This is is some high-quality, well-informed vitriol. Good to hear that your bout with Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever didn't boil the angry part of your brain away.
Wait, maybe your whole brain is the angry part…
In any case, well done!
John says:
30 billion $ and 30 young and able americans now defunct over 25 years? Pfff that doesn't impress me. 2 weeks in Iraq baby!!!
By the way Mike Vick molests puppies….then he murders them. He's a compassionate conservative.
Well now, you have hit a nerve. I am a Reliability engineer. If you looked at the Reliability and Safety Analyses of some of the V22's systems, you would find my name signed at the bottom. Mine are OK, it's the plane's basic design that is fatally flawed. A standing joke in my group is that if you were bad, you would get a free ride in a V22. Simply stated, an aircraft is fatally flawed if there are single point failures. The V22 has quite a few. When you design an aircraft, think DC9, 727 even 737. If you have multiple engines, you want the thrust to be as close to the centerline as possible so that you can correct for off-center thrust with the rudder if you lose an engine. You can't do that on the V22 as the engines are way out near the wing tips with blades so long that the plane can never land as an airplane. It must always transition to helo mode to land or the prop blades hit the ground. Stupid! That transition is always dangerous. Anyhow, if one engine failed in any mode, the thrust is so off-center that the plane would just screw into the ground. They overcame that with a driveshaft like a car connecting the two engines. The assumption being that if one engine died it's engine and prop would still be spun by the driveshaft. Well, if the faulty engine seized, the driveshaft would snap and the plane literally goes down and is history. Hence a single point failure. This plane is a death trap. I have been in the reliabiity business a long time and have never seen an airplane so badly designed by Boeing/Bell because of pressure from government idiots in charge. Now that I got that off my chest my career is over. No, I retired. Now I only have to worry about going to Gitmo.
Ed says:
George,
The idea for this piece came from someone in a similar situation. I randomly encountered someone who (claimed to be) involved with the V-22 project. I can't be sure that his story was accurate (I was, after all, just a stranger at a campground) but he spoke at great length about the inherent flaws in the design and his bafflement at why the higher-ups were so insistent on pressing forward with this project.
I also had a former student (and veteran) point out that, since this thing is not only unarmed but significantly faster than armed helicopters, it essentially gets troops to Point A really fast…..and with no fire support. I just don't get it. Everything about the concept of this thing seems two steps beyond retarded.
George Ernst says:
Good writeup Ed. You are correct. All those I knew that worked on the program felt the same way. I did my work as a consultant in the Northeast, but I did see two V22s take off in Ft. Worth on a business trip to Bell. As I watched that spectacle and as I personally looked at the seven aircraft being made for eval at Pax River, I was sick over it. The Military spent a few million on a propoganda film of the great things the plane would do. They are true. It will fly as an airplane over 400 kts, carry a lot of troops and it will play helicopter, it just won't do it safely. Do you realize what a sitting duck it is as it rotates the nacelles 90 degrees to land? Actually it will rotate them 110 degrees so that it can helo in reverse. It's a long slow process and as it completes, forward speed approaches zero. Assuming lack of a mechanical failure, do you realize what a sitting duck it is as it transitions flight? I don't know if the above article mentions it, but in one of the crashes the two chief test pilots were killed by this POS.
Capn Sunni Insurgent says:
Hold on to your Stinger's boys, we can use RPGs on these!
Prvt Sunni Insurgent says:
Uh, Sir i think we can jsut throw rocks at these.
Anne says:
At least get it right that the V-22 is being purchased for the Marine Corp and Air Force Special Ops. The Army has nothing to do with this program.
Jill says:
Why any woman would give a shit about The Transformers is completely beyond me. Would it *kill* the makers to include a single female robot? I'm just sayin'– it's completely boycott-worthy.
j says:
Jill-
I read somewhere that they tried to include Arcee–the femalicious robot–but focus groups gave her a poor response. Too bad, because damn she was hot!
In another story, my appreciation for inorganic women culminated in real sticky situation with a butter churn.
Pardon says:
OK. Let's start with how many of you are rated military pilots. None? OK. How many of you are helicopter pilots and also fixed-wing rated? None? OK, moving along. A helicopter is just great for short hops to a small place to land, but very noisy and they burn enormous amounts of fuel and can't go much faster than about 150mph. Fixed-wing aircraft are great because they go fast, carry a lot, and don't burn much fuel. Problem is that the bad guys aren't as stupid as you think they are and don't hang around big airports where we can get at them with airplanes. They also don't hang around close enough for us to get at them with helicopters. So, gee, let's build an aircraft that is both! Brilliant!
And complicated. Bell Helicopter started working on the idea in the late 1950's. Didn't know that did you. And with complicated technology, bad things sometimes happen and people sometimes get killed. It's sad, even tragic, but true. And as the guy who once was tasked to go 'get the bad guys' in and old 90mph helicopter, I wish I'd had an Osprey!
If you want to stop unnecessary death, pain, suffering, and the loss of billions of dollars, take automobiles off the American highways. They result in about 45,000 American deaths per year. Why doesn't that get you liberal, bunny-hugging morons up in arms!
Mike says:
Unlike 'pardon' I'm not a military pilot (of either kind). I am an engineering student, but I don't have to be either to pick holes in this. Yes the project cost money and lives, but that's a cost of progress. Do you think that developing aircraft, jet engines, or helicopter for that matter was painless? One thing that wasn't thought of, which maybe should have been in recent years, is remote control during early testing, but that can be said for any new aircraft.
As for inherent problem in the principle – care to mention any of them? I can't think of many that that weren't solved when helicopters were/are developed, a good example being Vortex Ring State: this is a major problem for all rotor craft. The difference with tilt rotor aircraft, is that they are basically normal plane. When a helicopter settles with power, it loses virtually all lift and an much control. A tilt rotor just loses power: as it starts to fall, natural stability will make it nose over, pick up speed and either be uncontrollable as a glider, or move it out of it's down wash and regain rotor lift.
A more basic sequitur of this is that it is the helicopter which is fundamentally flawed. Not only is it naturally very unstable, but it lacks range, speed and agility. Take the Iran hostage crisis, esp. the rescue attempt. Helicopters didn't have the range to get to Tehran, so needed to be refuelled: tilt rotors wouldn't have. Helicopters aren't naturally stable in the hover, so with the pilot blinded by sand in his down wash, a helicopter crashed into a hercules, bang, people dead, money wasted, and Iran gets a propaganda coupe: a tilt rotor could have made a short (Vs vertical) take off and avoided being blinded. Which brings me on to the next point: any tilt rotor, regardless of rotor span can land and even takeoff like a normal plane. With smaller rotors, this wouldn't even be an issue, but this would make them less inefficient in the hover, so requiring much more powerful (heavier) engines and increase fuel burn. With larger rotors, in an emergency both engines can be turned off and a glide landing can be made. The props will be damaged, but the airframe and crew would be fine. Or if power is available, the rotors can be partially tilted to keep the tips clear of the ground.
You are right about one thing: Bell/Boeing must have been under pressure. Or just dim, because from what George has said, they've missed a trick or two. Eg, there is no need for an engine seizure to be an issue. If a shear neck (weak point) were to be placed in the primary drive shafts, a seize up would break it, and not the cross drive.
Lastly, you really do need para experience before you can make half of your assertions. The V-22 isn't superior to the CH-46. It's superior, in it's pros at least, to every helicopter. Besides, it's not as if the CH-46 hasn't been touched up over the year, or been particularly heavily armed. And it's only a matter of time before the V-22 is up engines, giving scope for armament, if necessary. I say 'if necessary, because another draw back of helicopters' slowness, is that the enemy can more easily/quickly re-enforce/defend the LZ. The speed of a tilt rotor mitigates the need for fire support/armament by gaining surprise. Once there, there's no reason that it shouldn't behave just like a helicopter. It's power to weight ratio and rotor disc loading are at the very least overlapping if not comparable to other helicopters and planes, so down wash and noise should also be similar (again missed opportunity – if the side doors were under the wings, local down wash would be minimal), and why exactly can side doors not be used? And if not, then why not ropes from the rear door? More importantly, if it does run into trouble, I'm aware of no reason why it can't take evasive manoeuvres. Although tilting takes time, the rotors have wash plates, so with the rotors up, the V-22 can fly and manoeuvre just like any other helicopter.
I don't know about all the faults in the V-22. But the fact is that this idea is a serious way forward and it's use is long over due. So stop scare mongering being unnecessarily pessimistic.
Andy says:
Thank-you for pointing out that this project was not for the Army but right from the begining for the Marines. You should also do some research before making claims about armaments. As soon as the MV-22 was put in the field there was an M240 mounted at the rear door and field testing is being done on a bottom mounted turret as well. Your claim about being over weight is also completely wrong, how could an aircraft that is over weight carry a 15,000 pound HMMWV and troops? Also the majority of the problem with vortex ring state was fixed after the crash that grounded the aircraft for a year and killed 19 Marines.
Major Kong says:
@Pardon
OK. Let's start with how many of you are rated military pilots. None?
Over 4000 hours in the T-38, B-52 and KC-135. Roughly 500 combat hours.
Also civilian type-rated in the 727, Airbus 300 and 757.
Problem is that the bad guys aren't as stupid as you think they are and don't hang around big airports where we can get at them with airplanes.
Which is why we have tankers – so that we can keep aircraft on station for when the bad guys show up.
Samantha says:
Well-written, Ed.
Matthew says:
Hear, hear!
This is is some high-quality, well-informed vitriol. Good to hear that your bout with Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever didn't boil the angry part of your brain away.
Wait, maybe your whole brain is the angry part…
In any case, well done!
John says:
30 billion $ and 30 young and able americans now defunct over 25 years? Pfff that doesn't impress me. 2 weeks in Iraq baby!!!
By the way Mike Vick molests puppies….then he murders them. He's a compassionate conservative.
Binkyboy says:
I'm sure they just had it cranked up to 11.
Because it's much better than 10.
George Ernst says:
Well now, you have hit a nerve. I am a Reliability engineer. If you looked at the Reliability and Safety Analyses of some of the V22's systems, you would find my name signed at the bottom. Mine are OK, it's the plane's basic design that is fatally flawed. A standing joke in my group is that if you were bad, you would get a free ride in a V22. Simply stated, an aircraft is fatally flawed if there are single point failures. The V22 has quite a few. When you design an aircraft, think DC9, 727 even 737. If you have multiple engines, you want the thrust to be as close to the centerline as possible so that you can correct for off-center thrust with the rudder if you lose an engine. You can't do that on the V22 as the engines are way out near the wing tips with blades so long that the plane can never land as an airplane. It must always transition to helo mode to land or the prop blades hit the ground. Stupid! That transition is always dangerous. Anyhow, if one engine failed in any mode, the thrust is so off-center that the plane would just screw into the ground. They overcame that with a driveshaft like a car connecting the two engines. The assumption being that if one engine died it's engine and prop would still be spun by the driveshaft. Well, if the faulty engine seized, the driveshaft would snap and the plane literally goes down and is history. Hence a single point failure. This plane is a death trap. I have been in the reliabiity business a long time and have never seen an airplane so badly designed by Boeing/Bell because of pressure from government idiots in charge. Now that I got that off my chest my career is over. No, I retired. Now I only have to worry about going to Gitmo.
Ed says:
George,
The idea for this piece came from someone in a similar situation. I randomly encountered someone who (claimed to be) involved with the V-22 project. I can't be sure that his story was accurate (I was, after all, just a stranger at a campground) but he spoke at great length about the inherent flaws in the design and his bafflement at why the higher-ups were so insistent on pressing forward with this project.
I also had a former student (and veteran) point out that, since this thing is not only unarmed but significantly faster than armed helicopters, it essentially gets troops to Point A really fast…..and with no fire support. I just don't get it. Everything about the concept of this thing seems two steps beyond retarded.
George Ernst says:
Good writeup Ed. You are correct. All those I knew that worked on the program felt the same way. I did my work as a consultant in the Northeast, but I did see two V22s take off in Ft. Worth on a business trip to Bell. As I watched that spectacle and as I personally looked at the seven aircraft being made for eval at Pax River, I was sick over it. The Military spent a few million on a propoganda film of the great things the plane would do. They are true. It will fly as an airplane over 400 kts, carry a lot of troops and it will play helicopter, it just won't do it safely. Do you realize what a sitting duck it is as it rotates the nacelles 90 degrees to land? Actually it will rotate them 110 degrees so that it can helo in reverse. It's a long slow process and as it completes, forward speed approaches zero. Assuming lack of a mechanical failure, do you realize what a sitting duck it is as it transitions flight? I don't know if the above article mentions it, but in one of the crashes the two chief test pilots were killed by this POS.
Capn Sunni Insurgent says:
Hold on to your Stinger's boys, we can use RPGs on these!
Prvt Sunni Insurgent says:
Uh, Sir i think we can jsut throw rocks at these.
Anne says:
At least get it right that the V-22 is being purchased for the Marine Corp and Air Force Special Ops. The Army has nothing to do with this program.
Jill says:
Why any woman would give a shit about The Transformers is completely beyond me. Would it *kill* the makers to include a single female robot? I'm just sayin'– it's completely boycott-worthy.
j says:
Jill-
I read somewhere that they tried to include Arcee–the femalicious robot–but focus groups gave her a poor response. Too bad, because damn she was hot!
In another story, my appreciation for inorganic women culminated in real sticky situation with a butter churn.
Pardon says:
OK. Let's start with how many of you are rated military pilots. None? OK. How many of you are helicopter pilots and also fixed-wing rated? None? OK, moving along. A helicopter is just great for short hops to a small place to land, but very noisy and they burn enormous amounts of fuel and can't go much faster than about 150mph. Fixed-wing aircraft are great because they go fast, carry a lot, and don't burn much fuel. Problem is that the bad guys aren't as stupid as you think they are and don't hang around big airports where we can get at them with airplanes. They also don't hang around close enough for us to get at them with helicopters. So, gee, let's build an aircraft that is both! Brilliant!
And complicated. Bell Helicopter started working on the idea in the late 1950's. Didn't know that did you. And with complicated technology, bad things sometimes happen and people sometimes get killed. It's sad, even tragic, but true. And as the guy who once was tasked to go 'get the bad guys' in and old 90mph helicopter, I wish I'd had an Osprey!
If you want to stop unnecessary death, pain, suffering, and the loss of billions of dollars, take automobiles off the American highways. They result in about 45,000 American deaths per year. Why doesn't that get you liberal, bunny-hugging morons up in arms!
Mike says:
Unlike 'pardon' I'm not a military pilot (of either kind). I am an engineering student, but I don't have to be either to pick holes in this. Yes the project cost money and lives, but that's a cost of progress. Do you think that developing aircraft, jet engines, or helicopter for that matter was painless? One thing that wasn't thought of, which maybe should have been in recent years, is remote control during early testing, but that can be said for any new aircraft.
As for inherent problem in the principle – care to mention any of them? I can't think of many that that weren't solved when helicopters were/are developed, a good example being Vortex Ring State: this is a major problem for all rotor craft. The difference with tilt rotor aircraft, is that they are basically normal plane. When a helicopter settles with power, it loses virtually all lift and an much control. A tilt rotor just loses power: as it starts to fall, natural stability will make it nose over, pick up speed and either be uncontrollable as a glider, or move it out of it's down wash and regain rotor lift.
A more basic sequitur of this is that it is the helicopter which is fundamentally flawed. Not only is it naturally very unstable, but it lacks range, speed and agility. Take the Iran hostage crisis, esp. the rescue attempt. Helicopters didn't have the range to get to Tehran, so needed to be refuelled: tilt rotors wouldn't have. Helicopters aren't naturally stable in the hover, so with the pilot blinded by sand in his down wash, a helicopter crashed into a hercules, bang, people dead, money wasted, and Iran gets a propaganda coupe: a tilt rotor could have made a short (Vs vertical) take off and avoided being blinded. Which brings me on to the next point: any tilt rotor, regardless of rotor span can land and even takeoff like a normal plane. With smaller rotors, this wouldn't even be an issue, but this would make them less inefficient in the hover, so requiring much more powerful (heavier) engines and increase fuel burn. With larger rotors, in an emergency both engines can be turned off and a glide landing can be made. The props will be damaged, but the airframe and crew would be fine. Or if power is available, the rotors can be partially tilted to keep the tips clear of the ground.
You are right about one thing: Bell/Boeing must have been under pressure. Or just dim, because from what George has said, they've missed a trick or two. Eg, there is no need for an engine seizure to be an issue. If a shear neck (weak point) were to be placed in the primary drive shafts, a seize up would break it, and not the cross drive.
Lastly, you really do need para experience before you can make half of your assertions. The V-22 isn't superior to the CH-46. It's superior, in it's pros at least, to every helicopter. Besides, it's not as if the CH-46 hasn't been touched up over the year, or been particularly heavily armed. And it's only a matter of time before the V-22 is up engines, giving scope for armament, if necessary. I say 'if necessary, because another draw back of helicopters' slowness, is that the enemy can more easily/quickly re-enforce/defend the LZ. The speed of a tilt rotor mitigates the need for fire support/armament by gaining surprise. Once there, there's no reason that it shouldn't behave just like a helicopter. It's power to weight ratio and rotor disc loading are at the very least overlapping if not comparable to other helicopters and planes, so down wash and noise should also be similar (again missed opportunity – if the side doors were under the wings, local down wash would be minimal), and why exactly can side doors not be used? And if not, then why not ropes from the rear door? More importantly, if it does run into trouble, I'm aware of no reason why it can't take evasive manoeuvres. Although tilting takes time, the rotors have wash plates, so with the rotors up, the V-22 can fly and manoeuvre just like any other helicopter.
I don't know about all the faults in the V-22. But the fact is that this idea is a serious way forward and it's use is long over due. So stop scare mongering being unnecessarily pessimistic.
Andy says:
Thank-you for pointing out that this project was not for the Army but right from the begining for the Marines. You should also do some research before making claims about armaments. As soon as the MV-22 was put in the field there was an M240 mounted at the rear door and field testing is being done on a bottom mounted turret as well. Your claim about being over weight is also completely wrong, how could an aircraft that is over weight carry a 15,000 pound HMMWV and troops? Also the majority of the problem with vortex ring state was fixed after the crash that grounded the aircraft for a year and killed 19 Marines.
Major Kong says:
@Pardon
OK. Let's start with how many of you are rated military pilots. None?
Over 4000 hours in the T-38, B-52 and KC-135. Roughly 500 combat hours.
Also civilian type-rated in the 727, Airbus 300 and 757.
Problem is that the bad guys aren't as stupid as you think they are and don't hang around big airports where we can get at them with airplanes.
Which is why we have tankers – so that we can keep aircraft on station for when the bad guys show up.