....and how many Sailors and Marines have been killed in HU-1 Huey’s????
Very simplistic and opportunist to use this tragic incident to grind your axe over the V-22.. Shame
The military says the Osprey has an accident rate similar to other aircraft:
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161215/p2a/00m/0na/006000c
Popular Mechanics, in its independent analysis, concurs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7663/how-safe-is-the-mv-22-osprey-8036684/
People are “over-remembering” the accidents (and deaths) suffered during the shake-down period of the Osprey.
The problem with the Osprey, as developed in the Popular Mechanics article, is its enormous cost of acquisition and cost of maintenance. A contemporary acquisition figure is $72 million. For one-third of that price, the Marines can be outfitted with V-280, which features a simpler mechanism.
Plus, the Osprey should not be pressed into served as a general utility aircraft simply to justify its enormous cost. It is more of a boutique aircraft, with unique capabilities, than a general utility aircraft.
UH-1s. They haven’t been called HU-1s since right after they were first put into service.
No shame at all, proportionally, far fewer have died in the UH 1 than in the Osprey. The UH1 has been in service for 60 years, the V22 far fewer. I’m not a Marine and I didnt coin the phrase, Flying Coffin. Talk to the grunts who have to fly in it. Or the crews. And facing the facts causes no shame whatsoever. The shame comes from those who want to keep it going knowing full well it is a death trap.