V-22 osprey - discussione ufficiale

[TT-1 Pinto]

Negoziati in corso .... per l'acquisto di ben 122 V-22 ....

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/04/360391/price-negotiations-begin-on-lump-sum-deal-for-122-v-22s.html

[TT-1 Pinto]

Verso la prima vendita all'estero ....

 

UAE V-22 Deal Nears Closure ....

 

Fonte .... .... http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:2712990d-67fd-40a5-ab21-b27e911764c2

[Tuccio14]

Però non ho capito chi sarebbe il cliente estero...

[Scagnetti]

Però non ho capito chi sarebbe il cliente estero...

I soliti sceicchi, e di conseguenza forse anche Israele...

 

Negotiations with the United Arab Emirates are nearing a close, and some industry sources suggest that Israel may hasten its buy of the tilt rotor as a result.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Un altro ....

 

Air Force Osprey crash at Florida base injures five ....

Fonte - - http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/florida-osprey-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 ....

 

 

Un precedente di pochi mesi fa ....

 

About two months ago, a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey crashed in southern Morocco.

Two marines were killed and two other severely injured in the crash on the VMM-261 tilt rotor aircraft involved in African Lion joint exercise.

Fonte - - http://theaviationist.com/2012/06/14/cv-22-osprey-crash/ ....

 

.... http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/11/osprey-crash/ ....

Modificato 14 Giugno 2012 da TT-1 Pinto

[Andrea75]

Osprey’s Next Jobs: Tanker or AWACS?

[TT-1 Pinto]

Ospreys Next Jobs: Tanker or AWACS?

Che parlano di futuribili versioni "Tanker" e "AWACS" del velivolo è dagli albori del programma ....

 

 

 

.... credo che, invece, la massima priorità sia quella di renderlo più sicuro ....

Modificato 10 Luglio 2012 da TT-1 Pinto

[TT-1 Pinto]

I Marines, intanto, sono tornati in forze al Salone di Farnborough ....

 

FARNBOROUGH: USMC deployment supports V-22 Osprey sales drive ....

Fonte - - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-usmc-deployment-supports-v-22-osprey-sales-drive-374059/

 

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Si può ancora continuare a chiamarla "ordinaria amministrazione" ?

 

MV-22B Osprey tilt rotor aircraft makes emergency landing in North Carolina ....

Fonte - - http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/osprey-emergency-landing/

[Andrea75]

First MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft arrive in Japan

 

The following picture is particularly interesting as it shows a still “packaged” MV-22 Osprey belonging to the Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 265 as it is unloaded from the cargo ship Green Ridge on arrival at the Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni harbor on Jul. 23, 2012.

This marks the first MV-22 Osprey aircraft deployment to Japan, a move that raised some concerns following the recent incidents involving the tilt-rotor aircraft.

The Osprey will replace the Marine Corps’ CH-46 helicopters.

 

[Andrea75]

“Air Force’s CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft accident report is a total distortion of the facts” top aviation expert says.

 

Occhio alla frase finale!

 

A. Rex Rivolo, who is Chief Technology Officer of an aerospace corporation in Virginia, has seventeen years experience in DoD Test and Evaluation community as senior advisor to the Office of Secretary of Defense and served as the principal analyst for the MV-22 and CV-22 at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a nonprofit organization paid to do independent research for the Pentagon.

 

Rex has some strong credentials: he was a pilot for six years at the US Air Force and 22 years at the Air National Guard. He has some 7,500 flight hours in both tactical fighter planes and helicopters, including 531 combat missions with the F-4E Phantom in Vietnam. He has earned 5 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 28 Air Medals.

 

“The findings of the Accident Investigation Board (AIB) for the CV-22B, tail number 06-0032, crash on 13 June 2012 are a total distortion of the facts and a blatant attempt to blame the pilots for a very serious design flaw in the V-22 aircraft” he told The Aviationist.

 

The serious safety concerns over the V-22 response to interactions with proprotor wakes of another V-22 were raised as early as 1996 when pilots began reporting incidences of uncommanded roll during flights of multiple aircraft.

 

“I personally observed several instances of this while flying on the V-22 in the late 1990s as an observer supporting the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) during the V-22 operational test period. In their desire to meet cost and schedule milestones, these concerns were given little attention by Bell-Boeing and the USMC management team and they consequently mounted a strong campaign to discredit these concerns with DOT&E. This effort, supported by some of the world’s best aeronautical engineers and pilots convinced DOT&E that the problem was indeed minor and the concerns were overblown.”

 

“Following the 2000 crash at Marana in which uncommanded roll due to wake intrusion was a possible contributing cause, I recruited Professor Gordon Leishman, one of the world’s top rotorcraft scientists, to investigate the phenomenon using numerical simulation” Rivolo told The Aviationist.

 

The result of these calculations clearly indicated that V-22 rotor wake intrusion could be a serious hazard to V-22 because of the side-by-side design: “Based on these concerns, I succeeded in resurrecting the issue with DOT&E and the Director demanded that a test and evaluation program be designed and executed to quantify the seriousness of the phenomenon.”

 

“This test and evaluation program, known as Test Request 65 (TR-65), was designed by DOT&E, Bell-Boeing and the USMC. The TR-65 document, dated 9 June 2000, described over 23 pages of test sequences to be performed to evaluate proprotor wake interactions in the V-22. Eighteen months later, TR-65 was scrapped based on the then current flight experience in which no uncommanded rolls were experienced in the aircraft during formation flight. Based on a strong Bell-Boeing and USMC push to dismiss a “non-issue”, DOT&E acquiesced and TR-65 was never completed.”

 

As a consequence, the pluri-decorated former combat pilot says, the CV-22 Flight Manual, known as the “Dash-1”, contains only minor guidance in Section V (Operating Limitations) on formation flight position to avoid wake intrusion.

 

Rivolo believes that if TR-65 had been executed to completion, the uncontrollable rolls experienced by V-22 when intruding into another V-22 wake would have clearly been demonstrated along with the dangers of the phenomenon.

 

The entire text from Section V of the Dash-1 regarding formation flight limitations Rivolo sent us reads as follows:

 

FORMATION FLIGHT LIMITATIONS

1. VTOL/CONV mode formation flying requires a

minimum cockpit-to-cockpit 250 ft separation and 25 ft

step up; step up is to be maintained all the way to landing.

The requirement for step up is designed to prevent

asymmetric wake interactions caused when one rotor

on the trail aircraft encounters the wake of the lead aircraft.

 

2. During APLN mode formation flight, maintain a

minimum cockpit-to-cockpit separation of 250 ft along

the bearing line. With less than 50 ft step up/down,

avoid lead aircrafts’ 5-7 O’clock.

 

“There are “Cautions” or “Warnings” throughout the Dash-1 concerning serious flight safety issues in various phases of flight but none on wake intrusion – a phenomenon that can result in an uncontrollable roll and consequent crash. This would certainly seem to warrant a “Caution” or a “Warning” within the Flight Manual.”

 

Rivolo says that as a consequence of the nonexistent TR-65 test results, the Dash-1 seriously underplays the significance of wake intrusion in V-22.

 

“It is noted that the Formation Flight Limitations in the Flight Manual only address a “minimum” separation; once outside that separation pilots can “legally” fly anywhere they wish in proximity to other formation aircraft. Unfortunately, the aircraft wakes remain active well outside this minimum separation and pilots can fly into them with catastrophic results. That the pilot was well outside of the minimum spacing limitations for formation flying is verified by the AIB in their Report which states:

 

“Although the MC did not maintain the required 25 feet of vertical separation from the MLA, the MA was two- to three-times the 250 feet and 375 feet distances referenced above and still encountered the MLA’s wake”

 

Rivolo believes the accident was clearly not caused by “pilot error” but it was the direct result of a basic design flaw in V-22 – the side-by-side rotor configuration and its susceptibility to rotor wakes.

 

“This accident will happen again and again,” he says.

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Sarebbe bello se lo scrivessero sul manuale di volo. Se il problema è aggirabile è gia qualcosa, per esempio adottando le cautele sulla separazione descritte sopra.

[madmike]

c'e' un problema non piccolo: se queste distanze DEVONO essere sempre rispettate, il volo tattico, e gli elisbarchi di gruppo, che sono il pane dello USMC, vanno a farsi benedire, a meno di non sbarcare una compagnia in 10 minuti e in uno spazio di un paio di kmq.

[TT-1 Pinto]

A. Rex Rivolo .... una testimonianza ....

 

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20090623104701.pdf

 

 

.... e la sua altra passione (oltre il volo) ....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49493-2004Jul14.html

[Vultur]

Be i modi potrebbero esserci. In fondo una compagnia sarebbero un centinaio di uomini, questo fa tre, forse quattro Osprey. Se prima dell'atterraggio mezza formazione (due velivoli) prende una strada diversa (cosa normale per esempio durante i passaggi di bombardamento) e fa un giro e torna in dietro, potrebbe arrivare sulla landing zone con una rotta perpendicolare a quella originaria. In questo modo i primi due Osprey atterrerebbero dritti e distanziati di 80-100 metri, mentre altri due gli atterrerebbero diciamo sulla sinistra e con il muso orientato di 90° contro i primi due e distanziati sempre di 80-100 metri. Mantenendo un centinaio di metri tra i due Osprey di testa delle due formazioni, la landing zone misurerebbe un 200 x 100 circa. Al decollo prima parte una coppia poi l'altra, la prima (quella che ha fatto il giro) gira ancora di altri 90° e se ne va, la seconda di vira di 180° e scappa dietro la prima.

Se poi addirittura si vede che tra due Osprey, ciascuno a 90° rispetto all'altro e muso contro muso, non c'è più bisogno di distanza minima, la landing zone è ancora più piccola.

 

 

Ancora più sempilce: si atterra uno dopo l'altro e si riparte uno dopo l'altro distanziati che so, di uno o due minuti. Io piloto il primo.

[madmike]

ecco appunto: a parte che 200 x 100 sono 2 ettari, e parliamo di 4 elicotteri, per una compagnia di elicotteri ce ne vogliono una decina, visto che il PLOTONE USMC è di una quarantina di uomini, quindi di Osprey ce ne vogliono 2 olo per quello, una compagnia si avvicina ai 200 uomini.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/to/ground/To1013g.htm

 

E comunque tutto questo ambaradan in volo è improponibile. Non siamo a una manifestazione aerea, con elicotteri che arrivano da tutte le parti.

Modificato 5 Settembre 2012 da madmike

[Vultur]

Perchè no mi pare una buona idea. Se l'Osprey richiede una separazione di 80 metri, o li si separa spazialmente o temporalmente.

[madmike]

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/fm3_04x113.pdf

 

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/fm1_100.pdf

 

http://www.theusmarines.com/downloads/FMFM3_3/MAIN-1.pdf

 

perchè è tutto codificato. E soprattutto è tutto standardizzato con gli altri paesi e con lo US ARMY.

 

Non è che da domani uno si alza e fa quello che gli pare. Anche se sembra una buona idea. La pagina 54 dell'ultimo manuale rende bene l'idea.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Flying The Osprey Is Not Dangerous, Just Different: Veteran Pilots ....

 

In the last few weeks the Air Force and the Marines have officially blamed pilot errors for two Osprey crashes.

Given the plane's dark past and the continuing controversies about whether it's a safe aircraft I commissioned our regular contributor Richard Whittle, author of "The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey," to interview as many experienced Osprey pilots as he could reach to see if they believe the Osprey is a flawed aircraft or not.

His findings follow.

The Editor ....

L'articolo .... http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/05/flying-the-osprey-is-not-dangerous-just-different-veteran-pilo/

[Andrea75]

USMC Continues Push For V-22 Operations In Japan

 

While investigators have satisfied the U.S. Marine Corps brass that an April 11 fatal MV-22B Osprey crash was not due to mechanical or material failures and that there were no issues with the safety of the aircraft itself, the service still needs to show Japanese leaders the tiltrotor fleet is safe to operate there.

 

The Marines have deployed about a dozen Ospreys to Japan but have yet to use them for normal operations because of concerns among the country’s leaders about the safety of the aircraft given relatively recent crashes and other mishaps.

 

In an effort to prove that Osprey operations are safe, Marines briefed Japanese leaders about their findings on the April accident, which took place in Morocco, Africa, near a landing zone as pilots wrestled with the aircraft above a congested area in tough wind conditions.

 

While Japanese officials reportedly agreed with the Marines’ assessment, the Osprey’s flights still are being curtailed.

 

“Our governments continue to work closely together to enable reconfirmation of MV-22 flight safety and subsequent flight operations,” says Lt. Col. Dave Griesmer, director of the public affairs office for Marine Corps Installations Pacific, III Marine Expeditionary Force, in an Aug. 31 email.

 

Griesmer would neither confirm nor deny Japanese newspaper reports that the Marines plan to offer flights on MV-22s for local leaders so they can feel safe about the aircraft.

 

The proposed flights at the Marines’ Iwakuni Air Station are set to take place after Japan and the U.S. confirm the Osprey’s safety, press reports say. Marine officials say they are ready to start flights as soon as the Japanese approve.

 

Full flight operations have been scheduled to start this fall at the Marines’ Futenma Air Station in Okinawa.

 

 

 

MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft conduct leaflet drop in Afghanistan during PSYOPS mission

 

On Aug. 22, U.S. Army soldiers belonging to the 349th Psychological Operation Company (POC), Regional Psyops Support Element, Regional Command Southwest, conducted a leaflet drop above Helmand province, Afghanistan.

 

The air drop, consisting of be-on-the-look-out leaflets in support of Information Operations, was conducted to deliver information to areas of Helmand province unreachable by conventional communication.

 

The PSYOP mission was flown by U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey aircraft from Marine Medium Tiltrotor (VMM) 365, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qidcylAWvYw

Modificato 6 Settembre 2012 da Andrea75

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Video girato dal Lance Cpl. Tucker Wolf 24th Marine Expeditionary Uni, nell'esercitazione che si è tenuta nell'area di responsabilità della 5th Fleet.

 

[TT-1 Pinto]

Chi tocca l' Osprey ....

 

General: ‘My Career Was Done’ When I Criticized Flawed Warplane ....

 

Don Harvel thought he was cruising to a well-deserved retirement after 35 years flying cargo planes for the U.S. Air Force.

Then in the spring of 2010 he was tapped to investigate the fatal crash of a high-tech Air Force tiltrotor aircraft – and everything changed.

Fonte .... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/air-force-silenced-general/all/

 

Brig. Gen. Joyce Stevens, Commander Texas Army National Guard, pins Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel, Deputy Commander Texas Air National Guard, during his retirement ceremony in Austin 8 Sep 2010.

[Andrea75]

Low-frequency noise from MV-22 Osprey at take-off exceeds assessment standard

 

In the morning of October 4 when MV-22 Osprey training began at Futenma Air Station, a team led by Takeshi Tokashiki, an associate professor the University of the Ryukyus conducted a noise survey on the occurrence of low-frequency sound recorded at take-offs. The level of sound recorded was higher than that stated in the environmental impact assessment created by the Ministry of Defense for the Futenma relocation plan to Henoko. The team confirmed the level of low-frequency sound at the first landing of the aircraft on the base, with Tokashiki stating that the aircraft “clearly generated low-frequency sound.”

Tokashiki carried out the survey on the roof of No. 2 Futenma Elementary School, which is located near Futenma Air Station. At 11:40am on October 4, 85.8db at 16 hertz was recorded, which is 8.8db higher than the threshold value for physical impact stated in the assessment. Some physical impact causes rattling of buildings and vibration, and amplifies the psychological impact on people. In terms of the level of psychological impact, which can result in headaches, irritability and nausea, the aircraft recorded 83.7db at 40Hz, 5.7db higher than the threshold value of the assessment.

A CH-46 helicopter that took off at 10:27am that same day also generated low-frequency sound, some of which reached 81.5db at 40Hz, which exceeded the stated threshold of 78db at 40Hz. However, the figure caused by the CH-46 was less than that of the Osprey.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Un ex ufficiale dell'USAF risponde alle critiche del generale Harvel ....

 

Air Force Engineer Takes on General Over Controversial Warplane Crash ....

 

.... one Air Force engineer and veteran of the Osprey program, who also examined the 2010 crash data, tells Danger Room that Harvel misinterpreted the facts surrounding the V-22′s fatal tumble — and then followed flawed assumptions to incorrect conclusions regarding the Osprey’s airworthiness.

“Gen. Harvel was wrong,” says Eric Braganca, recently retired as the Air Force’s chief V-22 systems engineer.

Fonte .... http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/osprey-fresh-look/

[-{-Legolas-}-]

In seguito all'incidente da cui sono scaturite polemiche, l'AF ha deciso di reintrodurre l'addestramento al volo in formazione, o almeno di soffermarsi di più su questo punto rispetto a prima.