# Osprey problem helicopter plane a kit?



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

Time magazine recently had a picture of the Osprey, a badly designed helicopter/plane that cost 20 Billion. Will this uncontrollable plane be a kit?


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

This 1/48 scale Italeri kit has been out for quite a few years now....not a bad kit at all. There might be more...but this is one I know about.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

There have in fact been several kits of it in 1/72 and 1/48 for nearly two decades. I built the 1/48 Testors/Italeri kit when we were still living in our previous house over 15 years ago.

And that Time article is mostly FOS. (_OMG, it doesn't have a forward-firing gun!!! _That's teh suxxorz! Yeah, neither do any of the helicopters it's replacing, so? _OMG, it kicks up a dust cloud when it hovers!! _Name one helicopter that doesn't. About the only point they made that wasn't sensationalistic hyperbole was the lack of autorotation, which _is_ a problem.

_Every_ aircraft ever built has a test period and teething problems. Nothing comes off the drawing board perfect. Test pilots were killed by the B-29, the F-100, the f-111... 

Nice slew of editorial pejoratives in your post, though, Bats.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

The desire for a plane-a-copter has been around since the fifties. Maybe this time they'll get it to production.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

umm, it IS in production and will shortly be in service full time.


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 30, 2007)

And with that intro into service more of our boys in service will die, this aircraft ( and I use the term very loosely ) is a death trap.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

What, two or three crashes in 20 years and it's a deathtrap? 

More F-100s crashed in the test program than that.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The Osprey program has been dogged by controversy since its inception, but this isn't the place to debate the issue -- remember Da Rulz!

We don't want another locked thread, do we?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> What, two or three crashes in 20 years and it's a deathtrap?
> 
> More F-100s crashed in the test program than that.


I seem to recall the F100 having a bit of a "death trap" reputation, too.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

IIRC, the Boeing 707 had 11 fatal crashes and went on to be one of the all-time great commercial jets.

Development crashes are no indicator of an aircrafts operational performance. That is WHY they are in "development", to work the bugs out. The more radical the technology, the greater number of problems that will have to be overcome. (BTW, this concept has been around at least since WWII when the Germans considered it)

Unless you are reading "Aviation Week", most news media sources lack the technical or historical knowledge to accurately advise the public on aerospace weapons programs. Instead they go with whichever POV achieves their political goals.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I think the question here is "what is a reasonable development time?" The Osprey's development has been going on for years, and it's being deployed while there are still arguably valid questions about it's reliability and operational safety.

This isn't a political post - it's just a discussion of an aircraft. From what I've read, it's a maintenance hog, and the lack of autorotation capability is a significant safety issue. Dick Cheney tried to kill the program when he was Secretary of Defense many years ago. My fear is that a substandard vehicle is being pushed into service for reasons which I won't speculate about here. The concept is fascinating, but I'm not sure the aircraft itself is operationally sound. No matter which way you slice it, it's an interesting modeling subject.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

What media "political goals" are attached to a specific model of aircraft? Just curious.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

I was onboard the USS Wasp when an Osprey did - iirc - its first nighttime shipboard attempt at a takeoff/landing. Don't recall how it went, apart from no crash or splash, but since we ended up only carrying helos and flying targets - Harriers - after that, I assumed it didn't go well as some hoped (I wasn't flight deck so topside was off-limits during flight ops).


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Zorro said:


> What media "political goals" are attached to a specific model of aircraft? Just curious.


Those scribes who are vehement anti-war, those who would rather spend money on social causes than defense, and those who have their own pet beliefs. Just like those who call a Colt .45 semi-auto a "revolver" or any .22 rifle an "AK47".
In other words many who have either NO _knowledge _of the subjct or let their own feelings and ideology dictate their message.

Even just those who were writing about woman's fashions or Broadway last week and were given a new assignment. Much like this forum when their are so many opinions just on an airbrush choice. Personality HAS to slip in somehow.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

the Dabbler said:


> Those scribes who are vehement anti-war, those who would rather spend money on social causes than defense, and those who have their own pet beliefs.


Didn't answer the question. Why would those vehement anti-war, socialist, PETA loving writers at TIME magazine pick on one very specific _model_ of aircraft? I mean, why would they hate the _Osprey_ in particular? As opposed, say, to the latest model of Predator drones which they did a very positive article on recently.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

I noticed that I had stated several reasons, up to and including incompetence, and lack of knowledge of the subject, but you chose selected items to dispute. I will not discuss politics with you and I DID answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. So be it !
Or maybe you're just looking for another argument, OK, you win, you're right , God bless and keep you.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

spe130 said:


> From what I've read, it's a maintenance hog, and the lack of autorotation capability is a significant safety issue.


Getting back to TECHNICAL issues regarding the Osprey: Since the aircraft's design is by definition a compromise between an airplane and a helicopter, why would lack of autorotation be considered a significant liability? After all, no airplane can autorotate to a more-or-less safe landing if it loses power. Is it because the Osprey's dead-stick flight characteristics are less like those of a plane and more like those of a brick?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

scotpens said:


> Getting back to TECHNICAL issues regarding the Osprey: Since the aircraft's design is by definition a compromise between an airplane and a helicopter, why would lack of autorotation be considered a significant liability? After all, no airplane can autorotate to a more-or-less safe landing if it loses power. *Is it because the Osprey's dead-stick flight characteristics are less like those of a plane and more like those of a brick?*


That would pretty much be it. Basically, in a low-altitude power loss with the wings in anything less than full "airplane" position, the Pentagon has admitted that the condition would likely not be survivable. Autorotation was part of the original design spec - it was eliminated not because it wasn't necessary for safety reasons, but for budget reasons. Even with the wings in their full "airplane" configuration, it apparently doesn't glide all that well.

When you're being shot at, moving slow and attempting to land, it's not hard to lose power to your rotors...it happened quite often in Vietnam. Many lives were saved because autorotation allowed for hard but survivable landings, rather than just falling like a rock.

Helicopters can autorotate, airplanes can glide. The Osprey apparently just falls.

I'm a huge tech geek - I think the F-22 is about the coolest thing that's ever been built. I just don't like the idea of sending troops out with potentially substandard equipment. The recent "Time" article on the Osprey program was a fascinating read. (Article is here: http://www.time.com/time/2007/osprey/ for those interested - the link to the full text is at the bottom of the graphics)

A tilt-rotor aircraft is a fascinating concept. I'm afraid, however, that it's suffering from the problems that have plauged so many fascinating aircraft concepts over the years. Even those failed concepts are interesting model subjects, as John's collection of Luft '46 stuff attests.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Well, if SHADO could do it . . .?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Zorro said:


> What media "political goals" are attached to a specific model of aircraft? Just curious.


 Ya mean why would the left-wing press (and Time cretainly is that) go after any vulnerable individual military program they can? They smell blood, Scott, and they _love _a sensationalist story.

Why did the TV news in the 60s have a piece on how bad the F-111 was at LEAST weekly? "Another F-111 has crashed in test today!! OMG!! we're wasting money on this deathtrap!! How can the evil military waste money on this piece of garbage while people are homeless!1!!1?" 

Of course once the test program ironed out all the bugs, it became a perfectly reliable aircraft with a long healthy career.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Dick Cheney tried to kill the program when he was Secretary of Defense many years ago.


 Seriously, don't take that as meaning anything about the airplane itself. Cheney tried to cancel almost EVERYthing when he was SoD, regardless of the quality of the product! :lol: He was more or less just a finacial hatchetman.


----------



## the Dabbler (Feb 17, 2005)

Speaking of Time magazine, the one that is now screaming "Global Warming !!!", wasn't that the same mag that was crying "Ice Age Coming !!" back in the 70's ? So much for credibility.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

the Dabbler said:


> Speaking of Time magazine, the one that is now screaming "Global Warming !!!", wasn't that the same mag that was crying "Ice Age Coming !!" back in the 70's ? So much for credibility.


Are you implying that a bastion of American journalism is lying about reports written by the Pentagon? Interesting how some argue. Very few discussions of facts are involved.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Does anyone have Roy Clark's phone number?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

In regards to previous aircraft programs, does anyone here remember the furor over the development of the C-5? It was over budget, over weight, behind schedule and everyone was trying to kill it. Then came the C-17 and they might just as well have re-published all the old C-5 articles and changed "C-5" to "C-17". Or how about the F-18? Everyone just knew that it would never be able to perform its mission! And yet, here we are now with the F-18 E/F rolling off the lines and no complaints about its ability to accomplish its mission. The C-5 has also served long and well and now the C-17 has proved itself more than a worthy successor to the C-5.

The fact is that EVERY combat aircraft faces teething problems. Every single one of them begins life too heavy, every one is behind schedule and there are always cost overruns. These problems stem more from how the programs are competitively bid rather than from actual technical hurdles. But with time and almost without exception, everyone of them is "fixed" and becomes a fine addition to the US inventory.

The Osprey can't glide? So what? Damage those delicate blades on any helicopter and you have an instant coffin. What the Osprey does have is vastly superior speed, and I believe range, over the existing helicopters in the fleet. It is this speed that the military wants. Increased range also equates to increased loiter time too, something else that military planners want.

Oh, and one more thing, the props on the Osprey are geared to be driven by either one of the two engines in the event that one fails. Considering that they are located on opposite wing tips from each other, it is unlikely that any one hit would damage both, UNLIKE multi-engine helicopters which have the engines located side-by-side.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

$0.02

Is this aircraft supposed to go into combat?

Wasn't it to be a cargo ship?

Like the C-130 Hercules type planes that carry equipment?

I thought the Marines were already using them, by the way.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> $0.02
> 
> Is this aircraft supposed to go into combat?
> 
> ...


The plan has always been for the Osprey to go in to combat - it's supposed to replace the Vietnam-era choppers for troop deployment and extraction. It's far smaller than a C-130...doesn't even have a head.

The Marines have had them in active use for a while stateside, mostly for training, but this will be the first combat approval/deployment.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> It's far smaller than a C-130...doesn't even have a head.


Oh, OK.

I didn't mean to suggest they were the same size.
I was just using the C-130 as an example of use.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> Oh, OK.
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest they were the same size.
> I was just using the C-130 as an example of use.


Smaller cargo transport is one of it's potential mission uses, but from what I've read the major use is as a troop transport.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

The V-22 Osprey (Boeing/Bell) tilt-rotor aircraft is not badly designed. It originally had some design problems that have since been resolved. The aircraft design has been improved and is now considered to be safe. The plan is for the Marines and the USAF to use it. It's main advantages are it's shorter distances required for takeoff and landing than an airplane, but longer distances and higher speed than a helicopter. It's a medium-lift transport aircraft. It can carry 24 troops, or, 10,000 pounds of cargo. The cost is more like $80 million per aircraft. I think the aircraft is in production now. Some people I used to work with on modifying the MC-130H and AC-130U aircraft are now working on the V-22 type aircraft instead. The arcraft is in production.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The Osprey is replacing _helicopters_ like the CH-46, the Chinook, and the H-53. That will be its mission - cargo, deployment, troop insertion into hot zones. It's not going to do the C-130's mission, it's going to do a heavy helicopter's mission.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

X15-A2 said:


> In regards to previous aircraft programs, does anyone here remember the furor over the development of the C-5? It was over budget, over weight, behind schedule and everyone was trying to kill it. Then came the C-17 and they might just as well have re-published all the old C-5 articles and changed "C-5" to "C-17". Or how about the F-18? Everyone just knew that it would never be able to perform its mission! And yet, here we are now with the F-18 E/F rolling off the lines and no complaints about its ability to accomplish its mission.


 The press may not be, but everybody who used to fly a Tomcat is complaining about the superbug.  It ain't half the airplane the F-14 was.

As for development time and budgets, well, that's just the way modern a/c development works now. Never again will we see something go from concept to hardware in a few months like in WWII. The urgency isn't there any more, there are too many cooks in every pot, and Congress waffles back and forth on funding and requirements with each session, inevitably causing cost overruns and delays. Then they cut the number they'll allow built and tell the manufacturer to slow down production, and the cost per airplane skyrockets, and then they complain about the cost and how long it's taking!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Another interesting Osprey article. Looks like if anyone wants to build it in AF markings, they're going to have to fab up a forward gun: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071020/us_time/givingtheospreymorefirepower


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Time again. Pfah.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> Time again. Pfah.


Like it or not, the AF is looking for a large, forward firing gun that can be mounted to the Osprey. Those are the facts. The messenger is irrelevant, unless you can prove they fabricated the message sent by the AF to defense contractors...and the fact that the general in charge of the Marine Corps from 1999-2003 wanted a forward gun.

Anyone wanting to build an AF version should probably wait until we know what the new armament is going to look like.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

spe130 said:


> Like it or not, the AF is looking for a large, forward firing gun that can be mounted to the Osprey. Those are the facts. The messenger is irrelevant, unless you can prove they fabricated the message sent by the AF to defense contractors...and the fact that the general in charge of the Marine Corps from 1999-2003 wanted a forward gun.


But in 1974, TIME magazine reported that some scientists believed that the earth's atmosphere was cooling. So, _logically_ ... this article must be incorrect too.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's not the message I question, it's the way Time/life likes to paint it with pejoratives, gloom and doom. "Oooooooo! The plane that killed 30 people has yet another HUUUUUGE problem! Ooooooo!" 

It'll get sorted out, and Time/Life won't even report the solution, 'cause it won't paint the military/industrial system in a bad light.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Good news is no news JP. When have you ever saw a 'star trek is great' thread?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

This is how problems get fixed...squeaky wheels get all the grease.

And rejecting a gun mount because it cost $1.5M on an aircraft as expensive as a V-22 seems at least a bit cheap.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Thing is, at least for the USMC mission, the helicopters it's replacing _don't have a forward gun mount either_. So that problem seems more like an invented excuse to rag on the plane.

Now the USAF is another story, and if they require a gun on their version (which I believe is for Special Ops), I expect it'll happen eventually. But again, what aircraft are they currently using for SOF that the Osprey's replacing? Helicopters with no forward-firing mounted guns. :shrug:

I'd like to see how they WOULD mount a nose gun on that puppy, btw - it's only got about a foot of ground clearance!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

It sounds like they're talking about some sort of remote-controlled turret for a 360* field of fire. Maybe it could retract for landing like a B17 ball turret.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

B-17's ball turret wasn't retractable. But a B-24's was.


----------



## farmersamm (Sep 12, 2007)

The turret darn sure wasn't retractable.

My father was stationed in England during the war with the 401st bomb group. He worked as ground support. He still tells of when the 17's used to come in w/o landing gear and what happened to the lower ball turret gunners if they were caught in the turret.

Very often 20mm shells would damage the mechanism in the turret, or twist the metal so the gunner was trapped until the plane landed, and he could be cut out.

Sometimes they had to hose out the interior of the plane after a mission so that they could work on it. Dad was asked if he wanted to train to be a waist gunner. He turned it down (he enlisted, so had some leeway). I'm probably here on the planet because of that decision so many years ago.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John P said:


> B-17's ball turret wasn't retractable. But a B-24's was.


Arrgh...got those confused.


----------



## farmersamm (Sep 12, 2007)

spe130 said:


> Arrgh...got those confused.


No big deal. Was a long time ago. Very few people remember, or even care to know nowdays. S'Cool


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Wait a minute? Did TIME magazine say they were retractable? More proof of yellow journalism!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

farmersamm said:


> No big deal. Was a long time ago. Very few people remember, or even care to know nowdays. S'Cool


Eh, I know my planes better than that. Brain just cramped up. :drunk:


----------

