Osprey crash blamed on co-pilot

Osprey crash blamed on co-pilot

Marine Corps leaders announced Friday the April 2012 deadly crash of a MV-22 Osprey in Morocco was caused by pilot error.

The crash has helped launch a rash of demonstrations in Japan to protest the arrival of the first 12 tilt-rotor aircraft in Okinawa that Marine officials plan to use to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter. The Corps’ command investigation blamed the co-pilot, saying mechanical error played no role in the crash.

The Osprey — despite its troubled past to include production delays and crashed test flights – has proven effective since joining the Air Force and Marine Corps’ operational fleets. Marine leaders have often said it’s one of the safest aircraft in the Corps.

Japanese leaders have shared safety concerns with the Pentagon following the crash in Morocco and another Osprey crash in Florida in June. The Florida crash involved an Air Force Osprey and injured five airmen that led to the ouster of the squadron commander.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has spoken with Japanese military leaders to explain why the Corps wants to station Ospreys in Okinawa. He has also said the U.S. will wait to fly the Ospreys in Japan until Japan’s leadership approves its safety.

The Osprey in the Morocco crash was assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261 (Reinforced), 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The accident happened near Cap Draa, Morocco, during African Lion, a U.S.-Morocco training exercise.

The accident occurred as the Osprey was taking off, turning to avoid a busy landing field even as it was rotating its proprotors to transition from helicopter mode to fixed wing.

As it did that, the center of gravity moved forward – pointing the Osprey’s nose down – and a strong tailwind pushed the plane forward and downward. The co-pilot, he said, failed to adjust the nacelles during the turn to overcome the effects of the nose-down altitude.

“The aircraft is now committed and it flies into the ground,” said Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle Jr., deputy commandant for Marine Corps Aviation. The Osprey only reached an altitude of about 50 feet above the ground before it crashed, killing two Marine aircrew members, Cpls. Robby A. Reyes and Derek A. Kerns.

Had the pilots kept the aircraft in helicopter mode until they had gained speed and altitude, the accident probably would not have happened, Schmidle said.

In releasing the report Friday, Schmidle said the Corps already is taking steps to prevent similar incidents. Going forward, all Osprey pilots and flight crews will be briefed on what happened at Cap Draa.

The Morocco crash lessons also will be incorporated into pilot training academics, fully described in naval training manuals that pilots review and programmed into flight simulators.

“We fly simulators routinely to simulate aircraft emergencies that we would not do in the air for obvious reasons,” he said. “We can recreate this kind of incident and learn from it as we go forward.”

An Aircraft Mishap Board will continue investigating the crash even though the board is confident it has found the cause, Schmidle said. He did not give details about what conclusions he expects the AMB to reach.

In addition, a Field Flight Performance Board has yet to convene and look into the actions of the pilot and co-pilot, both of whom survived the crash.

“That board has not been convened yet because the physical injuries to the pilots are such that they are not able to actually sit for the board right now. As soon as their convalescence is complete we’ll begin that particular part of the investigating process,” he said. The pilots’ names have not yet been released.

Join the Conversation

Clearly the fact that the V-22 is unstable during rotor transition is the pilot’s fault, not the fault of the aircraft designer — oh wait, did I say “designer”? Clearly I meant, “not the fault of the nameless, faceless committee who designed the V-22 over a 25 year period.”

Give me a break, the V-22 does not have the control authority to keep its nose up during the transition from vertical lift to forward flight! And what do they call that, a feature? What a f’ing piece of crap. So the answer is, climb high enough in vertical mode so you don’t crash during the nacelle transition? And what happens if the nacelle sticks in that orientation? Is that the pilot’s fault too?

Well clearly you are an expert on tiltrotor dynamics.

When the dynamic flapping range of any given rotorhead is fixed, and you can rotate a 90 degree nacelle WELL beyond that range, its SURELY a design flaw when a pilot does not follow NATOPS and gets into a pickle exacerbated by some strong winds.

The V22 has plenty of authority to transition from hover to forward flight. They’ve been doing it for going on 150,000 operational hours. To think this incident proves otherwise is laughable. You clearly are not a pilot, nor have you ever been through stall recovery training. Can I assume that you think all fixed wing aircraft are pieces of crap, because you cant just point the nose up and climb at every airspeed? Or how about every teetering rotor in existence, which has to stay out of negative G maneuvers?

Give me a break. The only thing here thats a “f’ing piece of crap” is your asinine post and total lack of technical knowledge.

“The V22 has plenty of authority to transition from hover to forward flight.” Right, so this pilot just decided to fly his V-22 nose first into the ground just for kicks? Moron.

Right, I’m the moron.

I’m the guy who has no concept of how a pilot can inadvertently put an aircraft into a unrecoverable position. I’m the guy who can’t seem to wrap my brain around how a pilot could transition the nacelles of a tilt rotor beyond the flapping range of the rotor (with an unlucky tailwind, no less). Are you also willing to argue that its my 172’s fault every time I pull back on the yoke to the point where it stalls?

Come on, you can do better than that. Why dont you start yammering on about defense budgets and how much the Osprey costs, thats your typical M.O.

This technical argument is clearly beyond your grasp.

Did you read the article? Yes, the (co)pilot flew his aircraft into the ground. Not for kicks, but by mistake. Human error. It happens. All the people with inside knowledge about the incident explained it as pilot error. But you know better? Your knee-jerk reaction is that the damed defense contractors sold us another piece of crap. Hmmm. I sense a bit of bias — not on their part, but on yours.

The plane didn’t do anything the pilot didn’t tell it to. Given bad instructions, every aircraft will crash. If the plane did everything it should have (even if it has a narrow envelope), it’s the pilot’s fault if it crashes.

“The accident occurred as the Osprey was taking off, turning to avoid a busy landing field even as it was rotating its proprotors to transition from helicopter mode to fixed wing.”

The answer was don’t immediately turn during take off while in nacelle transition while taking on a tailwind as well. Did you know that if you make a 90 degree turn with your car at 100 mph you’ll probably flip it? Or would you blame the car for not keeping all four tires on the ground? The Blackhawk that went down in the UBL raid crashed because the walls of the compound deflected the the air being pushed down by the rotors and caused it to lose lift. One of the most reliable helicopters in the world flown by the best pilots in the world went down because physics didn’t agree with their flight plan.

I’m not going to get into ad hominem attacks. That is the strategy of a failed debate. However, the Marine corps has the Osprey because a lot of former ranking Marines retired and got very high paying jobs in the Osprey acquisition business. I am a former Marine pilot. I know these people. And I know that the Marine Corps now has skin in the game and can’t go back to Sea Knights — although they still are flying them. The Presidential advance team uses Sea Knights, not Ospreys.

Helicopters do not ‘want’ to fly. Airplanes do. By cobbling them together, you create a VERY complicated, schizophrenic Frankencraft that may not respond to control input in either helo or aircraft mode. It may do something completely unexpected. The thinking is that’s good enough for grunts, but don’t get one near a VIP.

@LoSul: You can’t fly a helicopter and an airplane at the same time. If you are trying to convert one to the other during a take-off in a strong tail-wind, you have entered a flight envelope the co-pilot was never trained to recognize, and so he didn’t. Failing to trail pilots to handle situations no one has ever documented is not pilot error. You have to FIGHT that 172 to get it to stall. Imagine that just as it does, you are suddenly holding a cyclic and a collective. What are you going to do? The fact is, you don’t know because it’s never happened to you. My suggestion is to stay out of Robinson helicopters and Ospreys.

Surely an update to the aircraft’s flight control software/laws could help to prevent the pilots from attempting an unsafe maneuver — like not allowing the nacelles to rotate forward the the extent when doing so would create a dangerous COG condition? There is plenty of air data available on the bus for the FCS to (potentially) figure this out… While I agree that pilot error was a causal factor in the accident, there is more going on here than the reports states.

Actually, the envelope was recognized and published in the NATOPS as something to avoid.

I dont know why you bring it up, becaue your VIP argument falls flat on its face. Heres Obama, Gates, and Panetta all riding the Osprey. http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​0​8​/​0​7​/​2​3​/​t​h​e​-​n​e​w​-​a​i​r​-​forhttp://​www​.thehindu​.com/​m​u​l​t​i​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​y​n​a​m​i​c​/​0​0​1​03/http://​www​.defense​.gov/​d​o​d​c​m​s​s​h​a​r​e​/​p​h​o​t​o​e​s​s​a​y​/​201

HMX-1 is transitioning to green top V22s as we speak.

And I will tell you another thing, theres not a lot of fight required to get a 172 to stall, you should know that as a pilot. How many base to final turns have been augered in by pilot error?

Bottom line, even with the tailwind, had the PIC proceeded to 40 ktas in helicopter mode like usual before initiating the transition to airplane mode, we would not be reading this article.

I agree with you , the primary ’cause’ is pilot error ( only the media use the word blame) but there is a bit of aviation politics in that its good for the Marines and the contractors if this is the case. Rare out of envelope crashes are a difficult situation.
Boeing had 737s that were doing flips and crashing — occasionally. The cause was difficult to discover, do you pull 10,000 passengers planes from the sky and probably bankrupt Boeing as well?. The decision was to continue and eventually the cause was found to be some sort of reversal in the rudder linkages.
Could the Osprey be made easier to fly? Probably not ‚as it does a achieve a difficult combination, take off like helicopter and fly like a fixed wing aircraft. Have there been far worse military planes in service ?. Definitely !

The crash occured during a transition phase, so you have to allow the pilot to fly the plane. During stable flight the electronics can have a greater role.

the SecDef flew from outside the Pentagon to a helipad in New York city in an Osprey. Saying crazy stuff will surely get you into trouble.

“Bottom line, even with the tailwind, had the PIC proceeded to 40 ktas in helicopter mode like usual before initiating the transition to airplane mode, we would not be reading this article.”

Yep, I agree with that. I also understand that various VIPs have flown in Ospreys — for a few minutes. That’s Marine politics. You show off your stuff. I also understand that VMX-1 flies Ospreys but they can’t autorotate. To me that’s an immediate disqualifier. They are not going to be used as regular VIP transport. They are also not going to be used in the S&R role because that requires helo mode low and slow — or in a hover. In point of fact, the V-22 is not a utility aircraft and, while it is in production, it won’t stay in production.

Actually, the V22 can autorotoate. It’s practiced in the simulator. Its a scary ride in reality but they have done them at altitude. And they can also dead stick reasonably well from altitude, where they spend the vast majority of their flight regime. It has a wing, remember.

The entire point of the Osprey is to get high and fast; they dont spend a lot of time poking around low in hover.

I think its pretty telling that in going on 6 years and 150k+ flight hours optempo there havent been any OEI or dual engine failures or other incidents which would have required an auto to ground.

That’s ~200 hours per year per operational aircraft. A BILLION dollars per aircraft over it’s lifetime for 200 hours a year seems high to me.

Thanks to all of you for downgrading my commentary. Because, I suppose, it isn’t a personal attack.

Yeah, just because it is a fly-by-wire control system, why would anyone think to use the flight control software to limit the rate at which the engine pitches forward so it didn’t out pace the control authority of the rudder? Sure, there’s that engineer thinking again. We won’t have any of that, not in public. No, this is all about spin, all spin 24/7.

Hey dumbass, you can make 360 degree turns all day long at 100 mph. Ever heard of the formula for centripetal acceleration? a = v^2/R ring a bell? No, of course it wouldn’t. Why would you let ignorance stop you from babbling?

Where did the billion dollars per aircraft over its lifetime come from ? Did you not know military aircraft have low yearly flight hours

Hell yes. Charley A, gets an ‘A’ for knowing what the hell he’s talking about. It’s already got the fly-by-wire controls, its got a pitot static system, its got tables for how fast you have to be going to be stable under varied cg locations. Computers are all about figuring stuff like that out in real time. Let them do their job of keeping the pilot alive instead of screwing him for a change.

So you’ve gone from spinning yarns about stuff you don’t know about to out and out lying? Nice. The V-22 won’t autorotate, end of story.

Hell, I said “rudder” but meant “elevator” obviously.

Contrary to popular belief, this isn’t a Cessna. It is a complex airplane that requires computers to fly. If the computers are programmed correctly they never let this guy get into this situation. As it is they were programmed incompently and neither provided the pilot with the information he needed to avoid this situation nor did it provide envelope protection to keep him out of this nose dive as it easily could and should. The result was one more crash where they blame the victim. Hopefully the safety investigation report will recognize the actual issues here and correct them, while the AIB report continues to be the usual white wash bs.

Wrong, the V22 can and has autorotated (just not at the same ROD as a helo). Read a book. https://​vtol​.org/​s​t​o​r​e​/​p​r​o​d​u​c​t​/​t​h​e​-​n​a​t​u​r​e​-​o​f​-​v​orthttp://

Coming from you, an accusation of spinnging yarns is rich.

After work today I’ll try to track down the driver of the car I pulled out of his upside down vehicle a couple years ago. I’m sure he’ll be happy to know you said he couldn’t possibly have been speeding, lost control, and rolled it.

If the PFA was the co-pilot was, surely the PIC, as aircraft commander, shares accountability.

You’re doing a lot of talking out of your ass here. The FCCs aren’t programmed to auto fly the aircraft and I can imagine the pilots and co-pilots wouldn’t be so eager to let them do it either. It was a busy landing field so it isn’t hard to imagine at all had the FCCs not let the aircraft turn and transition at the same time they would have ran smack into some other vehicle…Or, are you suggesting the FCCs should have been also programmed to avoid this inevitability as well? Just at what point do you believe this aircraft is no longer to be flown by pilots and instead should be a massive drone?

“because a lot of former ranking Marines retired and got very high paying jobs in the Osprey acquisition business.”

These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Thank you for saving me the time and effort. I couldn’t have said it better. It’s funny how easily you can spot a ground guy trying to talk as if he was an aviation expert just because he rode in a helicopter/tilt rotor aircraft a few times or reads aviation weekly.
Phrogs Phorever!!

Finally an Osprey crash that really was the pilots fault.

I honestly could care less about its # of crashes etc. All new helo’s have done so. It seems to be part of building/owning/operating them. Compared to the CH-46/47 the Osprey is downright crash proof and yet gets slammed in the media…

Of course the CH-53 hauls more farther, more cheaply, but hey, lets keep buying more of these maintenance nightmare birds.

If there were any justice in this world, we would have had the XC-142. While it had the same problems as the Osprey, at least it had a higher top speed and greater range as it had a bigger wing and truly would have given our marines/army/navy/airforce a unique capability. As it stands, the osprey does not give a unique capability over any existing helicopter or small fixed wing freight aircraft other than costing more and doing less. Oh, don’t forget that it makes the LHA’s half as effective as well as they take up far more deck space and haul less…

FIHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, no clue what your saying nor do i care, one thing is that V-22 look so bad A.

The Osprey actually has more range than the CH53 and it’s faster than ANY helicopter. Uh, there’s two unique capabilities.

Get a clue, and stop putting words in my mouth. I said what I said and stand by it. Others who have posted here have said the same thing. If you don’t understand what’s being said then it’s your own problem.

Must be great to be ignorant and proud.

Sitting on a toilet doesn’t make you a plumber.

Every time the V-22 makes the news a whole bunch of new names for the same old industry mouthpieces show up on all of the blogs and boards slamming anyone who makes any observation that’s not per the talking points they were given.

You and me both! I’ve been following this thread since the story broke just to see what was going to be said on here. It always sucks when people lose their lives, but the fact is 9 times out of 10 these mishaps are due to human error. “The NATOPS was written in blood.” isn’t something they say just to scare people.

53’s are not cheap or less maintenance intensive than V-22s.

“Fact: The V-22 is a tiltrotor and does not rely on autorotation for a survivable power-out landing.” — http://​www​.boeing​.com/​o​s​p​r​e​y​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​1​/​i​s​s​u​e​_​0​1​/fi

Liar! Hell, even Boeing says it won’t autorotate. At least you could read your talking points.

If you make stability your top design priority, you can restrict what the plane is allowed to do, thereby keeping it in a safer operational envelope. But, if you do that, you lose mobility which may be essential in a wartime environment. If I’m pulling evasive maneuvers, the last thing I want is a sluggish plane with flight controls that stop me from pushing the envelope.
Bottom line – you don’t know anything about the design decisions behind the control system, yet you feel compelled to condemn everybody and everything in sight. What gives?

So when you were learning to fly airplanes, did your instructor encourage tailwind takeoffs and landings? Did your instructor encourage raising the flaps when close to the ground? Well, there’s a reason for that, namely that others have died in the past when attempting it. Helicopers also have something called Vortex Ring State, and Translational Lift (look it up). This crew had probably performed this manuever many times before just fine. I believe the strong tail wind coupled with a lack of experience/judgement are the factors which overcame their skill set. The Osprey has an extra long Moment/Lever from the end of the tail to the C.G. making it easy for a tailwind to induce the unrecoverable attitude.

I told a friend more than 20 years ago “I am glad I’ll be retired before the Osprey ever gets operational.” Even helos are bricks with propelleres

THE OSPREY CRASH: THE MARINES DIDN’T CALL IT ‘PILOT ERROR’ — April’s crash of an MV-22 Osprey in Morocco wasn’t all its pilots’ fault, although DOD officials have been eager to affirm there are no problems with the big birds themselves. Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle told reporters Friday that as the Osprey in question was taking off, it turned with a strong tailwind, which unexpectedly pushed down its nose and caused the accident. But another Osprey ahead of the aircraft that crashed had just done the same thing with no problem. So what gives?

“You can have something occur one minute and do exactly the same thing, and two minutes later, like hitting a tennis ball, and it doesn’t work the way it did the first time,” Schmidle said.

In other words, stuff happens, to borrow a phrase from another place and time. The new question is, does it help or hurt DOD’s Osprey sales pitch in Japan to acknowledge that it’s subject to occasional mishaps just as much as a traditional aircraft? Maybe that will have no effect: what goes up, after all, must come down. DOD insists that the Osprey has proven its safety time and again, but the aircraft are under a microscope and will likely be subject to more skepticism.

The bottom line: The Ospreys out there are going to fly — the only question is how happy or unhappy that makes the Marines’ Japanese hosts.

You are one stupid a**.

Stability is always your top priority in aircraft design. If it isn’t stable, then it crashes. What kind of idiot would design an air vehicle like that? Oh yeah, a namelss, faceless committee would design a vehicle like that. Now there can be different kinds of stability. For instance, you may design in some static instability to get a vehicle to turn better, but that instability is balanced out by the control system otherwise the vehicle will crash, no question about it. In this case the flight data computer had plenty of data and to evaluate wether or not a crash was imminent. At the very least it should have give the pilot some warning that he needed to pull the nacelles back because he was losing lift and control authority too quickly too close to the ground. All the computer needed was a pitot static system and a radar altimeter to figure that out, both of which are available sensors on the vehicle already. The V-22 has been under development for decades and it never occurred to anyone to give the pilot any kind of warning that would keep it from nose diving into a smoking hole? That’s unacceptable!

Man up Marines. Those things are not video games for Kids.

Uhh actually Stability isn’t your top priority, it’s controllability. Anyone studying aircraft design starting from the Wright Brothers should know this. This is an example of the pilots hitting a “coffin corner”.

More than fault lies with the MV-22 being flying junk with archaic ’tilt rotor system’ instead of efficient ’tilt jet turbofan thrusters’.…..the crews deserve much better.……

They were less than 50 ft off of the deck. Nothing in the world was going to help stop them from balling it up, once they got into the position they were in.

There’s a difference between be CAPABLE of HROD autorotation, and RELYING on it for a survivable power out landing.

Or did this little semantic fact escape you?

Yeha ok, and just what do you think will happen to everyone on board that thing when it has to go OEI?

Well hey, another expert! Maybe you should be working at Bell/Boeing.

Wait, did you just say “efficient” and “tilt jet turbofan” in the same sentence? That’s been done. Google VJ101. It’s not efficient.

Better stick to your sci fi video games for those.

Actually according to the Marine corps the V22 is cheaper per seat mile than the MOST expensive CH53.

“Another internal Marine Corps analysis done last year that employs a measure of efficiency favored by civilian airlines – cost per seat mile, meaning cost per flight hour per passenger per mile – found that the Osprey’s speed and range make it much cheaper on that basis than Marine Corps and Navy helicopters. Using the Osprey’s fiscal 2010 flight hour cost of $11,651 per flight hour, this study pegged the 24-passenger V-22’s cost per seat mile at $1.76 compared to $2.84 for the Navy’s seven-passenger MH-60S Black Hawk, $3.17 for the 12-passenger CH-46 Sea Knight, and $3.12 for the 24-passenger CH-53E Super Stallion.”

Right on , iam a former USMarine Aviator , Ch-46 , Ch53s ‚the Ch-46 is called the FROG because it goes to full power squats down and transitions fro take of roll to forward flight, so what, the Co –pilot in Question did not follow NATOPS Procedures For Transitioning fro hover to Forward Flight Regimes, Nuff Said.

Is there an automatic position scheduling mode for the nacelles, or are they only rotated manually by the crew?

and how does the actual 37/55 passenger capacity of the CH-53E affect the Corps’ analysis, and your eagerness to embrace it?

Those are the USMC numbers not mine.

According to the above document on page 20 “Advertised passenger loads range from 37 to 55; however, this HQMC restrictions set the maximum peacetime capacity at 24. Centerline seats must be installed to carry 55 Marines and severely restricts loading and unloading evolutions. Seats and seatbelts must be provided for each passenger, limiting passenger loads to 32.”

I am guessing that the Marines do not routinely carry the max capacity for logistical reasons, in Afghanistan the standard load is 30.

They are maually operated

The only way the Osprey has more range is if the Osprey is taking off in STOL mode from a paved runway In Helo mode it certainly does not have that range advantage. As for its “speed” it is barely faster and only by a tithe at low and slow. As soon as you get a load in it, its speed drops to 180knots or slower. If the Osprey had a pressurized cabin like it was supposed to and fly at 20,000–25,000 feet, then the Osprey would truly be MUCH faster with a greater range. It doesn’t though.

IS the Harrier efficient? Will the F-35 be same? They both use a form of ’tilt thrust’ features Like I said.…LOSE the rotor system and it’ll fly wayyy better that it’s configured now. Btw, been doing my research, you really need to do yours, you’re not quite there yet rookie!!!

How on earth does one claim the CH-46 is a 12 passenger bird… Its 24. Typo? How on earth do they claim the 60 is a 7 passenger bird… The 53 is now a 24 passenger aircraft. Pull my other leg! What a bad joke. That right there tells you this whole “report” was BS and skewed in Osprey’s favor. Serious Hutzpuh to publish such glaring obvious nonsensical “data” that even a half(maybe wholly) ignorant internet poster(myself) can rip without insider knowledge other than working at Boeing and having been consulted on several aspects of the Osprey Maintenance problems which by the way never got fixed and somehow I bet those never got into that cost sheet either! At least both the 46 and 53 can haul nearly double their passengers in a pinch unlike the Osprey unless the Osprey can take off in STOL mode. Rather unlikely on unimproved landing fields unless it has a small load.

If all we were going to base a platforms costs on are peacetime, what the heck are we buying specialized helo’s for? Buy civilian… Oh wait we are supposed to buy platforms for WAR not flying generals around.

Those numbers are a very pathetic attempt at a BS snowjob.

Real pilots learn the engine out emergency procedures, where you been, that is if you are an aviator??

Real pilots learn ‘engine out’ emergency procedures, or do you not fly aircraft??

No, the F35 and Harrier are not efficient. But do enlighten me, why haven’t we seen a large gross weight VTOL jet aircraft? Please help me do my research and explain the technical reason, since youre so clearly more familiar than I am.

This is the same Defense Establishment Mindset that kept insisting the Marines that were being killed in Vietnam using the new M-16 just weren’t cleaning their weapons well enough. They said this for months and months up until the time that they started issuing new ammo loaded with the right kind of powder. CYA, all the way, Pentagon weenies.

Germans will be bringin’ back the ‘101’ series VTOLs as soon as they KNOW they are totally out of space to build conventional airport runways; ‘U-tube’ original flight videos demonstrate that those birds are operational: VTOL and forward/rearward/sideward flight. Apply similar ‘gimballed thrusters’ to an Osprey airframe and the Gyrenes are back in business with a ‘winning’ bird. All Boeing needs to do is DO IT!

PS. Take a look at the German Dornier 31 (Do31); could be a direct mission replacement for the MV-22; has similiar airframe characteristics, too!

70 –100mph is barely faster? That’s 35% faster than a CH53E.
Range? Over a 1000 mi isn’t greater than 621mi?

So weight impacts the Osprey’s speed/range but not helicopters?

Please share your references and the physics on your planet.

1000 mi, that is freaking hilarious. Check out its Opeval in 2005. Still looking at wikipedia from Bell’s original “posted numbers”. Smooth. It can’t even go 200 radius with 24 troops at sea level.

Light up another bong man.

You are clearly the one that is “lit”. You want to use a seven year old pre fielding eval that you can’t produce instead of MULTIPLE references out there? Oh yeah, bet you believe 911 was an inside job also.

Can’t go 200 with 24 troops?

“On June 1, 2010 a helo carrying 32 people went down during a special operations raid near Kunduz in Northeast Afghanistan. A severe dust storm and the Hindu Kush mountain range foiled attempts by other helos to reach the stranded crew and passengers who were under small arms and mortar fire. Two CV-22s from the 8th Special Operations Squadron launched out of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan within two hours of being alerted and flew 400-miles straight to the site — over the 15,000-foot mountains and through “very low visibility” – and back to Kandahar with the 32 stranded troops in less than four hours.” http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​1​1​/​0​9​/​2​3​/​t​h​e​-​c​v​-​2​2​s​-​800–

And then they flew the 400 mi back :)

BTW, I never use wiki as a source.

Yes, if he hadn’t rotated the rotors forward so quickly, he could have avoided the crash. So apparently he should have looked at the wind vector on one display and the airspeed indication on another and then watched his nacelle angle to make sure it was appropriate for the airspeed he was losing as he was turning the aircraft into a tail wind while sand was blowing all around and he was trying to avoid other aircraft taking off in the vicinity. Clearly anyone who f’s that up deserves to be dead. Just ask the accident investigation board.

So it is controllable if it is unstable?

Actually it is 8 times out of 10. Funny, though, how UAV’s crash at 10 to 100 times the rate of manned aircraft. Makes that number seem a little subjective.

Yeah, it autorotates so damn well they tell the pilots never to do that. You’d think in this economy the defense contractors could hire mouthpieces with brains.

“Two CV-22s from the 8th Special Operations Squadron…” So let me get this straight, 2 V-22s went out to pick up 32 people and each one carried 24 men home? Yeah, I wouldn’t trust wikipedia either.

And all those Marines and their families who got sick drinking the water at Camp Lejeune had it coming too. Clearly the Marines are all about taking care of their own, as long as they are of significant rank.

Way to sell out your colleagues. Do they give out medals for that?

the report wasn’t even a marketing pitch for the osprey. the essence of the report is the necessity for the ch-53 service life extension program as essential to meeting the usmc mission. i agree with you, he misrepresented and misapplied the data.

stability isn’t always the top priority. stealth compromises stability, for example.

You really are an aerospace novice aren’t you.

Let’s see, ever hear of the F-16? Or perhaps the F-117? Hell even the MD-11 has relaxed static stability.

Keep posting, this is getting progressively more ridiculous and funny every time you have to extract your foot ever deeper from your mouth.

Oh you mean Sikorsky shills like you who know so little about aerodynamics that you must be a real bargain.

Anyone who goes out of their way to try and lambast a product with the fervor you have on EVERY blog post across the internet, who then makes a point to state that all the various other commenters who undress your laughable arguments is a “defense contractor mouthpiece” is more than likely the corporate stoolie themself.

Framed by your absurdly non-technical arguments, its fairly clear who’s the actual shill.

Yeah, pretty much.

Ok, and what do UAVs have to do with this?

But they are prevented from rotating into the helo mode above a certain airspeed. At least the sims are programmed that way if I’m not mistaken.

That’s true of the aircraft’s static stability for an aircraft like the F-117, but then you use the control system to compensate such that the system as a whole is stable, even if a few wobbles do get through.

Yeah, much better to close your eyes and plug your ears and pretend the problem wasn’t the pilot. No reason to acknowledge that it was pilot error, learn from the mistakes, and develop enhanced training to hopefully avoid someone doing the same thing again.

Fear not the Chinese will build a version with the expansive wing and fuselage capable of both long distance flight AND carries acceptable payloads. But they won’t care how many of their Marines die perfecting it, and it won’t be published in the media, much less the Peking Marine Times. And their COL KLINK won’t have to defend performance to get it stationed in their outlying bases — THEY WILL JUST STICK IT THERE AND DARE ANYONE TO OBJECT.

Big Dog on the block, boys, and he’s buying all the bones he needs with our $$. NATOPS MANUALS, “(they) don’t need not stinking (Natops Manuals)!”

It’s really easy to blame the Marines flying this Marvel Of Technology if they are trying really hard not to place any blame on the aircraft design. Smells like a cover-up to me. Have to keep the Japanese and everyone else happy with our new aircraft. Never underestimate the ability of our government to throw you under the bus for God and Country. Glad I’m retired!

Does the MV-22 have a ‘Black Box’? I don’t know! How did DOD / U.S. Navy / USMC come to the conclusion that it was the Co-pilot’s error? The Pilot in Command is responsible for his aircraft, not his subordinate.

Reading comprehension a challenge? Foot was the Osprey can’t lift 24 troops for 200 miles at sea level. I presented a case that dwarfed that factually incorrect statement. It’s no wonder you’re pushing 300 negs in this thread alone :)

Marj0d, you seem to have no idea what a load does to an aircrafts performance. Fly out empty = low fuel consumption, fly back 1/2 full. Check it out! They made it! DUH! As I posted before of which you took exception to, with a load its range drops drastically. i

WoO HOO, the Osprey has a longer range dead empty! What a brilliant proof!

The Opeval was with 200nm with 4800lbs or equivalent to 20 troops.

You will also note that since the OPEVAL, Block B Ospreys have been refitted with much larger fuel tanks allowing STOL to reach longer range/weight for special operations. AKA take off in STOL mode and have enough fuel to land effectively “full” and then fly back.

I have always stated in previous posts that the V-22’s STOL mode does give it unique abilities. As a helicopter where it has to land/take-off vertically, its hopeless.

I’m not a pilot, other than having soloed in a Piper Cub in 1946. But what bothers me is not these accidents, but the fact that the crew members almost invariably get killed in low altitude crashes? Why aren’t there some relatively crash proof compartments in these vehicles? We had pilots surviving in horrendous crashes in WW2, but when helicopters became the vogue, so apparently did death traps.

I’m aware of how eight impacts aircraft performance. I guess you don’t know it applies to helicopters also.

So you’re bleeting about Osprey short range from a study done seven years ago that caused a refit of the fleet resulting in larger tanks/range and then you whine about me citing a 1000 mi range? Good Grief! (facepalm)

Then you said… “AKA take off in STOL mode and have enough fuel to land effectively “full” and then fly back.”

Uh like they did when they flew back FOUR HUNDRED MILES from Kunduz (that doesn’t have a runway)?

(facepalm x2)

As the pilot moves the nacelles aft with the thumbwheel, a feature called “conversion protection” factors into the equation and stops the nacelles from moving too fast, as that might either damage the aircraft or cause a stall. Similar to the flaperons, the conversion protection corridor is airspeed-based and varies with altitude. At the lower portion of the corridor, nacelle movement will be modulated so the Osprey will not stall; the upper portion of the corridor protects loads on the rotor system from too much airspeed. If the pilot tries to continue moving the nacelles aft while the airspeed is to too high, the system will actually stop and move the nacelles forward by overriding the pilot’s inputs. The pilot has a visual indicator on the primary flight display that notes where the nacelle angle is in relation to the protection corridor; keeping the nacelle angle near the middle of the corridor during the conversion is the key to a smooth deceleration. — http://​verticalmag​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​1​1​2​-​f​l​y​ing

So the computers keep the pilot from hurting the vehicle during slow down, but won’t help keep it from going nose first into the ground on take off. Nice.

Yeah, much better to close your eyes and plug your ears and pretend the problem wasn’t the vehicle. No reason to acknowledge that it was design error, learn from the mistakes, and develop enhanced vehicle to hopefully avoid someone doing the same thing again.

Wow, so you think I secretly work for Sikorsky, but don’t know anything about VTOL aircraft. You caught me dude. You’re a hoot.

What has this got to do with the MV-22.? Because someone goofed with the water hygiene means that titrotor crash must be about higher ups protecting their own ?

What is a turbofan thruster ?
Oh yes , its spinning blades that create thrust just like propellors do, but not as well at low altitudes and airspeeds

The Osprey has flight recorders. Presumably their records showed that the control inputs which led to the crash came from the copilot’s position.

Why isn’t anyone concerned that there were people killed and someone is mourning their deaths? And WHY are we still in Japan (and Germany and Italy)? Now, there is some money that the DOD could save instead of using their scarce budget to secure other countries with U.S. taxpayers’ money. Let those countries pay for their own security, and then station those returning soldiers at our own borders.

I still can’t see this thing being the troop transport of the future, no matter how much the right wing politicians try to cover up it’s short comings, It’s too expensive and it’s too unstable. But we all know that this is not about preventing the further loss of human life, this is about jobs, some politicians will go through hell and hot water to protect that, no matter how many lives are lost.…thats sad. In ten years this “bird” will still be dropping out of the sky, and the blame will still fall on the pilot, or co-pilot as in this case.

Having said all that, I do have a question and a suggestion, question first, how many have to die in this thing before the powers that be realize that this “bird” is deadly? Now for my suggestion, I suggest that the designers and the politicians that protect it, use this craft as their personal transport for a year daily , just a year, thats all, and if they are still around after that time, then we will take it from there. But we all know thats not going to happen. People have a reason for being afraid of the “bird”, I think it’s best they find out why that is so before placing blame on the operators of this craft.

People aren’t important, aircraft programs are. If the government was giving you billions of taxpayer’s dollars, you could afford to hire a bunch of bozos to post about how wonderful your failed aircraft program was and how those bad old people deserved to die too. As it is, you get to pay the bozos’ salaries without any say in their hiring, firing, or talking points. Your tax dollars hard at work — this time creating propaganda that would have done Goering proud, all while heaping scorn and ridicule on the poor pilots whose only real crime was believing that by flying those coffins they were doing their part to keep this nation free.

LoSul: Way to reply to a troll! Your post is intelligent, and shows you have sonmetechnical expertise. Isn’t it amusing to hear someone rant about something he knows notthing about? Dfens probably can’t even fly Microsoft Simulator!

I am a retired USMC A-6 pilot with 4,000 plus hours. I learned to always be skeptical of accidents whose causative action was attributable to dead pilot(s).

Common sense would tell you that such a maneuver, conducted at low altitude, if dangerous, would be prohibited by NATOPS or eliminated by interlocks.

You can believe me or not, but I toured the very first V-22 at Boeing in Ridley Township in 1987. When I walked into the troop department, I saw a braided, mesh line about 4″ thick running the length of the compartment. I asked our guide what that was (I assumed a hydraulic line), and was quite surprised to learn it was a fuel line. I commented that this was unusual since the aircraft could be expected to take small arms fire, and it was inevitable that some of those rounds would hit that line thereby causing fuel to be sprayed on the Marines. The guide had no answer.

To me, the Osprey has had a terrible history to date. IMO, the Corps should allow the Navy to select its aircraft and stick to fighting not selecting our aircraft. It is a political aircraft, much like the Harrier. Both have been over-sold, under-performers.

Experienced aviators know that there are overly aggressive aviators lurking in the pilot room, and that they are the ones that experienced aviators know will have the next accident.

Comrade, I am honestly curious as to how you define the Osprey as having a terrible history?

Since operations began in 2007, it is the second safest aircraft in the marine corps inventory. Since 1969 the CH53 has killed over 330 US personnel in accidents alone. Yes, there were crashes in the V-22 development. Did you also know that the very first YUH60 prototype crashed TWICE, the first time narrowly avoiding killing all 14 on board, and then actually killing 4 Sikorsky enginners in CT a few years later? Do you consider the CH53 or UH60 to have a terrible history?

Honestly what makes you say the Osprey is so terrible? Objectively, it has fared better than some very much more simple and conventional machines.

Yeah, because it was abandoned in the 60s for absolutely no reason whatsoever.…

Except the pilots in this crash survived, it was the guys who were not strapped into anything in the rear who were lost.

In Florida, a CV22 crash landed *upside down* and everyone survived.

334 personnel have died in CH53 *accidents* since 1969.

Where are your complaints about that helicopter?

Or rather what we see is a small group of deluded internet warriors who post on every blog entry to do with the V22 doing their damndest to decry it as a failure in the face of mountains of objective evidence otherwise. We see people who are capable of continually spouting off utter technical nonsense and accumulating negative rating after negative rating, who then go on to accuse anyone who calls them out on their idiocy or voting them down as being a faceless member of a corrupt corporation. These are the tinfoil hat wearing basement dwellers who honestly believe that defense companies are paying people to post on tiny defense blog comment sections! It is so laughably ludicrous that it borders on psychopathy.

So our local disciple of the V22 hate cabal Dfens is of the opinon that we should be equipping our military with cloth covered biplanes and Zeppelins to save the taxpayer money, while simultaneously claiming to be an advocate for the members of the armed forces. Too bad for your argument that V22 pilots actually love the airplane. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Its people like you who spout the same tired old arguments in your dire attempt to smear the V22 that come off as propagandists. Too bad hard facts are getting in your way, and from your stellar negative ratings here people see right through you. Claim all you want that everyone posting and rating you down is a corporate mouthpiece. You’re just making yourself look that much more insane.

Ok. The pilots lived in this, so there’s nothing to be skeptical about. To your point about steel braided hoses running thru the cabin, most helos I’ve come across that have a fuel transfer system use those types of lines. V-22 is no exception. Rigid lines will “stop” rounds just as well if not worse, than the hoses do, so the point is moot.

Interesting comments but many of them seem to be long on opinions and short on facts. I’ve never flown an Osprey but I did have an opportunity to fly its predecessor, the Bell XV-15. If you haven’t thought about it ask yourself why the USMC support for the Osprey has never wavered since the program’s inception in the early 1980s. There were opportunities to end the program but in every instance USMC Leadership supported the development and deployment of this unique aircraft. The reason is simple. A tiltrotor aircraft can successfully accomplish missions that cannot be completed with any known helicopter or airplane. When these unique capabilities are employed in war game scenarios the Osprey is a game changer. Due to its impressive speed and range, employment of the Osprey results in higher mission success rates and greatly reduced USMC casualties. The USAF and Israeli Defense Forces reached the same conclusion for special ops missions. You won’t read about it in published articles but Osprey is a game changer. It is not a helicopter although it can take off and land like one. It is not a transport airplane but it can fly fast and high. It is my belief that the tiltrotor will have as great an impact on future military operations as the advent of the helicopter has since the 1950’s.

I’ve been flying helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for 46 years and spent my professional career as an experimental test pilot, having flown approximately 10,000 hours in well over a hundred types. While there are unique flight characteristics associated with tiltrotor aircraft these characteristics have been documented and evaluated during development and operational flight testing. The information gained was used to develop proper procedures, which are covered during pilot transition training and presented in the NATOPS manual. During primary flight training in airplanes and helicopters I was instructed to avoid taking off downwind because bad things can happen. That’s pretty solid advice that applies to tiltrotor aircraft as well. While this accident was a tragedy for all the people involved it doesn’t change the fact that tiltrotor technology is a game changer that is here to stay.

Uh, he wasn’t saying one kind or the other stops bullets better, but thanks for adding a little more comic relief to this topic.

You work for the military industrial complex and it is just a coincidence that you happen to be kissing their ass right now. Isn’t that refreshing? By the way, ever heard of the Sikorsky X2? Makes you wonder where we’d be right now if we hadn’t spent the last 30 years polishing the turd that is the V-22 program.

Ever hear of the XH59? Oh yeah, they flew the exact same technology in 1973. So in essence they’ve been polishing the ABC turd for 40 years.

Keep posting…you’re hysterical!

While what you say is true, still there is a middle ground solution that would take care of many of the problems the V-22 has with asymetric vortex ring state. If they’d gone with ducted props like the old Bell X-22 had, they could have used stators to take the twist out of the flow from the rotors. Also they could have made the rotors smaller so they didn’t smack the ground on a dead stick, glide in landing. I don’t think there’s anything inheritly wrong with the V-22. I think the program personnel who control its fate are its true Achille’s heel. This crash certainly highlights that incompetence. They put a “conversion protection” system on the vehicle and don’t even think to give the pilot a warning light for the case when he’s rotated his nacelles to the forward position too soon? Hell, the indicator is already there. The data is already being collected and processed.

What problems the V22 has with A-VRS? You mean the envelope they fully defined and can be exited by beeping nacelles forward if they get into those ridiculously high (well above NATOPS) RoDs, rather than trying to fight it with lateral stick?

And what are you babbling about the “twist in the flow from the rotors”? What does that nonsense have to do with anything? Is this purported “flow twist” bad? Please explain this phenomenon and how it has any affect on anything. I would love to hear it.

Smaller rotors.…for higher disc loading and greater downwash, something else you harp on the V22 for? You make them short ducted fan props, guess what, you kill range and helicopter mode performance due to drag.

And you have decided to ignore all posts regarding the conversion vs transition protection system. One saves the aircraft from guaranteed damage, the other would just prevent a pilot from breaking his own training rules. No reliable all aspect low speed wind detector exists. No system could have warned this pilot about this situation. Had the nanny system you proposed CAUSED a crash, youd be arguing the other side of the same coin. “How could the designers not let the pilot control the aircraft, how could they possibly be so bold to think they knew every situation that might be encountered! Corporate bureaucracy! Military industrial complex! Greed and conspiracy! Rawr!!!”

But hey, keep shouting the same lines, because I am sure thats the only way you can keep the logic train running in circles in your head.

You act like you are such a genius, and all these ideas are so simple and everyone else must be just a complete buffoon. Well why dont you submit a resume to Boeing if you’ve got it all figured out.

I think they should work day & night until they do perfect it.

How many H-46’s came apart in 1966–67? It seems they finally got it fixed. Doesn’t seem that the V-22 can replace the mission of the H-46. It’s going to take the V-22, Hue’s and ‘53s.

Just a TAX payer


Can I hazard to guess that the only thing you have served in is a couch in front of the news?

Read this and then tell me is not a pig in a dress. http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​c​c​i​d​e​n​t​s​_​a​n​d​_​i​n​c​ide.… I have jumped out of every aircraft from Hueys to OV-10 Broncos and Twin Otters to C130s, C141s C-17s and C5As. You will not get me in a V-22 at gunpoint.

TMB2 and Dfens are both right. You CAN do a 360 turn at 100mph in a car and not flip. There’s prime examples of Police PIT’s in high speed chases where the car doesn’t flip when spun.

However, if you do ONLY a 90 degree turn, the car will want to keep going in the direction it’s travelling, and so the car facing will change, but the direction won’t really… and you are likely to flip.

Back to the subject at hand though… I’ll back Dfens in that I think it’s weird the aircraft FCC doesn’t have some sort of fail safe to stop a pilot from flying it into the ground. I mean, the F-14 and F-111 had their wing angle controlled by the computer according to their speed and attitude of the aircraft / actions being performed at the time, why can’t the Osprey have the computer control the angle of the tiltrotors according to similar things?

Even if like the F-14 and F-111 the pilot had an override they could use so they aren’t hindered by the ‘safety’ mechanics that might get them shot down whilst lifting off from a hot LZ in a warzone.

Just trying to catch up to you.

It’s not a pig in a dress.

In operation its the second safest flying vehicle in the Marines inventory.

Just curious, whats your opinion of the CH53, which to date has killed 334 service personnel in ACCIDENTS alone? Go check out wikipedia pages on the 53D and 53E since you like that source.

The V-22’s history is downright boring in comparison.

Isn’t it time for you to go away, or at least get another screen name to post under?


No response to anything in the post?

I am shocked.

Setting with Power when turning into the downwind condition at slow foward flight?

Who takes off with a tail wind

Hey, do you not like the 53 or something? I’m not trying to argue or anything, but you keep throwing out that number.

Does anyone know if there is a “Hybrid” design for a tilt-rotor aircraft? What I mean is putting smaller but powerful electric motors in the nacelles and a gas engine on top of the fuselage to generate electricity for them. It seems like that would be a better design instead of dealing with the weight of the entire propulsion system in the nacelles. I’ve been reading about all-electric airplanes and hybrid drives for ships and railroad engines. It seems like this could be done for a tilt-rotor aircraft.

All the money that went into this aircraft is just Pentagon waste and graft. When an aircraft is in the making there are so many changes and add ons that it is no longer the same aircraft. The same is true of all military hardware. The price, due to it’s not being in the original contract balloons. The more complicated and unreliable it becomes, the longer and more the fixes the bigger the labor plus after contract $$$ is. It is a cost plus Gamble after that. And then something may show up on a whim of one of those officials who would think it a plus to have this new gimmick on the aircraft. All military toys are looked at in that manner. But this aircraft is nothing more than a big huge ugly non practical bust. The Japanese will have their arms twisted to buy a few. Not worth the metal used to build it.

You are clearly confused. A pilot taking off in a blackhawk who decides he wants to make an aggressive take off and beings moving forward before getting enough ground clearance is going to cause the aircraft nose to hit the ground. I suppose you blame Ford when a guy wraps his pickup truck around a telephone pole. I love the, “It’s everyone else’s fault” people. Accountability never goes to the person who performed the action. It was the ‘system’ that caused him to be a murderer. It was the ‘designers’ who caused him to take off too aggressively and not reach the appropriate elevation before beginning to transition into forward movement. It was the ‘school’ that cause his bad grades. It’s McDonald’s fault that he ate cheeseburgers and got fat. Oh, and my favorite — It’s the gun makers fault that the gang member shot an innocent child while doing a drive-by shooting.

Man, quite the fantasy world you live in. Do you see unicorns poop out rainbows?

He wouldn’t have to have done any of that, if he reached appropriate elevation before moving forward. A helicopter does the same thing, tilts nose down as it moves forward.

I just saw a 20ft tall gummy bear walking in my back yard. He invited me to come find the leprechaun who is going to give us a pot of gold!

Having been an aircrew member for 16 years in the USAF I have one question. Where was the Pilot In Command or Aircraft Commander or whatever the Marines call the Pilot? In an Air Force aircraft the pilot would have taken control from the co-pilot and tried to save the aircraft. Was the other pilot sitting on his hands?

Why the Marines or anyone else would want an aircraft that has never met its design criteria and offers only a marginal improvement in capability over existing helicopters remains amystery to me. Better to have spent the money on new amphtracks whoch is where the core Marine capability lies, than on the Osprey.

The 53 was a great helicopter. But for people old enough to remember, it used to crash all the time. Yet it gets a pass, especially when all the internet warriors like to make references to the 53K over the V22 (even though that comparison makes no sense).

My main point is that if you look at the aircraft’s history objectively, and pay attention to facts, the Osprey is historically not even remotely as dangerous or deadly as what everyone seems to consider a standard workhorse machine like the 53.

Did anybody thought of the reciprocal induced downwash effect between the two rotors in a relative slow-to-hover turn in a tail wind condition?

I used to be a 53D and a V-22 mech/PC, so I guess that makes me a “shill”, but you’re absolutly right. I know there are similar numbers for 46s and H-1s that can be used too, but that’s besides the point as everyone in this business knows that things can and will go wrong.

You’re only a shill in Defen’s book. Any rational person would understand you’re someone who is actually qualified to comment on the topic at hand.

Ingrid, first of all, the USMC units and the corps itself mourned for the lost, you can find articles from when the accident took place to find out more about it. The crash investigation also takes place and that is what is being discussed here. As for how the DoD could save budget money by not stationing troops in other countries, you need to take that up with your congressman and senators. The DoD does not pick and choose to station troops on foreign soil, they are directed by our elected leadership.

“right wing politicians” trying to cover up the shortcomings?
WAKE UP! The right wing is not in control of the White House or Pentagon. The SECDEF is Leon Panetta and he is far, far from being right wing. The service involved here is the Department of the Navy and the Secretary of the Navy who is in charge here is Ray Mabus who is a former Democratic Governor. He too is far from right wing and actually seems to be the opposite.

Don’t let the facts interfere with your worldview!

I am not an engineer or pilot. I have served in combat in Viet Nam. It just seems to me that we will lose a lot of these coming in or leaving from a hot LZ. They appear to be too big and slow (during the transition phase of landing and take off).

Yes that very thing was verified in one million plus simulation iterations and found to be completely non contributing to this accident. The test lead wanted to thank you for your input it was very helpful.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.