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
|
|||
|
|||
Osprey vs. Harrier
Brian Allardice wrote:
These damned things [Osprey} have been fluttering around for better than 30 years. How long do you have to flog a dying concept for it to loose the "revolutionary" label. Is that simply another way of saying "It doesn't bloody work yet"? When was the last time someone called the Harrier 'revolutionary'? Of course, the Harrier does work..... Cheers, dba Very poor choice of plane to compare it to. To quote a recent article: "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today. Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents. The toll has been little noted by the public and the media because the Harrier tends to kill pilots one at a time. In contrast, the V-22 Osprey, a problem-plagued troop transport plane, has killed as many as 19 Marines in a single crash. The Harrier and the Osprey are the first two planes the Marine Corps has acquired in pursuing its long-range vertical vision. A third plane is under active development and several others are being conceived." - http://www.latimes.com/news/specials...ier-day1.story Please note I'm not knocking the Harrier. Anytime you develop a totally new type of aircraft and have to also develop new operational concepts you get fatal accidents. Go back and review the early days of everything from the Harrier to the early jets and helicopters. Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several thousand feet. It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more fatalities than many of the older planes, it that we've become less tolerant of failures during R&D T&E. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey 2 modifications | Terry Mortimore | Home Built | 5 | October 23rd 04 11:46 PM |
Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II | Greg Milligan | Home Built | 9 | December 29th 03 01:48 AM |