That gives you a basis for disputing what I said? Explain that to me Sans....normally in the process of intellectual discourse one provides factual data to challenge the assertation of those with whom he differs.
Your comment is baseless.
Round and round we go, SAS. Seems you are employing the exact same "dodging" tactic you level against the marines and V22 supporters. I asked you for ONE SINGLE valid stat of ONE SINGLE other rotorcraft, which would PROVE that 4.44 pax/hour is somehow a deficient value. I contend it is not, you MERELY contend that it is. How does that make your argument any less baseless than mine?
I've never seen this value anywhere for anything else, I cannot find it published anywhere, and you cannot seem to answer how it compares to anything whatsoever, which would support your thoughts on the matter.
In this intellectual discourse, I am simply calling you out. You have ZERO factual data to support your own contention that 4.44 pax/hour is bad. Perhaps if you were to preface it with "compared to the UH60's performance in the last 100,000 hours of flight of 20 pax/hour, the Osprey's 4.44 is seriously deficient"
Instead all we get is "4.44
sounds bad". Coming from a guy who already has displayed his bias against the aircraft in question, boy that's a shocker.
Again, I'll ask simply, bad compared to what?