![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Bad pressure switches discovered in Ospreys" | Mike[_1_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 22nd 07 07:14 PM |
"Afghan war has lessons for U.S. pilots in Iraq" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 23rd 07 06:07 PM |
"V-22s May Go To Iraq" | MikeLake | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 18th 07 02:05 PM |
Marine Corps Now Authorized To Use "Involuntary Recall" To Force Thousands Back To Iraq (for Israel, of course!) - see comments on page 1 of following URL: | dontcowerfromthetruth | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 23rd 06 09:23 AM |
OTA -- a new twist to "call me when you land" | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 6 | June 15th 06 06:02 AM |