Could the V-22 Osprey replace normal helicopters, if you didn’t account for cost?

Posted 21Nov2017.

Not really.

The V-22’s design was basically inspired by the need to provide support during amphibious assaults – quickly moving troops from LHA’s to contested beaches and beyond, as well as the follow-on logistics support to ensure that whatever foothold on enemy shores is effectively maintained and exploited. Sure, the Air Force jumped on the opportunity to replace their MH-53 Pave Low platforms for their own tactical needs, but the Navy and Marines drove that particular bus the most.

The problem with the idea of the Osprey posing a threat to “normal helicopters” is multi-faceted and therefore negligible, however. There are several different areas where the Osprey simply isn’t suited to perform every role filled by traditional helicopters: operating footprint, weight, and considerations, for example.

(Much of this is going off the top of my head, but this has the additional benefit of making it unburdened by technical details.)

Operational footprint dictates much of the organizational needs of rotary-wing support. Taking the H-60 series as an example, the rotor disk is 53’ 8” with an overall length of 64’ 10”. While it is theoretical to land in a clearing not much bigger than, say, 70’, the risks associated with such confined-space operations typically outweigh the benefits. The dimensions of the EC145 – one of the most widely-used helicopters for air ambulance services – offers a bit more leeway: 36’ x 42’ 9”, but still this is considerably smaller than the 87’ span and 57’ 4” length of the Osprey. These dimensions become crucial when looking at the various roles where operators would use them the most – medical evacuation, passenger transport, firefighting, and observation. One of the aspects which have brought helicopters in favor of fixed-wing aircraft is their ability to land and take-off from remote areas without a sizeable real estate investment, so traditional helicopters will continue to win in this realm.

Basic and maximum gross weight is an odd and typically overlooked factor as well – especially when combined with environmental considerations. Performance needs increase with higher air temperatures and pressure altitudes, and though the Osprey has power, smaller helicopters sometimes would have a safer operational margin. Along with this, the staging areas may also prove to be a limit. There are places where a 7,903-lb EC145 can land where a much heavier 60,500-lb Osprey would have to avoid – rooftop helipads and off-shore oil rig pads, for example.

Operational considerations are essentially the “Devil in the details” which preclude wider civilian use of Ospreys. Rotor wash and noise come to mind, and the latter tends to drive aviation operations to the point where engine manufacturers have long-since moved towards quieter engines for commercial jets. The problem of rotor wash is significant, however; the amount of dust generated during a 2015 crash on Bellows AFS in Hawaii was attributed to prolonged hovering in a dusty landing zone which led to a compressor stall, degraded engine performance and subsequent crash. Both factors – noise and wind – are inevitable when it comes to anyoperation of rotary-wing aircraft and will continue to pose challenges for operators; in this case, however, the Osprey maintains a firm disadvantage.

The Osprey, and other tilt-rotor aircraft which will follow, is not a completely useless concept and firmly bound to military operations. However, much like the fact that pickup trucks will never replace all vehicles and steak knives will negate the need for any other type of domestic cutlery, the Osprey has a niche which it will fill in support of other aircraft types.