SAS: I am more than passingly familiar with that CH-53E accident, and the one in Corpus Christi, 2000.
John: thanks for the very brief summary. Dave Kish was a classmate of mine.
SAS again:
Even the GAO and other government publications point to the design of the Osprey creates issues seen as questionable, unsafe, or at the very least awkward.
You do realize that there have been changes in the design, yes?
If the GAO, seven years ago, or five years ago, or nine years ago, was critical of the V-22 and NOTHING had been done, then your point would be worth pondering.
As you well know, the design and configuration of the V-22 (hell, most DoD aircraft), is NOT static. Chinook is on the F model at present, Blackhawk on M, and F-18 is at E/F and G. Huey is on Y, Cobra is on Z. Inside of all that are the usual ECP's, Airframe Changes, Avionics changes, and so on.
Why do you choose to view the V-22 without that "continual improvement" model as your point of reference? I find that to be either dishonest or careless. Yes, we agree, that bird is very expensive. I sense that it is the expense that is your most consistent source of distress over that program.
Back to the 1996 crash in Stratford: you could cite the example of the Kaydon swashplate bearing as yet another incremental configuration change in a basic design, albeit one that ended up getting people killed before it all got sorted out on the engineering and production end.
Likewise with walnut shells and Chinooks.
