The V-22 Osprey and why it keeps crashing

Get Nebula for 50% off with my link: go.nebula.tv/r...
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/bri...
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/co...
Credits:
Producer/Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Head of Production/Voice of Pilot: Mike Ridolfi
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Writer/Research: Josi Gold
Animator: Eli Prenten
Animator: Stijn Orlans
Sound and Production Coordinator/voice of air traffic controller: Graham Haerther
Sound: Donovan Bullen
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
Head of Moral: Shia LeWoof
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Abdullah Alotaibi, Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

[@tempo1072]

As a helicopter pilot my heart skipped a beat at the start of this. I trained that a chip light, sensor or otherwise, especially accompanied by anything else (warnings, noise). Is either no fly or land immediately because somethings about to break. Hearing the words "three chip burn advisories" sets off so many alarms. I'm glad you went into such detail about. I just cant imagine seeing that many warnings and no urgency. A training exercise just doesn't seem worth the risk, I would have settled for landing at the nearest land mass, not even airport.

[@MaskedDeath_]

Someone else in the comments mentioned that the Ospreys had a big problem with false-positives, but I don't know how reliable the info is. If that is the case, it's more understandable that a pilot would ignore it

[@Dommifax]

yeah this - I mean if this was a now-or-never rescue mission I'd kinda get it, but for a training exercise?

[@Beep-bophdjcienencio]

I see this comment a lot and it’s so frustrating. The Osprey chip burn advisory just tells you that chips are being burned. The chips caution tells you when there’s unburnable chips. A lot of helicopters don’t have this level of granularity and just tell you when there’s unburnable chips, hence the (well deserved) apprehension from helicopter pilots. Does that detail matter? Maybe, maybe not. You could still argue they did the wrong thing (and many do, with validity). The frustration for me comes from people who have just enough experience to have some sort of insight, but not enough to actually be familiar with the v22. It’s really easy to armchair quarterback aviation mishaps, especially when you don’t have a full picture of what was actually going on, what the publications say to do, and how the crews are trained to handle it. (I apologize if this comes off as combative, I’ve just seen this type of comment a lot and need a bit of a rant)

[@scottw5315]

@@Beep-bophdjcienencio So, is it a land as soon as possible or practicable emergency?

[@Vic-sp6ld]

Does normal helicopters have this kind of chip detector/burner?

[@garrettbrown5272]

MV-22 maintainer and aircrew here. You did an exceptional job with your research. I have never heard anything more accurate about the plane I work on from someone outside of my field. There are some small details that you mentioned that aren’t 100% accurate but for the purpose of this video, it works out. Thank you for the time and effort that you put into this informative video!

[@-Osiris-]

Could you help us civvies with which parts aren't 100% accurate, please?

[@housemana]

share the sauce- whats not 100% accurate? asking for my own interest, not trying to deride the OP. appreciate u ty

[@jessicaboozer3135]

Umm… details about the crash in 2023 were certainly not accurate

[@raph151515]

I don't like the V-22 design, it may be performant but any engine, transmission, rotor failure and you're gone. We need new designs to replace it, maybe marry a quad with a plane somehow, at least you can still land with 3 rotors or land with wing lift using at least 2 opposed engines to keep symmetry

[@no3ironman11100]

@@raph151515 quad rotor would be more expensive since the rotors would have to move faster proportionately to what a bigger rotor would.

[@Stealth86651]

Filling the blades with pressurized nitrogen is a cool way to monitor for cracks, super cool engineering stuff love it

[@tank-eleven]

you'd be interested in the Porsche 917 from 1969: "These first cars had alloy tubular chassis, which was gas-filled to detect cracks. There was a big gauge in the cockpit, which measured the gas pressure. If the gauge zeroed, they said it meant that the chassis has started to crack, and they said I should drive home 'mit care'. I told them, 'If the needle zeroes I'll park the bastard there and then walk back, pick up my Deutschmarks and go home'.

[@TrollerzTV]

Porsche did the same thing for one of their lemans cars in the 70s. They were having trouble with cracks in their spaceframe chassis so they filled it with nitrogen and gave the driver a chassis pressure gage that would tell the driver when a crack was propagating in the chassis

[@1ytcommenter]

A better way would be by simply using a traditional metal alloy.

[@beejay7665]

@@1ytcommenterWow! You should be an aeronautical engineer, with insight like that! I bet no-one ever thought of that!

[@lolsoos4205]

@@tank-elevenYou’re capping big time im German and you said with care and just replaced with to mit but care isn’t a German word and Deutschmarks is also wrong

[@judet2992]

>marines ask for first titter VTOL to ever enter service >combined both a plane and a helicopter >is new and has carrier storage requirements >has multiple complex gearbox systems >pikachu face when it develops weird mechanical issues

[@n16161]

Very complex machine indeed.

[@bradbiesecker162]

The problems with the osprey highlight the complexity of VTOL flight and man's feeble attempt to imitate what God has produced. Look at birds and how easily they take off, fly, and land. They do it beautifully

[@judet2992]

@ ah yes, VTOL aircraft with millions of hours put into design and production are feeble. Birds are 100% more graceful but they can take a human thousands of miles in something made by said humans. Don’t think something is bad because you think something else is better.

[@bradbiesecker162]

@@judet2992 I didn't mean to say that the osprey was bad. I simply meant what I said, that producing a reliable VTOL aircraft is very difficult because of the complexity.

[@judet2992]

@@bradbiesecker162 true dat

[@magicyoshi11]

I was at Kadena AB which was their destination. I was the one who found out via Japanese coast guard they had crashed. I was the one to call their squadron and base to let them know because no one really knew where they were. I will always be scared from that day and hearing the voices break and crack as I give the news they went down. I work in Airfield Management and deal with flight centers for flight plans. We were for some reason the first place the center near the incident called. I remember our PJ's getting out of here in 2 hours once they had tanker support available due to the distance from out island. I will remember being the one to announce how many souls were on board from their flight plan to their installation and the rescue teams to find out there was extra on board not tracked. I bought the patch from BadAssPatches that donated money to the familes of the lost members. I carry it on my work backpack still. RIP, something I will never forget.

[@jessicaboozer3135]

I’m sorry that you had to be put through that and I hope you’re okay. Thank you for making those calls. ❤ I learned about the crash and that my husband died through Reddit. The squadron didn’t tell me until 7 hours later when I just showed up for answers.

[@litapd311]

wow, that must have been tough to deal with. thank you for trying your best in such a difficult situation. make sure you get mental help if you need it.

[@didgeridood]

I was in POL at Kadena from ‘87-‘91. Thank you for your service.

[@WeAllLaughDownHere-ne2ou]

CV-22B mechanic here. I love this airframe. The osprey is one of the first aircraft I've truly loved to work on and fly with. At one point I was confident enough in the aircraft to proudly say I would put my own mother aboard it. And the subsequent years however I have to disagree with my younger self. When looking at UH-60 or Chinook or H-53 incidents, most crashes are due to low level flight, high-risk operations, pilot error, poor mission planning(think power lines, dust storms) etc. Most other helicopters aren't falling out of the sky due to premature mechanical failures. They aren't falling out of the sky because of engines catching fire or clutch hard engagements or because of gearboxes shredding themselves. They crash because pilots have to operate extremely low to the ground in often cluttered environments in the dark or sandy environments. The CV 22 is one of the only military aircraft out there that regularly causes mass casualty events due to premature component failure. You cannot have an aircraft that carries that many lives regularly being put into non-recoverable situations. It's not tenable. When it works it's a great aircraft and I hope we can get it to work better. But right now the simple fact exists that at any point in time, anyone of these aircraft can have a hard clutch engagement, or can suffer a gearbox fire/chipping, and there's pretty much nothing the pilot can do to recover the aircraft. And there's little maintenance can do to predict these incidents happening. That is not safe. I hope the Bell V-280 takes all the lessons we've learned from the V 22 program and makes a better tilt rotor because the US military sorely needs it. Edit: insane comment section! I wish I could respond to everyone individually but I can't so I'll answer some common questions. No, I don't think the V-22B is a failed aircraft. It has factually has a similar Class A mishap rate as other helicopters. The issue is that unlike other helicopters which crash primarily due to pilot error, V-22 crashes are due to catastrophic mechanical failure. That IS a meaningful difference. I don't think Boeing is at fault. The Marines asked for Wunderwaffen and got Wunderwaffen. Not only was it the first operational military Tiltrotor, the Marines wanted it to have an automatic blade fold and wingstow feature, increasing complexity & weight significantly. I do think the military needs a Tiltrotor.

[@k87upkid]

I still can't believe the V-280 was chosen over the SB-1. I really do hope they get it right this time...

[@HYDRAdude]

Not to mention other helicopters can benefit from autorotation, which the V-22 can't. The V-22 also can't glide like a traditional plane can either.

[@aussie2uGA]

It was a profit making machine for so many companies. Sad but true.

[@genericfakename8197]

The V-22 makes me itch with unease whenever I see video of it. It doesn't have the wing area to glide to the ground safely like an airplane nor the rotor area to a autorotate down safely like helicopter. It can glide, it can autorotate, but not gently enough to avoid serious injury or death. The Osprey is a terrifying machine from base principles.

[@billferris5292]

​@@aussie2uGA It's basicly the only reason it was used, so people not in the military could get rich. Long history of crashes since day 1. To many lives lost for rich men.

[@Sta_cotto]

It makes my mecha loving heart sing that the call signs for Japanese Ospreys are "Gundam"

[@jameshall1300]

I actually turned sound on the video just to make sure that's what they were saying. Pretty cool off the JSDF.

[@chrismeandyou]

Prepare for GundamFALL... from an Osprey, haha

[@pitmezzari2873]

Gundam22 was a USAF bird.

[@jyy9624]

No.1 market for AVN jackets

[@C4Cole05]

Should have been GunPerry

[@texasranger24]

Planes are engineering marvels that use air pressure to fly. Helicopters didn't get the memo and just beat the air into submission.

[@gpaull2]

I was taught that they make so much noise that the earth repels them. 😂

[@HammerOn-bu7gx]

Helicopter: One hundred thousand moving parts, reluctantly flying in formation.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

Helicopter blades work like plane wings, but they constantly fly in a small circle. One of the main differences is the helicopter blades often have to fly in their own wake. They are also thinner and bend easier, but their tangential inertia 'centrifugal force' helps keep them close to level. If you try to pick up a fully loaded parked helicopter by its rotor tips, the rotor blades will bend out of the way, or break.

[@thomasdeas1941]

🤣🤣🤣

[@hebijirik]

@@gpaull2 I know the version that they are so aerodynamically disgusting that earth repels them.

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

I remember Alex Hollings from Snadbox News did an episode on the Osprey’s reliability and crash statistics. He concluded the Osprey wasn’t out of the norm for helicopter accidents and had a better accident loss rate than the Blackhawk. The risks of flying a helicopter, the inherent danger of military training, news bias focusing on crashes, and the difficulty of working out the bugs in a new technology all contribute to the difficulties faced by the Osprey.

[@bl8danjil]

@@Nathan-vt1jz That was a way better video explaining the controversy and 'is it safe' than this one. I think it was the V-280 episode just after the Army announced it as the winner.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

You can't just compare the numbers for different types of vehicles that are used in differing conditions and require different training. Generally you would expect the workhorse helicopter to crash way more often because it's ubiquitous and flies everywhere and the proficiency may be subpar. More specialized vehicles may crash less simply because they are treated in a different way

[@bl8danjil]

@NJ-wb1cz The Osprey IS the workhorse for at least the Marines. It replaced the CH-46 and CH-53D. For the Air Force Special Operations Command it replaced the MH-53E Pave Low. In both branches it was being used to transport troops and equipment to and from ships or bases for assault missions or in support of it. They go everywhere.

[@robwhitmore3040]

We work with USMC Ospreys in the Australian Army. As a photographer, they're awesome. As a passenger, they're terrifying. Not just the aircraft, but the maintainers who seem incredibly casual after incidents/near-misses

[@ZaiFuchigami]

I live in Yakushima and witnessed the whole recovery operation take place. I also talked to a few of the Navy drive team members who were part of the operation and were doing multiple dives a day. It was a crazy time with both US and Japanese military personal, sea and air assets, as well as local fishermen who volunteered to search for survivors and recover the wreck. The sad part is that they were so close to the runway and could've made it if they didn't ignore the chip warnings. RIP

[@nulnoh219]

Normalisation of deviations.

[@Dommifax]

@@nulnoh219 yeah - I remember always being cautioned about too sensitive warning threshholds in systems engineering, as users tend to develop automated responses to them, up to the point of not even remembering a warning or that they turned it off

[@jessicaboozer3135]

They were close to the runway and requested landing, then were told to wait. Have you been to the memorial site?

[@JStryker7]

@@ZaiFuchigami yup. They took too long to respond to the warnings and didn’t respond in an urgent manner when they did

[@bruzote]

@ - As I see it, primary responsibility for that issue goes to whoever runs both the overall aircraft safety procedures development and flight maintenance and operations systems.

[@JonathanFisherS]

I would call the crash mentioned at the beginning a huge misjudgment by the pilot , lack of training, or lack of adequate procedures. They had a literal warning from the aircraft something was wrong for 45 mins.

[@neeneko]

If I recall correctly, there was also a problem with false positives.

[@devins9894]

Even so that's no reason to be so lackadaisical about it. When lives are on the line that's an issue to worry about ON THE GROUND.

[@llamaeatingpie]

That seems like a big detail to purposefully leave out

[@Spartan322]

@@devins9894 Depends on how often the false positives happen, given the threshold for the indicator urgency protocol and the general disregard for the early warning, that rather suggests that the issue isn't with the pilots being lackadaisical so much as that the Osprey's chip indicator has a notably flawed implementation. Course there is also the question of whether the higher risk of military aircraft reduces the threshold in general by nature of the more risky objectives they partake in alongside a more hostile environment. But given that early so considered false positives may in fact not be false positives in what should be a very normal environment, I would suggest that indicates that normal environment false positives are too common or the procedure itself was too relaxed on the warning signs. So it depends.

[@SickPrid3]

@@neeneko there is no such thing as false positive in aviation. If a warning light blinks at you, you assume it's doing it for a reason

[@stormchaser9738]

The one stat that would’ve been most helpful would be crashes per flight hour. Crashes per airframe doesn’t control for how many were built, and deaths per flight hour doesn’t control for the fact that the osprey carries a lot more people than a black hawk. If I had crashes per flight hour I could directly compare how unreliable the different airframes are.

[@LongLivesteph]

V22 flies from NC to NY little bit over an hour and H46 flies there in 3 plus a stop in the middle. Not sure how you would clean the data on that.

[@chrisc1140]

I'd also like specifically _fatal_ crashes per flight hour. Since if say a Blackhawk crashes more often, but has a higher chance of the crew and passengers suriving the crash that's also notable. I _really_ don't like the "deaths per flight hour" mentioned in the video since it also ignores that even if the Osprey had _double_ the deaths per flight hour than a Blackhawk, you'd also need at _least_ two Blackhawks to match the one Osprey's carrying capacity meaning double the flight hours for a given mission.

[@angryhusky2467]

​@@chrisc1140 one method cannot be the best one. All used together will give more accurate comparing.

[@Steezicus]

@@chrisc1140 but it takes triple the time to get anywhere in a Blackhawk. The stats aren't that simple. Even this video glosses over an extremely important factor which is when he compares the stats for much older airframes to the much more modern V22. Also the V22 has never been allowed to take on extremely demanding missions like the other airframes that were mentioned. The airframe gets treated with kid gloves because the military knows it isn't very safe but doesn't want to scrap the program.

[@mastjaso]

You completely gloss over the actual important safety stats, like crashes / incidents / fatalities per flight hour and per km travelled.

[@andrewhamons962]

Blade twist does not affect disk loading. The high disk loading of the V-22 was caused by size restrictions imposed on the aircraft since it is based on ships. The high twist rate of the blade is actually advantageous since the rotor only ever sees axial flow. When it is hovering the air flow is straight in when it is in forward flight the airflow is only ever straight in. Most single main rotor helicopters have a very low twist rate due to limitations on the rotor due to edgewise forward flight.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

I have heard that the V-22 is much less susceptible to Vortex Ring State than a conventional helicopter, but also much harder to recover from when that happens. I’d really like to know how much of that is inherent to tilt rotor design and how much can be solved by reduced disk loading (I suspect more of the latter).

[@nickademuss42]

I have followed the V-22 for years, it's such an amazing idea, such a complicated aircraft. It's built under a contract that "cannot fail" . It any other rotor craft are simply going to fail, also, When that much money is changing hands between a government and a huge corporation, they simply don't care how many corners, or lives are cut.

[@danielhooke6115]

19:50 Accidents per flight hour is *_the_* reliability metric, and are the figures you should have provided.

[@SplashJohn]

Agreed. Very strange choices in information presented.

[@antg867]

Yeah, this video seemed like it was going to be such a great informative breakdown to prove/disprove it's safety criticism, but it didn't even address it. Very weird metrics to present. Shame that this video didn't live up to addressing its title.

[@drybeanz1995]

He did say it causes more death. Not by how many but he infers the osprey causes more deaths per flight hour so I wouldn't really say he withheld that information. Just didn't elaborate much on it sadly

[@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648]

​@@drybeanz1995he didn't show the stats. The viewers should have access to the statistics on it to decide by themselves

[@drybeanz1995]

@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648 he doesn't withhold access to said stat's. He gave a summary without providing the exact figures which you are more than free to google yourself. You're not wrong but I wouldn't hold it against him personally. He hasn't said any inflammatory or misleading statements, just left out stats, which isn't an issue when you can google it in 5 seconds.

[@k87upkid]

19:30 I'm glad you discussed crashes per 100K hours as crashes per airframe is a worthless metric. Unfortunately, you didn't actually provide us with that data so we still don't know if the V-22 is more or less safe than other military troop transports. Also, you touched on the problem with the fatalities per 100K flight hours being skewed by the troop capacity differences between a UH-60 that carries 12 Soldiers, a V-22 that carries 24 Marines, and a CH-47 that carries 44 Soldiers. I really wish you'd talked about and charted the fatal crashes (no matter the fatality count) per 100K hours. This would give a much more accurate comparison of how safe each one is. 15 minutes of the video is about one crash that was directly due to the crew failing to follow procedures and the last few minutes that discusses how safe a V-22 is never actually answers the question.

[@YoBoyNeptune]

What's also interesting is the V-22 can cover the same distance faster than a conventional helicopter so it might have comparatively fewer flight hours but at the same time that means a greater share of it's flight hours are spent taking off and landing which are the most dangerous parts of flying

[@taoliu3949]

Long story short, V22 has roughly the same safety record as any other helicopters in the military.

[@einfisch3891]

According to a marine corps report, it seems the crashes per 100k for the V22 is 2.27 compared to 5.66 for the CH-53 which has the highest rate. So it seems right in there with the other helicopters they employ.

[@GerritD]

Half the people who watched the video probably immediately Googled this data. Quite frustrating he didn't include it.

[@GregMcNamer]

I would disagree with the assertion that the most recent crash was (primarily) due to pilot error. It was a mechanical failure around which there was improper training and experience. I know that pilots learn to "get used to" chip burn advisories because (I assume) the gears are so stressed that they are a common occurrence) So, even though they followed through on the process, they did not have the adequate concern or awareness of the issue they were experiencing.

[@adamchuahzongye395]

ok this is the most I've ever heard the word gundam in a single video. And of all place, I've never expected it to be here

[@cortneywonder639]

In 2000 it was two V-22's that were involved. One crashed and the other other made a hard landing, just north of Tucson AZ, in Marana AZ. I was in the Marine Reserves then, in a Bulk Fuel Unit in Tucson and our unit, assisted with providing scene security for over a week while they investigated the crash. It was pretty tragic. Every time I drive pass the exit on I-10, heading out to the airport where the crash occurred, I think about those Marines and how young they were.

[@ChrisRaynorMD]

Love your videos. Outside my wheelhouse but I always learn so much. Thank you.

[@dannyb3663]

The Concorde had a superb safety record. Only one crash, because another plane dropped debris on the runway. So not Concorde's fault. Glad you put Concorde into a safety video.

[@Sashazur]

The Concorde fuel tank ruptured from a pressure wave formed when it was struck by tire debris (because the tire struck metal debris on the runway), causing the leak and fire. Prior to this crash there had been multiple other instances of the Concorde fuel tank being punctured by tire debris after tire failure. After the crash fuel tanks were strengthened and tires were upgraded. There were other contributing factors in the crash which weren’t related to the Concorde’s design: in the investigation it was found that the aircraft was over the maximum takeoff weight for conditions, the fuel tank was overfilled (making it not only heavier but also more susceptible to damage), and due to a missing part on the landing gear the plane was veering off the runway, which further reduced takeoff speed.

[@fighter5583]

​@Sashazur it should be pointed out that Air France tried to hide that last bit, as it would implicate them for being negligent on maintenance. Some theorized that had the main gear been fixed properly and not shimmy around on takeoff, it could've avoided the debris left by the previous aircraft.

[@barracuda7018]

Engines Rolls Royce??? Is that a joke? Rolls Royce don’t design ,develop and produce turbo prop engines !!!

[@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648]

I think people below are not getting the sarcasm 😂

[@Modest-o2l]

The AF Concorde was already on fire before it passed over the strip of metal which was caused by the wheels shimmering due to the AF maintenance forgetting to replace the main gear spacer on the left side. My colleague witnessed this. A complete cover up.

[@VanderWallStronghold98]

0:27 Such a shame for such cool callsigns.

[@Tinfoil_is_the_new_black]

Marines are nerdy.

[@power21100]

​@@Tinfoil_is_the_new_blackand that's why the love crayons

[@madstork91]

​@@Tinfoil_is_the_new_blacknever forget gigax served and which branch he was in, lol

[@Pepe_Le_Pew_Pew]

Most of the squadrons in Japan have pretty good call signs the C130 squadrons out of Futema's was Sumo

[@GeN56YoS]

Came to write this exact thing lol

[@alloy299]

>6:38 Bit of an oversight to not comment that, right after that, one of the sea stallions crashed into one of the parked C-130. Due to the resulting blast and shrapnel all the other helicopters had to be left behind.

[@firstlast9504]

Yes, I remember it ended in a complete Cluster. A stain on Jimmy Carter's legacy, deserved or not.

[@croozerdog]

just a lil oopsie, happens to the best of us

[@jairo8746]

Thank you for reminding me. I was sure it was a massive clusterfuck, but this flashback made it seem tame in comparison.

[@sixstringedthing]

100% guarantee there was no mention of casualties to avoid triggering KZbin's demonetisation filters.

[@DaveG7920]

Too much negative US content and KZbin gets a bit touchy.

[@bensmith7536]

what a clear, concise presentation, no overhyped nonsense, just fact..... bravo.

[@TalenGryphon]

I love that the codename for Japanese Ospreys is 'Gundam'

[@amogusenjoyer]

12:30 woah i didnt know that the osprey had a central linkage between the two motors. I thought both nacelles were basically entirely independant a part from fuel systems. That's crazy, the engineering behind that shaft alone is so interesting!

[@JuniorJunison]

It's for redundancy in the event of an engine failure. One engine can fly the whole aircraft, albeit at reduced performance of course.

[@trendlinetracker3147]

Not just interesting -- it is ridiculous, from our perspective today whence all-electronic coordination is infinitely better. Computer coordination obviates the 'gear-wear-out' mechanical method.

[@SplashJohn]

@@trendlinetracker3147 Obviously you either did not read or did not understand Junior's comment (which is 100% correct).

[@gkprivate433]

yes. Makes one wonder why just because one engine caught on fire, that the interconnecting drive shaft didn't or couldn't keep that prop rotor still turning and being drive by the one good working engine.

[@trendlinetracker3147]

@ True enough, upon rereading. My point stands though.

[@NicholasRehm]

VTOLs are a blessing and a curse. What you get in utility, you pay for in complexity. And unfortunately, complexity often comes at the expense of safety (margin).

[@ronaldckrausejr7762]

Sorry cannot go into specifics but… There are 10+ gravely critical items on this V22 which could easily be made to be volumes less complex

[@housemana]

@@ronaldckrausejr7762 sure buddy. now go back to your warthunder forums with your "cant go into specifics" ahh headass lmaoooo

[@davidanalyst671]

You are talking about osprey vtol. They should have found a contractor to redesign the engine instead of putting chip detectors in them. This is because the USA military contractor system doesn't like to see change. Thats why a different company got the V280

[@fitzy3530]

20:40 Comparing all crash metrics except the one that matters is kind of deceptive. Throw accidents per flight hour up there and you'll find incredibly different stats. The army alone flies the black hawk almost as many hours annually as the osprey has total hours over its lifespan. These aircraft fly day in and day out all over the world with a comedically high safety record for a helicopter. The V-22 is not even in the same ballpark of safety.

[@benjitheengi4447]

Yeah i though the omission of flight time metrics highly suspect. As its obviously the most important. Look at all these planes that havent crashed because we dont fly them!

[@jimpai3371]

The Black Hawk may have a pretty good safety record now, but people forget that when it was first introduced, it actually received the nickname of "Crash Hawk" because it was involved in several crashes, although I think many of those crashes had fewer fatalities than the higher profile Osprey crashes. For example, from 1981 to 1987, the Army lost 5 Black Hawks that killed everyone on board just by flying too close to radio broadcast towers because the control systems weren't sufficiently hardened.

[@Horible4]

@@jimpai3371 Some dorks are always saying the new thing on the block is trash. They don't understand the first thing about why the Osprey exists or what modern warfare even is. They just think drone swarms are the future among other buzzwords. Imagine if the DC airport crash involved an Osprey instead of a Blackhawk. 100% of the blame would have been placed on the Osprey. Such is the nature of the unreasonable blind hatred toward the V-22.

[@benelgar-white1174]

Kind of deceptive is leaving out the fact that UH-60 training missions can involve tight maneuvers at night. While the V-22 just exploded mid-air with no chance of a survival. Leaving out the stats that make the V-22 dangerous but showing a worthless graph that makes it look safe is straight up propoganda.

[@Horible4]

@ Do you know why the V-22 exists in the first place?

[@sethwaggoner6497]

It is unbelievable the amount of torque that is carried through those drive shafts in the wings... Machines like this are absolutely amazing, and they are indeed feats of engineering!

[@zett5729]

Just wanted to give a big thank you to the whole Real Engineering & Nebula team. I’ve been watching your videos for quite a time and not once was I not blown away with quality and work. This is the best KZbin Channel period.

[@jess_o]

I was fortunate enough to enjoy a quick ride-along in one of these when I was in the corps, courtesy of MCAF Quantico after participating in one of their CoC ceremonies. Watching the earth rapidly zoom out through the open cargo bay door when the pilot pushed the throttle and pitched up was an experience I'll never forget. "Impressive machine" is an understatement. Its such a shame that it took so many pilots' and passengers lives in its testing and service.

[@StrikeNoir105E]

Yet at the same time, the number of people and pilots its killed in its entire lifetime is significantly less than the number that have been lost in Blackhawk accidents in the course of a similar time period, and yet people don't seem to judge the Blackhawk as a "killer" aircraft. The V-22 really gets an unfair rap for its supposed deadliness when it's actually one of the safer rotorcraft around statistically.

[@rossgadsby9663]

​@StrikeNoir105E Well i gotta tell you, the reality does not matter. It's reputation is so shot that trust in the machine is eroded. I've heard plenty of pilots and mechanics try and defend it. But the people who have to get on it don't trust it as far as you can throw it. A helicopter of any kind is not ideal honestly cause they all kind of feel like a death trap. But everyone who steps on an Osprey's first thought it is "please don't let this piece of shit crash"

[@blak4831]

Favorite thing about this channel is getting blindsided by learning something completely unexpected. Thought I was here to learn some neat things about the Osprey, ended up learning a hell of a lot about gearbox failure and maintenance. Using sloughed off material to check for gear wear never would've crossed my mind, and that the solution involves flash-melting chips to test their size is mind blowing

[@rustknuckleirongut8107]

Only thing that blindsided me here was the obfuscating use of statistics when it comes to crashes. It just parroted the official sources in hiding the actual numbers that would let you seen how many hours each airframe flew between crashes.

[@ShuRugal]

@@rustknuckleirongut8107 yeah, i was a bit peeved that he gave us graphics and numbers for "mishaps per year" and "mishaps per airframe", both of which are irrelevant for determining aircraft safety, but then glossed over "mishaps per flight hour" by only saying "it's slightly worse than the UH-60", but not giving any numbers or showing a graph for how those numbers compare. spoiler alert: the Class A Mishap rate for the V-22 is 18% higher than for the UH-60, and 66% higher than for the CH-47. Leaving that detail out is a serious journalistic error, especially when numbers which falsely appear to show the opposite were displayed in detail.

[@johnathanclayton2887]

10:41 The rotor twist doesn't hurt hover efficiency. The reason why most helicopters have thin blades is for better forward flight. But since the v-22 rotors are always facing "upwards," they can make use of the more efficient twist angle. I'd recommend the textbook Helicopter Theory by Johnson for more information.

[@password6025]

He not only got that wrong he completely got the purpose of APU's wrong.

[@johnathanclayton2887]

@password6025 does it have a hydraulic pump on it to be able to stow the rotors? Main purpose is starting of course.

[@snmc2918]

@@johnathanclayton2887 The blade fold system specifically is driven though individual components on the blade called planetaries, but you do need hyds to roll the nacelles up and down to position the blades properly. The APU doesn't have a pump on it, but powers a midwing gearbox that has a hydraulic pump attached to that instead

[@SHEEPS_123]

@@password6025 Yeah? are you an expert?

[@SHEEPS_123]

@@snmc2918 yes... tell us more military secrets please

[@chrismason6857]

When I was serving with the Royal Air Force, we used to call them 'marine killers' because of all the crash incidents. I was told that the engines get locked in normal flight a the rotors are so big that they can’t land without them hitting the ground. They are just too technically complex.

[@Demonslayer20111]

Yes but if there is a problem the rotors are not a priority. It can in fact land like a plane if it has to. The fact that the rotors are destroyed in the process is a non factor in an emergency

[@AJB-k5o]

It can still land like a plane it would just shear the rotors off which are replaceable.

[@davidshane2733]

I highly recommend reading The Dream Machine to anyone interested in the full history and politics of the Osprey

[@eds6889]

It isn’t the advancing blade that limits the top speed of a helicopter, it is the retreating blade. They call this retreating blade stall.

[@daniels2761]

Blade stall and supersonic blade tips are both an issue.

[@eds6889]

@daniels 2761 an airbus H125 with a main rotor speed of 394rpm has tips moving at 464mph. The speed of sound on a standard day is 761mph. How do you get the other 297mph? You’ll be pitching up and rolling well before your blade tips go supersonic. (Edited as I noticed I cut the name off of whom I was replying to)

[@DasBuzzBuzz]

due to aerodynamics, local airspeed on portions of the airfoil can get transonic, which is horrible for their purpose, generating lift.

[@daniels2761]

@eds6889 sure, most helicopters are designed so that it isn't an issue. But he was speaking from a design standpoint, and the reason you can't just make the rotor faster to counter retreating stall is loss of efficiency as the sound barrier is approached.

[@eds6889]

@DazBuzzBuzz explain how any portion of a rotating blade can move faster than the tip? And how would it move at least 130mph faster than the aircraft and rotor rpm combined? (Edited as I noticed I cut the name off of whom I was replying to)

[@SmithNeo2]

You can say anything about the V-22 but damn they are so cool, watching them take off never gets old.

[@johnathanclayton2887]

15:49 it's pretty impressive the gearbox continued to work for 15 minutes with a broken off tooth. Those chip detectors need to be rock solid though, so the pilots don't ignore them. Maybe they need a redundant second one?

[@lpdirv]

Chip detectors is a whole subject of debate in aviation in general. There are many types of chip detectors for different uses. Some are checked by maintenance and are just magnets in the oil system. Some are checked before flight and not electrically monitored. Some are monitored in flight but not active and then there are the active ones like this system. I have flown all these systems on helicopters as well as airplanes. I have had to shut down three engines due to chip lights and make several as soon as practical, as soon as possible, as well as immediate landings or shutdowns. All that to say its complicated. The worst thing in operation is false chip-lights which lull a crew into a sense of complacency. Ohh just another chip-light with some fuzz is not uncommon. Some systems are too sensitive, others are not sensitive enough. I suspect that this complacency played a large part in this scenario. Active vibration monitoring would be a good secondary way to enforce what to do when a chip-light is encountered. We do this naturally as looking for secondary indications. Just last month i had an engine seize up on start, its a mechanical device. Shit happens.

[@Gnefitisis]

So why were there only 5 chip events if the sensor was plugged full of metal?

[@johnathanclayton2887]

@@Gnefitisis I'm guessing those were the first 5, then on the 6th it got clogged and reported as such. So the 6th through 100th just reported as clogged. The sensor can only tell if there's metal there, not how much metal.

[@44R0Ndin]

Pretty sure what they need is an adjustment to the warning system that makes the chip detector something you must mentally acknowledge, maybe make that one not turn off the Master Alarm until you press the alarm acknowledge button multiple times. Maybe make the warning itself more dire and easy to process by the subconsious brain, that way the "thinking" mind has an easier time realizing "Hey, I'm actually in mortal danger right now" and doesn't try to do the "normal" thing and abstract a warning into irrelevance if you can't understand it. For the Japan-operated V-22's specifically, the message could involve frequent use of the number 4, due to the similarity of how they say 4 in Japanese and how the word "death" or "die" is pronounced extremely similarly. Point is, more effort needs to be invested into making that warning a lot harder to ignore.

[@k87upkid]

There are already three chip detectors per gearbox.

[@anthonyfrench3169]

As someone who is living in Iwakuni, this really hit home. And I appreciate the actual voice recordings. And I love how you covered the how and why. Thank you for talking about this..

[@jessicaboozer3135]

It wasn’t entirely accurate about the crash in Nov though

[@Christian-fg3we]

The Osprey is just so damn cool and the engineering is fascinating. Im sure the US military is alarmed about the reliability of future tilt rotor aircraft so hopefully the Bell V-280 Valor, Blackhawks replacement, really emphasizes engineering safety. Great video as always!

[@XerrolAvengerII]

Thank you for putting this together. The public only gets told when things go badly. They don't get told all the times things go fine. Most people don't realize how dangerous aircraft development used to be and how much work goes in improving something that isn't perfect the first time it's built. Thanks.

[@victorzarenin9286]

Even though this is a video talking about the failures of this vehicle, it's still a freaking marvel of engineering! The fact that it gets up in the air at all is near miraculous!

[@lpdirv]

Chip detectors is a whole subject of debate in aviation in general. There are many types of chip detectors for different uses. Some are checked by maintenance and are just magnets in the oil system. Some are checked before flight and not electrically monitored. Some are monitored in flight but not active and then there are the active ones like this system. I have flown all these systems on helicopters as well as airplanes. I have had to shut down three engines due to chip lights and make several as soon as practical, as soon as possible, as well as immediate landings or shutdowns. All that to say its complicated. The worst thing in operation is false chip-lights which lull a crew into a sense of complacency. Ohh just another chip-light with some fuzz is not uncommon. Some systems are too sensitive, others are not sensitive enough. I suspect that this complacency played a large part in this scenario. Active vibration monitoring would be a good secondary way to enforce what to do when a chip-light is encountered. We do this naturally as looking for secondary indications. Just last month i had an engine seize up on start, its a mechanical device. Shit happens.

[@alexv3357]

Helicopters are marvels of engineering, but they are also man's greatest testament to his own hubris

[@arfahlaade6463]

A really great video, outstanding graphics. As a mechanical engineer, i couldn't appreciate more.

[@theglassishalf]

19:41 Why do you give us numbers and visuals for accidents per airframe but just tell us that accidents per flight hour are "higher" and give us no numbers or visuals? Serious accidents / injury accidents per flight hour is obviously the most important number. Really strange to just handwave it away.

[@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648]

Yes yes! Very suspicious, really disappointed

[@brianbricker1969]

You need the numbers of major incidents ending in death or hull loss per flight hours (at around 19 minutes in this video) to understand the safety factor. 1.59 major incidents per 100,000 flight hours for Chinooks and 2.27 for every 100,000 hours of flight for Osprey. Blackhawk as far as I can tell is around 1 death per 100,000 hours (but I can't find hull failure data). These numbers are all skewed however due to passenger capacity and I can't tell if the numbers take into account the fact that a large number of Chinooks were shot down during Vietnam.

[@Cowboycomando54]

Don't you also need to factor in hours grounded due to QA and safety failures as well?

[@k87upkid]

Thank you for tracking this data down. I was super disappointed by his lack of usable data to evaluate safety of an airframe - never answered the fundamental question the video was supposed to address, whether a V-22 is more or less safe than other combat troop transposts.

[@bluemountain4181]

Could be worth adjusting for distance traveled too - if one platform has half the incidents per flight hour but takes twice as many flight hours to travel the same distance is it safer?

[@STSKSP]

The nacelle positioning mechanism is very similar to how regular flaps work in an airliner. Also, the coolest planes have always been dangerous. I think that at any given time, you can only make an aircraft so good with the technology at hand. This means that the more of the pie you take for capabilities, the less resources you have for reliability, redundancy, ease of maintenance.

[@STSKSP]

Ex. Star fighter, Tomcat, blackbird, X-15, Space Shuttle.

[@MaticTheProto]

Lmao

[@Klovaneer]

this guy over here calling Tu-95 uncool smh

[@prasetyowibowopampam3901]

The engine configuration on the Ospery, is the Transmission on the helicopter. To avoid the occurrence of aircraft imbalance due to damage to one of the transmissions on the Osprey, after there is an indication of Chip Transmission, immediately land, Ditching, before damage occurs which causes aircraft imbalance.

[@Bespelled22]

Back in 2002 I worked for Textron and this aircraft was the pride of the company. I hope they can work out all the issues with this airframe. Textron was such a great company to work for and this is such a cool bird.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The new V-280 seems to be taking its place as the prestige piece; either that or the new model 525 helicopter.

[@eiennofantasy]

Hearing the name of an anime robot as call signs really caught me off guard there.

[@StrikeNoir105E]

Mobile Suit Gundam is a cultural cornerstone in Japan, in the same league as Star Wars is in the US. Not surprising to see Japanese servicemen name their craft after it.

[@yjk92]

@@StrikeNoir105EI guess the video never clearly states but the aircraft was US Air Force, not Japan Self-Defense Force. Hence everything is in English.

[@Liam-fx3ir]

It should be noted that Osprey crashes get more attention than say, fighter crashes, because they usually have a higher death toll, which may exaggerate the actual relative likelihood of an osprey crash.

[@Stealth86651]

Not to mention it's a pretty new/untested idea, so of course eyes will be all over it.

[@JohnSmith-sk7cg]

On the flip side of that, failures are more often catastrophic than traditional aircraft because an engine failure in a traditional jet or helicopter does not result in the craft immediately flipping over and diving into the ground. There is time to assess the situation and potentially make corrective or life-saving actions in other aircraft.

[@Liam-fx3ir]

Yep. It also looks like he’s mentioned both our points in the video, I’m partway through now

[@criticalevent]

Even if the crashes are not more numerous, they are nearly always deadly because this aircraft can neither glide nor can it auto rotate if it loses propulsion. If they could come up with a ballistic parachute for it or ejection seats it would be one of the safest aircraft in the forces.

[@JonathanFisherS]

thats noted late in the video

[@RTKdarling]

I've been following you since the beginning of the channel, and I've always been impressed with your research and presentation quality. The quality of your 3d animations just keeps getting better!! Physics demonstrations, along with visualizations of complex engineering, makes it all so much more interesting and easy to digest. One of my favorite youtube channels hands down.

[@archibaldfranklin288]

Props to the engineers that designs crazy machines like this...

[@BastardX13]

Visionaries with an unlimited budget. Never get near one, myself. R.I.P.

[@thatoneguywhodoesthatthing913]

As bad as the osprey is, you should take a look at the crash records for the early harriers (for the US that’s the AV-8A/C variants), or even the Harrier 2 (US: AV-8B) when it first entered service. Plenty of people wanted that thing gone, but the facts were it was doing a job no other asset could do at the time. Same as the Osprey.

[@beefsuprem0241]

One reason for the high accident rate in early US harriers was they put a lot of helicopter people in them and average pilots. The UK put their best in them as they realised it was tricky jet and had far less issues.

[@SHEEPS_123]

As a V22 Crew Chief.... it seems pretty safe to me. I just hope that we don't see another mishap anytime soon

[@QuizmasterLaw]

In this case I figure: bad or no maintenance. Ground gears = lack of oil, no? You know way more than me, but I don't see design or even pilot error as to blame here. Anyway fly safe.

[@SHEEPS_123]

@@QuizmasterLaw this mishap was a mechanical failure but could have been prevented by taking it more seriously. I am more likely to die from a perfcalc error than any mechanical error, a perfcalc (performance calculation) is basically your power margin... a lot of deaths have been to the pilots and or crew not knowing the power margin

[@neeneko]

@@QuizmasterLaw the japanese V22 program is generally known for good bordering on neurotic maintenance. their maintenance schedule is a lot stricter and more frequent that the US ones, which pushes up their costs but has generally kept their V22s in good shape.

[@ApolloTheDerg]

Complacency kills! Stay alert, pay attention, don’t push the limits with risk, and you can keep it safe. Training and maintenance go a long way, I’d rather land and find out it was a false warning than crash assuming, this is why allowing false errors and becoming complacent with ignoring them is probably the most dangerous thing that took place.

[@MrNigzy23]

@@neeneko To be fair though, the JSDF doesn't have nearly the amount of obligations that the US has. They can spend a lot more time on maintenance, they're not operating constantly around the world. Honestly, one of the worst things in the US is just how much those soldiers are overworked. Stupidly long tour times (Almost double the length of any other Nato country!) The enlisted ranks are so overburdened because they lose more soldiers than they recruit per year, these tend to actually be the soldiers who know their shit. The career soldiers who have 16+ years of experience. (Hence why you see the consistent increase in civie/military projects. Once upon a time, if you wanted to build an aqueduct or something in Afghanistan, you'd have your own corps of Engineers do it. Nowadays, you see that stuff pushed more and more onto civie organisations just afforded a military escort. The US, for all intents and purposes, abuses the heck out of their defence personnel. Heck, I read an article a while back on just how burned out the US SOF community is becoming because they keep/kept getting assignments that could have been done by normal foot regiments but nah, gotta use them super soldiers instead. No break for them! God knows just how overburdened pilots are.

[@user-uv2rh9gl9y]

19:55 The high fatality rate per incident *can* be attributed to larger airframes being able to hold more passengers…but how much of the fatalities are due to larger capacity vs each incident’s higher likelihood of being catastrophic/fatal due to the complexity of airframe? While ospreys are statistically less likely to have an incident than tradition helicopters, the likelihood of an incident being fatal is increased and I would argue that for the C-47, it is due to higher capacity, while for the V-22 it is due to the complexity of the airframe causing unrecoverable failure So what am I trying to say… I think that the osprey’s safety record is so negatively viewed because most people think that if you have an incident, you’re very likely to perish, vs if you had an incident on a traditional helicopter, you’re more likely to survive

[@wockyslush3038]

Right but what kind of incidents? Most of the (mechanical) things that caused Ospreys to crash would cause any helicopter to crash in an unrecoverable fashion.

[@citratune]

@@wockyslush3038helicopters autorotate, can help.

[@HalRiveria]

I'd also think that a mechanical failure in the Osprey (and by extension other dual rotor designs like the Chinook) will always lead to a catastrophic crash, whereas if you lose power in a Blackhawk or other single rotor helo you may be able to use autorotation to crash land - and walk away from it. Which only compounds the fact that these larger aircraft are dual rotors by necessity to be larger/carry a large payload, meaning your aircraft designed to carry more personnel is, by design, incapable of even attempting to save those personnel. Why they don't just put emergency chutes on the rear of these things is beyond me - or the roof, and just jettison the blades the same way that attack helos with ejection seats do.

[@Steezicus]

@@wockyslush3038 that's not even remotely true.

[@wockyslush3038]

@@Steezicus So what mechanical failures did the ospreys have that other more conventional helicopters would survive? Genuinelly curious.

[@deansnipah1392]

When I was in school learning to be an airplane mechanic, my teacher told us something along the lines of, "helicopters arent meant to fly, but man has forced them to" 18yrs later as a seasoned mechanic, whenever I see this plane I think to myself, "there are just waaayyy too many moving parts just asking for failure"

[@bl8danjil]

Well now that helicopter saying is false because helicopters became safer. I would not be surprised if people said the same thing about all the early attempts at human piloted flight before the Wright brother's recognition.

[@bjw0007]

I worked on the V-280 prototype. One of the improvements Bell made is to remove the forward sweep. The reason for the forward sweep, as stated, is to reduce how far forward the nacelle needed to extend. But, during development of the V-22, Bell was unsure of how much rearward deflection the blades could experience in use, and so wanted to give extra clearance and hence the forward sweep. Based on the experience and data on the V-22 of its tip deflection, Bell removed the forward sweep and so was able to make the driveshaft between the pylons straight.

[@sebastianm.4966]

I hiked part of the Appalachian Trail last year, and when I was in the Grayson Highlands, a V22 flew maybe 600 feet above my head. I'm really bad at guessing, but it was so close that I could've counted the screws. Sadly, I didn't have my phone on me because it was right after a thunderstorm. Still, I don't know when was the last time I was that excited. They were probably doing some training in that area, but I'm from Germany and I've never seen one before. At first, I thought it was a helicopter, but it was kinda too fast for that, and then it came over the treeline. Amazing sound. And amazing video!

[@austinwagner3231]

Cockpit recordings of military pilots are always so calm and emotionless. They could be in a death spiral and just keep reading out altitude every few seconds like its a Sunday drive.

[@andan2293]

I don't think these were the real recordings. Although they probably still were calm.

[@eds6889]

Those are recreations and not the original recordings.

[@lpdirv]

When shit starts to go sideways its best to stay calm. Training helps a lot and experience. We do a lot of simulator training and that helps greatly. Anyone that panics is generally not helpful to the situation. Reminds me of Apollo 13 even if it was dramatized a bit. Keep working the problem and don’t make it worse is a good adage. I teach my students to say “whats next”. Pilot heard a loud bang, “whats next”, fly that thing till it will not fly any longer. You will see this with emergency responders as well. Everyone should get some rudimentary training such as first aid and fire training. That shit saves lives.

[@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis]

​@szivacs tf are "inhumane protocols"

[@housemana]

@@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis it means taking the humanity out of the comms dude. aka take your feelings out of it. its impressive you're this dense but with your pfp and username, i'm not surprised in the slightest that you're just 'smart enough' to be close to a breakthrough, but lazy enough to where u never will.

[@Grumpy_ol_Gamer]

I understand we don't have the full set of data but relative safety requires comparing incidents or casualties per flight hour across VTOL aircraft. Osprey incidents are always high-profile because its the "new" thing and often carry spec ops or something similar.

[@dbul2542]

Same thing going on with the F-35. It’s crashed ~12 times. The F-104 fighter crashed about 300 times in Germany alone.

[@gbcb8853]

“New” since 1965

[@Acrophobia2]

@@gbcb8853how many other tilt wing helicopters have been made…

[@k87upkid]

I'd wager the Special Operations Aviation Regiment MH-47s transport far more spec ops troops than the Marine Corp V-22.

[@kyledabearsfan]

sometimes if the check engine light goes off, you should respect it. If the pilot wouldve responded to inital warning, he mightve had time to get to a landing spot in time or at least safer. If he wouldve communicated better, people couldve had support crews ready in a more controlled crash. Plenty of things that couldve been improved.

[@Random_Einstein]

Graphics concerning retreating blade stall is incorrect at 3:45. The video shows retreating side velocity increases when the airspeed increases. This is incorrect.

[@bradywulf8444]

Fun fact: I'm the crew chief in the video at 1:24

[@Yiitox]

Prove it

[@bradywulf8444]

@@Yiitox Google my name and add V-22 crew chief at the end

[@yaauco]

In my short 5 years in the USMC as a MV22 mechanic I can say that the AC if it doesn't want to fly it won't, especially if its a Avionics problem (which most times it is). Now while I was in, we had 3 mishaps if im not mistaken. Matter of fact we were Deployed one of the times when it got red striped, when the new order came about the hard clutches. A lot of the incidents from what we were told, per the results were pilot error, and only one was mechanical to my knowledge. The MV22 could use more fail-safes, however in my case as soon as I saw a problem I used to tell the pilots if its good to go or a no go. And got as many people involved if needed, to see if we could resolve the problem. I believe for what is worth, it is a safe AC. The flight hours project that. I love my V22 with a passion. And hate that it gets the hate that it gets. But i understand peoples hate for it and the frustrations. And as a mechanic my frustrations were also big when it came time to replace/repair or do some of the inspections on the thing. I hope the V280 advances on the things that the V22 lacks.

[@georgethompson2616]

I don’t think the blade twist is a negative tradeoff for V-22. Since it doesn’t have to fly horizontally in helicopter mode the blades can have closer to an ideal twist and actually achieve a higher figure of merit. You also got the vortex ring state portion wrong. When a helicopter descends into its own wake it can get into a situation where the vortices get ingested back through the rotor, causing a sudden and significant decrease in thrust.

[@SHEEPS_123]

The blade twist is most certainly a trade off. Yes, when the v22 is flying in conversion mode the nacelles tilt forward instead of the fuselage, but when landing or taking off it will suffer from the inefficiency that was mentioned. He did not get the vortex ring state wrong. I understand that it is commonly taught that it is caused by descending into your own "dirty" air with no other lateral, forward or back motion, well this isn't necessarily wrong, its not why you loose lift in that case. what the dirty air causes is more instable flight than anything else.

[@georgethompson2616]

@@SHEEPS_1231) what is the ideal twist of a rotor blade in hover? Again, V-22 actually has a higher FOM than a typical helicopter partially because of its high blade twist. 2) It’s not dirty air. It’s recirculating the downwash, i.e. the rotor is seeing extra high inflow velocity.

[@SHEEPS_123]

@georgethompson2616 @georgethompson2616 I dont know the ideal rotor twist, that doesn't change the fact that the v22's rotors are far different than any other helicopter, that should say it all. I have no idea what FOM stands for. But there's nothing efficient about the v22. Yes, I understand "dirty air" isn't the actual term... hence the quotations

[@georgethompson2616]

@@SHEEPS_123​​⁠ideal rotor twist in hover goes with 1/r, so more twist at the root, like V-22 has. It’s efficient for its disk loading but has high disk loading largely due to having to fit and operate from ships. That’s more a problem from a relatively small disk area for the aircraft weight, not the twist. One silver lining is the high disk loading creates high inflow (downwash) velocity, actually making vortex ring state harder to get into (requires higher than normal sink rate to experience). The workaround they discovered for VRS is actually just tilting the rotors a bit and getting out of the wake.

[@housemana]

@@SHEEPS_123 nobody seriously in the trades call recirculated downwash "dirty air". that was just you trying to make it out to seem like you know more than you actually do, and getting exposed in the process. sheep indeed.

[@p51mustang63]

i am a usaf maintaner (currently stationed at RAF Lakenheath!), and i love your videos. the in depth research and details into just our daily lives as service members and maintainers in different branches. if you could cover the f15 itd mean the world ❤

[@user-nj3xd7uk7c]

I don't remember the exact date, but late "80's or early 90's I was a young Marine stationed at NAS Dallas. Myself and twenty something Marines were about to go for a "ride" in an Osprey being that Bell was just down the road. They were actually testing it to carry troops. Anyway, after a long morning of training and waiting, Bell scrubbed the flight due to mechanical difficulties. Not long after that, the same Osprey went down up north. Either New Castle or Quantico, I can't remember which. Anyway, I pray for the lives lost, but I'm grateful I didn't go for that "ride".

[@Terminus316]

That's a slightly different telling of Operation Eagle Claw from what I heard previously. I had heard from another video that there was a crash at the refueling site that killed a few service members along with eliminating one of the refueling planes. Well, at leastit was something along those lines from the top of my head,

[@WoWFREAK1336]

I will say, my biggest concern with the Osprey isn't the complexity or uniqueness of the airframe... it's that they can't safely land in full forward configuration, which means that one of the operations which is most safety critical (landing) involves a regime change from forward flight to hover where the number of points of failure increases. If the prop-rotors were able to be full-forward while also having enough ground clearance for TO/L, I think they'd have fewer incidents as a fixed-wing landing can enter glide if full engine failure occurs.

[@dbul2542]

I was curious so I looked it up and the glide ratio for the Osprey is 4.5:1. Not sure how viable that is for gliding after engine failure. I assume to make it better they’d have to make the wings longer, bringing in all sorts of new problems.

[@Appletank8]

Unfortunately I don't think the physics of the plane allows that. You want the biggest props you can for hover flight, which makes it way oversized for forward flight. trying to force the issue would require a massively tall hump on the roof, making storage and weight a problem.

[@chrisc1140]

In an emergency situation you'll just kinda accept the propellers will strike the ground if you have to, but also you don't have to have them elevated _much_ to get them clear. Just a few degrees will do. But with a fat aircraft with little stubby wings, its glide speed will be very high. You might have enough control to ditch, but any landing is still probably closer to a controlled crash than an actual landing. I kinda doubt it auto-rotates well either, so which it technically has both aircraft and helicopter emergency modes, it won't be good or safe in either. I will add though, that if landing on a runway there's no _need_ to do a full regime change to hover. The nacells can be pitched up only part way to provide extra lift while still mostly in forward flight.

[@beejay7665]

That’s your biggest concern? FYI, the prop blades are designed to ‘broomstraw’ or shatter, should a nacelle-forward landing be necessary. All three hydraulic systems are able to single-handedly operate the nacelle conversion function. In the event of a dual engine failure (which has never happened), the V-22 has minimal glide capability so you’re not making it to a runway unless you’re already above it (4:1 from the cockpit is like an elevator ride)

[@BenCrews]

Brian, this video is awesome! You and the team did a great job!! However, I'm not quite sure the Vortex Ring State definition is correct. You need to talk to Al Brand at Bell Flight. He did the original work solving and understanding Vortex Ring State, and has an amazing simulation in X-Plane of a V-22 entering VRS and how to safely get out of it (hint: it's different than a typical rotorcraft!). Looking at the future, mission requirements haven't really changed, but designs and techniques certainly have. Can changes in the FLRAA design mitigate problems on the V-22? Bell certainly thinks so.

[@DylSkaggsBO105]

Blade twist actually typically increases hover efficiency. Since the inner part of the blades increased pitch allows it to still make adequate lift despite its slower speed compared to the outer part of the blade. The reason you don’t see excessive blade twist in typical helicopters is because of the high amount of drag you’d encounter in forward flight. This is why the osprey gets away with such a high mount of twist. It’s never required to fly very fast in helicopter mode with the rotors lying horizontally. And while high disk loading does come with an associated power penalty, blade twist is not to blame

[@curtisnorton4098]

Thanks for your excellent videos! At 3:38, as a helicopter pilot, I must point out that the main factor that limits the forward speed of a helicopter is Dissymmetry of Lift and Retreating Blade Stall. The advancing blade tip speed is another factor that is considered when determining the Vne (Velocity never exceed) speed.

[@ketsuekikumori9145]

Which video was it that RE mentions the Osprey and that he might cover it if there was demand? That feels so long ago.

[@rmp5s]

Been on about a hundred of these things both stateside and when I was in Afghanistan. They are super dangerous...from what I understand, they can't really autorotate like a helicopter or glide like a plane. If something happens, they just kinda fall out of the sky. They were still my preferred means of travel...lol...they're SO cool. And, can confirm...the downwash IS kinda nuts off them. Good vid, man. Been on TONS of 53s, too...they're awesome too (friggin HUGE!!!) but they're SO loud (inside, especially if you're around the middle of the thing, all the pumps and everything kinda sounds like crickets, but DEAFENING) and they drip all kinds of fluids all over you. Osprey is da wei. Loud too but just WAY cooler. 👍 -- 0651, 2009-2014, OEF 2011, USMC

[@vladwingnutz]

Ospreys are pretty loud on the outside. A flight of four regularly fly over my house around sunset, no idea where they’re going. I always know when it’s them - the sound of a Huey mixed with a fighter jet 8^)

[@rmp5s]

@vladwingnutz Yea, they are. If they're low, they'd probably rattle your friggin pictures off the walls...they're REALLY powerful. They're loud af inside, too...nothing like the 53, though. Those are nuts. I actually bought a pair of Bluetooth headphones to try to make it less miserable. Helped a little. 🤣

[@smithwesson373]

One thing is the inabilty to emergency landing, were the Osprey has a big disadvantage. If a engine stops in an airplane or an conventional helicopter, they can glide/autorotate for an emergency landing. The Osprey can't do that, and if any malfunction you are usually doomed. Which is one reason the Osprey is not eligible to serve as Marine Force One.

[@AldehydeSpectre]

The Osprey has a crosslinked transfer gearbox. If one engine fails, the remaining one can still drive both rotors. If both rotors fail, it may still be capable of autorotation, but I'd imagine it would be even more difficult than doing so in a normal helicopter.

[@Pystro]

Correction to both of you: If one _engine_ fails in an osprey, the connecting shaft should allow it to still function. However, if one _gear box_ fails, it sounds like you immediately loose control and can't recover. (I think the same is true for the tilting mechanism, unless you're in forward flight mode.)

[@adrianbooth438]

I had no idea just how complex the Osprey's engineering is. Thanks for the great video!

[@KJ4EZJ]

Your animations are always so cool, I hope rendering them in low definition was an accident!

[@Techtitan-q6k]

Please can you do a video on lithography machines which are used produce micro processors

[@trendlinetracker3147]

Elmer-Perkins comes to mind!

[@gryff8400]

Asianometry has already done great videos on Lithography. Check out his channel.

[@shogun2215]

That Operation Eagle Claw might be one of the most incompetent missions I've ever heard of. Yeah lets just shoot at a petrol tanker when we're trying to be sneaky, can't see any issue there.

[@josephknaak9034]

Army SF ground forces, Navy helicopters, Marine helicopter pilots, Air Force refueling aircraft. What could go wrong?

[@QuizmasterLaw]

truck bombs existed back then.

[@beejay7665]

The guts to try

[@wpatrickw2012]

You don’t want the tanker getting away to tell someone about the staging area.

[@pabilbadoespecial]

There's a great podcast about engineering disasters called :"well there's your problem", the episode on the osprey is absolutely hilarious

[@Pystro]

All of their episodes are really hilarious. Admittedly, some are hilarious _and_ horrible at the same time, but still good entertainment.

[@tsbrownie]

I was in 6th grade when the first gen was being tested, and today they still have the same problems they had 50+ years ago.

[@intercommerce]

My comment exactly! (I said 40)...they been working on this thing nearly ny whole life, trying to get it right!

[@richardstaples8621]

A fair, rigorous & informative report. Well done.

[@fvdeddrift]

Markie Marks... Lol! 💜

[@RedSpottedToad]

"Wow the osprey is so dangerous" >looks at v-22 and uh-60 safety records >the blackhawk is more dangerous per flight hour 🤨 The number of people in this comment section spewing verifiably falsw information is insane. Its like people didnt earch the video and are just repating information they learn from rumors and tiktok

[@festungkurland9804]

lol

[@angelaferkel7922]

Before you are embarrassing yourself, look at the record of some of the old soviet "obsolete" helicopter records and find out many are safer than this american overpriced piece of shi

[@DasBuzzBuzz]

the causes for H60 were glossed over. 50/50 mechanical failure to pilot error on V22 is a horrifying statistic.

[@guybrushthreepwood362]

The problem is that Gundams must be piloted by 14 year olds

[@dethrow1100]

The pilot wasn't a Newtype 😂

[@KoyomiHiroyuki]

I think you mean Evangelion.

[@marcopohl4875]

You'd think they now that. That's a rookie mistake!

[@beejay7665]

I needed that chuckle. I knew some of those guys, and some of the armchair quarterbacks s#!t-posting about the crew has my blood boiling. Thanks

[@thomasgade226]

Daito was around 16-20 years old in Ready Player One

[@tnmlssvoid]

The quality of the content of this channel keeps getting better and better!! 🔥🔥🔥

[@evilsanta8585]

I worked on these. They where actually one of the safer aircraft. Yes they where unreliable at first but nowadays they’re really safe. Although most tech is old on these

[@aussie2uGA]

The Osprey has been a complete success for the military industrial complex and many contractors that have profited from it. It's a shame there has been so many lost lives in them.

[@nealkrueger6097]

This type of aircraft has been around since 1950. The same reason the type was canceled back then was the gearbox and tilt Wing spars.

[@trendlinetracker3147]

Computer, rather than mechanical, coordination can obviate some of those negatives.

[@kenoliver8913]

@@trendlinetracker3147 Nope. Computers don't help when one engine fails - for that you need a heavy, failure-prone mechanical cross shaft to keep the other side's prop turning. And they certainly don't help if a wing spar fails under the tremendous torque if one side stops lifting, which is the other innate problem with plane/rotorcraft hybrids.

[@Tony6878]

Left out are a few of their inherent designs flaws. Where they were eating engines from the exhaust kicking FOD into the intake. Or how the navy had to redesign their flight decks from the exhaust melting them. Just to name a few.

[@t.n.-js6ei]

Ever drive a Tesla?

[@Tony6878]

@ Care to elaborate how that relates to my comment?

[@Dragonthe2nd]

If the navy didn’t do it for the v22 they would have done it for the f35

[@Tony6878]

@ Harriers existed prior to both. It was more because they’d turn up and idle there with the exhaust point at the deck. Not so much during landing

[@Zach-ku6eu]

As a trple 12B vet. I've flown canyon runs on most helicopters. *The one I'd go BA A-Team to get me on is THAT Blow or Go Bird!!*

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

The fact that the Osprey is so complicated and hard to maintain, and yet remains in service is testament to you unique and useful it's airframe is.

[@entiller]

The hostages were taken in November 1979, not 1980.

[@eliasfajardo6148]

They were called Gundam? How Japanese is that!!! Awesome!

[@alexlandherr]

Could you add your sources in the video description again please?

[@RealCadde]

As with any component failures due to "unusual wear" or "premature failure" you should always just follow the money. And following the money is not just about "who saved/made more money than the rest" but also time invested. 1) Cheap materials - Bad parts 2) Shady deals (bribery) - Poor quality 3) Underpaid workforce - Missed/ignored/sloppy defects 4) Not enough time and resources in maintenance - Reduced lifetime 5) Rushed/Unskilled R&D - Design defects that aren't failsafe/reliable As a concept, the V-22 should work just fine. It's a very difficult engineering challenge, but given the right minds with the right materials and quality controls. I see absolutely no reason as to why it shouldn't fly like any other aircraft with minimal incidents. There are other VTOL aircraft that get way more funding and are of higher quality. They too have their issues but at the end of the day, it's just a matter of following the money. To me, it really sounds like the V-22 is a victim of bad money management rather than bad concept. Find out where the money goes (or doesn't go) and all issues can be resolved. In 99% of cases, there's always someone slacking despite getting paid well or they are even intentionally siphoning money away from the project. The higher their position, the more likely they are to make selfish decisions that eventually lead to failure of the project. They don't care, they just abandon ship and go on to wreck another project.

[@dreffon9213]

Gotta agree with other comments. Helicopters always show high incident rates, but that is because of how they are flown. They fly too low, they crash into each other etc. They do not fall from the sky because of an unrecoverable mechanical failure. The metric you should show is "deadly incidents caused by failure by hour of flight"

[@D.Trout222]

The v-22 has NEVER been called the "widow maker" that's so cringy that I am sure it came from reddit. The real nickname it got was LAWN DART.

[@illucidate3749]

thats the F16s moniker

[@litrick5471]

Never once heard v22 called lawn dart. Usually only heard that for jets like f16 and av8

[@D.Trout222]

@ Having been in the first unit to operationally deploy with them lawn dart was the name for the osprey. Especially after the early crashes where the computer suddenly thought it was inverted and tried to correct itself.

[@MadDog8932]

No the original "Lawn dart" was the AV-8A. Way before the other aircraft mentioned. I am an old retired Marine who was there back then when it happened.