Osprey vs. Harrier

Brian Allardice wrote:
These damned things [Osprey} have been fluttering around for better than 30 years. How
long do you have to flog a dying concept for it to loose the "revolutionary"
label. Is that simply another way of saying "It doesn't bloody work yet"?
When was the last time someone called the Harrier 'revolutionary'? Of course,
the Harrier does work.....

Cheers,
dba

Very poor choice of plane to compare it to.

To quote a recent article:
"They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major
accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service.
Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps
bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a
third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.

The toll has been little noted by the public and the media because the
Harrier tends to kill pilots one at a time. In contrast, the V-22
Osprey, a problem-plagued troop transport plane, has killed as many as
19 Marines in a single crash.

The Harrier and the Osprey are the first two planes the Marine Corps has
acquired in pursuing its long-range vertical vision. A third plane is
under active development and several others are being conceived."
- http://www.latimes.com/news/specials...ier-day1.story

Please note I'm not knocking the Harrier.

Anytime you develop a totally new type of aircraft and have to also
develop new operational concepts you get fatal accidents. Go back and
review the early days of everything from the Harrier to the early jets
and helicopters.

Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous
than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several
thousand feet.

It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more
fatalities than many of the older planes, it that we've become less
tolerant of failures during R&D T&E.

"Stephen D. Poe" wrote in message ...

To quote a recent article:
"They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major
accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service.
Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps
bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a
third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.

As a matter of interest, how does that compare with the accident rate
experienced with conventional naval/marine planes flying from
carriers?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"Stephen D. Poe" wrote

"They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:

"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today."

In article , Stephen D. Poe
writes
Anytime you develop a totally new type of aircraft and have to also
develop new operational concepts you get fatal accidents. Go back and
review the early days of everything from the Harrier to the early jets
and helicopters.

The Harrier didn't do too badly in US service at the start, they had a
period of nearly two years accident free.

Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous
than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several
thousand feet.

The Harrier regularly operates in an environment unique to itself,
basically zero air speed very close to the ground. If anything happens
it's game over, all the pilot can do is pull the handle. No other
aircraft is intentionally put in the same situation (choppers can auto-
rotate if needed). STOVL JSF has a more complicated system with more
failure points.

It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more
fatalities than many of the older planes, it that we've become less
tolerant of failures during R&D T&E.

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

--
John

(Tony Williams) wrote in message

As a matter of interest, how does that compare with the accident rate
experienced with conventional naval/marine planes flying from
carriers?

And how do USMC accident rates compare to UK accident rates in their
respective harrier fleets? I don't think the RAF or Royal Navy Fleet
Air Arm lose that many aircraft.

What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will incorporate
innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under
development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted with
fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of
practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous
regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle,
thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the
aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the
pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22?

Benjym

In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:

"Stephen D. Poe" wrote

"They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:

"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today."

It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.
____

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
:
:Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:
:"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:military today."
:
:It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.

Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Peter Skelton wrote:

:On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
:
:Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:
:"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:military today."
:
:It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.

Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.

well, there's no need to limit the blame to pilots, from the article in
question:

"The accident inquiry concluded that a circlip, a semicircular fastener,
was incorrectly installed by mechanics on the gas turbine starter,
setting off a chain reaction that led to the engine failure."

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message ...
In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article
in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way
back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a
low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing
fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of
their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/