My home country, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, also operates several of these in different colors, but so far there have been no accidents. In the first place, in recent years, the JGSDF has been focusing on missions to recapture remote islands, with China in mind, and the new rifle, the Type 20, is designed to be resistant to rust caused by water. Although the battlefields are different, I hope that the military alliance between the UK and Japan will become even stronger.
How many flights have the BlackHawk flown? V22 can't even imagine the number of flights BHawk has completed. V22 is not off to a good ratio. Especially given modern tech we have in current times.
@@louismechler4338 Black Hawk has done numerous dangerous missions for special operations, something V-22 hasn't and Black Hawk soldiers tend to survive V-22 don't.
From other military channels and people comments it seems the problem with some of the V-22 accidents is that the pilots have mostly the mentality of fixed wing ones, while in reality they need to be trained more like Helicopter pilots when it comes to malfunctions and warnings and the wording in the manuals need to be revised in relation to the chip burn warmings. Helicopter pilots have chimed in on the accident in Japan where the pilot didn't take the several chip burn warnings and failures as seriously as helicopter pilots would, where they would land IMMEDIATELY if one of those warnings comes up and don't wait or question if it's a false alarm o not.
Tricky one. The V22 has a bit of a bad rep for planting its crew and passengers in the ground. The Harrier, also with a transition between vertical and horizontal flight, had a bad rep with the USMC initially for doing the same. Less persons affected per aircraft, however. If you need vertical take off and to get where you're going quickly, you don't have that many choices though.
Agreed. The V-22 mishap rate is in line with other military helicopters and prior to the recent string of incidents in the past few years it had one of the lowest. I agree with you that many new aircraft get a bad reputation whenever they are new. The CH-53 early variants had to include the early E variants were having accidents too, claiming over 200 lives between 1969 and 1990. By 2008 the navy version had a mishap rate more than double the Navy's average helicopter mishap rate.
I worked in Every Squadron the Marines that had A model Harriers beginning about 1972. I saw more then my share of Harrier crashes. One even flew, into the largest Hangar at Cherry Point! I was walking to that hangar when it happened. But I personally saw 6 crashes. The A model Harrier Was a dangerous plane. But like you pointed out, it had only one passenger. I went in, and became a Navy Officer and Aviato. Most of the Original, 110 , A model Harriers were destroyed in crashes and mishaps. But so were the fleet of Navy, F-8's.
Saw an aircraft very similar to one these flying above the I-215 at Gibson Rd. in Henderson Nv. at about 1-2 am. It was about 150-200 ft. above the freeway traveling at about 90-100 mph. It had green lights on propellars but had a more compact and sporty look to it than the Osprey and the cockpit had alot more glass around it and i could clearly see the pilot inside the aircraft. A few days afterwards i was with a friend that lived less than a half mile from where i was when i witnessed this but on the opposite side of the freeway. I told him that I saw a strange aircraft flying real low above the I215 a few nights ago and he got real exited and said he was standing oitside his house waiting for a girlfriend to show up at the same time and he described exactly what i saw without me giving any details to him about the aircraft.
As this expert pointed out, rotor blades that are 38ft long create a large amount of torque; the force required to rotate these for horizontal flight is tremendous, this is the main cause of gearbox failure. When one engine drive fails its total catastrophic failure for the aircraft, sadly.
The latest V22 Crash off Japan occurred 49 minutes after the pilot got his first 'chip warning' (of 5) - that is a sensor that is detecting metal filings (as I understand it in the lubricants) from the gearing between the turbines and blades. Unfortunately at the time the warning was only acted on if a secondary warning (RPM, Pressure or temperature change) also occurred or there was multiple 'chip warnings'. As they say the best lessons are learned by the survivors and from what I have heard the 'Chip Warning' is now taken much more seriously without need for a secondary warning before the crew would take action.
The state department deemed it was the pilots needed more training, hence they were grounded last time so the pilots could get extra training. The chinnok has the same problem with dust getting into the engine and blades.
As reported by the Chief of Naval Air Systems Command, Vice Admiral Carl Chebi, the V22, Osprey has a Class A, mishap rate that is about twice as high as the Blackhawk helicopter, the best comparison airplane. It really helps to know what a "rate" is and what a class A mishap is. The last year, 2024, the V22 , fleet has been operating under reduced flight parameters. Mostly that is distance and time of flight, allowed. Apparently, many gear boxes have received a lot of maintenance attention. Which means, they are not doing much, operationally.
Yes but I’m not convinced by his comment because it wasn’t that long ago they still flew the little sister to the chinook, the us marines used the Sea Knight , also the Super Sea Stallion and it’s ASCR version the Super Jolly are pretty big aircraft also
It does seem fundamentally more risky than single rotor helicopters because if the drive for one rotor even partially fails you are stuffed- there is no possibility for autogyration (true?).
False. 13 UH-60s crashed this year alone killing twenty. Also, the drive shafts are connected so if one fails the other can still keep the aircraft airborne. Auto rotation as noted by said crashes doesn't do jack. If your gearbox fails then autorotation isn't possible.
@ that is true. However the noise issues were being addressed (with 1960s technology ) and it seems more inherently stable than the transformation from moving engines. Just wondered if there was a reason for not returning to the design
Too bad the producer of this video didn’t enlist someone actually familiar with the Osprey. The aircraft has been in the inventory for more than 20 years with an incredible safety record, and remarkable performance. The growing pains that were evident in the development phase have been successfully addressed.
This Tiltrotor aircraft is designed to replace the Marine CH-46 Sea Knight, since it has fuel and range equivalent to C-130 Hercules, and it was designed from their lessons in Operation Eagle Claw since Iran Hostage Crisis.
Are the statistics deceptive as the operations it is involved in are higher risk? goes twice as fast as a chinook with similar payload, yet it can only carry half as many troops. I wonder how the survivability compares to the Merlin as they carry a similar number of troops, think our rm's in afghan liked them
The simple fact is yes, 62 lives is not even drop in the bottle compared to other aircraft You wanna guess at how many lives were lost with CH-46, CH-53 and UH-60 that the V-22 replaces
The concept is a good idea certainly one which benefits the Royal Navy, which seriously lacks this capability from the fleet carriers, I would of hope there would be AWACS version by now which the Royal Navy could upgrade to.
Yet another problem we british thought about. The Hangers on the Queen Elizabeth, and the Prince of Wales CAN fit Chinnok helicopters inside them, as well as V22 Ospreys. Yet another bullet dodged by the Royal Navy
He said it very clearly in the video. Chinook is not suitable for naval operations, and V22 can go much faster than Chinook, which is an advantage in special operations use
It is a brilliant vehicle but it’s unsafe. IMO the plane has increased risk and lower survivability. All planes are at risk in warfare but they shouldn’t be at elevated risk during non fighting component of operation.
Aren't many of the issues mentioned also faced by normal helicopters? They have a similar disparity in rotor speed, and gas turbine speed. Plus, because they are smaller, the rotors of the Osprey actually spin faster than the rotors of a normal helicopter. Dust ingestion is also something helicopters face, as are clouds of dust being kicked up by the rotor of helicopters. So... why raise these things as issues when helicopters also face them? Maybe the real issue is that they have not taken the lessons of helicopters in similar situations and applied them to the Osprey.
Mention of debris entering the engines is not really valid under any even remotely possible conditions. The engines are built to cope. Military aero engines also generally have incredibly short on-wing lives before swapping and overhaul, nowhere near what civil/commercial aero engines must survive. Military engines are typically expected to need overhaul after just a few hundred hours.
You couldn't ever pay me anough money to fly on one of these. Also, the question posed in the video title is never actually adressed in this video. No ta, never, nope, bye.
He is right but missed one primary cause of fatalities, the fact the power is at the wingtips means loss of control is inevitable & instant, unlike a helicopter with a central rotor. It's a flawed design concept from the start that flies by political will & money. The forces needed to be resisted due to tilt rotors is grotesque, engines that swivel likewise. Having them on the wingtips is insane.
It actually has a lower accident rate that its predecessor the black hawk and other military aircraft types, also the US are now making another tilt rotor for the army the V280. I doubt very much its a flawed design.
Japan was in fact pilot error. The black box confirmed the warning sensor for the gearbox went off but instead of landing immediately the Japs ignored it.
Nope. Then you have to consider if the company is safe... Cos if that door went at 30,000ft, you'd have another 100+ dead and unlike the others being foreign pilots and airlines, that would be 100% US workers, deaths, pilots and crew involved.
That is factually false. The aircraft that has killed most military personnel is the CH-53 and it's early variants. Between 1969 and 1990 it killed over 200 troops in accidents.
It does run-on landings like all military helicopter pilots are trained to do. It also has a shaft that goes between engines to supply power to the other rotor. The second question is answered with a yes, it's going to land regardless. Similar to the choices of any aircraft without landing gear./sarcasm
Absolute nonsense from a squirrel. Anything mechanical will break. Anything human will make mistakes from time to time. The USAF CV-22 crash off the coast of Japan was preventable. The warning lights were not taken as seriously by the pilot as needed. The pilot should have landed in any available location, instead the pilot attempted to land at an airport. All helicopters fall like a rock, when the blades stop.
Do you really think that two civil airliners built in their 1000’s and operated for many decades, have anything in common with a small number of highly specialized tilt rotor airframes flying demanding missions both in trying and actual combat operations? Hard to think of two more different classes of aircraft.
its a flawed design , a better design would be tilt wing , which can take off life a helicopter or like a conventional aircraft using a runway , it uses ducted fans avoiding the v22 flaw or trying to go up as the prop wash is pushing down on wing of aircraft you can see early concepts of tiltwing in the TW 68. I have seen much later concepts , which got the approval of Marine commanders but couldn't get funding because the powerful Bell and Boeing lobby in the military procurement command .
It's safer than any helicopter in service. Also, it's a first-generation production. The V-280 the Army is adopting to replace the UH-60 is superior in every metric sans one. Payload.
The video didn't directly address the question in its own title.
An accurate title would not generate clicks: "Expert discusses some unique concerns regarding the V-22"
Yes, it is safe to fly. In fact, it has one of the best track records of all military aircraft.
@@Predator42ID And there is a new nacelle design being implemented now to improve reliability and safety.
@@roberttaylor3664 Okay that is just cool.
it's the clutch
My home country, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, also operates several of these in different colors, but so far there have been no accidents. In the first place, in recent years, the JGSDF has been focusing on missions to recapture remote islands, with China in mind, and the new rifle, the Type 20, is designed to be resistant to rust caused by water. Although the battlefields are different, I hope that the military alliance between the UK and Japan will become even stronger.
The V22 has a lower crash rate than the Blackhawk.
Lower rate per flight hour?
How many flights have the BlackHawk flown? V22 can't even imagine the number of flights BHawk has completed. V22 is not off to a good ratio. Especially given modern tech we have in current times.
@ZeroSpawn Do you understand the concept of rate ?
@@louismechler4338 Black Hawk has done numerous dangerous missions for special operations, something V-22 hasn't and Black Hawk soldiers tend to survive V-22 don't.
From other military channels and people comments it seems the problem with some of the V-22 accidents is that the pilots have mostly the mentality of fixed wing ones, while in reality they need to be trained more like Helicopter pilots when it comes to malfunctions and warnings and the wording in the manuals need to be revised in relation to the chip burn warmings. Helicopter pilots have chimed in on the accident in Japan where the pilot didn't take the several chip burn warnings and failures as seriously as helicopter pilots would, where they would land IMMEDIATELY if one of those warnings comes up and don't wait or question if it's a false alarm o not.
I've flown in these dozens of times, never had an issue. (Thankfully).
Thank you for your service
Safer than the F-104 thats for sure
Tricky one. The V22 has a bit of a bad rep for planting its crew and passengers in the ground. The Harrier, also with a transition between vertical and horizontal flight, had a bad rep with the USMC initially for doing the same. Less persons affected per aircraft, however.
If you need vertical take off and to get where you're going quickly, you don't have that many choices though.
Agreed. The V-22 mishap rate is in line with other military helicopters and prior to the recent string of incidents in the past few years it had one of the lowest. I agree with you that many new aircraft get a bad reputation whenever they are new. The CH-53 early variants had to include the early E variants were having accidents too, claiming over 200 lives between 1969 and 1990. By 2008 the navy version had a mishap rate more than double the Navy's average helicopter mishap rate.
I worked in Every Squadron the Marines that had A model Harriers beginning about 1972. I saw more then my share of Harrier crashes. One even flew, into the largest Hangar at Cherry Point! I was walking to that hangar when it happened. But I personally saw 6 crashes. The A model Harrier Was a dangerous plane. But like you pointed out, it had only one passenger. I went in, and became a Navy Officer and Aviato. Most of the Original, 110 , A model Harriers were destroyed in crashes and mishaps. But so were the fleet of Navy, F-8's.
Saw an aircraft very similar to one these flying above the I-215 at Gibson Rd. in Henderson Nv. at about 1-2 am. It was about 150-200 ft. above the freeway traveling at about 90-100 mph. It had green lights on propellars but had a more compact and sporty look to it than the Osprey and the cockpit had alot more glass around it and i could clearly see the pilot inside the aircraft. A few days afterwards i was with a friend that lived less than a half mile from where i was when i witnessed this but on the opposite side of the freeway. I told him that I saw a strange aircraft flying real low above the I215 a few nights ago and he got real exited and said he was standing oitside his house waiting for a girlfriend to show up at the same time and he described exactly what i saw without me giving any details to him about the aircraft.
Keep calm & carry on
I saw at least four of these passing by my primary school just before RIAT 2015.
I reckon it was about that time that I watch 4 or 5 flying over our house in Hampshire just as we arrived home from work.
As this expert pointed out, rotor blades that are 38ft long create a large amount of torque; the force required to rotate these for horizontal flight is tremendous, this is the main cause of gearbox failure. When one engine drive fails its total catastrophic failure for the aircraft, sadly.
The latest V22 Crash off Japan occurred 49 minutes after the pilot got his first 'chip warning' (of 5) - that is a sensor that is detecting metal filings (as I understand it in the lubricants) from the gearing between the turbines and blades. Unfortunately at the time the warning was only acted on if a secondary warning (RPM, Pressure or temperature change) also occurred or there was multiple 'chip warnings'. As they say the best lessons are learned by the survivors and from what I have heard the 'Chip Warning' is now taken much more seriously without need for a secondary warning before the crew would take action.
I remember Bill Sweetman from his articles on the Aurora recon plane back in the 1990's when I was in elementary.
The state department deemed it was the pilots needed more training, hence they were grounded last time so the pilots could get extra training.
The chinnok has the same problem with dust getting into the engine and blades.
Well, that answers that.
As long as they don't fly over me, it's not MY problem.
One of the negatives of living near enough to a Marine Base is those damn Ospreys.
As reported by the Chief of Naval Air Systems Command, Vice Admiral Carl Chebi, the V22, Osprey has a Class A, mishap rate that is about twice as high as the Blackhawk helicopter, the best comparison airplane. It really helps to know what a "rate" is and what a class A mishap is. The last year, 2024, the V22 , fleet has been operating under reduced flight parameters. Mostly that is distance and time of flight, allowed. Apparently, many gear boxes have received a lot of maintenance attention. Which means, they are not doing much, operationally.
Thank you
The RN had to especially design are amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers, to fit the Chinook.
Yes but I’m not convinced by his comment because it wasn’t that long ago they still flew the little sister to the chinook, the us marines used the Sea Knight , also the Super Sea Stallion and it’s ASCR version the Super Jolly are pretty big aircraft also
@@darrenjones3681 RN never used either of those they had the , Westland Commando & Sea King variants of the S61 and Wessex (S58)
It does seem fundamentally more risky than single rotor helicopters because if the drive for one rotor even partially fails you are stuffed- there is no possibility for autogyration (true?).
False. 13 UH-60s crashed this year alone killing twenty. Also, the drive shafts are connected so if one fails the other can still keep the aircraft airborne. Auto rotation as noted by said crashes doesn't do jack. If your gearbox fails then autorotation isn't possible.
With the design issues in this type of transition aircraft, has anyone explored an alternative (eg the rotordyne aircraft of the 1960s)?
That thing was canceled purely due to the noise alone, also most likely range, and speed.
@ that is true. However the noise issues were being addressed (with 1960s technology ) and it seems more inherently stable than the transformation from moving engines. Just wondered if there was a reason for not returning to the design
Too bad the producer of this video didn’t enlist someone actually familiar with the Osprey. The aircraft has been in the inventory for more than 20 years with an incredible safety record, and remarkable performance. The growing pains that were evident in the development phase have been successfully addressed.
62 deaths? Hardly incredibly safe by any reasonable standard.
We need to design helicopters or tiltrotors more like those seen in Avatar
The British special forces were going to get it then they changed their mind because of the safety issues with the aircraft.
This Tiltrotor aircraft is designed to replace the Marine CH-46 Sea Knight, since it has fuel and range equivalent to C-130 Hercules, and it was designed from their lessons in Operation Eagle Claw since Iran Hostage Crisis.
RIP to all the beta testers.
Are the statistics deceptive as the operations it is involved in are higher risk?
goes twice as fast as a chinook with similar payload, yet it can only carry half as many troops. I wonder how the survivability compares to the Merlin as they carry a similar number of troops, think our rm's in afghan liked them
The simple fact is yes,
62 lives is not even drop in the bottle compared to other aircraft
You wanna guess at how many lives were lost with CH-46, CH-53 and UH-60 that the V-22 replaces
Well tell us, so that we can judge. along with total flying hours, of course.
the US has this habit of making flying coffins LOL.
0:02 I know that unit.
V-22 mishaps are caused by overworked Marines and service members. Bottom line.
Grounded again?
Simple - nope!
It's still kewl
The V-22 is too expensive to fail just like the F-35.
The concept is a good idea certainly one which benefits the Royal Navy, which seriously lacks this capability from the fleet carriers, I would of hope there would be AWACS version by now which the Royal Navy could upgrade to.
Yet another problem we british thought about. The Hangers on the Queen Elizabeth, and the Prince of Wales CAN fit Chinnok helicopters inside them, as well as V22 Ospreys. Yet another bullet dodged by the Royal Navy
Osprey I will pass.
Seaking any day.
They have to fix them, no excuse!
I don't see why they made it to begin with. It's too wide to be a "helicopter". I'd rather fly on a Chinook than this.
He said it very clearly in the video. Chinook is not suitable for naval operations, and V22 can go much faster than Chinook, which is an advantage in special operations use
I can remember when the chinooks had a similar problem with their gearboxes between the two rotors back in the day.
Now I wonder how many lives Boeing 737s have claimed - are they safe?
no but do you want to walk or fly?
@@graveperil2169 I can't fly, except as a passenger, they've nicked me medical!
Any relevance?
@@nicfarrow balancing risk with benefit, any kind of flight is more risky than walking
It is a brilliant vehicle but it’s unsafe. IMO the plane has increased risk and lower survivability.
All planes are at risk in warfare but they shouldn’t be at elevated risk during non fighting component of operation.
Endless problems keeping that in the air
Aren't many of the issues mentioned also faced by normal helicopters? They have a similar disparity in rotor speed, and gas turbine speed. Plus, because they are smaller, the rotors of the Osprey actually spin faster than the rotors of a normal helicopter. Dust ingestion is also something helicopters face, as are clouds of dust being kicked up by the rotor of helicopters. So... why raise these things as issues when helicopters also face them? Maybe the real issue is that they have not taken the lessons of helicopters in similar situations and applied them to the Osprey.
A total of 3746 people have died in Boeing 747 crashes? Is it safe? Sadly, planes crash. Flying is not risk free, military missions are even less so.
Mention of debris entering the engines is not really valid under any even remotely possible conditions. The engines are built to cope.
Military aero engines also generally have incredibly short on-wing lives before swapping and overhaul, nowhere near what civil/commercial aero engines must survive. Military engines are typically expected to need overhaul after just a few hundred hours.
You couldn't ever pay me anough money to fly on one of these. Also, the question posed in the video title is never actually adressed in this video. No ta, never, nope, bye.
life is not safe its not about the risks in the Osprey design but if the benefits out weight the risks
He is right but missed one primary cause of fatalities, the fact the power is at the wingtips means loss of control is inevitable & instant, unlike a helicopter with a central rotor.
It's a flawed design concept from the start that flies by political will & money.
The forces needed to be resisted due to tilt rotors is grotesque, engines that swivel likewise. Having them on the wingtips is insane.
It actually has a lower accident rate that its predecessor the black hawk and other military aircraft types, also the US are now making another tilt rotor for the army the V280. I doubt very much its a flawed design.
well Boeing designed it partially so it's not
Too many accidents with those things. Probably just a good design that has been poorly executed.
less than blackhawks
I am somewhat confused as to this show? The gearbox issue on Osprey’s kill period. Need to reimagine the gearbox
Japan was in fact pilot error. The black box confirmed the warning sensor for the gearbox went off but instead of landing immediately the Japs ignored it.
The Boeing 737 Max has 346 human lives on its conscience...☝️🧐 Is this plane safe?
Nope. Then you have to consider if the company is safe... Cos if that door went at 30,000ft, you'd have another 100+ dead and unlike the others being foreign pilots and airlines, that would be 100% US workers, deaths, pilots and crew involved.
That plane has killed more Marines than lost to the enemy
That is factually false. The aircraft that has killed most military personnel is the CH-53 and it's early variants. Between 1969 and 1990 it killed over 200 troops in accidents.
Can the Osprey autorotate? Can it land if the rotors get fixed in the cruise position?
It does run-on landings like all military helicopter pilots are trained to do. It also has a shaft that goes between engines to supply power to the other rotor.
The second question is answered with a yes, it's going to land regardless. Similar to the choices of any aircraft without landing gear./sarcasm
It's safe when not being flown by U.S Pilots
Absolute nonsense from a squirrel.
Anything mechanical will break. Anything human will make mistakes from time to time.
The USAF CV-22 crash off the coast of Japan was preventable. The warning lights were not taken as seriously by the pilot as needed. The pilot should have landed in any available location, instead the pilot attempted to land at an airport.
All helicopters fall like a rock, when the blades stop.
And how many lives have the 737 or airbus a320 claimed, and we still use them
Do you really think that two civil airliners built in their 1000’s and operated for many decades, have anything in common with a small number of highly specialized tilt rotor airframes flying demanding missions both in trying and actual combat operations?
Hard to think of two more different classes of aircraft.
When Trump gets in, Marines will be travelling by Falcon 9
its a flawed design , a better design would be tilt wing , which can take off life a helicopter or like a conventional aircraft using a runway , it uses ducted fans avoiding the v22 flaw or trying to go up as the prop wash is pushing down on wing of aircraft you can see early concepts of tiltwing in the TW 68. I have seen much later concepts , which got the approval of Marine commanders but couldn't get funding because the powerful Bell and Boeing lobby in the military procurement command .
I mean, what does a Jarhead know about aerodynamics, load and designing the aircraft that's built?
Drones will replace some of the capabilities but they still need to replace this thing.
It's safer than any helicopter in service. Also, it's a first-generation production. The V-280 the Army is adopting to replace the UH-60 is superior in every metric sans one. Payload.
This aircraft gives PTSD to every Okinawans
'Problems are almost to be expected'. Not really 'almost' now is it?
NO