Future Vertical Lift for US Army

[Hotdogs]

From what I know, the CV-22 is completely unable to autorotate in helicopter mode. While a dual engine failure is unlikely, I still don't like that if both engines go down under 1600 feet, there's not a damn thing you can do.

If you thinking doing an auto in a 15-20k lbs helicopter is anymore survivable than you're wrong. You know how many dual/triple engine failures have ever happened in the AH/UH-1 and CH-53 respectfully? Osprey? Zero. The Osprey is a plane that lands like a helicopter, not vice versa and I've never seen an Osprey pull into a hover and land straight down from 50 ft. Most of the time I've seen them take off in airplane mode and they are vulnerable to the same limitations as a helo wrt brownout landings. They have more rotor downwash due to a higher disk load but its not a crippling issue. Lots of bad information being passed around the last couple posts. I'd also refrain from speaking about combat time unless you've experienced it yourself, there are a multitude of factors that play into those situations and its not always an aircraft issue.

[I3uller]

If you thinking doing an auto in a 15-20k lbs helicopter is anymore survivable than you're wrong. You know how many dual/triple engine failures have ever happened in the AH/UH-1 and CH-53 respectfully? Osprey? Zero. The Osprey is a plane that lands like a helicopter, not vice versa and I've never seen an Osprey pull into a hover and land straight down from 50 ft. Most of the time I've seen them take off in airplane mode and they are vulnerable to the same limitations as a helo wrt brownout landings. They have more rotor downwash due to a higher disk load but its not a crippling issue. Lots of bad information being passed around the last couple posts. I'd also refrain from speaking about combat time unless you've experienced it yourself, there are a multitude of factors that play into those situations and its not always an aircraft issue.

 

I've seen complete power off autorotations without damage to the aircraft of an S-92 at max gross which is about 25k lbs. While not exceptionally pretty it can be done where the CV-22 simply can't at all. It's accepted as unrecoverable and fatal. And while it's unlikely that both engines would go out in normal circumstances, combat can make the abnormal, normal. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I just wouldn't want to be in a helicopter (or CV-22 in helicopter mode) that couldn't make it's way to the ground with no power under 1600 feet. I just like there to be some sort of possibility of survival, particularly in an area where you're most likely to lose engine power.

 

S-92 autorotation at max gross:

 

[superstallion6113]

Ironically the 53 has killed far more Marines than the Mv22 has.

 

It has also been flying for almost 50 years. 1967 it was fielded by the Marine Corps. First prototype flew in 1964.

Edited April 12, 2013 by superstallion6113

[Rob1237051]

While it doesn't always hover straight down at 50 the original "forever to land" statement is totally accurate. From RP inbound to the LZ let's not pretend it excels.

 

It's great for VIP but you can't compare it to a 53 in terms of cargo or assault. Their tip lights are pretty if we are desperately searching for positives.

[superstallion6113]

If you thinking doing an auto in a 15-20k lbs helicopter is anymore survivable than you're wrong. You know how many dual/triple engine failures have ever happened in the AH/UH-1 and CH-53 respectfully? Osprey? Zero.

 

 

I know of two.

 

Just outside Camp Jaleba at the HST site, southern Iraq, airfield just outside of Al Nas, March 2003. Dual engine failure. HMH-464 MAG-29, aircraft 161180.

 

I can speak from personal experience having survived an auto in a heavy helicopter as a 53 crew chief in OIF 1 back in 2003 from low level in a CH-53E with a 21k lb load of M198 rounds on the hook. Thats nearing 70k lb gross weight in a 53E. Without the load we'd be at 46k-48k with a fuel load. #2 engine compressor stalled as we started the transition to forward flight after the hover power check. #1 and #3 torque spiked immediately, causing the #3 to stall almost immediately after the #2. Partial loss of tail rotor authority, drooping turns. I pickled the load immediately. Pilots executed a successful auto into the sand from about 100-150 ft. We survived, and so did the aircraft. Hole thing felt like 5 min but really happened in the matter of probably 5-7 seconds. A main landing gear strut, 2 nose gear boxes, and 3 new engines later, we flew the bird home after some field maintenance with a pettibone and a thorough inspection.

 

With that, I will say that I have no doubts about a 25k lb aircraft executing a successful auto. Successful being survivable.

 

 

When I was with HMM-263(REIN) in Iraq, 2004-2005, at TQ, the 46 guys lost an aircraft that took an RPG to the right hand engine. They lost both engines from the extensive damage and fire that engulfed the back of the aircraft. Successful auto to the ground, aircraft lost due to fire, but crew survived.

Edited April 12, 2013 by superstallion6113

[Rob1237051]

Hell, with my current airframe at 10k kg (your upper limit) we would survive like 75% of the autos we practice starting at just over 1000 agl. More depending on who is on the controls...

[Hotdogs]

 

#1 and #3 torque spiked immediately, causing the #3 to stall almost immediately after the #2. Partial loss of tail rotor authority, drooping turns. I pickled the load immediately. Pilots executed a successful auto into the sand from about 100-150 ft. We survived, and so did the aircraft. ssful auto. Successful being survivable.

 

If you have two engines working, it's not an auto. Its a power on descent. Even if they don't have 100% power available because of an engine malfunction (or whatever the DA is giving them that day). There has never been a complete triple engine failure in a CH-53. (I may know a bunch of 53 pilots, current and Vietnam era ones too). That sounds more like a Pr > Pa situation. Just based on description.

 

...and that 46 wasn't at max gross. I can give you the same situation with HMM-364 in Iraq and those guys didn't survive. Doing an auto in a Cobra or Huey at max gross, high DA, low alt would be an extremely shitty situation for any helicopter. The air crew would be injured or worse. My second point from my understanding (and I see these guys in the pattern every day btw) is that Ospreys don't auto when they have to do an emergency landing. They convert and land/crash in airplane mode. Dual engine failures are rare and It's not a helicopter, it's an airplane. Its like people automatically assume its going to lose both engines everytime it takes off. They also dont have to deal with the asymmetric thurst issue because one engine can turn both props. Yes, it's glide ratio sucks with a loss of both engines, but considering engine reliabilty these days and the aircraft was designed with speed and range the aircraft should avoid a lot of hostile fire situations based on TTPs. It's not like Ospreys insert Marines without an escort and the IP to LZ time enroute is inconsequential. It's slow but not a show stopper.

 

l3puller where are you getting your information from? The Internet? Hearsay? I'll be sure to get more details from my Osprey buddies the next time we hang out. It's like your reading this stuff from an anti-Osprey point paper and regurgitating in your posts. S-92 =/= CH-53E. It's all been heard before.

[ftxag76]

Holy $&.!? Farts, did this turn in to a counseling session, lol. Fire away boys, fire away... Love it! Finally some good debates!

[Helipilot PTK]

Ok... you can take shots at me all you like. I have openly said I am a "wanna be Army pilot" with a PPL(H), and all of this is my opinion. I understand you and many others on this forum have WAY more experience than myself and I respect that.

 

I have never flown in a V-22, and know little about it. That is why I was referring to my brother and his friends who DO have experience flying in it. They are talking about when it lands in "helicopter mode" because the stuff they do usually doesn't give them the luxury of landing in airplane mode on a runway... And unless my brother and his friends have a bad memory they would know how it lands...

 

I have no problem with the V-22, I just think it's still a "young" aircraft and that it will only get better/safer over time.

[superstallion6113]

If you have two engines working, it's not an auto. Its a power on descent. Even if they don't have 100% power available because of an engine malfunction (or whatever the DA is giving them that day). There has never been a complete triple engine failure in a CH-53. (I may know a bunch of 53 pilots, current and Vietnam era ones too). That sounds more like a Pr > Pa situation. Just based on description.

 

...and that 46 wasn't at max gross. I can give you the same situation with HMM-364 in Iraq and those guys didn't survive. Doing an auto in a Cobra or Huey at max gross, high DA, low alt would be an extremely shitty situation for any helicopter. The air crew would be injured or worse. My second point from my understanding (and I see these guys in the pattern every day btw) is that Ospreys don't auto when they have to do an emergency landing. They convert and land/crash in airplane mode. Dual engine failures are rare and It's not a helicopter, it's an airplane. Its like people automatically assume its going to lose both engines everytime it takes off. They also dont have to deal with the asymmetric thurst issue because one engine can turn both props. Yes, it's glide ratio sucks with a loss of both engines, but considering engine reliabilty these days and the aircraft was designed with speed and range the aircraft should avoid a lot of hostile fire situations based on TTPs. It's not like Ospreys insert Marines without an escort and the IP to LZ time enroute is inconsequential. It's slow but not a show stopper.

 

l3puller where are you getting your information from? The Internet? Hearsay? I'll be sure to get more details from my Osprey buddies the next time we hang out. It's like your reading this stuff from an anti-Osprey point paper and regurgitating in your posts. S-92 =/= CH-53E. It's all been heard before.

 

My bad. I misread and thought you just said dual engine failure in a 53. I will agree with you and say there has never been a 3 engine failure in a 53. The odds of it happening just make it so unlikely.

 

I will say this. I know a prior 46 guy, SSGT, now a 6176, V-22 crew chief. He actually loves the 22. I do remember him talking back in like 2006 when he first started on the 22 about practicing autos. Though not in the way we think of a helicopter doing autos. He mentioned they get in a glide nose down to keep airspeed up, and rotor speed up, and near the end of the auto, they rotate the rotors up into helo mode for the bottom of the auto and flare like a helo does. Curious if the 22 drivers you know can clarify the auto procedure, just for the nay sayers of the 22. And for the sake of facts, instead of I know a guy type info. I am truly curious.

 

A lot of my former coworkers and fellow Marines at HMX-1 are going to transition from the 46 to the 22, since the very first V-22 has been delivered to HMX-1 this month. I must say the Presidential Helicopter Squadron isn't choosing the V-22 knowing it has issues, considering the people that fly on those aircraft. It just wouldn't be happening if there were dangerous flaws in it's safety and reliability. 14 will be delivered there in total.

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2013 by superstallion6113

[ftxag76]

I think HMX-1's decision to use the MV-22 was not the smartest move. This thing supposabky costs $70 million a pop and is hardly the most cost effective platform.

[superstallion6113]

I think HMX-1's decision to use the MV-22 was not the smartest move. This thing supposabky costs $70 million a pop and is hardly the most cost effective platform.

I do agree but not because of its safety. It does seem to have a low readiness rate. 60ish percent is the average I've read. I think the big issue is the rotor wash. There was an incident at fleet week involving the 22 and it's massive down wash. 90% of the LZs we landed in at HMX when on trips in support of the president had people and/or personal property prone to massive damage from excessive down wash if the right entry/exit to the LZ wasn't used. Even if you were cautious and came in steep, to clear people and objects on the round, damage to property still happened. I can only imagine it will be worse with the 22 than the 53. 46s were used in tight, small zones, and zones that he 53 was just too much rotor wash to land in. Now, that won't be an option. I don't see 2 v-22s being able to land on the Wall Street pad in NY. Or being able to come in over the skeet range tower at Camp David without tearing it down. Both of which are regular trips at HMX.

 

But, it's speed and range will be more than useful at HMX. Which, really won't matter on Presidential support missions when dash 3, 4, and 8(HMX thing with dash 8) are tailing Marine One and Two at 120kts, unless some changes happen in the execution of VIP/Presidential support missions. Usually all the aircraft fly in a formation for most of the mission.

Edited April 12, 2013 by superstallion6113

[Hotdogs]

Ok... you can take shots at me all you like. I have openly said I am a "wanna be Army pilot" with a PPL(H), and all of this is my opinion. I understand you and many others on this forum have WAY more experience than myself and I respect that.

 

I have never flown in a V-22, and know little about it. That is why I was referring to my brother and his friends who DO have experience flying in it. They are talking about when it lands in "helicopter mode" because the stuff they do usually doesn't give them the luxury of landing in airplane mode on a runway... And unless my brother and his friends have a bad memory they would know how it lands...

 

I have no problem with the V-22, I just think it's still a "young" aircraft and that it will only get better/safer over time.

If the Osprey shits out two engines due to hostile fire or an engine defect. Somebody messed up big time. It's actually the safest aircraft in the USMC inventory right now. More skids have crashed and killed pilots/aircrew in the last 5 years than Ospreys.

 

I'm not trying to take shots at you, it's just slightly annoying hearing misinformation still being thrown around from 5 or 6 years ago. I don't think the Osprey was a completely bad decision but it definitely was a goat rope of a program. Anti-ship missile technology and its proliferation were a big part of the genesis of the Osprey. People don't understand how it's going to be used and still think with in the context of an environment from decades ago. They did have premature parts wear in dusty/sandy enviroments and due to an immature supply chain readiness dropped. I think those parts were remanufactured and obviously the program and its logistical capability has increased. So those issues are no longer a huge deal. As for the Presidential helicopter, you can mitigate down wash with better LZ prep and entry/departure routing, I think the cost savings comes in because they don't have to plumb it with a giant communication suite and much more ASE gear. Also takes away the use of Air Force one for those gas guzzling medium range trips OCONUS and stateside. Definitely beats the VH-71 or whatever it was... Time will tell.

[ftxag76]

If the Osprey shits out two engines due to hostile fire or an engine defect. Somebody messed up big time. It's actually the safest aircraft in the USMC inventory right now. More skids have crashed and killed pilots/aircrew in the last 5 years than Ospreys.

 

I'm not trying to take shots at you, it's just slightly annoying hearing misinformation still being thrown around from 5 or 6 years ago. I don't think the Osprey was a completely bad decision but it definitely was a goat rope of a program. Anti-ship missile technology and its proliferation were a big part of the genesis of the Osprey. People don't understand how it's going to be used and still think with in the context of an environment from decades ago. They did have premature parts wear in dusty/sandy enviroments and due to an immature supply chain readiness dropped. I think those parts were remanufactured and obviously the program and its logistical capability has increased. So those issues are no longer a huge deal. As for the Presidential helicopter, you can mitigate down wash with better LZ prep and entry/departure routing, I think the cost savings comes in because they don't have to plumb it with a giant communication suite and much more ASE gear. Also takes away the use of Air Force one for those gas guzzling medium range trips OCONUS and stateside. Definitely beats the VH-71 or whatever it was... Time will tell.

 

 

It's not a white top (presidential transport). It's used for the supporting staff of the president.

[stearmann4]

Aircraft safety and survivability are two entirely seperate categories. Aircraft systems safety is based soley on mishap per a given baseline of flight hours. Human error and environmental conditions are factored into the overall equation. Combat operations and threat can't be qualified when it comes to safety but arguably they can for survivability. So, the Huey for all it's simplicity may be the safest based on flight hours, but the worst in survivability given it's simplicity.

 

The jungles of Vietnam were probably a more hazardous environment to fly over even more than Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not sure U.S. aircrews would've faired better (except for NVGs) even if we had the aircraft we're flying today.

 

the Osprey is indeed a dud. The AF originally promoted it as their replacement for the aging MH-53, then promptly mothballed the Stallions. Once it was obvious the 22' would not be able to provide the same capability as an MH-53, they quickly stated the Osprey was never intended to replace the 53, but provide a different capability, then they turned over all their rotary wing missions except dedicated CSAR to the 160th.

 

Thhe USMC, and they historically have always done, knew the 22 wasn't what they wanted, but they've been making it work in Afghanistan. Two deployments ago I finally got to see my first AFSOC Osprey in combat, thought I never saw or got briefed of them conducting any useful operations with them though.

 

That said, I think whatever technology has been gained by operations employment of the CV-22s, will make the next generation of tilt-rotor technology more useful. Gotta start somewhere I guess.

 

Mike-

[Hotdogs]

the Osprey is indeed a dud. The AF originally promoted it as their replacement for the aging MH-53, then promptly mothballed the Stallions. Once it was obvious the 22' would not be able to provide the same capability as an MH-53, they quickly stated the Osprey was never intended to replace the 53, but provide a different capability, then they turned over all their rotary wing missions except dedicated CSAR to the 160th.

 

Thhe USMC, and they historically have always done, knew the 22 wasn't what they wanted, but they've been making it work in Afghanistan. Two deployments ago I finally got to see my first AFSOC Osprey in combat, thought I never saw or got briefed of them conducting any useful operations with them though.

 

That said, I think whatever technology has been gained by operations employment of the CV-22s, will make the next generation of tilt-rotor technology more useful. Gotta start somewhere I guess.

 

Mike-

Interesting point of view, the lifting capacity of the Osprey roughly matches the MH-53. The Osprey also replaced our legacy CH-53D squadrons instead of them getting the CH-53E. So I'm not sure what the Air Force saw that made it turn their heads, but historically the USAF isn't one to ditch missions, it's usually the other way around. If the Army does decide to get tilt rotor aircraft, I could see some Air Force generals start to whine.

[Velocity173]

Interesting point of view, the lifting capacity of the Osprey roughly matches the MH-53. The Osprey also replaced our legacy CH-53D squadrons instead of them getting the CH-53E. So I'm not sure what the Air Force saw that made it turn their heads, but historically the USAF isn't one to ditch missions, it's usually the other way around. If the Army does decide to get tilt rotor aircraft, I could see some Air Force generals start to whine.

Air Force likes it for CSAR. With it's range it could go deep into a country where we don't have local assets and pull the pilots out. To me that's about all the Osprey is good for. Air assaults? Anyone who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan knows that the distance to do an air assault isn't very far. Plus we have FARPS everywhere so it's legs aren't needed. Speed? it's nice but at 240 kts they aren't going to be on the deck at terrain flight altitudes so they're going to get painted on radar. 240 kts isn't going to outrun an SA-16 or any other MANPAD either. So you could take troops long distances at decent speeds. You can buy a C-130J for less price, to go further faster, and carry twice as many passengers. We have runways everywhere we go these days. I think the Osprey with it's speed would be a good MEDEVAC platform but I don't know of anyone using it for that either.

 

I actually like the Osprey but at 70 million a pop, 10 grand an hour to operate, and mediocre OR rates, it hasn't met the guidelines it was originally suppose to meet. I think if the Army can get a variant of the S-97 at a realistic cost, that would be the wiser choice.

[Synixman]

I'm not sold on next-generation stuff, call me crazy. The MV-22 meets the needs of the Marines, and I can see the Navy a future variant to replace the MH-53E and C-2As for our VOD needs.

 

What do we really need? Make an amazing helicopter! Reduce complexity, weight, maintenance hours, fuel burn and increase performance, survivability, leathality, & pilot friendliness. What's the biggest dangers to rotary wing guys these days? I'd argue CFIT, brownout landings, and Pr > Pa in high/hot/heavy configs. Let's throw some actual money at technology to fix these problems.

 

We've stuck on 2nd generation turbine helicopter design since the 70s. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel (Future Vertical Lift) or strap half baked ideas into the various Hawk airframes. Why do we do that? That's all there is money for. DoD decided to only fund FVL and has proven time and time again it is risk averse on new helo design (See: Commanche, Presidential Helicopter, every attempt to replace the OH-58, CSAR-X). That the MV-22 has survived is a testament to the Marine's lobbying power in Washintgon, and I applaud them. It's an amazing airframe and allows them to do amazing things.

[stearmann4]

The Osprey was acquired with CSAR in mind, which in some environments, probably does pretty well. Around 2003 AFSOC and USASOC came to some agreement that the AF would divest itself entirely of rotoary wing aviation and we ended up taking everything the 53s had been doing. When the 22s didn't evaluate as planned, the MH-60s were retained for CSAR which is now why the AF s going a SLEP for them, they're getting a lot of unforecasted hours on the airframes.

 

The MV-22 does a great job of flying guys from FOBs to semi-prepared/semi-permissive environments. However, the rotor wash alone prevents it from conducting useful tactical infils. Flying intermediate distances is it's strong point, which is why it's a great CASEVAC type bird. An MH-60 picks up wounded, makes it back to an austere FOB, transloads them onto a 22' which makes the flight back to Bagram in 20 minutes vs the 3.5 hr helicopter flight in crappy WX.

 

The 160th/USASOC was invited to jump in on the Osprey at the same time as AFSOC and it was considered over a 2 year period. In the end it was decided that with the untested technology, that an upgraded MH-47 (D/E to G) was the best option at the time. As a comparison, an MH-47G costs roughly 68 million a copy, if you take travel distance out of the equation, it carries more in the cabin, has more power at a given altitude and would appear to be a better bargain. You won't see an operational tilt rotor in the Army for decades.

 

Mike-

[stearmann4]

Interesting point of view, the lifting capacity of the Osprey roughly matches the MH-53. The Osprey also replaced our legacy CH-53D squadrons instead of them getting the CH-53E. So I'm not sure what the Air Force saw that made it turn their heads, but historically the USAF isn't one to ditch missions, it's usually the other way around. If the Army does decide to get tilt rotor aircraft, I could see some Air Force generals start to whine.

Yeah, but the cabin is tiny, like roughly the size of a CH-46.

[Hotdogs]

You won't see an operational tilt rotor in the Army for decades.

 

Mike-

I would wager that might (atleast now) be because of the USMC and not vice versa. With budget tightening going on, I would imagine the Marine Corps would have issue with the Army acquiring tilt rotors because of the "lookalike" syndrome. Not to mention the Army bailing out on the program early and us essentially footing the bill.

 

Going back to what I was talking earlier the aircraft was designed to maximize MEU/ARG maneuver space at sea and primarily in the ship to objective maneuver arena. Not as a dedicated CSAR platform or SOF assault support bird. Since we've been wrapped up Iraq and AFG people forget that and just as recently as last year (Libya) it was used in a TRAP role. Not sure any other aircraft coud've done that that fast and at that range. It would've made TF58 initial push into AFG in 2001 easier. It's easy to look at the Osprey through that soda straw. Again you've got understand how the USMC plans on using it. Not just a bunch of hearsay and conjecture that always get vomited repeatedly when some whispers the word Osprey.

 

Velocity, I know of about only 2 aircraft that could outrun an SA-16. Neither of them are helos. I know of a lot of aircraft that can go over or around manpads/radar though and that's exactly what the Osprey can do. Maneuver. Marines don't always have the luxury of an improved airstrip. That's the reason why we have the AV-8B and Osprey. 10,000 a flight hour? You're being sarcastic right? That's a new one.

 

Here I am, a skid dude, defending the Osprey and all I really do at work is make fun of them. Ironic.

[ftxag76]

I really think if the Army wants to be apart of the Sea-Air battle concept, they are going to need something that flies further and faster. Particularly for the pacific theater of operations.

[Velocity173]

"Since 2010, according to program office figures, the Osprey's cost per flight hour has declined from $11,651 to $9,520, an improvement of 18 percent." Great improvement. Unfortunately it was suppose to be almost half that.

 

C-130s operate from unimproved strips as well. 5,oooft coral runway at Ie Shima.

 

While the Osprey has a good ASE package, no aircraft is SAM proof. Even stealth aircraft can be shot down these days.

 

It's CSAR role is significant. Outside of that, it's an over budget mess just like the F-35 has become.

[Hotdogs]

"Since 2010, according to program office figures, the Osprey's cost per flight hour has declined from $11,651 to $9,520, an improvement of 18 percent." Great improvement. Unfortunately it was suppose to be almost half that.

 

C-130s operate from unimproved strips as well. 5,oooft coral runway at Ie Shima.

 

While the Osprey has a good ASE package, no aircraft is SAM proof. Even stealth aircraft can be shot down these days.

 

It's CSAR role is significant. Outside of that, it's an over budget mess just like the F-35 has become.

We're a Naval service and the C-130 can't operate from Amphibs. You think the MV-22 hourly operating costs are bad? Go look at what the USAF spends. The aging F-16C is in the neighborhood of 7k and the top end F-22 is north of 35k, I don't know what a B-2 or B-52 costs, i can imagine though, but yeah the Osprey is AFU. Last I heard is that it's currently in the area of 8k.

[ftxag76]

 

We're a Naval service and the C-130 can't operate from Amphibs. .

Just saying, lol- it happened once in the 60s