If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote: As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement, so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed), and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the above advice. [ SNIP ] New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to manufacture an improved CH-46. One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics, but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing entirely new ones. AHS I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek, AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper recently to call for the program's termination, but then again, they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years.... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement, so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed), and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the above advice. [ SNIP ] New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to manufacture an improved CH-46. One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics, but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing entirely new ones. AHS I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek, AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper recently to call for the program's termination, but then again, they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years.... You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro- military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a "new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to close. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote: "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething? First flight was 19 March 1989 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series. We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more than 20 years after fleet introduction. I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users from time to time. very true but a different issue. No, I don't think so. The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e. operational problems which are fixed without redesign In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3) the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign. I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together. In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the Wright Flyer. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement, so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed), and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the above advice. [ SNIP ] New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to manufacture an improved CH-46. One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics, but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing entirely new ones. AHS I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek, AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper recently to call for the program's termination, but then again, they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years.... David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X: Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990 AHS |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 27, 2:06*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement, so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed), and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the above advice. [ SNIP ] New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to manufacture an improved CH-46. One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics, but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing entirely new ones. AHS I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek, AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper recently to call for the program's termination, but then again, they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years.... You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro- military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a "new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to close.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The New York Twits follow the Gary Hart school on defense. They did so in the '80s and continue to do so today. Sikorsky didn't build the H-46: Boeing-Vertol did. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
mike wrote:
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes Copying a WWII saying: Loose Bolts Crash Choppers! Dennis |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production tools likely destroyed? "Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82... Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement, so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed), and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the above advice. [ SNIP ] New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to manufacture an improved CH-46. One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics, but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing entirely new ones. AHS I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek, AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper recently to call for the program's termination, but then again, they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years.... David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X: Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990 AHS |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
Don't say that to the crowd that's against the V-22: they'll seize on
anything to argue for killing the program (justified or not). "Bill Kambic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething? First flight was 19 March 1989 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series. We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more than 20 years after fleet introduction. I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users from time to time. very true but a different issue. No, I don't think so. The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e. operational problems which are fixed without redesign In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3) the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign. I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together. In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the Wright Flyer. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
As far as squadron service, it is a new aircraft. And yes, glitches do come
up after a type's service introduction, either immediately, or years later. "Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message ... Bill Kambic wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:15:04 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething? First flight was 19 March 1989 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A good friend of mine ditched an S-2E off Rhode Island in 1973 after an elctrical system glitch was found. That system that failed had been in Fleet Service in the S-2D, E, and G series. We were still learning about the P-3 in late '70s and early '80s, more than 20 years after fleet introduction. I suspect every aircraft ever put into service surprises the users from time to time. very true but a different issue. No, I don't think so. The claim was "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft." which implies that it involves "teething troubles" i.e. operational problems which are fixed without redesign In the two instances I'm aware of (one in the S-2 and one in the P-3) the problem was fixed with a note in NATOPS, not a redesign. I don't know if "loose bolts" can be fixed with a change in a maintenance manual ("inspect and tighten as required") or a change of bolt design or a change of design in what the bolts hold together. In any event this sort of stuff happens in every aircraft since the Wright Flyer. What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that this was " the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft." It's not a "new aircraft" Vince |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
You're still not saying which helo you'd rather have the USMC buy in place
of the Osprey. Name a helo that could do the job as the H-46s head off to the parking lot in the desert. "Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message news Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 26, 8:11 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote: Curt wrote: "Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message ... vaughn wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... Compromising control of the rotor sounds like a fatal crash to me. I have seen military blogs that say that all of the production must be finished and accepted before the first major accident can occur. Wishing or making sure? This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft. We "learn by doing". With something as complex and as "different" as the Osprey, we will probably see a significant list of these issues. And yes, some of them will probably cause accidents before the learning is all over. Vaughn "new" ? any idea how long this sucker has been teething? First flight was 19 March 1989 20 years ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep making excuses for the turkey Vince I guess this means the C-130 a turkey as well. 'course, it's only been flying since 1956. "Inspections of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft ... are turning up cracks in the nuts and bolts used to attach the wings to the planes' fuselages. The order to inspect the fleet came late Thursday after cracks were found in some upper wing joint barrel nuts. As a result, the U.S. Air Force has ordered that every C-130 in the nation's 600-plane fleet be checked, which includes the older..." the suggestion was that this was a "This is the type of stuff that happens with any new aircraft" The C 130 is a quality control issue with a part "Concerns surfaced March 5 about a particular brand of upper wing joint barrel nuts used in C-130s to attach the wings to the fuselage. The barrel nuts supplied by one manufacturer were deemed "suspect" after routine inspections discovered a potential for stress fractures in the metal. As a result, the Pentagon mandated a fleetwide inspection of each plane's 26 barrel nuts and replacement of all nuts with the faulty design before the planes could fly again." The V-22 Loose bolts are either a maintenance screw up or a design problem Vince- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Most likely the former. They're still finding occasional issues with C-130s, P-3s, F/A-18s, etc. If you've got an existing helo that can match the range, performance, and other requirements that the V-22 meets, name it. Otherwise, get on board or get out of the way. Nonsense. I can tailor any specification to match the device I want to buy anyway The V 22 cannot match the lifting performance of any helicopter in its Horsepower range. normal requirements met by helicopters, including auto rotation were deleted so this turkey could fly. Twice as much cost for half as much cargo as a helicopter of the same horsepower. Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
KX-99 antenna BNC loose | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | April 10th 08 04:26 PM |
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 50 | November 30th 07 05:25 AM |
Seaplane Base - 4 - Cut Him Loose-3.jpg (1/1) | john smith[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 2nd 07 05:11 AM |
I met US Navy aircraft during Iran-Iraq war | Amir - Iranian F-4 pilot | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 29th 07 08:02 PM |
Metric Aircraft Nuts and Bolts | John Scott | Soaring | 6 | December 14th 05 08:54 PM |