V22 Osprey - a good next Model?

[VIRUS_AT]

Hi Flight-Enthusiasts,

 

the V-22 Osprey ist a great Flight Maschine. What du you mean, ist the V-22 Osprey a good idea for a next DCS Aircraft? Please tell me your opinion. :pilotfly:

 

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNJTAybCQQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNJTAybCQQ[/ame]

 

[Aginor]

As much as I do like the Osprey, I'd say no.

With the limited capabilities of DCS concerning the simulation of logistics stuff and infantry transport (although they have become better) I think most players would find the Osprey pretty boring.

[vvm13]

But what about DCS UH-1 or DCS Mi-8?

 

Boring? No. I think lack of information is the biggest problem. And much more difficult to simulate.

[Sierra99]

The V-22 is the Rotary Wing version of the F-35. It's an overpriced Egg Beater. The Chinook is a far better Aircraft for WAY less money.

 

That being said, I don't think there is enough public data to do a DCS level V-22.

[siraccord]

C-130 might have enough public data to create for DCS, considering so many countries use the aircraft it would be a great non-fighter aircraft we could play with. Additionally it does have fairly impressive gunship/ground attack support capabilities.

[BaD CrC]

It is more than unlikely to see a recent aircraft in DCS due to the lack of technical specs publicly available.

[zcrazyx]

fairly sure there is a Civil version of the Osprey but i don't know, there is not a lot of data about many new/current aircraft, hell the F-14 does not fly anymore but that being said, if they a third part developer works under a contract (such as being done with the typhoon) then maybe just maybe it could happen, however as stated it is limited considering it is a Combat sim and there is very little logistical stuff.

[AlphaOneSix]

There is the AW609, but "it [does] not include any technology transfer from the military Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor." There is currently no civil version of the V-22.

[Rogue Trooper]

I would love it, lands and takes off like a chopper and goes Hell for leather in between. Whether it could be done or not I do not know, is there anything secret on this airframe?

 

It sure would be interesting when transitioning from hover configuration to forward flight configuration.

[JLX]

I don't know if it's possible or not but I think it would be great fun to learn to fly! It's so unique.

[rjetster1]

Should at least be in the sim as an AI model.

[joebloggs]

The V-22 is the Rotary Wing version of the F-35. It's an overpriced Egg Beater. The Chinook is a far better Aircraft for WAY less money.

 

That being said, I don't think there is enough public data to do a DCS level V-22.

 

Why hasn't anybody thought about doing the Chinook? Most Roaterheads would buy thist on day one of release.

[Cool Breeze]

The V-22 is the Rotary Wing version of the F-35. It's an overpriced Egg Beater. The Chinook is a far better Aircraft for WAY less money. That being said, I don't think there is enough public data to do a DCS level V-22.

I'd have to disagree strongly with it being an "over-priced eggbeater". The MV-22 has a definite role to fill and fills that role very nicely! The Osprey can operate faster and over longer ranges than Chinook. Comparing them doesn't do either aircraft justice in my opinion. If you are going to compare the Osprey to something it would have to be the Sea Knight. Which it is replacing. The Chinook and Sea Knight more mature aircraft with excellent capabilities, with out a doubt. I think the only fair comparison for the CH-47 as far as American helicopters go would be the Super Stallion. Both of which are heavy lift helicopters. The MV-22 is falling into the medium lift category which was filled, until recently, very capably by the Sea Knight. I'll leave the F-35 discussion for another forum... Agreed, it is very over-priced!:thumbup:

 

Why hasn't anybody thought about doing the Chinook? Most Roaterheads would buy thist on day one of release.

 

I'm sure there have been requests for the Chinook and her little sister the Sea Knight! I would like to see both of them in-game eventually! While I think it would be unlikely to see the MV-22 in DCS as a flyable aircraft, it would certainly be a quick buy for me! I think that Belsimtek would have the best position to make it happen as they already have a working relationship with Bell Helicopter!

[Malleebull]

What about the damage boxes on this particular airframe? One hit from a bmp, your left engines down and you a goner, how will it workout?

[Echo38]

Can't glide; can't autorotate; no ejection seats. Loss of both engines results in unsurvivable crash; bad aircraft. Do not want.

[AlphaOneSix]

Can't glide; can't autorotate; no ejection seats. Loss of both engines results in unsurvivable crash; bad aircraft.

 

Well that's not true at all. Please stop being so dramatic. No wait, you're right, no ejection seats. We should immediately cease production of all aircraft without ejection seats, it's unsafe!

[AlphaOneSix]

What about the damage boxes on this particular airframe? One hit from a bmp, your left engines down and you a goner, how will it workout?

 

It can fly (more or less) on one engine. Although if it's operating at the limit of its performance, a single engine just makes the crash a little softer.

[Echo38]

What part of what I said is untrue? The lifting surfaces are insufficient to glide to a safe landing; there is no autorotational capability at all; there are no ejection seats. By Boeing's own admission, a complete loss of power while airborne will inevitably result in the loss of the aircraft, and they rely on quadruple-redundancy for certain systems for safety. They dismiss with a hand-wave the (very real) possibility of a complete power failure.

 

Real-world results have backed up my position. At least two of these aircraft have indeed suffered a complete loss of power, with the unsurprising result of the deaths of all on board.

[AG-51_Razor]

What about the damage boxes on this particular airframe? One hit from a bmp, your left engines down and you a goner, how will it workout?

 

The two engines are cross connected by shafting through the wings. So if one engine fails, the other continues to drive both prop/rotors.

[whiteladder]

Can't glide; can't autorotate; no ejection seats. Loss of both engines results in unsurvivable crash; bad aircraft. Do not want.

 

 

Even the most ardent supporter of the V-22 would have to admit that the design has some inherent design flaws ( huge roll inertia, vortex ring state problems) and some engineering problems ( the maintenance on them is a nightmare).

 

Having said that I don`t think that is a reason not to have it in the game.

[Echo38]

Even the most ardent supporter of the V-22 would have to admit that the design has some inherent design flaws ( huge roll inertia, vortex ring state problems) and some engineering problems ( the maintenance on them is a nightmare).

 

Many aircraft suffer from inherent design flaws, but to be held aloft exclusively by power, with no way to glide or autorotate (or even eject) in the case of loss of power, is more or less unique to this one. Most design defects in other aircraft hamper them in some way, sometimes even in the realm of safety, but not to this extreme.

 

The aircraft's own manufacturer admitted that it can't safely glide or autorotate, so I don't know why I'm getting resistance on that point. "But both engines are very unlikely to fail at the same time, so it's a non-issue," is the official position. (And yet they have, and it's killed everyone on board each time.)

 

Having said that I don`t think that is a reason not to have it in the game.

 

It's true that there's no reason to not model a poorly-designed aircraft in the sim. I don't dispute that at all. I myself have no desire to see this particular one; I loathe the design, and I've stated why.

 

If the (real) Osprey had ejection seats for all crew, and hauled only cargo instead of troops, then I could easily change my mind about the design. Other than the colossal safety issue, it's a very interesting aircraft.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Echo38

[AlphaOneSix]

Apologies. The V-22 can land just fine without engine power. It is perfectly capable of autorotating to a safe landing.

 

I am no fan of the V-22, but I have a decent grasp of its weaknesses based on numerous conversations with a coworker who flew them for the last couple of years. Vortex ring state, for example, is not a design flaw. If you get into it, it's pilot error.

 

Anyway, Like I said, I don't like the V-22, and I never have. I always thought that America's defense dollars would have been better spent elsewhere. But it is not the deathtrap that people seem convinced that it is, nor is it a "bad aircraft".

[Echo38]

The V-22 can land just fine without engine power. It is perfectly capable of autorotating to a safe landing.

 

I've seen numerous sources that dispute that, and a simple Internet search just now, using the string "V-22 autorotate autorotation," comes up with more I hadn't seen before. Time magazine is one of them. I can't access the full article, as I am not a Time subscriber, but here's a secondary referencing & quoting it: www.defenseindustrydaily.com/v-22-osprey-a-flying-shame-04822

 

No autorotation means any crash is likely to kill everyone on board. This issue was also given a fair bit of space in the TIME magazine report:

 

"The OT-IIG report's own executive summary states: 'Emergency landing after the sudden failure of both engines in the Conversion/Vertical Take-Off and Landing modes below 1,600 feet altitude are not likely to be survivable. The V-22 cannot [author emphasis] autorotate to a safe landing.'"

Here's a link to the OT-IIG report: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2005/pdf/annex/2005v -22xs.pdf

(remove the space from the link; I cannot get the link to show up properly in the post without it)

 

On the other hand, my comment about gliding ability (at least under certain conditions) may indeed be uninformed; I'm seeing various glide ratios tossed about by various sources, with a large discrepancy. As it has been several years since I last examined this issue, and I didn't save any references from then, I must concede that I do not presently have a reliable source regarding the V-22's (in)ability to glide to a safe landings.

 

The USMC seems to think that it should be able to glide to a survivable crash-landing, under good conditions (e.g. if it's already/still going fast when it loses power), but there's plenty out there to suggest that the USMC (and other invested parties) haven't been straight about the V-22. Case in point: http://www.wired.com/2012/10/air-force-silenced-general

 

Still, even in the case of the Osprey being able to safely glide when forward flight is already established (still in doubt), there's no doubt about the matter when operating in VTOL mode, at normal altitudes for that mode. When you're behaving like a helicopter, below your fixed-wing-mode stall speed (and this is necessary for takeoffs and landings), then you'd better hope your engines don't get knocked out, 'coz you aren't going to get it down in one piece in that condition.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Echo38

[whiteladder]

 

I am no fan of the V-22, but I have a decent grasp of its weaknesses based on numerous conversations with a coworker who flew them for the last couple of years. Vortex ring state, for example, is not a design flaw. If you get into it, it's pilot error.

 

 

 

The vortex rings state is not an inherent property of the design, that I will agree, but the fact that the side by side rotor layout means that it can enter the state asymmetrically is, with the associated risk of entering an unrecoverable attitude from it.

 

And although you can say that getting into it is pilot error, and procedures are in place to avoid it, when the aircraft is close to these conditions it is possible to enter an asymmetric state through roll or yaw commands. From the Global security website:

 

"Such a situation can easily be envisioned in flight conditions that place a high workload demand on the pilots; e.g., night or low visibility, system malfunctions, hostile fire, etc., should a breakdown of crew coordination or loss of situational awareness occur. Thus, the first indication the pilot may receive that he has encountered this difficulty is when the aircraft initiates an uncommanded, uncontrollable roll. "

[Echo38]

I've updated my previous post with a few significant additions. However, as of this moment, I've spent (wasted?) over an hour on this problem, and I don't feel like doing a research paper on the subject, for no significant gain, so: there's plenty out there to support (at least most of) my objections to the V-22 project's relatively low priority on personnel safety, particularly regarding the large "window" during normal operation where the aircraft is unable to safely deal with a complete lost of engine thrust. I've provided a few links, but I welcome you to examine the matter for yourself, and then decide whether you want to believe the USMC, Boeing, etc. or the whistleblowers when sources are in conflict. But even the invested parties admit that the bird isn't really able to autorotate.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Echo38