Talk:V-22 Osprey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Rotorcraft task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V-22 Osprey article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

Contents 1 Any Weapons 2 "Notable Accidents" Section In Wrong Area of the article 3 Article about V-22 deployment 3.1 V-22 prop tip light image 4 US Army 5 RenniePet: "But these numbers don't add up. Is the year 2007 wrong?" 6 Operational Photo

[edit] Any Weapons

Are there weapons on this thing?Sam ov the blue sand 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that they're typically mounted with an M240 on the rear ramp. Unfortunately, it's too dangerous to put machine guns on the side doors, since the nacelles will be in the gunner's arc of fire. Last I heard, though, there's some research being conducted into the possibility of adapting a chin-mounted 20mm or 30mm turret like those on the Super Cobra and Apache. Ratamacue 22:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the M240 but I too heard about the 20mm or the 30mm but I forgot where I heard it from. I see your point about the guns on the sides, I guess that wouldn't work too well now would it? ^_^ The reason I asked is that I think the weapons should be listed on the specs part of the article.Sam ov the blue sand 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one rear .30 cal. machine gun that can fire up to 16 rounds per second. The gun can only fire when the rear cargo lift is down. Time magazine compared it to a .30-06 hunting rifle. Time did a 5 page article on the plane/chopper if you need anymore information regarding the controversy surrounding it. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add The 30-06 is a fairly high powered round against soft targets like troops, it was originally the primary round for U.S. Army troops in WWII M119,M1 grand and so for. the round was phased out of the military for being to powerful it was replaced with the .308 winchester(7.62x51mm) witch in comparison is smaller to the later.207.172.91.236 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They had origionally thought about mounting a GAU-19 in a chin turret. Apparently they had a problem with systems intigration. Paulwharton (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable Accidents" Section In Wrong Area of the article

What is the "Notable Accidents" section doing in between the "Operators" and "Specifications" sections of the article? Notable accidents has nothing to do with operators or specifications, but I do believe it has to do with the Operational History because the operational history has accidents in it. I propose the Notable Accidents section come right after the Operational History section. It would be a good followup to the Operational History Section. And what is a section so important it has it's own page doing so far down on the bottom of the page? 67.137.0.39 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter if it has its own article. The incidents section is located like other WP:Air articles. Incidents are typically list sections, so it is lower in the article. See Boeing 777, C-5 Galaxy, JAS 39 Gripen for examples. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. And as such, I've restored the recommend arrangements of the section to the article again. At best, the "Controversy" section should be spread out in chronoglogical order in the Developments, Design, and Operational history sections, but for now, please leave it where I've placed it. The WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines are just that: guidelines. However, the article format was decided by consensus, and this article needs to follow that pattern until a new consensus is reached here to change it. No attempt has been made to even discuss, let alone reach a consesus, to abandon the guidelines. Per the Be bold, Revert, Discuss pattern, the bold move has been reverted - please discuss now. - BillCJ (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen this discussion until now. I just happened by the article, and thought that "Controversies" (which was a level-2 header) had too much emphasis so near the start of the article, now that the plane is deployed and flying and apparently doing OK. Bill has now made it a level-3 header which is a bit better, but I still think it should be nearer the end of the article. Incidentally, I did not move the "Notable accidents" section, I just reduced it from level-2 to level-3. (Bill has restored it to level-2.) --RenniePet (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, you didn't move "Notable accidents" - sorry if there was some confusion on that; I just tagged my note on to this section, as it fits the general, if not specific, topic. I'm not really sure where the best place is to put the section; "Operational history mgith be better than Development, but in truth, controversy has followed the V-22 throughout its history. It's definetely worth discussing further, and I'm open to any suggestions, including a dedicated section, or spreading the points throughtout the article in appropriate places. - BillCJ (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article about V-22 deployment

Maligned aircraft finds redemption in Iraq, military says CNN.com

• Some coverage of the Osprey's use and performance in Iraq. Razor Ramon (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the article yesterday. --RenniePet (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Similar article from Flight International: "US Marine Corps says V-22 Osprey performing well in Iraq" -Fnlayson (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice this link in the Flight International article? I don't read it very often, so I don't know if this is somthing new or not, but it's the first time I've seen a reputable magazine link to Wikipedia like that. Maybe WP's reputation is beginning to move up, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And we MUST try to find the USMC source of the pic with the rotors spinning green rings! I've never seen anything like that before, and I imagine most readers haven't either. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added one more sentence and a link to this reference. As for the picture, one could always grab it from the magazine article. Or is that too low resolution? --RenniePet (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• If it comes from a US military source, it will be a public domain and won't require a fair use rationale to use here. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Video of a similar configuration with prop tip lights on.[1] I haven't the foggiest idea of where to find a PD photo, though. --Mmx1 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. A photo would likely only catch the leading edge.
2. There are no such things as "prop tip lights", as far as I know.
3. This phenomenon is common with helicopters when viewed through NVGs. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there are rotor tip lights [2]. And the article gives the copyright as USMC, so I think we're good to go. --Mmx1 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I believe these

1. Only amplify an existing effect
2. are only visible with NVGs.

Either way, they clearly exist. My bad. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] V-22 prop tip light image

Image:V-22 Osprey refueling.jpg was uploaded to Commons in February! (I just found it last week!) It was removed from this article without explanation yesterday by an IP, but I restored it. Other than vandalism or troll attacks, I can't think of a reason to remove it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose it might look fishy if someone didn't know, but that's a wild guess. It requires special powers to tell on unexplained removals. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I "DO" have special powers. ;) Also, I was only saying I couldn't think of a good reason - doesn't mean the IP didn't couldn't have had one, as unlikely as that is! Anyway, like I like to say, An unexplained deletion is indistinguishable from vandalism. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Army

Is there any more word about the Army adopting this? Would seem pretty dumb for them not to, and trust me, it would be a godsend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RenniePet: "But these numbers don't add up. Is the year 2007 wrong?"

The first V-22 budget back in 1986 predicted a total spending of $2.5 billion, in 1989 the budget predicted a total spending of $30 billion.

Then in 2005 a CRS report for the Congress, quoted a Defense Department number that put the V-22 total budget at $50.5 billion.

Finally on 2007 (2 years later) a Time article put the overall budget of the V-22 at $55 billion, $20 billion of that already spent, $35 billion to go.

IMO the most up to date number is the Time one, the CRS report doesn't account for over 2 years of inflation, upgrades and other costs. However I am tired of arguing so the CRS number remains to this day, after all it's a less than 10% difference.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand now, and I've tried to reword that sentence accordingly.

I know this talk page isn't really for discussion of the aircraft itself, but about the article, but still, if you'll indulge me a moment...

I have an engineering background, and I look at that plane, and the one thought I can't get out of my head is that putting the engines out on the ends of the wings has got to be a design error. The engines should be in the middle somewhere. Not sure exactly where - don't want to reduce the cargo-holding area, so probably one engine on each side of the body, or else both engines on the top. There is already a drive train going out to the nacelles, so one engine can drive both propellers, so center-mounted engines shouldn't have been a problem. OK, so I got that off my chest. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operational Photo

Not sure if this is worth adding to the article but here is an operational photo.--Looper5920 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added it in. There was room. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)