Military Review

Pentagon V-22 Osprey accident problem recognized unresolved

45

The Pentagon released a report that talks about the need for a new way to protect the engines of the American V-22 Osprey tiltrotors against particles of sand and dust. The report came out after an investigation of numerous accidents with these convertiplanes.


For reference: since the 2014 of the year, accidents occurred with the 7-th V-22 Osprey, and in some cases they, as stated, were due to the insufficient efficiency of the air filters that did not ensure the stable operation of the engines.

It is noted that the engines begin to work unstable primarily in desert conditions, when sand particles rise into the air and EAPS filtering does not provide protection for power plants. Moreover, emergency situations often arose outside desert conditions. The rotation of the tiltrotor screws leads to the appearance of dust in the air, which may ultimately affect the operation of the engines - they overheat and begin to malfunction.

In the USA, they note that for ten years this is the third attempt to redesign the filters and provide reliable engine protection.
The Drive publication on this occasion writes:

There are fears that the Navy and the US Air Force will again be unable to guarantee that all recent efforts will adequately reduce the risks of sucking a dangerous amount of particulate matter into V-22 engines, especially when working in desert conditions.

The US Department of Defense Inspector General noted that so far no attempt to improve EAPS has led to the desired result.

From the report:

The third EAPS upgrade is designed to remove more dust from the air entering the V ‑ 22 engine than the original version of EAPS; however, the amount of dust entering the engine will still be about four times higher than what the Rolls-Royce T406 (AE 1107C-Liberty) engine specification can withstand. As a result, the V-22 remains at risk, despite more than nine years of trying to redesign the filter system.

The problem of filtering and general accident convertiplane in the report is recognized as unresolved.

The case in Nepal is being considered when the US military tried to help after the earthquake using tiltrotors. As a result, the Americans for a long time could not figure out where to land their convertiplanes. Firstly, during landing, they lifted hundreds of kilograms of garbage and dust into the air, and secondly, the operation of the screws literally blew away the shaky buildings that remained after the earthquake, which led to new blockages.

Landing V-22 Osprey in Denmark:
45 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech 13 November 2019 06: 38
    -4
    Hmm ... what the same claims can be presented to helicopters ... however.
    1. Volodin
      Volodin 13 November 2019 06: 44
      +5
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      the same claims can be presented to helicopters ... however.

      Which ones? Do they often fall due to dust entering the engines?
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 13 November 2019 06: 50
        -3
        Which ones?
        smile
        Firstly, during landing, they lifted hundreds of kilograms of garbage and dust into the air, and secondly, the operation of the screws literally blew away the shaky buildings that remained after the earthquake, which led to new blockages.

        How long will the helicopter engine filters last in such conditions?
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 08: 55
          +4
          Quote: The same Lech
          How long will the helicopter engine filters last in such conditions?

          It’s not a matter of the filtration system, but of the place and direction of the intake and discharge, they altered it off the valor, though not to reduce soil disruption, but to free up the firing sector for the side side shooters, I think, sooner or later they will get the idea of ​​placing the power plant in the center of the wing above the fuselage, similar to helicopters. But let's hope that for another twenty years they will be sawing money on "filters".
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 13 November 2019 09: 42
            +1
            The future lies with electric vertical take-off planes, if we consider the light segment. In the near future, several models should appear at once. Large corporations (Boeing and Airbus, among them) are already developing them as aero taxis. A vertical take-off electric plane will make a light helicopter unnecessary. It has all the advantages. Takes off by helicopter, flies by plane. The range only remained no more than a helicopter. But what a profitability!
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 10: 46
              0
              Quote: Stas157
              But what a profitability!

              You have propaganda in your head, in fact this is not so, there is "efficiency per unit of fuel" less, because the mass of engines and batteries is greater, losses for conversion are greater, and even the density of energy storage per unit of mass and size is less.

              In general, electric motors are applicable in aviation
              firstly) in the field of UAVs + solar panels (all kinds of patrolling stratospheres based on airplanes, airships and their hybrids), but there are no practically applicable developments in this area because it is not particularly necessary (compensated by other methods)
              secondly) in the field of high-speed aviation, and more precisely in the field of super-high-speed propulsion, but here again it is not particularly necessary because it can be compensated by the size and pitch of the propulsion
              As for the air-robo-taxis you voiced, there is nothing besides the propaganda of "green energy"
              1. Stas157
                Stas157 13 November 2019 10: 59
                +4
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                You have propaganda in your head, in fact it is not, there "efficiency per unit of fuel "less, because

                The latest news: In the United States are testing a two-seater aircraft eFlyer 2, designed specifically for training future pilots.
                operation of an electric airplane will cost only 20% from the cost of using a conventional training aircraft. In Colorado, for electricity for an hour-long flight on an aircraft with an electric motor you need pay $ 3, while the fuel for the familiar Cessna 172 Skyhawk aircraft put out $ 50

                This is about the efficiency. The financial gain is obvious. To be "ahead of the rest", the Yak-152 also had to be made electric, and not with some unknown German diesel engine (which the Germans do not fly). Training aircraft - takeoff, landing, range is not needed. An electric motor would do just fine.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 12: 21
                  0
                  As I told you, you have propaganda in your head, and the most banal on the basis of "indicative comparison without reducing to a common denominator", well, tell me which is more than 1/2 or 3/10?
                  response options good :
                  1) 3/10 is greater than 1/2, for 3 is greater than 1
                  2) 3/10 is greater than 1/2, for 10 is greater than 2
                  3) 3/10 is greater than 1/2, because the first and the upper and lower numbers are greater than the second
                  here, in this example, I make a so-called "fork" of two and / or more incorrect answers, and I suggest you choose, this is how propaganda works.

                  Or another example: the cost of gasoline for a car when traveling from St. Petersburg to Moscow time is 2000 rubles, and when I walk I don’t need to buy gasoline, therefore it’s cheaper to go to Moscow on foot, because I don’t need to buy gasoline, and therefore it’s cheaper. Here again, there is no reduction to a common denominator.

                  Here in your example, there is no reduction to a common denominator for comparing a study flight lasting ten minutes and a normal flight lasting hours. Or for example, comparisons are made with imported expensive jet fuel and electricity, forgetting about gasoline and diesel fuel. The latter is generally the most popular trick in the field of small aircraft
                  1. Stas157
                    Stas157 13 November 2019 12: 41
                    +3
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    for compares training flights lasting ten minutes and normal hours of flight.

                    Why all of a sudden? All comparisons are the same in time. Electric eFlyer 2 flies 3,5 hours by the way, not a dozen minutes.
                    URL:
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Well, tell me what is more than 1/2 or 3/10 ?

                    I was even confused ... What do you think? You can immediately see a competent person - fractions passed! You just struck with your intellect!)) I feel that we are in different weight categories. Therefore, so that God forbid not to be dishonored, I will probably stop the argument with you.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 15: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Stas157
                      The electric eFlyer 2 flies 3,5 hours by the way,

                      My new laptop also worked 8h on a single charge, after 5h in a year, another 2-3h in a year, then even less, in general, as usual "advertising does not lie, it does not tell the whole truth"... In the case of power loads, for example, in transport, the degradation of the battery is even greater, and even with our temperature drops ... So, passenger airplanes, like cars, can be made on gas, and gasoline, and electricity, and on solar panels and on manure and on steam, but even on pedal traction, but as always, when reducing to a common denominator, all sorts of "buts" come out ...
                      1. Azim77
                        Azim77 14 November 2019 11: 17
                        0
                        Why aren't you considering a hybrid? The main engine, like an electric generator in the center, electric motors on the wings. A lot of problems are solved and the range should be decent.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 14 November 2019 12: 07
                        0
                        I do not consider where nonsense is voiced in the form of sentences, but at the same time the "why so and not otherwise" is not voiced because only when voicing the latter, you can check the "truth of the predicate \ -s".
                        For example, above, I announced where the electric traction gives an advantage, it is in high-speed propulsion devices and in low-speed propulsion devices but powered by an on-board SPP. And there is no need to give examples of the "alternative" of the fleet and land transport, there the "benefit in range" you voiced is obtained not due to "efficiency", but due to "scaling and diversification" between the generated and consumed power, that is, the benefit in "extinguishing power peaks and dips ", while aviation does not have these peaks / surges, and therefore there is no benefit from their suppression.
                      3. Azim77
                        Azim77 14 November 2019 12: 40
                        0
                        I am not a constructor to provide my calculations and arguments. In addition, even eminent designers often argue, make mistakes, and experiment. Therefore, my proposal is at the concept level (probably many times voiced by others), given the main problems and the desired results.
                        External small screws with the ability to rotate their direction have both pros and cons. For some tasks, the pluses prevail. The difficulties and problems are indicated above, as well as the presence of large "unsprung masses" on the wings, the need to provide fuel for rotary engines, etc. All this can be eliminated by replacing it with modern electric motors. But given that the accumulation of electricity in batteries today is ineffective, there is a need for an on-board electricity generator. On which it is easy to put filters, like on helicopters.
                      4. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 14 November 2019 16: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Azim77
                        All this can be eliminated by replacing with modern electric motors.

                        And the meaning of all this?
                        1) If you simply place conventional engines above the fuselage in the center of the rotary-folding wing, and do the rest with gearboxes and synchronization and power transfer shafts (which you can’t get rid of in any case), then there will be no need for a hybrid. For example, you can take engines from mi-26 or analogues, thereby significantly reducing the cost.
                        2) Problems with the speed of rotation of the nacelles are solved by changing the hydraulic system. At maximum, this will increase helicopter maneuverability to the level of attack helicopters (maneuvering with a gondola rather than blades).
                        3) The problem with landing speed is solved by increasing the height of the aircraft and / or the introduction of additional landing gear in the nacelles and \ or increasing the length of the landing gear. At maximum, this will allow you to take off on a plane or increase load capacity or reduce fuel consumption per unit flight time.
          2. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 13 November 2019 10: 56
            -1
            And it will be just a helicopter. As I understand it, the problem is that the filters are located on the engines themselves. And an effective filter in these conditions should have a decent volume, it is not on the nacelle. And you have to find it! An increase in the size of the nacelle will lead to a decrease in marching speed, which will reduce the overall design efficiency, and, again, will equalize the tiltrotor with the helicopter.
            In general, the PR project of the US Army "our most modern technology" has suffered yet another failure. Following the insane "stealth", the "aircraft of the future" are also slowly fading. If that spherical airplane turns out to be a bluff, I really don't know ...
            And about vertical take-off aircraft. There is no future for them. The design is too expensive and complicated, plus just a vertical increase in the cost of fuel costs. Only costs soar, nothing else. By simplifying the design of airfields, these costs will not be compensated, since airfields will not simplify. There are other planes. Landing in unsuitable places is impossible anyway. Specialized sites? Another money! And these will not take off.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 12: 38
              0
              Quote: Mikhail3
              And it will be just a helicopter

              in which place? envelopeplan means converting (changing) the position of the main system; in the case of an aircraft with a main rotor, the position of the plane of rotation of the main rotor changes.
              Quote: Mikhail3
              An increase in the size of the nacelle will lead to a decrease in marching speed

              again, your statement is false because there is at least one option in which this does not happen. The error in your statement is that size is not important in itself, but the area of ​​resistance and strength.
              Quote: Mikhail3
              and, again, equalizes the tiltrotor with the helicopter.

              This is basically impossible, too different aircraft, but if we compare precisely the VTA (military transport aviation), then the helicopter will never reach the capabilities of the tiltrotor due to the fact that part of the generated power is spent on braking, and the higher the flight speed, the greater the percentage of power spent on braking. Any comparison that does not take into account this fact is guaranteed to come down to a holivar on the themes of patriotism, corruption, drank, and the "mind" of designers.
              Quote: Mikhail3
              And about vertical take-off aircraft. There is no future for them.

              I already wrote above, lead to a common denominator, and only then compare.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 13 November 2019 17: 59
                -1
                An increase in the length of the nacelle? Since there is only one way, and there have already been two modernizations, it seems that everything was squeezed out of this solution to dryness. And you without holivars, into which patriotism (where did you get this ?!) from a hangover suddenly can’t at all? Sorry.
                Yes, I got a little carried away; the tiltrotor really will not become a helicopter. Its speed will always be higher. Only what special features does the converter have, besides speed? Due to the fact that the mechanization serving the engines is huge, and it will not work to reduce it, the load-carrying capacity in relation to their own weight is not very profitable for them, right? Helicopters look better here.
                Compare, compare and will compare))) Well, you understand, now is not the time of air trading. Efficiency rules everything. Vertical take-off aircraft lose to all other schemes, having the only plus - a small runway. How important is this for military aviation, and for civilian too?
                Any modern military aircraft has a few hours before the next repair, no more than 4-5 in general. That is, he cannot, as in the 43 year, sit down at the partisans. It just won’t take off from there, after landing, it’s necessary not only to refuel it, it must be repaired using a bunch of spare parts and qualified technicians. So anyway, you’ll have to land at the airdrome with workshops, equipment, staff and fuel. And what, separately build those for vertical take-off? How much is it? Or just use your existing infrastructure?
                Both the tiltrotor and the vertical take-off plane are purely PR projects. No one else needs them in any capacity.
    2. andrewkor
      andrewkor 13 November 2019 07: 12
      +2
      Well, in helicopters the engines are still higher than on the Osprey and the filters can be installed more without restrictions, which are clearly present on it because of the same layout on the wings. I think so.
    3. Civil
      Civil 13 November 2019 07: 14
      +4
      The first generation of convertiplanes, diseases are inevitable, as with any first use of any complex technical devices. But with such funding, they could already fix everything.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 13 November 2019 07: 31
        +2
        Quote: Civil
        diseases are inevitable, as with any first use of any complex technical devices.

        Protecting engines from dust is not even a problem yesterday.
        The problem is somewhere not there, maybe.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 09: 03
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          The problem is somewhere not there, maybe.

          not "can", but "exactly", the jamb is in the very location of the engines at the ends of the wing, there is no benefit at all from this, but it can be harmful, the engines should be in the center of the wing above the fuselage, but "why exactly this, and not otherwise, "that's another conversation going beyond the comments.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 November 2019 09: 31
            +1
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            jamb in the very arrangement of the engines at the ends of the wing

            Aircraft, it's familiar, even beautiful! A tricot, it's NOTHING!
            They are trying to continue this line, development ... how come, the question! We will see.
        2. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 13 November 2019 09: 13
          +5
          Victor, hi! soldier
          Pentagon V-22 Osprey accident problem recognized unresolved

          I can give mattresses a free and simple way to solve the problem: write off Osprey nafig ! lol
          By the way, under this topic, you can knock out provisions for development and replacement. yes
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 November 2019 09: 26
            +1
            Quote: bouncyhunter
            I can prompt mattresses for free a simple and elegant way to solve the problem: write off Osprey nafig!
            By the way, under this topic, you can knock out provisions for development and replacement.

            hello Pasha soldier
            What about the Yankees say? Here they love such and such! Sometimes very interesting things come out of them.
            In short, the ways, desires ... We do not understand the Pentagon sometimes \ often without a significant dose of "clarifying"! Rich guys can / want to afford a lot.
            1. bouncyhunter
              bouncyhunter 13 November 2019 09: 34
              +4
              Quote: rocket757
              Rich guys, much can \ want to afford

              As for wealth and desire, I agree. But with "power" often gags occur ...
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 13 November 2019 09: 47
                +1
                Quote: bouncyhunter
                As for wealth and desire, I agree. But with "power" often gags occur ...

                We don't know everything ... like Trump took a bite off their money, but against the background of their budget, this is "penny" ...
                ALL and EVERYWHERE are forced to limit the military, where they are not directly in power. The civil administration has enough worries, expenses.
  2. The popuas
    The popuas 13 November 2019 06: 45
    +1
    Gap on the pistons as at frets do 1,5mm and no problem! It can be used in hot and cold weather bully
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 09: 11
      0
      It will not work, it will "knock" and gouge the bearings due to the high speed and the jumping load on the shafts (it jumps during the aircraft maneuvering), this is one of the main problems of helicopter gearboxes.
      1. The popuas
        The popuas 13 November 2019 13: 30
        0
        That was the irony feel
  3. Fedorov
    Fedorov 13 November 2019 06: 47
    +3
    The problem of filtering and general accident rate

    Well, how else to call this problem. Maybe dull and dead end design ideas?
  4. sergo1914
    sergo1914 13 November 2019 06: 49
    +1
    Gra ... Filters of the wrong system ...
    1. Fedorov
      Fedorov 13 November 2019 06: 55
      +1
      Not the grenades .. But the machine gun still did not give. wink
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 13 November 2019 06: 57
        -2
        But he still didn’t give the machine gun.

        Why the machine gun for this machine ... it shines on all radars like a Christmas tree ... an excellent target for any weapon of the enemy.
        1. Fedorov
          Fedorov 13 November 2019 07: 13
          +1
          I’ve pinned the movie, and you’re technically, Lech Hello!
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 13 November 2019 07: 14
            0
            Hello Valery! hi
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 13 November 2019 07: 12
    +2
    engines start to work unstable primarily in desert conditions
    And Americans have recently climbed (climbed) into just such countries. So the problem is painful for them, but whether they will solve it (since they cannot solve so much time) is a big question.
  6. Errr
    Errr 13 November 2019 07: 18
    0
    From the text of the article:
    The Pentagon released a report that talks about the need for a new way to protect the engines of American V-22 Osprey convertiplanes from particles of sand and dust.
    It would be interesting to know how things are with the Bell V-280 "Valor".
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 13 November 2019 08: 17
      -1
      Offhand, Valor’s problem will be aggravated by turning only part of the engine nacelle, see what kind of trash holes he has. I think so.
      1. Errr
        Errr 13 November 2019 08: 22
        +2
        But in the V-280, unlike the V-22, the turbine exhaust does not "spoil" the dust during takeoff and landing in helicopter mode. This is a huge plus.
        1. andrewkor
          andrewkor 13 November 2019 08: 27
          0
          You’ve noticed everything correctly, the exhaust is not so bad, but the dust from the screws is no less. I think so.
          1. Errr
            Errr 13 November 2019 08: 36
            0
            That's right. The air flow from the V-280 screws is quite comparable to that from the V-22 screws. Therefore, it is interesting to me to know about the effects of dust on Valor engines during its take-off and landing. hi
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 November 2019 09: 17
              0
              The problem is not in the propellers, there are models of helicopters where everything is the same, the problem is in the engines, their exhaust point (too low and pointing downwards), their "air cushion || vortex ring" and uneven power output during landing. All of the above leads to an unstable roll at the most unexpected moment.
  7. Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 13 November 2019 08: 21
    0
    Quote: Civil
    The first generation of convertiplanes, diseases are inevitable, as with any first use of any complex technical devices. But with such funding, they could already fix everything.

    I read an article (with a photo) about Osprey back in the 80s shaggy ... either in the "Technology of Youth" or "Science and Life". It is a fact. So ... it wasn't released on its maiden flight yesterday.
  8. andrewkor
    andrewkor 13 November 2019 08: 41
    0
    In the "Africa" ​​corps, at the time of Ona, this problem was badly, poorly solved, learn, gentlemen.
  9. Monar
    Monar 14 November 2019 04: 27
    0
    I read a book about Mi-24. The same problem was at the beginning of operation. Turbine blades were eating in Afghanistan by the moment. Platforms and water were watered. And waste oil. The sense of 0. Until normally dust-sand was not filtered.
    So it’s not about the location of the movers. And in the very principle of vertical take-off. Humble opinion.