In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Marines and the osprey aircraft?

scott5792scott5792 Member Posts: 300 ✭✭✭
edited April 2002 in General Discussion
I hear they are going to try and get the osprey aircraft back up and flying for you guys.

Have any faith in the plane at all?

Seems it's a poorly designed plane.
rush job, and you guys get to be the test dummies.(sorry, couldn't think of a better way to describe what I'm seeing with this plane)

Did any of you ride on one when they were in service?
and do you think it's a good idea to bring this plane back?
Scott
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I haven't, but hanging on two small props that have to be perfectly synchronized scares the sxxt out of me. I doubt that an autorotation landing with these monstrosities can be made. And then there's the transition phase. No thank you
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • scott5792scott5792 Member Posts: 300 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just seems to . a helo is faster and more stable.
    Why bother with that thing.
    Scott
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • badboybobbadboybob Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Osprey is a new generation of aircraft. Designers have much experience in the design of fixed wind and rotary wing aircraft. Experience in the design of a hybrid such as the Osprey is in its infancy.
    Tragic accidents have happened in new designs of all combat aircraft. Many aircraft modifications and safety regulations are written in blood. They are all the result of human error, some pilot error, some design error. Pilot error can be partly alleviated through education; design error is only corrected after the tragic fact.
    In my Marine Corps career I had many friends die from both causes. That's why they paid us extra to fly.
    Oh, and the Osprey is much faster than any helo is or ever can be.


    Edited by - badboybob on 04/26/2002 12:42:40
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bushy ARBushy AR Member Posts: 564 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just another "load of poles" that will cost the taxpayer too much for too little.When will our government stop the practice of "pork-barrel politics"? I agree that our aging helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft need to be replaced,but this combination of the two is a dangerous beast that has already killed too many good people.Maybe one day it will be safely flown when technology catches up with theory,but for now I think that money could be better spent.

    Only in America a homeless war veteran slept in a cardboard box while a draft dodger slept in the white house...NEVER AGAIN!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SixStringerSixStringer Member Posts: 131 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The osprey is really important technology. Accidents happen in the service, people have died in the development of every aircraft. The ammount of lives saved by a fast moving aircraft that will quickly get troops in and out of a combat situation (faster than physics will ever allow a helicopter to go) is very signifigant. Im tired of people making unfounded accusation like "pork barreling." If their wasnt a need for this aircraft, the Marines wouldn't be wasting their time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    That there is a need for the Osprey should be obvious. Far greater range and twice the speed of any helicopter flying. As others have mentioned, all new aircraft have initial operational problems.

    One thing to remember about the Osprey (and it should give you a feeling for how much the Corps needs this plane) is that this is the 1st totally new aircraft for the USMC - ever!!! Always before, the Corps has had to accept what the Navy and/or Air Farce were building and try to make it fit the Corps' needs (except the Harrier where the Corps had to adopt a Brittish A/C).

    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bushy ARBushy AR Member Posts: 564 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Six-Stringer...yes,the need to do those things is paramount.However,I think it is being rushed into use.And I don't think the Marines deserve to have a faulty product.And if you are wondering,I have been turning wrenches on numerous military aircraft for 27 years and have been watching the development and deployment of the Osprey with much interest since it's inception. An aircraft of it's type is needed,but please don't rush the process.That results in an inferior product which costs more in the long run to fix it's shortcomings.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    The Osprey is faster than any helicopter and that is why we are still working on it. The CH-46 guys are saying "Bring it on." This thing will do nearly 300 miles per hour and put plenty of troops on target. I can't wait till this thing is fixed because I've been in two incedents with aging 46's, one in Oki and one mainside. It will work as soon as officers quit kissing each others rear ends and fix what ails it. If the CH-46 and CH-47 flew, and they do still, the Osprey will also.

    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sig-mansig-man Member Posts: 591 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I used to work for the company that builds the Osprey,Textron, and what I can tell you is that the thing is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to be continued, I can also tell you that someone is lining somebody's pockets to keep this program alive...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    Someone said the same thing about the CH-53.

    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 5db5db Member Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Those that know, please give me a snapshot of the accidents associated with the Osprey. I know of the hybrid, and the crashes but not what was being attempted when the problem (s) occured.

    If you have one shot...Accu-Shot Website
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BoyWonderBoyWonder Member Posts: 63 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The biggest crash occurred while the aircraft was making the final stages of transition to land. The pilot was said to be slightly outside the approved flight parameters, and a condition called "vortex ring state" occured.
    As for the Osprey being rushed, the program has been around since the '70s. The problem may be trying to improve '70s technology rather than designing the entire aircraft with current technology.
    However we get them, the Marine Corps needs the capabilities...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyesDadBullzeyesDad Member Posts: 64 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Scot. have u seen or son, Booger wont eat n we r gettn wuried.
    That wizard said silk n him was at ur tralr.Is it tru?
    Bulldaddy
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • buddybbuddyb Member Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Osprey looks like a good idea,but I think it would be a bear to fly.There has to be a time during flight that it is neither helocopter or plane which causes serious pucker-factor just to think about.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Free N TXFree N TX Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have a brother-in-law that is one of the many engineers that designed the Osprey. He designed one of the gearbox's in the wing section. We have talked about the craft every since he got started on it, it is amazing what he has told me it is capable of. The "accidents" that have happened have been not because of unsafe design, more because of being operated outside of its capabilities (as mentioned in a previous post). On one instance the pilot came in too fast and tried to transfer from fixed wing to helo, which caused the blades to over stress the wings, and sheared the supports and caused the wing to buckle back into the main section of the craft. On the other accident the switching from fixed wing to helo, the gears of a gearbox were over stressed and stripped the gears and consiquencially(sp?) twisted and broke the main shaft of that gearbox. (One thing you should know is that in the wing section there is a row of about 15 gearboxes and all of them are inter-connected in some way.)In both instances it was determined that the craft was operated outside of the safe operating zones outlined in the flight training the pilots had recieved.Further more, both areas have been redesigned to help prevent the same traggedy from happening again. Included in the redesign are warning devices to alert the pilot if he is outside the safe zone to transfer from one mode to the other. There were warning devices before, the new ones are suppose to make it to where the craft can't/won't change the mode of flight until it is inside the safe zone. The pilot won't be able to change modes even if he wants to, unless the aircraft is within the proper parameters for the transfer. One final note, in the last accident it was found that the military had gone way past the recommended hours for the gearbox to be rebuilt. That particular gearbox is suppose to be rebuilt every 100 hours, they found out that it had been nearly 200 hours since the last rebuild. The reason given for not rebuilding the gearbox, because of budget cuts they did not have the spare parts. (Another fine thing the Clinton administration did for our military). The mechanics were also ordered not to ground the aircraft and to "sign off" on the maintenance checklist as "OK".
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A 100-200 hour service life on critical aircraft components sounds like lousy engineering to me. The impractability of it was borne out by the failure to replace the failed trans at the required 100 hours interval. I'm reluctant to buy the stories before reading the accident reports and failure reports. This isn't WW1 aviation technology.
    With all that critical hardware in the wings, how vulnerable is the machine to ground fire?
    This airplane sounds like that disaster named the Pogo.
    The flying carpet idea is a nice dream but this contraption appears to need a wider operating envelope to enable it to operate with a margin of safety in a combat environment where conditions aren't ideal.
    Until such a machine has been tested and proven within the limits of it's envelope it should not risk lives. We certainly have the technology to remotely control aircraft and and obtain flight data.
    I smell attempted coverups for inept engineering design.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.