Let me know when you are ready to discuss. This is an article that's been needed for some time. It's a more complex issue than the Navy fact sheet alone suggests. As a military aircraft used by all services, it pretty clearly falls into the Military Workgroup.
The services, however, delight in confusing the nomenclature. The Marines use theirs for general transport and the Air Force for special operations. In the standard terminology for aircraft, C- prefix means transport and M- means special operations. I've never gotten a coherent explanation of why they reversed it for the Osprey. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know the Osprey well as I have written about it. For now though this is a good start. Feel free to add to it, if you like.
Mary Ash 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Beyond headings and copy edits, I'm going to avoid making direct contributions and try out the role of Military Editor-only here.
It may be worth mentioning that the Army and Marines have differences air assault doctrines and missions; the Marine concept of "triphibious" operations is an evolution of amphibious warfare while the Army is more based in cavalry and paratroop operations. Vertical envelopment, to use the Marine term, extended amphibious operations into the third dimension; the helicopter/Osprey component complements the AAAV air-cushion vehicles that complement traditional landing craft.
The Marines' primary medium helicopter, the CH-46, was obsolescent and the fleet was worn-out; the Osprey was slow to replace them.
Development of the Osprey was complex, and had its scandals. The Marines were shocked when some project officers were fired for falsifying test results. There were, as there are with many aircraft, fatal crashes during testing, but questions were raised about review. --Howard C. Berkowitz 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Go forth and write. I do remember the 19 Marines who lost their lives in the Arizona crash. This article is just a start. There is so much more everyone could contribute. Mary Ash 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since I'm the only active Military Editor, I'm holding back on making changes myself, since I could not nominate the article for Approval. Shall I not worry about that?
I'm no military aircraft buff, but...
...damn, Ospreys are cool! If I ever become a multi-millionaire, forget Cesnas and corporate jets, I'm getting myself an Osprey.
Howard or Mary, want to add something about the rumours that Obama may be getting an Osprey as a replacement for Marine One - see this story from The Register. The article also lists some problems with the jet exhausts causing heat problems with warship flight decks. Is this accurate? They also report that the Royal Navy are considering purchase of V-22's as a replacement for using helicopters for radar support. Is this still on the cards? –Tom Morris 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apropos the first story, it seems implausible, in part for technical reasons and in part from my experience as a long-time Washington DC resident. Simplest issue: there are a lot of short-distance Presidential flights where the Osprey might not fit into the destination landing area. For longer range flights, the President will fly from the White House to nearby Andrews Air Force Base and take a more comfortable, higher-performance, safer fixed-wing aircraft.
- Not sure about the engine heat -- all existing helicopters use turboprop jet engines, so jets on vertical takeoff decks isn't new. Is the Osprey engine hotter? Possibly -- but I'd be curious if this problem exists with the large CH-53 helicopter. Obviously, full-fledged aircraft carriers deal with much hotter jets, so it may be a question of changing the deck surface on the smaller amphibious ships. Ospreys won't ever land on the smaller platforms such as cruisers and destroyers.
- There are also dubious things in the third article -- "jarhead" has nothing to do with hair. I'd have to look into it, but while I know the Osprey has been suggested as an early warning aircraft, I'd immediately have some concerns. It's not always obvious in pictures, since the propellers/rotors are already spinning when you see an Osprey in horizontal flight, but they are much longer than would be typical for a propeller aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye. Either the "flying saucer" radar antenna would have to be raised a lot higher (with possible aerodynamic problems), or the propellers would intersect the radar with bad electronic effects. --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't checked recently to see if this was still under discussion but it wouldn't surprise me. Marine 1 has to be the most up-to-date helicopter you know...
- Mary Ash 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, but the Osprey doesn't replace all helicopters, even for the Marines, who retain both smaller attack and command & control birds, and large transport helicopters that may be superior for certain oversized cargo. I don't immediately remember the slingload capabilities of an Osprey.
- Tom, the RN desperately needs airborne early warning. I wonder if they are considering all the options -- even the Hawkeye has limited onboard interpretation and transmits most data to flagship/group air defense officer ships. One trend is to use unmanned aerial vehicles just to carry the radar proper. Another option would be to put the radar on a large helicopter and mount the antenna on a gondola underneath so the rotor doesn't interfere -- this might require lengthened landing gear, but, especially if it's a phased array radar, the trend is to use conformal rather than saucer antennas. --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
About the upload of the photo
Mary, the primary purpose of the information we must provide when we upload an image is to prevent us from any copyright violations and thus protect us from litigation. That is why I have revised and corrected the information provided when the Osprey photo was uploaded. Here is a rather detailed explanation of what I revised or corrected. Please take the time to read it :
In the Image:Osprey.png file's Summary section:
- Author: "U.S. Government" changed to James Darcy (who was the actual person who took the original photo)
- Source: "Navair" changed to http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=gallery.main which is the actual online source url where the photo was obtained
- Date: "unknown" was changed to May 24,2006 which was easily found by right-clicking on the source photo (as is often the case with photos)
At the bottom of the Summary section, we are asked to click on a link that takes us to a page where we create a Credit line, which is perhaps the most important thing that needs doing. Since you had neglected to do that, I created that needed Credit line by entering "PD" as the license (PD means public domain), entering "Photo" as the type of image and entering "James Darcy, United States Navy" as the author.
If you will study what I have said above, I am sure it will be most helpful the next time you upload an image. Again, it is important to do it correctly so as to protect us from any litigation. Milton Beychok 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Section removed pending sourcing information
I removed the following section because it has detailed specs without any report as to the source of the information. CZ's policy is to include such detailed information only when a source is specifically cited. Feel free to put it back in, but only with a source. --Larry Sanger (Editor-in-Chief)
Section title: Characteristics
- Two Rolls-Royce Liberty AE1107C
- AEO VTOL Normal Power, shp (kW) : 6,150 (4,586)
- AEO VTOL Interim Power, shp (kW) : 6,830 (5,093)
- OEI VTOL, shp (kW) : 6,830 (5,093)
- AEO VTOL Max Cont., rhp (kW) : 4,570 (3,408)
- AEO VTOL Takeoff, rhp (kW) : 5,183 (3,865)
- Proprotor System
- Blades per hub : 3
- Construction : Graphite/fiberglass
- Tip speed, fps (mps) : 661.90 (201.75)
- Diameter, ft (m) : 38.00 (11.58)
- Blade area, ft2 (m2) : 261.52 (24.30)
- Disc area, ft2 (m2) : 2,268.00 (210.70)
- Blade folding : Automatic, powered
- Max Cruise speed (MCP), SL, kts (km/h) : 241-257 (446-476)
- Max R/C, A/P Mode, SL, fpm (m/m) : 3,200 (975)
- Service ceiling, ISA, ft (m) : 24,700 (7,529)
- OEI Service ceiling, ISA, ft (m) : 10,300 (3,139)
- HOGE ceiling, ISA, ft (m) : 5,400 (1,646)
- Mission radius with aft sponson tank
- Land-Assault Troop Mission (24 Troops), nm (km) : 242 (448)
- Pre-Assault Raid, nm (km) : 267 (495)
- Mission radius with wing tanks
- Land-Assault Troop Mission (24 Troops), nm (km) : 233 (432)
- Pre-Assault Raid, nm (km) : 306 (567)
- Cockpit - crew seats : 2 MV / 3 CV
- Cabin - crew seat/troop seats/litters : 1/24/12
- Dimensions (External)
- Length, fuselage, ft (m) : 57.3 (17.48)
- Width, rotors turning, ft (m) : 84.6 (25.55)
- Length, stowed, ft (m) : 63 (19.20)
- Width, stowed, ft (m) : 18.4 (5.61)
- Width, horizontal stabilizer, ft (m) : 18.4 (5.61)
- Height, nacelles fully vertical, ft (m) : 22.1 (6.73)
- Height, vertical stabilizer, ft (m) : 17.9 (5.46)
- Height, stowed, ft (m) : 18.3 (5.56)
- Dimensions (Internal)
- Length, max, ft (m) : 24.17 (7.37)
- Width, max, ft (m) : 5.92 (1.80)
- Height, max, ft (m) : 6.00 (1.83)
- Empty, lbs (kg) : 33,459 (15,177)
- Takeoff, vertical, max, lbs (kg) : 52,600 (23,495)
- Takeoff, short running, max, lbs (kg) : 57,000 (25,909)
- Takeoff, self-deploy mission, lbs (kg) : 60,500 (27,443)
- Cargo hook, single, lbs (kg) : 10,000 (4,536)
- Cargo hook, dual, lbs (kg) : 15,000 (6,804)
- Fuel Capacity
- MV-22 (including aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 1,448 (5,481)
- CV-22 (including aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 2,040 (7,722)
- Fuel Capacity with wing tanks
- MV-22 (including wing tanks, no aft sponson tank), gallons (liters) : 1,724 (6,526)
- I hope I did this right but I added the source. I used the Wikipedia ref generator that Matt so kindly shared. Mary Ash 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to add content...
While I would have liked to have guided it for eventual approval, perhaps I might help even more by giving some examples of observation, contextualization and synthesis. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)