Talk:Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Fires

Should the Dec 2006 nacalle fire be seperated from the 29 March 2007 hydraulic leak and engine-compartment fire? That'd make two 1 line entries. -Fnlayson 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2000 Event

It is commonly known within the aerospace industry (I previously worked as a subcontractor on a product for the V22) that the V22 has a problem with its sink rate being compatible with combat conditions (see http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm then scroll to section 2 OPERATION INTO Vortex Ring State) which contradicts what is stated in the wikipedia article: "enhancing its ability to enter and depart hostile landing zones quickly and safely" especially in combat, part of the reason for its withdrawal from the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) helicopter bid. 10:48 GMT, 16th June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.141.210 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what you have linked to is a blog, which is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Looking at the citation in the article, it seems to be a year more recent than the blog posts (2005 vs. 2004) and includes information that states a more recent V-22 test has been made that indicates VRS is actually quite hard to enter. Can you identify more recent information published in reliable sources that counter this? That would be a help. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other sources to resolve the differences between Wired.com article (7/2005) and G2mil article (12/2003)? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008 incident

I've removed the following text:

On 21 June 2008 a Marine V-22 crew experienced a serious engine problem which forced the crew to quickly find a place to land. An internal Marine memorandum described the problem as follows:

WHILE IN FLIGHT, PILOTS NOTICED THAT THE R/H ENGINE TORQUE WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 66 PERCENT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO HOLD ALTITUDE, AND HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN THE FIELD. AFTER REPLACEMENT OF THE ENGINE, A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED TO INSPECT THE ENGINE INTERNALLY. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT COMPRESSOR BLADES WERE DAMAGED FROM POSSIBLE FOD INGESTION. A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION OF THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER SHOWED THAT THE LINER HAD BROKEN INTO PIECES. THESE PIECES ENTERED INTO THE GAS GENERATOR, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. INTERNAL FAILURE OF THE ENGINE CAUSED FOR A

LOSS OF ALTITUDE CONTROL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO STABILIZE OR HOLD AN ALTITUDE, AND WAS FORCED TO LAND. THIS COULD BE FATAL TO PERSONNEL ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT, AND CAUSE DETRIMENTAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT. THE MISSION WAS ABORTED DUE TO THE FAILURE DefenseTech, July 14, 2008

To me, this is a minor, non-notable incident, at least as written. Also, all-caps text is unacceptable from a style viewpoint, and it's generally not necessary to include text whole like that. Second, the source appears to be an editorial or blog-type entry, and as such I am not certain its info qualifies as a reliable source, as thus cannot assert notability due to its bias. I do note that only the all-caps USMC report was included in the added material, so perhaps Cefoskey realized this as well. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the all-caps text intact due to the fact that it was directly block-quoted from the memorandum in this style. I felt this report was noteworthy because it highlighted the fact that the V-22 was unable to contiune flight with one engine operable and the second engine at 66%. Recall that V-22 proponents claim the aircraft can maintain controlled flight on a single engine.--Cefoskey (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]