isaacj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Jason Lee Isaac) (11/11/89)
From: Jason Lee Isaac <isaacj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU> I would like to get information on the V-22 Osprey. Specifically on capabilities, operating while damaged, specs, or whatever. I read a while back in the Corvallis, Gazette-Times a letter to the editor about how screwed up our kllrepresentatives were for supporting the Osprey. The writer said it was a lousy aircraft that had no real purpose. He wondered why we needed it to establish a beachead when we already had the Harrier to do that. I realized then that he was doing a bad job of supporting his position. He also criticized it because the propellors (rotors?) extended below the bottom of the aircraft when in the down (forward?) postion. Which makes landingwith damaged landing gear (i.e. stuck in the retracted position) a real mess. So how about posting or e-mailing me whatever you have got. Thanks very much. Jason Isaac isaacj@prism.cs.orst.edu
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/17/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <11339@cbnews.ATT.COM>, isaacj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Jason Lee Isaac) writes: > I would like to get information on the V-22 Osprey. Specifically on > capabilities, operating while damaged, specs, or whatever. > > I read a while back in the Corvallis, Gazette-Times a letter to the editor > about how screwed up our representatives were for supporting the Osprey. > The writer said it was a lousy aircraft that had no real purpose. He wondered > why we needed it to establish a beachead when we already had the Harrier to do > that. Well, for starters, the Harrier can't carry in many troops...which are generally needed to establish the beachead. While there are proposals for ground-support versions of the Osprey, the current version is a troop/cargo hauler. One common objection voiced against the V-22 is that it can operate well beyond the support of naval gunfire. Which is curious, 'cause this same defect is shared by the helicopters operated by the Marines. Unless they all have less than a 25-mile or so combat radius. (What? Did the Harriers go away?) The V-22 has the advantage in both speed and range over helicopters such as the Ch-46 and -47, and probably will turn out to be less maintainance-intensive than the big 'copters. It likely would be better at the job of getting troops in sneakily from troop carriers over the horizon, too. Reduced warning time (for the defenders) would not be something for the assault troops to sneeze at. > I realized then that he was doing a bad job of supporting his position. Really? 8} > He also criticized it because the propellors (rotors?) extended below the > bottom of the aircraft when in the down (forward?) postion. > Which makes landingwith damaged landing gear (i.e. stuck in the retracted > position) a real mess. Since the V-22 *never* lands (intentionally, anyway) with the proprotors horizontal, this is a non-issue. In fact, a vertical landing from hover sans wheels out is going to do a lot less damage to the aircraft than would a gears-up landing with any conventional airplane. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter
mike@hpmrw.hp.com (Mike Wilson) (11/18/89)
From: Mike Wilson <mike@hpmrw.hp.com>
Bill,
I tried sending a response to the query in sci.military for info on the V-22.
I use HP notes and am not sure if my response got back to you so I am trying
again.
Scott and Jason have both forgotten what the V in V-22 stands for. It's
'vertical'. With the rotors tilted fully vertical, the V-22 operates like
a helicopter. It can take-off and land vertically, hover, fly sideways and
backwards, and turn about its vertical axis.
With the rotors tilted forward, the V-22 operates like a turboprop airplane
with really big props. The props extend below the fuselage and, in fact,
extend below the landing gear even when they are lowered. The V-22 cannot land
when it is fully converted to airplane mode. But it can and often does
take-off and land with the rotors partially titled. This obviously takes some
runway, but if you got it, use it. BTW, the large rotors (props) make it very
quiet when in airplane mode.
So landing gear failure is not a problem. Engine failure isn't either (at
least it's not catastrophic). There is a driveshaft which runs the length
of the wing and allows either engine to drive both rotors.
BTW, the landing gear scenario reminds me of a story about the Bell 222 (Air
Wolf is a 222). It has retractable landing gear in the wing shaped fairings
on either side of the fuselage. On a flight of one of the prototypes, one
landing gear won't lock down. So the pilot hovered a few feet from the ground
while the copilot jumped out and kicked the landing gear until it locked. Try
that in an airplane :-).
--
Mike Wilson
Hewlett-Packard, Systems Technology Division
Roseville, CA
Unix to Unix: mike@hpmrw.rose.hp.comdnwiebe@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dan N Wiebe) (04/09/91)
From: dnwiebe@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dan N Wiebe) Eric Anderson writes: >Max mission radius: 660 nmi >Max mission endurance: 3.9 hrs ? >The last two figures are footnoted to the effect that they hold for vertical >take off, [...] As a clarification, I believe it's the case that the Osprey, unlike the Harrier, can *only* take off vertically. It looks to me from illustrations like the rotors are big enough that they can't be spun in forward-thrust mode without hitting the deck. Knowing next to nothing about the V-22, I would suggest in theory only that A) horizontal takeoffs might be possible if you dug a deep gouge on either side of the catapult track to accomodate the rotor sweep, and B) without the gouges, you might be able to tilt the engines just a bit forward (45 degrees, maybe 60) and do a short rolling takeoff like the Harrier can. Given that this last is possible, would it result in significant fuel savings for a propeller-driven craft, considering that probably some percentage of its mission will be spent hovering anyway (otherwise, just send an Orion)? Dan Wiebe
wb9omc@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (04/10/91)
From: pur-ee!wb9omc@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) dnwiebe@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dan N Wiebe) writes: >B) without the gouges, you might be able to tilt the engines just a bit >forward (45 degrees, maybe 60) and do a short rolling takeoff like the >Harrier can. Given that this last is possible, would it result in >significant fuel savings for a propeller-driven craft, considering that >probably some percentage of its mission will be spent hovering anyway >(otherwise, just send an Orion)? For those who watch Wings on the Discovery Channel, you have probably seen the film of the Osprey doing pretty much this exact thing. No, it isn't limited to vertical takeoffs. In fact, I got the impression that it was preferrable to do the short roll as the VTOL stuff puts more stress on engines and airframe, not to mention increasing fuel consumption. Duane