Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I'm actually a proponent of the V-22 capabilities. Even though a few RW transports may have greater payloads, once you factor in range and speed the V-22 can deliver more stuff per airframe over a given period of time.
Also it expands mission profile possibilities with speed/range capabilities which did not previously exist unless your LZ was 3000' long and flat.
Will it be cost effective compared to RW? Per pound, probably not unless they can REALLY get operating costs under control. But as I mentioned, it opens up new mission profiles...what's the dollar value of that? Hard to say.
All great stuff, my lingering concern is the complexity and durability...how will it hold up under sustained in-theatre ops and will it become ludicrously expensive to maintain? Only time will tell.
What ranges and speeds do you refer to?
Originally Posted by
ryan1234
From an Osprey pilot based when asked the question: What would happen in the event of a dual engine/tranny failure?:
Answer: "One, it's less likely in this aircraft, due to the physical separation of the engines (single round/burst won't take out both, 1 shedding turbine blades won't hurt the other, etc). The likelihood of both quitting at low altitude, WITH NO WARNING (surging, sputtering, whatever), is what's incredibly remote. If I suspect that I have a problem that will affect both engines, I'm either putting it right back down if able, or transitioning to airplane and assuming an emergency profile designed to take maximize APLN-mode flight to landing. Once I'm in APLN, my survivability in the event of a dual failure is at least as good as a helo."
Question: "Are there EPs for a dual engine failure?"
Answer: "Yes, there are EPs for dual failure in VTOL and APLN.
If you are in a dual-engine failure due to fuel exhaustion in a rotorcraft, you are a fool and need to be removed from the gene pool.
The fuel contamination bit gets thrown around a bit, but I think it's a very remote chance that it will happen right after takeoff. Acceptable risk, whatever. You can't live your life around the corner case.
With a plow-type bulkhead under the cockpit, blades designed to break outward, mass-shedding of the wings on impact, and crash-attenuating seats for pilots AND pax, I think gliding is quite reasonable."
Just when does fuel contanimation reveal itself?
At the most inopportune time, of course. That thing glides like a coke machine.
Originally Posted by
dtfl
Don't forget the ability to put a Toyota pickup (In my 11 years SOF experience we carried many of those)...more than 1 ATV in it....team members loaded COMFORTABLY..oh and then the other issues of not enough O2 regulators for additional crewmembers (ie students for training missions), etc.
Yes they can land and the airfield siezure teams can WALK off of it...but they will only have their FEET once they are on the ground. As my buddy puts it - "It's a silver bullet"
Exactly. The V-22 is just not up to the task, never has been and won't be. It is entirely too small inside. The services that are having it forced upon them are being forced to modify (or abandon) missions and tactics to fit the airframe. When we bulid an airframe from the ground up, they shouldn't have to do that.
I remember watching an interview in stunned disbelief as the USMC Air General, explained to a reporter that the MV-22 program could not fail, because there were too many commercial applications and companies that had too much invested in it, or words directly to that effect. I'm going to have to look up the quotes, but it was a while ago, right after the crash in AZ.
I remember watching one unfold and lift off at Pax River, I resolved to myself right then and there that I'd never ride in one of those things. So far I have kept that promise to myself. It's just NKR....