MV-22 Osprey

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-02-2007, 05:43 PM

I dont recommend the CH-47 for sar reasons. I will explain tomorrow, I have had to much to drink.

Matt308 · 02-02-2007, 05:52 PM

Next generation SAR with about 180+ aircraft as I recall. The MH-60, MH-53, MH-47 and MV-22 were the contendenders I think. Not sure if Eurocopter was bidding or not. You are right about MV-22 and it was not deemed a likely candidate. I think it really boiled down to MH-53 and MH-47. Not sure what the qualification parameters were. However, it was done on a ranking system based upon aircraft capabilities, support, recurring costs, etc.

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-03-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

Any damn game that requires a friggin' "day at the crease" or whatever it is...is a day of your life you'll never get back.

it's a day spent in the persuit of greatness

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-03-2007, 08:34 AM

The CH-47 is too big in my opinon for SAR purposes. It cant get into smaller areas. Plus its cieling is not very high. It can not get up the very hight mountains to rescure people. Better to stick with a UH-60 in my opinion.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-11-2007, 05:49 PM

Well it was in the Stars and Stripes newspaper today. They have grounded the entire Osprey fleet including the 8 that the Airforce have allready recieved.

A problem with the flight computer chips was found. The problem was that once the chips were exposed to cold weather and climates (even cold from being at high alltitudes) they failed and the aircraft would not be able to operate properly in emergency procedures.

They said they are not sure how long the grounding will be in place. They have to figure out what course of action to take whether it be replace the chips with a different kind or make modifications to the aircraft. It will take a minimum of several weeks however they are sure.

Matt308 · 02-11-2007, 07:35 PM

I know nothing about this Adler. But I would suspect that the flight computer chip problem is operation "outside of normal operating conditions" and is a software flight control problem that is less of an airframe problem and more of a flight control law issue. Either way. I suspect the issue is minor in the engineering/flight cert scheme of things.

davparlr · 02-11-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

A problem with the flight computer chips was found. The problem was that once the chips were exposed to cold weather and climates (even cold from being at high alltitudes) they failed and the aircraft would not be able to operate properly in emergency procedures.

Amazing. This isn't rocket science. I am sure the MV-22 flight control computers are not unique and should be similar to other aircraft with good temperature performance. Maybe a cost savinb chip change was made, but still should have been enviromentally tested. If this is true someone is in trouble.

mkloby · 02-11-2007, 09:51 PM

Yeah I heard this. It is amazing. As if this is the first A/C to ever have computer chips in it... They will replace the chips - shouldn't have anymore problems. Dave - those were the first words out of my mouth when I found out the other day... "someone's getting fired."

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-12-2007, 11:46 AM

It really should not be a problem at all. I know the AFCS computers on our Blackhawks had some problems as well a while back and they just replaced them with a more effecient and better version. Never really had a problem with them after that. Granted they were grounded until they were replaced which took about 2 weeks due to the computers being shipped and then the aircraft undergoing test flights. If they did fail after that, you just did a reset and 99 percent of the time it went back into normal operation.

Even if it did fail on the Blackhawk, you could still fly the helicopter it was just that you were now flying a Huey.

Glider · 02-12-2007, 05:23 PM

The thing that worries me is that you would expect any piece of equipment, let alone one like this, to have gone serious cold weather trials which should have identified problems such as this. If for some reason they didn't, or if the testing wasn't as deep as it should, what else may only be discovered after someone has lost their life?

mkloby · 02-23-2007, 10:35 PM

MV-22s are back up flying - been flying for several days already. Decent article in the Jan issue of Military Officers Assoc of America on the Osprey.

Matt308 · 03-24-2007, 02:06 PM

Marine Commandant, General James Conway quoted as saying:

"It is my fervent desire to get the V-22 in the fight as soon as we can, and that is probably going to be this year. I think it's going to prove itself rapidly. There is going to be a crash. That's what airplanes do over time. We're going to have to accept that when it happens. We'll hear some folks who are not fans of the program rise up."

AvWeek March 19, 2007

mkloby · 03-24-2007, 04:38 PM

The 3rd MV-22 squadron - VMM-266 was just stood up officially yesterday. From here on out they plan on converting two HMM squadrons to the Osprey a year.

Matt308 · 03-25-2007, 12:22 AM

God Speed mkloby. God Speed.

At least someone in the military brass has the same metallic balls to call it like it is. Just hope that his statement is only an incident and not an accident.

mkloby · 03-25-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

God Speed mkloby. God Speed.

At least someone in the military brass has the same metallic balls to call it like it is. Just hope that his statement is only an incident and not an accident.

As long as A/C take to the sky, there will be mishaps. That will never change. The MV-22 has not endured the same number of troubles as some other very successful fleet A/C. I can't wait to get behind the stick of one.