Osprey crash at Bellows.

[Runincolorado]

Pens that write in space

Space Ice Cream!

 

[deadstick]

Engine failure or settling with power?

 

[jskibo]

Tang?

Alex I'll take Poon for $200

Sorry SNL Jeopardy Flashback......

 

[USMCmech]

Engine failure or settling with power?

Hard to say from a cell phone video.

But given the nearly vertical descent path, probably settling with power.

 

[Markf64]

Pens that write in space

The Russians just used pencils.

 

[deadstick]

Hard to say from a cell phone video.

But given the nearly vertical descent path, probably settling with power.

That was my thought, but I just didn't know if, with 21 onboard, the 22 could hover on one engine. The scenario is that it got established in the hover then had the failure.

 

[USMCmech]

That was my thought, but I just didn't know if, with 21 onboard, the 22 could hover on one engine. The scenario is that it got established in the hover then had the failure.

I don't know either

However, given the fact that Bellows is at sea level my guess is it should be able to hover in ground effect at almost any weight.

 

[Nark]

I'd argue settling with power as well. Judging by the almost pure vertical decent, plus I would assume with an engine failure at OGE hover the decent wouldn't be nearly as pronounced in the beginning.

 

[Lawman]

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.

Dude read the first post he made. It's the second post of the thread calling the aircraft a piece of crap. Don't act like he didn't invite a pissing contest with those baseless ignorant comments.

 

[ryan1234]

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.

The F-35 is an expensive weapon system and like you point out, we do have a finite amount of money. However, I believe that the vast majority of people who are first to cry out against the "price tag" of the F-35 do not exactly understand the numbers. I always hear phrases like "billions over budget" and "over a trillion dollar acquisition price". Unfortunately, the complete story is usually left out. An interesting note is that the program was said to cost 1.5 trillion dollars and approximately 35% of the total was predicted inflation up to and through 2050. Additionally, the majority of "increases" to the baseline program are a byproduct of changing how costs are calculated. Equally interesting is the cuts to modern aircraft from 2011 onwards in the area of 10 billion/year. Part of the program costs include the sustainment over 50 years as opposed to a typical 30 year timeframe (again, adjusted on predicted inflation). Another factor to consider is the initial low-rate production values versus high-rate values targeted in later years.

Anyhow, it is hard to quantify the technological developments that the F-35 makes for many other airframes. There may not be an overt industrial-enemy that is currently threatening, it isn't to say within the next 30-40 years there won't be. The common arguments against the capabilities of the F-35 are folly and generally come from those who have not been in a tactical fighter vault for the past 10 years.

Although the program, like all government acquisition programs, has its flaws, it is generally taken out of context and misunderstood.

 

[uncreative]

The Russians just used pencils.

And look where that got them.

 

[fholbert]

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.

Velcro?

 

[Lawman]

I don't know either

However, given the fact that Bellows is at sea level my guess is it should be able to hover in ground effect at almost any weight.

Most of our Military Helicopter fleet can't hover single engine at sea level without being near empty and even then it's in ground effect only. E models have demo'd a 5 foot hover and this thing is a monster for power compared to most.

End of the day single engine in a tactically loaded aircraft is gonna be a power on autorotation and not much else. Just try to guide it down with a rate of decent you can withstand/survive

 

[USMCmech]

Most of our Military Helicopter fleet can't hover single engine at sea level without being near empty and even then it's in ground effect only. E models have demo'd a 5 foot hover and this thing is a monster for power compared to most.

End of the day single engine in a tactically loaded aircraft is gonna be a power on autorotation and not much else. Just try to guide it down with a rate of decent you can withstand/survive

It's been a while since I was at HMX-1 so my memory is fuzzy on the exact performance. Phrogs were underpowered dogs empty, much less with pax or cargo. You are right about single engine was effectively a power on auto.

The -53 could loose an engine and barely miss a beat unless you had a monster sling load (which we almost never did).

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

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.

My 10 year old Corolla is due. I know now what do do with my tax return. Thanks. I'll be that guy rattling windows around LAS during the next NetworkJC

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Defeating the limitation of retreating blade stall is the goal while maintaining the vertical capability.

I think it's more accurate to say they avoided the issue than defeated it. Some Mu-1+ helicopter designs were considered early on.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

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.

Most of the TFX problems were related to the attempt to cram it down the Navy's throat.

 

[RDoug]

Most of the TFX problems were related to the attempt to cram it down the Navy's throat.

And the fact that a wing fell off in 1969, resulting in a seven-month grounding.

 

[MikeD]

Most of the TFX problems were related to the attempt to cram it down the Navy's throat.

And the fact that a wing fell off in 1969, resulting in a seven-month grounding.

But it became our best all-weather interdiction platform for quite a while, next to the USN/USMC A-6 Intruder. As well as a good ECM platform. It matured very well after a rough start. Same can be said about the Harrier, and same can likely be said about the V-22

 

[MikeD]

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.

When you come in off the bat with a first post calling the airframe essentially a piece of trash, when it's not even known what the dynamics and/or cause of the accident is, that's just sheer ignorance. I would expect people to present a little more professionalism than that.......if they want to be taken seriously, that is.