Home » Air » Update on Osprey Deicer, Hydraulic Probs

Update on Osprey Deicer, Hydraulic Probs

By Colin Clark Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 11:30 am
Posted in Air, Naval

The main problems with the deicer and hydraulic systems afflicting the Marines’ vaunted V-22 Ospreys have been fixed, according to one of the Marines’ most experienced V-22 pilots.

I spent all day Monday at MCAS Cherry Point, Camp Lejeuene and MCAS New River. During my visit to New River, Lt. Col. A. J. Bianca, the CO of VMM-261, explained the fixes to the deicer systems and the hydraulic systems.

Bianca said he had flown an Osprey Monday morning, when the ground temperature was just above freezing and his plane had no problems. The squadron commander, who has flown Ospreys since 1999, said software changes had been made to make the anti-ice and de-ice systems more effective. Of course, since the Ospreys have flown operations mostly in Iraq, they had rarely experienced operational conditions that challenged the deicing systems.

I pressed him repeatedly about the deicing problems and he indicated they just weren’t issues any more.

I asked him to explain the improvements to the hydraulic systems made after a fire largely destroyed an Block A Osprey last year.

He pointed up to the nacelle of a static display MV-22 that had recently arrived from the factory. About halfway up, you’ll see two little venting holes.

Those holes are part of an improved system to manage and, if necessary, isolate any leaking hydraulic fluid so it doesn’t pass over any hot parts of the nacelle and catch fire.

“The Engine Air Particle Separator (EAPS) has new pump materials and stronger hydraulic lines. The modification also changes the aircraft’s nacelles so they vent any fluid overboard in case a failure should occur. By venting it overboard, we keep the fluid away from the hot section of the engine, preventing fire,” Bianca said in an email clarifying what he told me.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Jim November 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm Icing system fixed???? That is news to those of us here in NM…
	JS November 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am And I thought riding on 53’s were scary, glad to see have stepped up!!
	UH34D November 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm In the beginning I was very skeptical of the 22. I think I have read just about everything out there on this aircraft, listened to and spoken with many people involved in its development and have had conversations with Colonel Rock, former CO of VMM 263 regarding the 22. Colonel Rock and 263 recently completed a combat tour in Iraq with very few problems…many thousands of flight hours. That says a lot for the aircraft. But I’m not surprised there are a few more bugs to work out on the plane…all aircraft go through rountine updates and fixes. My problem is the cost per plane…it is a staggering amount. I just wonder if the dollar cost per plane is really an efficient way to be spending the taxpayers money? While the 22 wins the contest in air speed compared to rotary wing aircraft, it nonetheless still does the work of a chopper. So the speed to dollar cost per unit is a heavy price to pay in my opinion. I know if I were in a truly hostile combat environment, I would rather have 100 53’s (or a combiation of 53’s, 46’s, Cobra’s and Huey’s) at my disposal than 10 or 15 22’s at the same total cost. To me, the larger force gives a commander more tactical options by having more aircraft at their disposal. I do think the new administration will cut production of the 22 as a cost savings. Don’t think they have a choice under the current circumstances. S/F Gordon
	DensityDuck November 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pm (insert the usual explanation of cost-per-unit as including the engineering and procurement overhead, and not representing the actual incremental cost of the unit itself) As for the V-22: It’s like the Space Shuttle. If you put enough money behind it, you can make a barn silo fly…
	pvtrick November 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm takes off like a helicopter and lands like a ROCK, all this just to get the troops to the landing zone one minute earlier and at great expense compared to the new bell helicopters, there is no general who doesn’t love a new weapons system, this is just a twinkle in someones eye.
	Jim November 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pm Obviously the V-22 loses any battle that involves the discussion of money. However, what doesn’t get talked about in the same discussion, is the amount of money that will be saved because you won’t see near the combat loss rate you have/will see with the 46/53/AH/UH-1. Yeah, the older HELICOPTERS have guns and a proven track record…but can they fly at 300mph at 20K feet, effectively moving them into and out of the WEZ (Weapon Engagement Zone) of ground threats faster than any helicopter and/or flying to high for the normal HELICOPTER killing weapons (small arms, RPG and MANPADs) to even be a threat? Look, we (USAF SOF) get that our aircraft cost 70 million/copy. But what we also get and believe is that the aircraft brings a new capability(s)/degree of survivability to the table that makes it worth it. Arguably, you could say TILTROTOR is to HELICOPTER tactics as STEALTH was to fighter tactics…both a required a mind set change to really grasp and more importantly, properly employ the aircraft. Equally, the real benefit of the 2 Billion dollar B-2 was not seen as cost effective until it was combat proven….I believe the same will hold true for the CV-22. With regard to cut in the program…I agree. I believe the USMC WON’T get 360+ MV-22 and I think AFSOCs buy of CV-22 will stop at 50.
	jim November 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm There junk. Don’t need ‘em. Keep the choppers…
	Gene November 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm Jim if we used your logic we would still be flying the Sopwith Camel?
	DUMB MARINE November 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm They said that the flying wing was uncontrolabal and in the end cost more than it would be worth. We built a Billion dollar flying wing and it still true for every hour flown the cost makes a remake of the B 52 a great deal. Every hour flown in the CV22 requires over 200 hours of flight maintance and that the cheep side that the pentagon vortex throws out. Sometimes you must quit while your behind
	GM GAUNT November 20th, 2008 at 8:39 pm Jim November 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm Icing system fixed???? That is news to those of us here in NM… That’s the Marine’s. The AF isn’t quite worried about it in the desert SW.
	Jim November 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm We are at 5000 ft surrounded by mountains, mountains that we fly into daily(nightly), mountains that from OCT to APR are snow covered and present icing issues when there is cloud cover. In reality, we are faced with icing conditions here in NM more than ANY of the other V-22 units. So, IF the ANTI ICE/DE-ICE system were fixed (completely), we would be among the first to see it…
	LCpl A November 20th, 2008 at 11:47 pm Pretty bad if our little desert is the most icing conditions they’ve seen and still sees issues. The aircraft does provide a number of new capabilities, which are at least justifiable for special forces units, but the biggest issue I see is that it’s still an unproven and less than ideal airframe for hot LZ’s, especially as minimally weaponized as it is, and that alone has precluded it’s use in theatre as a support oriented role — which negates what advantages were originally provided by making it tilt-rotor in the first place. As with the Sopwith Camel analogy — we’re still actively looking at returning to the use of turboprops for COIN type operations, where lower airspeed in exchange for maximized dwell time becomes a huge advantage.
	nutkeszun November 21st, 2008 at 2:28 am I am always torn by wanting to know what is going on and the more important need for our enemies to not. On what is really going on, I would hope that national security would trump civilian curiousity. My need to know expired 26 years ago and I hope this is being read by someone that will keep us all in the dark. As with any weapons system, the only thing that will work is what we can deploy and maintain. The published reports of the F-22 Raptor’s remarkable capacities in air to air is a tribute to our ingenuity and sticking to a once-thought too expensive program. Now that system can lower the number of aircraft needed by a factor of 4. However, we always need to weigh the need for dispersal against reduction in numbers for effective assets. Is the Ospry the best solution? A B-52 with only 4 engines on 4 pods? A bomber/flying wing? Replace the wings on C-5s instead of new transports? Parking the Black-bird? Moth-balling the living “bat-bomb” in spite of remarkable success and going forward with the theoretical “H-Bomb”? Willy’s sillies? It will always depend on how the question is framed, but, by-and-large, the correct choices have been made to perpetuate this society. PS. Icing can form in temperatures much above freezing. It is a function of humidity and pressure reduction. Carb-heat is required to be used when flying normally asperated engines at all temperatures unless there is a heated venturi as may be found in engines with oil jackets in the intake system.
	HENRY JOHNSON November 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm WM TECHNOLOGY LLC NEWS BULLETIN Through nonlinear dynamics and the science of Quantum Mechanics,we have developed a new motor that runs on common lead acid batteries the batteries will run several years before needing replacement. It has enough torque to power an army tank, and unmanned aircraft that could stay on station for several months. Helicopter, that can stay aloft until crew fatigue requires grounding. A semi truck could run several years before replacing the batteries.passenger car, power; hand tools, heat pump to heat and cool a home, office buildings and other commercial and industrial uses. Installed in a laptop or any hand held device, will run years without recharging. Ships, Submarines, Aircraft carriers that can cruse several years without changing batteries. This motor runs by teasing the 2 – permanent magnets in 3 – rotors, fixed to the shaft between two stator’s containing 5 – electro magnets. It’s a timing accomplishment as the permanent magnet comes near the electro magnets, we change the polarity, pushing the permanent magnet away and pulling the next. With this we generate tremendous torque and RPM’S (60,000) The electro magnet has a secondary winding, whose electrons are excited by the changing polarity, which recharges the batteries and significant other uses. This motor emits NO, Co2, and does not burn oil or gasoline. This solves the oil and gasoline crisis, eliminates refueling logistics, greenhouse gases. This motor “CHANGES EVERYTHING” and is a Nobel Prize type development. This is a great development for our country. Young men in our area developed it. Please let us know when you are available. We would welcome the chance to show this to you. Sincerely Henry Johnson, Agent TWM Technology LLC 989 684 7050 3490 E N Union Bay City, MI 48706
	wardog December 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm In its day the venerable CH-47 was outragously expensive. So expensive in fact that the Army reduced the intial requirement capabilities document. It was known as the “Boeing Body Bag” and it is documented that some Army Aviators refused to fly the death trap 47. That was the early 1960’s. Now it is the paragon of rotorcraft. Bet you did not know that they are flying the rotors off of them doing max speed because the distances they are flying is putting way many flight hours on them and they are flying them into phase maintennance at a much greater level. V-22 IS expensive, just like the CH-47 WAS. Just like the Apache WAS. Just like the Sikorsky “Lawn Dart”… er Blackhawk WAS.
	Cole December 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm Sikorsky “lawn dart” or Apache were/are expensive?? Uh no. Not when you consider how many Soldiers/Marines have survived due to air ambulances. Popular Mechanics had a Boeing rep claiming that Apaches were responsible for 71% of enemy casualties in Iraq in 2007 in its most lethal aircraft article. In Afghanistan, a Blackhawk can carry internal and especially external payloads similar or greater than a V-22 (hovering required) at higher altitudes for a fraction of the price. A new CH-47F can carry nearly twice the payload for half the V-22 price..or a third of the V-22 price if refurbished from a CH-47D. Flying into phase maintenance? The UH-60M and CH-47F will make condition-based maintenance the norm. We need the V-22. Just not sure we need so many.
	wardog December 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Cole– you miss my point. When the Apache was a new aircraft it was three times as expensive as the aircraft it was replacing. A lot of us attack guys grumbled because it took 30 minutes to get off the ground when I could launch my AH-1 within 3 minutes of being told to do so. The gun (at that point) was no more acurate than the 20mm on a Cobra and rockets went everywhere just like with AH-1. Why not just buy a new Cobra? That was 1985. Same with the UH-60. I sat at Mother Rucker for a month waiting for a transition while the Army had the UH-60A grounded because they had no idea what was causing them to flip over and crash. Let me tell you I was not enthused at having to fly the “Crashhawk”, when my dependable AH-1 was around. My point is that it is normal for a new aircraft to be more expensive and have issues. Army lost more troops making CH-47 and UH-60 darn good aircraft. V-22 needs the same opportunity.