Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey/Archive 1

message: This article does not mention anywhere the amount of space (area) a V-22 needs to land vertically, and it seems difficult to reasonably infer for this reason: In the helicopter article, it says that helicopters need "approximately twice the area of the rotor disk" to land, and the specifications section lists the "Disc area" for the V-22 as being 9,100 sq ft - but doesn't say if this is the area of one rotor's disc or both rotors' discs added together, and the helicopter article was talking about copters with only one rotor. Furthermore, the Osprey is the only aircraft with two rotors mounted side-by-side, and so the conventional rule for landing area of a helicopter might not even apply. The long and short of this is, the article needs to say somewhere what the minimum landing area of a V-22 is, even approximately (I don't know if such a statistic is readily available), because it's not a trivial fact that could be deduced from the statistics given as it is with normal helicopters. --Edward Tremel 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has conflicting values for rotor diameter and disc area. If rotor diameter is 38 feet as noted, then the math rule for area of a circle (PI times radius squared) gives a total disk area of 2268 square feet (for two rotors), not 9100 square feet. --Mark Cayton 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure. But assuming that the rotor is mounted 2 feet in from the end of the 46 foot wingspan (-4 = 42), add two radii (38/2)*2 and you would have 80 feet. So if we were to double that for safety, 160 feet. That times the length of 57 feet gives 9,120. It's an educated guess, but doesn't seem that unreasonable. Nobody said it would be a circle. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disc Area and Landing Area

message: There has been, to put it kindly, a lot of performance figures put out for the V-22 that aren't as straightforward as one would like.I changed the previous listing of Combat range: 1,249 nm (1,437 miles; 2,313 km); 
Range implies a 2-way trip, and the V-22's given ferry range included air-air refueling. The similarity of the 2 figures (combat range x 2 and ferry range) leads to an implausible figure, therefore. The figures I've seen indicate that unrefueled combat range is about 590 miles. There are helicopters with more range, so I'm not surprised the contractors have been somewhat slow to clear up this misconception.
In addition, the V-22's cruising speed at or near sea level is only about 185 knots. This compares to about 150 knots, for instance, with the EH101 helicopter - not so much of an advantage. I didn't remove the existing figures, but I did add a sea level figure so people would be aware of it
:* I think that this is a bit misleading. A 35 kt advantage for a jet fighter is negligible, but a 35 kt advantage for a helicopter is fabulous (nearly a 20% improvement over a very fast helicopter). Since this has been written originally, there have been updated changes to the aircraft. The USAF states that the cruising speed is 277 mph (241 kts) and range as 2100 nm and I have put these in the updated changes. In addition, the range seems somparable to the stated unrefueled range on the official Air Force website. Can someone get this updated?
::How does the Osprey compare to existing Sea Stallion and Super Stallion performance?  CH-47 performance? 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance figures

message: The article says, "Critics state that the aircraft will never be mature enough for reasons of pure physics — the V-22 cannot be fixed because of its flawed side-by-side rotor design, although the tandem rotor CH-46 and CH-47 helicopters have been operational for over 30 years." However, the CH-46 and CH-47 have forward and rear rotors, not side-by-side rotors. I am presuming that this renders the criticism baseless since there is a significant aerodynamic difference between the two configurations. Am I right? Can someone with more knowledge of this topic confirm this and edit out that last part, if necessary. Cheers! --Hux 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no aerodynamicist, but I see no reason to think that a side-by-side rotor arrangement is 'flawed'. Early helicopters (Focke-Achgelis and some others) and the giant, record-setting Mil Mi-12 used this arrangement without issues. The critics seem to be basing their claims on their gut - while Stephen Colbert might appreciate it, aerodynamics is a science. ericg ✈ 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Criticism? 

message: This has always driven me nuts, that people feel inclined to include every esoteric movie, video game and anime reference to a particular airframe in "Popular Culture". I mean, do I really need to know all 20 movies that the F-16 appeared in? Not to mention a listing of all the latest war games. I'm sorry, but with some exceptions, the majority of video games and anime don't count as "popular culture".
I'm going to go vent on the town waterpump or whatever passes for General Discussion here, but I did draw the line at discussing unrelated fictional variants of the V-22. 
--Mmx1 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex page, its first run was in 2004. The V-22 was developed in the 1980s, with its first flight in 1989. Even the the V-22 is just entering service now, the basic design hasn't changed. So, no, the anime was not made before the V-22, by about 15 years. - BillCJ 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Please see Talk:Tiltrotor#Revert_Advert.3F--Aerospacenews.com 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Edits 

message: How's the fuel efficiency? I imagine that it consumes more than a same size prop fixed-wing, but less than a heli. Anyone have specific numbers? Jigen III 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Consumption 

message: The third paragraph of the article mentions side mounted machine guns but the rest of the article never clarifies what model(s) is/are used. Fine, different forces will probably use different weapons but what do the Marines use (seeing as they are the main user) or perhaps what are fitted as standard (if that happens). Thanks in advance! --Hydraton31 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the wording of this confusing and so tried to clear it up by clarifying that, because of the reasons stated, there are no machine guns side mounted, hope it helped. --Hydraton31 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side mounted machine guns? 

message: Is this the longest development programme in the history of aviation? If not, it's up there. 86.7.208.240 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest development? 

message: I have a query about this newly added paragraph:
:Experienced aerodynamicists have pointed out that a propellor or rotor does not provide much motive force, but only stirs the air around it, unless there is windflow into it...
That may well be the case, but it
# needs a better source than "experienced aerodynamicists", 
# needs to be related back to the ability of the V-22 to do its job.
As to the merits of the objection, wouldn't it be possible (and indeed standard operating procedure) to use the tiltrotors to gain a fair bit of horizontal velocity before switching to "airplane mode" - and wouldn't this only be done from a nice comfy altitude anyway? 
As far as I recall (and I'm certainly no expert on the matter), the biggest criticism of the V-22's utility in a combat role (and one not discussed in the article, which should be fixed at some stage) is that its safe descent rate is far slower than a Chinook, let alone smaller military choppers.  Therefore, it's a sitting duck for RPG's, Stinger missiles, and the like on the way down. --Robert Merkel 07:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerodynamics and tilt-rotors

message: Have finally nuked the Pop Culture section. There's nothing particularly useful in it and it's a magnet for speculation and videogame cruft. Wikipedia is not a directory of movie or video game appearances; for its appearance to be notable it has to be more than an "appearance". The typical example is the F-14 and Top Gun. In the absense of such examples for the V-22, I don't feel that discussing a 30-second appearance of the V-22 in a cut-scene of a video game particularly warrants mention. --Mmx1 20:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the deletion. Keep it out. BQZip01 07:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture 

message: Limitations paragraph states: "Because of the extreme downdraft of the propellers, Marines cannot rappel out the side doors as on conventional helicopters." This may be but what about down the manhole, which is what they do with most CH-53 and CH-46 air assaults in the Marine Corps. --ProdigySportsman 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about rappelling out the manhole in the middle of the aircraft? 

message: I removed the following text from the artilce primarily because its incorrect formating was messing up the article.
:A report detailing the V-22's design and operational flaws, including the grave and fatal consequences that could ensue if the V-22 Osprey is deployed, titled "V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker," has been recently published < ref name="V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker" > (spaces added to show text in ref)
In addition to the missing "/" in the ref, there is no cite info other than a name. I did find the following link in a previous edit:Center for Defense Information
Upon checking out this link, I find that the link to the "report" is actually a site selling the report (looked like a book to me). Unless something is actually quoted from this report, I don't believe it deserves mention in the article. There are already several sites listed in the "External links" section which are critical of the V-22; no need to link to a one which is just selling a report. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical report

message: I removed this link from the article:
 *MV-22 flight test video
The Wikipedia Copyright Policy does not allow linking to material known to be infringing copyrights and YouTube is specifically mentioned in the restrictions on linking. It is unclear and unlikely that the video's creator has permission for use of all those clips and the music included. I want to stress I think a video of the osprey in action is a great addition to the article, however its important to follow the policy about how copyrighted material is associated with the wikipedia.  Perhaps the group can come up with a solution on how to find and link material from the original copyright holders? - Davandron | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so. Even if the video was all USG provided (and therefore OK) the audio track is most likely not authorized. But cool video of course. I'll check around and see if I can find some promotional material from when I worked with the V-22 team at Boeing; at least then it can be properly attributed fair use as promo stuff... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video 

message: Don't know if anyone wants to add it but there are now 3 full up and operational V-22 squadrons in the Marine Corps and 1 training squadron:
* VMM-162
* VMM-263
* VMM-266
* VMMT-204
VMM-266 just came online on March 23rd.--Looper5920 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational Squadrons 

message: How many have been built? It seems very low, and maybe it is worthwhile to follow the operational history of notable individual aircraft even? I get the impression that there may be as few V-22 as there are B-2?! It is very confusing, because I remember seeing it time and again over the years and it seemed like one of those gigantic late Cold War programs? Dysmorodrepanis 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number built?

message: This didn't get any response at all when originally posted (which I suppose might be telling me something) but just in case it simply wasn't noticed under the previous heading, I'm reposting it in its own section here.  Some of the wording is in response to Mmx1's comment above.
Recognizing the history of cruft in the Pop Culture section, I'm soliciting comment on the significance of the Osprey's role in Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix.  The Osprey is SoF2's final boss (in addition to its role as a level boss during a rooftop battle midway through the game), where it presents a significant and final obstacle to the player, as opposed to simply appearing in a scripted cinematic sequence as in other previously mentioned video game titles. In the interest of complete disclosure (or foot-shooting), aside from featuring as the primary antagonist in the mid-game and final battles, the Osprey does not have an otherwise persistent presence in the game.  I would suggest that it is almost certainly more central to SoF2's plot than the Ospreys in Transformers, but I understand that reference is significant because it utilized two of the Air Force's three existing V-22s. -ReverendTed 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that - I meant to reaspond earlier, but with over 1500 pages on my watchlist, it's easy to forget amid all the other activity. Games, for the most part, aren't notable. I know it's hard to accept, but they aren't. Notability means the apprearance has an enduring effect that goes beyond just the medium, and has an effect on the culture beyond just the game, or is atherwise remarkable for some reason, such as the Transformers movie appearance. Hope this helps. - BillCJ 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A perfectly reasonable argument - only a handful of video games can be claimed to have had the cultural impact of a movie such as the typical "Top Gun" example, and none of those feature the Osprey as prominently as Top Gun's F-14. (This might just as well be an argument against the current Hammerheads reference, though.) I'd definitely consider this the Osprey's most significant appearance in a video game to date, but it just so happens there's a rubbish heap of an article I can toss this reference on.  I noticed that some helicopter articles link to that page, either by citing it as the "Main Article" for the Pop Culture section as with the Huey, or under "See Also" as with the Mi-24 HIND. It might be worth linking, unless you'd be worried that a pure list article like that could be destined for deletion in the near future.  -ReverendTed 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'm absolutely certain that page will be nominated for deletion sometime soon. There are a bunch of editors who think it's their dutie to rid Wikipedia of such "unencyclopedic lists", and they'll find it soon enough. Meanwhile, it keeps the regular articles clear, and that's fine with me. - BillCJ 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By same token as disregarding the SoF2 reference, I don't see how Hammerheads passes the "major cultural appearances" criteria stated in the section's comments. -;ReverendTed 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree to a point. If you want to challenge it, remove it, and require anyone re-adding it to porvide the necessarty sources. I'll back you on not putting it in till then. To be honest, I'm not quite as strict on book appearences as on games becuase books are less prone to being added by the dozen! That said, I have removed books in aritlces (can't say whether one was in this article - bad memory!) that I did feel were non-notable. I've either read Hammerhead, or one similar by the same author, and the V-22 played a significant role in the one I read. - BillCJ 03:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read it, but the Osprey is on the cover of the book.  If I really wanted to seriously challenge its inclusion, I'd probably take the time to look up sales figures for SoF2 instead.  (So far I've had difficulty locating anything concrete.) -ReverendTed 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It has finally happened! I promise I had nothing to do with it nominated. - BillCJ 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osprey in SoF2 

message: Just to let you know, the pro-Transformers crowd WILL be back - they are very persistent, especially with the movie coming out. THey have been giving us fits on the F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle pages for a while now. Just be ready for them! - BillCJ 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transformers

message: Due to the recent editwar revolving around this section, I am now calling for a consensus to resolve whether the following two entries should appear in this section: 
* A pair of V-22 Ospreys were featured in the 2007 Transformers motion picture, carrying a squad of United States Air Force Combat Controllers in the Middle East.
* In the 2004 animated motion picture Appleseed, a transport vehicle very similar in design to a V-22 Osprey shuttled a squad of paramilitary operatives to retrieve the main character in the beginning of the film.
* Support: I do not believe the two are  particularly notable but I would accept the retention of the first item due to the fact that the editor has noted that the V-22 is "featured" which I presume to mean shown prominently in the film Transformers (2007). FWIW Bzuk 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Can you cite that importance? --Eyrian 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture references

message: I have been cutting back superflous details from the " Minor" incidents section, and I hope to do the same to the rest of the "Incidents" section soon. It is not usual for an aircraft article to go into such deep detail about incidents, even major ones. I know that others have added such deltails in an attempt to "balance out" the article, but that is not the purpsoe of coverage of aircraft on Wikipedia. 
We had a similar problem in the JAS 39 Gripen  aritcle, as that aircraft attracts criticism that is very simialr to that of the V-22. Both aircraft have had what many consider to be more than the usual amount of incidents,a nd many groups are very critical of them. The solution on the Gripen page has been to spin odd the incidents and accidents to the List of Gripen crashes page. (Please note that that title is not the best, and will probably be chnged soon. (Note below.)
There are more than enough major and minor incidents - each with at least one good source, most with several - to create a decent page covering just the incidents and accidents. While I have not looked into it directly, one or two of the major incidents may even be worthy of their own articles. The members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force should be able to help one decide which, if any, of the major incidents are notable enough for their own page. 
I'd highly recomend that an incidents page focus solely on the incidents and accidents, and not try to cover criticisms of the V-22 not directly related to the incidents themselves. THere are probably more than enough verifiable sources out there to create a separate article dealin with the criticims of the V-22. However, I can't guarantee that such an article would survive the AFD process, especially if it is not NPOV in it's treatment of the topic. It's the type of subject that will attract many "kooks" who simply want to bash the V-22 for whatever reason, and most of that type don't use verifiable sources, or write very well. - BillCJ 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Title has now been changed to Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen. LarRan 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloated Incidents section