I was watching a video of a CV22 refueling with a C130 and it got my thinking..... What happens if one of those engine fails? It looks like it would not be able to be controlled. I'm sure there are not a lot of people on here that fly it, but someone might know someone that does.

Just curious.

 

I don't fly it, or know anyone that does, but I believe that one motor can power both props. As to what inconceivable magic the engineers used to make that happen.... Not a clue!

 

There is a sync shaft between both engines like on a CH-46 or CH-47.

Slightly more complicated than I'll explain, but it's essentially a driveshaft that runs from nacelle, down wing, up other wing and then to the next nacelle.

 

 

So if one engine fails the other will power the second engine?

Thanks

 

All the way to the scene of the crash. (Said in my best Ron White voice)

(sorry, couldn't resist)


Yes, it has a magic transmission that will transfer power. It's all FADEC and fly-by-wire anyway, so everything else that needs to happen should happen...

 

In that regard, it becomes a lot like a helicopter vs a turboprop..

No assymetric thrust, but severely power limited.

I've flown the V-22 sim, not the actual bird and it was not too bad to fly (in the sim)

I can't speak to how the V-22 flies single engine, but I do know from flying larger turbine helos, that single engine landings to a single spot ship can get dicey with no waveoff capability below a certain altitude/airspeed.

IIRC (it's been a while) that if on glideslope, once I dropped below 45ish knots in a 60B single engine, I became more or less committed to land or crash anywhere near max gross. Losing an engine on takeoff was not as bad, but still hairy (had one actual engine failure once committed to forward flight, at night, and it kind of sucked as we were departing a Frigate)

 

Modern ships use engines to run generators which turn the props. Has this ever been tried in an aircraft design? Maybe it would add more weight than it saves.

 

A.K.A. PFM

 

It works on ships because they can have multiple generators and run only as many as they need...fewer to go slow, or all at once for flank speed. This saves fuel and wear and tear. Also convenient in that you can locate the generators anywhere that makes sense re. ballasting, access, redundancy, and damage control (for warships).

Modern US Warships still mostly use nuclear/steam turbine or gas turbine for high power density and, in the case of nuclear, zero propulsion fuel storage requirements. Downside is that all the propulsion machinery generally has to be in the same part of the ship so it has lower redundancy if the ship gets hit.

On airplanes we might see it eventually, but there is some efficiency loss during the conversion from mechanical back to electrical and it's unlikely that they would want to put more than two engines on an airplane anyway. IMO electrical power transmission only makes sense if you can shut down some engines when full power output is not needed (ie cruise/descent) ...but you probably need more than two engines to do that safely.