• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

MV-22 Osprey

MarineAir

MarineAir

Future Naval Aviator
Does anyone know whether to fly this aircraft,one has to be dual qualified in both fixed and rotary wing? I know the cockpit is modeled after helos(i.e pilot sits on right). Anyone here flew one of these before or knows someone who does?
 
pilots going through the MV-22 syllabus have to go through dual engine fixed wing training in Corpus and helo training in Milton, Florida.
 
I was talking with a Marine Major last week who flies ch-46's, and will probably be transefered to V-22's when they are available. He said you train in both the TH-57 for Helo's and T-44's for Multi-prop. Sounds very cool.
 
Except for that whole flying the Osprey thing.
Why carry stuff when you can shoot stuff?

Im just kidding if it does what it is supposed to do it will be a tremendous asset.
 
Physicx said:
So how do you log that? It it considered tilt rotor?
Click to expand...

A good question, but apparently not even the Osprey STUDs know yet. Rumor has it they'll log it as tiltrotor in their military logbooks, but no word as to how the FAA will classify it.
 
MarineAir said:
Does anyone know whether to fly this aircraft,one has to be dual qualified in both fixed and rotary wing? I know the cockpit is modeled after helos(i.e pilot sits on right). Anyone here flew one of these before or knows someone who does?
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know 1 or 2 or even 40 of my closest friends who fly V-22s. You don't get a dual qualification, at least not if you are transitioning from a fleet aircraft. You get a new MOS, which is all the military cares about. Guys who were originally helo types retain their "unrestricted naval aviator" title, but that and $0.25 will get you a sip from the rag they wipe tables with at Starbucks.

The fresh-meat LTs doing the maritime/helo split may be able to take both military-equivalency tests with the FAA, but that's about it, and I'm not sure about that. I would expect that syllabus to change as the Corps figures out what it wants and finally dictates a plan to CNATRA.

The V-22 is an airplane that lands like a helo, not a helo that flies fast. For example, the power is on a Thrust Control Lever, which mimics a PCL, i.e. extending your arm=more pwr. You spend 90% of your time in airplane mode. It's more efficient, faster, and more manueverable that way. It hovers great. We tell the f/w guys hovering is hard, then they get in a V-22 and say, "What 's the big deal?" because hovering a 22 is incredibly stable, not very much like a helo. You find yourself unlearning helo traits, like making tiny, very rapid corrections--those just screw up the computer. So, anyway, our entry level training should reflect much more f/w than helo. If the multi syllabus would just put in more form and low-level nav, we could just go with that, in my opinion.

Regardless, the USMC doesn't care what the FAA says we are. A V22 pilot is a tiltrotor pilot to the Marine Corps. Worry about the civilian application when it starts to matter, which is certainly several years away.
 
its a goddamn wast of money. It doesn't go too much faster than a helicopter or carry much more, yet as far as I can tell it does the same mission. At least it shows that the government is willing to spend money on the Marines, which is overdue.
 
BOMBSonHAWKEYES said:
its a goddamn wast of money. It doesn't go too much faster than a helicopter or carry much more, yet as far as I can tell it does the same mission. At least it shows that the government is willing to spend money on the Marines, which is overdue.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of Marines who disagree with you about it being a waste of money and not being a considerable improvement over the current helo fleet. The speed and range are a pretty significant improvement and the aerial refueling is something that the 46s lack.
 
BOMBSonHAWKEYES said:
its a goddamn wast of money. It doesn't go too much faster than a helicopter or carry much more, yet as far as I can tell it does the same mission. At least it shows that the government is willing to spend money on the Marines, which is overdue.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, that's really not to the point of anyone's question. Maybe you should start a separate "Why I hate the V-22" thread. Unfortunately, that would force you to have a coherent argument. As they say, "Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss."

Saying the V-22 has the same mission as a helo is like saying a 737 and a Greyhound bus have the same mission. Technically true, but disingenuous. Saying a V-22 is at all comparable in performance to a helo tells me you haven't ever been at the controls of either.

"It doesn't go too much faster than a helicopter..." If you compare the cruising speed of the V-22 to the Vne of a conventional helo, it's misleading. The Marine Corps' publicity materials put the 46 at 150 knots and the 53 at 180 or 190. Sure, if you turn the engines off and drop them off the edge of the Grand Canyon. If you knew that a 46 goes to the objective at 90 or 100 knots, while the V-22 does 200-220 tactically, you might get a better sense of reality.

"...or carry much more." The 46 is usually configured for 15, and usually has to go light on fuel to carry that many. The V-22 carries 24. The 60, which is frequently is compared to, carries 10, 12 if packed like sardines.

Do a search for "Osprey" to reference earlier threads. If you want to talk smack, though, at least do your homework. Don't go "goddam wast [sic] of money, blah blah..." and not have anything to back it up. Everyone who's flown in both has nothing but praise for the Osprey, from LCpl to cabinet-level to media.

:icon_boxi
 
Wow phrogdriver, that is a lot of interesting information on the V-22. I may opt for that airframe. If all the bugs get worked out, which it sounds like they are, tilt-rotor may grow exponentionally in the military community.
 
I'm pretty sure that (at least from info I've gotten) time will be logged as helo time because of something to du with the fact that it lands like a helo (it can't land with the rotors down). Also, even though it has two engines, they are driven by a single shaft and connected somehow so it is considered a single engine AC so they will not get any multi-engine time ... that kinda sucks.
 
OSPREY Update

Looks like it's official - HMM-263 ("Thunder Chickens", lol) are scheduled to be redesignated VMM-263 on 10 MAR 2006 (Friday). They should have a full compliment of MV-22B's by 1 JUL 2006.

Hopefully the '46 is done - as in stick a fork in it, it's done!
 
If someone can show me where in a military logbook there's a box to check marked, "fixed wing/helicopter/multi-engine propeller," I owe that person a beer. You log your aircraft model--that's it.

You are tilt-rotor pilot, qualified in the MV-22B. Prior jet guys have another MOS for their previous platform, as do prior helo guys in theirs, but a jet guy doesn't become helo-qualified, nor does a helo pilot get maritime-qualed or something. The new lieutenants will be tiltrotor pilots, not helo, not fixed-wing, though they will have experience in both.

The only place where this could be an issue in the military is in the assignment of B-billets. Will tiltrotor pilots be able to teach at S. Whiting or fly C-12s? Who knows.

I guess people ask this because they wonder about civilian employment, because that's the only place these distinctions matter. You won't be a helo pilot coming out of V-22s. However, you will have no problem using your hours on the outside, assuming the aviation business doesn't keep sucking. People will definitely appreciate experience with a fly-by-wire, glass cockpit aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top