Flight crew blamed for CV-22 crash in June

It can certainly fly in formation (I've seen it done and it has been done successfully for years), but apparently not in lead's wake turbulence. I believe that is typical of rotary-wing aircraft, and even in fixed-wing, getting into lead's wake can be, well, interesting, especially in propeller-driven airplanes.
 
steingar said:
Not only can it not land fast, can't fly in formation either. What a turkey.
Click to expand...

Every aircraft has certain operational parameters. If you flew ANY rotorcraft into the rotor wash of another when landing you would have a similar result. As for "can't fly in formation", Joe Walker killed himself and some other guys when he took out the XB-70 with his F-104 because he got out of position and was sucked into the tip vortice. Has anyone said you can't fly a F-104 in formation? The V-22 is a revolutionary aircraft, it can do thing others cannot. But like any other aircraft, if you try to work it outside the envelope you will get bit. Pilot error, pure and simple.
 
OK, fine. But it was supposed to replace Marine helicopters, bringing soldiers quickly into combat zones. It is completely inadequate for that mission. Yes, there are other missions, though many of those might adequately be filled by fixed wing aircraft.
 
steingar said:
OK, fine. But it was supposed to replace Marine helicopters, bringing soldiers quickly into combat zones. It is completely inadequate for that mission. Yes, there are other missions, though many of those might adequately be filled by fixed wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

How is it completely inadequate for that mission?

The Osprey has its faults, but that is not one I have heard from my position in the business (hauling Marines and their gear around in grey hulls). Biggest complaints I have heard from my Marine compadres is maintenance issues.....but then, they are no worse than the Vietnam era frogs they were designed to replace.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I worked on the V-22 program for several years back in the 90's, so I have some familiarity with both its capabilities and its foibles.

As the first operational powered-lift aircraft, there's a lot that will be learned about them the hard way. It is indeed an exceptionally complex machine, more so than either a fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft. However, its capabilities have already been demonstrated in combat as well as in testing and training. It can move nearly twice as many Marines farther and faster than the CH-46 (aka "The Frog") it replaces in that role, provides the Navy with VERTREP over far greater ranges from the supply ship, and vastly extends the range and response time of USAF Combat SAR operations. While the learning curve is still steep (as it was with the AV-8-series Harriers), it provides capabilities that cannot be obtained from any other airframe in existence or on the drawing boards.
 
steingar said:
OK, fine. But it was supposed to replace Marine helicopters, bringing soldiers quickly into combat zones. It is completely inadequate for that mission. Yes, there are other missions, though many of those might adequately be filled by fixed wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

How so? It seems to do it quite well and operationally economically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top