Quick guide to the F-35 JSF versions.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown
much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since
the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity.

For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big
helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at
all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type
in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive.

Extremely loose definition of "development," too.

Then you're going to have to start screaming

Ay? Whose "screaming?"

about that horrible "F-14 deathtrap," which had about the same number
of crashes per flight hour in development, and was, by no means, anything
like the first swing-wing plane.

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of
fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have
been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14
was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft,
some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have
been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete!
And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which,
unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades.
Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes
if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all
that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially
when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing
counterparts.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.

Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.

And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.

Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.

And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.

This is a non-response. Snipping away the crux of the message
won't make it go away....

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of
fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have
been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14
was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft,
some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have
been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete!
And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which,
unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades.
Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes
if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all
that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially
when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing
counterparts.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.

Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.

And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.

This is a non-response.

No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.

You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.

The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
machines really aren't bad at all.

Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me.

Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the
"dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight.

And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22.

This is a non-response.

No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.

You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.

The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
machines really aren't bad at all.

Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.

Tell that to the Marine's mothers.

It is not the accident rate that is problematic for the V-22, it is the kill
rate.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

This is a non-response.

No, it's a bloody direct and obvious one.

Bloody schmuddy. A bit long on melodramtics and short on
substance ain't cha?

You're complaining about a *current* machine that's having some
problems, and can't keep it in your mind that almost all *previous*
planes and copters have had similar or worse problems.

You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?

The complaint isn't about the F-14, it's that the various current
machines really aren't bad at all.

Right. The compaint is about the V-22 and its tilt-wing predecessors.

Complaining about the (actually low) accident rate of the V-22 or the
F-22 as being "bad" is just silly.

Er um, there ya' go again changing the subject. We're talking about
the V (as in "Vee") Twenty Two Osprey NOT the F-22 Raptor (not
to be confused with the Osprey which, as a bird of prey, has been
woefully misnamed ). Not that you'd know anything about actually
flying an airplane Irby being the maintainer and prolific usenet
poster that ya' are...but like it or not there just aren't a whole
helluva lotta' pilots (civilian -OR- military) whom are all that
impressed by the Osprey. Sorry.

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?

Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
*years*.

Thanks for mentioning them, though. It builds my case.

New aircraft tend to have problems. That's how it goes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

You keep conveniently snipping away all the planes such as the F-111,
Su-22, Su-24, B-1, Mig-27, Tornado. Why is that?

Because they all had their own problems, and the point was that
experimental and/or new aircraft *crash*. The F-111 was near-legendary
for development problems, for example. The B-1 had problems for
*years*.

One_BIG_difference between all those swing-wing aircraft
I mentioned above vis a vis your beloved tilt-rotor Osprey -- the
swing wing aircraft have been OPERATIONAL for *decades*
(you do understand how long a decade" is, no?) whereas
tilt-rotor designs such as your beloved Osprey have NOT been
operational and are still NOT operational to this day. Results
speak for themselves, Irby. But you'll only come to realize that
if you can manage to pry yourself away from your beloved
'puter and try something a bit more constructive such as learning
how to fly your own self.

Thanks for mentioning them, though. It builds my case.

Riiiight...like Jonah said when his "case" got swallowed by the
Great White One? Whether you realize it or not, Irby, you've
done LOST your "case" since, despite the fact that tilt-rotors
have been around since the early fifties...you have yet to
provide a single example of an OPERATIONAL tilt-rotor
military -OR- cvilian aircraft (V-22 or otherwise) in use
*anywhere.*