The development of the V22 is like the development history of the helicopter itself. The whole concept is just so “unnatural” that only sheer will and prolonged expenditure could traverse “enough” failure modes to enable receipt of some of the rewards. But the cost was high - both in $$ and in lives. An impressive piece of engineering.

@bholdr----0

10 ай бұрын

Interesting analogy, re: the Osprey's development's similarity to the development of the helicopter- which makes sense, since the Osprey and its new paradigm isn't just a new/more advanced helicopter, but rather a fairly radical departure from the status quo- the legacy aircraft(s) that it is meant to superceed... So, of course it was going to take longer than developing another iterative traditional helo... thanks for pointing that out. (Its something that I think most people instinctively knew, but lacked the contextualization for, which ended up with popular dismay with what was, in retrospect, a justifiable and realistic expense vis: the cost, design, testing, (accidents), etc. Cheers!

@raywhitehead730

10 ай бұрын

Incorrect, the helicopter, in its early days received very little government support or money. My wings were given to me, by a senior Navy Aviator, whose father Was the First US Navy helicopter pilot. No significant amount of money went to helicopter construction till the Viet Nam war.

@baomao7243

10 ай бұрын

@@raywhitehead730 My mom’s family were early in aviation (St. Louis) and knew Sikorsky personally, so i hope it’s ok to stick with the story i’ve heard. Admittedly, govt funding increased over time.

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

and impressive piece of garbage 👈 even a UH-1 has a better safety record than this garbage.

@tomshackell

8 ай бұрын

Worth noting that the Osprey is actually statistically very safe, it's reputation for being dangerous is just that: a reputation. In Marine use the MV-22B Osprey has a lower Class-A incident rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, Hornet, F-35B, EA-6B or CH-53E Super Stallion.

it's always a good day every time sky publish a video.

@mrwhips3623

10 ай бұрын

So if you're entire family gets killed in a car crash and a nuclear war breaks out and the McDonald's ice cream machine breaks but he still uploads a video you still think it's a good day???🤡

@paul1181

10 ай бұрын

@@mrwhips3623 you're the 🤡 da heck is wrong with you? she was just making a new friendly comment. you ok there buddy? btw mcdonalds ice cream machine breaks that's a bad day for you? HAHA are you 12?

My Bird! The first project I worked on out of Engineering school! No special insights to add other than a few bugs in the pilot interfaces in which I helped with fixes. Moved on to other projects a few years in, but I'll always consider it mine. Thanks Eng for looking at it!

@gbixby3453

10 ай бұрын

@@craig4867 stay klassy!

@anonanon7235

9 ай бұрын

Bad design.

@andyfriederichsen

4 ай бұрын

@@anonanon7235 Wrong. Do some research.

@yankee2yankee216

5 күн бұрын

It should be a point of pride, and apparently it is, but the project was, apparently (though some refuse to admit it) a failure…

A year and a half ago I saw a few of these. 10 minutes before I saw them, just this steadily growing rumble, until a half dozen of them in 3x2 formation burst out of the low cloud cover and roared overhead. Absolutely fantastic.

I was an engineering co-op at Allison in the early 1980's and remember when the proposal for the T-406 engine was developed. Allison had gotten into the competition late, and when their proposal was tendered it blew the other ones out of the water. I've followed the V22 program since then, and am glad that the technology is established. The tiltrotor concept fills a hole in capability between fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and it took blood, tears, toil, and sweat to make it happen. It took basically 20 years of development to reach initial fielding in 2005 and another 9 years of in-use maturation before the V22 reached full acceptance. And thanks to Skyships Eng for pointing out that the T-406 was originally created by Allison.

@raywhitehead730

5 ай бұрын

29 November 2023. Another Osprey Down, US Air Force? 8 on board. Engine was seen to be on fire by ground locals, off Japan.

15:36 Great video.Keep up the good work.Just a notice,the CH-53E and K have 3 engines each,not 2

@SkyshipsEng

11 ай бұрын

The really have. Maybe, some day we will meet the CH-53 here

@montecorbit8280

9 ай бұрын

​​@@SkyshipsEng We eagerly await that day!!

Fantastic KZread channel folks - for aviators.

The qualification necessary to pilot a tiltrotor falls under an entirely different category than airplane or helicopter, its called powered lift. Thats also the category the evtols fall under.

@phalanx3803

10 ай бұрын

nice to see someone elce informed on this so may people still wonder if its a heli or plane when it got its own category now. if i remember right the first civil PL rating was given out in the late 90's i believe it was 97.

@dianapennepacker6854

9 ай бұрын

I'm told you and I could fly the Valor. It can fly itself without a pilot. Hover, land and everything.

@andyfriederichsen

4 ай бұрын

@@dianapennepacker6854 Sounds like something absolutely NOBODY is saying.

The Osprey was a good design. Basically what the V280 is today. Then the military demanded the wings to be shorter than optimal, the wings to be able to be turned for aircraft carrier storage, and the list goes on. Given the amount of subobtimal decisions the V-22 has to deal with it's doing ok. Not great, but the requirement changes prohibited greatness. But at least now we can call it versatile instead of great, and pretend like compromises are a success.

@baomao7243

9 ай бұрын

In anticipation of we- knew-they-would-come change requests, we referred to these “expected, TBD” changes as “Undiscovered Rework.”

The Osprey is as old as I am and I've been as fan of it basically my entire life. I somehow never knew it wasn't really used for the first 25 years of its life and figured it was approaching the end. I am overjoyed to learn that it will likely be around for many, many more years. I'm also a fan of Star Citizen and it just occurred to me that my unreasonably intense passion for the Drake Cutlass Black is probably because its effectively the fictional great-grandchild of the Osprey.

@mariodefreitas3094

9 ай бұрын

Dead trap!

@ZackSavage

9 ай бұрын

Cutty is love, Cutty is life

@ZackSavage

9 ай бұрын

@@mariodefreitas3094 It's actually not. Osprey is just statistically safer than the Blackhawk.

@andyfriederichsen

4 ай бұрын

@@mariodefreitas3094 And yet safer than helicopters like the Blackhawk. Do some research.

I got to see the XV-15 fly in the early 80's. Great video.

Thanks for this! I'm stunned you've never covered the Osprey before.

@SkyshipsEng

11 ай бұрын

It took time to grow up to it. I do not hurry

Saw 3 of these fly over my house not 2 hours ago. Absolutely amazing aircraft

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

it's a very bad idea of and aircraft, even a Chinook has a better chance when it loses and engine.

@MacDaddy23

8 ай бұрын

@@lcfflc3887 I’d argue it’s a great idea, execution was clearly flawed tho

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

not a good idea when it keeps crashing without even been shot at.

@andyfriederichsen

4 ай бұрын

@@lcfflc3887 Stop making yourself look dumb. You have no idea what you are talking about. If an Osprey loses an engine, the other one will still keep the other propeller going.

Awesome!

We just had a V-22 go down off Darwin in Northern Australia Killing three Marines. This particular aircraft had been putting on Displays at our Pacific Air Show, and was loved by many here. The aircraft is notorious for it maintenance complexity and failures, often resulting in the loss of personnel. As an asset to the Military it certainly proves its value but needs serious changes to improve reliability and safety.

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

there's nothing you can do to this plane, yes it's a plane and very vulnerable when is taking off or landing in hover mode, if any of the two engines loose power or come to a pressure stall you fall down like a yunker, even a Chinook has a better chance when it loses one of its engines.

@bhuy797

8 ай бұрын

It can't glide properly like a plane, neither it can auto rotate properly like a helicopter. More risk in the case of engine failure.

@rustykilt

8 ай бұрын

The replacement has a different tilt engine pod configuration. I also believe, apart from the complexity, the issue was with run-away engine control via the gear box which caused loss of control. I stand to be corrected. In any case, there is virtually no way for the pilot to recover the aircraft in the case of mechanical failure.@@lcfflc3887

@Appletank8

8 ай бұрын

IIRC either this or its successor they have a gearshaft going through the wings that allows one engine to power the other rotor in emergencies.

@DefaultProphet

8 ай бұрын

@@lcfflc3887wrong, both engines share a drive shaft so if you lose one the other still provides lift

Great video. As the v22 matures and refined, it will continue to increase safety, performance and reliability.

@jtjames79

11 ай бұрын

We are entering a new era of aviation innovation. Electric and electric hybrid, AI based simulations, additive manufacturing, new materials, etc. I'm actually a little worried about my Bell investment, the V-280 might be obsolete by the time it's deployed.

@icare7151

11 ай бұрын

@@jtjames79 Hydrogen fuel cells are vital

@raybod1775

10 ай бұрын

@@icare7151 Hydrogen Fuel cells are senseless. Hydrogen is difficult to store and created from fossil fuels.

@LunarTikOfficial

10 ай бұрын

Dream on it's a heap of death junk made for a money scheme from a bad contract.

Another very informative video. Keep up the great work.

Working on 53e was a painful experience that I will never going to forget!!

@SkyshipsEng

10 ай бұрын

Why, it's so bad?

@frankgaleon5124

10 ай бұрын

@@SkyshipsEng It has 3 engines. Strange idea for our time

Love em. Thank you

Thank goodness another upload

Reading these comments has made me understand LazerPig’s response to being asked to make a video on the Osprey: “Oh, dear God! I’m not touching that fucking thing with a barge pole!” The flame war in the comments of that video would make his T-14 video look civil.

This is very comprehensive and (as far as I can tell) unbiased and honest... This, imo, goes beyond the standard military channels' reviews and simple factual descriptions, and has moved into Journalism... Good journalism! (Better than most such reviews, analysis, etc, anyway! Cheers! (And, keep up the good work!)

The CH-53E and K have 3 engines... that's the reason there is a third engine exhaust sticking out the back left side behind the rotor.

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

Yeah. I heard a Chief walking another Chief around the hangar deck on the Tarawa that the third engine was only used during external cargo missions. I just shook my head and kept wrenching on tail rotor blade bolts.

The US military has already announced they won’t be buying any more Ospreys, but intend to keep them in service for at least another decade. They also announced last fall that the successor to the Osprey, the V280 Valor has been selected to replace the Blackhawk for all extended range operations. Having learned lessons from the Osprey, especially the high operational costs, the Valor has a lot of improvements. The future of tiltrotors is bright.

@mahzorimipod

9 ай бұрын

nope

@RicardoDawkins

9 ай бұрын

Valor is for the ARMY. Osprey is for the Marines/NAVY/Air Force

@dianapennepacker6854

9 ай бұрын

Yeah I'm so glad the Valor was picked. Helicopters have reached their limits, and tilt powered aircraft are the future. What is crazy is the Navy is also not currently buying Osprey, and getting rid of the Greyhound. So it is like how is it going to do both duties without decreasing the life of the airframe?! Maybe they will take a look at the Valor or something for carrying cargo and personal. Anyway the Osprey is my favorite utility aircraft by a long shot. Can't tell ya how many hours I've spent defending that it has the best record of any rotary aircraft and many fixed wing.

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

bad news for every service men, side by side engine configuration with such short propellers has proven fatal, a Chinook has a better chance at surviving and engine failure or any other adversity, Blackhawks had been proven far better and more reliable than this trash, valor isn't going to change anything it's a side by side aircraft just like this one, the safety record might not see improvement.

@Appletank8

8 ай бұрын

​@@lcfflc3887The Valor was chosen specifically for its speed and range, which is not something typical helicopters can achieve easily.

Just saw one of these fly over i40 in vertical mode outside Amarillo on the 26th!

These things fly over my place most days, have done for years, and seem to be doing just fine.

It's needs to be used for ultra short take-off and landing. When you try to use it like a helo, sooner or later the dynamics of the aircraft will lead to unusual situations.

The osprey has been around for decades there's nothing unnatural or mysterious about it it's the perfect combination of two proven systems it's truly quite simple also im pretty sure something that's been in serves for decades can in no way be considered a failure. Im quite pleased with modern civilization its progressed to the point where individuals with little to no intelligence can not only have there voice heard but they can actually make a living for themselves even tho it's not wanted needed nor appreciated never in human history have the mentality handicapped had such opportunity.

@personthing88

8 ай бұрын

It isn't often that a comment acknowledges is own short comings, The Osprey whilst isn't a failure cannot be considered a massive success either, Too many lives have been lost for no reason - I can think of an incident a couple of weeks ago in Australia is a good example

The Canadians built a tilt rotor aircraft in 1964 that performed flawlessly at a fraction of the cost and was even armed with machine guns, it was even tested by the US marines and at one point even landed at the white house but it was never purchased

@sr4087

8 ай бұрын

Canadians 😂

@doughowdy7009

8 ай бұрын

Yes they did .The Canadair CL-84 Dynavert kzread.info/dash/bejne/o2qH2tuCn7bcfbA.htmlsi=jUL0mc2lLJBF8zjW

@justforever96

6 ай бұрын

Yes, I'm sure that is 100% true and not at all distorted and biased. The US also built a flying tilt rotor in the 1960s, that doesn't mean it "performed flawlessly" and was ready for producttion.

I remember, around the time Donald Trump made his first UK visit after he became President, seeing a pair of Ospreys in the green US Marines livery (in common with other aircraft that serve as Marine One). I remember remarking that it looked like no other aircraft I've ever seen in my life

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

Down at the Boeing facility in San Antonio, when Sleepy Joe went to to Uvalde, they were parked on our line and since we worked VC-25 programs AND I AM a 6176 Marine Crewchief, we were hoping they might let us look at them. Nope. We can look from over the fence. HMX don't play. WH security don't EVER play. I DID get a coin though. Small victories.

The 1st comprehensive report on the Osprey or any tiltrotor I have seen. Hope that you're able to continue more reporting about other tilt rotors, such as on The AW-609, inself in a long development situation and newer tiltrotors. Which is better, tilting nacelles or just the rotor assembly? Hope to see more on tilt rotors.

I never think it is possible for a submarine to receive cargo from air. Thanks for the amazing footage.

@obelic71

9 ай бұрын

Landing on a submarine will be very difficult maybe even impossible because the hull of a submarine is designed for going stealthy under the water but hovering about it and lowering people/cargo by winch into a hatch is no problem. A helicopter can do the same butt the Osprey has the benefit it has a way longer range.

They're impressive. Saw a bunch of them flying overhead. Unique sound.

Codos to all the engineers who made this at first flying disaster a huge success. I remember thos e crashes in its early versions, very nearly killing the program. The cost was high but I saw one of these flying out near ft.worth during the early days and was struck at how loud it was but after how fast it was. It s an amazing thing to see then. Good luck to all our servicemen who fly this miraculaous machine. Thank you all for your service.

Oh, this is good)

Where I live the Marines practice touch and goes in V-22s all the time! I have some cool pictures of them flying over the house. They are quite a cool machine. Can't wait for the Valor to start showing up.

Sky, thank you for the great video. I had considered stopping watching your videos due to the war in Ukraine. But your videos helped me to see that as always, we are all just people and most events are outside of our control. You are a bridge between groups. Keep up the great work. And thank you again.

@SkyshipsEng

10 ай бұрын

It's one of the missions of the channel - to be a bridge. Thank you for watching

4:45 I was a CH-53E guy for 15 years and I NEVER heard of a Echo rockin' MH mirrors on the front. The mounts are there from the factory and we eventually used them for the TFU mount, but I never saw that. Cooked my brain housing group for a second.

The gun ship version is in development.

@raywhitehead730

10 ай бұрын

Bad idea. Look what's happened in the Ukraine war. Attack helicopters and planes have been slaughtered. That's why the US Air Force is pressing to get rid of the A10 quickly.

Hmmm. I wonder what the turbulence is like for an aircraft refueling from an Osprey. I think the Osprey is weird, but fascinating.

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

Minimal. The drogue sits well below the slipstream. The buffeting from a C-130 really isn't bad either and they have two engines per side. It's really about how stable a platform the aircraft you're in can be. AR in a MV-22B...smooth. AR in a CH-53E...not so much.

@christophergallagher531

8 ай бұрын

I wonder about the stall speed of any receiver.

@crewchief5144

8 ай бұрын

@@christophergallagher531 The V-22 was designed for natural lift. The wings have a forward sweep and are also upswept. Our STO speeds are minimal, which also allows for greater max gross TO/landing. It WANTS to fly. Very gentle STOs. A 60 degree nacelle angle and just a little push on the TCL...VERY smooth. As an airplane, it does very well behind a tanker, but the larger diameter of the rotordisk makes it catch a lot of wash from the giver. We played around with the optimal position behind the 130J and it's pretty standard with everyone else. Again, much better AFCS, so airspeed hold is way better than the 53 but I've seen Marine Echo pilots do just fine with trim off.

@christophergallagher531

8 ай бұрын

I am wondering more about the aircraft being fueled. (Drogue /dry?) The V22's speed must be above the stall speed of any receiver.

@crewchief5144

8 ай бұрын

@@christophergallagher531 Oh, yes. Stalls while performing AR are not an issue. It's been a while, but I could check my NATOPS for the stall limits. Most of the time when we did stalls, I was in the back performing Harry Potter maneuvers with the cabin broom. Gotta love that 1.2 seconds of zero G.

Love your content! Was wondering if you could do a video of the Yakolev Yak-42??

@SkyshipsEng

11 ай бұрын

In fact, I'm working on it already)

I remember flying this is the old game LHX.

@22:25 - Brave person who filmed this.

For anyone interested in taking a deeper look at the development history of the Osprey, including detailed analysis of the infamous fatal accidents, I recommend the book "The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey" by Richard Whittle. Despite the title, it is actually a very objective and balanced look at the V-22 development. Another commenter compared the V-22 to the development history of helicopters, and I agree; it was mainly because of the expense and computing power needed to make tilt-rotors viable, that they took so long to develop. Now the technologies required are mature, and things have come full circle, where the US Army is once again looking at tilt rotors because of the advantages they provide.

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

Dick Spivey passed away back in March. Great contributor to the advancement of the program. I flew in the back with a lot of the folks in the book. Buddy Bianca was one of my favorites. I was glad to go through 204 in its infancy and rebirth and work with a lot of those legends, but I swear if I heard "back during Op Eval..." ONE more time...

marines call it the flying coffin for reason

As for the future the army recently selected the v280 valor tilt rotor for its black hawk replacement

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

bad luck

I see a new Sky video so I have to upvote by default. I watch the entire video...can only upvote once....! Sad noises follow....!

Around 1990 I worked in Dallas and drove along I-20 a lot. I'd see the XV-15 and early V-22s flying around doing test flights. Never saw it in vertical mode. It was a fun thing to watch.

I've been reading the Dale Brown military thrillers featuring these futuristic machines for far longer than they've been pratical. So, I've been anticipating the success of this aircraft.

At one time, a Doriner Do 31 had that with a few "aces" up its sleeves. But I digress... another fantastic video!

At 13:58 Rotor diameter.... You forgot to mention that the rotor had to be shorter than optimal so that it could fold plus wouldn't strike the ground when tilted forward. I have heard both 2m and 3m numbers....

This a very successful aircraft. It has made billions in profits for its builders.

So happy i never had to ride in one while I was serving.

Definitely future! Great aircraft.

Seeing this pop up in my feed a mere few days after an Osprey crashed during military exercises here in Australia, killing 3 and injuring 8, is... eery. I'm staying away from MSM speculation, but hope that I'll see the results of the investigation.

Thank you for another very informative video. Thank you for clarifying the status and history Rolls Royce North America Company. As you probably know. This company is now reengining the active B-52 fleet with more modern engines so these aircraft can serve the USAF until the 2050's This might make an interesting video.

I love watching fulmars in flight and this beautiful bird has a similar grace.

The v22 showed it can be done but also how it shoudlnt be done, the complications of moving the entire engine is one of the issues. Yet I understand the moving prop/rotor on the new design uses new manufacturing technologies new materials and powerful computers not available in the 70s. I think of the v22 like the f117 it lead the way for stealth but was limited from its older technology.

The development of the osprey and the F-35 are apart of the same strategy for naval operations. By having a plane that can take off and land vertically you have a huge advantage over your enemy during a major conflict. One of the first and most important target for any conflict will always be the airfields to deny the ability to take off and land their aircraft. Any large craters from artillery or cruise missiles on an airfield will ground the aircraft. The other issue is that aircraft carriers are major targets for attack and forces them to be out of range to avoid being sunk. The osprey and F35 have the ability to land on barges or commercial ships. During a full scale war the pacific could have hundreds even thousands of barges and commercial ships converted to allow these aircraft to land and be refueled and re armed. They are also specifically designed to be used together. The V22 can be used to refuel the F35 while also be used to transport armament and cargo. Theoretically on a barge or commercial ship with enough fuel it could make it possible for hundreds of floating bases across the pacific making it almost impossible to destroy all of these targets. The spaceX self landing rockets have also been designed to land on barges and ships and can then be refueled and launched. To me it seems that this would allow the US to have an overwhelming footprint in any body of water removing the need for land bases which are vulnerable to attacks from any guerilla attack. Unlike land any one attempting to attack a base in the water would be destroyed long before it could reach them.

I see them often where I live in the panhandle of Florida. Like you said, they do look much bigger than they are.

How much time and effort is needed to ensure its flights now?

@SkyshipsEng

10 ай бұрын

Quite a lot compared to helicopters. let's see how the v-280 will show itself

@raywhitehead730

10 ай бұрын

Excellent question! I am not privy to those numbers for years. But it was a LOT. And I bet it still is.

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

Depends on the maintenance department of the squadron or what we called "readiness" as there is always a level of turnover in the military (especially the Marine Corps), and the old parts/supply system. The more the parts that are repairable at local repair (IMA) increases spares, and the more spares in the supply system period is a boost. The entire time I was flying on V-22s, our engines were under warranty from Rolls Royce. We didn't have to wait for rebuilds from the MALS powerplants folks, they just grabbed a new one off the shelf. I heard MALS is doing limited maintenance on them, which takes us back to the first point...maintenance readiness. While I was QA chief and read the reports...26 maintenance hours to every 4 flight hour sorties. Yeah...HAS to be better by now.

@louissanderson719

9 ай бұрын

Watch the fighter pilot podcast episode on the navy variant. The guy being interviewed played a big role in its introduction into the US navy. He talks about maintenance etc compared to the C2

@crewchief5144

9 ай бұрын

@@louissanderson719 Just caught part of it. It's nice to see someone speaking to the expanded role and mission sets we have. Definitely NOT a "one-trick pony" by any means. I only got to bounce the boats, never did a float in the MV so I didn't get to enjoy the experience of Vert-Rep in an Osprey, but I got enough of that in my previous platform. I can see how changing from the C-2 to an aircraft that can do external cargo loads in addition to the fairly sizeable internals AND do either at night would be a big game changer for them. We did a LOT of "Golden Hour" casevac in AFG, but I never thought about how useful that would be on ship. Just used to all injuries being taken care onboard because we were always too far out, or we were just lucky and nothing big ever happened. Good interview. Thanks for the link!

of course it can, even without tilt wings, a ring wing quad copter can be a vtol tail-sitter and a place, without any other moving parts than the quad high wing ducted rotors, no tilt wings or anything

@Jkauppa

11 ай бұрын

scratch the computer, fly by pilot only

@Jkauppa

11 ай бұрын

any computer you have to add is too much, even to a car, engine etc, use metal-air cuso4-dilute-h2so4 water graphite fuel cell engine with iron metal fuel in sheet spool

@Jkauppa

11 ай бұрын

fly by wire, not by electricity

@Jkauppa

11 ай бұрын

so ww2 stuff, even nukes

@Jkauppa

11 ай бұрын

also skirt hovering mode in the hyper whoop quad copter plane

for future reference, CH53's have 3 engines

👍

With Hybrid being a catch phrase of the automotive industry, I could see a hybrid version of the tilt rotor and the S/VTOL. Shorter rotor/propellers, and limited to a 45° rotation. Adding a powerplant in (or over) the fuselage, with proper transmissions. I could see a Field Capable Combat Short Takeoff/Multi-Role (FCC-MR). It can't hover, but it would be a low speed supplement/replacement to attack helicopters and be able to provide a fast response supplement to the A-10 Warthog.

@justforever96

6 ай бұрын

Well, thank God we have so many capable engineers and aircraft designers sitting in their living rooms, we really don't need all these highly trained and specialized technicians who are actually employed by aircraft makers to come up with ideas. I will tell Lockheed Martin to get in touch with you.

Basic problem with the V 22 is that each engine independently drives an individual rotor. Variations in power output between the two engines leads to instability and crashes. Other multi engine rotor craft, like the Chinook, use a combining transmission that combines the output from both engines and sends that equally to both rotors. So the rotors are always in balance even if the engine output is not.

@Jacksonflax

9 ай бұрын

thats quite simply not true lol. It has a shaft that runs through the wing and keeps both rotors at the same RPM in case of a loss of output from one engine.

@stephenfazekas5054

9 ай бұрын

Driveshaft can be seen here i.stack.imgur.com/VaeED.jpg

@timothywilliams1359

9 ай бұрын

You are completely wrong, as the video explains. The Osprey can fly even if one engine is knocked out.

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

@@Jacksonflax we are aware of that but it has been proven to fail and kill people, you see in a perfect world fine but not in real life, the Chinook configuration it's a more reliable one, this thing on the other had just keeps piling up bodies

Another one fell today in Australia

I believe the answer to your click bait question about the future of the tilt rotor will be that a near term evolution of a very large scaled up version of a DJI Mavick MT30 with bullet and flak resistant nacelles surrounding the rotors and will have rotation at it's wrists for fine direction, hover and lift control will appear as prototypes by 2026 and service start around 2030. It will lift twice the payload of the V-22, No cavitation noise or speed limitation due to blade tip deflection, will not need transition delay to lateral flight and will definitely not suffer the VRS (Vortex Ring State) fatalty found on the V-22 Osprey.

Failure due to engine pod rotation and only good for military use. Very expensive mistake.

Personally, I would call it a work in progress, the v-280 being the final product, but we will have to wait and see.

I live beside Quantico marine base. I was also in marines the helicopters you can hear way before you see them. The osprey there going over when you hear them

@raywhitehead730

10 ай бұрын

I actually did experiment on this in the early 80'. The the question is when would the average person hear a helicopter before it arrives overhead. It took a while to iron that out. Working with the SEALS.

Its future depends on possible upgrades and quality for the future, my opinion only.

Great!

I'm surprised that they haven't tried to merge the designs of the osprey & 130 gunship

The Osprey is a great piece of machinery!! Some people are critical of it, guess what? Lots of aircraft in the military have had issues. It's a dangerous job and comes with risks. This new tilt rotor is just stupid. I would've rather chosen the Defiant. Just make more Ospreys, this smaller version is crap!!

I'm going with failure. I hope I'm wrong. The Defiant X would have been on hell of a platform. I just don't trust the tilt wing/rotor to not kill more people.

@titan5525

8 ай бұрын

It's the first production tilt rotor, it has its flaws but so does every first production example of a new type of machine. The Army seems to think it's a success as they picked a very similar tilt rotor for the FVL program in the v280 valor. Building on what was learned from the v22

The reason the V22 exists is because the military wants and needs a vertical take off and landing transport that can fly faster than a conventional helicopter. I totally agree. The problem is that the technology to solve this problem properly does not exist. Or does it? I think we are more advanced than most people realize. There are technologies that have been developed that would make the helicopter and rotary aircraft in general completely laughable and obsolete. But we are not allowed to know about these things yet.

@justforever96

6 ай бұрын

So they developed these super high tech items and just chose not to use them , just because? Makes perfect sense.

@razak4494

6 ай бұрын

@justforever96 Rule #1 Never let an enemy know about an ability you have until you hit them with it. Our military keeps secrets all the time. The F117 Stealth Fighter was flying around for a long time before anyone knew about it. Supposedly a stealth helicopter that makes very little sound was used to take out Bin Laden. I might as well throw in claims by Bob Lazar and others who say we are reverse engineering alien spacecraft and have been doing so for decades.

Good video, only the narration has a monotonous pitch

It could turn out that conventional helicopters are simply a better approach with mid-air refueling for the same range. This increases the logistics for aerial refueling, but comes with a lower weight, higher overall reliability and much lower complexity and price. In general, not everything that looks like great engineering is actually a good approach to a practical solution. This certainly also applys to tiltrotor airframes. In my opinion, this is just a very expensive failure that no one wants to give up at this point because it has already cost so excessive amounts of taxpayer money.

@alro2434

8 ай бұрын

Well stated!

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

Yes, the fallacy of the sunk cost rules.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

7 ай бұрын

False... Tilt rotors are by far better. The Osprey is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies and the data backs this up.

The tilt rotor is only going to get better and so does the helicopter, tilt rotor for general application and a helicopter for more urban or tight-space needs.

11:55 Ships have bows, aircraft have noses.

@Bu4o1603

10 ай бұрын

Do you say Port and Starboard on an aircraft?

@Aeronaut1975

10 ай бұрын

@@Bu4o1603 Do you prefer ketchup or mayo? what does tha have to do with anything?!

@brianb-p6586

3 күн бұрын

@@Bu4o1603 Yes, "port" and "starboard" are navigation terms which apply to both ships and aircraft. "Bow" and "stern" are terms for parts of a marine vessel which do not apply to aircraft.

I've fueled these a few times. The blade lights look amazing at night 😮

@johntomik4632

10 ай бұрын

@@LunarTikOfficial They do have recognition lights on the blade tips. Try again. The static wicks take care of the static. You are seeing friction with elements like sand.

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

@@johntomik4632 There are both overt and covert tip lights, top and bottom. We'll call that second try and successful. Some sparking from sand and simple static but the tip lights work just fine, and not just for "recognition." The tip path needs to be visible for other aircraft, called "anti-collision" and "formation" lighting, and also for ground taxi and marshaling.

I would've loved us ( I'm British ) to buy these Tiltrotor aircraft for our new Aircraft Carriers to be used as Early warning aircraft, instead of using the Merlin Helicopters.

Like the F 111, it is time to give up on the V 22, and take the learning back to the drawing boards. Any thing with a part count this high is risky.

Definitely a winner and the future.

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

yes a winer in the amount of people that have killed.

The Osprey and Night Hawk might be ok but what would happen to them when they were flying and a strong EMP hit their computers? Are they hardened?

Read "The Dream Machine" by Richard Whittle for a more detailed understanding of this aircraft.. NOT a helicopter OR an airplane in truth. It's checkered history is more from misunderstandings and it being a hybrid aircraft that had unreasonable requirements imposed on it by external groups of multiple branches of military. It was trying to be everything to everybody, and limited it's design greatly by folding up like a Movie Transformer. Eliminate the need to taxi past an aircraft carrier's island and several feet of blade and wing length could have been included, reducing disc load while increasing fuel capacity, among many such compromises. The notable failures of the aircraft systems were mostly due to the need to rotate wing & fold up blades so as to fit in a C-130, or AC Carrier's elevators. I would like to see a non folding, mechanically simplified version of V-22 that corrects these deficiencies for commercial use say on oil platforms or in other military with remote hard to land areas like in SAR roles with Coast Guard or Air Nat'l Guard for Rescue activities.

I live on a boat in a marina, that is near a Naval aviation base. These things fly over all the time. They are, perhaps, the loudest goddamn thing on the planet. I can literally hear them coming from 5 miles away. Meanwhile, there is a REAL osprey that likes to nest on masts and projectile defecate all over the neighboring boats. I'm not a fan of ospreys, biological or mechanical.

@ailouros6669

10 ай бұрын

And being too loud means the enemy will hear them coming, meaning for all its supposed advantages, namely speed, over conventional helicopters, the Osprey is at least as vulnerable, if not more, by account of its noise, just like its rotorcraft brethren.

big🚁 and new V22 Like is in Japan I😊

Why don’t they add additional wing to the tilt motor? They have room equal to the propeller length.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

They have to fit in carrier hangar decks, remember.

How long have they been developing these things? 40 years? Maybe only 35. Ya, they are a huge boon for the defense industry. For the rest of us, not so much.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

7 ай бұрын

The Osprey is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies and the data backs this up.

Decades ago Canadair produced the CL84 Dynavert and it performed well without computer assisted controls. When the aircraft was ready for sale, the USA had no interest so it was eventually scrapped. The pilots who flew it said it was easy to fly. Easy to fly is something no one has ever said about the V22. It's a piece of trash and should have been scrapped years ago.

Sadly it hasn't killed enough Marines to satisfy the Command Gods. If it were only used to transport Colonel or above they would have ditched this ages ago

@lcfflc3887

8 ай бұрын

or marine 1

The Osprey would have completely changed the eagle claw outcome. It’s a mission it was designed to accomplish and there’s nothing else in the inventory that could do as well

Is the X2 raider better, faster, stronger?

To replace a perfectly good aircraft, the C-2a Greyhound, with something that has failure designed into it, is a big mistake. Imagine explaining to an American mother that her mail to her son on an aircraft carrier, was lost overboard because of a bad rotor assembly? Imagine if it was you, awaiting a package from home, on thjat carrier, and you watched that damn thing self-destruct in landing on the deck? It is a design that has already killed active servicemen, and it will do so a lot more!!

when it comes to the cost to build and maintain it just economies of scale when jets and other turbine engines first came out they costed far more to buy and maintain then piston planes now jets are everywhere sure they still cost a decent bit more but thats just a reflection of the performance. the same could be said with safety powered lift is such a new category its gonna have teething issues one need only look back at aviation history like when helicopters first came out so many thought they where gonna be safety nightmares now there so widely used you can even buy a micro one and use it like its a sky ATV.

This heliolane has a dirty history with a spotty record if unreluability

Surprised you didn’t mention the LTV XC 142 & Canadair CL 84

@crewchief5144

10 ай бұрын

...or the Avro Arrow or a Pegasus or any other mythical aviation creatures... lol, JK. Sorry, man. Had to rub it in.

It always tickles me to hear of Japanese flat-top destroyers, which are so obviously aircraft carriers. It would be interesting to hear what pilots think of the V22. I think that eventually it will be considered a success. There are a number of jobs that the Osprey can do that conventional helicopters cant.

@Frank--Lee

8 ай бұрын

" . . . . . a number of jobs that the Osprey can do that conventional helicopters cant." My son is a seagoing "Chief Mate". I am continuously dismayed by reports of Coast Guard rescue [attempts] during which the helicopter takes 4 hours to get to the wreck/sinking/ only to be able to stay around for a few minutes before being forced to leave because of fuel consumption [called "range" I guess]. Improved Speed and Range will make Coast Guard rescues MUCH more successful.

@Frank--Lee

8 ай бұрын

P.S. I live on the lower Potomac River [Virginia side] That wreck happened right in front of my house. [across the river from me is St. Mary's County, home of Pax River N.A.S. as well as Test Pilot School]

@justforever96

6 ай бұрын

​@@Frank--Leethat's "endurance" technically, how long an aircraft can stay in the air total. Range is strictly just how far an aircraft can fly on a given fuel load. The two are closely related, but not quite the same thing.

@justforever96

6 ай бұрын

Define a "carrier" I guess. Is any ship that can carry an aircraft a "carrier"? Is a half-deck Japanese cruiser in WW2 that carries planes on the rear and guns in the front a carrier or a cruiser? What about a destroyer with a helipad? It carries aircraft. Is it only fixed wing aircraft? Than does a flattop that only carries tilt rotors and helicopters count as a "carrier"? They aren't fixed wing aircraft. A "carrier" in military parlance is defined by role. If a ship carries out the role of a destroyer but has an extra large landing pad installed, it is still a destroyer, even if it's "actually" an aircraft carrier. The navy had done that for centuries. The Royal Navy used to rate any combat vessel that wasn't a line of battle ship or frigate as a "sloop", even if it was ship or brig rigged. In common usage a sloop is a fore-and-aft rigged summer single mast vessel, but to the navy it could be any sort of vessel. The Soviets fitted out ships with the same anti ship missile armament as their cruisers, but fitted them with flat decks and a relatively limited aviation capacity. Does that make them "carriers" even though they really are just cruisers that can also fly planes? Partly this can be due to legal restrictions, and partly just because the actual role the vessel is intended to fill.

@bernardedwards8461

6 ай бұрын

The Japs had a sub that carried 4 aircraft, but it wasn't a carrier,@@justforever96 but the Japanese "destroyers" obviously are and may well be more effective than our two carriers because they carry more fighters. These days almost any ship could carry a V/STOL fighter or two, but that wouldn't make them carriers..