MV 22 missing during joint exercise

[kaz3g]

US Marines launch search effort after MV-22 crash off Australia's east coast

[Marty_d]

Those Ospreys seem to be over-represented in crashes.

 

 

[red750]

The Marines have reportedly called off the search for the 3 missing crew members.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Those Ospreys seem to be over-represented in crashes.

I have always thought they were an example of technology purely for technology's sake.

 

 

[Yenn]

Notice that the passengers of the Osprey are always paid to be there. Not the sort of technology I would volounteer to fly in.

 

 

[M61A1]

I have always thought they were an example of technology purely for technology's sake.

Not so much.....they have been trying to get VTOL that goes faster than a helicopter ever since they were invented. Helicopter top speeds are severely limited by retreating blade stall, so they generally don't go much over 170 kts. The Osprey gets almost another 100kts, which seems like a significant advantage over a normal helicopter,, but it seems that really haven't got it well sorted, and I imagine that it's very complex and maintenance intensive.

 

 

[facthunter]

Engine out control needs to be improved. Hanging on a motor with 2 chances of a failure is not good odds. It's not gunna glide is it? Nev

 

 

[red750]

There is a whole series of photos of MV-22's on arrival in Sydney on 16right.com. Scroll to the bottom of the homepage and click on the thumbnail.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Engine out control needs to be improved. Hanging on a motor with 2 chances of a failure is not good odds. It's not gunna glide is it? Nev

I believe in the event that one engine fails, it diverts power via the central gearbox from the working engine. I don't think it's enough to maintain level flight though.

 

 

[ian00798]

Engine out control needs to be improved. Hanging on a motor with 2 chances of a failure is not good odds. It's not gunna glide is it? Nev

It has a power transfer shaft so in hover mode if you lose an engine the remaining engine keeps turning both props. Obviously there is going to be a significant power loss and fully loaded I suspect your still going down, but then how is that any different to a piston twin really.

 

I have always thought they were an example of technology purely for technology's sake.

That seems somewhat misinformed to say the least. There is a huge tactical advantage from the added combat radius and lift capability. The added combat radius means you can park the ship carrying it much further offshore, and the ability to drop 30 combat equipped marines nearly anywhere isn't something to be sneezed at.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I agree the IDEA of the V22 and its benefits over choppers is great, but in reality it's a mechanical nightmare and there have been several crashes. I don't know whether that extra 100kts over a Chinook is worth the billions in costs and the many lives lost so far.

 

 

[ian00798]

I agree the IDEA of the V22 and its benefits over choppers is great, but in reality it's a mechanical nightmare and there have been several crashes. I don't know whether that extra 100kts over a Chinook is worth the billions in costs and the many lives lost so far.

Whenever you work on the cutting edge there will be crashes. In combat an extra 100 knots could easily be life and death, and it has twice the combat radius of the chinook as well which is a huge difference.

 

 

[facthunter]

This Plane/Helicopter/Contraption has had an unacceptable safety record and is widely known as the widowmaker being extremely difficult to fly/control according to many accounts. Does it have cyclic pitch control? Nev

 

 

[ian00798]

This Plane/Helicopter/Contraption has had an unacceptable safety record and is widely known as the widowmaker being extremely difficult to fly/control according to many accounts. Does it have cyclic pitch control? Nev

It's a machine of war, and the safety standards we expect from commercial aviation don't apply. Plenty of other military aircraft have earned the widowmaker title so that's nothing new.

 

 

[facthunter]

Tell that to the relatives. You have a duty of care and we are not at war at the moment and even then the equipment must work. You are meant to kill the other side, not your own people in a training exercise. Whenever this happens there's usually a thorough enquiry and some blame will be laid and should be. The Military Industry is very profitable.. It often doesn't do everything right and does have to be answerable.. More testing or more training or the equipment is faulty. This item has an unacceptable safety history... That's a fact.. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I heard on the ABC Capricornia radio a bloke who used to work as a maintenance supervisor with the Ospreys. I think he said he was USAF not marines and thatthe USAF did a lot more testing of the Osprey, whereas the Marines did little, but put it into service much quicker. The USAF had about 37 while the marines have up to 300 inuse.

 

His comment was that it was a very safe aeroplane.

 

As others have commented there are a lot of "Widowmakers" including the fork tailed doctor killer.

 

I doubt that we will hear what caused the crash and it could just be pilot error. Not saying that it is.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes it COULD be pilot error except by using that obsolete term you mask any proper assessment of poor design/ training that might be found to contribute to it. There are often good reasons why pilot's err and there are ways to reduce the number of occasions pilots err. That's why investigations take place ... To improve the situation pilots fly in by changing things. Better instruments better communications reduced stress levels more effective controls more aircraft performance less control quirks etc

 

When people get involved with flying machines often they get an affection for some real DOGs and see overcoming some large faults as a challenge.. Eventually incident /accident figure can't be ignored based on the stats. Not perfect but better than just opinion. (as long as they are not manipulated to give the outcome sought). Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

The media is there to make money sensationalising stuff.

 

I have spent some time around the defence industry before and after it's transition to civilian type OH&S, I honestly think we would have a very difficult time in a serious conflict the way things are now.

 

Some excerpts from WIKI, I think it answers some of the concerns raised here.

 

In October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the V-22 as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate;[57] the Marine Corps responded by arguing that parts of the article's data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations too high for any new field of aircraft.[58] In 2011, it was reported by the controversial defense industry supported Lexington Institute[59][60][61] that the average V-22 mishap rate per flight hour over the past 10 years was approximately half of the average accident rate for the USMC fleet; the V-22's accident rate was the lowest of any Marine rotorcraft.[62] In 2011 Wired Magazine reported that the safety record was achieved by excluding ground incidents;[63]the USMC responded that MV-22 reporting was to the same standards as other aircraft in the Department of the Navy.[64]

 

While technically capable of autorotation if both engines fail in helicopter mode, a safe landing is difficult;[74] in 2005, a director of the Pentagon's testing office stated that in a loss of power while hovering below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "...are not likely to be survivable." V-22 pilot Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney stated that: "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130."[57] A complete loss of power requires both engines to fail, as one engine can power both proprotors via interconnected drive shafts.[75] Though vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, flight testing found the aircraft to be less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters.[6] A GAO report stated that the V-22 is "less forgiving than conventional helicopters" during this phenomenon.[76] Several test flights to explore the V-22's VRS characteristics were canceled.[77] The USMC trains pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS, and has instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[

 

The V-22 has triple-redundant fly-by-wire flight control systems, which included computerized damage control to automatically isolate damaged areas.[120][121] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly similar to an airplane. This is a gradual transition, occurring over the nacelles' rotation range; the lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[122] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[123][124] The V-22 can use the "80 Jump" orientation with the nacelles at 80° for takeoff to quickly achieve high altitude and speed.[102] The control systems automate and simplify to the extent that the V-22 can hover in low wind with no hands on the controls. According to some who have flown the aircraft, former fixed-wing pilots may be preferable over helicopter ones as they are not trained to constantly adjust the controls while hovering

 

In 2013, the USMC formed an intercontinental response force, the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force - Crisis Response - Africa (SPMAGTF-CR-AF),[178] equipped with V-22s outfitted with specialized communications equipment.[179] In 2013, following Typhoon Haiyan, 12 MV-22s of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade were deployed to the Philippines for disaster relief operations.[180] The V-22's capabilities were described as "uniquely relevant", being able to fly faster and with greater payload while moving essential supplies to remote sites throughout the island archipelago.[181]

 

The V-22 deployment to Afghanistan was set to conclude in late 2013 with the drawdown of combat operations; however, VMM-261 was directed to extend operations for a new role, casualty evacuation, for which it was better suited than helicopters as its speed better enabled casualties to reach a hospital within the 'golden hour'; they were fitted with medical equipment such as heart-monitors and basic triage supplies.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks for that. I can't see auto rotation being very effective, and that appears to be the case.. It's been in service longer than I thought. In "Normal" flight the rotor diameter must restrict forward speed, but better than a "conventional" rotary wing. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wonder how well the MV22s will age, with the US having deployed into Afghanistan and Iraq for over 14 years, these things must be getting very war weary

 

 

[ian00798]

Tell that to the relatives. You have a duty of care and we are not at war at the moment and even then the equipment must work. You are meant to kill the other side, not your own people in a training exercise. Whenever this happens there's usually a thorough enquiry and some blame will be laid and should be. The Military Industry is very profitable.. It often doesn't do everything right and does have to be answerable.. More testing or more training or the equipment is faulty. This item has an unacceptable safety history... That's a fact.. Nev

War is a messy business, and unfortunately sometimes staying ready for war you lose good people keeping your forces prepared. It's not a pleasant fact of life, however in combat these machines are a godsend. The military has come a long way as far as safety goes, however ultimately mission comes before safety, and demanding the same level of safety we take for granted with airliners just won't work. After all, for these people getting shot at is considered a normal fact of life.

 

 

[facthunter]

Being shot at is one thing. Having crook equipment is still not acceptable There's plenty of examples in all wars of defective equipment where the manufacturers were making more profit by cheapening down the product quality after getting the contract. Even things like suitable clothing boots etc. The Liberator Bomber had defects that were not rectified to keep servicing simpler, overall. In some theatres of war more were killed in training than in operations. I don't expect airline safety regs to apply to active war situations. Engines are operated at higher settings but have reduced service lives . (Changed more often) Wider clearances were used in some makes of military motorcycles to save money. Worn out tooling. Didn't have to be that way. Some people made absolute fortunes during war. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

That seems somewhat misinformed to say the least. There is a huge tactical advantage from the added combat radius and lift capability. The added combat radius means you can park the ship carrying it much further offshore, and the ability to drop 30 combat equipped marines nearly anywhere isn't something to be sneezed at.

Impertinent, I am as well informed as you. I was expressing an opinion.