Flying the Osprey

I'm glad the pilot isn't at fault here, and that they're calling this out as a technical/operational issue. To me that means that they can sort out avoiding this. I don't know much about how rotary wing works, but I do know that a Canadian military helicopter went down at an air show near here about 20 years ago (Schenectady) believe that was a vortex ring thing. That sounds similar to me, but again I don't understand the physics of these things at all.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm glad the pilot isn't at fault here, and that they're calling this out as a technical/operational issue. To me that means that they can sort out avoiding this. I don't know much about how rotary wing works, but I do know that a Canadian military helicopter went down at an air show near here about 20 years ago (Schenectady) believe that was a vortex ring thing. That sounds similar to me, but again I don't understand the physics of these things at all.
Click to expand...

Recirculation is different than VRS. With the Osprey, they were approaching the ship at a high gross weight. They’re already pulling close to max power. Once they got close to the ship, their downwash hit the ship and because of the prevailing wind, got blown back into the aircraft. When that happens, the airflow gets pulled back down (recirc) through the rotor. This induced flow reduces the AoA, thereby increasing power required to maintain a hover. That increase in power exceeded what the engines were capable of and the aircraft settled. Problem with a tilt rotor vs a helo is they can get into recirc or even VRS at different rates (spacing of rotors) This produces asymmetrical thrust and will result in an abrupt bank as in the vid.

The H-3 most likely got into VRS but some say it was settling with power. Meaning, aerodynamically the blades were producing normal lift but not enough to overcome the weight of the aircraft. Similar to the Mt Hood HH-60 accident years ago.

 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Russians learned this lesson the hard way with the Moscva. They have a very capable naval infantry brigade afloat that they have been unable to land, forcing them to fight their way (unsuccessfully) up the coast towards Odessa.

Also note the current USMC food fight between the current and former Commandants over force structure. The Marines are ditching their tanks and heavy artillery in favor of mobile anti-ship missile batteries, in anticipation of a fight with the Chinese over the small disputed islands that control SLOCs in the Pacific.

All this is driven by the growth in capability of long range precision weapons and surveillance. Right now the only counter the Marines have to keep their embarked forces safe is standoff distance from the shore. But how do you retain offensive maneuver capability over longer distances? By increasing the range and speed of your forces. Hence the Osprey.

The war in Ukraine is slaughtering a lot of sacred cows of military doctrine. For 80 years Russian theory held that if you had enough tanks, nothing could stop you. They have lost around 1000 tanks so far.
Click to expand...

As a 20 + year Tank Commander that trained at the end of the Cold War I can add this..... They forgot how to use their tanks and if this is how they were going to invade Western Europe.... I may have actually killed 10 tanks or lived for 2 weeks like they told us. There is no attempt at combined arms operations and the videos I've seen show a lack of tanking skills....
 
It’s also interesting they had not accounted for this max gross scenario with deck and wind angle…when flying off Navy ships with Army helicopters we had to certify certain interactions particularly on non LHA smaller one and two spots…it was never complete for us..lack of this full testing was always a concern for the Navy when we conducted operations.
 
Speaking of Mt Hood. Climber just got pulled off there last week.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top