I don't think the civilian side knows what to call tilt-rotor time yet. When the Bell-Agusta 609 finally flies, maybe the FAA will figure it out.
I got a very good impression based on the brief. Unless you are a real conspiracy theorist in the "Bell has the Marine Corps in a stranglehold" camp, you would have had to admit that the brief gave a very convincing case for the V-22.
Col Shultz gave the standard rap about speed, payload, and range, of course. I did speak to him and the test pilot afterwards. To answer questions about some standard concerns:
Vortex ring state. Stated (and backed it up with a big complicated graph) that the V-22 does not enter VRS until at least 1500fpm rt of descent. He stated that the Arizona mishap happened at 2500fpm. Also, he emphasized that the V-22 has better VRS recovery than any helo, since it can bump the nacelles fwd and get clean air.
Gun. Showed the interim weapon, the M3 .50 cal ramp gun. Said the rate of fire is about 50% greater and the reliability is better than the M2/XM218. Stated that the USAF found in Afghanistan that its Pave Lows were taking most of their fire and needing the most suppression on egress, vice ingress.
High DA. Col Shultz said that the rotor blades do not compromise performance, that they aren't as much a "compromise" as some say. Said that the engines had power to spare, and that the V22 is TOT limited vice xmsn limited in all regimes.
Brown out. Said that the V-22 has blows the same as any 50,000 lb helo--a lot. They are working on a hover display to help--whether that's tied to a doppler, or just to GPS he didn't say.
Pinnacle, slope, irregular terrain LZs. Said there's no reason a 22 can't do a pinnacle, though that's not a requirement for the aircraft. Slope landings are limited to 20deg fore-aft and 9 deg side-to-side. Lat limits are based on nacelle clearance, not cg.
Hydro--said the wiring and hydro system was reconfigured so that there is no poss. of rubbing lines. The New River crash happened since there was no NATOPS EP in place--if they'd gone to helo mode instead of trying to reset the hydro system, they'd have lived. Also, the fold mechanism has been improved--apparently they had a bird do a gazillion fold/unfolds in a row with no failures.
As far as landing safely with a power failure, it's got to be an improvement. A 46 with a decent load on it is going to come down HARD on one engine, especially in a hover. As far as a dual-engine failure, anyone whose seen a 46 or 53 do a practice auto realizes that the goal is just to survive, not to bring the aircraft back. They don't auto like a TH-57. More like a set of car keys. I think the Osprey coming in as a LAPL/HAPL is still a better deal, 4 times out of 5. It has all the breakaway blades, fuel lines, etc. Plus, the pax seats are crash-attenuating. The 46 and 53 have pax seats about as sturdy as the chairs on my patio. As far as egress, where do you think the pax/aircrew egress in a 53/46 with guns in--the pop-out windows or the ramp!
MOUT is a tough nut to crack no matter what the airframe. According to the Corps, the Osprey is more ballistically survivable than the 46 or 53. Plus, no vulnerable tail rotor. The ramp gun isn't going to have the necessary field of fire to cover the aircraft, so tactics will have to adjust. We'll see.
I'm a salty ol' Phrog guy, and I have a wife and kids...I'll fly it. Beats sitting around at 70, waiting to die of piles...j/k!
