"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.

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)

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

In article ,
NVALID (Steve Hix) wrote:

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.

Never been very practical. There's never been a Harrier or AV-8 with
enough thrust to lift a worthwhile combination of fuel and bombs in a
vertical takeoff. And a ski-jump takeoff involves plenty of forward
speed.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

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)