Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Variants

The following list and basic information is derived from DoD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, May 12, 2004:

• CV-22A

Air Force aircraft used as a transport from land bases.

• HV-22A

Navy aircraft used for conducting combat search and rescue missions from aviation-capable ships.

• MV-22A

Marine Corps aircraft used to support amphibious assaults from Amphibious Assault Ships, general and multi-purpose class.

• SV-22A

Navy aircraft used to provide mid to long-range sea-based airborne ASW protection.

• HV-22B

HV-22A with upgraded engines, drive system, nacelle, and fuselage, and improved avionics.

• MV-22B

MV-22A for the Navy with upgraded engines, drive system, nacelle, and fuselage, and improved avionics.

The document lists an engine upgrade for the B-models, although the engines for the B-models are listed as being the same as for the A models (see pages 67-68). It also lists the MV-22B being a Navy aircraft rather than a Marine Corps aircraft. The reference on the current Variants list (diff), however, calls the current Marine aircraft the "MV-22B", as well as the main V-22 Osprey page on Globalsecurity.org, which also refers to a Block B V-22.[1] As far as US military designations, a Block variation in the aircraft does not determine a variant by designation (e.g. the F-16A has numerous Block variations without being a different model, same for the F-16C.) There is also a reference for a Block C development, but I've found no references for a MV-22C variant. GlobalSecurity.org also discusses a Block C and Block D; the Block C upgrades appear to be the same as the CV-22 Block 10 upgrades from March 2000. So, where is an actual verifiable reference to the Marine Osprey being called the MV-22B that correlates Block production variants to the official designation?

My recommendation would be to go with the list as established by the DoD with the understanding that B-model (not Block B) variants are planned future production aircraft. --Born2flie 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I added the CV-22A variant with the DoD reference. I kinda wonder if the A models were reserved pre-2004 and have not been used. Maybe they have since switched to the better B model for the different mission variants. -Fnlayson 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Any Weapons

Are there weapons on this thing?Sam ov the blue sand 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that they're typically mounted with an M240 on the rear ramp. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous to put machine guns on the side doors, since the nacelles will be in the gunner's arc of fire. Last I heard, though, there's some research being conducted into the possibility of adapting a chin-mounted 20mm or 30mm turret like those on the Super Cobra and Apache. Ratamacue 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the M240 but I too heard about the 20mm or the 30mm but I forgot where I heard it from. I see your point about the guns on the sides, I guess that wouldn't work too well now would it? ^_^ The reason I asked is that I think the weapons should be listed on the specs part of the article.Sam ov the blue sand 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one rear .30 cal. machine gun that can fire up to 16 rounds per second. The gun can only fire when the rear cargo lift is down. Time magazine compared it to a .30-06 hunting rifle. Time did a 5 page article on the plane/chopper if you need anymore information regarding the controversy surrounding it. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add The 30-06 is a fairly high powered round against soft targets like troops, it was originally the primary round for U.S. Army troops in WWII M119,M1 grand and so for. the round was phased out of the military for being to powerful it was replaced with the .308 winchester(7.62x51mm) witch in comparison is smaller to the later.207.172.91.236 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Information

There seems to be a ? concering my entry of: "Note: Development of this aircraft has been taking place by the US Marine Corps since the 1960's under what was originally the HXM-1 program (to upgrade the USMC helicopter lift capabilities). There are advertisements in back issues of Leatherneck (the USMC magazine) and articles in the USMC Gazette from this period documenting and showing earlier versions. By best guess the USMC has been funding development for aprox. 40 years on this project." As I am new to entries on Winkpedia I am not sure how this all gets resolved or how exactly to discuss this. However the bottom line is that I have seen these documents myself in 1993/1994 while on AD w/USMC. So the historical statement is accurate on the development. From what I understood at that time (we were supriised at that time when we found the ads as that we had thought it was a new project [within the last 10 years])the technology did not support the actual operation of the systems and was left in a developmental stage until the technology caught up. However the advertisements in the back of the Leatherneck show a tilt rotor aircrafy refered to as the Osprey which the overall design image is very similar to the present V-22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmacuscg (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following addition (twice!) as primarily original research:

Note: Development of this aircraft has been taking place by the US Marine Corps since the 1960's under what was originally the HXM-1 program (to upgrade the USMC helicopter lift capabilities). There are advertisements in back issues of Leatherneck (the USMC magazine) and articles in the USMC Gazette from this period documenting and showing earlier versions. By best guess the USMC has been funding development for aprox. 40 years on this project.

In order to include such a piece, we need a source from a reliable, verifiable publication which has done the research AND given the conclusions expressed here. While I do not doubt that aircraft with the V-22's size and capabilities have been studied in the past, the JVX program dates back to the early 1980s, and involved other aircraft besides tilt-rotors, such as the Sikiorsky ABC. Tilt-rotors themselves date back to the 1950s, while other VTOL aircraft, such as the XC-142, werestudied and flown from the 1960s. Please see WP:OR and WP:ATTR for more on what is needed to contribute to WIkipedia. I agree it's very interesting that pics of a similar aircraft were published in the 60s, but that does not prove the direct relationship between the two designs. If fact, I have heard of a similar craft called the Osprey under developemt in the early 70s at LTV (I think) in Dallas, but I would think that would be a development of the XC-142, rather than Bell's tiltrotor designs (XV-3 and XV-15). - BillCJ 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of my addition was that the V-22 Osprey has been under development by the USMC since the 1960's. As far as I know both Leatherneck and the Marine Corps Gazette are official USMC publications so I do not know how much more reliable one could get. The magazines I viewed were from around 1965 – 1970 so there is only about 60 issues to check. I am sure they are available from somewhere (Library of Congress). The HXM program was the predecessor to the JVX program. Whether it was referred to as the XV-22 or another term, development of the aircraft began way back then. How does an entry similar to this sound? It helps provide a little more depth of the history of the aircraft (without the fact of over 40 years of funding being used to get it to this point).

Note: Historical Background: Development of this type of aircraft has been taking place by the US Marine Corps since the 1960's under what was originally the HXM-1 program (to upgrade the USMC helicopter lift capabilities). There are advertisements in back issues of Leatherneck (the USMC magazine) and articles in the USMC Gazette from this period documenting and showing earlier versions.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmacuscg (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is questioning that a tiltrotor of one form or another has been in development...there's been a long history of such experimental aircraft, which are well-documented at wikipedia. The V-22, however, wasn't being developed that far back. It is a growth variant of the XV-15. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think advertisements can be considered sources, other than to replicate the ads themselves (tho that might entail copyright problems). Articles in the Gazette are reliable sources, and if you wish to quote from them, that is fine. But to draw a direct connection between the HMX-1 and JVX, to the point of saying the V-22 is the same aircraft, would require sources that actually say that. Saying this "type" of aircraft has been under development for 40 years is different that what you first posted, and honestly only proves the Marines have been trying to get the capability. THis is where info from a Gazzette article on the Marines wanting/developing this capability (medium verticle lift) would be useful in the development section, since it is primarily focused on Bell's development at this point (and that only briefly). - BillCJ 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

...and, thus, would be more appropriate for the Tiltrotor article, eh? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines too, but depending on how specific/general the Gazette article is, it might work in both articles. - BillCJ 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TIME piece

The TIME piece does offer new information. It offers unique statictics about the aircraft. Although I can agree that not everything is needed, to say that the entire paragraph is redudant is BIASED. EconomistBR 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then give the new statistics, and cite the Time piece. But don't present is as being covered by Time in its own paragraph, as if the Time piece is somehow improtant in itself, and then repeat what is already written. The Time piece may have some new facts, but the basic premise is nothing new, and is typical of the biased hit pieces that have been written on the V-22 since its inception. - BillCJ 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustation about article that cover the V-22 but that are a lot of impotant new fact that are missing on the text and yet present on the TIME article. - V-22's lack of autorotation - V-22's armament, whether light or not is irrelevant. But the V-22 is armed with 1 machine gun in the back. This information is absent from the text.

The reason why I put the TIME piece in its own paragraph was that the added text was big enough so I thought it was reasonable.

EconomistBR 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey cost

All numbers are quoted from the TIME piece, including the cost of $119 million for each Osprey.

The TIME would not quote numbers that are not accurate or that misrepresent the truth, therefore I don't understand why is there a necessity for further verification of the unit cost. EconomistBR 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty easy to get costs wrong even trying not to. An average cost per item is a simplified calculation. True flyaway/unit cost is the incremental cost. This is what it would cost in a new order or to a new customer currently. -Fnlayson 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see, but I doubt the TIME would publish erroneous numbers.

I have new numbers that confirm the high cost of V-22s. This link put the unit cost at $160 million for each of just 11 V-22s. http://www.g2mil.com/V-22costs.htm

I think it's a wate of time to use my scarce resources to REVERIFY the TIME's numbers, I will basically repeat their process of verification and repeat their steps.

EconomistBR 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article currently says $70 million, based on the Dow Jones Newswire article (Dow Jones is a news service?) This article, from Boeing, which is also where the current source says it gets its numbers; the manufacturer, says that the unit cost in 2004 was $74 million, and that by 2010, cost could be reduced to $58 million. The problem is that this is the manufacturer's figures. The cost to taxpayers is slightly larger. So, we can chalk it up as sensationalism, or we can attempt to understand the source of the figure and establish it. Sources and figures for this cost are all over the place. In aviation, this would be like hunting for weather, that is, looking for the numbers that get you what you want. --Born2flie 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fair points. The Air Force does list $70m for the CV-22's flyway cost for 2007 in its current budget estimate. See "USAF FY 2008/2009 Budget Estimates" on page 4-5 (pg. 143 in file). This reference was used on the F-22 as well for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I got extremely disappointed with the solution found found for the price controversy, reason why I returned to this article.

A per unit price quoted from Boeing (not a neutral source as pointed out by Born2flie ) was linked to the purchase of 458 units by the US government. They have nothing to do with each other.

Fnlayson's price tag, who quoted the Air Force ( not a neutral source) is incomplete. As Christopher Bolkcom from my quote points out:

"... whereas flyaway cost excludes research-development cost, thus making such estimates significantly lower than estimates of total program acquisition cost."

TIME's price for the 458 units seems to be the right one after all.

EconomistBR 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Another important quote from Christopher Bolkcom for the Congressional Research Service (neutral source).

"The The Defense Department’s Selected Acquisition Report of December 31, 2004, estimated the total acquisition of a 458-aircraft program would be $50.5 billion,"

I hope this buries any unjustified doubts over the integrity and truthfulness of the TIME's article.

EconomistBR 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Harldy! AS has been explained, there is a differnece between program costs and unit costs. All you and Time have done is take the total program cost, and divide it by the number of aircraft to be bought. THat's not the same as unit cost. For Time to act like $119 mil is the unit cost is playing loose with the truth. Mention both numbers, and be upfront about why they differ, and what they represent. - BillCJ 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are correct, and it is right to divide total program cost by the numbers of aircraft built.

If you spend $10 million researching how to build a home and then build the home for $1... how much did the home cost?? Answer me that please.

These are not TIME's numbers anymore, these are Congressional Research Service's papers saying that the 458 V-22 will cost the taxpayer $110 million each.

Total program cost captures fixed expenses without which no V-22 would have been built.

Your number is the misleading one, because it filters needed expenses from the final unit cost. EconomistBR 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was an limited-production aircraft like the B-2, I can see doing the math that way, but that's not the typical way that aviation programs that are still in production are calculated. How do you know how many aircraft will be built? How do you know that this program won't be wildly successful and many more aircraft will be built? Why should the quantity built be reflected in the unit cost of each? That is deceptive. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Economies of scale", I am sure you heard of it. There is no deception, no filtering of expenses as BillCJ's number have.

If the number of V-22s built rise, the per unit cost decreases because the fixed expenses (as R&D is) will be spread over a greater number of units.

R&D is fixed, necessary expense without which there would be no V-22. Therefore it must be included on the per unit cost of the V-22. To remove the R&D from the unit price is like cooking the numbers.

Right now, 458 V-22s are planned to be built this number may rise or fall. EconomistBR 04:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The research in the X-1 and X-15 was all geared towards those specific aircraft (at the time), but that knowledge has dramatically expanded our understanding of Mach numbers. The research is not merely a "fixed necessary expense", but is also research into other fields as well. Using the house analogy, a house that costs $1 million to develop and $1 to build still costs $1 to build. That million isn't wasted because the knowledge of how that house was built is transferred to other projects. The total cost of the program is $1,000,001, but the house is still a dollar to build (production cost). However, it is misleading to say the house cost $1 million today and when the next house is built, it suddenly costs $500,000. It is mixing different pots of money.

IMHO, we should make sure that "the program costs..." and "individual unit" costs should be added accordingly and the terms should NOT be intermixed, (i.e. Don't refer to the program and then say $119 million per aircraft). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just say that the research and development and flight test phase costs X, and production costs Y per unit. That, to me, is the most transparent and honest answer. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No... in the house example:

• How much did it cost to build the house? (Thank you for answering the question)

A: $1? Wrong, because had you invested $1 you wouldn't have built a house. You can only get one house built after investing $10.000.001. So the correct answer has to be $10.000.001.

• I want to build 5 houses, how much will each house cost to be built?

A: Unit Cost = (Fixed Cost + Variable Cost)/x (x= units to be built) Variable Cost = Marginal Unit Cost * X = 1*5=5

Unit Cost= (1.000.000 + 5)/5 Unit Cost= 1.000.005/5 Unit Cost= 200.001

• Why did the "unit price" fall from $10.000.001 to $2.000.001?

A: Economies of scale

The Osprey V-22 Unit Cost:

• Total Cost = $52 billion
• Fixed Cost = $20 billion
• Variable Cost = Marginal Unit Cost * Numbers built = $70.000.000 * 458 = $32 billion
• Unit Cost = ($ 20 billion + $ 32 billion)/458
• Unit Cost = $ 113 million

• Would you build 458 V-22 with $32 billion?
• No, you need $52 billion.

EconomistBR 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 05:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is misleading to say the house costs $1,000,001 when in reality it costs $1 to build (note my EXACT word usage, it isn't what you are implying). How much then does it cost to build a second house? $1,000,001? No, only a dollar. While the average cost drops, the unit cost is the same. Again, the problem is that you are associating the "unit cost" with the "program cost" and the "production cost". Mixing the terms only leads to confusion. By limiting that ambiguity, it wouldn't be an issue. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01, I gave mathematical proof based on economic theory but I was expecting most of you to refuse the numbers. You are confusing marginal cost with unit cost.

"How much then does it cost to build a second house? $1,000,001? No, only a dollar." Exactly, this $1 is the marginal cost of building the second house, not the unit cost. The unit cost is $5.000.001, don't you agree? I gave you the formula.

"the unit cost is the same" This statement is a mistake, learn this: unit cost is variable. You are confusing marginal unit cost with unit cost, that's a mistake.

The marginal cost or flyaway cost of the V-22 is $70 million, but the unit cost of the V-22 is $110 million. Can we get an independent auditor here??? EconomistBR 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it is just a matter of confusing terminology and we are actually in agreement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is indeed terminology. EconomistBR seems handy enough with the numbers, but is unfamiliar with the terminology used with aircraft development programs. This is an academic exercise and a tool often used by politicians to make programs they want to kill look worse than they actually are. Add to this the fact that this isn't just another helicopter being built...the R&D costs are unusually high here because it was a whole new class of vehicle that was being developed, and the lessons learned will be widely spread over all the following tiltrotors developed. How, for instance, is the R&D costs from the V-22 program being factored into the BA-609? Into the Quad? The costs of the lastest AH-1 Cobra don't include the development costs from years ago of that type of air vehicle...it was built on existing technology. Likewise it is unfair, when you're trying to get an accurate view of what a V-22 costs to produce to add in the one-time costs to develope the class of aircraft. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is an academic exercise and a tool I take this as an insult because I based by numbers on economic theory and on math, the way I calculated the price of 1 V-22 is way the entire capitalist system calculates the price of everything from cars, T-shirts, to electricity.

Whoever came up whith such a misleading and incomplete term as "flyaway cost" is the the one that that embarked on an academic exercise.

There is nothing unfair, had the military ordered 10.000 V-22s, the unit price would have fallen to just $72 million at a flyway cost of $70 million.

The fact is that you don't like the $110 million price unit tag and prefer the $70 million because as you put it, it is more tame. That tame solution sacrificed the truth and played with terms in order to get a tame, better behaved, more socially acceptable unit price tag.

I want this to be clear: Unit price is at least $110 million, flyaway cost or marginal cost is $70 million.

The TIME article comes out vindicated, its $119 million price is 8% higher than that 2004 number. EconomistBR 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it really matter? The program costs are already stated in the Controversy section. Flyaway cost is what is listed in infobox by WP:Air convention. -Fnlayson 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth matters, the infobox is wrong the real unit cost is $110 million not $89 million.

On the controversy section the 458 purchase must be linked to the $110 unit cost and the the $70 million flyway cost EconomistBR 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we in agreement?

• Correction of infobox and controversy section:

Unit price= $110 million Flyaway cost= $70 million EconomistBR 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fnlayson your quoted unit price is in fact flyaway costs, as clearly stated in the AF document. I corrected the numbers and completed the infobox EconomistBR 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is. Flyaway cost is a type of unit cost and what is listed by the WP:Air/PC policy as i already stated. -Fnlayson 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomistBR, do you have any experience outside of the classroom? Program cost, marginal cost, and lifecycle cost are all accepted measures of unit cost in industry and are all appropriate for their own reasons. They also happen to be widely misused to push a particular agenda, as you seem to be. --Mmx1 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Marginal cost is a measure of margianl cost, quoting marginal cost as unit cost is a blatant mistake and a deceit.

Mmx1 I am not pushing any agenda here, I am a brazilian economist living in Brazil, far away from the US and not paying $1 in taxes for the US government. I really don't care if you burn your money, I care about the truth. That was a cheap shot, Mmx1

I quoted the Congress, Time and given Mathematical proof, and yet my arguments are not accpected.

Wp:Air convention. That convention doesn't state or indicate in anyway that the unit cost at Wikipedia is equal to the flyaway cost.

The Askari Mark's user page can't set policy, besides Askari Mark never says that unit cost is equal to flyaway cost.

Call an independent auditor here, this is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheap shot my ass. You're pretending program cost is the only accurate measure and issuing voluminous "proofs" of such when in fact there are three commonly used measures of unit cost in industry, each with their benefits and drawbacks, a fact you are either genuinely or willfully ignorant of. I am in fact assuming good faith in assuming ignorance where others might attribute malice. Take your pick. You can find the infobox guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_Infobox--Mmx1 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More evidence that flyaway cost is not unit cost

3 documents from the United States General Accounting Office. http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/ns98013.pdf

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad98013.htm

On those 3 documents US General Accounting Office never uses flyaway unit cost as synonym to unit cost

On the first document the GAO also adds R&D to the final unit cost of the B-2.

The B-2 unit price on Wikipedia is also mistaken, $2.1 billion is the correct unit price. EconomistBR 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. Do you read your sources or just run search on them for key phrases? The B-2 reference discusses exclusively total costs, which in light of its extremely limited production numbers is justified and fairly standard on limited-run programs like the Seawolf and B-2. However, the V-22 document uses exclusively flyaway cost, and justifies it:

We used unit flyaway cost estimates for comparison because they are more standardized and concentrate on those costs directly related to the production of the aircraft. This includes the cost of the basic system equipment, as well as both recurring and nonrecurring costs associated with the production of a usable end item of military hardware.

So you've just provided proof that the GAO uses both measures, choosing one over the other where appropriate. --Mmx1 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And, to add to the criticism, if you read the actual numbers, the GAO is including things in the total program cost such as facilities, "other governmental costs", mission support, training, etc, which have nothing to do with the actual building of the aircraft. For that, see the line item "procurement program, air vehicle" for the costs of the actual aircraft". And, to reiterated what I've said before, even if you're gonna do it your way, the B-2 is a completed program, there will be no other aircraft built, so there's a finite number you can divide these non-aircraft related costs between if you want to. That's simply not the case with the V-22. How do you know that this isn't gonna be the next UH-1? How many of them, in all military and civilian variants were built? If you're gonna compare costs of the V-22 with other helicopters, do it fairly...the program development costs aren't included in a CH-47 or a CH-53, so if you want an accurate comparison, you can't add such costs to the V-22. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't catch that. So the GAO's "total cost" is actually closer to a "lifecycle cost" than "program cost". Lifecycle cost is not used as often, especially for programs in development, since it's a PITA to compute and difficult to do accurately without some actual history on airframe fatigue and maintenance costs. --Mmx1 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So "Flyway cost" is not the same as "unit cost". Do you agree? EconomistBR 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, all three terms are used to compute unit cost. The art (and deceit) in modeling is picking which one and justifying it. --Mmx1 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"other governmental costs", mission support, training, etc, which have nothing to do with the actual building of the aircraft" WRONG!!! Those expenses are directly related to the number of B-2s built, those expenses were generated by the B-2, those expenses would not have occurred had the B-2 program not existed.

But whatever...You can't relabel costs

You can't choose a cost methology and then change its label.

Flyaway cost must be quoted as flyaway cost

You took a cost clearly labeled as flyaway cost and relabeled it as unit cost

GAO, Congress and TIME all treat flyaway cost as a different thing from unit cost.

You want to treat them as the same thing, that is wrong. How can I call an auditor?? EconomistBR 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Osprey doesn't have autorotation

The fact that this helicopter behaving aircraft doesn't have autoration should be present.

The plane is incapable of autorotation in the case of engine failure, fact that led a director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 to say that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m) emergency landings " are not likely to be survivable."

EconomistBR 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is something new in the TIME report. It's odd we haven't heard that one before. I'm sure Bell/Boeing or the USMC will respond to that, and then we can present both views neutrally. - BillCJ 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't odd when you consider the TIME article was a hit piece on the Osprey. Of course it doesn't autorotate. Neither does the CH-47 or any other two-bladed helicopter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagon has accepted that the V-22 will not have autorotation:

"the Pentagon determined that the ability to perform the safety procedure was no longer a necessary requirement and crossed it off the V-22's must-have list. "An autorotation to a safe landing is no longer a formal requirement," a 2002 Pentagon report said. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-4,00.html

Look, positive information:

...pilots, who believe they'll have the altitude and time to convert the aircraft into its airplane mode and hunt for a landing strip if they lose power. "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130," Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, said. We could add both sides of the history then, ok? EconomistBR 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Looks like it is true the V-22 can't autorotate, but again, that's not the whole story (surprise!). Apparently, autorotation doesn't or can't work on a tilt-rotor, tho I haven't flound a detailed explanation as to why. However, titlrotors do have two advantages that helicopters don't have:

1. Large fixed wings! Again, I don't know enough about the aerodynamics on the V-22 to say how much lift they provide at a given speed, but they do provide SOME lift. Helicopters don't have big wings, hence the autorotation tecnique is crucial to survivial.
2. Two reliable engines - many helicopters only have one engine, and most twin-engine copters have both engines close together. - BillCJ 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, so what should be added? The thing is, if the V-22 loses power while hovering (no lift whatsoever) it can't autorotate to the ground. But a V-22 pilot says that this is not a problem.

I think is fair to say that autorotation is not present but it's not a necessity, and we could quote the V-22 pilot when he says that the V-22 can glide down.

Is this acceptable? EconomistBR 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that the V-22 doesn't have autorotation going to written ?

I really would like to see the quotation from the director of the Pentagon's testing office and the quotation from the V-22 pilot included. That would serve to show ongoing controversies about V-22's safety. The engineers also said that is very unlike for both Ospreys engines to fail, that should be included.

Maybe I could write a draft. EconomistBR 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with this quote and the TIME article in general. When you compare apples to apples, it is a fair comparison. This is a comparison between apples and a Playstation. The CV-22 cannot autorotate because it has two blades and no tail rotor. It (like any other airplane) cannot autorotate due to a lack of physical capability. To put that it can't autorotate is like saying a bicycle can't float and labeling it as a failure of the program. While it may have been desired, it isn't necessary for an aircraft that will spend MOST of its time in airplane mode anyway. The Harrier can't autorotate either, but I didn't see that in their article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I get it now...

TIME has quoted the Pentagon's documents, directors and Generals and yet you people BQZip01 and BillCJ choose to ignore it all and consider all criticism from TIME as part of a hit piece.

BQZip01 has a problem with what was said by a director of the Pentagon!!!! Come on!!!

You 2 are censoring the TIME, its work and are pushing hard for a favorable view of this aircraft no matter what.

Autorotation was a Pentagon's requirement but was dropped, this bit must be included.

EconomistBR 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomistBR, you might want to throttle back a notch...regardless of the arguments for or against, there's no need to get so heated about this. You seem to be basing this all on the original Pentagon requirements that were crossed off, right? Have you ever considered that the writer of the Time article probably has no clue about aerodynamics, and couldn't tell a tail rotor from a tail skid? Most writers of aviation stories for major publications have little or no aviation experience or knowledge (I'm a freelancer myself, and have routinely gotten really frustrated with writers about this). Given that, take the quotes with a grain of salt. Have you considered that very few, if any, Generals are aerodynamicists, much less understand helicopter aerodynamics? Next issue: you're implying something negative because the machine can't auto, and that the requirement was crossed off the list of requirements. Have you ever considered that maybe it was crossed off the list because a) tandem rotored helos don't auto in general (as BQ pointed out above, the CH-47 can't either, and that's never been an issue), and b) it is thus ridiculous to have requirement in that is impossible to meet (I love the bicycle that can't float analogy...very appropriate!). Why must we require a Pentagon requirement that was dropped, when it is clear that such a requirement would have been impossible to meet?

To answer a couple of the technical questions: When you enter auto, you have to have sufficient forward and/or downward velocity to produce enough airflow through the rotor system to keep them spinning. If you have sufficient forward speed, you have wings to glide, so it isn't an issue. The issue with the -22 is hover, especially HOGE. Assuming a double engine failure, the pilot would need to sufficient downward velocity to sustain rotor RPM. But, unlike a regular helo, a -22 has two really big wings, with drag, so it will accellerate downward slower, and you may not get sufficient airflow through the rotor system. And since it is configured aerodynamically like a fixed-wing airplane, the CG and CL will naturally cause a nose pitch-down moment, something you don't want in an auto from a hover. Keep in mind, auto isn't the only solution to an engine failure...a second engine is a really good option to have, which is why the -22 is engineered with such a complex redundancy system. So, what does all this mean? It means that, first, the need to autorotate is significantly diminished. It simply isn't a critical requirement. To give it undue weight here is to create a problem where there is none. It sounds to me like someone is useing our encyclopedia to create the basis for a political statement on the fitness of the aircraft. This just isn't the place to do that, and I really don't see any need to add the material to the article, unless, of course, you want to tie it in with the highly controversial Pentagon decision to drop the requirement of warp speed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (And, FWIW, I don't like to throw around brag points, but just so that you know I'm not just a smuck who's talking off the top of my head, I was the editor of the textbook Helicopter Aerodynamics.)

Alan, lowering the collective in response to an engine failure on a helicopter also produces a nose pitch-down moment, so at the moment of engine failure, heavy helicopters actually require aft cyclic to regain the rotor RPM as well as to maintain within the autorotation airspeed window followed by forward cyclic to maintain airspeed attitude.

If power is lost when a V-22 is flying like a helicopter below 1,600 ft. (490 m), [the top Pentagon tester] said, emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable."

The article claims that the autorotational descent is too excessive (fatal, even) and that is why it was written out as a requirement, with all the other reasons given as to why it would be acceptable to continue without the requirement. I would surmise that this is probably more of an issue of rotor design than any drag issue of the wing. The rotor on a tiltrotor most likely has a high disk loading with very low inertia, in order to keep from requiring it be as large as a comparably-sized helicopter. It is probably aerodynamically incapable of autorotation due to the pitch angle of the blades required to produce the lift, rather than any drag presented by the wing. It is also possible that the tiltrotor has more or less twist on the rotor blade (I suspect more) than a normal helicopter which will also seriously affect its autorotational capability. Of course, my conjecture is without actual data on the rotor performance, but I will continue to suggest that the rotor disk size and design of both rotors is incapable of providing the lift necessary for the size of the aircraft in autorotation.

What would be interesting to prove is when Bell/Boeing realized this in the design phase, and you have to know that they would've known this, simply by the math, long before they ever attempted the maneuver.

An article by an editor the next day on Time.com[2] says,

Time’s Mark Thompson saw an Osprey predecessor fly in the early 1980s, and he has watched it move from blueprints to blue skies. As a Washington reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, he helped expose the way Bell Helicopter and the Army failed to fix a fatal flaw in their Huey and Cobra fleets. His stories won him and the Star-Telegram a Pulitzer Prize in 1985. Thompson brings the same scrutiny to his coverage of the Osprey, exploring the compromises that have made it less capable and less safe than promised and its odd invulnerability to skeptics who have long wanted to kill the program. “Nearly 250 soldiers died before they fixed the Hueys and Cobras,” he says. “That’s a story I don’t want to write a second time.”

Such critics include then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, not once, but several times. --Born2flie 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for BQZ (he is so much more entertaining when he speaks for himself anyway!), but my goal here is to have a neutral article that presents the V-22 in as neutral a view as possible. SOmetimes that means presenting both sides to an issue, and sometimes it means not covering an issue at all. The V-22 has attracted alot of attention, mostly negative, from the popular media, and much of it has been inaccurate, shoddy, and/or one-sided. I don't just read the popular media, but company press releases, industry coverage, and military articles. That provides a basic overall view of the issues involved. Do I have opinions? Yes, of course I do. But I do try to keep my opinions out of the article. I don't try to keep them out of discussions totally, because I want people who are only seeing one side to realize their are other views on the topic, and other ways to interpret the same information. There are 27 cited sources and 17 external links in the article. I highly suggest that you read EVERY ONE of them completely, if you haven't already, before attempting to contribute further. At least then you'll have a better overall view of the issues involved in all this, even if you overall opinion does not change. - BillCJ 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

@BillCJ

Until yesterday, of the 26 cited sources in the text:

• 10 are from the Military
• 4 are from Boeing
• 2 are from Bell

Total of 16 pro-military references, of the other 10 references 1 is broken, another 3 are a brief notes. This article is not neutral, you are only quoting the military-industrial complex.

You block highly-critical material and label it as "hit piece". The TIME article was an investigative one, it quoted Pentagon's papers and generals. But BillCJ called it a "hit piece"

@AKRadeck

The Pentagon required autorotation, that's a fact, you can't dispute that. It's an important safety feature and US soldiers will die because of this. The Pentagon dropped the requirement in order to have an aircraft. But you are censoring this information.

@YOU BOTH

Worst part is that you people edit all aircraft pages on Wikipedia and give medals to each other. So this biased, one sided view of the US aircrafts is being spread all over Wikipedia. All outsiders are blocked from editing. I hope you 2 are happy with your club. EconomistBR 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I bang my head on the wall, let me see if I can say this any more clearly: if the Pentagon "required" autorotation, that requirement was created by someone who didn't know what they were requiring. Autorotation wasn't "left out" to save money, it is simply not possible. It is not an important safety feature for this type of an aircraft any more than it is an important safety feature for a CH-47 or a C-130. Soldiers may die in crashes, but it won't be because someone decided not to design autorotation into the aircraft. (I'd like to see someone find the last time any U.S. soldiers died in a CH-46 or -47 from a double engine failure. There've been plenty of other crash causes, but I haven't seen any signs that no auto capability is a problem with them.) This isn't an issue of them dropping a requirement to save an aircraft, it is that the requirement should have never been there in the first place, and it is perfectly reasonable that the requirement was removed. You can't have your cake and eat it too...you can't have a tiltrotor (as a type of machine) and have auto capability. (I'm actually starting to wonder if you really know what an autorotation is in the first place...when's the last time you were aboard a helo during an auto?) If you want reliable, accurate information on aviation, you might find a better source like AW&ST or Flight International rather than Time. Finally, I started my comments out by suggesting that you're becoming too heated over this issue, and now you're crossing the line on personal attacks. You have clearly become quite emotional about this issue, and clearly have a POV that you're pushing. Last I saw, no one has blocked you, nor threatened you with a block (although that will change if you keep up the personal attacks). AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying it can't be put in, but something with this much of a problem and such a gross oversimplification needs to have a better description and analysis so as to not be as misleading as the TIME article. Additionally, I have received no medals from anyone here, though the occasional barnstar may have have been given out. I could care less about meaningless trinkets. If I did care, it would be almost no effort to simply create a dummy account and put up some fakes.

"The TIME article was an investigative one, it quoted Pentagon's papers and generals. But BillCJ called it a 'hit piece' " I also called it a hit piece. Even quotes can be taken WAY out of context and made to seem far worse than what they were intended.

"The Pentagon required autorotation, that's a fact, you can't dispute that." The key word is "required", it doesn't require it now. You can also note that in 1911, aircraft were required to travel no faster than 150 miles per hour. It is a requirement that is no longer needed with the given aircraft.

"It's an important safety feature and US soldiers will die because of this. The Pentagon dropped the requirement in order to have an aircraft."

1. It is an important safety feature...on some aircraft. This one, not so much.
2. That US soldiers will die because of this is wrong in so many ways... These are Marines, not Soldiers. That they might die is a fact. That they will die because of a lack of autorotation capability is mere speculation and none of them have died because of this in the past.

"But you are censoring this information." I hardly think anyone here has the power to censor TIME magazine.

"All outsiders are blocked from editing. I hope you 2 are happy with your club." No one is blocked from editing in Wikipedia, but there are standards of behavior and what is/isn't acceptable. In its current form, it is not IMHO. Please read WP:Civil & WP:NPA

Additionally, and I certainly hope it won't be necessary, if you feel a need to send this to and RfC, Mediation, RfA, or any other matter in dispute resolution, I would be happy to participate. THAT is what Wikipedia is all about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Econ, if I really wanted to censor the TIME article, I wouldn't have supported its inclusion in the External links" section. As BQZ said, something with this much of a problem and such a gross oversimplification needs to have a better description and analysis so as to not be as misleading as the TIME article. That's all I'm trying to do here. Either we present the whole issue in an objective manner, or we present two opposing views as neutrally as possible. I'm not under the impression that the whole "miltary-industrial complex, as you call it (a loaded term that says much about your viewpoint here), is perfect or neutral in anyway, but neither do I view them as having only money in mind, and no concern for the lives of people invloved. On the other hand, you seem to view the TIME piece as totally objective, and refuse to accept any other view which calls its article into question. Hopefully the end result of our discussions here will result in a better, more objective, and more comprehensive article.

But please remember: aircraft articles are by necessity mostly summaries. We can't deveote detialed coverage to just to controversies in any article. Theses articles aren't meant to be consumer-advocate type analyses of aircraft, but simply an overview of an aircraft, its histroy, capabilites, and service. When a section on a certain topic overwhelms the rest of the article, then we usually split it off to its own section. I have proposed doing just that with the incidents and accidents section, as has been done with the JAS 39 Gripen article. This allows greater room for detailed coverage of an issue, with just short summariesin the main article. By the way, it might do you some good to read the JAS 39 article, and the coverge on its long development and accidents. ALthough it's a different kind of aircraft (combat fighter, not transport), it has a similar long development history, and has attracted much criticism from the local media, alot of it unfounded or simplistic. - BillCJ 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just read through it and the links. WOW! That is exactly the kinds of problems we're talking about here (fatal problems that weren't known in testing), only the V-22's are fatal due to no ejection seats. In addition, the death count is high due to a single crash involving a full load of Marines. I'm certainly not saying their lives are not important, but that the numbers seem higher compared to fighters because more people are on board. Additionally, any such comparison is an apples to oranges...ok, fine apples to telephones. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Describing it as a "hit piece" is POV. That the article has its own POV contrary to the military establishment does not invalidate its complaints. If the arguments aren't the most logically presented, or oversimplified, it does not necessarily invalidate them, either. Invalidating them in this manner is POV. POV doesn't have to be the actual text of the article, but can also be what information is presented and what information isn't. By nature of the guidelines, the controversies on the Osprey program are notable and the attempt to downplay them because they aren't agreed with is POV. But then, neither should the article cater to them, which would also be POV. The problem is how to discuss both the aircraft and the controversy in NPOV, rather than, "the greatest thing since sliced bread," or, "deathtrap." Currently, the Controversy section simply refers to the cost and duration of the program, when the controversy is much greater than mere cost. That seems to be an oversimplification in itself. --Born2flie 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the insight
2. 250 deaths?!? yikes! but still far less than the Osprey
3. "hit piece" might be POV, but this is the talk page. I wouldn't advocate putting it on the article's page.
4. Concur. A balance between detractors and supporters would be ideal.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

250 deaths during operational use due to a problem the manufacturer was apparently aware of but failed to rectify. --Born2flie 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just mention the V-22 has no autorotation and as such was criticized by TIME, but point out it is physically impossible using a physics-related source? The article even mentioned "Unable to rewrite the laws of physics...[autorotation] was no longer a formal requirement." Although I think that sentence was more or less written to ridicule the Pentagon, this quote could be a balancing point if preceded by an explanation elaborating the difficulty followed by a physics-related source.--BirdKr 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight fellow wiki editors, or the military-industrial lobby will win and this article will fall to wikiality, and corporate interests will re-write the history of the V-22. There are a lot of powerful interests that would like to see the V-22's problems swept under the rug. Dalebert 10/18/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Light armament on V-22

The V-22 has weak armament, that important information is also absent from the text.

Also as armament the V-22 boasts only one 7.62 mm machine gun pointing backward that can only be fired when the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered.

Please, do write back in order to add this information in manner we can all agree on EconomistBR 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is not supposed to be a gunship/attack craft. The V-22 is mainly a cargo/troop transport. Some more guns like on some utility helicopters would be a nice addition though. -Fnlayson 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that the V-22 is not supposed to be a gunship. The fact is that the infomation about V-22's armament and armament location is missing and absent.

I request permission to add that information to the text.

EconomistBR 19:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to post new topics at the bottom of the page - it makes it easier for others to find and follow new posts.

I clearly remember seeing illustrations from the 1980s showing V-22s with nose-mounted cannon mounted in a turret, much like on attack helicopters. THis is because it was clearly recognized even then that the V-22s configuration made traditional armament locations unusable. ALso, a turret can automatically be stopped when its fire gets close to the props, which is difficult for door gunners to do, and why they aren't used. (Bombers in WWII had such features to prevent the gun turrets from shooting of the tails!) Also, I don't believe the CH-46 carries much in armament, though they can use side door guns.

THe primary reason, to my knowledge, that the V-22 never received a gun turret is funding - such turrets are more expensive that a pintle-mounted door gun operated by a gunner. However, door gunners usually can't handle more than a 7.62 mm gun in a moving aircraft - that's why the ramp gun is not bigger. A turret gun would be of larger caliber (propably 20mm gatling - 3 or 6 barrel), and more effective. But Congress won't fund it, so the V-22 has a single ramp gun (it could still have the ramp gun with the turret). THis is not an unusual situation - every aircraft would be much better if funding were unlimited - but it's not. Every service has to make do with what can be afforded, and the V-22 is not unique in this.

As a general comment, every dollar spent on a aircraft for the military is accounted for, and much of what is spent is required by Congress. They know where the money went, and why it was spent, so to just throw out numbers without explaining where it all went, and why, is disingenuous - but that is how hit pieces work. In addition, everytime COngress deleys an aircraft's funding, or pusshes it's entry date back, or reduces the buy to save money, the individual cost will go up. Also, when an aircraft is delayed by 10-15 years, as in the V-22s case, the avionics have to be updated or changed to keep up with technology. That costs more money too. It is well documented, but not by TIME, that the V-22s developmemnt was only underfunded during the 90s. It's hard to carry out proper testing when the Government won't pay for it. That's partly why some of the flaws went unnoticed for so long. But you don't read that in TIME either. There's enough blame in the V-22 story to go around, but most of the problems have been solved. THe V-22 is now entering combat service, and you can be sure TIME will cover every problem the machines have. YOu'll probably have to read elsewhere about its successes.

So, if you do add infornamtion on the guns, try to make an effort to present the whole story, not just the simplistic view presented in TIME. There is plenty of info out there on the Net to present a balanced view, something TIME hasn't done here. Also, remember these articles are works in progress, and just because something hasn't been covered doesn't mean it's been left out intentionally. - BillCJ 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned the .308 ramp gun and future upgrade 0.50 one in the design section. I'm not finding anything on gun models though. :( -Fnlayson

Great I think we should add the other side of the story. The fact is that thousands of people are reading the TIME's article today and none are reading the other side.

About the armament, from the TIME article: "General James Jones insisted the plane be outfitted with a hefty, forward-aimed .50-cal. machine gun. The Marines saluted, awarding a $45 million contract in 2000 for the development of a swiveling triple-barreled .50-cal. machine gun under the V-22's nose. But the added weight (1,000 lbs., or 450 kg) and cost ($1.5 million per V-22) ultimately pushed the gun into the indefinite future. So 10 V-22s are going to war this month, each with just a lone, small 7.62-mm machine gun mounted on its rear ramp."

Retired General James Jones also said: "A rear-mounted gun is better than no gun at all, but I don't know how much better"

Summarizing, the Congress did fund better armament and a General from the Marines did request better armament.

So should the Marines general be quoted??

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-6,00.htmlEconomistBR 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok nice change, I don't agree with the phrasing of the "future upgrade", but I am not going to bicker about that. I consider the armament matter closed.

EconomistBR 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, another problem with the TIME article. NOT A SINGLE U.S. transport helicopter has a chin or forward looking gun (see MH-53, CH-47, UH-1). Of course the Apache and Cobra have them, but they are attack helicopters, not transports. Again, the argument is a comparison of apples to t-shirts, not apples to apples. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub-heading

BTW "However, door gunners usually can't handle more than a 7.62 mm gun in a moving aircraft - that's why the ramp gun is not bigger." I beg to differ. The MH-53 can carry 3 .50-cal machine guns, so your argument there is lost. The reason given in the TIME article is weight, and this is a MAJOR problem for aircraft long in the making. As an example, an AC-130 cannot take off with a full load of fuel, ammunition, and crew. While its tanks can handle more, it is impossible to generate enough lift to keep the aircraft stable and in the air. The same holds true for the Osprey. If they approach an LZ and it's hot, the pilots are going to be focused on getting out, not on firing back. They also aren't going to go in alone very often, so others can fight back. Additionally, 2-3 Ospreys can circle a target (a.k.a. a wagon wheel) and their tail gunners can go to town (can't mention solutions through tactics in the TIME article, then it wouldn't be a hit piece). Again, this TIME article is HOPELESSLY biased.

For a small bit of info, I used to work at Hurlburt Field and worked on the logistics of getting it set up there. I also know one of the people who was killed in Arizona in one of the crashes. I admit I have a vested interest in making this machine work, but I also think that information without perspective is nearly worthless, at best, and mostly misleading. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, 2-3 Ospreys can circle a target (a.k.a. a wagon wheel) and their tail gunners can go to town...

Why doesn't the Army do this with the UH-60s and CH-47s? Because it isn't an answer or a solution. Don't expect to see Ospreys doing this anytime in the near future either. Usually, when threats come up, the aircraft is moving towards or past them. In this case, the ramp door gun is a no-brainer, to suppress as the aircraft attempts to move past, but the article, as well as the TIME article ignored or missed that the side door guns were rejected because their field of fire was restricted by the engine nacelles. Not to mention that they would have to be stowed and the windows closed during airplane mode. THAT is why the Marine General wanted the gun operated by the pilots. --Born2flie 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Army do this with the UH-60s and CH-47s?

I don't know about CH-47s, but I know for a fact that UH-60s already do this and it was prominently displayed in the movie Blackhawk Down as they orbited their objective (admittedly a bad example as they were shot down, but the tactic is in use). Additionally, the "wagon wheel" is a fighter concept, not helicopters. I chose its usage because I was familiar with the terminology and felt it best explained the technique. For clarification, they can also use other tactics to negate this weakness, this was only one example.

As for why they want an external gun, I say more power to them, but tradeoffs in weight for a transport aircraft of any kind is usually going to side with cargo rather than armament. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As a previous enlisted crewmember (and door gunner) on Army UH-60s and also a Flight Instructor (FI) for other enlisted crewmembers, prior to becoming an Army pilot, I cannot express how ridiculous your argument sounds. From a movie, are you even attempting to be serious in discussing tactics?! I'm incredulous. And you give no credibility to Mr. Thompson...we're done here. --Born2flie 07:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the door gunners. I admit I was just speculating, but trying to give some perspective and alternative views. I TOTALLY agree on the Time article being a hit piece. Makes you wonder how many families beck here in the US are now scared to death because their sons and daughters, or husbands and wives, or parents, work on, fly, or are transported in V-22s. And since familes can email their concerns to those in Iraq, those brave Marines now have so much more on their minds now. Good work Time. Thanks for supporting the troops so well. ~ BillCJ 04:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have 4+ hours of flying experience in the MH-53 and I got to go out to the range and see these guys firing their weapons. The ramp gun was a .50 cal, so, I see little reason that a .50 cal couldn't be mounted on the V-22 other than it simply hasn't proven to be necessary. Additionally, helicopters generally don't travel alone and fly in ways that their guns support each other, especially over a target/insertion point. Realize it isn't just Marines in these planes. The Air Force has them too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the AF does have V-22s also, but the Marine V-22s are on their way to Iraq right now. That's why this hit piece came out when it did. I'm sure we'll get more when the CV-22s go into the field. Won't that be fun! - BillCJ 05:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While some here may consider the armament issue closed, BAE Systems does not, and has developed a retractable, belly-mounted gun turret with 360-degree coverage, See http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=86606&session=dae.29931534.1191427266.xv5shn8AAAEAAE3tFOMAAAAN&modele=release . - BillCJ 16:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Born above, I agree the article needs to mention why door guns can't be used on the V-22. IIRC, the Wired article was more thorough than the Time piece, but as I haven't read it in a while, I don't remember if it mentions why either. With all the sources we have, and there are more out there too, we should be able to write a good paragraph on the issue. - BillCJ 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Accident spin-off page

I've started the Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey page as a direct copy of that section from this article. I havne't cut back the info here yet, but will do so if there are no problems raised. I've also not tried to format the new page beyond what the section was here, but will follow Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen when I do so. - BillCJ 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Time's "goofy cover story"

Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has written a criticism of Time's article. It's not a detailed, point-by-point critique, but he does deal briefly with some of the issues we have discussed here.

V-22 Exposé ...

WOW! Excellent counterpoints! — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. It's really sad to see the level of sensationalism that Time has stooped to. When articles are written to boost flagging sales instead of as intellectually honest investigations into truth, real journalism is dead. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, I actually happened upon this while researching another unrelated article. I totally disagree with most of it, but such is the way of things here. Time is a WP:RS, not a perfect source. Anynobody 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This may sound dumb, but why can't it auto rotate? I mean if the engines fail, the rotors are still going to spin for a few moments just like a chopper's. If it has an APU, the computer would have power and recognize that the engines aren't working and thus translate the pilot's controls more appropriately. Akradecki can prove/disprove me when I say that it seems like one handles the controls very differently in an autorotation situation. (Actually with the wings; Autorotation and deployment of flaps seems like a good way to get some lift.) Anynobody 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I wrote a simplified explanation of the whys earlier on this talk page, under the "Osprey doesn't have autorotation" section above. There are aspects that I didn't cover, because I wanted to keep it simple. Things like disc loading have a big effect on autorotations. Controlability of the aircraft in auto is another major factor, and was a big problem for designers helicopters with coaxial main rotors and cynchropters (such as the Kmax), because anti-torque control is not dependent on a tail rotor, and actually becomes reversed for a coaxial design. In a helo, the controls really aren't handled "differently", just more carefully. It depends on what helicopter. A small R22, for example, has so little mass - thus momentum - in the rotor system that you have to essentially slam the collective down so that you don't loose rotor rpm. In a larger helo, you just lower collective enough to maintain both rotor rpm and the desire rate of descent. One other note to put things into perspective...autos aren't always the "safe" thing that the article makes them out to be. Plenty of people have died as a result of autos gone wrong...especially in the R22. If you loose rotor RPM, you're nothing more than an expensive rock. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is speculation, but the blades of the rotors are not a single "flat" piece like traditional helicopter blade, but are a 3D curve. They are also MUCH less flexible and counterrotating (they rotate in opposite directions. While the engines are connected, it is likely that a single engine cannot power both sets of blades. Again, speculation, but an educated guess. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They are good educated guesses, but there there are a couple of slight issues. It can fly on one engine as their powertrains are linked, and if tandem rotation meant no autorotating then Ka-50 and Kamov pilots in general have dealt with it fine (So the V-22 not being able to autorotate would be no differnt than a CH-47 or even the helo it was designed to replace, the CH-46.) I had assumed that the blades articulated somewhat like a helicopter's while hovering since control surfaces like rudders and elevators need air moving over them to work (for example the Harrier's thrusters on its wingtips maneuver it when hovering). Anynobody 05:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A closeup of an engine and its blades

I also assume there is something to do with that, but the image here doesn't appear to have full directional control. Additionally, the blades are a LOT less flexible than most helicopters (like they are static and NOT very flexible at all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long to reply, I've been rather busy. Actually the blades do articulate, which is controlled similarly to a collective. I'm not sure if flexibility has anything to do with helicopter control. If you look at the hub a cylindrical assembly connects it to the blade. This twists the blade, just like a helicopter's main rotor blades. Anynobody 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)(This is also a handy feature for a propeller driven airplane to have too, which is why I assumed they articulated.) Anynobody 05:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice link! I learn something new every day... :-)

Letter to TIME Magazine

I wrote TIME magazine saying that 2 Wikipedians called the article a "hit piece". On the message I also mentioned the refusal to quote Retired Marine General and the refusal to mention the controversy about the autorotation. EconomistBR 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm famous... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is the flyaway cost equal to the unit cost of an Aircraft?

Please refer to the "V-22 Osprey cost" section for more information. EconomistBR 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV banner and Disputed banner

Even though the POV banner and the Disputed banner have been created there is no debate going on about them or trying to reach an agreement about them.

I am satisfied with the Controversy Section at its present form. The autorotation paragraph balances itself out with the quotation from the pilot, therefore I think that the paragraph is neutral.

The paragraph quoting the retired Marine General doesn't establish a fact, it simply points to a controversy not covered in the article.

Boeing praised the 50. nose gun in 2000: "The system provides the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft's survivability in hostile actions." http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/tilttimes/sep00.pdf p.2

But the gun was heavy and expensive so it has been pushed into a indefinite future. EconomistBR 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much said all we care to say. The discussions above have pretty well covered things. I'd rather bury the horse myself... -Fnlayson 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am okay with removing the POV and Disputed banner. The separate article that Bill created with all the V-22 accidents and incidents is very appropriate. As long as the link to the accidents and incidents article stays, and nobody starts trimming back the accidents and incidents article, the topic has been covered. Dalebert 10/18/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since a whole new paragraph has been added to the controversy section, the paragraph IMO is valid and adds another layer of information about the V-22 EconomistBR 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Engines fail or stall

This is a pretty standard error, and criticism. I quote from the article ... "On April 8, 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, and stalled its right rotor at 245 feet, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all nineteen on board." If the writer's intention was to indicate that the right engine failed, then that's an engine failure, NOT A "STALL". However, in tilt-rotor aircraft it is possible to aerodynamically stall the rotor disc as a whole (I believe), and with it stall the right wing too probably, which would not result in a roll, but rather a spin ( a spin is a stall accompanied by adverse yaw ). It is a point that is erred on by writers time and time again ... engines FAIL ... wings (and lifting surfaces) STALL. I am not familiar with this event, but the description makes me suspicious that the writer has made this common error and this section should be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this case, but there is in fact such a thing as an engine stall. This means that the engine, for one reason or another, kind of chokes - not that it loses its lift. But if this occurs on a V-22, I guess you could say that 'one stall leads to another'. LarRan 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you might want to check your facts. engine stall applies to reciprocating engines. These are turbine engines, and while a turbine engine can experience a "Compressor stall", that's not the issue here. "Stall" here is an aerodynamic stall, and has nothing to do with engine issues. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who enjoys doing spins (to be able to control something that is at the edge of being out of control...what fun!), Akradecki's assessment is spot on! For a wing to "fail", we would be talking about structural separation of some kind. For one engine to "fail", that would mean a single engine failed and the other would still provide power (the two props are linked), it also seems unlikely as engine performance was never discussed. This seems to be a textbook case of a vortex ring state, a phenomenon common to helicopters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@ J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST)

Hum... you comment has nothing to do with the POV banner and Disputed banner. I am creating a new sectionEconomistBR 22:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@J.A.Ireland

Did you feel "belittle" by my above comment?? BillJC you have to be kidding me!!!!' I did add the "hum...". I had to inform him, afterall I was basically altering his comment. Dear God, do I have to ask for arbitration even to create a new section??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you just need to make the section; no extra comments needed at all. It's something we all do all the time, without the need for comments. - BillCJ 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Flying on one x

I notice that BillCJ rightly removed an assertion that it can't fly on one engine, it can. However the way I read its helicopter controls to work flying with one proprotor assembly would be almost impossible. Not only do the two rotors counter torque forces, but they appear to oppose each other while maneuvering (ie to yaw right, the right prop rotor moves back, the left one forward). Could this be what some people mean by one one engine, even if it's technically incorrect? Anynobody 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The proprotors are connected and powered together. There would have to be a major failure to decouple them. I imagine there's a gearbox or something to adjust power/speed at each rotor. -Fnlayson 04:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In helicopter mode, it really is no different from a CH-47 that's flying sideways. If, for some reason, you had a shaft failure on a Chinook, it would indeed be impossible to fly on one rotor, simply because the CG and CL are so far removed from each other. I think part of the problem here is a perception one on the part of folks who aren't familiar with the power train. They think in terms of a standard turboprop, one prop per engine, and if the engine quits, then there's no power to the prop. With the interconnected drive train, the principle is the same as a Chinook, or really any twin-engine helicopter. The rotor system is driven by whichever engine is left (and the one left must have some serious OEI excursion margins!) through the connected drive train. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • • For those of us who've never torn down and rebuilt a turboshaft, could you remind me what "serious OEI excursion margins" means? I'm gussing it has something to do with emergency power on the remaining engine? - BillCJ 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is the misunderstanding between "engine" and "rotor". The two are not interchangeable. If a rotor fails at low altitude while in helicopter mode, bye-bye Osprey (not meaning to be callous here, but it is reality). If an engine fails, it may or may not be able to do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • • Agree there may be some confusion on terminology here. THat's why I asked for a source: if it says engine failure, then it's wrong as I understand it. I'm not going to guess what a writer may have meant - if he meant something else, than he's a sloppy writer, and shouldn't be covering military or avitation topics. - BillCJ 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Further comment, have gone and read what Bill actually reverted. Bill was right in demanding a source for this, and any statement about such a thing will need some qualification. The ability for any twin-engined helicopter (regardless of single or multiple-rotor) to hover on one engine is a combination of helicopter load, density altitude and whether the hover is in or out of ground effect. There is a good reason that the RFM for any helicopter has rather complex performance charts, including OEI hover charts. For instance, a loaded Bell 222 can't sustain level flight, much less a hover, on one engine on a really hot day, but the descent rate will be gradual and will allow a good opportunity to pick the place for an emergency landing. On the other hand, lightly loaded and on a cool day, and with a bit of a head wind, the same ship will lift off with as little as 65% torque on one engine. Same, I'm sure, goes for the V-22. So to say it "can't hover on one engine" is meaningless without more information...what DA conditions? What load? In or out of ground effect? The problem here is not the actual performance of the V-22, it's that people who don't really know what they're talking about get a hold of such statments, take them out of context and without the necessary qualifying statments, and read a whole lot of meaning into them that really isn't justified, essentially twisting them to make a political point. And that's exactly the kind of propaganda crap that has no place in an encyclopedia article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a roter failure (assuming we mean complete failure here) on a Huey or Blackhawk mean bye-bye copter, just as with the Chinook as Alan mentioned? Again, I think there is a tendency by criticts of the Osprey to have expectations no helicopter ever built could meet. At least airplanes can continue to fly without engines/propellors, and the Osprey has that advantage when in airplane mode (or the time to transition to it). THis makes it safer than any Chinook flying at max speed over enemy territory that might be hit by enemy fire, because: One, it flys faster, thus is a harder target to hit, and Two, it has wings, the Chinook does not. - BillCJ 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by rotor failure. With most helicopters, unless the rotor system separates from the aircraft or the rotor blades are shredded beyond a certain point, the aircraft still has enough capability to effect a survivable landing. Driveshafts failing simply necessitate an autorotation. Freewheeling units failing mandate a power on landing. So, it really depends on what you mean by a rotor failure. --Born2flie 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if people have a hard time distinguishing the line between the two (airplane and helicopter). I'm pretty sure BillCJ is right, rotor failure is a show stopper. Anynobody 05:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People expect a multiengined airplane to keep flying like this B-17 did.

I agree with the change made by BillCJ but that sentence needs citation, it should be very easy to find citation for that line. EconomistBR 06:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding a citation, as such claims should be cited, and I should have noticed it needed a citation myself. As a well-known design feature, I was surprised that it wasn't already mentioned in the "Design" section. If we can find some sourced details, we can place them in that section, and add the repeat citation tag to the line in "Controversy". - BillCJ 06:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you guys were aware, but the XV-15 had an in-flight engine failure on 5 December, 1979:

XV-15 aircraft N702NA, on approach to Arlington Municipal Airport experienced an engine failure. It was reported that the chase aircraft had observed smoke trailing from the right nacelle at about the same time that the XV-15 flight crew heard a screeching noise, followed by the sudden stoppage of the right engine. The flight crew declared an emergency and were cleared for immediate landing as emergency vehicles were positioned along the runway. The failed engine was immediately disengaged from the drive system by the automatic clutch, allowing the operating left engine to drive both proprotors by transmitting power through the cross-shaft to the right proprotor. The drive system and flight controls worked as planned and a single engine run-on landing was completed with the nacelles set at 70 degrees without further complications. This unplanned event, although poorly timed because of the workshop, demonstrated both the benign impact that an isolated, single engine failure would have on the tilt rotor aircraft, and the proper functioning of the crossshafting during an engine-out emergency.

From the NASA XV-15 history pdf [3] --Cefoskey 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Icing

I've removed the following section from the text:

One of the basic design advantages of the V-22 was its ability to self-deploy or fly overseas or over other long distances with aerial refueling, allowing for quick insertion into theatre. VMM-263 originally was expected to get to Iraq that way. The squadron, based at MCAS New River, N.C., made two transcontinental deployments during its workup for Iraq. But icing has proved to be problematic on the V-22 and marred the self-deployment of two V-22s from Marine Tilt-rotor Test and Evaluation Sqdn. 22 (VMX-22), that flew the Atlantic to appear at the July 2006 Farnborough International Air show in England. Ice ingestion caused compressor stalls in one of the Osprey’s engine and its pilots landed in Iceland as a precaution. Condensation at high altitudes intruding into nacelle ice protection control units, master ice protection control boxes and blade de-ice distributors, for example, has at times shorted out those devices, which detect ice and feed electricity to heating elements. The ice protection failures shouldn’t affect Osprey operations in Iraq, but have resulted in all 10 of VMM-263’s Ospreys being rated "Partial Mission Capable" rather than "Full Mission Capable," a sore point for commanders and Marine leaders. These same icing issues caused the abandonment of self-deployment to combat in Iraq for its initial deployment, instead the Marines shipping the Ospreys aboard the USS Wasp

While it is extremely well-written, the piece only focuses on one reason for changing the deployment method. The article cited gives a lengthy coverage to the other reasons for the deployment, including quoting Marine Col. Matthew Mulhern: Mulhern said a more important reason for sending VMM-263 by ship was that "it takes about every C-130 (refueling tanker) they’ve got on the East Coast to move 10 Ospreys over there, and those guys are employed. They’re doing other things. We know we can do it. (But) do we stop doing all the C-130 stuff we’re doing already? Evidently there was a ship available, so they made the decision to use it."

The Rotor & WIng article is actually fairly well-balanced in its coverage of the Osprey, and I'd recommend that all the editors here read it if they haven't all ready. It's quite a contrast to the Time piece. While it doesn't sugar-coat the Osprey's problems, it doesn't focus exclusively on them either. - BillCJ 16:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. Also I think the Controversy section is fairly balanced now, except for maybe the gun part. Both sides of the autorotation argument are presented. -Fnlayson 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote that entry in the controversy section what I was trying to highlight was that the V-22 was being fielded with these known icing issues (the detail was intended to showcase how it was an actual design issue with the de-icing system itself being affected by ice, not merely icing on standard parts). Notably, I think that the most important item cited, and I believe should be mentioned somewhere in the wiki entry, is the line: "all 10 of VMM-263’s Ospreys being rated "Partial Mission Capable" rather than "Full Mission Capable." Simply stating that icing issues exist, and only played a part in shipping the Ospreys instead of self-ferry, sort of glosses over the mission capability issue altogether. --Cefoskey 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Oct. 4 incident was considered minor and moved to Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey. -Fnlayson 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)