Another reason why the Navy is replacing the C-2 Greyhound with the CMV-22 Osprey is because the latter can carry the F135 engine which is used on F-35Cs and will allow aircraft carriers to replace their engines on board during deployment ...
Correction, F135 Power Module is too big to fit in compartment of C2, also too much shock catching wire even if it did fit. Additionally it does not have in-flight refueling like V22 which has greater range than C2
The thrust of two rotors comment is false. They are connected. It is two engines connected to two props. If one engine fails, both props are powered by the remaining engine.
Technically speaking Osprey has a better safety record than the Blackhawk etc but since carries a lot of people when it crashes it becomes the headline, this is not to descredit it's woes during development
yeah, more that's because the Blackhawk is older and been in battle, the osprey has seen little battle and is new compared to military standards (oldest ospreys are 23 years old) and has still kept on crashing. more crashes will continue to come due to Bell's horrible design and shoddy building tactics, compared to Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing, Bell is the most unreliable and unsafe, you can keep on blowing Bells horn, but it won't stop the marines that are being endangered due to Bell's lack of quality control, and a very hard to use aircraft.
You can't be serious. There's a reason they call it the crashhawk. The blackhawk killed more people in the same time than the V22 when it entered service in 2007
@@topkek1194 if you were to look into the numbers for a second you would see that more than 5000 Blackhawks have been made with 114 deaths from accidents since it was tested and has been in service that means for every Blackhawk made 0.02 deaths have been caused but for the Osprey only 500 have been made with 54 total fatalities which means 0.11 deaths have been caused per tiltrotor built that is over 5x the amount of what the Blackhawk has caused from accidents and you still claim it is safer? and there has been 15 hull losses which means 3% of all Osprey's made have crashed beyond repair, compared to the Blackhawk's 0.48% of airframes to be made beyond repair from crashes that means ospreys airframes are more that 6x more likely to be destroyed in an accident. and all this info includes Blackhawk's history before the Osprey went into testing which is nearly 20 years and the Blackhawk is way older now, the osprey still has many more years in which it will continue to keep on killing marines due to Bell incompetence. next time look at the numbers before trying to disgrace the Blackhawk.
Then don't fly either. Why risk more service members lives? Our nations best are not crash test dummies for military contractor to use. Send the design engineers and mechanics up instead... I bet safety issues resolved quickly or aircraft gets grounded.
@@locoparentis244 there will always be some risk when flying aircraft especially helicopters, but these are very rare (even for the osprey) there will always be a risk associated when flying in them, it but the military should still try to minimize the risks.
The technology is truly awesome. It takes a lot of work to learn how to fly and be comfortable flying a tiltrotor. This is an amazing machine. The new V-280 will also be an amazing tool our warfighters can use. Thank you BellFlight for these amazing aircraft.
The comments in the video about VRS are also incorrect. That argument comes from the stages of its early development and the desire of some people to not have it enter the fleet. In a AEI situation, it is also capable of gliding, just with a glide ratio below airplanes, but above helicopters.
Usually, when personnel are in need of urgent medical care not available on board ship, a COD launch is very stressful on the patient. It's not likely for one of these individuals to be flown to a carrier or other ship. As you stated in the video.
There was an interesting Coast Guard Cost/Benefit analysis on acquiring them for use in medical evacuations near the U.S. coast. Their conclusion was that most medical events that required their assistance were well within helicopter range. Most calls were within a hundred miles of shore. There just wasn’t a business case in their mind.
I really like tilt rotors. The only issue is they still have alot of teething to go through and unfortunately that will mean injuries and lives lost. hopefully they can fix the issues and make these even more reliable. I do think this technology would be beneficial in the civilian sector. Rescue helicopters being able to get to locations very fast and then hover to do their job would be great.
Even the Osprey is safer than the CH-46, CH-47, CH-53, and HH-60. It was the first of its kind. Hell the Black Hawk had 20+ crashes in its first 6 years of service.
What did they learn with the Osprey failures? Remember back to those days? Years ago! Why are they safer now? What about the new Army Bell V280? What does it have that they learned with the Osprey?
@@Handle1969the Osprey has had many small improvements. The Valor improves by leaving engines horizontal and using a straight flat wing. There are other improvements butvthats the quick answer
Ironically, helicopters produce asymmetric thrust during the entirety of flight. Just because a helicopter has one disk, doesn't make the thrust symmetric. Far from it. Even a coaxial hello produces asymmetric thrust. Sure, it's balanced, but leads to excessive vibration.
Helicopter blade loads due to asymmetric lift come from blades advancing on one side retreating on the other. It causes all manner of design headaches for the engineers. The unloaded blades tend to „twang“ depending on blade stiffness. Even turboprops have the same issue. At any angle of attack during cruise the upward and downward traveling blades generate different amounts of lift creating asymmetric lift and all manor of headache inducing gyroscopic forces. Lol
It's a useful tool in the toolbelt, I just think it's too soon to throw out all the similar tools and only rely on this one to handle all those jobs. I'd have preferred that we hedged our bets for one more generation of these tilt rotor designs before going all-in. But if all we're going to care about ever again is the Western Pacific and landing marines on the Spratlys and Paracels, then okay, this is the machine to have. That extra speed and range is going to be critical there. Hopefully we don't need to drop any of these wide bodies into central Taiwan though, that terrain looks rough.
Speed and range are king on a battlefield for a transport helicopter. It can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk can but will spend half the time in the hot zone doing so.
Having understood the tilt rotor advantages pointed out by this video, I believe they are not necessary at all times. The militaries are putting all the eggs in the same basket. It’s like having a racing car full of novelties being employed for races as well as for go shopping. IMHO the “only one super model fleet to do everything” philosophy is a great error. An error that is being committed twice in the Navy Cargo and the Army UH replacement. This video focuses on safety issues and the operational possibilities. Both are fundamental. But nothing is said about operating cost. And that's a main factor as well. A follow-on video on this subject would be greatly welcomed.
So increased capabilities will come with increased costs. If you factor in that the Osprey goes twice the distance in the same time compared to other medium lift platforms it's costs get closer to the CH-47 and CH-53 although still greater. The Osprey is also the first of its kind with multiple design choices that had major drawbacks.
Then you think the majority of aircraft aren't worth the injuries and deaths? Even the navy has said the V-22 is one of the safest aircraft they fly... you are going off of myths about them.
no they have not. There is a competition right now between the Bell 360 Invictus and the Sikorsky Raider. One of these two will replace half of the apaches because they already have reached their frame limits. They will also take back the role the apaches have been doing which is recon since they retired their recon helis the Oh-58 Kiowa.
The valor is only replacing the Blackhawk and the bell 360 Invictus and S-97 raider is competing to see which one will replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior
I think of tilt rotor technology as analogous in its evolution as what the nifty fifties were to fixed wing aircraft technologies. There's argument suggesting tradtional rotorwing aircraft fit the analogy as well, but a line must be drawn. The fifies defined the core design phlosophies for all fixed platforms through the end of twentieth century and still today dominate. Yet we are seeing new novel approaches. Granted the evolution of tilt rotor platforms has not been as rapid as the aforementioned. Ponting out the roots of tilt rotor go back to mid 50's with Bell XV-3. Nonetheless, IMHO the future holds great promise for tilt "platform" technologes. Benefiting, like many things are today, from advancements in materials sciences and manufacturing techniques. Back to tilt rotor airframes and powerplant tech. It's not out of the question that the future will see aircraft such as depicked in the movie "Oblivion" staring Maverick a.k.a. Tom Cruise, realized.
So, a nearly 60 year old less capable aircraft is being replaced by a current aircraft with many times the capability. a point missed is metal fatigue meaning the "lovable" old darling would soon start falling to bits in the air, this may kill the romance along with many people. Well done Navy. 😎👍
IMC, industrial Military (Congressional) Complex. The Osprey was “certified” by the FAA under a “special” category to allow it to fly. It cannot autorotate like a helo nor glide like a regular conventional aircraft. I remove my hat and salute all service members that have to fly in one. While in the Corps, I flew in all helos except the Cobra. I was out before the Osprey came online. Semper Fi!.
The FAA doesn’t certify military aircraft. That’s why retired military are registered as “experimental “ when bought by civilians. It could autorotate but with nacelles up the drag makes it difficult to perform well. Its short wings mean it can glide with both engines out but it has a low L/D compared to standard fixed wing. It is the standard emergency procedure its only real drawback is that when the land with nacelles down the blades “broomstick “ and the gearboxes are toast due to the shock loads. I rode all the Army aircraft back in the day and was bummed when they passed on the Osprey.
@@larryjackson6238 The F-16 has just as many downed aircraft during development, but the problems were worked on long enough for countries across the globe to rely on it. The fact that the Osprey is a transport means it could injury many passengers at the same time, same as if a 737 crashes.
Another reason why the Navy is replacing the C-2 Greyhound with the CMV-22 Osprey is because the latter can carry the F135 engine which is used on F-35Cs and will allow aircraft carriers to replace their engines on board during deployment ...
Great point, thanks for commenting
The C-2 can carry the same F-35 engine and go faster and farther.
Correction, F135 Power Module is too big to fit in compartment of C2, also too much shock catching wire even if it did fit. Additionally it does not have in-flight refueling like V22 which has greater range than C2
@@wayneyd2 to even fit in the V-22 it takes a special trailer.
The thrust of two rotors comment is false. They are connected. It is two engines connected to two props. If one engine fails, both props are powered by the remaining engine.
And that engine will take you all the way to the crash sight.
I thought they had a backup system like that in place.
@@larryjackson6238That is better than going to the crash site rapidly. And inverted.
@@larryjackson6238 That is like saying a one engined plane will always crash.
@@larryjackson6238 You are wrong... you will be in complete control just at limited speeds and altitude but can still fly back to base.
Technically speaking Osprey has a better safety record than the Blackhawk etc but since carries a lot of people when it crashes it becomes the headline, this is not to descredit it's woes during development
yeah, more that's because the Blackhawk is older and been in battle, the osprey has seen little battle and is new compared to military standards (oldest ospreys are 23 years old) and has still kept on crashing. more crashes will continue to come due to Bell's horrible design and shoddy building tactics, compared to Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing, Bell is the most unreliable and unsafe, you can keep on blowing Bells horn, but it won't stop the marines that are being endangered due to Bell's lack of quality control, and a very hard to use aircraft.
You can't be serious. There's a reason they call it the crashhawk. The blackhawk killed more people in the same time than the V22 when it entered service in 2007
@@topkek1194 if you were to look into the numbers for a second you would see that more than 5000 Blackhawks have been made with 114 deaths from accidents since it was tested and has been in service that means for every Blackhawk made 0.02 deaths have been caused but for the Osprey only 500 have been made with 54 total fatalities which means 0.11 deaths have been caused per tiltrotor built that is over 5x the amount of what the Blackhawk has caused from accidents and you still claim it is safer? and there has been 15 hull losses which means 3% of all Osprey's made have crashed beyond repair, compared to the Blackhawk's 0.48% of airframes to be made beyond repair from crashes that means ospreys airframes are more that 6x more likely to be destroyed in an accident. and all this info includes Blackhawk's history before the Osprey went into testing which is nearly 20 years and the Blackhawk is way older now, the osprey still has many more years in which it will continue to keep on killing marines due to Bell incompetence. next time look at the numbers before trying to disgrace the Blackhawk.
Then don't fly either. Why risk more service members lives? Our nations best are not crash test dummies for military contractor to use. Send the design engineers and mechanics up instead... I bet safety issues resolved quickly or aircraft gets grounded.
@@locoparentis244 there will always be some risk when flying aircraft especially helicopters, but these are very rare (even for the osprey) there will always be a risk associated when flying in them, it but the military should still try to minimize the risks.
The technology is truly awesome. It takes a lot of work to learn how to fly and be comfortable flying a tiltrotor. This is an amazing machine. The new V-280 will also be an amazing tool our warfighters can use. Thank you BellFlight for these amazing aircraft.
Too Cool for School. So fun watching these aircraft maneuver.
Great overview of the basic plus and minuses. It clarified a few things I was not understanding completely.
Very informative video, like always. Thank you.
The comments in the video about VRS are also incorrect. That argument comes from the stages of its early development and the desire of some people to not have it enter the fleet. In a AEI situation, it is also capable of gliding, just with a glide ratio below airplanes, but above helicopters.
Usually, when personnel are in need of urgent medical care not available on board ship, a COD launch is very stressful on the patient. It's not likely for one of these individuals to be flown to a carrier or other ship. As you stated in the video.
There was an interesting Coast Guard Cost/Benefit analysis on acquiring them for use in medical evacuations near the U.S. coast. Their conclusion was that most medical events that required their assistance were well within helicopter range. Most calls were within a hundred miles of shore. There just wasn’t a business case in their mind.
I really like tilt rotors. The only issue is they still have alot of teething to go through and unfortunately that will mean injuries and lives lost. hopefully they can fix the issues and make these even more reliable.
I do think this technology would be beneficial in the civilian sector. Rescue helicopters being able to get to locations very fast and then hover to do their job would be great.
Even the Osprey is safer than the CH-46, CH-47, CH-53, and HH-60. It was the first of its kind. Hell the Black Hawk had 20+ crashes in its first 6 years of service.
What did they learn with the Osprey failures? Remember back to those days? Years ago! Why are they safer now? What about the new Army Bell V280? What does it have that they learned with the Osprey?
@@n3v3rforgott3n9many due to the poor EMI shielding.
@@Handle1969the Osprey has had many small improvements. The Valor improves by leaving engines horizontal and using a straight flat wing. There are other improvements butvthats the quick answer
Ironically, helicopters produce asymmetric thrust during the entirety of flight. Just because a helicopter has one disk, doesn't make the thrust symmetric. Far from it. Even a coaxial hello produces asymmetric thrust. Sure, it's balanced, but leads to excessive vibration.
Helicopter blade loads due to asymmetric lift come from blades advancing on one side retreating on the other. It causes all manner of design headaches for the engineers. The unloaded blades tend to „twang“ depending on blade stiffness. Even turboprops have the same issue. At any angle of attack during cruise the upward and downward traveling blades generate different amounts of lift creating asymmetric lift and all manor of headache inducing gyroscopic forces. Lol
Amazing content. Love it.❤😮
It simplify fly further and faster. No competition.
Can the C-2 fly faster with its wings folded back?
Can a tilt rotor aircraft roll or pitch while in vertical mode?
If there’s a back up engine then why all the crashes?
It's a useful tool in the toolbelt, I just think it's too soon to throw out all the similar tools and only rely on this one to handle all those jobs. I'd have preferred that we hedged our bets for one more generation of these tilt rotor designs before going all-in. But if all we're going to care about ever again is the Western Pacific and landing marines on the Spratlys and Paracels, then okay, this is the machine to have. That extra speed and range is going to be critical there. Hopefully we don't need to drop any of these wide bodies into central Taiwan though, that terrain looks rough.
Speed and range are king on a battlefield for a transport helicopter. It can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk can but will spend half the time in the hot zone doing so.
One engine can run both proprotors but not for long.
No they can run it for just as long... your speed and altitude are just limited.
It's cal a V twenty-two not a V two two.
Osprey are crushing so sickening
Having understood the tilt rotor advantages pointed out by this video, I believe they are not necessary at all times. The militaries are putting all the eggs in the same basket. It’s like having a racing car full of novelties being employed for races as well as for go shopping. IMHO the “only one super model fleet to do everything” philosophy is a great error. An error that is being committed twice in the Navy Cargo and the Army UH replacement.
This video focuses on safety issues and the operational possibilities. Both are fundamental. But nothing is said about operating cost. And that's a main factor as well. A follow-on video on this subject would be greatly welcomed.
So increased capabilities will come with increased costs. If you factor in that the Osprey goes twice the distance in the same time compared to other medium lift platforms it's costs get closer to the CH-47 and CH-53 although still greater. The Osprey is also the first of its kind with multiple design choices that had major drawbacks.
i always wondered why we didnt have tilt rotors planes like in the movies. i guess technology isnt there yet.
Personally, I don't believe the V-22 is worth the injuries and death it is responsible for.
Then you think the majority of aircraft aren't worth the injuries and deaths? Even the navy has said the V-22 is one of the safest aircraft they fly... you are going off of myths about them.
He's wrong. The US Army has chosen to replace the Apache helicopter with the Bell V-280 Valor also.
They are working in the Bell 360 to replace it.
no they have not. There is a competition right now between the Bell 360 Invictus and the Sikorsky Raider. One of these two will replace half of the apaches because they already have reached their frame limits. They will also take back the role the apaches have been doing which is recon since they retired their recon helis the Oh-58 Kiowa.
The valor is only replacing the Blackhawk and the bell 360 Invictus and S-97 raider is competing to see which one will replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior
always better
คือเรื่องนี้จบแล้วนะ ล็อกฮีดมาร์ตินคงไม่มีสินค้าเข้าไปขายให้รัฐบาลอินเดียสนใจเครื่องบิน 2 เครื่องยนต์มากกว่า
I dont like the idea of neither being able to glide to the ground nor autorotate.
Pretty much every helicopter accident in military service happens at an altitude too low to autorotate
I think of tilt rotor technology as analogous in its evolution as what the nifty fifties were to fixed wing aircraft technologies. There's argument suggesting tradtional rotorwing aircraft fit the analogy as well, but a line must be drawn. The fifies defined the core design phlosophies for all fixed platforms through the end of twentieth century and still today dominate. Yet we are seeing new novel approaches. Granted the evolution of tilt rotor platforms has not been as rapid as the aforementioned. Ponting out the roots of tilt rotor go back to mid 50's with Bell XV-3. Nonetheless, IMHO the future holds great promise for tilt "platform" technologes. Benefiting, like many things are today, from advancements in materials sciences and manufacturing techniques.
Back to tilt rotor airframes and powerplant tech. It's not out of the question that the future will see aircraft such as depicked in the movie "Oblivion" staring Maverick a.k.a. Tom Cruise, realized.
Stick to plane stuff vs. speculating upon potential conficts, Kissinger
Because they are game changers?
Because they think is the latest and greatest. Also the lobbies want to sell them
So, a nearly 60 year old less capable aircraft is being replaced by a current aircraft with many times the capability.
a point missed is metal fatigue meaning the "lovable" old darling would soon start falling to bits in the air, this may kill the romance along with many people.
Well done Navy. 😎👍
I believe the Blackhawk is still in production, so while the design is fairly old the components and airframes are much less so
IMC, industrial Military (Congressional) Complex. The Osprey was “certified” by the FAA under a “special” category to allow it to fly. It cannot autorotate like a helo nor glide like a regular conventional aircraft. I remove my hat and salute all service members that have to fly in one. While in the Corps, I flew in all helos except the Cobra. I was out before the Osprey came online. Semper Fi!.
The FAA doesn’t certify military aircraft. That’s why retired military are registered as “experimental “ when bought by civilians. It could autorotate but with nacelles up the drag makes it difficult to perform well. Its short wings mean it can glide with both engines out but it has a low L/D compared to standard fixed wing. It is the standard emergency procedure its only real drawback is that when the land with nacelles down the blades “broomstick “ and the gearboxes are toast due to the shock loads.
I rode all the Army aircraft back in the day and was bummed when they passed on the Osprey.
VTOL + STOL 항공기
에너지 효율은 STOL
مروحيات ينبغي الاعتماذ عليها حجم كبير بعيذة المدى
The Osprey is a death trap!!!!
It has an exceptional flying safety record of over 100,000 flight hours without an incident
@@xprettylightsx . How many have died in this aircraft???
@@larryjackson6238 my friend… pilots “die” in every airframes lifespan.
@@larryjackson6238 The F-16 has just as many downed aircraft during development, but the problems were worked on long enough for countries across the globe to rely on it. The fact that the Osprey is a transport means it could injury many passengers at the same time, same as if a 737 crashes.
@@xprettylightsxOMG only pilots died in same plane? You don't count the other service members? Oh maybe you think they died of COVID.
they get shot down just as easy as the less expensive ones or they just crash on there own
V280 is too bulky.
Compared to a larger fixed-wing aircraft??
@@andrewreynolds4949 Compared to anything, its stupid.