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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:06:42 -0700, Rob Arndt
wrote: On Oct 17, 4:14?pm, wrote: On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? How many of those will lose 24-26 men instead of 1-10 if shot down? None in US aviation inventory history. And, don't say heavy transports have either b/c the V-22 is not one of them and is completely vunerable in transitional flight as compared to evasive maneuvering, ditching, and a controlled crashed landing in the big transports. In the Osprey, you are a sitting duck in transition- take-off or landing. Hell Fire and Brimstone, EVERY aircraft is a "sitting duck" when taking off or landing. It's low, slow, dirty and as easy a mark at it gets. The difference is that the V-22 will be going in harm's way where bigger aircraft like the C-130 or C-17 don't get so close to the action. But you fight wars near the source of the action. Otherwise why be there? Damne airplane has beens studied to death. Now it's in the field. Time will tell who's right. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810 @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com: On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? AV-8? Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
On Oct 17, 4:24?pm, Dave wrote:
wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810 @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com: On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? AV-8? Does the AV-8 haul 24 soldiers??? Rob |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
Rob Arndt wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:24?pm, Dave wrote: wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810 : On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? AV-8? Does the AV-8 haul 24 soldiers??? Rob No, but we could does the ch 46 or 47 feel any safer? Hell would could be still be death trap flying gliders. The helos are big, slow, fly low and are being shot down by ordinary rpgs. The Helo has techinical limits in speed & altitude that your never going to best. Lets see how it does, before dissing the thing. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
Vince wrote:
Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... The B 58 What a great example everything sacrificed to high speed everything had to be gold plated andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment, which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly). By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time. While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a reprieve, proceeded on schedule. sounds like the V-22 Vince Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems to get more heat than deserved. Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote: Dave wrote: wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810 @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com: On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? AV-8? Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed) There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it, though. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
On Oct 18, 12:14 am, Tiger wrote:
Vince wrote: Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... The B 58 What a great example everything sacrificed to high speed everything had to be gold plated andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment, which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly). By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time. While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a reprieve, proceeded on schedule. sounds like the V-22 Vince Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems to get more heat than deserved. Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday? Is the Minuteman silo still there? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
Tiger wrote:
Vince wrote: Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... The B 58 What a great example everything sacrificed to high speed everything had to be gold plated andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire (in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment, which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly). By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time. While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a reprieve, proceeded on schedule. sounds like the V-22 Vince Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems to get more heat than deserved. Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday? Normally we junk the stinking maggot filled carcass, this one has been left to rot far too long Vince |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"
Steve Hix wrote:
In article , Kerryn Offord wrote: Dave wrote: wrote in news:1192662843.030847.172810 @e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com: On Oct 17, 3:53 pm, Tiger wrote: The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc... How many of those has to transition from forward flight to hover in a combat zone? AV-8? Nope.. Only for take off and landing back home normally. Usually operates as a straight forward plane (Flies forward at some speed) There was always some level of noise about operating them with reduced loadouts from forward areas. I don't know if any have actually done it, though. The British used to forward deploy them, but for various values of "forward".. They don't go hover mode in a combat area (Where they are being shot at) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Bad pressure switches discovered in Ospreys" | Mike[_1_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 22nd 07 07:14 PM |
"Afghan war has lessons for U.S. pilots in Iraq" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 23rd 07 06:07 PM |
"V-22s May Go To Iraq" | MikeLake | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 18th 07 02:05 PM |
Marine Corps Now Authorized To Use "Involuntary Recall" To Force Thousands Back To Iraq (for Israel, of course!) - see comments on page 1 of following URL: | dontcowerfromthetruth | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 23rd 06 09:23 AM |
OTA -- a new twist to "call me when you land" | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 6 | June 15th 06 06:02 AM |