DVD Talk
Pentagon Gives Osprey Production Go-Ahead [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon Gives Osprey Production Go-Ahead


nemein
09-29-05, 07:53 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050929/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/osprey_6


WASHINGTON - The
Pentagon on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to begin full-rate production of the V-22 Osprey, the hybrid helicopter-airplane that the Marine Corps considers vital to the future of its air fleet.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Osprey program has been threatened since 23 Marines died in a pair of crashes during testing in 2000.

The go-ahead to start full-scale production was approved by the Defense Acquisition Board.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said before the official announcement that he anticipated that step.

"Full-rate production clears the way for a more efficient and lower-cost delivery of this next-generation military aircraft, and would be great news for our national security, our troops and the employees at Bell Helicopter," he said.

"As the military transforms to adapt to new and changing threats, this next generation of aircraft will be critical in keeping America safe and ensuring that our troops have the very best."

A joint venture of Boeing Co. and Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter unit builds the aircraft in Texas and Pennsylvania.

According to Bell, the current plans include the delivery of 360 aircraft to the Marines, 50 to the U.S. Air Force and 48 to the Navy. The total program is worth in excess of $19 billion to Bell and Textron through 2018.

"With this decision, tilt-rotor technology has come to life in a big way," said Michael A. Redenbaugh, chief executive officer of Bell Helicopter.

A December 2000 Osprey crash in North Carolina, which killed four Marines, was caused by a titanium hydraulic line that ruptured.

A crash earlier that year in Arizona killed 19 Marines and was blamed by investigators on pilot error.

The Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft can land and take off like a helicopter and fly like an airplane. Commanders say the Osprey can haul more troops and equipment farther than existing helicopters. It was designed to replace the aging helicopters in the Marine Corps fleet.

I thought this was dead and buried so I was kind of surprised to hear this on the radio this morning...

classicman2
09-29-05, 08:08 AM
The DOD has been given the go-ahead to spend more and more money regardless of the other needs for the country by the Bush administration. We can always cut social programs. Of course - god forbid that Bush would raise taxes on some folks.

Mopower
09-29-05, 08:10 AM
What? No pics?

http://www.navalhelicopterassn.org/Index%20of%20Photographs/V22/osprey%20hovering%203.jpg

bhk
09-29-05, 08:12 AM
We can always cut social programs.
I wish it were true. Bush has increased spending on those too.

classicman2
09-29-05, 08:14 AM
You haven't been listening to the Repubs in the House, have you?

bhk
09-29-05, 08:19 AM
You haven't been listening to the Repubs in the House, have you?
The truth is, he has increased spending on social programs.

classicman2
09-29-05, 08:20 AM
Newsflash: The president doesn't appropriate a dime. ;)

VinVega
09-29-05, 08:25 AM
Do we know if the Osprey is more fuel efficient than the largest helicopters in the arsenal, like the Super Stallion?
http://www.rotorhead.org/military/images/ch53-1small.jpg
If it is, and they retire older aircraft, AND they have the bugs out of the design I don't see it as too horrible.

bhk
09-29-05, 08:29 AM
Newsflash: The president doesn't appropriate a dime.

Here's another newsflash, they need his signature to create new social programs(which he has done, including a medication subsidy program for the age group that controls the most wealth in this country, paid for by the middle class.)

classicman2
09-29-05, 08:31 AM
I'm merely trying to familiarize you more with the legislative process. ;)

bhk
09-29-05, 08:35 AM
I'm merely trying to familiarize you more with the legislative process.
I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong for saying Bush cut social programs.

Besides, I'm old enough to have seen School House Rock when it first aired.

classicman2
09-29-05, 08:37 AM
I think you'd better check what I said again. Not only do you not seem to understand the legislative process - you seem to have a problem with reading. :lol:

bhk
09-29-05, 08:45 AM
I think you'd better check what I said again. Not only do you not seem to understand the legislative process - you seem to have a problem with reading.
I forgot to add the word "will". That's all. You certainly implied that social programs will be cut in the future. I certainly hope they will.

VinVega
09-29-05, 08:45 AM
Nothing like a good cat fight.

-popcorn-

I hope you boys don't get a timeout.

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 09:39 AM
Do we know if the Osprey is more fuel efficient than the largest helicopters in the arsenal, like the Super Stallion?

If it is, and they retire older aircraft, AND they have the bugs out of the design I don't see it as too horrible.
Good questions. Also, does it have better defensive capabilities than existing helicopters in the fleet? Helicopters will always be a target risk, given they are designed to hover, but it would be nice if they could do so with less vulnerability. I'm sure some improvements have been made, I'd just like to hear what they are.

Is there a list of features / improvements somewhere?

al_bundy
09-29-05, 09:49 AM
the osprey is supposed to be a lot faster and have a much longer range than existing helicopters

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 10:02 AM
Yes, and it has tilt-rotor technology , can land and take off like a helicopter and fly like an airplane. Commanders say the Osprey can haul more troops and equipment farther than existing helicopters.

But there must be a list of bells and whistles somewhere, something about the armor etc... or is that classified until one crashes in enemy territory?

nemein
09-29-05, 10:05 AM
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.htm

<table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=5 WIDTH="700" align="center">
<tr>
<td>

<table BORDER=4 CELLPADDING=3 WIDTH="700" align="center">
<tr>
<td VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="340">
<p><b>Powerplant</b> <br>
Two Allison T406-AD-400 engines <br>
Max and Intermediate, shp (kW) - 6,150 (4,586) <br>

</p>
</td>
<td ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="top" ROWSPAN="3" width="260">
<p><img src="http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22ill.gif" width=251 height=323 border=0 alt="V-22">
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td VALIGN="TOP">
<p><b>Rotor System</b> <br>

Blades per hub - 3 <br>
Construction - graphite/fiberglass <br>
Tip speed, fps (mps) - 661.90 (201.75) <br>
Diameter, ft (m) - 38.00 (11.58) <br>

Blade area, ft2 (m2) - 261.52 (24.30) <br>
Disc area, ft2, (m2) - 2,268.00 (210.70) <br>
Blade folding - automatic, powered </p>
</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td VALIGN="TOP">
<p><b>Transmissions</b> <br>
Takeoff [USMC], shp (kW) - 4,570 (3,408) <br>
Takeoff [USN], shp (kW) - 4,970 (3,706) <br>

Takeoff [USAF], shp (kW) - 4,970 (3,706) <br>
1 engine inoperative, shp (kW) <br>
5,920 (4,415) </p>
</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td VALIGN="TOP">
<p><b>Performance</b> <br>
Max speed, SL, kts (km/h) - 275 (510) <br>
Vert rate of climb, SL, fpm (m/m) <br>

1,090 (332) <br>
Max rate of climb, SL, fpm (m/m) <br>
2,320 (707) <br>

Service ceiling, ft (m) - 26,000 (7,925) <br>
Service ceiling, one engine inop, ft (m) <br>
11,300 (3,444) <br>
HOGE, ft (m) - 14,200 (4,328) </p>

</td>
<td valign="top">
<p><b>Range</b> <br>
Amphib assault, nm (km) - 515 (954) <br>
Max, self-deployment, nm (km) <br>

2,100 (3,892) </p>
<p> <b>Crew</b> <br>
Cockpit - crew seats - 2 <br>
Cabin - troop seats/litters - 24/12 </p>

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td VALIGN="TOP">
<p><b>Dimensions - Internal</b> <br>
Length, max, ft (m) - 24.17 (7.37) <br>
Width, max, ft (m) - 5.92 (1.80) <br>

Height, max, ft (m) - 6.00 (1.83) </p>
<p> <b>Weights</b> <br>
Empty, lbs (kg) - 33,140 (15,032) <br>
Takeoff, vertical, max, lbs - 47,500 (21,546) <br>

Takeoff, short running, max, lbs (kg) <br>
55,000 (24,948) <br>
Takeoff, self-deploy mission, lbs (kg) <br>
60,500 (27,443) <br>

Cargo hook, single, lbs (kg) <br>
10,000 (4,536) <br>
Cargo hook, dual, lbs (kg) - 15,000 (9,221) </p>
</td>

<td valign="top">
<p><b>Dimensions - External</b> <br>
Length, fuselage, ft (m) - 57.33 (17.48) <br>
Width, rotors turning, ft (m) - 83.33 (25.55) <br>
Length, stowed, ft (m) - 62.58 (19.08) <br>

Width, stowed, ft (m) - 18.42 (5.61) <br>
Width, horizontal stabilizer, ft (m) - 18.42 (5.61)
<br>
Height, nacelles fully vertical, ft (m) - 21.76 (6.63)
<br>
Height, vertical stabilizer, ft (m) - 17.65 (5.38)
</p>

<p> <b>Fuel Capacity</b> <br>
Sponsons, gals (liters) - 1,228 (4,649) <br>
Wings, gals (liters) - 787 (2,979) <br>
Aux, self-deployment, gals (liters) - 2,436 (9,221)
</p>

</td>
</tr>
</table>

</td>
</tr>
</table>

nemein
09-29-05, 10:09 AM
Another good source for info http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 10:17 AM
Thanks. :up:

Is it safe to assume this thing can't fly with one engine? Looking at it, I can't even imagine how.

nemein
09-29-05, 10:20 AM
Thanks. :up:

Is it safe to assume this thing can't fly with one engine? Looking at it, I can't even imagine how.


I imagine it could criuse/fly/land like a regular plane, I suspect you won't be able to use the tilt rotor function though ;)

EDIT: Although there seems to be some mixed messages on that (I haven't done an extensive search yet though). Some sites just mention vertical take off others mention short or vertical (implying some sort of "plane like" capabilities). The propulsion system page http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-propulsion.htm mentions single engine operation though.

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 10:25 AM
Here's a link to details on the "survivability" that I was looking for:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-survive.htm

OldDude
09-29-05, 10:28 AM
They give one engine performance specs. I assume it can fly on one in "airplane mode" but the prop/rotor is way too big to land in "airplane mode" without striking ground.

With one engine out, rotating engines to "helicopter mode" to land won't be pretty. I don't see how that works. Maybe you just glide in on wings (and a prayer)?

OldDude
09-29-05, 10:38 AM
Thor,
Good link. There is a cross wing drive shaft. Either engine can drive both props in event of engine failure. The props are designed to shatter and not hurt anybody if it has to land in "airplane mode"

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 11:19 AM
Yeah, I vote yes. :up:

shaun3000
09-29-05, 05:34 PM
It can't land or takeoff like an airplane because the rotors are too large. However, I'm almost positive that both rotors can operate off of one engine, allowing it to still fly and land safely if one were to quit.

Looking at the size of the rotors, I can't imagine it could fly single-engine even in airplane mode. You have to be able to counter-act the yawing moment you get when one engine is not producing any thrust. To do this you need sufficient rudder surface area and it doesn't look like it has it, even with the dual fin design.

Of course, what do I know? I'm not an engineer, just a pilut. :brickwl:

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 07:02 PM
It can't land or takeoff like an airplane because the rotors are too large. However, I'm almost positive that both rotors can operate off of one engine, allowing it to still fly and land safely if one were to quit.

Read OldDude's post above. It will make everything clear.

I'm guessing they have accounted for the loss in power if one engine gives out mid-flight, or they wouldn't have single engine performance ratings. I don't think they'd be taking off for a mission with only one engine to begin with. ;)

shaun3000
09-29-05, 08:07 PM
Whoops, didn't see his post. Yes, they would have accomidated for the los of power. No, not taking off single-engine if they can help it.

Although there's a huge difference between having both rotors turning with reduced power output versus only one turning at full power.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0