The fact that I'm a former Lockheed Martin employee could help with my bias as well, though.
Posted on 07/19/2006 11:19:44 AM PDT by 68skylark
The Osprey is a dog that should have been put down a long time ago.
Fine idea, dangerous execution. Friends don't let friends fly in Ospreys.
A few of us were in agreement on that thought but "greater" minds say it will be deployed.
Success or failure will be marked with body bags. Our side or the enemy's.
We shall see.
I read years ago that a major complaint was the hydraulic pressures used. Much much higher that conventional systems.
The fact that I'm a former Lockheed Martin employee could help with my bias as well, though.
They ALL call the Osprey a death trap.
Talking to them, you would think this thing is a flying coffin.
From what I gather, just knowing your going to get into one is demoralizing by itself.
Since it seems so many guys hate and loathe and fear getting into these things, it would be wise to just kill it.
On the minimum it would raise morale.
The Osprey reminds me of the Gamma Goat.
I'm no expert on these things, but just by the photos I've seen, I get a bad feeling about this craft. Of course, I got the same feeling about the space shuttle when I first saw the pics, and it turned out... never mind.
You obviously haven't had any actual experience with the aircraft.
Oh, SNAP!!!
I remember my run-ins with the GG in the mid and late 1980s.
Those were rolling (as in, OVER-rolling) deathtraps that were ultimately consigned to fire duty at installations that had them. Truly a POS.
However, I think the Osprey's record is misleading. The two largest crashes were attributed to pilot error. I think we should give it time, since most of the R&D money is already spent.
Tell us about it.
You're correct. If you have special knowledge or experience about this topic, feel free to share your views.
I was a 63B (Light-Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic) before moving on to Aviation, where I flew both rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Hence, the comparison. I have the same negative bias towards the CH-47. Way too many moving parts.
Lurker here, posting for the first time.
I've been deeply involved with the Osprey for more years than I care to state. The aircraft and thje acquisition program is a modern-day Phoenix if there ever was one. In a tough OPEVAL, eight MV-22 aircraft flew desert, mountain, shipboard and shore-based missions for over 800 hours, day and night. It met almost every single performance threshold set for it all those many years ago. There is no other aircraft that can do what the V-22 does. Can it lift as much as a CH-53E? No, but it can fly twice as fast and three times as far. Can it fly as fast as a Harrier or a Hornet? No, but it can take off and land vertically.
The designers and developers of the V-22, just as with any aircraft, made a lot of tradeoffs. They wound up with a pretty good product, and the first operational Marine squadron (and many of my friends) will deploy to the Sandbox with it next year. Just watch.
... the Marines have been promised 360 of these planes. At a cost of about $70 million each — the total program cost is $49 billion — the Osprey is one of the Marines’ most expensive weapons...
Obviously they are cumulatively adding in all the R&D which is not worth spit...unless something is deployed. Otherwise it was totally wasted. But even at the unit numbers they are asserting...that makes for a total program cost for the 360 some planes...only a $25.2 billion program.
Any V-22 hawks out there who knows the score?
Cool. Thanks.
And welcome to FR -- an excellent first comment!
Every single one of us would love to see this program go well. I admire your "can do" views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.