Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5829 times:

Excellent recent article by Col. E.E. Riccioni, USAF, Retired on the Marines and basically the failure of the entire V-22 program.


http://pogo.org/m/dp/dp-V-22-Riccioni-03062006.pdf

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3935 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineUh60ftrucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5731 times:

Very interesting article. I wonder what STT757 will think about this? He was quite the cheerleader for the idea of the US Army aquiring the -22.

Col. Riccioni is only saying, in a far more articulate manner, what many others have pointed out - the Osprey is inadequate on countless levels. I hope this helps some of you take off those rose colored glasses you have when it comes to the -22.

-UH60


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5624 times:

IIRC Col. Riccioni was a member of Col. John Boyd's "Fighter Mafia". They were responsible for the development of the F-15 and F-16.


Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

It's good to see the Colonel remark on this abomination of an "aircraft". Make no mistake about it. The Army will NOT be buying this POS.

One of the websites I like to read has a large section on the in-capabilities of the V-22. Colonel Riccioni sited it and the author in his paper. Here's a link. Enjoy!

http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

I believe the Col. has taken to much literary licence with facts to make his story fully credible. Note this excerpt:

"Further, the Osprey can not operate above 10,000 feet with human or mammalian cargo because the cabin lacks the oxygen and pressurization necessary to sustain the proper quality of life."

I am not a pilot, nor have I ever served in the military. But I lived years(very comfortably in fact) as a child in La Paz Bolivia at 12,000 ft altitude. The city and suburbs sustain a population of almost a quarter million people last I checked. There was even other "mammalian life" living quite comfortably. Chickens were scrawny, but cows and pigs were as fat as anywhere else.

http://www.destination360.com/south-america/bolivia/la-paz.php

If the Col. is willing to stretch this one fact to make a good story, further scrutiny should be paid to all comments he makes.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3935 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Good one. However, I'm told you may well fall ill if you fly into La Paz, because of the height.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5563 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 5):
I am not a pilot, nor have I ever served in the military. But I lived years(very comfortably in fact) as a child in La Paz Bolivia at 12,000 ft altitude. The city and suburbs sustain a population of almost a quarter million people last I checked. There was even other "mammalian life" living quite comfortably. Chickens were scrawny, but cows and pigs were as fat as anywhere else.

Commercial and other non-Part 91 are not allowed to fly above a cabin altitude of 10,000ft without oxygen being used. This is a pretty standard altitude for oxygen use. Sure it might be alright for people living in La Paz... nobody is going to die from it. But, a fatigued crew, in battle, at night, etc needs oxygen above this level, so do the troops about to be delievered to the battle. As for animals, you don't want your cargo of food or transportation to die due to the lack of oxygen and extreme stress induced from flying.

He's definitely not streching this to make his point. Its very valid.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5548 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 7):
Commercial and other non-Part 91 are not allowed to fly above a cabin altitude of 10,000ft without oxygen being used. This is a pretty standard altitude for oxygen use. Sure it might be alright for people living in La Paz... nobody is going to die from it. But, a fatigued crew, in battle, at night, etc needs oxygen above this level, so do the troops about to be delievered to the battle. As for animals, you don't want your cargo of food or transportation to die due to the lack of oxygen and extreme stress induced from flying.

As far as passengers (not crew) is concerened, the FARs are written to protect the infirm, elderly and very young children. I would hope that soldiers going into battle would not consist of any of these groups. Healthy passengers are also not required to exert themselves in any way during the short flight that would require them to need sumplemental O2. Sit still and breath deep.

Finaly for very high altitudes, supplemental O2 for each passenger for the short duration of the V-22 flight would not be much of a penalty. Cabin pressurization is not required.

I have flown as a passenger in Bolivia at 16,000 ft in an unpressurized aircraft with no supplemental O2 and did not have any problems. Neither did my 72 year old father sitting next to me. Yes acclimitization is a factor. However I would hope that soldiers would recieve proper training at elevated altitudes prior to missions.

Just because convential helicopters cannot fly as high is no reason to stretch the truth penalize the V-22.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineUh60ftrucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5530 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 8):

Actually FlyF15 was correct. Army regulations (AR 95-1) require any aircrew, operating in an unpressurized cabin, to have oxygen for flights over 10,000ft lasting greater than 1hr, or for flights lasting 30min+ over 12,000ft, or at all times over 14,000ft. And any onboard occupants must have oxygen when flying over 14,000ft for any period of time.

CTR you're underestimating the effects of hypoxia. At 14,000 the typical blood saturation level (for a non-smoking, healthy, pilot acclimated to sea-level oxygen saturation levels) is typically 80% of normal, and at 20,000ft it is 70%. Believe it or not, the compensatory stage of hypoxia (80-89% saturation) can dramatically effect night vision, reduce cognitive abilities, and cause the pilot to become drowsy and make frequent errors in judgement. If you're a smoker, add 5,000ft of physiological altitude to your true altitude. So you can see that you can really start to feel the effects at that altitude.

This is why even the Chinooks rarely go above 8,000-10,000ft for cruise. One, we have no tactical need to cruise at such an absurd altitude. Two, when operating in an unpressurized aircraft you are subjecting the occupants to unnecessary physical stress. The LAST thing you want to do to troops who are about to be subjected to the immense stress of battle.

Now remember, the V-22's flight deck can be sealed and pressurized, however the cabin is not only unpressurized, but it does not provide oxygen tubes for 24 passengers. So the entire high altitude benefit, as the Colonel stated, is completely undermined by the fact that it is tactically unfeasible.

I really think a lot of the -22 supporters need to go spend a day with a -47 unit. Even if they're flying palm trees/school buses... I'll be the first to admit that they are invaluable to the war effort. The Osprey just doesn't hold a candle to them.

-UH60

[Edited 2006-04-08 05:52:39]

User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5487 times:

Quoting Uh60ftrucker (Reply 9):
Actually FlyF15 was correct. Army regulations (AR 95-1) require any aircrew, operating in an unpressurized cabin, to have oxygen for flights over 10,000ft lasting greater than 1hr, or for flights lasting 30min+ over 12,000ft, or at all times over 14,000ft. And any onboard occupants must have oxygen when flying over 14,000ft for any period of time.

Actually US60ftrucker you are the one whom is correct. But FlyF15 was mistaken in imposing FAA FARs on military aircraft operations.

As you clearly state "any onboard occupants (passengers) must have oxygen when flying over 14,000ft for any period of time" . Not 10,000 ft. A 40% increase is not nit picking.

Also there is no reason that passengers cannot carry portable O2 bottles for special missions that require operations above 14,000 ft.

Out of curiosity. What is the max altitude the Army or Marines permit passengers to fly in an unpressurized cabin with supplemental O2?

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 5):
I believe the Col. has taken to much literary licence with facts to make his story fully credible. I am not a pilot, nor have I ever served in the military.

This is exactly why you shouldn't be commenting; you are ignorant on the subject.

Quoting CTR (Reply 10):
Out of curiosity. What is the max altitude the Army or Marines permit passengers to fly in an unpressurized cabin with supplemental O2?

All of the armed forces have regulations similar too if not the same to the FARs regarding oxygen requirements in flight. For example, here is the Air Force's guidance:

Air Force Instruction 11-202V3 General Flying Rules
6.4. Oxygen Requirements. (Not applicable to ROA)
6.4.1. Crew. Each crewmember shall use supplemental oxygen anytime the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 ft.
6.4.2. Unpressurized Aircraft. The following restrictions apply to aircraft that are being operated unpressurized.
6.4.2.1. Oxygen must be provided for occupants when a flight exceeds 3 hours duration between 10,000 and 13,000 ft MSL.
6.4.2.2. 13,000 ft MSL shall not be exceeded with occupants on board who do not have oxygen.

The Col. wasn't stretching the truth in this matter. His comments are valid and right on the mark. If you are going to hijack a thread, please know what you are talking about.

-Pat


User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

People living at high altitudes has developed more red blood corpuscle
and Hb concentration than average people, it's an automatic body reaction to rarefied air, for keeping O2 flood at almost normal levels despite the high altitude. However, a normal person, military or not, living his life at sea level, will have a good chance to get hypoxia problems if visiting suddenly La Paz. The accommodation of the human body (his red blood corpuscle level) to high altitudes takes weeks or even months. Not fast enough for military punctual missions.

Thus, it’s quiet risky to carry people at 12.000 ft without O2 mask, unless they are La Paz citizens.

Resistance to hypoxia is also different from person to person, but talking on the average level in the perspective of the reliability of a military mission, that quote from the Osprey critic seems valid to me.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

DC1030,

Do you think all the engineers that design military or commercial aircraft are current, ex-military or pilots?

Working for MCAIR in the 1980's I worked on the first OBOGS system for the AV-8B Harrier. The USMC and MCAIR lead the way in this technology to get rid of O2 bottles. I currently work systems integration in both military and commercial aircrafts. I also am a DER for the FAA for Systems.

Lets be clear that we are talking about passengers not crew and set the comments made by Col. Riccioni next to the information provided by FlyF15 an yourself:

"Further, the Osprey can not operate above 10,000 feet with human or mammalian cargo because the cabin lacks the oxygen and pressurization necessary to sustain the proper quality of life."

"Army regulations (AR 95-1) And any ONBOARD OCCUPANTS must have oxygen when flying over 14,000ft for any period of time."

"Air Force Instruction 11-202V3 General Flying Rules
6.4.2.1. Oxygen must be provided for occupants when a flight exceeds 3 hours duration between 10,000 and 13,000 ft MSL.
6.4.2.2. 13,000 ft MSL shall not be exceeded with occupants on board who do not have oxygen."

So in short for passengers and livestock, not crew:

Col. Riccioni - 10,000 ft
Army regulations (AR 95-1) - 14,000 ft
Air Force Instruction 11-202V3 - 13,000 ft up to 3 hours

I am not trying to hijack a thread. I am just trying to separate verbose story telling from the facts.

Still interested in the military regs for max altitude for passengers with O2 in unpressurized aircrafts.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5400 times:

The report makes me laugh.

First of all none of the people listed as sources in the report have any affiliation with the V-22 other than being a vocal critic. They have never flown in one, worked on one or help design it.

Once again don't believe everything you read. Also the V-22 didn't fail there Op Eval last summer. I have close contacts working at Edwards AFB and Pax River. They all know the names Harry Dunn, Riccioni, and Carlton Meyers very well. Even if these names weren't known for ignorant and unethical article writing for leaving out key facts he uses the same people over and over again. Where is any representative the Marine Corps that is currently involved in the program as a source? I don't see any in there.

Once again don't believe everything your read. I listed 2 very good sources of information in the last very recent V-22 thread where anyone can sift through pages and pages of posting and can create accounts and ask actual people involved in the program questions. Everyone there will tell you that Carlton Meyer, Harry Dunn, and Everest Riccioni are ill-informed and ignorant critics of the program. They take no time to actually go to Pax River, Edwards AFB, or Bells plant in Amarillo and get current factual information


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 11):
Quoting CTR (Reply 5):
I believe the Col. has taken to much literary licence with facts to make his story fully credible. I am not a pilot, nor have I ever served in the military.

This is exactly why you shouldn't be commenting; you are ignorant on the subject.

But do not forget that the majority of the policiticans deciding over the Osprey's fate fall into that same category - don't fall victim to the strawman fallacy.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
Also the V-22 didn't fail there Op Eval last summer.

In regards to the V-22 OPEVAL...

Quote:

"A major asterisk to the Coyle's rating of "operationally effective" is his note that the Chief of Naval Operations waived numerous requirements. The reasons for the waivers included incomplete testing of subsystems or the need to redesign them. In the case of a defensive gun, the money to pay for it hadn't materialized.

As a result of Navy waivers, the report said, the following "significant" shortfalls exist: "aircraft flight envelope not cleared for air combat maneuvering; no flight allowed in deicing conditions; inadequate nuclear, biological and chemical overpressure protection; inadequate cargo handling system and airdrop capability; unable to carry external loads at night due to incorrect radar altimeter readings; no production representative auxiliary fuel tank; unable to fastrope out of the cabin door."

The Marine Corps' Nevers said the deficiencies were "not crucial to the operational effectiveness and suitability of the aircraft," and the MV-22 has "met or exceeded its key performance parameters." In fact, he said, the number of waived requirements that the MV-22 program asked for and received was "the lowest of any aircraft in aviation history.""

Just as what was done with the Super Hornet program, numbers were altered to represent what they had to work with and the politics that be dictated the outcome. Either the Osprey passed or there would have been no way the politicans would have given it any other outcome than that afforded to the RAH-66 Commanche program - it was sink or swim and while the V-22 may not nescessarily know how to swim all that well (hopefully just yet and not ever) it was still thrown into the swirling seas full of sharks.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
Where is any representative the Marine Corps that is currently involved in the program as a source? I don't see any in there.

General McCorkle is enough to raise my skepticism.

Quote:

McCorkle led a passionate defense of the V-22 during his tenure. Soon after retiring from the Marines in October 2001, McCorkle joined the board of directors and as a senior advisor for GKN Aerospace Services (V-22 fuel tanks). He also serves on the Rolls-Royce North America board of directors (V-22 engines), and is a member of the board of directors of Lord Corporation (V-22 components). In addition, he has served as a consultant for Boeing Aerospace (V-22 maker) and Optical Air Data Systems (V-22 low airspeed indicator).



Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
Everyone there will tell you that Carlton Meyer, Harry Dunn, and Everest Riccioni are ill-informed and ignorant critics of the program.

Sure, in the same way the Democrats will tell you that Republicans are evil war mongerers and need to be replaced. Rather than just taking one parties word for it, I'd like to see the whole picture before I could really be convinced. As for the whole oxygen thing, I don't think I'd want an aircraft that is going to be shot at compressing/decompressing all of the time, anything over 10,000 is a moot point in regards to the Osprey, IMO.

And just because you do not agree with the V-22 program does not nescessairily make one "ill-informed" or "ignorant" - these are still very well educated and honorable military officers/pilots so while you may not agree with them, resorting to strawman fallacy tactics is ones generally reserved for the last ditch efforts.

There are supposed to be checks and balances with large programs such as these and what gets people all bent out of shape is when those checks and balances are bypassed in favor of a few big-businesses. The V-22 was rightfully so cancelled by SECDEF Dick Cheney and it simply never should have been allowed to be resurrected.

[Edited 2006-04-09 00:15:42]

User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
anything over 10,000 is a moot point in regards to the Osprey, IMO

I agree, V-22 is meant to fill the role of helicopters, albeit with a much higher airspeed. How often are helicopters operated over 10,000 feet? Not very.

I have one criticism of the Osprey program that I don't think you need to be an aeronautical engineer to make: it has had an exceptionally long gestation period, with all the inflationary cost increases that entails. I know all big procurement programs run behind schedule, but this one seems a little excessive in that area. Am I wrong?


Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 16):
I have one criticism of the Osprey program that I don't think you need to be an aeronautical engineer to make: it has had an exceptionally long gestation period, with all the inflationary cost increases that entails. I know all big procurement programs run behind schedule, but this one seems a little excessive in that area. Am I wrong?

I'd say development of a new mode of travel always takes a long time, and fundamentally that is what the V-22 is.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 13):

Right, those are the book regulations... anyone who's spent any time in an operational unit will tell you the regulations are written for perfect world scenarios and don't always fit the real world Army.

Sure I can fly up just short of 14,000ft with 12 infantrymen onboard... but why the hell would I want to DO that!?? Anything above 10,000ft is tough on the body.

Don't forget CTR, the heart rate of a soldier preparing to go into a hot LZ is off the charts. When he fast ropes out, he needs his mind to be in the game. As I mentioned, high altitude flight really taxes the soldier's ability to think clearly. This is also coupled with the fact that the cold temperatures at altitude can equally effect a soldier's ability to go into battle fully prepared.

We simply don't work at altitude. Plain and simple. Whether it's Army helicopters transporting troops... or if it's USAF C-17s dropping airborne rangers - we hit the deck.

I just cannot stress this enough - tactical ops above 10,000ft+ just don't work.

PS: We can go as high as humanly possible with supplemental oxygen in an unpressurized cabin. HALO jumpers jump from the back of C-130s as high as 30,000ft.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
Where is any representative the Marine Corps that is currently involved in the program as a source?



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
General McCorkle is enough to raise my skepticism.

 checkmark 

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
Everyone there will tell you that Carlton Meyer, Harry Dunn, and Everest Riccioni are ill-informed and ignorant critics of the program.

How can you debase respected men in this manner? Colonel Riccioni wrote a very well articulated argument and raised valid objections. If the V-22 community cannot effectively counter his arguments with something other than pointless name calling, it only further undermines their position.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
And just because you do not agree with the V-22 program does not necessarily make one "ill-informed" or "ignorant" - these are still very well educated and honorable military officers/pilots so while you may not agree with them, resorting to strawman fallacy tactics is ones generally reserved for the last ditch efforts.

 checkmark 

-UH60


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3935 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

The altitude issue isn't the most important I think. I'd say the Col's most important points are:

-Clumsy performer in helicopter mode. Poor manoeuvrability, big downwash, prone to stalling one rotor which is obviously very tricky.
-Payload/range performance is nothing special and the load volume is actually small.
-It's faster than helicopters but this is more than nullified by poorer serviceability.

I'm not saying this is all true and nothing but the truth. Especially, serviceability might improve if you try long enough. But I don't think all of this is bias.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

Sorry I had to take this out as it was a bit HUGE and took up way to much space. I will try and find a new way to post it for your reading enjoyment.

[Edited 2006-04-09 03:15:01]

User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

Sorry for it being so huge. I am not sure why it came out like that after I edited some spelling of mine. I tried cutting and repasting the text and it still came out like that. There is no URL link to this information as I am pulling it from a different V-22 forum and pasting it here.

User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Sorry for the third post in a row and a lack of information in the first 2. I was trying to post a report by the V-22 program manager refuting bad claims against the V-22 by the media, but a edit and reposting didn't work.

As for my name calling of Riccioni, Dunn, and Meyers.

I will just say that because you are an experienced aviator doesn't make you an expert on a different weapon system. I have 1200+ hours riding in the back of HH-60s and I was a turbo-prop engine mechanic prior to that. I couldn't tell you one bit about the flying qualities of a U-2. I am a fairly educated individual in fixed and rotorary wing aerodynamics. That by no means makes me an expert on every airframe under the sun and grants me the ability to post outdated or specifically selected information on an airframe and call myself an expert. I respect the fact that they served there country and that they want to bring a possible troubled program to light. I just ask that people, to include the self proclaimed aviation experts, to do there research before they write articles or post information.

The V-22 has had a long and troubled history through its development. I don't refute those claims and I don't refute the fact there are still some issues to work out. I don't care about the cost because in the end I pay my taxes and my government takes that money and does with it as it pleases. The B-2 cost a billion dollars plus per bird and I think we should buy more. That is an opinion though. People could argue the B-2 is a dinosaur because it was designed for a war that never happened. That it was a tool to drive up Russian research costs to counter it and ultimately bankrupt Russia. So with the V-22 costing 20+ billion for a revolutionary design to get going and probably a lot more in the future. Not a big deal to me.

I have done a ton of homework on this plane over the last couple of years and I am not the greatest informant on this plane. The folks posting at popasmoke.com and military.com adding there day to day experiences on the aircraft are the experts. Soon I will be flying on the CV-22 and helping to get the Air Force program going for it. I don't advocate it for my own pleasure. I advocate it because it can truly save crews and do some amazing flying. There still is, and will continue to be a place for conventional helicopters for many decades to come. The high DA performance of the H-47 and many Russian design helicopters cannot be matched by the V-22, the H-60, and many other helicopters.

So I apologize if I offended any one here with my remarks. I joined these forums mostly do to the professionalism by the people that posted here as I trolled for at least 2 years prior to joining. I post quit regularly at military.com and I face countless waves of folks who post haplessly and do not think about what they are saying. Some of my countering of that may have rubbed off in here and I do not want to be seen being argumentative to the point of name calling.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18):
Right, those are the book regulations... anyone who's spent any time in an operational unit will tell you the regulations are written for perfect world scenarios and don't always fit the real world Army.

Sure I can fly up just short of 14,000ft with 12 infantrymen onboard... but why the hell would I want to DO that!??

MANPADS! Specifically SA-18s. Altitude capability +10,000 ft.

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1635

Also please consider that the 10,000 ft altitude we have been discussing is pressure, not AGL.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Best defense against MANPADs is a good ECM suit and a lot of luck. Yes flying over them is a good way to mitigate the risk, but blade stall and and a minimal manuevering envelope is far riskier than being down low. Plus the SA-18 isn't being fielded by the bad guys in the 2 AoRs thank goodness.

Your biggest threat in OIF or OEF if small arms and RPGs and they do not require that much of an altitude variance to defeat if you wanted to over fly them.


25 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : I'm not sure I understand you... are you arguing that we should operate above 10 in order to protect against RPGs and man portable SAMS? Speaking on
26 CTR : AFE aviator, I concur that the S-18 is not a prevalent as the SA-7 "YET". But I fear it is just a mater of time. Blade stall and maneuvering becomes a
27 CTR : For current policeing actions like Iraq and Afghanistan you are correct. In fact I fully agree. There is not much any current technology can do to pr
28 AFEaviator : Nope I am saying operate low. There is no reason to be that high and get a nose bleed if you don't have to be. Usually a couple of hundred feet is mo
29 KC135TopBoom : Why are we stuck on the high altitude issue? For most helios, operating at and above 10,000' doesn't happen often enough to be an issue, the MV/CV-22
30 Kukkudrill : Maybe this is a dumb question (I have no military background whatsoever) but would it be practical to use the Osprey for this sort of mission, given
31 Boeing7E7 : Fine aircraft. You make me laugh, and when people start dying flying rather than fighting, you'll make me laugh even harder. The V-22 = Flying Coffin
32 KC135TopBoom : Yes, the rotors would limit the firing arcs (9-10 o'clock and 2-3 o'clock positions), but that could be corrected by flying at a slightly higher alti
33 AirRyan : What I am yet convinced is the transistion the other way around - how well does the Osprey transistion from cruise to a hot LZ? What I am still worri
34 StealthZ : Col Riccioni in a footnote #27 on page 10 of that article claims that Ospreys were available for Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 as they had been in low
35 AFEaviator : True one rotor could go into VRS before the other and then that plane could immediately roll and crash. In the Marana crash there were several factor
36 JarheadK5 : The -22's I walked through at New River a couple years ago had no door between the cabin & cockpit. But these were OT&E airframes, so maybe that's a
37 Post contains links AirRyan : Why WASN'T the V-22 selected for Marine One? http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/01/why_wasnt_the_v.html First and foremost, the Osprey (assuming it
38 JarheadK5 : Biggest reason, as told to me by a good friend at HMX, is that the V-22 won't fit, with the required clearance, in the space available on the White H
39 Post contains images AirRyan : Ahh, when you take a big old CH-53E and paint it dark green like Marine One, it's really only semantics whether it's a C or a V! But will they still
40 Post contains images Confuscius : "This is why HMX's CH-53E's (there's no such thing as a VH-53E)...why the Echo wasn't considered. "...it's really only semantics whether it's a C or a
41 AirRyan : Oh the memories! MEU ACE: shitters, skids, phrogs, and lawn darts.
42 JarheadK5 : Of course I mean Shitters - I was a proud Shitter guy for 11 years! Just trying to keep in family-friendly... plus not too many people outside the Co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Marine General On The V-22: How Do You Figure? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 21:53:03 by AirRyan
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
The NROL-22 Satellite Launch Was Good.. posted Thu Jun 29 2006 02:39:56 by Wardialer
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
What Are Those "Pods" On The F-15? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 03:44:13 by AnMCOSon
Did Nasa Put Men On The Moon? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 13:54:26 by Thowman
How Much More Lift Does Shuttle Make On The 747? posted Sat Jul 16 2005 15:50:49 by Boeing nut

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format