Malice 1 said:
I don't know much about the V22, but to my neophyte eyes it looks incredibly vulnerable to enemy fire. The engines are so far away from the airframe centerline, that the aircraft would be instantly screwed if single engine ops were req.
Those props are Huge, and Easily damaged.
****ed up airplanes can glide, and ****ed up helicopters can autorotate, Can the V22 do either?
There are a lot of assumptions going around out there that aren't really backed up by any facts. As far as logging time, the end result of all the debate is that Osprey time to the FAA is "powered lift." To a potential employer it means whatever he wants it to mean. If you already have a SE or ME or helo writeoff, at least you're building time in a state of the art aircraft. If you don't have any civilian tickets, you will be out in no-man's land, at least until the civil tiltrotor comes out. The military doesn't care too much about hours by category, so don't sweat it on that count.
As far as "vulnerability" goes, this aircraft will blow the doors off any assault helo out there. Discounting the performance and the capability flying faster and higher gives (i.e. less likely to get hit in the first place), it's a LOT better than its competition in keeping crews safe. To "Malice," perhaps you weren't paying attention when we were writing about how the rotors are interconnected. One engine fails, the other drives both props. Even if that shaft fails, it's not the end of the world. You'll have a challenging engine-out profile, but it's doable. The fact that the engines are away from the cabin is good--a missile isn't exploding next to the cabin, and one engine failing won't FOD the other, as would happen in a helo where they're next to each other. Not to mention that the engines are IR-suppressed. You can fly all day single-engine in a V-22. Try doing that in a Phrog.
This doesn't even take into account that the 22 has largely triple-redundant flt controls, wheras other helos are only single-redundant. If you do crash, the pax have crash-attenuating seats, not just the crew. You also have self-sealing everything and breakaway components.
I also don't know how Malice gets that the rotors are especially large. A 46's rotors are 51' each. A V22's are 38'. Seems smaller to me. Besides, a rigid rotor head has fewer components to fail or get damaged than the fully-articulated heads most military helos have, but most critics don't bother to look that deeply.
A V-22 can auto, or glide as necessary. Not a TH-57 or Dick Rutan glider, respectively, but it will get the job done. Remember, an auto in a big helo is a controlled crash to begin with. For example, how many people have lived through a full auto from altitude in a 53? Zero.
Bottom line is, a V-22 is much safer and survivable than the aircraft it's replacing.
Interesting info, though, thanks for the update.