Conference vmszoo::rc

Didn't they cancel that project finally?

I don't think the Osprey is especially ugly (nor is it especially pretty). I
can think of a bunch of uglier aircraft.

The V-22 hasn't been killed. In fact it's getting more support than it has for
the last couple of years. Funding for a batch of ten or so Engineering and
Manufacturing Development aircraft is just about passed. Prospects for full-
rate production are looking fair. Even the Navy/Marines are once again talking
about a Special-Operations variant, which they had wanted five or six years
ago very much, but then backed down on due to funding shortfalls.

A model of the Osprey is available (thanks to Eric Walker if I recall
correctly) for the VAXstation simulator FLIGHT. The model has operating prop-
rotors, tilting nacells, pivoting wing, and a bunch of other stuff. (A new
release of FLIGHT which runs native on Alpha AXP machines under OpenVMS is soon
to be released, by the way. Watch note 507 in the 501CLB::FLIGHT conference for
announcements.) 
						-- Tom

>>Is there anyone out there that doesn't think the Osprey is ugly?

I don't think it's so ugly. In fact, it's downright pretty in comparision to
that bipe you built for scale competition a few years back. Now that was an
ugly airplane!  8^)

Just so there's no mis-understanding. Kay did a really nice job on the 
planes (two). he built. Wasn't his fault the originals were so ugly.

    
     No, I don't think theOspreyis ugly ( but then again, I like the
    way the Hercules, and Boxer pattern planes look! :)
    
     I think it is clearly one of the most fascinating aircraft ever built,
    and would classify it with the Harrier, as a potential ultimate RC model.
    I would  LOVE to build an RC Osprey, but do not have the resources to do
    so.                                            
      
        Form CLEARLY follows function in an OSPREY, but I think that
     it is a neat looking aircraft anyway.

  I too like the looks of the Osprey!!  It's "Way Cool"!  :^)


  Now...it's been quite a while since I seen any pictures of one, so please
bear with me....

  If I remember correctly the rotors are quite large.  Like a heliwhopter.
So...if they have a mechanical failure during forward flight, when the props
are rotated to the vertical position, and they can't rotate them back to the
hover position.....how are they going to land?  Won't the props/rotors hit
the ground in that configuration during a landing?  That could ruin your
day real fast!



                  Jim


   T minus 2 days and counting.......

><<< Note 1633.3 by STOHUB::JETRGR::EATON "Dan Eaton St.Louis,MO,USA, 445-6522" >>>
>                      -< All in the eye of the beholder >-
>
>>>Is there anyone out there that doesn't think the Osprey is ugly?
>
>I don't think it's so ugly. In fact, it's downright pretty in comparision to

Just the kind or reply I was waiting for.

Is your mail stop still MO?

I happen to have an 8x10 color framed glassed picture of a V22
that was given to me and I'd like to give it to a good home.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

RE: <<< Note 1633.5 by MR3MI1::JCAVANAGH "Short timer...heading for EMC corp!" >>>

>  If I remember correctly the rotors are quite large.  Like a heliwhopter.

Indeed; each rotor probably has a diameter of about 35 feet.

>So...if they have a mechanical failure during forward flight...

If something prevents the nacells from being able to rotate mostly vertical on
landing, the landing will be messy. The rotor blades are designed to be able to
separate on impact relatively cleanly, however, to minimize uncontrolled
damage.

Also, the rotors are cross-coupled to each engine so that upon single engine
failure both rotors will continue to be powered. The reduced total thrust
available means that continued flight is not normal, but enough power is
available for a controlled descent. The cross-coupled drive shafts are one of
the most complex items -- fast, high-torque shafts which have to withstand a
certain amount of flexing as the wing lightly bends during flight. If both
engines fail, autororation is possible a la' a conventional rotary winged
aircraft.

The V-22 is a very slick piece of aero/mechanical engineering.
						-- Tom

  I just can't understand why it hasn't "taken off"!  Pardon the pun!  :^)
It seems to have some great advantages over a heli in that it can fly faster,
further, and carry a larger load.  It doesn't really require any more room to
land than a heli either.  But I suppose it's not as quick in the takeoff and
landing department.  Based on what I've seen/heard, I'd much rather get dropped
in an LZ from a Huey than a V22.  The Huey is in and out REAL fast!  And when 
you got incoming fire, every second counts.

  But look what happened when we invaded Panama.... We had to package up all
the heli's and ship them on transports.  Then unload and reassemble them.
The bad guys had tons of time to see what was happening.  The V22 could have
gotten there and done the mission much faster/better (or so I've heard).

  And it would indeed make and AWESOME r/c model!!!!!!!


                               Jim

I would think that it would be difficult to rotate the wing to autorotation mode
if both engines went dead. I assume that the engines power the hydrolics
necessary? Is it truely preferable to land vertically than horizontally when
deadstick?

>The V-22 is a very slick piece of aero/mechanical engineering.

Yup, and with the complexity comes problems not seen elsewhere. I guess I find
it strange that there is a niche that can't be filled by some other known method
(i.e. a harrier, chopper, or fixed wing).

    >I just can't understand why it hasn't "taken off"! Pardon the pun! 
    I think it has something to do with the fatal crashes they had.  Can
    anyone verify this, or am I on a differnet planet.
    
    andy
    

RE: <<< Note 1633.9 by RANGER::REITH >>>

>I would think that it would be difficult to rotate the wing to autorotation
>mode if both engines went dead. I assume that the engines power the hydrolics
>necessary? 

I'm not sure if the APU can pressurize the hydraulics, or if not what the
useful life of the stored accumulators are.

>Is it truely preferable to land vertically than horizontally when deadstick?

I'm sure it depends on the circumstances (e.g., low/slow, vertical; high/fast,
maybe horizontal).

>I guess I find it strange that there is a niche that can't be filled by some
>other known method (i.e. a harrier, chopper, or fixed wing). 

Helicopters are too slow for the mission (record chopper speed is about 240
kts with a small Panther I think, carrying nothing). Jet-powered VTOL designs
have load limit shortfalls in the VTO regime (even the Harrier does rolling
take-offs if it's carrying a reasonable mission load). The V-22 can carry a
few dozen equipped men or a couple of small vehicles at 300+ kts, and can do
true vertical take-offs with such loads. That's pretty good!

RE: .10 Crashes

I don't think that's a big factor. Even before the one fatal crash to date, the
program had been looking grim for a couple of years. It's mostly a cost issue
(then and now). The armed forces are having to make VERY painfull decisions,
and are cutting programs which they dearly want in order to save others which
they really reallyy dearly want.
						-- Tom

>>Is it truely preferable to land vertically than horizontally when deadstick?

>I'm sure it depends on the circumstances (e.g., low/slow, vertical; high/fast,
>maybe horizontal).

Yeah, I guess I should have stated, is it truely preferable to TRANSITION to
land vertically when deadstick. My question was more a matter of is it
useful/safe to transition if something happens in horizontal mode (say damage
that causes a fuel dump while trying to stretch back to a safe haven - fast
horizontal mode)

RE: <<< Note 1633.12 by RANGER::REITH >>>

I dunno about transitions during power-out emergencies.
						-- Tom

    On the V22, the only transition that occurs during power out
    emergencies is
    
    
    
			   from flying to crashing 8^)