The fact is that PL combines the goods and bads of both FW and RW. Either way, it's a transport category aircraft that reacts like an airplane while in cruise and it's total time.

Since I know some fling wing guys that have gotten on at airlines with minimal fixed wing experience, I don't imagine that PL time would necessarily be "less qualifying" as FW time, provided that you meet the same restrictions that RW pilots must meet. Since there are very few pilots flying PL in the grand scheme of things, I don't imagine that very many airlines have to deal with PL applicants very often.

I can't imagine a regional turning down a PL applicant that has 2000TT and 1700PL when they are hiring 600 TT folks.

 

Thanks for the info guys.

Now is this where I start a rumor that XYZ Airlines is buying Ospreys to avoid congestion at major hubs?

 

That's correct, but if you ask an average Harrier pilot what percentage of his landings are at the boat versus land based, the answer would probably be somewhere on the order of 20% or less. Most guys complain that when they are on the boat they only fly about every 13 days to stay current because it is such a pain to move the helo's out of the way for them to fly on a more regular basis than that. The majority of their flight time will occur stateside or once they are at a forward deployed location.

 

Regardless of the technicality of being PL or FW, harrier time is strike/fighter time...and it counts for all the airlines. Harriers obviously can and do conduct near-conventional landings...but I think their lift nozzles are partially down even then.

 

Please pardon my ignorance, I don't know much about rotary wing.

Do Osprey crews plan for an engine loss on takeoff? What are the procedures for loss of an engine?

 

This from Wikipedia:

Hopefully they have enough altitude to do that since it takes 12-15 seconds to transition the nacelles...

 

I thought the rotor arc was larger than the ground clearance, ie, with the nacelles forward the rotors will impact the ground before the landing gear does.

 

I believe it is. However if you've lost an engine, I don't think that you're too concerned with ground clearance any more...

I'd be curious to know if it could continue single engine flight (in airplane mode) for an extended period of time (such as if you lost one over hostile territory.) Seems like the yaw with such a large "prop" out there would be difficult to over come, but it does have two rudders.

 

Apparently Bell advertises that losing AN engine isn't that big a deal - there's an interconnect between the two engines so one engine can drive both rotors..

As far as gliding - maybe it and an MU-2 could compete..

 

Yes, the props are mechanically linked, otherwise an engine failure (or even hiccup) would be 100% fatal in hover flight. This also means that engine out handling is the same as a mix-master...no yaw, but 50% less performance. Hopefully enough power to conduct a vertical landing (but I doubt you could launch again).

In the event of a total power loss in cruise flight, the thing can glide to a rough crash-landing...the props are composite and designed so as to not fragment on impact. A total power loss in hover flight would be fatal at low altitudes, but if you have a few thousand feet you can transition to a glide.

Personally I think the low-altitude total power loss risk is being blown out of proportion by the media...the engines are nowhere near each other, and if BOTH of them got shot up, there would probably be other damage that would render the thing non-flyable anyway. They aren't complaining about what would happen if you shot off both rotorheads on a Chinook (or any other helo) . I don't know why the media expects this particular aircraft to be crash-proof...it would be the first and only one ever!

The thing is very expensive though...I sure hope the USMC can leverage it's capabilities enough to offset the additional cost relative to buying a bunch of conventional helos.

But I do know for a fact the SOCOM will get our money's worth out of the capabilities...as long as reliability is good.