V-22 Osprey is the Cover Story for the Current Issue of Time Magazine

Loading thread data ...
I have had the 1/48 scale Kit for a some time now but have not built it yet. I'm wanting to build the ''Gun-Ship'' version that they talked about using at one time. It looks like it's really a pretty good Kit.
It also seems that there are a LOT of people on Both Sides that just seem to HATE ths thing. It's NOT a PLane and it's NOT a Helicopter. Soooo they just HATE it for being and doing Both tasks.
And I think that it WTLL one day I hope Prove that it really Belongs in the Sky.
All Hail the ''Shy-Pig'' Long and Far may it Fly. I think that it's really kinda KewL
... cyberborg ..........
,,
Reply to
cyberborg 4000
I think most of the negative press is political.
Admittedly it is unusual for a transport to have the cutting edge technology that the Osprey has, but it IS new technology.
It certainly has teething problems, but that is inherent in new tech. Look at how long the F-22 has been in development. I think when early teething problems caused a drop in funding, this was detrimental to getting the bugs out quickly.
The Harrier went through very similar teething problems and IT was almost cancelled also.
The CH-46 that the opponents want to just keep using is not the most reliable thing around anymore either.
Reply to
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter if the engines quit...so if the engines shut down, you are SOL:
formatting link
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
We'll find out in a big hurry when they get to Iraq.
The V-22 has been in development since 1982, and is now actually going to get operationally deployed, 25 years later. To give some meaning to that, the B-29 was also a state of the art pushing program technologically, that was first promulgated in January of 1940. This program pace means that it would have been ready to bomb Japan in 1965. The V-22's development phase was longer than than many of the aircraft that have served in the U.S. inventory's entire development period and operational service life.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
...all I have to say about the V-22 is that if you actually know anything about aircraft (fixed wing and/or helos) the fear that overcomes you when one flies over your head is palpable.
Reply to
Rufus
they've spent the obligatory 4 billion, can't they declare it perfected, decide there's no need for it and cancel the program? hasn't it killed a couple of hundred jarheads already?
Reply to
someone
on 10/5/2007 9:12 PM snipped-for-privacy@some.domain said the following:
Yeah, maybe like the "N" word.
Reply to
willshak
Well, need to point out that 1.5X more was spent getting the B-29 program going, than the entire Manhattan Project.
The V-22 never had its 'Battle of Kansas'
** mike **
Reply to
mike
really? i never heard it used or accepted as a bad thing. i have some friends that i've called jarheads and they never reacted badly. close enough friends to be honest. now i'm cornfused.
Reply to
someone
: : Another nifty fact about it; although it can't glide land if the engines : quit, like a aircraft...it also can't autorotate land like a helicopter : if the engines quit...so if the engines shut down, you are SOL: : I am sure the V-22 can glide if it is in flight configuration. You want a airplane that could/did NOT glide - the F-104. No way no how could you consider the "glide slope" of the Starfighter a "glide". Still, it was considered fairly successful, and widely adopted.
Besides - helos don't autorotate below a certain altitude/ airspeed either. I do not see the V-22 being any worse that a helo in that respect when in hover mode.
The more interesting question is how long are you in that transition/hover mode, and is the cross shafting of the engines such that it is more damage resistant that helos are, where the engines are, by necessity, very close together?
I also expect the V-22 has much better ditching manners than a helo ever hoped to have.
Has Mitsu given up on their V-22 design, where the entire wing rotated, unlike the nacells on the V-22?
Bruce
Reply to
Bruce Burden
No, it can't glide in a true sense - it has to "auto-rotate forward"...what I don't know is how/if the ability to tilt the rotors is affected if there is a dual engine flameout or a problem with the cross coupling.
A helo has to maintain forward speed to auto-rotate. The pilot has to build enough rotational inertia in the mains to be able to flare into a somewhat vertical landing before that rotational inertia dissipates as forward speed bleeds during the flare.
The problem is that you can't land the thing with the rotors tilted, and if the cross-shafting is damaged it's all over anyway...engines running or not.
I seriously doubt that...
...now that's just as scary. Maybe more so.
Reply to
Rufus
No; thirty. And at least half of those were infantry they stuck in the back of one for no apparent reason. For that reason the number of people killed has little to do with whether it's a sound technology.
Curt
Reply to
Curt
Originally it was supposed to be a tri-service craft (AF, Navy, and Marines). That would have helped spread the cost.
The AF opted out (so did Navy, I believe). As an old AF officer, I thought the AF was wacko. They always used to believe the world was covered with long concrete runways, and their air defenses would always prevent anyone from bombing their runways. So why go STOL or VTOL.
The AF seems to be slowly changing its position on that. My fews about air warfare soon changed after I left AF, became an aerospace engineer, and talked to many users in other services.
Reply to
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
30 too many. though i understand test pilots who know the risks. running in some troops was just wrong.
Reply to
someone
What's interesting is that the AF has been flying them for a while with no accidents, no loss of life. They will probably deploy before long due to the MH-53's age.
Curt
Reply to
Curt

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.