I punched out of an A-6E Intruder w a total hydraulic failure. I thank GOD everyday for the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd and the wonderful ejections seats made by them. I am Ejectee No. 3506. Ejectee Nos. are now in the 8000 range. Listening to this brought back my bad memories of brave colleagues who were serving there country and had thing go wrong with their equipment. Thx so much for talking about Juan.
I remember, about 1976, A US Marine A6 Squadron next door in a double Hangar in Iwakuni, Japan. She I was working late at night a big bang. A maintenance worker launched himself into the sealing with the A6 ejection seat.
I witnessed an EA-6B crash near Cherry Point NC when I was about 8 or 9 years old. My brother said from the back seat, "Look! A meteor!" My father and I (himself a Marine fighter pilot) looked to the left of our family van and we saw a fireball in the sky plummeting towards the ground. Inside the fireball you could make out the black silhouette of the Intruder slowly spinning towards the earth. Then suddenly BOOM an explosion, and after a few moments 4 parachutes appeared in the North Carolina sky. We were too far away to help the pilots, and we found out later all had survived the event. They had been trying to get the jet into a nearby bay but were unable to do so. It landed in a lady's yard who happened to be outside watering her grass. She was burned badly and died several days later. I'll never forget that! Glad you made it out of yours safely as well.
Would you punch out of an airframe that had passengers that couldn't safely bail/eject? I know they've had bombers where some had to bail and others had seats (b-52 early models, tail gunner.) At some point, I think they just realized that most pilots are going to fight until the crash if they have others on board, even if it's hopeless, so something like the MV-22, it's just not worth the complexity of adding seats.
Juan, love your channel and I think you are fair and diligent. I am a long time Osprey pilot and arguably a credible tiltrotor SME. I avoid addressing sensationalized Osprey reporting but I will tell you that you are prematurely connecting these two mishaps. Only time will tell and we as professional aviators will reserve our final opinions until all the recoverable facts are in. I believe the outcome will point to something different than the Glamis mishap so I would say consider that as you continue your analysis. Once again, I’ll say I’m a fan of your channel and analysis and I am a subscriber under a different account. Thank you for what you do and your consideration of my thoughts. Stay safe!
Although the Air Force isn't saying there were no survivors, their statement says (to the effect of) names of those killed have not been released pending notification of family. "Names", to me, means more bodies than the one recovered thus far. RIP, Airmen. Thank you for your service.
Juan, having been a long time Chinook instructor pilot, I agree with you on the Osprey. Although it’s a great technological feat of engineering, there are too many catastrophic failure possibilities in which the crew has no corrective measures to take. The Chinook went through similar growing pains but has proven its design to be safe over the long term with re-engineered components, upgrades and improved designs to prevent catastrophic failures. I believe the Osprey is in a league all its own in that regard and may be too complex and have too much inherent risk to be an acceptable platform for long term use.
J.R., I'm just a dirty Longbow driver but I concur wholeheartedly. Traditional rotorcraft have enough failure modes to keep engineering teams occupied for decades before an airframe is fully mature and redundant enough to mitigate risk; a project like the Osprey just seems like we'd be traveling the stars with warp drive by the time you had all of the catastrophic points of failure identified and fixed...
"Give me the C-130." Hear, hear. Yes, it cannot land in a parking lot like the V-22, but I retired with more than 10,000 hours in the C-130 and I have to say even though I had several high-pucker-factor incidents aboard the aircraft, I always knew we had options, and I never felt it was unsafe. I cannot imagine being a crewmember on the V-22 or what it must be like to be a family member of someone that routinely flies these. The V-22 is a good idea, but there are very few options for a survivable recovery when the crap hits the fan.
ah come on, man; give me a C-130 over an Osprey because you've flown a C-130, and had options when you've had incidents, is akin to me saying give me an RV9 over a C-130 for the same reasons. The difference in mission parameters between all of these aircraft defies any and all comparison between any of these aircraft except for the mission parameter that they all take to the air. 🙄
I appreciate your knowledge and insight into this mishap. I was a USMC MV-22 Osprey crewchief and crewchief instructor for 5 years. It's sad to see these incidents continue like this. During my time as a crewchief, we often flew these aircraft hard whether it was in the desert or humanitarian relief. They always performed well and we also had great mission success with them. I only experienced one hard landing, and that was from a CH-53 pilot learning the Osprey. He experienced collective dyslexia and pulled power 80 feet off the ground.
5:07 the nacell angle position is synchronized and cannot be moved independently of each other... each proprotor head has gimbal flap to provide yaw control. Remember the CH-47 Chinook can operate on one engine also in case the other seizes, i.e. power turbine shreds itself.
When I flew DHC-6's over here in Scotland, I met a Canadian DC8 pilot - at the time the CAA had just cleared twin engines aircraft to cross the Atlantic. He asked me "You do know why we fly over the Atlantic in airliners with four engines son? ...because they dont make airliners with eight engines!"... Anyway, back to the main subject - That V-22 scares the heck out of me
Another factor are those two 6,000 HP engines. When something goes wrong anywhere in the drive train, that's enough torque for one failure to cause other failures.
Former Army helicopter pilot (Vietnam era) and retired airline pilot. The Osprey is a flying death trap. Too many parts are dynamic must haves to continue flight. Never get me in one.
My father was an aircraft engineer, not Bell. He retired in 1994. Whenever we were together for dinner and the Osprey came up he said it was a huge mistake. That it was complicated. Why Bell went with this design was baffling. Politics was his theory. The Bell XV-15 was a better design.
It is complicated but the clutch should be replaced with a different design that doesn’t hard-clutch. There needs to be a bit of give in the system to absorb shock loads when the load transfer happens.
The main problem with UH-60 Blackhawk was uncommanded computer glitch taileron full pitch down. That was fixed. With Osprey, however, the inherent complexity is baked into the tilt-rotor concept. This cannot be mitigated.
So what do you get when something "too big to fail", fails? Besides a lot of "shush you're asking the wrong questions in the wrong places", that is, I'm not entertaining that category of answers.
@@44R0Ndin In government and the military, when something is too big to fail, you get a new coat of paint at a huge cost and an new start. Someone gets promoted too.
@@williampotter2098 Yeah... the sooner I can move to Canada... or Mars, the better. At least on Mars being stupid is an active threat to your continued existence, which removes a lot of the opportunities for this kind of morally bankrupt shenanigans.
Your depth of knowledge about the subjects you report on is astounding! I have learned so many things from watching your channel ever since the Oroville Dam incident. Thank you for everything you do.
I witnessed the first fatal crash of the Osprey back in 1992 and from the sound of it, this crash and that crash are very similar in nature. Looking back through the history of crashes and accidents of the Osprey, it seems that engine nacelle fire and subsequent loss of control are a recurring issue and have never been fully addressed.
No because we're America we're the best our stuff works great! Not like those third world countries people who can't manufacture anything right😂 nevermind the multiple osprey crashes every year since the 90s.
@@infernaldaedra Not all American aircraft are junk! We know there have been a multitude of Osprey crashes. Why they haven't figured out why, and why this aircraft hasn't been grounded is an absolute mystery. is it because this is a military aircraft.
That is true but if you look at the accident reports, there have been an unusually high number of engine nacelle fires. And a lot of the "pilot error" findings have been for "flying outside of the envelope" which is kind of non-specific and fails to mention that the aircraft has an envelope for flying with a single engine, which has precipitated a number of accidents.
@@lonnywilcox445 I’m not trying to be disrespectful, you don’t know what you are talking about. Please review the mishap reports there is one hull loss due to engine fire. Almost every crash is related to pilot error except the swapped actuator connector crash and the hard clutch engagements. It is a tale as old as time, you cannot out fly bad decisions.
Have a buddy that was crew on ch 53s in the Marines in the late 80s early 90s. He was heavily recruited for Ospreays, it was at a time where they were crashing alot.....he always turned them down. He said it was the only USMC aircraft that he didn't trust.
I think two weeks ago got a 7700 squawk from a osprey over Japan washed it land, but I did not think it made it because the track shouldn’t add 0 feet when it was still over the water… I was worried, but all was good
4:39 "This is a picture of the clutch mechanism here, it looks to me to be a simple sprag type uh dog bone clutch mechanism if that's the correct input quill clutch mechanism diagram" What a mouthful! Great video!
I was very lucky to get a VIP tour of the V-22 at Pax River NAS by the Chief Test Pilot for Boeing. I got to see everything from the wing folding mechanism to the hub assembly and the blade folding system for the prop-rotors. Even got to look at the entire interconnecting drive shaft and the fire suppression system. It was all very amazing. The word of the day was "compromise". The tail is too small, had to compromise so it would fit on a ship. This was a compromise, that was a compromise and so on. Seems there is no part of the aircraft that is optimum. Even got to see the new secret paint that is kind of shinny but feels like sandpaper. Being an airplane and helicopter pilot, I have always been a bit concerned about one prop rotor developing vortex ring state and the other not close to the ground. The natural reaction when a wing drops is to counter with opposite stick to raise it which would make it worse. Just don't understand how they recognize that and deal with it properly before they are upside down.
While the Osprey is a complicated beast, the interconnected rotors, with long drives shafts and intermediate gearboxes - but that's essentially the same as every twin-rotor helicopter - (H-21, CH-46, CH-47. Those aircraft also have a fair number of controllable failure modes (Like the CH-47 removing its rear pylon and rotor in flight.)
@@johnnunn8688 Yeah........ I wouldn't describe losing the rear pylon and rotor (and in all probability the engines too as they are also mounted on the rear pylon) on a CH-47 as being "controllable"........ and I wouldn't imagine any test pilots lining up willing to test that theory either...
I have 1200 hours in the CH 46 and it is complicated. If the sync shaft or either transmission fails, you are in deep trouble. Nevertheless, the 46 is not nearly as complicated as this flying transformer. I have always thought this bird was a huge boondoggle.
Correct, The power delivery system in the V22 isn’t that complicated. The tilt axis gear box just converts power 90 degrees to send it down the driveshafts. Everything else is already in every other helicopter in the world.
Flying out of Arlington,Tex 35 years ago, I often shared airspace with Osprey Test Pilots. The Osprey's incredible acceleration from lift off to horizonal flight was amazing. Ospreys are now older aircraft and foreseeable mechanical failures in earlier builds forbode ill as others age. Ugh
The design is now older, but what age did that specific Osprey have? As I see it the complexity of the solution causes some of the problems with the safety of the vehicle, not just by increasing the number of possible failures but also because there are different failure responses depending on the stage the aircraft is in. A failure while in vertical mode differs from a failure in horizontal mode. With that construction anything that happens will be so fast that human reaction isn't really able to cope with it, so the only way is to have a design that has built in capacity to cope with failures.
I remember when they developing these when I was younger. A number of souls were lost in its infancy. I thought it was a great concept, but I wasn’t sure if pilots could fly the thing. They got it together, but this is a very unfortunate event. RIP
@@ehsnilswith that way of thinking, I will sum it up for you… a failure is still and will always be a failure… a failure is a failure unfortunately we can dig further on and on and keep believing a success which is probable still a unfortunate failure
@@ehsnils If I've understood the Glamis crash report correctly, the FADEC did what it was supposed to do and engaged the shaft which shares power from the good engine to restore thrust symmetry... whereupon the shaft immediately failed under load. That's bad design, pure and simple. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something.
I saw one in 1992 crash into the Potomac with the loss of the entire crew. It was the last of the original 80s test aircraft. We all thought there was no way in hell that aircraft would be deployed. This is so depressing.
You might want to addend this analysis based on the recent USAF report: 'The pilot's “insufficient sense of urgency” to land immediately in response to warnings also contributed to the crash, according to a report released Thursday.' The pilot had/ignored ample warning of a gearbox problem but put the mission above safety.
I have a decent amount of military helicopter crew chief and mechanic experience. I want nothing to do with a rotary wing aircraft that does not have the ability to auto rotate. Ok the V-22 is fast, at what cost? The CH-47 is pretty fast for a helicopter, is very will sorted out, and has much more cargo internal volume and weight capacity over a V-22. For medium lift, the UH-60 the ticket. In addition, the V-22 can't fire weapons to the side when the nacelles are tilted for low speed (landing) operations. The H-60 and H-47 can employ weapon systems to the sides while landing in a hot area, which is important. Some aircraft are just plain old good, and don't require major design improvements: DC-3, UH-1, UH-60, CH-47, C-130, etc.
It's not the speed, it's the range. Conventional helicopters can't come close to the combat radius provided by tiltrotors, even a fancy coaxial with a pusher prop like the SB-1 couldn't even reach HALF the range of the competing V-280 tiltrotor. As the US gears up for a war in the Pacific, range is critical for keeping ships at arms length from Chinese anti-ship missiles. Tiltrotors allow amphibious assault groups to deploy VTOL aircraft from much farther away than is possible with conventional helicopters, keeping ships safer.
@@theflyingfish66 Longer range helo designs with wings would be possible. And anyway you can’t carry much with a few Ospreys, so that’s not self-sufficient for anything else than large scale special ops.
the C-130 has been around for like 40 years longer, with more than 6 times the amount built, and way more people fitting on board. The fact that we're even comparing numbers between the two says everything about how terrible the V22 is.
Interesting that they're reporting mishap rate and not casualty rate. I'm wondering if the numbers show that you're far more likely to die in an Osprey mishap than any of the other aircraft listed. I have no expertise on the matter so it's purely speculation.
@@drunk3n_m0nk12 Given that the Osprey can't autorotate and glides like a brick (or maybe the Space Shuttle), I'd speculate that your speculation is probably accurate. :)
Does anyone remember all the problems this airframe had when it was being developed? I do. I never thought it would fly. Juan - I've made those runs in 141's a few times back in the 80's. I wonder if you were ever up front when I was aboard. Small world. One time we left Iwakuni for Kadena in a C130 and lost an engine somewhere enroute. We had all kinds of responders waiting for us at Kadena. Ah, the memories!
One night, long ago, I had the opportunity to venture into a hangar where the first Whiskey Cobra sat, next to one of the first V-22's. I said to the gentleman next to me pointing at the Cobra...."that will work." Pointing to the V-22..."that won't." Sorry for all of the losses. Many arguments on both sides, but my feeling is that you could make a lawnmower fly if you threw enough money at it, but why would you? RIP Mack. Long live the Phrog, Semper Fidelis.
My brother flew C-2 Greyhounds for the Navy and was put in-charge a few years ago to transitioned his Squadron to the Osprey's. He enjoyed flying them, and I told him that's a unique plane to have in your logbook, not a lot of pilots will have! I'm glad he's done with that program however, it seems when things go south in an Osprey they go south fast!
The Army V-280 hopefully will resolve these issues. A smaller machine but still very complicated, hard to imagine it being more reliable than the Black Hawk.
I am disappointed that the went with V-280 Valor instead of the SB-1 Defiant. With the Valor, then engine remains fixed, and the drive shaft tilts. They say this is a better design. Regardless I think the Defiant is a safer and superior design, the counter rotating rotors, while certainly more complex than a traditional Helo, is much less complex than a tilt rotor and certainly easier and cheaper to maintain. Russia has had great success with counter rotating helicopters for a good half century now
@@JarrodFLif3rThe Defiant didn't have the range or speed the Valor has and iirc the turbine or shaft system was plagued with issues that delayed testing while the V-280 was basically operational on time.
I remember hearing about trying to get the Osprey to fly. I just looked it up. During development their were four crashes and 30 deaths. There has been an additional ten crashes (not county this one ) and 24 deaths since being introduced in 2009 . Only two of those crashes were combat related .
I have some experience of similar but much smaller sprag clutches. They are meant to freewheel in one direction and to engage immediately with almost no backlash if relative rotation in the other direction tries to take place. However under some circumstances (oil that is lubricating too well, so that there is not enough torque on the individual sprags to turn them immediately into the engaged position?) it is possible for rotation to take place in the direction in which the clutch should engage. If this happens it is followed by the clutch engaging with a huge bang that can easily destroy other components of the transmission. I will no longer use a sprag clutch in any high-speed application.
To refer to a sprag as a clutch seems a misnomer. Directional bearings designed to take a load in a specific rotation. When the load is lifted, it simply freewheels, resuming little more than a bearing surface.
The manufacturers of these clutches call them sprag clutches, and Juan uses this term in his description of the transmission in the video. The engagement is purely by friction between the sprags and the smooth inner and outer races, and it depends on the coefficient of friction and on the angle of the spiral surfaces of the sprags. If the coefficient of friction is too low (lubricant too good) and possibly also if flats have formed on the sprags due to wear, the clutch can fail to engage. It will probably engage shortly afterwards, and if a large speed difference has built up and the components either side of the clutch have high moments of inertia (like a gas turbine and a very large propeller) you have a situation like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. Hence the breakage of the transmission.
The V-22 is an aeronautical marvel. It's also a marvel that needs re-engineering such that it can "fail gracefully." It should not be a crapshoot for the crew or the maintenance staff every time one of these takes off.
Indeed. From what we have seen so far it's not so much that the tiltrotor concept itself is flawed, but rather this overly complicated gearing and clutch system that has at least a few near-instant 'game over' failure modes baked into it. Wondering whether maybe something like having the turbines in the fuselage connected to generators and running electrical wiring to motors in the rotors (turbine-electric) could be an improvement here. Since the mechanical gear system is already so lossy, it might actually be a major improvement, plus it'd eliminate the clutches and gearboxes.
It is not a crap shoot. Every single day across the world V22’s are flying sorties all day and all night. Literally as I’m typing this there’s probably two in the air right now doing some sort of training. We only hear when things go wrong, and this aircraft always makes the news.
A real Osprey is a beautiful and streamlined bird that totally looks the part. These Ospreys look ungainly and that they fly is a miracle of brute power over gravity. Any loss of brute power is terminal. RIP.
The Osprey has wings and can glide as all planes glide trading altitude for airspeed. A true helicopter, without wings, must auto-rotate if the engine(s) fail, but the Osprey is NOT a true helicopter. In cruise flight the power required is less than a true helicopter, once again, thanks to the wings -- and the ability to tilt the rotors.
@@Raptorman0909Glide where? At how many thousand feet? Those props pointing high in the air are nothing but drag. No power and your essentially dead in the air. Point those things forward and you still have massive drag from massive props. You need the power of those rotors to survive.
@@Raptorman0909 With a glide ratio of less than 5/1 good luck trying to *glide* anywhere. For reference the 172 has an approx glide ratio of 10/1 and the 737 17/1.
This shouldn't be a review. A review of a V22 is when it can actually fly. Units refuse to put troops in them demanding a C-130 for fwd operating bases.
Something that happens to dog bone sprag in an automotive automatic transmission when a rear end locks up. The dog bones can flip over causing the locking direction of the sprag to reverse. This rarely happens on regular cars but is more frequent in race cars with high power.
The risk standard for civil transports for a single point of failure leading to loss of the airframe is 10⁻⁹ or one in a billion. If you can't meet that risk probability, you have to add a backup. I believe military requirements are quite a bit lower.
The average development program ranges from 4 to 5 years then signed off as approved or scrapped. This was in development for at least 8 years and in my opinion still in development. This is one of the single largest cover-ups in the US military history and blood is on the hands of whoever kept this thing going. God bless the family and friends of the crew
It's not really a coverup. The Osprey's issues are very well documented. The controversy is why they continued to move forward. Did they decide the losses were acceptable?
If I remember correctly the same was said on the Chinook but look at it today. I believe in the right hands that its a potent weapon platform. Why can't they add a karnard an have 4 turbo fans 2 in front 2 in rear an rotate forward for flight an turn upside down for vstol.
Captain Browne, you are contributing significantly to understanding flying machines and promoting safety. We will never know how many accidents and lives lost that never happened because aviators watched and listened to you diagnose the latest aircraft accidents. If Heros are people who save other people's lives by their actions, then you, Sir, are a true Hero. Thank you.
Great content and analysis as always, Juan. I have always been very skeptical of this design’s safety, and not sure what major operational advantage it provides with all the constraints and compromises imposed by its conflicting design requirements. Multi turbine helos are way safer in terms of failure modes, emergency recovery possibilities and probability of survival, not to speak of classical transport aircraft.
Ospreys occasionally visit a "high" altitude airport in the Four Corners. They will spend about an hour doing touch and goes than depart for their home base. Watching them transition from vertical takeoff to normal horizontal flight is interesting. Once in horizontal flight they are relatively fast compared to a helicopter.
It would be assumed those seen in the Four Corners, are flying out of ABQ Kirtland AFB. They overfly ABQ on a daily basis.. Depart and return... with no obvious issues.. Been ongoing for many years..;]
Interestingly, the DOD is doubling down on tilt rotor technology by awarding the contract to replace the Blackhawk to Bell and their tiltrotor program entry. I know there are differences, between the Valor and the Osprey, but I'm assuming there are similarities as well. Given the numbers of airframes they'll have to produce to replace the number of Blackhawks in service, I hope they learn from these problems and build in some redundancy somehow.
To be fair, the more modern tiltrotors are also more pragmatic designs, in that the rotor tilts but the turbine engine does not. This allows for the forces (and more importantly, oil flow directions) to be quite well behaved inside the turbine engine itself in comparison to those in the V-22, which I have always seen problems with conceptually in that you have to design the oil system to handle oil coming from a range of different directions, meaning that at any moment the oil sump pickup could become uncovered and feed air to the oil passages instead of oil. And if that sounds like a recipe for early and often engine failures, well then you're thinking the way I think. Increasing the size of the gears used in the various transmissions cross-connecting the engines, transmissions, and rotors (even if weight is kept the same) should also allow for a slight increase in the ability of that system to operate as intended under less than ideal conditions as well, due to the torque limit of a driveshaft being more directly proportional to the outer diameter of the shaft than it is directly proportional to the thickness of the wall of the tube that makes up the shaft. Point is, even if the weight is kept the same by reducing the wall thickness of the driveshaft, you can increase the strength in torsion by increasing the overall diameter of it. And this applies to gears as well as driveshafts. The whole thing becomes bulkier, but the mass is the same, so other than an aerodynamic drag penalty for the thicker wing, you might actually gain performance because of the increased lift provided by a wing with a thicker chord that is required to house this bigger but same mass driveshaft. In any case, the more modern tiltrotor designs are better because the HCE problem is a lot less of an issue if the clutches don't need to disengage in the first place, because the engines don't fail. I don't have the engineering degree and internal program knowledge needed to understand why they went with this "dogbone" kind of clutch in the first place either, but from experience with similar clutches in the pull-start on lawnmowers, they don't really last all that long in service. IMO a simple ratchet based one-way clutch (as seen in... hand ratchets that are used to turn sockets), combined with a bendix drive type high pitch screw thread to force the 2 halves of the clutch apart if the connected engine loses power, would be in nearly every way superior aside from perhaps being heavier and taking up more room, because it could be designed to POSITIVELY DISENGAGE when a power imbalance happens, just like the generator connections on the 787 are "mechanical fuses" and must be reconnected by a mechanic on the ground, rather than having any chance at all of being reconnected in flight. A clutch that can be reconnected in flight is just an unattainable goal given the current limits of mechanical science and metallurgy, to my knowledge. And these HCE events that have doomed at least one, but most likely at least 2 V-22's now are just proof that sometimes polishing the existing idea just doesn't cut it, and you need to attack the problem with a different set of tools.
The other accident this year (2023) was in my hometown here in Australia, with the loss of 3 crew members (and many US troops injured) back in August. I was wondering if you had done an analysis of that particular Osprey crash on Melville Island, but couldn't find it on your channel, so assumed that you hadn't done one.
I think that the Osprey would have been grounded had it been the Boeing Max series after those 2 crashes. Ospreys have had issues from the first day. Four crashes killed a total of 30 people during testing from 1991 to 2000. Since the V-22 became operational in 2007, 12 crashes, including two in combat zones, and several other accidents and incidents have killed a total of 26 people. They fly over my house often on their way to Miramar and sometimes the engines are running quite roughly. Condolences to the families of all the airmen who have lost their lives on Ospreys, and prayers that they may find survivors in this accident.
While they may claim that the accident rate is on par with the average, the accidents seem to be unavoidably fatal. In a helicopter you can autorotate. In a plane you can glide. In an Osprey there isn't really anything to do in the event of a catastrophic mechanical failure.
I've learned from many incidents (not least of which is the turret explosion in the USS Iowa) to not trust what the high brass is saying about an incident, especially if it would point to the high brass having made a mistake in the past. If you want more examples of this kind of "toxic inability to admit fault", look at the Mark 14 torpedo, the procurement process for the M2 Bradley, the hearing protection provided to basically all the armed forces, the problems with the water at Camp Lejune... and I'm sure there's other stuff they'd much rather just sweep under the rug. I respect those who have served, but I respect those who have served on the front lines a lot more than those who have served at a desk for their entire time in service. IMO the officers belong at the front of every charge, not back in Washington cutting deals with the defense contractors. Even if that's impractical, it delivers the desired result of "either you're good at your job and actually care about your troops, or a reason is found for you to get discharged from duty." I'd much rather that the reason found for discharge is "is no longer medically/mentally fit to serve", and that it happens infrequently if at all, rather than "has betrayed the trust of the American people" and is found provable by a court martial, but sadly I think that the high brass right now is full of the latter category. Matter of fact, the whole apparatus of government needs a bit of a shakeup to break off the rust and flush out the leeches and roaches (leeches and roaches in this case being corporations who think that they can buy their way into power (and have so far been correct). If you ask me who's best to lead this country, I say "define what makes a good leader, then pick the 100 best candidates from the population of United States citizens, from that list poll them to see who wants the job the most, then pick the 10 of that 100 that want the job the LEAST, and put those up for election". EDIT: The reason to choose specifically those that don't want the job is my own attempt to eliminate candidates that are well qualified but would use the powers of the office for the benefit of themselves or corporations they are beholden to. IMO that process I just described would produce a far better range of choices than the "two brands of the same flavor of bad news" we have to pick from right now. The America I was taught to be proud of when I went to school isn't the America out my front window, and that makes me sad.
I would disagree, as would aircrew who actually fly it, three US services and several foreign allies. Every aircraft and aircraft type ever made has at one point or another suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure that was beyond the pilot’s ability to overcome. The Osprey isn’t fundamentally flawed or inherently unsafe. And the stats support that.
@@jeffandjoannbauer9567 almost every certified or military aircraft I can think of can suffer major failure of it's powerplant(s) and / or supporting systems - except this one. It's flight is fundamentally tied to systems that cannot fail - which is inherently a very dangerous way to design an aircraft. When engineering offers no other options, it's usually reserved for things like spacecraft or experimental aircraft where the risk has to be tolerated for the outcome. Not something expected to be in regular use and carry passengers.
Would it be fair to say that three generations of acquisitions officers and defense contractor engineers should be forced to ride Ospreys during peacetime fair weather operations?
I was good friends with the little sister of one of the crew members back in high school a few years ago. I'm so mad he was taken in this accident. She must be heartbroken. She loved him so much.
I have trouble imagining installing a hydraulic torque coupler to buffer impacts on the sprags being light and small enough to go airborne and handle the horsepower. These engines have a hell of a lot of spinning inertia to try to tame when one locks up.
Simple- it can fly farther and faster than any helicopter and still take-off and land vertically. That means that it can insert (and retrieve) forces in locations that are safer or offer tactical advantages. The Osprey can also carry people and supplies from almost any point on a shoreline and deliver them to any ship with a deck big enough for it to land on over a longer range than helicopters.
@@alandaters8547 ok, but is it a critical enough mission to risk people’s lives in a thing that is not survivable in some single failures ??? The military and political decision makers for this flying coffin should be required to fly it, just once a week.
I was in Quantico when the Osprey crashed 1992. It had a fuel leak that collected in the Engine Cowling. When the engines were rotated to land/hover, the fuel ignited/exploded and burned thru the Composit Synch Shaft. The Synch shafts were changed to metal and drain holes were added to the Engine Cowling. If the Pilot had stayed in standard flight mode, he could have landed the Osprey with the engines horizontal... I started in the AV8A community and watched as 5 fell out of the sky, killing 4 Pilots. The Marines crashed over 60 of the 1st 110 purchased. Most of these were during the transition phase of flight. The Pegasus engine responds in 3 sec to throttle inputs, but 32.174 05 ft/s 2 will ensure it meets the ground first @ 100ft AGL Years later, they had a Pilot survive and he indicated that his sleeve caught the throttle, as he was rotating the Nozzles to hover. ALL those crashes & deaths due to a loose sleeve/cuff... When the CH-46E was introduced I transferred into the 1st operating Sqd. One year @ WTI we had two CH46 experience a mid-air collision. One aircraft disintegrated and another was cut in half, as their rotors intermeshed. The front half of one, both Pilots and the Crew Chief survived. The Pilot auto rotated, landing on the nose wheel and then they fell over. The crew chief had fallen out & was saved by his crew belt, so he climbed back in, as they landed. The sync shaft, flight controls and hydraulic lines were crushed, this kept hydraulic pressure available to the front rotor head. The Pilots were not aware they had lost the aft airframe w/engines & rotor head, until they landed. They were busy Flying and saved their lives... When the AV-8B/na was introduced, I was transferred, to be their Avi Chief. We lost 5+ aircraft & Pilots, during their cruise mode of flight, generally the Safest mode of flight. Finally, a CO survived and returned with an aircraft, we could inspect. The aircraft had started to deploy its flaps, turned on its back and dove into the ground, but the CO turned OFF, the automatic flight controls, and was high enough to regain control. After everything kept checking GOOD, we found a flap position sensor had water intrusion. This gave the Flight Computers (3) an indication the flaps were asymmetrical & the computers corrected - by deploying the flaps. The position sensor was a common part in many other types of aircraft, with NO history of water intrusion issues. It was redesigned... I retired 26+Years, as the Osprey became Operational. When the 1st USAF crashed & they Grounded ALL of the Aircraft. One of the things they found - The USMC was not having this issue and they had lots of operational hours compared to the USAF. The USMC, were not rapidly transitioning, compared to the USAF flight envelop. Restrictions were placed on the aircraft - supposedly correcting the issue... RIP - Capt Paul Spargo an TAV-8A Pilot and Friend, that ejected his student, but he stayed & tried to save the aircraft...
Amazing video. Thanks Juan. From it's inception this aircraft has had significant difficulties and many crashes. The idea is good, but the complicated Rube Goldberg gear, clutch and drive-shaft system and the electrical systems necessary to make it all work together leave too many failure modes for safe operation. I love aircraft. I've flown all my life. I flew 141s like you. My father was an Air Force pilot also. New, better aircraft are great. But this one will never be operationally able to be ready and safe. Time to send them to DM.
Check out the book "The Dream Machine" by Richard Whittle. An excellent book on the V22 & its development. it has not been a good month for Military Aviation, a CG MH-60 went down in AK near Read Island when delivering pumps to a vessel taking on water. The Aircrew is the back had significant injuries, godbless our military aviators who take such significant risks in the execution of their duties. JB Hall
All the power lost due to the multitude of gearboxes and clutches in the Osprey's transmission system must generate a lot of heat and mechanical stress and therefore lots of parts fatigue. It would be interesting to hear a description of what's involved in regular inspection and maintenance of this aircraft.
It doesn’t generate that much heat. And the maintenance isn’t that bad, pretty comparable to other helicopters. It becomes more costly than other helicopters because everything is doubled. Dual prop rotor system, dual prop box, dual pylon conversion actuator. 6 servo actuators the list goes on. The blade fold wing stow system is far more complicated and annoying to work on, that being said the BFWS system hasn’t caused a crash to date.
Though this video, focused in the gear drive train. The hydraulic system is also a problem. Remember, most of the many movable surfaces use hydraulic power.
A friend of mine was once a crew chief on those. Once to get to an airshow they had to go through five aircraft to get one to fly! Another friend of mine who went to C-130 flight engineer school with me, when getting ready to PCS from Little Rock AFB, was interviewed for a flight engineer slot on the Ospreys after one tour on Hercs. The man that interviewed him was killed in a crash in the AOR. My friend then went AC-130s and retired a few years later. In my mind it’s a flying lemon and there was some covering up when it was developed.
Be interesting if this was in forward flight or in transition. If they lost the cross drive shaft they were doomed. I’ve been involved with those sprag clutches since this airframe was in development. It is a really, really complex design compared to say in a typical multi engine helicopter. They really don’t describe the clutch issue correctly, but you do describe the hard re-engagement problem causing transmission damage. There have been big engineering hours working on this issue. Work in progress. That driveshaft was originally carbon fibre due to USM demands..the one crash due to a nacelle fire caused the shaft to fail. It was moved to an alum shaft afterwards.
My thoughts and prayers going up for the crew, their families and their friends and the rest of the 353rd Special Operations Wing. For the Airman who perished, Slow Salute.
Really appreciate this overview of the Osprey mechanical systems. The rotor configuration and unbelievably complex mechanical design made this aircraft exceptionally unappealing to me from Day 1. I was surprised the accident rate isn't much higher. My guess is that the aircraft has far more extensive inspection and pilot training programs relative most military aircraft, and that has prevented a much worse safety record. Put blunty, the Osprey is "wrong" from nearly every vantage point in terms of creating a stable, reliable aircraft. A coaxial rotor design immediately removes countless potential points of failure, e.g. The sooner they get this fleet decommissioned, the better, IMO.
V-22's overfly at higher speed, VFR, nacelles in full forward, ABQ NM Kirtland AFB.. several times daily..... for many, many years without failures. Middle East service period of years excluded.. They have been reported as working the Four Corners area and into Colorado, over 200 miles from base. Altitude of excess 5,000 [ground], is common across mountainous NM... Several mountains in NM are above 10,000, requiring exceptional high altitude performance, and due to extreme, remote distances between population centers... reliability.. ;]
To be honest the overall complexity isn’t much more than a chinook. They had similar clutch issues in the past. The only difference of course is that the Osprey has an engine at each end not both at one.
@@chrissmith7669 and I guess the Chinook rotors and nacelles don't swivel thru 90 degrees, nor do they both rotate about the centre of the fuselage by 90 degrees. Chinook and Osprey disk loadings also uncannily similar.... not.
Let the Marines have it as it is perfect for their operations. The DoD selected another tilt rotor aircraft, the Bell V-280 Valor as a replacement for H-60(Blackhawk, Seahawks, ect). This is a controversial decision as many believe, myself included, that the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant is a much better option.
@@JarrodFLif3r which is better Depends on what your mission. If you need highly maneuverable but don’t need speed or altitude then The coaxial Defiant is a winner. If you want speed and to fly over the small arms risk than the Valor has the upper hand. The army should be splitting the order to spread risk and be more capable. The marines want to be the go to service for a possible Eagle Claw type operation
The V-22 idea was birthed in the fallout of the failed 1980 Iranian hostage rescue. It first flew around 1990. However accidents and other demands kept it out of operational hands until much later. The Osprey has always been a dangerous airplane to fly. Prehaps too dangerous considering the limits of modern technology and manufacturing. Military operations depend on teamwork for success. That teamwork can be easily compromised if one or more team componets are lost to inflight failures of the Osprey.
All military aircraft are "dangerous to fly" in one way or another. The so far uncontested mishap rates published by the Marine Corps document that overall the Osprey is no more dangerous than several other very common military aircraft. The charge of "too dangerous" really must be backed up by statistics. Meanwhile, the Osprey has absolutely unique capabilities such as the speed and range to carry troops and supplies to tactical locations that could easily save lives in combat. Note: for decades we have accepted the bigger flight risk of helicopters vs fixed wing aircraft for the same reason, helicopters can fly tactical missions that fixed wing aircraft cannot.
given how close to Yakushima it appears to be... could Turbulence be a factor in causing the clutch to hard-engage? flying into Yakushima, I know the volcano's rock gives you get a lot of turbulence, much like Gibraltar...
I always appreciate your factual and knowledgeable reports sir. We may have crossed paths at Yokota or anywhere in the system for that matter. Retired Loadmaster 4th MAS McChord AFB.
Juan, your explanation of mode of failure for a dual engine plane/copter hybrid aircraft with tilting rotors, tilting wings, and a equally complicated single engine operation control system was truly impressive. Thank you.👍🏼
When I visit and go to work with my son out in southern California, I always head outside when I hear aircraft. (Miramar is a little to the southeast.) I get to see lots of jet fighters and some Ospreys headed out for maneuvers. They must have a bunch of Ospreys out at Miramar.
I remember about 30 years ago there were plans to use such an aircraft for civilian use and also for offshore oil crew changes. If i recall it was the Bell company that was trialing such a project ? I hope this never comes to pass.
Wow Juan that’s cool you spent a lot of time at Yokota, I live about 20 minutes drive away in Hachioji and the c130s and Ospreys often fly over my house.
There are many who love flying this aircraft... there are always going the be growing pains when you fly the A model of anything. Keep in mind, those who love it are not as likely to as vocal as those who dislike it. If I had a dime everytime someone told me helicopters were dangerous.
Hello Sir, first off, I like to know what years were you at Yokota flying the C-141. I was a Electrician at Yokota with the 374th TAG which we worked on every aircraft that landed at Yokota from 1983 - 1988. Also, the MV-22 is assigned to the 353rd SOC, but because of Japan's Defense law, the aircraft is based out of Yokota, the same was true for the MH-53 Pavelow based in Korea. Yes, I have retired and have been living in Japan, still as an mechanic, for the past 28 years. Anyway, thank you for your service and great information regarding this topic. As of to date, all have been lost and 1 still is unaccounted for.
I am wondering if the one engine working could at least have the effect of a "graceful" landing instead of crashing down and result in injury and possible death. You mentioned that even on one engine, even in the event of the pilot taking immediate action, will he at least be able to land or is it a guaranteed crash with injuries and possibly loss of life.
I punched out of an A-6E Intruder w a total hydraulic failure. I thank GOD everyday for the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd and the wonderful ejections seats made by them. I am Ejectee No. 3506. Ejectee Nos. are now in the 8000 range. Listening to this brought back my bad memories of brave colleagues who were serving there country and had thing go wrong with their equipment. Thx so much for talking about Juan.
Rich, over land or in the water? Glad you are still with us. Always felt comfortable with MB in my F-4.
I remember, about 1976, A US Marine A6 Squadron next door in a double Hangar in Iwakuni, Japan. She I was working late at night a big bang. A maintenance worker launched himself into the sealing with the A6 ejection seat.
I witnessed an EA-6B crash near Cherry Point NC when I was about 8 or 9 years old. My brother said from the back seat, "Look! A meteor!" My father and I (himself a Marine fighter pilot) looked to the left of our family van and we saw a fireball in the sky plummeting towards the ground. Inside the fireball you could make out the black silhouette of the Intruder slowly spinning towards the earth. Then suddenly BOOM an explosion, and after a few moments 4 parachutes appeared in the North Carolina sky. We were too far away to help the pilots, and we found out later all had survived the event. They had been trying to get the jet into a nearby bay but were unable to do so. It landed in a lady's yard who happened to be outside watering her grass. She was burned badly and died several days later. I'll never forget that! Glad you made it out of yours safely as well.
I ounchrd out of 1987 step side Cheyenne pickup. The pilot made a 9 G turn to the Left causing me to be thrown from the cockpit.
Would you punch out of an airframe that had passengers that couldn't safely bail/eject? I know they've had bombers where some had to bail and others had seats (b-52 early models, tail gunner.) At some point, I think they just realized that most pilots are going to fight until the crash if they have others on board, even if it's hopeless, so something like the MV-22, it's just not worth the complexity of adding seats.
Juan, love your channel and I think you are fair and diligent. I am a long time Osprey pilot and arguably a credible tiltrotor SME. I avoid addressing sensationalized Osprey reporting but I will tell you that you are prematurely connecting these two mishaps. Only time will tell and we as professional aviators will reserve our final opinions until all the recoverable facts are in. I believe the outcome will point to something different than the Glamis mishap so I would say consider that as you continue your analysis. Once again, I’ll say I’m a fan of your channel and analysis and I am a subscriber under a different account. Thank you for what you do and your consideration of my thoughts. Stay safe!
Although the Air Force isn't saying there were no survivors, their statement says (to the effect of) names of those killed have not been released pending notification of family. "Names", to me, means more bodies than the one recovered thus far. RIP, Airmen. Thank you for your service.
Juan, having been a long time Chinook instructor pilot, I agree with you on the Osprey. Although it’s a great technological feat of engineering, there are too many catastrophic failure possibilities in which the crew has no corrective measures to take. The Chinook went through similar growing pains but has proven its design to be safe over the long term with re-engineered components, upgrades and improved designs to prevent catastrophic failures. I believe the Osprey is in a league all its own in that regard and may be too complex and have too much inherent risk to be an acceptable platform for long term use.
J.R., I'm just a dirty Longbow driver but I concur wholeheartedly. Traditional rotorcraft have enough failure modes to keep engineering teams occupied for decades before an airframe is fully mature and redundant enough to mitigate risk; a project like the Osprey just seems like we'd be traveling the stars with warp drive by the time you had all of the catastrophic points of failure identified and fixed...
You would be wrong because the accident statistics say otherwise.
Nope.@@nohandleleft The accident reports and statistics are confirmatory--and do not say otherwise.
I see we have some discrepancies about what the statistics show.
The Widowmaker
"Give me the C-130." Hear, hear. Yes, it cannot land in a parking lot like the V-22, but I retired with more than 10,000 hours in the C-130 and I have to say even though I had several high-pucker-factor incidents aboard the aircraft, I always knew we had options, and I never felt it was unsafe. I cannot imagine being a crewmember on the V-22 or what it must be like to be a family member of someone that routinely flies these. The V-22 is a good idea, but there are very few options for a survivable recovery when the crap hits the fan.
ah come on, man; give me a C-130 over an Osprey because you've flown a C-130, and had options when you've had incidents, is akin to me saying give me an RV9 over a C-130 for the same reasons. The difference in mission parameters between all of these aircraft defies any and all comparison between any of these aircraft except for the mission parameter that they all take to the air. 🙄
@@swiftadventurerPerhaps the Osprey mission parameters are just out of reach?
@@swiftadventurer 💯
whats a matter? you don't like a machine that has a large intent to try to kill you?
@@swiftadventurerdon’t wet your pants, he was only expressing a view, lol
I appreciate your knowledge and insight into this mishap. I was a USMC MV-22 Osprey crewchief and crewchief instructor for 5 years. It's sad to see these incidents continue like this. During my time as a crewchief, we often flew these aircraft hard whether it was in the desert or humanitarian relief. They always performed well and we also had great mission success with them. I only experienced one hard landing, and that was from a CH-53 pilot learning the Osprey. He experienced collective dyslexia and pulled power 80 feet off the ground.
Sounds like a terrifying incident for those on board - turning upside down while on fire and exploding. Rest in Peace.
5:07 the nacell angle position is synchronized and cannot be moved independently of each other... each proprotor head has gimbal flap to provide yaw control. Remember the CH-47 Chinook can operate on one engine also in case the other seizes, i.e. power turbine shreds itself.
Weird that they compare the incident rate to machines with ejector seats....
The CH-53E and KC-130J don't have ejector seats. They compared them with other common military aircraft, not that weird.
When I flew DHC-6's over here in Scotland, I met a Canadian DC8 pilot - at the time the CAA had just cleared twin engines aircraft to cross the Atlantic. He asked me "You do know why we fly over the Atlantic in airliners with four engines son? ...because they dont make airliners with eight engines!"... Anyway, back to the main subject - That V-22 scares the heck out of me
The circa 1965 Canadair CL-84 Dynavert comes to mind.
Funny that now the majority of long haul flights are done with 2 engine aircraft. 747 and a340 pretty much gone from passenger carriers
Patreon supporter here, Juan, appreciate you fighting through sickness to keep your loyal supporters informed.
Another factor are those two 6,000 HP engines. When something goes wrong anywhere in the drive train, that's enough torque for one failure to cause other failures.
Kudos to you Juan for reading through that report with all those acronyms almost without skipping a beat!
Former Army helicopter pilot (Vietnam era) and retired airline pilot. The Osprey is a flying death trap. Too many parts are dynamic must haves to continue flight. Never get me in one.
Does one have a choice if they belong to the military?
My father was an aircraft engineer, not Bell. He retired in 1994.
Whenever we were together for dinner and the Osprey came up he said it was a huge mistake. That it was complicated. Why Bell went with this design was baffling.
Politics was his theory. The Bell XV-15 was a better design.
It is complicated but the clutch should be replaced with a different design that doesn’t hard-clutch. There needs to be a bit of give in the system to absorb shock loads when the load transfer happens.
I heard the same thing from my old instructor in A&P school From the early years of development
Since when after year 2000 has the US government made a decision that was a complete fail. specifically government contracts
That's right. Even Rumsfeld tried to cancel the program but lobbyists prevailed.
Same thing with buying OH58's over better designs during Vietnam. Lady Bird had Bell stock to harvest.
Don't forget: the UH/HH/MH-60 earned the nicknames "Crashhawk" and "Lawn Dart". A lot of them cratered before they sorted out its problems.
before the era of highly sophisticated computer aided design.
The main problem with UH-60 Blackhawk was uncommanded computer glitch taileron full pitch down. That was fixed.
With Osprey, however, the inherent complexity is baked into the tilt-rotor concept. This cannot be mitigated.
yes, complexity kills@@cheddar2648
@@cheddar2648it's not even a slight issue by comparison all osprey are flawed.
@@cheddar2648 - Interesting comment, are you saying 100% of Osprey crashes are due to complexity, and not a single crash has been pilot related(?)
The Osprey program became too big to fail and now we see the consequences. RIP
There is a memorial at my home airport to 19 Marines that were killed in an Osprey crash in 2000. HCE event.
In a nutshell, yup. Well said.
So what do you get when something "too big to fail", fails?
Besides a lot of "shush you're asking the wrong questions in the wrong places", that is, I'm not entertaining that category of answers.
@@44R0Ndin
In government and the military, when something is too big to fail, you get a new coat of paint at a huge cost and an new start. Someone gets promoted too.
@@williampotter2098
Yeah... the sooner I can move to Canada... or Mars, the better.
At least on Mars being stupid is an active threat to your continued existence, which removes a lot of the opportunities for this kind of morally bankrupt shenanigans.
Your depth of knowledge about the subjects you report on is astounding! I have learned so many things from watching your channel ever since the Oroville Dam incident. Thank you for everything you do.
Careful and meticulous examinations like this make me glad that I am a Patreon of blancolirio.
The US just grounded the entire Osprey fleet today.
Thankyou Juan, another sad report. Must take some determined self control to deliver.
I witnessed the first fatal crash of the Osprey back in 1992 and from the sound of it, this crash and that crash are very similar in nature. Looking back through the history of crashes and accidents of the Osprey, it seems that engine nacelle fire and subsequent loss of control are a recurring issue and have never been fully addressed.
No because we're America we're the best our stuff works great! Not like those third world countries people who can't manufacture anything right😂 nevermind the multiple osprey crashes every year since the 90s.
@@infernaldaedra Not all American aircraft are junk! We know there have been a multitude of Osprey crashes. Why they haven't figured out why, and why this aircraft hasn't been grounded is an absolute mystery. is it because this is a military aircraft.
Most of the crashes have been pilot error. Not engine nacelle fire leading to loss of control.
That is true but if you look at the accident reports, there have been an unusually high number of engine nacelle fires. And a lot of the "pilot error" findings have been for "flying outside of the envelope" which is kind of non-specific and fails to mention that the aircraft has an envelope for flying with a single engine, which has precipitated a number of accidents.
@@lonnywilcox445
I’m not trying to be disrespectful, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Please review the mishap reports there is one hull loss due to engine fire.
Almost every crash is related to pilot error except the swapped actuator connector crash and the hard clutch engagements.
It is a tale as old as time, you cannot out fly bad decisions.
Have a buddy that was crew on ch 53s in the Marines in the late 80s early 90s. He was heavily recruited for Ospreays, it was at a time where they were crashing alot.....he always turned them down. He said it was the only USMC aircraft that he didn't trust.
Asked an afsoc 53 flight engineer how he felt about the osprey back in 2002 his response was I will retire if asked to fly on that thing.
Your buddy was smart.
I think two weeks ago got a 7700 squawk from a osprey over Japan washed it land, but I did not think it made it because the track shouldn’t add 0 feet when it was still over the water… I was worried, but all was good
4:39 "This is a picture of the clutch mechanism here, it looks to me to be a simple sprag type uh dog bone clutch mechanism if that's the correct input quill clutch mechanism diagram" What a mouthful! Great video!
I wonder what the fatality rate per hour flown across is versus other heavy military helicopters.
Exactly. Mishap rates are irrelevant. Fatality rates onboard per flight hour are the only meaningful safety indicator.
I was very lucky to get a VIP tour of the V-22 at Pax River NAS by the Chief Test Pilot for Boeing. I got to see everything from the wing folding mechanism to the hub assembly and the blade folding system for the prop-rotors. Even got to look at the entire interconnecting drive shaft and the fire suppression system. It was all very amazing.
The word of the day was "compromise". The tail is too small, had to compromise so it would fit on a ship. This was a compromise, that was a compromise and so on. Seems there is no part of the aircraft that is optimum.
Even got to see the new secret paint that is kind of shinny but feels like sandpaper.
Being an airplane and helicopter pilot, I have always been a bit concerned about one prop rotor developing vortex ring state and the other not close to the ground. The natural reaction when a wing drops is to counter with opposite stick to raise it which would make it worse. Just don't understand how they recognize that and deal with it properly before they are upside down.
I gotta think/hope they're fully aware of those issues & would, at the very least, train/practice it in a sim...yes/no(?)
sounds like the same reson that are behind the challanger crah with a known SRB problems, compromise will get you in troble
Ever read the V-22 HROD test report that was released back in 2003 particularly referencing VRS?
@@AA-xo9uw
Maybe. Is that the one about the crash at Quantico?
If not if you have a link, I would love to read it.
@@__WJK__ Life raft was out, they knew shit was knocking trying to get safe, the bird exploded. And 3.1 failure doesnt equal to lost crew.
Great video Juan. Did a wonderful job explaining everything
While the Osprey is a complicated beast, the interconnected rotors, with long drives shafts and intermediate gearboxes - but that's essentially the same as every twin-rotor helicopter - (H-21, CH-46, CH-47. Those aircraft also have a fair number of controllable failure modes (Like the CH-47 removing its rear pylon and rotor in flight.)
You mean, ‘uncontrollable’ failure modes.
@@johnnunn8688 Yeah........ I wouldn't describe losing the rear pylon and rotor (and in all probability the engines too as they are also mounted on the rear pylon) on a CH-47 as being "controllable"........ and I wouldn't imagine any test pilots lining up willing to test that theory either...
I have 1200 hours in the CH 46 and it is complicated. If the sync shaft or either transmission fails, you are in deep trouble. Nevertheless, the 46 is not nearly as complicated as this flying transformer. I have always thought this bird was a huge boondoggle.
@@nickmaclachlan5178, perhaps by ‘controllable’ he means, ‘controlled by gravity’? 😂🤣
Correct,
The power delivery system in the V22 isn’t that complicated. The tilt axis gear box just converts power 90 degrees to send it down the driveshafts. Everything else is already in every other helicopter in the world.
Corporal Kelly Stephen Keith take good care of these new guys. You have been on station over 23 years now. Never forgotten.
Flying out of Arlington,Tex 35 years ago, I often shared airspace with Osprey Test Pilots. The Osprey's incredible acceleration from lift off to horizonal flight was amazing. Ospreys are now older aircraft and foreseeable mechanical failures in earlier builds forbode ill as others age. Ugh
The design is now older, but what age did that specific Osprey have?
As I see it the complexity of the solution causes some of the problems with the safety of the vehicle, not just by increasing the number of possible failures but also because there are different failure responses depending on the stage the aircraft is in. A failure while in vertical mode differs from a failure in horizontal mode. With that construction anything that happens will be so fast that human reaction isn't really able to cope with it, so the only way is to have a design that has built in capacity to cope with failures.
I remember when they developing these when I was younger. A number of souls were lost in its infancy. I thought it was a great concept, but I wasn’t sure if pilots could fly the thing. They got it together, but this is a very unfortunate event. RIP
They were crashing when they were new
@@ehsnilswith that way of thinking, I will sum it up for you… a failure is still and will always be a failure… a failure is a failure unfortunately we can dig further on and on and keep believing a success which is probable still a unfortunate failure
@@ehsnils If I've understood the Glamis crash report correctly, the FADEC did what it was supposed to do and engaged the shaft which shares power from the good engine to restore thrust symmetry... whereupon the shaft immediately failed under load. That's bad design, pure and simple. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something.
I saw one in 1992 crash into the Potomac with the loss of the entire crew. It was the last of the original 80s test aircraft. We all thought there was no way in hell that aircraft would be deployed. This is so depressing.
I was stationed at Hurlburt Field, FL and saw that same aircraft flying, doing all the maneuvers. I believe it was a day or two before the crash.
You might want to addend this analysis based on the recent USAF report: 'The pilot's “insufficient sense of urgency” to land immediately in response to warnings also contributed to the crash, according to a report released Thursday.' The pilot had/ignored ample warning of a gearbox problem but put the mission above safety.
The amount of people who are going on about the V-22 without knowing anything about the V-22 is amazing...
OK, what do you know?
@@shoersa the Guys who work on the MV-22 both in MX and Aircrew. People who actually know the airframe
I contribute valuable invaluable opinions to the community 😢
I have a decent amount of military helicopter crew chief and mechanic experience. I want nothing to do with a rotary wing aircraft that does not have the ability to auto rotate. Ok the V-22 is fast, at what cost? The CH-47 is pretty fast for a helicopter, is very will sorted out, and has much more cargo internal volume and weight capacity over a V-22. For medium lift, the UH-60 the ticket. In addition, the V-22 can't fire weapons to the side when the nacelles are tilted for low speed (landing) operations. The H-60 and H-47 can employ weapon systems to the sides while landing in a hot area, which is important. Some aircraft are just plain old good, and don't require major design improvements: DC-3, UH-1, UH-60, CH-47, C-130, etc.
It's not the speed, it's the range.
Conventional helicopters can't come close to the combat radius provided by tiltrotors, even a fancy coaxial with a pusher prop like the SB-1 couldn't even reach HALF the range of the competing V-280 tiltrotor.
As the US gears up for a war in the Pacific, range is critical for keeping ships at arms length from Chinese anti-ship missiles. Tiltrotors allow amphibious assault groups to deploy VTOL aircraft from much farther away than is possible with conventional helicopters, keeping ships safer.
@@theflyingfish66 Longer range helo designs with wings would be possible. And anyway you can’t carry much with a few Ospreys, so that’s not self-sufficient for anything else than large scale special ops.
It can carry a F35 PM vs a C2A and it can go faster than a helo with longer range
Hard to believe that the C-130 has the same personnel loss as the Osprey since the C-130 can still fly even if it loses a couple of engines.
the C-130 has been around for like 40 years longer, with more than 6 times the amount built, and way more people fitting on board. The fact that we're even comparing numbers between the two says everything about how terrible the V22 is.
Interesting that they're reporting mishap rate and not casualty rate. I'm wondering if the numbers show that you're far more likely to die in an Osprey mishap than any of the other aircraft listed. I have no expertise on the matter so it's purely speculation.
@@drunk3n_m0nk12 Given that the Osprey can't autorotate and glides like a brick (or maybe the Space Shuttle), I'd speculate that your speculation is probably accurate. :)
@@cr10001 Flat bricks arguably glide better than the Space Shuttle did. 😅
I would argue that the Space Shuttle was safer than an Osprey though.
Does anyone remember all the problems this airframe had when it was being developed? I do. I never thought it would fly.
Juan - I've made those runs in 141's a few times back in the 80's. I wonder if you were ever up front when I was aboard. Small world.
One time we left Iwakuni for Kadena in a C130 and lost an engine somewhere enroute. We had all kinds of responders waiting for us at Kadena. Ah, the memories!
I didn't know Brownie was an eel jockey
One night, long ago, I had the opportunity to venture into a hangar where the first Whiskey Cobra sat, next to one of the first V-22's. I said to the gentleman next to me pointing at the Cobra...."that will work." Pointing to the V-22..."that won't." Sorry for all of the losses. Many arguments on both sides, but my feeling is that you could make a lawnmower fly if you threw enough money at it, but why would you? RIP Mack. Long live the Phrog, Semper Fidelis.
My brother flew C-2 Greyhounds for the Navy and was put in-charge a few years ago to transitioned his Squadron to the Osprey's. He enjoyed flying them, and I told him that's a unique plane to have in your logbook, not a lot of pilots will have! I'm glad he's done with that program however, it seems when things go south in an Osprey they go south fast!
The Army V-280 hopefully will resolve these issues. A smaller machine but still very complicated, hard to imagine it being more reliable than the Black Hawk.
I am disappointed that the went with V-280 Valor instead of the SB-1 Defiant.
With the Valor, then engine remains fixed, and the drive shaft tilts. They say this is a better design.
Regardless I think the Defiant is a safer and superior design, the counter rotating rotors, while certainly more complex than a traditional Helo, is much less complex than a tilt rotor and certainly easier and cheaper to maintain.
Russia has had great success with counter rotating helicopters for a good half century now
@@JarrodFLif3rThe Defiant didn't have the range or speed the Valor has and iirc the turbine or shaft system was plagued with issues that delayed testing while the V-280 was basically operational on time.
I remember hearing about trying to get the Osprey to fly. I just looked it up. During development their were four crashes and 30 deaths. There has been an additional ten crashes (not county this one ) and 24 deaths since being introduced in 2009 . Only two of those crashes were combat related .
Only 24 deaths in 10 crashes is a miracle. And it also shows how little operational use this thing has…
Little operational use?
It has over 700,000 flight hours since it was introduced.
@@justjuan589so 1 death per 30,000 flight hours , is that bad
I have some experience of similar but much smaller sprag clutches. They are meant to freewheel in one direction and to engage immediately with almost no backlash if relative rotation in the other direction tries to take place. However under some circumstances (oil that is lubricating too well, so that there is not enough torque on the individual sprags to turn them immediately into the engaged position?) it is possible for rotation to take place in the direction in which the clutch should engage. If this happens it is followed by the clutch engaging with a huge bang that can easily destroy other components of the transmission. I will no longer use a sprag clutch in any high-speed application.
To refer to a sprag as a clutch seems a misnomer. Directional bearings designed to take a load in a specific rotation. When the load is lifted, it simply freewheels, resuming little more than a bearing surface.
The manufacturers of these clutches call them sprag clutches, and Juan uses this term in his description of the transmission in the video.
The engagement is purely by friction between the sprags and the smooth inner and outer races, and it depends on the coefficient of friction and on the angle of the spiral surfaces of the sprags. If the coefficient of friction is too low (lubricant too good) and possibly also if flats have formed on the sprags due to wear, the clutch can fail to engage. It will probably engage shortly afterwards, and if a large speed difference has built up and the components either side of the clutch have high moments of inertia (like a gas turbine and a very large propeller) you have a situation like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. Hence the breakage of the transmission.
Whew man I did not know you were old enough to fly “The Hotdog With a Headache?” Keep up the good work these briefs are saving lives.
The V-22 is an aeronautical marvel. It's also a marvel that needs re-engineering such that it can "fail gracefully." It should not be a crapshoot for the crew or the maintenance staff every time one of these takes off.
Indeed. From what we have seen so far it's not so much that the tiltrotor concept itself is flawed, but rather this overly complicated gearing and clutch system that has at least a few near-instant 'game over' failure modes baked into it.
Wondering whether maybe something like having the turbines in the fuselage connected to generators and running electrical wiring to motors in the rotors (turbine-electric) could be an improvement here. Since the mechanical gear system is already so lossy, it might actually be a major improvement, plus it'd eliminate the clutches and gearboxes.
It is not a crap shoot.
Every single day across the world V22’s are flying sorties all day and all night. Literally as I’m typing this there’s probably two in the air right now doing some sort of training.
We only hear when things go wrong, and this aircraft always makes the news.
@@justjuan589Exactly, in large scheme of things far from being a crap shoot
any critcaltiy one part goes and you are a terrified passenger
A real Osprey is a beautiful and streamlined bird that totally looks the part. These Ospreys look ungainly and that they fly is a miracle of brute power over gravity. Any loss of brute power is terminal. RIP.
The Osprey has wings and can glide as all planes glide trading altitude for airspeed. A true helicopter, without wings, must auto-rotate if the engine(s) fail, but the Osprey is NOT a true helicopter. In cruise flight the power required is less than a true helicopter, once again, thanks to the wings -- and the ability to tilt the rotors.
Should be called the Albatross
@@Raptorman0909Glide where? At how many thousand feet? Those props pointing high in the air are nothing but drag. No power and your essentially dead in the air. Point those things forward and you still have massive drag from massive props. You need the power of those rotors to survive.
@@babyboijeremy The Osprey has wings, do you not understand that? Yes, unfeathered, those props do produce a lot of drag, when feathered, not so much!
@@Raptorman0909 With a glide ratio of less than 5/1 good luck trying to *glide* anywhere. For reference the 172 has an approx glide ratio of 10/1 and the 737 17/1.
This shouldn't be a review.
A review of a V22 is when it can actually fly. Units refuse to put troops in them demanding a C-130 for fwd operating bases.
Didn’t they have one. Wreck in Australia earlier this year? Things are dangerous
Yes, 3 killed, 2 severely injured in icu for weeks
All I have to say is I'm glad my grandson is out of the Marines and no longer has to fly in these dumb things.
Something that happens to dog bone sprag in an automotive automatic transmission when a rear end locks up. The dog bones can flip over causing the locking direction of the sprag to reverse. This rarely happens on regular cars but is more frequent in race cars with high power.
The risk standard for civil transports for a single point of failure leading to loss of the airframe is 10⁻⁹ or one in a billion. If you can't meet that risk probability, you have to add a backup. I believe military requirements are quite a bit lower.
10^-9 ?
Ooops yeah finger trouble lol. Thanks@@mroptimistic8957
Get well soon, Juan!
The average development program ranges from 4 to 5 years then signed off as approved or scrapped. This was in development for at least 8 years and in my opinion still in development. This is one of the single largest cover-ups in the US military history and blood is on the hands of whoever kept this thing going. God bless the family and friends of the crew
The osprey seems more a case of bureaucratic/political momentum than a cover up. That tech simply does not scale well to military airlift needs.
It's not really a coverup. The Osprey's issues are very well documented. The controversy is why they continued to move forward. Did they decide the losses were acceptable?
It pays to have friends in Washington
If I remember correctly the same was said on the Chinook but look at it today. I believe in the right hands that its a potent weapon platform. Why can't they add a karnard an have 4 turbo fans 2 in front 2 in rear an rotate forward for flight an turn upside down for vstol.
Doesn’t the new helicopter that got approved do the same thing as the Osprey?
Thanks for finding that report and explaining it!
As much as I love your content, it’s absolutely heartbreaking there is so many incidents and accidents for you to base your videos on 😢
Captain Browne, you are contributing significantly to understanding flying machines and promoting safety. We will never know how many accidents and lives lost that never happened because aviators watched and listened to you diagnose the latest aircraft accidents. If Heros are people who save other people's lives by their actions, then you, Sir, are a true Hero.
Thank you.
Except for the fact that he’s way off on this one
Great content and analysis as always, Juan. I have always been very skeptical of this design’s safety, and not sure what major operational advantage it provides with all the constraints and compromises imposed by its conflicting design requirements. Multi turbine helos are way safer in terms of failure modes, emergency recovery possibilities and probability of survival, not to speak of classical transport aircraft.
I flew the C-141B at Charleston Air Force Base (41st MAS) and Altus AFB (57th MAS) while on active duty.
Ospreys occasionally visit a "high" altitude airport in the Four Corners. They will spend about an hour doing touch and goes than depart for their home base. Watching them transition from vertical takeoff to normal horizontal flight is interesting. Once in horizontal flight they are relatively fast compared to a helicopter.
It would be assumed those seen in the Four Corners, are flying out of ABQ Kirtland AFB. They overfly ABQ on a daily basis.. Depart and return... with no obvious issues.. Been ongoing for many years..;]
Prayers for our brothers & sisters in arms indeed ty for this channel blancolirio, luv u all E.
Interestingly, the DOD is doubling down on tilt rotor technology by awarding the contract to replace the Blackhawk to Bell and their tiltrotor program entry. I know there are differences, between the Valor and the Osprey, but I'm assuming there are similarities as well. Given the numbers of airframes they'll have to produce to replace the number of Blackhawks in service, I hope they learn from these problems and build in some redundancy somehow.
To be fair, the more modern tiltrotors are also more pragmatic designs, in that the rotor tilts but the turbine engine does not.
This allows for the forces (and more importantly, oil flow directions) to be quite well behaved inside the turbine engine itself in comparison to those in the V-22, which I have always seen problems with conceptually in that you have to design the oil system to handle oil coming from a range of different directions, meaning that at any moment the oil sump pickup could become uncovered and feed air to the oil passages instead of oil.
And if that sounds like a recipe for early and often engine failures, well then you're thinking the way I think.
Increasing the size of the gears used in the various transmissions cross-connecting the engines, transmissions, and rotors (even if weight is kept the same) should also allow for a slight increase in the ability of that system to operate as intended under less than ideal conditions as well, due to the torque limit of a driveshaft being more directly proportional to the outer diameter of the shaft than it is directly proportional to the thickness of the wall of the tube that makes up the shaft. Point is, even if the weight is kept the same by reducing the wall thickness of the driveshaft, you can increase the strength in torsion by increasing the overall diameter of it. And this applies to gears as well as driveshafts. The whole thing becomes bulkier, but the mass is the same, so other than an aerodynamic drag penalty for the thicker wing, you might actually gain performance because of the increased lift provided by a wing with a thicker chord that is required to house this bigger but same mass driveshaft.
In any case, the more modern tiltrotor designs are better because the HCE problem is a lot less of an issue if the clutches don't need to disengage in the first place, because the engines don't fail.
I don't have the engineering degree and internal program knowledge needed to understand why they went with this "dogbone" kind of clutch in the first place either, but from experience with similar clutches in the pull-start on lawnmowers, they don't really last all that long in service.
IMO a simple ratchet based one-way clutch (as seen in... hand ratchets that are used to turn sockets), combined with a bendix drive type high pitch screw thread to force the 2 halves of the clutch apart if the connected engine loses power, would be in nearly every way superior aside from perhaps being heavier and taking up more room, because it could be designed to POSITIVELY DISENGAGE when a power imbalance happens, just like the generator connections on the 787 are "mechanical fuses" and must be reconnected by a mechanic on the ground, rather than having any chance at all of being reconnected in flight.
A clutch that can be reconnected in flight is just an unattainable goal given the current limits of mechanical science and metallurgy, to my knowledge. And these HCE events that have doomed at least one, but most likely at least 2 V-22's now are just proof that sometimes polishing the existing idea just doesn't cut it, and you need to attack the problem with a different set of tools.
Bell seems to have very efficient lobbyists. Or other ways of getting constantly favorable decisions defying reason.
Thanks!
The other accident this year (2023) was in my hometown here in Australia, with the loss of 3 crew members (and many US troops injured) back in August. I was wondering if you had done an analysis of that particular Osprey crash on Melville Island, but couldn't find it on your channel, so assumed that you hadn't done one.
I think that the Osprey would have been grounded had it been the Boeing Max series after those 2 crashes. Ospreys have had issues from the first day. Four crashes killed a total of 30 people during testing from 1991 to 2000. Since the V-22 became operational in 2007, 12 crashes, including two in combat zones, and several other accidents and incidents have killed a total of 26 people. They fly over my house often on their way to Miramar and sometimes the engines are running quite roughly. Condolences to the families of all the airmen who have lost their lives on Ospreys, and prayers that they may find survivors in this accident.
While they may claim that the accident rate is on par with the average, the accidents seem to be unavoidably fatal. In a helicopter you can autorotate. In a plane you can glide. In an Osprey there isn't really anything to do in the event of a catastrophic mechanical failure.
Indeed. Accident rate is very different from fatality rate onboard. And that’s what really matters.
Yeah mishap rate isn't what they should be comparing but rather catastrophic failures.
"Our Father, thou art in Heaven . . . "
@@joso5554so I guess you’ll never fly on an airliner again?
I've learned from many incidents (not least of which is the turret explosion in the USS Iowa) to not trust what the high brass is saying about an incident, especially if it would point to the high brass having made a mistake in the past.
If you want more examples of this kind of "toxic inability to admit fault", look at the Mark 14 torpedo, the procurement process for the M2 Bradley, the hearing protection provided to basically all the armed forces, the problems with the water at Camp Lejune... and I'm sure there's other stuff they'd much rather just sweep under the rug.
I respect those who have served, but I respect those who have served on the front lines a lot more than those who have served at a desk for their entire time in service.
IMO the officers belong at the front of every charge, not back in Washington cutting deals with the defense contractors.
Even if that's impractical, it delivers the desired result of "either you're good at your job and actually care about your troops, or a reason is found for you to get discharged from duty."
I'd much rather that the reason found for discharge is "is no longer medically/mentally fit to serve", and that it happens infrequently if at all, rather than "has betrayed the trust of the American people" and is found provable by a court martial, but sadly I think that the high brass right now is full of the latter category.
Matter of fact, the whole apparatus of government needs a bit of a shakeup to break off the rust and flush out the leeches and roaches (leeches and roaches in this case being corporations who think that they can buy their way into power (and have so far been correct).
If you ask me who's best to lead this country, I say "define what makes a good leader, then pick the 100 best candidates from the population of United States citizens, from that list poll them to see who wants the job the most, then pick the 10 of that 100 that want the job the LEAST, and put those up for election".
EDIT: The reason to choose specifically those that don't want the job is my own attempt to eliminate candidates that are well qualified but would use the powers of the office for the benefit of themselves or corporations they are beholden to.
IMO that process I just described would produce a far better range of choices than the "two brands of the same flavor of bad news" we have to pick from right now. The America I was taught to be proud of when I went to school isn't the America out my front window, and that makes me sad.
Does anyone know for how long the V-22 is planned to be be operational, before being replaced?
Decades?
likely until they make a replacement, there's currently nothing else that can replace it for the navy and nothing in development that can either
@@octagonPerfectionist They're waiting until the super secret Ornithopter program is ready to unveil. Source: my dad works at the pentagon
Juan thank you for another teaching video.
Would it be fair to say at the current level of engineering, this is a flawed design for an aircraft.
I would disagree, as would aircrew who actually fly it, three US services and several foreign allies. Every aircraft and aircraft type ever made has at one point or another suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure that was beyond the pilot’s ability to overcome. The Osprey isn’t fundamentally flawed or inherently unsafe. And the stats support that.
@@jeffandjoannbauer9567 almost every certified or military aircraft I can think of can suffer major failure of it's powerplant(s) and / or supporting systems - except this one. It's flight is fundamentally tied to systems that cannot fail - which is inherently a very dangerous way to design an aircraft. When engineering offers no other options, it's usually reserved for things like spacecraft or experimental aircraft where the risk has to be tolerated for the outcome. Not something expected to be in regular use and carry passengers.
Would it be fair to say that three generations of acquisitions officers and defense contractor engineers should be forced to ride Ospreys during peacetime fair weather operations?
@@cheddar2648exactly. For daily work commute. Not sure they would keep on with their job.
I was good friends with the little sister of one of the crew members back in high school a few years ago. I'm so mad he was taken in this accident. She must be heartbroken. She loved him so much.
Condolences to the family f the deceased,thanks again Juan,safe flights mate ,🙏🙏👋👍🇦🇺
I have trouble imagining installing a hydraulic torque coupler to buffer impacts on the sprags being light and small enough to go airborne and handle the horsepower. These engines have a hell of a lot of spinning inertia to try to tame when one locks up.
I'm curious as to what critical niche this aircraft fulfills that can't effectively be met by other means.
None
Simple- it can fly farther and faster than any helicopter and still take-off and land vertically. That means that it can insert (and retrieve) forces in locations that are safer or offer tactical advantages. The Osprey can also carry people and supplies from almost any point on a shoreline and deliver them to any ship with a deck big enough for it to land on over a longer range than helicopters.
@@alandaters8547 Right on! Thank you!
Cannot take off vertically when loaded
@@alandaters8547 ok, but is it a critical enough mission to risk people’s lives in a thing that is not survivable in some single failures ??? The military and political decision makers for this flying coffin should be required to fly it, just once a week.
Love your channel! Hi from 🇨🇦👍👍👍👍
Juan, thanks for all you do.
I was in Quantico when the Osprey crashed 1992. It had a fuel leak that collected in the Engine Cowling. When the engines were rotated to land/hover, the fuel ignited/exploded and burned thru the Composit Synch Shaft. The Synch shafts were changed to metal and drain holes were added to the Engine Cowling. If the Pilot had stayed in standard flight mode, he could have landed the Osprey with the engines horizontal...
I started in the AV8A community and watched as 5 fell out of the sky, killing 4 Pilots. The Marines crashed over 60 of the 1st 110 purchased. Most of these were during the transition phase of flight. The Pegasus engine responds in 3 sec to throttle inputs, but 32.174 05 ft/s 2 will ensure it meets the ground first @ 100ft AGL Years later, they had a Pilot survive and he indicated that his sleeve caught the throttle, as he was rotating the Nozzles to hover. ALL those crashes & deaths due to a loose sleeve/cuff...
When the CH-46E was introduced I transferred into the 1st operating Sqd. One year @ WTI we had two CH46 experience a mid-air collision. One aircraft disintegrated and another was cut in half, as their rotors intermeshed. The front half of one, both Pilots and the Crew Chief survived. The Pilot auto rotated, landing on the nose wheel and then they fell over. The crew chief had fallen out & was saved by his crew belt, so he climbed back in, as they landed. The sync shaft, flight controls and hydraulic lines were crushed, this kept hydraulic pressure available to the front rotor head. The Pilots were not aware they had lost the aft airframe w/engines & rotor head, until they landed. They were busy Flying and saved their lives...
When the AV-8B/na was introduced, I was transferred, to be their Avi Chief. We lost 5+ aircraft & Pilots, during their cruise mode of flight, generally the Safest mode of flight. Finally, a CO survived and returned with an aircraft, we could inspect. The aircraft had started to deploy its flaps, turned on its back and dove into the ground, but the CO turned OFF, the automatic flight controls, and was high enough to regain control. After everything kept checking GOOD, we found a flap position sensor had water intrusion. This gave the Flight Computers (3) an indication the flaps were asymmetrical & the computers corrected - by deploying the flaps. The position sensor was a common part in many other types of aircraft, with NO history of water intrusion issues. It was redesigned...
I retired 26+Years, as the Osprey became Operational. When the 1st USAF crashed & they Grounded ALL of the Aircraft. One of the things they found - The USMC was not having this issue and they had lots of operational hours compared to the USAF. The USMC, were not rapidly transitioning, compared to the USAF flight envelop. Restrictions were placed on the aircraft - supposedly correcting the issue...
RIP - Capt Paul Spargo an TAV-8A Pilot and Friend, that ejected his student, but he stayed & tried to save the aircraft...
WOW! Juan your experience and wealth of knowledge and ability to put all lessons in layman's terms is amazing! 👋👋👋
Many thanks for your excellent information! Greetings from old Germany 🇩🇪
Amazing video. Thanks Juan. From it's inception this aircraft has had significant difficulties and many crashes. The idea is good, but the complicated Rube Goldberg gear, clutch and drive-shaft system and the electrical systems necessary to make it all work together leave too many failure modes for safe operation. I love aircraft. I've flown all my life. I flew 141s like you. My father was an Air Force pilot also. New, better aircraft are great. But this one will never be operationally able to be ready and safe. Time to send them to DM.
Check out the book "The Dream Machine" by Richard Whittle. An excellent book on the V22 & its development. it has not been a good month for Military Aviation, a CG MH-60 went down in AK near Read Island when delivering pumps to a vessel taking on water. The Aircrew is the back had significant injuries, godbless our military aviators who take such significant risks in the execution of their duties. JB Hall
Having flown the AV8a Harrier in the Marines, the V-22 Osprey scares the hell out of me. Too many moving parts.
Having flown the F-4 in the Air Force, the Harrier scares the hell out of me.
All the power lost due to the multitude of gearboxes and clutches in the Osprey's transmission system must generate a lot of heat and mechanical stress and therefore lots of parts fatigue. It would be interesting to hear a description of what's involved in regular inspection and maintenance of this aircraft.
And the operating and maintenance costs, with all the specific skills involved…
It doesn’t generate that much heat.
And the maintenance isn’t that bad, pretty comparable to other helicopters. It becomes more costly than other helicopters because everything is doubled. Dual prop rotor system, dual prop box, dual pylon conversion actuator. 6 servo actuators the list goes on.
The blade fold wing stow system is far more complicated and annoying to work on, that being said the BFWS system hasn’t caused a crash to date.
I would bet the schedule of maintenance on the V22 is a nightmare.
Though this video, focused in the gear drive train. The hydraulic system is also a problem. Remember, most of the many movable surfaces use hydraulic power.
@@raywhitehead730 the hydraulic system on the V22 is not a problem.
A friend of mine was once a crew chief on those. Once to get to an airshow they had to go through five aircraft to get one to fly! Another friend of mine who went to C-130 flight engineer school with me, when getting ready to PCS from Little Rock AFB, was interviewed for a flight engineer slot on the Ospreys after one tour on Hercs. The man that interviewed him was killed in a crash in the AOR. My friend then went AC-130s and retired a few years later. In my mind it’s a flying lemon and there was some covering up when it was developed.
The Osprey is still massively safer than the Crashhawk and many other helos.
That fact is wasted on the obtuse.
@@AA-xo9uw Indeed...
RIP.😢
That a/c always struck me as far too complicated.
Be interesting if this was in forward flight or in transition. If they lost the cross drive shaft they were doomed.
I’ve been involved with those sprag clutches since this airframe was in development. It is a really, really complex design compared to say in a typical multi engine helicopter. They really don’t describe the clutch issue correctly, but you do describe the hard re-engagement problem causing transmission damage. There have been big engineering hours working on this issue. Work in progress.
That driveshaft was originally carbon fibre due to USM demands..the one crash due to a nacelle fire caused the shaft to fail. It was moved to an alum shaft afterwards.
Those are death traps.
My thoughts and prayers going up for the crew, their families and their friends and the rest of the 353rd Special Operations Wing. For the Airman who perished, Slow Salute.
Really appreciate this overview of the Osprey mechanical systems. The rotor configuration and unbelievably complex mechanical design made this aircraft exceptionally unappealing to me from Day 1. I was surprised the accident rate isn't much higher. My guess is that the aircraft has far more extensive inspection and pilot training programs relative most military aircraft, and that has prevented a much worse safety record. Put blunty, the Osprey is "wrong" from nearly every vantage point in terms of creating a stable, reliable aircraft. A coaxial rotor design immediately removes countless potential points of failure, e.g. The sooner they get this fleet decommissioned, the better, IMO.
V-22's overfly at higher speed, VFR, nacelles in full forward, ABQ NM Kirtland AFB.. several times daily..... for many, many years without failures. Middle East service period of years excluded..
They have been reported as working the Four Corners area and into Colorado, over 200 miles from base. Altitude of excess 5,000 [ground], is common across mountainous NM... Several mountains in NM are above 10,000, requiring exceptional high altitude performance, and due to extreme, remote distances between population centers... reliability.. ;]
To be honest the overall complexity isn’t much more than a chinook. They had similar clutch issues in the past. The only difference of course is that the Osprey has an engine at each end not both at one.
@@chrissmith7669 and I guess the Chinook rotors and nacelles don't swivel thru 90 degrees, nor do they both rotate about the centre of the fuselage by 90 degrees. Chinook and Osprey disk loadings also uncannily similar.... not.
Let the Marines have it as it is perfect for their operations.
The DoD selected another tilt rotor aircraft, the Bell V-280 Valor as a replacement for H-60(Blackhawk, Seahawks, ect).
This is a controversial decision as many believe, myself included, that the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant is a much better option.
@@JarrodFLif3r which is better Depends on what your mission. If you need highly maneuverable but don’t need speed or altitude then The coaxial Defiant is a winner. If you want speed and to fly over the small arms risk than the Valor has the upper hand.
The army should be splitting the order to spread risk and be more capable.
The marines want to be the go to service for a possible Eagle Claw type operation
The V-22 idea was birthed in the fallout of the failed 1980 Iranian hostage rescue. It first flew around 1990. However accidents and other demands kept it out of operational hands until much later. The Osprey has always been a dangerous airplane to fly. Prehaps too dangerous considering the limits of modern technology and manufacturing.
Military operations depend on teamwork for success. That teamwork can be easily compromised if one or more team componets are lost to inflight failures of the Osprey.
All military aircraft are "dangerous to fly" in one way or another. The so far uncontested mishap rates published by the Marine Corps document that overall the Osprey is no more dangerous than several other very common military aircraft. The charge of "too dangerous" really must be backed up by statistics. Meanwhile, the Osprey has absolutely unique capabilities such as the speed and range to carry troops and supplies to tactical locations that could easily save lives in combat. Note: for decades we have accepted the bigger flight risk of helicopters vs fixed wing aircraft for the same reason, helicopters can fly tactical missions that fixed wing aircraft cannot.
I don’t see why some comments are equating low mishap rate with relative safety.
Mishap rates are irrelevant. Fatality rates onboard per flight hour are the only meaningful safety indicator.
given how close to Yakushima it appears to be... could Turbulence be a factor in causing the clutch to hard-engage?
flying into Yakushima, I know the volcano's rock gives you get a lot of turbulence, much like Gibraltar...
I always appreciate your factual and knowledgeable reports sir. We may have crossed paths at Yokota or anywhere in the system for that matter. Retired Loadmaster 4th MAS McChord AFB.
I lived in Tacoma, an old Indian word which means "what's that smell" and watched the eels fly in and out of McChord.
Juan, your explanation of mode of failure for a dual engine plane/copter hybrid aircraft with tilting rotors, tilting wings, and a equally complicated single engine operation control system was truly impressive. Thank you.👍🏼
When I visit and go to work with my son out in southern California, I always head outside when I hear aircraft. (Miramar is a little to the southeast.) I get to see lots of jet fighters and some Ospreys headed out for maneuvers. They must have a bunch of Ospreys out at Miramar.
I remember about 30 years ago there were plans to use such an aircraft for civilian use and also for offshore oil crew changes.
If i recall it was the Bell company that was trialing such a project ?
I hope this never comes to pass.
Wow Juan that’s cool you spent a lot of time at Yokota, I live about 20 minutes drive away in Hachioji and the c130s and Ospreys often fly over my house.
I've yet to meet a veteran who had nothing but scorn for the Osprey.
But it looks cool in promo videos.
Faster with longer range than a helicopter. The Airforce has a very good record with the CV.
There are many who love flying this aircraft... there are always going the be growing pains when you fly the A model of anything. Keep in mind, those who love it are not as likely to as vocal as those who dislike it. If I had a dime everytime someone told me helicopters were dangerous.
@@JBHRN Well, it first flew in 1989...
Hello Sir, first off, I like to know what years were you at Yokota flying the C-141. I was a Electrician at Yokota with the 374th TAG which we worked on every aircraft that landed at Yokota from 1983 - 1988. Also, the MV-22 is assigned to the 353rd SOC, but because of Japan's Defense law, the aircraft is based out of Yokota, the same was true for the MH-53 Pavelow based in Korea. Yes, I have retired and have been living in Japan, still as an mechanic, for the past 28 years. Anyway, thank you for your service and great information regarding this topic. As of to date, all have been lost and 1 still is unaccounted for.
I am wondering if the one engine working could at least have the effect of a "graceful" landing instead of crashing down and result in injury and possible death.
You mentioned that even on one engine, even in the event of the pilot taking immediate action, will he at least be able to land or is it a guaranteed crash with injuries and possibly loss of life.
Unfortunately the answer is no. 😢
Juan any info on the P-8 crash in Hawaii? We briefed the V-22 crash today at our Safety meeting at Edwards AFB. A possible engine clutch problem.
A tragic event to be sure.
Always fun to hear a fixed wing guy talk about a fling wing event.
Keep up that amazing work on your channel Juan.