Comments on: Osprey OK’d

By: Vance P. Frickey

Vance P. Frickey — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:55:51 +0000

by bob:
“Why are we trying to make a tiltrotor aircraft. Short landing. We already have an aircraft that can land in an extremely short distance. If you don’t belive me follow the links to a video of a C130 Hercules landing unassisted, without the assistance of the stopping cable or the catapult, on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrior (sic).“
I’m aware of the C-130 Hercules’s short-landing capabilities. Note, however, that Hercs were never used after that capability demonstration for carrier onboard delivery — a much smaller airframe does that mission.
And there’s a good reason — the Herc which made that carrier landing was specially beefed up structurally to tolerate the stresses of a carrier landing; also, in the book “Herc: Hero of the Skies,” it is stated that the demo aircraft for the aircraft carrier landing WAS fitted with an arresting hook. Whether it was used or not. I don’t recall.
But the plane landed on that carrier empty save for fuel and crew. Whether it would have been able to do so safely with a significant payload has not been established.
But this landing is such a part of popular culture that in the television series “JAG,” the protagonist Harmon Raab lands his CIA-owned C-130 on a carrier — with a full load of Libyan refugees — in the Mediterranean because damage to his aircraft prevented recovery at a land base.
Face it, guys, the Osprey’s a tilt-rotor craft. It can’t autorotate from any height to a safe landing — that’s right, because it’s not a helicopter — it has twice the speed and six times the endurance of the helicopter it’ll replace.
And I think that any troops who are waiting for extraction will appreciate those qualities.

By: Vance P. Frickey

Vance P. Frickey — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:54:51 +0000

By: Vance P. Frickey

Vance P. Frickey — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:35:22 +0000

The fact is that those CH-46 “Phrogs” the V-22 Osprey will replace in USMC aviation are much less fast or long-ranged than the Osprey — and they’re OLD airframes. They can be fitted with side-firing door guns; if USMC aviation feels they need similar armament on the Osprey, it can be retro-fitted.
Aircraft operating manuals are written in blood, unfortunately. To expect the Osprey to be different is unrealistic and perhaps betrays an ignorance of the history of military aircraft.
A prior example of this short-sighted fixation on early accidents in military aircraft is the saga of the F-104 Starfighter. Early crashes here and abroad with F-104 gave the aircraft an undeserved bad name, despite the fact that at least one other fighter in US Air Force service (which was regarded at the time as a superior fighter aircraft) at the time had a higher accident and fatality rate.
Italy operated their F-104S fighters until 2004, which indicates that worries over its safety and reliability were over-hyped; just as the early history of the Osprey is and has been used as a political football

By: J. McDonald

J. McDonald — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:39:12 +0000

I always wondered about the survivability of this aircraft when I thought about the number of shafts, gearboxes and other systems required just to make the wings pivot. It seems to me that given it’s record in testing alone, it would only take maybe one small hit in a vital area to render it a smoking hole in the ground.

By: Allen Christian

Allen Christian — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:20:37 +0000

IT HAS BEEN 20 YEARS AND $40 BILLION AND THIS JUNKER
IS STILL SUCKING MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYERS!!NO MATTER
HOW MANY THEY BUILD THEY WILL ALWAYS NEED HELICOPTER
SUPPORT,ALSO IT WILL NEVER FLY THE PRESIDENT!THEY
SHOULD REQUIRE A GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFEN–
SE ON EVERY FLIGHT.I WANT TO SEE IT DO AUTOROTATIONS
1THOUS,2,3OR 5 THOUS.FT WITH CHOPPED THROTTLE,BETTER
HOW ABOUT ENGINE FAILURE ON LIFTOFF OR AT 1000 FT.
ASK COL.HARRY P.DUNN,USAF(RET) ABOUT THE V22 OSPREY,
MAYBE YOU SHOULDN’T ASK HIM,HE WOULD MAKE YOU MAD!!!

By: bob

bob — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:32:24 +0000

This is an exelent idea, but it should have been redone twenty years ago. The aircraft can’t land in airplane mode. The props are so big that if the try it will cause the blade to strike the ground. Why are we trying to make a tiltrotor aircraft. Short landing. We already have an aircraft that can land in an extremely short distance. If you don’t belive me follow the links to a video of a C130 Hercules landing unassisted, without the assistance of the stopping cable or the catapult, on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sa3OGnFGlA
Imagine that we are paying millions for a tiltroter with problems when we have an aircraft that has proven itself for well over fifty years.

By: james

james — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:39:22 +0000

Waste of money? Well the cost is inflated that is for sure but let’s be honest here. The thing is a peice of aviation genius! Helicopters have been around for over sixty years. This project was only waiting to happen.
As for the lack of weaponry on this thing — I think that will get sorted out. They should strap mini guns and cannons to it. They could even attach a few hellfires to the belly if they wanted to. It is possible place guards for angle of fire so that the proprotors won’t get hit.

By: Alberto

Alberto — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:21:21 +0000

There are good reasons to cancel the V22: The main reason, it’s too costly. Additionally, the concept is OK, but it’s not airworthy or safe enough to haul our troops. It’s a big target for enemy ground forces & missions could be accomplished with smaller/cheaper helicopters.

By: matt

matt — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:51:11 +0000

re; my last posting had an incorrect e-mail address, stupid keyboard! this is it
chaqman@hotmail.co.uk
or
J_Colton@hotmail.com

By: John Kantor

John Kantor — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:53:43 +0000

“How is possible to build for military purpose machine with exposed vital and sophisticated parts — engines?“
Like every helicopter — but the entire point of the Osprey is to deliver more troops quicker and from a longer distance in order to reduce the risk.
“Even Guderian‘s tanks lost the battle of Kursk, and Russian‘s helicopters lost war of Afghanistan.“
!