Home » Grand Ole Osprey » MV-22 Engine Problems in Anbar

MV-22 Engine Problems in Anbar

The Bell Helicopter-Boeing team that builds the V-22 Osprey will hold a press conference Tuesday at the Farnborough Air Show with a number of senior Marine corps officers playing the starring roles, presumably to extol the virtues of the V-22 and its performance in Iraq.

They might not want to volunteer the following recent incident so we’ll do it for them. It just so happens that on June 21 a Marine V-22 crew had a serious engine problem forced the crew to quickly find a place to land.

An internal Marine memorandum sent to us by a source describes
the problem delicately.

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.

In other words, the engine was breaking up. Not a good thing. But whats more interesting is the indication that the troubled engine was still putting out considerable thrust, but the aircraft couldnt maintain altitude. The V-22 is supposed to be able to fly at least some distance and land on just one engine, but in this case it was unable to hold altitude while still getting significant power from the damaged engine.

We asked the Marines for comment on this incident and this
is what they said:

An MV-22 Osprey executed a precautionary landing June 21 in al Anbar province due to mechanical problems. Shortly after departing a forward operating base, engine problems prompted the crew to land the aircraft.
No personal injury or damage to the aircraft was sustained. The aircraft was repaired onsite and flew back to Al Asad Air Base without incident. Hostile fire was not involved.
The cause of the mechanical problem is currently being investigated.
Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 is currently in their third month of deployment here at Al Asad Air Base. This is the first incident of its kind involving the MV-22 Osprey in Iraq.
The aircraft continues to complete its mission as designed and prove its value as an essential asset to the Marine Corps’ mission in Iraq.
“This environment is challenging for every aircraft
here in Iraq,“
said Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commanding officer, VMM-162. “The
maintenance Marines of VMM-162 have done an outstanding job keeping the Osprey in the fight through
preventative and routine maintenance.”

We should point out a couple of things. One, it may have been the first precautionary (can you say emergency) landing due to an engine failure, there have been a number of incidents of rapid, unscheduled stops due to failed gearbox oil cooling systems, as reported in March by the Star-Telegram.

Second, the Marines have acknowledged publicly that they’re wearing out V-22 engines far faster than anyone expected, both in the desert sands of Iraq and the far milder climes of the US.

– Bob Cox

July 14th, 2008 | Grand Ole Osprey | 395270 CommentsMV-22+Engine+Problems+in+Anbar2008-07-14+14%3A14%3A45Ward

{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }

JOB July 14, 2008 at 10:37 am: Never made sense to me how the plane could remain in control with just one engine. What would then counter-act the rotational torque generated by the one remaining engine? Seems like the osprey is still being oversold. That said, there have been some operational successes in theatre with this platform.
Reply
James July 14, 2008 at 10:44 am: this sounds to me almost like a manufacturers problem why wasnt the engine up to it.And why did it have problems staying airborn like what kind of load was it carrying?
also whats the word on the new engines?
ive said it once so ill say it again the osprey is a new tech its going to have alot of problems, its also over engineered like everything we make so everything will break but if allowed to proggress another 10-20yrs could be one of the biggest aircraft advances in recent yrs.
one more thing any word on if the DoD is gonna bring back the airship Transport idea its a great idea and with c5s wearingout and costing so much to run might be a good idea..hell is a good idea…
anyone say kratman?
Reply
Old Sailor July 14, 2008 at 11:00 am: Ok, so the engines are wearing out faster than expected. So what else is new? Any time you field a new system, things like this are going to occur no matter what the military or the contractors do. You can’t predict every bad thing that will occur.
I’m not usually a defender of military contractors, but I think we need to be realistic here about what is possible with hardware and software, either military or civilian. Things happen.
Reply
Dennis July 14, 2008 at 11:03 am: I am actually thinking that the Osprey is already obsolete technology. Even though it is still on the drawing board, take a look at this:
http://www.gizmag.com/falx-to-debut-hybrid-electric-tilt-rotor-aircraft-with-inbuilt-solar-c/9234/
No turbines on the wings, no gas lines going through a rotating coupling to the engines. No multiple hydraulic systems going through a rotating coupling to the engines. No 3000 PSI hydraulic system.
Just bulletproof electric engines….
Granted, there are power loses associated with mechanical to electric back to mechanical conversions. And electric engines are not light.
But the shear simplicity of the design makes the Osprey and Helicopters look complicated and dangerous……
Reply
Jeremy July 14, 2008 at 11:39 am: I would reserve judgment until hearing the particulars of the incident, especially what kind of FOD damage the engine suffered.
The problem with maintaining altitude on one fully-functional engine and one engine at 66% is worrying. However, that could be a result of the weight of the Osprey’s payload and/or the altitude it was flying at.
The engine wear issue may be a teething problem with a simple fix, like a change in maintenance procedures. The Osprey is a completely new type of aircraft, so there will be a certain amount of trial and error involved in learning how to employ and maintain it properly. Even if it weren’t a tilt-rotor, there are almost always bugs to be ironed out once you get a new aircraft into service. Give the engineers, maintenance crews, and pilots a chance to work on a solution.
Reply
Riceball July 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm: “Never made sense to me how the plane could remain in control with just one engine. What would then counter-act the rotational torque generated by the one remaining engine?”
I’d imagine that the pilot(s) would simply counter with lots and lots of rudder, I think this is the standard procedure for any twin engine aircraft that loses power in one engine.
Reply
Mike July 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm: JOB, it has a linkage arm that goes through the wing to supply power to the other rotor. So the case with this was 100% on one side, and %66 on the other, when the bird should fly on only %50, %50. As with any new aircraft, bugs are VERY common especially when operating in a new theater in a unique way.
Reply
Camp July 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm: JOB,
“During single engine operation, power is distributed from the remaining engine to both proprotors through the interconnecting drive shaft…”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-propulsion.htm
James,
There is a little news about an “airship Transport” over at DID… sort of.
“Boeings Skyhook Shot: Redefining the Aerial Heavy-Lifting Market?”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Boeings-Skyhook-Shot-Redefining-the-Aerial-Heavy-Lifting-Market-04970/#more-4970
Reply
James July 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm: ah sweet thanks camp always thought the tech had apps in crowded cities also up north and in delivering cargo to remote places think icetruckers
Reply
tipover July 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm: Sorry folks to burst your bubble but most twin engine aircraft cannot long maintain altitude in the best of conditions. In the case of high, hot (read high density altitude) and especially at max load a twin engine aircraft will at best have a controlled decent to a landing. No multi-engine rated pilot would be surprised that the aircraft could not maintain altitude.
The aircrew did a great job in this case. High density altitude has killed a great many pilots and passengers since the first Wright Flyer got off the ground.
Reply
C. Foskey July 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm: @ Jeremy
“Even if it weren’t a tilt-rotor, there are almost always bugs to be ironed out once you get a new aircraft into service. Give the engineers, maintenance crews, and pilots a chance to work on a solution.”
That might be a reasonable response – if the V-22 had not been in development for the past 20 years. Also, this is not an isolated incident with this aircraft if you have followed the V-22 since it entered service last year. There were problems (including an unscheduled landing in Jordan) on the very first missions.
Reading these issues hints at why the Army reversed course on the JHL contract after telling us at Sikorsky they were only looking for tilt-rotor solutions late last year.
Reply
David Barrett July 14, 2008 at 4:11 pm: @Mike: Do I understand you correctly to mean that had the engine failed completely it would have actually been preferable because then they’d just switch it off and use the single engine to power both blades 50/50? If so, shouldn’t there be some kind of manual override where you can explicitly turn off one engine and switch exclusively to the other — for situations just like this?
Reply
Michael July 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm: A Time magazine cover story, “V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame” discussed this on Sept. 26, 2007. Former SecDefense Cheney tried to cancel this aircraft four times and failed.
Reply
Brad July 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm: “That might be a reasonable response – if the V-22 had not been in development for the past 20 years.”
The ship the Osprey is replacing has been in service since Vietnam, almost forty years ago. They are still figuring that bird out, and not just the small things either. We’re talking Class A mishap incidents, a couple every few years.
This stuff is just par for the course.
Reply
Asterix July 14, 2008 at 6:31 pm: Could someone in the know briefly summarize the V-22′s options for ‘precautionary’ landings? Does it have any autorotation capability at all? Can it land horizontally on a runway, with the props at any angle? Or does it just fall out of the air if you cut the power off?
Reply
ron pond July 14, 2008 at 7:10 pm: Beening an old turbine engine mechanic.I think that there was something larger then sand entered the compressor section.if the compressor blades separated from the centrifugal compressor and it went on thur to the combustion chamber and split the diffuser section.granted sand can do helious damage to a turbine eng.I once had a overspeed on a t53-L-19 and it cleaned every blade out of the engine and made the tail boom look like swiss cheese and it cleaned out the turbine rotors too.I just hope that these people have a emergency procedure to get safely on the ground.all I can say is pull a diagnostic/investigation on the engine. and make sure no other engines in service are in that condition.
Reply
Mike C. July 14, 2008 at 7:54 pm: Fascinating post, and some apparently cogent and knowledgeable comments. Way the hell out of my field of endeavor, but I’m inclined to go with the “normal development trouble” camp at the moment. But my opinion is worthless, so you guys that actually know this stuff keep talking, please.
Reply
Brad July 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm: THe V-22 doesn’t have autorotation; the engines are theoretically enough to handle the plane on full power. Auto-rotation only helps if both engines fail.
With the engines widely spaced apart, like the A-10, small arms or even heavy weapons will likely only cripple one engine. With the synchronizing shaft between engines, as long as the drive train is intact, it should still function. But that issue is the same for all helicopters (Remember Blackhawk Down?). THe synchronizing shaft might even be more secure from fire on the Osprey than traditional helicopters because A) it is horizontally aligned and B) the engine nacelles provide some limited cover.
Reply
Brad July 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm: “the engines are theoretically enough to handle the plane on full power.”
Eh, that should say: theoretically, the Osprey can fly on a single engine.
My personal take with this is probably another software glitch: the computer thought the failing engine was functioning and so never boosted power from the functioning engine. That’s why it sunk. Could have been for any number of reasons. On the T-58-GE-16 (the old CH-46 engine), the gas generator tachometer (Ng tach) was placed on the oil pump assembly, so took an indirect reading of the Ng stage (gas generator stage, which ran the pump); if the Ng stage disintegrated, maybe a secondary system still functioned and fooled the gauges, thus the flight computer.
Reply
William Fury July 14, 2008 at 8:36 pm: As far as most jet engines used in Helos,are considered Gas Generators. There is No mechanical connection of the Drive shaft to the Rotor Shaft. The Gases generated by the Turbo Shaft engine is Directeted onto the Free power Turbine, Pinned to the Rotor Shaft, Through Transmissions, Which turns the Rotor Air Foils or Rotor Head. I have never seen the V22 Set up, But probably works Simular. The Reason for the No Mechanical Connection ,is To allow the Engine To fail or Shut Down without Dragging the Rotor System to a Halt. The A/C goes into Autorotation, The air passing through the Rotor Blades will keep them turning at flying speed ,(After Collective Is Dumped), ( Flight control that allows the vertical movement of the A/C)And the A/C can come to a Landing,without falling out of the Sky, like a Rock. I have No Knowledge of the V22, but might help you non aviation People understand, what the Pros are Talking about. (41 yrs Navy Helos)
Reply
William Fury July 14, 2008 at 9:01 pm: Addional info on Twin engine Ops. The old H3 Navy Model Had 2 Gas Generators, The T58, Like Brad Said, Ran about 106 % Flying, If one enge failed the Torqe meter would indicate O% and the T5 (Tail Pipe Temp)would go down. If the A/C was Empty Weight, You wouldnt know it shut down,only by those Gages.It could continue on to a Base, but we used to make a Precautionary landing to look see the Failed Engine and Contiue on to the Base or Nearest Military Base. Over water you Crossed you Fingers and legs till your feet was Dry (over Land ) Greatest Flying Machine Made!!
Reply
AC2 July 14, 2008 at 9:06 pm: “One, it may have been the first precautionary (can you say emergency) landing due to an engine failure”
It should also be noted that a precautionary landing and an emergency landing are two different things, for instance, an F-18 can have a single engine failure and and make a “precautionary” landing without declaring an “emergency”.
Reply
G July 14, 2008 at 11:27 pm: Why didn’t they do electric motor setup to begin with? It seems more logical with only an electrical cable running through the moving parts.
Or why didn’t they have a central engine driving shafts down the wing? That would also be less complicated.
Reply
Mike July 14, 2008 at 11:30 pm: @David Barrett
David, sorry I don’t know the details to the MV-22 and how its linkage shaft operates. I am pretty sure if the torque reaches below a certain point on one engine, the linkage arm would automatically engage, but I do not know if it can be manually operated, or runs all the time or not. My argument is that the V-22 is designed to fly with one engine completely dead via the linkage arm and one engine powering both engines in a 50 50 manner. I do not understand why it would not fly with one engine running at 66 percent and the other at full power. For all we know it CAN but a “precautionary landing” was done to be on the “Safe Side”.
Reply
Brad July 15, 2008 at 12:22 am: David, there isn’t an electrical motor setup because there are no planes in the world today that run off electric motors (one, NASA experimental bird and that’s it).
We are probably still ten years out from an efficient and air-worthy electric motor; we could do it now, BUT a prototype would have plenty of problems, especially for something with 6500 shaft horsepower needed to do the Osprey’s lifting (each engine), in all weather and be supported by the current naval supply chain.
Reply
FNG July 15, 2008 at 1:15 am: Having worked at the first USAF base with an active CV-22 Squadron (and considered working on them), they do have a mechanical link between the 2 rotors as many have commented. A couple other notes, a V-22 can’t land with the rotors in full forward position, so having a different amount of lift/power on either side can be a big problem in flight, or even on the ground for that matter.
It’s likely a computer glitch as Brad noted. I’ve seen some crazy computer glitches on aircraft decades old, so it only stands to reason that the newer ones would have even more, due to the increased dependency on the new computer systems being developed for aircraft.
Reply
Big Daddy July 15, 2008 at 5:50 am: Great aircraft, great design, but someone along the line screwed up and the engines are crap. The other issues are being worked out. Any new aircraft especially a radical design will have issues.
It’s a very useful aircraft and I hope all the problems are worked out. I also hope the concept continues and more types are built, including a heavy lift version.
If the DOD wasn’t so full of incompetence we would not be having this discussion. It’s not the aircraft nor it’s design. It’s the weak link in a chain. All it takes is one…….
The engines are junk. Who picked that engine? Was it the only one available at the time? Was it picked because of an inside deal over a more worthy one or design?
Reply
Vstress July 15, 2008 at 5:56 am: Oh another point – for those people who are wanting to say… “but it is stated to be able to fly a set distance after 1 engine power loss”
Yes… certification requires you to have a certain descent rate and forward velocity component at a given altitude.
So while, yes it flies a certain distance, it is only due to the fact that it is at a certain altitude and is required to keep a certain forward velocity component. At least this applies for all other aerial vehicles… don’t know about a tilt-rotor, but I assume it will be the same.
You have to remember that without power, this aircraft can’t even autorotate! So the emergency requirements will definitely be applicable once one engine fails!
Reply
Jeff M July 15, 2008 at 6:04 am: Can’t they just put a screen over the air intake to keep large objects (birds) from flying in? Sand seems like it would just cause increased wear and tear.
I think it’s pretty good to hear that the aircraft functioned properly and landed safely.
Reply
SATCtech July 15, 2008 at 6:26 am: Bravo Zulu to the aircrew for a job well done.
“(and thus I assume the MV-22, which has no glide capability, despite having wings)”
Vstress at July 15, 2008 05:31 AM
Incorrect. Any idea what the L/D ratio for the Osprey is?
“You have to remember that without power, this aircraft can’t even autorotate!”
Vstress at July 15, 2008 05:31 AM
This aircraft isn’t a helicopter and most autorotation attempts result in Class A mishaps as we’ve witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“The engines are junk. Who picked that engine? Was it the only one available at the time? Was it picked because of an inside deal over a more worthy one or design?”
Big Daddy at July 15, 2008 05:50 AM
The engines are based on the same powerplant that powers the C-130 which has a good track record. The Marine Corps has already notified Rolls Royce that they are looking at a replacement; a GE design, and Rolls Royce is losing their shirt on the Power-By-The-Hour contract.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004071.html
Reply
Reader Bob July 15, 2008 at 10:37 am: Is this yet another example of politics getting in the way of properly flight testing a weapon system and fielding it BEFORE it was ready? These engine problems should have been discovered during flight testing. Had they been, they would have been fixed by redesign or a different manufacture
Reply
Dan July 15, 2008 at 10:41 am: I was there in 1986 when the engines were selected. Bell wanted the GEs, but the engines are Goverment Furnished Equipment (GFE). NAVAIR choose the Alisons (now rolls royce). Concerning the engine interconect, there is a midwing gearbox and in each nacell a tilt axis gear box. Each engine drives directly into the Proprotor gear box in each nacell. The PGR is also tied into the tilt axis gear box (TGB). As long as both engines are producing power the clutchs in the MGB are free wheeling. If the tourqe drops from one engine the clutchs engage as reqd to balance the power. That’s the short version.
Reply
Roy Smith July 15, 2008 at 11:29 am: For the second year in a row,Miss USA fell flat on her ass during the Miss Universe contest.If that isn’t a metaphor for the state of our nation,then I don’t know what is. If it was just problems with the V-22 Osprey,it wouldn’t be so bad.But it is compounded with the problems with getting a new air tanker,with getting new COTS helicopters like the ARH-70 Arapaho & the UH-72 Lakota to work(you know,Europe/UK/Germany could offer us the Westland Lynx helicopter &/or the PAH-1 BO-105 helicopters,already set up & ready to go,for the ARH program & the U.S. Pentagon/Military/Industrial Complex will find a way to f**k it all up & cause it to fail),with getting a helicopter for CSAR chosen,getting the FCS,LCS,EFV,Zumwalt destroyer,Coast Guard Cutter,reliable body armor that won’t slow down our troops,a rifle &/or bullet that will knock down the enemy,etc.,the list goes on & on.
Reply
Jim July 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm: With regard to the article…
It incorrectly leads the reader down the road of thinking the engine is a bad one, in addition to asserting that it is a fleet wide issue with the V-22. All of this despite indicating that this particular engine issue was due to FOREIGN OBJECT DAMAGE!!!
Now, as someone who fly
Reply
r c oconnor July 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm: the air force had to evaluate this plane after it failed so many times ,,it passed but the marines let little thing “GO” on this plane until they are BIG things and cause failure just as they do on their simulators
Reply
Vstress July 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm: Jim, Do you know what level of SHP allows the a/c to maintain level flight?
Anyways, I do realise that this data is possibly restricted…
On which note I would like to state to you to watch what you are posting, to ensure you aren’t stating any (performance) figures that are restricted. I don’t work on this program or in the companies involved. But I never mention any exact facts on the a/c I work on. In the same way I will only state that I work for a major UK based defense organisation, but I won’t divulge more either, just so if I do ever (on risk of a prison sentence) slip up, then it isn’t directly obvious to anyone what it is I work on etc.
Reply
Brad July 15, 2008 at 5:00 pm: Vstress, almost all of the information you are looking for will be in the NATOPS which is not restricted material (it can’t be, the flight crew needs to have it to study from and you cannot afford to spend time to check confidential out from the S-shops, or carry around with you). Even the nitty-gritty mechanical data will be found in unclassified manuals found in every shop in a squadron. Almost everything about the plane will be in the white, except for critical combat data.
All this stuff is fair game.
Reply
Mike July 15, 2008 at 6:32 pm: @Roy..
There is always problems Big Boy Roy!! All throughout the time of humans problems have existed! Why don’t you be thankful that we have body armor that stops bullets, that miss universe has been won more times by USA than any other country, the FCS has developed things that has never been developed before in any other country, the EFV is an extremely unique vehicle that is nothing short of amazing.. blah blah blah… there will always be problems.
Reply
Vstress July 16, 2008 at 3:01 am: Brad,
No worries, I was just not wanting anything bad to happen to anyone! It’s easy to forget about stuff if you live and breathe it on a normal basis.
I sadly don’t get to see/touch much aircraft! Seems that when you design them, there isn’t much emphasis put on getting ones hands dirty! Thanks for the info, I shall not be so ignorant in the future.
Reply
Camp July 16, 2008 at 8:33 am: Forgive my insanity… I’ve been wondering about this for a while…
If the V-22 is lacking single engine power for all modes of flight. Would it be prudent to piggy-back (on the centerline) a small 3rd engine, like the PW210 (about 1,000 shp), just behind and connected to the Mid-Wing Gear Box with a duct over the top?
Weight, fuel, & maintenance would be increased, but issues such as safety, combat loss, and speed might be improved upon…. Eh, just a crazy thought.
“Fallout 3″
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9t7uXkLyA&fmt=18
Reply
Jim Tate July 16, 2008 at 11:06 am: This reminds me back in the early 70′s when the problems that occurred with the Abrams battle tank,Congress and many others wanted to dump the project, but the Army hung tough and today we have the best battle tank in the world.
This old Marine says hang tough, to the Marine Corps
With weaponary like this it helps to save the lives of many of our young boys.
I don’t give a damn how much these smart weapons are costing us , they are saving a lot of young Soldiers and Marines on the battle field.
Back when I was in the Marine Corps the only smart weapon we had was a M1 w/bayonet.
Reply
Jack July 16, 2008 at 11:52 am: Once again it proves that the Marine Corp is snake bitten in their defense acquisitions. First the JSF STOVL, the EFV, now this. I hope they can get these programs on track because the Corps really need them.
Reply
Vstress July 16, 2008 at 4:20 pm: Camp:
You can’t piggyback another engine type without the most complex non-linear gearbox!
Engine rotation speeds vary with power, but not linearly! Therefore if you match two different engines, it’s difficult to manage to make them work side by side without tearing each other apart!
Reply
Brad July 16, 2008 at 6:14 pm: Don, there is a reason that the V-22 does not have articulated rotors, namely aerodynamics, efficiency, and yes, safety. It is a trade-off for safety in the airplane stage, in which the V-22 spends most of its time.
I think alot of people expect the V-22 to BE a helicopter. It isn’t. It is a turboprop plane that can land like a helicopter. You are looking through the wrong lens of the telescope.
Reply
Mike July 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm: Ok so what have we concluded about the linkage arm between the two engines and its ability to fly on one engine? I am just speculating here, but maybe in plane mode it is designed to fly with 1 engine delivering 50/50 power due to the wings helping it out and forward air speed already established. In helicopter mode, or anything less then full plane mode, MAYBE it is designed to have a safe rate of fall with 50/50 power and nothing more.. who knows? Anyone? Maybe it had to land because it with 60/100 power, it was in a “heli” type mode and cutting the other engine down to 60 to stabilize caused it to fall below power to safely stay up. Maybe it was just a simply precautionary landing.. Who knows? Further details would be appreciated.
Reply
Jim July 16, 2008 at 8:46 pm: DON ZWEIFEL,
The blades on a V-22 flap, lead and lag and oh yeah, they are variable pitch too. Obviously in AIRPLANE mode they are only variable pitch.
The issue with regard to the V-22 and conventional helos is that the V-22 has an EXTREMELY HIGH DISK LOADING…that is the main difference…
Reply
Jeff M July 19, 2008 at 3:36 am: Don Zweifel:
I don’t think it would be able to fly at all if it didn’t have variable pitch rotors. If it weren’t able to change the cyclic pitch it wouldn’t be able to steer in helicopter mode. Are you saying it has cyclic and no collective?
Reply
Maurice July 21, 2008 at 11:13 am: Good morning and please allow me to throw in my penny or two. With 15 years of practical experience with the V-22 I think I can qualify better than most on the capabilities and nuances of the V-22 Osprey. As I read through some of these comments I laugh at how under-educated some people are. I assure you that a single engine landing in a V-22 is prefectly safe. The profiles have been extensively tested with and with out payloads. Nothing about this incident stikes me as too alarming. The engine failed, the crew responded appropiately made a SAFE landing; they fixed the problem and then flew home. The cause of the engine failure will be throughly investigated and measures if any will be put in place to prevent the same incident. Let us not make this any bigger of an issue then it really is. For those that are under educated but think they know; please keep commenting, I need a good laugh every now and then.
Reply
cheap rappelz rupees August 2, 2008 at 1:06 am: For example, when you have trouble in the work, after work, Rappelz game is a paradise for your happiness. You can use cheap rappelz rupees to but things for abreact. You also can kill people, you can curse, can also talk about the friends you work hard. You can also say to yourself and find a beautiful place to say. In this ay, you will be very happy, so I felt the work is inseparable from the Rappelz, for me, Rappelz is my home, my family, this can find happiness, can be found innocent.
Reply
cheap snw vis August 8, 2008 at 11:37 pm: So here is where the cheap snw vis drops. K2 Network was nice enough to send us a review copy.
Reply
Tibia money August 8, 2008 at 11:38 pm: The following benefits are available to Tibia money players:
Reply
2moon dil August 17, 2008 at 11:56 pm: I spend my pin money to bought the 2moon dil, maybe some people said that I was very foolish, but I did not care about other people
Reply
2moon dil August 18, 2008 at 12:20 am: because I spend my pin money to bought the 2moon dil, maybe some people said that I was very foolish, but I did not care about other people
Reply
Archlord money August 18, 2008 at 12:25 am: he did not know how to do could let the girl no longer apartness. So he decided to spend much more money to buy the Archlord money for the girl.
Reply