Ok, first off, this isn't my idea. It's out of the the latest Dale Brow book I'm reading. The idea is for a jet powered MV22, actually called an MV32 Dasher in the book, but I thought I'd share it with you guys. Personally, I like the idea; more power; faster; better range and no oversized props either. As I'm not likely to be building this sometime soon, I thought i'd hand it over for any of you MV22 nuts to have a bash at.
Problem: if one engine goes out you're dead. On the Osprey the engines are cross-linked, so one can drive the other's prop. Can't do that with a jet. If you're in level flight you might be able to hit full rudder, kill the other engine and crash-land, but if you're in hover it's over and down. :(
While we are speaking Osprey : has any of you ever come across a Strike version of the Osprey (one pilot bubble cockpit, slightly thiner fuselage and torpedoes were the cargo bay is supposed to be). I saw a model of it years ago at a Paris Air Show but never found any info about it since then (even considering the numerous Osprey books and articles which have appeared since)
JCC
QuoteWhile we are speaking Osprey : has any of you ever come across a Strike version of the Osprey (one pilot bubble cockpit, slightly thiner fuselage and torpedoes were the cargo bay is supposed to be). I saw a model of it years ago at a Paris Air Show but never found any info about it since then (even considering the numerous Osprey books and articles which have appeared since)
JCC
I've seen drawings for strike versions of the XV-15, put not for ones directly from the V-22.
You could always slap a pair of Viking wings on to the Osprey fuselage or even some Twotter wings.
try these...had them posted on the site for ages...iv the brochures on file if anyone requires ga.s of them for modelling? cheers, joe :ph34r:
first the initial 'Hawkeye style' rotodome...
http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/m...oto&PhotoID=181 (http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/miscukprojectdrawings.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=181)
then the 'Viking type' triangular one...
http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/m...oto&PhotoID=182 (http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/miscukprojectdrawings.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=182)
Have V-22 at home. Possiblility.
Really want to buy an AH-1W in the same scale and strip the chin turret and weapons to make a self-escorting assault bird. :D B)
Not that I'm normally influenced much by the "real" world in my What If modeling but I was wondering:
Are there any "attack" variants of big helo's such as Chinooks, Stallions, Pumas, Mi-28's, Merlins, etc.?
In kitbashing my V-22 Osprey into a helicopter, I would like it to be something of an MPH (Multi-Purpose Helicopter) which would retain the cargo ramp but also have enlarged Hind-style winglets carrying a swack of ground-attack ordnance.
Then I started wondering if there were any equivalents in the real world for bigger helo's but could not find any. There are gunship Chinooks but I can't think of any big production choppers out there with armament winglets loaded up with various missiles, etc.
Is this the case? If so, why? Too much weight? Not enough agility? Just not effective in a strategic sense?
Hey there JHM,
What scale are you building it in?? 1/72?
Italeri makes a 1/72 ACH-47 Chinnok gunship, along with sporting 30cal machine guns at the 2 man doors on each side, as well as the rear ramp, on the out board sponsons it also has what looks like a pair of either 25mm or 30mm chain guns, as well as a pair of 19 round rocket pods. Not sure how long this beast was in service, or if it ever was in service, but it looks damn mean to me.
Mind you I plan on making it in to a regular Canadian CH-147 Chinook, no, not What If, but it is Canadian.
Mind you we never sported one bristling with guns like the kit shows!!!
CH-53 gunship??? there probably have been some iteration, mostly what I have seen it 50 cals, or mini guns on the man doors and the rear ramp, but nothing more than that, really until I saw this kit of the ACH-47 Gunship, I had only just seen guns on the doors of the Chinook.
John,
There isn't much precedent for an AV-22, and the huge prop diameters preclude the use of pylon-mounted forward-firing weapons. I suppose they could be synchronized, but that isn't the norm for podded weapons systems like GAUs and FFARs. Bell was putting their hopes on selling a companion attack tilt-rotor like the BAT or an armed 609 in any case.
There was originally a proposed set of hardpoints to be mounted on the maingear sponsons, carrying torpedos on the SV-22 and fuel tanks on the HV-22.
Not many of the armed helicopters to date have approached the size of an AH-22; the Hind and armed versions of the Puma and Blackhawk seem to be the upper limit. The ACH-47 was a success, but the project was cancelled in favor of the AH-1 after only 5 ships were converted. The high manpower needs per flight hour, systems complexity, and the Army's dire need of heavy transport helos in Nam all piled up against the great beast. The 47's were better attack ships that might be expected - while maneuverability was limited, they could lay down so much fire that the enemy didn't even try to stick their heads up. That said, in the high threat-density of current environments, the Havoc, Apache, Cobra, and Tiger all arrive at roughly the same limit of reasonable size for an attack bird.
The Air Force tested armed HH-3 JGGs, and the Navy tried arming SH-3A Sea Kings, but neither of these projects went very far. Currently, most of the big helos are limited to door guns up to .50 cals, and the true attack birds carry the heavy iron. I've seen a 20mm cannon rig for the USN's SH-60R, but that is still developing AFAIK. The remaining big-bodied armed birds are things like the German and Italian Sea Kings, and of course the RN's Merlin, but these are primarily ASW and ASV aircraft.
In closing, I must say I do look forward to seeing your conversion. Care to share any of the details??
Cheers!
Tony
In picking the "CH-22" I may have inadvertently referenced something that does actually exist(?) and my intended kitbash was not clearly understood.
What I'm doing (to a 1:48 Italeri V-22) is knocking off the wings entirely, turning the existing thick-but-streamlined upper wing roots into sleek twin-engine housings, and will add a tail c/w rotor.
I thought it would be interesting to take the hybrid Osprey VTOL (neither an ordinary airplane nor a true helicopter) and turn it into just another helicopter.
As a fictional Chinook/Merlin/Puma competitor, I could leave it right there, including the existing cargo ramp.
But I wanted to add Hind-style winglets to expand its capabilities to a ground attack helo as well (hell, I'll even put Sidewinders on the winglet's outer tips, too!).
Then, I realized I could not recall any similar large helo with ordnance-laden winglets in the real world and figured there were probably good reason(s) for this (or maybe I was just overlooking something that was actually produced).
External armament on the ACH-47 included rocket pods of different calibers and 20mm gunpods. I have seen photos of Mi-8 helicopters with door guns and either rocket pods (68 or 80mm), gun pods or AT missiles.
Used to see pictures of UH-60s with ESSS wings that would support up to 16 Hellfire, or FFAR, or a mix, but at that time they couldn't also carry the targeting gear. The new HH-60 variants for the Navy carry all the necessary gear for Penguin and Hellfire.
During the early days of the LAMPS program, the Navy experimented with turning the SH-2 into a gunship, with chin-mounted Miniguns, and pylons for rockets or Maverick missiles. The Maverick capability has been retained in the latest versions used by the RAN.
As to bigger helicopters, I've read somewhere that the Air Force MH-53s are capable of carrying Hellfire or Stinger, but I've never seen pictures of how these would be carried, though I assume they would be mounted outboard on the sponsons in lieu of external tanks. This would limit range, though.
Sounds cool, JHM !
That Chinook gunship is the only big attack bird I've ever heard of as well. Doing up a Super Frelon as an attacker would be neat as well.......perhaps as French Indo-China War type ?
I had a plan aways back to combine a Huey Cobra with a Bronco......still might, someday !
Cheers !
Early 1960s vintage..competitive with LTV's proposal that became the XC-142..looks fairly easy to cobble together too!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dataviewbooks.com%2Fvstol.jpg&hash=9e9db225be25b44e6e31c0c38555379ce44738f9)
Chris
First time I had seen this, looks much better to me than the Osprey.
V-44 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281266.html)
Jeff G.
More "technical" info, if you're interested.
I could see sacrificing a Herc kit for this!
http://www.vtol.org/5-Gaffey.PDF (http://www.vtol.org/5-Gaffey.PDF)
The little light bulb just brightened up again and this time it was in conjunction with seeing the Shorts Skyvan on the WHIF display table at Telford. Hey, it was one of those "inspirational moments" that all of a sudden hit me as I was waiting for the image to finish loading and there was that Skyvan sitting on the table in camouflage and at first glance it almost passed for the V-22 Osprey until I focused on it and then it hit me about the wings and engines from the V-22 mating up to the Skyvan fuselage and what would it look like.
Not having the Skyvan kit myself, I have to ask if anyone has had a chance to see if the wings and engines from the V-22 Osprey will match up on the Skyvan fuselage. Reason I am asking is that it is about the right length overall and it has a very utilitarian design with that square fuselage shape and for some reason, it just seemed to be the right thing to do with the Skyvan and that silly Osprey. Why not mate up the wings and fuselage and see what becomes of it. I think it would look rather convincing with the tilt-rotor technology applied to it and it already has the twin tail arrangement so if anyone has both of those kits in their stash, how about doing a "check fit" on the parts and see what you think.
Or mate up a Skyvan and a Rotodyne?
Neat idea, being a Skyvan it would probably go faster up than forward :D
I flew for an airline that operated 7 SD360s (the "sleek" Shorts) and those of us flying the go-fast J31 had a pretty good list of Shorts jokes...
"the only aircraft with weather radar in the tail"
"the box the Jetstream came in"
etc...
do a double crosskit with a shorts skyvan - now THAT is appealing. :wub: :wub:
ditto with an ov-1o bronco! :wub:
save the wings for something else and make it into a contraprop helicopter. :ph34r:
bristow osprey? perfect for dropping those oil riggers off at work! :ar:
how about jets instead of turboprops? :unsure:
how about two pairs of osprey wings on something else? a dash 7? a herc? a shorts 330? a bac one eleven? :cheers:
*sighs*
my breain hurts. and i need osprey kits now...and i have a strange urge for my whisky sour (yes yes yes girl drink) and i to play with photoshop....
Skyvan Osprey merge??? Now that's spooky, I had cast my mind back to the 'Skyvan a go go' thread too, I've got a kit of that as well. That would produce something like a Sherpa using the V-22 fuselage with those joke plywood wings added. For the Van box - you couldn't ever call that a 'fuselage' - maybe mount the engines front and back, CH-47 style. Helos have got to be safer.
It also prompted a thought of a Skyvan / V22 Ekranoplan using those huge motors mounted at the rear on a V tail. I could even use the original Olympic Airways decals for an Aegean skimming beast.
Maybe a more developed version would make a good fire bomber.
:ar:
Trim the wingsapn by about 50%, remove the rotors, add lots of detail bits, turn it into a V-tail, and replace the wheels with skids; you have a Sci-Fi Dropship.
For something a bit more down-to-Earth, CSAR for RAF, RAAF, France, Luftwaffe, heck even CANADA! :D
USCG colors would look mighty fine on an Osprey too!
If one were to build a Spec-ops V-22, which would be a better place to have troops rappel(sp?) out - the tail end, or a "hell-hole" in the middle?
Matt B)
Agreed
Take a look at how it is done out of a Chinook, physical arrangement aft in the helo is similar enough to the Osprey that you could extrapolate from the helo for the Osprey in real world ops. B)
Quote>>snip>>Take a look at how it is done out of a Chinook, physical arrangement aft in the helo is similar enough to the Osprey that you could extrapolate from the helo for the Osprey in real world ops.<<snip<<
Matt,
During the Vietnam conflict the CH-47 Chinook was fitted with an apparatus that was for lack of a better description basically a rope ladder elevator. This device was fitted inside the cargo/troop compartment of the Chinook and consisted of a flexible rope ladder attached to a winching rig which allowed the ladder to go in both directions for insertion or extraction. I have seen images of this device in use but do not remember if the troops were going through the "hell hole" in the center of the aircraft or off the cargo ramp while disembarking/embarking the aircraft. This rope ladder elevator was in a continuous loop from the cargo ramp aft through the "hell hole" in the center of the aircraft. This brilliant idea was designed as a solution for insertion and extraction of troops on the ground (before they figured out that FAST Roping was more expedient for insertion). While this was seen as a means of easing the burden of the soldiers who were loaded down with kit in order to reduce fatigue, it did take up valuable space inside the aircraft in addition to keeping the aircraft stationary over the landing zone inviting hostile fire (large stationary target = bullet magnet).
After the Vietnam conflict ended the rope elevator idea was abandoned and things went back to normal insertion and extraction methods of landing and discharging the troops on the landing zone. While the special operations forces were by that time developing the use of FAST Rope technique for egress from the aircraft with the added benefit was less exposure to hostile fire to the aircraft and troops during the insertion mission. Extraction, however, is another story.
There were other methods tried and proved during the conflict as well. The STABO rig is one of them, but again, this left the personnel/troops (usually small reconnaissance teams) suspended beneath the helicopter until they were over safe territory where they could land and embark the aircraft. Being suspended beneath a helicopter moving slowly is not the best place to be if you are trying to avoid becoming a target.
From what I have read regarding the use of FAST Ropes from the CH-47, they used them from the personnel door as well as from the cargo ramp (three ropes total). If you were inserting troops from the V-22 you could expect to see at the very least two FAST Ropes from the cargo ramp, not sure about a third rope on the personnel door since the stability of the V-22 may come into play on that one. Steve Eggers (aka: stevev22fe) may have a better answer for you on that one since he is working with on the V-22 program. FAST Ropes are good for insertion, but extraction will require the aircaft to either land to recover the troops on the ground or go to stationary hover and use a rope ladder (not the rope ladder elevator), depending on the situation and terrain.
I have the AMT/ERTL kit (which I think is the ESCI kit).
I should have clarified myself - I'm looking for a cheap source of weapons(MG's, et al) and other parts that may be useful.
Matt B)
QuoteI have the AMT/ERTL kit (which I think is the ESCI kit).
I should have clarified myself - I'm looking for a cheap source of weapons(MG's, et al) and other parts that may be useful.
Matt,
Yes, the AMT/Ertl kit is the same that was offered by ESCI.
If you are looking for door guns and such, the pickings are mighty slim for anything that does not come with a model kit. You might want to look at some of the 1/72nd scale figure kits for weapons, there are some offered by Revell of Germany that may have what you need. As far as anything decent in a model kit, there are a couple of mini-guns provided in the Italeri MH-53 Pave Low kit that would work for you but you have to purchase the kit in order to obtain the weapons unless you can find a benefactor on one of the forums to assist you with your project. If you were doing this in 1/48th scale, you would definitely benefit from my assistance to further you along on your project but I try to stay away from 1/72nd scale since it is really hard on the eyes to focus on something that small. If my eyesight gets any worse, I will be migrating much sooner to 1/32nd and 1/24th scale, any worse than that, and I am giving up modeling completly.
Aeroclub do door mounted M60's & GPMG's in 1/72. You can them get direct from Aeroclub, or from Hannants in the UK, but I've no idea how readily available their range is in the rest of the world.
http://www.aeroclub-models.com/p.html?n=0&c=G024 (//Aeroclub%20M60)
http://www.aeroclub-models.com/p.html?n=0&c=G028 (//Aeroclub%20GPMG)
Quote from: Leigh on November 25, 2005, 03:19:10 PMOr mate up a Skyvan and a Rotodyne?
Better yet! V-22 wings, engines and rotors parts and apply them to the Fairey Rotodyne fuselage. Just cut off that hunchback on the top of the fuselage and fill in the hole, then add the Osprey wings in place of the existing set up. Only problem would be where to put the landing gear after you removed the existing engines and wings from the Rotodyne.
Other WHIF ideas for the V-22 Osprey:
MV-22 PAVE LOW X - Fit the Osprey with the same features and equipment used on the MH-53J Pave Low to augment or eventually replace the MH-53 and create a fourth generation Pave Low mission aircraft. Externally there would be little difference between the Pave Low V-22 and the standard V-22, most of the changes would be internal such as increased fuel capacity in the form of fuel bladders in the cargo bay.
CV-22 Osprey VERTREP - Modify the fuselage and create a strongback to carry cargo containers or a passenger pod. This would be similar to the CH-54 Skycrane in appearance with fuselage modified to become a central strong-back with to mount the wings and engines. The main landing gear would be mounted on this as well to clear the cargo area to accommodate a standard 20 foot ISO container or specialized personnel pod. The idea with this is to allow the Osprey to be a trash hauler to perform re-supply and support missions by attaching a standard ISO container to the strong-back fuselage. Once the Osprey reaches the destination it would land and release the load and then fly off to pick up another container. Special equipment would allow the Osprey to carry vehicles or passenger pods which could configured as command posts or medical treatment facilities that could be transported to the air head in support of operations.
Can't remember 100% but I think when I did read about Japan's interest,it was the Marine and Army.The Navy was interested in it as a rescue/minesweeping platform.This role has now went to the EH-101,so thats out,for now.The Army was looking at it as a replacement/compliment for their Chinooks.
One of the missions the US Army was looking into with the Osprey before they pulled out of the program was the electronic recon mission,currently preformed by the RC-12 Guardrail family.So that might be interesting to modify one up like that with all the lumps and bumps.
Also,the JGSDF Osprey,I have one in the 3 tone camo on my profile thread.
Have heard this about Aussie V-22s:
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=20255 (http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=20255)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html/ (//http:///)
Would be a Chinook replacement, supposedly for SF insertion.
I'm going to build mine in Mexican Navy markings as a patrol aircraft.
Rattling around in my head, I have plans to make one in US Coast Guard white and orange as a SAR bird, possibly with a zodiac to launch off the ramp?
I like the looks of the Canadian SAR birds in yellow, that'd be cool, too.
Someday, I really like to take 2 1/48 Ospreys, and a C-123 Provider and make a 4 engined tilt rotor transport. USMC or USAF markings? I'm not sure...
I've got to paint my AV-22 Spectre-type gunship. (It's only been, what, two years or so) I'm going with black up to just under the wings, then MARPAT across the topsides. Just can't find the time to get to the bench lately.
What if you put ducted turbofans like the A-10, S-3, etc. on the wingtips instead of the turboprops? You'd have to sleek it up a lot, but for whatefer reason, a tilt-jet just sounds sweet(and dangerous) to me. Ok, ok......I'll go back to my hole now...
Jon
Something like this, by Kenny Mitchell......
OK, I'll go back to my hole, too
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq14%2Frafaelgonzalez65%2FOspreyatmosshuttle0001dropship.jpg&hash=bdb4c90e7cd20a9e83da3571600729dafbff63f2)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq14%2Frafaelgonzalez65%2FOspreylandingdropship.jpg&hash=796ea4a6bd75e98936f86dcfee1607a5f630cf41)
Rafa
I got a AFSOC MV-22C in the works, Tan / Dark Grey camo armed with RCL's, 'Winders and if i can find a cheap on 30mm off a AH-64
QuoteQuoteSomeday, I really like to take 2 1/48 Ospreys, and a C-123 Provider and make a 4 engined tilt rotor transport.
I found this article by Mike Hirschberg on a Quad Tilt Rotor (http://www.vtol.org/vertiflite/BellTiltrotors.htm) while doing some research on logistics things. It has a couple of intersting images of the four rotor aircraft you are describing.
A marvelous, tempting concept. I also fell for it. (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=17935)
Rafa
QuoteI found this article by Mike Hirschberg on a Quad Tilt Rotor while doing some research on logistics things.
I had seen that article as well, that helped to inspire me, too. I'm really enamored with the tiltrotor concept.
Rafael, you've done some amazing work with paper and resin. Thanks for the link.
Was the V-22 ever painted in HMX-1 Green?.. how about one with a white top ala VV-22 Marine One
I haven't seen any -22s flying around here in HMX markings, but you'd have to think that eventually they will be replacing some of the older -46s and -53s with the Osprey at some point.
QuoteSomething like this, by Kenny Mitchell......
I did like the picture Rafe, it kind of reminded me of this beast.
drawn in 1958 she is a 100 seat airliner with a All up Weight of 110,000lbs
the drawing is out of 'Stuck on The Drawing Board', all about unbuilt U.K civil pojects. It is also in Putnams 'English Electric Aircraft'.
Since this topic is about the V-22 Osprey, it would help to get back on that subject again, so with that in mind I give you the following food for thought:
Flying Leathernecks Decals for the first combat deployment of the V-22 Osprey. (Thank you Dave Roof!)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv50%2FRoofDL%2FFL48014MV-22BVMM-263-1.jpg&hash=b9952fe505eaa51573be1905beea73cd54b7e5db)
Check the national insignia. Notice something missing from it? No center bar in the stars and bars.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv50%2FRoofDL%2FMV-22BProfile.jpg&hash=a1cbfe55cd4962264d8d79341aea1ac178099a2a)
Quote from: Shasper on August 27, 2004, 01:38:55 PMWhat about decreasing the prop length by making them 5-6 bladed?
No need to decrease rotor blade diameter. The perfect solution for creating a five blade rotor for the Osprey is to use the rotors from a pair of the Italeri 1/72nd scale RAH-66 Commanche kits on the 1/48th scale V-22 kit. The five blade rotor is a perfect candidate for improving the appearance of the plain vanilla V-22 kit. Of course this means that you will be sacrificing a pair of out of production RAH-66 Commanche kits for the rotor parts to upgrade your V-22.
Quote from: Iranian F-14A on September 26, 2007, 09:04:11 PM
Can't remember 100% but I think when I did read about Japan's interest,it was the Marine and Army.The Navy was interested in it as a rescue/minesweeping platform.This role has now went to the EH-101,so thats out,for now.The Army was looking at it as a replacement/compliment for their Chinooks.
Found a link over at Secret Projects to an article from the early 90s, the JMSDF wanted some for SAR (UV-22J?) and some more for ASW (SV-22?). Mossie has done some profiles over in that forum.
(digging up a really old post re: jet-engined Osprey)
Quote from: JoeP on August 27, 2004, 12:00:04 PM
Problem: if one engine goes out you're dead. On the Osprey the engines are cross-linked, so one can drive the other's prop. Can't do that with a jet. If you're in level flight you might be able to hit full rudder, kill the other engine and crash-land, but if you're in hover it's over and down. :(
Using the technology from the F-35B, it should be possible to crosslink two turbofans. If you drive just the front stages (ie the 'fan' part of the turbofan) you'd get a fair amount of thrust...
A few V-22 WHIF ideas....
1. Wings removed, conventional helicopter arrangement (main rotor + tail rotor)
2. Engines removed, two turbofans added mid-wing (think S-3 Viking) like a conventional cargo aircraft.
3. Two JSF like fuselages attached to the wings providing VTOL or conventional take off / landing capability
I read recently that they may be looking at re-engining the V-22s. Apparently the Rolls-Royce Allison T406s have been wearing out faster than expected in operational use. Though this may be simple speculation.
Regards,
Greg
Speaking of V-22 whiffs, anyone remember these:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedForces.jpg&hash=e234f273fbe6ecdb06e4d070ff223374b7882c4c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-1.jpg&hash=d236f6341681f74d0af74265587eec263c08e14d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-4.jpg&hash=ef0d6b4b44e512ffa8559b05c33e8ce749c9420c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-5.jpg&hash=4a8c8f9fbce22c3ecab27bbed52cc58573f02b04)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22MV-22OspreyUSMCVMX-22WHIFcreate.jpg&hash=ac92fb52002208e3c22cb9ff02137bf88f23c813)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalNewZealandAirForceWH.jpg&hash=62cdcf90288fa29f5b0a61ef4e20fabcdea21ea2)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalNewZealandAirForc-1.jpg&hash=c135a6964c4d92ed79e96603211418f99b0ae5d6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalAustralianArmyWHI-1.jpg&hash=27d80231f897e14a22fa29f1110881d6879954e4)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalAustralianArmyWHIFcr.jpg&hash=d55f3ca9a0df49ff39508ff5d304dcfb48a96922)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalSwedishNavyWHIFcreat.jpg&hash=7a251340b71e53f7cf0d6fe2ddeac5c1c75f2bc8)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 16, 2008, 03:07:10 PM
No need to decrease rotor blade diameter. The perfect solution for creating a five blade rotor for the Osprey is to use the rotors from a pair of the Italeri 1/72nd scale RAH-66 Commanche kits on the 1/48th scale V-22 kit. The five blade rotor is a perfect candidate for improving the appearance of the plain vanilla V-22 kit.
Would this arrangement allow for a conventional rolling TO w/ the engines in the full horizontal position? The current protor setup does not allow for this IIRC
Shas b)
Quote from: Shasper on April 30, 2008, 06:21:24 AMQuote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 16, 2008, 03:07:10 PMNo need to decrease rotor blade diameter. The perfect solution for creating a five blade rotor for the Osprey is to use the rotors from a pair of the Italeri 1/72nd scale RAH-66 Commanche kits on the 1/48th scale V-22 kit. The five blade rotor is a perfect candidate for improving the appearance of the plain vanilla V-22 kit.
Would this arrangement allow for a conventional rolling TO w/ the engines in the full horizontal position? The current protor setup does not allow for this IIRC
Same diameter as the kit rotor, all it does is improve the look of the V-22. So no rolling take off with this modification.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on April 30, 2008, 07:21:48 AM
Same diameter as the kit rotor, all it does is improve the look of the V-22. So no rolling take off with this modification.
Or horizontal flight. :wacko:
A bit of inspiration came to me today as I was approving Kit Spackman's images for his gallery folder. Great work Kit!
Anyway Kit had a pair of Pogos in one of the images and I spotted the counter-rotating propellers on the things and immediately thought of the V-22 and how to get around those large diameter propeller-rotor things that are so large in diameter. Counter-rotating propeller-rotors should work and they would be much smaller in diameter, sort of like an unducted fan or whatever the current buzz word is for that kind of set up. So who has a brace of Pogos to slaughter for this project?
My only problem with contra props is that it would add more complexity to an already very complex beast, one that's suffered because of it.
Jeff,
Glad you liked the twin Pogos, thanks.
I'm not sure a standard K-P Pogo prop would be anywhere big enough. I mentioned in the caption that I'd had to use the same 4 bladed prop on both a/c in the photo as I'd broken the proper 3 blader for the real Pogo. The 3 blader is quite small and I used a set of modified Beverley props for the Osprey. They were the biggest props I could find at the time, and I reversed the pitch of one half by re-twisting the blades. That's suprisingly easy with the Aeroclub metal props BTW.
Perusing the Aeroclub lists may come up with something better nowadays, as the Osprey was built back in '95. Perhaps a set for a Tu-95 Bear suitably modified? Have to be paddle blades, it just wouldn't look right with curved tips.
The V-22 is just one of those a/c designed to be a Whif, isn't it? Like a Pogo or a Rotodyne, it's in there trying to get out. :)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 04, 2008, 07:49:41 AM
Perhaps a set for a Tu-95 Bear suitably modified? Have to be paddle blades, it just wouldn't look right with curved tips.
Comparing the 1/72 Tu-95 props with a B-50, there's not a lot of difference in the diameter. I think you need something from a An-22, in 1/72 these are humungous
Quote from: Mossie on December 04, 2008, 04:51:01 AMMy only problem with contra props is that it would add more complexity to an already very complex beast, one that's suffered because of it.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 04, 2008, 07:49:41 AMI'm not sure a standard K-P Pogo prop would be anywhere big enough. I mentioned in the caption that I'd had to use the same 4 bladed prop on both a/c in the photo as I'd broken the proper 3 blader for the real Pogo. The 3 blader is quite small and I used a set of modified Beverley props for the Osprey. They were the biggest props I could find at the time, and I reversed the pitch of one half by re-twisting the blades. That's suprisingly easy with the Aeroclub metal props BTW.
Perusing the Aeroclub lists may come up with something better nowadays, as the Osprey was built back in '95. Perhaps a set for a Tu-95 Bear suitably modified? Have to be paddle blades, it just wouldn't look right with curved tips.
The V-22 is just one of those a/c designed to be a Whif, isn't it? Like a Pogo or a Rotodyne, it's in there trying to get out. :)
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 04, 2008, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 04, 2008, 07:49:41 AMPerhaps a set for a Tu-95 Bear suitably modified? Have to be paddle blades, it just wouldn't look right with curved tips.
Comparing the 1/72 Tu-95 props with a B-50, there's not a lot of difference in the diameter. I think you need something from a An-22, in 1/72 these are humungous
I would agree with you on the problems of a more complex system being used with the V-22 over and above what is already a very complex drive train between the two engines to keep the thing in the air should one engine fail.
The whole aircraft defies the accepted norms for flight as an aircraft and a helicopter. These issues can all be ignored in the WHIF world and at least here we can toy with the ideas of counter-rotating propellers for the V-22. The concept would have to be done as a Scale-O-Rama to make it look acceptable and it might require a pair of 1/48th scale Pogo propellers mounted on a 1/72nd scale V-22 to even come close to making it look believable. The propeller blades could be the paddle shape or a square tip shape but they will certainly need to be larger than normal to make it pass muster.
Another option would be to consider doubling up the existing rotors to make a six blade rotor/propeller combination for each engine. The more blades the merrier and this usually means a reduction in rotor/propeller noise so it would be an additional benefit that would make the V-22 that much more stealthy.
Kitnut,
Not sure why the An-22 props should be different to the Tu-95, they both use the same engines. In fact the An-22 was designed specifically to use the existing engine-prop combo that was available at the time.
The B-50 sounds a possible, I hadn't thought of that one, but you'd need to re-pitch one set of blades. I have no idea how to do that in plastic, but maybe someone does a set in white metal?
Well that made me go looking for my models Kit :lol:
But as usual when I want them for comparison I can't find one of them. Maybe I got the idea that they were bigger on the An-22 is because they look huge on the sprue, from memory the Tu-95 prop blades were more pointed than these too.
As an aside, I'm having a similar problem finding left and right hand props of 16 foot diameter for my contra prop idea on my Avro Chadderton. Aeroclub do have some with square tips that are opposite to B-29 props but then there's a lot of re-working to do to make them look the same.
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 04, 2008, 05:39:35 PM
Well that made me go looking for my models Kit :lol:
But as usual when I want them for comparison I can't find one of them. Maybe I got the idea that they were bigger on the An-22 is because they look huge on the sprue, from memory the Tu-95 prop blades were more pointed than these too.
As an aside, I'm having a similar problem finding left and right hand props of 16 foot diameter for my contra prop idea on my Avro Chadderton. Aeroclub do have some with square tips that are opposite to B-29 props but then there's a lot of re-working to do to make them look the same.
Situation normal about not finding bits you KNOW you have somewhere.....
I could believe that some An-22 props were different to some Tu-95 ones. The An-22 came later so would benefit from any development work, and they did put the Bear back into production after some years, I think that was the Sov Navy Tu-142 variant.
The Beverley props I fitted to my Osprey were 16' 6" footers, and may suit your needs, but I can't find them in Aeroclub's lists even though Hannants list them at £7.83 for four. If your Chadderton uses Centaurus engines that'd be exactly the right fit of course, as that's what the Beverley had. You';d need two sets for contra-props of course, but reversing the pitch isn't as difficult as you might think, although you'd have four times the work that I did....
It's a matter of slowly twisting the blades the opposite way round, working along each blade in turn. I think it took me about 20 mins. to do mine.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 05, 2008, 12:40:55 AM
The Beverley props I fitted to my Osprey were 16' 6" footers, and may suit your needs, but I can't find them in Aeroclub's lists even though Hannants list them at £7.83 for four. If your Chadderton uses Centaurus engines that'd be exactly the right fit of course, as that's what the Beverley had. You';d need two sets for contra-props of course, but reversing the pitch isn't as difficult as you might think, although you'd have four times the work that I did....
Yes got some of those already and some for a Britannia which are about the same diameter but turn the other way (IIRC).
See here so we don't hijack the thread http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20781.0/highlight,chadderton.html
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 05, 2008, 06:57:42 AM
See here so we don't hijack the thread http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20781.0/highlight,chadderton.html
I think we already did -_- but I'll put further comments on props over there.
Something that you all may wish to follow as further developments unfold is Andrew MacKay's V-22 Osprey WIP on ARC (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=190536&st=0&#entry1800035) which appears to be a WHIF based on the camouflage scheme he has recently applied. I do like the fact that he has included a freight pallet with three fuel drums to show the size of the rear ramp area on this model.
Changed my mind again. :rolleyes:
I picked up an SH-60, and am planning to take all the ASW parts to make a replacement for the S-3, one with the speed advantages of a fixed-wing combined with the hover ability of a helo. It would allow faster prosecution of contacts plus the ability to dip sonar and drop sonobuoys. Also greater range and time on station.
I truly think the USN made a mistake retiring the S-3s, and this is my proposal to replace it.
Quote from: JoeP on September 06, 2009, 04:43:23 PMChanged my mind again. :rolleyes:
I picked up an SH-60, and am planning to take all the ASW parts to make a replacement for the S-3, one with the speed advantages of a fixed-wing combined with the hover ability of a helo. It would allow faster prosecution of contacts plus the ability to dip sonar and drop sonobuoys. Also greater range and time on station.
I truly think the USN made a mistake retiring the S-3s, and this is my proposal to replace it.
That option surely has to be better than the old AMT/ESCI SV-22 kit with the odd looking torpedo shapes attached along side the main landing gear.
I dunno, the old SV-22/PV-22 looks ok if you ignore the odd torpedoes, and don't look for anything resembling Anti-sub gear on it...
I've got an SV-22 in the stash that was going to get a USN treatment, done up in the old white and grey scheme before low-vis came into heavy use. Have it take Mr. Lasky out to the Reprisal for its "Final Countdown." ;D
im not sure if this is an actual project or a reaslly well done kitbash ? ...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/photos/photopage.jsp?plckPhotoID=4b32cd52-99f9-40ed-8a35-704da1954a9e&plckGalleryID=b1746a72-fce6-489c-9afe-50a1413a668b
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7931.0/topicseen.html
cheers, joe
I'd call it a well-done kit bash, myself. Some of the relative sizes look a bit suspicious to me. Besides, the last I heard, NGC was staying with the basic Hawkeye fuselage, though they are applying modern structural and manufacturing methods to improve and strengthen the fuselage.
I'd say that it is 'fan-art', I wonder how long AvWeek will leave it up?
Quote from: elmayerle on October 08, 2009, 03:37:47 AM
I'd call it a well-done kit bash, myself. Some of the relative sizes look a bit suspicious to me. Besides, the last I heard, NGC was staying with the basic Hawkeye fuselage, though they are applying modern structural and manufacturing methods to improve and strengthen the fuselage.
At this years Paris air show the US Navy/Grumman displayed a C-2 Greyhound with new 8 blade propellers. Looked really cool
Quote from: TsrJoe on October 08, 2009, 03:13:33 AMim not sure if this is an actual project or a reaslly well done kitbash ? ...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/photos/photopage.jsp?plckPhotoID=4b32cd52-99f9-40ed-8a35-704da1954a9e&plckGalleryID=b1746a72-fce6-489c-9afe-50a1413a668b
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7931.0/topicseen.html
cheers, joe
(looks like they have proposed a fire fighter version as well based on the description in the last image)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsitelife.aviationweek.com%2Fver1.0%2FContent%2Fimages%2Fstore%2F11%2F3%2Ffb0691f4-c4dd-45d3-a355-8247341cc637.Large.jpg&hash=c63c0c710a847cb59776448b2f4e9583f59969ea)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsitelife.aviationweek.com%2Fver1.0%2FContent%2Fimages%2Fstore%2F7%2F9%2F7753b186-9d53-4d80-9971-c109a0514254.Large.jpg&hash=cb1eac843b6cdf3f1ec447707bf0fbaae98ea414)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsitelife.aviationweek.com%2Fver1.0%2FContent%2Fimages%2Fstore%2F12%2F11%2F6c547f22-1c7d-497c-abec-e4dcbb7bc150.Large.jpg&hash=da1ae9036335718b272cc1273cfac9a2cde67065)
(image source: Bruno Bec/aviationweek.com (http://www.aviationweek.com))
Interesting concept. Wonder how the other parts would look together? Using the Greyhound fuselage with the V-22 wing and rotors?
Shame that the images are so small. Would have been nice to see the fine details of the wing and fuselage join and to determine how much putty was going to be needed for such a conversion. I guess the smaller the better in this case. 1/144th scale would definitely hide many of the faults that would be glaring on a larger model.
Another variation on the V-22 Osprey theme. This time it is a combined special operations transport - gunship platform modeled by a SketchUp user by the name of AutomaticJack. The full size image is available as a download to Google's SketchUp but you can view a smaller image on this page with a link to download: Boeing Vertol AV-22-LSOC Ghost (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=e5cb220d269eb66d8a62f3b902cc1d03&ct=mdrm&prevstart=108)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsketchup.google.com%2F3dwarehouse%2Fdownload%3Fmid%3De5cb220d269eb66d8a62f3b902cc1d03%26amp%3Brtyp%3Dlt%26amp%3Bctyp%3Dother%26amp%3Bts%3D1206124487000&hash=412702b21985363e15ac1eef312c14bc18240801)
(image source: Google SketchUp-3D Warehouse/AutomaticJack (http://sketchup.google.com/))
Here is the description provided for the model:
QuoteThe Boeing Vertol AV-22 LSOC ( Longer version, Special Operation Command) GHOST is the natural evolution of the AC-130 Spectre field support gunship. It merge both the deployment capabilities of normal tiltrotors and the extreme firepower of gunships. Born from the same project of the Osprey, the Ghost shares with its little brother only the name. The folding wing and rotors system has been removed to save weight and increase the structural strenght, and the dorsal space has been fitted with a dorsal conformal fuel tank. The Ghost can still load a SOCOM team up to ten men, thanks to its longer fuselage. The armament is composed by a 20mm Phalanx cannon ( 3000rds), a 105 grooved barrel howitzer ( 50rds), two 14.5 three barreled turrets ( facing front and back, 1400 rds each), up to 4 AGM-65 Maverick missiles or 12 Hellfire missiles or 6 hydra rockets canisters or a mix of them and 2 AIM-9L Sidewinders. The crew is composed by 4: Pilot and gunner in the foward cockpit, tracker and artillery officer in the rear. Two General-Electric / Westinghouse ASG-44 engines provides 20000shp through the two six bladed contrarotating propellers.
that'll bring some pain!
Rotors from the V-22 gunship added to a V-130 WHIF from the 3D Warehouse. The original creation that was uploaded was still sporting the four blade propellers from the original 3D model. It certainly looks better with the larger rotors added to it. I also removed the horizontal control surfaces and added a second vertical control surface at an angle to the fuselage. Reminds me of the original proposal for the V-22 which was depicted with a "V" tail in many of the early advertisements.
You mean C-130, not "V-130"... ;D
The V-44 designation was already circulated for a while for a tailless development of the V-22 with a very similar configuration as this.
VC-130 is impossible because that would indicate a staff transport Hercules...
CV-130 (a transport VTOL) is unlikely because the V- list does not yet extend beyond #23... What about CV-30? (to keep the C-130 feel...)
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on December 11, 2009, 08:16:50 AM
You mean C-130, not "V-130"... ;D
The V-44 designation was already circulated for a while for a tailless development of the V-22 with a very similar configuration as this.
VC-130 is impossible because that would indicate a staff transport Hercules...
CV-130 (a transport VTOL) is unlikely because the V- list does not yet extend beyond #23... What about CV-30? (to keep the C-130 feel...)
Did you note the "to a V-130
WHIF" bit??
Re the designations (and you seem to portray yourself as a bit of a JDN), VC-130 is entirely possible these days - if for no other reason, the marketing aspect (for instance, if Lockheed Martin didn't want any association with the V-22 at all). Likewise, ever since the mid '90s, the designation system has arguably gone out the window, so a CV-130 is also entirely possible regardless of the so-called V-list (ala F-35). As for CV-30, same reasoning as V-44 might apply, no wish by Lockheed to be associated/confused with the KC-30.
But I'll go back to the point of this post and the website...it is a whiff!!!! And to quote our once common war cry "its my fecking model"!!!
Greg
Quote from: GTX on December 12, 2009, 11:36:12 AM
"its my fecking model"!!!
You didn't have to write tons... the last five words would have been enough. If I took the time to go over the designation bit, it's because I cared enough for your work, otherwise I would not have bothered.
Quote from: GTX on December 12, 2009, 11:36:12 AM
you seem to portray yourself as a bit of a JDN
Sorry, I don't know what a JDN is, but in your words it sure sounds like something rather unpleasant. I have the weakness to believe that "whif" doesn't mean improbable, and that the more truth you put in an imaginary project to make it resemble reality, the more enjoyable it is. It is YOUR f-ing model, but that's my bloody outlook on things, so you could also respect it.
This being said, you can be sure I will not make the mistake of commenting on your work again.
More SketchUp goodness in the form of the V-22 Osprey with six-blade rotors instead of the original three-blade units. Easy enough to accomplish when you can manipulate the 3D model components modify them easily enough.
As for as the designation issue, I don't really care. Should I feel the need to designate it CV or VC or MCV or MVC or whatever, that is my choice to make not yours.
I started to do a QTR a couple of years ago like in the pic below, I'm using a Transall instead as my base kit. Problem is I cut plastic to how I envisioned it from the picture and I think I've got it too short. What ever happens though I'll need a minimum of 6" or 152mm between the rotor centers when they're in lift mode but like a number of my other projects I had underway before my house move, it's packed away still --- somewhere.
Howsabout a XMCJV-22J Osprey with ducted fan units instead of rotors? The 3D model of the large fan jet engine I was playing with earlier appears to be well suited for scaling up to replace the rotors on the Osprey. Of course there will be nay-sayers amongst us that say this is impossible to do in real life but who cares, it looks wicked-cool.
I can not take credit for this idea as it was actually portrayed in a cheesy video game called Recoil where it was used to transport you to the next level of the game. I just took the idea and made it look a little better thanks to the major contributors on the 3D Warehouse at SketchUp
Nice! But what's the purpose of the ducts being dented in their rear end? :huh:
Noise reduction I think, the engines on the 787 & 747-8s sport the same saw-tooth pattern.
Ok this has been sitting in the back of my mind for awhile now, but if the number of blades were increased could the protor blade length be reduced?
Switching gears, just picked up G. I. Joe on dvd & I'm totally digging the jet powered V-22 thingy, if something like this were to be done in real life would it use 4 engines or only 2 & have some sort of thrust-diverting from the wing to the tail mounted "lift pods"?
The saw tooth edge is to improve mixing between the intermediate speed fan exhaust and the free stream. The shear layer between the two is one of the origins of exhaust noise. Improved mixing therefore reduces this. You can find pictures on the interweb of all sorts of interesting shapes which have been tried over the years.
Remember when considering a jet version of the V-22 that the prop engines are cross-linked, so that if one engine dies, the other can turn the rotor and keep the plane up in the air. If a jet engine blows, the plane spins around one of its axes until the other engine can be killed, and then you have a very heavy glider with a very dizzy crew.
Quote from: JoeP on December 19, 2009, 03:47:07 PMRemember when considering a jet version of the V-22 that the prop engines are cross-linked, so that if one engine dies, the other can turn the rotor and keep the plane up in the air. If a jet engine blows, the plane spins around one of its axes until the other engine can be killed, and then you have a very heavy glider with a very dizzy crew.
For the less observant.
The engines remain the same. All that was done to modify the original 3D model was to remove the rotors and replace them with the ducted fan portion of a fan jet engine so the engines are the same as before.
Quote from: JoeP on December 19, 2009, 03:47:07 PM
Remember when considering a jet version of the V-22 that the prop engines are cross-linked, so that if one engine dies, the other can turn the rotor and keep the plane up in the air. If a jet engine blows, the plane spins around one of its axes until the other engine can be killed, and then you have a very heavy glider with a very dizzy crew.
Thats why I was thinking of a similar arrangement to the Curtiss X-19 ie engines mounted somewhere on the fuselage (preferably ontop) & ducting the thrust to the wingtips & tail.
Love the JDN classifier Greg, the JMNs were getting a bit lonely. :ph34r:
Mr. Joyless Designation Numpty meet your roommate the Joyless Modelling Numpty.
Play nice boys.
Re the ducted fan XMCJV-22J, it's not that far fetched - remember the X-22 (nice name coincidence):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FBellX-22A-1.jpg&hash=b5b77187b982db85fc596b445b35448bafbef451)
Re the saw-tooth pattern, it would be a definite aid to noise reduction - a possible reason for the duct addition in the first place.
How about a variation with slightly smaller ducts but also with a single one in the tail to help balance the load?
Regards,
Greg
Couldn't help myself:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FTriDV-22.jpg&hash=fffc0f7797d5781e69c21e641f24c010b983051a)
And whilst the brain was switched off:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FAV-22.jpg&hash=8fafe825a9027246852136f7014b1fceea77d742)
Regards,
Greg
How about a more streamlined cockpit, Greg? ;D
Quote from: Shasper on December 19, 2009, 08:41:28 PM
Quote from: JoeP on December 19, 2009, 03:47:07 PM
Remember when considering a jet version of the V-22 that the prop engines are cross-linked, so that if one engine dies, the other can turn the rotor and keep the plane up in the air. If a jet engine blows, the plane spins around one of its axes until the other engine can be killed, and then you have a very heavy glider with a very dizzy crew.
Thats why I was thinking of a similar arrangement to the Curtiss X-19 ie engines mounted somewhere on the fuselage (preferably ontop) & ducting the thrust to the wingtips & tail.
But ducting the thrust like that tends to lead to so much duct loss (XFV-12A being an extreme case, but I don't believe anyone's found explanding on the XV-5A's exhaust driven fans to be worth investigating - ISTR that the failure of the exhaust-driven fan concept was one reason Mcdonnell-Douglas'' JSF entry had problems). For this, i prefer mechanical interlinking and drives.
Superconducting generator technology is being suggested for high-bypass jet engines (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electric.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29) Seems like it could work for avoiding the weight and power loss issues of shafts driven fans.
A graphic that sums up the idea.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VyTCyizqrHs%2FSysdMOPWcCI%2FAAAAAAAAF9M%2Fo5zMr0P1gho%2Fs400%2Feplane2.jpg&hash=16f32e918f99051b694175bebab88b6af1eb6ef1)
***cleaned up the html***-jjf
Quote from: tinlail on December 21, 2009, 11:02:04 AM
Superconducting generator technology is being suggested for high-bypass jet engines (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electric.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29) Seems like it could work for avoiding the weight and power loss issues of shafts driven fans.
A graphic that sums up the idea.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VyTCyizqrHs%2FSysdMOPWcCI%2FAAAAAAAAF9M%2Fo5zMr0P1gho%2Fs400%2Feplane2.jpg&hash=16f32e918f99051b694175bebab88b6af1eb6ef1)
That is a really great idea. I wonder if they could incorporate the generator portion into the rim of the fan?
Would it be possible with that technology to mount your motor-generator units independent of the rotors/fans?
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on December 21, 2009, 04:03:59 PM
Quote from: tinlail on December 21, 2009, 11:02:04 AM
Superconducting generator technology is being suggested for high-bypass jet engines (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/superconductors-could-enable-electric.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29) Seems like it could work for avoiding the weight and power loss issues of shafts driven fans.
A graphic that sums up the idea.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VyTCyizqrHs%2FSysdMOPWcCI%2FAAAAAAAAF9M%2Fo5zMr0P1gho%2Fs400%2Feplane2.jpg&hash=16f32e918f99051b694175bebab88b6af1eb6ef1)
That is a really great idea. I wonder if they could incorporate the generator portion into the rim of the fan?
Would it be possible with that technology to mount your motor-generator units independent of the rotors/fans?
That is what the article suggested.
I have been in a funk and decided to look through my collection of DVDs for inspiration.
Watching SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND made me realize that the OSPREY was the starting point used for their ISSCV.
Then I watched some episodes of GHOST IN THE SHELL, and they had some sort of longer wing and two engines on that wing for their version of the OSPREY.
They may actually be doable in plastic. I may even do them in the future.
However, I am totally smitten by those half BLACK WIDOWS (YF-23) half FLANKERS in Japanese markings near the end of the GHOST IN THE SHELL: STAND ALONE COMPLEX- SECOND GIG series. I am actually doing one of those first!
:drink:
Tin, that's a Beautiful perspective - I LOVE that. That answers a question over on the Hind thread, quite directly - if the motors and generators can be mounted seperate of the main engines, then you have the capacity for the Tiltrotor Hind - use the original engine mountings to house the motor/generators, and then you have them powering the actual lift/drive systems in the drive nacelles... it's Beautiful. You have the redundancy without much problems at all, and centralize most of the weight/fuel for the main power generation systems.
Hello All Sorry I have missed this great thread up till now. A couple thoughts about some of the great V-22 What Ifs found here.
The six bladed version I think is a very real possibility down the road as the V-22 team works to improve performance. The tough part will be making the blades fold for stowing on and below deck, unless it is for a non-ship capable version.
On the ducted fan version it is a very interesting idea but there are some things to consider with those BIG ducts. It looks like a lot of extra weight so the wing might have to be beefed up. One of the biggest issues for V-22 is the velocity of the wind coming off the prop-rotors in VTOL mode. Those ducts will really make the velocity even more pronounce. Gonna be hard to get those things under deck as well. You will however probably get a decent increase in cruise speed though.
Please don't take this as critical comment as it really is brilliant work, but having spent some time professionally observing tilt rotor and VTOL technology just thought I would share some of the realities that challenge making an aircraft.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswireless.net%2Fcontentimages%2Fmedium%2Fdilbert_bah_02.jpg&hash=c59bdb03a9c78f33251eb96fd62f5d8f2ae6789d)
Regards,
Greg
Well put. :cheers:
Quote from: Yasotay on January 01, 2010, 09:32:45 PMHello All Sorry I have missed this great thread up till now. A couple thoughts about some of the great V-22 What Ifs found here.
The six bladed version I think is a very real possibility down the road as the V-22 team works to improve performance. The tough part will be making the blades fold for stowing on and below deck, unless it is for a non-ship capable version.
On the ducted fan version it is a very interesting idea but there are some things to consider with those BIG ducts. It looks like a lot of extra weight so the wing might have to be beefed up. One of the biggest issues for V-22 is the velocity of the wind coming off the prop-rotors in VTOL mode. Those ducts will really make the velocity even more pronounce. Gonna be hard to get those things under deck as well. You will however probably get a decent increase in cruise speed though.
Please don't take this as critical comment as it really is brilliant work, but having spent some time professionally observing tilt rotor and VTOL technology just thought I would share some of the realities that challenge making an aircraft.
The ducted fan concept was based on an air vehicle from a video game called Recoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_(video_game)). It is a WHIF.
As far as folding rotor blades go. I don't see where that would be an issue if the aircraft in question was not destined for Navy or Marine Corps use on board ship where stowage is an issue. Perhaps it could be developed further for civil aviation use or for the Army and Air Force where the need folding rotors is not as great.
The original JVX that became the V-22 was an Army program, or at least done in parallel with what would become Osprey. It had a longer non-folding wing and bigger prop-rotors. The prop-rotors and wing on MV-22 are smaller so that it can land next to the island on LHD and other USN ships. I think it very likely that if military organizations that don't work off of ships for a living started using V-22 there would be a real possibility they would look for ways to improve the aircraft's performance; like more blades and maybe redesigned wings.
As to the ducted fan, the second longest flying VTOL experimental in the US was the X-22A which is a four post ducted fan. There is some reason to believe that we might want to re-look ducted fan VTOL aircraft as we spend more time in and around cities. Open rotors and buildings, trees, light post, wires, etc., don't go well together. Putting a shroud around the rotor means you can bump into things and maybe live to talk about it (although you probably have to change your flight suit). I think that there is real possibility it is not far fetched at all. If you were going to do a V-22 that is say 100 knots faster, I think the "H" tail would get changed out for a "V" tail with horizontal stabilizers or possibly canards for better pitch control. Take a look at some of the Bell artwork for "stop/fold" Tilt rotors and you can see what I mean.
It really is cool stuff and you have to forgive me for getting 'geeky' about it. When I see something close to engineering level precision in the art it just brings it out. I am not in anyway trying to be critical about the work, especially since this is the What If Forum.
Presidential VH-71 based on the V-22 anyone? Or is that VV-22?
Quote
Osprey To Swoop For WH Lawn
By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 2:09 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
If the White House and Pentagon have figured out how to fix the interagency process that helped doom the first stab at a new presidential helicopter, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus didn't make it crystal clear this morning.
I asked Mabus who was in charge of the program and he said the Navy has the administrative program lead and Ash Carter coordinates the program for the Pentagon. I pressed him to find out who really has the program lead and about the role of the White House (aka Secret Service working with the WH Military Office) and he paused for a long time. Then he let it lie.
According to the Military Office's website, it: "oversees policy related to WHMO functions and Department of Defense assets and ensures that White House requirements are met with the highest standards of quality... The WHMO units include the White House Communications Agency, Presidential Airlift Group, White House Medical Unit, Camp David, Marine Helicopter Squadron One, Presidential Food Service, and the White House Transportation Agency. To assure proper coordination and integration, the WHMO also includes support elements such as operations; policy, plans, and requirements; administration, information resource management; financial management and comptroller; WHMO counsel; and security."
Let's hope that the program's players know who is really in charge and just don't want to talk about it. Finally, Mabus also said he wished he'd been on the job earlier in the program. "It'd be a lot easier if Id been around," he said, smiling. Perhaps head banging was needed and he is adept at it?
Meanwhile, it may seem an unlikely choice but Bell Helicopter and Boeing say they are likely players in the presidential helicopter competition. They told Defense Daily that they are "preparing a response to the RFI request with a VV-22 solution."
Imagine the sight of a V-22 swooping down to the White House lawn with those enormous blades. Great advertising for the capability. After all, if the White House deems it safe enough to carry the president then it must be ready for prime time, anywhere and any time.
Regards,
Greg
I coulda swore the reason they didn't pitch it last time around for the VXX was because it was too big (like the CH-53E and CH-53K).
Y'know, being a Marine A/C the V-22 would'nt be bad for a VXX . . . Maybe one or two MV-22s fitted with some of the CV's equipment & other things, leave 'em in the combat gray except for the presidential seal near the door & maybe a green/white fin flash?
Quote from: anthonyp on April 24, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
I coulda swore the reason they didn't pitch it last time around for the VXX was because it was too big (like the CH-53E and CH-53K).
Umm! what might this be ?
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/Sikorsky-CH-53E-Super/1682167/&sid=27fbdb4ad345a3524646a330f21399a2
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Marines/Sikorsky-CH-53E-Super/1521259/&sid=25c73a76e12f57367661823f89f0c5f4
As an aside, I've got some 1/72 decals to do this aircraft.
The Corps has a bunch of those VX 53Es I saw about a half dozen the last time I was in Quantico. I believe they are used to move other personnel and not the President himself, or if they do transport the president they could not fit on the white house lawn so it falls to the H-3 version more commonly seen in the press releases, photo ops, and when a president flashes the peace sign with both hands after resigning.
VV-22 would be awesome. :cheers:
EDIT: They also fly VH-46s and VH-60s
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rotorhead.org%2Fmilitary%2Fimages%2Fvh46.jpg&hash=a31af97fa64bd4aa80b8b8de1c6342c1b4de255a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsecurity.org%2Fmilitary%2Fsystems%2Faircraft%2Fimages%2Fvh-60-DN-SC-93-03267.jpg&hash=1d7cb07e931238c22e58f4fbb96455fe4dd250bd)
IIRC, the white topped machines are for the Prez and the others are for reporters, staff and of course the sunglass wearing, UMP toting Secret Service.
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 13, 2009, 07:48:56 AM
I started to do a QTR a couple of years ago like in the pic below, I'm using a Transall instead as my base kit. Problem is I cut plastic to how I envisioned it from the picture and I think I've got it too short. What ever happens though I'll need a minimum of 6" or 152mm between the rotor centers when they're in lift mode but like a number of my other projects I had underway before my house move, it's packed away still --- somewhere.
I started working on hacking together a couple of 1/700 V-22s from WEM to make something similar. One of these days I'll get back to the hobby room and finish it.
Once I've gotten my USCG white/orange V-22 on the shelf (haven't started it yet. maybe after the move?) I think I'll do up another -22 in HMX white top livery - I think I can cobble the markings I need from my -46 and -53 kits.
Quote from: LemonJello on May 10, 2010, 05:46:46 PM
Once I've gotten my USCG white/orange V-22 on the shelf (haven't started it yet. maybe after the move?) I think I'll do up another -22 in HMX white top livery - I think I can cobble the markings I need from my -46 and -53 kits.
The USCG V-22 does indeed look nice ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperion.mystarship.com%2Fmodels%2FCategorized%2FNorth%2520America%2FUSA%2Fuscg%2Fhv-22%2Fhv-22d_1.jpg&hash=bf551fd9c0ac349d03f2c53bb75f72a978700d56)
Not quite done yet, but almost there (more here (http://hyperion.mystarship.com/models/Categorized/North%20America/USA/uscg/hv-22/)). Looking forward to yours.
I've been thinking about picking up one of those Italeri VH-71 kits to use the decals on my own VV-22 as well.
That is sweet. Where did you get the USCG markings?
When I build mine, I was thinking about having the ramp down with a zodiac boat ready for launch and may be some life raft canisters on wing pylons?
Those marking were extras from Anigrand (I ordered about five extra sets when I purchased their XV-15 kit) and custom made decals (ie, home made). You can also get good markings for USCG if you can find the 1/144 Revell HC-130 kit.
There are also USCG decals in the Revell 1/72 HH-65.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/08/342926/boeing-says-aw101-one-of-its-three-options-for-vxx.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/08/342926/boeing-says-aw101-one-of-its-three-options-for-vxx.html)
And now it's official - there really may be a VV-22 :D
OK, after I effect repairs to the AV-22 (rough handling by the movers left it in three major pieces), I have three -22 kits in the stash. As of now, I'm thinking they'll be marked as follows:
Standard USMC battle taxi grays (Flying Leatherneck's decals)
USCG orange/white (Fireball Models decals)
HMX-1 gloss olive/white top VIP transport (scavenge decals from -46 and -53 kits)
I have my eye on some CanMilAir decals to do up a yellow/red Canadian SAR Osprey, but I'll need to get another kit (not a problem).
And here I was thinking all real world V-22s were basic grey...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fman%2Fdod-101%2Fsys%2Fac%2Fv-22-dvic281.jpg&hash=c371d6139b41294d1dc0965f2673246cba3f324e)
Regards,
Greg
The Bell Boeing logo on the side indicates that this is one of the YV-22A FSD prototypes painted as a demonstrator for the MV-22A, not a real full-fledged production model.
But isn't it the most AMAZING looking thing when it's all folded up? :thumbsup:
I have the guts of a Hobbycraft one and the parts break-down would enable you to do that, but the kit is woefully inadequate in most other areas.
And Stargazer, please can you slow your multi-image avatar down a tad, I'd like to actually SEE the various types you have in there! ;D
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on January 28, 2011, 01:18:35 PM
The Bell Boeing logo on the side indicates that this is one of the YV-22A FSD prototypes painted as a demonstrator for the MV-22A, not a real full-fledged production model.
Still doesn't change my comment!
Quote from: GTX on April 24, 2008, 01:25:00 PM
Speaking of V-22 whiffs, anyone remember these:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedForces.jpg&hash=e234f273fbe6ecdb06e4d070ff223374b7882c4c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-1.jpg&hash=d236f6341681f74d0af74265587eec263c08e14d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-4.jpg&hash=ef0d6b4b44e512ffa8559b05c33e8ce749c9420c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22CV-122OspreyCanadianArmedFor-5.jpg&hash=4a8c8f9fbce22c3ecab27bbed52cc58573f02b04)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22MV-22OspreyUSMCVMX-22WHIFcreate.jpg&hash=ac92fb52002208e3c22cb9ff02137bf88f23c813)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalNewZealandAirForceWH.jpg&hash=62cdcf90288fa29f5b0a61ef4e20fabcdea21ea2)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalNewZealandAirForc-1.jpg&hash=c135a6964c4d92ed79e96603211418f99b0ae5d6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalAustralianArmyWHI-1.jpg&hash=27d80231f897e14a22fa29f1110881d6879954e4)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalAustralianArmyWHIFcr.jpg&hash=d55f3ca9a0df49ff39508ff5d304dcfb48a96922)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FV-22%2FV-22OspreyRoyalSwedishNavyWHIFcreat.jpg&hash=7a251340b71e53f7cf0d6fe2ddeac5c1c75f2bc8)
Regards,
Greg
Did a 'google search' for V-22's and found these..... Wonder why I'd be looking at Osprey's ??? :wacko:
Ian
Quote from: Ian the Kiwi Herder on March 04, 2013, 11:45:11 PM
Did a 'google search' for V-22's and found these..... Wonder why I'd be looking at Osprey's ??? :wacko:
Ian[/color]
Could it be something to do with that big heavy box in my hallway? ;D
You guys see that video of it knocking all those people flying when it was alighting ? Wow.
Quote from: Captain Canada on March 06, 2013, 07:20:38 PM
You guys see that video of it knocking all those people flying when it was alighting ? Wow.
Is there a link for that?
CanMilAir Decals have just released this sheet.
http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=194
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 23, 2014, 01:10:08 PM
CanMilAir Decals have just released this sheet.
http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=194
That looks great, they'll sell lots of those, in Toronto and Montreal anyway.
Quick note of an oddity found in Flight, February 1979.
US State Department denied an export license on an Italian request for the ... XV-15
Get whiffing.
Quote from: AS.12 on June 30, 2018, 12:23:49 PM
Quick note of an oddity found in Flight, February 1979.
US State Department denied an export license on an Italian request for the ... XV-15
Get whiffing.
God is an iron. ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/AgustaWestland_AW-609_N609AG_%28cn_60002%29_static_display_%2821471922133%29.jpg/1024px-AgustaWestland_AW-609_N609AG_%28cn_60002%29_static_display_%2821471922133%29.jpg)
From Jon's link above;
...the aircraft's purpose is to take off and land vertically, but fly faster than a helicopter...
I've got a nagging memory of a UK company trying something similar in the 50's...
Can't quite put my finger on it. The Roto-something... :wacko:
Which made me think about kitbashing an Osprodyne/Rotosprey.
Quote from: zenrat on June 30, 2018, 07:05:07 PM
From Jon's link above;
...the aircraft's purpose is to take off and land vertically, but fly faster than a helicopter...
I've got a nagging memory of a UK company trying something similar in the 50's...
Can't quite put my finger on it. The Roto-something... :wacko:
Which made me think about kitbashing an Osprodyne/Rotosprey.
I read that as rotospey, another kitbash...???