Sorry, I know it's rotor, I just didn't catch that in my glance-over of my post.
And I'm not saying the osprey should get any kind of pass over at all. I'm just saying you can't look at the opsrey in airplane mode and say "It's not as good as a C-130" and look at in helo mode and say "it's not as good as a Chinook". Those other other aircraft have very different missions, much larger cargo hauls, and are very good at what they are meant to to do. But ask either of those aircraft to do what the Osprey is meant to to do, and they don't fit the bill. Plus I'm not entirely sure your numbers are right, but I'm not so involved in this argument to figure that out. Jeffg seems to have the same thoughts and the resources to check at his fingertips, so I'll leave the number crunching to you two.
And in response to me "just" being a flight engineer. Fist off I am a boom operator...my job entails a lot more than just watching instruments. And when it comes to the technical areas of the plane, I am VERY knowledgeable about how my plane works, more so than even perhaps my pilots. They know more about flying it, but I know the limits, how the systems work, and the rules invovled in air-to-air refueling.
And you are absolutely dead wrong about the flight manuals. Yes they tell you how to fly the plane and yes they show limits. But you have to understand two things: 1. You have to read the notes and warnings in context. Meaning, why exactly are those things written there? 2. You have to understand that in the MILITARY there are books in addition to the FMs that overridde and waive certain things. Tactic Regulations for example.
I can't speak for osprey regs, so I will use one of our on the KC - 135 as an example. (Note: For opsec reasons, I'm not going to use numerical data here) Our plane cannot exceed a certain amount of degree in bank, it is prohibited. The REASON that is in place isn't because our plane isn't capapble of doing it or even doing it safely. It's that it creates undue stress on the airframe that over time could add up to maintance needs. But then if you dive into our tactics books, it waives that limit and increases our allowable bank angle for operational nessisity, such as evasive manevers or tactical landings. You would never know this by reading the flight manual alone. It doesn't clarify that ANYWHERE. And by taking that warning out of context, one would easily be misled to think that the KC-135 is incabable of making banks larger than the limits presented.
The same goes for air refueling. There are certain conditions and system malfunctions under which I am PROHIBITED to refuel another aircraft. But again, if you look into the regulation which regulates air-to-air refueling, it gives express permission to override those restrictions given a fuel emergency, tactical nessisty, or operational nessissty. Yet again, you would never know that by JUST reading the flight manual.
I would venture to guess that much of the same applies to the V-22. I think you are largely misinterpreting and over amplifying the implications of the warnings in that flight manual (which also may be outdated). And then you also don't have access to the other military regs that co-govern how that aircraft can be flown and what it is capable of.
So I guess I don't understand how when you don't even have access to the full range of documents, don't have a complete understanding of the mission or it's parameters, and have never actually put this machince to the test...you can stand there and tell someone to shut down the program. Without that information, you don't really know anything. You have a few media articles, an expired manual, and from what I can tell no military experience. (I might be wrong on the last one, I forget.) You are the furthest thing from being qulaified to judge this airframe or it's program...yet you will sit there and say the pilots of this plane have NO credibility whatsoever. It's absolutely crazy logic.
You = old manual being read out of context, no other regs, a few MEDIA articles, no experience with the airframe.
V-22 pilots = Current manuals and educated to understand what all those warnings and notes REALLY mean, access to ALL regulations, intel briefings/full safety reports, and have experience with machine AS WELL AS it's predecessors.
How do you get the impression that you are more credible than these other guys?
Last edited by BoomOpCT; 9th Feb 2011 at 20:05.