MikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
1.) It's a great concept.
2.) It's a very complicated weapon system.
3.) It's gonna take a while the work out the kinks.
4.) The USMC and Bell were wrong for misleading the government and the American public. I also think they had "Go Fever" which lead to several crashes.
I like this aircraft and we need it. But, there needs to be more testing before putting it into service. The Osprey is likely way ahead of its time, that's why they're having a hard time fixing its problems.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
It would be a great advancement to the aviation world if we could get beyond this silly helicopter concept as the only way to obtain practical vertical takeoff/landing.
That most helicopter designers still have to include tail rotors on their aircraft seems quite antiquated at this point in time.
The Osprey offers us twice the cruising speed of a helicopter with the practicality of vertical operation. I hope a civil equivalent surfaces soon, as this would increase the chances of success for this very important alternative to the chopper.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2179 times:
The Osprey's very protracted development wasn't helped by a funding squeeze in 1990-92 as the then Sec.Def, Dick Cheney tried to axe it.
They are going to have to make their minds up either way soon, those USMC CH-46's cannot go on forever.
With Cheney now VP, will he try to finish the job and kill it this time?
JohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 332 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
If compared with a modern capable helicoper such as the Agusta/Westland EH-101, the Ospry doesn't shine quite as brightly in my opinion. The V-22 is another drink out of the same cup as the Harrier. Poor accident rate, expensive and hard to maintain. I have a friend who is a Boeing Mech on the Ospry, and it is a demanding airplane to repair. Nothing beats a helicopter in the vert lift business. I think it will be the USMC's C-5, and I've been there. Newer stuff should be easier to fix and get the job done, not the opposite.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2157 times:
Certainly some parallels with the Harrier, but in the Falklands war, 8000 miles from base, RN/RAF Harriers had very high availability. Before the war, some RAF pilots had not even seen a carrier, let alone operated from one in wartime.
But removing a wing to change an engine cannot be much fun!
From the earliest days the RAF deployed regulary in the field, which may account for the performance in the South Atlantic.
UK services accident rate was not too high, considering the radical nature of the aircraft.
I've heard that C5 problems have a lot to do with a lack of funding, could that have been a factor in USMC Harrier operations too?
If the Osprey enters service, I shudder to think what would happen if the proper funding was not forthcoming. Has that already been a factor in it's problems so far?
It certainly looks a complicated beast.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2146 times:
Unable to send this to you direct email, so will do it here. My apologies that it is off the Osprey subject.
The first thing the British did after securing the Falklands was to obtain more F-4 Phantoms. I am sure there was much anguish in England over the fact that they had allowed their fleet of F-4Ks to become ground bound, unable to operate from a single RN vessel. They wanted more Phantoms so badly that they took J-79-powered F-4Ns, aircraft that had little in common with their existing Phantoms.
No disrespect intended to the Royal Navy, as they did a professional and effective job with very limited resources, but I personally believe they wished at the time that they had a TRUE aircraft carrier equipped with supersonic aircraft, rather than the much smaller vessel equipped with jump jets.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Agreed, but the F4J(UK) aircraft were to replace the F4M's of 23 Sqn, sent to the Falklands once the runway was lengthened after the war. It allowed the RAF to keep within it's minimum NATO commitments.
I heard the serviceability on Ark Royal's F4K's was poor, but the limited space on board may have been a factor, along the the fact that the fleet was on borrowed time.
The Sea Harriers had serviceability rates of around 98% The VSTOL Harriers could also operate in conditions no conventional carrier aircraft could.
But if Ark Royal, or preferably it's intended replacement CVA-01 had been available, there would have been no Falklands war in the first place.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
The Sea Harriers were brand new, and undoubtedly this helped with the high serviceability rate. Of course, servicability in all out war (which was the combat environment in the Falklands at that time) and serviceability rating in peacetime are two different things. Those same aircraft, had they been in a training environment at Yeovilton, probably would not have had serviceability rates anywhere near those you are reporting. Also, your comment "The VSTOL Harriers could also operate in conditions no conventional carrier aircraft could" can certainly be challenged, especially if the Harriers didn't have a winch system like certain Navy helos. Anyway, I'll leave that to someone qualified in USN carrier ops to pick up.
The important thing I take away from this is that Britain turned immediately to a replenishment of fast-movers, rather than to try to defend the regained Falklands with Harriers alone. The Harrier worked superbly in the Falklands, but its limited combat radius has always been a fault. Too bad they didn't proceed with the supersonic Harrier with the Plenum Chamber afterburner. That would have been a *hit hot jet, but with an even more limted combat radius. Probably why there are none today.
I am hopeful that here in the States our infatuation with another performance limiting technology, stealth, has not resulted in a fleet of current military offensive aircraft incapable of daylight operations.
MikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
No kidding? Geez, you must think I'm a complete moron or something. Personally, I think you read too much into the information posted on this site.
The V-22 is still ahead of its time, if it wasn't, the issues would have been resolved a lot quicker (many are still unresolved). Yes, there are funding problems, etc, but this aircraft is still very complicated systems-wise and likely even more compicated to fly!
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
Much has been said here about the Osprey's problems. I am not up to date on that system's status. Can anyone give me some links to current detailed coverage of some of these problems? I mean discussions beyond media coverage of the recent USMC crash during night operations.