CV-22 Grounded

Morgan3820 said:
Always thought that they were a poor design compromise.
Click to expand...
FYI: the design is solid and been around/flying for decades. Its trying to operate them outside what they were actually designed for that causes the problems. But clutch issue is nothing new and is even found on various helicopters.
 
Hmm, several of them have been flying over my house every day for a week. Some sort of training up north in the MOAs, no doubt. Fun to watch!
 
RyanShort1 said:
Mover is better. Carroll seems a bit more pretentious.
Click to expand...
I follow C.W. Lemoine as well. But Mooch has some good content on the situation in the Ukraine. Some of the interviews are on the long side, but they definitely provide a more balanced, unfiltered view of the conflict than is currently available in the typical world news sources.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: the design is solid and been around/flying for decades. Its trying to operate them outside what they were actually designed for that causes the problems. But clutch issue is nothing new and is even found on various helicopters.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. It is an improvement over the H46 that it replaced only in speed. Except for speed it does everything worse at much greater expense.
 
Brad Z said:
I follow C.W. Lemoine as well. But Mooch has some good content on the situation in the Ukraine. Some of the interviews are on the long side, but they definitely provide a more balanced, unfiltered view of the conflict than is currently available in the typical world news sources.
Click to expand...
Mooch ??
 
Morgan3820 said:
I respectfully disagree. It is an improvement over the H46 that it replaced only in speed. Except for speed it does everything worse at much greater expense.
Click to expand...
My comment was to the core design. The XV-15 was flying before the Eagle Claw fiasco which led to the V22. Bell Helicopters decision to pursue the V22 at the behest of "greater" minds destroyed the company. Had they stayed the course with the 609 instead it would have been certified 20 years ago. But dont worry I'm sure they'll do better with the V280.:rolleyes:
 
Bell206 said:
My comment was to the core design. The XV-15 was flying before the Eagle Claw fiasco which led to the V22. Bell Helicopters decision to pursue the V22 at the behest of "greater" minds destroyed the company. Had they stayed the course with the 609 instead it would have been certified 20 years ago. But dont worry I'm sure they'll do better with the V280.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In what way(s) the 609 better?
 
Piperonca said:
In what way(s) the 609 better?
Click to expand...
The 609 stuck with the current tiltrotor technology proven in the XV-15. Had the offshore industry not changed the outlook/methods for deepwater there would have been 500+ 609s flying support and other ops.

When the V22 became a "joint" venture they had to redesign just about everything. The biggest one being the wing/blades stow capability. Thats where the initial big cost increase happened.
 
Bell206 said:
The 609 stuck with the current tiltrotor technology proven in the XV-15. Had the offshore industry not changed the outlook/methods for deepwater there would have been 500+ 609s flying support and other ops.

When the V22 became a "joint" venture they had to redesign just about everything. The biggest one being the wing/blades stow capability. Thats where the initial big cost increase happened.
Click to expand...
Good point. Looking at a V22 manipulate its entire powertrain for shipboard stowage is something to see. Rube Goldberg would be proud.

 
Last edited:
I expect someday, some general/admiral that used flew H46s will scrap the V22 and get the services to buy something that looks a lot like the H46.
 
Piperonca said:
Good point. Looking at a V22 manipulate its entire powertrain for shipboard stowage is something to see. Rube Goldberg would be proud.

Click to expand...
I have a front row seat to the aircraft and they are astonishingly complex machines.
 
The USMC response is interesting. They’re basically saying we’ve known about this glitch for over a decade, but our pilots know how to deal with it if it occurs.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I expect someday, some general/admiral that used flew H46s will scrap the V22 and get the services to buy something that looks a lot like the H46.
Click to expand...
While they stop the CH46 production they never stopped the CH47 production with the current models at the F and G variant. It was never the intent to replace the 47 and was just hype. But they never seem to learn. The latest "Future Vertical Flight" tender put out by the Army wants to replace the following inventory with a single aircraft: UH-60, AH-64, CH-47 and OH-58 helicopters. Sound familiar. And the only 2 contenders are the V280 and X2.
 
Bell206 said:
While they stop the CH46 production they never stopped the CH47 production with the current models at the F and G variant. It was never the intent to replace the 47 and was just hype. But they never seem to learn. The latest "Future Vertical Flight" tender put out by the Army wants to replace the following inventory with a single aircraft: UH-60, AH-64, CH-47 and OH-58 helicopters. Sound familiar. And the only 2 contenders are the V280 and X2.
Click to expand...

The Bell 360 Invictus is in the running for the OH-58 replacement as well under the FVL (FARA). Also even though the CH-47 is listed as an aircraft being replaced under the FVL program, I seriously doubt that will happen. Neither contender can compare to the heavy lift capability of the CH-47. I predict the UH-60 will be replaced first followed by the AH-64. Hopefully theyll go with the SB-1 but the V-280 would be a worthy replacement…but I have serious doubts to its high altitude hover performance claims.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The USMC response is interesting. They’re basically saying we’ve known about this glitch for over a decade, but our pilots know how to deal with it if it occurs.
Click to expand...
The Marines have always been more ‘can do’ than the Chair Force. :D
 
Bell206 said:
While they stop the CH46 production they never stopped the CH47 production with the current models at the F and G variant. It was never the intent to replace the 47 and was just hype. But they never seem to learn. The latest "Future Vertical Flight" tender put out by the Army wants to replace the following inventory with a single aircraft: UH-60, AH-64, CH-47 and OH-58 helicopters. Sound familiar. And the only 2 contenders are the V280 and X2.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Future Vertical Lift (FVL) looks only to replace the H-60. FLARRA or whatever the acronym is, looks to replace the OH-58/AH-64, or whatever the Comanche was supposed to be. The -47 replacement is a LONG way down the road. V-280, has a lot going for it. Bell has gleaned a lot of data from V-22 allowing them to progress with better handling qualities for the V-280. Time will tell. Boeing SB-1, well, I have to ask: when you have to stick that thing in an LZ with undulating terrain, and obstacles like bushes and small trees, how do you protect that prop on the tail?
 
Flymy47 said:
Not quite true. Future Vertical Lift (FVL) looks only to replace the H-60. FLARRA or whatever the acronym is, looks to replace the OH-58/AH-64, or whatever the Comanche was supposed to be. The -47 replacement is a LONG way down the road. V-280, has a lot going for it. Bell has gleaned a lot of data from V-22 allowing them to progress with better handling qualities for the V-280. Time will tell. Boeing SB-1, well, I have to ask: when you have to stick that thing in an LZ with undulating terrain, and obstacles like bushes and small trees, how do you protect that prop on the tail?
Click to expand...

Thats the exact same thing I said when the SB-1 / S-97s came out years ago. That prop is gonna get thrashed. Only thing I can think of is if it’ll have some sort of sprag clutch that can be used to disengage it on landing.
 
Flymy47 said:
FLARRA or whatever the acronym is, looks to replace the OH-58/AH-64, or whatever the Comanche was supposed to be.
Click to expand...
FLRAA, FARA, etc are separate programs under the FVL/JMR initiative. They still list those 5 airframes for replacement under FVL. Typical government acronym games.
Flymy47 said:
how do you protect that prop on the tail?
Click to expand...
Velocity173 said:
sprag clutch that can be used to disengage it on landin
Click to expand...
My understanding the rear prop is controlled by a cockpit switch and is similar to S76 rotorbrake. But the driveshaft does freewheel on a sprag type clutch like the 76.
Paul V said:
the 609 can autorotate. As far as I know the V22 cannot.
Click to expand...
Technically they both "can" but not in the conventional sense. Power lift aircraft have different parameters than rotorcraft. The main issue is low inertia in blades and airflow.
 
Bell206 said:
Technically they both "can" but not in the conventional sense. Power lift aircraft have different parameters than rotorcraft. The main issue is low inertia in blades and airflow.
Click to expand...

from what I understand the 609 has conducted autorotation trials in the actual aircraft which yields a 3500 fpm descent and a 0 fpm rate for 3-5 seconds after a flare.

I have never heard of a v22 performing an autorotation in the actual aircraft though the maneuver is demonstrated in the simulator which yields a 5000 fpm descent and typically results in a red screen.
 
Piperonca said:
Good point. Looking at a V22 manipulate its entire powertrain for shipboard stowage is something to see. Rube Goldberg would be proud.

Click to expand...

I have always wondered, let's design a tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. Okay, great! But wouldn't it be cool if it could fold up too?

I'd be curious to know what it would weigh, cost, and perform without that capability.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I have always wondered, let's design a tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. Okay, great! But wouldn't it be cool if it could fold up too?

I'd be curious to know what it would weigh, cost, and perform without that capability.
Click to expand...
It would certainly weigh less. Some aspects of *mission* performance, specifically shipboard integration, would be severely limited and likely impossible, meaning the Navy and Marines would be unable to use it in any meaningful sense, resulting in fewer being built. This could quite possibly drive the unit cost *up* rather than down as there are development costs amortized over the production run(s).

Nauga,
a product of DAWIA
 
Paul V said:
I have never heard of a v22 performing an autorotation
Click to expand...
Paul V said:
609 has conducted autorotation trials in the actual aircraft which yields a 3500 fpm
Click to expand...
FYI: The V22 as been autorated in the field with similar 3500 decent rates as the 609 but it is a handful to handle for various reasons. Because of this it is not the SOP to do so. The 609 on the other hand is being civilian certified to portions of Part 29 and needs to document certain parameters. Now whether the SOP for the 609 will include an auto procedure has not been determined. Neither perfom autos like your rotorcraft. It requires precise adjustment of the nacelle angle at different stages otherwise you bend the airframe. Even the S92 is a bear to auto and as far as I know only 2 or 3 full autos to touchdown have been perfomed with all of them to meet certification standards.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: The V22 as been autorated in the field with similar 3500 decent rates as the 609 but it is a handful to handle for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware the V22 had actually demonstrated autorotation in flight.

Some of the literature / press on the 609 suggests the procedure is fairly straightforward with emergency detents for setting nacelle angle and automated RRPM control but I would agree looking at it there really is a lot going on and depending on phase of flight it seems like a fairly complex procedure that is nowhere near as elegant, intuitive, or flexible as autorotation in a standard helicopter. Even so, it’s nice to know there is a possibility to get it on the ground safely in the unlikely event of a duel engine failure, drive system failure, or fuel issue.
 
Paul V said:
I wasn’t aware the V22 had actually demonstrated autorotation in flight.
Click to expand...
What the V22 cant give you is a stabilized flare at the end as theres minimal inertia left in the rotors. Ive been told the unwritten rule to set up for a run on landing instead which can lead to other "issues."
 
Bell206 said:
What the V22 cant give you is a stabilized flare at the end as theres minimal inertia left in the rotors. Ive been told the unwritten rule to set up for a run on landing instead which can lead to other "issues."
Click to expand...
The V 22 has very poor Plan B options. Either you’re flying or you’re crashing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top