Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Development and Proposed Variants

TomcatViP said:
A great read on the causes of the crash off Japan in 2023 (material failure and faulty assumptions on the user side):

theaircurrent.com

Flawed metal & failed communication: Breaking down the Air Force’s fatal Osprey crash

Documents reviewed by The Air Current reveal a persistent manufacturing problem with implications that extend beyond the V-22 Osprey and across military and civil aviation.
theaircurrent.com theaircurrent.com

Highly recommended!
Click to expand...
Yeah, that sounds like a training issue with Osprey crews... a Chip Light is a "land right effing NOW" item for helicopters!
 
raptor82 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1835441092755669475
View: https://x.com/kwasektomasz/status/1835441092755669475?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg


Wut?
Click to expand...
Exactly what it looks like
Google Translation:

And the internet doesn't know about this, because it's an analog photo. The V-22 Osprey model with the ASC-890 Eireye radar, similar to the one on our Saab 340 AEWs.So what could have gone wrong here?
Click to expand...

I mean, it's definitely a concept I've thought about before. But you can see some issues -- the radar beam translates back and up for landing, so the resulting aircraft is going to be extremely long. Maybe you could also slide it forward into the cabin, but you're going to need space in the cabin for operators.

As the comments note, vibration seems like it would be an issue, too. That's not a very rigid-looking structure and the last thing you want is the bean wobbling around. Seems like it would play hell with getting good resolution.

Scott Kenny said:
Unholy aft CG, batman!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that also. I mean, I assume it's within limits, because the beam isn't the only heavy part of the radar. Big chunk of signal processing stuff probably placed as far forward as possible.
 
TomS said:
I mean, it's definitely a concept I've thought about before. But you can see some issues -- the radar beam translates back and up for landing, so the resulting aircraft is going to be extremely long. Maybe you could also slide it forward into the cabin, but you're going to need space in the cabin for operators.
Click to expand...
I was assuming that the front A frame rolled like 270deg to stick the end of the beam into the cargo bay, then the aft A frame pushed the whole mess forwards.



TomS said:
Yeah, that also. I mean, I assume it's within limits, because the beam isn't the only heavy part of the radar. Big chunk of signal processing stuff probably placed as far forward as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it just looks particularly awful.
 
oft badly made gears?

That will outright RUIN any aircraft design type.

Let allow a sub type of the, 66600 parts flyong in close formation, that are helicopters.
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1849079914533687537
View: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1849079914533687537
Click to expand...

There is a some truth here but "Hunterbrook Media" looks extremely sketchy to me, being affiliated with "Hunterbrook Capitol" , which took a short position on Universal Stainless stock before their Media arm published this tweet and video, two months after the original Military.com story. That feels very much like an attempt to move the stock price to cover their short.

Here is the original article, BTW.

www.military.com

Flaw in Osprey Gears Was Known a Decade Prior to Deadly Japan Crash, Internal Report Shows

The revelations about the history of the gear problems come as family members from the Japan crash, as well as families of Marines who died in a 2022 V-22 Osprey training crash in California, are seeking legal representation.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
riggerrob said:
Great idea!
The Royal Canadian Air Force needs a squadron or three of those Ospreys for the long-range CASR role in the high Acrtic.
They could get by with a simplified, non-folding version to reduce parts-count.
Click to expand...
While a non-folding version is simpler, it's also then different than what the US uses and only on a couple dozen airframes. So all the development costs of the fold-less version get applied to those airframes alone. There's probably pins that get installed for maintenance that you could likely leave in place to permanently disable the fold.

I mean, the USAF Ospreys still have all the fold gear of the USN/USMC versions.


But yes, Ospreys, AW609s, or V280s for long range CSAR. That's literally what the Osprey was born to do.
 
Scott Kenny said:
While a non-folding version is simpler, it's also then different than what the US uses and only on a couple dozen airframes. So all the development costs of the fold-less version get applied to those airframes alone. There's probably pins that get installed for maintenance that you could likely leave in place to permanently disable the fold.
Click to expand...

Not much development needed - there would be no changes in the wing shape/structure, and so on - other than the removal of unneeded systems and parts related to swiveling the wing and installing bolts instead of the pins.

The main issue would be what the weight reduction does to center-of-mass etc - which shouldn't be too significant.

Scott Kenny said:
I mean, the USAF Ospreys still have all the fold gear of the USN/USMC versions.
Click to expand...

That's so they can transport them long distances quickly via C-17 & C-5.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Not much development needed - there would be no changes in the wing shape/structure, and so on - other than the removal of unneeded systems and parts related to swiveling the wing and installing bolts instead of the pins.
Click to expand...
Just permanently changing how the wing attaches to the fuselage.

Right now, the Osprey is basically built as two separate pieces, Wing and Fuselage. These then are held together through the fold pin.

You're not saving any serious weight until you get to redesigning the wing-to-fuselage joint into something that bolts the wing spars to the fuselage directly, and that's not going to be cheap to design.
 
About the only thing you could do is make a new wing with ~20 years more advanced composites and structures, with a V-280/FLRAA stationary nacelles. I suppose some of the hydraulic equipment necessary for folding could be removed for some weight saving, but likely less than we might think. But the redesign, build, and testing alone would make the cost unaffordable if there was not hundreds of aircraft being built/refitted.
Personaly I do not think the Canadian government would want to accept MV-22B that are redundant, due to the popular press.
 
yasotay said:
About the only thing you could do is make a new wing with ~20 years more advanced composites and structures, with a V-280/FLRAA stationary nacelles. I suppose some of the hydraulic equipment necessary for folding could be removed for some weight saving, but likely less than we might think. But the redesign, build, and testing alone would make the cost unaffordable if there was not hundreds of aircraft being built/refitted.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was getting at.

yasotay said:
Personaly I do not think the Canadian government would want to accept MV-22B that are redundant, due to the popular press.
Click to expand...
I honestly hope that the US Coast Guard can grab the USAF extras, since they're already set up for nightmare weather SAR.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Just permanently changing how the wing attaches to the fuselage.

Right now, the Osprey is basically built as two separate pieces, Wing and Fuselage. These then are held together through the fold pin.

You're not saving any serious weight until you get to redesigning the wing-to-fuselage joint into something that bolts the wing spars to the fuselage directly, and that's not going to be cheap to design.
Click to expand...

yasotay said:
About the only thing you could do is make a new wing with ~20 years more advanced composites and structures, with a V-280/FLRAA stationary nacelles. I suppose some of the hydraulic equipment necessary for folding could be removed for some weight saving, but likely less than we might think. But the redesign, build, and testing alone would make the cost unaffordable if there was not hundreds of aircraft being built/refitted.
Personaly I do not think the Canadian government would want to accept MV-22B that are redundant, due to the popular press.
Click to expand...

None of which actually needs to be done.

The Osprey works just fine with the current wing & wing-fuselage joint, the idea is to simply disable the wing rotation mechanism, replace the retractable locking pins with bolts, and remove the motor that rotates the wing.

The stated idea was to reduce maintenance needs, not to drastically reduce weight.
 
BlackBat242 said:
None of which actually needs to be done.

The Osprey works just fine with the current wing & wing-fuselage joint, the idea is to simply disable the wing rotation mechanism, replace the retractable locking pins with bolts, and remove the motor that rotates the wing.

The stated idea was to reduce maintenance needs, not to drastically reduce weight.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
In summary, a hypothetical RCAF CSAR version would use 95 percent stock parts except for some of the folding hydraulics. Since most of the deleted folding hydraulics would be near the center-of-gravity, any weight reduction would have minimal effect on balance. Locking pins would be replaced by semi-permanent bolts. Weight-savings would be minor with the key goal being to reduce parts-count and maintenance hours.

For comparison, the CF-18As that I worked on 40 years ago had landing gear hundreds of times more complex than needed for runway operations, but MD needed to squeeze Northrup out of the fighter market, so the RCAF got screwed out of the proposed simplified F-18L with shorter and simpler landing gear. The Australians, Finns, Kuwaitis, Swiss, etc. would also have benefited from simplified landing gear.

Before working on CF-18s, I spent 5 years greasing Sikorsky Sea King helicopters onboard HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Iroquois, so am intimately familiar with hydraulic folding mechanisms.
 
riggerrob said:
Since most of the deleted folding hydraulics would be near the center-of-gravity, any weight reduction would have minimal effect on balance.
Click to expand...
I'd say you could leave the hydraulics in place and isolate them, so they can serve as ballast at negligible R&D cost. They then wouldn't require any maintenance because their entire role would be 'be a thing the same size and shape as themselves'.

But I suspect the aviation safety regime would have a screaming fit at that approach.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3715.jpeg
    IMG_3715.jpeg
    352.7 KB · Views: 92
The Marine Corps has spent the past five years re tooling to fight in the Pacific and the submarine threat can’t be ignored. The MV-22B complements the Navy’s capabilities so well that it’s hard to believe this wasn’t thought of sooner. We’ve validated the utility of both amphibious warships and littoral forces, demonstrating the ability to fight as the landward component of the fleet.
Click to expand...

100% original thinking o_O

www.navalnews.com

Marine Corps MV-22B Deploys as ASW Platform to Fight an Increasing Submarine Threat - Naval News

The U.S. Marine Corps performed its first Indo-Pacific anti-submarine warfare operations off the deck of USS George Washington (CVN 73) and USS America (LHA 6), an important test that validates long-range MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in the anti-submarine mission set.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
apparition13 said:
Now lets see an actual SV-22
Click to expand...
While Osprey ASW is theoretically do-able, it probably wouldn't be using a dipping sonar. Ospreys are not particularly efficient or good in the hover, and using dipping sonar means lots of time spent hovering. If someone was stubborn enough about it, SV-22s using dipping sonar would absolutely be possible. Enlarge the access hole in the belly for sling loads so that the dipping sonar can pass through that spot.

It'd be some heavy modifications, but I'd install the AFSOC "combat doors" with drop tubes in them on both sides aft of the wing. Yes, I know that Ospreys don't have doors there. That's part of what would be so expensive: making the space to install the combat doors.

I'd further replace the rear ramp with one that had Sonobuoy tubes on both sides and leaving only a walkway up the center of the ramp. Split Common Launch Tubes on the rear ramp would be another option. MC-130s have 10x CLTs in a single block, I'd run 2 sets of 4x if possible.

Torpedoes and/or depth charges would need to be carried either on the wings or on the sponsons.




apparition13 said:
EV-22 (I vote Erieye, although that pesky wing "fold" would make it difficult).
Click to expand...
I mean, there's a hinge pin in the wing fold, I'm assuming that it's hollow and you could rig the radar leads through that point. Have a non-rotating pin that comes up to the radar beam to support it, and wrap an aerodynamic shroud around it that is attached to the pin.

Probably have to anchor the beam to the top of the tail fins at the rear, though.
 
Re ASW -22…Purpose built UAV, sized to house just the dipping sonar and other minimums, seems like a better solution.

Re RCAF just keep it as is. Folding is good for maximizing heated hanger space in cold conditions. Keeps with CONOPS, maintenance, procedures and logistics of other V-22 operators.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom