Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Any Weapons

Are there weapons on this thing?Sam ov the blue sand 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that they're typically mounted with an M240 on the rear ramp. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous to put machine guns on the side doors, since the nacelles will be in the gunner's arc of fire. Last I heard, though, there's some research being conducted into the possibility of adapting a chin-mounted 20mm or 30mm turret like those on the Super Cobra and Apache. Ratamacue 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the M240 but I too heard about the 20mm or the 30mm but I forgot where I heard it from. I see your point about the guns on the sides, I guess that wouldn't work too well now would it? ^_^ The reason I asked is that I think the weapons should be listed on the specs part of the article.Sam ov the blue sand 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one rear .30 cal. machine gun that can fire up to 16 rounds per second. The gun can only fire when the rear cargo lift is down. Time magazine compared it to a .30-06 hunting rifle. Time did a 5 page article on the plane/chopper if you need anymore information regarding the controversy surrounding it. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add The 30-06 is a fairly high powered round against soft targets like troops, it was originally the primary round for U.S. Army troops in WWII M119,M1 grand and so for. the round was phased out of the military for being to powerful it was replaced with the .308 winchester(7.62x51mm) witch in comparison is smaller to the later.207.172.91.236 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They had origionally thought about mounting a GAU-19 in a chin turret. Apparently they had a problem with systems intigration. Paulwharton (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Notable Accidents" Section In Wrong Area of the article

What is the "Notable Accidents" section doing in between the "Operators" and "Specifications" sections of the article? Notable accidents has nothing to do with operators or specifications, but I do believe it has to do with the Operational History because the operational history has accidents in it. I propose the Notable Accidents section come right after the Operational History section. It would be a good followup to the Operational History Section. And what is a section so important it has it's own page doing so far down on the bottom of the page? 67.137.0.39 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter if it has its own article. The incidents section is located like other WP:Air articles. Incidents are typically list sections, so it is lower in the article. See Boeing 777, C-5 Galaxy, JAS 39 Gripen for examples. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. And as such, I've restored the recommend arrangements of the section to the article again. At best, the "Controversy" section should be spread out in chronoglogical order in the Developments, Design, and Operational history sections, but for now, please leave it where I've placed it. The WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines are just that: guidelines. However, the article format was decided by consensus, and this article needs to follow that pattern until a new consensus is reached here to change it. No attempt has been made to even discuss, let alone reach a consesus, to abandon the guidelines. Per the Be bold, Revert, Discuss pattern, the bold move has been reverted - please discuss now. - BillCJ (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen this discussion until now. I just happened by the article, and thought that "Controversies" (which was a level-2 header) had too much emphasis so near the start of the article, now that the plane is deployed and flying and apparently doing OK. Bill has now made it a level-3 header which is a bit better, but I still think it should be nearer the end of the article. Incidentally, I did not move the "Notable accidents" section, I just reduced it from level-2 to level-3. (Bill has restored it to level-2.) --RenniePet (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, you didn't move "Notable accidents" - sorry if there was some confusion on that; I just tagged my note on to this section, as it fits the general, if not specific, topic. I'm not really sure where the best place is to put the section; "Operational history mgith be better than Development, but in truth, controversy has followed the V-22 throughout its history. It's definetely worth discussing further, and I'm open to any suggestions, including a dedicated section, or spreading the points throughtout the article in appropriate places. - BillCJ (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article about V-22 deployment

Maligned aircraft finds redemption in Iraq, military says CNN.com

• Some coverage of the Osprey's use and performance in Iraq. Razor Ramon (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the article yesterday. --RenniePet (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Similar article from Flight International: "US Marine Corps says V-22 Osprey performing well in Iraq" -Fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice this link in the Flight International article? I don't read it very often, so I don't know if this is somthing new or not, but it's the first time I've seen a reputable magazine link to Wikipedia like that. Maybe WP's reputation is beginning to move up, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And we MUST try to find the USMC source of the pic with the rotors spinning green rings! I've never seen anything like that before, and I imagine most readers haven't either. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added one more sentence and a link to this reference. As for the picture, one could always grab it from the magazine article. Or is that too low resolution? --RenniePet (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• If it comes from a US military source, it will be a public domain and won't require a fair use rationale to use here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Video of a similar configuration with prop tip lights on.[1] I haven't the foggiest idea of where to find a PD photo, though. --Mmx1 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. A photo would likely only catch the leading edge.
2. There are no such things as "prop tip lights", as far as I know.
3. This phenomenon is common with helicopters when viewed through NVGs. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are rotor tip lights [2]. And the article gives the copyright as USMC, so I think we're good to go. --Mmx1 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I believe these

1. Only amplify an existing effect
2. are only visible with NVGs.

Either way, they clearly exist. My bad. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

V-22 prop tip light image

Image:V-22 Osprey refueling.jpg was uploaded to Commons in February! (I just found it last week!) It was removed from this article without explanation yesterday by an IP, but I restored it. Other than vandalism or troll attacks, I can't think of a reason to remove it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose it might look fishy if someone didn't know, but that's a wild guess. It requires special powers to tell on unexplained removals. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I "DO" have special powers. ;) Also, I was only saying I couldn't think of a good reason - doesn't mean the IP didn't couldn't have had one, as unlikely as that is! Anyway, like I like to say, An unexplained deletion is indistinguishable from vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

US Army

Is there any more word about the Army adopting this? Would seem pretty dumb for them not to, and trust me, it would be a godsend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RenniePet: "But these numbers don't add up. Is the year 2007 wrong?"

The first V-22 budget back in 1986 predicted a total spending of $2.5 billion, in 1989 the budget predicted a total spending of $30 billion.

Then in 2005 a CRS report for the Congress, quoted a Defense Department number that put the V-22 total budget at $50.5 billion.

Finally on 2007 (2 years later) a Time article put the overall budget of the V-22 at $55 billion, $20 billion of that already spent, $35 billion to go.

IMO the most up to date number is the Time one, the CRS report doesn't account for over 2 years of inflation, upgrades and other costs. However I am tired of arguing so the CRS number remains to this day, after all it's a less than 10% difference.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand now, and I've tried to reword that sentence accordingly.

I know this talk page isn't really for discussion of the aircraft itself, but about the article, but still, if you'll indulge me a moment...

I have an engineering background, and I look at that plane, and the one thought I can't get out of my head is that putting the engines out on the ends of the wings has got to be a design error. The engines should be in the middle somewhere. Not sure exactly where - don't want to reduce the cargo-holding area, so probably one engine on each side of the body, or else both engines on the top. There is already a drive train going out to the nacelles, so one engine can drive both propellers, so center-mounted engines shouldn't have been a problem. OK, so I got that off my chest. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Operational Photo

VMM-162 Osprey on the tarmac in Iraq on April 1, 2008.

Not sure if this is worth adding to the article but here is an operational photo.--Looper5920 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added it in. There was room. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs positive,negative section

Anyone add a bit on the benefits over the helicopter it replaces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs)

Tense correction needed in contriversy section

In the following quote, the "will" is to general as its meaning is dependent on the date the article is read instead of a specific time. This could be addressed by adding a "(as of [enter valid date here])" at the end of the sentence or changing it to a "would", dependent on the facts. Would the program require $35 billion as of 2007 or is it that they will spend $35 billion as of the writing of that portion of the article.

From the way it reads I believe changing "will" to "would" is the correction appropriate but the facts need to be checked before something definite can be written.

Quote: "As of 2007, the Osprey program had spent $20 billion over 25 years of development, and will require another $35 billion from the Pentagon before the program is completed." 72.46.212.46 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed the sentence to the closest I could come up with as a tense correction that makes the meaning and facts more obvious, after reading the time article it references. 72.46.212.46 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried tweaking it a bit. Does this work for you? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks 72.46.212.46 & BQZip01. I thought a month and year date was enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:VMM-162 Osprey on the tarmac in Iraq on 1 April-2008.JPG deleted

One of the images of the article was deleted, all we have now is dead link.

What should be done about it? Replace it, restore it or just delete the dead link and move on? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - BillCJ (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CV-22 vs MV-22 - why the mixed up letters?

So the cargo version is designated the MV-22, even though the 'M' prefix designated special-operations aircraft, whilst the special-ops craft is designated CV-22, even though the 'C' prefix designates cargo aircraft. Anyone know why this has been swapped around on the V-22? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.163.28 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"M" is now for "Multi-mission", as with the MH-60R/S. As to why the USAF craft as are called "C", I haven't a clue, beyond MV and HV (Navy SAR) already being taken. - BillCJ (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on that, if you'll pardon the WP:OR. I used to be in AFSOC and was there when the names were finalized. The "M" in MV-22 stands for Marine. By every stretch of the definitions used in tri-service designations, this is wrong, but the Marines managed to get it through anyway. This left the Air Force with the simple "C" designation. In all reality, the two should be reversed, IMNSHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any notable differences between the MV-22B and CV-22B? The AF has a temporary gun they can add on theirs. They both want to go to a BAE nose gun turret eventually, I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Need sources

I've been doing some cleanup of references, adding authors, etc. Found a few items that need verification and there is still a maintenance tag. Needs an aviation expert/buff to work on it. — ERcheck (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not take an expert to find some press releases and articles on most of that. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Expert or buff - someone who has an interest in the subject to work to find the sources and improve the article. I've worked on checking some sources, but there seem to be a body of editors who have worked this article. — ERcheck (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I fixed 2 or 3 tags earlier. 1 fact tag left, I believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't offer a fuller explanation - not meaning to offend anyone. This article will be showing up on the USMC Portal in December - via the featured picture. As such, I am hoping that any outstanding issues are resolved before it appears. I appreciate all of the hard work that editors have made to this page and was hoping to solicit help in getting the final items resolved -- (an improve tag referring to JVX competition, the merge tag begin discussed below, and any {{cn}} tags). Hope this provides context for my comments. — ERcheck (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

We've argued so much about it already and we are about to start it all over again.

I agree that the section contains strong criticism, but IMO it's healthy criticism because the military can't criticise itself openly.

I really feel that that section does a favor to the military, because they can never appear divided to the public. So we do the open criticism for them.

The GAU-19 problem

One example is the nose mounted GAU-19, the article quotes General Dynamics saying that it plans to install them. Time says that the Marines have already spent $45 million in project, but the GAU-19 was found to be too heavy and too expensive, so the V-22s being fielded don't have it. Time also lambasted the rear-mounted "lone, small 7.62-mm machine gun" that can only be fired when "the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered."[3]

I wasn't allowed to add the above to the article back in 2007, ok, no problem. But still, who do we quote? Are we going to quote both General Dynamics and Time?

I fear that whenever we have 2 sources, we will rule the criticism as POV and non-neutral so we'll simply remove it.

EconomistBR 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The section seems balanced now. That was not the point of the tag. Gun info is somewhat repeated in the Design section. I think some discussion on integrating the Controversy content in the Development, Design and Operational history sections is in order. I believe the Air Force has a pod type cannon they can add on for missions. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The above proposal sounds reasonable. The "controversies" are not exclusive to the Development phase; but, as noted by Fnlayson, they are in each section. — ERcheck (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the merging, I am just afraid that the criticism, which is already toned down, will be eventually removed. EconomistBR 03:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Parts of the Controversy section don't seem to fit that well somewhere else. For example the quotes by the General and pilot should stay, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Merging the criticism section: IMO:

• 1^st paragraph - can go into the Development sub-section, IMO it's important to inform future Marine commanders of what happens during an R&D project.
• 2^st paragraph - could be removed since it is an isolated event or moved into Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey
• 3^nd paragraph - can go in the design section, we have a negative comment from a director of the Pentagon, a positive one from a pilot and an explanation.
• 4^rd paragraph - Right now the articles uses a 2002 report to state "A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in (12.7 mm) gatling gun mounted below the V-22's nose has also been studied for future upgrade." The future in 2002 was 2005, 2008 at best. We have V-22s on the ground that don't have it and Time says that the project was not feasible. The article should quote General James L. Jones' (possible National Security Advisor to Obama) criticism on the issue and then counter-balance with this:[4]

"The Marines say combat jets or helicopter gunships will shadow V-22s flying into dangerous areas. And backers say the V-22's speed will help it elude threats. It could, for example, zip into harm's way at more than 200 m.p.h. (320 km/h), convert to helicopter mode and then land within seconds. It could pause on the ground to deliver or pick up Marines and then hustle from the landing zone. Various missile-warning systems and fire-extinguishing gear bolster its survivability. If it is hit, redundant hydraulic and flight-control systems will help keep it airborne. Finally, Marines say, if the V-22 does crash, its crumpling fuselage and collapsing seats will help cushion those on board"

Basically, the Marines say the V-22s don't have GAU-19s because they are not needed. I mean that's a balanced, both sides of the issue, article.

• 5^th paragraph - It should be removed, TIME's article is in fact balanced because it shows both sides of the issue. EconomistBR 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed comments, EconomistBR. A nose gun has been in the plans since early in the program. I'm sure they'll add it if the funds become available. No rush on these changes. Anybody else? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The part about the ramp gun only firing when lowered is stated in the Design section now. "The Osprey is armed with one .308 in (7.62 mm) caliber machine gun pointing rearward that can be fired when the loading ramp is lowered." It also can be used in flight with the ramp down as shown in the image nearby. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a source on the rotation of the rotors? Given that the major problem with helicopters is counter-rotation and the fact that the Osprey does not have a tail rotor, it would be important/interesting to know how the Osprey overcomes the counter-rotation problem. My guess is that the rotors rotate counter to each other. In other words, the starboard rotor rotates counter-clockwise and the port rotor rotates clockwise.