The famous, much hyped, plane-o-copter, FINALLY deployed, after over 20 years of development... And on its way to Iraq... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 5764d.html I love this jet... I remeber the Osprey was the next big thing back in the early 90's, every kid at school wanted a toy Osprey... But now it seems it has descended into obscurity, taking second stage to the Raptor and other new technology, the public seems to have lost interest in this unique bird after the instability, chip glitches and fatal crashes... It's deployment didn't even make the news... I certainly hope the Osprey proves its worth in Iraq, and reminds us why we love the damn thing
Woot. I've been waiting for the Osprey to make it into service for a long time (well it's about friggin' time!) Too bad some of the other similar aircraft didn't cut it. the CL-84 Dynavert was pretty neat (Saw the only surviving one at the Canadian Aerospace Museum a few metres form part of one of the Arrows) the whole wing tilted including the horizontal stabaliser (which followed up to 15 degrees and then returned to normal).
Just a comment re the main presenter - What a refreshingly frank and straightforward military man. Very interesting.
The CL-84 or the V-22? I used to see the CL-84 in pieces in an old hanger we had. I'm glad to see it in the museum in Ottawa. The V-22 is a very complicated piece of equipment, moreso thatn the average flying machine. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it have relaiability problems, but in the end it should be close to helicopter levels of reliability.
The Osprey has had its problems, including an unfortunate number of crashes. According to the Department of Defense, they have finally de-bugged it. We shall see. Personally, I hope they do have it ready to go, for the sake of the crews, if nothing else.
AFAIK financial backing was reinstuted by Bush &co from founds for marines with considerable oposition from their part (i belive they mentioned that armour upgrades for their humwes should have prioritiy or something to that effect).
Interestingly, I saw a "Mail Call" episode hosted by R. Lee Ermy this weekend that detailed the V-22 Osprey currently in operation with the USMC. They are in the process of trading-in the Ch-46 rotary-wing helos for the V-22. Ermy was given not one, but two rides in this interesting a/c and was quite enthusiastic. Also aired was his test-flight in a V-22 simulator. Much has been discussed concerning the teething-problems with this platform, but it appears the techology of today has enabled the problems to be overcome. It flies much more like a plane than a helo--no collective, no fighting the tendency to rotate... or counter-rotate as is the case in a helo. I'm wondering a couple-things though. Is it strictly fly-by-wire technology that makes this possible? Which is to say, is it inherently uncontrollable without computer-systems as the F-117 and F-16 aircraft? What happens when it loses an engine? Does it have the ability to slave power from one-powerplant to turn the other rotor? Or does it simply fall outta the sky like a stone, tumbling end-over-end? Still, the USMC pilots interviewed that transferred from Ch-46 helos seemed to love this a/c and it's unique capabilities. Tim
Yes there is cross-coupling between power plants. That was one of the big problems in getting it to work - having a drive shaft that ran the full length of the wingspan. Not even if both engines fail. V-22 has the ability to autorotate like a helicopter and use the airflow to turn the rotors, which when put at the right pitch will slow down the descent enough for a safe landing.
I noticed that when I saw the aforementioned episode of Mail Call. Of course, a belly landing would also be out of the question for the same reason. Of course, in this aircraft, would a belly landing really ever be necessary?
Unless there's a total power failure while and it can't raise the nacelles, I doubt it. Probably got quadruple redundant systems and a backup battery.
Should a belly landing be necessary then the props would bend or break off - look at photos of WWII fighters that landed with no undercarriage.
That makes sense. Blades are long enough they aren't pulling that much RPM. I'm not sure entirely but I think the prop disks are about ten, fifteen feet aross or so. My grandparents caught one on digital camera and it actually stopped the blade. when we were down in Oshkosh, all we could do was get a blure where the blade was on the fighters.
after all the blood and treasure , i hope they can make it work ...turbo prop speed and reliability that can land on a roof top ...thats worth doing ....