I love the shit hook!
Anyone know the figures on operating cost/payload carried/distance.
Can it glide/autorotate and make a clean landing in the event of engine failure?
From an engineering standpoint it looks an inherently complex and risky system.
Can it glide/autorotate and make a clean landing in the event of engine failure?
From an engineering standpoint it looks an inherently complex and risky system.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I have a friend in Iraq who is an Osprey mechanic and he says they are very reliable now...
Love is the answer
video game forum...Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyone know the figures on operating cost/payload carried/distance.
Can it glide/autorotate and make a clean landing in the event of engine failure?
From an engineering standpoint it looks an inherently complex and risky system.
I could ask my friend in Iraq but i wouldn't post any info about it...
Love is the answer
If it's in chopper mode and hovering, it can autorotate. If it's flying, it can glide. If it's in chopper mode and moving forwards at a decent speed, it does both.Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyone know the figures on operating cost/payload carried/distance.
Can it glide/autorotate and make a clean landing in the event of engine failure?
From an engineering standpoint it looks an inherently complex and risky system.
It IS inherently complex and risky, but it's got longer range than an equivalent helicopter, carries more, and takes off and lands vertically, unlike the nearest model of plane. You can insert a special forces team from a ship over the horizon, without risking attack or political fallout from the ship being in territorial waters.
You can also lug supplies across a country without a runway at either end.
But if its flying and gliding it can't land because the props are too big - can it change mode with its engines out?If it's in chopper mode and hovering, it can autorotate. If it's flying, it can glide. If it's in chopper mode and moving forwards at a decent speed, it does both.
What happens if one of the two engines fail - is the only option to kill the live engine and land? As I understand it there is no connecting driveshaft.
It looks like a complex solution to a simple problem TBH, apart from the additional range.
Lets just discuss video games then.usmarine wrote:
video game forum...
Chuy - please close down D&ST
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It does have a connecting shaft that allows a single engine to drive both propellers.Dilbert_X wrote:
But if its flying and gliding it can't land because the props are too big - can it change mode with its engines out?If it's in chopper mode and hovering, it can autorotate. If it's flying, it can glide. If it's in chopper mode and moving forwards at a decent speed, it does both.
What happens if one of the two engines fail - is the only option to kill the live engine and land? As I understand it there is no connecting driveshaft.
It looks like a complex solution to a simple problem TBH, apart from the additional range.
As for gliding, you only have to worry about the props if you're going to land it...no different than a typical prop-driven plane whose landing gear won't come down.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I acutally agree with you for once. +1Dilbert_X wrote:
Lets just discuss video games then.
Chuy - please close down D&ST
I'll fight you for the organs!!!David.P wrote:
How many insurgents did it kill? And can i have their organs?
Never! I'll rip your testicles off with a 3inch switch blade in my shoe.smartdude992 wrote:
I'll fight you for the organs!!!David.P wrote:
How many insurgents did it kill? And can i have their organs?
The Osprey is intended to replace the Marine Corps fleet of aging CH-46 Helicopters. Most of the CH-46's that we have in the Marines are older than the pilots that fly them. We had one supporting us in 1999 that was from Vietnam.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … -specs.htmDilbert_X wrote:
Anyone know the figures on operating cost/payload carried/distance.
Can it glide/autorotate and make a clean landing in the event of engine failure?
From an engineering standpoint it looks an inherently complex and risky system.
More detailed info on the right.
that thing would had lasted 30 seconds in VIETNAM.
the concept is awesome but what looks good on computer is not the best tool for out soldiers.
the concept is awesome but what looks good on computer is not the best tool for out soldiers.
Did anybody else have thoughts of the game Splinter Cell when hearing the words Osprey? Man I loved that series, and I think the osprey is pretty damn cool. I think they should paint em all black and make em stealthed (Ya, try making a tilt-rotor prop plane stealthed...)
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Vietnam was littered with the latest in soviet SAMs, fighter jets, and AA guns. Afghanistan is just scattered liberally with MANPADS.RECONDO67 wrote:
that thing would had lasted 30 seconds in VIETNAM.
the concept is awesome but what looks good on computer is not the best tool for out soldiers.
Also, the machines being older than the pilots is the way US support aircraft seem to be going. The B-52 is scheduled for another few decades, the other strategic bombers aren't facing replacements, and with no cold war, funding is slim.
I guess I just hate too retire a good horse thats has been the bone of the corps for over 40 years
"Its great...
...Except for that whole crashing thing..."
I personally love the bird
...Except for that whole crashing thing..."
I personally love the bird
P-47 should probably be added to that list, no?rdx-fx wrote:
Hallmark of a good System is it exceeds it's design requirements. If a system works to specification.. good. If that same system works "in the dirt and mud", after being in the hands of a pissed off Private for a year.. great.
Look at the B-52, the C-130, the AH-1, the UH-1, the H-6 'Littlebird'.
All systems that did their jobs, were more reliable than expected, and were adaptable to missions outside their spec sheet.
As a contrast, the Harrier is a cool plane. Was supposed to be a good fighter and have VTOL capabilities enabling it to operate from forward bases (like an AH-1). Instead, it was as delicate as a conventional fighter - and as vulnerable as a helicopter. Got it's ass handed to it during the 1st gulf war.
Short version: If it's reliable in combat environments, cool, use it. If it's an unreliable piece of "ooh shiny" that's going to get troops killed - send it back to the proving grounds until it works. Do NOT pull a McNamara and use combat troops as guinea pigs (M-16/Viet Nam)
World War II fighter, which was used just as (or more) effectively as a ground attack aircraft, was still useful in Korea and could have been in the early stages of Vietnam.
Hello 2142 GunShips
Thanks for the info. I claim no in depth knowledge on thisIt does have a connecting shaft that allows a single engine to drive both propellers.
As for gliding, you only have to worry about the props if you're going to land it...no different than a typical prop-driven plane whose landing gear won't come down.
If you're gliding you need to land pretty smartly, I guess that thing would glide like a brick?
In the flight position those massive rotors could cause some significant collateral damage when they hit the ground.
As far as inherent safety goes, does it have more or less moving parts than a conventional heli?
Many mechanical failures are survivable in a typical main/tail rotor machine.
It does seem to me any failure on either side and it slams sideways or upside down into the dirt.
Lack of side-guns looks significant also.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I suppose I'd rather sit on that thing than circle around town in a Humvee looking for bombs to blow up in my face.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-11 01:00:37)
I think the idea is you'd be dropped off to circle around town on foot.I suppose I'd rather sit on that thing than circle around town in a Humvee looking for bombs to blow up in my face.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
A-10. To think we were actually going to retire that thing prior to Desert Storm...rdx-fx wrote:
Hallmark of a good System is it exceeds it's design requirements. If a system works to specification.. good. If that same system works "in the dirt and mud", after being in the hands of a pissed off Private for a year.. great.
Look at the B-52, the C-130, the AH-1, the UH-1, the H-6 'Littlebird'.
All systems that did their jobs, were more reliable than expected, and were adaptable to missions outside their spec sheet.
As a contrast, the Harrier is a cool plane. Was supposed to be a good fighter and have VTOL capabilities enabling it to operate from forward bases (like an AH-1). Instead, it was as delicate as a conventional fighter - and as vulnerable as a helicopter. Got it's ass handed to it during the 1st gulf war.
Short version: If it's reliable in combat environments, cool, use it. If it's an unreliable piece of "ooh shiny" that's going to get troops killed - send it back to the proving grounds until it works. Do NOT pull a McNamara and use combat troops as guinea pigs (M-16/Viet Nam)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular