V22 Osprey

Wiki says 160, it sounds like they are marketing them to various countries. I see them semi regularly and would be interested to fly on one one time but not as regularly. There are too many accidents and some additional close calls that weren't made public.

 

In my opinion, 160 too many.....Love the concept but not big on the design.

 

I saw one last summer on the ramp. It was an awesome sight. It's the only aircraft I can recall seeing where my first reaction was "No ****ing way would I go up in that!"

 

I love the design. As soon as they're ready for the civilian market I'm in. No more airports. No more approach procedures.

 

AgustaWestland AW609 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Been in development forever. Probably trying to figure out how to fix all the issues that have occurred with the V-22. Probably should consider a chute, ala Cirrus, although I imagine most issues occur at low level. Maybe zero-zero ejection seats!

 

At this time in its operational history, it has a better safety record than any helicopter, and is nearly as fast as a C-130. More and more nations are showing interest. The one bad thing is the prop blast is way too high for a traditional SAR mission for water pick-ups.

 

This is an expensive platform.

Will the military be able to afford it, when compared to a Blackhawk ?

 

I'm surprised at most of the comments above...

Do some research, please.

There were some very serious issues and crashes and deaths very early on with prototypes and early production.

I've heard that those issues have been rectified and it is now a very safe platform; less risky than a chopper.

They are very common in Albuquerque. I'd fly in one in a heartbeat.

 

Affirmative, early on, but those teething troubles are pretty much over and they are doing well.

They flew right over my old office near Kirtland/Albuquerque at 1000' or so as they transtioned from horizontal to vertical blades. Very impressive. The 58th is the school house for the AF special ops Ospreys and the MC-130H.

The aircraft first flew in 1989, so there has been a lot of flying since. They arrived at Kirtland in 2006, which is nearly 8 years ago.

 

The V22 is a very complex system and requires a lot of training. There were accidents that were both system related as well as operator training related early on, but the system has matured and is now considered an very reliable and safe system.

 

I saw three of them make approach in Albuquerque and transition, very cool.

 

Total junk. Even if they have it working now, how many crashed in development? how many killed? AND it took how long to make this thing reliable?.. hell, even on the Discovery channel special on it they didn't fly it because it had "an issue". LoL, sorry if someone here works on them or flies them but it's a turd and a financial disaster.

 

Wow, a lot of guys on here with some pretty rash opinions....to each his own. I have a brother who is an MV-22 instructor pilot and has flown it for more than a decade. He loves it, and swears by it. It performs very well for the mission it was developed for, and has a very good safety record when compared to other military rotorcraft. It wins hands down in that category.

That thing has a ridiculous heavy lift capacity, can fly over 300 knots, and oh by the way.....land vertically. That's a game changing aircraft when it comes to fighting in a conflict, or supporting operations. Granted, it had some growing pains during development and people were killed, but it doesn't deserve the bad rap it got from bad politics. If any of you have some specific performance questions about it, let me know and I can chime in.

 

Remember that one of the prototypes crashed on its first flight because of a misunderstanding between Bell and Boeing that resulted in the controls being reversed. About any aircraft would be uncontrollable in that situation, and it's to the pilot's credit that he managed to survive the ensuing crash. Once in service, the aircraft has a good safety record, especially considering its obvious complexity.

 

The Boeing 314, 299 (B17), 345( B-29), and 707 all had birthing problems due to advances in technology. We must give leeway and use patience when the state of the art is pushed ahead. The recent 787 debacles are not the fault of those who designed the airplane but knot heads who envisioned its production as another Leggo from which they could make easy money.

 

Ken- Your opinions are a lot stronger than your knowledge base, apparently. Lighten up.

I think one killer fact in this argument is the fact the Japanese have ordered 17 V-22s and they were the ones grumping about the Marines flying them on Japanese soil a few years ago. Source Defense News, 3 February 2014 issue.

 

I spoke to a former Marine who claimed while flying inside he was hosed down by a hydraulic fluid issue. The wing was stuck in the climb position. His buddy was freaking out expecting the flight to end up - game over. The flight engineer fixed the problem just before it reached the maximum altitude. While in Afghanistan the unit had good results with the CV-22.

 

The designations for the two variants in service - MV-22 for the Marine version and CV-22 for the Air Force version - are actually reversed from what they should be.

The Marines mainly use theirs to transport troops and supplies, so CV-22 would seem to be the proper designation. The Air Force birds are for special operations, for which MV-22 would be proper.

So why the switch? Remembering that the Marines are a branch of the Navy, and that in the Navy "CV" means aircraft carrier, they decided that having an aircraft designated "CV" in the Marines might be confusing, so thus the switch.