V-22 Osprey: Ice Ice Baby

We at POGO thought that a $100 million dollar aircraft that can’t do combat maneuvers was bad enough. Now we learn that the V-22 Osprey doesn’t yet have the operational de-icing systems or weather radar that allow it to fly into clouds.

An icing problem was apparently the root cause for an Air Force version of the V-22 Osprey running into trouble while enroute to Edwards Air Force Base in California last week. Our sources say CV-22 #6 experienced a compressor stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems. The Osprey, our sources say, didn’t recover from the engine problem until it reached warmer air around 10,000 feet. As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona – where it’s engines were changed out.

The Navy, which honchos both the Marines and Air Force V-22 programs, says that technically the engines didn’t shut down and that the incident wasn’t as serious as it might seem. Yet, they admit the V-22, after 20 years in development, doesn’t have a tested de-icing system, nor does it have weather radar onboard. The October 18 incident has been dubbed a “Class C mishap” – meaning the aircraft sustained damages between $20,000 and $200,000.

The Pentagon already has approved the aircraft for full-rate production (pdf), yet the Navy says the V-22 de-icing systems are still being tested. Even so, pilots don’t really need it, they say. Instead they’re instructed to just avoid bad weather conditions.  Of course, bad weather should be avoided, but sometimes it can't.  Should an aircraft not ready for combat or clouds be approved for full-rate production?

Whether the incident was serious or not, it certainly raises some serious questions about the limitations of the V-22.

Comments

[Disgusted Tax Payer]

Sorry for the typos in my previus post but this thing just really annoys me.

I was wrong it was the 1940's they started working on this junk and left it in Nasa's hands in 1962

and its still having issues, hard to believe eh? Bell, Boeing, Nasa can't do it hmmmm

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/bell_xv-3-r.html

Someone needs to stop the program and buy something that works.

BTW there is nothing minor or trivial about a nearly 60 year old concept that hasn't worked doesn't work and should have money wasted on it attempting to allow the v-22 (golden goose if your bell) kill anyone else.

[Disgusted Tax Payer]

Since this thing isn't tested for brownouts how is it going to handle iraq or afgan climates and conditions since it seems we are going to be there for quite some time? Its supposed to have avionic update for jamming and such but one automatic weapons strafe or rpg as our other helicopters do when they have attempted to land and guess we have a 100+ million dollar pile of scrap and a bunch of dead americans.

What happens like in iraq or afgan if they use the old rpg ie point and shoot no jamming can be done but since you have nice targets ie cockpit, fuel tanks, engines, blades (oops it can't auto down oh yea the vortec issue oh well their insured and get nice boxes and flags coming home.)

Maybe they should try to sell it to other nations first let them try it out.

ICE ICE but what about sand sand and more sand that does nasty things to turbine engines, sort of like with ice they fail.

Almost forgot since it has a weight lift issue guess no armored plating so anyone can strafe the crew but what can a few bullets hurt. No evasive changes in flight not that a since rpg can blow this thing up hitting a tank, hit a blade, hit anywhere actually since there is not and armor plating and darn the luck it kills the crew better luck next time if there is one.

Someone might want to also check as this flying death trap goes back to the xv-3, oh yes that would be Bell once again only been working on these things since the middle of the 1950's. Guys if you can't get it right in 50+ years (most people would have given up and most commercial companies making products for commercial or private use would have thrown in the towel as you would be responsible for anything that goes wrong including the ones that have already died ie product liability lawsuits.

You know Textron, its like the engines in the cessna you had you had to recall the entire lot. And got sued its a shame the soldiers that already died in these things can't do the same for your mistakes it would change your way of thinking.

Just accept its wrong and save us the unneeded deaths of our troups and waste of our tax dollars.

[VICB3]

At 100 Mil per copy, this is a "weapons system" you don't dare use in combat. Too expensive you see, which means that you can't operate enough of them to swarm effectively. (Read Technology and War by Martin Van Creveld for more on weapons systems evolution.)

Also, being technically involved, the odd stray bullet can easily take out key systems - you can't armor everything and still have a decent payload capability - thus taking the V-22 out of action and/or causing it to crash.

With regards to the lack of weather radar and anti-icing capability, bear in mind that DARPA has an ingrained Not Invented Here mentaity that translates into an aversion to off the shelf technical fixes. It probably wouldn't consider standard anti-icing systems, prefering instead somthing custom tailored - and thus quite expensive - for the aircraft. Ditto equiping crew with the Garmin units, thus forcing them to buy them on their own, a la what we're already seeing with body armor procurement elsewhere. (Read Defense or Delusion by Thomas Etzold for more on DARPA.)

Finally, with regards to commuter airlines coughing up 100 mil per copy for a high maintainence airframe, forget it. Especially since every plan to fly into space restricted areas - say downtown New York or Chicago - will run headon into NIMBY noise pollution lawsuits. This inevitable legal and permiting circus, along with the price tag, will diminish whatever attractions the V22 might have for the corporate user as well.

Furthermore, the intrusive degredation of "Homeland Security" at the airport, security screening that has eliminated whatever ease and convenience that existed in air travel, will likewise negate any attractions that the V22 might have for potential passengers. In other words, for trips of 500 miles or less it will still be faster, cheaper and more digified just to drive yourself instead.

The V22 will probably remain a curious technical toy and expensive money pit, nothing more.

[Chuck]

Ah, yes. Jason Blair would be proud of your reporting. See this link for the truth about V-22, de-icing, and the incident in question.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/v22s-cloud-stall-not-a-stall-at-all/index.php

[cowsgomoo]

OK, let's have some straight talk here from an actual professional pilot (me)

First, let's dispell some illusions here about the integration of these systems into the airframe.

1: This does not mean that the V-22 cannot fly into clouds. Most of the time, flight in IMC is not conducted in an icing environment. What this means is that at this point the airplane cannot be certified for FIKI, or Flight Into Known Icing. At this point you can fly this bird into clouds, but not too high or too cold, where the ice is.

2: The radar weather system is not an issue at all. Since there are no props in front of the nose, you can take a bog-standard radar off a Citation, or hell, a high-end twin piston aircraft, and pop it right in the nosecone. For now, you can simply buy your crew a $2000 handheld Garmin aviation GPS with NexRad. There's no fundamental flaw in this airframe that prevents the integration of radar.

3: The addition of FIKI equipment on tractor propellers and standard flying surfaces is trivial. A couple boots and a TKS system and you're done.

Now, here's what's actually wrong:

1: When it comes to the integration of these systems into this airframe, the bird is fundamentally sound. When it comes to the integration of these systems into the airframe, the lack of action shows that the program management is fundamentally unsound. This is not a simple engineering problem, it's a serious procurement and management priorities problem.

2: Notice the exception in 3 above: In a tractor configuration (props forward), de-icing is trivial. With the props up? Who knows - that's a more difficult problem.

Yes, this program is flawed. Yes, the program management is run by idiots. Yes, even if the plane is finally built right, it probably won't be worth $100+ million. It costs three times as much as a Pave Low and has less capability, and doesn't even have a door gun. There are plenty of things wrong with it.

But, if you want to sit around trying to blow up minor problems in this case, it destroys your credibility when it comes to the real and serious problems.

[SNL is the Truth]

Jane you ingnorant slut! How dare you criticize the Pentagon. I don't care if you have documents to back up what you say. I don't care if you are concerned about troop safety. You just make me so mad I can't even write this comment. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[Knowledge & Truth]

You all have no clue and are utter desk jockie morons. Go learn to fly before you open up your ignorant mouth. Now you know why airline & military pilots avoid ICE. Other important priorities delayed ice testing... if you dont have the system, stay out of the ice... that goes for all aircraft!

[Steve Dores]

Congress won’t ever let this program be cancelled. They have dreams of a commercial version adding airports to every K-Mart parking lot in their districts.

“Congressman Doflop brought regional airports to every town in his district with a population of 25 or more. Send him back for his 14th term.”

[Youaretostupidformyemail]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Either you are for the defense contractor or as it appears POGO is you are for the troops. From what I can tell POGO is only concerned about the troops safety. Greed v. Patriotism. Who side are you on?

[V22 Driver]

You people have no clue. You non aviating, no flying, no idea, democratic sheeple have no idea what you are talking about. I won't even try to explain the operations of aviation to people as stupid as you.

"Exagerating a bit"? Seems like POGO is on to something the Pentagon has been ignoring, that this plane has been around for 20 years and things are still *$&^#@ up!

Check out the Reuters article here:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh88898_2005-10-25_23-12-29_n25357656_newsml

Note this particular quote attributed to one Eric Miller:

"Eric Miller, investigator with POGO, said the incident was troubling, despite the Navy's denials.

"This is very disturbing," he said. Only last month the Pentagon approved the Marines version of V-22 for full-rate production. And now we find out the aircraft can't even fly into a cloud.""

Can't even fly into a cloud? Hmmm, is someone exagerating a bit to make a point there?