Comments on: The Osprey Jink

By: George

George — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:33:32 +0000

Just today I read that representatives from the Man-Bunny Matrix witnessed extensive V-22 testing in Utah.
http://manbunnymatrix.net/

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:34:39 +0000

And for the record, almost anyone who’s piloted a plane with an FE requirement will probably tell you the FEs know more about their planes’ systems and performance than the pilots.
There I was.…
We were flying cross-country, coming back from a deployment in a C-130. I was sitting on th eCrew Chief rack behind the operators on headsets watching the world go by. The Pilot was reading the AF Times, and the Co-pilot was reading Fortune. The FE kicked the pilot seats when we got a radio call, calling out traffic ‘no factor’ as fast as ATC was alerting us, and managing the fuel transfer systems and monitoring instruments all the while. After a while, the Pilot comes over the Intercom: Man! They’re talking about cutting pilot bonuses again! I’ll never forget the ‘WTF?’ look on the FE’s face when he turned around and looked at me.
P.S. Anyone who’s the least bit familiar with the FE job on the Pave Lows can tell you that it was the highest workload flying, in the most hostile ‘office’ in the sky. So intense, the Pave Lows routnely flew with two FEs that would rotate in and out of the center seat.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:02:06 +0000

FTR…I am a Flight Engineer.

By: stinger

stinger — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:20:39 +0000

It’s MANPADS, never MANPAD. MANPADS = man-portable air defense system. MANPADS is not plural for MANPAD; Rather MANPADS is the proper acronym.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:36:14 +0000

If all the people now chafing in their bunched panties over the ‘complexity’ and challenges in fielding and operating a completely new kind of weapon system had been in charge during prehistoric times, we would still be sitting in our caves ostracizing anyone and everyone who came up with a new way to make fire.
’First’ aircraft in any category always break new ground, and always have at least one or two growing pains — as anyone with any real experinece will tell you. Get a sense of history, people, and get some appreciation of what the V-22 folks are working through (and under a microscope no less).
’Painless progress’ is an oxymoron in the real world.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:08:27 +0000

I get really tired of seeing programs take ten years to come to fruition, just to find they did not get it right and they have to “re-engineer” everything.….
I am a fan of the Osprey, in the way the Marines are. I love what it can do, but hate the complexity.….
The next generation may be much simpler. By using electric motors to spin the props and keeping the power plants and battery backup in the body will significantly reduce complexity and greatly increase reliability.
With such reduced complexity, four props will be possible. Allowing for landing with only three operational.….
DARPA is also funding a “rotodyne” configuration. One prop to get airborne, non-moving engines to go forward.
I just hope they do not ignore better designs due to political considerations and money already spent.
But they probably will.…

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:19:26 +0000

I’m sorry, but from an engineering perspective the fact that there have been “parts breaking that are not supposed to break” is most certainly an issue with the aircraft…lest we forget than any aircraft is merely a complicated system of “parts”.

By: Sgt Oblat

Sgt Oblat — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:41:14 +0000

Of course all the bravado will evaporate as soon as the pilots start getting shot down in combat. Then they will be squealing for a fix and claim to be betrayed.
But perhaps th war will be over before the Osprey gets deployed on anything real. The Marines are making sure that the program is fully front loaded by delivering them all before risking one in combat.
You gotta love being a contractor with clients like these.

By: James

James — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:41:14 +0000

I hate to say it but this continuing Osprey saga reminds me of the M-14 vs. M-16 soap opera, 40 plus years and counting…

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:28:52 +0000

I'm one of those engineers (on the govt. side) that, as "Jim" said, is working day in and day out to improve all the reliability issues. He certainly made accurate statements on that front, and it's true that from a reliability standpoint, the aircraft still has a ways to go, but I've got chart after chart showing the before and after for various improvements and the attending improvement in mean flight hour between failures. And I only work on two of the systems of the aircraft (one of which was one of the top degraders of the aircraft, and despite the fact that it worked just fine, crews never turned it on because they felt that as soon as they did, it would break). The trick is that most of these fixes are small, incremental, and will take time to prove out. They (the contractor) fix one piece here, one piece there. Each one gives a small improvement, and on the whole the situation improves. It takes more time than one would think to implement these changes, and sometimes, when you fix one part, you end up finding the "next worst" item, and you have to fix that as well. It's really not as straightforward as everyone would love it to be, and there's no silver bullet answer. Not like fixing a tire on your car. And even if it were, how would you prove that your new tire lasted longer than the last one? You have to drive on it for a while. There's no question that over the years that I have been here doing this job, the situation has improved (both in my area and others that I have heard about around here), and it will continue to do so. Like "Jim" says, the system works, and we are working every day to make sure that it works all the time.