Free Dating Site    

In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that the planes be capable of autorotating (as the maneuver is called), with unpowered but spinning helicopter blades slowly letting the aircraft land safely. That decision, a top Pentagon aviation consultant wrote in a confidential 2003 report obtained by TIME, is "unconscionable" for a wartime aircraft. "When everything goes wrong, as it often does in a combat environment," he said, "autorotation is all a helicopter pilot has to save his and his passengers' lives."

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."

Indeed it does, but that doesn't make the aircraft any safer. The plane's backers said that the chance of a dual-engine failure was so rare that it shouldn't be of concern. Yet the flight manual lists a variety of things that can cause both engines to fail, including "contaminated fuel ... software malfunctions or battle damage." The lone attempted V-22 autorotation "failed miserably," according to an internal 2003 report, obtained by TIME, written by the Institute for Defense Analyses, an in-house Pentagon think tank. "The test data indicate that the aircraft would have impacted the ground at a ... fatal rate of descent."

Helicopter expert Rex Rivolo, who called the decision to deploy the V-22 without proven autorotation capability "unconscionable" in that confidential 2003 Pentagon study, declined to be interviewed. But in his report, Rivolo noted that up to 90% of the helicopters lost in the Vietnam War were in their final approach to landing when they were hit by enemy ground fire. About half of those were able to autorotate safely to the ground, "thereby saving the crews," Rivolo wrote. "Such events in V-22 would all be fatal."

Faced with killing the program — or possibly killing those aboard the V-22 — the Marines have opted to save the plane and have largely shifted responsibility for surviving such a catastrophe from the designers to the pilots. While the engineers spent years vainly trying to solve the problem, pilots aboard a stricken V-22 will have just seconds to react. But tellingly, pilots have never practiced the maneuver outside the simulator — the flight manual forbids it — and even in simulators the results have been less than reassuring. "In simulations," the flight manual warns, "the outcome of the landings varied widely due to the extreme sensitivity to pilot technique and timing." The director of the Pentagon's testing office, in a 2005 report, put it more bluntly. If power is lost when a V-22 is flying like a helicopter below 1,600 ft. (490 m), he said, emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-1,00.html

Retired General James Jones, who recently led a study into the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, is a V-22 supporter. But when he ran the Marines from 1999 to 2003, he insisted the plane be outfitted with a hefty, forward-aimed .50-cal. machine gun. "It's obviously technically feasible. We've got nose-mounted guns on [helicopter gunship] Cobras and other flying platforms, and I thought all along this one should have it too," he says.

The Marines saluted, awarding a $45 million contract in 2000 for the development of a swiveling triple-barreled .50-cal. machine gun under the V-22's nose, automatically aimed through a sight in the co-pilot's helmet. "All production aircraft will be outfitted with this defensive weapons system," the Marine colonel in charge of the program pledged in 2000. The weapon "provides the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions," the Bell-Boeing team said. But the added weight (1,000 lbs., or 450 kg) and cost ($1.5 million per V-22) ultimately pushed the gun into the indefinite future.

So 10 V-22s are going to war this month, each with just a lone, small 7.62-mm machine gun mounted on its rear ramp. The gun's rounds are about the same size as a .30-06 hunting rifle's, and it is capable of firing only where the V-22 has been — not where it's going — and only when the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered. That doesn't satisfy Jones. "I just fundamentally believe than an assault aircraft that goes into hot landing zones should have a nose-mounted gun," Jones told TIME. "I go back to my roots a little bit," the Vietnam veteran says. "I just like those kinds of airplanes to have the biggest and best gun we can get, and that to me was a requirement." He doesn't think much of the V-22's current weapon: "A rear-mounted gun is better than no gun at all, but I don't know how much better."

The Marines say combat jets or helicopter gunships will shadow V-22s flying into dangerous areas. And backers say the V-22's speed will help it elude threats. It could, for example, zip into harm's way at more than 200 m.p.h. (320 km/h), convert to helicopter mode and then land within seconds. It could pause on the ground to deliver or pick up Marines and then hustle from the landing zone. Various missile-warning systems and fire-extinguishing gear bolster its survivability. If it is hit, redundant hydraulic and flight-control systems will help keep it airborne. Finally, Marines say, if the V-22 does crash, its crumpling fuselage and collapsing seats will help cushion those on board.

- Ibid

Critics have had long-standing concerns about the poor field of view for pilots, the cramped and hot quarters for passengers and the V-22's unusually high need for maintenance. A flawed computer chip that could have led to crashes forced a V-22 grounding in February; bad switches that could have doomed the aircraft surfaced in June. In March the Government Accountability Office warned that V-22s are rolling off the production line in Amarillo, Texas, and being accepted by the Marines "with numerous deviations and waivers," including "several potentially serious defects." An internal Marine memo warned in June that serious and persistent reliability issues could "significantly" reduce the aircraft's anticipated role in Iraq. V-22s built before 2005, the report said, are fully ready to fly only 35% of the time, while newer models, like those in Iraq, are 62% ready. But "sustained high-tempo operations in [Iraq]," the memo warns, could drive down the readiness rates for the newer V-22s.

-Ibid

Probes into the deadly 2000 crashes revealed that in a rush to deploy the aircraft, the Marines had dangerously cut corners in their testing program. The number of different flight configurations — varying speed, weight and other factors — flown by test pilots to ensure safe landings was reduced by half to meet deadlines. Then only two-thirds of those curtailed flight tests were conducted. That trend continues: while a 2004 plan called for 131 hours of nighttime flight tests, the Marines managed to run only 33 on the Osprey. Why the shortcuts? Problems with a gearbox kept many V-22s and pilots grounded. That meant many pilots lacked the hours required to qualify for night flying. Similarly, sea trials were curtailed because the ship designated to assist with Osprey tests could spare only 10 of the 21 days needed.

There's also been controversy over a sandstorm test for the craft. The V-22's tendency to generate a dust storm when it lands in desert-like terrain wasn't examined because "an unusually wet spring resulted in a large amount of vegetation that prevented severe brownouts during landing attempts," the Pentagon's top tester noted. But the program continued, albeit with a caution about the aircraft's ability to fly in dusty conditions.

After the 2000 grounding, Osprey pilots were told to fly less aggressively, which critics say is the only reason no V-22 has crashed since. "They keep talking about all the things it can do, but little by little its operations are being more and more restricted," says Philip Coyle, who monitored the V-22's development as the Pentagon's top weapons tester from 1994 to 2001. The V-22 can fly safely "if used like a truck, carrying people from one safe area to another safe area," he says. "But I don't see them using it in combat situations where they will have to do a lot of maneuvering."

- Ibid

But at least one problem—vortex ring state (VRS)—can never be fixed or eliminated. And “flying around” the VRS problem by slowing the descent rate of the V-22 makes the Osprey more vulnerable than helicopters (despite claims that it is more survivable).

VRS is a fundamental technical characteristic that cannot be remedied by design changes. The only real solution is to restrict V-22 operations to avoid VRS (that is, to
descend at lower rates of speed). The specified descent rate for the V-22 to avoid VRS is
800 feet per minute (fpm) at 40 knots.Modern helicopters can descend at rates
more than twice as fast. And as one V-22 critic points out, “While that [800 fpm] would be adequate for a commercial operation, it’s far short of what the military needs—several
thousand feet per minute—during tactical insertions.”

In this respect, the V-22 might actually be more vulnerable to hostile fire
than are traditional helicopters.

ttp://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NjWKb6IvJPgJ:cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb72.pdf+The+V-22+Osprey+%2B+
protection&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=ca

The plane’s most widely cited design problem is that one of its propellers can get caught in its own turbulence as it comes in for a landing, and that can cause the V-22 to roll over and head into the ground.

For that reason, V-22 pilots are trained to steer clear of their own turbulence by rules prohibiting them from making the quick maneuvers used by helicopters to evade enemy fire. Instead, the V-22 must land at speeds as slow as nine miles an hour and in a fairly straight line.

A 2005 Pentagon report said these limitations “may prove insufficient” in protecting the V-22 from ground fire. As a result, that Pentagon evaluation said the V-22 was suited only for low- and medium-threat environments, and is not “operationally effective” in high-threat environments.

Some critics say that in the heat of battle, V-22 pilots could forget these restrictions and move in ways that could bring the craft down.

“The V-22 cannot do radical evasive maneuvers” said Lee Gaillard, author of a report critical of the V-22, “Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker” for the Center for Defense Information, which studies weapons programs. “But that’s what it will need for combat.”

The Marines defend the V-22 by saying it provides a margin of safety a helicopter cannot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/business/14osprey.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

- The Osprey has survivability features like self-sealing tanks and composite structures that will allow the airplane to take hits and keep on going. However, one of the other features of a composite fuselage is bullets don't bounce off, they pass through like a hot knife through butter. The airplane may survive an encounter with small arms fire, but Marines flying in back might not. Another prediction: Just like the Humvee, the Marines will "up-armor" V-22s in time. They didn't do it to date because that would've kept the airplane from attaining its Key Performance Parameters (payload, range, etc.) during OPEVAL.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_tactical_development.html

Pentagon reports also say the V-22 is too cramped for the 24 marines it can carry. The marines are so packed into the windowless cabin that they can become airsick, their legs can grow numb and leaving the plane quickly is difficult.

There is no bathroom on board and marines have criticized the “piddle packs” they are to use as insufficient. And, there is no place on board to store them once they are full.

V-22 downdraft is so strong, and moves in so many directions that it can create “brownout” conditions, making it difficult for pilots to see and potentially knocking down marines on the ground.

As a result, when rope ladders are used, the V-22 must hover at higher altitudes, making marines more vulnerable to fire.

In preparation for deployment, the Pentagon ran tests last year in the New Mexico desert, similar to the climate of Iraq. In January, the Pentagon wrote about frequent failures with various parts and systems. The reason: “Extended exposure to the desert operating environment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/business/14osprey.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

or will al qeada and O sama Bin Laden lobby the U.S.government and other governments to produce the osprey in greater numbers

I would like to see the proof that the Osprey has killed more than 3000 Americans, if you can provide it for me.....

I agree, the Osprey may suck, but it hasn't killed that many people.

Bell opened a new $40 million V-22 Osprey plant in Amarillo, Texas, in November 2000. The town had offered millions in incentives to lure the plant, which was supported by the state's congressmen. The new plant was not unionized, unlike Bell's other plants in Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie. Bell also devoted about a third of its 6,300 Texas workers to making parts for the tiltrotor aircraft.

By the middle of 2001, Bell had received a handful of orders for its civil Model 609 tiltrotor aircraft--though no prototype had yet been built--and remained optimistic about prospects for the V-22, of which 14 had been delivered. Tiltrotors accounted for $432 million of Bell's 2000 revenues. "We're going to change the way people fly," was the catchphrase of new Bell Helicopter president John Murphey. Indeed, under development was an even larger version of the V-22 known as the Quad Tiltrotor, designed to carry six times the payload of the Osprey.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/21/Bell-Helicopter-Textron-Inc.html

Bright Outlook in 2006

Revenues rose 15 percent in 2005 to EUR 3.2 billion. Eurocopter Spain was added during the year as the company's third "pillar." Highlights of the year included the delivery of the first U.S.-made AS350.

A number of booming markets buoyed Eurocopter's fortunes and prospects for 2006 and beyond. The overall U.S. helicopter market was having a record sales year as high oil prices prompted new investment in offshore oil exploration. There was also a need to replace the aging fleet; an official told Interavia that 60 percent of its aircraft in service offshore were more than 20 years old. There were also a great number of 1980s-era rescue choppers coming due for replacement.

Asia and Eastern Europe were a growing source of sales. According to Interavia, although China purchased fewer than ten helicopters a year, Eurocopter was expecting the country to become as large a consumer as the United States, which bought ten times as many, by 2015.

Eurocopter was developing an intermediate (six-ton) aircraft, the EC175, to accommodate increasing use of highly automated oilfields popping up further and further from shore. The company was joined in this project by China's Avic II. Deliveries were expected to begin in 2011.

Eurocopter continued its domination of the civil helicopter market, claiming a 52 percent market share by unit sales. It was the leader in several important countries, including the United States and Japan. In 2006 it was preparing to launch a subsidiary in China, where it had been working with local firms for decades. The company also had a long history with in another emerging market, India.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/30/Eurocopter-S-A.html

Q You refuse to buy market share by selling products at a discount?

A That’s correct. Now that brings us to tiltrotors. The V-22 and the BA609 represent product-differentiating technology. They pull us away from the competition. When you’re in a mature industry and that industry has bumped up against limits of growth, you reinvent the market with products like the tiltrotor. Then you can start charging a premium and average the whole company out to decent margins.

Q As a consequence of the fatal MV-22 crash in December, the V-22 military tiltrotor program is coming under tough scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Is the program in political trouble?

A I don’t think the program is in trouble at all. It’s tragic anytime you have an accident. But it’s not uncommon for these things to occur in a military program. The fact is, the reliability of the V-22 at this stage in its development is probably the best of any modern weapons system.

If you figure out who the loudest critics are, they’re not concerned about the V-22. They’re not concerned about the families. They’re concerned about getting their hands on funding for their own weapons system. But the Marine Corps is firmly behind the program. Meanwhile, our business strategy is to continue to demonstrate value by using fielded product.

http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0201&file=0201bell.htm

Sunday September 26, 1999
Osprey 's big cousin excites Pentagon

WASHINGTON ( Site-Telegram, Michael D. Towle ) - Last autumn, a few weeks after terrorist bombs killed 224 people at two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Pentagon planners put a question to Bell Helicopter Textron.

Could the producers of the V-22 Osprey design a tilt-rotor aircraft big enough to evacuate an embassy's staff or ferry in American troops if U.S. officials believed an attack was imminent?

The answer is the Bell Quad Tiltrotor, an aircraft developed quietly by Bell engineers over the past year. It is designed to carry nearly 100 passengers, and could be used to carry embassy personnel out of harm's way or bring in troops to protect U.S. interests.

The Quad Tiltrotor, which has captured the attention of such top commanders as Gen. James Jones, the Marine Corps commandant, would be the size of a small cargo plane, such as Lockheed Martin's C-130 Hercules. It would have two sets of wings, each equipped with two tilting rotors, and would not need a runway for landing or takeoff.

Industry analysts estimate that the cost of a single Quad Tiltrotor could be $100 million.

Like the smaller V-22 Osprey, being built as a small transport for the Marines, the Quad Tiltrotor would be able to take off, hover or land like a helicopter. But by tilting the rotors forward, the aircraft would cruise like a turboprop plane.

The Quad Tiltrotor could carry not only people; it could also transport military gear to remote locations without airfields, enabling the Marine Corps or Army to position forces much more quickly than they can now. The aircraft would have a maximum range of 2,000 miles round trip and be able to cruise at 350 mph or more.

The Quad Tiltrotor would have six times the cargo capacity of the V-22 and be able to carry up to 40,000 pounds of cargo. That means it could haul Humvees, howitzers or even helicopters into battle.

"It just seems like the right airplane at the right time," said****Spivey, Bell's director of tilt-rotor business development.

Added Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Va., company that follows defense programs: "The V-22 is a great over-the-horizon assault vehicle, but it really doesn't carry a whole lot. What they really need is a big, big aircraft that can carry troops and a howitzer."

A squadron of just six Quad Tiltrotors, for example, could land with 400 or more troops and a substantial amount of equipment, enabling U.S. forces to secure a facility or launch an attack.

Defense analysts and Pentagon brass say such an aircraft could be useful in the post-Cold War world, in which the main threats are expected to come from rogue nations and terrorists.

None of the military services has proposed building the Quad Tiltrotor, but Bell says that if the word comes, it could have a demonstrator aircraft flying by 2004 and a production version available by 2010.

The Pentagon now envisions for its transport needs what is called the joint transport rotorcraft, a multiservice heavy-lift helicopter. But some officials say the Quad Tiltrotor should be a viable candidate.

Bell officials say more than half of the work needed to develop and build the Quad Tiltrotor has already been done for the V-22.

"About 52 percent of a V-22 could be moved to the Quad Tiltrotor," Spivey said. He added that most of the technology used in the V-22's rotors and wings and in its****it electronics could be transferred to the Quad Tiltrotor.

"It would be a low-risk, low cost, quick program," Spivey said. "This is a good time to do this. We are working the Bell 609 [a small, commercial tilt-rotor] and the V-22 and we have a lot of folks here who understand the tilt-rotor very well and it would be an excellent program to charge into here. We think it makes a lot of sense and we are getting a lot of support."

http://www.helis.com/news/1999/v22big.htm

September 24, 2005 The team of Bell Helicopter and Boeing has been awarded a $3.45 million contract by the U.S. Army to perform conceptual design and analysis of its Quad TiltRotor (QTR) aircraft for the Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) Program. "The Bell Boeing team is exceptionally pleased to have been one of the teams chosen by the Joint Service Team to take the first step in providing a truly transformational vertical lift cargo aircraft," said Mike Redenbaugh, chief executive officer of Bell Helicopter. "The critical need for long range, high speed, heavy lift without access to runways is being highlighted around the world every day."

"We view this as an important first step toward defining the next generation of high-speed, heavy-lift rotorcraft," said Ron Prosser, Boeing Phantom Works vice president and general manager of Integrated Defense Advanced Systems. "This Bell Boeing effort is a great opportunity to demonstrate the utility of cutting edge technology in meeting joint service needs."

Bell Boeing's QTR is an evolutionary application of its tiltrotor technology utilized in the V-22 Osprey. The QTR is a tandem-wing, four-proprotor aircraft with a large cargo fuselage and a rear-loading ramp. Four turboshaft engines, each mounted in one of four tilting wingtip nacelles, power the proprotors through interconnected transmissions for redundancy.

The QTR design will be sized, refined and analyzed over the next 18 months to determine program requirements and feasibility of further development. Bell Helicopter , a subsidiary of Textron Inc., is a leading producer of commercial and military helicopters and the pioneer of the revolutionary tiltrotor aircraft.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4645/

Wind Tunnel Testing Completed on Bell Boeing Quad Tiltrotor

Langley AFB, Virginia, USA ( Bell Helicopters Press Release ) - Wind tunnel testing for the Bell Boeing Quad Tiltrotor model (QTR) was completed today at the NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). Installation of the 1/5th scale model into the sophisticated and unique TDT facility began June 27, 2006, with test operations conducted by Bell, NASA and U.S. Army Research Laboratory personnel.

http://www.helis.com/news/2006/quadwindtunnel.htm

They named it after the wrong bird.

It should be called "Sitting Duck."

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

Features
A combination of sensor capability, integrated avionics, situational awareness, and weapons provides first-kill opportunity against threats. The F-22A possesses a sophisticated sensor suite allowing the pilot to track, identify, shoot and kill air-to-air threats before being detected. Significant advances in****it design and sensor fusion improve the pilot's situational awareness. In the air-to-air configuration the Raptor carries six AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two AIM-9 Sidewinders.

The F-22A has a significant capability to attack surface targets. In the air-to-ground configuration the aircraft can carry two 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally and will use on-board avionics for navigation and weapons delivery support. In the future air-to-ground capability will be enhanced with the addition of an upgraded radar and up to eight small diameter bombs. The Raptor will also carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s in the air-to-ground configuration.

Advances in low-observable technologies provide significantly improved survivability and lethality against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. The F-22A brings stealth into the day, enabling it to not only protect itself but other assets.

here, a quick review:
Armament: One M61A2 20-millimeter cannon with 480 rounds, internal side weapon bays carriage of two AIM-9 infrared (heat seeking) air-to-air missiles and internal main weapon bays carriage of six AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-air loadout) or two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAMs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-ground loadout)

Many of the "plus" arguments for it's combat role are due to the fact it's been set up to look that way. By not heavily armoring it, and not having even a basic in air defense system that can be used against a ground threat, great weight has been saved. That savings allows the range and speed of the craft to be artificially high. By rushing the test phrase through important things like various flight profiles and landings (especially in dust/sand) the possibility is lost to examine the chances of additional failures.

It would seem to me that one could design a helicopter that could meet the requirements (except for the air speed aspect) far more efficiently. That design has proven it's worth.