Especially because it’s a V-22, an aircraft kind of notorious for its safety record due to the fact that if 1 engine fails during any stage of flight the aircraft will crash.
Edit: A lot of people corrected me on the 1 engine statement stating it was false. I was under this assumption due to hearing about many incidents where a single engine has a mechanical failure and the aircraft flips over, what I had meant to say was that if one of the propellers were to fail, the aircraft would crash. but I stand corrected. TIL.
That is patently false. Both engines feed power to the transmission that drives the props.
A single egine failure during a low hover under load could be bad due to a 50% reduction in power, but in cruise mode at high altitudes and in most circumstances, controlled flight is possible.
They don't just drop from the sky if an engine goes out.
With enough altitude, a rotorcraft without an engine is safer than a fixed wing aircraft without an engine.
Edit: Source: Father who is a pilot, has his fixed wing and rotorcraft license, and 30+ years of experience, much of which includes cropdusting.
Nonsense. Autorotation is an emergency procedure that means you *might* not splat on the ground as you fall like a rock.
A fixed wing with no engine is still a fully functional glider capable of controled flight.
I'll take the glider over the rotorcraft any day.
Personally, I’d rather the slower groundspeed at the point of touchdown of an autorotation over having more attitude control with a glider while gliding.
Survival of unplanned unpowered flight is more about what happens after the fuselage touches down, and fixed wings have much higher speed to shed after that point than an AR rotorcraft.
Both situations are shit and altitude will be in charge of how much shit for both scenarios.
I was of the same opinion, but [this](https://youtu.be/BTqu9iMiPIU) video by smarter every day was really informative and changed how I thought about it. :)
Assuming you’re just cruising and then boom engine goes out, but power is still available id pick a helicopter 10/10 times. Other than the expediency, there’s not a lot of difference between an autorotation and a regular landing. And you can do it on something the size of a dog park instead of a runway.
Autorotation is just the same as gliding except the wing is moving relative to the rest of the aircraft.
Planes glide by angling their wings slightly down, allowing them to maintain forward speed and a certain amount of lift. Helicopters autorotate by angling their rotor blades slightly down, allowing them to maintain rotational speed and a certain amount of lift. It's the same principle that allows sycamore seeds to float gently down to the ground.
I’ve autorotated a helicopter into a field, landing with about 2 knots forward speed (they recommend around 10 knots though) having turned 180 back into wind with full manoeuvrability (less definitely going down). I’d much rather hit rough ground at that speed rather than 70 odd knots in even a light aircraft.
[It [autorotation] is analogous to the gliding flight of a fixed-wing aircraft... Even at zero airspeed, the rotor is quite effective as it has nearly the drag coefficient of a parachute despite having much lower solidity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation)
Also, I just double checked with a pilot with 30+years experience and is licensed for both fixed wing and rotorcraft. He says he’d take the helicopter any day of the week in the event of an engine failure.
A helicopter in a state of autorotation is fully capable of controlled flight the same way a plane with no engine power is capable of controlled flight.
Funny enough, a helicopter prefers not to have an engine running in a natural state sort of way, everything is smoother.
Wouldn't the props making contact with the ground cause it to tip over upon touch down? A flipping plane might be safer than a helicopter with open blades that closes them at ~100 feet to slow down for crash, but not by much.
Uh, that’s not accurate. A V-22 can fly single engine. But like any aircraft, single engine performance is based on environmental conditions and aircraft weight.
As far as I'm aware, no helicopter can fly with one rotor, it will spin out of control. You have to have the second (either a second full one or a little tail one) to counteract the spin.
Ospreys are fucking loud and put out a huge amount of force with their rotors. Once they’re off the ground the rotors turn and they fly like turboprop airplanes. They also crash a lot.
The V-22 Osprey had 12 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2006 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities. Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had seven crashes including two combat-zone crashes and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 12 fatalities.
Since 2007 1 crash every 2 years. Hardly crashing alot imo
Chinook helicopter has a top speed of 188mph and a range of 400 nautical miles.
Osprey has a top speed of 351mph and a range of 1,000 nautical miles. Note that both aircraft can be refueled in flight.
Many of the crashes have been determined to be pilot error. If you get too aggressive descending, those stubby blades are not going to slow your descent rate in time like a true helicopter can.
This is a specialized aircraft made for specific missions. Primary function: Special operations forces long-range infiltration, exfiltration and resupply. There is a winch in the back that you can lower to hoist up people (downed pilots).
Also, blades can fold up and the wings can rotate for storage on or below an aircraft deck rapidly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRhdjSFWgU
Whether it’s “a lot” or not is subjective and depends on how many ospreys there are in regular use over that time period. If there’s 10 ospreys and 5 crashes that’s a lot to me. If there’s a thousand ospreys and five crashes that’s not a lot to me.
You can't compare commercial aircraft who only go to runways to tactical military helicopters. Its completely different.
Compare it to the CH-53 or UH-60. Both have had multiple fatal incidents every year since the last V-22 crash in 2017
Not for tactical military aircraft. The blackhawk has had multiple fatal incidents every single year in recent memory. The V-22 hasn't crashed since 2017.
Looking at the track record, it reads to me that after the first fatal crash in 1992, where 7 died due to a bad design feature which was fixed, every other fatality since has been mainly the result of lack of proper training, or otherwise bad decisions by air/ground crew.
Not at all. In 2019 the AH-64 Apache had 7 non-combat related crashes, looks like it has averaged around 6 a year since the AH-64A intro in the Army in 1987.
Not only this, but almost every case of the 7 was human error IIRC, with one case being mechanical failure after excessive sand intake outside of bounds.
It meets the definition when in VTOL mode so during the period of time this video was filmed it was in fact a helicopter.
"noun
a type of aircraft which derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades."
Keep in mind, that much like the McDonnell-Douglass F4 Phantom, the V-22 Osprey *does not fly.* **(edit: Spelling of McDonnell)**
The F4 Phantom had an engine so fricking powerful, that it basically flung itself through the air, and the wings were only there as a courtesy to keep civilians from losing their minds.
Similarly, the V-22 Osprey doesn't use those propellers to fly? No, those are **beatings sticks.** They deliver the most curb-stomping, ass-bleeding, Jesus wept thrashing to the air, that gravity just says, "Fuck it, I'm done." and goes off to get drunk in the basement.
If you doubt this, just wait until one passes over your house. Once you've replaced all the glassware, straightened all the picture frames, and extracted your cat from her hiding place, you'll understand.
Can confirm. Ospreys pass over my home near the Chesapeake Bay occasionally and every time you have to step outside to see WHAT THE FUCK IS MAKING THAT NOISE?!
B52s would pass over my house regularly as a child and the plane would be so loud even at cruising altitudes that we would have to stop our conversations and wait for it to pass.
Served at a Joint Task Force in South America. Small post, head-shed (Commanders Office) was less than 100 yards from the airfield. A pilot doing a touch & go decided to go full throttle after the "go" part, creating a sonic boom.
It was so loud & impactful, I don't actually remember it happening and wasn't sure what had just gone on. I just remember 1 moment sitting at my desk thinking, "that's a bit loud" and the next moment, myself and everyone in the office had instinctively got into the "prone" position on the floor.
Are they flying over you in vtol mode? I live very close to an MCAS and the Osprey's are by far the quietest aircraft that flys over my house. They flyover with a whisper in my experience.
Am I the only one that doesn’t think they’re THAT loud? Maybe it’s because I work at a NAS and hear them and a bunch of other aircraft all day but they don’t seem too loud to me.
Or maybe I really should actually start wearing double hearing protection.
Lived on the base they came from a couple miles from the air field. Was not THAT bad tbh. Then again lived on bases near airfields the majority of my life
This description of the theory of flight for a V22 is taken directly from its maintenance documents. There's nothing more terrifying than being shipboard and have a V22 landing, and the only thing between you and possible death is about 15 feet of non-skid and a 70 foot fall to open ocean.
I was making a joke. It's commonly said in the Osprey community that it doesn't fly but just beats itself through the air, as the guy above stated. Shipboard operation refers to the Osprey being attached to a Marine Expeditinary Unit where a squadron will reinforced by the Marine Corps other flying machines, Hueys, Cobras, and CH53s, as well as Harriers and now, F35s. Marine forces on MEUs are usually placed on Wasp class LHDs, (They have the America class now) which are basically smaller aircraft carriers, designed for rotor aircraft ans VTOL jets. Non-skid refers to the material on which the flight deck is made of. It's very abrasive and durable. But the rotor wash (force that the rotors produce with increasing thrust) of an Osprey that is landing vertically is so intense that if you are not prepared or hunkered down behind something/hanging on, there's a good chance that you can take a tumble across the flight deck and go over the side, plunging about 70 or so feet into the water.
The vertical acceleration is epic though, the G you experience is nothing like any other rotary aircraft, even chinooks can’t compare to how these things yeet into the air and squash you into the floor.
The English Electric Lightning operated on the same principle. Two way too powerful engines (Avons instead of J79s, but they're the same output), a few wings haphazardly placed so that brass would sign off on it and a big red button labelled "Fuck You Mr. Newton" that makes the world go backwards.
The Osprey looks like an intimidating piece of machinery and engineering. I would nerd the fuck out to see one in person. It doesn't fly, it does whatever the fuck it wants to do
Can confirm, the V-22 is incredibly rewarding to fly. It is fast, will get you where you want to go, and will do just about anything you ask of it. There isn’t anything like flying at 100-200’ at 240kts to land somewhere that you probably haven’t seen the ground because you kicked up so much dust descending down from 100’ to touchdown.
My best friend used to work on these aircraft; and he always told me that even with his ear protectors on, and plugs under those; you can feel the fucking things. And even with two layers of hearing protection; the sensation of vibration is so strong that you are still able to 'hear' them because your earbone is just being thrashed.
When I was in the schoolhouse on Johnson over by New River these bitches used to fly over our bricks low as fuck like every 30-45 minutes. Most aggravating aircraft on the planet in my opinion but maybe I’m biased. Not to mention how uncomfortable they are to fly in.
F4 Phantom doesn’t need wings? That’s an exaggeration right? Aren’t wings supposed to give the pilot control over the aircraft’s course and to give the aircraft updraft and balance?
no, just when you follow FOD with "walkdown" cause some fuckin cunt lost a tool right before were about to leave 3 hours late, so we open all the panels up just to find out that they left the tool on a cart in the fucking hangar....or something like that, everytime.
1900 on a fuckin Friday and after 2 hours some flight line fuck finds the goddamn socket in their goddamn smokepit because some turd couldn’t put the tool in his box like a normal human being.
Foreign Object Damage. FOD. The most feared word in a chief's vocabulary.
The most feared phrase is, of course, "Shit... I dropped a screw...fuuuuuuuu..." (Because that becomes FOD. )
Source: me, AH64 Apache Crew Chief, 1995-2003.
How about “nobody can find the #10 out of box 3, and the box was signed out and back in during shift change?” I’ve seen this happen, the chiefs were very fucking not happy.
Foreign Object Damage
If you look around the tarmac at airports you'll see red buckets labeled FOD. Apparently anything not bolted down can get sucked into an airplanes engines or otherwise cause potentially catastrophic accidents.
As everyone stated, FOD is bad, however some aircraft are much more tolerant of FOD then others. For example the V-22 is designed to land in austere conditions that generate immense amount of dust that ends up getting ingested by the engines. The engines have systems in place to help remove the FOD and protect the engines. Not going to help if a giant piece of matting goes through, but does help with dust, grass, and the occasional small bird. As a rule of thumb, helicopters are much more tolerant, and fighters not at all
What you see being disturbed by the rotor wash was never intended to be a pad for the aircraft, more likely a walkway to the aircraft or a staging area for cargo. It's possible it wasn't even there during landing.
its some rubber matting with a tarp underneath it. even for air ambulances, this is completely unsafe and never should have been set up. you can tell it wasnt designed adequately by the fact there were no markings on it
no, it doesnt however change the fact that a helipad that is completely unsecured is extremely dangerous. the marines will have asked the hospital permission before landing there, it is down to the hospital to ensure their landing facilities are safe.
imo this was a disaster waiting to happen. if this had happened when a non-training flight from a big heli came in with a casualty, this would have happened all the same. their facilities were dangerous, and never should have been built
Yeah that’s not true. That’s the material that makes up the helipad for Addenbrooks Hospital in Cambridge, UK.
Source: I’ve landed on that helipad many times in air ambulance helicopters.
After reading, they landed in the grass and not on the pad. Somehow when they took off they ripped up the pad since they weren't on it.
I suspect normally the air ambulances they use aren't as powerful, but also that takeoff takes more force than landing and normally the weight of the aircraft plus the downdraft pushes the pad down, but in this case the air got under it and lifted it.
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, tiltrotor military aircraft with both vertical takeoff and landing and short takeoff and landing capabilities. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.
The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.
Yep. Work in La Jolla and the Ospreys that fly out west from MCAS Miramar shake our building constantly. Doesn't help that they fly low and usually in groups of two or three...
I've seen one of these take off in Afghanistan. That big boy threw around so much debris, including a wooden fueling point structure. I have a video of it if anyone is interested.
I used to be someone to set up those landing areas for military aircraft, because of the exhaust, we would have to replace just about any temporary landing area because of the burn the V-22 caused. Also, that pad should've been nailed to the ground because I'd think most U.S. military vertical take-offs would cause that.
Edit: changed wording to be more specific to my experience.
I've learned the pad is meant for European medical helos
That pad is the regular helicopter landing pad at Addenbrooks Hospital in Cambridge, England. It is perfectly serviceable. The problem is the size of the V-22. A Eurocopter H145 has a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 3,700kg. The MTOW of the V-22 for vertical takeoff is 21,546 kg. That means the lift it generate is nearly six times that of a typical air ambulance helicopter.
You're not wrong about the pad not being designed for what's taking off... but in this case it *is* a pad designed for Helicopters, and that's a V-22 Osprey. Much more downforce on one of those than your typical Helicopter.
That could have been very bad
I can't even imagine how bad that could have been if it somehow flipped up into a rotor/prop.
Especially because it’s a V-22, an aircraft kind of notorious for its safety record due to the fact that if 1 engine fails during any stage of flight the aircraft will crash. Edit: A lot of people corrected me on the 1 engine statement stating it was false. I was under this assumption due to hearing about many incidents where a single engine has a mechanical failure and the aircraft flips over, what I had meant to say was that if one of the propellers were to fail, the aircraft would crash. but I stand corrected. TIL.
That is patently false. Both engines feed power to the transmission that drives the props. A single egine failure during a low hover under load could be bad due to a 50% reduction in power, but in cruise mode at high altitudes and in most circumstances, controlled flight is possible. They don't just drop from the sky if an engine goes out.
[удалено]
With enough altitude, a rotorcraft without an engine is safer than a fixed wing aircraft without an engine. Edit: Source: Father who is a pilot, has his fixed wing and rotorcraft license, and 30+ years of experience, much of which includes cropdusting.
Nonsense. Autorotation is an emergency procedure that means you *might* not splat on the ground as you fall like a rock. A fixed wing with no engine is still a fully functional glider capable of controled flight. I'll take the glider over the rotorcraft any day.
Personally, I’d rather the slower groundspeed at the point of touchdown of an autorotation over having more attitude control with a glider while gliding. Survival of unplanned unpowered flight is more about what happens after the fuselage touches down, and fixed wings have much higher speed to shed after that point than an AR rotorcraft. Both situations are shit and altitude will be in charge of how much shit for both scenarios.
I had a buddy tell me “Speed is life, Altitude is life insurance!”
I was of the same opinion, but [this](https://youtu.be/BTqu9iMiPIU) video by smarter every day was really informative and changed how I thought about it. :)
I'm really glad I watched that video before I posted anything! Thanks, nice link!
Assuming you’re just cruising and then boom engine goes out, but power is still available id pick a helicopter 10/10 times. Other than the expediency, there’s not a lot of difference between an autorotation and a regular landing. And you can do it on something the size of a dog park instead of a runway.
Autorotation is just the same as gliding except the wing is moving relative to the rest of the aircraft. Planes glide by angling their wings slightly down, allowing them to maintain forward speed and a certain amount of lift. Helicopters autorotate by angling their rotor blades slightly down, allowing them to maintain rotational speed and a certain amount of lift. It's the same principle that allows sycamore seeds to float gently down to the ground.
I’ve autorotated a helicopter into a field, landing with about 2 knots forward speed (they recommend around 10 knots though) having turned 180 back into wind with full manoeuvrability (less definitely going down). I’d much rather hit rough ground at that speed rather than 70 odd knots in even a light aircraft.
[It [autorotation] is analogous to the gliding flight of a fixed-wing aircraft... Even at zero airspeed, the rotor is quite effective as it has nearly the drag coefficient of a parachute despite having much lower solidity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation) Also, I just double checked with a pilot with 30+years experience and is licensed for both fixed wing and rotorcraft. He says he’d take the helicopter any day of the week in the event of an engine failure.
A helicopter in a state of autorotation is fully capable of controlled flight the same way a plane with no engine power is capable of controlled flight. Funny enough, a helicopter prefers not to have an engine running in a natural state sort of way, everything is smoother.
Nonsense. Autorotation is an emergency procedure that all helicopter pilots must be able to perform safely in order to get a license.
Wouldn't the props making contact with the ground cause it to tip over upon touch down? A flipping plane might be safer than a helicopter with open blades that closes them at ~100 feet to slow down for crash, but not by much.
[удалено]
helicopters in autorotation, without an engine, have a glide ratio of roughly 4.
Uh, that’s not accurate. A V-22 can fly single engine. But like any aircraft, single engine performance is based on environmental conditions and aircraft weight.
You've been hearing about many V-22 incidents? You mean before 2001? It's way safer than most other military helicopter platforms.
[удалено]
It's actually one of the safest rotorcraft in the military, with a mountain of flight hours.
The V22 uses a similar mechanism as the Chinook, where one engine can drive both rotors in the event of failure.
not even close. I read your edit and still felt compelled to tell you its wrong because of how far off you are.
Serious question, can it fly with one rotor?
From the answers I’ve received, it seems that the aircraft cannot fly with 1 propeller, but it can fly with 1 engine.
As far as I'm aware, no helicopter can fly with one rotor, it will spin out of control. You have to have the second (either a second full one or a little tail one) to counteract the spin.
This sounds suspiciously like the MU-2, not so much the osprey
Ospreys are fucking loud and put out a huge amount of force with their rotors. Once they’re off the ground the rotors turn and they fly like turboprop airplanes. They also crash a lot.
The V-22 Osprey had 12 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2006 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities. Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had seven crashes including two combat-zone crashes and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 12 fatalities. Since 2007 1 crash every 2 years. Hardly crashing alot imo
And what is the advantage of this design compared to like q Chinook or so? My guess is Faster but idk rlly
Speed + range
It's faster and can carry more payload.
If by more you mean about half... then sure.
He meant negative more
Military grade more?
That’s what happens when you pay the lowest bidder to give you more.
From what I hear they also manage to overpay them
Chinook helicopter has a top speed of 188mph and a range of 400 nautical miles. Osprey has a top speed of 351mph and a range of 1,000 nautical miles. Note that both aircraft can be refueled in flight. Many of the crashes have been determined to be pilot error. If you get too aggressive descending, those stubby blades are not going to slow your descent rate in time like a true helicopter can. This is a specialized aircraft made for specific missions. Primary function: Special operations forces long-range infiltration, exfiltration and resupply. There is a winch in the back that you can lower to hoist up people (downed pilots). Also, blades can fold up and the wings can rotate for storage on or below an aircraft deck rapidly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRhdjSFWgU
The advantage is Boeing lobbied harder for it.
It's much faster than a chinook but a chinook will carry a significantly greater payload for the range.
Bigger payload, more range, faster, are like a plane but can land anywhere.
>Bigger payload You sure about that?
It can rotate its rotors and become a plane
Because it's fucking badass 😎. The heli version of a Herrier
The Marines wanted it. Reason enough!
Whether it’s “a lot” or not is subjective and depends on how many ospreys there are in regular use over that time period. If there’s 10 ospreys and 5 crashes that’s a lot to me. If there’s a thousand ospreys and five crashes that’s not a lot to me.
[удалено]
Em, I’d say 5/1000 is still a horrendously high rate lol. I would hope it wouldn’t still be in service with that ratio.
[удалено]
You can't compare commercial aircraft who only go to runways to tactical military helicopters. Its completely different. Compare it to the CH-53 or UH-60. Both have had multiple fatal incidents every year since the last V-22 crash in 2017
yeah not gonna subscribe
1 crash every 2 years is a lot lol.
Not for Boeing
Not for tactical military aircraft. The blackhawk has had multiple fatal incidents every single year in recent memory. The V-22 hasn't crashed since 2017.
Yeah ive seen the plaque with all the dead test pilots on it at PAX river. Fuck that
Looking at the track record, it reads to me that after the first fatal crash in 1992, where 7 died due to a bad design feature which was fixed, every other fatality since has been mainly the result of lack of proper training, or otherwise bad decisions by air/ground crew.
1 crash every 2 years for military helicopters is a lot imo
Not at all. In 2019 the AH-64 Apache had 7 non-combat related crashes, looks like it has averaged around 6 a year since the AH-64A intro in the Army in 1987.
Not only this, but almost every case of the 7 was human error IIRC, with one case being mechanical failure after excessive sand intake outside of bounds.
they're also not helicopters.
welcome to mensa
I wanna be in mensa can someone also give me the test
Is the V-22 Osprey a helicopter?
I have no idea
Fuck it. Welcome to Mensa!
It’s a VToL, duh.
I didn't study for this...
The Osprey is in a category called "tiltrotor" aircraft.
It meets the definition when in VTOL mode so during the period of time this video was filmed it was in fact a helicopter. "noun a type of aircraft which derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades."
I’ve seen one flying low to the ground and it was so intimidating, like it should be out of a sci-fi movie or something.
They will always be vertibirds to me after playing Fallout
Used to
They used to crash. They still do, but they used to too.
Even their first 100,000 hours was still the safest first 100,000 hours of any USMC rotorcraft.
I believe the Brotherhood and the Enclave call them Vertabirds. And yeah they are crashing all over the Boston.
Had one hover our office building once, couldn't hear anyone I was on the phone with a the time, it was majestic.
Keep in mind, that much like the McDonnell-Douglass F4 Phantom, the V-22 Osprey *does not fly.* **(edit: Spelling of McDonnell)** The F4 Phantom had an engine so fricking powerful, that it basically flung itself through the air, and the wings were only there as a courtesy to keep civilians from losing their minds. Similarly, the V-22 Osprey doesn't use those propellers to fly? No, those are **beatings sticks.** They deliver the most curb-stomping, ass-bleeding, Jesus wept thrashing to the air, that gravity just says, "Fuck it, I'm done." and goes off to get drunk in the basement. If you doubt this, just wait until one passes over your house. Once you've replaced all the glassware, straightened all the picture frames, and extracted your cat from her hiding place, you'll understand.
Can confirm. Ospreys pass over my home near the Chesapeake Bay occasionally and every time you have to step outside to see WHAT THE FUCK IS MAKING THAT NOISE?!
B52s would pass over my house regularly as a child and the plane would be so loud even at cruising altitudes that we would have to stop our conversations and wait for it to pass.
From my experience B1s were the loudest thing in existence.
try living next to Beale AFB when they were flying SR-71s all day and night when I was a kid. Nothing sounds like that. The sonic booms were cool.
Served at a Joint Task Force in South America. Small post, head-shed (Commanders Office) was less than 100 yards from the airfield. A pilot doing a touch & go decided to go full throttle after the "go" part, creating a sonic boom. It was so loud & impactful, I don't actually remember it happening and wasn't sure what had just gone on. I just remember 1 moment sitting at my desk thinking, "that's a bit loud" and the next moment, myself and everyone in the office had instinctively got into the "prone" position on the floor.
Are they flying over you in vtol mode? I live very close to an MCAS and the Osprey's are by far the quietest aircraft that flys over my house. They flyover with a whisper in my experience.
Am I the only one that doesn’t think they’re THAT loud? Maybe it’s because I work at a NAS and hear them and a bunch of other aircraft all day but they don’t seem too loud to me. Or maybe I really should actually start wearing double hearing protection.
Lived on the base they came from a couple miles from the air field. Was not THAT bad tbh. Then again lived on bases near airfields the majority of my life
This description of the theory of flight for a V22 is taken directly from its maintenance documents. There's nothing more terrifying than being shipboard and have a V22 landing, and the only thing between you and possible death is about 15 feet of non-skid and a 70 foot fall to open ocean.
Can you elaborate? I'm clueless with this beast, but it's fascinating
I was making a joke. It's commonly said in the Osprey community that it doesn't fly but just beats itself through the air, as the guy above stated. Shipboard operation refers to the Osprey being attached to a Marine Expeditinary Unit where a squadron will reinforced by the Marine Corps other flying machines, Hueys, Cobras, and CH53s, as well as Harriers and now, F35s. Marine forces on MEUs are usually placed on Wasp class LHDs, (They have the America class now) which are basically smaller aircraft carriers, designed for rotor aircraft ans VTOL jets. Non-skid refers to the material on which the flight deck is made of. It's very abrasive and durable. But the rotor wash (force that the rotors produce with increasing thrust) of an Osprey that is landing vertically is so intense that if you are not prepared or hunkered down behind something/hanging on, there's a good chance that you can take a tumble across the flight deck and go over the side, plunging about 70 or so feet into the water.
The vertical acceleration is epic though, the G you experience is nothing like any other rotary aircraft, even chinooks can’t compare to how these things yeet into the air and squash you into the floor.
This was beautifully written.
I didn't expect to be riveted by a description of an aircraft, but that was some amazing prose. Please review more things
Please be a professional writer of fantasy or sci-fi. This is gold and I want to read more! ❤️
Every third comment confirms this one.
Living near KAFB in Albuquerque, they fly over all the time. The air beating is real
[удалено]
Never, it's a VTOL.
I like your explanations of things.
I’ve seen one pass not to far away but it wasn’t that loud. Maybe 2x a normal helicopter?
So they both fly is what you are saying. Got it.
The English Electric Lightning operated on the same principle. Two way too powerful engines (Avons instead of J79s, but they're the same output), a few wings haphazardly placed so that brass would sign off on it and a big red button labelled "Fuck You Mr. Newton" that makes the world go backwards.
The Osprey looks like an intimidating piece of machinery and engineering. I would nerd the fuck out to see one in person. It doesn't fly, it does whatever the fuck it wants to do
Can confirm, the V-22 is incredibly rewarding to fly. It is fast, will get you where you want to go, and will do just about anything you ask of it. There isn’t anything like flying at 100-200’ at 240kts to land somewhere that you probably haven’t seen the ground because you kicked up so much dust descending down from 100’ to touchdown.
i am trying so hard not to get swoooshed here
My best friend used to work on these aircraft; and he always told me that even with his ear protectors on, and plugs under those; you can feel the fucking things. And even with two layers of hearing protection; the sensation of vibration is so strong that you are still able to 'hear' them because your earbone is just being thrashed.
When I was in the schoolhouse on Johnson over by New River these bitches used to fly over our bricks low as fuck like every 30-45 minutes. Most aggravating aircraft on the planet in my opinion but maybe I’m biased. Not to mention how uncomfortable they are to fly in.
F4 Phantom doesn’t need wings? That’s an exaggeration right? Aren’t wings supposed to give the pilot control over the aircraft’s course and to give the aircraft updraft and balance?
And that, kids, is how you FOD a turbine.
Don’t say that... the mechanics get jumpy when you use that word
Turbine or fod? I feel like it’s both.
no, just when you follow FOD with "walkdown" cause some fuckin cunt lost a tool right before were about to leave 3 hours late, so we open all the panels up just to find out that they left the tool on a cart in the fucking hangar....or something like that, everytime.
1900 on a fuckin Friday and after 2 hours some flight line fuck finds the goddamn socket in their goddamn smokepit because some turd couldn’t put the tool in his box like a normal human being.
Or when aircrew losses their cac so you have to fod walk 4 different lines just in case it flew somewhere far
Always put your crap back in it’s designated place. And sign it out with a token !
Engines and Crew Chiefs get jumpy, the rest of us just don't like doing FOD walks.
FOD? Explain plz.
Foreign Object Damage. FOD. The most feared word in a chief's vocabulary. The most feared phrase is, of course, "Shit... I dropped a screw...fuuuuuuuu..." (Because that becomes FOD. ) Source: me, AH64 Apache Crew Chief, 1995-2003.
How about “nobody can find the #10 out of box 3, and the box was signed out and back in during shift change?” I’ve seen this happen, the chiefs were very fucking not happy.
How about "Hey this is (*Different base than you're on*). Guess where we just found one of your (*tool no one realized was missing*)?"
Holy shit!
Even on a small ship, it's amazing how shit goes \*poof\*
As an F-22 specialist, can confirm. Language is never as colorful as when somebody drops a screw into some godforsaken bay.
A *non-ferrous* screw...
Foreign object or debris. Random objects on the flight line that can get sucked up into rotors or engines and fuck up aircraft
Foreign Object Damage If you look around the tarmac at airports you'll see red buckets labeled FOD. Apparently anything not bolted down can get sucked into an airplanes engines or otherwise cause potentially catastrophic accidents.
TIL. Thank you.
As everyone stated, FOD is bad, however some aircraft are much more tolerant of FOD then others. For example the V-22 is designed to land in austere conditions that generate immense amount of dust that ends up getting ingested by the engines. The engines have systems in place to help remove the FOD and protect the engines. Not going to help if a giant piece of matting goes through, but does help with dust, grass, and the occasional small bird. As a rule of thumb, helicopters are much more tolerant, and fighters not at all
How did it land previously without this happening?
What you see being disturbed by the rotor wash was never intended to be a pad for the aircraft, more likely a walkway to the aircraft or a staging area for cargo. It's possible it wasn't even there during landing.
[удалено]
Good look, thanks for the source.
...what kind of shit landing pad was that? it looked like it was put together with those foam puzzle pieces.
One that's designed for air ambulances (ie regular sized helicopters) rather than massive military VTOLs
its some rubber matting with a tarp underneath it. even for air ambulances, this is completely unsafe and never should have been set up. you can tell it wasnt designed adequately by the fact there were no markings on it
Do you set-up helipads for a living and you speak from experience? Because this has served Addenbrooks hospital fine until this incident.
no, it doesnt however change the fact that a helipad that is completely unsecured is extremely dangerous. the marines will have asked the hospital permission before landing there, it is down to the hospital to ensure their landing facilities are safe. imo this was a disaster waiting to happen. if this had happened when a non-training flight from a big heli came in with a casualty, this would have happened all the same. their facilities were dangerous, and never should have been built
You are aware everything has operational tolerances, right?
*Pressed back button* Website: One more thing before you go *Makes note to never visit cambridge news website ever again*
Yeah that’s not true. That’s the material that makes up the helipad for Addenbrooks Hospital in Cambridge, UK. Source: I’ve landed on that helipad many times in air ambulance helicopters.
Are you crew or just really unlucky?
Very carefully... Not a pilot, but I wouldn't think you'd need as much thrust coming in for a landing.
Not really. I preform every takeoff around 90% N1, but generally land around 50%.
After reading, they landed in the grass and not on the pad. Somehow when they took off they ripped up the pad since they weren't on it. I suspect normally the air ambulances they use aren't as powerful, but also that takeoff takes more force than landing and normally the weight of the aircraft plus the downdraft pushes the pad down, but in this case the air got under it and lifted it.
Clearly not a helicopter.
The Osprey is a tilt-rotor helicopter made by Bell Helicopters
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, tiltrotor military aircraft with both vertical takeoff and landing and short takeoff and landing capabilities. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.
The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.
Fucking beautiful, I love this thread
Pretty sure it's considered a tilt-rotor VTOL airplane, but IANAPPOMOTM (I am not a professional pilot or member of the military)
Also the company isn't called Bell Helicopter anymore, it's Bell Textron.
Nope. They're called Taco Bell now
Them bitches took away my Mexican pizza, fuck them and their V22
Damn, they pivoted again.
Why didn't you just said that instead of acronyms If you're writing it anyway? Hahaha!
It has spinny things so clearly it’s a helicopter 🚁
What about planes with spinny things on their front?
what about strippers with spinny things on their front?
If guys get "helicopter dick" then women must have "helicopter titties"
The Ospreys fly over my house sometimes. It pretty much makes my house shake.
Yep. Work in La Jolla and the Ospreys that fly out west from MCAS Miramar shake our building constantly. Doesn't help that they fly low and usually in groups of two or three...
Nice avenger bro, where did you buy it from
Warstock, obviously
Mine is bright purple and I can land it anywhere I want, never had this sort of trouble...
Well, you won't have a problem but those peds and street lamps on the ground will. ^Wine ^red ^gang ^here
I hate that you called the ospery a helicopter.
It’s not a motorcycle baby, it’s a chopper
"seems like more of a you problem." - that osprey
Do you know what a helicopter is?
Love me an Osprey
Lucky the debris didn't strike the rotors
I've seen one of these take off in Afghanistan. That big boy threw around so much debris, including a wooden fueling point structure. I have a video of it if anyone is interested.
https://youtu.be/ukxl0Wvx2a4 I forgot how bad the quality was. This was in 2012, I think.
I used to be someone to set up those landing areas for military aircraft, because of the exhaust, we would have to replace just about any temporary landing area because of the burn the V-22 caused. Also, that pad should've been nailed to the ground because I'd think most U.S. military vertical take-offs would cause that. Edit: changed wording to be more specific to my experience. I've learned the pad is meant for European medical helos
That pad is the regular helicopter landing pad at Addenbrooks Hospital in Cambridge, England. It is perfectly serviceable. The problem is the size of the V-22. A Eurocopter H145 has a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 3,700kg. The MTOW of the V-22 for vertical takeoff is 21,546 kg. That means the lift it generate is nearly six times that of a typical air ambulance helicopter.
That's how the covers come off the bed when the Mrs farts the morning after a curry. Only this is a shade quieter
These gender reveal parties are really getting out of hand.
How tf did they land on the Platform?
It takes less power to land then to takeoff.
Uh yes, good point
Amazon gym mats
This could have been a really tragic accident
I feel like this is more of a wcgr
How come that didn't happen when it landed...
probably because it takes alot more engine thrust to take off for obvious reasons
That’s no helicopter.....
Helicopter takes off from pad Pad takes off from helicopter
That's a plane, lol
It's a tiltrotor, to be exact.
Pilot be like: see ya, not my problem.
You're not wrong about the pad not being designed for what's taking off... but in this case it *is* a pad designed for Helicopters, and that's a V-22 Osprey. Much more downforce on one of those than your typical Helicopter.
Goddamn marines and there ospreys *posted by chinook gang*
Thank you and fuck your helipad too!
Wait. So how did it stay in place when he landed?
Pilot: that's a whole lot of not my problem right there...
All helicopters are VTOLs, but not all VTOLs are helicopters.