Boeing Osprey crashes off Darwin 27/08/23.

[red750]

Three United States Marines have been killed and several more injured after their aircraft crashed off the Northern Territory coast during a training drill.

 

The Boeing MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft was carrying 23.

 

Read more here.

[Old Koreelah]

Beats me why the US didn’t resurrect and develop a far simpler (and probably safer) design: the Fairy Rotordyne.

Its main disadvantage, the loud noise generated by the tip jets, could surely be greatly reduced with a bit of development.

 

Fairey Rotodyne - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't like the tilt rotor thing. Can't see how it approaches the controllability of a helicopter, and they are tricky enough..Ditch the design.   Nev

[spenaroo]

I dare say its easier to control then a Harrier, or the Lunar lander.

its the first generation and has had its teething problems out in the public.

just like the F35. its a fairly mature design now and they have the second generation starting to be built with the V-280 Valor

[facthunter]

Faulty in concept and obviously so. Nev

[onetrack]

I'd imagine the transition from regular aircraft level flight to rotorcraft flight would take some managing. Probably has a fair amount of computerised control?

 

Have to agree somewhat with Nev, they look like the most complex of any machine you could build, that flies.

[spenaroo]

Once again, its not new technology.

was played with in the 50/60's

 

Believe it or not the MV-22 Osprey is the safest rotorcraft the Maines operate

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7663/how-safe-is-the-mv-22-osprey-8036684/
. 
and find me a western fighter built since the 70's that didn't have a computer managed flight system.

Edited August 28, 2023 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

I'm not the only one questioning it. Just WHAT is a rotorcraft? A helicopter is rotary wing with lots of control. Just because clowns design such things doesn't mean pilots can fly them. History is filled with dud aeroplanes. Ones that didn't meet design Parameters or expectations.

[spenaroo]

18 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm not the only one questioning it. Just WHAT is a rotorcraft? A helicopter is rotary wing with lots of control. Just because clowns design such things doesn't mean pilots can fly them. History is filled with dud aeroplanes. Ones that didn't meet design Parameters or expectations.

A rotorcraft or rotary-wing aircraft is a heavier-than-air aircraft with rotary wings or rotor blades, which generate lift by rotating around a vertical mast. Several rotor blades mounted on a single mast are referred to as a rotor. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines a rotorcraft as "supported in flight by the reactions of the air on one or more rotors"

[facthunter]

There's ALL the difference in the world between cyclic pitch and a basic propellor or several when "controlling" a craft in the air. It's a pretty all embracing and vague definition. by ICAO. They don't CERTIFY stuff anyhow..  Funny how it's important to be able to glide a plane from anywhere in the circuit to accepting something that may need max power (Thrust) to land it. Nev

[BrendAn]

[BrendAn]

just the automatic folding system alone must add a huge amount of complexity let alone the tilting system . 

the interconnect driveshaft gives it redundancy from engine failure but can it help if there is a gearbox failure.

[BrendAn]

The V-22's two Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines are connected by drive shafts to a common central gearbox so that one engine can power both proprotors if an engine failure occurs.^[75] Either engine can power both proprotors through the wing driveshaft.^[74] However, the V-22 is generally not capable of hovering on one engine.^[112] If a proprotor gearbox fails, that proprotor cannot be feathered, and both engines must be stopped before an emergency landing. The autorotation characteristics are poor because of the rotors' low inertia.

 

i reference to nevs comment about being tricky to fly a chopper, imagine the workload when the sh@t hits the fan going by the above paragraph.^[74]

Edited August 28, 2023 by BrendAn

[BrendAn]

The V-22 Osprey has had 13 hull-loss accidents with a total of 51 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000, there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.^[31] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had eight crashes resulting in 16 fatalities and several minor incidents.^[252][253] The aircraft's accident history has generated some controversy over its perceived safety issues.^[25

[Marty_d]

I always thought the Osprey had more than its fair share of crashes, but I listened to an expert on RN today say that for US forces, the number of Osprey crashes were not markedly different from the Chinook over the same period.  (3 per 100,000 hours?)

 

Just goes to show that anything with rotors is suspect...

[spenaroo]

yeah, the article I posted earlier talked about the Marines loosing 6 sea-knight helicopters from 2001-20012

[facthunter]

You have to analyse the situation. Is it the Vehicle or the mission it was on that caused the Problem?  Nev

[spenaroo]

additional point, there has been a lot of talk about it being a complicated aircraft....

but lets not forget that the alternatives are similarly complex. with their own automated folding systems

[facthunter]

 But the  "USUAL" helicopter design gives more controllability when landing vertically.  They are ALL complex contraptions.  The Osprey was produced with speed being a big part of the mission specifics so the other deficiencies come with the Package as an inevitable consequence.   Nev

[spenaroo]

Yeah, I just remember an interview with a sea stallion pilot,

where he was going through how maintenance hungry they were. and all the hydraulic issues.

very much a case of if there was no hydraulics leaks, then the system was empty.

[facthunter]

Some had figures like 7hours maintenance for each hour flown That's hard to interpret but you get the gist of it. It would depend a lot on the size. I was asked to do a survey of hull losses as a % of the total on the Australian  register and one year in the 70's, it was 27%. A lot of this was due to the harshness of the work environment but nevertheless It's a staggering figure. It didn't equate to a lot of deaths  but that was not the Basis of the  Research.   Nev

[Marty_d]

One of the complicated bits is the power crossover system.  If I recall correctly it's a driveshaft system which transfers power from a working engine to the opposite rotor should that engine fail. 

[facthunter]

Quite Likely it's a big problem. Like shoving a car into gear at revs without a clutch.  Nev

[Blueadventures]

4 hours ago, spenaroo said:

Yeah, I just remember an interview with a sea stallion pilot,

where he was going through how maintenance hungry they were. and all the hydraulic issues.

very much a case of if there was no hydraulics leaks, then the system was empty.

Even the Blackhawks could not perform in heavy rain back at the start of the 1990's; those who worked on them will know the details.

[onetrack]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Quite Likely it's a big problem. Like shoving a car into gear at revs without a clutch.  Nev

Not really a suitable comparison. Most heavy truck drivers only use the clutch for takeoff, they do clutchless gear changes regularly, from then on, once moving.

Of  course, I'm talking heavy duty, non-synchro truck transmissions, such as Spicer or Eaton.