Osprey Struts Its Stuff at Farnborough

[MaggieL]

Speaking of lighter materials and composites, another aircraft flew at Farnborough

An unmanned aircraft made from "printed" parts rather than traditional machine-tooled components has been unveiled at the Farnborough Air Show, UK.

Developed at Lockheed Martin's top-secret "Skunk Works" research facility in Palmdale, California, US, the Polecat unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a 28-metre flying wing, weighing four tonnes. It was designed in part to test cheaper manufacturing technologies.

[Pangloss62]

Hey Maggie, what kind of job do you have? Regardless of our opinions, it's fun to talk aviation technology with folks that have an interest. Mine stems from my father's career at Lockheed. I spent much of my youth reading Aviation Week & Space Technology and looking through all the Janes' books I could get my hands on. And then there were the models; lots of model plane building. I think you can learn a lot about aviation just by building models (though I don't do that these days).

I'm really interested in the aesthetics of aircraft design, especially jets. The Korean War-era jets look so cool to me, and all Cold War-period technology fascinates me. I just finished working on a National Register Nomination for a Nike base, and in doing so I learned a lot. Do you have a favorite aircraft?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Hey Maggie, what kind of job do you have? ... Do you have a favorite aircraft?

Well, by profession I'm a software engineer, currently working on Java-based control software for a high-performance blade cluster used in the insurance industry.

But I have a life-long interest in aviation and astronautics. My father was a clergyman, but he was also an elementary school science teacher during the Sputnik era, so that was a big influence on my interest in aviation, astronautics, computing and radio and electronics.

I've been active in space-based amateur radio at various times, and have logged contacts though amateur radio satellites and with the crew on board the International Space Station.

I can do no different than claim Cessna Cardinal N19762 as my favorite aircraft, because I own 10% of it and fly it on a semiregular basis.

More details at http://voicenet.com/~maggie

[richlevy]

Twice as fast, twice as far and twice the payload than what the U.S. marines have today. That's the Osprey selling point. The key will be its use in Iraq starting next year.

Well, I hope they have worked the bugs out, because Iraq will be one hell of a test bed.

Don't forget to write Bruce.

[Pangloss62]

No shite, RL. I was thinkin about that. Desert landings with two major downwash vorticies, not to mention its vulnerability to enemy fire (noise, size, target value, etc.). As a taxpayer, I feel I have no say in the matter. Same with the F-22. I just hope they can separate the pork from the engineering and science on both of these craft.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Maggie

Avionics has been a prominent arena for this

Yes, the military is just starting to realize that off the shelf avionics, that commercial aviation have proved reliable for about a jillion air miles, might work as well as the ones they were having built.....at 100 time the price. Well duh.

I guess nobody was willing to tip the sacred cow of Mil Spec.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, the military is just starting to realize that off the shelf avionics, that commercial aviation have proved reliable for about a jillion air miles, might work as well as the ones they were having built.....at 100 time the price. Well duh.

I guess nobody was willing to tip the sacred cow of Mil Spec.

If you took a little time out from bashing the military, you'd might realize that civil aviation has nearly as big a problem adopting new tech.

The advantage they have is their development cycle times tend to be shorter...largely because they don't have as big and motivated a journalistic peanut gallery to kibbitz and "mil-spec" oversight and procurment procedures to make sure the taxpayers largesse is "equitably and justly" distributed.

Allowing for that they're just as conservative.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm not military bashing by questioning the antique process of Mil Spec. It was devised to assure a quality product from lowest bidders by micro-managing every step and a paper trail a mile long. That's why we get $500 hammers and $800 toilet seats.

Once the avionics is being used commercially for a while and proven reliable, they know what they are getting. They don't have to reinvent the wheel, just because it's not Mil Spec.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Desert landings with two major downwash vorticies, not to mention its vulnerability to enemy fire (noise, size, target value, etc.).

In which it's comparable to the helo's its replacing...while in hover near the LZ. Where's it's expected to shine over the competition is flying faster/higher/farther while enroute, which reduces its vulnerability to ground fire. Having greater range keeps it away from the ground more also.

When you talk about "desert landings", remeber that this design is largely a result of lessons lerned at Desert One. Running *anything* mechanical in a sandbox is a challenge...but if it can be done this aircraft should be able to do it.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

As a taxpayer, I feel I have no say in the matter.

Actually, I'm glad we don't vote on these things. Would you fly in an aircraft designed by the same process that gave you the government? :-)

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I just hope they can separate the pork from the engineering and science on both of these craft.

As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works." But we can hope for enough separation of dreck from tech that something is delivered that's comparable to the DC-3, the B-52 or the F-15.

[Griff]

I like the idea of the Osprey but I'm wondering if we're getting into another Hummer situation? Is it a vehicle that's a little too big and a lot too expensive for its intended purpose? The Marines are still going to need smaller cheaper craft for hot lzs are they not?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

The Marines are still going to need smaller cheaper craft for hot lzs are they not?

I don't see why. If an LZ is too hot for a V-22, what else would you send in to get shot up? Helos aren't expendable.

At least a V-22 is less vulnerable and less likely to be tracked visually/aurally enroute.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Marines are still going to need smaller cheaper craft for hot lzs are they not?

The only aircraft I can think of for a hot lz would be an A-10...but that would take a lot of trips.

One of the advantages of the V-22 over the Ch-46, is they can launch from a ship on excursions further inland, then evacuate back to the ship. The ship is a safer base than they'd have in hostile territory.

[MaggieL]

There's much more wrong with military procurment than MilSpec. MILitary SPECifications call for more durability and reliability than their commercial counterparts, and rightly so.

The $600 P-3 replacement toilet seat and "unidirectional impact generator" hammer of the 1980s were created by other parts of the procurement process...most especially the accounting rules that allowed burying additional "overhead" into the pricing of routine spare parts and tools associated with big-ticket projects. MilSpec isn't at fault there.

There *is* additional cost associated with any part used in civil aviation. It's partly due to meeting FAA certification rules...but mostly due to paying off trial lawyers who sue any deep pockets found in the aftermath of an any aircraft accident.

I'm just happy to see anything about this aircraft that is not about it killing someone.

[MaggieL]

Well, this is a potentially important issue personally: I need to schedule my Biennial Flight Review soon--an every-two-years checkride with an instructor pilot--and it's quite likely at some point during the flight check he'll pull the engine power and tell me I've just lost the engine, to see me go though the engine-out drill. This includes selecting an airport within gliding distance...possibly one whose owner doesn't know it's an airport. :-)

Selecting an LZ instead is considered bad form unless it's the only option.