| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Rebuttal: Actually, the V-22 Ain't Half Bad |
| 2014-07-26 |
| Posted by:Uncle Phester |
| #12 By the way, you can order a brand new CH47 from Boeing. Trump's got one set up luxo. They don't run the line all the time, but they still have the fixtures and maintain them. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-07-26 18:50 |
| #11 Terrafugia's next flying car envisioned as tilt-rotor. |
| Posted by: Dino Bourbon4967 2014-07-26 16:06 |
| #10 Perhaps they can start with the Army CH47 and navalize that. Proven design, better lift than the old 46, and a workhorse in the field. Decent range, good durability, lots of lift capacity including sling loads. And it can hover quite a while, with the bonus of not melting the deck. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-07-26 11:53 |
| #9 So from the article, the pilots cannot loiter, or hover (overheat) and have to protect 'the delicate prop box,' With known vulnerabilities and limitations that certainly restricts the missions. so if it is a fast insertion and extraction vehicle where there is no hostile fire, it is a good thing. but the 46 is still a better platform for the hot work. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2014-07-26 10:49 |
| #8 I always thought the V-22 concept was the ultimate urban commuter aircraft solution better than a helicopter. I've autorotated a Huey and had to clean out my pants. I crashed a Huey at Grafenwoehr and spent eight weeks in the hospital getting my nose and cheeks put back together SO there is no love lost between me and helicopters. Also flying in one of those things on a moon less night and listening to that damned transmission whine in the C-46...you can have those things. The only problem I see with the V-22 is they need to figure out how to autorotate one of those buggers when they have an engine problem OR they need to figure out how to give the thing a glide angle more shallow than a brick. I remember how everyone was peeing all over the F-111 for years but it turned out to be a pretty good bomber...of course the new sawing is what do you call a fighter build by a committee? A bomber. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-07-26 10:20 |
| #7 Yeah, the part that builds them has a good deal. The part that uses them seems to have issues. Seriously, the info on 'War Is Boring' seems to revolve around wishful thinking; there's no way once that V22's go into service that they'll spend the money to maintain the C46's. Simple supply chain thinking. Ask yourself how, many F14's the fleet has now that the F18 has been improved? Or A6's, or Vikings. Navair has gone to a 'swiss army knife' mindset, one platform fits all, it's easier on the logistics. Call it McNamara's revenge. And the Navy will make the final determination on what the Marines get. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-07-26 07:31 |
| #6 Not half, all? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-07-26 05:25 |
| #5 If it's only half-bad, let's rename it the V-11 and just move on. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2014-07-26 03:43 |
| #4 Sorry, and I'm not comparing it to a helicopter, it is its own beast, and deadly when measured by and against itself. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-07-26 03:11 |
| #3 It's like half bad means its all good. Do you want to bet your life, or your son's life, that they never fly it in the half that's bad and only the good half? Cause its the half bad part causes funerals. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-07-26 03:10 |
| #2 As long as the "bad half" doesn't happen during takeoff or landing. I think I'll pass, and take the truck convoy, if given the choice. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-26 01:32 |
| #1 It oughtn't to be half bad considering the amount of money that's been thrown at it over the years. |
| Posted by: Canuckistan sniper 2014-07-26 01:26 |