"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om

I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
left us with in the past...

Brooks

Kevin, we've been around this before. It's *twenty years on* and the thing
still hasn't shown much capability beyond filling up body bags. I just
think it's a bad project. And bad projects themselves aren't the problem;
The M247 DIVAD was crap, too, but it (thankfully) didn't kill bunches of
people when stuff went wrong with it.

leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could qualitatively
argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking off.
Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.

I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey has
over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos has.
The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues, take
a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

Understand I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to incite anything.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.