What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?

[Dan Reno]

Well, gosh darn ! There you have it ! Proof positive the V-22 is God’s Gift to most of the military’s air requirements. Who would have known!

[jeffg]

Nobody said it was Dan. People are just pointing out that what you and FH believe to be 'flaws in this POS' are no different than the flaws that exist in any other aircraft. I challenge you to evaluate your beloved 53E and the K that you think will be great with the same critical eye that evaluate the V-22 with. As Gregg pointed out, if you were to use FHs standards the 53E should be grounded, because it's obviously not capable of maneuvering in combat because it is 'limited to a pathetic' +0.5 to +2.0gs, even a civillian Bell 47 is better than that! Either that or FH is just wrong. It can't be both.
As far as rehashing the many questions asked you don't have to. Just because you like to post on pprune a lot does not make you an expert.
How about this, instead of acting like a spoiled brat with you smarta$$ replies why don't you add someting useful to the conversation.

[henra]

But in either airplane or helicopter mode, the V-22 has lower manuevering load limits than any other civilian aircraft, including lowly Bell 47.

This is where I stopped reading the post.

How can anyone who pretends to have any knowledge of helicopters can claim a Bell 47 to do a -0.5 g maneuver ???? (Ok- it will do it exactly once ). And even the +2,0g is purely theoretical. With its power margin the B-47 will shed its RRPM within seconds when doing a 2,0g maneuver.

The same applies for the Helicopter which gave FH1100 his name. -0,5g:
The crash investigators will have to search for the cabin, the tail and the rotor in different locations....

Regarding all civil helicopters being able to do the +3,5g / -1,0 g:
The number of helicopter type actually capable of this will be surely single digt - low single digit for that matter.
The same applies for 'normal' aircraft. Military transport aircraft are usually limited to max 3,0g and 2,25 - 2,5g with limit load.
So compared to that the V-22 seems to be in line to me.

Agreed the V-22's numbers purported here don't knock me out of my shoes if they are true, but the question is also if these are 'hard' structural limits or risk avoiding operational limits?

Yes this thing is expensive. (maybe even exceedingly expensive), yes the relatively low availability/high maintenance is not really something to brag about either.
But such obviously unprofessional eruptions of hatred don't make an impressive argumentation.

[henra]

A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter. Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g

That coming from a pilot of a 206 worries me !!!!

With that teetering rotor you do NOT want to put it even to 0g !
Please do not try this at home !!
-1 g means flying on its back. Even the fabulous Bo105 is not able/allowed to do this.
You do not want to compare your B206 to a Bo105, do you ?

Okay Jeff, how does 337.(b)(1) and (2) - since they both must apply - let the makers of a Bell 206 off the hook for meeting 337(a)?

All the 2-blade Bell's and legacy Robbies are certified to old grandfathered regulations where no g limits were stated.

Do you really understand what negative g's means ?

[jeffg]

Do you really understand what negative g's means ?

Excellent point. Most RW pilots grossly over estimate the amount of g they put on an aircraft. Nor do they realize how hard and uncomfortable it is to attain -g. Most will swear that they have attained -gs but in reality have not even reached +.5 g.

[Dan Reno]

jeffg

Gee, another V-22 name caller. Why are so many V-22 folks name callers? I shouldn't complain, at least I didn't get a death treat like one V-22 worshipper wished upon a V-22 non-worshper.

I've been bringing V-22 issues to this thread since 2008 and have seen a lot of "Johnny Come Latelys" come and go with no REAL answers either.

I've already said this is "God's answer", so I would assume you'd be happy so many agree with you...unless you also get the jitters in or around it.

Again, it is sooooooooooooooooo fantastic! Jeez.

[BoomOpCT]

After reading Dan Reno's last post, I no longer feel the need to post on this topic with him or FH.

Both Dan and FH have pointedly been asked for a few simple answers. Answers that aren't even difficult, simple "what would be acceptable" and "are you knowledgeble on military aircraft" questions. They can't even answer those easy and DIRECT questions.

What they CAN do is avoid the question and reply with "if you tell us, you have to kill us", "conspiracy", "gag-order", and now the most intelligent reply of all "your a bunch of name callers."

According to FH's own stipulations against the V-22's limits...the other aircraft he suggests to replace the V-22, aren't even good enough to fly. BY HIS OWN ARGUMENT none-the-less.

Dan's last three posts were "God and Angels Wept", "Amen to that", and some mocking statements about how "swell" the V-22 must be.

That is the calibur of people we are arguing with.

Oh, and Dan and FH, just to call you both out a little further on two things:

1. "If you tell us, you have to kill us" - Stop using this as a cop out when you can't argue back. You know why we can't post information from our manuals and tactics publications. So does every other military person out there and so do 90% of americans. It's simple: You armchair detctives aren't the only ones snooping around these sites. And quite frankly, even if one us DID decide to break opsec and post sensitive information that could possibly exploit weakness/intel to the enemy...you wouldn't believe it anyways. You'd probably accusing of doctoring it or lying. So next time someone corner's you with facts or proves you wrong...quit using this as an excuse or way to avoid being wrong.

2. "That other osprey guy threatened me, boo-hoo" - You can quit milking this too. Once again, every time you get proven wrong or are afraid to answer a DIRECT question...you bring this up. Which by the way, I read that post and you deliberately are twisting that into something it's not...just like you do with NATOPS information I'm sure. Fact: You used your infamous line by saying "but I suppose you won't answer that, because if you did you'd have to kill me." to which MckPave then ANSWERED your question and THEN added as SMART ASS follow up, that now that he'd told you, he'd have to kill you. It was a joke. A smart-ass joke. And you know it. But because you like to twist things and make them what they are not, you are playing it up for all it's worth. And why did you do it? Because he answered your question, proved you wrong, and you had no rebuttal.

I strongly suggest anyone who gets either response above instantly assume that what they really mean is "I don't know the answer" or "Crap, you just proved me wrong"

These guys don't know a lick about the Osprey (or the standards of military aircraft/mission parameters) and have no basis on which to damn the program. Thier logic of the PILOTS having no credentials is load of bull and everyone talking to them on here is wasting thier time. The only reason shooting them down again and again is even remotely worthwhile is the fact that it helps alleviate the misiniformation and public slander they have filled this thread with.

That's it, that's all I have to say. At least to Dan and FH. I don't have time to waste on a couple of conspiracy theorists. I will be happy to discuss this with everyone else posting however.

[BoomOpCT]

Gregg, good post man. I agree with you completely. You can't just take data from a flight manual, read a single bullet out of context, and try to judge an entire airframe's ability as a combat aircraft.

[Dan Reno]

BoomOPCt

Looks like that referenced article was pulled right after the latest V-22 crash. I wonder why.

Have there been more compressor stalls and at the most inopurtune times? It that info classified? Anyone....anyone?

Here's another reference you can try:

http://www.allbusiness.com/defense-aerospace/aerospace-industry-military/14639637-1.html

[jeffg]

thank you for proving my point

Wow, A V-22 had a compressor stall 4 and a half years ago. That's damning evidence. Or is that all you've got Dan? I'm sure no other aircraft has ever had one. Oh wait, it's an E.P. in every flight manual there is. In fact I've had several in multiple airframes with engines made by different manufacturers.

Yet another useless and irrelevant post by Dan. But I'm just a "johnny come lately" and no V-22 posting expert like Dan the secret agent man. See Dan, I have read your previous post and despite what you claim it's obvious that you've never been behind the controls of an aircraft in your life!

[Shawn Coyle]

There's a big difference between the design loads and the flight limitations. The structure has to be designed for those loads, but it doesn't mean the aircraft is going to be subjected to them in flight.
The wing on a 747 is designed for 150% of maximum flight load, doesn't mean it ever gets there.

And the Bell 206 was designed and certified under CAR 6, not Part 27.

[Dan Reno]

jeffg

Are you going to answer the question?

[jeffg]

Dan if your question is whether or not a V-22 has a compressor failureI honestly can't tell you. I'm not V-22 pilot nor am I in the community nor am I active duty anymore. Common sense would tell me the answer is probably yes. It would also tell me that in the last 4.5 years a 53 had a compressor stall. As I'm sure a Cobra, a 60,47,46 etc have. Your argument is only relevant if NO other aircraft has EVER had a compressor stall. If that's not the case then who cares? Why do you insist on blowing it out of proportion? There I answered your question the best I could. Your turn. Since FH is unable to answer the questions I asked why don't you? Or simply answer the question of whether or not you are a pilot.

[Dan Reno]

jeffg

This is the V-22 thread and if the prime contractor is saying compressor stalls are "Very normal not only in military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft" then the entire program has been at serious risk right from the 'get-go' through gross incompetence.

The V-22 engine is such a POS that Rolls Royce renigged on the 'Power Per Hour' program that got their POS engine picked in the first place.

Using this very important engine information from such a prime aircraft contractor, your tanker's engines should be experiencing compressor stalls also as it is 'very normal. (Heard any lately?)

And now we have an inkling that one or both engines may have caused the latest crash. That's why this question is important.

So we need someone (other than a tanker type) with V-22 experience to answer my questions.

BTW, my current and past flight status is confidential information, but suffice to say I've been shot at quite a few times in RVN while above the ground and been fortunate enough to never have been disgraced with a NVA Sharp Shooters award.

Again, any answers from V-22 types out there on the crummy V-22 engines?

Hey! Wait a minute! You already know all this! You said you read all prior posts! What are you doing here then? Stirring up sh*t? Nothing for you to see here, "Move along pal"

[jeffg]

Dan I think that was one of funniest post I've ever read. Thank you for the laugh.

This is the V-22 thread and if the prime contractor is saying compressor stalls are "Very normal not only in military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft" then the entire program has been at serious risk right from the 'get-go' through gross incompetence

-Come on Dan. Even you know this was meant for the general public who has no idea what a compressor stall is much less the severity. You know darn well (maybe you don't) that he wasn't trying to say this happens all the time. Be serious.

So we need someone (other than a tanker type) with V-22 experience to answer my questions.

-By the way I think your alzheimer's is catching up to you, I'm not a tanker guy nor ever said I was. That's Boomops. So now only V-22 guys can answer question on this board? Would not the inverse then be true and only V-22 guys can ask questions?

And now we have an inkling that one or both engines may have caused the latest crash. That's why this question is important

-No you don't and you shouldn't speculate.

Hey! Wait a minute! You already know all this! You said you read all prior posts! What are you doing here then? Stirring up sh*t? Nothing for you to see here, "Move along pal"

-Correct me if I'm wrong didn't you bring this subject up? Didn't you ask me specifically for an answer? It must be that alzheimer's again.

BTW, my current and past flight status is confidential information, but suffice to say I've been shot at quite a few times in RVN while above the ground and been fortunate enough to never have been disgraced with a NVA Sharp Shooters award.

-Seriously! Even if that were true you could tell us what you do. Where you were, who you worked/work for and the mission you do might condfidential but what you do is not. Like I am a pilot or I am a crew chief. Saying just that Dan 'the secret agent man' is not confidential. Wait a miniute! If what you do is/was confidential then that would mean you understood the principle of privileged information. If you understood that then you wouldn't be asking Mckpave and others to reveal confidential information on here, would you? In fact when they don't you accuse them of hiding something. So using your logic I can only assume that since you are hiding behind the veil of confidentiality it can only mean that you are completely unqualified to be asking questions on here.
Oh, riding in the back, while I might respect you for it does not make you a pilot. Simple question Secret agent man. Are you a pilot?

[Dan Reno]

jeffg

If that was funny to you, you need to get out more.

If the Europeon & American Press are not supposed to believe a Bell spokesman about the V-22, then who?

Boomops? Have not clue what that is but the AF is notorious for having a specialty for most everything. If you are qualified to answer questions about the V-22 then have at it but don't bad talk the Bell spokesman then.

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.

Yes, but I didn't have to since you lied when you said you read all prior posts.

Words mean something and I think you are a very lonely person with too much time on his / her hands. Come back when you grow up.

[jeffg]

Boomopct is the poster who is the tanker guy. I should have made that more clear.
By the way if someone really has a confidential job and can't tell anyone about it should they be on a public forum posting to the world 'I can't tell you what I do because it's confidential'. Using their first and last name none the less Doesn't that defeat the purpose? or are you really Dan Reno?

Back to the v22 Dan. Why are you avoiding the questions? They were very easy especially for someone with your supposed expertise.

I don't recall attacking the Bell spokesman, only pointing out that you shouldn't take things so literally.

[jeffg]

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.

Actually there were two reports. The one with the better set of data, as any former military pilot would know, found no indication of an engine problem. If I recall that General stated so publicly. Why do you discount that report? Simply because you don't like the answer. Why don't you talk to that General? Until you see that report you have no idea what happened. So any conclusion you come to is just a guess and not fact.

[grumpytroll]

its the song...

This is the song that never ends...
yes it goes on and on my friends.
Someone started singing it not knowing what it was,
and then they kept on singing it forever just because

This is the song that never ends....

[SansAnhedral]

Again, didn't you read the accident report? Talk to the General about the engines.

Dan, so was my reading of the report correct in that the evidence for possible engine degradation came solely from Nr determination from video analysis of IR feeds from A10s at 10,000ft? In addition to proprotor divots in loose sand post impact? Through all the interviews with pax/crew, there was no mention of abnormal sounds/smell/vibration. The repeated statements heavily reiterated that the approach was made much too fast (over 2x acceptable approach speed as close as 1nm).

I agree with the Air Force, this is hardly conclusive enough to finger engine issues as the cause of the incident.