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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 28, 1:28*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 28, 8:38*am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 28, 3:44*pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. This turkey needs every excuse it can find Vince Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due to retirees up for grabs |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:26:33 -0400, Peter Skelton
wrote: On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:38:06 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004298.html In other words a 1/3 power loss in one engine put this turkey on the ground. Power goes with the square root of torque in most applications. The engine was running at 4/9 power, (which I find pretty impressive given what had happened to it). In this case, the system drgraded gracefully. If the plane was light, it should have been able to continue for some time on one engine, if heavy, not. This is typical of VTOL twin-engines. I'd need to know whether the aircraft was in horizontal or vertical mode and how heavy it was before getting upset. Anyone else notice my senior math moment above? Peter Skelton |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. I think "new" in this case is relatively low operational hours. I was in the first Air Force unit to get UH-60A which type the Army had already been flying for several years. Ours were new from the factory. I no longer recall the specifics, but the entire fleet, Army and Air Force, was grounded due to an Army mishap. The Air Force fleet, small as it was, was grounded for over a year. If memory serves it was over a year and a half. We had the helicopters a relatively short time before the grounding. H-60 is a much simpler system, but these things happen and we did wind up with a good helicopter. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: 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: [ SNIP ] 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 I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that seems to be quite acceptable. AHS If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not. One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple of years. The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor would take at least that long. If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which means,
like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other replacement; being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles. (the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s are going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come off the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never. "Dan" wrote in message ... Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote: Matt Wiser wrote: 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: [ SNIP ] 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 I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that seems to be quite acceptable. AHS If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not. One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple of years. The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor would take at least that long. If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
To Vkince and the rest of the anti-Osprey crowd, that alone justifies
cancellation. "Dan" wrote in message ... Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. I think "new" in this case is relatively low operational hours. I was in the first Air Force unit to get UH-60A which type the Army had already been flying for several years. Ours were new from the factory. I no longer recall the specifics, but the entire fleet, Army and Air Force, was grounded due to an Army mishap. The Air Force fleet, small as it was, was grounded for over a year. If memory serves it was over a year and a half. We had the helicopters a relatively short time before the grounding. H-60 is a much simpler system, but these things happen and we did wind up with a good helicopter. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will Need Fixes
You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to the
core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate, he always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is going to vote for V-22 on that basis. "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. This turkey needs every excuse it can find Vince Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due to retirees up for grabs |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
On Mar 29, 12:42*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to the core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate, he always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is going to vote for V-22 on that basis."Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote: On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan wrote: 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" "New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time in service. Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore. Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but interesting. This turkey needs every excuse it can find Vince Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. *and at least six more due to retirees up for grabs I recommend you to the recent doings in the U.S. Senate. Obama had to promise more than he wished to, because he lacked two Senators. One sits in Minnesota, waiting for the losing candidate to admit defeat. That person admits only that he wants to keep Franken out of the Senate. Add two or more in 2010 and the promises necessary to buy those three Republican votes go out the window and the real DoD budget crunch descends. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes
Matt Wiser wrote:
And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which means, like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other replacement; being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles. (the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s are going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come off the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never. [ SNIP ] That's one thing I haven't suggested - getting rid of the Osprey. As far as I am concerned it works well enough, we're getting it, so live with it. My observation wrt the CH-46 was for the early '90's period. The problem with the helicopters then was substantially that they were getting old, not that they were crappy (*). _At that time_, _if_ a decision had been made to restart production (basic airframe, but avionics improvements), new CH-46s would have been available to replace aged CH-46s now and over the next few years. That decision was not made, so it's the MV-22 or bust. AHS * You can almost always argue that something can be improved, or that there's a more capable replacement. What often doesn't get argued is why do you need something better if the current thing is good enough. |
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 |