If you read Time magazine, then you know that they are less than thrilled that the V-22 Osprey aircraft has deployed to Iraq. The Osprey is a hybrid aircraft that can take of vertically like a helicopter and then rotate it's engines forward to fly like an airplane, theoretically.

In reality it is a very tricky design that has killed thirty people and cost more than five Mechanized Divisions to develop. Instead of being able to carry Marines into a hot LZ while employing it's own gun fire; it is more suited to moving troops from one safe area to another. (Time, September 07)

Without re-stating all of the previously documented shortcomings of the Osprey; I am going to make a prediction. Within thirty days of actual use in combat, the Marines will have suffered at least six or more deaths attributed directly to the V-22's deficiencies. The Marine Generals who wanted the Osprey so badly, and the Congressmen whose Districts the Osprey is being built in should start setting their watches for when the first Congressional hearings are going to start as to what caused the high number of casualties associated with a poor design and planning.

The real irony here is that of all the people who were opposed to the Osprey being built, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheny led the charge on at least six occasions. Each time he tried to get the project killed he was over turned by Congress or the Marine Corp's allies. (Time, September 07)

Stay tuned, film will be available over the next ninety days.

Probably.

Just like the orginal flying wing, the XB-70, A-12, a dozen other air craft. To some extent the AV-8 which is more of a novelty than a primary air asset we keep around for decorative and aesthetic purposes.

155 is right, the Osprey is an unorthodox concept, which in the first generation or second generation depending on how you look at it can be troublesome for actual deployment.

And yeh if the thing isn't even fit for combat, boy they screwed the pooch on this one.

To say nothing about how the sands of Iraq will affect the upstart Osprey.

I heard about it on NPR. It can not crash land like helicopters can; too heavy for the blades to just go round??? also something about guns to protect it.

Well it was bad for the National debt but it has been good for the economy. Keep America "green".

A155MM, Roger, "Texas'Deadly $16 Billion Boondoggle" <link> promoted by Boeing Heliocopter/Bell Heliocopter Textron lobbists supported by powerful Texans in Congress and present/past governors; Presidents:Reagan, Bush'41, Clinton and Bush'43. It's true Cheney has begin against it for safety and high costs reasons--each unit costs $100 million dollars. The military could purchase 5 Sikorsky S-92's or 4 us101's for the same money and they are safer. V-22 Osprey was introduced in 2005 <link> other interesting articles by military are: "V-22 Costs Soar" <link> and "Why the V-22 Ospray is Unsafe" <link> the latter articles are written by military experts who are against the program They explain the crashes of many V-22's shipped to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Okay Dr Bill I'll concede perhaps the Osprey is one big pork barrell project.

One that occasionally kills test pilots more than is normal with experimental aircraft where pilots get killed.

We should consult with 155 a former officer of what is ball park acceptable attrition.

For example the F-14 right off the top of my head got several people taken out in testing, and lost 70 to 80 airmen mortally in aviation accidents over it's lifespan. That isn't counting all the planes that went to the bottom of the ocean and the guys safely ejected.

Your links are first rate no doubt, but I lived fairly close to one of Bell's facilities for close to 15 years.

We have been seeing pictures of the Osprey on Billboards(flying no less) for years around the joint. I always wondered was this thing actually flying or is that just a blue screen or something?

I'm not sure if this plant has anything to do with the Osprey itself, but I always figured if this thing actually flew we would have seen one there at some point.

I don't think I've ever seen one period. I've been seeing those silly Osprey billboards since well before 9/11.

Let me say this. Helicopters(fully loaded or armed) had problems in Bosnia.

They have even more issues in the altitudes of Afghanistan.

However if they can make it in Afghanistan and not get a bunch of guys killed on routine hard landings

then maybe this thing will work.

But boy it sure looks like total FUBAR if you believe the talk.

New designs always have bugs to be worked out. I don't know if the Osprey could actually qualify as a new design though. If memory serves, many of the old gyro-copters had a rotor blade for lift, and a propeller for forward flight.

The design would seem to be a redundant function though, as the conventional helicopter already has the capability of forward flight. And of maneuverability that the Osprey might not even be able to match. To say nothing of the helicopter being an excellent troop transport, supply vehicle, and weapons platform.

I have to admit that I haven't read much on this particular craft. What useful purpose could be realized by such a craft when a conventional helicopter already has such exceptional versatility on the battlefield?

Well your right Rob this thing is redundant if all it does it gets people killed.

It would be worse than redundant.

Anyhow the advantage of this is obviously it will fly and have speeds more like a plane than slower choppers, but have the landing ability of a chopper.

Ferrying troops and dropping them off much faster, but doesn't need a runway like a C-130 and can fly faster than a Blackhawk easily.

I think it can carry a couple dozen Marines.

However one ex-sailor told me unlike conventional choppers the Osprey cannot "auto glide" I think that was the term she used. This woman a P-3 crew member.

Where in a oh shit situation in a chopper they can release the transmission and a chopper can get a little flying out of the inertia left in the blades and have a survivable hard landing.

The Osprey will not have that luxury I hear and will simply fall out of the sky with engine failures.

Also the Navy source says the realestate around the actual Osprey's homebase have plummeted due to the high likelihood of such aircraft falling out of the sky.

Don't know if that is true or not.

Real estate plummeted here around Midwest City ( an OKC suburb near Tinker AFB) after a plane crash took out a residential neighborhood many years ago. The alleged decline in real estate could easily come to pass.

I assumed that speed was the primary motivation behind the Osprey, but propeller driven, piston driven aircraft were obsolete by the end of the Korean War. For the most part, once a helicopter has gained some altitude, the risk from any kind of ground fire is substantially diminishes. Assuming one has air superiority, the risk from other aircraft is virtually non-existent. If one did not have air superiority, the both the Osprey and conventional helicopters are little more that sitting ducks.

Perhaps a more sensible idea would be to develop a larger transport version of the Harrier, which is a proven design, and has the advantage of jet engines. Of course the Harrier in a hover mode is also a sitting duck. As are helicopters, but one needs less time, and has far more range of motion then either a Harrier or Osprey would have.

The Osprey would seem to be a project that serves no useful function.

Well I think there is still a role for some propeller driven aircraft.

I think props are appropriate for planes like the E-2.

Osprey would seem is destined to be total fubar.