Don't think I've ever seen anything on the drawing in the lower left hand corner.
As it's described as an 'artist's concept', the picture may be everything on that particular stopped-rotor concept. Since it features the other wonder-tech of 1980s aeronautics, the forward-swept wing, an artist's (or marketeer's) fancy seems quite likely to me.

Interesting nuggets of information about the SV-22 on there. It could have been a very capable aircraft, and could conceivably have got some export orders.

The D-340 gets my vote on sheer adorableness, even without a specific application for it!
 
From; A history of U.S. Coast Guard aviation.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    625.2 KB · Views: 618
Yet another interesting possibility. Lots of potential uses for the older and inaccurate V-22 kits (in 1/72, essentially any kit but Hasegawa's - note that the picture of the Blackdog engine nacelle details for this one have the bottom access doors hinged on the wrong side, they are hinged on the bottom and have struts holding them open; in 1/48 I do believe Italieri updated theirs to be reasonably accurate but check carefully).
 
Then there is this Bell pipe dream.

Unless you have read Dale Brown’s Hammerheads and the subsequent novels involve The Border Security Force , disbanded US cUstoms Service (sounds familiar decade and half after publication when USBP and Customs formed CBP) and UsCG , in Storming Heaven. The fictional BSF flies the V-22 Osprey In his books.

Cheers
 
Slightly digressing the first pair of JGSDF V-22 Ospreys have arrived by ship. Prior to this the Japanese air and ground crew worked up and trained with the Marine Corps at MCAS New River with their V-22.


 
Btw attended International Military Helicopter conference last week and came across the Bell booth. They Are advertising VIP configuration for V-22 But nothing like HMX-1 birds

Cheers.

View attachment 628450View attachment 628451
Current HMX-1 birds are primarily cargo haulers with passenger capacity rather than executive transporters. There were proposals for a "White Top" VM-22B but there were some drawbacks that didn't see it compete (engine exhaust impingement on the ground is more problematic for VIP aircraft, as one concern). ISTR that the back ramp was replaced by a stairway.
 
Another article about the armed V-22

 
Well, most of that is old news, like four years old as the airframe loaned for the ATTR has been returned to the USMC some time ago after being returned to close to the stock condition it was received in (it was an old airframe from early LRIP production and showed it). The cheek weapons stations work with existing structure and, really, unless you are dropping something that doesn't need to hasten forward, they are the only location for weaponry. Now, if you are just dropping something, you could likely carry *that* behind the prop-rotors.
 
I am happy to see that the system is still being worked. I had thought it not is use after the initial test.
Its been in the fleet since at least 2016, saw it in Iraq at the time.

But its mostly left out cause its heavy and cumbersome. So they often drop the gun but keep the sight since that thing is too useful.

Heard many pilots say that all military copters need a similar optic set up if they dont have one.
 
I am happy to see that the system is still being worked. I had thought it not is use after the initial test.
Its been in the fleet since at least 2016, saw it in Iraq at the time.

But its mostly left out cause its heavy and cumbersome. So they often drop the gun but keep the sight since that thing is too useful.

Heard many pilots say that all military copters need a similar optic set up if they dont have one.
Interesting! Goes against the common perception that military folks want guns, guns, and more guns.
 
Aero Scouts tend to prefer to let others do the shooting after they have found something worthy of being shot. Targets tend to shoot at those shooting at them.

As mentioned above, most lift pilots are ecstatic at getting any sensor beyond the Mark 1 eyeball, to help them see the environment around them.
 
I thought the MV-22 had a FLIR turret as standard? At some point a setup with a GAU-19 under the nose was envisioned, does anyone here know why was that idea abandoned?
 
I thought the MV-22 had a FLIR turret as standard? At some point a setup with a GAU-19 under the nose was envisioned, does anyone here know why was that idea abandoned?
It does, though, IIRC, the armed ATTR testbed had a different one fitted that included designation capacity. I suspect that, as yasotay says, weight and center of gravity concerns, as well as structural loads from the gun lead to that being delayed and then the necessary real estate for it in the fuselage got taken by other systems.
 
Notice that the ammo pack rest exposed without any armor, probably restricting the kind of shells you can load.
 
 
A recent donation to the Museum from the widow of a Boeing Vertol/Boeing St. Louis Engineer netted the attached brochure and cut sheet. Also a number of tie tacks, pins and other internal Rah-Rah epherma...

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zBell Boeing V-22 Osprey Cut Sheet - 1.jpg
    zBell Boeing V-22 Osprey Cut Sheet - 1.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 324
  • zBell Boeing V-22 Osprey Cut Sheet - 2.jpg
    zBell Boeing V-22 Osprey Cut Sheet - 2.jpg
    734.5 KB · Views: 406
  • Bell-Boeing V-22 Brochure 1993.pdf
    4.9 MB · Views: 110
"Because..."
Never doubted it, even for a moment...
;-)
 
Seems more elegant than the finished product. But then, isn't that always the case?
Often, though not always. The early JVX had a more conventional aircraft shape to the cockpit; it got squarer as it developed as that allowed the pilot better vision, kinda important for a VTOL. Almost surprised it didn't end up with a bug-eyed OV-1 style cockpit. Then fuel tanks get bigger, it starts sprouting antenna and ECM lumps and flare dispensers and beer volcanoes and stripper factories...
 
From Aviation magazine 1986.
 

Attachments

  • 4.png
    4.png
    3 MB · Views: 208
From Aviation magazine 1988.
 

Attachments

  • 14.png
    14.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 148
From Aviation magazine 1988.
Well, here is to hoping that Leonardo has more success with commercial tilt rotor aircraft.

Given the lethargy of the US and European aeronautical approval agencies I am not as optimistic as I would like to be.
 
Now that the V-280 has won the US Army contract, I could see a development of that installation concept applied to new wings as a Mid-Life Update of the V-22B into the V-22C. It would eliminate some problems the V-22B encounters.
 
Last edited:
While it is feasible that a new wing could be developed that moves the engines to a permenant horizontal position, the wing could not be made straight like the V-280 due to the relative position of the prop rotors to the ceter of gravity in helicopter mode. Someone with more aerospace engineering background will have to remark if there are any other aerodynamic issues associated with the modification of the wing to accept a non-rotating engine component.
 
It would appear that 700,000 hours and over a decade of combat operations later, a tilt-rotor ...disliker, feels vindicated.
Arbitary metric, 700,000 hrs/464 V-22 equals an average of only ~1,500 flight hrs per aircraft to date, for a $56 billion program cost plus its O&M costs and at first glance it doesn't appear a great return for the treasure heaped on it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom