.5X more was spent getting the B-29 program going, than the entire Manhattan Project.
The V-22 never had its 'Battle of Kansas'
** mike **
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

i dunno, doesn't seem like too great of an idea. looks more like a test toy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tilt rotor work can be said to have begun in 1953 (or even earlier) with the XV-3 built by Bell. In the 70s, the Army and NASA sponsored the development of the XV-15 which can really be thought of as the prototype for the V-22. So the development period for this aircraft can be 35-55 years, depending upon what "start date" one chooses.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15
Dennis
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The V-22 might have its problems, but a Time magazine article should have no influence whatsoever on one's opinions of the merits of a new weapons system.
Mainstream media bias against any and all new weapons systems goes back more than 50 years and is remarkably consistent. The list of weapons systems once criticized as too expensive, too dangerous, too heavy, too big, too fast, too slow, or that allegedly just wouldn't work includes (but is not limited to) the B-52, B-1, B-2, F-14, F-15, F/A-18, F-22, F-111, C-17, AH-64, M-1, and the Nimitz class aircraft carrier. If the mainstream media had made weapons acquisition decisions over the past 50 years, B-29s, F-86s, and Shermans would now be fighting in Iraq.
On the other hand, the media (and the Democrats) once loved Rumsfeld's "light, lean, and lethal" theory of warfare... you know, Humvees with TOW missiles instead of heavy armor. That worked real well.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Modeler ET wrote:

Granted...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a look for yourself and form your own opinion.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.