Osprey Struts Its Stuff at Farnborough

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, of the two that were sent to the show, one does.

Apparently the one that had problems diverted to Iceland. Whether it eventually continued on to the show I don't know. But if everything isn't beleved to be working perfectly on an Atlantic crossing, a precautionary landing is a Very Good Idea.

[Happy Monkey]

No doubt.

[JayMcGee]

Didn't Gloster develop something exctremely similar in the late '50s?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Didn't Gloster develop something exctremely similar in the late '50s?

Similar to the V-22? Or the Harrier? In either case, not that I'm aware of. Apparently Gloster's big entry in the late '50s was the Javelin fighter, but that wasn't VTOL. Closest in that era were probably the Lockheed XFV-1 and Convair XFY-1, neither of which was particularly successful, being *very* difficult to fly.

The V-22 control system is very impressive.

[JayMcGee]

Pre-dates the harrier. The craft I''m thinking of was very much like the boeiing thing, but the blades were a fan-blade configuration. All else was the same.
It may never have made it off the drawing-board, but the concept was all over 'Flight' magazine in the mid-late 50's

[MaggieL]

Fairey Rotodyne or Gyrodyne maybe. With the Gyrodyne you're getting into autogyo territory...which is interesting to me because Pitcairn and Kellet were local fellows who was very active in developing Cierva's autogyro concept. I've seen his "Miss Champion" fly...and you may have seen it in the film "The Rocketeer".

Pitcairn's "Pitcairn Field" airport was eventually donated to the US Navy to become Naval Air Station Willow Grove, just north of Philly.

[Pangloss62]

This will come as quite a surprise to the troops who have done it.

Well you got me on that one

I read somewhere that the downwash velocity from those props prohibitted that, but that photo clearly shows that's not the case. Nonetheless, other problems like vortex ring state rolling and lack of autorotation in case of power failure make it an expensive and risky craft.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Well you got me on that one.

I read somewhere that the downwash velocity from those props prohibitted that, but that photo clearly shows that's not the case. Nonetheless, other problems like vortex ring state rolling and lack of autorotation in case of power failure make it an expensive and risky craft.

If the downwash from a V-22 made rappeling impossible, how could it possibly work on a conventional helo? How totally bogus.

Sounds like you've absorbed a lot of "read somewhere" uninformed criticism from the mainstream press...of which there's a lot. I referred to the vortex ring issue earlier...and hey, guess what: no fixed-wing aircraft can do an autorotation either.

If you're aware of a case of total power failure in a V-22 let me know about it; there's two redundant engines and the transmission is designed such that either engine alone can drive both rotors. That's superior to most conventional multiengine arrangements.

[Pangloss62]

Sounds like you've absorbed a lot of "read somewhere" uninformed criticism from the mainstream press...

Most of what I've read has come from USAF and Marine personel, technical specialists, and aircraft engineers that have been involved with the development of the V-22. Unless you're a V-22 pilot, your likely going to get information on the craft from something you "read somewhere." I could only assume that with billions and billions at stake, Boeing and Bell's "information" is just as likely to be propaganda as anything "the mainstream press" reports. And if those engines are so great, why did one of those two Ospreys going to the show have to land in Iceland after "right engine compressor stalls" and have the entire engine replaced?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, Maggie, I just think there are still many unresolved issues with the craft, and that taking 25 years, 27 lives, and 20 billion to get to this point is a bit much.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I just think there are still many unresolved issues with the craft, and that taking 25 years, 27 lives, and 20 billion to get to this point is a bit much.

Had this been any other type plane, it would have been quashed long ago. The Osprey has a reliablity record that is and promises to be as bad as the F-111. So what keeps the Osprey alive? It is a unique design desperately needed by ground forces. That's it. There is no other replacement and the need it that large. Not for many sales of these aircraft. But some are needed.

Had it been designed properly, the Osprey could have been extremely profitable. But the aircraft was chock full of little problems that were easily avoidable such as hydralic hoses that pinched off as the rotors tilted. Complicated engineering problems did not cause so many problems. It was the simplest of problems that condemned this otherwise extremely necessary aircraft to lesser sales.

Even the F-111 did not have reliability failures found in the Osprey. The F-111 was so unreliable that twice the number required were flown on the Libya attack. Then the half that were still working off the coast of Spain continued on to the attack. F-111 maintained a reliability grade of D because of how it was designed. Unfortunately Osprey reliablity may always remain bad.

[Pangloss62]

Funny you mention the F-111. I was listening to the Austalian Broadcasting Corp. on my shortwave the other night and heard about an emergency landing; now the fleet is grounded:

F-111 fleet groundedJuly 19, 2006
AN investigation into Australia's F-111s begins today after the 26-strong fleet was grounded following an emergency landing in Brisbane by one of the ageing strike bombers.
The aircraft made a belly landing at the RAAF's Amberley base west of Brisbane about 2.10pm (AEST) yesterday after losing a wheel on takeoff.

After circling the air base near Ipswich for almost three hours to burn off excess fuel, the jet came into land, creating a plume of sparks as it slid on its belly along the tarmac.

The 29-year-old pilot had only graduated from the F-111 training course two weeks ago, but his 32-year-old crew member is considered one of the most experienced F-111 navigators.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said the grounding of the F-111 fleet was necessary to ensure there was nothing structurally wrong with the planes.

Air Marshall Geoff Shepherd said it was the first time a wheel had ever fallen off an F-111 in the 30-year flying history of the planes in Australia.

He said there were still no clues as to why the wheel fell off as the jet took off on a routine flight to Tenterfield in northern NSW.

RAAF Amberley's Group Captain Leo Davies believed it may only take weeks for the investigation to be completed.

"Defence's flying safety investigators, Boeing - as the primary contractor for F111 maintenance - and a Melbourne-based team of engineers will head the investigation," he said.

"They will determine what happened and also assess how much work needs to be done and the time frame to get the aircraft back in the air again.

"They should make an assessment over the next few weeks."

Eight F-111s have crashed since they began operating in Australia in the 1970s, killing 10 crew.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Had this been any other type plane, it would have been quashed long ago.

Precicely.

It *isn't* "any other type of plane". It is an entirely new category of aircraft, which is why the development has been so tortuous...combined with the fact that the development has occurred (necessarily) within the largest buracracy on the planet. It's amazing that they ever get anything done.

FB-111 is a case in point: DoD civilian management (in the person of Robert MacNamara, as I recall) decreed that the next big tactical aircraft would be a joint Air Force-Navy design. After years of grunting, groaning and failed designs, Navy rebelled, gave up on the joint program, took the systems that were salvagable and created the F-15...arguably an *extemely* successful military aircraft acquisition, even though the Panglosses and TWs of the time harped just as loud about exactly the same things they're screeching about now.

You guys sure you don't want to say a few words slagging the Joint Strike Fighter program now? :-) After all, it will finally accomplish what MacNamara dictated (a joint tactical aircraft)...now that computational technology is actually up to the task of producing the design, flight-control and sensor systems needed. And one variant from that program is planned to replace the Harrier, which kinda brings it all full-circle.

Just as a sidebar, I think the most important reason there have been 27 fatalities in the V-22 program is that 19 of them were in *one* fully-loaded Osprey that was lost because the pilot flagrantly violated a rate-of-decent limit and entered the ring-vortex state. You can lose a whole *pile* of people in one transport aircraft accident, because they carry a lot of people.

(The hardest thing about any radical new aircraft design is finding out how *not* to fly it. F-15 had a similar flight envelope problem involving compressor stall, as I recall). The V-22 flight control software has been rewritten to keep the aircraft out of that failure mode.Look at the civilian Robinson R-22....nice little piston powered helo with composite main rotor. But maneuver it wrong and the main rotor blades will strike the tail boom. Try and autorotate out of that one...

That April 2000 V-22 loss was during a simulation of a Non-combatant Evacuation Operation...one of the V-22's primary missions. Would have been nice to have a few V-22 squadrons operational for the current NEO in Lebanon, but it was not to be. In fact, some view the creation of V-22 as a direct result of the failure of Carter's Desert One NEO debacle.

[Pangloss62]

the Panglosses and TWs of the time

We've been typecast!

If we're harpies, what are you? I would guess a sage.

[MaggieL]

[Ibby]

No, you just have to miss the ground, or forget to hit it.