All U.S. military V-22 Osprey tiltrotors have “paused” operations in light of a part failure on an Air Force CV-22 during a training mission in New Mexico on November 20. The Osprey landed safely with no injuries to four crew members. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pause in operations comes just over a year after another Air Force CV-22 crashed in Japan killing all eight on board. Charles Spirtos, a Navy spokesperson, said, "The operational pause allows us to determine if any additional safety measures are necessary."
Totally agree. Interesting concept, but the reality is that the technology has never proved reliable enough to sustain continued safe mission capability. It’s only a matter of time before the next mishap, and God-forbid, more fatalities.
Just looking at the picture, you can imagine as the rotors tilt up and down and the weight of that machine, the high torque and tension loads that are constantly being placed on all the various parts. Has to then create rapid wear. My eyeball engineering at work.
Perhaps NDT of all parts made of that material, today’s imaging methods are very good especially the CT Scan version of x-ray, plus there’s traditional eddy current
MH-53E Sea Dragon: The U.S. Navy’s MH-53E Sea Dragon had a class A mishap rate of 5.96 per 100,000 flight hours from 1984 to 2008, which was more than double the Navy’s average of 2.26. This rate refers to serious damage or loss of life.
Mishap rate
The Osprey’s 10-year average mishap rate is 3.43 per 100,000 flight hours, which is in the middle of other aircraft flown by the Marine Corps
Perhaps because Blackhawk losses are primarily due to known factors, some of which are not attributable to the machine itself? Perhaps because the Blackhawk has been in service longer? Perhaps because the Blackhawk losses are more acceptable due to a different mission profile? Perhaps …
Such a blanket “Well, whaddabout …” comparison begs for substantiation.
I originally thought that too, but then after learning more about some of the issues it has had over its lifespan and the details of how it operates, I have come to the conclusion that tiltrotors are just trying to do too many things to be great at any one thing. Similar to the adage “if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one”.
That’s actually how a lot of engineering ideas begin. When the Wright brothers were designing their aircraft, they looked to bird wings for inspiration. It’s no accident that a lot of the early gliders kind of look like birds.
Engineering also involves a lot of observations, and I have observed that exposed open hinge points often do collect a lot of foreign material.
The only thing wrong with the V-22 is it gets too much media attention. The V-22’s accident rate is no worse than other aircraft and in some comparative cases less as pointed out by astute posters with substantiating facts. Gee a part that’s never broke before…broke, which forced a precautionary landing and it’s time or past time according to some folks to park the aircraft and never use it again given its history of breaking parts, like that’s never happened before.
For what it’s worth, the V-22 has been around for more than 30 years and longer in concept with the Bell XV-15. The downside to its accident rate is the irrefutable fact it can and does take a lot of lives with it when one fully loaded crashes given its troop-carrying capability.
The tilt rotor concept is not the problem. The Marine Corps as its progenitor and primary mission user accepts the operational risk associated with the V-22 for the sake of its unique mission capability same as it does for the latest addition to its inventory of technologically complex VTOL aircraft, the F-35. Risk and complexity of the equipment used are handmaidens that require good engineering to maintain a proper balance.
I disagree. There are several problems with the tilt rotor concept, and especially as implemented by the V22. 1) All of that rotating, gyroscopic mass causes a great deal of stress on components that a traditional helicopter or prop-driven aircraft does not receive, 2) The V22 cannot takeoff or land like an aircraft due to ground clearance with the prop-rotors, so it has to takeoff/land more like a helicopter, 3) But, it can’t auto-rotate like a helicopter either, so the transmission and driveshaft is a single point of failure, and it absoutely needs at least one engine to be operative, 4) All that mass out on the ends of each wingtip also has a lot of inertia, which doesn’t help with stability, especially if one engine is even momentarily creating more or less power than the other, 5) The disc loading of the prop-rotors is much higher than a same-sized helicopter, so the downwash is much greater and can kick up a lot more debris during takeoff and landing, 6) Also, with the whole engine tilting, that hot exhaust does more damage to the ground than a helicopter would. This means in some cases, a helicopter could get in and out of an area that the V22 cannot safely do.
Now, the tilt-rotor concept is a neat-sounding one on paper, and the V22 is an impressive air vehicle to see flying in person (which I have). But considering all of the complexities of its operation and the forces acting on it during transition flight, you’ll never convince me to get on board one unless it will be remaining on the ground.