OT: First Osprey in Iraq

First nine (one Osprey is in Wasp-litlle malfunction) in Iraq.

The first combat squadron of tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys has been quietly deployed to Iraq, ushering a new form of aerial technology into 21st Century warfare.

 

A Marine Corps aviation squadron and 10 Ospreys left for Iraq on Monday aboard the U.S.S. Wasp, a small Navy aircraft carrier known as an amphibious assault ship, said Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Eric Dent.

 

The departure from the Marine Air Station at New River, N.C., was made under extremely tight security with no advance notice to the media and no ceremonial speeches by Marine Corps officials. "It was just another workday for the squadron," said Dent.

 

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, nicknamed "The Thunder Chickens," will be based at the Al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq for at least seven months of combat operations. The Marine Corps Ospreys, known as MV-22s, will be used to ferry combat Marines as well as cargo throughout the predominately Sunni Anbar province.

I wonder why the article says they "quietly" deployed? I remember reading about it in several places when it happened. They've been here for just a touch over a month already. I've seen them several times out and about.

It must be strange feeling-sitting in small cabin with realy big rotor twisting inches from your head...

It must be strange feeling-sitting in small cabin with realy big rotor twisting inches from your head...

I don't think so...rotor is not larger nor closer than -4xmpl on Blackhawk...only different... but 2 control the machine is not easy as a pie :)

I watched this thing make it's very first ship board landing at sea on the USS Wasp (LHD-1) That was a long-ass time ago. (circa 1991 or so)

Wtf took so long, lol

I don't think so...rotor is not larger nor closer than -4xmpl on Blackhawk...only different... but 2 control the machine is not easy as a pie :)

Look at first photo, at lavel flight rotor position-there's nothing to campare with blackhawk, you won't find any other aircraft with so big rotors and blades so close to pilot cabin AND turning in his direction in the same plane. He may feel a bit nervous if he think sometimes what can happend if blade rip of and fly towards him :)

God I would love to fly one of those!

Brad

Out of curiosity for those who know...are these things really as dangerous as the media makes them out to be (hence trying to keep this "quiet")? I hadn't heard much about this for years until I see a very negative story about them on the cover of TIME magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html

I have a feeling all the bad press is mostly a load of bollocks.

The Ospreys had a lot of issues as this type of plane was truly a prototype - I don't think anyone had -seriously- attempted a tilt-rotor aircraft before.

Like anything that's more or less the first of its kind, it has some very serious teething troubles, and it did kill a bunch of people.

AFAIK, though, most if not all the problems have been resolved, and it is a much more reliable aircraft now.

I -believe- one of the nastiest and deadliest of issues was the power crosslink, or anything that might cause one rotor to lose power of seize up. That would essentially cause the bird to flip on its back and ... instant pancake.

my 2cents

I don't like that this aircraft killed Marines due to crashes caused by "teething problems". Problems should have been worked out before putting troops on them. For my money the Osprey is the swing-axle Corvair: unsafe at any speed. Now it's in Iraq. More news to follow.

Flyby

The Chinook killed more people during its development, and was similarly labeled a death trap. I don't see anyone clamoring to have it scrapped now...

The Chinook is a very good example, but not only for its problems during development, but also from the engineering point of view. many have doubts about the powertrain, and link between both rotors. Well in Chinook, and Sea Knight there is a similar system, designed decades ago, and it works.

I'm only wondering what are the procedures, in case of both engines simultaneous shut down in level flight, the wings do not produce enough lift for a glider landing, and the nacelles with rotors need some time to change position for autorotation.

That's okay, it can't autorotate, either. If you have a dual engine failure...well, sorry.

 

I'm only wondering what are the procedures, in case of both engines simultaneous shut down in level flight, the wings do not produce enough lift for a glider landing, and the nacelles with rotors need some time to change position for autorotation.

(...)As originally designed, the V-22 was supposed to survive a loss of engine power when flying like a helicopter by autorotating toward the ground, just as maple seeds do in the fall. Autorotation, which turns a normally soft touchdown into an very hard emergency landing, is at least survivable. It became clear, however, that the design of the Osprey, adjusted many times over, simply could not accommodate the maneuver. The Pentagon slowly conceded the point. "The lack of proven autorotative capability is cause for concern in tilt-rotor aircraft," a 1999 report warned. Two years later, a second study cautioned that the V-22's "probability of a successful autorotational landing ... is very low." Unable to rewrite the laws of physics, the Pentagon determined that the ability to perform the safety procedure was no longer a necessary requirement and crossed it off the V-22's must-have list. "An autorotation to a safe landing is no longer a formal requirement," a 2002 Pentagon report said. "The deletion of safe autorotation landing as a ... requirement recognizes the hybrid nature of the tilt-rotor."(...)

Panowie madre glowy z pentagonu zalecaja ladowanie metoda samolotowa ''na brzuchu''...Biorac pod uwage opory jakie stawiaja smigla (wirniki?) to wyczyn w sam raz do cyrku.

I remember hearing the biggest issue the Osprey had was in its original control setup. It was equipped with a Flight Yoke as opposed to a Cyclic control which made hovering the bird impossible.

It is surprising though that it can't autorotate. I suppose the wings don't allow enough upward inflow to spin the blades, which I suppose makes sense as a fairly large wedge of the rotors thrust is interupted by the wings and so thats a huge no wind or little wind area as well. Though, i'd be interested to see some illustrations of the forces as it goes through an Auto (or doesn't).

Brad

I would say the blades have a very low intertia moment due to composites use. A wide chord, well, your perfect autorotation stoppers.

Would the thing be able to land at 200kts let's say both rotors in the forward position? Dual engine failure in hover=pancake, dual engine failure is flight= delayed pancakeing.

They should have chutes for all crew memebers in that thing, better yet, only cargo transport tasks and a reintroduction of the dual ejection seats up front.

Autorotation have little to do with composite rotor blades, it's purely aerodynamics into the point of flaring, when the rotor inertia play its small part. The Osprey should autorotate, but it won't result in a great* landing... good landing at most :smilewink:

*Great landing - one after which the aircraft can be used again

good point

The Chinook killed more people during its development, and was similarly labeled a death trap. I don't see anyone clamoring to have it scrapped now...

I was not aware of the Chinook's lethal past. Maybe it didn't make the news like the Osprey did. So I guess I need to make a blanket statement about troop-carrying aircraft. Get the bugs out before committing troops' lives in them. It's a waste of lives otherwise. How's that?

Flyby

PS I know things can't be perfect when people design anything, and that deaths may follow. Fixes come in time (recall the British Comet's history). I just think it's tragic to lose troops lives in such accidents.

Not so long ago HH-60 crashed in Afghanistan killing 6 crew memebers, and it wasn't fired upon. Accidents will happen no matter what. Overcompensation is also not a good thing, like Merlins and Super Stalions, having 3 engines, rarely have to come back on two of them, but had few crashed, just because of other things (mainly tail rotor flying off).

Not so long ago HH-60 crashed in Afghanistan killing 6 crew memebers, and it wasn't fired upon. Accidents will happen no matter what. Overcompensation is also not a good thing, like Merlins and Super Stalions, having 3 engines, rarely have to come back on two of them, but had few crashed, just because of other things (mainly tail rotor flying off).

Accidents will always happend, but some planes are much safer in case of ie. engine failure than others-Osprey unfortunately belongs to this second group. Some constructions just ask for accident even because of small failure, generally all helis, but especially V-22, Chinook, Shavnee, and also Harrier or Jak-41 - all really hard or imposible to control in case of engine problems.

The Chinook autorotates very nicely and has very good landing gear to allow it to survive a high rate of descent at touchdown.

The separation and redundancy inherent in the design of the engines and fuel system also serve to make a dual engine failure very unlikely.

Bear

Can't we just agree that helicopters in general are deathtraps?

Can't we just agree that helicopters in general are deathtraps?

Oh yes.

For reference, the British Army's view on the Lynx:

http://www.arrse.com/wiki/Lynx

Oh yes.

 

 

For reference, the British Army's view on the Lynx:

 

http://www.arrse.com/wiki/Lynx

Hahahaha, that's going to be my homepage

http://www.arrse.com/wiki/Chinook

Where do I apply? Tough decision to make IMHO, but I'd go with the smoke screen duty, as that will greatly enhance the experience and the long guard shifts.

http://www.arrse.com/wiki/Queens_Ganja_Rifles

http://www.arrse.com/wiki/The_Queen%27s_Cannabis_Smokers