• 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

Helo career info

hscs

Registered User
pilot
On the operational side, I've heard HSC dudes argue that HSC should get the CMV-22, which I think is narrow-minded, and I believe has already been discussed here on AW.

Wow. Not sure who thinks this but they need a reality check.
 

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Fact check:

1) A C-2/CMV-22 bubba in the RW syllabus at TPS doesn't steal a slot from an H-53/H-60 bubba. TPS can take up to ~24 RW people/year, including Army, AF, CG, foreign exchange, and civilian engineers. In recent years, HX-21 hasn't asked for/reserved many slots. USMC MV-22 test pilots have all done the RW syllabus.

2) The follow-on training is NOT the HTs. It's the USMC FRS. The first CMV-22 test pilot is already at HX. He was already a tester, so he went straight to the FRS; no HTs. @sevenhelmet could speak to this, but I think the FW syllabus is more Jet than Turboprop, so a CMV-22 tester probably gets more out of a RW syllabus with turboshaft performance and a few extra C-12 flights.

No rice bowl issues from the NAVAIR side.

Concur. The fixed-wing core syllabus is in the T-38 and, although a lot of other aircraft are flown, probably wouldn't benefit a tiltrotor guy as much as the RW syllabus. Adding (or trading in) some C-12 or Lear Variable Stability events for the V-22 guys makes a lot of sense to me.

On the operational side, I've heard HSC dudes argue that HSC should get the CMV-22, which I think is narrow-minded, and I believe has already been discussed here on AW.

Ridiculous. I'd love to see that thread though.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
No, I didn't think it did. But why shouldn't those knuckle-dragging rotorheads be eligible for the same CMV-22 TPS slot?
Because they didn't/won't fly it in the fleet and don't/won't know the mission. While we have to be at least a little nerdy, NAVAIR wants testers immediately out of fleet tours so that we can have a "mission-relevant" mindset.

... but you'd think there would be some cross-pollination encouraged a la 60s/53s.
Different typewings. HM is part of HSCWL/P. VRC is not.

I suppose I'll go take a look for some of those old mishaps.
Hint, the V-22 "collective" operates with the same sense as a fixed-wing throttle: forward = more power.

Wow. Not sure who thinks this but they need a reality check.
A previous skipper of ours argued this while I visited him in his vault-office at CNAF. Something about using it as RV or RESCORT. Was surprised an O-6 didn't understand that:
1) ACCLOG would never give it up, and
2) Big Navy wouldn't trade established VRC aviators for more nuggets in the HTs/HSC FRS pipeline.

I'll have to find the old thread, but I know I've made the argument before that USMC H-46 pilots moved to the V-22 because they're community did. If HMM had been flying FW aircraft, they still would've transitioned those folks to VMM rather than push new people through an RW syllabus.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
What @IKE said. The ACCLW attitude was that they're buying CODs that can hover, that's all that's changed; it's still the at-sea logistics mission, that belongs to VRC, and VRC belongs to ACCLW.

Maybe it'd be a different story if HSC or anyone else in the Navy was flying Plopters, and they could argue for airframe and training commonality, but they're not. Maybe an argument could be made for putting HSCs and VRCs under an all-loggie wing (a la the VRs and CFLSW), but I don't see that ever happening either, for a lot of reasons.

HSC's never going to take over VRC. What might happen, depending on FY budgets, is that Big Navy gets a taste for Plopters once they see what they can do, and gets interested in plussing them up under additional squadrons with additional mission sets, and HSC is a logical place for that. But that's a lot of 'might's and 'maybe's strung together, and you know how that usually ends up*.

*in this case, an endless stream of Foxtrot Alpha and National Interest blogs about how the Navy needs twenty squadrons of gunship Ospreys with Harvest Hawk kits, probably
 

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
Hint, the V-22 "collective" operates with the same sense as a fixed-wing throttle: forward = more power.

Yeah, I've been in the sim and whatnot. I dunno, it doesn't seem that cosmic to me. Either you're a good pilot or you're a shitty pilot. High-speed aerodynamics notwithstanding, rotary aerodynamics are much more complex than any low-speed airplane and having a solid understanding of things such as vortex ringstate would be essential for anyone sitting in the cockpit of one of these beasts. I presume you mentioned God's chariot (phrogs) in your previous post because they were over-controlling? Were they kicking the tail around? I guess I'll go find our safety guy and do some learning.
 

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
......talking with our safety guy just now (retired O-5 aviator), he seems to think asymmetrical VRS in slow turns was one of the issues.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
its not like they'll take a COD guy and make him in to an Osprey guy with no training. Not sure how the VMMs handled the transition guys and where they taught them to hover but I'm sure the FRS will cover the handling characteristics of the airframe.
 

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
What @IKE said. The ACCLW attitude was that they're buying CODs that can hover, that's all that's changed; it's still the at-sea logistics mission, that belongs to VRC, and VRC belongs to ACCLW.

This was the problem on the boat Det we did when they were testing them. The boat wanted it to be "a COD that hovers" so bad they couldn't see straight. In reality, and As it relates to writing an airplan, is more of an 'H53 that goes faster in S&L flight'. You ain't landing that thing, folding the wings, and taxiing it out if the way to land more jets.

It still seems odd to me that they're not trying to infuse some helo experience into that community with this transition. There's something to be said for someone who has a 700-1000+ hours flying things that HOVER being put in something that is really just a fancy helo. RW aerodynamics and recognizing things like VRS, Pr > Pa and blade stall (if RBS even applies to ospreys) aren't exactly things that 50 hours in the HTs can breed into you "overnight". I guess what I'm trying to say is that, looking back on it, I now know how stupid and naïve I was about 1000 hours ago and I still talk to Army Warrants who seem to think they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground until somewhere around the 3000 hour mark.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
This was the problem on the boat Det we did when they were testing them. The boat wanted it to be "a COD that hovers" so bad they couldn't see straight. In reality, and As it relates to writing an airplan, is more of an 'H53 that goes faster in S&L flight'. You ain't landing that thing, folding the wings, and taxiing it out if the way to land more jets.

It still seems odd to me that they're not trying to infuse some helo experience into that community with this transition. There's something to be said for someone who has a 700-1000+ hours flying things that HOVER being put in something that is really just a fancy helo. RW aerodynamics and recognizing things like VRS, Pr > Pa and blade stall (if RBS even applies to ospreys) aren't exactly things that 50 hours in the HTs can breed into you "overnight". I guess what I'm trying to say is that, looking back on it, I now know how stupid and naïve I was about 1000 hours ago and I still talk to Army Warrants who seem to think they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground until somewhere around the 3000 hour mark.
I'll grant you the flight deck issues. I don't look forward to figuring out how to get that thing in the COD parking spot without blowing someone overboard or wreaking havoc on spots 3-6. However, I maintain the V-22 is NOT a fancy helo. In forward flight it is a twin-engine turboprop (albeit with exotic, big-ass props). Nothing about it is helicoptery with the nacelles at zero: the prop speed slows and control is effected with elevator, ailerons, and rudder.

You put it in FW mode before going fast (or high), so RBS isn't a thing like it is for us.

I would also argue the COD community is going to fly it in helo mode far less than the MC does, since AFAIK, LZ ops are not currently on the docket.
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
Suspect V22 will land on aft spot(s) and ATO will just need to move folks / cargo. Downwash damage to other aircraft will be a huge issue. Probably see a bunch of class B-D MDRs in the future if we aren't thinking ahead.

Agree on the V22 spending more time in airplane mode, unless there is a mission change (but that buys a PAA plus up and a ton training $).
 

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
It may very well spend more time in airplane mode, but generally speaking airplanes are easy. Don't slow down or pitch up too much and you're good. Helicopters probably spend more time in forward flight than they do hovering, but when do we usually fuck shit up? I would hazard to guess that it's usually when we're trying to do helicopter type things and less when it's straight and level. And at speed, helicopter controls are pretty damn similar to airplanes -- push the stick forward and houses get bigger. It's the complexities of hovering (not to mention adding heavy loads into the equation) that I think @jtmedli and I are getting at. I suppose we could go back and forth with this all day, big Navy is going to handle things as they see fit regardless.

What's the over/under on mission creep and having 22 hitting other decks like LHDs or LPDs?
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Agree on the V22 spending more time in airplane mode, unless there is mission creep (but that buys a PAA plus up and a ton training $).

FIFY.

Thing is, VRC doesn't really want to expand its mission. They're more than busy enough hauling ass and trash to the Boat and back, and given that the CODsprey buy plan is essentially one-for-one C-2 replacement, it's very unlikely that there will be extra time, money, people, and airplanes for anything else. There's zero appetite in ACCLW to take on anything more but the log mission.

As for training - the Marines are/will be training the Navy cadre, and they by now have years of experience turning FW guys into tiltrotor guys.
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
FIFY.

Thing is, VRC doesn't really want to expand its mission. They're more than busy enough hauling ass and trash to the Boat and back, and given that the CODsprey buy plan is essentially one-for-one C-2 replacement, it's very unlikely that there will be extra time, money, people, and airplanes for anything else. There's zero appetite in ACCLW to take on anything more but the log mission.
Agreed - but that doesn't stop a CSG from asking the 'what if's'. Combine that with USN Semper Gumby attitude and you have the genesis of mission creep.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Agreed - but that doesn't stop a CSG from asking the 'what if's'. Combine that with USN Semper Gumby attitude and you have the genesis of mission creep.

Oh sure. The deadliest good idea fairies have a star or two on their collars. But, short of demos or PAO exercises (already the COD guys throw SEALs out the back occasionally for recruiting commercials), I doubt there'll be much mission creep. "Yessir we can try that idea...we'll lose two log runs a day from the beach for the next three weeks." "Ok, never mind."
 

Matty Morocco

Well-Known Member
So, from everything I've read, the COD pipeline SNAs won't be tailhookers any more. Can the Osprey land vertically with a F-35 engine in it (I read that the CMV-22 had that as a mission requirement)?
 
Top