"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"

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.

On Oct 19, 5:06 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
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.

Ironically, Cheney is the guy who wanted to cancel the V-22 and
Congress kept reviving it.

Bill,

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.


Pretty much my thoughts as well. This thread has developed the classic Usenet characteristic of having value inverse to its duration and bellicosity.

--
Mike Kanze

"Golf can best be defined as an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle, followed by a good bottle of beer."

- Anonymous

"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ...
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.

On Oct 19, 2:06 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:

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?
snip
The anti-Osprey crowd is clearly made up of "my mind's made up, don't
confuse me with facts" advocates.

And that's fine, some of the anti-Osprey points are valid and will
only be proven after it's been fielded for awhile. I just get tired
of the hyperbole, ignorance, and in some cases (not this one) outright
lies about the capabilities, vulnerabilities, and survivability.
There have been crashes, deaths, and problems with almost every
aircraft we've developed. It seems some of the anti-Osprey crowd
believe the Tom Clancy books are something other than fiction, where
everything works great everytime.
Aircraft development has historically been a drama of trade-offs,
sacrifices, and tragedy.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...