BeechTalk - BT - V22 Osprey rotors rotation in slow motion.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2023, 21:47

Username Protected wrote:

The Osprey rotors are subject to lighting up from static electricity, worse in dusty conditions.

Just what you need; your rotors lighting up for the bad guys to see. :eek:

That's not static electricity, CV-22 rotors have NVG compatible lights at the tips to aid in seeing the rotor arc.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2023, 22:49

Username Protected wrote:

The Osprey rotors are subject to lighting up from static electricity, worse in dusty conditions.

Just what you need; your rotors lighting up for the bad guys to see. :eek:

That's not static electricity, CV-22 rotors have NVG compatible lights at the tips to aid in seeing the rotor arc.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2023, 23:10

Username Protected wrote:

My perspective on the Chinook is it should be used in more secure areas or accompanied by attack air craft when landing in a hostile area. In hot landing areas, we used the smaller lift helos--UH1s in my time. I can understand using them more aggressively at times when larger landing zones aren't available, but they're higher risk in that the enemy can concentrate fire on fewer aircraft and they have more men or material board.

The Chinook makes an outstanding Heavy Assault platform. We can put almost an entire platoon of Rangers on a 10' by 10' rooftop in about 45 seconds via fast rope. I can get a Chinook into an LZ only slightly larger than what a Blackhawk can get into. I will say that all Chinooks are not created equal though. The models used in Vietnam were rudimentary at best. Each subsequent model improved on the last, and they finally got it mostly right with the D model in the early eighties.

The ones I flew/fly have 4 defensive weapons of which 2 are M134 miniguns, and 2 are M240's. We can deal out an astonishing amount of fire. Big Army Chinooks only have three M240's, but the M240 is such a vast improvement from the old M-60's that reliability is never in question.

I can't fault a guy for picking Cobra's over Chinooks. The Snake is super sexy, but I know quite a few former Cobra drivers that ended up flying Chinooks!

V/r,

Brad

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2023, 23:26

Thanks Brad. Back when I flew, the Chinooks only had the M-60 which were used more defensively. The Cobra had the mini gun, 40mm grenade launcher and rockets. The attraction to me was I could attack or suppress fire in the Cobra. We had a Chinook come apart in the air with a platoon on board going on R&R. Never saw the accident report, but folks were a bit concerned about their reliability for awhile. This was way back in 1972.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2023, 23:55

Username Protected wrote:

Thanks Brad. Back when I flew, the Chinooks only had the M-60 which were used more defensively. The Cobra had the mini gun, 40mm grenade launcher and rockets. The attraction to me was I could attack or suppress fire in the Cobra. We had a Chinook come apart in the air with a platoon on board going on R&R. Never saw the accident report, but folks were a bit concerned about their reliability for awhile. This was way back in 1972.

".........had the mini gun, the 40mm grenade launcher, and rockets."

A man just can't have too many guns; right Dave?"

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2023, 12:34

Username Protected wrote:

".........had the mini gun, the 40mm grenade launcher, and rockets."

A man just can't have too many guns; right Dave?"

Couldn't agree more! Of course, we didn't have the payload to carry full fuel and full ammo. Usually adjusted it for how far we had to fly and what we needed to carry. Always best to stage fuel and ammo close to the area we were working if we could. This was Air Cav where we went out to an area, had the LOH look around and covered him with the Cobras, and a C&C ship coordinating support and keeping track of what was discovered.
We could put the 20MM under a wing store if more penetration was needed, but that really lowered our remaining payload. Only used that on occasion. I think I flew with one once. Later, they mounted the TOW system on there for anti armor, but I never flew with that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2023, 13:07

Username Protected wrote:

".........had the mini gun, the 40mm grenade launcher, and rockets."

A man just can't have too many guns; right Dave?"

Couldn't agree more! Of course, we didn't have the payload to carry full fuel and full ammo. Usually adjusted it for how far we had to fly and what we needed to carry. Always best to stage fuel and ammo close to the area we were working if we could. This was Air Cav where we went out to an area, had the LOH look around and covered him with the Cobras, and a C&C ship coordinating support and keeping track of what was discovered.
We could put the 20MM under a wing store if more penetration was needed, but that really lowered our remaining payload. Only used that on occasion. I think I flew with one once. Later, they mounted the TOW system on there for anti armor, but I never flew with that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2023, 19:53

I wonder if the Osprey will ever replace the presidential Sikorsky helicopters. The Osprey is about twice as fast.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2023, 23:51

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder if the Osprey will ever replace the presidential Sikorsky helicopters. The Osprey is about twice as fast.

The rotor downwash is much stronger than a normal helicopter that it causes problems. It can strip branches off trees, cause things to fly around dangerously, and can cause injuries.

This is caused by a much higher disc loading than a normal helicopter.

Blackhawk UH-60: 9.72 lbs/sf

Osprey V-22: 18.8 lbs/sf

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2023, 01:18

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder if the Osprey will ever replace the presidential Sikorsky helicopters. The Osprey is about twice as fast.

The rotor downwash is much stronger than a normal helicopter that it causes problems. It can strip branches off trees, cause things to fly around dangerously, and can cause injuries.

This is caused by a much higher disc loading than a normal helicopter.

Blackhawk UH-60: 9.72 lbs/sf

Osprey V-22: 18.8 lbs/sf

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2023, 01:31

Username Protected wrote:

But what is the disc loading of the President's Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King?

Sikorsky SH-3D: 7.1 lbs/sf

Less than a Blackhawk. Has a huge slow rotor.

The above was the military version, Marine 1 might be lighter.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2023, 06:25

Username Protected wrote:

The rotor downwash is much stronger than a normal helicopter that it causes problems. It can strip branches off trees, cause things to fly around dangerously, and can cause injuries.

This is caused by a much higher disc loading than a normal helicopter.

You ain't kiddin'.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/PI9gWlM0QY8[/youtube]

Way back when I was on a cross-country time-building in a 172, I stopped at KHQM and parked. A flight of Huey helicopters came in and decided to land nearby. The wing of my 172 started rocking from the rotor wash. I had to grab the strut of the plane to keep it steady. Not funny at all.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2023, 06:58

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder if the Osprey will ever replace the presidential Sikorsky helicopters. The Osprey is about twice as fast.

How do we know Biden isn't in one of these Ospreys?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/pXyYHBkh8kA[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jan 2023, 09:58

Username Protected wrote:

You ain't kiddin'.

7 people taken to the hospital from that event.

Another video a lot closer to the action shows how violent it is:

https://www.military.com/video/aircraft ... 0706565001

I think the extreme downwash would not be suitable for a presidential transport.

Mike C.