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."

 

The deceased in the crash was pilot Maj Randy Boas (USAF). Found out yesterday as his parents go to my church and were mentioned in the service. Also in newspaper today. RIP.

 

Fuel contamination no, a maintainer leaving a rag in an open fuel cell, and that rag getting sucked into and clogging a fuel pump, yes.

You can train for anything, it's the infinite number of other things that can ruin your day.

 

Fuel exhaustion? For the dual-engine failure, I was actually talking about a failure of an engine that is accompanied by an associated transmission problem (uncontained blade failure, shrapnel, etc) - misspeak on my part, should have said combined engine/transmission failure. In that case, the both the core engine and the transmission are damaged, preventing power transfer from the opposite engine. Auto-rotates are n/a due to the lack of inertia in the rotors, and what kind of glide do you really think there is with those wings?

Regardless, the majority of my post was devoted to the fact that the guys who are supposed to be supported by this aircraft - the ones I spoke to at length in theater - don't like it. It does not matter what potential the aircraft has if the operators can't infil/exfil as they need to or if they have to leave their equipment at home. In the CV-22 case, it is solving problems that the supported units don't need solved.

 

True, I really don't know the arguments either way... just stating what came from an Osprey pilot. It seems like there are those that see the capabilities in the future, and those that see the problems now. Like I said before, the Phrog had 44 class A mishaps in the first 5 years. Even the old guys I've talked to said they didn't really like them at first at all.. they kept insisting they would just snap in half. However, after all this time they conclude that the CH-46 has proven itself and been a vital airframe to the USMC.

 

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"

 

It might end up that we get a mix to include some MH/CH-53ks to balance this out. Some fairly experienced people are waiting for that option.
Probably much cheaper and more effective in the long run.

 

Well spoken of here at Rucker(USAF school house for all non-FW pilots). Memorial is scheduled for this Thursday at Hurlburt. RIP.

 

My understanding is that you can't auto any helicopter with a true tranny failure. EPs in Rotorcraft for impending tranny failure are 'land immediately'.

The glide ratio is 4.5 to 1. Considerable redundancy (triple in the case of flight controls) and the fact the aircraft is in APLN mode 98% of the time make a dual engine failure during the other 2% of flight time an extremely rare occurance. It can actually auto, just not that well.

 

What ranges and speeds do you refer to?


Just when does fuel contanimation reveal itself? At the most inopportune time, of course. That thing glides like a coke machine.

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....