WT Forums

Not to mention that most conventional helos put that missle attracting heat source right at the heads of the beloved crew stowed inside. In a conventional helo any hard landing ( auto-rotation will only happen if the engine goes dead, if the motor is damaged the tranny will most likely be damaged too) will be quickly followed by the transmition/engine package crashing right into the crew compartment. With Opsprey the engines obviously are nowhere near the crew.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Guess we'll never really know until they get into a hot AOR.

The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security.
Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>hehehe I agree on all counts... I was just stiring the pot >:)

As far as the Osprey goes (aside from the large number of troops) I definetly dislike its (poor) chances of a first hit survival... A stinger or Strela hiting one of the engine nacelles will
A. Blow the engine
B. Probly blow the gear changing crap that would allow the other engine to power that prop.
C. Snap role to the damage side and auger in. very poor chances for the guys in side.

In all honesty I'd rather be in a Chinook, and much rather be in a 60...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm not understanding this. The heat soure that becomes the target is right in the heart of the machinery. Why wouldn't this happen to a Chinook if hit by a MANPAD?
A. Blow an engine
B. Damage controls to the rear rotor, or the rotor blades at the root
C. Possibly blow the gear changing crap (transmission, cross shafting?) that powers the front rotor
D. pitch/roll out of control

Or this to a Blackhawk?
A. Blow an engine
B. Damage the transmission
C. Damage the rotor controls and blade root structure
D. Pitch/roll out of control

None of these machines seems to have a chance without countermeasures.



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I grant I'm not in any way an engineer and the facts would probly dictate death either way but... on a base level I would prefer a flat drop (which is what happens to a chinook that loses a rotor), over a rolling crash. Either way I'm an MP we don't get to ride around in helo's to much and I'm not Marine/AF/Navy so I don't really have a "personal" stake in it either.

"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up"
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/jollyrogerspaintball/cup.gif" border=0>

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

<b>"I don't know why "autorotation" is such a holy grail. Helicopters have a low and slow dead man's zone anyway, and I'm betting the heavier the machine, the bigger the dead man's zone envelope."</b>

Because, well, dying sucks.

<b>"CH-46s and 47s have 10s of feet of unarmored shafting too."</b>

They're also 40 and 30 yo designs, and the 47 was never intended to have a direct assault role.

<b>All of a sudden this is unacceptable practice?</b>

It's never been acceptable for an aircraft with a direct combat role as far as im concerned.


<b>The "final approach" for a V-22 should not look anything like a helicopter approach. They should come in like airplanes do in a nice echelon with a fast downwind leg, a snappy break, gear extension, fast deceleration/transition to a vertical landing.</b>

That's not how air assaults are conducted. They are treetop level affairs where the birds approach at max throttle at very low altitude and then flare into a maximum descent landing as soon as they enter the LZ area.

<b>This Apocalypse Now description of assault is not happening for me. Why would they do that?</b>

Because it's how it's done.

<b>Compared to any helicopter, the V-22 will feel like a get-up-and-go rocketship, yanking and banking, accelerating/decelerating at will, especially at mid mission weights.</b>

Compared to 'any' helicopter? You mean like a Commanche? Or a Lynx? Or an OH-6? There are helos that are 95% as fast as the Osprey(251mph in a Lynx) but with 1/4 the mass that would fly RINGS around an MV-22.

And seriously, when you've got a cargo hold full of troops you cant be playing bloody red baron anyway, you're liable to kill them yourself.

<b>Once the pilots fly this thing, they will not like helicopters any more, like P-80 pilots would never go back to the P-51.</b>

Except that as a whole, it is in no way better for the MISSION of an combat transport helicopter.

<b>The Sierra Hotel performance is worth the added risk, if any. Try it, you'll like it.</b>

It's an EXTREMELY VULNERABLE and VASTLY OVERPRICED cockroach, i'd cancel it right now if i had the authority.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<b>"Not to mention that most conventional helos put that missle attracting heat source right at the heads of the beloved crew stowed inside. In a conventional helo any hard landing ( auto-rotation will only happen if the engine goes dead, if the motor is damaged the tranny will most likely be damaged too) will be quickly followed by the transmition/engine package crashing right into the crew compartment. With Opsprey the engines obviously are nowhere near the crew."</b>

To attempt to portray the Osprey as being safer than a blackhawk in a crash is IMO an outrageous statement.

There are THOUSANDS of Vietnam veterans in the world today that wouldnt be if the UH-1 couldnt autorotate.

The capacity to autorotate is a CRITICAL life saving skill.

As far as UH-60 vs Osprey, Osprey is MUCH MUCH larger, ESPECIALLY from the frontal aspect.........it is a much easier target to hit to begin with. And when it goes down, it takes twice as many men to their demise(flipped on it's back) And to boot, it doesnt even have side firing machine guns so can provide zero suppressing fire.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<b>An LAV-25? I don't see why that is relevant.</b>

It's a tremendously useful capability that can be performed by the Ospreys closest direct US competitor, the CH53- an aircraft that costs a FRACTION of the price but that has VASTLY more lift capability and in a package that is significantly more survivable.

<b>Of course the V-22 can ingress/egress with more speed than any helicopter (unless you force them to use helicopter tactics that are silly for them).</b>

A) In reality, no, it really can't. The actual MISSION time in an Osprey vs a CH53 to 50nm is SLOWER. And there is no such thing as 'helicopter tactics', they are air assault tactics. The reason the ops are almost ALWAYS low level is because you are exposed to FAR less AAA/SAM systems due to LOS restrictions and because you are a lot harder to pick up on radar.(Unless having a couple SU27s jump your formation seems like a pleasant thought to ya, lol)

And say, what if you'd like to provide an AH-1 escort for your Air Assault package as is so often the case. Well....now your cruising speed is the same as the helicopters.

The Osprey cant even provide suppressing fire in or approaching/egressing the LZ. WOW......now there's a brilliant fucking idea some asshat came up with.

<b> It can also accelerate from hover, and decelerate to hover, faster.</b>

Ah, but not if it is descending- or here comes Mr.VRS to kill every fukking guy on the tub.

In reality a helo has a much greater fwd descent rate than Osprey.

<b>Why are real world ops now at low altitude?</b>

See above.

<b>Is it because helicopters can not climb, or are not fast enough to take advantage of higher altitude?</b>

Its because high altitude for an air assault aircraft formation is SUICIDE if there are high performance SAMs or even the most obsolete of enemy fighters around.

Repeat: SUICIDE.

I can not stress this enough, so again i repeat:

SUICIDE.

And you keep mentioning the speed as if its some great defensive aid. COmpared to an Osprey, an A10 is a SPEED DEMON, so the Ospreys speed is actually no aid at all. Aircraft that slow- like helos- must use low altitude terrain masking and NOE for cover, or they're DEAD.

<b>The cabin size argument is boring to me since that was hammered out before the first line went on the paper. </b>

Boring or not it's those kinds of things that make a huge difference in the real world.

<b>All things being equal, I would like the extra space too, but the extra space costs you performance, and that is the whole reason for this machine.</b>

There is no reason for this machine.

<b>If you force a V-22 to compete with a helicopter where the helicopter is optimized,</b>

Tis not my fault they're trying to shoehorn it into THE classical Helicopter role.

<b> the V-22 will not look worth the money.</b>

It's not worth the money. There is no need for additional qualifiers.

It is simply not worth the money.

<b> It looks competitive though, just not better.</b>

It looks like an extremely vulnerable deathtrap to me.

That also happens to cost 107 million dollars a copy.

<b>Critics must say that the higher speed, longer range, rolling takeoff overload features and other tiltrotor fallouts are not useful (or non existent) in order to argue scrapping it.</b>

You mean BESIDES it costing 107 million a pop?

And i will address those:
1) The speed differential at low alt where REAL AIR ASSAULTS OCCUR is far less pronounced. If you want to escort it with gunships, there is no speed difference, and supposedly it takes a lot longer to load so MISSION time is actually slower as long as the range to target is about 100 miles or less.
2)It does not have longer range than contemporary helicopters like the Sea Stallion, which because of it's boom has virtually limitless range.
3) Rolling take off on an LSD deck packed full of Ospreys how? And if you keep the deck largely clear to roll them off then the air assault packages takeoff evolution will take that much longer, so you end up wasting time instead of saving it.

<b>I have not found that these arguments are persuasive. </b>

It boggles the mind.

<b>The only criticism that has any merit is the cost one, but any alternative to V-22 rate production is going to cost more money and time.</b>

I absolutely 100% disagree witht that contention, based in no small part on the FACT that MH60s will perform the job with complete satisfaction when combined with the existing CH53 fleet.

Osprey is a bill of goods, nose to tail and rotor tip to rotor tip.

The single biggest pork project in DoD history IMO(38.1 bn bucks for a bird that does nothing we need done).

It sickens me.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

_________________
????

_________________
????

<b>"Be careful who you call a liar. There are credible heavyweights contradicting the Colonel."</b>

Who, where?

<b> He is a contrarian allright, but he is guilty of the very "spinning" sin he accuses others of in his own article. As one for instance, I think he warns that speed comparisons can be decieving and normal operational are what really matters. He stated that 220 knots is the cruise speed for the V-22 at sea level. I thought it was 240, but maybe that was at a higher altitude. Anyway, I am already suspicious because he is deliberatly penalizing the V-22 for some reason by insisting on a sea level comparison.</b>

ALL air assault operations are low lever affairs. At least, every one of the 50 or so i've been involved in(about 95% of which were training missions)were.

Low level exclusively.

You go flitting about at 10k feet and some jackass pops an old SA-6 off at you in an Osprey you might as well just pull out your sidearm and pop a cap in your own head.

<b>Then I see why. He also said that the helicopter cruise speed regime is 150-180 knots, which is about 20 knots high, I reckon (and so does he, wink wink).</b>

Blackhawk has a 140mph cruise speed(my half-sister was a UH60 pilot).

<b> He leaves the reader to deduce, erroneously, that 220 knots is an insignificant advantage to 180, (but even that is significant if you ask me). It is the best spin he can muster to whittle away at the V-22 advantages.</b>

IMO it is completely insignificant as a defensive aid, and any transit speed advantadge is going to be lost by the supposedly much longer loading times and much lower mission readiness rate. I've seen a LOT of reports that state Osprey is a big-time hangar queen.

<b> He talks about the aircraft not being able to meet many of its key performance parameters in the OPEVAL, but fails to mention that the ones in question were all related to reliability and maintenance, not aircraft performance (all of them were met).</b>

Reliability and maintenance isnt a HUGE issue? Didnt the greatest naval aviation fighter EVER just get retired well before it's time for that very reason?

And the only reason it 'met' its performance goals was because they were rewritten, some of them more than once.

<b> And that comment that the KPPs are set at a level that is expected to be easily met. Huh? First of all, that is a deliberate deception, they are key performance parameters because of their importance and expected difficulty. Some are more diffcult than others, for sure. He really put that editorial comment in there for the reinforcing effect it had to his argument. He is going for emotional quick decisions, i.e. "look they can't even do the easy stuff, no wonder this thing crashes".</b>

I really wouldnt know, so will take your word for it.

<b>He makes a misleading comment about altitude capability being useless because "mammilian cargo" can't live up there. Well, they do need to have some breathing O2 gear, but it is a common occurrence. Also, this thing is a trash hauler, and the cargo could be non mammilian, with only the crew on O2. He lets the reader deduce that altitude and speed are useless. He needs to do that. He's whittling.</b>

Hey, most of the time there will be 18 marines in there, and they do need O2. Is there even an O2 system in the back capable of handling 18 masks? I dont think there is. They sure as hell dont issue that sort of thing to Marine grunts, so that right there tells me no one is intending AT ALL to operate Osprey at high altitude in the assault role.(thank effing god)

<b>I saw what has to be a typo in one of the footnotes (# 27)where it says that V-22s were available for the Iranian hostage mission (Eagle Claw)but weren't used because of safety concerns. Maybe it was put in inadvertently, because it does not match the subject of the reference paragraph. I feel like whittling his arguments down by pointing out this inconsequential error. Anyhow, I read one of the reports that he labled a pack of lies, and these guys seem pretty rational to me. The panel of experts writing this report had full access to any data they wanted, in contrast to the Colonel, who gets no cooperation at all. This is a five year old report and it answers everything that the Colonel criticizes.</b>

It cant answer everything because there are no fixes for some of the Ospreys problems. There is no 'cure' for it's tendency to crash when a certain approach/descent rate is surpassed(a threshold that is much higher in helos), there is no cure for a 46 foot wingspan(ie forget small LZ ops), there is no cure for Cat5 rotorwash, there is no cure for the utter lack of armor, there is no cure for it's inability to autorotate, there is no cure to the lack of sidefiring guns(no LOS because of the wings so even if you mounted them they'd be useless).

Fortunately, there is a cure for Ospreys single greatest flaw, it's price.

The cure?

Cancel it...

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<b>"Not to mention that most conventional helos put that missle attracting heat source right at the heads of the beloved crew stowed inside. In a conventional helo any hard landing ( auto-rotation will only happen if the engine goes dead, if the motor is damaged the tranny will most likely be damaged too) will be quickly followed by the transmition/engine package crashing right into the crew compartment. With Opsprey the engines obviously are nowhere near the crew."</b>

"To attempt to portray the Osprey as being safer than a blackhawk in a crash is IMO an outrageous statement."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>But entirely true as I noted above.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"There are THOUSANDS of Vietnam veterans in the world today that wouldnt be if the UH-1 couldnt autorotate."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Because of engine failure, if the rotor system is damaged it's going down HARD and all aboard are dead and on fire.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"The capacity to autorotate is a CRITICAL life saving skill."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"As far as UH-60 vs Osprey, Osprey is MUCH MUCH larger, ESPECIALLY from the frontal aspect.........it is a much easier target to hit to begin with. And when it goes down, it takes twice as many men to their demise(flipped on it's back) And to boot, it doesnt even have side firing machine guns so can provide zero suppressing fire."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You cant seem to decide which airframe to compare Osprey to. When you want to say it's too big you compare it to Crashhawk ( YOUR nickname by the way ). When you want to say it's too small you compare it to Chinook or Stallion. USMC are the only ones that might use Osprey for assault, but they just SuperSLEPed the UH-1 and Cobra so where are THEY going to dissapear to?
VRS is an old straw horse, it can be avoided with sideslip as I recall. They deduced that almost immediatly after that crash.


<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>
[/quote]

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

btw Osprey is not as wide as Stallion is long.
Turning your own arguments against you would leave us with no Blackhawks because they cant carry an LAV and no Stallions because they cant land in a small LZ.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Was just checking speeds.
V-22 is 247kts at sea level. 250+ at 3,000ft
Stallion wont get past 166kts until it is almost empty regardless of altitude.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<b>But entirely true as I noted above.</b>

It's entirely false, despite your obvious delusions.

<b>Because of engine failure, if the rotor system is damaged it's going down HARD and all aboard are dead and on fire.</b>

Bzzzzt.

Autorotation applys in the case of engine failure, trans failure, and rear rotor failure.

"You cant seem to decide which airframe to compare Osprey to. When you want to say it's too big you compare it to Crashhawk ( YOUR nickname by the way ). When you want to say it's too small you compare it to Chinook or Stallion. USMC are the only ones that might use Osprey for assault, but they just SuperSLEPed the UH-1 and Cobra so where are THEY going to dissapear to?"

The Osprey is attempting to replace several aircraft, so comparing it to any one of them is perfectly valid.


<b>VRS is an old straw horse, it can be avoided with sideslip as I recall. They deduced that almost immediatly after that crash.</b>

They solved it by putting an arbitray descent rate restriction on it.

I mean seriously, are you just making this crap up?

After your nonsense argument WRT the F-22 in this very thread i half suspect you are...


<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

" btw Osprey is not as wide as Stallion is long.
Turning your own arguments against you would leave us with no Blackhawks because they cant carry an LAV and no Stallions because they cant land in a small LZ."

Who cares if it is as wide as Stallion is long? Osprey is very long in it's own right, and the CH-53 design is inherently better suited to withstand battle damage.

"Turning your own arguments against you would leave us with no Blackhawks because they cant carry an LAV and no Stallions because they cant land in a small LZ."

You are aware that the Osprey is replacing the CH-46, some CH-53s, and some UH-1s, right? That it is a multimission bird that will sometimes be asked to haul trash and other times to haul marines into a hot LZ, right?

Comparing it to all the aircraft on the ship is therefore completely legitimate.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

" Was just checking speeds.
V-22 is 247kts at sea level. 250+ at 3,000ft
Stallion wont get past 166kts until it is almost empty regardless of altitude."

What is it's speed at 100feet AGL with a max gross load, and its speed at 100feet empty. Those are the ONLY speeds with any relevance at all.

And again, because of it's much poorer maintenance record and reliability it will be mission capable less often(even vs the 40+ year old sea knight!), and it apparently takes much longer to load it to capacity properly because of the small cabin.
Not to mention the simple fact that in the face of enemy fire the Osprey will suffer terrible loss rates- further hurting EFFECTIVE sortie rates.

Osprey is a 107 million dollar UNNEEDED bill of goods.

So unneeded in fact, that the USMC has stretched the acquisition out over 2 decades to defray the utterly MASSIVE costs(almost triple the ENTIRE annual USMC budget!) Of course in their defense the Marines have tried to bail TWICE on this shit-box. Unfortunately Arlen Specter just wont take no for an answer.

BTW: The crashhawk is the HELOS NICKNAME among the troops, not 'my' name for it. The name stems from problems with the early models that had a tendency for the rotor tips to split lengthwise down the blade(causing catostrophic failure). We used to use 100mph tape to tape the rotor tips. So far as i know, that problem was solved some time ago.


<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat ... limps.html

The above recent article discusses VRS(among many other claimed problems with Osprey), and there is no mention of sideslip.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

Correct, no mention of side slip, just that VRS is hard to induce and easy to avoid lolol:
<b>"We'd fly all day long," says Gross, copilot on a few of the test runs. "We'd fall 2,000 or 3,000 feet and recover. We'd fly back up to 10,000 feet, repeat the exercise at 1,000 feet per minute, then 1,500, then 2,000, all the way up to 5,000 feet per minute. Then we'd do it again, this time changing our airspeed." (A typical rate of descent for a 747 passenger jet on runway approach is 700 to 800 feet per minute.) In the process MacDonald, a former Marine pilot, quadrupled the published knowledge base on VRS.

What he found was that vortex ring state is surprisingly hard to induce. He had to fly slower than 40 knots while keeping the plane in a steady position for at least five seconds, and then descend at a hot 2,200 feet per minute. He also found that in an Osprey, he could recover from the condition relatively easily, provided he had 2,000 feet of altitude to play with. In the end, the team didn't alter the aircraft. Solution: Install a simple warning system. When a pilot pushes an Osprey toward VRS, a light flashes in the cockpit and a voice cautions, "Sink rate." And Osprey pilots now know to pay attention to those warnings.

</b>

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Who cares if it is as wide as Stallion is long? Osprey is very long in it's own right, and the CH-53 design is inherently better suited to withstand battle damage.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There you go again, it's too big oh wait now it doesnt matter lol.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

From a helo newsgroup:
http://yarchive.net/air/vortex_ring.html
"Vortex ring is the fancy term for the rotor eating its own downwash. Simply
said, when you descend near vertically at the same speed as your downwash, you
invite the rotor to simply push around the same old air, instead of making
mayhem on fresh stuff. If the rotor eats its own downwash, the net effect is
on the power you must use to prevent rapid descent. Basically, the rotor
wastes so much power just churning air that there isn't any left over to break
your fall ( we could describe powered flight as the clever use of fuel and
noise to temporarily prevent falling). The magic descent rate depends on the
disk loading (pounds of gross weight per square foot of rotor disk). The
lighter the disk loading (like in typical recip trainers) the easier it is to
find Vortex Ring state in a normal approach. <b>Typical downwash (induced)
velocities for light recips might be about 10 knots (17 ft per second, 1000 ft
per minute). If you steeply descend near that rate, you will nibble at Vortex
Ring.</b>"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 22-vrs.htm
"...Recovery from VRS in conventional helicopters, altitude permitting, is generally to reduce power and lower the nose attitude of the aircraft, regaining forward airspeed and permitting reapplication of power to stop or limit the rate of descent and minimize altitude loss. In the V-22, upon recognition of entry into VRS, the pilot must also respond immediately, in this case by reducing the nacelle incidence to below approximately 80 degrees <b>(a much more powerful anti-VRS input than lowering the nose)</b> while at least momentarily reducing power. When forward airspeed begins increasing, reapplication of power is possible to minimize altitude loss."

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/weapons/a/osprey.htm
"“The V-22 is much less susceptible to vortex ring state,” Schultz said. “It takes a lot more to get a V-22 into the vortex ring state than any other helicopter.”

The tilt rotor technology even allows for a quicker recovery from this problem by tilting the rotor forward from the helicopter mode and flying out of the vortex ring state, said Lt. Col. Kevin Gross, the chief test pilot from the Marine Corps for the program. To further safeguard against the problem, a device was installed that gives pilots 18 seconds of warning that they might be entering vortex ring state."


http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/sho ... tebook.htm

"Experts agree that any rotorcraft is vulnerable to vortex ring state. (Macdonald's flight test work, therefore, may help advance the safety of all helicopters eventually.) Relative to the phenomenon, though, the V-22's side-by-side rotor design poses a unique problem. The likelihood is that one rotor will enter vortex ring state before the other, resulting in the kind of severe roll-over seen in the Marana crash sequence. The recovery procedure that Macdonald developed and demonstrated is impressive. <b>By rotating the nacelles and rotors forward for just 2 sec., enough forward thrust is generated to dissipate the vortex ring state and allow the aircraft to fly away safely</b>"

http://www.helicopterpage.com/html/tiltrotor.html
"One VERY IMPORTANT thing to point out here is that the V-22, once it has encountered Settling With Power (Army) or Power Settling (Navy), has a unique ability to get out of it. It does so without aggravation of the situation that <b>normal helicopters do not have</b>. The nacelles have a control switch which can be "Beeped" (Quick pressing of the switch to make small movements) up or down to change the angle of the nacelle. This can increase forward airspeed quickly without changing the pitch of the prop-rotors. Increasing airspeed and flying into clean air is the way to get out of the Vortex Ring State which is responsible for the "Settling" issues. <b>The V-22 has the unique ability to increase airspeed without changing rotor pitch and can accomplish the airspeed increase much faster than any normal rotary wing aircraft.</b>"



A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> What is it's speed at 100feet AGL with a max gross load, and its speed at 100feet empty. Those are the ONLY speeds with any relevance at all. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Maybee, but they will all be higher with Osprey than any other helo.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And again, because of it's much poorer maintenance record and reliability it will be mission capable less often(even vs the 40+ year old sea knight!), and it apparently takes much longer to load it to capacity properly because of the small cabin.
Not to mention the simple fact that in the face of enemy fire the Osprey will suffer terrible loss rates- further hurting EFFECTIVE sortie rates.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I found the website that quoted the mission capable rates for the Seaknight vs the Osprey, it was from 1995 to 1999. Amazing that a mature airframe in large numbers had a higher available rate than a new system that was only few in numbers and having problems and mandated groundings! Wonder what the rates for F-15 vs F-22 from a few years ago would look like? hmmm.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

_________________
????

_________________
????

MIssion Capable rates are so subjective it isnt even funny. A "creative" production sup. can make his jets look alot better than they really are.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.