Well, I've been covering the V-22 Osprey for nearly 10 years as a defense reporter. It started for me in 1999 as an intriguing new platform. A hybrid airplane/helicopter that sated my sense of fascination with “leap-ahead” technology, the Osprey was just to the point of being fielded when a horrific crash in the spring of 2000 in Arizona killed 19 Marines – mostly infantrymen who were passengers on a test flight.
Despite a firm stance from the Corps that the Osprey could still be fielded, another crash in December of that year shocked the service into shape and the program was put on hold.
Over the intervening years, mainstream reporters grew increasingly skeptical of the aircraft, aligning with think-tankers, former DoD testers and the rest of the trade press against what they saw as an overly complex and accident-prone aircraft.
That’s part of the reason that, despite all those years writing stories about the Osprey, I had never ridden in one. Until last week.
A short disclaimer is probably in order here. I have always been a contrarian when it comes to the Osprey. I do not see any alternative but to make tiltrotor technology work. Helicopters have a physical limit. They can’t go more than a certain speed because of the drag of the rotors. Now I’m sure I’ll get some people much smarter than me to argue this, but when it comes down to it, helicopters are just not going to cut it for much longer. We need the Osprey, and I have always believed the V-22 would revolutionize STOVL flight and be very effective for the Corps.
Now, back to the test flight.
After a short press conference announcing its first deployment, the Marine Corps set up a press junket for reporters to take a ride on the tiltrotor transport and see for themselves how different the plane is from the helicopter it’s due to replace – the CH-46 Sea Knight.
On April 13, 20 of us flew off the Pentagon helipad on a Sea Knight that was part of the presidential fleet. While the interior was a lot nicer than the 46s I’d flown in during deployments to Iraq and elsewhere, it still performed like the old phrogs I knew and (grudgingly) loved: slow and low…
We landed on a field at Quantico and watched as our CH-46 departed and two Ospreys came screaming overhead. Their speed and size was jaw-dropping. The rotors are huge and they moved across the sky much quicker than a 46 ever could.
After a short interview with the squadron commander, Lt. Col. Paul Rock, it was time for the ride. We filed onto the aircraft, strapped ourselves in and lifted off. I kept my eyes out the back window and also scanned the small side window to see how the nacelles (the engine and rotor housings at the end of each wing) were oriented. We flew most of the first minutes of the flight with the nacelles at a sort of 45 degree pitch.
Then it all changed.
As soon as the pilot shifted the engines to full forward, transitioning to conventional flight, the Osprey lurched ahead, pulling all of us toward the rear of the aircraft. It was really hard to stay upright the thrust was so dramatic. It reminded me a bit of a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier (notice in the video how fast the ground flows below, and see how hard it is to keep the camera steady when the Osprey banks to the right or left).
We jinked and jived over the rolling woods of Quantico, then evened out and glided in for a quick landing in a pretty large field. I noticed the whiff of burning grass as we settled down, an indication of the intense heat streaming out of the powerful engines in helicopter mode. We hovered a bit more – turning left and right – then lifted out dramatically and sped ahead in conventional flight. After more banking and turning (with a few of my colleagues making use of the airsick bags handed out before the flight) the Osprey alighted once more on the field where we began.
I’ll let you judge for yourself how impressive the Osprey’s flight characteristics are (please forgive how raw the video is). But I’ll tell you something, every single one of us – even the pukers – was beaming when we emerged from the plane. It was one of the most exciting rides I’ve ever taken – and I’ve taken some pretty cool ones.
I wish the program luck. But the plane is going to take some getting used to for infantrymen who aren't used to flying all the time.
Maybe the Corps should stock up on airsick bags to prepare for the first deployment.
I suspect that you can deploy guys in and out of a hostile area faster with the V22.
You come in at high speed, then decrease speed, auto-rotate to land, teams hops off, you hit the engines and ascend full throttle at a 45 degree and fully auto-rotate back to horizonal flight and top speed.
In seconds, your V22 goes from being miles away from the landing site to actually landing and then to miles forward of the site. Phenomenal. A heli just couldn't ingress and egress so rapidly.
The V22s deployed are known to have a little- discussed, front-mounted turret that might let drivers "clean up" a landing site a little. They also have counter-measures -flares -- designed to defeat SAMs.
Posted by: chris franklin at November 25, 2007 01:11 AM
Man, this thing looks like something the Germans'
were working on in the 40s' minus 1 prop add the third and there you have it. Thing is the third prop would have to fold like a squid during plane
mode, which shouldn't be hard to engineer. This would add the stability it needs for landing tilt,
what do ya think, thinkers. Swing and swivel!
L/cpl
Posted by: JPM at November 24, 2007 06:23 PM
While Ospreys are good today outperforming helicopters, I imagine someday helicopters will challenge the capabilities of Ospreys. Sikorsky X2, compound helicopter with contra-rotating co-axial rotor system brings the capabilities of helicopter one step closer to the performance of Osprey. X2s expected range and speed does not beat the Osprey, but pretty close, at least for its max speed.
Posted by: pedestrian at April 17, 2007 04:17 AM
The emergency pattern that the V-22 flies is like a PEL (a circling manuver) that US turboprops fly. In fact, it is very similar to the T-34's emergency profile. Furthermore, it's dead engine glide descent rate is much less than a CH-53 or CH-46. It uses its wing to descend and the props can break off if need be if they are in the forward position on an emergency profile. Also, it does not scorch the grass alongside it. (Sorry Christian... I have seen it multiple times in both LZs and on runways.) It is not a great helo. It is not a great turboprop. However, it does do both a whole heck of a lot better than anything else can. It can lift a ton more than a 46 can. It can even sling load stuff in airplane mode without any drawbacks. Yes, a CH-46 can land in a smaller area, and slightly faster with it's side flair. However, the CH-46 cannot burn in at 300 knots from half a continent away and transition to a hover in the LZ in under a minute. Again, trade offs. Anyways, I think that it will have to silence the naysayers with this deployment. I think it will.
Posted by: TZ at April 17, 2007 03:01 AM
Riccioni is also very critical of the F22.
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 16, 2007 04:24 PM
Nicholas Weaver
Damn, that was pretty interesting.. and pretty damning, too....
Let's hope it fairs better than the AV8B.
But I'm still holding my breath every time I see the thing fly, honestly...
late
Posted by: Army Brat at April 16, 2007 04:11 PM
cripes, I must be tired...
Of course, I MEANT: the nacelles in the vertical position (which would mean the rotors are actually horizontal)
either way, it sure sounds UGLY ;)
been a long day... I'm out.
Posted by: Army Brat at April 16, 2007 04:06 PM
another clarification:
I was actually picturing gliding in with the props in the vertical position (not horizontal and feathered) and using the wings to maintain some forward momentum/lift/control (with ailerons/flaps). More like a helo with wings, rather than a plane...
As part of the old Fighter Mafia (and now modern curmudgeon), his views must at least be considered
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 16, 2007 03:51 PM
I THINK (based on some googling) that Campbell is referring to airships.
Of course, with airships, one good ballistic SAM, with a slightly modified warhead (say, 10mm ball berings pairs/triplets attached by 10cm steel cables, a modified version of some of the anti-sail cannonshot from the olden days) will punch through the balloon like it didn't exist, tearing a bunch of ritcheous holes in the fabric.
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 16, 2007 03:46 PM
Cripes, that was supposed to be "NOT as well suited for tactical airlift"
ahh, well - you knew that already...
and yeah, that's actually a damn good question - has anyone actually TRIED auto-rotating to a landing in an Osprey? I'm betting NOT.
Posted by: Army Brat at April 16, 2007 03:45 PM
Grandjester,
Hate to say that made me laugh out loud.. but it did :) Ouch. Point made.
And campbell, I believe, is alluding to the bright future of airship technology... and it's great potential for STRATEGIC airlift capabilities in the future.
I don't however think the technology is as well suited for tactical airlift, however...
Boy I would hate to try and glide in on those stubby little wings and those huge ass props will drag like a mo-fo when feathered. Has this been tried? In a sim perhaps?
Does anyone know wtf campbell is talking about?
Posted by: Grandjester at April 16, 2007 03:06 PM
Osprey is nice. a bit late, a bit expensive, a little limited, but nice.
Seventy years ago, fully VTOL aircraft could carry an entire Marine company, around the world and to any location all in one flight. Today, those can be updated to speeds in excess of 200mph, with zero heat signature, fully armed with both missiles and guns; and virtually impervious to ground fire concerns.
moreover, it can be done using simple diesel engines and fuels....(which will become hugely important in the future re: cost and maintenance)
WALRUS? Pentagon never had the right picture: theirs somewhat overstepping both tech and need.
still, the Osprey is, well, nice.
Posted by: campbell at April 16, 2007 02:07 PM
ANYTHING looks good in the demo. That's what demos are for.
But in real life, when the shooting starts there's a good chance that these things are going to be death-traps. Armor is looking more and more important.
I'd be interested in any informed comment on how they'd survive in the current environment in Iraq, for example.
Posted by: Wembley at April 16, 2007 02:00 PM
Hey, thanks, Christian... I didn't even consider the role the wings would play in any autorotation/crash scenario... interesting...
I have to say I also have something of a personal stake in the Osprey's success, as my Father in Law is building them right now in Philly...
I've also had the privelege of (shhh, don't tell) sitting in the pilot seat of the original proto-type (while it was located at the helicopter museum in West Chester, PA - my home town).
However, being an aviation enthusiast, I've always had concerns about this airframe... and it's inherent instability due to it's downward thrust not being central, like a Helo, but at each side...
But, kinda like the Bradley, at this point, we've sunk so much damn money and time into the thing, I guess sooner or later we're going to have to give it a try and see it it's a bust or not. I, of course, say this while I'm knocking on wood, because I know there are precious lives at stake on every flight... and they are the most important factor in any equation.
Anyway, man am I jealous... that flight looked like a blast!
Of course Byron (and the others) are right when they point out all of the sacrifices and compromises made in the airframe's survivability - just to achieve the increase in speed and range...
However, I can envision scenarios where those very features (speed and range) are utilized to achieve missions that a helo was not capable of acheiving, such as extracting a fire-team or wounded Marines in an other-wise inaccessable area to helos, due to range - or time to get on station. Afghantistan comes to mind with it's large distances to cover with helo's.. however, I think that the 'thin-air' considerations of Afghanistan's high altitude also presents it's own problems...
Oh well, I could go on and on.. We're never going to know, until it gets a chance to prove it - one way or the other...
Posted by: Army Brat at April 16, 2007 01:24 PM
Thanks for the comments y'all.
Byron, who said it will be restricted to light to light/medium threat areas? I don't see the Corps saying "oh, well, we can't fly that mission because the threat's too high for the Osprey." If you have other info, please share...
Grandjester...they're working on another defensive weapon for the Osprey. Either a chin-mounted gun or an underbelly pod, I think. I was concerned (and still am) about just having a rear-mounted gun, but flying in it, my caution was overridden by the performance.
And, Army Brat, I have asked about the autorotation issue and have been told the wings allow it to crash land like a plane. I don't know enough about the intricate aerodynamics of the wings, but it makes sense to me on the face of it.
Keep 'em coming!
Posted by: Christian at April 16, 2007 12:42 PM
Good Morning Christain,
Lets see the V-22 Ospery has 4K LESS lift the the CH-47 10k vs 14K lbs., it costs $80/89 million bucks a copy the CH-47 about a third of that, it is prone to crashing, it has no armor so it is and easy mark for ground fire, it's maneuverability is so restricted that when it does get in theatre in Iraq it will be limited to above 3K ft. operating ceiling and operated only in light to light medium threat areas.
Other then speed could someone please tell me why we need this multi billion dollar ($56 Billion est.)defense boobdoggle. Why is the V-22 needed?
Oh yea, now the Marines can say that they have an airframe now that is unique to the Corps. I guess vanity has a price. I just whish they would have chose a pocket knife for this distinction, I'm sure to the Marine on patrol out in the Anbar it would be a lot more useful.
ALLONS,
Byron
"Stewart's Platoon"
Posted by: Byron Skinner at April 16, 2007 12:27 PM
Grandjester makes some good points about the Osprey's vulnerability during landing phase - and it's potentially large heat signature (I've heard a couple differing views of this by now, so not sure either way).
But my main concern about the Osprey has always been it's potential instability in a crosswind while in hover mode... and it's ability to take any damage at all to one rotor system (not the engine) and still manage to maintain control and/or land - as the principle of auto-rotation is pretty much out the window with it's size - and twin 'rotor' system - and any variance in lift between the two rotors could cause an immediate departure from controlled flight.
But, like Christian, I too hope the Osprey is a success... But have to admit much trepidation about it's vulnerabilities and potential instabilities...
So I end with a cynical half-joke... wondering... Do you think they can make a ballistic parachute big enough to land that puppy in case of an emergency?
Posted by: Army Brat at April 16, 2007 11:47 AM
Not very impressed, sorry. Looked small and extremely vulnerable during the landing phase. Would have like to have seen the gun mount but it looks like even with the mount installed it would have about 200 degrees of non-coverage. Can't we slap a chin turret on this thing? Speed might help against rpgs and ground fire but with the heat that thing is pumping out, both sides, it would be a magnet for anything guided. Puking might not be the best state for Marines during an assault.
I hate to piss all over this, it's a great concept, but there seems to be too many trade offs, very high cost and it keeps having issues... Now it's off to Iraq and I hope to God I am completely fucking wrong.
Posted by: Grandjester at April 16, 2007 09:37 AM
And the curious thing is that in the late '50s the army was experimenting with VTOLs in the form of the Vz-4.
Rearward rotor? Isn't that rotor there to counterbalance torques from the forward rather than generate lift?
Posted by: Charles at April 16, 2007 08:55 AM
The speed limit on helecopters is not drag from the rotor, its loss of lift...
As you go faster, the forward moving rotor goes even faster (giving more lift) but the backward moving part of the rotor moves slower (giving less lift). At a critical point, the rearward moving rotor wouldn't be generating lift at all.
Posted by: Nicholas weaver at April 16, 2007 07:41 AM
Man, I am jealous for a lot of reasons...and agree with your points as to why the V-22 is a good and needed step forward. I've understood and believed in the concept ever since my Father was the engine rep on the technology demonstrator(and simpler) XV-15. Technologically, I was hoping we'd have 10-15 years of operational experience with the V-22 by now. In a perfect world, we would now be moving towards fielding a followon that would have incorporated all the lessons learned that we're going to get from this aircraft as a first-of-type. Let the naysayers begin.....
since when could the osprey v22 autorotate
Posted by: eric taylor at June 12, 2008 03:09 PM