Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Uscg V-22's?  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 4926 times:

With the USAF workin gout the bugs on the CV-22 I cannot help but wonder why the USCG is not slated to buy a bunch of these V-22's? On the V-22 NAVAIR website they have pics of an aft hoist and really that's just as good a platform to conduct hoist off of as the side of a hovering helo. I got to log a few hours in a V-22 sim a few weeks ago and with the modern flightdeck and autopilot, a V-22 pilot can set the autohover right over the water and use the trim to make minor corrections that the AP doesn't. With the V-22's speed I would love to see the USCG take full advantage of the platform and I think it actually looks quite well in USCG colors!

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w2/rdrebers/USCGV22fifty.jpg

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
With the USAF workin gout the bugs on the CV-22 I cannot help but wonder why the USCG is not slated to buy a bunch of these V-22's?

Given all the problems the Coast Guard is currently experiencing with Deepwater project management, I doubt anyone on the Hill would be willing to give the Coast Guard the Osprey. Besides, the Coast Guard can barely afford the new air assets they currently have slated for procurement under deepwater. Taking on the challenge of buying, operating and maintaining the Osprey wold divert scare dollars needed for purchase of new (and modernizing existing) manned fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

AirRyan,

Early in the Deep Water program, Bell offered the BA609 to the USCG. At half the size, no weight penalty for ballistic tolerance or under deck stowage and less than one quarter the cost of the V-22, the BA609 was an attractive option. However at the time, the USCG required that candidate aircraft be already in production. The USCG did however persue a USCG version of the Eagle Eye Tiltrotor UAV.

The Deep Water program has been beset by schedule delays over the past six years and is now being reorganized. The BA609 meanwhile has completed over 150 flight hours of testing and is scheduled for certification by 2010. I would put my money on the BA609 wearing USCG colors before the V-22.

Have fun.

CTR
Big version: Width: 550 Height: 442 File size: 21kb
BA609 in USCG Colors



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

While the 609 is a very cool plane for civilian use. It will require fairly extensive cockpit modification for it to be used as a viable military/rescue asset. First of all the 609 has a collective much like a helicopter. While this may get rid of the collective dyslexia that some pilots face during transition from helos to tilt-rotor, it doesn't have the same TCL functionality that the V-22 has. Even if the collective stays you will need to add a altitude reference feature tied into a Flight Director Panel controlled by the mission computers and the FCCs. All of that is required to take advantage of the hover coupler features and position hold features that the V-22 has. The basic 609 doesn't have this functionality included as it isn't a requirement for a civilian operator to hold precision hovers in a low visibility environment.

The 609 is also lacking the full control of the nacelles that the V-22 has. The V-22 has a thumbwheel that the pilot can use to position the nacelles from 1-96 degrees with an additional 1.5 degrees supplied by disc tilt. The 609 is designed with fixed nacelle positions in mind. It isn't meant to have prolonged operations at various nacelle angles from 1 to 96. Basically it has a hover mode and an airplane mode. I haven't heard if there is a conversion mode setting.

For rescue work the airframe is going to need to be stressed for hoist operations and include various upgrades in communications, flight instruments, and probably a color weather radar. The plane should also include a larger fuel capacity as well as the current fuel limitations with the 609 wont give it much more of a range advantage over the HH-60J.

Do I think any of these options are insurmountable? No, but the development costs will be fairly high I think and by the time the Bell is done nickel and diming the USCG (if they were to pursue the aircraft) they might as well as taken a CV-22 with the defensive systems removed.

Edited for grammer errors.

[Edited 2007-03-28 05:18:48]

User currently offline60Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is the reason why the CG is keeping it's current helo assets. It was decided that it would less expensive to keep and upgrade what we have and also the higher ups decided to keep the 60 for force projection. The AB139 that was slated to replace the 60 did not have the ballistic tolerance or ability to fast rope people and shoot from. The 609 would not have been able to perform these either.

User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4608 times:

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 3):
First of all the 609 has a collective much like a helicopter. While this may get rid of the collective dyslexia that some pilots face during transition from helos to tilt-rotor, it doesn't have the same TCL functionality that the V-22 has

Specifically what functionality is missing from the 609 collective that you consider to be an issue? With the the exception of pulling up on a collective stick to increase thrust instead pushing a Thrust Control Lever forward, tactile cueing is still provided by the FCCs via a motor drive and mag particle clutch. Adding different switches on the collective head to support added functions is not a big issue.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 3):
Even if the collective stays you will need to add a altitude reference feature tied into a Flight Director Panel controlled by the mission computers and the FCCs. All of that is required to take advantage of the hover coupler features and position hold features that the V-22

Agreed. However the V-22 mission computers have a lot of additional functions that are not required to support the USCG mission. A much simpler mission computer to provide hover and position hold can added be at greatly reduced cost.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 3):
The 609 is also lacking the full control of the nacelles that the V-22 has. The V-22 has a thumbwheel that the pilot can use to position the nacelles from 1-96 degrees with an additional 1.5 degrees supplied by disc tilt. The 609 is designed with fixed nacelle positions in mind. It isn't meant to have prolonged operations at various nacelle angles from 1 to 96. Basically it has a hover mode and an airplane mode. I haven't heard if there is a conversion mode setting.

To reduce pilot work load and simplfy certification flight testing, the 609 FCC software has been designed to automatically stop the nacelles at 60 deg and 75 deg positions when converting from helo (90 deg) to airplane (0 deg) mode or from airplane to helo. These positions were selected to provide best speed and performance ranges. However between 75 and 95 (backward flight) the nacelles can be infinetly positioned by the pilot to correct for CG and landing slope. Also makes for a nice bow manuver following an air show. If the V-22 was designed today, it would probably use the same nacelle control logic as the 609.

The V-22 is a fantastic machine. But for the USCG it is a semi truck when a pickup truck will do. One quarter the cost and a fraction of the operating cost of the V-22 can't be ignored. The Italian Coast Guard has expressed a strong interest in the 609. That is why Ship 2 has been painted in the Italian Coat Guard colors.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Guys, the USCG is simply not known for having the most modern technology out there. Often a lot of their equipment is cast off from other services. That is where the USCG got their FLIR's that they mounted on the Herks-Navy overstock.

Look at the HH-60, that helicopter was in US service for a good 10 years before the Coast Guard looked at it.

But that being said, I do think that the additional speed the V-22 and the 609 offer would be highly desired in the rescure mission.

But they are going to let somebody else wring out the technology.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

As an aside, what has come out of the Ospreys opsevals on board LHD-5 Bataan?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Uscg V-22's?
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...
F-22 Arrives In Japan posted Sun Feb 18 2007 03:19:37 by BritJap
F-22 Deploymnt To Japan Delayed, Glitch... posted Wed Feb 14 2007 23:39:08 by Tak
Marines Temporarily Ground MV-22 Fleet posted Fri Feb 9 2007 19:45:16 by DfwRevolution
V-22 Osprey Still Encountering Reliability Issues posted Mon Jan 22 2007 22:45:39 by UH60FtRucker
MV-22 Osprey Dual Flameout Emergency Procedures posted Fri Jan 5 2007 00:46:06 by 2H4
F-15 Demo Team Transitions To F-22 posted Wed Dec 20 2006 23:39:32 by DEVILFISH
Usaf Designates Uscg Aircraft? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 18:33:21 by FlyUSCG
Uscg HH-60J Over The Hudson? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:11:43 by Cadet985
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
Rumsfeld's Departure May Mean More F-22 - F-18E/F posted Wed Nov 15 2006 01:06:02 by MCIGuy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format