On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:56 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:57 am, Vince wrote:

V-22 crew chief Staff Sgt. Brian Freeman's letter to Gannett's Marine
Corps Times, however, says that:

"...during the last four years flying on the MV-22, I have been
single-engine two times; on both occasions, the aircraft responded as if
nothing had happened. The aircraft's ability to provide lift comes from
its torque available vs. torque required - simply put, if you limit the
amount of torque that a student pilot can use during takeoff or landing
training events, which we do, you in turn simulate a single-engine
profile. I can tell you that there is no difference between actual and
simulated single-engine performance."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...g-shame-03930/

This is not the same thing as landing with an engine shut off.

Vince

No it isn't, but it is still a valid test of the OEI operability.

Well, Don Q., I think the windmills are winning!!! ;-)

There are some things you don't need to practice; like bleeding. There
are some things you don't "real world" test because of the inherent
hazard of doing so. Could this be one of those things?

When I transitioned into P-3s one of the simulator items was a single
engine, boost out landing. This was ONLY done in the simulator
because it was an untrahazarous manuever. You do it right or you make
a smoking hole. It took me few times to do it without crashing the
aircraft (and I was about Fleet Average).

The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
confuse me with facts" advocates. You can overlay a general anti-Bush
feeling (as anything that damages Bush's credibility is good, no
matter that it's based upon lies, innuendo, and highly suspicious
science). I figure we've spent the money, now let's see what we
bought. If it works then we've made a big leap foreward. If it
doesn't then the V-22 can join the ranks of other failed experiments
like the rigid air ship.