Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another Osprey Issue
Galrahn    10/27/2005 2:08:17 AM
I know this is an Air Force CV-22, but this seems the best place to post. V-22 Engines Freeze: Can’t Fly Through Clouds (Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Oct. 25, 2005) (See Editor’s Note at bottom) WASHINGTON --- An Air Force version of the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft last week experienced a condensation stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems, sources have told the Project On Government Oversight. The aircraft, CV-22 #6, was on a routine flight to Edwards Air Force base in California. It did not recover from the stall until it had descended to warmer air at about 10,000 feet, the sources said. As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona. “This is very disturbing. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production,” said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. “And now we find out the aircraft can’t even fly into a cloud.” At the time of this release, it was not known whether the aircraft that experienced the stall had a de-icing system onboard. It’s also unclear just how much, or if any, de-icing system testing has been performed on the CV-22. A report of testing issued last month by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation on the Marines V-22 did not address the issue of icing. A 2000 DOT&E report said that icing testing on the Marines V-22 had been waived by the Navy. Sources have speculated to POGO that the V-22 cannot take on extra weight without impacting its performance, and a de-icing system would add weight. The requirement that the aircraft be able to operate in icing conditions was waived during the first phase of operational testing in 2000. The report also predicted that there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the 2002 report to Congress said. There is another concern raised by the dual-engine failure. Because the Pentagon and defense contractors have been saying that the loss of both engines in the V-22 is “remote, but possible,” they have deleted the original requirement that the V-22 be able to autorotate like nearly all other helicopters to a soft landing in the event of engine failure. In the event of a single engine failure, V-22 flight procedures require the pilot to transition to aircraft mode and in the event of a second engine failure perform a “fixed wing glide approach to an emergency landing site,” according to an April 2002 report to Congress. In fact, had the emergency dual engine stall over Arizona been below 1,600 feet, it would “not likely” be survivable, according to the recent DOT&E report. The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22’s to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations force from enemy areas. Although the CV-22 is on a different development and testing track than the Marines MV-22, it team of developers and testers work together on many common areas. The Air Force version of the V-22, the CV-22, is a modified version of the Marines MV-22 to perform longer-range, special operations missions. The CV-22 is modified to have long-range fuel tanks, advanced radar, and more sophisticated situational awareness and radio frequency countermeasures. These modifications are designed to improve operations during night and low altitude flights in bad weather. The report to Congress also said there was no plan to evaluate operations in icing conditions during OPEVAL Phase II. “The operators will be restricted from flying in icing conditions until the development testing and follow-on operational testing is completed,” the report said. POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends) EDITOR’S NOTE: The V-22 program office confirmed the Oct. 18 icing accident, which prompted an unscheduled landing in Prescott, Arizona, Reuters reported Oct. 25. It quoted spokesman James Darcy as denying that either engine stalled, adding that the crew was never in any danger: "The POGO report is completely false. The aircraft was never out of controlled flight, the engines never lost power, the landing was precautionary," Darcy was quoted as saying. -ends-
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
phrogdriver    RE:Another Osprey Issue   1/13/2006 10:36:31 PM
This event has been portrayed as a hit on the Osprey itself, but it is something that could have happened to any aircraft. The first blocks of V-22s are not equipped with full anti-ice/de-ice packages. This aircraft went into visible moisture below 4C. That means icing, whether in a Cessna, a 747, or a V-22. While this incident may be due to poor planning, bad luck, or whatever, it has no relevence to the legitimacy of the program.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Another Osprey Issue   1/14/2006 12:12:38 AM
But it does bring up the question of what is the plan for when operational requirements require risking ice conditions?
 
Quote    Reply

phrogdriver    RE:Another Osprey Issue   1/14/2006 12:43:05 AM
The plan is that the fleet birds will have anti-ice equipment. Besides, current Marine helos don't have it at all, so you're still ahead on capability, regardless.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:Another Osprey Issue   1/17/2006 6:20:15 PM
This would be the one that was mis-reported wouldn't it? ISTR that the official line was that the engines did not stall but suffered a drop in power and the descent to lower level was entirely controlled Defense Industry Daily article
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Another Osprey Issue-POGO   1/18/2006 10:25:36 AM
POGO is nothing more than a bunch of hacks who spend all their time attacking any and all military programs as a waste and inefective.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Another Osprey Issue-POGO   1/18/2006 11:28:53 AM
->"POGO is nothing more than a bunch of hacks who spend all their time attacking any and all military programs as a waste and inefective. " That's an over-exaggeration. Keep in mind that, just for the fact that people know someone is out there demanding accountability over money spent for product delivered, it may keep more industry people and those politicians associated with them more honest, if only to avoid bringing too much attention to their program. POGO (and to a lesser extent, the GAO) doesn't critique every little thing, but more often than not its the programs that cost booku bucks yet continue to stall on initial promises that gets their attention. Although I will admit that, even if a program does show reasonable enough progress, if enough people cry foul to the right ears, POGO (and the GAO, as well as a handful of other "concerned citizens" advocacy groups) is there with magnifying glass in hand. But, without those watchdog organizations and committees, who's going to keep the industry and leadership honest and accountable? How bad off would we be if there were insufficient checks and balances to govern, regulate, and investigate a system that we are time and again shown is not perfect, and on ocassion has a thief amongst its ranks (Boeing tanker scandal comes to mind)?
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Another Osprey Issue-POGO   1/18/2006 12:05:22 PM
You can't compare the GAO to the hacks at POGO, they resort to outright lies and deliberate misinterpetations to attack projects they dislike. They aligned themselves with that buffoon Mike Sparks and his lackey Carlton Meyer over the Stryker issue and every major point they took issue with has been repeatedly refuted by shek and others both here and on other sites. They have no credibility or understanding of anything about military systems.
 
Quote    Reply

Weasel    RE:Another Osprey Issue   1/18/2006 12:20:55 PM
I think the sad point is that this program can't take anymore bad press. It baffles me as to why its had so many problems. Is it because the customer keeps changing specifications? Because it certainly smells like it.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Another Osprey Issue-POGO   1/18/2006 1:04:27 PM
->"You can't compare the GAO to the hacks at POGO, they resort to outright lies and deliberate misinterpetations to attack projects they dislike... ...They have no credibility or understanding of anything about military systems." So effectively then, how are they any different from any other PAC (political action committee), think tank, or "advice group" that is completely unattached from any military branch or official government office yet doesn't hesitate to solicit a given service branch to perk interests in their pet projects and concerns, that were never initially even under consideration by the government?
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Another Osprey Issue-POGO   1/18/2006 6:41:01 PM
I could care less about any of them, all I've stated is that anything that comes from POGO should be taken with the grain of salt it's worth, if that. They've been repeatedly exposed as hacks and the fact people buy into their rubbish and use it to make decisions is troubling.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics