OSPREY: Experimental aircraft takes off like a helicopter, flies like an airplane. (File Photo)
Posted on 11/24/2004 8:34:13 AM PST by NorthOf45
Experimental chopper loses part of blade
By Chris Lambie
November 24, 2004
OSPREY: Experimental aircraft takes off like a helicopter, flies like an airplane. (File Photo)
A cutting-edge U.S. military aircraft being tested in our skies made an emergency landing at Shearwater on Friday after losing a chunk of rotor blade. The tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey lost a 50-centimetre-long piece of rotor blade somewhere near the shoreline.
“They were flying along the water when this occurred, not over a populated area,” said Kirsti Dunn, of Boeing Co., the U.S. aviation giant that built the aircraft with Bell Helicopters.
About 20 kilometres from Shearwater, the crew noticed unusual vibrations and noises that sounded like ice shedding off the rotors.
“Any time you have something (where) there may be some impact on the blade, you want to get your aircraft down as quickly as possible,” Dunn said.
The Osprey returned to Shearwater by taking a route over the ocean, she said.
“If anything is coming off the aircraft, even big chunks of ice, you don’t want it falling and damaging anyone or anything,” Dunn said.
The first clue that something was going wrong came from cockpit indicators showing a heater failure on the left side of the aircraft, she said.
Investigating
“Sensing that there was something going on with the rotor blades, they did declare the emergency and slowed the aircraft to minimize vibrations.”
It landed safely, and the U.S. military is now investigating what caused the problem.
The Osprey — which is here to test de-icing capabilities — can normally run an electric current through the wings and its twin giant rotors to warm them and melt ice.
“They’re thinking it was ice that hit it,” Dunn said of the damaged rotor. “But where did it come from?”
The investigation may include placing more cameras on the Osprey to get a better idea of where ice forms and sheds.
The damaged section of rotor, about 10 centimetres wide, has not been found, she said.
The Osprey went into a scheduled maintenance period after the emergency landing and won’t be able fly again until Dec. 6.
“They’re replacing this blade, so the airplane will be flyable,” Dunn said.
The Osprey — which started test flights out of Shearwater earlier this month — is equipped with an 11-metre rotor on the end of each wing, allowing it to fly like a plane.
The rotors tilt 90 degrees when the Osprey wants to lift off or land vertically, like a helicopter.
Grounded in 2000
Osprey tests at Shearwater were cancelled four years ago when the fleet was grounded following two Osprey crashes in the U.S. that killed 23 Marines.
In July 1992, a test Osprey crashed into the Potomac River, killing four Boeing employees and three Marines.
Very interesting idea for an aircraft, but this thing has killed too many already.
Nice concept but the technology isn't there yet. The problem is that Boeing, some generals (consultants) and Pentagon (consultants) want this thing done.
What needs to happen is that the consultants and CEO, CFO and Chairman of Boeing should use this aircraft to ferry to work in Seattle and D.C. for 1 year ... every day. Then I'd let my son go into battle with one of those as his transport.
Yeah, I don't get why they killed the RAH-66 Comanche, but kept the Osprey.
It's a mediocre airplane and a poor helicopter. What's the point ? Trash the program
Glad to hear that the aircraft and crew were able to land is safely. It's too bad that the aircraft has had such a long teething phase and the fatalities have been tragic. None the less, I'm very happy that the aircraft continues to be tested and will one day be a part of our military inventory. The problems will be fixed and almost certainly a similar aircraft will be adapted for civilian applications.
How long are we going to put up this piece of junk ? It doesn't even look like it wants to fly.
Actually, I'm incredibly impressed that it could lose that much of a rotor, and the first indication was was cockpit indicators. I would have guessed it would have shook like a wet dog.
I agree.
I think we'll have to put up with it as long as politicians run the acquisition process and not the people directly in charge of it's mission intentions. Sad state of affairs.
All 'copters and nothing but a collection of nuts and bolts flying in loose formation. They all shake and rattle and give you an uneasy feeling; you always feel better when they are back on the ground.
Because its pieces and parts are made in more states and Congressional districts than anything else. Congressporkers will never kill it.
The big tail and fuselage structures come from Vought Aircraft, in Tennessee and Georgia. The engines are from Rolls Royce, in Indiana, the infrared suppressors from Honeywell, in California, and other subsystems are shipped from smaller suppliers across the United States. The pieces all come together at the Assembly and Integration Center in Amarillo.
*slaps hand on face*
UGH!
Yeah, now I get it.
*chuckle*
Thanks!
It was supposed to be a scout as well, which would replace/augment the Kiowa.
At least that was what some of the propaganda brochures/ info packets said.
They referred to it as the "Comanche light scout helicopter"
I'll bet that you're a proponent of removing all Blackhawks/Seahawks/Hueys/Cobras/Apaches/Chinooks/Sea Knights/Stallions/Super Stallions/Kiowas/Sea Rangers/Sea Kings from service based on the number of fatalities associated with them.
A: ZERO
I thought so.
Any qualms about letting your, or anyone elses, son fly into combat on 40 year old CH-46Es, AKA Boeing Body Bags?
More fecal wisdom from the inbred goober crowd.
Not at all. Based on the flight hours, the Osprey has a disproportionately high failure rate. The others do not. Many of the 40 year old hueys are safer than a low-hour Osprey.
BTW, what's your deal that you defend this killer so vehemently? Or do you just dislike living Marines?
As an engineer, my first thought about the myriad Osprey problems is that the design is overweighted.
The basic concept of engines & props at the ends of a rotating wing is a valid design idea, however, you are limited to how much weight the whole craft can realistically handle simply because that design, with engines/props that close together while vertical, is going to have large vibrations inherent in the structure.
So while "bigger engines" and fatter props really will work together to lift Pentagon-levels of required payload, you'll also get metal-fatigue-inducing vibrations that increase geometrically as you scale up for more weight capacity.
Or put another way, the more weight that design is forced to haul, the faster the craft will deteriorate.
In my opinion, you could make that identical *design* work without any of the current Osprey headaches and deaths if it was simply scaled down to about half its current weight, payload capacity, and engine power.
...And the reason that it would work if it was scaled down is because it would have less stress and less vibrational issues.
I disagree strongly. From what I know (and I will admit, I don't have any experience flying in them in combat, I am a former jet mechanic in the USN and aviation buff), the most dangerous part of the flight for a combat helicopter is ingress/egress. Stands to reason, I guess. The Osprey has such a fast transition to full speed forward flight at top speeds much greater than a standard helicopter, that its window of vulnerablity is greatly reduced.
If you add the ability to get this craft to nearly anywhere in the world by flying it there, instead of having to stick it on a ship or inside a C-5 or C-17, the mission readiness of the platform is so far ahead of a standard helicopter that it will radically change the logistical planning for interdiction/rescue missons.
This aircraft does have extensive teething pains, but the payoffs are enormous if our country can make it work. We need to go the extra mile to ensure our military has every single advantage we can supply them with, because they are going to need it in the next 25 years.
Jeez, this thing is still in the works?
Talk about governmental stupidity.
This thing was in the works 13 years ago when I joined the army. I'm very suprised it's still going on. This is one system that should have been scrapped long ago.
Clueless bureaucrats.
Comanche was hot stuff.
And that's just the rotor aircraft. If you add fatalities associated with fixed wing to that criteria, we won't have any aircraft at all and would have to buy them from the Russians.
Has there ever been an aircraft that didn't have fatalities associated with its prototype testing phase? I'm sure there are a few, but it's a sad fact of life that prototypes crash. Being a test pilot is a risky occupation, though it's probably driving to work is probably more dangerous than the job.
I heard that it was also a very soft airframe and would be very easy to knock down. Is that true?
Dang. Meant to say: "Being a test pilot is a risky occupation, though driving to work is probably more dangerous than the job."
So we agree the concept is great. It seems as though this particular execution of the concept is lacking. Hopefully there is a next generation that will perform as intended.
Thanks for your service!
Yup, I'm surprised they were able to make it back and land safely, especially since the V-22 can't land with the engines horizontal.
I never heard that about it. I know that it was not supposed to be a replacement for the apache.
The way I heard it from everyone(pilots, test pilots, mechanics, company reps) was that is was going to replace the aging OH-58 and OH-58D systems as a scout and limited weapons platform. It was going to have high stealth characteristics combined with weapons capability and observation package much like the 58D.
Some of the aging 58D's, while I was in, 90-96, were already fitted with weapons systems and performed well. There were also stealth mods being tested(I was a part of it), that just didn't pan out very well.
It was not designed to be a hard to kill system any more than the regular 58's were, it was more or less a new scout platform. As I understand it, but I was just a crewchief who heard alot of knowledgable folks discussing it, many, many times.
The Apache Longbow was the new tank killer on the block and everyone agreed it would be around a long time.
I thought so.
Any qualms about letting your, or anyone elses, son fly into combat on 40 year old CH-46Es, AKA Boeing Body Bags?
.....Glad to hear that the aircraft and crew were able to land is .....problems will be fixed and almost certainly a similar aircraft will be adapted for civilian applications
The comment at the end about civilian adaptability covers my concern for the military use of the Osprey. Lawyers will have to be tranquilized after the first couple of these go down in "civilian" use and is why they only use them in the Military... cause the Marines who die can't sue for crappy engineering and piss poor planning.
I don't have a problem with the ramp up of weapon and transport systems, I have a problem when the Pentagon and those feeding at the trough start out with something complex (helicopter) and then exponentially make it more complex (rotation of wing/props), then years after the initial design in order to change the characteristics of the Osprey to pass congressional and Armed Forces critics (heavier payload/faster transport) they've made a very complicated vehicle that isn't going to do what we need it to do... fly 'reliably' into a hot combat zone.... I thought initially it was for transport into an area, but I'm told that this will be used to transport into hot LZ's and just scoot away.
I'm not a pilot, not brave enough, even though the potential of retreating at 600-700 mph is kinda enticing. I'd rather stick to a 5 to 6 foot high observation platform with a top speed around 12-15 mph (a little faster if shot at), low pay load (max out at about 120lb carrying) but real low maintanence water and beef jerky in a pinch.
. I think this is a program that just needs to wait until the engineering catches up with the idea.... of course that's only my opinion and I could be wrong.
The $hithook if a great bird that should be caged, dried and photographed to provide reference to it's extinction for the EPA/ESA.
>>Yup, I'm surprised they were able to make it back and land safely, especially since the V-22 can't land with the engines horizontal.<<
WHAT?
HUH?
I also agree.
These things scare the he!! out of me. Too many Marines have been killed just in the testing phase. If need be, stick with the Chinooks.
>>The other one i want canceled is the F-22. Is just a pork barrel for boeing.
Umm - try LMASC.
Interesting picture. I had assumed that they would have a strut landing gear that would lift the fuselage higher than normal, landing with the props set at a 45 deg angle or such.
Thank you for the clarification.
Two different missions, two different services. The Army's decision to axe Comanche was long overdue. It was an aircraft built on marketing hype and little else. I can't speak with authority on the V-22, other than I know the USMC desperately needs something to replace their ancient CH-46 fleet.
I'm 100% for that idea. Let the CEO types, Board members and the Generals who want this thing so bad fly it to work every day for a year.
Great concept, but this thing can't fly.
The Comanche did not have any active ASE and relied soley on passive measures to avoid detection and air defense systems. It had little in the way of armor plating and even the windscreen was non-ballistic tolerant plexiglass. These design measures were adopted to reduce weight in order to increase rate of climb performance. The transmission and turreted gun system were even re-engineered to accomodate weight restrictions.
Yeah, My mistake. Still, it should be cancelled.
It should also be noted that this was a test flight in extreme weather conditions with the expressed purpose to test performance of de-icing equipment on the blades. A chunk of(melting)ice flying off of one rotor into the other set of blades at high rpm could be the culprit.
30 to 45 degrees might work, but I have no idea how well it flys in that configuration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.