Osprey vs. Harrier

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Peter Skelton wrote:

:On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
:
:Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:
:"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:military today."
:
:It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.

Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.

well, there's no need to limit the blame to pilots, from the article in
question:

"The accident inquiry concluded that a circlip, a semicircular fastener,
was incorrectly installed by mechanics on the gas turbine starter,
setting off a chain reaction that led to the engine failure."

"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today."

That's what they'd say, too.

(Moggycat) wrote:

:"Stephen D. Poe" wrote
:
: "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
: dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.
:
:Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:
:"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:military today."

Except it's not true, since over 2/3 of all Harrier Class A accidents
involve mechanical faults in flight rather than pilot error.

(That's over 8/100,000 flight hours, so even if you eliminate ALL
human error from the Harrier numbers, the accident rate is still
almost 3x the *total* accident rate for the F/A-18.)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

In article , Stephen D. Poe
writes
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.

The Harrier didn't do too badly in US service at the start, they had a
period of nearly two years accident free.

Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous
than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several
thousand feet.

The Harrier regularly operates in an environment unique to itself,
basically zero air speed very close to the ground. If anything happens
it's game over, all the pilot can do is pull the handle. No other
aircraft is intentionally put in the same situation (choppers can auto-
rotate if needed). STOVL JSF has a more complicated system with more
failure points.

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.

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

--
John

In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message ...
In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article
in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way
back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a
low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing
fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of
their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Tony Williams wrote in message
m...
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the
problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article
in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way
back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a
low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing
fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of
their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules!

Saw some film a few nights back on the TV of a WWII era jeep
with boat tail and rotor a few feet off the ground. Looks like the
idea was to tow them in separate during air assaults.

John Halliwell wrote:

have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

The problems can be traced back to the fact that its a compromise design
based
around the ships it'll be operating from primarily. The physical size limits
of the V22
are totally restricted by the flight deck and elevator clearance issues for
the wasp-class
LHDs. Rotor diameter was restricted by needing a minimum blade-tip clearance
of 12 feet
with the island and a 5 foot clearance between the edge of the deck and the
osprey's wheels.
The blade, wing and naccele folding procedure were limited by the elevator
size on the LHDs.
Bigger elevators would have meant more room for useful things like bigger
engines, 4 blade rotors
and a longer wingspan (all of which would have improved the type's
performance in both the
hover and more importantly, single-engine operation). The previous XV-15
program operated
so well for over a decade because it wasn't tooo much airframe for too
little installed power/rotor
lift.