Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS

   
the Online NewsHour
E-mail This Page Print This Page
the Online NewsHourChevronIntelBNSF RailwayWells FargoToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
BROWSE BY
REGION
TOPIC
RECENT PROGRAMSLOCAL TV LISTINGSSUBSCRIPTIONSTEACHER RESOURCESSEARCH


REGION: North America
TOPIC: Military
Online NewsHour
FORUM
Posted: July 25, 2007

Pilots Discuss Use of Osprey

Forum Introduction
V-22 Osprey The V-22 Osprey, an airplane that can land and take off like a helicopter, is expected to deploy to Iraq in September, although critics contend it has design flaws. Two pilots answered your questions about the aircraft.
QUESTIONS
What does the Osprey do better than other aircraft that makes it worth the cost?
How intense is the rotor downwash with respect to the expected need to swoop in and pick up ground troops?
How prevalent is "vortex ring state" in landing?
With no auto-rotation landing, what does the pilot do if both engines fail?
What happens if one engine fails?
What would the pilots do to survive a plane in vertical mode dropping like a rock?
Were helicopter problems in the past mostly due to human error?
Is it important for military operations to have one aircraft be a helicopter and airplane?
What role would the Osprey perform in Iraq?
William Hill of Phoenix asks:
I'm really in doubt about the Osprey's inability to auto-rotate when you have dual engine failure. What would pilots do to survive a plane in vertical mode dropping like a rock from the sky since you can't auto-rotate?
ANSWERS
Jim Furman responds:

I agree with you. See responses to 4 and 5.

Lt. Col. Bianca responds:

I understand your concern. Any aircraft not a helicopter can't auto-rotate either. Fortunately, the MV-22 does have a wing. While helicopters don't glide and fixed wing airplanes don't auto-rotate, it's not a helicopter and not an airplane; it is a tilt rotor. We try to exploit elements of both. In VTOL mode pilots are trained to exploit the altitude and the airspeed they have at the time of the failure to make the best use of the current aircraft energy state to arrest the rate of descent with the wing and with the rotors.

To more specifically answer the question, our single engine procedure (where an immediate landing is not possible) is to climb and transition to airplane mode (if you are not already in that mode). From there, pilots are trained to a Precautionary Emergency Landing (PEL) profile. In the PEL profile, pilots may adjust to an anticipated dual engine failure, where they put the aircraft into an advantageous position (gain altitude, set flap position, activate auxiliary power unit, jettison fuel, turn toward an intended point of landing, determine gear up or down, etc) in case the second engine were to fail. In the event of a second engine failure, the pilot is already in airplane mode, and he will execute a dual engine failure landing just like any other fixed wing aircraft.

If an aircraft were to suffer an engine failure at or near simultaneously with the other engine in VTOL mode, and the pilot does not have the altitude to get the nacelles all the way over into airplane mode for a glide, then the procedures are to roll the nacelles all the way back and maintain airspeed. Since we are only in this mode for takeoff and landing, then the landing site is (hopefully) in close proximity. The flight control software recognizes the failure mode and releases normal interlocks so the pilot can get more authority over the nacelles, flight control surfaces and blade pitch. Pilots will load the rotors with airspeed and flap setting, then conduct a run-on landing if terrain allows it, or fly a no-hover approach to a full flair. In both conditions pilots will still exploit the lift of the wing and add collective pitch at the bottom for the remaining rotor energy to cushion.

Next Question and Answer

CURRENT NEWSHOUR HEADLINES
Evolving U.S.-China Relationship Holds Promise, Pitfalls

Breast Cancer Screenings Should Begin at Age 50, Panel Finds

GM Offers Signs of Progress, Despite $1.2 Billion Loss







ABOUT US | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: 
POD|RSS
Funded, in part, by:ChevronIntelBNSF RailwayWells FargoToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
            Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy

Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.