Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 did not phase the .30-06 for being to powerful, the .308 is just as powerful, if not more.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They had originally 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)

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)

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 controversy 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)

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."[1]

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:[2]

"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 problem with just looking at "balance" is that "balance" doesn't mean much if the author (of the TIME article) doesn't know much about airplanes, nor about military tactics, and doesn't know any of the history of the tiltrotor. The TIME writer mischaracterized the origin of the V-22, failing to note that tiltrotors have been flying (as prototypes and test aircraft, not production aircraft) since 1955 (two other companies built different models in the early 1960s). This article was a dishonest hatchet job to begin with. I wish TIME had a tag somewhere on its office computers, "Requires Services of an Expert," to apply to science-dependent news copy before it goes to print. The TIME Osprey article was one of the most incompetent reporting jobs I've ever read. The Osprey did/does have real problems, such as the awkward hydraulic system design that had to be redone, but TIME's incompetent writer didn't address it because he was too busy writing fiction.Raryel (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (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)

V-22 - approved by the Senate of the USA?

This picture tells you all you really need to know about the V-22's so-called controversy. Interpret it how you want to. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

^ What he said.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 21 December 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)

Can't, its considered fixed wing, it is against the law for them to have it.--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Army has several fixed-wing transport aircraft, including the C-12, the C-23, and the new C-27J is being produced for both the Army and USAF. The Army has considered ordering the V-22 at several points, and was part of the original JVX program. - BillCJ (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Photoshopped picture credited as actual?

M240 gun image (larger size to show detail)

Why is the photo of the rear-mounted M240 test-fired is credited as taken in-flight over Iraq? I may be wrong, but it seems that the desert was photoshopped in - first, the ammo feeder chute is connected to... desert? second, the shadow of the Marine on the left continues from the side of cargo bay to the ground below. Not very likely for camera flash to light a good portion of the landscape 1000 m away. AyeBraine (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see what shadow you're referring to. Also, the "ammo feeder chute" is a round duct-like thing, and is more likely a spent shell tube than a feed chute. - BillCJ (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Probably the shadows on the ramp. The end of feeder chute looks a bit odd to me. I'd expect it be be round or oval-shaped. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the angle that makes the shoot look weird, it directs the spent brass from the aircraft,so it falls out the back.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a final nail in the coffin, but the tube is on the right side of the weapon. The M240 feeds from the left side. It's simply to keep the brass from flying back into the aircraft and rolling around underfoot (I imagine that's bad in an in-flight aircraft with the ramp door open). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.82.22 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks source on per-aircraft costs

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_V-22_Osprey_Tilt-Rotor_Aircraft%2C_January_2%2C_2009 shows $118.4 million each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulKishimoto (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the "program acquisition cost" (so stated in the source you gave), which is a different type of figure than the "flyaway cost" given in this article. We could probably use the United States Congressional Research Service source to update the "Program cost field" in the infobox. However, the basic unit flyaway cost (FAC) is not $118.4, meaning that is not waht it costs to order a new V-22. See User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs for an explanatory essay written by an WP editor who is in the aerospace business. Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Get the CRS report directly from the source. For this one: http://opencrs.com/document/RL31384 -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Flyaway cost ignores past and ongoing R&D costs complety. IMO it is misleading to use that number. When you buy a car the R&D costs are dilluted into the unit cost. That's why there is not such thing as a driveaway cost for it.

As for replacing the projected program cost with the actual cost I believe that that was a reasonable move. Although IMO, out of fairness to taxpayers the projected program cost as supplied by the DoD should be informed. But once again it's your call I am not fighting over this anymore.

EconomistBR 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever figure is used, it needs to plainly state what it is, otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges, and that is misleading. - BillCJ (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Osprey and Ling, TempCo, Vought

I am pretty sure that the Osprey was originally created in the early 1960s by the then Ling, TempCo, Vought Corporation? Correct me if I am wrong. Would it make a difference if I am right? Dredyoung (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't see how that could be right. The V-22 Osprey is based on the Bell XV-15 from the late 1970s. You must be thinking of some other aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

LTV made the LTV XC-142 in the late 60s. I've heard a friend of my fathers who worked at LTV in the late 60s say that it was also called the "Osprey" at some point (apparently internally by LTV), but I've never seen that claim in print anywhere. - BillCJ (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. There are only so many good names available for aircraft and they are used on more than 1 type sometimes, officially or unoffically. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2009 (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.[3] 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 [4]. 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)

I am not sure how this works, but still. According to an article in AirForce Monthly (Sep 2009, page 21): "The 12 USMC V-22 Ospreys deploed to Iraq from Ocotber 2007 to April 2009 "did not perform the full range of missions anticipated" according to a Goverment Accounting Office report prepared for a congressional hearing on the V-22´s future. While in Iraq, the V-22´s mission capability and full mission capability rates - key measure of its suitability and effectviness - fell significantly below required levels and rates of the helicopters it is due to replace. The report also found the Osprey´s menuvering limits and ability to detect threats affected the aircrew´s ability to carry out evasive actions. Shipborne operatiosn were hampered by íts large size and an ineffective repair parts inventory. The study recommended looking at possible alternatives to the V-22 for current and future needs. If this article is correct, I think someone picked the rasins in the cookie and not the bad seeds... Place change accordingly... /Patrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palle75 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The GAO report said "12 MV-22s ... in Iraq successfully completed all missions assigned", by the way. This and the mission capable part are already covered at bottom of the V-22 Osprey#US_operators section. See GAO-09-482 for the report. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (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)

The CV-22 has more special ops gizmos: http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=3668

The CV-22 is equipped with integrated threat countermeasures, terrain-following radar, forward-looking infrared sensor, and other advanced avionics systems that allow it to operate at low altitude in adverse weather conditions and medium- to high-threat environments. Hcobb (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea. The basics of that was added to the article some time ago. -Fnlayson (talk)

Counter rotating rotors?

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.23.29 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do counter-rotate, as do all the twin-rotor helicopters that I know of. I'm surprised it's not in there, tho I shouldn't be, given that so many of this page's editors elect to focus on faux controversies! I don't know which direction though, but I will see if it's in any of my sources . - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a little fancier than that. The prop spin helps cancel out the wing tip vortexes making the wings act as if they were slightly longer. Hcobb (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture"

Vertibird, Fallout game series anybody..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No games per WP:MILPOP guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Falcon_Gamer: For the popular culture section I believe that it should be monetioned that the aircraft plays minor rolls in video games. I was gonna edit splinter cell in, but then read what was posted, however that section is so small as it is I think a brief couple of sentences would sum up its use in games such as Ace Combat and Splinter Cell etc. *sry if I posted this somewhere incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.154.133 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RiseDarthVader (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC) how about the appearance in Terminator Salvation where John Conner is dropped into the ocean? Does that warrant it being added?

Hello Sweetness46. First, let me apologize for not being logged in when I edited the V-22 Osprey article. That was me. Second, I would like to know the reason for the revert. By my reading of the rules, my addition to the Popular Culture section complies. It is cited, the Osprey is a major element of the plot (not just a sighting) of the story, and it is not part of a video game or an anime program. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V-22_Osprey&diff=297938569&oldid=297938429 for the revert in question. Thanks. Fordsfords (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless something that resembles a V-22 is named as such, it is a look-a-like. That's considered original research and prohibited by the relevant project guidelines (WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture and WP:WikiProject Military history/Style_guide#Popular culture). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fnlayson, thanks for the answer. I think that the comment by the author, "Shaenon Garrity (shaenongarrity) says: I was very disappointed to learn that plans to mount a Gatling gun in the nose of the actual V-22 Osprey were scrapped. ..." (located on the page referenced in the cite) constitutes an authoritative verification of the actual aircraft type. As an additional verification, look here for the comment from co-author Jeffery Channing Wells, where he states, "Jeffrey Channing Wells (channing) says: The Whirligig is built on the airframe of a V-22 Osprey, which, in addition to its rotors, does indeed have wings, after a fashion." I would naturally be happier if the verification were within the context of the story itself, and not in the "director's commentary", but I don't think that it's necessary to be overly strict, and being a fan of both the author and the V-22, I still favor the entry. Thanks. Fordsfords (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that User:Sweetness46 has agreed that his revert was hasty, and that there has been no further discussion here for a few days, I shall re-add the entry. Fordsfords (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello User:Fnlayson. I originally added the Skin Horse reference to the Osprey, which you tagged for notibility. It seems to me that by their nature, popular culture references are not notable to the subject at hand. E.g. the two remaining references do not in any way add to the knowledge and understanding of the V-22. (One could argue that the vast majority of "popular reference" sections should be removed, but that's a different discussion.) So I assume you were questioning the notability of the V-22 to the Skin Horse story line. The V-22 "character" (Nick) has been prominent in almost half the story line so far, and will presumably continue to be. He is listed in the "cast" page. The identify of the V-22 Osprey was established in the Talk page (above). Being a fan of both the aircraft and the Skin Horse story, I hope that the reference can remain. Fordsfords (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Already been explained above in this section. Appearances in pop culture have to be notable to the V-22 as well. Read the Mil History and Aircraft guidelines linked above. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

An independent reference for this entry would probably cover that, but one was never added. Note I did not remove this entry. An IP user did that on Sept. 26. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GAO Report

Hcobb, great find. That report has loads of unbiased, accurate and independent information. I was just browsing it but still every page brought in new information that is simply not present here on Wikipedia, for example:

V-22's combat radius in Iraq

Shouldn't this map be on the article? EconomistBR 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That compares the V-22 to a helicopter (CH-46) from a earlier era. The CRS report (ref. 1) makes comparison(s) of their radii of action. Might be better to compare their radii in a sentence. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the Trautman quote. Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Is it okay to ref to podcasts, like the Boeing one from the Paris Airshow? http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=102 Hcobb (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be. There is {{Cite podcast}} for that and other cite templates for audio and video files. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the account of what is in the GAO report is a bit rosy. From what I have seen the report is actually pretty scathing and has led to some members of Congress calling for a halt to production. I think it would be best to balance out the section on the GAO report by listing some of the problems that it found as well.--Looper5920 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was already in there. So I combined the bad stuff from GAO with the good. Six percent? Six percent?!? Hcobb (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Any idea where 6% available rate is mentioned in the GAO report? I am only finding data on mission capable rates (~60%). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Logical page 15 (physical page 19). The de-icing gear doesn't work and so they only pass the full checklist 6 percent of the time, but they don't need it for Iraq so they don't bother with it. In Afgan conditions it will be a whole nother ballgame. Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Weight and size

A lot of the issues intersect at weight and size issues so perhaps we could reorg to show this. The V-22 is clawing at its helicopter mode lift limits so it faces altitude limits and can't mount the nose gun. Ten percent of its helicopter mode lift is lost because it is a tiltrotor instead of a tiltwing, but being a tiltrotor gives it better short take off performance for shipboard operations. The V-22 is too big to operate effectively from the current gators, but too cramped inside to carry the full load of 24 Marines along with all of their body armor and gear or any standard ground vehicle used by the USMC, so they need to make a brand new mini-jeep that has its own problems and so on. Hcobb (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth the tiltwing design is not as good in hover. Cross winds have more surface area to push. Rotating the wing makes the design complicated structurally also. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the ref, Boeing is studying how to reduce the 10% they lose now. If it was up to me, I'd have put in mid-wing flaps to both allow the downwash to pass through and control it so you wouldn't have needed the complex and heavy collective controls. But the current design assumed that they'd need the wings to block air for winching. However this didn't work so they take the winch from the rear. Hcobb (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island vs Texas

I don't understand the quote (which is accurate) about the effectiveness of the V22. Surely if the combat radius was increased it would mean that the battlefield was more like Texas than Rhode Island and not vice-versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.227.9 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote is saying the V-22 makes an area the size of Texas SEEM like the size of Rhode Island due to its speed compared to helicopters. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Clear consensus to keep.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

V-22 Osprey → Bell-Boeing V-22 —User:87.66.58.166 09:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - No rationale given in move proposal. Current name is according to WP:AIR/NC Naming conventions for US military aircraft - Designation/Name. - BilCat (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — is this some sort of WP:POINT request, or something?
  — V = I * R (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed.  meets the project's naming convention regarding military aircraft. --Born2flie (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose naming conforms to WP:AIR/NC --rogerd (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose meets current naming convention. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Renaming adds no value and drops official DoD name. No reason to override WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fnlayson. EconomistBR 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - Are move proposals speedy-closable? Btw, I contacted the IP yesterday to request a rationale, but nothing yet. - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yea, I think WP:Snowball clause applies here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, there's noting really special about move requests. The only time that administrator participation is required is when another page exists at the target location, since that page would need to be deleted (requiring access to admin tools). We all have access to the move functions though, so there's no reason to wait for an overworked administrator to take care of something with clear consensus.
      — V = I * R (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

V-22 replacing Aircraft

It may, or may not need to be noted that the V-22 will be replacing the CH-46, CH-53A/D, MH-53J, and the MH-130E/H in the US Military [5] 4th paragraph Thegreene2010 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not replacing the MC-130 (it simply can't). It is "aumenting" it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that just now, that was my mistake, I did not mean the MH-130. Thegreene2010 (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

#s built & planned

Any chance anyone can add the current figures for how many built thus far and how many total are planned (USMC & USAF & TOTAL)? E.G. Other A/C wiki pages have: Number built F/A-18A–D: 1,480[1] located in the Infobox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.241.71 (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Older planned numbers are mentioned as I recall. I don't remember seeing any produced number in recent articles. We'll update/add that as info is found or become available. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This AF Monthly article lists 83 MV-22Bs in service now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at page 63 of the the Marine Corps' FY 10' Aviation Plan which can be found here it states that the Marine Corps, as of FY 10, is looking at a total purchase of 284 MV-22s with 20 in the Fleet Replacement Squadron, 48 in the reserve component and 216 in the active component. Right now the Marine Corps has transitioned all 7 east coast squadrons for a total of 84 aircraft. HMM-161 is the first west coast squadron to begin the transition and they have received at least one aircraft. So the current Marine Corps numbers from now until June 2010 when HMM-166 beings to transition will be somewhere between 85 and 96. These numbers do not include the test aircraft used by VMX-22. On another note here is a good link talking about many of the current maintenance issues the aircraft is having if anyone wants to add it to the article.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Who picks the captchas?

The words I just got asked to edit this article: Army Rocks

Since they're the only force with no V-22 plans I must say this is most unfair. 75.58.233.54 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Army was involved early in this program then dropped out in '88. They can order some if they want it and will pay. Recently the Army has funded studies on a 4 rotor tiltrotor design mainly for transporting armored vehicles. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

V-22 thrust ?

What is the thrust (in lbf or kN) of the tiltrotors of the V-22 ? I am doing a diagram of various STOVLs, and V-22 is the only one missing. Thrust /can/ be estimated using max. vertical takeoff weight and adding 8-10% (source?) for wing downwash loss in lift mode (thanks Fnlayson), giving about 28,400 lb (126 kN) each in plane mode. But actual numbers would be better. TGCP (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagram is available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiftThrust1.PNG showing lift and thrust combinations for V-22 and others. Thrust is estimated as shown above. TGCP (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

Note we have another GA nomination here. This is like the 4th aircraft one this year with no prior notice. So much for collaboration and all.. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean any offense. When I wish to nominate an article for reviewing, whom should be on my list of people to notify? My interactions with the main WP:Aviation group usually see me ignored anyhow, so it felt kind of discouraging and pointless to make notes and requests there. That is no reflection upon you however, you have been extremly helpful and appreciated, I didn't want or intent to cause you, or anybody else, concern or trouble with my poorly-communicated actions. Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:Air is active and editors there will try to help. This article is is good shape, I think. I'm just mostly irritated about the A-10 nomination. That article had a lot of unsourced content and took a lot of work to get everything cited after nomination. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The A-10 Thunderbolt II? That one wasn't a nomination by me, but I can understand why you'd share the same kind of irritation with me, it was nominated in exactly the same fashion (even if I do usually spend weeks beforehand dragging the article up to scratch). I found the A-10 to be in a bad shape for nominating too, and the referencing problems were extremely difficult for me to tackle, as I did try and look into several of the citation tags with little success to boast of. I promise to notify my GA intentions and activities in the future upon the page you have listed, if you wish I shall also leave a note with yourself if I notice you have an interest or past history with the article. If you ever wonder what I'm likely up to or interested in, my user page is basically a list of articles, bottom newest, of those I complete an rebuilding/heavy referencing of, my GA nominations are exclusively taken from the items on that list, usually when I've got nothing on my plate and I feel that they've hit the spot. As you're said, notification of the interested parties (now that I know where the 'active' ones gather!) is quite important for me to do, as the help of other editors is often critical and goes beyond what I can do on a regular basis. Kyteto (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I did not mean to suggest you nominated the A-10 article. Sorta felt like that one was dumped on me and others to fix. Was just a little irritated with the process being followed, not you. You do a lot of work to get articles ready for nomination and I appreciate it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, anything in particular that needs to be done for the GA nom review? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave the History a good goin over a month ago, the references all more or less uniform and have all the useful information in them; what flashes caution lights for me is the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the design section, I'll see what I can do on that tomorrow. Basically features on the aircraft which are listed, but no sourcing has been provided for, which isn't exactly great. But it is nothing serious, most of the outstanding points were accounted for. Kyteto (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed all the valid suggestions from the Automated Peer reviewer tool and added some text to the Lead. It needs some more filling out though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Review tools: Peer reviewer, Dab links, Check web links, Alt text -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review update

The Good Article review for this article was put on hold about a week ago. The original reviewer was unable to spend the time to finish it. So I've asked for someone else to take this over at WP:GAN#TRANS and WT:Good article nominations#Finish V-22 review?. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

With the GA review in a lull, I started a Peer Review on WP:MilHist. Please provide comments/suggestions there. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Update: the GA review was completed with it passing. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ospreys eat their young

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12728 We take parts off the factory to support aircraft. I’m sure that last V-22 that rolls out of the factory is going to be missing quite a few parts just because they’re not available for the rest of them.

Ouch! Now, where to work this into the article? Hcobb (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's not major/notable unless it is a long term thing. Anyway incomplete aircraft can't be delivered. -fnlayson (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And parts are still a problem.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-12/textron-boeing-v-22-osprey-aircraft-still-dogged-by-bad-parts-tester-says.html

Hcobb (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody really want to listen to a Marine pilot's last words?

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/03/congress-unhappy-over-lack-of-cockpit-recorders-in-ospreys.html

Notable enough? Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, though it might be interesting to find out if Congress bothered to fund the recorders they mandated! - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel again

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/15/354155/israeli-air-force-to-take-second-look-at-v-22-osprey.html

A rather weak "well who knows", doesn't seem notable. Hcobb (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And they're coming over to take a look. http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=223991 Hcobb (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

CDI

http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/shownews.cfm?id=143

Since Wheeler is suddenly so notable for the F-35, perhaps we should add his oracle history here? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Osprey drops off dead body

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/v-22-osprey-flew-osama-bin-laden-to-navy-ship-after-his-death.html

Notable for a standard cargo aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Concur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetijonez (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bell Boeing" not "Bell-Boeing"

Although Bell and Boeing fail to be completely consistent, "Bell Boeing" does not have a hyphen:

• http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22
  
• http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/pdf/V-22_64214_pGuide.pdf
  

Since they are not always consistent, I recommend going with how they have it on their logo: Bell Boeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertiflite (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's been changed. What Bell and Boeing call themselves is a fine reason. Also, this matches the Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased towards controversy

This article has a dedicated section for that but no dedicated section to the fact it has the best operational record of any military rotorcraft in history and in the single major combat accident that has so far occurred, most of the soldiers on board survived. And that Osprey was not hovering, but in flight at speed when it impacted. That's startling. It's also important to point out the big training accident that killed everyone on board was caused by flight control cables being flip-flopped during maintenance. Those cables are now coded, so it's not possible to swap them accidentally now. Simple stupid mistake that had nothing to do with the inherent design. If you're going to put a controversy section in, you need to compare the Osprey to the operational records of other rotorcraft, which are practically death traps and responsible for more covert missions going bad than any other factor. -Reticuli 66.178.144.19 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• There does need to be a balance. Jetijonez (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can people please avoid slang - particularly obscure and unintelligible American slang. It just causes confusion. For instance what does "Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding from 1989 to 1992" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not slang. It is the proper terminology for removing the budget line. Its meaning is clear with the sentences before and after that. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That said I just changed the wording (which is a term largely unknown or used this side of the pond, in my experience) and I think it reads better for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I had already added some wording to explain it better before that. Wasted effort it seems.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this read right?

General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased speed and range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[86]

Shouldnt it read "from the size of Rhode Island into the size of Texas"? Other wise what Trautman said is not praise, but criticism. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It means it made a large area seem smaller. Check the reference after the sentence for the quote and surrounding text. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh Canada

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1265705.html

Worth a mention yet? Hcobb (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From the source, I can't tell if this is actually under "serious consideration" by the CF/DND, or simply political talk. See what you can find in Defense/avitation sources, as the "lamestreams" often don't cover (or even comprehend!) the whole story! - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Good find, though. I've added a blurb from another source to the CH-149 article on the CF buying the VH-71 leftovers. Can you find anything reliable on upgrding the ex-VH-71s the flight status? Reply at the CH-149 talk page if you find anything. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Libya rescue

http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/06/marine-libya-lessons-short-command-control-links-stovl-flexibi/ This rescue took place even though the US Air Force had a rescue helo aboard the USS Ponce. In my view, having discussed this with the relevant personnel, it was not used for two reasons. It would have gotten to the pilot much later than an Osprey team and the command and control would have been much slower than what the Marines could deliver. The key to the Marines' C2 was that the pilots of the Ospreys and Harriers planned the operation together in the ready room of the USS Kearsarge. They did not meet in virtual space. They exchanged information in real time and were in the same room. They could look at the briefing materials together. The Harriers were informed by fresh intelligence ABOARD the USS Kearsarge. The sea base brought together the assets and intelligence to execute the mission.

Seems a little weak of a ref to me. Hcobb (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Joint Multi-Role tiltrotor

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/son-of-osprey/

Mention here yet? Hcobb (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bell and Boeing have studied different tiltrotor designs over the last 10-15 years. This looks like more of the same. The Joint Multi-role program is covered at Joint Multi-role Helicopter. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

CV-22B Accident Investigation Board

http://www.afsoc.af.mil/accidentinvestigationboard/index.asp

Worth a link? Hcobb (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and yes. The text has been updated. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Captialization

Proper nouns are capitalized; ordinary nouns are not. Following this rule we can see that "Marine Corps" is captialized, but "marine variant" (and "marine fuel," and "marine mammal") are not. In the same way, "US Army," and "First Army" require capitalization, while "army" does not. I see no rule in any style manual, including ours that indicates "Air Force" is capitalized if it refers to the US or any other specific air force. Grammar forces us to frame our thoughts in a conventional manner so at to express our exact meaning. It avoids confusion and misunderstanding. If I am wrong on my correction of the capitalization in this article, I would be happy to be corrected. but, barring a cite from some authority, over-captializing is simply sloppy writing. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, in order to eat this elephant one bite at a time, I just changed Paragraph Five from "Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey" to "Despite the Senate's decision, the Department of Defense instructed the navy not to spend more money on the Osprey." My reasoning is that navy is a lovely noun but not a proper one. Yes, it is obvious that we mean the US Navy, but the style guide does not allow for such a usage. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, navy is a generic term, but if expressed, implied or directed to the U.S. Navy, it should be written that way as a proper noun, and despite the contention it that "it is obvious", that is far from the case, as in Wiki, the audience is not expected to know which navy is being referenced. The rule briefly states, the word proper is from a Latin word meaning limited, belonging to one. This does not imply, however, that a proper name can be applied to only one object, but that each time such a name is applied, it is fixed or proper to that object. Even if there are several navies or air forces, the name of each is an individual or proper name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Please ignore the comments I made on your talk page. We seem to have been typing at the same time in different places. I can find no reference in the Wiki or any other style guide that allows (or requires, if you prefer) us to capitalize "navy" in any case where it is unmodified. If you can educate me, I am more than eager to be corrected. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

See: Capitalization, Punctuation, Capitalizing, Chicago Manual of Style Ad infinitum ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

I do not see the rule you cite in any of the seventeen listed on the Chicago Manual of Style site. Perhaps I missed it. In any case, I do not see it in our own [Manual of Style ] or on the page concerned with [terms].

Most published stylebooks recommend lowercasing the generic designation of institutions (or companies) when it is used in isolation. Since the Chicago Manual of Style is a subscription service, here is the relevant passage: "(7.57): Full titles of institutions and companies and the names of their departments and divisions are capitalized, but such words as school or company, as well as generic or descriptive terms, are lowercased when used alone."

As to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, there is no divergence: "Proper names of specific institutions (for example, Harvard University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College, etc.) are proper nouns and require capitalization. However, the words for types of institutions (church, university, college, hospital, high school, bank, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Forgive me, these are the same rules I would have cited. "Harvard University" requires capitalization. "Many say the university is..." does not capitalize the same word, even though we all agree it refers to a proper noun. In the same way "The DoD told the navy to cut off funds" does not capitalize the n-word as it is not in itself a proper noun. Unless I am wrong. In any case, it is getting to be bedtime here and I shall reflect upon your comments until morning. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The "navy" is any navy, but when the DoD refers to the navy, it is the "US Navy", the DoD is similarly, capitalized as the proper name of an institution, not any institution. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Currently the US Navy (Marine corp) & the US Air force only folks to have the Osprey in their fleets, so there no need for metioning just any old "navy" Jetijonez (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's not the issue, the Wikipedia is written for the non-experte. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Well, all the first mentions include "U.S.", so there is no problem with that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. "Dictionary.com" says; 2.( often initial capital letter ) the complete body of such warships together with their officers and enlisted personnel, equipment, yards, etc., constituting the sea power of a nation. 3. ( often initial capital letter ) the department of government charged with its management. In the same way, [6] says, 3. often capitalized : the complete naval establishment of a nation including yards, stations, ships, and personnel So I have to admit there is some indication of wide usage along the lines of what you advocate. But (gosh darn it) common sense says "Navy" is or is not a proper noun. There ought to be a simple, clear rule. That rule is in the Wiki Manual of Style and it says it is not, by itself, a proper noun. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, navy is not a proper noun when used in isolation or in your words, "by itself," but when referring to a specific navy, that navy is identified as a proper noun, e.g. Argentine Navy. We are now on a "lufbery circle" and I don't see a resolution. FWiW, I am perfectly willing to see a compromise and identify each specific use in a full title, e.g. turning navy into the US Navy. Bzuk (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

That is fine with me. Ought we to wait until tomorrow to see if other people wish to comment? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Here I went ahead and revised some of the article already, but left some of the contentious examples in place, such as the use of "navy" in a list with a modifier, i.e. U.S. Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force, where U.S. is considered as the prefix for the resultant list. FWiW, bearing in mind, the usual precept, (found at the bottom of most Wiki pages), "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." which is the ultimate incentive for anyone to edit any submissions. 15:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. I am a little ill (darn cold in Saudi Arabia this morning!) and will give this the attention it deserves. Tomorrow. Now it is time for orange juice and fuzzy slippers. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cold in Saudi Arabia??? You don't know cold until you've frozen your butt on metal seats in the Grey Cup at -40C! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

53 degrees F this morning, but even worse is that I have been here so long my blood is quite thin. Further, I will be in Philadelphia in two weeks. Thank you for your cooperation on this article. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

V-22s to Europe

http://www.stripes.com/news/cuts-in-europe-are-manageable-risk-eucom-commander-says-1.170241 Stavridis said the loss of two Air Force air control squadrons in Europe will be offset by the deployment of V-22 Osprey to Europe. Stavridis stopped short of saying how many of the tilt-rotor aircraft would be sent or where the aircraft would be located.

There are hardly any Marines in Europe, so these have to be CV-22s. Perhaps the 352d Special Operations Group will get a squadron? Hcobb (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifying type and especially the unit would be a gross violation of original research. Besides, what makes this deployment notable and worth mentioning? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's notable because Stavridis is stating that it shows an American commitment to Europe, under oath. Hcobb (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had commitment to Europe for the last 70 years. How is that notable? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

66 Million

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/pentagon-sees-savings-in-block-buying-from-v-22-to-subs.html

So my calculations show the latest block buy at no more than $66 million each. Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

V-22 briefing

http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/16/v-22-ospreys-heading-to-uk-okinawa-will-carry-white-house-pres/

I didn't see anything here I didn't already know, but perhaps if we use the Pink slime processing we might get a few McNuggets of information. Hcobb (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cockpit photo

I uploaded an image of a V-22 cockpit. Not the greatest photo, but none seem to be available. It it worth posting? File:Cockpit of V-22 Osprey.jpg Jim1138 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's good enuff, gives the reader an inside view. Jetijonez (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks very similar to the cockpit image in the Design section of this article now. No reason for two such similar images, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okinawans ‘Unswervingly’ Against Deployment of ‘Defective’ Osprey

http://worldmeets.us/RyukyuShimpoShimbun000002.shtml

Does this pass a relevance and sourcing scratch and sniff test? I'm dubious about including a translation by an untrusted source of a newspaper editorial. Hcobb (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems opinionated, and more to do with local politics and anti-americanism than relevance to the aircraft. It could be a relevant (although perhaps not trustworthy) source for a wiki article about Japanese feelings about foreign troops. The ref I just added is among the same lines, but contains a contemporary fact which may later be removed if it proves inconsequential. I could not find a link about the polls, which may be relevant. TGCP (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I can find plenty of references.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/06/14/no-love-for-the-marines-v-22-in-japan-2/?iid=bl-article-mostpop1

Hcobb (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Made ref. That is a better text. Less emotional, and describes V-22 as a target for Japanese sentiment rather than as a cause. Also, the 39/41 has more weight. Not sure what the blog status means for reference value. TGCP (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect suggestion

YOu may want to set up a redirect for "VC-22 Osprey." The desigation "VC-22" is a commonly repeated one (perhaps early documetnation read that?), even iif it is wrong.

If such a redirect existed, it should be for the new Robotech, as that is where the designation is used. Hcobb (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Excessive training required

http://jdnews.com/news/local/new-river-air-station-only-osprey-training-center-in-dod-1.20111 Pilots spend anywhere from six to eight months training at Marine Corps Air Station New River to learn the ins and outs of the aircraft. “The pilots who have been chosen to fly the MV-22B Osprey are highly professional aviators and officers. Are they elite? Absolutely,”

Would it be OR to post this in with a comparison to the training time required for USMC helicopter pilots? Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That article does not actually say more training is needed for the V-22 compared to helicopters. So yes that would be OR with that was the only source. Other sources surely support that though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

http://halldale.com/insidesnt/unique-aircraft-unique-training it takes six weeks less time to train a V-22 pilot than to train a CH-46 helicopter pilot.

Also...

http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/05/flying-the-osprey-is-not-dangerous-just-different-veteran-pilo/ "Helicopters lower the nose and pull pitch to accelerate,"

Seems to suggest that Morocco was caused by putting a former helicopter pilot into the cockpit. Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed AND rotary wing trained pilots need 100-hour initial (flight hours?) AND nearly an additional year training:

"Both services require prior fixed-wing and rotary aircraft training and flight time before entering the approximately 100-hour initial Osprey flight training curriculum. Once they earn their MV-22 wings, Marine pilots go directly to their operational squadrons for advanced training. Air Force pilots then go to Kirtland Air Force Base, NM. Pilots are fully mission qualified once they complete the nearly year-long Osprey training at Kirtland." Tagremover (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

interaction of rotors with wingtip vortices?

can someone please describe the interaction of rotors with wingtip vortices? in which direction do rotors rotate? probably against the rotation of the wingtip vortices to possibly partly or totally neutralize them??? how does the resulting airflow look like (any wind-channel visualizations available)? probably very turbulent... thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Widowmaker" has 45 feet of wingspan and 114 feet of rotorspan, so the rotortip vortices dominate. Hcobb (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

thanx for answering! just to be sure: the rotors will rotate against the rotational sense of the wing-tip vortices, right?

and don't we have to distinguish between the rotating slipstream or downwash behind the whole rotor-'circle' or -'disc' and the rotortip vortices, which are a 'marginal', 'tangential' phenomenon like with airfoils?

--HilmarHansWerner (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

advantage of two-engine-concept over four-engine-design and of the open-rotor-technology versus ducted-fan?

could somebody give me some clues why the four-engine-conept (curtiss-wright x-19, bell x-22a) was abandoned to continue with a two-engine-design? four engines seem to provide more safety regarding stability (present-day electrical 'drones' seem to fly perfectly stable with 4 rotors) and redundancy.

same question regarding the advantages of the open rotors versus the ducted fans of the bell x-22a and others?

thanx for letting me know! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (SV-22 entry)

Variants SV-22 - change "replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft" to "replace S-3 and SH-3 aircraft". The S-3 and SH-3 were the USN's carrier-based ASW assets. The SH-2 LAMPS operated from surface combatants, which were not capable of supporting operations by an aircraft the size of a V-22.

 Not done Please provide sources. -- Dianna (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The SV-22 variant was planned to operate from smaller ships in the mid-1980s. Issues with the aircraft and increased weight led to the US Navy moving away from the SV-22 in late 1980s. So this does not need correcting. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:CV-22 Osprey in flight.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:CV-22 Osprey in flight.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 19, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey flying over the U.S. state of New Mexico in August 2007. A prototype version of the aircraft first flew in 1989, followed by a long and difficult development process necessitated by its complex tiltrotor system.Photo: Staff Sgt. Markus Maier, USAF

New Bell Army Tiltrotor to be another V-22 variant

It seems fairly clear to me that another V-22 to go along with the MV-22 and CV-22 is what will be offered to the US Army, hence notable here. Hcobb (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the articles I've read really say that. These articles [7], [8], [9] only mention using V-22 tiltrotor technology (3rd gen tiltrotor), which could include something like the Quad TiltRotor. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading and disingenuous statement (POTD caption)

"The aircraft first flew in 1989, following a long and difficult development process necessitated by its complex tiltrotor system."

The above statement, which accompanies the "picture of the day", would have to be one of the most disingenuous and misleading statements I have ever seen.

So the design parameters of this aircraft were agreed in 1985, after being first proposed in about 1981, and then it had it's first flight in 1989, four years later. A "long and difficult development process" ?? Well, four years is not that long, by aircraft standards.

It was then, apparently, another 18 years after it's first flight, before this aircraft was operationally deployed. It looks to me, like the "long and difficult development process", actually occured AFTER the first prototype flight.

If this is the case, then the sentence accompanying the "picture of the day" should probably read something like "The aircraft first flew in 1989, FOLLOWED BY a long and difficult development process... " Eregli bob (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That quoted text does not appear in this article. The text in the Lead here has said "The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began flight testing and design alterations; the complexity and difficulties of being the first tiltrotor intended for military service in the world led to many years of development." for the last two years or so. You should be complaining about it on a picture of the day page (WT:Picture of the day) instead of here. -Fnlayson (talk)

CV-22 redirect

CV-22 currently redirects here, but in navy speak "CV" means aircraft carrier, so needs a hatnote. Please add:

"CV-22" redirects here. For aircraft carriers, see CVL-22.

-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've unredirected CV-22, but since this may be reverted, I think the hatnote should go ahead anyways. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect, and added a hatnote directly to USS Independence (CVL-22), as Bonaventure doesn't appear to have ever been CV 22. -BilCat (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I did not create the disambiguation page, it's existed for years, it was redirected a few days ago here. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

CV-22 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CV-22. Since you had some involvement with the CV-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel no longer Leasing

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Report-Israel-UAE-Saudis-in-huge-US-arms-deal-310366

That sounds more like a purchase deal that the lease we've reported. Hcobb (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not enough info in the J-Post story to say either way. I'm sure more info will be forthcoming in time from the defense and aviation news sources. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And a heads-up that there is lots of bad reporting going on about the deal.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167327 But Israel will receive missiles for its fighter aircraft, KC-135 refueling planes that can be used in a long-range strike, and V-22 Osprey transport planes.

So let's keep an eye out until the official report is released. (During Hagel's visit.) Hcobb (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

V-280 Valor

http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/10/bell-unveils-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-for-future-vertical-lift-prog/

Worth a page yet? Hcobb (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not yet, as this is just a vague proposal at the moment, at least as far as public info goes. Future Vertical Lift does need the Bell entry updated though. - BilCat (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But someone made Bell V-280 Valor anyway. I still think it's premature, but oh well! That's life for the cat-herders of WP! The [page needs LOTS of work to avoid an AFD by the delete-cabal. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

Delete Reference to Air Force Fact sheet. Link is not correct anymore. 199.46.199.230 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Links in references should not simply be deleted because they are dead per WP:Link rot. The USAF fact sheet link has been updated. Thanks for pointing this out. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Error in Osprey Line Drawing

The flaps must be down for helicopter mode operations, causing the wing chord to be visibly reduced. Hcobb (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?? It's just a set of line drawings. There's no need for that sort of hyper-accuracy. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an MV-22C

Under the "Variants" section there lists an MV-22C. This is a misnomer that comes from a confusing naming scheme for different blocks of MV-22B aircraft. The MV-22B model consists of Block A, B, and C models. All three are MV-22B. The Marine Corps recently began taking delivery of Block C aircraft, but these are still MV-22B aircraft. It's confusing, yes. Recommend the MV-22C be removed and underneath the MV-22B heading, include info on the Block A, B and C models. Here's a reference:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/919/124/EN_V-22_GuideBook.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewrkncacnter (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The 352nd special operations group now has the cv-22 also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilcharles (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Verified and added. Thanks. Hcobb (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

fuel consumption topic

Where is fuel consumption ? Where is comparation with copters? --Слишком похожий (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

CV-22s in South Sudan

Three CV-22 damaged by small arms. Notable? TGCP (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The mission to evacuate Americans and that they were turned away yes. The aircraft damage does not seem serious enough to notable. but the unless it was serious damage, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing statement about the CV-22

The statement by the USMC general in the section Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#U.S._Marine_Corps quote 114 is somewhat confusing. It is more or less apparent what he means, but the actual words conflict with that. His intend became clear after reading the quote(d paragraph) and Battlespace(which he mentions). I now know what he meant. Describing it is another matter. All my attempts produced convoluted and bloated statements. Could someone please try their hand at making the meaning and words of the quote match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachtkap (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MV-22 wing tanks

The MV-22 can also mount wing tanks:

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/?fuseaction=aircraft.main

But are these external, internal and removable or internal and built in? Hcobb (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They are built in. All Block B and Block C aircraft have them installed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewrkncacnter (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• The MV-22 and CV-22 both have tanks in the wings. But the USAF CV-22 has tanks inside the wing portion above the fuselage, while the MV-22 does not. The Bell V-22 guide only lists auxiliary tanks in the cabin. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

True cost ?

The programme cost is said to be US$35.6 billion "after planned procurement of 408 aircraft". That represents $87 million per aircraft. Part of that is the development cost, spread over 408 aircraft. With only 160 actually built to date the unit costs must be higher than $87 million - a lot higher. Accordingly a specified unit cost of $69.3 million cannot be correct.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many ways to figure cost, and Flyaway cost is a legitimate and useful one. As long as the cost given is identified and sourced, it's fine. - BilCat (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Infobox lists current total program cost and unit (flyaway) cost. Have you checked the sources to verify the numbers? If there's a error, post it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsusmc-receives-first-upgraded-block-c-mv-22-osprey

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

Add confirmed order of V-22 by Israeli Military. Source: http://digitaljournal.com/news/world/israel-orders-2-billion-worth-of-us-v-22-osprey-aircraft/article/380193 Smith1776A (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just seeking clarification here. Does this confirm the early Bell announcement of a doubling of Osprey procurement? I am assuming the total procurement figure is now 12 V-22.Irondome (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Operators - incorrect unit list

under the operators - USAF section the unit list is incorrect, the 418th Flight Test Squadron was omitted and it should read 7th Special Operations Squadron not 352d Special Operations Group. Someone keeps immediately changing edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob80q (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Check edit summaries on the article's history page. You did not provide any reliable source(s) with your changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes were reentered with proper references but reverted again, the article is also now protected and not available for edits. Somebody is getting real anal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob80q (talk • contribs)

What is anal is you and your slew of IPs continually adding wings and various other unnecessary information, usually unsourced, and continually changing the standard format of operators sections to something nonstandard, against WP:AIROPS style guidelines. That's why your IP's edits were reverted here. You need to stop that, and follow the existing format. Also, this article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it while logged in, if you have enough edits to qualify. But don't add in any of the wing stuff, or bold the service names, because that will be removed. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OMG, I actually had the audacity to bold the service names; how awful. They are GUIDELINES not REQUIREMENTS and I dont see any prohibition on using bases or parent units; certainly seems perfectly appropriate and logical to include such information and you will note it is included on many other aircraft articles. How about using a little common sense and flexibility here, you are like way too many wiki editors who are uppity, know it all dictators who wield way too much unchecked authority and hide behind the anonimity of a keyboard.

First off let's try to demonstrate some civility, name calling will not get you far. Secondly the reader is here to learn about the aircraft, and the operator section is one part of the overall article. We're not here to inundate them with to much technical information, that's why we have certain words, names and phases linked so they can click & see the specifics of something (ie: base location). Lastly you may want to sign your own posts, since your one who's up on anonymity claims - FOX 52 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Updates

Don't want to step on toes but I think the retirement and phase out dates for the CH-46 needs an update with more recent information such as Vietnam-era Marine helo flies into history. There may still be a training squadron with CH-46s? Also the Osprey was tested, can fire forward facing weapons Osprey Aircraft Test-Fire Rockets and Missiles.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The USMC retired the CH-46 in Oct. 2014. That does need to be updated in one place in this article. The weapons testing is covered in the Armament section. This capability could have a way to go before inclusion on operational V-22s. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

Operational use HMX-1 USA presidential use Nov 2014, at G20 held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Quote"Three custom-built helicopters, operated by the US Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron One, are available to the President wherever he travels.

The helicopters are either VH-3D Sea Kings or the smaller VH-60N WhiteHawks.

In addition, two Bell Boeing V-22 Ospreys also made practice runs over Brisbane.

The unique helicopters with dual tilt rotators are capable of making vertical take-offs and landings."

Reference:- http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/us-presidential-chopper-spotted-over-brisbane-20141112-11l7xc.html

Coolrunning2009 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Use by the Presidential transport squad, HMX-1 is already covered at Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey#U.S. Marine Corps. There's no need for additional coverage. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

The last sentence of the introduction states "the Osprey has been deployed in both combat and rescue operations over Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Libya." Yemen could be added to this list of countries, as the V-22 was used in a SEAL Team Six raid in Yemen in 2014. An article providing evidence is available here - http://time.com/3622579/navy-seal-raid-luke-somers-yemen/ 38.103.208.34 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The text in the Lead (Intro) is only supposed to be a summary of the article and not cover every detail. That source only support one mission. That could be mentioned in the body of the article, but not the Lead since it was a one time thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

It seems like the controversy section should be re-organized. I thought that cost, reliability, and safety were the controversial issues with some manipulation of the data as a key component to all three issues. Additional sources: [10] [11] Johnvr4 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see anything new in those articles that is not covered in this article. The recent hard landing/fire is covered at Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The safety issue was and is a controversy. I feel that your generalizations about those (two) articles the level of inclusion of that information as well as the opinion on the completeness of this entry without it leaves much to be desired. With all due respect, did you not read the articles? Past incidents were reclassified simply to show a safer aircraft etc. The latest crash changed the incidents per 100,000 hours which is a number which both articles clearly state and the recent crash had a drastic impact on that number. It's great that there is another article documenting the incidents and these entries should be merged. Since they aren't, the safety controversy is discussed in this entry.Johnvr4 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw the video, and the investigation likely compares with the contents of this old source. In due time. TGCP (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Production

"On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22,[79] from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the U.S. Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs" Ok - say they are built at a rate of 36 per year, By 2015 there would be 360 built. We are at a point either Foreign sales or a increased Number of aricraft need to be bought, or we will shortly be hearing news stories about the production line will close down at a certain date. Wfoj3 (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)