The V-22 is going to kill Marines. The news articles and generals will tell you how great it is. I know the guys that work and fly on them everyday. Absolute piece of crap. It can't land in sand......and its going to Iraq, WTF. So it'll be limited to runways. Maybe roads but not in dense urban areas, too damn big and too damn slow on final. If anyone plans on incorporating them into a desert/ high threat scenario as an assault platform I hope realism isn't a big deal for you. If you're going by the modern rules don't use the specs in the micro armor modern rulebook. Despite its size, it is wee dinky on the inside and most certainly doesn't carry the same payload as a CH-53 as the book suggests. If you want some Marine assault support for your scenarios go with 53's and the good ol CH-46. You can get 46's from "the other company". OK, I'm done ranting now.
"Brownout is a particular concern for the U.S. V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft,[16] which is scheduled to be deployed for combat in Iraq in September 2007. The high proprotor disk loading creates a high-velocity downwash, which stirs up the dust cloud from a much higher altitude. This can be a problem while hovering during personnel insertion and extraction via hoist or rope.[17] Initial operational experience indicates that although the dust cloud is larger with the MV-22 than it is with the CH-46 it is replacing, pilots report regaining visibility near the ground, allowing them to use visual references prior to landing.[18]"
Ground conditions apply to all aircraft, whether the issue is soft sand or mud, unlevel ground, etc. In Viet Nam helicopters would not always touch down for a couple of reasons. First, it would take longer to fully land and take off, so in a hot LZ troops would leap fromt he helicopter as it skimmed the tall grass. Second, very tall grass could hide uneven ground or stumps so it was not always wise to land on such terrain.
Having bought some GHQ Osprey's I've been researching these for use in wargames. They look cool but I'm doubtful as to whether or not they're a good replacement for the CH-47. It appears that at an operational level it's certainly faster than traditional helicopters, but when it comes to tactical situations helicopters appear superior.
This raises another interesting issue. In "Not a Good Day to Die" the author describes how a CH-47 was able to off load troops on a tiny jagged rock outcropping without actually touching down. I wonder if the Osprey's unique and very powerful rotor wash would allow such a feat.
Also, could an Osprey load/unload from a building's roof? I doubt it but have not found evidence either way.
The biggest problem with the desert sand is that it gets into the mechanism the allows the engines and rotors to tilt, causing malfunctions. Its basically a large hydraulic piston type actuator, it has no cover to keep debris out. Does it happen all the time, no. When it does happen, however, it is a very big deal since the aircraft will be stuck in helicopter mode or get stuck in airplane mode, or worst case, get stuck in transition. The brownout issue is a problem for all rotary wing aircraft regardless of how much rotor wash they produce. The only way to beat it is with good crew coordination between pilots and enlisted aircrew in the back. Unless of course you're in the airforce and you have all kinds of whiz bang avionics to assist you. As far far as offloading with out actually landing, any helo can do it and I assume the osprey could too. Of course now a days we prefer to use the fastrope method to insert troops in to a zone that we can't set down in. This is especially useful when putting troops on rooftops or narrow streets like blackhawk down. You could also preform a main mount landing where only the aft landing gear are on the ground, such as a ridgline, and the pilots hold the front of the aircraft in a level attitude with the nose just hanging out in space. aircraft with skids do the same thing by setting on skid on the edge of a surface. Sinking is only a problem when landing on wet terrain. I've sunk a CH-53 into the mud till the belly touched the ground. Worst case scenario is you get stuck, not a problem for larger helos. Sometimes you can break off antenna from the belly and damage landing gear components, but usually nothing serious. The biggest thing to remember about the osprey is that it is a airplane that can land like a helicopter, not a helicopter that can fly like and airplane. There is a big difference, especially on landing profile into a tight, nasty, sandy, hot LZ. In my humble opinion, the osprey will not measure up in that regime and that is where it counts for an assault support platform. If I were going to use them in a scenario it would be to insert a recon or special operations team well into enemy lines very early in the game and use them to call for fire and generally harass my opponents rear. but in the end 53's are my personal choice (biased of course) and thats what I have to say about that.
THought the combat load in troops for the CH-53E was 55 troops?!?! Not the other variants but the "E"
That is with the center line seats installed though....but could be wrong. Just found another site that says 38 combat equipped can be carried in the CH-53E...so of the 8 I saw 6 say 55 while two say 38.....
24 streachers...so alot.
If you compare the size of the two the V-22 main body is pretty much the same size as the CH-53...so in a combat enviroment I am sure they would pack them in like sardines...in peace time....maybe not so much.
Looks like most of the current sites say 24 troops for the V-22...so I was off a little. I am sure just as many say 27 though.
Of course the way it takes off is a restirction of how much it can carry as well. VTOL take off less, while a STOL approach a little more.
Of course Wikpedia say 32 "floor loaded" but Wikpedia is only as accurate as what is put in there by Joe Blow common person who think he knows everything.
I have to assume you are referring to the similarity in "overall size". The cabin space however is not even close. The ghq osprey is hardly to scale when next to any of the other ghq aircraft, not sure where they got thier dimensions from since most of their stuff is spot on. The interior of the v-22 is slightly bigger than a ch-46. Its so narrow that "packing them in like sardines" is not an option. When seated with a pack at your feet there is no room to walk or stand. The Boeing site says 24 and I'd say that would be a tight squeeze just like Sikosky said 37 for the 53E which was almost impossible. You could fit more in any type of platform if you had everyone stand up but in todays safety conscious military you have to belted in. The ch-53E can seat 30 in its current configuration and we no longer use centerline seats. All new aircraft will have, and current aircraft are being modified to have, new crash attenuating seats, which take up more space and only seat one versus old bench seats that seated as many as you could fit without someone falling on the floor. There is no feasible way to make a centerline seat crash attenuating and still be able to remove it to haul bulky cargo so they are history for the 53E. The old numbers were correct though. For scenarios prior to about 2004 You could seat 37 pax in the old bench type seats. with centerline seats installed you could uncomfortably seat 55. (or so the books say) I never seated more than 40 but in a pinch I would say that anything is possible. I have heard stories of 80+ being crammed in the back but that was non-combatant evacuations and they had no gear or luggage, standing room only. The biggest problem with engineers is that they never take into account a soldier's load when desgining seating or coming up with a magic number for max capacity. We are currently having the same issues with the CH-53K currently being designed. Hope I'm not coming across like an uppity know-it-all but this is what I've been doing for a living the past ten years, I have to look at these beasts everyday.
I love this forum! Not only do I get to check out some incredible model craftsmanship, but I also learn a lot from members who are experts in their field.
Thanks for the info, Skypig. It is helpful and enlightening.
I remember being in an operation outside MCAS Yuma and seeing one fly overhead on its way to Pheonix Arizona. Evidently somewhere along the way it crashed, killing 30 Marines it was transporting plus both pilot and co-pilot. This was back in 2000 when they were evidently still in the 'test' phase. They sent one of our 25 ton cranes out there to help recover the wreckage, the Sgt that operated it said that all that was left was the frame, no wings or anything else.
It always felt to me like someone was pushing these into production and deployment, I don't think they are safe in the slightest.
The news articles and generals will tell you how great it is. I know the guys that work and fly on them everyday. Absolute piece of crap. It can't land in sand......and its going to Iraq, WTF. So it'll be limited to runways. Maybe roads but not in dense urban areas, too damn big and too damn slow on final. If anyone plans on incorporating them into a desert/ high threat scenario as an assault platform I hope realism isn't a big deal for you. If you're going by the modern rules don't use the specs in the micro armor modern rulebook. Despite its size, it is wee dinky on the inside and most certainly doesn't carry the same payload as a CH-53 as the book suggests. If you want some Marine assault support for your scenarios go with 53's and the good ol CH-46. You can get 46's from "the other company". OK, I'm done ranting now. 
