Osprey Crash

killbilly said:
Assuming it has a good safety record, no reason why not?

Big difference: the whole nacelle doesn’t pivot on the 280. Curious about that from the engineering side.
Click to expand...

I was thinking readiness more than safety. That said, we don’t have a meaningful safety record until it’s been operational for awhile.

I would think the pivoting nacelle would be a easier from an engineering standpoint.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I was thinking readiness more than safety. That said, we don’t have a meaningful safety record until it’s been operational for awhile.

I would think the pivoting nacelle would be a easier from an engineering standpoint.
Click to expand...

Simple drive system that can absorb the same torque force as it changes angle vs the weight and forces involved with a multi ton nacelle.

The Army already has experience with drive systems making sudden changes in direction (nose gear box on the Apache). This requirement here is that it goes from its most direct mode in its cruise setting to what would be its most force restricting due to the directional change when it switches to helicopter mode and has to do all points in between fluidly.

Everything forward of the transition point on the V-280 is effectively isolated in its connection, it’s mostly just prop and gear box. All those wires and cables and stuff that need to be involved with a power plant are in the hard mounted portion of the system. The Osprey didn’t have that advantage. So you’ve got everything from fire suppression to electrical and hydraulic to high/low pressure air, etc and it all has to be able to suddenly shift where it is relative to the wing it lives on. V-280 will be a massive advantage over the current system because outside that gear box and prop, it’s basically a Blackhawk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pilot Fighter said:
It seems that we’d be better off with orders for a thousand Blackhawks and a couple dozen C-2’s.
Click to expand...
No idea about the details of this...
But, generally, from a physics and mechanicals perspective, this is a MUCH better concept.
Anything that creates a flying machine in which the engines and props don't have to move independent of and relative to the surfaces to which they are attached is a MUCH better concept. And it's not like this is a new concept. How again did we not pursue this route while the Generals and Majors were huckstering the Osprey around DC?

verticalmag.com

Sikorsky tilt-wing demonstrator will lay groundwork for future products

The centerpiece of Sikorsky’s development efforts is HEX, an uncrewed hybrid-electric technology demonstrator.
verticalmag.com verticalmag.com
 
Last edited:
dustoff17 said:
Agreed!
You just can’t beat the performance, reliability, and flexibility of the Blackhawk. And the C-2 is seemingly unstoppable.
Click to expand...
The only reason they're retiring the C-2 is that it can't carry the F-135 internally. The USMC had a hand in making that decision to go to the V-22. It adds more spares into the supply system to support both services programs. The C-2 is still a viable aircraft. VRC-40 deployed detachments to deployed west coast carriers to fill in for the grounded V-22s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top