BOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 349 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 4 hours ago) and read 3469 times:
The USCG uses helo's for SAR missions. However, helo's have range and payload limitations. Would a custom model of V-22 Osprey be able to perform the SAR mission better and have the additional capability of carrying large number of survivors at the same time? Could it conceivably be outfitted with inflatable pontoons / retractable pontoons to allow water landings ?
Just a case in point, I believe German submarines had water landing aircraft alongside their primary missions, albeit for military strategic purposes and not extended SAR, but the concept is similiar, have a stable helipad somewhere on a ship platform, and use it to refuel and loiter around the area until you have found the 'target'.
What do a.netters think of this proposal ? Any work being done in this regard? It could prove to be a viable secondary mission for this expensive aircraft.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 months 2 hours ago) and read 3450 times:
Rotor wash and exhaust blast on the Osprey likes to push survivors under the surface of the water. Not a good thing of course. If they figure this problem out, then maybe it would be useful. Loiter time between a helo and C-130, but the ability to hoist the survivor when found. I do not think a ship with a helo pad would be useful. The Osprey has range to get on search station from any coast guard base, and can in air refuel to stay on station (although I do not believe the Coasties have anything that could provide fuel). I am also not sure the Coast Guard has any ships that are large enough to have a flight deck capable of handling an Osprey.
HercPPMX From United States of America, joined May 2008, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3357 times:
Quoting BOACVC10 (Thread starter): Could it conceivably be outfitted with inflatable pontoons / retractable pontoons to allow water landings ?
Depending on the weight of the aircraft and the size of the waves, any attemp of the V-22 to land in water would probably end up with the lower part of the nacelle in the water and if it went low enough for water to reach to the turbine your looking at possible flameouts, as well with the sea state you might even have a blade catch a wave while the aircraft is pitching and rolling in the water.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 1): (although I do not believe the Coasties have anything that could provide fuel).
It would be costly but in recent years with the marines getting KC-130J's, there is a surplus of older KC-130 F & R models in the bone yard, however cost of maintaining them would be through the roof as the older models are 30-40 years old.
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Actually I could see it being very good at it, I would not even be sure they would need a custom model to do it. The Australian's SAR teams looked at it while it was just starting production and saw the benefits of having them for their boat and yatch races they have. They are very fuel efficient and do have a range advantage over helicopters. I am not a fan of the V-22 although it is a cool looking aicraft in combat since it cant defend itself but I could see where it would be more usefull as a SAR tool for the coast gaurd, I know they would have came in handy during Huricane Katrina.
BOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3303 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 3): The Australian's SAR teams looked at it while it was just starting production and saw the benefits of having them for their boat and yatch races they have.
I would think (but have no details) on the issue of rotor downwash, the central fuselage with a ramp is in the middle of the two props, so in hover mode, could it conceivably produce less downwash than a regular helo ? If vertical rescue ops were permitted in SAR role, would the V-22 have an advantage over a regular helo as it would provide a easier time for divers to reach victims ?
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
Quoting BOACVC10 (Reply 4): I would think (but have no details) on the issue of rotor downwash, the central fuselage with a ramp is in the middle of the two props, so in hover mode, could it conceivably produce less downwash than a regular helo ? If vertical rescue ops were permitted in SAR role, would the V-22 have an advantage over a regular helo as it would provide a easier time for divers to reach victims ?
Actually quite the opposite. You cannot think of the rotor/prop wash as simply being perfect cylinders of air that only exist directly beneath the rotors. In reality the air columns spill out with distance creating a widening funnel of turbulent air.
If you want to see the sheer power of the V-22's rotor wash, just look at photos of it hovering over desert conditions, or over water. Brown/blue/white outs are a significant problem as high as a 200AGL hover.
So just like any other heavy helicopter, the V-22 produces extreme turbulence and winds, and is highly susceptible to browning out.
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 6): Is not the Bell Agusta 609 supposed to be for that role, I believe to have seen artist renditions of it in Coast Guard Colors
Correct. In fact BA609 Ship 2 is currently painted in the livery colors of the Italian CG and is under consideration by the Italian government for that role.
The BA609 has a lower disc loading than the V-22 resulting in reduced down wash intensity and has a float bag kit for ditching in the water in an emergency.
Since the BA609 was designed for civil not military applications, it does not carry ballistic tolerance and countermeasure provisions. Making it even better for the CG roll.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8135 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3119 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): You cannot think of the rotor/prop wash as simply being perfect cylinders of air that only exist directly beneath the rotors. In reality the air columns spill out with distance creating a widening funnel of turbulent air.
UH60, you know a lot more about helio ops than I ever will, but why would the rotor wash from the V-22 be that much different than the rotor wash from tandom helios, like the CH-46 and CH-47? Both of those helios have been used in air/sea rescue and SAR ops, although that is not their normal mission. Also, doesn't the USAF CV-22 version have a SAR role? I thought it did along with the Speical Forces ops missions it has.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3072 times:
Well the the Osprey is also directing a high amount of exhaust towards the ground as well. They were having issues doing extermal lifts with the Osprey because of the ground crews dealing with the hot exhaust and fumes literally directed right at them.
Also remember that the Ospreys rotors are much smaller, and have to turn much faster and "push" that much more air to hover than a -46 or -47. I suppose you could imagine standing 75 feet behind a C-130 at high power, and imagine what that would feel like blowing down on you while floating in the water.
HercPPMX From United States of America, joined May 2008, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3066 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): but why would the rotor wash from the V-22 be that much different than the rotor wash from tandom helios, like the CH-46 and CH-47?
The MTOW of the MV-22 is 60,500 LBS while the CH-47 has a MTOW of 50,000LBS. The MV-22 has a Rotor diameter of 38ft while the CH-47 has a Rotor diameter of 60ft. This gives the MV-22 a total Disc area of 2268 sq ft and the CH-47 a total disc area of 2800 sq ft. In theory more weight and less lifting area would mean the rotors of the 22 would be working a little bit harder(read increased rotor wash) then those of the 47 to sustain a hover. ( Numbers were taken from wikipedia, while they may not be exact, It still roughly supports my point.)
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): Also, doesn't the USAF CV-22 version have a SAR role? I thought it did along with the Speical Forces ops missions it has.
I believe it does have a SAR role due to increased speed and range, as it has the ability to get to a downed aircraft much quicker. however I don't know what type of role it would play at sea. or if that specific mission profile would be left to the Coast Guard or Navy
Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1005 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3005 times:
Quoting BOACVC10 (Thread starter): The USCG uses helo's for SAR missions. However, helo's have range and payload limitations. Would a custom model of V-22 Osprey be able to perform the SAR mission better and have the additional capability of carrying large number of survivors at the same time? Could it conceivably be outfitted with inflatable pontoons / retractable pontoons to allow water landings ?
Both the CH-47 and CH-53E can carry more than the V-22, although they both have shorter legs. And for the cost of 10 V-22s, you can buy 20 Super Stallions *plus* a couple of C-130Js for refueling (I'm not sure the -53E is actually in production - it successor the -53K, will be even more capable, and is projected to cost about $27m/each when it enters service in 2015). Or you could get even more Chinooks.
Nor are the legs of a Super Stallion all that short - 540nm (vs. 880nm for the Osprey). And the V-22’s range would only apply to a straight rescue, and not a search – the V-22 gets its best range at fairly high speed at 15,000ft. Low and slow it’ll suffer.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): V-22's in USCG colors would make about as much sense as F/A-18E's in the ANG! (Where did that thread go, anyways?)
Agreed. The USCG needs numbers far more than range. Sure, in a few cases it would be valuable, but they could meet that occasional requirement by borrowing a C-140 from the Air Force for refueling.
And I've been wondering where that thread went too. I would have expected at least a "post deleted" message if a thread I had posted it was, *ahem*, delete.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 1): Rotor wash and exhaust blast on the Osprey likes to push survivors under the surface of the water. Not a good thing of course. If they figure this problem out, then maybe it would be useful. Loiter time between a helo and C-130, but the ability to hoist the survivor when found. I do not think a ship with a helo pad would be useful. The Osprey has range to get on search station from any coast guard base, and can in air refuel to stay on station (although I do not believe the Coasties have anything that could provide fuel). I am also not sure the Coast Guard has any ships that are large enough to have a flight deck capable of handling an Osprey.
Rotorwash is easily mitgated by taking a higher hover altitude and exhaust is a none issue to survivors...especially since the V-22 now has a ramp mounted hoist.
That said...I agree the V-22 is far to big for any CG ship but perhaps the smaller B-609 would be a reasonable option offering good speed and comperable cabin size found in the smallish CG helos in service today.
HercPPMX From United States of America, joined May 2008, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 14): That said...I agree the V-22 is far to big for any CG ship but perhaps the smaller B-609 would be a reasonable option offering good speed and comperable cabin size found in the smallish CG helos in service today.
With the V-22 you get a range of 879 NMI (Ferry Range 2400 NMI+-) and IFR capabilities, with the B-609 you get a range of around 750 miles with no IFR. While The HH-60 Has a range of 700 NMI with no IFR capabilities, but can be supported with current Coast Guard Vessels. Im not quite sure if all of the money needed to adapt current ships and stations would justify the B-609 for a little bit of speed and not much additional range.
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 15): The HH-60 Has a range of 700 NMI with no IFR capabilities
Say what?
Yeah uhh... that's not accurate. Not only can we fly IFR, we do so on a regular basis.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2543 times:
Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 15): With the V-22 you get a range of 879 NMI (Ferry Range 2400 NMI+-) and IFR capabilities, with the B-609 you get a range of around 750 miles with no IFR. While The HH-60 Has a range of 700 NMI with no IFR capabilities, but can be supported with current Coast Guard Vessels. Im not quite sure if all of the money needed to adapt current ships and stations would justify the B-609 for a little bit of speed and not much additional range
You can do better in a V-22 than 879 nm range (1000nm) w/ a cabin aux tank and the BA609 home page quotes a 1000 NM range as well a 25000' service ceiling and 275 kt cruise speed...seems like more than "a little bit of speed" advantage over an H-60 to me.
Don't get me wrong...I LOVE the whole H-60 family, but speed (time) is of the essence in any rescue scenario.
The medical community tells us about something called "the golden hour" which is the period of time immediately following a traumatic injury where the chances of survival are greatest.
The question really is a simple one...if any of us needs an ambulance, do we want one with a max speed of 40 MPH or one that can get us to the hospital at 80 MPH?
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): If you want to see the sheer power of the V-22's rotor wash, just look at photos of it hovering over desert conditions, or over water. Brown/blue/white outs are a significant problem as high as a 200AGL hover.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): So just like any other heavy helicopter, the V-22 produces extreme turbulence and winds, and is highly susceptible to browning out.
I was watching a thing on the military channel about the first deployment of the V-22 the roto wash you were seeing was done on purpose to hide the troops when the exit the aircraft for cover, when they are ready to move out they do something with the rotors and the speeds and all that goes away, I can't see the rotowash being a problem if they can contol it like that in the water.
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 19): I was watching a thing on the military channel about the first deployment of the V-22 the roto wash you were seeing was done on purpose to hide the troops when the exit the aircraft for cover, when they are ready to move out they do something with the rotors and the speeds and all that goes away, I can't see the rotowash being a problem if they can contol it like that in the water.
lol, say what!?!
What show was that, because I want to write to them and tell them to get better staff! What a load of hogwash!
Now before I completely tear this open... can you be at all, any more specific? It said that they can manipulate the blades to either create, or dissipate, brown out conditions? And that brownout conditions are specifically created to mask the unloading of troops?
-------------------
Ok, for my INITIAL response... what a load of sh*t. First, let me qualify myself as someone who spent numerous years in the 101st, who are - without question - the premier experts on air assaults. I also have numerous tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have conducted assaults in both cold and hot LZs.
Yes, when you land in the desert the troops are masked by the tornado of brown sand kicked up by the rotor system. But trust me when I say this: we would rather NOT have that giant sand cloud, than have it. What little benefit it provides, is greatly outweighed by the massive negatives it carries! That cloud of sand is basically just a giant strobe light, telegraphing our position to every bad guy in the area. So what if they can't specifically see you! They know you're there! And all they do is spray bullets to the center of the cloud. Not to mention that cloud of sand is the cause of more crashes, than of enemy fire!
Second, rotorwash is rotorwash. When the blades are spinning, it's there. You cannot simply make a few adjustments, and make it magically disappear. And where there is sand, snow or debris, the hurricane winds of your rotorwash will kick it up. Now certain rotor systems are designed to dissipate that sand cloud to the outer edges of the rotor disk, such as the UH101... but it never just goes away. The V-22 kicks up a massive amount of sand, snow or debris.
So... I'm not saying YOU are wrong. I am saying that the show is wrong. The V-22 cannot create, or dissipate, a sand cloud at will. The V-22, at a hover, induces extreme rotorwash, just as any other helicopter would. I am not trying to talk smack against the Osprey... I am just pointing out that those who think that the V-22's revolutionary design precludes it from these problems.... is wrong.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
They typically tilt the rotors forward a few degrees for takeoff, which has the effect of blowing all the dust and sand behind them so the pilots have a clear view as they leave the LZ. Of course, all the wingmen lined up behind lead are getting dusted.
Best way to deal with dust clouds are to land into the wind with a steady decent and just a bit of forward momentum. On H-46, and most aircraft with 1 nose/2 main gear config, the mains can handle the impact and "plowing effect" into the dirt, and just have to keep the nose from slamming to the ground. Side impacts and backward drifts, not so good of an outcome. Sideways you get a real quick rolling moment and run the chance of tipping over.
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 21): They typically tilt the rotors forward a few degrees for takeoff, which has the effect of blowing all the dust and sand behind them so the pilots have a clear view as they leave the LZ. Of course, all the wingmen lined up behind lead are getting dusted.
But that's not what he was talking about, nor is that where the majority of crashes occur.
Taking off is the easy part - you just pull in collective, and perform an ITO. In brownout conditions, the most dangerous period is landing. Even with a headwind, a forward momentum, etc. -- there are plenty of times that the light sand kicks up so quickly that you're enveloped before you touchdown. And again.... like I said... even with it's unique design, the V-22 is no exception to this issue.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2020 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 15): With the V-22 you get a range of 879 NMI (Ferry Range 2400 NMI+-) and IFR capabilities, with the B-609 you get a range of around 750 miles with no IFR. While The HH-60 Has a range of 700 NMI with no IFR capabilities, but can be supported with current Coast Guard Vessels. Im not quite sure if all of the money needed to adapt current ships and stations would justify the B-609 for a little bit of speed and not much additional range.
UH60FtRucker From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2906 posts, RR: 66 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 23): Herc is talking range not flight rules... In Flight Refueling...
Really? Yeah I think you're wrong. He might have been talking the Institute of Food Research. Or perhaps an Indoor Firing Range, or Integrated Functional Representation.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2020 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 24): Really? Yeah I think you're wrong. He might have been talking the Institute of Food Research. Or perhaps an Indoor Firing Range, or Integrated Functional Representation.
Yeah, too many acronyms for sure... In my world, C-130 tankers, it's called a "HAR", Helicopter Air Refueling.
IIRC the acronym "IFR" for inflight refueling is more commonly used in Europe and the UK....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1866 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22): Even with a headwind, a forward momentum, etc. -- there are plenty of times that the light sand kicks up so quickly that you're enveloped before you touchdown. And again.... like I said... even with it's unique design, the V-22 is no exception to this issue.
Oh believe me I know. Thats why I said it was the best way to deal with it, not eliminate it. There are very few unimproved places I ever landed that we did not kick up some type of dust cloud.
Hercppmx From United States of America, joined May 2008, 131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 15): Has a range of 700 NMI with no IFR capabilities
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16): Not only can we fly IFR, we do so on a regular basis.
Sorry about that I've been away from the site for a little while, as others have stated IFR (In-Flight refueling) I'm use to KC-130's, We just refer to the pod's as IFR pods.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 349 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5638 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
