AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:49 am

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
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:07 pm

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:17 pm

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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:11 am

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?
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:15 am

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
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:40 am

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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:26 am

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)
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:26 am

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.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:38 am

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,,,
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:51 pm

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]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:28 pm

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,,,
 
dc1030guy
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 8:21 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:05 pm

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
 
TaromA380
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:40 am

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.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:49 am

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,,,
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:54 am

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
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:03 am

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]
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:49 am

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?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:05 am

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!!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:08 am

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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:19 am

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)
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:41 am

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]
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:47 am

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.
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:56 am

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.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:28 pm

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,,,
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:15 pm

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.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:33 pm

Quoting CTR (Reply 23):
quit regularly at military

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 my experience thus far in Iraq... SAMs are rare when it comes to ground fire. RPGs are more common, but very inaccurate and not the biggest threat. The biggest threat is small arms fire, which does tend to make contact with us.   

We are most vulnerable when we are at a hover (obviously). Hovering there, waiting for those soldiers to all get out safely, while listening to the plinking of bullets, is the most sickening feeling one can experience. We're also most vulnerable when coming into the FOB or base. They know which directions we approach at and that we're slowing down.

The point is = cruise is our least vulnerable period of the mission. So what good does it serve to have the ability to go up high? Either way, we're still getting down low.

The V-22 will be as vulnerable, if not more, as us rotorheads.

*******

On a matter of curiosity, how long does it take the Osprey to transition from a 50ft hover to a cruise of 100kts? And can it preform rapid/abrupt evasive action maneuvers while in transition?

I ask this because the egress of a LZ should be as quick as possible. With a helicopter we can get out of there fairly quickly. Also, we're able to maneuver quite effectively, making it much harder to draw a bead on us. A helicopter's ingress can be fairly slick as well. Anyone ever seen a 'hawk go from 90kts to a dead hover in mere seconds? A lotta aft cyclic and rapid collective reduction - but unbelievably fun!!

-UH60

[Edited 2006-04-09 06:35:17]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:35 pm

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 an issue at the corner of the envelope. However I believe that at 15,000 to 20,000 ft this is not really an issue. But I can only review the performance curves. Your hands are on the cyclic and TCL. You tell me.

BTW. The V-22's little brother, the BA609 just cleared 25,000 ft this week with no supplemental O2 for the crew. But then it is the worlds first pressurized tiltrotor or helicopter.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:07 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
The point is = cruise is our least vulnerable period of the mission. So what good does it serve to have the ability to go up high? Either way, we're still getting down low.

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 protect Kiowas or Blackhawks from small arms or RPGs.

But for long missions that require the V-22s range, this becomes a factor. Every minute in the air within the reach of MANPADS is a risk.

I can tell you from witnessing it myself that V-22s can out accelerate almost any helo from a hover. I will try to find the detailed information on a public site and post it next week.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:38 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
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?

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 more than enough to throw off any tracking solution by small arms or RPGs. The marines did a study and showed that above 80kias it was almost impossible for a regular infantry man to get an accurate aiming solution with a rifle.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 25):
On a matter of curiosity, how long does it take the Osprey to transition from a 50ft hover to a cruise of 100kts? And can it perform rapid/abrupt evasive action maneuvers while in transition?

A matter of seconds. Now this depends on load out of course (as it would with any aircraft). I don't have the test data, but a slick MV can accelerate from a dead stand still to 200 kias speed in about a mile. With a full troop load it would be a bit more. The V-22 is quite maneuverable with the nacelles up, but not as much as an H-60. The H-60 is one of the most maneuverable helicopters in the world (as you probably know UH60FtRucker).

Do you guys use EM data that the Navy put together or just blade stall limitations? Also are you limited to 60 degrees angle of bank? The AF H-60 is limited to 90 operationally but to blade stall for training unless they are practicing evasive maneuvers and then they follow the Navy EM charts for limitations.

Quoting CTR (Reply 26):
However I believe that at 15,000 to 20,000 ft this is not really an issue.

I was referring to helicopter operations. Lima H-60s won’t have as much of an issue as they are much lighter, but the HH-60 is getting on the ragged edge around 10,000ft.

The V-22 is limited to 17,000ft or lower because of the oxygen system on board. The cabin isn't pressurized and the oxygen system isn't 100% oxygen. It is a 70/30 mix and at 25,000 the risk for decompression sickness is very high. You all brought up the oxygen requirements for use above 10,000 earlier so I won’t beat that horse.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:19 pm

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 is no different. Col. Riccioni said in his report the MV-22 will operate mostly near sea level for the USMC. His number comparison to the CH-53E and CH-46E are right on.

Col. Riccioni is correct, the MV/CV-22A is a dismal failure for a transport, which is the main reason to buy it.

But, there are other missions the MV/CV-22 is better suited for than what the USMC and USAF are going to use it for. This helio will make an excellent escort and/or reconn aircraft, escorting the CH/MH-53Ks With a 10,000lb payload capability and the higher speed of the MV-22, load it up with 25mm miniguns and gunners. It can suppress the bad guys long enough for the transport helios to drop their troops and equipment. The MV/CV-22 can also make a good low altitude and high speed reconn platform.

Both of these missions will not have the high transfer of the CG the troop transport MV-22 has. The high downwash will not be a problem for either mission, as the MV-22 can stay in the "aircraft" flight mode. The MV/CV-22 is also a lot quiter in the aircraft mode than it is in the helio mode.
 
Kukkudrill
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:11 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:50 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
load it up with 25mm miniguns and gunners

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 that in wingborne flight its props/rotors must seriously limit the gunners' field of fire?
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 3):
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.

Fine aircraft.

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 14):
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

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 30):
would it be practical to use the Osprey for this sort of mission, given that in wingborne flight its props/rotors must seriously limit the gunners' field of fire?

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 altitude, or adjusting the rotor tilt.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 28):
A matter of seconds. Now this depends on load out of course (as it would with any aircraft). I don't have the test data, but a slick MV can accelerate from a dead stand still to 200 kias speed in about a mile. With a full troop load it would be a bit more. The V-22 is quite maneuverable with the nacelles up, but not as much as an H-60. The H-60 is one of the most maneuverable helicopters in the world (as you probably know UH60FtRucker).

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 worried about, and I love how many are so quick to just discount a potential fatal-flaw in a program and blame it on pilot error, but when that V-22 crashed in Arizona he had a vortex stall. Now I know it can happen on any rotary-winged helicopter but I think the Osprey is distinctive in this arean given the V-22 rotors are more like props and you have a potential given their location to have one rotor enter into a vortex stall while the other one is not which creates for a tremendous amount of adverse yaw/control.

What I fear is that the pilot of that V-22 in the Arizona crash was simply trying to do what he had done many times before on his H-46 but the V-22 couldn't handle it. What he was trying to do is the same type of maneuver that a pilot going into a hot LZ will want to do so as to minimize his exposure to potential enemy fire. I know the Marines have officially discounted this vortex stall as of now but I don't think it is the last we will hear of it.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:46 am

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 rate production for 15 years but "lying fallow". V-22 in production since 1965??

I could be wrong, but I don't think so!

Some of the Colonels arguments about the aircraft may be valid, some may not but his article is a remarkable rant!

I might look up some of his other writings!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:47 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 33):
What I am still worried about, and I love how many are so quick to just discount a potential fatal-flaw in a program and blame it on pilot error, but when that V-22 crashed in Arizona he had a vortex stall. Now I know it can happen on any rotary-winged helicopter but I think the Osprey is distinctive in this arean given the V-22 rotors are more like props and you have a potential given their location to have one rotor enter into a vortex stall while the other one is not which creates for a tremendous amount of adverse yaw/control.

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 factors that perpetuated the mishap. The pilot either knowingly, or unknowingly, flew the aircraft out side of prescribed flight limitations with a rapid descent. He was a bit behind lead and was described as trying to catch up. There also was no visual or audible information that the pilot was approaching VRS other then a cross check of his VSI which would have showed him his descent rate. There was also not a lot of understanding on how to effectively get the plane out of VRS at the time of the incident.

Changes made were an audible warning system that goes off much like bitchin' betty that tells the pilot when approaching VRS. A real time queue on the VSI that moves up or down depending on sink rate. The faster you descend the faster the cue moves up. As long as the planes sink rate is kept away from the cue then you are out of VRS. Also pubs changes were added as well as simulator training to give pilots awareness of how to identify and fix VRS.

You are right though and VRS in a V-22 is a bad thing. The plane doesn't have anymore susceptibility to it than a helicopter and in test flights it has been shown to be less susceptible than many modern rotary wing assets.

I am not familiar enough with the CH-46/CH-47 susceptibility to VRS, but is it a possible for one rotor on one of those assets to enter it and not the other like a V-22 could?

As for trying to do a rapid approach into an LZ with a monstrous flare to halt the aircraft I am not familiar if that was what he was trying to do. The possibility of a Hot LZ do to ambush is ever present, but flying into a known hot LZ doesn’t happen anymore. I know with the CV-22 they are teaching to use a fuselage level approach and have your nacelles do the work to slow the plane down. I can't get into times but they are comparable with other medium lift helicopters for terminal area approach times.

I am also not familiar with army and marine tactics for entering a LZ. With CSAR if the LZ is potentially hot we will employ a multitude of tactics depending on the perceived or known threat. This is anything from 2 ship gunnery, single ship gunnery with a plane on the approach, or retrograde and call a striker. Air Force CSAR is one of the few rotary wing assets I know of though that practice Call for Fire. I don’t know of any non-SOF Army or Marine helicopters that do this other than the Cobra or Apache. There are other options though but those are the basics. I know with the V-22 they have that ramp gun only option currently and that is a point of contention. So far the belly turret is getting a lot of attention but what weapon system will be installed in that turret is still undecided.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:27 pm

Quoting Uh60ftrucker (Reply 9):
Now remember, the V-22's flight deck can be sealed and pressurized,

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 feature on the production airframe...

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?

10K for the CH-53E, IAW the aircraft's NATOPS manual.



Let me preface the next paragraph by making it clear that I'm NOT a fan of the Osprey. I think it's been a colossal waste of money, and I think the Corps shoulda bought H-60's to replace the Phrogs and been done with it. Soooo...

I read the whole report, and there are so many "facts" that are just plain WRONG that I'm not even gonna try to quote them all. This Air Force fighter guy (likely a devoted follower of the "Not a pound for air-to-ground" religion) does not know how Marines employ transport helicopters, and does not know the tactics or even the proper configurations of the airframes he's using for comparison. I think he'd have made a far-more-convincing argument had he actually known about the aircraft he used as comparisons, and actually participated in some Marine helicopter transport operations (overseas, not stateside). He even got numerous things wrong about Eagle Claw and Desert One.
He sure does know how to throw the big words around, though...
Cleared to Contact
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:19 am

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 will all work as the pundits keep claiming it will) would be ideal for VIP flights more so than any other mission it's going to perform: transistioning into forward flight equals much quicker times between points that could translate into crucial savings say when getting the President from the White House to AF1 in a time of crisis?

The V-22 can be refueled via aerial refueling, but I guess that's not a big priority for the HMX fleet like it is for AF1.

I don't have all of the physical specifications in front of me comparing the US101/VH-71 fuselage with the V-22 but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Osprey would have provided more than ample space when compared with the existing common HMX aircraft. I don't buy the rotor diameter issue as being the only reason why the V-22 wasn't selected. The US101 is going to be replacing current HMX CH-46 and CH-53 aircraft and the V-22 isn't any larger than those so either HMX needs at least two types of aircraft for it's mission (US101 cannot get into all the same small places that the VH-60 can nor can it carry the loads that the VH-53E's can) or the V-22's size would have been just fine.

The price comes out to be about the same, and the Osprey might even be a little cheaper depending upon the flavor of the week doing the cost estimation:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The program, worth nearly $6 billion, covers 23 VH-71 operational aircraft and three test aircraft at an expected cost of approximately $82 million per aircraft (Increment One) and approximately $110 million per aircraft in the final configuration. The VH-71A carries components provided by more than 200 suppliers in 41 states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ssues/2005/Sep/Safety_Upgrades.htm

Being that team US-101 is a conglomerate of US/European defense contractors derived from a European design, I don't think the Osprey was not chosen because it was actually made in the USA.

The US Marines who operate the fleet of Presidential helicopters will be operating 400 V-22 Osprey and in doing such will provide for many experienced crew chiefs, mechanics, and pilots who could otherwise have just gone right over to HMX-1 and not missed a beat - but now they have to learn how to maintain and operate an entirely new platform.

So why is it that the Osprey was not even considered for HMX-1?

Many will argue that the USMC would be better off operating US101's over the V-22's as it is a fine platform based off of proven rotary winged flight, and with it being built in the numbers that the Osprey is would minus all of the Marine One specific goodies surely bring the costs down to a much more reasonable price saving the Corps millions that could be used to pay for it's new CH-53K program.

But could it just be that the US senior politicans while evidently feeling that the Osprey would be "safe" and "good" enough for the US Marines to fly into combat just wasn't safe enough for they to fly around in?

If that isn't the case, than there really is no reason as to why the V-22 shouldn't be being used for the next Presidential Helicotper.

Interesting six year old article from Aviationtoday.com that certainly expected the Osprey to be a competitor for Marine One. The article seems to think that costs will be the Osprey's biggest hurdle but as that appeared not to be a factor, I really would like to know why the Osprey wasn't selected?

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/...ub=rw&mon=0700&file=07military.htm

Bell Boeing V-22

A tiltrotor replacement for the VH-3D is perhaps the most intriguing possibility. In the amphibious assault role, the MV-22, the Marine Corps variant, has overwhelming advantages over conventional helicopters. Many, if not all, of these advantages are applicable to the White House mission.

But the disadvantages also loom large. The most notable issue for the V-22 is the technology itself, which represents a significant shift away from the tried and true for a squadron and a bureaucracy that are inherently conservative. Cost also may be a factor, as will hangar and landing facilities and air transportability.

The V-22’s speed and range, and the resulting reduction in vulnerability are convincing benefits. Instead of multiple sorties on a variety of aircraft, routine trips to places like Boston, New York or Chicago could be accomplished with a single sortie originating at the White House. That kind of operational flexibility offers significant schedule, security and cost advantages over the current way of doing business.

Another consideration is commonality, particularly in training. In the Marine Corps only HMX-1 flies the H-3, so there is no population of experienced H-3 pilots in the operating forces to draw on. Not only will the fleet be filled with hundreds of MV-22s; HMX-1 will replace its own CH-46Es with new MV-22s.

As an example of the benefits commonality brings, consider that fleet pilots coming to HMX-1 with 1,500 flight hours typically require 47 weeks to go from check-in to "mission ready." For Presidential Command Pilots, that process can take three to four years. A pilot from the fleet requires at least 40 flight hours and 17 syllabus flights to be fully qualified in the VH-3D. Having pilots already experienced in the aircraft they will fly at HMX-1 not only benefits the squadron, but provides valuable flight time for when those aviators return to an operational fleet squadron.

Add to that the logistics and cost advantages associated with having a common platform in the fleet and in the presidential mission, and commonality joins operational performance as a long pole in the Bell Boeing tent.

But the V-22 always had its critics, and the old arguments against tiltrotors will be dusted off and trotted out once more.

Fortunately for Bell Boeing, those arguments have been found wanting in the past. Countless official studies have validated the V-22 as the best solution for replacing in-service medium-lift helicopters. What will be different this time is that the V-22’s operational performance will be there for everyone to see. A trouble-free transition to the fleet and sustained operational effectiveness won’t ensure success for Bell Boeing in the executive helo competition, but without them, the V-22 won’t stand a chance.

The other challenge facing the V-22 has more to do with the requirements and acquisition process than with the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various competitors. A requirements document will be drafted to support replacing the VH-3Ds. The tiltrotor has some significant advantages over conventional helicopters, and if the requirements document places a premium on the tiltrotor’s key attributes—notably speed and range—it will boost the V-22.

But drafting the document that way will necessarily reduce the field of potential competitors, something the Navy (which ultimately buys the aircraft) has at times been reluctant to do. If the requirements are "dumbed down" in the interest of leveling the playing field, the tiltrotor may be put at a disadvantage, particularly in terms of cost.

That scenario may seem unlikely, but it’s hardly unprecedented. In the Navy and Marine Corps vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle (VTUAV) competition earlier this year, the performance requirements were relaxed to increase competition. Much to the chagrin of the Marine Corps, the UAV that came closest to meeting the mission requirements, Bell’s Eagle Eye tiltrotor, lost out to a less expensive, less capable air vehicle.

Despite the obvious advantages of the tiltrotor, the Bell Boeing Tiltrotor Team’s success or failure at influencing the requirements process (and the MV-22 accident last April) ultimately may decide the V-22’s fate as an executive transport.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:40 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 37):
Why WASN'T the V-22 selected for Marine One?

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 House lawn. This is why HMX's CH-53E's (there's no such thing as a VH-53E) don't land at the White House, and why the Echo wasn't considered.

HMX will have 46's and 53's as long as the Fleet does. They are, after all, the rotary-wing OT&E squadron for the Corps...
Cleared to Contact
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:43 am

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 38):
This is why HMX's CH-53E's (there's no such thing as a VH-53E) don't land at the White House, and why the Echo wasn't considered.

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!  Smile

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 38):
HMX will have 46's and 53's as long as the Fleet does. They are, after all, the rotary-wing OT&E squadron for the Corps...

But will they still be painted high-viz gloss paint? Hasn't HMX-1 already been using the Osprey - they haven't painted it other than the standard dark gull gray or whatever name they have for that junk (I painted way too much of that color when I was fapped out to corrosion control!)
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:28 pm

"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 V!"



You mean shitters?  Smile
Ain't I a stinker?
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:49 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 40):
You mean shitters?

Oh the memories! MEU ACE: shitters, skids, phrogs, and lawn darts.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22...

Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:56 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 40):
You mean shitters?

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 Corps know what a real Shitter is!
Cleared to Contact

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zaphod42 and 16 guests