Problems of the US Navy CMV-22B tiltrotors

93
Problems of the US Navy CMV-22B tiltrotors
CMV-22B tiltrotor in flight


Several years ago, the US Navy decided to purchase CMV-22B tiltrotors to solve transport problems and supply ships at sea. This equipment was brought to the stage of initial operational readiness, but further progress was in question. Despite all efforts, the condition of the CMV-22B fleet leaves much to be desired, and its operation is associated with some restrictions and even risks.



Modern replacement


Since the mid-sixties, the task of transferring cargo and people from shore to an aircraft carrier has been solved with the help of C-2 Greyhound military transport aircraft developed by Grumman. These vehicles could carry more than 4,5 tons of cargo or up to 26 passengers over a range of up to 2400 km. The design of the aircraft ensured landing and takeoff from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

In 2009, it was proposed to abandon the obsolete C-2 and replace it with a modern model. The Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor was proposed as such a replacement. This vehicle did not require a full-size flight deck and could carry similar cargo over a greater distance. With its help, it would be possible to service both aircraft carriers and ships of other classes that have a standard helipad.

Despite the obvious benefits, the proposal to purchase the Osprey had not progressed beyond general discussions at that time. They returned to this idea only in the mid-2015s. Thus, at the beginning of 22, an agreement emerged between the Navy and the Marine Corps on the gradual introduction of new V-XNUMXs, gaining operating experience, etc. According to initial calculations, the fleet 48 new tiltrotors were required. Subsequently, the required fleet was reduced to 44 units.


A CMV-22B lands on the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush (CVN-77), March 2023.

In mid-2018, Boeing received an order to modify the existing V-22 to meet the requirements of the fleet and to subsequently launch mass production. The first document provided for the release of 39 units. new technology. In the same year, construction payments began. Until FY2020 inclusive, the military budget annually included the purchase of four vehicles. Subsequently, production rates increased.

The construction of production vehicles, which received the naval designation CMV-22B, started in 2018. The first aircraft were delivered to the customer in 2020. Subsequently, production and transfer of equipment continued. Due to the limited pace of construction, the series has not yet been completed, and deliveries should continue for several more years.

Convertiplanes in operation


The first CMV-22B products hit the naval Aviation Pentagon in 2020 and joined Logistics Squadron VRM 30 for pilot training and additional training. At the end of 2021, the unit reached the stage of initial operational readiness. It was assumed that the squadron would receive all standard equipment and reach full operational readiness in 2023.

Summer 2021, i.e. Even before reaching initial readiness, three CMV-22Bs from the first squadron went on their first mission. They were assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Winson (CVN-70). During deployment and combat service, tiltrotors had to take on a significant part of the transport tasks and confirm their capabilities.

It should be noted that recent years have not been the most successful for the entire V-22 Osprey family. So, in June 2022, the KMP lost one of its MV-22 tiltrotors. The cause of the disaster was a transmission failure. In August, a similar breakdown occurred in another aircraft, but it was able to land. In both cases, flights of the entire tiltrotor fleet were suspended until the causes of the accident were clarified and the identified deficiencies were corrected.


Convertiplanes on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)

It seems that it was not possible to correct all the shortcomings. In February 2023, flights had to be suspended again, and at the end of November 2023 there was another crash. This time, not only the United States, but also Japan stopped flights. All circumstances are being investigated and conclusions are being drawn up.

Regular problems with tiltrotors, which are few in number at that, have hit ship logistics. The US Navy command had to change the schedule for the decommissioning of C-2 aircraft, as well as additionally prepare such aircraft for continued service.

official paper


The production and use of CMV-22B tiltrotors is overseen by the Office of the Director of Operations, Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) at the Pentagon. A few days ago, it released a short public report on the Navy's operation of the Osprey last fiscal year. Overall, DOT&E reaches negative conclusions that require immediate action.

DOT&E reminds us that numerous design deficiencies and operational issues were identified as early as 2022. Almost all tiltrotor systems and mechanisms regularly fail and break down, which creates risks for equipment and people. A kind of record was set by the anti-icing system, which failed in 44% of cases of use. For naval aviation, this disadvantage is quite serious.


CMV-22B in parked configuration

Problems with equipment negatively affect the maintenance and operation process as a whole. According to DOT&E, the ratio of maintenance time to flight time is insufficient. At the same time, ok. 45% of the service comes from various additional activities and procedures. Their nature is not specified, but it can be assumed that they are associated with breakdowns and failures.

Previously, other features of the V-22 Osprey series tiltrotors were also criticized. In particular, ease of use is negatively affected by the lack of cabin sealing, which makes flying at high altitudes difficult and interferes with operation over the sea. In addition, due to the specific design, the machine is not easy to pilot.

DOT&E offers a number of measures to ensure full operation of equipment and reduce the likelihood of failures, incl. with negative consequences. First of all, this is the improvement of methods and means of training staff to improve the quality of service.

Marine version


The CMV-22B tiltrotor is a modification of the basic V-22 product, modified to meet the specific requirements of the naval forces. During its development, the finished airframe was almost completely preserved - with the exception of some modifications and measures related to operation over the sea. The power plant was also retained. At the same time, the avionics set was redesigned to meet new requirements.

The CMV-22B is built according to the design of a twin-rotor tiltrotor with rotating engine nacelles on a high wing. The fuselage has a traditional layout, and most of it is dedicated to the cargo-passenger cabin. Larger sponsons with increased capacity fuel tanks are mounted on the sides of the “marine” Osprey. In fact, this is its only external difference from other V-22 variants.


Tiltrotors and personnel of the VRM-50 squadron, December 2021.

The length of the vehicle reaches 17,5 m with a width (including the swept disks of two propellers) of 25,8 m. To reduce the parking dimensions, the propeller blades are folded and the wing rotates along the fuselage. Take-off weight – approx. 27,4 tons with a load of up to 9 tons. Two Rolls-Royce T406-AD-400 turboshaft engines with 6150 hp each. with three-blade main/traction propellers allow speeds of more than 500 km/h. Flight range with payload is up to 1700-1800 km.

The CMV-22B differs from other tiltrotors in its family in its set of radio-electronic equipment and cargo-passenger cabin equipment. Thus, it uses other radio stations with an increased range, including satellite communications. There is communication equipment of the Link 16 standard. The cargo compartment has a different lighting system and is equipped with an internal intercom.

Operating experience


The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor entered service in 2007, and the Marine Corps was the first to receive it. By the end of the decade, the air force began operating such equipment, and only in 2020 did tiltrotors of the new modification CMV-22B enter the combat units of the naval forces. To date, the three branches of the military have accumulated quite a lot of experience in operating the Osprey, and it cannot be called unambiguously positive. Tiltroplanes are criticized for the complexity of their design and operation, as well as for their low reliability and safety.

Recent reports from the United States show that the reliability and safety of the entire V-22 family remains an issue. Pentagon regulatory authorities are monitoring this situation and proposing measures to correct it. The future of the Navy’s tiltrotor aircraft and the logistics of ship units in general depends on how effective such measures will be.
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    8 February 2024 05: 21
    Problems, problems, of course. It’s just that the Americans are not going to give up convertiplanes.
    1. -3
      8 February 2024 06: 14
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Problems, problems, of course

      Yes, and other problems. Some American senator said that this tiltrotor looks pretty good when it’s not under repair...
      1. +6
        8 February 2024 06: 50
        Quote: Luminman
        Yes, and other problems. Some American senator said that this tiltrotor looks very good when it is not under repair..

        Yes, some of their senators are even cooler than their current president, the one on the punch cards. )))
        As for tiltrotors, the first one is a serial one, no longer produced anywhere in the world, there was no experience... Well, they are preparing a replacement for it, i.e. tiltrotors are not being abandoned.
        1. -5
          8 February 2024 08: 10
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Well, they are preparing a replacement for him, i.e. tiltrotors are not being abandoned.

          I wish I could find a use for them...
          1. -1
            11 February 2024 02: 00
            Quote: Luminman
            I wish I could find a use for them...

            to accelerate Avatars when filming epic scenes in high-budget Hollywood... winked
            because there is no air defense of the adversary (!) recourse
            and the bows of the aborigines - steel tiltrotors - will not penetrate!!! Yes
            hi
        2. +1
          April 6 2024 21: 57
          It’s just that the Americans are not going to give up convertiplanes.


          What are they, stupid people?
          A former Russian citizen, Sikorsky, will not do anything bad.
      2. +3
        8 February 2024 18: 12
        Quote: Luminman
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Problems, problems, of course

        Yes, and other problems. Some American senator said that this tiltrotor looks pretty good when it’s not under repair...

        Don’t be fooled by these slogans and statements, 90% of it is info-garbage, it’s all purely internal squabbles over government contracts between helicopter pilots and tiltrotor pilots, they throw mud at each other and make mountains out of molehills.
    2. +4
      8 February 2024 06: 32
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      .. it’s just that the Americans are not going to give up convertiplanes.
      It is difficult to refuse; many problems can only be solved with such devices. It is a pity that we have not yet deigned to create such devices, but now, due to significant technological breakthroughs, it is already much easier to make them, and in terms of their reliability they are already able to surpass other similar aircraft.
    3. 0
      8 February 2024 07: 48
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Problems, problems, of course. It’s just that the Americans are not going to give up convertiplanes.

      The car is needed, nothing can be said. The first flight was made in 1989, operation began in 2007. So, for almost 35 years this device has not been brought to perfection. In fact, the V-22 remains a crude machine and its future is not clearly visible
    4. 0
      8 February 2024 18: 18
      They have no choice; aircraft carriers need to be supplied. And you can make a lot of money from this, and that’s the main thing.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  2. -2
    8 February 2024 05: 55
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    Several years ago, the US Navy decided to purchase CMV-22B tiltrotor aircraft to solve transport problems.

    I don’t understand why they weren’t happy with the helicopters?
    1. +2
      8 February 2024 06: 23
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      I don’t understand why they weren’t happy with the helicopters?
      A tiltrotor is an aircraft of a completely different class of application, designed to solve a much wider range of tasks since it can have almost an order of magnitude flight efficiency and, accordingly, a flight range without refueling, plus also much better speed characteristics. Another thing is that this device has long been outdated in all its parameters, especially in flight safety, but this is not a fundamental drawback for tiltrotors, it’s just, as they usually say: “The first pancake is lumpy!”
      1. -3
        8 February 2024 07: 41
        Quote: venaya
        A tiltrotor is an aircraft of a completely different class

        Yes, I know that! But everything that a tiltrotor can do can also be done by a helicopter. At the same time, the helicopter is also much more reliable and structurally simpler
        1. 0
          8 February 2024 07: 57
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          .. everything that a tiltrotor can do can also be done by a helicopter. Moreover, the helicopter is also much more reliable and structurally simpler
          I think this is a common mistake. Let me remind you that helicopter flights are much more dangerous than airplane flights, even statistics speak volumes about this. If we take this “CMV-22B” device as the basis for our reasoning, then here you will be right, there are simply too many possible constructions of tiltrotor structures, you can check at least by the issued patents, and there are even more of them. But this device is more than crude in all respects, including reliability and flight safety. And today’s helicopters are also far from their possible safety limits. There is no limit to perfection; only tiltrotors have significant advantages in terms of both safety and reliability in the future.
          1. 0
            8 February 2024 08: 07
            Quote: venaya
            Let me remind you that flying in helicopters is much more dangerous than flying in airplanes.

            If I continue your thought, I’ll add that flying a tiltrotor is more dangerous than flying a helicopter

            Quote: venaya
            Only tiltrotors have significant advantages in terms of both safety and reliability in the future

            One change in the vector of the power plant is worth it, and you are talking about some kind of reliability and safety. Convertorlan is primarily interesting as an interesting and exciting technological solution, something like a children's toy that engineers still can’t get enough of wink
            1. +1
              8 February 2024 08: 15
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              I’ll add that flying a tiltrotor is more dangerous than flying a helicopter
              This is only true for today...
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              One change in the vector of the power plant is worth it, and you are talking about some kind of reliability and safety.
              Here you are considering just one of the possible options, perhaps not the most successful one. And the “games” of engineers can lead to significant improvements not only in flight parameters but also in very acceptable indicators of both safety and reliability.
            2. -1
              8 February 2024 08: 20
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              One change in the vector of the power plant, what is it worth, and you are talking about some kind of reliability and safety

              What about the failure of one of the engines? This will immediately reduce on no the entire aerodynamics of the wing is like hanging a heavy weight on the leg of a drowning person...
              1. 0
                8 February 2024 09: 11
                Quote: Luminman
                Quote: Dutchman Michel
                One change in the vector of the power plant, what is it worth, and you are talking about some kind of reliability and safety

                What about the failure of one of the engines? This will immediately reduce on no the entire aerodynamics of the wing is like hanging a heavy weight on the leg of a drowning person...
              2. -1
                8 February 2024 09: 18
                Quote: Luminman
                Quote: Dutchman Michel
                One change in the vector of the power plant, what is it worth, and you are talking about some kind of reliability and safety

                What about the failure of one of the engines? This will immediately reduce on no the entire aerodynamics of the wing is like hanging a heavy weight on the leg of a drowning person...
                Engine failure is also possible on helicopters, in which case a relatively safe landing is possible. In the case of a tiltrotor, failures of engines, even many, worsen the flight parameters, but it still remains possible, much the same as on conventional airplanes, just with a decrease in piloting capabilities, but this is all quite uncritical, there are always opportunities for a fairly safe continuation of the flight itself.
              3. +1
                8 February 2024 21: 40
                Quote: Luminman
                What about the failure of one of the engines? This will immediately negate all the aerodynamics of the wing.

                This is why a very complex transmission is used, which synchronizes the rotation of the propellers and ensures synchronization even if one of the engines fails. Mostly, disasters occurred precisely because of breakdowns in the transmission - either the bearing would fall apart, or it would be torn from its support due to vibrations, or something else.
                1. +2
                  9 February 2024 02: 03
                  Quote: Nagan
                  Mostly, disasters occurred precisely because of breakdowns in the transmission - either the bearing would fall apart, or it would be torn from its support due to vibrations, or something else.

                  Only problems in the transmission itself arose precisely because of the design of the rotary nacelles, there are immediately peak vibrations, a violation of gas-dynamic stability, clogging of the engine with debris, and burnout of the blades, in general, darkness and horror, but all this applies specifically to the Osprey , and not tiltrotors in general...
                2. -1
                  9 February 2024 07: 26
                  Quote: Nagan
                  ensures synchronization even if one of the motors fails

                  If even one engine fails, the car will immediately fail!
                  I already talked about this:

                  Quote: Luminman
                  This will immediately nullify the entire aerodynamics of the wing - it’s the same as hanging a heavy weight on the leg of a drowning person...
        2. 0
          9 February 2024 02: 09
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Quote: venaya
          A tiltrotor is an aircraft of a completely different class

          Yes, I know that! But everything that a tiltrotor can do can also be done by a helicopter. At the same time, the helicopter is also much more reliable and structurally simpler

          Only a helicopter is 2-4 times slower and 4+ times more expensive, only all this manifests itself not at the level of the aircraft itself, but at higher levels of organizational structures. On the topic of “simpler” there are also nuances; what is easier to have: “a tanker plane + a helicopter” or “a helicopter + several intermediate bases” or a “convertiplane”?
          1. 0
            9 February 2024 04: 47
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            What’s easier to have: “tanker plane + helicopter” or “helicopter + several intermediate bases” or “convertiplane”?

            You can have anything, just not a tiltrotor wink
            1. 0
              9 February 2024 07: 33
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              You can have anything

              As the well-known Vovochka said,
              If I had a horse,
              That would be the number.
              If the horse had me,
              I probably would have died.
              1. -1
                9 February 2024 07: 59
                Quote: Nagan
                If I had a horse,
                That would be the number.
                If the horse had me,
                I would probably die

                To paraphrase your poem, I would say this:

                "If I had a tiltrotor,
                That would be the number.
                If I had a tiltrotor,
                He probably would have died."

                Sorry, but I'm not a poet. But it's true wink
      2. 0
        8 February 2024 08: 16
        Quote: venaya
        almost an order of magnitude flight efficiency

        What makes it economical? Can you explain?
        1. 0
          8 February 2024 08: 24
          Quote: Luminman
          What makes it economical? Can you explain?
          Elementary! A tiltrotor does not require wings with aerodynamics sufficient for takeoff and landing modes. Due to this, it is possible to create an optimal shape of wings with the maximum possible aerodynamic performance in terms of the “aerodynamic quality” of the wings in cruising flight mode.
          1. +1
            8 February 2024 08: 32
            Quote: venaya
            A tiltrotor does not require wings with aerodynamics sufficient for takeoff and landing modes.

            I agree with this. Do you know how crazy fuel consumption will be during takeoff and landing?

            Quote: venaya
            "aerodynamic quality" of wings in cruising flight mode

            You forget about the power plant, which will interfere with the aerodynamic work of the wing and its entire harness - flaps, slats, etc. Finally, the power plant itself is a very serious drag at cruising speed, which in no way will add speed to the car. Plus the weight of the structure itself, which includes, in addition to the control system, also a whole set of driveshafts and other things. This doesn't translate into savings...
            1. -2
              8 February 2024 08: 50
              Quote: Luminman
              Do you know how crazy fuel consumption will be during takeoff and landing? ...
              ... Plus weight of the structure itself, which includes, in addition to SU, also a whole set of driveshafts and other things. This doesn't translate into savings...
              At the present stage of technology development, there are no "a whole set of cardan shafts" is no longer required at all, even today there are already methods for getting rid of this numerous junk! You can view modern developments in this regard...
              As for the efficiency of takeoff modes, in this case the fuel consumption will either be the same or significant savings are possible with modifications, but that will come later. In landing mode, there are also techniques for significantly reducing fuel (energy) consumption relative to classic vehicles and a helicopter, and possibly even an airplane. Everything is still ahead, while the possibilities of innovation are still unlimited.
            2. +1
              9 February 2024 02: 15
              Quote: Luminman
              Do you know how crazy fuel consumption will be during takeoff and landing?

              It is compensated by lower fuel consumption during flight, and the Osprey design is precisely the most fuel-hungry due to the rotation of the engines and their afterburner.
      3. 0
        8 February 2024 23: 06
        Quote: venaya
        can have almost an order of magnitude flight efficiency
        An hour of flight of a tiltrotor costs approximately the same as an hour of flight of a strategic bomber. The tiltrotor costs about the same as three heavy Il-76 transport aircraft.
        1. -1
          8 February 2024 23: 38
          Quote: bk0010
          An hour of flight of a tiltrotor costs approximately the same as an hour of flight of a strategic bomber
          - That's for sure! Now think of something, how do you think we can deal with this heartbreaking contradiction? After all, in terms of efficiency, a well-designed tiltrotor is more economical than an aircraft of the same payload. What to do? It might really help to improve education in specialized universities. Today, small tiltrotors already provide examples of competitive efficiency, that is, they are in all respects more economical in terms of unit of weight movement per unit of movement in space per unit of fuel/energy consumed or there per unit of cost, albeit within economically advantageous distances. All my life I have been taught economics, but here we are discussing an antediluvian apparatus that has a worthy place only in museums of antiquities and we don’t want to look at what will replace it tomorrow. How do you think this current state of complete brain amnesia can be cured? Maybe we’ll just do the calculations and come to a state of economically sound decisions. Why am I talking about the economy here, why do you think the states can’t even get by without this antediluvian apparatus? And I’ll tell you why: Yes, these tasks that a tiltrotor solves are not capable of being solved by any other aircraft? That's the whole story. And if we add in its record-breaking total efficiency in the future, it turns out that it should have been done both yesterday and the day before yesterday! As for today, I’m not sure yet, if only in the unmanned version, the efficiency of the electric version with batteries will amaze anyone.
          1. +1
            9 February 2024 20: 22
            Quote: venaya
            After all, in terms of efficiency, a well-designed tiltrotor is more economical than an aircraft of the same payload.
            No, it's not more economical. Your reasoning about wing optimization is purely theoretical, like an ideal helicopter propeller (one blade of infinite length). There are still disproportionately sized propellers, mechanisms for turning the wing and synchronizing the propellers (which the aircraft simply does not have), increased maintenance time, rapidly degrading engines, etc.
            Quote: venaya
            Today, small tiltrotor aircraft already provide examples of competitive efficiency
            Well, yes, but the bumblebee generally rules... But who needs tiltrotors that are smaller than the Osprey?
            Quote: venaya
            And I’ll tell you why: Yes, these tasks that a tiltrotor solves are not capable of being solved by any other aircraft?
            Which ones? It carries people and goods. All the advantages - twice as fast as a helicopter, the rest are disadvantages.
            Quote: venaya
            As for today, I’m not sure yet, if only in the unmanned version, the efficiency of the electric version with batteries will amaze anyone.
            There the cost of flying is high not because of fuel consumption, there the engines degrade quickly.
          2. 0
            11 February 2024 02: 24
            Quote: venaya
            And I’ll tell you why: Yes, these tasks that a tiltrotor solves are not capable of being solved by any other aircraft?
            belay

            Well, name a task that a tiltrotor can accomplish, but a helicopter cannot...?!
            1. -1
              11 February 2024 05: 02
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              name a task that a tiltrotor can accomplish, but a helicopter cannot...?!
              This topic has already been discussed here on this site. The answer is simple: due to the fact that the fuel/energy efficiency of a tiltrotor is significantly, theoretically more than an order of magnitude better than a helicopter in any of its variants, a tiltrotor is able, with all other identical parameters, for example, the cargo being transported, to be able to transfer the cargo an order of magnitude over a greater distance at the same time also at a much higher speed. That is, the economic efficiency of a tiltrotor is at least an order of magnitude higher than that of a helicopter. At the same time, we should not forget that because of this, the tiltrotor is able to cover ten times greater distances without refueling. This was perfectly demonstrated in practice by the US armed forces in some military conflicts and especially during unexpected special events. operations of their special teams. appointments. I’m actually surprised by your question; what I’m writing here is already known to many people. How did you miss these fairly well-known and often advertised features of aircraft called tiltrotors? Let me also remind you that the tiltrotor does not require takeoff and landing pads and it is able to land on almost any ship if there is enough space for it in size, and when folded it is also quite compact. But a helicopter has a very, very high specific fuel consumption and there are few places where it can compare in its capabilities with a tiltrotor and often with an airplane.
        2. +1
          9 February 2024 02: 20
          Quote: bk0010
          An hour of flight of a tiltrotor costs approximately the same as an hour of flight of a strategic bomber.

          This data (in the form of the famous tablet) was used by helicopter pilots to squeeze out government contracts from tiltrotor pilots, the data was obtained through manipulation of numbers, there is an incorrect reduction to common common denominators,

          it does not take into account the flight speed, that is, where an Osprey tiltrotor flies for 1 hour, a helicopter flies for 2 hours at best, and as a rule 3-4 hours, therefore, when reduced to the “cost of an hour of flight,” the Osprey supposedly costs more, but in reality According to him, for N-hours of total flight time there will be A-times more operations performed and more start-stop cycles of working elements, therefore, there will also be A-times more pre-post flight maintenance cycles, hence the allegedly inflated price of an hour of flight.
          1. 0
            9 February 2024 20: 26
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            hence the allegedly inflated price for an hour of flight.
            It's not "supposedly overpriced", it's huge (for its size). Without reference to transportation productivity. Only states can pay that much for cargo transportation.
            1. 0
              9 February 2024 21: 22
              You understand a simple thing, in the USA there is a lobby of helicopter pilots and tiltrotor pilots, they throw slop at each other in the media, they do this in order to get government contracts, both sides manipulate facts and statistics, they, through black PR, prove to customers (congressmen and the military) that competitors' option is worse than theirs.

              Just sit down, calm down, and think: Why is it that an hour of tiltrotor flight will be tens, hundreds and thousands of times more expensive than that of a helicopter?
              -)maybe the tiltrotor has higher fuel consumption? Since the amount of fuel and flight range are indicated on Wikipedia, in reality the differences are not great, obviously not tenfold.
              -)maybe tiltrotors have a higher cost of pre/post-flight maintenance? this is done by the same specialists, according to the same standards.
              Actually, there are differences in the latter, there the standards were temporarily changed (increased for tiltrotors), then statistics were made based on them, and then black PR for tiltrotors was organized
              1. 0
                10 February 2024 00: 12
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                why is it that an hour of flight of a tiltrotor will be tens, hundreds and thousands of times more expensive than that of a helicopter?
                So, it’s no secret: their engines die quickly.
                1. +1
                  10 February 2024 03: 58
                  and it depends where and under what conditions, if we take the Osprey design of the aircraft, if we use it in the desert, then yes, the engines will begin to fail due to sand-mud-erosion, but this can be solved by moving the engines to the center of the wing above the fuselage and installing larger incoming air filters, and then the breakdowns will be similar to the breakdowns of helicopters.
    2. 0
      8 February 2024 18: 22
      Range, speed, load.
  3. 0
    8 February 2024 07: 26
    But in films they fly almost like fighter jets and like something semi-fantastic. So the car is interesting, it seems like we had projects, but as usual.....
    1. -2
      8 February 2024 07: 42
      Quote: Vadim S
      .. So the car is interesting, it seems like we had projects, but as usual.....
      Yes, even here on this site they wrote that “CMV-22B” was theoretically originally developed by us and the author was named, the Americans simply took advantage of our developments. But quite a lot of time has passed since then and it is necessary to move forward and continue development; now this is much easier to do.
      1. +1
        8 February 2024 08: 12
        Yes, even here on this site they wrote that “CMV-22B” was theoretically originally developed by us and the author was named, the Americans simply took advantage of our developments.
        There are a lot of things written on the fences. After the Ka-22 crash in the early 60s (Rotorcraft) during the flight of a pre-production product from Tashkent to Moscow, work on it completely stopped due to a number of technical difficulties. "Osprey" has nothing to do with it; the Ka-22 had separate lifting and pushing propellers.
        1. -2
          8 February 2024 08: 19
          Quote: Aviator_
          The Ka-22 had separate lifting and pushing propellers.
          Look in the archive, this topic has already been discussed here and it was our theoretical developments that formed the basis for the creation of all American tiltrotors, you probably simply missed this point.
          1. 0
            9 February 2024 02: 25
            there is nothing in common there, the USA had its own series of R&D on the topic of VTOL, check out the documentaries, they are in the public domain
            1. -1
              9 February 2024 02: 33
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              there is nothing in common..
              But for some reason the layout turned out to be common. Only I didn’t really study the details on purpose, I’m just not a lawyer and they cheated me, too, using my work all over the world. Something like this.
              1. 0
                9 February 2024 02: 36
                There is nothing in common there, you google the picture of “rotorcraft”, there there is no rotation of the rotor rotation plane, there are even helicopter blades and not tiltrotor blades (they look different)
                1. 0
                  9 February 2024 02: 39
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  there are even helicopter blades and not tiltrotor blades
                  I'm talking about the general layout, but there can be a lot of nuances.
                  1. 0
                    9 February 2024 02: 42
                    this sounds crazy, if for you the Ka-22 and the Osprey have the “identical” (in quotes) layout, then why don’t you write down the Chinook as “identical”? there are also two main rotors laughing
                    1. -1
                      9 February 2024 02: 46
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      there are also two main rotors
                      I personally prefer only one screw, in the sense of two on one axis. Cheap and cheerful, otherwise these two separated screws add up to a significant increase in the cost of production of such devices.
  4. -1
    8 February 2024 07: 36
    Tiltroplanes are criticized for the complexity of their design and operation, as well as for their low reliability and safety. ..
    The future of the Navy’s tiltrotor aircraft and the logistics of ship units in general depends on how effective such measures will be.
    As if it is advisable to operate tiltrotors only for “ship connections”, it’s just that the USA is surrounded by oceans and this is the reason for such restrictions. In reality, due to the fact that this is still an aircraft equipped with wings that can have extremely high aerodynamic quality, the flight time of such a device probably has no restrictions at all due to the use of, for example, ascending air currents, which are widely used by both large and heavy birds and generally widely are also used by manned gliders. In this case, it is not clear how the flight time can be somehow limited? But this is still a fairly important indicator in aerial reconnaissance, and even unmanned reconnaissance. In this case, the scope of application of such aircraft expands limitlessly!
    1. 0
      8 February 2024 08: 15
      Quote: venaya
      it is still an aircraft equipped with wings that can have extremely high aerodynamic quality

      A helicopter's rotors have exactly the same aerodynamic characteristics as the wings of an airplane or tiltrotor...
      1. 0
        8 February 2024 08: 32
        Quote: Luminman
        A helicopter's rotors have exactly the same aerodynamic characteristics as the wings of an airplane or tiltrotor...
        I have not heard that rotary-wing aircraft have aerodynamic quality of horizontal flight exceeding the value of “4” four. Another thing is that on gliders and some economical aircraft, the aerodynamic quality reaches values ​​of over “50” fifty. Hence the conclusion about the increase in efficiency in the region by an order of magnitude, and this even without using the effect of upward flows, which can be used for devices intended for long-term, for example, aerial reconnaissance.
        1. 0
          8 February 2024 08: 35
          Quote: venaya
          I have not heard that rotary-wing aircraft have aerodynamic quality of horizontal flight exceeding the value of “4” four.

          What do you think creates lift in a helicopter? By magic?
          1. 0
            8 February 2024 08: 55
            Quote: Luminman
            What do you think creates lift in a helicopter?
            Please clarify what specific flight mode you mean here? The hovering mode and the horizontal flight mode differ significantly, up to 4 times. Try to ask this question in more detail and clearly, otherwise there will be a lot of answers.
            1. -1
              8 February 2024 16: 00
              Quote: venaya
              Please try to ask this question in more detail and clearly.

              For myself, I received the answer to this question thirty years ago...
  5. +2
    8 February 2024 08: 49
    The tiltrotor was so “unsuccessful” that based on its experience they decided to buy also the V-280 Valor tiltrotor, cheaper and smaller, but with new filling
    1. 0
      8 February 2024 10: 59
      You just gave Kirill a topic for another article about “the weak, unsuccessful and problematic.” Fortunately, in Russia there are no such problems. You won't have problems with tiltrotors if you don't make them.
  6. -3
    8 February 2024 11: 00
    This tiltrotor has two unsolvable problems:
    1. Security. The propellers of this device are a cross between an airplane propeller and a helicopter's main rotor, while incorporating the shortcomings of both. The device can neither glide like an airplane nor descend on the RSNV like a helicopter. The failure of both engines is a death sentence for him. Actually, that’s why it has such a complex transmission. So that if one of the engines fails, it will be possible to land.
    2. Again screws. No matter how much power you supply to them, they will not show a good static ceiling. In other words, like a helicopter, it operates at altitudes close to sea level.
    1. -5
      8 February 2024 12: 23
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      The propellers of this device are a cross between an airplane propeller and a helicopter's main rotor, while incorporating the shortcomings of both. The device can neither glide like an airplane nor descend on the RSNV like a helicopter. The failure of both engines is a death sentence for him. Actually, that’s why it has such a complex transmission. So that if one of the engines fails, it will be possible to land.
      2. Again screws. No matter how much power you supply to them, they will not show a good static ceiling. In other words, like a helicopter, it operates at altitudes close to sea level.
      Here, already on the website and in articles by this author, they wrote that the concept of this tiltrotor was developed in our country half a hundred years ago at the dawn of the very idea of ​​a tiltrotor, and it is not possible to hope that this is a certain level of perfection in this case. Hence, as a result, technical failures in almost all parameters. characteristics such as cost, reliability, safety. It seems that almost all the possible advantages of the tiltrotor concept in this device are completely ruined and almost all of them are left with only disadvantages. But even in this case, he still continues to take advantage of the need due to the lack of anything better. There is still a lot that needs to be improved here, fortunately there are opportunities in the future. Although I myself believe that the possibilities for dramatic improvement of such devices today are simply limitless...
      1. -2
        8 February 2024 12: 38
        Here, already on the website and in articles by this author, they wrote that the concept of this tiltrotor was developed in our country half a hundred years ago at the dawn of the very idea of ​​a tiltrotor, and it is not possible to hope that this is a certain level of perfection in this case. Hence, as a result, technical failures in almost all parameters. characteristics such as cost, reliability, safety. It seems that almost all the possible advantages of the tiltrotor concept in this device are completely ruined and almost all of them are left with only disadvantages. But even in this case, he still continues to take advantage of the need due to the lack of anything better. There is still a lot that needs to be improved here, fortunately there are opportunities in the future. Although I myself believe that the possibilities for dramatic improvement of such devices today are simply limitless...


        The fact is that a tiltrotor is initially a dead-end path. Yes, in practice it is feasible, but the efficiency in the end is such that for such purposes it is better to build an aircraft according to the hovercraft concept.
        Why did the US take on this? Primarily to demonstrate the capabilities.
        1. -1
          8 February 2024 12: 56
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          .. a tiltrotor is initially a dead end path. Yes, in practice it is feasible, but the efficiency in the end is such that for such purposes it is better to build an aircraft according to the hovercraft concept.
          In what sense "dead end"? Even rough calculations show a significant increase in the efficiency of tiltrotor flights. Look how many projects have appeared lately, even with electric drives and batteries. Any aircraft would be envious of such efficiency. I can’t even look at this horror “CMV-22B” for a long time - this is the clearest example of anti-advertising for tiltrotors. What about "aircraft based on the hovercraft concept" - so this is an aircraft for a completely different application and was created for other purposes; there is no sense of efficiency; it has other advantages and advantages except for efficiency. It seemed to me that you are simply accustomed to the classic designs of aircraft today, which is natural, but in the future tiltrotors will not have limitations in the areas of application, literature and publications on this subject are very large and the variety of possible implementations of multiple ideas conceived. I personally put emphasis on the maximum possible efficiency of such devices, and SVP in this sense has its drawbacks. Something like this ...
          1. -2
            8 February 2024 17: 33
            In what sense is "dead end"? Even rough calculations show a significant increase in the efficiency of tiltrotor flights.


            Estimated calculations will not help; you need to know the aerodynamics of the helicopter.
            1. -3
              8 February 2024 17: 57
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              Estimated calculations will not help, need to know helicopter aerodynamics.
              Which states that the aerodynamic quality of rotorcraft does not exceed the value of “4” four! This parameter cannot be improved by any means. At the same time, in addition to the fundamentally an order of magnitude greater aerodynamic quality, a huge propeller used both in takeoff/landing mode and during horizontal cruising flight gives some additional benefit, where it turns out that the efficiency of such a propeller exceeds the efficiency of the propellers of the most economical propeller-driven aircraft, simply due to the increase in area " washing" air flows. Airplanes Il-18, Il-20, Il-22, Tu-95 and Tu-114 for example, the Il-22 is still flying. but their propellers have a fundamentally smaller diameter than tiltrotors, otherwise the landing gear turns out to be too large, and a tiltrotor does not need such landing gear. Where and what advantages of a helicopter can you find in comparison with a tiltrotor? In this regard, let me also remind you that turbofan engines also have significant advantages in terms of efficiency over jet but “turbine” aircraft engines, also due to their larger air mass processing area.
              1. -1
                8 February 2024 18: 59
                Which states that the aerodynamic quality of rotorcraft does not exceed the value of “4” four! This parameter cannot be improved by any means.


                Vyacheslav, it’s a stupid idea to argue with someone who studied helicopter aerodynamics on a professional basis by picking up information from the Internet.
                What you call the aerodynamic quality of a helicopter concerns exclusively the characteristics of the RSNV. While efficiency is an indicator of motor flight.
                Yes, a helicopter has a higher power requirement than an airplane, but this is the price to pay for the ability to fly in hover mode. Actually, this is what a helicopter is needed for.
                As for the tiltrotor, it’s just like a helicopter. The characteristics of a hybrid propeller with a main rotor in hovering mode are very poor, and therefore require a monstrous expenditure of power.
                At the same time, the performance characteristics of an aircraft depend not only on the characteristics of the propulsion system. First of all, the wing is important, and for a tiltrotor it is also a forced compromise.
                As a result, a tiltrotor is a bad plane and a disgusting helicopter.
                1. -3
                  8 February 2024 20: 46
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  .. it’s a stupid idea to argue with someone who studied aerodynamics ..
                  First truth is born in constructive disputes and secondly, I am more accustomed to communicating with teachers, they know more nuances on the topic of the dispute. It would be interesting for me to argue with your teacher, then questions would not arise with the aerodynamic quality of rotorcraft, for example, a gyroplane. Or are you not aware that such aircraft were widely used at one time and had a limited indicator precisely in the aerodynamics of the propeller wing? I doubt your teacher didn't know this.
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  As for the tiltrotor, it’s just like a helicopter. The characteristics of a hybrid propeller with a main rotor in hovering mode are very poor, and therefore require a monstrous expenditure of power.
                  At the same time, the performance characteristics of an aircraft depend not only on the characteristics of the propulsion system. First of all, the wing is important, and for a tiltrotor it is also a forced compromise.
                  Why does a tiltrotor even need a hovering mode like a helicopter? This is a device for completely different flight modes, namely: Fast take-off, long-term economical flight, and at the end, a fast landing mode as fast as take-off. After all, all aircraft hit the ground first and there is no point for a tiltrotor to hover in either takeoff or landing mode. The wing of an airplane is forced to work both during takeoff/landing and in cruising flight, and in this sense it has: " First of all, the wing is important, and it at the tiltrotor also a forced compromise" - great, the wing of an airplane is multi-mode, it requires slats and flaps for takeoff/landing, but the wing of a tiltrotor is mono-mode, that is, it is used only in cruising flight mode. That is, in an airplane some kind of compromise is required, but with a tiltrotor there is no need for compromise by definition. But how is it possible to get any kind of education so as not to end up with elementary forms of logical thinking. Here on the site there used to be an associate professor and teacher who really knew aerodynamics and tiltrotors and helicopters, and he only designed a tiltrotor for himself because he really was just literate, and somewhere you have educational qualifications, unlike that teacher...
                  1. -2
                    8 February 2024 21: 41
                    Firstly, in constructive disputes the truth is born and secondly, I am more accustomed to communicating with teachers, they know more nuances on the topic of the dispute.


                    Let’s just say that you don’t know any nuances on the topic of the dispute at all. As well as the aerodynamics of the helicopter itself.


                    It would be interesting for me to argue with your teacher, then questions would not arise with the aerodynamic quality of rotorcraft, for example, a gyroplane. Or are you not aware that such aircraft were widely used at one time and had a limited indicator precisely in the aerodynamics of the propeller wing? I doubt your teacher didn't know this.


                    Aerodynamics of a helical wing? Sorry, but your level is not that of a teacher in the aerodynamics department, but that of a doctor in a psychiatric hospital.
                    As for gyroplanes, the problem with them is in a very narrow speed range.

                    Why does a tiltrotor even need a hovering mode like a helicopter?


                    Why is it needed at all then? Let me remind you that the idea of ​​this device is to combine the advantages of an airplane and a helicopter.

                    This is a device for completely different flight modes, namely: Fast take-off, long-term economical flight and at the end a fast landing mode as fast as take-off. After all, all aircraft hit the ground first and there is no point for a tiltrotor to hover in either takeoff or landing mode.


                    For this there are SVPs, or airplanes with a short takeoff/range.

                    The wing of an airplane is forced to work both during takeoff/landing and in cruising flight, and in this sense it has precisely this: “First of all, the wing is important, and for a tiltrotor it is also a forced compromise” - great, the wing of an airplane is multi-mode, it requires slats yes and flaps for takeoff/landing and the tiltrotor wing is mono-mode, that is, it is used only in cruising flight mode. That is, in an airplane some kind of compromise is required, but in a tiltrotor, by definition, a compromise is not needed.


                    Still, slats and flaps are a much simpler and more reliable technical solution than rotating engine nacelles and the transmission system between them.

                    But how is it possible to get any kind of education without ultimately ending up with elementary forms of logical thinking?


                    Logic alone is not enough to understand the aerodynamics of a helicopter.

                    Here on the site there used to be an associate professor and teacher who really knew the aerodynamics of tiltrotors and helicopters, and he only designed a tiltrotor for himself because he was really just literate


                    There is no aerodynamics of tiltrotors, there is the aerodynamics of a helicopter and its special case, the aerodynamics of an airplane.


                    and somewhere you have a gap in education, unlike that teacher...


                    Somewhere, not the answer. Please point out my specific gap. Or are you only capable of farting? Rotor wing aerodynamicist, you are ours.
                    1. -3
                      8 February 2024 23: 07
                      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                      Point out my specific space
                      Elementary. Here he is :
                      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

                      Why does a tiltrotor even need a hovering mode like a helicopter?

                      Why is it needed at all then? Let me remind you that the idea of ​​this device is to combine the advantages of an airplane and a helicopter.
                      Here is a concrete example of a complete lack of logical thinking! I think that this is just an example of not understanding the tasks of creating a new class of aircraft. What to do about it? Nothing, a lot of time must pass for a person to learn to comprehend what he himself wrote, time heals. Here's another :
                      slats and flaps are a much simpler and more reliable technical solution than rotating engine nacelles and the transmission system between them.
                      What are we discussing? Convertiplanes or a specific antediluvian barn that is half a hundred years old at lunchtime "rotating engine nacelles and the transmission system between them" - why the hell are they needed at all? Is it really that nothing more modern and much simpler, lighter, cheaper, reliable that corresponds to the level of development of technology today has yet been invented. When did you receive an education that you are so behind several generations? Understand that it’s hard for me to communicate with a person with similar knowledge. Here I see "Svetlana" appeared - she has been here on the site for a long time and has never written such nonsense and she was also advised by the same tiltrotor teacher-designer about whom I already wrote. She writes rationally but a little belatedly relative to the level of today, read it, maybe you’ll be able to understand something. And another homework assignment: the gyroplane’s engine has failed, how far can it still fly before meeting the ground? When you find time, think about it, maybe you’ll find the answer...
                      1. -1
                        9 February 2024 11: 11
                        Elementary. Here he is :

                        Here is a concrete example of a complete lack of logical thinking!


                        No, this is precisely your misunderstanding of the essence of the issue.

                        Here is a concrete example of a complete lack of logical thinking! I think that this is just an example of not understanding the tasks of creating a new class of aircraft.


                        This is an example of your slander and ignorance. There is no need to think about anything. The idea of ​​a tiltrotor is as new as a helicopter. You just don't know. lol

                        What to do about it? Nothing, a lot of time must pass for a person to learn to comprehend what he himself wrote, time heals.


                        Nothing will help you anymore. Even self-education, because for it you need a base, which you don’t have.

                        Here's another :
                        slats and flaps are a much simpler and more reliable technical solution,
                        than rotating engine nacelles and the transmission system between them.



                        Weren't you the one whining about the complexity of an airplane wing?

                        What are we discussing? Convertiplanes or a specific antediluvian barn that is at least half a hundred years old with “rotating engine nacelles and a transmission system between them” - why are they needed at all, is it really that nothing more modern and much simpler, lighter, cheaper, and more reliable that corresponds to the level of development has yet been invented technologies of today.


                        Hand face.
                        How dense you are in your ignorance. At least look at the pictures of the CMV-22B. Although, with your level of understanding, the effect is the same as for a well-known animal looking at a new gate.
                        And yes, nothing new has been invented, the same engine nacelles, power transmission. Yes

                        When did you receive your education that you were so many generations behind? Please understand that it is difficult for me to communicate with a person with such knowledge.


                        The usual “argument” of people who do not have a higher education, or who have graduated from some kind of law school, which is the same thing. The sick do not know that education is, first of all, a tool for further development on this topic.
                        You are like that same monkey with glasses from the fable.
                        And yes, it’s hard to communicate with ignoramuses with an inflated ESP like you. Yes

                        This is where I see “Svetlana” appeared - she has been here on the site for a long time and has never written such nonsense, and she was also advised by the same tiltrotor teacher-designer about whom I already wrote.


                        Well, what did the tiltrotor teacher-designer construct there? To listen to his opinion?

                        She writes rationally but a little belatedly relative to the level of today, read her, maybe you’ll be able to understand something.


                        Well, wow, even he faded against your background. Why am I not surprised? laughing


                        And another homework assignment: the gyroplane’s engine has failed, how far can it still fly before it hits the ground? When you find time, think, maybe you will find the answer


                        The answer is ready - X.
                        Because you, in your stupidity, do not know what you need to know at a minimum:
                        - true flight altitude;
                        - pressure near the ground;
                        - flight speed;
                        - type of gyroplane;
                        - flight weight;
                        - wind direction and speed by height.
                        This is the "examiner"
            2. 0
              8 February 2024 19: 24
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              In what sense is "dead end"? Even rough calculations show a significant increase in the efficiency of tiltrotor flights.


              Estimated calculations will not help; you need to know the aerodynamics of the helicopter.

              And what is it that you need to know? I know that all “aircraft with a main rotor” have a fundamental flaw, which is built into the design itself and which cannot be solved in any way, it sounds like this: “the higher the speed of horizontal flight, the greater the percentage of fuel consumed is spent on braking the flight due to movement blades against the oncoming air flow", tiltrotors solve precisely this drawback.
              1. -1
                8 February 2024 19: 49
                And what is it that you need to know? I know that all “aircraft with a main rotor” have a fundamental flaw, which is built into the design itself and which cannot be solved in any way, it sounds like this: “the higher the speed of horizontal flight, the greater the percentage of fuel consumed is spent on braking the flight due to movement blades against the oncoming air flow", tiltrotors solve precisely this drawback.


                Where did you read such “wisdom”? Please indicate the source of this alternative helicopter aerodynamics. laughing
  7. -1
    8 February 2024 14: 33
    "Osprey" was conceived, reproduced in "bronze and marble" and in significant quantities... But! Very "frightening" accident rate. They will be removed from the aircraft “without noise and unnecessary movements”.... You just need to find a “good reason” without causing image losses... Like with the F-22....
  8. 0
    8 February 2024 15: 56
    Quote: venaya
    You can view modern studies on this matter

    While I was not on the site, you were given a comprehensive answer:

    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    The fact is that a tiltrotor is initially a dead-end path

    I have nothing more to add to you... wink
    1. 0
      8 February 2024 17: 13
      Quote: Luminman

      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      The fact is that a tiltrotor is initially a dead-end path

      I give you more nothing to add...
      As I understand it, the maximum maximum efficiency of well-built tiltrotors of increased reliability relative to other aircraft is nothing more than "dead end path" ... So, is there anything else that needs to be added here?
  9. +1
    8 February 2024 15: 59
    I'm not getting there!!! Am I from a parallel reality?
    It was decided to equip only the US Marine Corps with these vehicles, but even here the initial order was reduced to 1992 vehicles in mid-300
    I also read about this in the Western Military District magazine. But the author writes that
    Several years ago, the US Navy decided to purchase CMV-22B tiltrotors to solve transport problems and supply ships at sea.
    Then I look at where they are and how fast they fly.
    USAF Special Operations Command - 49 CV-22Bs, as of 2017
    US Marine Corps - 268 MV-22Bs and 12 MV-22Bs in the Marine Corps Air Reserve, as of 2017
    Yes, there really aren’t any in the US Navy. Although if you take the Soviet Yak-38, of which only 231 units were produced in all modifications. It is true that there have been 11 accidents with this device. The V-22 currently has 21. The service life is almost the same. But only our verticals are considered to be in the Bose, and these are trying to make their way into the sky. at one time they said about helicopters that it would not be able to fly... If anything, the first production helicopters began to be made in the USA. Again, the first recorded flight of an airplane (airplane) was in the USA. Mozhaisky’s plane, even in the USSR, was not declared the first aircraft in the world. It was just that smart people at that time lived, read Zhukovsky, built airplanes, and did not lease them in the West...
    1. 0
      8 February 2024 18: 27
      Quote: Fitter65
      ..at one time they said about helicopters that it won't be able to fly...
      A fair remark... As for comparing the Yak-38 with an “envelope”, the operational parameters in terms of payload and efficiency, that is, in terms of the usefulness of the “envelope”, cannot really be compared with anything at all, despite the fact that it is a completely crude product. Hence all these attempts to modernize it more cheaply, but there is still nothing to replace it with. With the Yak-38, an unpleasant situation happened there, but it was not as critical as with the absence of any military “envelope” at all. Although, for me, it’s quite possible to modernize the MV-22B quite cheaply to dramatically increase its reliability, and as one designer rightly noted here on the site, he won’t suggest this either...
  10. +1
    8 February 2024 20: 15
    Helicopters are inferior to airplanes in speed, flight range and carrying capacity. The tiltrotor combines the advantages of aircraft speed and the vertical takeoff/landing capabilities of helicopters.
    But a tiltrotor made according to the V22-Osprey scheme has a drawback - the need to maintain the same vertical thrust of the left and right main rotors during a vertical landing. When the lifting forces of the left and right propellers are unbalanced at the moment of vertical landing of the V22-Osprey tiltrotor, self-oscillations often occur - rolls to the left and then to the right side, ending in disaster. The tiltrotor with coaxial propellers, like the TU-95 or Ka-52, does not have this drawback. Since the coaxial propeller has only one point of application of the lifting force (and not two points like the V22-Osprey), there is no heeling moment of forces. A tiltrotor with coaxial rotors will avoid possible imbalance of the lifting forces of the left and right propellers of the MI-12 helicopter and a tiltrotor made according to the V22-Osprey scheme. The point of application of the lifting force of two coaxial propellers during a vertical landing should be near the center of gravity of the tiltrotor.
    The location of the turbojet engines above the wing will increase the lift of the wing, due to the increase in the jet stream of dual-circuit turbojet engines the speed of the gas-air flow above the wing compared to the speed of the air flow under the wing in horizontal flight. During takeoff and landing, the axes of the tiltrotor's coaxial propellers are rotated to an inclined or vertical position.
    In a tiltrotor, the stabilizer tail can be installed on the top of the keel, as in the Il-76MD-90a. In this case, the stabilizer is less susceptible to the action of the exhaust jet of the turbojet engine and is located outside the circle swept by the coaxial propellers during a vertical landing. The exhaust jet of a turbojet engine ejects air between the horizontal planes of the wing and stabilizer in horizontal flight. The horizontal thrust force of a turbojet engine increases due to ejection.
    To move the point of application of the lifting force of two coaxial propellers closer to the center of gravity of the tiltrotor during a vertical landing, reduce vibrations, and reduce the length of the shafts of the coaxial propellers, you can place 2 dual-circuit turbojet engines on a trolley with wheels. The trolley is capable of moving along rails mounted on the upper surface of the tiltrotor fuselage. The power of two dual-circuit turbojet engines is transmitted to the shafts of coaxial propellers by a gear mechanism. 2 planetary gearboxes are used as differentials (necessary in case of failure of one of the turbojet engines). When the bushing with the shafts of the coaxial screws is turned from a vertical to a horizontal position and vice versa, the axes of the turbojet engines remain horizontal; the turbojet engines themselves do not rotate. Only the transmission mechanism housing is rotated 90 degrees (or 95 degrees). And the trolley with the turbojet engine (during takeoff and landing synchronously with the rotation of the transmission mechanism housing with the hub of coaxial propellers) is moved along the rails by parallel transfer from the front extreme position (as close as possible to the nose of the tiltrotor) to the rear extreme position near the center of gravity of the tiltrotor. Thus, in the process of complex movement (simultaneous rotation of the transmission mechanism housing with differentials and parallel transfer of the trolley with turbojet engine along the rails), the coaxial propellers do not intersect with the tiltrotor fuselage during rotation. In this case (when the tiltrotor wing remains stationary, and only the gearbox with differentials rotates 90..95 degrees), a standard rotary mechanism (similar to that used in the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor) is used for the rotation mechanism of the coaxial propeller shafts. For linear movement of a trolley with a turbojet engine, you can use cables with winches. There are 2 cables wound on one winch drum. When moving the trolley, one cable is wound onto the winch drum, and the other cable is unwound from the winch drum.
    1. +1
      8 February 2024 20: 56
      Quote: Svetlana
      To move the point of application of the lifting force of two coaxial propellers closer to the center of gravity of the tiltrotor during a vertical landing, reduce vibrations, and reduce the length of the shafts of the coaxial propellers, you can place 2 dual-circuit turbojet engines on a trolley with wheels.
      I think that this is quite difficult to implement, and besides, the weight of all these mechanical devices reduces the payload of the tiltrotor itself. To solve the fundamental shortcomings of this tiltrotor, it is possible to do without such complex devices; here you just need to guess how, and this is not so difficult. And in everything else I have to agree with you.
      1. +1
        8 February 2024 21: 29
        Quote: venaya
        I think that this is quite difficult to implement, and besides, the weight of all these mechanical devices reduces the payload of the tiltrotor itself

        On the TU-160, mechanical devices move the wing and change its sweep during takeoff and landing. And the weight of these mechanical devices is also quite large, but they go for it, because otherwise, either during takeoff and landing, the speed and length of the runway will be very high, or in horizontal flight the speed will be subsonic..
    2. +1
      8 February 2024 23: 35
      Quote: Svetlana
      The tiltrotor with coaxial propellers, like the TU-95 or Ka-52, does not have this drawback.

      That's how I would never have thought about tiltrotor aircraft.
      1. -1
        9 February 2024 00: 31
        Quote: DenVB
        Quote: Svetlana
        The tiltrotor with coaxial propellers, like the TU-95 or Ka-52, does not have this drawback.

        That's how about tiltrotors, I would never have thought about these aircraft.
        It's a pity! We could even attach a not very large wing to the Ka-52, a little larger than the diameter of the propellers, throw out the entire crew from there, replacing them with computer brains, take off as usual in a helicopter position, and horizontally rotate this entire resulting aircraft 90 degrees, which became “accidentally” simple tiltrotor. In this case, the speed will rise to values ​​unimaginable under normal conditions, and miracles will also happen to fuel efficiency. I remember that here someone, apparently from the infantry, asked me a question about the practical use of a “flying board” with gas-powered jet engines, but I immediately could not answer such a question, but now I understand that this board flies horizontally at a speed of 200 km / hour, not every infantryman will master such a “board”, but if he masters it, he will become worth his weight in gold and it is unlikely that anyone will send him to overcome minefields, he turned out to be too expensive an example of an infantryman. But if you add not very large wings to this very board, then his speed in horizontal flight will increase to about 900 km/h and he will easily catch up with some Boeing 757 or a French Airbus and then will overtake them all. If in doubt, watch it all on YouTube for educational purposes. So it’s useful to attach wings to the Ka-52, but for the Tu-95 the design requires a little more complicated, but it’s also possible to come up with something.
        1. +1
          9 February 2024 00: 36
          Quote: venaya
          So it’s useful to attach wings to the Ka-52

          He has wings. From the rest I didn’t understand anything at all.
          1. 0
            9 February 2024 00: 46
            Quote: DenVB
            He has wings. From the rest I didn’t understand anything at all.
            It's a pity. Read more later. I didn’t think about this today, the question was asked to me many years ago, and I also thought about the answer to this question for a long time. And as for the fact that the Ka-52 has wings, we need wings of a size that are capable of taking on the entire weight of the Ka-52 in horizontal flight and thereby completely relieving a pair of coaxial propellers from maintaining the weight of the Ka-52 itself in horizontal flight and only in this case will it turn into a full-fledged tiltrotor. I hope that at least here I wrote it enough to be digestible.
            1. 0
              9 February 2024 00: 52
              Quote: venaya
              And as for the fact that the Ka-52 has wings, we need wings of a size that are capable of taking on the entire weight of the Ka-52 in horizontal flight

              These should be very decent sized “wings”. They will create serious problems during takeoff, taking on the air flow from the propellers. The entire wing will have to be turned and placed vertically during takeoff.
              1. 0
                9 February 2024 01: 02
                Quote: DenVB
                These should be very decent sized “wings”. They will create serious problems during takeoff, taking on the air flow from the propellers. The entire wing will have to be turned and placed vertically during takeoff..
                Under no circumstances should you turn anything. Although the wings are large, during takeoff they should not interfere with air flow, so they should stand vertically. Only when switching to horizontal flight mode does the entire body of the “former” helicopter rotate, along with the coaxial propellers and, of course, the wings too, and this whole apparatus miraculously turns into just an airplane where the propellers are assigned the task of creating horizontal thrust and the wings must support the own weight of the entire “former” Ka-52 along with the wings. Some technical problems arise, but they are all solvable.
                1. +1
                  9 February 2024 01: 08
                  Quote: venaya
                  Only when switching to horizontal flight mode does the entire body of the “former” helicopter rotate, along with the coaxial propellers and, of course, the wings too, and this whole apparatus miraculously turns into just an airplane

                  Yeah, now I understand. Interesting wunderwaffle. There already seem to be drones with such a design. But it will be quite difficult to make a vehicle according to such a scheme.
                  1. 0
                    9 February 2024 01: 18
                    Quote: DenVB
                    There already seem to be drones with such a design. But it will be quite difficult to make a vehicle according to such a scheme.
                    It’s precisely drones according to this scheme that need to be made everywhere, but as for manned ones: the Germans did this back in 1945, but then the level of technology development was still rather weak and powerful turbo engines had not yet been invented, and experimental flights were really happening at that time have already been produced.
                    1. 0
                      9 February 2024 01: 24
                      Quote: venaya
                      the level of technological development was still rather weak, and powerful turbo engines had not yet been invented

                      It is not clear how to make the transition from takeoff mode to horizontal flight. Roughly, at a tilt angle of 45 degrees, the propeller has already lost 50 percent of its lift, and the wing still does not provide even 10 percent.
                      1. 0
                        9 February 2024 01: 41
                        Quote: DenVB
                        .. at an angle of inclination of 45 degrees, the propeller has already lost 50 percent of its lift, and the wing still does not provide even 10 percent
                        This issue has long been resolved by all tiltrotors that exist. There, the usual calculation schemes do not work in dynamics, the transition occurs very smoothly and quite quickly, no disruption of the flow occurs, no matter how I look at it. You can watch the process itself in dynamics on all the videos. When I was still flying, I also wondered why everything was so easy for me.
                      2. 0
                        9 February 2024 01: 48
                        Quote: venaya
                        When I was still flying, I also wondered why everything was so easy for me.

                        What did you fly?
                      3. 0
                        9 February 2024 01: 56
                        Quote: DenVB
                        On what ..
                        This is not important, it’s just that at these speeds at a significant angle of attack, which is unacceptable in a normal cruising flight, stalling does not occur for a long time. It was precisely this amazing effect that I personally felt. Very comfortable feeling; this mode is used in the case of ultra-low flight speeds, usually takeoff/landing and with low mileage.