Chips are down, and so is V-22

Ping.

Bad chip in the BIT computer (in this case) and the USAF finding lots of BIT failures last summer?

Might (just maybe) be connected. One hot, one cold, but extreme temperatures both ways.

Ya cant blame the manufacturer. The Gov lays out the specs.

We test to -15F

I know the technology involved in this beast is a nightmare of complication, but you would think that an aircraft in development as long as this one has been would have the kinks worked out by now.

And by the way - can anyone share with me the specific roll this aircraft could play that isn't already covered by more "conventional" aircraft? Seems like a rather expensive game if it truly isn't going to be any better than what we already have...

It doesn't look like it wants to fly.

They come pre-painted with a bullseye on them.

Insertion of SOF typs way beyond helicopter range.

Better yet, extraction of them is combat zones.

The old method was "verticle extraction." You float a rope on a balloon, and a C-130 flys by and catches the rope, snatching you out of the jungle.

Watch out for trees.

PING to her husband who works on these birds for DynCorp

"due to a computer chip that couldn’t stand the cold. "

You would think that would be part of testing 101 for a manufacturer.

Watch out for whiplash!

No kidding. LOL.

"Testing 101"

It is and thats how it was found. I think you will see similar problems identified in other types of aircraft including commercial aircraft before this is all over.

Problem is that the aircraft has to be cold soaked. In other words, sitting outside without any systems running in below freezing weather.

I know this bird has had its share of problems, but there is something good to be said about the design, at least of the onboard management systems, that this malfunction was caught before it resulted in a crash. Sure, it should have been caught way earlier, before these chips even left the manufacturer, IMHO.

No machine made by humans is ever going to be perfect, but at least the designed-in redundancy was working and detected a real problem that can be easily fixed.

I have mixed feelings on the Ospry. If they can get it to work reliably, it will be an awesome asset for the Marines, as well as the other services, and plenty of civilian organizations. If not, its going to be a hugely expensive boondoggle. I hope its the former.

I wouldn't want to fly on one.

Maybe Al Gore can heat the chips up with a "global warming" speech.

So, name another aircraft that can carry 20 troops at 300mph, take off and land vertically, and in case of an engine failure while cruising, actually glide instead of falling out of the sky like a Sea Knight/brick.

As "bad" as the Osprey is, it's still far better than the CH-46 Sea Knight, and it's killed less Marines.

No biggie. These kinds of issues happen more than you think with newly fielded equipment.

I'd rather fly on an Osprey than a CH-46, which is the aircraft it's replacing.

I've been on a Sea Knight, and it's *really* frightening - especially when the ONE turbine sputters on landing...

The primary use is "over the horizon" deployment. Transport ships can remain out of sight, out of radar range, and out of surface fired gun and missile range, while the V-22 speeds in, much faster than a helo, to insert troops.

While true that there are still kinks to work out, the military thinks in terms of trade offs. Lose one V-22 and all the troops and crew aboard, or lose an amphibious assault ship and all of it's crew, marines, and equipment.

It's cold and heartless, but that is the nature of war.

Well, I have to agree with you there. The CH-46 is an old bucket of bolts that needs to be retired.

So far, the V-22 hasn't proven it can do what you listed either...

And as far as the V-22 not killing as many marines as the Sea Knight - just wait until it has been in service as long as the Sea Knight - if it makes it that long.

Actually, I'd meant by this point in its development and deployment. The Sea Knight had already killed more people by this point.

And actually, yes, the V-22 *has* proven it can do that. That was part of the acceptance trials. Why do you think the Marines are *screaming* to keep the thing despite all the problems? Right now, the Marines are driving the program.

It's all laid out in the JORD - Joint Operational Requirements Document and the OMFTS - Operational Maneuver From The Sea doctrine.

Every time the V-22 is brought up, we see the usual suspects ranting "if God had meant man to fly, He'd have given us two tilt rotors".

I doubt there's been a single military aircraft that hasn't been grounded for safety issues on occasion. Yet when some "normal" aircraft is grounded, you don't hear about it.

Example: Did anyone hear about the grounding of Navy P-3C aircraft in 2005?

Most likely the manufacturer of the equipment is to blame for accepting parts that didn't meet spec. It may be something as simple as someone substituting a 74 series chip for a spec'd 54 series chip. While a data book may show that they are interchangeable the commercial 74 series doesn't have as wide an operating temperature range as the MilSpec 54 series chip.

In this case the system in the aircraft worked the way it was supposed to. Good engineering triumphs over what was most likely the mistake of a purchasing agent, production manager, production lead, assembler or any combination thereof.

You're a broken record.

So far, the V-22 hasn't proven it can do what you listed either...

Suggest you brush up on the results of OT-IIG.

And as far as the V-22 not killing as many marines as the Sea Knight - just wait until it has been in service as long as the Sea Knight - if it makes it that long.

Marines is a formal title and always needs to be capitalized when referencing the Marine Corps and its members.

The CH-46 had 44 Class A mishaps in its first five years in the FMF, was sent to Vietnam without armament or armor and broke up in flight due to Station 410 failures on numerous occasions. After 40 years we'll do a comparison and you'll most likely have to eat a healthy serving of crow. You won't be alone though. Plenty of naysayers will be joining you at the table for that meal.

The Longbow Apache still has kinks, so does the B52, believe it or not. It's always a work in progress. It's called combat.

How about CH-53?
200 mph
1300 mile range
3 engines.....
proven design

They're not fast enough, and if you configure them for a 1300-mile hop, you lose about half of their lift capability.

CH-53s are also *very* noisy.

Yup, I can attest to the noise part... Sikorsky is near by...there's no sneakin' up on someone in one of those suckers....

And the CH-46, even with all the updates and fixes, *still* crashes (without hostile fire) more than any other helicopter in US service, IIRC.

My late aunt used to work at Convair in San Diego, back in the 1950's and 1960's. She used to solder circuit boards on the assembly line. As I recall, most if not all of that work was done by women, due to generally greater dexterity and patience. She was considered one of the better workers and they often asked her how things were going on the shop floor.

One time they were having trouble with boards that were failing. Engineers spent long hours fixing the problem to no avail. I don't think my aunt even went to college, but in any event she had no mechanical training to speak of. She only worked because she was a widow and she had to provide for my elderly grandmother.

Anyway, she finally spoke up and told her bosses that she thought the components were wired too tight to the board. No one said anything, but a short time later a new solder jig was brought out that spaced the pieces off the board.

They never had a problem with those boards again.

Living in Dallas, you see Ospreys every so often. You also see CH-46's and CH-47's. You can definitely tell when the twin rotors are around, because you can hear them coming a long way off. You don't hear the Osprey, and the only reason you notice it is because it's flying around rather low for a general aviation plane or because they're taking off/landing somewhere nearby.

I am glad they found the problem before they deployed.

It would be rather exciting to be about 10,000 feet over Iraq or Afghanistan and the darn thing decides that it does not want to fly anymore.

Replaces medium lift capability of CH-46E and heavy lift capability of one of the CH-50-something (don't know the 50s well). MV-22, along with EFV, will allow for vastly superior techniques ("ship to objective maneuver"). The Marines need this.

You would think that would be part of testing 101 for a manufacturer.

This could be a cold issue that doesn't show up until the chip goes through a certain lifetime of use, on/off cycles, or cold/hot cycles.

I'm a chip physical design engineer, and I'm damn amazed the things work at all, not to mention surviving the physical stress and strain when their inner connections - who's size can be smaller than the wavelength of light used to make them - undergo thermal contraction and expansion.

As far as the V-22 goes itself, I'll feel a lot more comfortable when it gets a forward facing chin gun and a rearward facing gun mount to clear out an unexpectedly hot LZ. I don't have military experience, but this would seem to be a basic need for a military craft of its nature that I don't see addressed in its design.

Less exciting than if you're in a CH-46E and *it* decides it doesn't want to fly. At least the Osprey can glide if the engines fail and it's in forward flight.

Yes, it's possible to autorotate a CH-46. It's not a good idea and the chances of landing it safely are pretty bad, per the chopper pilots I've talked to.

Awesome story. Sometimes a good knack of things outweighs the best education.

They're actually working on that program now - it's already getting a rear-facing .50 cal on a quick-collapse mount to cover the rear ramp. The chin turret is undergoing airworthiness tests now, too - one option that they're considering is to swap out that turret's 20mm gun for a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

There was originally going to be fuselage-mounted weapons hard points as well (the better to send your enemy a greeting with LOTS of unguided folding-fin rockets), but IIRC the Dems got that enhancement package axed.

How about CH-53?

The Echo is a heavy lift platform so you're comparing apples and oranges. Having said that, the 53E is a gas hog, requires 45 MMF/FH, over three times that of the Osprey, and cruises at about 100 knots slower than the V-22, for starters.

Yes, it's possible to autorotate a CH-46.

It's possible to attempt to autorotate a CH-46. Most autorotations result in Class A mishaps.

No thank you!!!

I have never flown in a helicopter and I have no desire to.

I was at the Fourth of July Airshow in Pirmasens, Germany in 1983 when the US Army was demonstrating the new Blackhawk to the German Army, hoping to convince the Germans to purchase some. The Blackhawk carrying the German officers took off, circled around the field and then did a nosedive into an empty barracks building. Fortunately, no one was killed. Unfortunately, the German officer in charge of deciding whether or not to purchase the Blackhawks had seven broken vertebrae in his neck and back. Guess what the Germans never bought!

After witnessing that, I have no desire to climb into one of the cantankerous things.

That's true.

That said, as one ex-CH-46 pilot told me, any time the engine quits on a CH-46 you can pretty much count on the aircraft not being reusable *anyway*.

Good for your aunt. Outstanding assemblers are worth their weight in gold and more than likely vastly underpaid.

I find it troubling that such basic - and seemingly mandatory to mission requirement - weapon systems weren't on the plane design from day 1.

Well, considering that the original requirement (back in the Carter era) was for a totally unarmed vehicle.....

I asked Gen Gary Luck once, considering all the aircraft we had in the Army, which one he'd like best to have.

He said, "Some of all of them."

Of course, he was right.

it's already getting a rear-facing .50 cal on a quick-collapse mount to cover the rear ramp.

7.62MM M240, not a .50. More than likely the turret gun will be mounted in the hell hole, midship, not the nose. A setup like that was once considered for the OV-10.

VMX-22 puts M240 to test

Staff Sgt. Theodore K. Mahiai, a VMX-22 crew chief and one of the first to fire the “Osprey’s” new, rear-mounted M-240 weapon system, scans the area for possible targets during a flight Aug. 15.
Photo by: Lance Cpl. Samuel D. White
Photo ID: 2006822115214
Submitting Unit: MCAS New River
Photo Date:08/22/2006

Cpl. Joseph Murray, Marine Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 Osprey mechanic, checks out the Yuma scenery during a training proficiency flight Tuesday. VMX-22 arrived on the air station Aug. 25 to test its new ramp-mounted weapon system.
Photo by: Pfc. M. Daniel Sanchez
Photo ID: 200691504529
Submitting Unit: MCAS Yuma
Photo Date:08/29/2006



	A computer chip problem has popped up in Boeing's V-22 Osprey.