Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
It seems to me that somewhere along the line this went from being nasty about an inanimate object to being nasty to other posters.
Osprey crash at Bellows.
- Thread starter BobDDuck
- Start date
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Okay, I'll try again.
The TFX program failed in its primary goal of fielding an aircraft for both the AF and Navy. If you stop there, the program was a failure because the F-111B was not suitable for carrier operations. By the time the wing fell off, the TFX program concept had been dead for a year or more.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
How did it come to be that every freaking thread becomes a pissing contest? Every one. This is not the JC I joined. Something has changed. A man was killed and the thread is focused on who's more qualified to talk about the airplane? Every thread is like this any more and it's practically unbearable. Why can't we talk about causal factors involved, or discuss the merits or faults of the design with any civility? I'm tired of this sort of nonsense, I can't read a thread on here without seeing someone being rude to someone else - treat people with some respect! This isn't how we learn from any of this, this isn't how we become better aviators. Dammit. /rant
As a layman, it looks like he might have gotten into settling with power from the little I know about rotor-wing. Is the V-22 more susceptible to this phenomenon because of the sheer amount of downwash it's producing as opposed to a single rotor helicopter?
As a layman, it looks like he might have gotten into settling with power from the little I know about rotor-wing. Is the V-22 more susceptible to this phenomenon because of the sheer amount of downwash it's producing as opposed to a single rotor helicopter?
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Eh, you should have heard the Pinnacle guys when I called the 200 a piece of crap.
I stated my opinion, in a previous post I talked about: a 30 page 2009 GAO report detailing the problems with the final product, there's been pentagon oversight and scrutiny which made some difference, and now it's a monkier (and cautionary tale) for what not to continue funding in Congress. The lesson won't be learned or anything, I don't want to give off that impression.
The readers can make up their own mind. (I think I've said this enough in the past, but I'll say it again, I certified for EMI, I never flew the thing)
Lawman
Well-Known Member
It's actually more capable than most helicopters in a power limited situation.
To get into a truly unrecoverable profile and "settle with power" (every service has a different definition and name for what this is). You need minimal forward airspeed, a high power setting during the decent providing minimum power available, and a rate of decent above what is recoverable in the given time left to ground contact at max power (IE you might have power to arrest provided you start at 90 feet vice 40 etc) typically anything greater than about 300fpm with less than ETL.
The Osprey due to its sheer raw power, lack of a parasitic drain on that power a la tail rotor, and the ability to rapidly accelerate into forward flight from a hover at a near constant power setting make it much more salvageable than say a Hawk or similar medium lift helo. Either way it is still completely possible to get into the inescapable region, it's just harder to do it. Even so looking at the video you have a near or purely vertical decent that appears to increase rate at the bottom. That's just a bad place to be for any helo to try and come back from especially with what looked like a hell of a rate of decent.
You hear a lot of yelling about autorotation or down wash created, but really the only real negative for what it's used for in the Ospreys rotor design is due to its smaller total disk area each square foot of lift producing surface has a higher demand placed on it. So the Osprey feels weight limitation due to DA at a more drastic rate than a conventional helo like the 53 or 47 (king of high altitude heavy lift), but due to its sheer power other than at high altitudes it still severely outperforms comparable class conventional helos at low alt and matches them if not just edging them at high altitude. Even so it's climb rate is unmatched by anything else trying to do its job given the same environment (save the 47).
Last edited:
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Coming from a fixed wing guy with very limited helo knowledge. What's the recovery for settling with power? It's common enough for me to know of the phenomenon, so it has to practiced in the sim? Is there enough time/power to dump the nose over for a run on landing? Or are you just F'd?
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
If you follow your first instinct and pull more collective, you just make things worse. More pitch = more downwash = even greater descent rate
The recovery is to push the nose down and fly forward out of the downwash, which is easier said than done when it happens at 100 AGL.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
That's kind of what I was thinking. I've had simulated engine failures at 50-100 feet in a SE drilled into my head enough to know to push the nose over and accept what you get for a landing surface. I hope if it ever comes to it, that's what I'll do. I would think helo guys have the same thing drilled into them, so much so it's muscle memory. Like a lot of things in aviation, if you pick left and should've gone right you're dead. If you pick right and should've gone right you're a hero. Sometimes you're just screwed.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The GAO is in the business of getting the numbers right, not fielding future generations of aircraft. How much does it cost to design, build, and deploy a category of weapon that had never been attempted before? The answer is, nobody knows. Unfortunately, the budget process requires numbers. Get those numbers wrong and scrutiny is unavoidable.
When the GAO report you reference came out in 2009, I emailed it to my father. I expected an angry commentary from one of the program managers responsible for rescuing the Osprey from its near certain fate before Congress. His response, "engineering is hard".
I hope that this accident adds to the base of knowledge that will make the Osprey safer for generations to come.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Like USMCmech was saying its training yourself to fight your first instinct. Lots of dudes have the bad habit of treating that collective like an escape handle, which works early in training when your light weight all the time. First time I tried to do an Out of ground affect approach to a hover in full combat kit I scared the hell out of myself because it ran out of power and we were still descending towards trees but I had power and airspeed to have options out of it. Early recognition is the key "an ounce of prevention" and all.
It's a lot like teaching new fixed wing guys in a stall/engine failure not to try and pull more pitch to arrest falling. And like you said sometimes you've gotta pick whether you wanna take the punch in the face of the stomach. Whenever your in a hover there is an "avoid region" for your weight and DA. Basically it's a zone where no matter if you did the failure response perfectly it's still gonna hurt, your just aiming for survivable. Problem for Military helo aviation is the old school high hover battle position or sling load/fast rope/hoist provide basically lives in that zone. It's only when your just cruising that problems aren't going from non existent to end of the world with little to no in between.
We don't really so much practice it as its a part of every approach we do. Steeper/slower/more power intensive an approach is the more you go into it prepared but really it's the procedurally every day approaches these always seem to happen during. Kinda the idea of you only get bit when your not paying attention.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
Despite the long standing social reputation it is actually one of the most survivable platforms in our inventory for the typical rotary wing profile.
Hawks/Huey's by comparison have a very bad habit of collapsing because all the rotor assembly and transmission is mounted above the crew cabin. So we typically see crashes where if the aircraft lands in its most survivable profile (IE belły down) the roof caves in above a certain G load and kills people who otherwise would have survived the impact.
Osprey also went as far as putting seats that stroke for the crew as appose to the typical web seating though if they were installed in this case who knows. That isn't an option in most helos because they were never designed with the intent to have them. It gains a lot when your talking about the total rate of decent the body can absorb before you reach fatal levels. (Typically about an 15-18G bonus over web seats).
Commanders can still chose to fly crews without them for mission requirements (we used monkey straps and stood to get more people in the bird when I rode in them). But it's accepting a higher risk no different than when we fly no seats in a hawk or chinook for the same reason.
milleR
Well-Known Member
Sounds like "Energy Mamagement 101"
Or can fly any direction out of the downwash, in addition to forward. Just accelerating in some direction out of the dirty air. But yes, when at 100 AGL and you're already headed downhill anyway.......not much room or time to do anything unfortunately.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
I agree with the above, out of your element. What projects? What specifics about the V-22 make is useless. What are the specifics when it's deployed, mnx per flight hour, sortie completion rate, safety record, etc, etc. Why is it inferior to other aircraft, other projects.? You have flown it down range, have deployed with squadrons or detachments? Curious to hear your experience with the V-22. Don't bother, the question is rhetorical and the answer obvious. The internet, specifically JC, is just funny lol
milleR
Well-Known Member
Wasn't the Hawk designed with a similar seat?
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
(other than a modernized C-2
)
Lawman
Well-Known Member
For the guys up front yes.
Back seats are really just tube frames with webbing and a seat belt. They don't absorb impact as just translate energy till they collapse. Still better than sitting on the floor but nowhere near as safe. Same as skids don't provide the impact absorption that wheeled gas struts provide.
milleR
Well-Known Member
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.
And in our UH-60s and HH-60s, we fly with no seats in the back; just clipped into a floor ring for security. Pretty much ensures, at best, we'll just be injured in a crash..