Osprey crash at Bellows.

It reminds me of a few other things. Like a dual sport motorcycle, it sucks on pavement and on dirt. Or a gyro copter, it takes the horrible characteristics of both airplanes and helicopters and combines them. I keed, I keed. :)

RIP to those who didn't make it and get well soon to those injured.
 
jynxyjoe said:
My perspective is that we could have filled a ton of other wish list items for guys using that money and had a larger net life savings than anything the Osprey represents.

In other words, the amount we had to spend to get that thing far exceeds any benefit when compared to a host of other projects that must have been out there that didn't get funding. I can't look at the project cost and rationalize it, I don't care how nice it flies. We couldn't quit early on and spend money on something with more net gains?
Click to expand...

And your prospective is Stone Age. It's akin to a guy saying "why put a turbo jet engine when pistons are proven.

The R&D money you lament spending put us 2 decades closer in the FVL program. Your comments are no different to the people screaming, "why do we need the F-35, lets just fly 40 year old Eagles until the wings fall off they've been fine so far." It's wrong, it's ignorant, but thanks to the magic of social media your in the argument despite those reasons.

Your dangerously uninformed and repeating uninformed bias but going on the idea if you do it loud enough it'll become facts for others to carry forward.
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
And your prospective is Stone Age. It's akin to a guy saying "why put a turbo jet engine when pistons are proven.

The R&D money you lament spending put us 2 decades closer in the FVL program. Your comments are no different to the people screaming, "why do we need the F-35, lets just fly 40 year old Eagles until the wings fall off they've been fine so far." It's wrong, it's ignorant, but thanks to the magic of social media your in the argument despite those reasons.

Your dangerously uninformed and repeating uninformed bias but going on the idea if you do it loud enough it'll become facts for others to carry forward.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

At the end of the day, money is finite and if we're rolling out billion-dollar bombers to fight a enemy that doesn't exist becomes akin to everyone's cousin with a $3,000 Hyundai with a $15,000 Alpine car stereo setup.
 
Normally I'd jump in here.....

But since moving from the OEM Airframer side of the house to "Other roles", I'll just sit and watch :)
 
Derg said:
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

At the end of the day, money is finite and if we're rolling out billion-dollar bombers to fight a enemy that doesn't exist becomes akin to everyone's cousin with a $3,000 Hyundai with a $15,000 Alpine car stereo setup.
Click to expand...

Why don't we all agree to hate the acquisitions process, and not the product it provides? The F-35 isn't a bad airplane either, it's just ridiculously expensive.

And we're not buying airframes to fight the current war. There is a paradigm that we'll always be fighting a war with near-instant air superiority, negligible surface to air threat, and nearby tanker access. If that no longer holds true, we'll all be happier with more F-35/F-22/CV-22/KC-X, etc. Acquisitions is a strategic gamble for the lives of your children.
 
Problem with the V-22 is that we allready had an aircraft that could do what the V-22 did and more, but cant make money on the Gov contract thats why so lets invent the wheel again with a worst design .iam talking about the XC-142 being the better aircraft.

 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
Your dangerously uninformed and repeating uninformed bias but going on the idea if you do it loud enough it'll become facts for others to carry forward.
Click to expand...

Or I could let the 2009 GAO study, the Pentagon's internal watchdog group, and Congress do it for me. (To my disbelief, the GAO does have a twitter account, so you're right, I'm relying on social media)

All available online, your tax dollars already paid for it. Whoever cares about the facts can look it up and stop listening to us duke it out.
 
Derg said:
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

At the end of the day, money is finite and if we're rolling out billion-dollar bombers to fight a enemy that doesn't exist becomes akin to everyone's cousin with a $3,000 Hyundai with a $15,000 Alpine car stereo setup.
Click to expand...


What's your point? The tunes rock, and the bass can double as a defibulator.


As for the price, has anybody looked at the price of a 172?
 
We wouldn't be here without the V-22. Defeating the limitation of retreating blade stall is the goal while maintaining the vertical capability. There are risks with single point failures. They're always there whether your discussing a single engine fighter, a single rotor blade, a gearbox in a tandem rotor aircraft. The 22 was a concept that was ahead of its time. It just took 20 years for the technology to catch up.

Personally, I look forward to PL in the civilian market.
 
Lawman said:
And your prospective is Stone Age. It's akin to a guy saying "why put a turbo jet engine when pistons are proven.

The R&D money you lament spending put us 2 decades closer in the FVL program. Your comments are no different to the people screaming, "why do we need the F-35, lets just fly 40 year old Eagles until the wings fall off they've been fine so far." It's wrong, it's ignorant, but thanks to the magic of social media your in the argument despite those reasons.

Your dangerously uninformed and repeating uninformed bias but going on the idea if you do it loud enough it'll become facts for others to carry forward.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the other side of the pissing contest you've gotten yourself into used to be involved in the aircraft certification process, and it's likely that he can find his ass with both hands on this issue.
 
jtrain609 said:
I'm pretty sure that the other side of the pissing contest you've gotten yourself into used to be involved in the aircraft certification process, and it's likely that he can find his ass with both hands on this issue.
Click to expand...

The crews like their bird. Haven't seen one yet who doesn't. Who are we to argue with that....the operators? Sure, it's had some bugs, a long and costly acquisition process, and its share of accidents with regards to everything from new technology to pilot error; but it's doing good work now it seems for where/how its being used, and improving in that way too.

We don't even know the cause of the accident yet, yet are arguing in this thread the merits of the airframe itself and what kind of junk it is. Funny that.
 
Boeing almost went BK with the 747, but it pushed it RD 30 years forward. The space program cost billions, but what the RD got us I believe was like 7 fold.
 
MikeD said:
Sure, it's had some bugs, a long and costly acquisition process, and its share of accidents with regards to everything from new technology to pilot error; but it's doing good work now it seems for where/how its being used, and improving in that way too.
Click to expand...

You mean [GASP] just like the TFX/F-111? Very shaky beginning, later to become one of the best acquisitions the Air Force ever made. Originally derided as, "McNamara's second Edsel."

And let us not forget that even the venerable B-17 wasn't exactly accident-free in the development and initial deployment stages. I don't think anyone here is going to deny it became a truly important part of our WWII effort.
 
jtrain609 said:
I'm pretty sure that the other side of the pissing contest you've gotten yourself into used to be involved in the aircraft certification process, and it's likely that he can find his ass with both hands on this issue.
Click to expand...

He starts of saying "I'd have designed a helicopter...."

That's the point. We don't need another Helicopter. The Osprey is not a Helicopter. Anybody currently in Helicopters (myself included) knows we are reaching the limit of the technology and programs like Osprey have led directly to the new Valor concept for Future Vertical Lift, which is where we should be moving. Not taking the money to design a Z model Black Hawk into 2050.

There are people comfortable with what we know because we can design the crap out of a turbine powered helicopter. But that will leave us at Parity militarily with what we have been doing for 50+ years in air assault mobility. Osprey changed how he Marines can fight for the better (despite the scathing GAO report that wasn't all that scathing for people involved in the program that know better). Like it or not we are already moving to have something beyond our current rotary fleet starting in the mid 2020s. Yes it will be more expensive than say a 8 million dollar black hawk from the 90s but it will do so much more.
 
Lawman said:
He starts of saying "I'd have designed a helicopter...."

That's the point. We don't need another Helicopter. The Osprey is not a Helicopter. Anybody currently in Helicopters (myself included) knows we are reaching the limit of the technology and programs like Osprey have led directly to the new Valor concept for Future Vertical Lift, which is where we should be moving. Not taking the money to design a Z model Black Hawk into 2050.

There are people comfortable with what we know because we can design the crap out of a turbine powered helicopter. But that will leave us at Parity militarily with what we have been doing for 50+ years in air assault mobility. Osprey changed how he Marines can fight for the better (despite the scathing GAO report that wasn't all that scathing for people involved in the program that know better). Like it or not we are already moving to have something beyond our current rotary fleet starting in the mid 2020s. Yes it will be more expensive than say a 8 million dollar black hawk from the 90s but it will do so much more.
Click to expand...

You can keep at it all you'd like, I don't really care. I'm just pointing out that The Monkey isn't stuck in "the stone age," as you point out. And just because he isn't "Special Ops," as you so eloquently point out, doesn't mean he hasn't spent time in a former life as a stakeholder in the design and certification of new aircraft. Was he directly involved in this one? I have no idea, maybe you could ask him and have a conversation instead of having an internet pissing contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top