Osprey In Iraq - Doing OK

VRS is only entered decent rates of around 1500 feet per minute, that's HARDLY a 'nice predictable 'glidepath''. Turning a V-22 into a glider doesn't have anything to do with the Osprey crahes either.

The point is being able to do what's neccessary to avoid ground fire in combat. When he's watching the stream of tracers approaching his canopy or he gets a missile launch indicator the last thing the pilot wants to be thinking is, "now is this evasive maneuver I'm about to attempt to stay alive going to kill me or not". You lose lift during a rapid descent in a helicopter you can autorotate and recover. You lose lift on one prop with the Osprey and it flips over and dives into the ground nose first.

Forcing it into service has more to do with justifying the $20 billion dollars spent on it already than it does any realistic confidence in it's abilities to overcome the extensive flaws it has shown in it's over 2 decade development.

It's a compromise between a helicopter and a fixed wing transport that's heavy on the compromises and light on the capabilities.







[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
May I see your credentials, please?

Of course. They're across the Aircraft Projects board. They're in all the debates I've participated in, all the information I've said, and all the stupid things I've said in this forum. Feel free to look them up. If that's not sufficient for you, I daresay that any official transcripts I would have sent to you probably won't be either.

It will be tested and improved in the crucible of war in one of the most environmentally hostile places on the planet.

You're right. It will be. And you know what? Chances are pretty good that our of the starting gate it's not going to be perfect. You said it yourself:

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Everyone knows that V-22s will crash and that in doing so Marines will die.

The point is that if the V-22 experiences the same disasters that it had during the earlier years, it will simply not be a safe vehicle to use in the combat zones as it currently is. Of course we have to criticize it. If nobody were around to say that the machine is imperfect, be they on or off this forum, then nothing would have been done to fix the obvious problems that the Osprey has had.

Now, the V-22's were deployed to Iraq in September 2007, I believe. It is now January 2008. There's been no problems yet, but there's still a good deal of time between now and the end of the war, if current trends continue. I'd say that if someone between now and the end of the war figures "Hey, there's something that could go wrong on this craft, let's fix it" because they suspected that the technology might not be quite as perfected as you are asserting, it's probably worth the "uninspired Luddism" you are accusing them of.

Did the Marine Corps request the permission of anyone here to do so?

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Were it not for people like us who constantly criticize equipment

Originally posted by Darkpr0
"Hey, there's something that could go wrong on this craft, let's fix it" because they suspected that the technology might not be quite as perfected as you are asserting, it's probably worth the "uninspired Luddism" you are accusing them of.

Nowhere have I asserted that the aircraft is perfect.

In fact, I agree that it needs refinement.

What I do not agree with is that the fleet is doomed, as is every Marine who will ever step aboard one and that is the overall theme of this thread:

The Marine Corps has no idea what it is doing, but we here at ATS are going to set them straight with heaping ladles full of aeronautical jargon meticulously gleaned from all the usual internet sources.

To all, there was already a thread on this subject, why don't you continue your discussion there.

I'm tired of following this on two threads.

Name of the previous thread:

V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

^^troll

stop spamming for post count - if you don`t like it don`t post.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What I do not agree with is that the fleet is doomed, as is every Marine who will ever step aboard one and that is the overall theme of this thread

Where does it say that the entire fleet is doomed? Where does it say every Marine who steps aboard on is doomed? And what fraction of the posts here say that the Osprey will never be safe? All the protests here against the Osprey's faults are based on things that have happened or could happen. Let us take an example.

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation in the case of engine failure, a fact that led a director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 to say that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m) emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable." But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[11] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both propellers.[12]

When this aircraft does a combat drop, I'm betting that it will be below 1600 feet and in helicopter mode. If the first hypothesis (not survivable) is right, we have a problem anyway. If the aircraft can glide down with no power, we've still got a problem. What are the chances that there's a convenient landing location? Oh, and if something has the ability to hit the Osprey (probably the cause of the engines or props failing) as it's coming in to do a combat drop, do you think they might be able to do the same as it flies a low, slow glide?

This is obviously a problem, since the aircraft is probably going to do a lot of combat drops under fire later on in its deployment. Now, evidently, the aircraft is performing well so far. So it's not a failure at all. But chances are that as the aircraft takes on more and more dangerous roles, it's going to encounter this problem, or one like it. I would suggest that the problem needs a bit more looking-at.

Here's another one. If you look at two of the fatal incidents with the Osprey, something happened that caused an asymmetrical problem with the engines (Jul 1992, April 2000). I wonder what would happen if a machine gunner were to hit a prop and take it out of commission? What about an antimatter rifle? What about an RPG? These are things we have to consider.

The Marine Corps has no idea what it is doing, but we here at ATS are going to set them straight with heaping ladles full of aeronautical jargon meticulously gleaned from all the usual internet sources.

We could try heaping ladles full of medical jargon if you really want.

Originally posted by Harlequin
^^troll

stop spamming for post count - if you don`t like it don`t post.

TROLL Yourself, it has been reported three time in this very thread, that there was another one on the same subject.

So what will be the benefit of opening another thread on the same subject, Mr Rocket Scientist??????

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Here's another one. If you look at two of the fatal incidents with the Osprey, something happened that caused an asymmetrical problem with the engines (Jul 1992, April 2000).

In case you can't add or perhaps you've been out of circulation for awhile, July 1992, was more that 15 years ago and April 2000, was nearly 8 years ago.

Don't you think maybe the engineers have been working on this problem just a little?

How much time have you spent testing the V-22 in that time frame?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In case you can't add

Jan 2008 - July 1992 = 15 Years, 5 months would be subtraction. My ineptitude at adding is thus immaterial.

or perhaps you've been out of circulation for awhile, July 1992, was more that 15 years ago and April 2000, was nearly 8 years ago.

Oh, I'm a 1990 Human, so I've been out of production and circulation since Dec 31, '90.

Don't you think maybe the engineers have been working on this problem just a little?

Of course they have. And don't you think they should continue prodding it for problems, possibly considering various pieces of criticism from multiple sources, and fixing any problems that may or may not be uncovered?

How much time have you spent testing the V-22 in that time frame?

Would it actually make any difference to you if I had decades of experience on it?

[edit on 1/13/2008 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Of course they have. And don't you think they should continue prodding it for problems, possibly considering various pieces of criticism from multiple sources, and fixing any problems that may or may not be uncovered?

What makes you think they aren't?

Don't bother to answer.

Anyone can see you're just a heckler.

I personally think the v-22 is a great concept.
A lot of nations would be watching with interest.
I know some australian thinktanks have already studied and promoted
the v-22 to replace and or compliment the chinook in aus defence thinking.

The only real drawback would size and dimensions on useful
cargo to be carried.
Im sure i read somewhere that it cannot accept a humvee because
its just too wide.
Is there any word on the v-44 concept quad tiltrotor that was thrown around a few years ago. 4 tilt rotors 2 front and 2 rear but looked more
the size of a hercules with a much wider body??



[edit on 13-1-2008 by Jezza]

There is already another thread in the Aircraft Projects Forum that covers this very same topic. Therefore this thread, "Osprey in Iraq - Doing OK" is closed.

I would refer those interested in the V-22 "Osprey" to visit and direct their posts to "V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq".

Although the discussion on this thread is excellent, this thread is being closed without prejudice. "V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq" has been an active thread since 10-5-07.