WT Forums

Crash-prone aircraft enters final test phase

Monday, March 28, 2005 Posted: 9:42 PM EST (0242 GMT)


JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina (AP) -- The U.S. Marine Corps said final tests began Monday on the military's Osprey aircraft, a helicopter-airplane hybrid that has been plagued by deadly crashes and design problems.

The Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft can land and take off like a helicopter and fly like an airplane. Commanders say the Osprey can haul more troops and equipment farther than existing helicopters.

It was designed to replace the aging helicopters in the Marine Corps fleet.

The Osprey program has been threatened since 23 Marines died in a pair of crashes during testing in 2000. The manufactures made design changes following an investigation.

The Osprey was also grounded for a few weeks earlier this year because the coating on a part in the gearbox was wearing off faster than expected.

The Marine Corps Web site says each Osprey costs approximately $40 million.

The Marine Corps' tests scheduled through the end of June will help determine whether the Osprey is ready for full production. The Marine Corps has ordered 360 Ospreys, the Navy 48 and the Air Force 50 for special operations.

Testing conditions will include high altitudes, extreme temperatures and desert conditions.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

"The Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft can land and take off like a helicopter and fly like an airplane. Commanders say the Osprey can haul more troops and equipment farther than existing helicopters."

Hmmm, let's play 'lets tell the truth'.

"The Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft can land and take off like a rock and fly like a brick. Commanders say the Osprey can kill more troops and destroy more equipment farther and faster than existing helicopters."

$40 million each eh? LOL...that's pretty funny.

<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>

On paper & in theory I think the Osprey is great...but that's on paper...not reality...

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>

_________________

<i>Another crash prone aircraft from the past?</i>

(3 June 1977) Headline: <b>Troubled A-10 Bomber has new setback</b>

(Paris, France) The recent spectacular crash at the Paris Air Show is just another warning that this aircraft is fundamentally unsafe and has no place in a modern air force. In spite of the skill of one of the most experienced test pilots in the world, this plane belly flopped on the main Le Bourget runway and broke apart in a ball of flames. This is only the latest disaster to befall the A-10 program. In flight testing, firing the main cannon armament caused both engines to stall and the pilot was forced to eject. The test was investigating the dangerous condition that occurs when the gun is fired, aptly described as a “fireball” in front of the plane. Many airframe modifications have been tried to fix this problem, to no avail.
Criticisms of the aircraft date back to the start of the program when this so-called Close Air Support (or CAS) aircraft was pushed down the Air Force’s throat by some well connected bureaucrats led by Pierre Sprey, a defense systems analyst, and two Air Force mavericks Col. Boyd and Col. Riccioni. Despite the warnings from experienced pilots that flew this mission in several conflicts, the A-10 was specified to be a severely underpowered and slow death trap. If “Speed is Life”, as the pilots say, the A-10 is the Grim Reaper. Its specified top speed of 400 knots was slower than many WW II propeller planes. When flight testing revealed it could not even meet that meager speed, the requirement was steadily lowered to what it could do, currently a paltry 380 knots. This was the sad story of corruption throughout the development. Every time the specification could not be met, “adjustments” would be made. The empty weight was over 2000 lbs higher than promised, causing difficulty with every performance requirement. In combination with incompetent drag predictions and below spec engine thrust, this is a formula for a turkey, or a sitting duck. All the touted advantages for this plane are down the drain. Take off length prevents it from using the intended forward bases. Loiter time, a threshold requirement, is more than 12 minutes below spec. Bomb load is reduced. Maneuvering capability is crippled.
During tests of the lethality of the main gun armament against tanks it was determined that the jet’s stability was inadequate to take aim at the target without becoming a target itself. It is well known that a plane flown in the CAS environment should not fly on a constant trajectory for more than two seconds, lest it be shot down by radar guided ground fire. Using proposed “jinking” tactics the A-10 needs to confuse tracking, also confuses the jet’s ability to point the nose accurately. The A-10 needed more than six seconds to stabilize the side to side oscillations well enough to hit anything. The proponents say this will be fixed with an electronic box, just give them time (and money). We don’t need any more time. We need some one to make a decision to end this travesty.
Even the features advertised as giving the A-10 unprecedented survivability don’t work. In flight testing, switching into the so-called “manual reversion” flight control mode caused an out of control situation in which the aircraft pulled over 5 g’s (5 x the force of gravity) before the pilot regained control. Ground testing for fatigue uncovered a major design deficiency in a frame that supports the wing. This frame broke at 10% of one lifetime and is so buried in the fuselage it will be impossible to fix correctly. On top of that, it was determined that the flight profiles used by the engineers to estimate this fatigue life were woefully erroneous. This will require a wing redesign, another weight hit, and an expensive retrofit program. So much for the superior durability claim made by misguided proponents of this monstrosity. It’s time the congress did something to stop this wasteful spending on a useless, even dangerous, piece of hardware. An investigation should also be launched to determine who benefited from the obvious fraud with prosecution of the guilty following. (end of story)



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

That sounds vaguely familiar.......oh yeah I remember....a certain air superiority fighter that is due to be replaced was plagued with MAJOR engine problems and folks were up in arms over that one as well. It seems to me that the probs were worked out and it turned into an "acceptable" aerospace weapons delivery platform. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

F15A Gotta Love that Stall Stagnating Bitch!
Luckily today it shares the front fan section of the 220 and no more problems.

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

I'd be willing to bet that a hell of a lot more people have died in Ospreys than in the entire test programs of the F-4, A-7, A-10, A-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-18E, F-22, UH-60, SH-60, MH-60 and CH-53 <i>combined.</i>

The USMC should've modernized the CH-53 instead. With the exception of top end speed it's better than the Osprey in every measurable way, especially wrt pricetag.

That's my opinion.


<i><b>porn, lot's of porn ;P</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

IN Context for only accounting for Pilots, You would be very Wrong.

The fatality numbers for the Osprey also Include the "Cargo."

But if we look back at all aviation programs. The osprey doesnt smell like a rose, But most certainly is not the top of the pyramid for test aviation accidental deaths.
When the C141 Was in testing. They Lost 80 Paratroopers. In one accident.

To me the argument should not be based on deaths, It needs to be based on rootcasue. And this is where the Osprey has some severe deficiencies in Envelope performance, and secondly in the Hydraulic CAble Chaffing.

There are others related to Anti surface fire. Tha would effect all aircraft.

The osprey has some Engineering deficiencies, I believe the Sea stallion is a valid aircraft and has pulled off some amazing NEO operations during the first Gulfwar. 2 Ch53E's with an Unproven Air refuling system, rigged with internal fuel bladders, effectively Rescued the US Consulate in liberia, while hosing down and nearly killing the air crew and passengers due to faulty fuel bladders and the Wind chill factor from 2 refueling events.

In Korea Back in the late 80's there was a Ch53E that went in on aproach, A good friend of mine was there when it happend, 1 month later their in the phillipines and the whole battalion recieved NJP art. 15's and worse becasue of a battalion wide brawl, becasue they refused to get in the ch53's sent to pick them up after witnessing a sister company become barbeque from the previous operation.

Lots of helicopters have bought it. I hope that the Osprey does not carry the Ch46's (aka Sea Magnets) death record. It surpasses any helicopter troop transport in Us aviation history. Yet marines every day climb into them. I recall their has been 1 Over water accident every 2 years related to troops and the ch46. and add another one every 2 years for land based accidents.

Marine Vertical Lift Aviation and Naval aviation in general is very small with a Very High Death Tally becasue of the nature of their operations.

Maybe the Leadership was at fault for Allowing Troop personell to be involved so early into the concept testing of an aircraft. Again, You dont get there and validate the designs mission until you actually put the end user into the enviroment and see if it works out.


Osprey is the only aircraft that Supports the Beyond over the horizon mission that corps wants.

The aircraft has a bad history early on, But it does not mean its a achiles heal to the Marine Corps. I believe it is nothing more than very poor Oversight in Engineering and in Flight Test standards.

The Success of this aircraft truly rests in the hands of Boeing Bell textron and the Marine Corps team.

The F16 program lost over 17 Aircraft in its first 3 years of training and operation. Yet the airforce still beats the shit out of them every day of the week. Tothe airforce, this was gold, PRevious 60's legacy programs have killed entire squadrons in the first year.

US test aviation has a very bloody history.





"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton