Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Osprey Ready for Primetime? Part Two

Like a bad stain, it seems the V-22 Osprey can't wash away the stigma that it's crash-prone. The main culprit: so-called vortex ring state, a circulating, donut-shaped air flow that can cut a copter's lift, almost instantly. VRS helped down a pair of Ospreys seven years back, killing 23. And those blood spots should be hard to get out. But how accurate is the recent criticism that the V-22 remains dangerously and uniquely susceptible to VRS and blade stall?

osprey_white.jpgAfter months of flight testing, the Marine Corps and Osprey's makers, Boeing and Bell Textron, said VRS is no more of an issue than for other rotorcraft: something that pilots need to be aware of, but not something they should freak about. And it's not something that only test pilots are qualified to avoid. Contrast that with Lee Gaillard's critical report which depicts VRS as a monster waiting to devour any distracted pilot who wanders outside of a very narrow arrow of the flight envelope.

What's the objective bystander to think? Gaillard makes much ado about how the Osprey is limited to vertical descents of 800 feet per minute (only 9.1 mph, he emphasizes). He says such a slow descent would make the Osprey a fat target in a hot landing zone. But 800 fpm is a meaningless number when separated from horizontal speed; and the report never mentions that the 800 fpm limitation only applies when forward airspeed is less than 40 knots.

Above 40 knots, the limit on vertical descent grows dramatically until, in full airplane mode, the Osprey can, like any airplane, drop like the proverbial brick. NAVAIR says the 800 fpm-descent limit at less than 40 knots applies to ALL Marine Corps helicopters, and that flight testing showed that the V-22 doesn't get close to VRS until 2000 fpm. Furthermore, the V-22 can swoop in from high altitude at more than 200 knots and not start slowing down until it's a minute and a half from the landing zone, minimizing its exposure, says NAVAIR. And it's 75 percent quieter in aircraft mode than the CH-46 and CH-53 it's supposed to replace.

But what does the Navy know? For comparison, look at the UH-60 Black Hawk. A Black Hawk pilot told me he sometimes sees 2500 fpm descents when coming into an LZ doing 60 or 70 knots. That's a vertical speed of 28 mph (only!), but apparently it's no problem for the ubiquitous, beloved and combat-proven Black Hawk. Why would anyone think a V-22 carrying 60 knots forward airspeed would be any worse?

So while critics are all hung up on 800 fpm, it's really no big deal. The Gaillard brief has lots of information, but, in the end, creates more heat than light. At least on this issue. For his work mapping the V-22's VRS envelope, Boeing test pilot Tom Macdonald was honored by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots in 2003. Macdonald wrote the book on VRS and how fleet pilots can avoid it. I met Macdonald, an ex-Navy helo pilot, at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. He didn't seem like the kind of guy who would hide facts that would endanger other pilots or Marines. Ditto for his testing partner, Marine Col. Kevin Gross, who has written a detailed piece about the V-22 and VRS.

Is the Osprey perfect? No, but what aircraft is and who defines perfection anyway? Is it a widow maker as its critics claim? If yes, than it seems doubtful that VRS will be the culprit. But the jury is out. While it seems Osprey critics may be wrong about VRS, that doesn't mean their other criticisms are off the mark. Make no mistake: the Osprey is a historic achievement. But it is crazy expensive and still has flaws such as its lack of defensive firepower and a pressurized cabin, which will seriously reduce its advertised range and speed while carrying troops. The question is whether those issues can be fixed or whether operators can find practical ways to work around them. We'll wait and see what the guys who fly and fight in it have to say.

--Ron Laurenzo, cross-posted at War Is Boring

Latest Comments

Flying in an Ospray V-22 is like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets, its just a question of time before you hit the ground hard!

Posted by: jaye at February 14, 2007 6:13 PM


It is always sad to see technolgy overwhelm common sense. There are so many reasons to NOT go forward with V-22 they could probably fill a few college blue books.

From its lack of ability to protect itself, to its cost, to its questionable ability to survive a combat environment, the stresses of combat on its components, its maintenance cost/component costs and a litany of other problems, it is difficult to imagine the 22 becoming a successful combat aircraft.

Why would DOD want to develop a multi-billion dollar aircraft that will be utilized for troop insertion/extraction, med-evacs, and resupply missions? Granted, its speed is an advantage but it appears to be the only advantage the 22 has over a standard helicopter. The claimed altitude advantage was a canard as it does not have a pressurized cabin. Consequently, its speed advantage and claimed reduced fuel operating expenses are out the window.

I certainly do not want to anger anyone but sometimes, people involved in developing a widget become so determined, so adamant they lose sight of what they are actually trying to accomplish and consequently begin to ignore relevant evidence. I hope this is not the case and I do hope the 22 does succeed...God knows, enough Marines have paid the price to get this bird in the air. Let's all hope the disciples of the 22 are correct and we doubters wind up with egg on our faces.

S/F Gordon

Posted by: Gordon at February 2, 2007 6:32 PM


rjsquirrel said
"The typical helicopter has no such restriction on its rate of descent at low speeds, and would certainly not flip upside down should a pilot chose to descend faster."

...I don't know what you fly but for the past 15 years of flying RW aircraft I've been taught to stay out of VRS. Having spent 14 of those years flying USMC helicopters I can tell you that EVERY USMC helicopter NATOPS limits them to 40kts, 800 fpm rate of descent in order to stay out of VRS, so no, the V-22 is no different. Yes most helicopters can exceed that limit, just as the V-22 can, it is a conservative number which doesn't affect your approach into a landing zone. A well executed tactical approach won't have you doing 20 kts and a 1000 fpm rate of descent close to the ground and most approaches into a hot LZ aren't very vertical in nature.

At altitude VRS is recoverable by BOTH a TR and helicopters. Close to the ground getting into VRS in either platform can be deadly. That's why you train, plan and execute.

As far as maneuverablilty is concerned, I'm sure you think you're laying on the g's at slow speed but you're lucky to get 1.3 g and that's with very large control displacements.


Posted by: helodriver at February 2, 2007 9:55 AM


rjsquirrel couldn't be more wrong. All helicopters have a similar power settling limit related to VRS. I've not only flown them for over two decades, but I've conducted flight tests on them, graduated from USNTPS, and like Tom (who I know) am a member of SETP. The average restriction is 800 FPM below 40 knots. Use you RFM/NATOPS/-10 for individual discussion on the machine you happen to be guiding through the air on any given day.

Posted by: skiddriver at February 2, 2007 9:04 AM


A quick correction first off...VRS was responsible for the April 2000 crash. The Dec 2000 was in part, caused by a hydraulic leak. After the April 2000 crash, the VRS envelope for the V-22 was thoroughly tested as well as procedures for avoiding and if necessary flying out of VRS

As for VRS and the V-22, the article above said it best...it is less of an issue than critics are making it out to be, a lot of smoke and no fire.

Having been a crewmember on a USAF special operations helicopter for eight years prior to coming to the CV-22 three years ago, I remember having VRS warnings in my Dash-1 for the MH-53M that I was a flight engineer on. In particular, it highlighted the conditions for VRS as being a vertical velocity of more than 800fpm, airspeed less than 40 KIAS, and power applied to the rotor system. The procedure to exit VRS in a helicopter was to INCREASE AIRSPEED, while decreasing power to the rotor system.

In contrast, the V-22 does have the same issues with a vertical velocity at or above 800fpm and airspeed below 40 KCAS. However, the difference between helicopters and the V-22 lies in both crew alerting of VRS and the procedure to fly out of it. The procedure for the V-22 to fly out of VRS involves "beeping" the nacelles forward for two seconds. What is unique for the V-22 is that power does not need to be decreased and the aircraft attitude does not need to change. We can in essence, fly out of VRS, with out trading anything for it. .

The V-22 has four tools for combating VRS; extensive flight testing following the 2000 crash, training, visual cues of the dynamic VRS threshold and finally an audible warning of SINK RATE. At 40 KIAS and above the limit is 800 fpm. Additionally, with an air data system failure the crew warning system defaults to 800 fpm as the VRS limit. At airspeeds above 40 KCAS, the VRS threshold is dynamic with the limit increasing with airspeed, topping out at 1100fpm. The absolute edge of the VRS envelope for the V-22 has been determined to be 1800fpm.

All of this said, I fly on the CV-22 at least three times a week. Having been doing so for three years I am very comfortable with the safety factor of the V-22. Additionally, I believe that for the both USMC and the USAF the V-22 will meet and exceed expectations that we currently have for the aircraft.

Posted by: Jim at February 1, 2007 11:09 PM


» View All 10 Comments

» Post a Comment