CV-22 Osprey info

[Baseops.Net]

Right now, Phase III for the V-22 guys is up and running at NAS Corpus Christi. Currently there are marine students flying the C-12 in Corpus on their way to the V-22. They have their own syllabus, etc.

As far as I know, this is the only Phase III pipeline for prospective USMC V-22 pilots to be.

[Guest rotorhead]

The thirtysomething MH-53s are to be replaced by the CV-22. That family will get the lion's share of the slots (hey, they need something to fly), but there will be a smattering of H-60, AFSOC 130, and a couple of UPT grads in the mix.

[FUSEPLUG]

So how do those guys log their V-22 time? Is it fixed wing or rotary... or is it divided somehow?

[Carpetbagger]

Fuse, The tiltrotor is going to become a new classification of aircraft, much like an airship or gyrocopter is different from a fixed wing or rotor aicraft. You can go to the FAA website and look for any additional info. When the civilian BA609 hits the market, a type rating will probably be needed to fly commercially. This will depend on the weight, but also whether the FAA classifies this aircraft as a "jet" or a "turboprop."

[Guest HueyPilot]

The FAA has designated tilt-rotor aircraft as an entire category (ie, airplane, rotorcraft, balloon, etc) and they are calling it "Powered Lift".

As for the "jet" versus "turboprop", it's a turboprop...or how about just a "turbine" powered aircraft.

[Gravedigger]

IIRC, the Osprey has been classified as powered lift for many years. This isn't anything new is it? PilotOC, are you saying that there will be a new category called "tilt-rotor" in addition to powered lift? BTW-Is CV-22 time logged as PLMEL?

[Carpetbagger]

C17W. No, there is one "new" category. And it has been around for several years, just not available to your average ATP. https://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/n...se_970821a.html

Here is the link that talks about the first official Powered Lift rating. For additional info, look up FAR 61.163. FAR 61.63 sets up some standards for additional ratings and does get specific about "turbojet" or "turbopropeller" type ratings, but this only applies to fixed wing aircraft, not powered lift aircraft, which is a different "pilot certificate category," as HP mentioned, as opposed to a specific type. As for the type rating stuff, I was merely stating the regs which specify what aircraft demand a type rating for PIC. As it stands by the current regs, I believe the BA609 will not require a type rating because it will not be over 12,500, and not be purely "turbojet" powered. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't waded this deep into the FAR mire in a while.

[Guest AirGuardian]

Just curious, accidents and all.

Are we(AF) headed down the same path as the initial flight training for the Harrier when it first came on line. Only the experienced pilots seemed to be able to stay alive for any length of time and the recent pilot graduates were crushing themselves so often that it became a restricted aircraft for veteran flyers for some time as it matured in service... Just a thought, unless someone on here says its a snap to fly; therefore, I drop my statement wholeheartedly and I hope everyone who wants one, gets one. Just a curious question... :confused: Godspeed on this one!

[ 23. February 2005, 22:52: Message edited by: AirGuardian ]

[flynhigh]

I can't speak from experience, but a buddy of mine is a flight test engineer out at Pax River on the V-22 and he has flown the sim a few times. He only has his private with like 100 hours and has said that the thing flies pretty easily... Take that as you will. Obviously the thing has it's "tricks" to flying safely.

[HeloDude]

Does anyone out there (Rotorhead possibly?) have any recent info on the progress of the CV-22, ie, when the first one will be delivered to Kirtland, when they will start shifting 53 or Huey guys to be trained, etc. I asked our assignments guy when he came here to visit a couple months ago and am checking to see if anyone knows of any updates. I know this will probaly start a thread of badmouthing the Osprey, but hey, I like it.

[Guest Afsocwes@aol.com]

I havent seen any Air Force CV-22 information. But the Navy runs has an excellent one.

https://pma275.navair.navy.mil/

Ive also seen another web page. With some excellent flightline pictures. Let me see if I can find it.

[Guest Afsocwes@aol.com]

Here it is.

https://www.tiltrotormech.com/images/person...s/DSC01562a.jpg

[M2]

Back that URL up...

https://tiltrotormech.com/

...and they have a forum as well, plus pics, videos, etc.

Cheers! M2

[Guest rotorhead]

I talked with one of the AETC program manager buds of mine (Lt Col at HQ AETC) just a week or two ago about this...he said to expect a Kirtland CV-22 in 10 months, and a new pipeline student into the program 12 months after that.

[Wing Sweep]

This thread has been dead for a while, but I just thought of a question concerning this future pipeline. From what I've gathered, this pipeline will entail both turboprop and helo flying during UPT (T-44/C-12 and helos) after primary. Now will that helo time be on UH-1s with the Army or follow the Navy/USMC pipeline of going through TH-57s?

[Guest croftfam]

Total speculation on my part, but there's no way they are going to have our guys go through anything but our program at Rucker. Our -22 (not the fixed-wing version) is pretty different than the Marine version.

[Guest billpritjr]

Is AF still slated to get the Osprey? What is the general feeling on this thing?

It appears to be capable and very hi-tech, but it will probably bring with it a steep learning curve...

[Guest waxgoblin]

"The Air Force is acquiring 50 CV-22 Ospreys to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations forces from hostile areas."

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/cv-22.htm

[LockheedFix]

I met a loadmaster at Little Rock who said he will be heading to Kirtland (I think) soon to be initial cadre on the Osprey.

For me though, a wise old pilot once told me, "never fly the A-model of anything."

[ 23. July 2005, 09:21: Message edited by: herk28 ]

[Guest HueyPilot]

The Osprey will be coming on line soon...like in a couple years. There's good and bad about it.

The safety issues are largely blown out of proportion. Yes, it's a new technology, and they've had some mishaps due to this (a couple Bell test ships crashed). The two Marine crashes (Marana and New River) weren't the fault of the design itself, but rather pilot error/pilot training (the first crash) and leadership covering up a design deficiency that Bell could have easily fixed had the Marine Corps told them (the USMC altered mx logs, etc).

The good about the aircraft is it brings a new capability to the battlefield...it'll do just about anything a helicopter can, yet fly 2-3 times faster and farther than any helicopter. It's going to transform USMC capabilities.

On the other hand, the bad is that other services are trying to shoe-horn the Marine V-22 into other roles it wasn't really intended for. The AF is a good example...sure, a tilt rotor special ops aircraft is a good idea...except the CV-22 (AF version) can't carry most of the client's toys to the battle...it's cargo compartment was designed for Marine infantry, not rubber raiding rafts and things like that.

However they work out the issues with that, the CV-22 will likely be a decent SAR platform once they work out the differences between tilt-rotor ops and helo ops (ie, engine exhaust issues, where to put the hoist, training gunners to not shoot the nacelles, etc).

Our chief IP with the LAARNG flew for Chevron in his civilian life, and Chevron was invited by Bell to send some folks to fly the XV-15, the test cousin of the V-22. This was an attempt to get them to buy the yet-to-be-designed BA609 civilian tilt-rotor. The XV-15 supposedly isn't as user friendly to fly as the V-22, since it (the XV-15) was designed more for helo pilots, whereas the V-22 has different controls to make the transition easier for FW pilots too.

He said the XV-15 flew great...very easy to fly, and very responsive. Supposedly the V-22 is even easier to fly...more stable than the XV-15. I believe he said Chevron initially passed on the BA609 due to costs, but they were all very impressed with the tilt-rotor.

[FourFans]

Two questions:

How does this new thang stack up against the marines new H-53?

Why didn't we just by the new 53 to replace our 53s? Seems like a good match seeing we already know how to use it, whereas we need to develop new tactics for the Osprey.

[Guest croftfam]

They are in the process of standing up a squadron at Kirtland already. I think it's the 71st. I know a couple dudes (pilots and FE's) already have their orders to show up.

I hear you can land it in with the rotors tilted forward once.

[Guest pavesooner]

Another round of Initial Cadre Selection just happened on 14 July.....14 more pilots and FE's (not sure how many FE's)

Rummor has it only 12 AFSOC pilots applied the rest were Huey, T-37 FAIPS, a C-5 Guy, and other cats and dogs without any goggle time....

It wil be interesting to see who they chose....

[ 23. July 2005, 17:46: Message edited by: pavesooner ]

[Guest rotorhead]

Originally posted by FourFans130:

Two questions:

How does this new thang stack up against the marines new H-53?

Why didn't we just by the new 53 to replace our 53s? Seems like a good match seeing we already know how to use it, whereas we need to develop new tactics for the Osprey.

An H-53E will haul a buttload/a$$load/sh!tload more than an Osprey. But an H-53E is not special, and would not bring anything to the table that the Army's 160 SOAR's MH-47s can't already do. To keep special, AFSOC needs a new niche aircraft, with capabilities the Army can't bring. Can't haul much, but get's there fast...but most importantly, it keeps AFSOC special...it could do the Iran soccer field mission without all the fuss.

By the way, it won't really replace the MH53M...it arrives as the Pavelow exits, but it is a different niche altogether, with some capability of a 53, some of a 130, etc. etc.

As far as "don't fly the A model of anything" it might especially be true here, because it is not like anything previous...maybe since it has been SIXTEEN YEARS since it's first flight it's not really an A model! The first flight of a USMC YCH-53A prototype was on October 14, 1964 , the first deliveries began in May 1966 to the operation units (LESS than 2 years).

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I remember the contractors would come out to Nellis and ask some of us (mix of A-10 and H-60 guys) a bunch of "tactical" questions about the CV-22. I was blown away by the fact that they couldn't pressurize the thing. That removed at least 50% of the tactical "fixed wing" advantage. I thought they would at least be able to cruise in the 20s...nope. Everyone kept saying that was no big deal becasue it was smarter and "more tactical" to go in low IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE. I tried to convince the guys that "more tactical" doesn't mean it is the best tactic. Deaf ears.

A couple of the helo guys kept saying they absolutely needed the ability to put mavericks and hellfires and JDAM and WCMD and a gun turret like the AH-64 on it. The contractors kept saying it would be too heavy if they did that. Anyone know where that ended up?

BTW, I would fly it. Is it too late to put in an application?