Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

neptune wrote:

Found some comparisons;

V-22/ C-2A; 20/10K lbs; 879/1300 nm; 241/251 kts; 25/33.5K ft; (Cargo LxWxH ft) 24/27, 5.9/6.9, 6/5.2; Allison AE 1107C/ Allison T56-A-425 . The Osprey can be fitted with an aerial refueling probe to provide in-flight refueling. The AE 1107C is being considered for upgrades to the CH-47 and CH-53... Now, can the F-135 fit in these dimensions. There is a little "fiddling room" in the V-22 but the engine will be in a frame and not in a container, if it'll fit "at all". Smile

And, of course, STOVL,versatility.

F-16.net Sponsor

Thanks for all the V-22 and comparisons info. Good going. Very Happy

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

I think this is the point under discussion; but how does the engine get to the flat deck at sea ASAP?

Watch, listen & learn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

Quote:

The C-130 Hercules holds the record for the largest and heaviest aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier. In October and November 1963, a USMC KC-130F (BuNo 149798), bailed to the US Naval Air Test Center, made 21 unarrested landings and take-offs on the USS Forrestal at a number of different weights.

Photo and REF: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/hi ... 0097.shtml

If they could do this in 1963 with a KC-130F and the USS Forrestal, wouldn't one think that a Nimitz or Ford class carrier could accomplish the same feat with a USMC C-130J?

With this approach you may even get 2 motors per aircraft (Though I don't know actual dimensions of said motors or their shipping containers.)

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Because 99.9% of the aviators out there aren't as skilled as Admiral Flatley and the reason it hasn't been done since is because the margins were considered to tight. The landing has to be just about perfect each time.

popcorn wrote:

So the Osprey landing on a CVN would perform a short rolling vertical landing? How big an impact on fCVN, fight ops,would an,Osprey have really?

If it can do so in 785ft, not much of one. Especially since it would be an infrequent occurrence.

neptune wrote:

The AE 1107C is being considered for upgrades to the CH-47 and CH-53

It was looked at, but the GE38-1B was chosen for the CH-53K instead because some issues the Marines were having with Rolls Royce. In fact, there has been talk of refitting the Osprey with the GE38 as well.

Then wouldn't the shorter winspans (and hence larger margins) of the C-27J be a viable option?

How about the Body of the C-27J, wing of the XC-142, and tail of the E-2 (STOL only, no V)?

This PDF is mentioned in the 'very long thread' but relevant info repeated here.

MV-22B OSPREY SHORT TAKEOFF AND MINIMUM RUN-ON LANDING TESTS ABOARD LHD CLASS SHIPS by Virginia T. Mitchell & William P. Geyer 2008

www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/testAndEvaluation.pdf

"ABSTRACT
This paper describes recent ship suitability tests conducted by the V-22 Test Team in March 2008 aboard USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7). This testing encompassed expanding the Short Takeoff (STO) envelopes and developing a new landing technique termed Minimum Run-on Landing (MROL) to extend V-22 shipboard capability beyond Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) gross weights (GW). The objectives included: initial development of the MROL technique in the shipboard environment; expansion of STO and MROL GW envelopes to 58,000 lb (lb), 10% above the maximum VTOL GW; development of day and night vision goggle STO and MROL wind envelopes to 45 kt headwind and up to 10 kt crosswind; and gathering sufficient data to support analytical tool validation including but not limited to Short Takeoff and Landing Computation (STOLCOMP) software, developed by the Boeing Company, and Generic Tiltrotor software in order to grant day and night vision goggle STO envelopes beyond tested ambient conditions. A total of 3.6 flight hours were flown resulting in eleven STOs and eleven MROLs being conducted. A limited data set was collected due to insufficient time at-sea during this period of shipboard testing. Further testing is planned in order to continue to develop MROL wind and GW envelopes, to expand the current day and night vision goggle STO wind and GW envelope, and to gather additional data in support of STOLCOMP model validation. Although limited data was collected, the V-22 successfully demonstrated shipboard STOs at heavy GWs above VTOL capability aboard LHD 1 class ships. The V-22 also demonstrated that MROLs are a new and safe technique for landing on LHD 1 class ships at an appreciable ground speed across the spectrum of GWs bands....

...The necessity for landing shipboard at GWs [Gross Weights] above maximum vertical landing GWs was desired by the V-22 test team to increase testing efficiency during STO [Short Take Off] tests. Without this ability, the aircraft would have to burn fuel or dump water ballast to reduce GW in order to conduct a vertical landing, wasting precious shipboard test time. In June 2005, the No-Hover Landing (NHL) technique was introduced to recover the aircraft to the ship after performing STOs near maximum vertical takeoff GWs for present day conditions. The NHL technique involved using a pretouchdown flare to arrest forward airspeed while adjusting TCL to maintain glideslope and descent rate.

The flare was timed so that forward airspeed was minimized at the point of touchdown. Power was required just before touchdown to help arrest descent rate; however, it was less than what would be required to stabilize in a hover prior to landing. Although pilots liked this technique due to the low workload in the lateral axis, the NHL technique would have limited utility to test above maximum vertical landing GWs due to lack of excess power to arrest descent rate on landing. This testing revealed that the aircraft would have to land with some appreciable ground speed similar to recovery of fixed wing aircraft on aircraft carriers, however, without assistance from ship arresting gear. Neither this class of ship nor the V-22 is outfitted with the equipment necessary for arrested landings. The MROL technique was therefore developed to allow an appreciable ground speed of less than 20 kt on touchdown and be fully stopped in a minimal amount of distance on the flight deck....

...TEST OVERVIEW
V-22 ship suitability testing was conducted aboard USS IWO JIMA from 4-11 March 2008. The scope of planned STO tests consisted of GW expansion up to 58,000 lb (10% above the maximum VTOL GW), headwind expansion from 0 to 45 kt, crosswind expansion up to +/- 10 kt, and night vision goggle envelope expansion. The scope of planned MROL tests was the same as planned STO tests with the addition of touchdown predictability. Touchdown predictability tests were required prior to conducting other MROL tests to determine the pilot’s ability to touchdown within the defined touchdown zone and determine touchdown speeds for safely stopping within the braking zone. A total of 3 flights and 3.6 flight hours were flown during the day. Tests completed included MROL touchdown predictability and STO/MROL GW expansion to 52,000 lb, with partial expansion to 54,000 lb...."

SpudmanWP wrote:

Then wouldn't the shorter winspans (and hence larger margins) of the C-27J be a viable option?

How about the Body of the C-27J, wing of the XC-142, and tail of the E-2 (STOL only, no V)?

XC-142 never worked very well. It only had a payload of 8,000lbs. You'd be better off upsizing the Osprey design to C-27 size and using the TP400 from the A400m to power it.

I know, that's why I said the body of a C-27J. The original XC-142 had to do full-VTOL while my idea is just STOL. This would greatly reduce the powerplant requirements and increase the payload.

Bell Boeing MV-22B LRIP2 Osprey Cutaway Poster
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/me ... 14497.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/me ... poster.jpg

"120206-N-UM734-001 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Feb. 6, 2012) An MV-22 Osprey lands on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) to receive and transport troops during the amphibious assault phase of Bold Alligator 2012. Bold Alligator 2012, the largest naval amphibious exercise in the past 10 years, represents the Navy and Marine Corps’ revitalization of the full range of amphibious operations. The exercise focuses on today’s fight with today’s forces, while showcasing the advantages of seabasing. This exercise takes place 30 Jan – 12 Feb, 2012 afloat and ashore in and around Virginia and North Carolina. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tommy Lamkin/RELEASED)"

BIG VERSION PIC:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... 34-001.jpg

h/t SNAFU | 'solomon': http://www.scribd.com/doc/89698817/v22-brief#download [8Mb PDF]

Not for the USN but maybe an AEW platform for other navies?

Anyone else notice the 3 F-32's flying by below that AEW V-22?

Sufa Viper

sufaviper wrote:

Anyone else notice the 3 F-32's flying by below that AEW V-22?

Sufa Viper

Boeing conspiracy Very Happy

3 Wrongs don't make a Right? <sigh> Cheers

I was wondering about the possibility of serving as a refueling plane.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Can a COD V-22 Transport F-35B/C Engines to CVN/LHA?