It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by emile
1) Is there any significant distance between the vertical taking off range of Osprey and traditional taking off range? Like the gap of range on Harrier being VTOL and STOL
2) Is it possible to makes engine nasele lean to rearwards a little bit so that the Osprey are capable to fly reversely like a traditional choper?
Well, normal helicopters have only one main rotor and they fly. The Osprey may be a bit more difficult to fly due having two rotors at the sides of the craft, and the different controls between helicopters and planes, but that's what avionics are for.
3) Is it save enough or is it hard to fly Osprey due to a basic geometry principle, which is three points determine a plane.
4) Is the Osprey truly successful according to its flying envelop cover the propeller airplane and helicopter to both but reluctant?
Originally posted by Aim64C
It got a lot of bad press it didn't really deserve a while back. It's a solid and capable design, effective in its role.
The chairs would have the Department of Defense cancel projects to build the V-22 Osprey aircraft, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es "for half of the Air Force and Navy's planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft."
In the long run the proposals hope to reduce the US long-term debt to 40 percent by 2037.
The debt to GDP ratio currently hovers close 90 percent.