Osprey crash in Japan

Revised to six aboard, one found dead, wreckage underwater.
 
I know almost nothing about powered-lift aircraft. Has anyone followed the Osprey's history close enough to know whether there's a trend toward mechanical causes vs. human factors?
 
The osprey seems like one of those things that theoretically works, looks really cool, and has public fanfare. But the real world use/history is pretty damning. I see evtol going a similar path. At what point is the public fanfare not enough to keep it in service with better safer more reliable tools out there?
 
Racerx said:
The osprey seems like one of those things that theoretically works, looks really cool, and has public fanfare. But the real world use/history is pretty damning. I see evtol going a similar path. At what point is the public fanfare not enough to keep it in service with better safer more reliable tools out there?
Click to expand...
Depends on what alternatives there are. The Osprey will carry a platoon of troops at ~250 knots for 800+ miles, then vertically land at the LZ. A Chinook has roughly the same carrying capacity, but half the speed and half the range. Also has half the ferry range; important if you're trying to get assets to a far-away operational area.

And as far as the ETOLs, I keep imagining the conversation if internal combustion engines had *just* been invented.

"Let me get this straight: it operates with a series of explosions?"

"Yep. 4,000 explosions per minute for the little engines, or 20,000 or so for the big ones. With a four-engined aircraft, you'll be having almost 100,000 explosions on the wings every minute."

"It is noisy?"

"I'll say! After all, they ARE explosions!"

"And it's powered by gasoline."

"Yep. A fancy metering device sends a precise mixture of gasoline and air into the engine."

"And if they ratios are wrong?"

"Well...it either doesn't run, or it catches fire."

"HOW are the explosions triggered?"

"We have another fancy device that triggers a spark at exactly the right time."

"Exactly the right time? How do you adjust it?"

"Well, you loosen this bolt, and rotate the ignition device back and forth."

"What happens if it's wrong?"

"Oh, don't worry! The engine won't operate if the ignition device is more than a couple of degrees off the optimal location. Well, it's possible for the engine to break apart, but we think the operator will detect that in time."

"Got some fancy instruments to warn him?"

"Nahhh, he should be able to hear it banging."

"Banging from the gasoline explosions."

"Yep."

"Where does the gasoline come from?"

"Dead dinosaurs and fossil trees."

"And how safe is that gasoline?"

"Well, you don't want to get it on your skin. Might cause cancer. And it'll burn intensely if the tank is ruptured. Oh, if the conditions are right, it'll outright explode."

"Well, at least it's just the pilot at risk."

"Ummmm...well, we plan on carrying at least 100 people in the four-engine variety."

"I see. Would you mind trying on this coat? You'll note that it has stylish straps that wrap your arms around to your back....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Larry in TN said:
Has anyone followed the Osprey's history close enough to know whether there's a trend toward mechanical causes vs. human factors?
Click to expand...
In the data I've seen there is no specific trend either way. It does seem environment/ops play more a role in what happens. Last I read on the OP one, was there were 1 or 2 other V22s with this one which witnessed a possible nacelle fire.
 
Not sure if this is just the party line being towed, but some drivers have mentioned it's record is as safe as most helicopters. Being a bigger aircraft it tends to have more people onboard it though and it has the spotlight.

They also went through (are going through?) some engine longevity issues. Basically the engines need to be taken off and overhauled every hundred hours. When they fail in flight, the engines are transmissioned together so they still have power and can maneuver just not much room for error.

And of course the old air force joke that the pilots who are at the bottom of the pile in pilot training end up in helos and V22s since everyone at the top wants to be in a fighter.
 
Piperonca said:
Army is getting an upgraded tilt rotor. Hopefully with benefit of lessons learned. We'll find out in a few years.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ld-change-the-way-air-assault-troops-operate/
Click to expand...
Should’ve gone with the Defiant. ;)

breakingdefense.com

FVL: Don't Pick The Tiltrotor, V-22 Test Pilot Tells Army - Breaking Defense

In the competition for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, high agility and low life-cycle costs matter most, a former Marine tiltrotor test pilot argues.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Velocity173 said:
Should’ve gone with the Defiant. ;)

breakingdefense.com

FVL: Don't Pick The Tiltrotor, V-22 Test Pilot Tells Army - Breaking Defense

In the competition for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, high agility and low life-cycle costs matter most, a former Marine tiltrotor test pilot argues.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Makes a good case. Army aircraft acquisition track record over the decades is mixed. I remember the Cheyenne, the Comanche, and whatever they called the upgraded Kiowa Warrior (Armed Aerial Scout comes to mind).
 
My only data point is taxiing past the V-22 tiedowns at KABQ/Kirtland. A roughly 30' diameter area of the concrete ramp under the engines is black from leaked or spilled petroleum products that apparently occur during repeated maintenance. Occasionally there's a decowled V-22 or two.

I wonder what the dispatch rate is.
 
3393RP said:
I wonder what the dispatch rate is.
Click to expand...
Depending on how you calculate the availability rate of the V-22, the last figures I saw were in the 60% range which was compariable to other similar aircraft in service. Its costs per hour tend to be higher but not as high as some other rotorcraft used by the Air Force or Navy.
 
Piperonca said:
Makes a good case. Army aircraft acquisition track record over the decades is mixed. I remember the Cheyenne, the Comanche, and whatever they called the upgraded Kiowa Warrior (Armed Aerial Scout comes to mind).
Click to expand...
Yeah I knew several guys who went KWs thinking they’d get a Comanche transition. Years later they would be scrambling for flying jobs when the Army divested their KWs…way too early.
 
3393RP said:
My only data point is taxiing past the V-22 tiedowns at KABQ/Kirtland. A roughly 30' diameter area of the concrete ramp under the engines is black from leaked or spilled petroleum products that apparently occur during repeated maintenance. Occasionally there's a decowled V-22 or two.

I wonder what the dispatch rate is.
Click to expand...
The tiedowns are black because the engine exhaust points straight down when ground running and hovering. Also leaves a burn spot wherever it lands.
 
Seanaldinho said:
And of course the old air force joke that the pilots who are at the bottom of the pile in pilot training end up in helos and V22s since everyone at the top wants to be in a fighter.
Click to expand...
Not really a joke when I was in UPT. Only one fighter assignment for my class. The pilots graduating at the bottom of the class got B-52s.
 
Racerx said:
The osprey seems like one of those things that theoretically works, looks really cool, and has public fanfare. But the real world use/history is pretty damning. I see evtol going a similar path. At what point is the public fanfare not enough to keep it in service with better safer more reliable tools out there?
Click to expand...
Cannot comment on the Air Force perspective but have been involved with USMC/Navy MV-22s. I haven't looked closely at recent data, but I was involved in tracking them while working in NAVCENT back in 2009/2010 when the USMC was transitioning to the Osprey. Back then, the east coast had fully transitioned to MV-22s but the west coast Marine Expeditionary Units were still operating H-46s. So from the 5th Fleet perspective, we would see alternating MEU configurations - one month we'd be tracking MV-22 availability and then the MEU would turn over and we'd be looking at -46s.

Back then in the early days, the operational availability of MV-22s was equal to the Ao of the ancient (Vietnam design) 46s, meaning they were no more reliable as brand new aircraft than the legacy ones they were replacing.

I am no longer involved in tracking the data, but my impression still being involved in the Navy/DOD, is that the operational availability has improved since then. It was considered good enough that the Navy has already started transitioning the C-2 COD squadrons on the west coast to MV-22s (east coast still flying Greyhounds).

Never met a pilot who didn't love the 46. BUT, I have not met any MV-22 pilots that dislike/badmouth the Osprey. Most of the Osprey's big issues are in the past. But they were bad enough that people remember them every time there is an accident.

From a pilot perspective, the MV-22 is a bit like the MU-2. It looks like an airplane but it needs it's own respect. Many of the early high profile accidents were due to maintenance issues combined with pilots who transitioned from the fixed wing world and were applying fixed wing recovery techniques that were fatal in the MV-22. Let's just say training has significantly improved in the last 20 years.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Not sure if this is just the party line being towed, but some drivers have mentioned it's record is as safe as most helicopters. Being a bigger aircraft it tends to have more people onboard it though and it has the spotlight.

They also went through (are going through?) some engine longevity issues. Basically the engines need to be taken off and overhauled every hundred hours. When they fail in flight, the engines are transmissioned together so they still have power and can maneuver just not much room for error.

And of course the old air force joke that the pilots who are at the bottom of the pile in pilot training end up in helos and V22s since everyone at the top wants to be in a fighter.
Click to expand...
The engine life issue (which was never only 100 hours) has been sorted to the point where the next tiltrotor gets a variant of the RR engines (to my dismay, as my day job is certifying/qualifying GE engines, at least until the end of the month when I retire!)
 
Ed Haywood said:
The tiedowns are black because the engine exhaust points straight down when ground running and hovering. Also leaves a burn spot wherever it lands.
Click to expand...
FYI: on the new tiltrotor V-280 the engines no longer rotate. Only the gearbox and prop does.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: on the new tiltrotor V-280 the engines no longer rotate. Only the gearbox and prop does.
Click to expand...
That design makes more sense. Just hope there aren’t new vulnerabilities inherent with it. Prototypes are typically overbuilt, then the OEMs look for ways to make the aircraft cheaper and lighter in production.
 
Brilliant.
wanttaja said:
Depends on what alternatives there are. The Osprey will carry a platoon of troops at ~250 knots for 800+ miles, then vertically land at the LZ. A Chinook has roughly the same carrying capacity, but half the speed and half the range. Also has half the ferry range; important if you're trying to get assets to a far-away operational area.

And as far as the ETOLs, I keep imagining the conversation if internal combustion engines had *just* been invented.

"Let me get this straight: it operates with a series of explosions?"

"Yep. 4,000 explosions per minute for the little engines, or 20,000 or so for the big ones. With a four-engined aircraft, you'll be having almost 100,000 explosions on the wings every minute."

"It is noisy?"

"I'll say! After all, they ARE explosions!"

"And it's powered by gasoline."

"Yep. A fancy metering device sends a precise mixture of gasoline and air into the engine."

"And if they ratios are wrong?"

"Well...it either doesn't run, or it catches fire."

"HOW are the explosions triggered?"

"We have another fancy device that triggers a spark at exactly the right time."

"Exactly the right time? How do you adjust it?"

"Well, you loosen this bolt, and rotate the ignition device back and forth."

"What happens if it's wrong?"

"Oh, don't worry! The engine won't operate if the ignition device is more than a couple of degrees off the optimal location. Well, it's possible for the engine to break apart, but we think the operator will detect that in time."

"Got some fancy instruments to warn him?"

"Nahhh, he should be able to hear it banging."

"Banging from the gasoline explosions."

"Yep."

"Where does the gasoline come from?"

"Dead dinosaurs and fossil trees."

"And how safe is that gasoline?"

"Well, you don't want to get it on your skin. Might cause cancer. And it'll burn intensely if the tank is ruptured. Oh, if the conditions are right, it'll outright explode."

"Well, at least it's just the pilot at risk."

"Ummmm...well, we plan on carrying at least 100 people in the four-engine variety."

"I see. Would you mind trying on this coat? You'll note that it has stylish straps that wrap your arms around to your back....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
When I was in Marine Corps Command and Staff college in 2000-2001, one of my classmates/friends had been a test pilot during the early days of Osprey integration into the Marines. As you would expect, he had expert-level knowledge of the two earlier fatal Osprey crashes in the Marines. His description of the vulnerabilities of the aircraft while maneuvering was quite alarming. The descent and landing profile must be carefully managed to avoid vortex ring state, which is non-recoverable because of the side-by-side rotors.

That said, I understand why the Marines wanted the platform, and why they stuck by it. They foresaw then that guided missiles would dramatically increase the vulnerability of ships and require amphibious forces to launch from much greater distance from shore.

Obviously a lot of learning and training has happened since then. I have great faith in the decision makers in Army Aviation, some of whom are old friends. But I do worry that such a vulnerability will be even more pronounced in the Army, where VTOLs are flown more aggressively in a tactical role than the operational role filled by the Osprey.

Then again, I'm a FOG and a FAG now, and grumbling is what we do.
 
Crew names released and what strikes me is not only the experience but the unit Commander and Flight Surgeon as well…horrible no matter the crew mix.
www.airforcetimes.com

Air Force releases names of 7 airmen killed in Osprey crash off Japan

The Air Force has recovered three bodies, is in the process of recovering another three troops and is still searching for two more.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
 
Ed Haywood said:
When I was in Marine Corps Command and Staff college in 2000-2001, one of my classmates/friends had been a test pilot during the early days of Osprey integration into the Marines. As you would expect, he had expert-level knowledge of the two earlier fatal Osprey crashes in the Marines. His description of the vulnerabilities of the aircraft while maneuvering was quite alarming. The descent and landing profile must be carefully managed to avoid vortex ring state, which is non-recoverable because of the side-by-side rotors.

That said, I understand why the Marines wanted the platform, and why they stuck by it. They foresaw then that guided missiles would dramatically increase the vulnerability of ships and require amphibious forces to launch from much greater distance from shore.

Obviously a lot of learning and training has happened since then. I have great faith in the decision makers in Army Aviation, some of whom are old friends. But I do worry that such a vulnerability will be even more pronounced in the Army, where VTOLs are flown more aggressively in a tactical role than the operational role filled by the Osprey.

Then again, I'm a FOG and a FAG now, and grumbling is what we do.
Click to expand...
They say they’ve got the VRS issue solved but all they did was restrict the aggressiveness of the approach. Same issue with recirculation on formation and shipboard landings. Must be in a strict profile to remain clear of dirty air. That stuff isn’t nearly as bad for a helicopter.
 
Velocity173 said:
They say they’ve got the VRS issue solved but all they did was restrict the aggressiveness of the approach.
Click to expand...
That's what the Marine test pilot said. Don't come in too fast, too steep.

I don't know squat about flying helos, but I've been in the back of plenty of them at night with my face painted. "Restrict the aggressiveness of the approach" does not seem like an Army thing. Yet.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That's what the Marine test pilot said. Don't come in too fast, too steep.

I don't know squat about flying helos, but I've been in the back of plenty of them at night with my face painted. "Restrict the aggressiveness of the approach" does not seem like an Army thing. Yet.
Click to expand...
Sometimes they can be a little too aggressive. ;)

 
wanttaja said:
Depends on what alternatives there are. The Osprey will carry a platoon of troops at ~250 knots for 800+ miles, then vertically land at the LZ. A Chinook has roughly the same carrying capacity, but half the speed and half the range. Also has half the ferry range; important if you're trying to get assets to a far-away operational area.

And as far as the ETOLs, I keep imagining the conversation if internal combustion engines had *just* been invented.

"Let me get this straight: it operates with a series of explosions?"

"Yep. 4,000 explosions per minute for the little engines, or 20,000 or so for the big ones. With a four-engined aircraft, you'll be having almost 100,000 explosions on the wings every minute."

"It is noisy?"

"I'll say! After all, they ARE explosions!"

"And it's powered by gasoline."

"Yep. A fancy metering device sends a precise mixture of gasoline and air into the engine."

"And if they ratios are wrong?"

"Well...it either doesn't run, or it catches fire."

"HOW are the explosions triggered?"

"We have another fancy device that triggers a spark at exactly the right time."

"Exactly the right time? How do you adjust it?"

"Well, you loosen this bolt, and rotate the ignition device back and forth."

"What happens if it's wrong?"

"Oh, don't worry! The engine won't operate if the ignition device is more than a couple of degrees off the optimal location. Well, it's possible for the engine to break apart, but we think the operator will detect that in time."

"Got some fancy instruments to warn him?"

"Nahhh, he should be able to hear it banging."

"Banging from the gasoline explosions."

"Yep."

"Where does the gasoline come from?"

"Dead dinosaurs and fossil trees."

"And how safe is that gasoline?"

"Well, you don't want to get it on your skin. Might cause cancer. And it'll burn intensely if the tank is ruptured. Oh, if the conditions are right, it'll outright explode."

"Well, at least it's just the pilot at risk."

"Ummmm...well, we plan on carrying at least 100 people in the four-engine variety."

"I see. Would you mind trying on this coat? You'll note that it has stylish straps that wrap your arms around to your back....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Rarely comment on other posts, but this is just brilliant!
 
Piperonca said:
Sobering commentary, and hints at V-22 operational readiness going bye bye for some time to come.
Click to expand...
Well it’s OR rates have never been it’s strong suit. Keep hearing it hasn’t matured yet but jeez, it’s been in service for 16 years. Some of the maint stuff should’ve been worked out long ago. The aerodynamic quirks are understandable but they still have clutch and sand ingestion issues???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top