A reader writes:
". . . it's a nice "whiz-bang NEATO!" thing but still after ALL THESE YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT ISN'T SAFE. FAA won't approve them for Civil Aviation for all their design faults."
"Yes the wing rotates and things fold BUT:
V-22 Lies Exposed
"G2mil's March article, V-22 Alternatives describes why V-22s are not shipboard compatible. This has been known by those profiting from the V-22 program for a decade. This is why they avoided deploying V-22s with naval task forces. However, all the CH-46Es have been retired from the East Coast, so V-22s were forced to deploy last month with the 22nd MEU. They deployed only 10, rather than the standard 12 with the CH-46E, because V-22s are twice their size."
Read the rest of Tom's insightful analysis
here.
Monday, 3 August 2009
STORMBRINGER: V-22 Osprey Update
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Blackhawk isn't FAA certified either.
Cry me a river.
If only the US had subsidised the development of the Fairey Rotodyne just like it did with the HS P1127/Kestrel/Harrier, Hercules-sized VTOL transports would have been flying for thirty or forty years.
Have a look at this site to see some interesting alternatives:
http://www.groenbros.com/index2.php
As an old UH34D Crew Chief from Nam, I can tell you that a wounded Grunt wants one thing:
A medevac to come, and fast as possible.
The V22 can get to the wounded at over 300 knotts and that spells survival.
This new bid will save lives.
The CH46 had its share of deadly crashes. The A models had a rash of aft pylons crack and fall off, killing everyone.
In WWII, it was safer to land at Normandy than crew a B17, but they didn't just stop flying the missions...
The V-22 has killed more marines than anything, half of them are unflyable at any one time, many have to be retired because the composite structures are irreperably damaged in short order, they set LZs on fire and due to the poor tilt engine rather than tilt wing design, they often fall out of the sky in an unrecoverable way at that under 2000 feet.
The thing is a piece of shit and has been from the beginning. Navy's new helos cost half as much, carry the payload of an Osprey, and can safely hover at under 2000 feet. Handy thing to be able to do for a VTOL aircraft, being able to fly slowly and or hover near the ground...some might point out that's the idea behind VTOL aircraft!
You should cry a river for the number of grunts including some of the best USMC pilots these fucking things have killed and that was with no enemy around or hot LZs.
There are none in Iraq because the huge downwash of the props and not being able to safely hover made them useless for purpose, they couldn't keep them reliably in the air nor mission capable, and they went home ON A FUCKING BOAT not by air because it was safer.
There are less than a dozen trying to be used in Afghanistan with the same difficulties.
If they VTOL/STOL off of the deck of Harrier capable ships they buckle the decks with the same hot exhaust that causes LZ fires which makes for interesting take off rolls for the jump-jet pilots.
They are prone to engine fires.
Read the whole story Billy Ra and others. Not the fantasy. The FUCKING REALITY THAT THE USMC MADE A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE AS DID THE US CONGRESS. I repect your service BR, and as I said in my comments at Stormbringer in more or less the same words, when you're in a pit, stop FUCKING DIGGING IT DEEPER/THROWING MONEY AT IT. They had to resurrect CH-53s and give them new engines to use in the Sandbox because it was easier to re-engine 53s that had been mothballed for a while than try to keep the Ospreys in the air. IT IS PERFORMING COMBAT ROLES THE OSPREY ISN'T MISSION CAPABLE OF.
THINK LONG AND FUCKING HARD ABOUT THAT LAST STATEMENT OR TWO, WHICH ARE ENTIRELY FACTUAL
The plane is fundamentally flawed by design. That's why it was CANCELLED.
Put all the lipstick you want on a murderous pig of an aircraft.
I believe you were a Nam crew chief. I don't believe you are an Osprey salesman and I don't think you should advocate dead birds.
I'm "that Tom of insight".
They were built for political pork reasons and continue to be built for those reasons even though the engineers said that by the time the myriad of problems of it being a broken bird are solved the project/contract will be over anyway, and that no hover under 2000 feet problem can never be fixed except with a clean sheet design. THe US NAVY will not let them make hover landings as it is not safe. It's a standing order that they are to only make rolling landings for safety reasons. They are also hanger deck hogs of the worst order.
Quit defending these fucking things and I'd have more respect for ya up in Cowtown.
Think of all the F-22s that just got cancelled that are brilliant working aircraft and they are buyinig more of THESE PIECES OF SHIT?
Do a bit of research and you'd not want to ride in one either. Stormbringer only posted half, if that of my analysis as to why it's a POS.
Open your mind a bit. BR. You crew chiefed a good Sikorsky bird, the Navy just bought new MH-60Sikorsky birds, not V-22s, BECAUSE MH-60s actually fly, and you're defending a bad purchasing mistake made for political reasons.
It's your world view but you are WRONG AS HELL.
I'd like to add:
Bell-Boeing Have lots of money to give to senators so they will approve a Shit Aircraft.
The senators pay Bell-Boeing back with US Citizen's tax dollars and buy the aircraft, thereby allowing US Marines to pay their own money to contribute to their having to fly in planes that have never been fully mission capable, set their LZs on fire, buckle USN ship decks, have engine and wing fires on a regular basis, and have a possible service life of a couple years before the composite airframes start to come to bits when they aren't falling out of the sky and they are NOT used to sling load anything and haven't been except by test pilots because of that "falling out of the sky while trying to hover thing that happens at times" that causes the US Navy to FORBID non-rolling landings on it's carriers. Standing order.
Fine bird you old Marine defenders. Spend your tax money and mine to kill grunts and fuck up Navy ship decks!
Makes perfect sense to me.
Personally, I reckon something that can't land reliably in VTOL mode nor can land as a proper turboprop nor autorotate is useless.
Why not have a big, single rotor on top - a bit like a helicopter?
Oh...that would be a helicopter, wouldn't it?
--------------------------------
I shall resign myself to the general classification of marines that act and think in such fashion as fitting the stereotype of a large percentage of grunts being "self deploying autonomous biological pop up targets/sand bags, single use."
The Navy bought birds for the same jobs that can fly, as did the USAF and the US Army.
The Marines always complain about getting the shit end of the stick compared to the other branches of service. Why in the fuck a Marine or Ex/Retired Marine would encourage getting even more shit end stuff is beyond my comprehension.
Post a Comment