stuckincincy Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I thought I heard somewhere that it's been cleared for production. No?
Ghost of BiB Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I thought I heard somewhere that it's been cleared for production. No? 497793[/snapback] Marine pilots are fastening headbands and sealing locks of hair in envelopes as we speak.
KRC Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I thought I heard somewhere that it's been cleared for production. No? 497793[/snapback] Yup. It has been cleared.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Marine pilots are fastening headbands and sealing locks of hair in envelopes as we speak. 497824[/snapback] And Defense News yesterday had an article on the Army's plans to acquire a four-rotor design to carry the FCS...to replace the C-130, even though the FCS spec no longer requires that air transportability. Yeah, that's going to work well. No asymmetrical thrust problems there, I'll bet. FCS is a program badly in need of cancellation.
VABills Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Marine pilots are fastening headbands and sealing locks of hair in envelopes as we speak. 497824[/snapback] And why don't you talk to some of the rotor head pilot in the Corps as well as some of the senior boots on the ground before you make that statement. This has been a needed piece of equipment in the field for years. Yes it has had problems, a lot of it political, but if they spent as much money fixing the damn thing as they have justifying this thing would have been supporting the MEUs long ago.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 And why don't you talk to some of the rotor head pilot in the Corps as well as some of the senior boots on the ground before you make that statement. This has been a needed piece of equipment in the field for years. Yes it has had problems, a lot of it political, but if they spent as much money fixing the damn thing as they have justifying this thing would have been supporting the MEUs long ago. 497913[/snapback] I work in an office with a couple marine corps pilots. One of them sits just across from me.
VABills Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I work in an office with a couple marine corps pilots. One of them sits just across from me. 497961[/snapback] F18 jockey or rotor head? If rotor head, what does he think? I know guys on the ground who will have to be chauffered around who want these yesterday.
stuckincincy Posted November 8, 2005 Author Posted November 8, 2005 Linky Thingy 497847[/snapback] Thanks.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 F18 jockey or rotor head? If rotor head, what does he think? I know guys on the ground who will have to be chauffered around who want these yesterday. 497968[/snapback] F-18. What rotor folks here we have are Navy. Only AF pilot type we have is a former F-15 engineering test pilot. Most everyone else comes from a missile or artillery backfround, or SF.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 And why don't you talk to some of the rotor head pilot in the Corps as well as some of the senior boots on the ground before you make that statement. This has been a needed piece of equipment in the field for years. Yes it has had problems, a lot of it political, but if they spent as much money fixing the damn thing as they have justifying this thing would have been supporting the MEUs long ago. 497913[/snapback] The capability of the V-22 has been needed by the Corps for a while (as evidenced by the copious number of CH-46s they're using in Iraq right now). The actual piece of equipment that is the V-22...well, that's still open to debate. The Osprey still has, and will continue to have unavoidably, technical issues that may make it ultimately unsuitable as a transport system. At least, that's according to the rotor-heads I've talked to...
stuckincincy Posted November 8, 2005 Author Posted November 8, 2005 The capability of the V-22 has been needed by the Corps for a while (as evidenced by the copious number of CH-46s they're using in Iraq right now). The actual piece of equipment that is the V-22...well, that's still open to debate. The Osprey still has, and will continue to have unavoidably, technical issues that may make it ultimately unsuitable as a transport system. At least, that's according to the rotor-heads I've talked to... 498083[/snapback] It kicks up a lot of dust upon landing. To mechanical detriment.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 It kicks up a lot of dust upon landing. To mechanical detriment. 498131[/snapback] I've flown in a lot of stuff. That thing has pucker factor written all over it.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Posted November 9, 2005 It kicks up a lot of dust upon landing. To mechanical detriment. 498131[/snapback] Worse...powerful engines with very large props/rotors set widely apart. In case of engine failure, even a partial one, you've got bad asymmetric thrust problems and a very large torque issue that the flight controls can't overcome. Basically, resulting in some very fancy gyrations leading to an inadvertent intersection of flight path and terrain. I wonder how the beast is in unpowered flight. Probably glides like a brick.
stuckincincy Posted November 9, 2005 Author Posted November 9, 2005 Worse...powerful engines with very large props/rotors set widely apart. In case of engine failure, even a partial one, you've got bad asymmetric thrust problems and a very large torque issue that the flight controls can't overcome. Basically, resulting in some very fancy gyrations leading to an inadvertent intersection of flight path and terrain. I wonder how the beast is in unpowered flight. Probably glides like a brick. 498327[/snapback] You paint a vivid picture...
Recommended Posts