national

GSDF test-flies Osprey for 1st time amid safety concerns

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

Same as F-35s. Crap. Buy Russian. On a budget, Chinese.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Who with clear senses ever gives his defense into the hands of that trying-to-fly garbage? lol

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In 2016, an MV-22, the U.S. Marine Corps variant of the Osprey, crash-landed in the southern Japan prefecture of Okinawa.

Hence the comment in the article "despite ongoing safety concerns."

Only a civilian, and only one with their head in the sand would use an incident from 4 years ago, to make a comment like that!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Same as F-35s. Crap. Buy Russian. On a budget, Chinese.

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese have any idea how to make a tilt-rotor aircraft. But the US has been working on the technology since the early 1950s with the Bell XV-3 and Bell X-22. The US also tried a tilt-wing aircraft, the XC-142 that was a technical success but didn't make production. A reliable tilt rotor aircraft is not an easy thing to develop but the US has done it and made it both work and work reliably. Civil versions are in developmental flight testing. The offshore oil industry is anxious to use them. Augusta Westland is testing the AW609 civil tilt rotor intended in part for offshore oil rig use. Bell and Lockheed-Martin have the V-280 tilt rotor being developed for the US Army. It has some interesting differences that reflect how the Army uses rotorcraft in combat that differs from Marine tactical doctrine. You might also take a look at the Sikorsky S-97 Raider, the ultimate development of the the 1980s NASA Advancing Blade Concept test program. A 250 knot helicopter. What are the Russians and Chinese doing? Nothing. They don't have the engineering talent, especially the Russians.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Only a civilian, and only one with their head in the sand would use an incident from 4 years ago, to make a comment like that!

It was a decades long journey to make the tilt rotor concept work. The safety record of the MV-22 has settled down and its current mishap rate is on the low side for a military aircraft. I used to think the whole thing should be cancelled but the Marines in their stubbornness would not allow it, even as the Navy and Congress both tried nine different times to cancel the program. If you watch some of the old videos of the development of early helicopters it was dangerous business. There are a lot of ways to hurt yourself flying a helicopter. I know, I flew them for many years both military and civil. But their strengths and weaknesses are now well understood and pilots are trained to avoid doing the things that get you killed. That same process seems to have occurred with the tilt rotor and they are well regarded by their pilots. Every aircraft type has crashes and Japan has operated aircraft with far higher mishap rates than the MV-22. The old F-104 comes immediately to mind ( and the JASDF had probably the lowest mishap rate of any F-104 operator because they are good ).

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Who with clear senses ever gives his defense into the hands of that trying-to-fly garbage? lol

What are your bona-fides to say that? Are you a pilot? If so, how many hours do you have. I'm a commercial and instrument rated helicopter pilot with a BV-107 type rating who has also flown Bell Jetrangers, Bell 212, Boeing Vertol BV-234 Civil Chinook, CH-46 Seaknight (military version of the BV-107), KV-107 (Kawasaki's license built version of the BV-107), Sikorsky SH-3G and UH-3A, Hughes 300 (what a neat little helicopter) and had some joy rides in things like a Royal Navy Westland Lynx doing mild aerobatics, was inverted once in a Hughes 500 over the jungles of Papua New Guinea with an Australian pilot, and once had to guide some Russians over to where I jettisoned a load after an engine failure in their Kamov KA-32. The load was stuck in the mud and their Kamov had more power than our BV-107s which were unable to pull the load out of that sucking mud. That was a wild ride, the Russian pilots blew off every safety procedure in the books, over temped the engines and drooped rotor rpm to 65% (I was fixated on the guage at that point wondering when the the thing was going to stop flying) so determined were they to pull that load out of the mud and look good. So I have some experience to base my conclusions on. How about you? Tilt rotors have advantages over helicopters and even over turboprop fixed wing aircraft. They are more efficient in level cruise flight than a turboprop aircraft, one of the reasons the MV-22 will replace the C-2 Greyhound in the US Navy.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Uh, the engine failure was in the BV-107 I was flying, not the Kamov. SOP when you loose an engine is to jettison you cargo to lighten the aircraft, which is what I did. The BV-107 has two 1500 shp engines and we couldn't pull the load out with one. The Kamov has two 2200 shp engines and that made the difference.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

V-22 has always been about defense contract money.

In 1992, a V-22 demonstration flight in front of a group of money-spending Congresscritters crashed and killed all seven crew members, but that only got the program more money. Money, money, money. Tens's of billions of dollars over budget. $123 million each!

No other country has bought any V-22's. Only Japan, who is always compelled to kiss Uncle Sam's butt.

It had a lousy safety record and USMC heads rolled after the maintenance records were found to be falsified.

Still has a "Vortex Ring State" problem on landing from the exhaust. It shreds its own lift and creates above hurricane strength downdrafts requiring special protection for ships and any landing area.

When it comes to mission time, The rotary wing hardware of choice is still C-47D Chinooks and AH-64 Apaches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still has a "Vortex Ring State" problem on landing from the exhaust. It shreds its own lift and creates above hurricane strength downdrafts requiring special protection for ships and any landing are

Sigh. I'm a helicopter pilot. ALL rotorcraft can encounter vortex ring state. If you use a very steep approach and do not carefully control your rate of descent any rotorcraft can basically fall through its rotor downwash. The way out of vortex ring state is to lower the nose and gain airspeed. Typically by the time a helo pilot realizes he or she is in vortex ring state (adding collective on approach makes the helo descend faster, not slower) the helo is already too close to the ground to recover and you have a hard landing. That is what bit the helicopter that crashed during the Bin laden raid.

The CH-53E and Mil-26 Halo have heavier downwash than any tiltrotor and a static discharge that can kill you if you touch a cargo hook without first grounding it. As with any aircraft you understand their limits and operate within them. You have no idea what rotor downwash is until you have worked around the Halo. It is as large as a C-130 with 22,000 shaft horsepower. I have photos of what that looks like btw.

The special coatings on the flight deck are not required for rotor downwash. When the engine/rotor systems are tilted vertical the exhausts are very close to the flight deck and extended running on deck can damage the non-skid coating on the flight deck. If you look at how the Bell V280 tilts it's rotors while keeping the engines horizontal you can see the problem has been addressed with a new design. Exhaust heat is not a problem anywhere else but the big LHAs and LHDs.

The most recent MV-22 mishap rate I could find for the Marines is 3.9 per 100,000 flight hours. It is high average for the Navy Marine Corps fleet. The CH-53E has a higher mishap rate at 3.5 per 100K flight hours Interestingly the C-20 Gulfstream IV business jet has by far the highest mishap rate at 10.3 per 100K flight hours. Marine Corps mishap rates are always two to three times higher than the same type in US Navy service.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Indonesia, Israel and UAE are also buying V-22s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it comes to mission time, The rotary wing hardware of choice is still C-47D Chinooks and AH-64 Apaches.

First a disclaimer, the great majority of my hours are in tandem rotor helicopters including the Chinook. Their oddball rotor beat is like my bodies resonant frequency now. The up and down nodding of the CH-46s nose as the AFCS actuators hunt for level flight is ingrained into my muscle memory. They became an extension of my thought process. I like Sh1thooks. A lot. They are easy and supremely forgiving to fly. And they have a good 30 knot speed advantage over the AH-64. Apaches are dirty and slow, slower than the Blackhawk or an AH-1W. But Chinooks won't fly 250 knots and do the things for the Marines that the V-22 does. I also wasn't aware until just now that the flyaway cost is down to $68 million.

The Apache isn't as versatile as you imagine. It is more or less specialized to work with US Army combat doctrine and that doesn't always fit what other nations need. It was designed at a time when Army helicopter doctrine called for never flying above 50 feet above ground level (agl). They rely on scouts to find and lase targets for them so they can shoot from difilade, meaning hiding behind trees or ridges out of sight of the enemy then egressing from the battle, all at altitudes below 50 feet. The missiles would fly over the trees or ridgeline, acquire the laser signal and home on the reflected energy. Done right the shooter is never seen by the enemy. So why fly that close to the ground? Back then Russian missiles couldn't engage you that low. All of that has changed. Now low level is a meat grinder of different missile and gun systems. The Russians understood their weakness and corrected it. Today the smart combat helicopter pilot stays high and relies on their countermeasures. Much of the specialization designed into the Apache like the mast mounted radar is no longer necessary. Other less expensive gunships can get the job done equally well, some maybe even a little better. Certainly Cobras are faster.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And I got the mishap rate for the CH-53E wrong. It is 5.6 per 100,000 flight hours. We used to jokingly call them "static displays" because when first introduced they were down for maintenance so often and their pilots would come over to the SH-3 squadrons begging for flight hours to maintain their quals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAF C-20 Gulfstreams have had zero Class A mishaps from 1984 to the present. No class A mishaps and no fatalities ever in the fleet history. Yet for the Marines their C-20s have the highest mishap rate among all of the aircraft they operate, including the AV-8B. Can't explain that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites