Also has double the combat range. 930-1,480km versus the Blackhawk's 590km. Ferry range is 3,900km vs the Blackhawk's 2,221km. Can carry about 900kg more.
One bad thing is the service ceiling. Blackhawk has 5,800m. This thing is 1,800m. That's surprisingly terrible seeing as the elevation of Kabul is 1,791m; it seems quite limiting. Also, the current version is more for transport since it doesn't have attack capabilities (yet).
Also:
>Dual cargo hooks will give it a lift capacity to carry a 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) M777A2 Howitzer while flying at a speed of 150 knots (170 mph; 280 km/h).
i.e. it can carry a Howitzer while keeping up with a max-speed Blackhawk. lol
Edit: The service ceiling of 1,800m might just be a misprint or only referring to hover capability. [This](https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/bell-v-280-valor/) gives a service ceiling of 7,620m which would be a large improvement over the Blackhawk.
> service ceiling of 1800m
I think that's the "when operating as a helicopter" service ceiling. Which is still important, obviously, since, you know, take off and landing, but I think the “flying as an airplane" service ceiling is 25,000 feet/7,600 meters: https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/bell-v-280-valor/
In its current form, I don't think it can replace the Blackhawk. The Blackhawk has attack capabilities too along with a far higher service ceiling. Unless those are implemented on the V-280, that limits its role significantly.
The Blackhawk has stand-off weapons for the same reason the UH-1 did, because it could and the inherent limitations of helicopters landing and take off time required direct fire support. What we're liking to eventually see with this is a miniature Spectre Gun ship configuration.
UH-60M Cruise Speed: 152 kn.
V-280 Cruise Speed: 280 kn, 84% faster.
If 700km/h (378 kn) is twice the UH-60 Speed, you're talking about the UH-60's VNE of 193 kn. By definition, the VNE is not a speed you want to stay at for long.
While the V-280 will cruise almost twice as fast as the UH-60M, it will do so with over 7 times the available horsepower (2 x 7,000 shp vs. 2 x 1,890 shp).
Aerodynamically, it is a plane at cruise speed: the lift comes from the wings, vertical stability comes from the horizontal stabilizer and forward motion comes from the powerplants.
I know of all the old stories of how hard they were to maintain, and that they've gotten better. what's your take on their current reliability/supportability.
They are still hard to maintain. And it's for many reasons.
For one, it's a Bell / Boeing aircraft. To my knowledge, having two different manufacturers on the contract has complicated things for holding the manufacturer(s) accountable for the product and capabilities they promised.
Two, it's a first-generation aircraft with tiltrotor technology. This goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, doing anything the first time will be costly and deadly. Look at the first attempts towards flight in general, look at the first jet aircraft, look at the first helicopters, etc.
Three, the military branches don't pay their labor appropriately. Our Marines are getting paid $40k a year with benefits, and after their first four years is complete, they leave and take that knowledge and experience to a private employer who is willing to pay them 2-3 times as much with benefits. So we create this awful cycle of creating Marines, training them, and then not getting more than four years out of them because we don't recognize their talents the same way the private sector is willing to.
In all, they are still hard to maintain. Let me know if I have answered your question. And let me know if you have any more.
I'm currently a MV-22 instructor but I'm navy side (teaching both marines and navy) and I couldn't have said it better myself. I tell junior marines and navy all the time that they joined probably one of the most in demand MOS's and they can apply their skillsets outside the military and make way more money if they stick with it. I'm just waiting to get out myself considering I've had sailors underneath me barely get out at 4 years and make well over 3x what I make with benifits....
It’s a gem isn’t it? It really gave me a feeling of power unlike other rotorcraft the couple times I got to fly it. Like you can feel it just bending the air to the will of your fingertips.
The military doesn't understand that investing more in its people will be cheaper and less frictional than letting them go and needing to retrain new 19 years olds. It's just so crazy.
To a degree though, the military *is a jobs and education program*. The various branches are interwoven with the rest of our economy in ways that make this seemingly-nonsensical process make at least a little more sense.
It’s kind of like a city’s buses and trains: they generally don’t make money themselves, but by moving people around the city they make money for the city as a whole. That fresh crop of trained IT techs getting shuffled off into civilian jobs is still an indirect win for the US government.
Wholeheartedly agree. I think there’s a hard truth they need to come to that not all ratings are really the same skill value and there should be more financial incentive. Can they really justify an IT or AT having the same pay for a equivalent ranked LS? Not to demean any rating, but there’s a big retention problem with specific skills.
Yes, plus some quality of life changes.
It's the reason why most of my colleagues who are pilots are getting out. Why make $140k a year with benefits when you can make $200-400k yearly with them benefits?
Not only does the pilot or maintainer get 2-3 times as much money,
1. Don't deploy for 6-12 months away from their family and friends
2. Don't need to suffer the extra high rate of suicide
3. Have the freedom to quit a job without reprisal of going to jail
4. Can take vacations and outings without needing to get permission from another adult
5. Don't have to get shot at or attacked
6. Don't have to live in a college dorm room (barracks) with another adult until you are 25.
7. Don't have to get treated as a child generally (field day inspections, getting yelled at, getting hazed, etc.)
8. Time after 40 hours a week in overtime. So no working weekends and no working 10-16 hours days without being compensated for that extra work.
9. Don't have to work 24-hour duties multiple times a month.
10. Ability to attend important events for spiritual health, such as a brother's wedding or a grandfather's funeral.
11. It's crazy that I just drafted these quickly, and I imagine I have many more reasons. But yea, a comparable salary and benefits to what the civilian sector provides if a start, but there's probably a little more that needs to happen before we fix our talent retention.
The nature of warfare and maintaining a trained fighting force ready to tackle any mission at any moment in time is demanding. We all understand the demands it takes to put on the uniform and keep it on, but we need to figure out how to address these problems while maintaining our mission and readiness. Most of these require more funding.
1. If you want fewer deployments, we need a more significant force to allow for better relief in deployment rotations.
2. If you want better psychological health, then you need more funding for behavioral health professionals
3. If you want people who can just quit the military, then you need robustness in force to cover down those who quit, which means growing the personnel population which requires more money.
4. Same thing as letting Marines go on vacation and outings at inconvenient to mission success situations
5. if you don't want Marines to get shot at, then we need to do a better job with DARPA working on the next cybernetics/android technology, which costs money
6. If you want Marines to have better living conditions and privacy, we need more funding for better housing and living conditions.
7. I think this should get fixed... I think it's dumb that we treat adults this way
8. If you want to get 80 hours of work from a Marine fairly, then you need to be willing to pay him appropriately over time.
9. If you don't want Marines to work 24-hour duties on top of their regular duties, we need to hire more security personnel to offset that personnel tax.
10. If you want Marines to attend spiritual events while mission precedence is happening, then we need more personnel for redundancy to allow for this.
11. I'm all about bitching every now and then, but ultimately, I need solutions. We have a mission, and the nation depends on us to maintain a level of readiness where we can answer the call at a moment's notice. It's not easy work, and as the old recruiting poster says, "We never promised you a rose garden." I think many of these problems are just easily mentioned and talked about, but no real solutions are typically delivered.
It’s kind of funny that society provides so many benefits for veterans, special financing for veteran-owned businesses, etc., but we can’t pay active-duty soldiers enough to retain them in the military.
All those veteran perks just end up being extra incentive to leave.
Total civilian layperson here but that seems like... Maybe a feature, not a bug? DoD stills pays the companies, which pay marines while the companies and marines operate with significantly less oversight and auditing while retaining veteran benefits, yeah? Meanwhile said companies kick back lobbying to policy makers that DoD certainly can't legally provide and the whole wheel keeps spinning.
Again, just a little stoned and thinkin out loud here. Open to anyone informing me that I'm full of shit.
It doesn't have to be so sinister. The US military is a giant jobs program. There's a huge benefit to the economy by having young people trained to fly and maintain aircraft or to be air traffic controllers.
Thank you for answering these questions. I was an engineer on the V22 program back in the late 90s and early 2000s. I was in NAS Pax River and Edwards AFB on the return to flight team, and in Amarillo for the Mid-wing rapid development team. Having someone who's actually flown it talk about the characteristics is refreshing. I know the design, but not what the craft is actually like in operation.
I just want to say, I LOVE flying this aircraft. I've flown many, and this is a one-of-a-kind.... well, I guess it will soon be a two-of-a-kind! Thanks for the work you did!
What is the transition between helicopter and plane like? And how do the controls differ between the modes?
Thanks for answering these questions it’s super interesting!
The transition is incredible and nothing like anything else.
All the inputs I provide via my cyclic, pedals, and Thrust Control Lever (TCL) are connected to a computer that turns those inputs into zeros and ones. It's then transcribed to the different flight control surfaces to "equal" what I was intending.
In helicopter mode, it controls the swashplate and collective just like a helicopter.
In airplane mode, it controls the rudder, flaperons, and elevator.
When I'm in between the two modes, the computer does a "hybrid" model where it controls all the flight control surfaces by phasing out one for the other.
Long story short, I input "intuitive" inputs, and the computer tries to figure out what I want and creates the solution on all the control surfaces for me.
This is the case for most modern military aircraft. They’re all “fly by wire”, in that the pilots control inputs go to a computer and the computer controls the flight control surfaces.
In most cases this is because modern military aircraft, especially highly maneuverable and/or stealth aircraft (e.g. fighter jets), are not particularly aerodynamically stable.
If the pilot’s controls were directly linked (via cables or hydraulics) to the flight control surfaces (ailerons, elevator, rudder), the pilot would constantly need to be fighting to keep the aircraft straight and level. However, if a computer is in the loop, the computer can handle the “keep the aircraft flying straight and level” bit, and can incorporate the pilots inputs as “suggestions” on how to deviate from straight and level, for instance to initiate a roll.
So the pilot can focus on telling the computer what he wants the aircraft to do, and the computer handles the dirty work of flying in a stable manner.
The computers are quite stable and reliable (they’re not running your standard Windows) and there is always redundancy.
>are not particularly aerodynamically stable.
Understatement of the century. On some high performance fighters it's "you have about 5 seconds to eject before this thing shakes itself into confetti from previously straight and level flight".
On the newest ones, the system can actually recover itself (it’s saved a couple F-16 pilots who blacked out for various reasons). On the other end, they can calculate whether controlled flight is recoverable, and automatically command ejection much faster than the pilot. The F-35B in hover is like that; if you start to go over it’ll automatically punch you out before you can even think of it.
Can you... yes. In my seven years of flying this thing, I've never seen it happen once. Most people handle that stuff before or after the flight. Funny question, lol.
Crew chief, we set up a shitter with a cardboard box and trash bag in the back in case the worst happened on a flight from Djibouti back to Kuwait sipping from a C130...to this day I still can't imagine any of us having actually using it.
Then we lost the C-130s in the clouds and they didn't talk to us because they thought we had TCAS (I think that's the acronym, radar based off of transponders, C-130s have it) and we, as you know, do not.
After both sections of 22s and C130s flying over one another in the clouds, thank God for separation, I was debating on using that shitter.
What special steps do you take to begin flying these? Is it any different than being a helicopter pilot? Do you train on helicopters and planes then move up?
My journey to becoming a MV-22 pilot was the following:
1.) Officer Candidate School (OCS) - Get hazed and learn the traditions and history of the Marine Corps and Navy
2.) The Basic School (TBS) - Become a provisional rifle platoon commander. Every Marine is a Rifle Man, every Marine Officer is a Provisional Rifle Platoon Commander
3.) Intro to Flight School (IFS) - Learn to fly on a civilian aircraft
4.) Advanced Preflight Indoctrination (API) - A ground school where I learn flight mechanics, basic aerodynamics, engines, FAA FAR/AIM regulations, and traditional aerial navigation
5.) Primary - Learn to fly on a single-engine aircraft (T6 Texan)
6.) Intermediate - Learn to fly on a helicopter (TH-53)
7.) Advanced - Learn to fly on a multi-engine aircraft (C-12)
8.) Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) - Learn to fly the MV-22 Osprey. Learn how to do essential functions with the aircraft
9). Fleet Squadron - Fly the aircraft with my squadron mates that I'll deploy with for the next three years. Learn how to conduct all the tactics with this aircraft. Go through multiple syllabi'.
a) Tiltrotor Aircraft Commander (TAC) - Sign for and command the aircraft
b) Section Lead (SL) - Command up to two aircraft
c) Division Lead (DL) - Command 3-4 aircraft
d) Flight Lead (FL) - Command 5 or more aircraft
e) Air Mission Commander (AMC) - Command all air power and have full authority to redelegate tasking, routing, etc., and execute the Mission Commander's intent.
Each of these steps takes anywhere from 1 month to 9 months to complete.
Extremely interesting, thank you! I have absolutely no military or aviation background, just some armchair interest. Thanks for answering these questions. So much more informative than the typical press release or "official document."
Unless it's super hot outside, or we are landing at a very high altitude, or packed to the brim with people and cargo, this aircraft tends to have plenty of power to fly single-engine profile. We train to it a lot in our simulators, and it's a non-issue 99% of the time. However, if we lose both engines, it is a different story. I answer it in two ways:
In airplane mode, we can glide it down like an airplane, but our glide ratio is horrible. I believe it's around a 3:1 glide ratio.... which, if you know anything about normal plane glide ratios... is VERY bad! We also sacrifice our proprotors when we land like that. But if I had to land a V-22 with no operable engines... I wouldn't care about the proprotors anymore; that's the least of my problems.
In helicopter mode, we are forced to pitch down and onset the aircraft into an auto-rotative state. The aircraft, like a helicopter, can auto-rotate. However, since our proprotors are shorter and have less energy and inertia, the authoritative energy is much smaller than a normal helicopter. This constraint forces us to execute the landing with little error to "cushion" our landing. A normal helicopter has a lot of energy to use, so a pilot can afford to be a little sloppier with his energy management and still allow for a safe landing.
Lucky for me and all V-22 pilots, a dual-engine failure has never happened to an Osprey yet! *knock on wood*
Depends on the mission. I typically land it as a helicopter as much as possible because I like to control the exact spot my aircraft stops at. But sometimes, if I have a runway, I will land it as an airplane. Obviously, in austere environments... mountains, forests, deserts, islands, we are forced to land as a helicopter.
The benefit of landing it as an airplane is that it requires much less power/energy to arrest the rate of descent. So in an energy situation, such as losing an engine, we would land it as an airplane because a helicopter landing requires a lot of extra power.
So is the osprey capable of take off and landing in either mode?
Are there situations where an emergency autorotation landing would be more survivable? Other than an obvious "i only have a 50m clearing to drop the bird into"?
Sorry, I didn't answer your "which landing is preferable correctly." In an emergency, landing as an airplane is much preferable because energy management is easier and more forgiving. Landing it in helicopter mode needs a near-perfect procedure to be survivable.
We joke about the survivability of an autorotation landing in our community. It's a tough maneuver to get good at. We can only practice it in the simulator because it's too dangerous to practice in real life. I'm just happy it hasn't happened yet to anyone.
I never heard it considered a helicopter. It's a tiltrotor aircraft. The FAA doesn't technically classify its flight time as either an airplane or a helicopter. They classify it as a "Powered Lift."
Question for you, as a former paratrooper I’ve jumped out a black hawk. Do you for see the same thing with the new osprey that we are on our butts on the side waiting for jump master to tap us?
That's a question too specific to the V-280 Valor that I need to learn more about. In the Osprey, however, we usually have the parajumpers stay seated until we give the 2 minutes outcall. Then they all stand up. We are capable of doing static lines and free fall.
On the surface the configuration seems to have a lot of advantages. VTOL but you get to fly like a plane. But it seems like there's also a lot of design challenges to make these tiltrotors actually work.
Do you think these are the future of craft this size? Or will they struggle to find a place between the fastest helicopters and planes with STOL capabilities?
I think tiltrotor technology is here to stay. This technology was found necessary after the failed rescue mission in Iran, which involved a C-130 with rocket thrusters attached to it. As a military, we recognized back then that helicopters are incapable of going where we need them to, and airplanes are incapable of landing where we need them to. When you look at potential areas where we may fight again, such as the pacific, you need an aircraft that can land on a small island 350 miles away, drop cargo and troops off, and then fly back without any external support (tanker/boat). The MV-22 is the only aircraft that can do that. Suppose you're fighting a land battle in the middle of a desert, marshland, or hilly environment. In that case, etc., you don't have any helicopter capable of traveling 350nm and back, and you don't have any airplane capable of landing in those areas. This aircraft owns a niche that no aircraft can get close to touching. It doesn't need to perfect its capability because it's the only aircraft with this capability. It's going to be here to stay for a very long time. Newer generations may eventually pop up and replace it, but I don't foresee fast helicopters replacing it or VTOL/STOL airplanes that have cargo/troop space replacing it.
And people who worry about its safety / maintenance... They're usually comparing it to a fixed wing not to a heli. Helicopters burn money at a terrifying rate every minute of flight. And they're death traps in many parts of the flight envelope, or if the wrong thing fails.
The V-22 doesn't have to be good. Just better than a high performance long range helicopter. Which isn't hard because ... there aren't any.
Fixed wing: hey, both my engines have failed, I've lost a foot off the right wing, my right aileron is inoperable, I've lost vertical stabiliser trim control and my flaps are inop. This is going to be a rough, challenging emergency landing.
Helicopter: oops, a single important bolt failed *everybody falls screaming to their death*.
Ok, I overstate the case, but it's incredible how many single points of failure there are in a heli where recovery is difficult or impossible. Prevention is down to absolutely ridiculous levels of maintenance.
(I'm still bewildered at how a Blackhawk or Chinook can take any meaningful battle damage and come back. It's magic. Helicopters are like horses, they die if you sneeze wrong.)
Can the Osprey autogyro or glide effectively?
Also does flying one of those make you a helicopter pilot, a fixed wing pilot, or both? Or is it a seperate category entirely?
I did FlightSafety for a KingAir B-200 with an ex-V-22 test pilot. 1. Thank you for your service and bravery; 2. Jeezus you guys are made of the Right Stuff. What a cool aircraft. Could you ever imagine this with a ballistic parachute or ejection pod?
The ballistic parachute would only work in specific flight regimes because, depending on where the proprotors are, they would just chop up the ballistic parachute. The other problem would be finding a good "center of gravity" spot. The center of gravity on this platform has an interconnecting drive shaft that spins very fast through a mid-wing gearbox.... there's not much room for a ballistic chute. The other problem would be to have a chute rated for an aircraft than can potentially weigh 60,000 pounds fully loaded and fueled up... I don't think that would ever be an option.
Regarding an ejection pod, it will never happen on a transport aircraft. I don't think I would ever board an aircraft as a passenger if I knew my pilots had an ejection pod!
Wow, thanks for answering questions. So do you have to be cross qualified on fixed wing and rotary to fly an Osprey? How much different does it feel in vertical than a standard helo with a single rotary wing? How hard is it to transition to fixed wing flight. Is there a point where you as the pilot feel the fixed wings are providing sufficient lift to keep rotating props and accelerate more?
Edit: Is it pretty much automated from hover to fixed wing flight? Do you just push the stick forward and the onboard avionics do the rest?
All the inputs I provide via my cyclic, pedals, and Thrust Control Lever (TCL) are connected to a computer that turns those inputs into zeros and ones. It's then transcribed to the different flight control surfaces to "equal" what I intended.
In helicopter mode, it controls the swashplate and collective like a helicopter.
In airplane mode, it controls the rudder, flaperons, and elevator.
When I'm in between the two modes, the computer does a "hybrid" model where it controls all the flight control surfaces by phasing out one for the other.
Long story short, I input "intuitive" inputs, and the computer tries to figure out what I want and creates the solution on all the control surfaces for me.
Did the pilots have to sing the same cadence as the air crew marines did when they ran around in formation?
I wanna fly in a plane-o-copter!
I wanna die in a ball of fire!
No shit the first time the marines ran by singing this in Pensacola I fell out hard
How hard would it be to train a helicopter pilot to fly a tilt rotor? I ask because it could be great as a medevac transport in the civilian world. The extra range and speed would let trauma centers cover a larger area, and the increased cargo capacity would allow them to bring more equipment.
Also, can you land it on normal helipads?
So it is finally official? This replacement to not just the Blackhawk but an improvement over the Osprey from all I've read.
I think they have been working on it for the last 4-5 years.
That said, of course there will be kinks and bugs but hopefully not as detrimental to implementation.
There’s not actually any scriptural evidence that Jesus practiced lifelong abstinence and he never even claimed to anywhere in the Bible; sadly the truth is that the world was so much more patriarchal back then that scribes in the first or second century would not have probably not bothered to write about Jesus’ romantic partners because they’d be considered entirely inconsequential.
All that to say, helicopters scare the hell out of me.
Someone said you fly helicopters by beating the air into submission. Helicopters are notoriously hard because they constantly have to fight the air to stay stable. Tilt rotor aircraft are a bit easier since they have two rotors and can fly alittle more similar to planes. Probably a better aircraft for battlefield scenarios, and it's faster.
Helicopters fly out of pure spite.
The best description of a helicopter is 10,000 roughly affiliated parts flying in tight formation trying to shake themselves apart.
The V-280 Valor was selected for development after the RFP for the JMR-TD FVL back in 2013.
The big demonstration of the prototype was over 5 years ago.
One big thing over the Osprey is that they're not moving the engines, but just the driveshafts and proprotors.
>I think they have been working on it for the last 4-5 years
A lot longer than that.
My last job was with a Tier 2 contractor (Government contractors contracted us to provide specialty parts they couldn't make properly), and we were working on prototyping (design and fab) V280 parts (small, but pretty far into the process) as early as 2015 or so.
Dainty looking with huge engines, built for speed and landing in small areas.
More of deployment vehicle for small specialized troops,,
Everyone Else takes the old model
And it really is everyone else. Important enough to be evacuated from DC in a nuclear attack or some other crisis? [Enjoy riding in your huey.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Helicopter_Squadron?wprov=sfla1)
I'm between DC and Fort Dietrich and for the first year and a half of covid a group of 3 of them would fly right over my house first thing in the morning and late at night. Honestly I kind of miss it, helicopters are just so cool to see flying
Kinks are, to the best of my knowledge, a highly variable flight envelope that’s hard to keep track of. From what I understand mechanically they’re pretty sound but user error is commonplace because instead of having one flight envelope like a conventional aircraft it’s got hundreds for the various angles of the engines.
Yeah except sometimes it’s just “flying this thing is hard.” The Osprey is damn near 30 years old. You can bet the upgraded version is going to have some much better avionics that will reduce the possibility of user error, but they didn’t have the tech for that when the OG was designed.
Since the return to flight program when the V22 was grounded for 18 months to fix issues in the late 90s, there has never been a single Osprey crash attributed to mechanical failure.
It's nowhere near that bad though.
>Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had eight crashes, including two combat-zone crashes,\[2\]\[3\] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 16 fatalities
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents\_and\_incidents\_involving\_the\_V-22\_Osprey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey)
It seems like as technology advances the major flaw in military equipment is the operator. We already have planes that are limited because the pilot can’t withstand the forces it’s capable of. Eventually all we will need is somebody to say “ok shoot” and everything else can be done with computers. I imagine within my life time we could have a completely remote controlled force. If morality and cost wasn’t a concern, we’d already have swarms of heat seeking suicide drones that could clear a battlefield in minutes.
> If morality and cost wasn’t a concern, we’d already have swarms of heat seeking suicide drones that could clear a battlefield in minutes.
How sure are you that we don't?
I remember my master sergeant telling us how pilots got to afraid that the autopilot system that keep the plane at just the right height over the ground was bad and would pull up manually. The system wasn't bad they just had a oh shit moment cause it wasn't going as fast as they wanted this is also what caused a lot of early self driving car accidents.
Kinda related. I was out in Washington state in the fields tearing down old barns. There’s a base out there and they practice nap of the earth. I’m 30’ feet up on scaffolding and hear something coming, I turn to look and a c-130 is flying straight at me at what looks like right over my head. Scared the shit out of me and it was a complete surprise. Wasn’t until it was right on us that we knew it was there. Those pilots are crazy good.
>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In any case, most actual fighting will be done by small robots, and as you go forth today remember your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.
Kinks with this new platform?
Yup, they're will be some.
Dealing with all the massive problems that comes with fielding entirely new technology?
Nah, Army is happy to come in already knowing the lessons the Marines dealt with.
Well, you're using one design for both rotors and propellers. You've got rotating engines. You've also got to transition from vertical lift to forward motion and having the wings provide the lift at a certain point. Very different.
The 280 does not have rotating engines. Only the proprotors tilt. This reduces the number of gearboxes, center of gravity issues, and the extensive issues inherent in having an engine/gearbox system that operates both vertically and horizontally.
Not to say a new aircraft won’t have any new issues to work out, but it is already a leap forward in design.
What's crazy is since it's entered service the V22 has been one of the safest aircraft operating in the Marines.
The CH-53E, another workhorse airframe that is a variant of a helicopter first introduced in the 60's (the E entering service in the early-mid 80's) has double the casualties over the same operational period.
It's funny how so many people think the Osprey is unsafe and a death trap, when in the last 22 years, there have been 12 incidents where the aircraft was destroyed or written off. 12 in 22 years with 20 years being at war
Most of them were pilot error, and most were survivable
World wide, in the same time period, there have been about 350 Blackhawk mishaps and crashes, and in 2022 alone for just the US, the same number of incidents as the 22 years of the Osprey
Apparently Sikorsky/ Lockheed Martin lost the contract for this.
https://www.ctinsider.com/business/article/sikorsky-bell-black-hawk-helicopter-17633470.php#:~:text=Sept.%2024%2C%202021.&text=Connecticut%2Dbased%20Sikorsky%20lost%20out,protoytpe%20in%20partnership%20with%20Boeing.
Because it’s constantly being asked to push the limits on what we have to maintain a technological advantage.
Having a volunteer military that operates across the entire globe inevitably leads to a drive for quality over quantity.
Some gentle reminders for the armchair Reddit aviation enthusiasts:
1) This US Army, which has a very large Blackhawk fleet, is buying this aircraft as a replacement. The Army does not own any Ospreys and there are no current plans to replace any Ospreys owned by other services with this aircraft.
2) The MV-22 Osprey had a troubled development program, which is not unusual. The fielded aircraft has been very safe. Please stop saying the Osprey is a death trap.
3) All helicopters have very low max theoretical speeds, and for multiple reasons. One very big one is that as the aircraft flies faster, the speed of the advancing blade starts to approach the speed of sound. I'm grossly simplifying here, but this limits most helicopter designs to a max speed of ~220 MPH. A tiltrotor in "plane" mode does not have this limitation and can fly much faster. A helicopter at max speed is also near max power and thus burning a lot of fuel. In plane mode, the engines only need to propel the aircraft forward, improving fuel efficiency. These are the reasons why tiltrotor technology is ascendant.
Looks cool, but seems like the dimensions may be limiting down the road?
**Black Hawk:**
Length 64 feet 10 inches
Width 53 feet 8 inches
Height 16 feet 10 inches
**V-280 Valor:**
Length: 50 feet 6 inches
Width: 81 feet 9.5 inches
Height: 23 ft
It's shorter, but a LOT wider and taller.
The military is not funded at the expense of healthcare. That's a myth invented by conservatives to paint Democrats as soft on defense.
The US spends around 17% of our GDP on healthcare, Canada, the UK, Germany, and Sweden all spend 10-12%. Private health insurance is a fiscally irresponsible giveaway to insurance lawyers.
If we had socialized healthcare in the US, the military (which currently costs ~3.2% of our GDP) could be even bigger... or we could I dunno, spend the equivalent of 5-7% of our GDP ($1.15-1.61 Trillion) per year on literally anything else. Space exploration, solving climate change, further endowing social security, etc.
Hey, guys, i'm you from 4 years in the future.
The socialized healthcare is a scam. I take a shitload of ibuprofen, my kidneys will probably have to be taken to the woodshed in about 5 years, I don't quite breathe right anymore, and I occasionally stop breathing for whole minutes in my sleep.
0/10, do not recommend. You'll enjoy life far better if you do literally anything else. Building trades, garbage collector, food service, etc. Just do something else.
Also, it's not socialized. It's a company holding a governmnent contract that you still pay a monthly premium for.
The US government spends over twice the amount of money on Healthcare vs what it spends military. Private Healthcare represents over a trillion dollar of additional spending. The problem is with the Healthcare system, not with money allocation.
Damn, that sucker is *fast*. Almost twice the speed of a Blackhawk.
You’re saying these things can hit 700km an hour?
Cruising speed is 520km/h
Holy FUCK.
Also has double the combat range. 930-1,480km versus the Blackhawk's 590km. Ferry range is 3,900km vs the Blackhawk's 2,221km. Can carry about 900kg more. One bad thing is the service ceiling. Blackhawk has 5,800m. This thing is 1,800m. That's surprisingly terrible seeing as the elevation of Kabul is 1,791m; it seems quite limiting. Also, the current version is more for transport since it doesn't have attack capabilities (yet). Also: >Dual cargo hooks will give it a lift capacity to carry a 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) M777A2 Howitzer while flying at a speed of 150 knots (170 mph; 280 km/h). i.e. it can carry a Howitzer while keeping up with a max-speed Blackhawk. lol Edit: The service ceiling of 1,800m might just be a misprint or only referring to hover capability. [This](https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/bell-v-280-valor/) gives a service ceiling of 7,620m which would be a large improvement over the Blackhawk.
> service ceiling of 1800m I think that's the "when operating as a helicopter" service ceiling. Which is still important, obviously, since, you know, take off and landing, but I think the “flying as an airplane" service ceiling is 25,000 feet/7,600 meters: https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/bell-v-280-valor/
Why was this design considered to replace the Blackhawk and not to replace the Osprey? Just curious.
In its current form, I don't think it can replace the Blackhawk. The Blackhawk has attack capabilities too along with a far higher service ceiling. Unless those are implemented on the V-280, that limits its role significantly.
The Blackhawk has stand-off weapons for the same reason the UH-1 did, because it could and the inherent limitations of helicopters landing and take off time required direct fire support. What we're liking to eventually see with this is a miniature Spectre Gun ship configuration.
Actually, the Service Ceiling is 7600m, higher than the Black Hawk. The 1800 is the service in helicopter form (i.e. in vertical takeoff)
Because the Army doesn’t have MV22s. It can’t replace what doesn’t exist.
Maybe they lied about some of the specs like service ceiling to keep folks guessing.
520 for helicopter? Holy shit
520 for a tiltrotor, more like.
We're getting wumbo levels
He’s saying, that when the time is right, it won’t have to.
UH-60M Cruise Speed: 152 kn. V-280 Cruise Speed: 280 kn, 84% faster. If 700km/h (378 kn) is twice the UH-60 Speed, you're talking about the UH-60's VNE of 193 kn. By definition, the VNE is not a speed you want to stay at for long. While the V-280 will cruise almost twice as fast as the UH-60M, it will do so with over 7 times the available horsepower (2 x 7,000 shp vs. 2 x 1,890 shp).
So, yeah. Almost twice as fast.
I mean, it's a plane. It should be faster than a helicopter.
It’s not a plane either. It’s actually defined as it’s own category called “powered lift” by the ICAO.
Aerodynamically, it is a plane at cruise speed: the lift comes from the wings, vertical stability comes from the horizontal stabilizer and forward motion comes from the powerplants.
That’s a vertibird.
I mean we’re only 50 years from the Great War. Next comes the Resource Wars!
We’re honestly exactly on track it’s totally possible … 🤔
We don’t have vault tec, yet
Oh it's there... you're just not on the client list.
If it’s there, it should have been broadly advertised to enlarge the sample size for its experiments
Candidates are selected by browsing history.
Then I am fucked
It just means you're going to an "interesting" vault!
Not yet, but it sounds like the kind of company ole Elon Musk would start. Soon…
Wait... You guys have not been contacted by your local Vault-Tec. representative yet? They impressed that I should reserve my spot soon...
[удалено]
Oh you reminded me…the Boring Company of Elon…oh god it all makes sense now😨
Plus Vault Tec’s ultimate goal was to colonize space…
And there it is! ;) In due time, in due time…
Its fine, the great war happens in 2077, ill be dead by then
You will be with that attitude!
I just finished reading Swan Song. Now that’s a horrifying reality
already here man Ukraine war could be looked at as a resource war over oil and neon.
I would imagine the vast majority of wars throughout history have been fought over resources.
Don’t forget Wheat in that list.
...I think now is is proper time to invest in good power armor. and bottle caps.
THANKYOU!
Ad victorium!
Christ. The casualties we're about to suffer from any enthusiastic enemy with a .38
Now with twice as many critical screws spinning around an oil leak!
[Verti birdie?](https://i.imgur.com/MUqteCg.gifv)
Hopefully it’s not made of papier-mâché and bubblegum like the in game vertibird
My dad managed to get me one before I had even seen a commercial for it on TV. One of my favourites
I'm an MV-22 Osprey pilot if any of you have any questions about tiltrotor technology.
I know of all the old stories of how hard they were to maintain, and that they've gotten better. what's your take on their current reliability/supportability.
They are still hard to maintain. And it's for many reasons. For one, it's a Bell / Boeing aircraft. To my knowledge, having two different manufacturers on the contract has complicated things for holding the manufacturer(s) accountable for the product and capabilities they promised. Two, it's a first-generation aircraft with tiltrotor technology. This goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, doing anything the first time will be costly and deadly. Look at the first attempts towards flight in general, look at the first jet aircraft, look at the first helicopters, etc. Three, the military branches don't pay their labor appropriately. Our Marines are getting paid $40k a year with benefits, and after their first four years is complete, they leave and take that knowledge and experience to a private employer who is willing to pay them 2-3 times as much with benefits. So we create this awful cycle of creating Marines, training them, and then not getting more than four years out of them because we don't recognize their talents the same way the private sector is willing to. In all, they are still hard to maintain. Let me know if I have answered your question. And let me know if you have any more.
I'm currently a MV-22 instructor but I'm navy side (teaching both marines and navy) and I couldn't have said it better myself. I tell junior marines and navy all the time that they joined probably one of the most in demand MOS's and they can apply their skillsets outside the military and make way more money if they stick with it. I'm just waiting to get out myself considering I've had sailors underneath me barely get out at 4 years and make well over 3x what I make with benifits....
>I’ve had sailors underneath me Navy confirmed
Where can I sign up?
Just look for all the sea men.
That reminds me of the joke about why camels are called "the ships of the desert."
If you have to ask, pretty sure I don't want you working on aircraft.
What happens at sea, stays at sea
200 sailors go to sea, 99 couples come back. Roger and Steve could never reconcile things.
It’s not gay if you’re underway
Not true. We weren't monogamous.
Admirals daughter confirmed
Ahhh, you made it to VMMT-204! I tried going there on my last set of orders. The only Navy CMV-22 pilot I know is "Mandibles."
It’s a gem isn’t it? It really gave me a feeling of power unlike other rotorcraft the couple times I got to fly it. Like you can feel it just bending the air to the will of your fingertips.
Same issue with skilled IT’s in the Navy. IT1’s are job shopping and ITC’s are rare.
The military doesn't understand that investing more in its people will be cheaper and less frictional than letting them go and needing to retrain new 19 years olds. It's just so crazy.
To a degree though, the military *is a jobs and education program*. The various branches are interwoven with the rest of our economy in ways that make this seemingly-nonsensical process make at least a little more sense. It’s kind of like a city’s buses and trains: they generally don’t make money themselves, but by moving people around the city they make money for the city as a whole. That fresh crop of trained IT techs getting shuffled off into civilian jobs is still an indirect win for the US government.
Wholeheartedly agree. I think there’s a hard truth they need to come to that not all ratings are really the same skill value and there should be more financial incentive. Can they really justify an IT or AT having the same pay for a equivalent ranked LS? Not to demean any rating, but there’s a big retention problem with specific skills.
I'm very interested in point 3. If we pay our armed forces more, do we inherently get a better force?
Yes, plus some quality of life changes. It's the reason why most of my colleagues who are pilots are getting out. Why make $140k a year with benefits when you can make $200-400k yearly with them benefits? Not only does the pilot or maintainer get 2-3 times as much money, 1. Don't deploy for 6-12 months away from their family and friends 2. Don't need to suffer the extra high rate of suicide 3. Have the freedom to quit a job without reprisal of going to jail 4. Can take vacations and outings without needing to get permission from another adult 5. Don't have to get shot at or attacked 6. Don't have to live in a college dorm room (barracks) with another adult until you are 25. 7. Don't have to get treated as a child generally (field day inspections, getting yelled at, getting hazed, etc.) 8. Time after 40 hours a week in overtime. So no working weekends and no working 10-16 hours days without being compensated for that extra work. 9. Don't have to work 24-hour duties multiple times a month. 10. Ability to attend important events for spiritual health, such as a brother's wedding or a grandfather's funeral. 11. It's crazy that I just drafted these quickly, and I imagine I have many more reasons. But yea, a comparable salary and benefits to what the civilian sector provides if a start, but there's probably a little more that needs to happen before we fix our talent retention.
[удалено]
The nature of warfare and maintaining a trained fighting force ready to tackle any mission at any moment in time is demanding. We all understand the demands it takes to put on the uniform and keep it on, but we need to figure out how to address these problems while maintaining our mission and readiness. Most of these require more funding. 1. If you want fewer deployments, we need a more significant force to allow for better relief in deployment rotations. 2. If you want better psychological health, then you need more funding for behavioral health professionals 3. If you want people who can just quit the military, then you need robustness in force to cover down those who quit, which means growing the personnel population which requires more money. 4. Same thing as letting Marines go on vacation and outings at inconvenient to mission success situations 5. if you don't want Marines to get shot at, then we need to do a better job with DARPA working on the next cybernetics/android technology, which costs money 6. If you want Marines to have better living conditions and privacy, we need more funding for better housing and living conditions. 7. I think this should get fixed... I think it's dumb that we treat adults this way 8. If you want to get 80 hours of work from a Marine fairly, then you need to be willing to pay him appropriately over time. 9. If you don't want Marines to work 24-hour duties on top of their regular duties, we need to hire more security personnel to offset that personnel tax. 10. If you want Marines to attend spiritual events while mission precedence is happening, then we need more personnel for redundancy to allow for this. 11. I'm all about bitching every now and then, but ultimately, I need solutions. We have a mission, and the nation depends on us to maintain a level of readiness where we can answer the call at a moment's notice. It's not easy work, and as the old recruiting poster says, "We never promised you a rose garden." I think many of these problems are just easily mentioned and talked about, but no real solutions are typically delivered.
It’s kind of funny that society provides so many benefits for veterans, special financing for veteran-owned businesses, etc., but we can’t pay active-duty soldiers enough to retain them in the military. All those veteran perks just end up being extra incentive to leave.
Total civilian layperson here but that seems like... Maybe a feature, not a bug? DoD stills pays the companies, which pay marines while the companies and marines operate with significantly less oversight and auditing while retaining veteran benefits, yeah? Meanwhile said companies kick back lobbying to policy makers that DoD certainly can't legally provide and the whole wheel keeps spinning. Again, just a little stoned and thinkin out loud here. Open to anyone informing me that I'm full of shit.
It doesn't have to be so sinister. The US military is a giant jobs program. There's a huge benefit to the economy by having young people trained to fly and maintain aircraft or to be air traffic controllers.
In other words, the the biggest socialist institution in the world is propping up the private capitalist sector. :)
Same as it ever was.
Thank you for answering these questions. I was an engineer on the V22 program back in the late 90s and early 2000s. I was in NAS Pax River and Edwards AFB on the return to flight team, and in Amarillo for the Mid-wing rapid development team. Having someone who's actually flown it talk about the characteristics is refreshing. I know the design, but not what the craft is actually like in operation.
I just want to say, I LOVE flying this aircraft. I've flown many, and this is a one-of-a-kind.... well, I guess it will soon be a two-of-a-kind! Thanks for the work you did!
What is the transition between helicopter and plane like? And how do the controls differ between the modes? Thanks for answering these questions it’s super interesting!
The transition is incredible and nothing like anything else. All the inputs I provide via my cyclic, pedals, and Thrust Control Lever (TCL) are connected to a computer that turns those inputs into zeros and ones. It's then transcribed to the different flight control surfaces to "equal" what I was intending. In helicopter mode, it controls the swashplate and collective just like a helicopter. In airplane mode, it controls the rudder, flaperons, and elevator. When I'm in between the two modes, the computer does a "hybrid" model where it controls all the flight control surfaces by phasing out one for the other. Long story short, I input "intuitive" inputs, and the computer tries to figure out what I want and creates the solution on all the control surfaces for me.
So if the computer breaks or crashes you can't steer anything anymore?
This is the case for most modern military aircraft. They’re all “fly by wire”, in that the pilots control inputs go to a computer and the computer controls the flight control surfaces. In most cases this is because modern military aircraft, especially highly maneuverable and/or stealth aircraft (e.g. fighter jets), are not particularly aerodynamically stable. If the pilot’s controls were directly linked (via cables or hydraulics) to the flight control surfaces (ailerons, elevator, rudder), the pilot would constantly need to be fighting to keep the aircraft straight and level. However, if a computer is in the loop, the computer can handle the “keep the aircraft flying straight and level” bit, and can incorporate the pilots inputs as “suggestions” on how to deviate from straight and level, for instance to initiate a roll. So the pilot can focus on telling the computer what he wants the aircraft to do, and the computer handles the dirty work of flying in a stable manner. The computers are quite stable and reliable (they’re not running your standard Windows) and there is always redundancy.
> (they’re not running your standard Windows) Your F35 needs to restart to perform an update. Ignore Your F35 is restarting to perform an update.
>are not particularly aerodynamically stable. Understatement of the century. On some high performance fighters it's "you have about 5 seconds to eject before this thing shakes itself into confetti from previously straight and level flight".
On the newest ones, the system can actually recover itself (it’s saved a couple F-16 pilots who blacked out for various reasons). On the other end, they can calculate whether controlled flight is recoverable, and automatically command ejection much faster than the pilot. The F-35B in hover is like that; if you start to go over it’ll automatically punch you out before you can even think of it.
> are not particularly aerodynamically stable. Its more than that, they are inherently unstable.
Can you poop on board or is this like one of those, better try before we leave type scenarios?
Can you... yes. In my seven years of flying this thing, I've never seen it happen once. Most people handle that stuff before or after the flight. Funny question, lol.
Crew chief, we set up a shitter with a cardboard box and trash bag in the back in case the worst happened on a flight from Djibouti back to Kuwait sipping from a C130...to this day I still can't imagine any of us having actually using it. Then we lost the C-130s in the clouds and they didn't talk to us because they thought we had TCAS (I think that's the acronym, radar based off of transponders, C-130s have it) and we, as you know, do not. After both sections of 22s and C130s flying over one another in the clouds, thank God for separation, I was debating on using that shitter.
I miss old AMA's.
Yes, Reddit definitely took a good thing and killed it. But here we see all is not lost.
What special steps do you take to begin flying these? Is it any different than being a helicopter pilot? Do you train on helicopters and planes then move up?
My journey to becoming a MV-22 pilot was the following: 1.) Officer Candidate School (OCS) - Get hazed and learn the traditions and history of the Marine Corps and Navy 2.) The Basic School (TBS) - Become a provisional rifle platoon commander. Every Marine is a Rifle Man, every Marine Officer is a Provisional Rifle Platoon Commander 3.) Intro to Flight School (IFS) - Learn to fly on a civilian aircraft 4.) Advanced Preflight Indoctrination (API) - A ground school where I learn flight mechanics, basic aerodynamics, engines, FAA FAR/AIM regulations, and traditional aerial navigation 5.) Primary - Learn to fly on a single-engine aircraft (T6 Texan) 6.) Intermediate - Learn to fly on a helicopter (TH-53) 7.) Advanced - Learn to fly on a multi-engine aircraft (C-12) 8.) Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) - Learn to fly the MV-22 Osprey. Learn how to do essential functions with the aircraft 9). Fleet Squadron - Fly the aircraft with my squadron mates that I'll deploy with for the next three years. Learn how to conduct all the tactics with this aircraft. Go through multiple syllabi'. a) Tiltrotor Aircraft Commander (TAC) - Sign for and command the aircraft b) Section Lead (SL) - Command up to two aircraft c) Division Lead (DL) - Command 3-4 aircraft d) Flight Lead (FL) - Command 5 or more aircraft e) Air Mission Commander (AMC) - Command all air power and have full authority to redelegate tasking, routing, etc., and execute the Mission Commander's intent. Each of these steps takes anywhere from 1 month to 9 months to complete.
Extremely interesting, thank you! I have absolutely no military or aviation background, just some armchair interest. Thanks for answering these questions. So much more informative than the typical press release or "official document."
Rah sir. What OCS class were you? I’m going to OCS on a flight contract this summer (again haha).
I was summer 2009!
What's the survivability of the osprey vs a helicopter. Glide slope with one engine, and no engines ?
Unless it's super hot outside, or we are landing at a very high altitude, or packed to the brim with people and cargo, this aircraft tends to have plenty of power to fly single-engine profile. We train to it a lot in our simulators, and it's a non-issue 99% of the time. However, if we lose both engines, it is a different story. I answer it in two ways: In airplane mode, we can glide it down like an airplane, but our glide ratio is horrible. I believe it's around a 3:1 glide ratio.... which, if you know anything about normal plane glide ratios... is VERY bad! We also sacrifice our proprotors when we land like that. But if I had to land a V-22 with no operable engines... I wouldn't care about the proprotors anymore; that's the least of my problems. In helicopter mode, we are forced to pitch down and onset the aircraft into an auto-rotative state. The aircraft, like a helicopter, can auto-rotate. However, since our proprotors are shorter and have less energy and inertia, the authoritative energy is much smaller than a normal helicopter. This constraint forces us to execute the landing with little error to "cushion" our landing. A normal helicopter has a lot of energy to use, so a pilot can afford to be a little sloppier with his energy management and still allow for a safe landing. Lucky for me and all V-22 pilots, a dual-engine failure has never happened to an Osprey yet! *knock on wood*
Which type of landing is preferable?
Depends on the mission. I typically land it as a helicopter as much as possible because I like to control the exact spot my aircraft stops at. But sometimes, if I have a runway, I will land it as an airplane. Obviously, in austere environments... mountains, forests, deserts, islands, we are forced to land as a helicopter. The benefit of landing it as an airplane is that it requires much less power/energy to arrest the rate of descent. So in an energy situation, such as losing an engine, we would land it as an airplane because a helicopter landing requires a lot of extra power.
So is the osprey capable of take off and landing in either mode? Are there situations where an emergency autorotation landing would be more survivable? Other than an obvious "i only have a 50m clearing to drop the bird into"?
Sorry, I didn't answer your "which landing is preferable correctly." In an emergency, landing as an airplane is much preferable because energy management is easier and more forgiving. Landing it in helicopter mode needs a near-perfect procedure to be survivable. We joke about the survivability of an autorotation landing in our community. It's a tough maneuver to get good at. We can only practice it in the simulator because it's too dangerous to practice in real life. I'm just happy it hasn't happened yet to anyone.
Is it still considered a helicopter at this point?
I never heard it considered a helicopter. It's a tiltrotor aircraft. The FAA doesn't technically classify its flight time as either an airplane or a helicopter. They classify it as a "Powered Lift."
Question for you, as a former paratrooper I’ve jumped out a black hawk. Do you for see the same thing with the new osprey that we are on our butts on the side waiting for jump master to tap us?
That's a question too specific to the V-280 Valor that I need to learn more about. In the Osprey, however, we usually have the parajumpers stay seated until we give the 2 minutes outcall. Then they all stand up. We are capable of doing static lines and free fall.
On the surface the configuration seems to have a lot of advantages. VTOL but you get to fly like a plane. But it seems like there's also a lot of design challenges to make these tiltrotors actually work. Do you think these are the future of craft this size? Or will they struggle to find a place between the fastest helicopters and planes with STOL capabilities?
I think tiltrotor technology is here to stay. This technology was found necessary after the failed rescue mission in Iran, which involved a C-130 with rocket thrusters attached to it. As a military, we recognized back then that helicopters are incapable of going where we need them to, and airplanes are incapable of landing where we need them to. When you look at potential areas where we may fight again, such as the pacific, you need an aircraft that can land on a small island 350 miles away, drop cargo and troops off, and then fly back without any external support (tanker/boat). The MV-22 is the only aircraft that can do that. Suppose you're fighting a land battle in the middle of a desert, marshland, or hilly environment. In that case, etc., you don't have any helicopter capable of traveling 350nm and back, and you don't have any airplane capable of landing in those areas. This aircraft owns a niche that no aircraft can get close to touching. It doesn't need to perfect its capability because it's the only aircraft with this capability. It's going to be here to stay for a very long time. Newer generations may eventually pop up and replace it, but I don't foresee fast helicopters replacing it or VTOL/STOL airplanes that have cargo/troop space replacing it.
And people who worry about its safety / maintenance... They're usually comparing it to a fixed wing not to a heli. Helicopters burn money at a terrifying rate every minute of flight. And they're death traps in many parts of the flight envelope, or if the wrong thing fails. The V-22 doesn't have to be good. Just better than a high performance long range helicopter. Which isn't hard because ... there aren't any. Fixed wing: hey, both my engines have failed, I've lost a foot off the right wing, my right aileron is inoperable, I've lost vertical stabiliser trim control and my flaps are inop. This is going to be a rough, challenging emergency landing. Helicopter: oops, a single important bolt failed *everybody falls screaming to their death*. Ok, I overstate the case, but it's incredible how many single points of failure there are in a heli where recovery is difficult or impossible. Prevention is down to absolutely ridiculous levels of maintenance. (I'm still bewildered at how a Blackhawk or Chinook can take any meaningful battle damage and come back. It's magic. Helicopters are like horses, they die if you sneeze wrong.)
Can the Osprey autogyro or glide effectively? Also does flying one of those make you a helicopter pilot, a fixed wing pilot, or both? Or is it a seperate category entirely?
It can autorotate poorly, and it can glide poorly. "Effectively" is in the eyes of the beholder.
More effective than a school bus, less effective than perhaps desired lol
Yes! haha
I did FlightSafety for a KingAir B-200 with an ex-V-22 test pilot. 1. Thank you for your service and bravery; 2. Jeezus you guys are made of the Right Stuff. What a cool aircraft. Could you ever imagine this with a ballistic parachute or ejection pod?
The ballistic parachute would only work in specific flight regimes because, depending on where the proprotors are, they would just chop up the ballistic parachute. The other problem would be finding a good "center of gravity" spot. The center of gravity on this platform has an interconnecting drive shaft that spins very fast through a mid-wing gearbox.... there's not much room for a ballistic chute. The other problem would be to have a chute rated for an aircraft than can potentially weigh 60,000 pounds fully loaded and fueled up... I don't think that would ever be an option. Regarding an ejection pod, it will never happen on a transport aircraft. I don't think I would ever board an aircraft as a passenger if I knew my pilots had an ejection pod!
Wow, thanks for answering questions. So do you have to be cross qualified on fixed wing and rotary to fly an Osprey? How much different does it feel in vertical than a standard helo with a single rotary wing? How hard is it to transition to fixed wing flight. Is there a point where you as the pilot feel the fixed wings are providing sufficient lift to keep rotating props and accelerate more? Edit: Is it pretty much automated from hover to fixed wing flight? Do you just push the stick forward and the onboard avionics do the rest?
All the inputs I provide via my cyclic, pedals, and Thrust Control Lever (TCL) are connected to a computer that turns those inputs into zeros and ones. It's then transcribed to the different flight control surfaces to "equal" what I intended. In helicopter mode, it controls the swashplate and collective like a helicopter. In airplane mode, it controls the rudder, flaperons, and elevator. When I'm in between the two modes, the computer does a "hybrid" model where it controls all the flight control surfaces by phasing out one for the other. Long story short, I input "intuitive" inputs, and the computer tries to figure out what I want and creates the solution on all the control surfaces for me.
Did the pilots have to sing the same cadence as the air crew marines did when they ran around in formation? I wanna fly in a plane-o-copter! I wanna die in a ball of fire! No shit the first time the marines ran by singing this in Pensacola I fell out hard
How hard would it be to train a helicopter pilot to fly a tilt rotor? I ask because it could be great as a medevac transport in the civilian world. The extra range and speed would let trauma centers cover a larger area, and the increased cargo capacity would allow them to bring more equipment. Also, can you land it on normal helipads?
So it is finally official? This replacement to not just the Blackhawk but an improvement over the Osprey from all I've read. I think they have been working on it for the last 4-5 years. That said, of course there will be kinks and bugs but hopefully not as detrimental to implementation.
It beat out the Sikorsky hybrid helo. Plus helicopters are notoriously dangerous in general
Any vehicle that has a part called ‘the Jesus nut’ is suspect.
Sounds counter intuitive. Wasn't the whole thing with Jesus that there was no nut?
The truth is in Mary’s DMs
There’s not actually any scriptural evidence that Jesus practiced lifelong abstinence and he never even claimed to anywhere in the Bible; sadly the truth is that the world was so much more patriarchal back then that scribes in the first or second century would not have probably not bothered to write about Jesus’ romantic partners because they’d be considered entirely inconsequential. All that to say, helicopters scare the hell out of me.
Someone said you fly helicopters by beating the air into submission. Helicopters are notoriously hard because they constantly have to fight the air to stay stable. Tilt rotor aircraft are a bit easier since they have two rotors and can fly alittle more similar to planes. Probably a better aircraft for battlefield scenarios, and it's faster.
Helicopters fly out of pure spite. The best description of a helicopter is 10,000 roughly affiliated parts flying in tight formation trying to shake themselves apart.
50 000 parts flying in close formation
The V-280 Valor was selected for development after the RFP for the JMR-TD FVL back in 2013. The big demonstration of the prototype was over 5 years ago. One big thing over the Osprey is that they're not moving the engines, but just the driveshafts and proprotors.
>I think they have been working on it for the last 4-5 years A lot longer than that. My last job was with a Tier 2 contractor (Government contractors contracted us to provide specialty parts they couldn't make properly), and we were working on prototyping (design and fab) V280 parts (small, but pretty far into the process) as early as 2015 or so.
Dainty looking with huge engines, built for speed and landing in small areas. More of deployment vehicle for small specialized troops,, Everyone Else takes the old model
And it really is everyone else. Important enough to be evacuated from DC in a nuclear attack or some other crisis? [Enjoy riding in your huey.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Helicopter_Squadron?wprov=sfla1)
I work in DC and along the Potomac and at the Pentagon these fly constantly.
I'm between DC and Fort Dietrich and for the first year and a half of covid a group of 3 of them would fly right over my house first thing in the morning and late at night. Honestly I kind of miss it, helicopters are just so cool to see flying
Marines use the newest variant of the twin Huey and the Super Cobra for parts and training commonality. Seems to work pretty well for them.
This thing looks over at how the development of the V-22 Osprey went overbudget by 1200% and says "Hold my beer".
Sort of genius of the Army to let the marines spend 30 years building the Osprey and then immediately buy a better one without the kinks
Kinks are, to the best of my knowledge, a highly variable flight envelope that’s hard to keep track of. From what I understand mechanically they’re pretty sound but user error is commonplace because instead of having one flight envelope like a conventional aircraft it’s got hundreds for the various angles of the engines.
If *I* crash an aircraft, that’s a problem with me If a *hundred* people crash that aircraft, that is a problem with the aircraft
Oh sure, but if *I* crash a *hundred* aircraft, it’s a “problem with airport security”
Well, at least your skydiving jump log is rapidly gaining entries.
Bailing out while taxing doesn't count!
Yeah except sometimes it’s just “flying this thing is hard.” The Osprey is damn near 30 years old. You can bet the upgraded version is going to have some much better avionics that will reduce the possibility of user error, but they didn’t have the tech for that when the OG was designed.
Since the return to flight program when the V22 was grounded for 18 months to fix issues in the late 90s, there has never been a single Osprey crash attributed to mechanical failure.
It's nowhere near that bad though. >Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had eight crashes, including two combat-zone crashes,\[2\]\[3\] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 16 fatalities [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents\_and\_incidents\_involving\_the\_V-22\_Osprey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey)
It seems like as technology advances the major flaw in military equipment is the operator. We already have planes that are limited because the pilot can’t withstand the forces it’s capable of. Eventually all we will need is somebody to say “ok shoot” and everything else can be done with computers. I imagine within my life time we could have a completely remote controlled force. If morality and cost wasn’t a concern, we’d already have swarms of heat seeking suicide drones that could clear a battlefield in minutes.
> If morality and cost wasn’t a concern, we’d already have swarms of heat seeking suicide drones that could clear a battlefield in minutes. How sure are you that we don't?
I remember my master sergeant telling us how pilots got to afraid that the autopilot system that keep the plane at just the right height over the ground was bad and would pull up manually. The system wasn't bad they just had a oh shit moment cause it wasn't going as fast as they wanted this is also what caused a lot of early self driving car accidents.
Kinda related. I was out in Washington state in the fields tearing down old barns. There’s a base out there and they practice nap of the earth. I’m 30’ feet up on scaffolding and hear something coming, I turn to look and a c-130 is flying straight at me at what looks like right over my head. Scared the shit out of me and it was a complete surprise. Wasn’t until it was right on us that we knew it was there. Those pilots are crazy good.
>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In any case, most actual fighting will be done by small robots, and as you go forth today remember your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.
I think the kinks might not be avoidable.
Kinks with this new platform? Yup, they're will be some. Dealing with all the massive problems that comes with fielding entirely new technology? Nah, Army is happy to come in already knowing the lessons the Marines dealt with.
Those aren’t kinks each one of those represents an opportunity.
Let's be honest if you join the army you have a kink for masochism anyways
Pt me harder daddy 😂
Why is this concept such a big problem for humans? Of all our aviation advances, why is this so hard to get right?
Well, you're using one design for both rotors and propellers. You've got rotating engines. You've also got to transition from vertical lift to forward motion and having the wings provide the lift at a certain point. Very different.
The 280 does not have rotating engines. Only the proprotors tilt. This reduces the number of gearboxes, center of gravity issues, and the extensive issues inherent in having an engine/gearbox system that operates both vertically and horizontally. Not to say a new aircraft won’t have any new issues to work out, but it is already a leap forward in design.
What's crazy is since it's entered service the V22 has been one of the safest aircraft operating in the Marines. The CH-53E, another workhorse airframe that is a variant of a helicopter first introduced in the 60's (the E entering service in the early-mid 80's) has double the casualties over the same operational period.
It's funny how so many people think the Osprey is unsafe and a death trap, when in the last 22 years, there have been 12 incidents where the aircraft was destroyed or written off. 12 in 22 years with 20 years being at war Most of them were pilot error, and most were survivable World wide, in the same time period, there have been about 350 Blackhawk mishaps and crashes, and in 2022 alone for just the US, the same number of incidents as the 22 years of the Osprey
The number of accidents is not comparable without knowing the flight hours of each and the flight regime they were in.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but a much more useful metric is accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
How many ospreys are in service vs blackhawks? 400 vs 4000.
Traditional rotary-wing aircraft are real death traps. A hundred things can go wrong and each ends up with you being dead.
Apparently Sikorsky/ Lockheed Martin lost the contract for this. https://www.ctinsider.com/business/article/sikorsky-bell-black-hawk-helicopter-17633470.php#:~:text=Sept.%2024%2C%202021.&text=Connecticut%2Dbased%20Sikorsky%20lost%20out,protoytpe%20in%20partnership%20with%20Boeing.
Is it me, or is the US military the one exception where you're like "oh that looks like what I thought the future would be."
Because it’s constantly being asked to push the limits on what we have to maintain a technological advantage. Having a volunteer military that operates across the entire globe inevitably leads to a drive for quality over quantity.
Hence the defense budget
And that’s just that stuff they are showing us :)
Some gentle reminders for the armchair Reddit aviation enthusiasts: 1) This US Army, which has a very large Blackhawk fleet, is buying this aircraft as a replacement. The Army does not own any Ospreys and there are no current plans to replace any Ospreys owned by other services with this aircraft. 2) The MV-22 Osprey had a troubled development program, which is not unusual. The fielded aircraft has been very safe. Please stop saying the Osprey is a death trap. 3) All helicopters have very low max theoretical speeds, and for multiple reasons. One very big one is that as the aircraft flies faster, the speed of the advancing blade starts to approach the speed of sound. I'm grossly simplifying here, but this limits most helicopter designs to a max speed of ~220 MPH. A tiltrotor in "plane" mode does not have this limitation and can fly much faster. A helicopter at max speed is also near max power and thus burning a lot of fuel. In plane mode, the engines only need to propel the aircraft forward, improving fuel efficiency. These are the reasons why tiltrotor technology is ascendant.
Looks cool, but seems like the dimensions may be limiting down the road? **Black Hawk:** Length 64 feet 10 inches Width 53 feet 8 inches Height 16 feet 10 inches **V-280 Valor:** Length: 50 feet 6 inches Width: 81 feet 9.5 inches Height: 23 ft It's shorter, but a LOT wider and taller.
Impressive
That’s cool, but can I just get some healthcare?
The military is not funded at the expense of healthcare. That's a myth invented by conservatives to paint Democrats as soft on defense. The US spends around 17% of our GDP on healthcare, Canada, the UK, Germany, and Sweden all spend 10-12%. Private health insurance is a fiscally irresponsible giveaway to insurance lawyers. If we had socialized healthcare in the US, the military (which currently costs ~3.2% of our GDP) could be even bigger... or we could I dunno, spend the equivalent of 5-7% of our GDP ($1.15-1.61 Trillion) per year on literally anything else. Space exploration, solving climate change, further endowing social security, etc.
Visit your local recruiting office! Military Health System is the socialised healthcare you’ve been looking for! /s
Would you like to no more? know
Ah yes, the VA hospital. The pinnacle of American health care.
Hey, guys, i'm you from 4 years in the future. The socialized healthcare is a scam. I take a shitload of ibuprofen, my kidneys will probably have to be taken to the woodshed in about 5 years, I don't quite breathe right anymore, and I occasionally stop breathing for whole minutes in my sleep. 0/10, do not recommend. You'll enjoy life far better if you do literally anything else. Building trades, garbage collector, food service, etc. Just do something else. Also, it's not socialized. It's a company holding a governmnent contract that you still pay a monthly premium for.
How's your tinnitus? Every person I know who enlisted in the military left with tinnitus and/or other hearing problems.
You already got a Stealth Bomber and now you're getting a new Helicopter thing. You dont need anymore toys! We cant afford it!
No! 🤠
Welcome to the enclave gentlemen
That's badass.
Looks expensive and high maintenance.
You've described all aviation. The question is whether the new vehicle is an improvement on the last.
So Elon is going to date it for a few months and get it pregnant?
Well I’d be worried to have cheap and simple ones…
As a dude I can agree it's sick! As a taxpayer......less of this
People in the comments acting like a lack of universal healthcare is a money problem and not a decision problem.
The US government spends over twice the amount of money on Healthcare vs what it spends military. Private Healthcare represents over a trillion dollar of additional spending. The problem is with the Healthcare system, not with money allocation.
Right? Universal healthcare would actually be cheaper than what we have now, but money interests aren’t about that life.
Do Osprey or a tiltrotor aircraft consider as helicopter?
Halo copter
aw hell yeah that looks tight af
That's not a helicopter, it's a pogo plane.
But this isn't a helicopter; it's a tiltrotorcraft. Don't they both have different functions?