Posted on 02/10/2007 7:48:10 AM PST by brityank
Ping.
Bad chip in the BIT computer (in this case) and the USAF finding lots of BIT failures last summer?
Might (just maybe) be connected. One hot, one cold, but extreme temperatures both ways.
Ya cant blame the manufacturer. The Gov lays out the specs.
We test to -15F
I know the technology involved in this beast is a nightmare of complication, but you would think that an aircraft in development as long as this one has been would have the kinks worked out by now.
And by the way - can anyone share with me the specific roll this aircraft could play that isn't already covered by more "conventional" aircraft? Seems like a rather expensive game if it truly isn't going to be any better than what we already have...
It doesn't look like it wants to fly.
They come pre-painted with a bullseye on them.
Insertion of SOF typs way beyond helicopter range.
Better yet, extraction of them is combat zones.
The old method was "verticle extraction." You float a rope on a balloon, and a C-130 flys by and catches the rope, snatching you out of the jungle.
Watch out for trees.
PING to her husband who works on these birds for DynCorp
"due to a computer chip that couldn’t stand the cold. "
You would think that would be part of testing 101 for a manufacturer.
Watch out for whiplash!
No kidding. LOL.
"Testing 101"
It is and thats how it was found. I think you will see similar problems identified in other types of aircraft including commercial aircraft before this is all over.
Problem is that the aircraft has to be cold soaked. In other words, sitting outside without any systems running in below freezing weather.
I know this bird has had its share of problems, but there is something good to be said about the design, at least of the onboard management systems, that this malfunction was caught before it resulted in a crash. Sure, it should have been caught way earlier, before these chips even left the manufacturer, IMHO.
No machine made by humans is ever going to be perfect, but at least the designed-in redundancy was working and detected a real problem that can be easily fixed.
I have mixed feelings on the Ospry. If they can get it to work reliably, it will be an awesome asset for the Marines, as well as the other services, and plenty of civilian organizations. If not, its going to be a hugely expensive boondoggle. I hope its the former.
I wouldn't want to fly on one.
Maybe Al Gore can heat the chips up with a "global warming" speech.
So, name another aircraft that can carry 20 troops at 300mph, take off and land vertically, and in case of an engine failure while cruising, actually glide instead of falling out of the sky like a Sea Knight/brick.
As "bad" as the Osprey is, it's still far better than the CH-46 Sea Knight, and it's killed less Marines.
No biggie. These kinds of issues happen more than you think with newly fielded equipment.
I'd rather fly on an Osprey than a CH-46, which is the aircraft it's replacing.
I've been on a Sea Knight, and it's *really* frightening - especially when the ONE turbine sputters on landing...
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.