Yes, mcpave, I well saw that you joined this site in 2001 and you had a whopping 14 posts to your credit. What a wonderful asset to PPRUNE you are!
But instead of being condescending, insulting, sarcastic and trivial, how's about next time you try adding some value to this forum? The NATOPS were published whenever they were, and nobody has come along from "your side" to gleefully announce that they've been modified/rescinded. And so as my young friends say, WTF?
- Has more testing been done to expand the V-22's flight envelope?
- Do they allow abrupt multi-axis control inputs now?
- Is the V-22 *not* susceptible to accelerated stall at "moderate" bank angles and load factors anymore?
- Have they figured out how to *not* get the brakes to damage the tires if the ship the V-22 is parked on rolls more than a measly FIVE DEGREES? (Wow, let's hope *that* never happens!)
- Can the V-22 survive a single-engine failure in a high hover without crashing?
- Have they solved the hydraulic problems?
- Any sign of a personnel hoist for litter patients yet?
- What are the TBO's on the engines now?
Again I challenge you: Instead of just coming on here and saying, "YOU'RE WRONG!" how's about providing us with some hard evidence to the contrary? Personally (I can't speak for Dan or SAS on this point but...), I love being proven wrong. I love learning new things- especially if they contradict what I have previously convinced myself in my mind is "correct." My mind is open, believe it or not.
But if you think that I, or Dan, or SASless should jump onboard the V-22 train just because...because...*you* say so, well, you know what you can do.
My objections to the V-22 are not merely that it is prohibited from doing any kind of ACM or abrupt multi-axis control inputs. That's just part of it. When you look at the entire platform, anyone can see that it is flawed. Fatally flawed. Its capabilities fall far short of what was advertised. It failed to meet several key performance parameters. The cost per aircraft has ballooned to literally unbelievable levels.
Yes, it's "neat," "cool," and all those other adolescent adjectives. But the V-22's "somewhat faster than a helicopter" capability just comes at too high a cost. It is not what we need.
And in fact, evidently it's not what anybody *else* needs either. The Russians cancelled development of their tilt-rotor. And we have not been able to get even *one* other country (certainly not the Brits, not our "good friends" the Saudis and not even Israel!) to buy the thing. Why is that? Are we hoarding that secret technology for ourselves? Heh.
No. The simple fact is that no other country can afford such a platform. They know they'll go broke. As will we if we keep dumping money down into this black hole called the V-22 Osprey.
P.S. I was involved with the FH1100 program for a long time, and know the ship pretty intimately from the rivets outward. It certainly had its weaknesses, but I quite liked the clever design. I no longer fly it but have kept the SN for purely sentimental reasons. I'm not interested in hearing your unofficial "gouge." If you have valuable, pertinent information, then share it here so we all may learn from your vast knowledge.