CV-22 Osprey info

[HeloDude]

I was speaking with a female engineer recently, who was looking to go the CV-22 way, and she was told no because SOCOM has recently classified or reclassified the -22 as a "direct action” platform like the -53. Like anything in the AF, expect this to change 69 times…

I'd be surprised if this one does change. SOCOM never changed the rule on the 53 or on their MH-47's, etc. From what I understand, these units don't work for the Air Force per se, they work for SOCOM.

[Guest Curt22]

I don't understand. Don't the Marines have a couple female Osprey pilots? How could the same platform be more dangerous in the Air Force?

While the concept of the "front line" of the battle field is a bit blury today...I think the concept of going deep behind enemy lines is still pretty clear to all, and this is where SOF is expectd to operate, not at the "front", but well beyond the front.

Perhaps this is why females are allowed in the MV-22 which will only support Marines up to the front lines, while the CV-22 will go hundreds of miles beyond the front.

Personally, I think it's foolish to "excuse" women from assuming the same risk and responsibility that of men who serve must endure. If women wish to wear the uniform and carry the same rank as men, and at the same time want to be treated as equals (which is right), then Congress needs to recognize the women in uniform are equal and should be treated as such in ALL military activities.

[Guest FierceRabbit]

I agree entirely, Curt22. One of the reasons I'm looking at joining the Air Force is that most combat positions are available to female officers. But I'm afraid of derailing an awesome thread, so I'll leave it there.

One question, though: does this ban extend to the so-called "nonstandard" aircraft you can track out of 28s? It's one of my top choices, so my fingers are crossed.

[drewpey]

thread revival!

Any Osprey guys care to elaborate on what life is like currently?

Just looking for basic info on where the AF is headed with it. Are they planning on modifying the aircraft to meet the mission or modifying the mission to meet the aircraft? I know people have talked about the supposed shortcomings of the -22 on filling the shoes of the -53, and just wondered now that you guys have been around a bit, if you had heard anything about where it's mission is headed, or even dispelled any myths regarding the preconcieved notions with the aircraft.

What's it like flying the Osprey? What did you fly prior to the -22, and how does it compare? Would you suggest it as a career path?

Do you think the lack of a heavy lift helo is a sign that AFSOC is slowly moving away from that sort of mission or role and leaving it to the Army? Or perhaps they are waiting out to buy some of the new CSAR-X birds in hopes they might be a heavy lift platform capable of modding for SpecOps?

Always liked Helos, and liked SpecOps, but just wondering where AFSOC is headed with it's helo fleet.

[Champ Kind]

Direct all questions to JackAss, our new resident all-things-AFSOC expert.

[B*D*A]

Direct all questions to JackAss, our new resident all-things-AFSOC expert.

That's funny right 'der!

[Guest whatsarunway]

The V-22 is an amazing aircraft to fly...it does things that no other aircraft in the world can do. Beacuse of that, its roles and missions are still being defined and the SOCOM community is constantly working on what it can do for them....so it will be awhile before the fact sheets are done being modified.

Its true that the V-22 cannot do some of the things the MH-53 could do...especially with respect to fitting vehicles in the back...but it can do so much more than the 53 ever could do in terms of range and speed, which are two very valuable things in a combat environment.

As far as the female issue goes...well that is a long story that goes back many decades. The Marines do have a number of female V-22 pilots, however, the mission the Marines do with their V-22s will be drastically different from that of AFSOC...not so much in terms of flying, but rather locations and threat levels. Its definitely apples and oranges....

For those interesting in flying the CV-22, I would highly recommend it. The aircraft and its mission are still in the infant stage and the next decade will be very dynamic and exciting for those involved. Just keep an open mind...its not an airplane...its not a helicopter...its a whole new book of military aviation that is yet to be written, not unlike the helicopter was back in the 1940s.

[LJ Driver]

They do. The differences are only semantic.

Umm, except for the undercarriage gun, TF system, Radar jam, etc etc etc. Not semantic, significant...

[Guest JollyFlight21]

The V-22 is an amazing aircraft to fly...it does things that no other aircraft in the world can do. Beacuse of that, its roles and missions are still being defined and the SOCOM community is constantly working on what it can do for them....so it will be awhile before the fact sheets are done being modified.

Its true that the V-22 cannot do some of the things the MH-53 could do...especially with respect to fitting vehicles in the back...but it can do so much more than the 53 ever could do in terms of range and speed, which are two very valuable things in a combat environment.

As far as the female issue goes...well that is a long story that goes back many decades. The Marines do have a number of female V-22 pilots, however, the mission the Marines do with their V-22s will be drastically different from that of AFSOC...not so much in terms of flying, but rather locations and threat levels. Its definitely apples and oranges....

For those interesting in flying the CV-22, I would highly recommend it. The aircraft and its mission are still in the infant stage and the next decade will be very dynamic and exciting for those involved. Just keep an open mind...its not an airplane...its not a helicopter...its a whole new book of military aviation that is yet to be written, not unlike the helicopter was back in the 1940s.

Someone drank the kool-aid on this one. "it does things that no other aircraft in the world can do. Beacuse of that, its roles and missions are still being defined and the SOCOM community is constantly working on what it can do for them"

Translation: They're not sure exactly how it's going to do anything other than be a people mover like the Marines use it for, but they spent so much money on it they're trying hard to invent a mission for it. Can't even land at 9,000'. Some awesome airframe...

[DFRESH]

Can't even land at 9,000'. Some awesome airframe...

I'm confused? Can't land at 9000' what? Maybe I missed something... I don't know anything about the CV-22, but that statement doesn't make any sense. Like it can't land at 9000' MSL due to air/performance issues, worse than the cessna 172? Or like it can't land within 9000' of runway?

[drewpey]

Like it can't land at 9000' MSL? Or like it can't land within 9000' of runway?

since it's a VTOL airframe, I'm putting my money on the first one...

[DFRESH]

since it's a VTOL airframe, I'm putting my money on the first one...

My thought process is the same. That's why I didn't exactly understand the statement. If it can land like a rotorcraft, why can't it land @ 9k MSL?

[Guest AceTomatoCo]

I'm confused? Can't land at 9000' what? Maybe I missed something... I don't know anything about the CV-22, but that statement doesn't make any sense. Like it can't land at 9000' MSL due to air/performance issues, worse than the cessna 172? Or like it can't land within 9000' of runway?

High altitude, has mediocre lift qualities, has slow rotor rpms, I'm sure you can figure the rest out.

[StoleIt]

High altitude, has mediocre lift qualities, has slow rotor rpms, I'm sure you can figure the rest out.

But it can't vary the pitch of the props enough to make up for that?

[Guest JollyFlight21]

But it can't vary the pitch of the props enough to make up for that?

Not even close. The rotor/props aren't big enough to create sufficient lift at a significant altitude. Remember, even for an HH-60G (dependent on many factors of course) 8,000'+ is a landing that will make you earn it. The point is though, we can do it.

The CV-22's first "mission" was a joke where they basically flew around somewhat overhead while an HH-60 landed to insert the J's. I am completely critical of course because it was an incredibly challenging landing (11,000'+) and the AF PA guys spun it so that the crews that actually risked their lives were an afterthought, if that. No, I wasn't on the mission, so I don't care about the "glory". It just goes to prove that the Air Force is desperately searching for a way to justify this "amazing, new aircraft". If they want to be honest, just use it for the same purpose the Marines are using it for. Don't try to dress it up as some kind of "Special Ops" saviour because it's not.

[DFRESH]

Not even close. The rotor/props aren't big enough to create sufficient lift at a significant altitude. Remember, even for an HH-60G (dependent on many factors of course) 8,000'+ is a landing that will make you earn it. The point is though, we can do it.

I know absolutely nothing about rotorcraft, so it wasn't so much something I can remember, but more something I just learned.

The CV-22's first "mission" was a joke where they basically flew around somewhat overhead while an HH-60 landed to insert the J's. I am completely critical of course because it was an incredibly challenging landing (11,000'+) and the AF PA guys spun it so that the crews that actually risked their lives were an afterthought, if that. No, I wasn't on the mission, so I don't care about the "glory". It just goes to prove that the Air Force is desperately searching for a way to justify this "amazing, new aircraft". If they want to be honest, just use it for the same purpose the Marines are using it for. Don't try to dress it up as some kind of "Special Ops" saviour because it's not.

What a crock. Being on the outside, I never knew the difference. I actually figured the CV-22 was finally pulling through.

So out of curiousity then, is it capable of kinda shooting a final approach as if it was landing in airplane mode but then transitioning into heli mode (or whatever it's actually called) just above the landing zone? Therefore using the forward velocity for lift across the wings and kind of snapping into a hover? I guess that's how I just picture it operating in my mind, without having really seen it before.

[Guest AceTomatoCo]

I know absolutely nothing about rotorcraft, so it wasn't so much something I can remember, but more something I just learned.

What a crock. Being on the outside, I never knew the difference. I actually figured the CV-22 was finally pulling through.

So out of curiousity then, is it capable of kinda shooting a final approach as if it was landing in airplane mode but then transitioning into heli mode (or whatever it's actually called) just above the landing zone? Therefore using the forward velocity for lift across the wings and kind of snapping into a hover? I guess that's how I just picture it operating in my mind, without having really seen it before.

It's been a few years since I was around the Osprey but it doesn't exactly "snap" into a hover, the transition used to take about 11-13 seconds, and in a hover the wings are about as useful as a Harriers when hovering, everything is hanging off the rotor system.

As to the high altitude stuff, imagine having a Chevy Suburban, fully loaded pulling a boat with a V-6 motor and you get the idea. Way to much weight, without enough lift when it lands it is still a helicopter and thus subject to helicopter limitations.

It is a state of the art a/c no doubt but it is not the miracle worker that some people believe it to be and when it is pushed beyond what you should do with it the aircraft is not as forgiving as either standard fixed wing or rotorcraft.

[Guest JollyFlight21]

So out of curiousity then, is it capable of kinda shooting a final approach as if it was landing in airplane mode but then transitioning into heli mode (or whatever it's actually called) just above the landing zone? Therefore using the forward velocity for lift across the wings and kind of snapping into a hover? I guess that's how I just picture it operating in my mind, without having really seen it before.

Now I'll admit to my knowledge on the CV-22 being limited. I am unsure of their capabilities when it comes to how they execute a marginal power T/O or landing. I don't see it being possible.

[Guest AceTomatoCo]

But it can't vary the pitch of the props enough to make up for that?

The rotors carry the whole weight of the aircraft, these photos should give you a better idea of their size.

[Guest JollyFlight21]

Very possible. A few minutes with a high school trig book will show you how you can get a significant forward thrust vector to get you through ETL with very little reduction in the vertical thrust vector.

As far as that "rescue" goes, converting at that altitude would have violated the flight clearance at the time. If you looked down, saw that no one was alive, and were going to violate your -1 to land there, most people would have made the same decision. I'd have to run charts to see if it was possible or not, but no one in their right mind was about to risk banging up a brand new aircraft to pick up a couple of corpses.

Yes, the CV-22 has some (many) issues. Many of them have been resolved in the later aircraft, some are still being worked on, and some are a couple of years away from being addressed. Yes, some are fundamental to the aircraft. Tilt-rotor flight brings with it all sorts of limitations that rotary wing flight doesn't... some of which are pretty unforgiving and you ignore them at your peril. But, don't underestimate the value of added speed and range. Somewhere around the 10-hour mark it finally hit me how slow every helicopter I ever flew really was, and how much more vulnerable as a result. Honestly, the frustration guys have with the CV has a lot less to do with how it stacks up to other airframes, and a whole lot more to do with how easily it could have been an unbelievable machine. An extra 50 KIAS, true auto-rotation, more lift capacity, and significantly reduced rotor wash were only a few easy design decisions away... but it had to fit on a boat. Semper Fi.

If there's a lesson from the "rescue" story above, its that if the CV had been able/willing to land there, the -60s would have had nothing to do. Excluding the 5% of the Earth's landmass where a 60 can land and a 22 can't, I see very little reason to ever send a 60. Sorry, but the CV will have him in a hospital before the 60 will even pick him up. That's just how its going to be. My advice, hurry CSAR-X along so you can stretch that 5% back towards 10-15%. Otherwise, you're gambling your future usefulness on the limited number of CVs, some real limitations that are being addressed, some semi-fictional limitations that are blown out of proportion, and the hope that on opening night, SOF won't be willing to handle CSAR, even though history tells us otherwise.

At the moment, the thing is a hangar queen. Plenty of things need to be fixed, and it will never be a "perfect" aircraft (helicopter or fixed wing), or a "SOF savior", but knocking it too hard is tremendously short sighted.

I guess I'll just have to wait for the "I told ya so." from you on most of this. I don't see CSAR-X happening anytime soon, if at all, so I won't be counting on that. I don't see the CV-22 ever taking over Rescue though, so like I said, maybe you'll be saying, "I told ya so," in the future. If so, I'll accept my piece of humble pie graciously.

Thanks for the mini-lecture on ETL. I understand what ETL does for rotary-wing flight. My thought process was going in the direction of a "spot" landing at high altitude. We can do it because we don't have to worry about tilting the rotors to keep them from impacting. Like I said, I don't know how a CV-22 would execute such a landing. I'm sure it's possible to an extent, so I'll reword my misleading sentence to a more ambiguous statement. I don't see it as being possible in too many restricted situations where rolling room is nil, and then, you have to figure out how to take it off. I'm sure it can land (just like us) into a lot of situations where it now can't take off due to limited power. I don't know how much forward movement that thing can get while on the ground or if/how much it can tilt when on the ground.

I'd love to see/hear how a CV-22 handles a brown out landing...

[X-Citerbox]

I'd love to see/hear how a CV-22 handles a brown out landing...

Are you serious? Do you think the dirt will make the wings fall off??? Please stick to something you know like sitting alert, before you look dumb...

[StoleIt]

An extra 50 KIAS, true auto-rotation, more lift capacity, and significantly reduced rotor wash were only a few easy design decisions away... but it had to fit on a boat. Semper Fi.

What changes would have solved that? I am guessing its the prop diameter?

[Guest JollyFlight21]

Are you serious? Do you think the dirt will make the wings fall off??? Please stick to something you know like sitting alert, before you look dumb...

Seriously? Then you don't even answer it? You really stung me there with you're "sitting alert" comment. Keep it up

I'm sure you know what ETL is. What I was getting at is that by tilting the nacelles forward, to say 80 (10 degrees forward of vertical), you get 17% of your thrust to forward flight and only lose 1.5% of your vertical lift to do it. Helicopters don't quite work that way for two reasons: First, you're actually using power from the engines to rotate the body of the aircraft, so its costing you something (you'd be 10 degrees nose down, we're perfectly level). Second, the frontal profile of the helicopter increases when you drop the nose. The CV has neither of those issues, so its extremely efficient, actually. Now, if you can roll a couple of feet, and you can actually do a STO, 20' of rolling room buys you a lot. Its still underpowered in a lot of situations, but its very good at making the best of it.

As for brownouts... excellent. On one hand, it throws up a tremendous amount of dust, which sucks. On the other, you have multiple INS systems feeding into not perfect, but very good hover symbology. The fly-by-wire system also makes it an extremely stable platform. Dust will always be an issue for every aircraft because you can't quite be sure what you're landing on, but the CV handles it well, IMHO.

There's an intelligent answer. Not that your previous reply wasn't, I'm referring to X-Citer's brilliant remarks. I honestly didn't know how it handled them. That's why I posted the comment I did. I admit, I did it with a little cynicism, but I now stand corrected.

Your other answer about tilting the nacelles is the info I was looking for. I wasn't sure how much you guys would be able to rotate the nacelles in the final phases of landing. It appears that it's enough.

[AC-172]

I remember reading earlier that there was some debate about adding a chin mounted gattling gun to the Osprey. Did they ever make their decision on this?

[KWings06j]

Anyone know what the drop rate is on Osprey's out of the Helo UPT track?