http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm
I took note that "Aviation Week" had run several very negative letters about the V-22 in recent weeks. As you all may know, they depend on the defense industry for advertising money, so they rarely mention anything negative about any major program. I knew they had read my recent article, so maybe this is their way of getting the word out. It must have angered Bell-Boeing, so it looks like they cut a deal. The 1-02-06 "Aviation Week" has a very unusual 16 full-page advertisement about the great V-22, it must have cost Bell-Boeing a million dollars, oh I mean American taxpayers. What is strange is that it is written as an article, but according to very small print at the bottom of the first pay, and only the first page, it notes this is a special advertising section.
That section quotes the head of Marine Aviation, General Michael Hough, about what he told all Marines about the second operational evaluation: Hough stated: "And we have to do things in such a way that we can show unequivocally that this capability is safe." As a result, Hough should be fired and possibly arrested for criminal conspiracy. He doesn't understand or doesn't care if it is truly safe, which is why he put out the word that "we have to do things in such a way." He should have stated that we will have to see if the contractor has built a safe aircraft that meets the performance they promised. However, he is quoted several times saying about what "we" needed to prove. He sounds likes someone working for Bell-Boeing because they are the ones who needed to prove the V-22 to the Marine Corps. So Marines followed orders and did things "in such a way" like skipping tests and having a loyal "friend" at DOT&E falsify the results.
All the evidence is here for a criminal indictment:
http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm The reaction I get from many people who read it that it cannot be true because it is so blatant. In addition to safety, the performance just didn't fail to meet goals, it only demonstrated half the payload and range promised. That advertising section shows that Bell-Boeing is going all out to keep this undercover, making sure Aviation Week knows who pays their salaries, indirectly at least. They know the V-22 is unsafe, why else would they substitute sandbags to simulate Marines grunts for most of their "demonstrations" during OPEVAL? Why else would they skip important tests, but state they know it is safe? Why else would they run a 16-page advertisement disguised as an article in a respected aviation magazine?
Carlton Meyer