U.S. Navy tested CMV-22B transport convertiplane for range

The U.S. Navy continues to test the CMV-22B transport convertiplane designed for the Navy based on the V-22 Ospre convertiplane. At the next stage, the CMV-22B made a long flight, Defense Aerospace reports.

According to the publication, the tiltrotor flew from Bell's aerodrome in Amarillo in Texas to the US Pataksent River base in Maryland, covering about 2,3 thousand kilometers. It is reported that the tests took place within 2 days, all in the air the tiltrotor spent six and a half hours. The tests are recognized as successful.

The first transport tiltrotor CMV-22B entered the U.S. fleet for testing in February 2020. In total, the U.S. Navy ordered 48 vehicles, the first production CMV-22B should go to the US Navy in 2021.

The CMV-22B transport tiltrotor was developed by order of the U.S. Navy based on the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and is expected to replace the outdated C-2A Greyhound carrier-based transport planes. First of all, the military intends to use such devices to deliver spare parts to aircraft carriers located at a great distance from the coast. The maximum load of the machine is about 9 tons, the optimal one is in the region of 2,5 tons (maximum flight range).

Bell and Boeing, which are leading the development of the new tiltrotor, do not much talk about their new car. To date, it is known that the tiltrotor received conformal fuel tanks of increased volume located on the sides of the fuselage in order to increase the flight range. According to available information, the CMV-22B transport tiltrotor is capable of transporting goods weighing up to 2,6 tons at a distance of up to 2,13 thousand kilometers.

One of the reasons that prompted the U.S. Navy to order the development of CMV-22B, was that in the cargo compartment S-2A does not fit the engine from the F-35 fighter. The new tiltrotor freely carries aircraft engines, which in the future will become the main fighter of the US Navy.

Comments

[Grandfather]

One of the reasons that prompted the US Navy to order the development of the CMV-22B was the fact that the engine from the F-2 fighter does not fit in the C-35A cargo compartment. The new tiltrotor freely transports the aircraft engines, and in the Chinook CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35? there generally it is possible to carry 12t. I don’t understand why such quirks with "envelopes" are difficult, expensive ... or why?

[Phantom 104]

So that he could supply the AUGs which are located at some distance from the bases, and that for this a separate plane would not be needed

[Doccor18]

The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
2,5 times more.

[Grandfather]

Quote: Doccor18

The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
2,5 times more.

I’m not sure if I’m going to change the engines of the F 35go, they will be under the deck of the Roosevelt ....

[Doccor18]

It is difficult to say that aircraft equipment is being repaired on aircraft carriers, but whether the engines will be changed .. But the article says that for the transportation of aircraft engines. It is more reasonable to transport from a ground airfield to a ground airdrome at large military air forces. So they will still change on board ...

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Doccor18

It’s hard to say that aircraft equipment repair is carried out on aircraft carriers,

1) That is exactly it (repair) has been produced for a long time (> 40 years or even more), for a long time there have been special transports for a catapult ..
2) Transport osprey is done for another, in one article it was mentioned that it was made under the ability to transport ultra-light vehicles and artillery for MTR / ILC. Now they have problems there due to the fact that heavy helicopters limit the combat radius of UDC \ MTR \ KMP and do not allow the osprey to realize their advantage.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Doccor18

but will they change engines

will change, change and will change. This is not such a difficult operation, quite feasible on board an aircraft carrier.

[eklmn]

“I’m somehow not sure that the engines of the F 35go will be changed under the deck of the Roosevelt ....”
Doubt about the height of the hangar? Lack of lift / mechanics?
If you type USS Theodore Roosevelt on youtube, then there is a full video about the aircraft carrier. One of them:
replenishment of stocks in an aircraft carrier on the go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7hHTYHr9g

[Avior]

In vain not sure
Engines change, at least f-18

[venik]

Quote: Doccor18

The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., The tiltrotor has almost 2,5 times more.

=========
The tiltrotor, in comparison with a helicopter, generally has much better fuel efficiency! In horizontal flight mode, generally post the same as a turboprop!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Dead Day

and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

can. Only the speed and range of Chinook is noticeably lower.
In addition, the marines need the tilt planes to base on UDC

[Lopatov]

Quote: Dead Day

and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

Do not push.
Because the US Navy has no Chinooks.

[figwam]

The new tiltrotor freely carries aircraft engines, which in the future will become the main fighter of the US Navy.

An interesting detail pops up, all the same, the F-35 will be the main US fighter! Although here the pro-Western have repeatedly argued that this aircraft was not created to replace the US and NATO fighter fleet.

[Avior]

What is the sensation?
It will be the main one, as planned.
It is the main, and not the only one.

[figwam]

Quote: Avior

It is the main, and not the only one.

Now yes, after all, the release of the F-15s was started again, which were supposed to finish their service.

[Avior]

launched the release of F-15s that were supposed to finish their service.

F-15 are different
some should, some should not.
I do not see a problem.
they were not ordered instead of f-35, by f-35 and so the production was fully loaded for many years to come

[figwam]

Quote: Avior

F-15 are different

This aircraft was developed in the 60s, it’s just junk that was planned for decommissioning in the coming years.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

This aircraft was developed in the 60s, it’s just a junk that was planned for decommissioning in the coming years

modern versions of the Needle differ from the F-15A in the same way as the current Su-35 from the Su-27 of the 1982 model.
Modernization - did not hear?

[figwam]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: Gregory_45

modern versions of the Needle differ from the F-15A in the same way as the current Su-35 from the Su-27 of the 1982 model.
Modernization - did not hear?

The F-15 glider remained the same, it has not been changed for 60 years !!!, it’s the same thing that we would have resumed the production of the Mig-25, the Mig-31 had long been created to replace it, and the Mig-41 would replace it, not it is possible to constantly upgrade what is obsolete morally and physically. The Su-27, like the Su-35, was created according to the integrated aerodynamic scheme - have not you heard? It is such a scheme that gives super-maneuverability which Western planes do not currently have, and even the Su-57 comes to replace it.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

The F-15 glider remained the same, it has been unchanged for 60 years !!!

Firstly, new materials are being applied (which you probably have not heard of). As for the appearance and aerodynamic design, the Su-35 glider is almost entirely borrowed from the Su-27.

Quote: figvam

we would now resume the production of the Mig-25, to replace it the Mig-31 had long been created

MiG-25 and MiG-31 gliders are largely unified) An ignorant person will not even distinguish planes from each other))

Your airfare for a glider is very funny. Nowadays, it’s not the glider that matters (to this day, almost everything that has been squeezed out is satisfactory, the flight characteristics of the cars are satisfactory, and they almost do not differ from the 4th generation fighters), the aircraft’s electronic filling (its avionics), weapons, low visibility are much more important ( for a fighter), integration into information networks. And it is precisely on avionics that modern Needles and Su-35 are radically different from their first versions. Therefore, talking about a 60 or 40-year-old plane in the present tense is very illiterate)

Quote: figvam

it is not possible to constantly upgrade

You probably heard that the 5th generation fighters are being created?

[figwam]

Quote: Gregory_45

MiG-25 and MiG-31 gliders are largely unified) An ignorant person will not even distinguish planes from each other))

You are an ignorant person, to talk about aircraft that you do not even distinguish, it is very strong, brave! On your two photos Mig-31. Please do not waste my time, study better the mathematical part.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

Su-35 ... yes, the Su-57 comes to replace it.

alas for all of us, but in Russia the Su-57 will not become the main fighter, it will not replace the Su-30/35, due to the extremely small population. Unlike Lightning

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

F-35 will be the main fighter of the usa!

pronouncing such phrases, it is necessary to clearly imagine that the US Air Force, ILC and Navy are three different kingdoms. Each with its own command, budget and weapons requirements. And if the Air Force and KMP Lightning are quite satisfied. then sailors - no. Firstly, the F-35 is single-engine (and when flying over the sea, a twin-engine aircraft is more reliable), and secondly, with the departure of Tomcat’s scene, the fleet lost the interceptor (which the F-35 is not able to replace). And given the appearance of new missiles in Russia, the need for an interceptor is quite serious.
Summing up, we can say that the Navy is initiating its own program for creating a promising aircraft (in addition to the F-35, which will act as a fighter-bomber)

[figwam]

Quote: Gregory_45

pronouncing such phrases

))) This article is written, first you need to at least read it before commenting.)))

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

first you need to at least read it before commenting

and you don’t worry about me, I read the article and your comment. In which you absolutely do not distinguish between the concepts of "main" and "unique".

[figwam]

Quote: Gregory_45

In which you absolutely do not distinguish between the concepts of "main" and "unique".

Do not think for me of what is not.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

Do not think for me

you yourself wrote everything:

Quote: figvam

All the same, the F-35 will be the main US fighter! Although here the pro-Western have repeatedly argued that this aircraft was not created to replace the US and NATO fighter fleet.

Despite the fact that there is an F-35, no one is going to disarm the same Needles and Super Hornets, and the fleet is dreaming of its own promising aircraft

[Private-K]

Quote: Dead Day

and in the "Chinook" CH-47, do not push the engines from the F-35?

It's simple - the Chinooks are not in service with the US Navy.
But the tasks assigned to the Greyhounds and now to the Osprey are. And these tasks are important and necessary (there is not only the delivery of engines, although this is a priority item on the specifics) and they need to be solved.
But as for me, to make an expensive Osprey just a transport vehicle for the vehicle. "internal cargo turnover" - tse vzhe zanapto is expensive.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Private-K

It's simple - the Chinooks are not in service with the US Navy.

and the wing planes are not in the arsenal of the Navy) They are just getting ready to receive them.
And the reason is a much higher range and speed than Chinook.
The Greyhounds were used as carrier-based multipurpose carriers, carrying cargo, passengers, and correspondence aboard an aircraft carrier and back.

[helmi8]

U.S. Navy tested CMV-22B transport convertiplane for range

... breaking about 2,3 thousand kilometers. It is reported that the tests took place within 2 days, all in the air the tiltrotor spent six and a half hours

So for what it was not clear what they were testing ... Or did he just fly from one airfield to another?

[Avior]

Not written, empty or with download

[helmi8]

Quote: Avior

Not written, empty or with download

This is not even the point. If the range tests, then this is a non-stop flight, and not a two-day flight with 6,5 hours in flight ...

[Avior]

Checked something else
Or in different variations
In reality, he may have a longer range with refueling, Superhornets on aircraft carriers can serve as tankers - refueling from additional tanks, but I'm not sure that it can have Osprey fuel, if they have different

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Avior

I’m not sure that there may be Osprey fuel if they have different

and the fuel is exactly different?
I am sure that both General Electric F414-GE400 (Super Hornets), and Rolls-Royce T406 (Osprey), and Allison T56-A-15 (S-130, S-2 Hokkai) consume the same kerosene
A tanker should be able to refuel all aircraft on board an aircraft carrier.

[figwam]

Quote: helmi8

So it’s not clear what they tested him on ..

I didn’t understand the same thing, within two days the crew and the device with rest and refueling flew from point A to point B, which we did not understand, in this mode you can fly around the earth.

[helmi8]

I about the same ...

[Pandiurin]

Quote: Doccor18

The combat radius of the Chinook helicopter is 935 km., Near the tiltrotor
2,5 times more.

The combat radius is to fly back and forth. If in one direction, what is needed during transportation will be approximately 2 times more.
~ 2000 km, depending on load.

It can be assumed that for a long distance the tiltrotor will be in airplane mode almost all the time, which means the flight will take less time, 2.5 times, due to this and the fact that it is a tiltrotor, much less fuel is used up. Faster and cheaper.

[Avior]

6,5 hours flight
During patrolling, the speed is lower, which means that even more can be in the air
The direct road to AWAC instead of Hokai, if it confirms its reliability in operation, as a transport
Americans do not like a wide range of equipment
And C2 and Hokai are the same plane
And then there is a direct road to all the UDC

[Avior]

Checked Comfy Tanks
With pendant he will continue to fly

Range:
combat radius - 690 km;
the radius of action during the landing load is 722 km;
practical range - 2627 km (without refueling);
with vertical take-off - 2225 km;
at takeoff with a short takeoff - 3340 km;

[Magog]

at takeoff with a short takeoff - 3340 km;

It is with great difficulty that I imagine the "take-off with a short take-off run" of this apparatus. In case of failure of at least one of the engines - a "flying coffin", it is impossible to land it by plane or in any other way. Flight accident statistics - continuous "disasters" with the death of crew members and marines!

[Avior]

It is with great difficulty that I imagine the "take-off with a short take-off run" of this apparatus.

something like that

In case of failure of at least one of the engines - a "flying coffin", it is impossible to land it by plane or in any other way.

quite possible. The motors are connected by a shaft, if one fails, both screws continue to rotate, this is enough for landing

Flight accident statistics - continuous "disasters" with the death of crew members and marines!

from the moment it was taken into service, 7 accidents for 400 units used in operation, a total flying time of more than 500000 hours, plus participation in hostilities.
For a fundamentally new aircraft, the result is not bad.
The US president is not afraid to fly on it, in any case

[Magog]

Thank you, of course, for the selection of videos. What is shown as a "short take-off" can hardly be considered as such. Only the difference in the above table (with a vertical takeoff - 2225 km; with a short takeoff run - 3340 km) is too optimistic, isn't it? I tried to find the thrust of one engine of this unit to be convinced of the application for "confident landing on one engine" - alas. How to convert 4586 kW to the usual Tons of thrust? Accident statistics do not provide such confidence. if the engine failed, a disaster followed - take a closer look yourself.

[Pandiurin]

Kilowatts to Tons of thrust cannot be converted, this engine gives kilowatts, the second one on the fan is air flow. Only comparingly comparing with other similar devices.

"Accident statistics do not give such confidence, because a catastrophe followed with engine failures ..."

Flying at a very low altitude. The failure of the engine, if not managed to compensate for the increase in traction on the second engine, loss of height, i.e. going to the ground ...
In theory, there should be automation for this case, but since there are such statistics, then this is not all right.

[Magog]

In this situation (at low altitude), flight speed is of greater importance: after all, it is almost an airplane (with wings!) - then you can try to land on one engine in an airplane. In flight tests, were such tests conducted? There are doubts.

[Avior]

there was a case of an Osprey landing due to engine problems in 2006 when flying from the United States to England, and landed in Iceland

[Avior]

as you understand, I will not break off the Internet in search of a video suitable for you along the path length.
I just showed how it can be in principle
It will lower the screws even lower (it cannot fully horizontal) and will not give full throttle until it picks up speed, then it will add and take off gas.
But even with a short take-off without moving from hovering to horizontal flight with high fuel consumption, there is no need to go over.

I tried to find the thrust of one engine of this unit to be convinced of the application for "confident landing on one engine" - alas.

all his sources write about this opportunity. That is, half the power will go to the screws. Well, when landing them to the full and do not use, this is when taking off to the maximum.
and what surprises you at all?
Helicopters on one engine completely land
Last year there was a good Linnik cycle if you are interested
https://topwar.ru/161821-konvertoplan-sv-22v-osprey-aviacii-sil-specialnyh-operacij-vvs-ssha.html

[Magog]

Helicopters on one engine completely land

On autorotation, it is enough for a hard landing. The apparatus under discussion is under-plane and under-helicopter. Almost all of the declared characteristics are surprising. A rare aircraft can compare with it in terms of accident rate. The President of the United States can fly even on a "stupa with a broom", but this does not prove the reliability of this tiltrotor.

[Avior]

not on autorotation, but on one engine, these are two different things
Different things

A rare aircraft is comparable to it in accident rate.

I doubt there were obviously more emergency
you need to count by the number of cars and flying
for such a large raid and such a number of serial operated ones, its accident rate is just low, I don’t know where you got the high accident rate, throw a link, it's interesting to see
here are all its accidents - 4 before being adopted, 7 after, two of them during the fighting
12 accidents in 26 years, the last in 2017, there were no more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

[Magog]

A helicopter in autorotation lands without any working engines at all, and even more so with one working. In this sense it is said. There is no certainty about an under-helicopter with one engine. The crash is given on Wikipedia, for example. Isn't it small with noticeably limited use? And in the same place: "November 9, 2017 - Secretary General of the Japanese Cabinet of Ministers Yoshihide Suga demanded that the United States ensure an adequate level of security for the Osprey tiltrotors used by the American Marine Corps against the backdrop of evidence that they have a high accident rate."

[Topgun]

autorotation again ...
in my memory only 1n case in a Soviet film about helicopters and about autorotation where she saved
and a lot of disasters where autorotation did not save ...
write too much about her

[Magog]

I will add. “Through the connecting shaft and the associated gear mechanism, in the event of a malfunction of one of the engines, the other is able to rotate both propellers. However, in this state, the V-22“ Osprey ”cannot hang. Failure of one of the two turboprop engines results in shutdown of both and emergency landingbecause the propellers cannot get upwind. "Ibid:" Considering the highest payload (9070 kg in the cargo hold and 6800 kg in the external sling), the V-22 Osprey is considered by Western military and technical specialists as an improvement of the series of helicopters previously used in a similar range of problems. However, their use is not advisable due to peak load values. The standard in this case is CH-53K ... Time Magazine in October 2007 condemned the V-22 Osprey as "unsafe, overpriced and totally inadequate" ... Airplane ( under-plane! ) after the failure of both engines (occurs very rarely), using autorotation should make a safe landing. This, however, is complicated by the fact that its screws have lower inertia ( ? ) and, therefore, a lower autorotation capability than conventional helicopter rotors. This makes crash landings from hovering below 500 m very dangerous. "

[Magog]

"The machine was so revolutionary that the designers had to face problems that they did not even know about. One of the main ones was the so-called" vortex ring "effect. This phenomenon was known before, in helicopters. It was observed in cars that entered landing with a low forward speed, but with a significant vertical. In this case, the rotor blades fell into the vortex flow, previously created by the main rotor. Lift force dropped sharply, which often ended in the fall of the machine. For Osprey, which cannot land aircraft ", this problem was especially acute. In addition, the tiltrotor lift can sharply decrease only for one of the engines, then it will simply overturn. After the disasters, the tiltrotor program was carefully analyzed. The Americans came to the conclusion that to create a new aircraft instead of "Osprey" will be even more expensive, so we decided to throw all our efforts into finalizing this machine ...Accidents and disasters did not stop haunting the tiltrotor, even after its substantial revision and acceptance into operation. Between 2010 and 2020, seven serious incidents occurred, resulting in eight deaths and dozens more injured. Accidents happened both in the United States and abroad. "You saw it without me - from the same articles with pictures and videos ...

[businessv]

One of the reasons that prompted the U.S. Navy to order the development of CMV-22B, was that in the cargo compartment S-2A does not fit the engine from the F-35 fighter. The new tiltrotor freely carries aircraft engines, which in the future will become the main fighter of the US Navy.

Great plan! If we apply it to us, having mastered and deploying our SU-57 into the troops, we just have to build a couple of aircraft carriers, a couple of dozens of convertiplanes, and a few other little things for a couple of tens of billions of dollars! Wow!

[Magog]

Humor is not for average minds ... Nobody considers the "Su-57" in the deck version, tiltrotors for aircraft-carrying cruisers, too. Repeat easier - I will laugh with you ...

[businessv]

Quote: Magog

Humor is not for average minds ...

Do not strain, this is superfluous!

[sanik2020]

According to their doctrines, firepower is without mobility, because everything is subject to maximum mobility of forces and means, both in the combat zone and at different depths.