U.S. Navy awards $849 mln for Osprey production

The U.S. Navy said on Monday it was awarding a $849 million contract to Boeing Co. (nyse: BA - news - people) and the Bell Helicopter unit of Textron Inc. (nyse: TXT - news - people) for materials needed to make 11 V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.

The Navy described the contract as an advanced acquisition contract for long-lead materials needed to make eight Lot 9 MV-22 and three CV-22 low rate initial production versions of the Osprey that can take off and land like a helicopter but also fly like a plane.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/02/23/rtr1272475.html

Its landing that's the problem. Army canceled Comanche, why can't Navy admit it screwed up?

...that this thing was killing off. Did Navy just pick up a dropped lemon?

The Marines are just a special Corps of the Navy.

The Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy and works closely with the US Navy, but is a separate branch and fighting force apart from the Navy.

This project should have been cancelled years ago!

been for 30+ years now.

They are flying some of the same airframes that were salvaged in the last days of the war in VietNam. I know, I salvaged them. The tail numbers are the same.

Reuters, 02.23.04, 5:35 PM ET

After the news of the Comanche project was released and after the stock market reacted.

This is also a sweet little plumb to take the sting out of the Commanche loss.

Anybody know where the Comanche was being built?
Anybody know where the Osprey is being built?

Punishment/reward syndrome?

I'm so damned cynical I just can't believe there wasn't some kind of political payoff involved here.

in Fort Worth? Or is this really old, old info? I'll go google it and see...

a man more cynical than myself might read something into that.

It pays to be a cynic.

Remember the old saying even paranoids have enemies...

Sometimes conspiracies are actually true..........

And it was getting close to finished. I don't know if it's either/or the Comanche or Osprey, but if I was the government, I wouldn't put my money on the Osprey working out. It seems like a deathtrap to me. :scared:

I'm sure it's a political decision based on dollars for constituent companies rather than a logical decision based on utility. That's how these things work.

at some point some poor turkeys are going to find themselves in that thing with the props/rotors stuck in the horizontal position (mechanical failure/enemy fire, whatever) and the pilots will be forced to attempt to land it configured for horizontal flight. Of course in the Osprey a normal belly landing in this configuration would be impossible as once those two big props hit terra firma the whole kit and caboodle is likely going to tie itself into one giant knot.

I'd probably recommend they nose dive it vertically into the ground, as the chances for survival are probably about the same and at least the vertical dive method will probably cut short the length of time the crew and passengers have to sit there and contemplate their fate.

It means work for me. I don't know if I fully support the decision, but I also can't really complain about it. I will say this: the V-22 is getting a bad wrap for all the wrong reasons.

The whole concept is a disaster waiting to splat.

It just has unique flight characteristics. You can't just slap a fixed-wing pilot in there with little training and hope for the best.

the early 60s and there are very few aircraft I wouldn't strap on and drive. That is one of them. There is absolutely no way to provide any safety factor greater than zero for any failure in either engine, prop, drive train and so on. The moment arms are so long it is impossible to control the thing with any significant assymetric power conditions.

That there can never be assymetric power conditions. It's supposed to transfer power to stabilize. Am I wrong? I certainly don't build them. I'm in the simulator manufacturing industry. If you've been a commercial pilot for that long, perhaps you've heard of FlightSafety. I can't pretend to know any more than what I hear. You must realize the stuff I hear is coming from a professional pitch man. :) Anyway, I've heard arguments for and against the safety of this aircraft for several years now. I'm inclined to take your word for it though.

By the way, I dig your sig. Great line!

ON EDIT: I should never say "never" should I?

Yes, it does have a coupling mechanism to account for loss of one engine. (btw they just replayed it late Sunday night) but I still think the inability to land like a conventional airplane in an emergency is a design flaw. And I also agree that extensive pilot training is a must!

transfer issue is problematic for a couple of reasons, stuff breaks and often causes other stuff to break, and even if the transfer mechanism works, loss of an engine cuts power in half - hardly a desirable situation even in a conventional aircraft where there is at least the opportunity to minimize the sink (the plane I fly can glide with no power at all for about 80 miles from 25 or 30 thousand feet and of coursse can be safely landed - of course it must be done on the first try, kinda like the shuttle ;-)

However the program works out, I hope you aren't adversely affected; I sure didn't intend to sound insensitive!

And I shouldn't ever say never either... :D

I didn't think you were being insensitive. I just commented on an area where you're obviously an expert. Don't worry, my feelings didn't get damaged. HAHAHA. You'd damn near have to bash me over the head to get a rise out of me. ;)

Actually, I don't know if this will result in a lot of work for us or not. We've already put out more V-22 sims than there are actual aircraft, at least it seems like it. I've spent some time in the sim, but not enough to really get acquainted. Once we hand the sim over (since it's a military sim) the military is responsible for all the training. Whereas, with commercial trainers, FSI handles the training. I'm curious what kind of training the military is doing in the V-22.

I think the body count for the Osprey is over 30 people killed in development. It's a complicated piece of crap that will cost too much and leave our military without needed capability.

it was an interesting platform.

Think of all the body armor you could buy for that.

NT!

The Osprey looks like it could be very beneficial to private aviation - already companies like Bell have gotten on the bandwagon of developing civilian versions. For all the bad that the Osprey can (will) do, think of all the good that can be accomplished if such an aircraft makes it into the private sector (really fast search and rescue, ferrying medical personnel out to remote areas, etc., etc.)

I really like!

Besides all the strategic advantages, if it leads to better understanding and design for personal use (kinda like the computer) it could change the way we live. It seems like it would use a lot less fuel and allow for more environmental protection by not impacting pristine areas the way ground travel does...it could lead to smaller more self-reliant communities with less transportation cost ferrying food, etc.

I've been following it with interest since I first heard about it. I've felt bad for all of the failures in almost a personal way because I want it to work so bad. Despite all of the cost, I still think it is a worthwhile project.

Besides, it's so ugly it's cute...

:eyes:

all I can remember about the V-22 are numerous crashes, deaths--at least one with a loadful of Marines :(--cost verruns and lots of mechanical probels...just like that other hangar queen the F/A-22 :eyes:

From the reports I've seen, I thought it was very successful......

it isn't???????

DU Maxim: Every piece of equipment the US military uses is a total failure and part of the military-industrial complex's evil plan to provide shoddy designs for outrageous costs. Every single piece, be it the Abrams, the Bradleys, the M-16, the Apache, the Commanche, chem suits, the F-22, the Osprey, Patriots, the Stryker-doesn't matter. It's all crap. That's why US military power is about on par with the Dominican Republic's. I'm surprised Cuba hasn't invaded US yet.

But, as I'm on my lunch break for a mere 15 minutes, I'll let anyone else who wants to back that up give you some sources.

If you're looking for sources, I'd suggest that you begin with all the negative After Action Reports that the POS Bradley surely generated from it's combat use over the last 15 years or so.

the whole idea of a prop plane with a wing that rotates up 90deg.
just seems really silly.

I'm no aeronautical engineer (I was in the windtunnel-data-collecting industry, though), but if the whole wing rotated, it'd create an awful aerodynamic mess. It's just the engine nacelles that rotate, right?

mess if the whole wing did rotate. About the only real difference would be that there would be less drag in the vertical flight mode (perpendicular to the lateral and longitudinal axes)...that would be good for ascent, not good for descent. I don't see any piloting issues that would be any different. But one other "problem" with the thing is that it's slow (around 240 Kt) That is slow for an airplane and not really fast for a helicopter. And its range isn't very good either.

We both seem to not like the project.