"Seeking Foreign Buyers For Osprey"

[Mike[_7_]]

Dallas Morning News
June 12, 2007

Seeking Foreign Buyers For Osprey

Pentagon shows off V-22 at ceremony in hopes of reducing cost for U.S.

By Richard Whittle, Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News

RIDLEY PARK, Pa. * Confident the V-22 Osprey will do well when it goes
into combat for the first time this fall in Iraq, Pentagon officials
are already courting foreign buyers for the Texas-built tilt-rotor
troop transport, the program director said Monday.

Britain and Israel are among nations keenly interested in the
helicopter-airplane hybrid, Marine Col. Matthew Mulhern told reporters
at a ceremony to mark completion of the 100th Osprey fuselage by
Boeing Co., which builds the V-22 with Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. of
Fort Worth.

About 2,500 people work on the Osprey for Bell in Fort Worth and
Amarillo.

The Naval Air Systems Command put on a V-22 demonstration last month
at Patuxent River, Md., for representatives from 16 nations as part of
an effort to stir up foreign interest.

The event was held in lieu of sending an Osprey to this month's Paris
Air Show, the world's largest aviation trade fair, Col. Mulhern said.

The Navy wants to gin up foreign sales because they would reduce the
cost of V-22s bought by U.S. forces. The current price is about $71
million, not counting development costs going back to 1983, when the
program began.

"There's a lot of interest," Col. Mulhern said. "I think everybody is
waiting to see how it does on this deployment."

The Marine Corps is sending a squadron of 10 Ospreys to Iraq in
September to carry troops into combat, evacuate the wounded and fly
other missions in the place of CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. The
Osprey can fly about twice as fast and three times as far as a CH-46.

The seven-month deployment by Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263
could make or break the reputation of the Osprey, which was nearly
canceled after two fatal crashes in 2000.

Critics insist the aircraft is unsafe and too costly. The Marines say
it is ready for combat.

Combat "is what we are going to use this aircraft for," Marine Lt.
Gen. John Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation, told an audience
of Boeing workers and guests at the ceremony. "It is what it was built
for."

Telling a group of young enlisted Marines in the audience to stand,
Gen.
Castellaw urged Boeing workers to "remember the faces that you're
looking at now, knowing that they're going to be flying against an
enemy that's trying to kill them so that they can eventually kill you.
And with that in mind, produce the best quality airplane possible."

The Marines are buying 360 Ospreys. The Air Force is buying 50 for
special operations.

The Navy is still considering whether to go ahead with a long-term
plan to buy 48 for special missions.

Bell-Boeing and Col. Mulhern's office hope to agree by the end of the
year on a five-year contract for 167 more Ospreys. The deal could save
$400 million by stabilizing prices, Col. Mulhern said.

The production schedule under the proposed multiyear contract would
leave room for Bell-Boeing to produce an additional three Ospreys per
year for the Marines or Air Force or for any foreign buyers, though
Col. Mulhern said foreign sales were some years away.

Pentagon, State Department and congressional approvals are needed, and
"it's a few years before the process will start," he said. "I don't
think it's 10 years away, but it's not next year."

[Vince]

Mike wrote:
> Dallas Morning News
> June 12, 2007
>
> Seeking Foreign Buyers For Osprey
>
> Pentagon shows off V-22 at ceremony in hopes of reducing cost for U.S.
>
> By Richard Whittle, Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
>
> RIDLEY PARK, Pa. * Confident the V-22 Osprey will do well when it goes
> into combat for the first time this fall in Iraq, Pentagon officials
> are already courting foreign buyers for the Texas-built tilt-rotor
> troop transport, the program director said Monday.
>
> Britain and Israel are among nations keenly interested in the
> helicopter-airplane hybrid, Marine Col. Matthew Mulhern told reporters
> at a ceremony to mark completion of the 100th Osprey fuselage by
> Boeing Co., which builds the V-22 with Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. of
> Fort Worth.
>
> About 2,500 people work on the Osprey for Bell in Fort Worth and
> Amarillo.
>
> The Naval Air Systems Command put on a V-22 demonstration last month
> at Patuxent River, Md., for representatives from 16 nations as part of
> an effort to stir up foreign interest.
>
> The event was held in lieu of sending an Osprey to this month's Paris
> Air Show, the world's largest aviation trade fair, Col. Mulhern said.
>
> The Navy wants to gin up foreign sales because they would reduce the
> cost of V-22s bought by U.S. forces. The current price is about $71
> million, not counting development costs going back to 1983, when the
> program began.

wait a minute

The navy (not the manufacturer) the navy is pushing foreign sales?
talk about conflict of interest.

>
> "There's a lot of interest," Col. Mulhern said. "I think everybody is
> waiting to see how it does on this deployment."
>
> The Marine Corps is sending a squadron of 10 Ospreys to Iraq in
> September to carry troops into combat, evacuate the wounded and fly
> other missions in the place of CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. The
> Osprey can fly about twice as fast and three times as far as a CH-46.

and much faster and further than a donkey but so what?
lots of helicopters fly faster and further than the CH 46 and dont cast
71 million

> The seven-month deployment by Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263
> could make or break the reputation of the Osprey, which was nearly
> canceled after two fatal crashes in 2000.
>
> Critics insist the aircraft is unsafe and too costly. The Marines say
> it is ready for combat.
>
> Combat "is what we are going to use this aircraft for," Marine Lt.
> Gen. John Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation, told an audience
> of Boeing workers and guests at the ceremony. "It is what it was built
> for."
>

its a delivery truck

> Telling a group of young enlisted Marines in the audience to stand,
> Gen.
> Castellaw urged Boeing workers to "remember the faces that you're
> looking at now, knowing that they're going to be flying against an
> enemy that's trying to kill them so that they can eventually kill you.
> And with that in mind, produce the best quality airplane possible."
>

Which you cant get out of quickly either


> The Marines are buying 360 Ospreys. The Air Force is buying 50 for
> special operations.
>
> The Navy is still considering whether to go ahead with a long-term
> plan to buy 48 for special missions.
>
> Bell-Boeing and Col. Mulhern's office hope to agree by the end of the
> year on a five-year contract for 167 more Ospreys. The deal could save
> $400 million by stabilizing prices, Col. Mulhern said.
>
> The production schedule under the proposed multiyear contract would
> leave room for Bell-Boeing to produce an additional three Ospreys per
> year for the Marines or Air Force or for any foreign buyers, though
> Col. Mulhern said foreign sales were some years away.
>
> Pentagon, State Department and congressional approvals are needed, and
> "it's a few years before the process will start," he said. "I don't
> think it's 10 years away, but it's not next year."
>

what a load of codswallop
What kind of contract puts the navy in the position of promoting
overseas sales? Who could ever trust them to give an honest evaluation
of their own experience with the product?
no wonder this turkey doesn't die.

Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure

Vince

Vince

[David E. Powell]

On Jun 13, 10:48 am, Vince > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Dallas Morning News
> > June 12, 2007
>
> > Seeking Foreign Buyers For Osprey
>
> > Pentagon shows off V-22 at ceremony in hopes of reducing cost for U.S.
>
> > By Richard Whittle, Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
>
> > RIDLEY PARK, Pa. * Confident the V-22 Osprey will do well when it goes
> > into combat for the first time this fall in Iraq, Pentagon officials
> > are already courting foreign buyers for the Texas-built tilt-rotor
> > troop transport, the program director said Monday.
>
> > Britain and Israel are among nations keenly interested in the
> > helicopter-airplane hybrid, Marine Col. Matthew Mulhern told reporters
> > at a ceremony to mark completion of the 100th Osprey fuselage by
> > Boeing Co., which builds the V-22 with Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. of
> > Fort Worth.
>
> > About 2,500 people work on the Osprey for Bell in Fort Worth and
> > Amarillo.
>
> > The Naval Air Systems Command put on a V-22 demonstration last month
> > at Patuxent River, Md., for representatives from 16 nations as part of
> > an effort to stir up foreign interest.
>
> > The event was held in lieu of sending an Osprey to this month's Paris
> > Air Show, the world's largest aviation trade fair, Col. Mulhern said.
>
> > The Navy wants to gin up foreign sales because they would reduce the
> > cost of V-22s bought by U.S. forces. The current price is about $71
> > million, not counting development costs going back to 1983, when the
> > program began.
>
> wait a minute
>
> The navy (not the manufacturer) the navy is pushing foreign sales?
> talk about conflict of interest.
>
>
>
> > "There's a lot of interest," Col. Mulhern said. "I think everybody is
> > waiting to see how it does on this deployment."
>
> > The Marine Corps is sending a squadron of 10 Ospreys to Iraq in
> > September to carry troops into combat, evacuate the wounded and fly
> > other missions in the place of CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. The
> > Osprey can fly about twice as fast and three times as far as a CH-46.
>
> and much faster and further than a donkey but so what?
> lots of helicopters fly faster and further than the CH 46 and dont cast
> 71 million
>
> > The seven-month deployment by Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263
> > could make or break the reputation of the Osprey, which was nearly
> > canceled after two fatal crashes in 2000.
>
> > Critics insist the aircraft is unsafe and too costly. The Marines say
> > it is ready for combat.
>
> > Combat "is what we are going to use this aircraft for," Marine Lt.
> > Gen. John Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation, told an audience
> > of Boeing workers and guests at the ceremony. "It is what it was built
> > for."
>
> its a delivery truck
>
> > Telling a group of young enlisted Marines in the audience to stand,
> > Gen.
> > Castellaw urged Boeing workers to "remember the faces that you're
> > looking at now, knowing that they're going to be flying against an
> > enemy that's trying to kill them so that they can eventually kill you.
> > And with that in mind, produce the best quality airplane possible."
>
> Which you cant get out of quickly either
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Marines are buying 360 Ospreys. The Air Force is buying 50 for
> > special operations.
>
> > The Navy is still considering whether to go ahead with a long-term
> > plan to buy 48 for special missions.
>
> > Bell-Boeing and Col. Mulhern's office hope to agree by the end of the
> > year on a five-year contract for 167 more Ospreys. The deal could save
> > $400 million by stabilizing prices, Col. Mulhern said.
>
> > The production schedule under the proposed multiyear contract would
> > leave room for Bell-Boeing to produce an additional three Ospreys per
> > year for the Marines or Air Force or for any foreign buyers, though
> > Col. Mulhern said foreign sales were some years away.
>
> > Pentagon, State Department and congressional approvals are needed, and
> > "it's a few years before the process will start," he said. "I don't
> > think it's 10 years away, but it's not next year."
>
> what a load of codswallop
> What kind of contract puts the navy in the position of promoting
> overseas sales? Who could ever trust them to give an honest evaluation
> of their own experience with the product?
> no wonder this turkey doesn't die.
>
> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure

As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....

Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!

> Vince
>
> Vince

[Vince]

David E. Powell wrote:

>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>
> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>

it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle

the cabin is 68 inches wide,
and 66.23 inches high,

that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide

Vince



> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!

[scott s.]

Vince > wrote in
:

>
> what a load of codswallop
> What kind of contract puts the navy in the position of promoting
> overseas sales? Who could ever trust them to give an honest evaluation
> of their own experience with the product?
> no wonder this turkey doesn't die.

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are always a government thing. The
Navy likes it because the funds flow to the program office and
are available for obligation without the typical "taxing" of
congressional appropriations.

scott s.
..

[Vince]

scott s. wrote:
> Vince > wrote in
> :
>
>> what a load of codswallop What kind of contract puts the navy in
>> the position of promoting overseas sales? Who could ever trust
>> them to give an honest evaluation of their own experience with the
>> product? no wonder this turkey doesn't die.
>
> Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are always a government thing. The Navy
> likes it because the funds flow to the program office and are
> available for obligation without the typical "taxing" of
> congressional appropriations.
>
> scott s. .


I am well aware of the FMS

"FMS is managed and operated by DoD on a no-profit and no-loss basis.
Countries participating in the program pay for defense articles and
services at prices which recoup costs incurred by the United States.
This includes a fee ($15,000 or 3.8 percent of item and service cost,
whichever is greater) to cover the cost of administering the program."

nothing about reducing the price of US government purchases if we
promote sales of the product

Vince

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
> >> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> >> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>
> > As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> > the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>
> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>
> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> and 66.23 inches high,
>
> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>
> Vince
>



At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
easy shoot-down.







>
>
> > Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> > days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[David E. Powell]

On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David E. Powell wrote:
> > >> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> > >> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>
> > > As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> > > the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>
> > it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> > The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> > It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> > lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>
> > the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> > and 66.23 inches high,
>
> > that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>
> > Vince
>
> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> easy shoot-down.

I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
tactic too.

> > > Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> > > days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>
> > > David E. Powell wrote:
> > > >> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> > > >> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>
> > > > As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> > > > the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>
> > > it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> > > The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> > > It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> > > lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>
> > > the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> > > and 66.23 inches high,
>
> > > that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>
> > > Vince
>
> > At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> > easy shoot-down.
>
> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> tactic too.
>


Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.









>
>
> > > > Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> > > > days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul J. Adam]

In message . com>,
David E. Powell > writes
>I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>tactic too.

If there's a sufficient density of Bad Guys, then going low exposes you
to hundreds or thousands of small-arms rather than handfuls of MR-SAMs.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>
> > > > David E. Powell wrote:
> > > > >> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> > > > >> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>
> > > > > As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> > > > > the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>
> > > > it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> > > > The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> > > > It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> > > > lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>
> > > > the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> > > > and 66.23 inches high,
>
> > > > that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>
> > > > Vince
>
> > > At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> > > easy shoot-down.
>
> > I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> > tactic too.
>
> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> > > > > days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?

Rob

[Dan[_2_]]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>>>> Vince
>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>>>> easy shoot-down.
>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>>> tactic too.
>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>
> Rob
>

You don't see how sick it is for someone who has never put his neck
on the line to place bets on the deaths of those who do?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[scott s.]

Vince > wrote in news:pc-dneS50cbq3-
:

>
> I am well aware of the FMS
>
> "FMS is managed and operated by DoD on a no-profit and no-loss basis.
> Countries participating in the program pay for defense articles and
> services at prices which recoup costs incurred by the United States.
> This includes a fee ($15,000 or 3.8 percent of item and service cost,
> whichever is greater) to cover the cost of administering the program."
>
> nothing about reducing the price of US government purchases if we
> promote sales of the product

I assume they are talking about fixed and indirect costs that can
bring the unit cost down with a larger buy, among other things.

scott s.
..

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 13, 6:23�pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
> >>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> >>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
> >>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> >>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
> >>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> >>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> >>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> >>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
> >>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> >>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
> >>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
> >>>>> Vince
> >>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> >>>> easy shoot-down.
> >>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> >>> tactic too.
> >> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>
> >>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> >>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
> > First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>
> > Rob
>
> * *You don't see how sick it is for someone who has never put his neck
> on the line to place bets on the deaths of those who do?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The USMC gambled with US soldiers lives when it falsified the test
records on the Osprey-forget about that? And if proven rotorcraft like
an Apache armored helo needs escort in Iraq what do you think will
happen to the more vunerable transitional flight V-22 when it attempts
to transition for landing or take-off?

I can see the AKs and RPGs flying already...

Rob

[Dan[_2_]]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Jun 13, 6:23�pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>>>>>> easy shoot-down.
>>>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>>>>> tactic too.
>>>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>>>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
>>>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
>>> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>>> Rob
>> � �You don't see how sick it is for someone who has never put his neck
>> on the line to place bets on the deaths of those who do?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The USMC gambled with US soldiers lives when it falsified the test
> records on the Osprey-forget about that? And if proven rotorcraft like
> an Apache armored helo needs escort in Iraq what do you think will
> happen to the more vunerable transitional flight V-22 when it attempts
> to transition for landing or take-off?
>
> I can see the AKs and RPGs flying already...
>
> Rob
>

Many aircraft need armed escort for some of their missions, why would
Osprey be any different?

AKs fly?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 13, 6:42�pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 6:23 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
> >>>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
> >>>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
> >>>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc.....
> >>>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
> >>>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
> >>>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
> >>>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
> >>>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
> >>>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
> >>>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
> >>>>>>> Vince
> >>>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> >>>>>> easy shoot-down.
> >>>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> >>>>> tactic too.
> >>>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
> >>>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
> >>>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
> >>> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
> >>> Rob
> >> You don't see how sick it is for someone who has never put his neck
> >> on the line to place bets on the deaths of those who do?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The USMC gambled with US soldiers lives when it falsified the test
> > records on the Osprey-forget about that? And if proven rotorcraft like
> > an Apache armored helo needs escort in Iraq what do you think will
> > happen to the more vunerable transitional flight V-22 when it attempts
> > to transition for landing or take-off?
>
> > I can see the AKs and RPGs flying already...
>
> > Rob
>
> * *Many aircraft need armed escort for some of their missions, why would
> Osprey be any different?
>
> * *AKs fly?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Being stupid again? Yes, it should read AKs firing and RPGs flying...
but you knew what I meant anyway... I only wish if you were gonna play
English teacher you would do it with everyone here on RAM.

Regarding the Apache, this was supposed to be the premiere armored
attack helo in the world able to stand up to best Soviet/Russian
battlefield weapons; instead, it is fairly easy prey for raghead
insurgents with nothing more than AKs and RPGs... so much for that
myth of invincibility. We should have learned that from the fast and
armored Mil-24 Hinds in Afghanistan. We laughed at their losses... yet
lament our own...

The V-22 Easyprey will be not exception. If I was a US Army soldier
headed for Iraq in September I would be pukin' my guts out if I knew
the V-22 was my ride. SFs can handle them b/c the best consider
themselves already dead before starting a mission. Not the same from
your low-IQ Wal-Mart recruit.

But if it is any consolation Dan I do not believe that had the Nazis
got their tilt-rotor paper projects operational that they would have
been any good either... unless Hanna Reitsch was the pilot :)

Rob

[Vince]

wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>
>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>
>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>
>> Vince
>>
>
>
>
> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
> easy shoot-down.



no question

turkey shoot

Vince

[Vince]

David E. Powell wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>> Vince
>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>> easy shoot-down.
>
> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> tactic too.

Do you mean at "hit it with a rock " altitude?

Vince

[Vince]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>>>> Vince
>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>>>> easy shoot-down.
>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>>> tactic too.
>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>
> Rob
>

don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.

Vince

[Dan[_2_]]

Vince wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might want
>>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>>>>> easy shoot-down.
>>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>>>> tactic too.
>>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
>>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide
>>>>>>> quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
>> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>
> Vince

Just like you and aren't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David E. Powell]

I recall hearing that the Osprey saw some use in Afghaniland. Or is
that just a bad rumor?

[BlackBeard]

On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>
> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>
> Vince


Please clarify "china doll."

As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?

Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
systems.

BB


I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Vince]

Dan wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 2:46?pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 3:40 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 13, 5:28 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Overseas sales are a pipe dream except either to Saudi Arabia as a
>>>>>>>>> replacement bribe stream or to someone else subject to US pressure
>>>>>>>> As Japan has considered F-22, maybe they think that Japan might
>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>> the Osprey as well. Search and Rescue, moving people about, etc....
>>>>>>> it is inferior to helicopters for almost all such purposes.
>>>>>>> The Osprey is a one trick pony, and the trick is very expensive.
>>>>>>> It requires the power of a heavy lift helicopter to transport medium
>>>>>>> lift cargo in a very crowded cabin for such a big heavy vehicle
>>>>>>> the cabin is 68 inches wide,
>>>>>>> and 66.23 inches high,
>>>>>>> that is 5" 6" high and 5 foot 8"' wide
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> At a speed of 214 Kts and ceiling of 26,000 ft. it's going to be an
>>>>>> easy shoot-down.
>>>>> I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
>>>>> tactic too.
>>>> Uh-huh..........that's what got a lot of choppers shot down in 'Nam.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saw one of them buzz a vacation town here in South Jersey a couple
>>>>>>>> days back, did a buzz-over at the local airport, fun!- Hide
>>>>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
>>> First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>
>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>
>> Vince
>
> Just like you and aren't.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Can't quite parse it.

Most of the deaths in Iraq are due to IEDs. Most of the actual shooting
will take place in cities. Neither have much to do with the V-22. It is
not well designed for emergency evacuation either.

The V-22 will be used as a ferry from safe protected base to safe
protected base, or to wide open areas where it will land and deliver
fuel and men to waiting vehicles. It will then be touted as "combat
proved"

Vince

[Pat Flannery]

Vince wrote:
>
> Most of the deaths in Iraq are due to IEDs. Most of the actual
> shooting will take place in cities. Neither have much to do with the
> V-22. It is not well designed for emergency evacuation either.

Remember this mess?: http://awfulcommercials.com/movies/ospreyprint.jpg

Pat

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>
>> Vince
>
>
> Please clarify "china doll."
>
> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>
> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
> systems.
>
> BB

It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
this turkey is a political airplane.
It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq

The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.

it's a one trick pony, it's faster in horizontal flight. But tis still
a truck


Vince

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
> this turkey is a political airplane.
> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq

Wonderful, the "Prince Harry" of military a/c!!!

Rob

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Dallas Morning News
June 12, 2007


that's one for it to kill people from other countries for a charge.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 13, 4:18?pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message . com>,
> David E. Powell > writes
>
> >I thought it was faster, but going low enough can be an anti-shootdown
> >tactic too.
>
> If there's a sufficient density of Bad Guys, then going low exposes you
> to hundreds or thousands of small-arms rather than handfuls of MR-SAMs.
>
> --
> The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
> warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
> by fools.
> -Thucydides
>
> Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk

Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway, but
since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
fire at low altitude.

To me, it would be better to fly in an unarmed Fa-223 Drache carrying
troops into combat in Berlin during the heat of battle with Hanna
Reitsch at the controls than to fly over any part of Iraq in an
Osprey, even with escort... but that's just me.

I pity those poor soldiers whose ride into Iraq will be the Osprey and
whose ride home will be in a bodybag inside a C-130 or other
transport...

Rob

[BlackBeard]

On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Please clarify "china doll."
>
> > As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
> > survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
> > anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>
> > Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
> > platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
> > during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
> > systems.
>
> > BB
>
> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
> this turkey is a political airplane.
> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>
> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>

The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[BlackBeard]

On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>
> Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
> flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.

And this is different from any other aircraft how?


> Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,

As in any troop carrying helicopter...

but
> since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
> target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
> fire at low altitude.

Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
don't get to practice either, they pass once.


BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Kerryn Offord]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>>> Vince
>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>> systems.
>>> BB
>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>
>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>
>
> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>


The door doesn't increase the size of the cabin...

IIRC they need a custom vehicle designed to pull any heavy equipment the
Marines might try to use because the cabin is so small..

Is it really only 68 inches wide, and 66.23 inches high?

That certainly counts as a small cabin..

Heck, two fully equipped Marines are going to have some trouble getting
through side by side at the same time... (Equipped with MGs, ATGW, one
shot AT weapons etc...

[Kerryn Offord]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>> Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
>> flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>
>
>> Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>
> but
>> since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
>> target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
>> fire at low altitude.
>
> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
> highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
> baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
> don't get to practice either, they pass once.

The time to hit it will be when it is hovering. Either landing or
lifting off prior to forward transition..

Or when carrying a slung load...

A helicopter can get forward motion almost as soon as it leaves the
ground. How high does the V-22 have to be before entering transition?

And conventional helis can just about land still travelling forward..
Can teh V-22?

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>>> Vince
>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>> systems.
>>> BB
>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>
>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>
>
> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>
> BB

you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem


"The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.

The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm


Vince

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>> Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
>> flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>
>
>> Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>
> but
>> since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
>> target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
>> fire at low altitude.
>
> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
> highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
> baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
> don't get to practice either, they pass once.
>

OFCS Im a klutz and Ive hit skeet doubles. The angular velocity of
swinging the shotgun is far greater than hitting an osprey at 200 meters

240 knots is about 120 m/sec

2 second flight time

The difference between 170 and 240 knots is trivial


Vince

[Vince]

Kerryn Offord wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real
>>>>> combat.
>>>>> Vince
>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>> systems.
>>>> BB
>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>
>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>
>>
>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>
>
>
> The door doesn't increase the size of the cabin...
>
> IIRC they need a custom vehicle designed to pull any heavy equipment the
> Marines might try to use because the cabin is so small..
>
> Is it really only 68 inches wide, and 66.23 inches high?
>
> That certainly counts as a small cabin..
>
> Heck, two fully equipped Marines are going to have some trouble getting
> through side by side at the same time... (Equipped with MGs, ATGW, one
> shot AT weapons etc...

they have noticed that

Vince

[Vince]

Kerryn Offord wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>>> Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
>>> flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>>
>> And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>>
>>
>>> Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>>
>> As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>>
>> but
>>> since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
>>> target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
>>> fire at low altitude.
>>
>> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
>> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
>> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
>> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
>> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
>> highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
>> baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
>> don't get to practice either, they pass once.
>
> The time to hit it will be when it is hovering. Either landing or
> lifting off prior to forward transition..
>
> Or when carrying a slung load...
>
> A helicopter can get forward motion almost as soon as it leaves the
> ground. How high does the V-22 have to be before entering transition?
>
> And conventional helis can just about land still travelling forward..
> Can teh V-22?

The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry

they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor

it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts

Vince

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 14, 11:55?pm, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
> > flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> And this is different from any other aircraft how?

First of all it's a rotorcraft and it IS different b/c it is a
complicated transitional flight machine. A main hit to its rotors and
it won't be auto-rotating to safety but burning in a fiery wreckage of
debris.
>
> > Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> As in any troop carrying helicopter...

Helos don't have to worry about vunerable transitional flight for t/o
nor landings. Osprey has to slow down for transitional landings then
descend vertically down. Helos can come in fast, slow, and still have
some foward momentum when landing. Helos can t/o faster w/o need for
the complicated transitioning part and t/o forward. Osprey has to go
through the transitioning routine every single time and might as well
have a target painted on it as it climbs and descends vertically
before the rotors swing forward, horizontally. Not so with any helo.
>
> but
>
> > since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
> > target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
> > fire at low altitude.
>
> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
> highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
> baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
> don't get to practice either, they pass once.

It NEEDS more countermeasures and suvival aids as this is an exposed
twin-engine transitional rotorcraft. Helos have their engines buried
and are covered by armor. Osprey has a 50 ft wingspan with exposed
transitional engines in nacelles at their tips. One does not need to
take out the engine to kill it- just blow a wing off and the engine is
gone too- end of flight. As for speed, the Osprey has to slow for the
transition and even briefly hover in the process which is bad news for
the 24 troops being transported in that sitting duck. Also, in forward
flight the rotor diameter is 38 ft, a tempting target for an RPG as it
slows to come in and land. Helos have none of these problems and have
some measure of armor protection with the engines.
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

Rob

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Kerryn Offord > wrote:

> BlackBeard wrote:
>
> A helicopter can get forward motion almost as soon as it leaves the
> ground. How high does the V-22 have to be before entering transition?
>
> And conventional helis can just about land still travelling forward..
> Can teh V-22?

Haven't been around V-22 flight ops, but the XV-15 used to fly around
Moffett Field near my old office, and it certainly could land while
still traveling forward, just not with the nacelle's full-forward.

It could also move forward before lifting off the runway; it didn't have
to reach some arbitrary altitude before it could begin to transition to
forward flight.

[Pat Flannery]

Vince wrote:
>
> they have noticed that

What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
blinding the pilot.
That problem should have been noticed back in the XV-15 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Vince wrote:
>
> The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
> massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry
>
> they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor
>
> it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts

Could be worse...could be this:
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.

Pat

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince >
wrote:

>BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>>>> Vince
>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>> systems.
>>>> BB
>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>
>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>
>>
>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>
>> BB
>
>you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
>the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem
>
>
>"The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
>presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
>but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
>at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
>Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.
>
>The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
>mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
>110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
>a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
>weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"
>
>http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm
>
>
That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
wide, so it won't fit anyway.


Peter Skelton

[Vince]

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince >
> wrote:
>
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>>> systems.
>>>>> BB
>>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>>
>>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>>
>>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>>
>>> BB
>> you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
>> the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem
>>
>>
>> "The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
>> presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
>> but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
>> at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
>> Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.
>>
>> The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
>> mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
>> 110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
>> a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
>> weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"
>>
>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm
>>
>>
> That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
> version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
> wide, so it won't fit anyway.
>
>
> Peter Skelton

if you are driving around in the face of the enemy I suspect you want
the armor

and 5200 is the empty weight not the GVW

The M998 A0 series has a curb weight of approximately 5,200 lbs., a
payload of 2,500 lbs. (GVW 7,700 lbs.), and a 6.2 liter V-8 diesel
engine with a three-speed automatic transmission. The current comparable
model, the M1097A2, weighs only 700 lbs. more but can carry almost twice
the payload at 4,400 lbs. (GVW 10,300 lbs). It has a 6.5-liter V-8
diesel with a four-speed automatic transmission. The current production
Expanded Capacity Vehicle (ECV) model M1113 has a payload of 5,100 lbs.
That is over 2 ½ tons, or very nearly the M1113's own weight of 6,400
lbs. The M1113 has a turbocharged 6.5-liter V-8 diesel. The up-armored
variant M1114 is produced by AM General with the armor package installed
by O'Gara Hess and Eisenhart.

[BlackBeard]

On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>
> > they have noticed that
>
> What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
> causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
> blinding the pilot.

This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?

"5/9/2007 - EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force Research
Laboratory Rapid Reaction Team has successfully integrated and tested
a science and technology solution to the Air Force Special Operation
Command helicopter brownout problem.

In late 2005, Lt. Gen. Michael Wooley, AFSOC commander, asked the AFRL
commander to find a solution to a problem that is killing his Airmen
-- rotary wing brownouts.

More than 30 AFSOC rotary wing aircraft and 60 servicemembers have
lost their lives due to reduced visibility conditions during landing
in desert environments. Many of the aircraft losses have been
attributed to a condition that helicopter pilots refer to as
"brownout."

"Brownout conditions occur during landing and take-offs from sand or
dirt. The sand and dirt is blown up off the ground and blinds the
helicopter pilots to the surrounding area, much like being in a
whiteout during a blizzard," said Eric Werkowitz, the effort's program
manager who is from the Munitions Directorate here. "

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:34 -0400, Vince >
wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real combat.
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>> BB
>>>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>>>
>>>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>>>
>>>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>>>
>>>> BB
>>> you don't have to stoop to enter a C-130
>>> the small cabin is what makes the rear door entry such a problem
>>>
>>>
>>> "The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
>>> presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
>>> but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
>>> at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
>>> Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.
>>>
>>> The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
>>> mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
>>> 110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
>>> a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
>>> weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"
>>>
>>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm
>>>
>>>
>> That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
>> version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
>> wide, so it won't fit anyway.
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>if you are driving around in the face of the enemy I suspect you want
>the armor
>
>and 5200 is the empty weight not the GVW
>
My bad.

>The M998 A0 series has a curb weight of approximately 5,200 lbs., a
>payload of 2,500 lbs. (GVW 7,700 lbs.), and a 6.2 liter V-8 diesel
>engine with a three-speed automatic transmission. The current comparable
>model, the M1097A2, weighs only 700 lbs. more but can carry almost twice
>the payload at 4,400 lbs. (GVW 10,300 lbs). It has a 6.5-liter V-8
>diesel with a four-speed automatic transmission. The current production
>Expanded Capacity Vehicle (ECV) model M1113 has a payload of 5,100 lbs.
>That is over 2 ½ tons, or very nearly the M1113's own weight of 6,400
>lbs. The M1113 has a turbocharged 6.5-liter V-8 diesel. The up-armored
>variant M1114 is produced by AM General with the armor package installed
>by O'Gara Hess and Eisenhart.
>
>
>
>

Peter Skelton

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>> Vince wrote:
>>
>>> they have noticed that
>> What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
>> causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
>> blinding the pilot.
>
> This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?

very very high disk loading with yaw effects


6. HIGH DOWNWASH VELOCITY

Because of the high disk-loading of V-22, the downwash velocity is about
twice that of any conventional helicopter, and because of the
side-by-side placement of the prop-rotors there are two distinct
downwash wakes that are transverse to the flight direction. This has
several operational implications that bear on safety issues. The most
critical one, I believe, is the effects of downwash on landings at night
in a desert environment – a challenge in any helicopter, but more
difficult, and potentially dangerous, in the V-22.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

[BlackBeard]

On Jun 15, 6:27 am, Vince > wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
>
> >>> Please clarify "china doll."

?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Dan[_2_]]

Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>
> Vince wrote:
>>
>> The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
>> massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry
>>
>> they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor
>>
>> it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts
>
> Could be worse...could be this:
> http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
> That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.
>
> Pat

Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Vince]

Dan wrote:
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>>
>> Vince wrote:
>>>
>>> The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
>>> massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry
>>>
>>> they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt rotor
>>>
>>> it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts
>>
>> Could be worse...could be this:
>> http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
>> That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.
>>
>> Pat
>
> Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in autorotation
> during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it wouldn't be
> able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

the v-22 cannot safely auto rotate

1. LACK OF AUTOROTATION CAPABILITY

Although it was initially believed that V-22 would have a full
autorotation capability, it is now generally agreed that the V-22 cannot
autorotate in any practical sense. Although the V-22 has performed an
autorotation in a technical sense, the test procedure was carefully
structured to allow for a safe entry (the engine power was slowly
removed to allow the aircraft to establish a stable autorotation.) In a
practical autorotation, the aircraft must be able to enter a stable
autorotative state following an abrupt power interruption. Although an
abrupt removal of engine power in V-22 has never been done, such an
event would probably result in loss of control because of the inability
to maintain rotor RPM. This is especially true if the failure occurs in
transition mode (60 deg nacelles)[1], the common configuration used for
“slinging” external loads.

The single autorotation test in V-22 also demonstrated that the attempt
to recover from autorotation to a safe landing by using stored rotor
energy to arrest the rate of descent failed markedly. The test data
indicate that the aircraft would have impacted the ground at a rate of
descent of about 3700 ft/min (61.7 ft/sec) ¾ a fatal rate-of-descent.
Authoritative proponents, e.g., the NASA Review Team, have argued that
autorotation is not a needed capability for the V-22 due to the low
probability of a two-engine failure. My analysis of Navy safety data
shows that the Navy/USMC experiences a dual engine failure in a
helicopter about once every 3 to 4 years due to fuel contamination
onboard a ship. Historically, such accidents have usually been
survivable because the helicopter autorotates into the water and the
crew and passengers quickly scramble out. If such an event were to
occur in V-22, it will probably be fatal to crew and passengers because
the aircraft will not smoothly enter autorotation, but most probably
depart from controlled flight, and because the cabin is too cramped for
a rapid egress.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

[Dan[_2_]]

Vince wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Vince wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
>>>> massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry
>>>>
>>>> they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt
>>>> rotor
>>>>
>>>> it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts
>>>
>>> Could be worse...could be this:
>>> http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
>>> That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>
>> Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
>> autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
>> wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> the v-22 cannot safely auto rotate
>
><snip>

Vince, once yet again you are way off mark. I was responding to
Flannery's link to a Soviet aircraft not V-22.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Walt[_3_]]

On Jun 15, 2:55?am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
> > flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>
> > Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>
> but
>
> > since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
> > target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
> > fire at low altitude.
>
> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG.

The escorts (still some form of a Cobra) can't operate where the V-22
operates.

It can't be efficiently escorted. It's the worst boondoggle ever
invented.

Walt

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 15, 4:58?pm, Walt > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:55?am, BlackBeard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>
> > > Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
> > > flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> > And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>
> > > Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> > As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>
> > but
>
> > > since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
> > > target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
> > > fire at low altitude.
>
> > Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> > replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> > those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> > flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> > knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG.
>
> The escorts (still some form of a Cobra) can't operate where the V-22
> operates.
>
> It can't be efficiently escorted. It's the worst boondoggle ever
> invented.
>
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why is there any need to post all the inherent dangers of the V-22
when common sense tells us that transitional flight in a combat zone
is just begging to be shot down. That would not be so bad if it were
just pilots but each V-22 will have 24 troops. THAT is a disaster and
even the insurgents are waiting to shoot the first one down- you know,
they read the newspapers too and know it is coming! First one downed
will be a great propaganda victory and the thought of 24 mangled
bodies being dragged through some dirt road in Iraq is appalling.

You say that the German convetiplane Fa-269 and Weserflug P.1003 tilt-
rotor would not have worked for the Germans in WW2 in combat, so why
do you now think that the V-22 is any different? Technology doesn't
mean **** in a vunerable transitional flight machine. The Iraqi
insurgents will sit on the rooftops with AKs, AKMs, and RPGs to blast
the rotorcraft as soon as it slows to hover while in transition for
landing.

Higher up, it is a target for missiles and it cannot autorotate safely
if at all.

US troops are ****ed and the number 22 seems more unlucky than 13. We
have the highly dangerous V-22 and moneypit useless F/A-22 which will
never replace all the a/c it was intended to. 20 years from now the US
will still be fighting with a/c from the 70s-80s or older like the
B-52.

But then again theri will always eb flag-waving morons who will
believe in myths like:

- the Glock 17 is invisible to airport X-ray machines- its all plastic
and undetectable (it has a metal barrel, magazine, and other parts and
its silhouette is still totally visble to X-ray machines)
- the F-117 is invisible and will never be shot down (it was never
invisible and was shot down)
- the Apache is the world's premiere attach helo able to withstand any
firepower the Soviets/Russians can throw at it on the battlefield (I
guess they failed to test it with AKs and RPGs)
- the M-1 tank is the best in the world and is invincible (that's why
20 have been lost in ODS and OIF, with 2 taking missile shots up the
ass)
- when the Stryker arrives, it will kick ass (it was shot to **** and
removed to more secure locations)
- no one can touch the US, we are the lone Superpower (September 11,
2001)

- ad infinitum, ad nauseum

Rob
-

[Vince]

Dan wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vince wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The handling of the V 22 would be even marginal except that it is
>>>>> massively overpowered and overweight for the cargo load it can carry
>>>>>
>>>>> they use brute horsepower to overcome the inefficiency of the tilt
>>>>> rotor
>>>>>
>>>>> it lifts about half the load a ch 53 with 12000 hp lifts
>>>>
>>>> Could be worse...could be this:
>>>> http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
>>>> That didn't look right, and it didn't fly right either.
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>
>>> Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
>>> autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
>>> wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big
>>> autogyro.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> the v-22 cannot safely auto rotate
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Vince, once yet again you are way off mark. I was responding to
> Flannery's link to a Soviet aircraft not V-22.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

the thread is about the osprey

feel free to rename your thread

Vince

[Kerryn Offord]

Vince wrote:
> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real
>>>>>> combat.
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>>> systems.
>>>>> BB
>>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>>
>>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The door doesn't increase the size of the cabin...
>>
>> IIRC they need a custom vehicle designed to pull any heavy equipment
>> the Marines might try to use because the cabin is so small..
>>
>> Is it really only 68 inches wide, and 66.23 inches high?
>>
>> That certainly counts as a small cabin..
>>
>> Heck, two fully equipped Marines are going to have some trouble
>> getting through side by side at the same time... (Equipped with MGs,
>> ATGW, one shot AT weapons etc...
>
> they have noticed that
>
> Vince

Is it really that bad? I realize they have to bend over to "walk" out
(66.23 inches high is below average height), but can they walk side by
side or do they have to depart single file?

[Kerryn Offord]

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince >
> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>>
>> "The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
>> presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
>> but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
>> at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
>> Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.
>>
>> The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
>> mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
>> 110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
>> a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
>> weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"
>>
>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm
>>
>>
> That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
> version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
> wide, so it won't fit anyway.
>

But even 5200 lbs 50-50 split is 2600 lb per axle empty.. That's over
the magic 2450 lb mark..

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:09:30 +1200, Kerryn Offord
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:27:40 -0400, Vince >
>> wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>>>
>>> "The V-22 cabin comes with many constraints, Burkett explained in a
>>> presentation to an industry conference. Not only is the space limited,
>>> but whatever cargo is loaded in the aircraft must leave enough room for
>>> at least three passengers and for crews to enter and exit unencumbered.
>>> Without any cargo, the Osprey can hold 24 passengers.
>>>
>>> The Marines specified that the EFSS — including the mortar, the prime
>>> mover, a load of ammunition and a small crew — must be able to travel
>>> 110 nautical miles in the V-22. The weight of any vehicle to be flown on
>>> a V-22 cannot exceed 2,450 pounds per axle. By comparison, a Humvee
>>> weighs 4,500 pounds in the front axle and 6,500 pounds in the rear axle"
>>>
>>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Dec1/Ospreys_Cargo.htm
>>>
>>>
>> That's the most heavily armoured version of the hummer. The base
>> version is 5200 lb GVW with a 2500 lb payload. Of course it's 86"
>> wide, so it won't fit anyway.
>>
>
>But even 5200 lbs 50-50 split is 2600 lb per axle empty.. That's over
>the magic 2450 lb mark..

When it's forced through the door, enough bits fall off for it to
make weight.


Peter Skelton

[Vince]

Kerryn Offord wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
>>>>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real
>>>>>>> combat.
>>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
>>>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
>>>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
>>>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
>>>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
>>>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
>>>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>> BB
>>>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
>>>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
>>>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>>>>>
>>>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
>>>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
>>>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The door doesn't increase the size of the cabin...
>>>
>>> IIRC they need a custom vehicle designed to pull any heavy equipment
>>> the Marines might try to use because the cabin is so small..
>>>
>>> Is it really only 68 inches wide, and 66.23 inches high?
>>>
>>> That certainly counts as a small cabin..
>>>
>>> Heck, two fully equipped Marines are going to have some trouble
>>> getting through side by side at the same time... (Equipped with MGs,
>>> ATGW, one shot AT weapons etc...
>>
>> they have noticed that
>>
>> Vince
>
> Is it really that bad? I realize they have to bend over to "walk" out
> (66.23 inches high is below average height), but can they walk side by
> side or do they have to depart single file?


a Marine I talked to said that in combat gear with helmets on it's a
sort of alternating single file crouch walk from the seat to the door.
its tighter than single file but you have to avoid getting entangled.

Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 16, 8:10 am, Vince > wrote:
> Kerryn Offord wrote:
> > Vince wrote:
> >> Kerryn Offord wrote:
> >>> BlackBeard wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 14, 4:28 am, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>> BlackBeard wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:55 pm, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>>> don't worry these china dolls will be kept very far from any real
> >>>>>>> combat.
> >>>>>>> Vince
> >>>>>> Please clarify "china doll."
> >>>>>> As we use the term it applies to the fragility or lack of
> >>>>>> survivability of the platform. Are you now insinuating you know
> >>>>>> anything about it's combat survivability/susceptibility?
> >>>>>> Just wondering, because I know that most details of S/S for this
> >>>>>> platform are classified. And I don't remember you being present
> >>>>>> during the seven years I was involved with testing those specific
> >>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>> BB
> >>>>> It will be kept far from anything that might scratch its paint
> >>>>> this turkey is a political airplane.
> >>>>> It has no clear "combat" mission in Iraq
>
> >>>>> The problems of the V-22 are in its fundamental design. It uses heavy
> >>>>> lift horsepower at ultra heavy cost to pick up medium lift cargo which
> >>>>> must also fit in its small cabin through a rear door.
>
> >>>> The entire aft opens up similar to the C-130.
>
> >>> The door doesn't increase the size of the cabin...
>
> >>> IIRC they need a custom vehicle designed to pull any heavy equipment
> >>> the Marines might try to use because the cabin is so small..
>
> >>> Is it really only 68 inches wide, and 66.23 inches high?
>
> >>> That certainly counts as a small cabin..
>
> >>> Heck, two fully equipped Marines are going to have some trouble
> >>> getting through side by side at the same time... (Equipped with MGs,
> >>> ATGW, one shot AT weapons etc...
>
> >> they have noticed that
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Is it really that bad? I realize they have to bend over to "walk" out
> > (66.23 inches high is below average height), but can they walk side by
> > side or do they have to depart single file?
>
> a Marine I talked to said that in combat gear with helmets on it's a
> sort of alternating single file crouch walk from the seat to the door.
> its tighter than single file but you have to avoid getting entangled.
>
> Vince

The bad guys don't even have to use automatic fire, maybe we could get
the Marines to go back and forth like those bears at the carnival.

[Pat Flannery]

Vince wrote:
> BlackBeard wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>>> Vince wrote:
>>>
>>>> they have noticed that
>>> What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
>>> causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
>>> blinding the pilot.
>>
>> This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?
>
> very very high disk loading with yaw effects
>
>
> 6. HIGH DOWNWASH VELOCITY
>
> Because of the high disk-loading of V-22, the downwash velocity is
> about twice that of any conventional helicopter, and because of the
> side-by-side placement of the prop-rotors there are two distinct
> downwash wakes that are transverse to the flight direction. This has
> several operational implications that bear on safety issues. The most
> critical one, I believe, is the effects of downwash on landings at
> night in a desert environment – a challenge in any helicopter, but
> more difficult, and potentially dangerous, in the V-22.
>
> http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

In something like the Chinook, the twin rotor down wash causes the and
dust to rise along the center of the fuselage sides, not over the
cockpit area.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Dan wrote:
>
> Interesting layout. I assume the rotors would be used in
> autorotation during horizontal flight. If this were done full time it
> wouldn't be able to take off vertically, but would make one big autogyro.

That was the idea, if forward flight lift would shared between the
windmilling rotors and the wings but the prototype crashed, and they
gave up on it.
We tried the same concept in a lot smaller form on the McDonnell XV-1:
https://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mcdonnel_xv1.htm
The one I keep trying to find a photo of on the web is the Yak VVP-6
design for a huge helicopter using six rotors (three mounted one behind
the other on three stub wings on each side of the fuselage), and carried
a six missile SA-2 battery on its back along with the associated radars,
and more reload missiles inside its fuselage. This monster was to be
powered by no less than a total of 24 turboshaft engines, pylon mounted
in two dual pods on each of its six stub wings.
The giant helicopter was designed to work in conjunction with S/VTOL
fighters and attack aircraft by letting a mobile missile site to be
deployed to front line positions quickly.
After the work on the Yak S/VTOL aircraft ceased, it was canceled before
any prototype had been built.

Pat

[Peter Stickney]

Pat Flannery wrote:

>
>
> Vince wrote:
>> BlackBeard wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 11:47 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>>>> Vince wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> they have noticed that
>>>> What they should have noticed is how that side-by-side rotor layout
>>>> causes sand and dust to rise around the fuselage during landing,
>>>> blinding the pilot.
>>>
>>> This differs from any other rotary wing craft how?
>>
>> very very high disk loading with yaw effects
>>
>>
>> 6. HIGH DOWNWASH VELOCITY
>>
>> Because of the high disk-loading of V-22, the downwash velocity is
>> about twice that of any conventional helicopter, and because of the
>> side-by-side placement of the prop-rotors there are two distinct
>> downwash wakes that are transverse to the flight direction. This has
>> several operational implications that bear on safety issues. The most
>> critical one, I believe, is the effects of downwash on landings at
>> night in a desert environment – a challenge in any helicopter, but
>> more difficult, and potentially dangerous, in the V-22.
>>
>> http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
>
> In something like the Chinook, the twin rotor down wash causes the and
> dust to rise along the center of the fuselage sides, not over the
> cockpit area.

'Taint so, Pat - The CH-47, and pretty much all tandem-rotor helicopters
since the H-21, have overlapping rotors. Downwash over the center of the
fuselage is very high, due to the 2 sets of rotor wash adding to reach
other.
What you get with a 'Hook hovering over dust, sand, or water is an
incredible amount of crud blown around for quite some distance - there's a
good image here at:
http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200502/itf_NASCARtech.html


--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Pat Flannery]

Vince wrote:
>
> the thread is about the osprey
>
> feel free to rename your thread

The thread appears to be about the V-22, and how much it sucks, sucks,
sucks...if Walt's postings are anything to go by. :-)

Pat

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 16, 8:19?pm, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>
> > the thread is about the osprey
>
> > feel free to rename your thread
>
> The thread appears to be about the V-22, and how much it sucks, sucks,
> sucks...if Walt's postings are anything to go by. :-)
>
> Pat

It's been plgued the entire development time with the Marines even
falsifying records to get it approved. Most people think it is a waste
of money like the obscene taxpayer rip-off fraud F/A-22, but even
worse as transitional flight a/c with rotors are inherently
dangerous, especially since this one will be carrying troops.

Once it hits Iraq in September I would make sure the bodybags are
stockpiled. I know the insurgents can't wait to shoot down this new US
rotorcraft. The propaganda value to Islamic nations will be priceless
and a morale defeater with US troops if the Ospreys become sitting
ducks. My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.

Rob

[Dan[_2_]]

Rob Arndt wrote:
<snip>

My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
> calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.
>
> Rob
>

A lot of perfectly good aircraft have negative nicknames. It goes
with the territory. Ever heard of a "lead sled" or "buff?" Do you know
what buff stands for? A-37 was called, among other things, a converter,
it converted fuel to noise. B-26 was called widow maker. Rescue C-130N/P
were pigasaurus rex, last known example of a flightless dinosaur. DC, as
in DC-9, DC-10 etc stood for "done crashed." F-16 lawn dart. C-9, the
only aircraft named after a nurse who gave a lot of soldiers the clap.
The list goes on.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 16, 11:16?pm, Dan > wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
>
> > calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.
>
> > Rob
>
> A lot of perfectly good aircraft have negative nicknames. It goes
> with the territory. Ever heard of a "lead sled" or "buff?" Do you know
> what buff stands for? A-37 was called, among other things, a converter,
> it converted fuel to noise. B-26 was called widow maker. Rescue C-130N/P
> were pigasaurus rex, last known example of a flightless dinosaur. DC, as
> in DC-9, DC-10 etc stood for "done crashed." F-16 lawn dart. C-9, the
> only aircraft named after a nurse who gave a lot of soldiers the clap.
> The list goes on.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

As the Mobile Infantry would say in "Starship Troopers"... "more meat
for the grinder"!

That's what the V-22 is... a meatgrinder for US troops.

Rob

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 17, 10:22 am, Rob Arndt > wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:16?pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
>
> > > calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.
>
> > > Rob
>
> > A lot of perfectly good aircraft have negative nicknames. It goes
> > with the territory. Ever heard of a "lead sled" or "buff?" Do you know
> > what buff stands for? A-37 was called, among other things, a converter,
> > it converted fuel to noise. B-26 was called widow maker. Rescue C-130N/P
> > were pigasaurus rex, last known example of a flightless dinosaur. DC, as
> > in DC-9, DC-10 etc stood for "done crashed." F-16 lawn dart. C-9, the
> > only aircraft named after a nurse who gave a lot of soldiers the clap.
> > The list goes on.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> As the Mobile Infantry would say in "Starship Troopers"... "more meat
> for the grinder"!
>
> That's what the V-22 is... a meatgrinder for US troops.
>
> Rob

Think of it as a mini-Hindenburg.

[RapidRonnie]

> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anyone wanna take bets on the Ospreys going to Iraq in September?
> > First loss due to combat, flying accident, or technical malfunction?
>
> > Rob
>
> You don't see how sick it is for someone who has never put his neck
> on the line to place bets on the deaths of those who do?


What's irresponsible is not to make clear in any way possible what a
piece of **** the Osprey is. If open betting on fatalities were to
bring ridicule to this program it would save lives.

I don't want any more Ospreys to kill people, but kill people they
will if placed in service. I hope that when the inevitable occurs,
among the killed is someone whose demise proves enormously painful to
some son of a bitch who is responsible for this flying abortion.

If they have such faith in this piece of ****, place it in service as
Marine One. That way if we get lucky we may kill two birds with one
stone.

A mixed metaphor....

[RapidRonnie]

> > > The USMC gambled with US soldiers lives when it falsified the test
> > > records on the Osprey-forget about that? And if proven rotorcraft like
> > > an Apache armored helo needs escort in Iraq what do you think will
> > > happen to the more vunerable transitional flight V-22 when it attempts
> > > to transition for landing or take-off?
>
> > > I can see the AKs and RPGs flying already

Probably 12 gauge slug guns could take this turkey down with hits up
the nacelles or blade hubs.


>
> > > Rob
>
> > ? ?Many aircraft need armed escort for some of their missions, why would
> > Osprey be any different?
>
> > ? ?AKs fly?
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Being stupid again? Yes, it should read AKs firing and RPGs flying...
> but you knew what I meant anyway... I only wish if you were gonna play
> English teacher you would do it with everyone here on RAM.
>
> Regarding the Apache, this was supposed to be the premiere armored
> attack helo in the world able to stand up to best Soviet/Russian
> battlefield weapons; instead, it is fairly easy prey for raghead
> insurgents with nothing more than AKs and RPGs... so much for that
> myth of invincibility. We should have learned that from the fast and
> armored Mil-24 Hinds in Afghanistan. We laughed at their losses... yet
> lament our own...


The Army should go to Lockheed and admit they were pricks to them
over the Cheyenne. It would STILL be the best heavy attack helo in
the world.

[RapidRonnie]

>
> My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
>
> > calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.
>
> > Rob
>
> A lot of perfectly good aircraft have negative nicknames. It goes
> with the territory. Ever heard of a "lead sled" or "buff?" Do you know
> what buff stands for? A-37 was called, among other things, a converter,
> it converted fuel to noise. B-26 was called widow maker. Rescue C-130N/P
> were pigasaurus rex, last known example of a flightless dinosaur. DC, as
> in DC-9, DC-10 etc stood for "done crashed." F-16 lawn dart. C-9, the
> only aircraft named after a nurse who gave a lot of soldiers the clap.
> The list goes on.


Sometimes it's in fun and sometimes deadly serious. Knowing the
difference is not your forte, it appears.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 17, 10:03?pm, RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > My Ranger buddy told me that many US Army soldiers are already
>
> > > calling it the "Let's Pray". That is a bad sign...and it is only June.
>
> > > Rob
>
> > A lot of perfectly good aircraft have negative nicknames. It goes
> > with the territory. Ever heard of a "lead sled" or "buff?" Do you know
> > what buff stands for? A-37 was called, among other things, a converter,
> > it converted fuel to noise. B-26 was called widow maker. Rescue C-130N/P
> > were pigasaurus rex, last known example of a flightless dinosaur. DC, as
> > in DC-9, DC-10 etc stood for "done crashed." F-16 lawn dart. C-9, the
> > only aircraft named after a nurse who gave a lot of soldiers the clap.
> > The list goes on.
>
> Sometimes it's in fun and sometimes deadly serious. Knowing the
> difference is not your forte, it appears.

US Army soldiers in Iraq also call the Apache... "Patch-Me". Is that
funny? How many of the "invincible" copters have been shot down and
shot-up since 2003 over there? 20? 30? More?

I guess common sense is not your forte. An Apache has a hell of lot
better chance at survival than a troop-carryong transitional
rotorcraft with exposed engines at the tips of vunerable wings. It is
not heavily armored as well.

When civilians and the military alike call the V-22 things like Turkey-
Shoot, Easy Prey, and Let's Pray, I think they show a definate lack of
confidence with the craft. Time will tell.

Rob

[John Ahlstrom]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:43 pm, Rob Arndt > wrote:
>> Even stray fire that misses the troops or pilots, but hits a critical
>> flight system will probably send the Osprey right into the ground.
>
> And this is different from any other aircraft how?
>
>
>> Transitional flight in a combat zone is gonna be a bitch anyway,
>
> As in any troop carrying helicopter...
>
> but
>> since Iraq is so large, just the regular flight in transit to the
>> target area or base will expose the rotorcraft to small arms and RPG
>> fire at low altitude.
>
> Why fly low, it has a higher ceiling than the helo it is meant to
> replace, and has more counter-measures and survivability systems than
> those helos. So it has a better chance of surviving if hit. If it is
> flying low, compare the chances of hitting something going by at 170
> knots versus 240+ knots with an RPG. Go ahead and stand off the
> highway. Try to hit a VW beetle going by at the speed limit with a
> baseball. Then try that with a speeding Lexus going about 80. You
> don't get to practice either, they pass once.
>
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>


Does the mission for the V-22 include combat zone landing
and take-off or is this a protected area to protected area
transport?

Granted in insurgent/guerilla wars there are likely to be
substantial threats in the path between protected areas and
the protected areas are likely to be less protected than in
wars with front lines.

Regardless of what its initial mission included, is it worth
it if it is restricted to truck-replacement rather than
assault?

JKA

[RapidRonnie]

> I guess common sense is not your forte. An Apache has a hell of lot
> better chance at survival than a troop-carryong transitional
> rotorcraft with exposed engines at the tips of vunerable wings. It is
> not heavily armored as well.
>
> When civilians and the military alike call the V-22 things like Turkey-
> Shoot, Easy Prey, and Let's Pray, I think they show a definate lack of
> confidence with the craft. Time will tell.

You missed who the comment was directed to, didn't you??

The Apache is a moderately good, quite overpriced attack helicopter.
The Osprey is a flying deathtrap and a worst-possible-design attempt
at VTOL. It can't be flown as a conventional aircraft-I guess it can
be landed in shear-off-the-rotors forward mode, but it's something you
can't practice. It has two engines, a pessimal number for VTOL even
with cross-shafting and suffficient excess power.

We should concede we were bamboozled, yes, bamboozled and have the
Osprey fleet used for reefage in salt water and walk away.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 12:20 pm, RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > I guess common sense is not your forte. An Apache has a hell of lot
> > better chance at survival than a troop-carryong transitional
> > rotorcraft with exposed engines at the tips of vunerable wings. It is
> > not heavily armored as well.
>
> > When civilians and the military alike call the V-22 things like Turkey-
> > Shoot, Easy Prey, and Let's Pray, I think they show a definate lack of
> > confidence with the craft. Time will tell.
>
> You missed who the comment was directed to, didn't you??
>
> The Apache is a moderately good, quite overpriced attack helicopter.
> The Osprey is a flying deathtrap and a worst-possible-design attempt
> at VTOL. It can't be flown as a conventional aircraft-I guess it can
> be landed in shear-off-the-rotors forward mode, but it's something you
> can't practice. It has two engines, a pessimal number for VTOL even
> with cross-shafting and suffficient excess power.
>
> We should concede we were bamboozled, yes, bamboozled and have the
> Osprey fleet used for reefage in salt water and walk away.

Sorry, only my name appeared on that post with that quote below. I
took it as a swipe at me...

Rob

[Flashnews]

Ronnie I see it just the other way - the Apache as an attack helicopter
costs more than an F-16 and it remains totally unsurvivable in the
environment we are seeing it in Afghanistan and Iraq and hence they are
holding it back at every opportunity. It''s reliability is still
terrible and its avionics is good but now quite in need of an update yet
the Long Bow does't apply to the present combat and was a waste to buy.
Could it be made to do better - you bet - but there does not seem to be
any interest in the Army in doing so.

If the Osprey is as bad as you say then we are in real trouble - but the
Osprey is a transport / lift machine, what we need to replace the Apache
is a "Blitz fighter" tailored for COIN


"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> I guess common sense is not your forte. An Apache has a hell of lot
>> better chance at survival than a troop-carryong transitional
>> rotorcraft with exposed engines at the tips of vunerable wings. It is
>> not heavily armored as well.
>>
>> When civilians and the military alike call the V-22 things like
>> Turkey-
>> Shoot, Easy Prey, and Let's Pray, I think they show a definate lack
>> of
>> confidence with the craft. Time will tell.
>
> You missed who the comment was directed to, didn't you??
>
> The Apache is a moderately good, quite overpriced attack helicopter.
> The Osprey is a flying deathtrap and a worst-possible-design attempt
> at VTOL. It can't be flown as a conventional aircraft-I guess it can
> be landed in shear-off-the-rotors forward mode, but it's something you
> can't practice. It has two engines, a pessimal number for VTOL even
> with cross-shafting and suffficient excess power.
>
> We should concede we were bamboozled, yes, bamboozled and have the
> Osprey fleet used for reefage in salt water and walk away.
>