Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The V-22 continues to fail.
Crusader    10/22/2003 9:07:09 PM
There is so much bad news to report about the V-22 program in 2003 that this article will cover basic issues; the "vortex ring" stall and cost issues will be addressed later this year. This will be our sixth article about the V-22 program, which has become the largest weapons scandal in US military history. The V-22 first flew in 1989 and remains "in development" despite four major crashes which killed 30 people. The V-22 began production in 1999 in violation of the sacred "fly before you buy" standard, even after it failed testing. A dozen are produced each year and placed in storage as testing and development continues. The current promise is that Marines will begin using V-22s in the fleet in 2006, although development will continue until 2008. If all problems are fixed, the first 80 V-22s will have to be rebuilt to the final "Block C" configuration after 2008. G2mil has published five articles over the past three years exposing the V-22 scandal: The V-22 Fiasco - too dangerous for combat MV-22 Lies - keeping a failed program funded Keeping the V-22 Alive - the biggest scandal in US military history V-22 Update - this scandal just grows and grows Waiting for the Next V-22 Crash - soaring costs too In November 2000, the Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation office rated the V-22 capable of achieving planned missions, but recommended against full production and declared it "operationally unsuitable". The evaluators noted the V-22 suffers a low mission capable rate and "failures related to the hydraulic system deserve special mention." The complex hydraulic power system suffered 170 failures during the 804.5 hour operational evaluation. Two weeks after this report was released, another V-22 crashed while the Corps' best V-22 pilot attempted to land in good weather, killing four more Marines. The Marine Corps determined that this crash was caused by hydraulic failure and software problems. In May 2002, the V-22 was declared ready to resume flight tests after a 17-month stand down. The main focus was to fix the hydraulic and software problems. "All of the things that were wrong with this airplane have been fixed," Marine Col. Dan Schultz, the V-22 program manager, said when the upgraded aircraft resumed testing. Several more problems have emerged since then: Hydraulic Lines Fail Again On March 10, 2003, the V-22 program announced that all test V-22s would be grounded for ten days to replace defective titanium hydraulic lines. The V-22's 5000 psi hydraulic system has caused many problems in the past, spouting leaks 171 times during operational testing and was the primary cause of the last fatal crash. Helicopters and aircraft use larger and heavier 3000psi systems with stainless steel lines. While titanium is stronger than stainless steel, it is more brittle, more costly, and more difficult to manufacture. Many people assumed the V-22 would adopt traditional hydraulic systems as part of its redesign, adding yet another thousand pounds of weight to an already overweight aircraft. Instead, the program made fixing the leaky titanium lines its primary focus during the 17-month stand down, adding coatings and stronger fasteners. According to the V-22 program office, these new hydraulic lines leaked during a V-22 assembly test at Fort Worth on December 6, 2002. They inspected lines and learned they were so thin in places they would only last 10% of their promised service life. This was truly embarrassing because they had selected the world's best manufacturer to produce this key item. Choosing a new manufacturer to produce new lines would take months, and there was no guarantee anyone could make them to specs. So they kept word of the defective titanium lines secret until new ones were delivered in March 2003 from two new contractors. It is unclear why V-22s were not grounded when this safety problem was uncovered on December 6th. Luckily, no V-22 crashed during this time. After a ten day stand down to replace the 20 flight critical lines in the V-22s undergoing testing, Ward Carroll, the V-22 Public Affairs official, explained that replacing all the defective lines, like those that control the ramp and doors, would be too expensive. Only the 20 critical lines were replaced, while the other 780 defective lines remain in each V-22. So current plans are to deliver the first 60 V-22s with known defective hydraulic lines to the Marines and let them replace them as they begin to leak. On August 6th, 2003, even one of the newly replaced titanium hydraulic lines sprung a leak after just a few hours of use during a pilot training flight. The back up system worked and the V-22 made a safe emergency landing. The program immediately announced there would be an investigation into the cause, but stated that it was not caused by chaffing or defective lines. Of course they didn't know the cause, but would never admit the problem had still not be
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
macawman    RE:The V-22 continues to fail.    10/23/2003 1:51:27 PM
When the Presidential fleet of Marine Ch-53s are replaced by V-22s that is when soldiers should start flying them.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:The V-22 continues to fail.    10/24/2003 5:21:22 AM
"Why would we want to pat attention to Carlton Meyer?" would be a better closing statement for the article. Every program he doesn't like, is 1. to expensive 2. will never work, 3. Everyone thats says it does is lying 4. or been bought off 5. active duty that agree with him are scared to say anything or 6.don't want to rock the boat.
 
Quote    Reply

Crusader    RE:The V-22 continues to fail. Sam   10/24/2003 2:02:36 PM
Sam, You didn't answer any of the points that this speaks of. And I DO know people in the Corps who HAVE what happens when you don't sing the praises of the V-22. Since you seem to know everything that is concerned with the USMC, I suppose I should take everything you say as Gospel. This is a very expensive program, and knowing all you know, you know that the Corps does not have money to burn. 14 years and ZIP to show for it may be a sign of something, but I guess not.
 
Quote    Reply

Crusader    Sam-Apology   10/24/2003 2:59:55 PM
I was rude in my last post, but I was hoping you may give some knowldge from your experience regarding the issues he has mentioned. As I have said, I am not a fan of the program, but I am interested in what your input is.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Sam-Apology   10/25/2003 12:43:30 PM
I didn't have the time to read the full text, but one thing stood out for me (if true). The section on titanium hydraulic lines and the fact that only the most critical will be replaced knowing that the non-critical WILL break at some time. That made my hair stand on end. Can you imagine fling into a hot zone in an aircraft with brittle and unsafe hydraulics? No thanks, I?ll just shoot myself in the foot first.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:The V-22 continues to fail.    10/25/2003 1:04:18 PM
With the weight issue being so critical, I doubt that the hydraulics are multipply redundant and that the most critical are on separate loops. If not, then ANY leak in ANY line will lead in a very short time to a total loss of hydraulics as the fluid escapes. After that, disaster ensues. Remember the Sioux City air crash?
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:No apology necessary   10/26/2003 2:34:49 AM
We all vent sometime, look at a recent post of mine on another thread. I am not an expert at all things Marine and never claimed to be. I will admit to being a "Retired Opinionated Marine". Concerning the MV 22, I use to listen to/read Meyers and Sparks. Once the Osprey moved to New River, and a neighbor transitioned to the program, what I was seeing and hearing wasn't adding up to what the 2 previous individuals were spouting so I started reading (and feeding the neighbor beer). A few examples, Hydraulic lines. Went to titanium because of the pressure difference. Blames the Osprey for a batch of faulty lines that were delivered to the factory. Looks to me like the QC at Ft Worth plant was doing what it was suppose to. Doesn?t state, but implies that the Ospreys in the fleet had lines from that batch. Don't know your military experience, but even in the civilian world, when Ford or Playschool recalls a defective product they issue a item number (Hydro line) and the lot (Batch)number. My guess is that a safety notice was sent out, lines were checked, and then it became a critical preflight inspection item. Since the company in question had provided defective parts, once new lines from a new manufacturer were available than critical lines were replaced. Why not use non critical (ramp/door lines) until they begin to leak? On the civilian side I could site the example with my SUV. When they were building 2002 4-Runners, the door seals were intermixed with those of the Tacoma (about 1/8 inch shorter). About a month after I bought mine, got a whistling sound coming from one door. Same time got a recall notice. Took it in, asked if they were replacing all seals. In order to replace seal had to remove door. I opted only to replace the failed one. Under the ?Don?t fix what isn?t broke? rule. When/if other non critical ones fail they will replace them. Unless replaced ALL lines will fail, All engines will fail, All brake pads will wear out. Notice how he mentions that on Aug 6 (actually Aug 4 if you follow the link) one of the new lines sprung a leak and used the ?Of course they didn?t know the cause, but would never admit that the problem had still not been fixed? hinting at some backroom conspiracy or other nefarious going on. Glossed over the most important part of the incident ?The backup system worked and the V-22 made a safe emergency landing? Pond hopping. //"First, it assumes that scarce tankers are available during a crisis which will fly 2000 mile missions to ocean midpoints to refuel V-22s.?// The assumption that there will be refuelers is probably a good one. Refuelers will be there because: 1, AF tankers will also be tanking AF planes that are crossing the Atlantic in response of the "crisis". And KC-135s have been retrofitted with drogues so they can refuel Navy/MC birds. 2, since the air wing that sends them on the mission also owns some of the 130+ KC-130s in the Navy/MC I'm betting they will task for it and 3 if there is a carrier around they will be able to tank off KS-3. //? Second, the V-22 has just two engines and a much higher mean time between aborts than fixed-wing aircraft. Therefore, a V-22 squadron flying across an ocean can expect to lose one aircraft. This is why a V-22 has never flown overseas to demonstrate "self deploy" at anytime during its 14 years of testing, and why there are no plans to demonstrate this in the coming years.// Yes MV-22s ?only? have 2 engines. F-16s ?Only? have 1 engine and hop the pond all the time. The Osprey can fly on 1 engine, (he forgot to mention that). It still has a higher MTBF rate because its still in the test stage. And if you actually look at the program, It may have been around for 14 years but not been testing for that time. Look at SADARM As another example, came out in 70s, testing funded, funding pulled, funded, pulled? Now in production 2002. I don?t call that a 30 year test program. The first AV-8A squadron came into service in 1973. Did not fly a transLant until 1978. Osprey isn?t even in a squadron yet. Where is his reference for the interior being smaller than the CH-46? Oh, yea, they pulled it off the internet in a DON/USMC/DOD cover up. The shrinking cargo bay. Read the study, MC append A (of God knows what order, I have some doubts) list usable Cargo area for vehicle loading and subtracts useable space for 2 ? of shoring. Actual cargo space, (for 46 also) would include the ramp. That is how they get the numbers, both measured from an identical point to another identical point. He is comparing apples to oranges. Useable cargo area for pallets vs useable cargo area for vehicles. And look at his LA time ?proof?. Part of a hatchet job on the Harrier. With such comments as : ?But their first vertical-lift aircraft, the Harrier jump jet, has never played a distinctive role in battle for the Marines during its three-decade lifespan.? Different subject but ask Stormi
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:No apology necessary   10/26/2003 5:47:19 AM
Herot: the lines are triple redundant. Thats a relief. I became paranoid about hydraulics after the Sioux City crash.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    Possible source of the V-22 program idea.   10/27/2003 2:46:11 PM
I watched a program on the Aviation channel the other night that showed the Russian KA-22, their early version of the V-22. This version had two sets of prop engines on each wing with a conventional fuselage. One prop engine for vertical lift and one for forward thrust. I think the Russians gave up on this idea in the early 80's about the time the US 'picked up the ball'.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Possible source of the V-22 program idea.   10/27/2003 5:47:40 PM
"Aviation channel" is that different from the "Discovery Wings" channel? Gotta love all the choices in TV now days. Not a big russian A/c fan and had never heard of the KA-22. Using a AN-10 size fuselage. They always did things big. Now the red blooded Americans at Boeing (Bell)would never admit russian influence. They will cite the XV-3 (1955) and the XV-15 (1972) as the parents of the Osprey. Work on it and the XV-3 both too place in the mid 50s. I see on the web page that the KA still holds the payload to 2000m record. Impressive. Thanks macawman. link
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy