21st
I don't recall Bell discussing compressor stalls in categories of being a 'normal problem" and a "normal occurrence."

Your confusing 'normal problem/occurrence' explanation would have perhaps helped out their tap-dancing ‘Spokesman’ when he needed it though.

The public doesn’t care nor needs to know how/what/why about compressor stalls occur on military or civilian A/C. The point is that Bell made a ludicrous statement that included ALL A/C worldwide and what the public should expect, i.e., "They are very normal." Really?!

So AGAIN, the point is if they make such asinine statements about this, what other asinine statements have they fed to the unknowing public?

Here isn't where decisions are made, it is where programs are second guessed. (Heh, it's the internet we know and love. ) We addressed this a few pages back in this thread.

In re your finding the Bell PR mill lacking ... no argument there. (IIRC, Bell Boeing put the V-22 together ... which makes one wonder where the Boeing PR expertise hid at various times ...)

Par for the course.

Dan,
Sorry, I tried to put it in the simplest possible way so it could be easily understood. But I can see you're right, you certainly are confused...

How many contributors on this thread do not represent a vested interest (shareholder, employee, spokesperson)?

No objective conclusion can be reached from these posts - no wonder the military practitioners visited and left after such a short period.

Mars

Perhaps you meant to post in the S-92 thread Mars....as it has exactly the same kind of content.

21st

Yes, I guess I am conffused because I couldn't find ANYHERE where your terms were used unless it's just a smoke screen so PLEASE reference the terms 'normal problem/normal occurrence' when and where the 'spokesman' used them. Thanks.

Dan,
Once again you choose to twist other people's words. Nobody ever said somebody else used those terms, they were used to describe what compressor stalls are, and what they are not: compressor stalls are a 'normal problem,' compressor stalls are not a 'normal occurrence.'

Dan says:
There's only one person putting up smokescreens here...

I am utterly without a vested interest in this discussion. Thanks for asking.

Dan Reno

This is Dan's take on S-92 fatal mishap. Does anyone think he would say 'Military aviators would simply put this type of issue on the long list of other things trying to kill them and get on with it ' for a V-22 mishap? Yup, he's totally unbiased or perhaps he blurted-out whatever excuse came to mind. Not smart.

Well there is some truth in that statement....as during the early years of the Chinook, Huey/Cobra, Sea Sprite and Blackhawk (notice...four different manufacturers and types of helicopters) military pilots did exactly that and carried on flying the machines. We might also talk about the early days of jets and aircraft carriers...and century series fighters...all endeavours fraught with peril at certain times.

I don't suppose it would hurt to remind folks of the speckled history of the errr...uhhhhh....ahhhhh.....Osprey?

I think back to days at Fort Rucker when two Hueys shucked tail booms in one day....and later when Chinooks were shucking blades....and a bit later when they were losing Power Turbine wheels....or Jet Rangers were pitching transmission mounts.

Perhaps one is a bit quick on the trigger which puts one's own toes at risk.:=

SAS is right -- the history of the Chinook, Huey/Cobra, Sea Sprite, Blackhawk, early days of jets and aircraft carriers, century series fighters, and the Osprey all need to be looked at from the same perspective.

Let's judge them equally...

Set Emotions Aside
 

I could not disagree more. This is the 21st century. Years ago, the air transport industry demanded that their airplanes be built to a 10 to the minus ninth safety standard. We in the helicopter industry should all be advocating for something similar. The Blackhawk and the Apache were built to a new standard in the 1970s. They are both fine machines. The AW-139, EC-135 and S-92 were also conceived and built to a new much higher standard then their predecessors the S-76, B-212, A-109 and EC-225. Even with these higher demands, some aspects of their designs have slipped though the cracks. The S-92 MGB oil pump mounting studs and the AW-139 tail boom problems are just two examples. The emotional issues discussed on this forum concerning the V-22 are all justified as long as everyone’s concerns match mine, the operation capabilities of the machines and the safety of those that operating them.

Happy Thanksgiving to All:ok:

The V-22 was designed and built in the 1980s (first flight in 1989). But your point is well taken -- the much higher standards of today should be applied to operational aircraft with redesigns and upgrades of systems and components integrated into them to bring them up to those standards. One of the Bell pilots who was in town last week was explaining that the Ospreys being produced today are a very different aircraft from the original design. And so it should be...

Happy Thanksgiving!
21stC

Dan it would be better for your arguments sake to post the source article rather than more of David Axe's biased drivel. The anti-V22 propaganda machine has to have its gears greased every now and then by that hack, and he is lumped together with Bob Cox and Carlton Meyer as the perennial "Down With The Osprey!" crusaders.

But re: to the data from the star telegram article (shockingly NOT authored by Bob Cox, I'm sure his skytalk post referencing it is forthcoming), I would certainly love to see the "report" from the "pentagon's buying office" (whatever the hell that is supposed to be referring to) that bloomberg got their hands on.

Cant find that report "released" on 10/31 anywhere. I'd really like to see how those numbers were calculated, and how their assumptions changed from 2008.

SANS

Email the author and ask him.

It would be funny if it were not so potentially tragic. The U.S. seems to have a philosophy in which the governement feels that they must be prepared to counter every conceivable threat anywhere on earth; we never again want to be caught with our pants down like we were on December 7, 1941 and a few times since. To prevent that, certain programs are forced down our throats with the justification of: We need this (weapon/aircraft/whatever) no matter what it costs!

The problem with such a philosophy is that the U.S. may well go broke in the name of national defense. Why, if we don't have the Osprey then we run the risk of not being the biggest, baddest, most powerful nation on the planet! And that is, after all, our manifest destiny, isn't it?

The hard reality that all branches of the U.S. military must face in the future is that the money is not limitless. The American public is getting tired of sending troops to die in distant countries for unclear or sketchy causes. The old "fight 'em over there so they won't come over here," is weak and we're not buying it anymore.

And remember, the U.S. isn't the only country having a financial crisis. Worldwide, there's not a whole lot of money for weapons.

Also, I talk to fighter pilots here in Pensacola, Florida where we have a couple of large military bases (NAS Pensacola and Eglin AFB). The new kids understand that they are probably the last of their type. Fighters aren't going to be flown by humans in the future...probably the very near future, too. Those shiny, new F-35's that sit idle down the road at Eglin Air Force base may go operational...or may not.

I know that there are some people in the U.S. that get simply horrified at the prospect of a shrinking military. They want unlimited funding for every possible...thing...that is deemed necessary "for American safety and security!" Anyone who argues otherwise is portrayed as unpatriotic.

Thus, we get the V-22 and F-35. I hope to God we can afford them.

International Customers
 

News from Bell

RotorNews®

Ah yes.....but lets see who has the money to put up for fleets of these things. How many of these countries have the ability to field and operate these aircraft?

The Middle Eastern countries are well known for their Humanitarian operations are they not?

We are not going to sell anything to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Doha, Kuwait. We will have to pay for anything Jordan buys....and that just ain't gonna happen. Turkey....perhaps, Saudi Arabia maybe. Greece no...Italy no....France NO...the UK...nope. Do they see any of the Horn of Africa nations as being viable buyers...Somalia, Ethiopia???

For the sake of the US Economy and jobs at Bell/Boeing....I hope they are very successful but I am not going to run out and buy a lot of shares in the company in the expectation they will strike paydirt in foreign sales.

SAS,
I don't think any of us will be running out to buy shares any time soon (it's not over until the fat lady sings)! The main interest is that foreign sales will increase the volume of a/c sold and by economy of scale will lessen the per unit costs to US taxpayers for planned acquisitions (although with the current situation in congress there is the possibility that reductions may come in other ways as well).

The rumors in this part of the world are that there are two or three countries that are seriously interested in the middle east and will have no funding difficulties if they decide to move forward. Although the interest is not at a 'fevered pitch,' the interest has apparently increased dramatically lately to the point where V-22 demos may be about to become a much more common occurrence here!
21stC

Which countries are named in these vaporous rumours?

Israel, Saudi....and....?

Now that would be a joint venture made in Heaven!:eek: