![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So it comes down to the ability to auto rotate versus lack of that
ability (Once you get hit...)?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is a confluence of things. If you try and fly it without escorts you'll get hit. You'll need to auto-rotate. If you try and descend at a constant rate into a zone you'll get hit. You'll need to auto-rotate. If you don't have effective armament on the bird you'll get hit. You'll need to auto-rotate. So it is is ignoring these vulnerability factors and saying, "We'll ignore even the modicum of survivabilty provided by auto-rotation." The ability to auto-rotate was originally required, but it was dropped. I wonder how many retired Marines are making 2-3 times (or more) of their retirement pay to work on this thing. It is the poster child for problems with the Military-Industrial- Complex of the type that Eisenhower warned about. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey 2 modifications | Terry Mortimore | Home Built | 5 | October 23rd 04 11:46 PM |
Osprey icing tests | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 0 | February 1st 04 08:43 PM |
Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II | Greg Milligan | Home Built | 9 | December 29th 03 01:48 AM |
Osprey tested in air, at sea | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 10th 03 12:30 AM |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |