:> : 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
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
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
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
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
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 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.
We had a couple of those also way, way, back:
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:
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:
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
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
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.