The Osprey - most deadly USA aircraft?

[railfancwb]

Heard another Osprey went down, killing some military personnel.

Is Osprey the most deadly USA aircraft for passengers and crew? 

[Batesmotel]

Probably. 
 

I’m not getting in one. And I’ve flown a battle damaged C141, a 3 engined C130, an L1011 with the radar on fire and crashed in a CH46 because of bad fuel. 

[janice6]

Since there is a concerted effort to hide problems from both sides of the subject, we have to real reliable  information   to determine whether this is due to a hardware problem, an operator problem, or both.  I suspect that only history will hold the truth.

[gwalchmai]

The C-47 probably had more, just due to the sheer numbers of them used. 

[Batesmotel]

8 hours ago, gwalchmai said:

The C-47 probably had more, just due to the sheer numbers of them used. 

First aircraft I ever flew in. I’d still fly one anytime. 

[janice6]

3 hours ago, Batesmotel said:

First aircraft I ever flew in. I’d still fly one anytime. 

It's also a DC 3.  The most successful aircraft of all time.

[pipedreams]

1 hour ago, janice6 said:

It's also a DC 3.  The most successful aircraft of all time.

The first aircraft I ever flew in.

[ChuteTheMall]

Osprey is particulary deadly when flown by Marines.

[LostinTexas]

It seems the DOD gets something in their undies and won't give up on it no matter how unsuccessful.

This project has been a shining example of that.

I recon this finally had enough money and time thrown at it that they are in use, I don't know what extent.

 

[railfancwb]

7 hours ago, LostinTexas said:

It seems the DOD gets something in their undies and won't give up on it no matter how unsuccessful.

This project has been a shining example of that.

I recon this finally had enough money and time thrown at it that they are in use, I don't know what extent.

 

What are it’s supposed advantages over helicopters, which themselves are more deadly to occupants than some other styles of aircraft?

[tous]

The V-22 Osprey can carry up to 32 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 275 knots (315 mph, 500 kmh) and a range of about 880 nautical miles (1000 miles, 1600 km.)

In contrast the current version of the CH-47 Chinook can transport around 55 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 170 knots (190 mph, 300 kmh) and a range of about 400 nautical miles (460 miles, 740 km.)

Yes, I know that Army guys don't use nautical miles and knots, but it's used for comparison.

Both aircraft an sling loads underneath.

Tactical situation may require either or both aircraft.  The Marines have CH-46 Sea Knights, the Navy version of the CH-47,  available if the tactical situation makes that a better choice.

Deliver less, but faster and farther, or more, slower and  closer.

edited to add for those  land lubbers.

A nautical mile was originally set at the distance of one degree of latitude at the equator.  It has since been standardized (I hate to verb an innocent noun) at around 1.15 land miles (1850 kilometers.)

A knot is one nautical mile per hour, about 1,15 land miles per hour.

 

[jmohme]

The first time I saw one the thought that went through my mind was "that looks like an accident waiting to happen".

Then I saw three of them in flight while I was driving on the Golden Gate Bridge I was kind of impressed, but still thought it looked like something that would fall out of the sky if anything at all went wrong....But what do I know?

[tous]

That design configuration for a VSTOL aircraft is  more than 70 years old.

Bell had an experimental aircraft, the X-3 if I recall,  that was similar, but the X-3 had four conventional engines and the entire wing rotated.

That was back in the 1950s, when innovation was more important that making the same old thing over an over again, but with bigger government contracts.

I would have loved to be an aeronautical engineer back then.

 

[janice6]

1 hour ago, tous said:

The V-22 Osprey can carry up to 32 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 275 knots (315 mph, 500 kmh) and a range of about 880 nautical miles (1000 miles, 1600 km.)

In contrast the current version of the CH-47 Chinook can transport around 55 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 170 knots (190 mph, 300 kmh) and a range of about 400 nautical miles (460 miles, 740 km.)

Yes, I know that Army guys don't use nautical miles and knots, but it's used for comparison.

Both aircraft an sling loads underneath.

Tactical situation may require either or both aircraft.  The Marines have CH-46 Sea Knights, the Navy version of the CH-47,  available if the tactical situation makes that a better choice.

Deliver less, but faster and farther, or more, slower and  closer.

edited to add for those  land lubbers.

A nautical mile was originally set at the distance of one degree of latitude at the equator.  It has since been standardized (I hate to verb an innocent noun) at around 1.15 land miles (1850 kilometers.)

A knot is one nautical mile per hours, about 1,15 land miles per hour.

 

 

1 hour ago, tous said:

The V-22 Osprey can carry up to 32 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 275 knots (315 mph, 500 kmh) and a range of about 880 nautical miles (1000 miles, 1600 km.)

In contrast the current version of the CH-47 Chinook can transport around 55 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 170 knots (190 mph, 300 kmh) and a range of about 400 nautical miles (460 miles, 740 km.)

Yes, I know that Army guys don't use nautical miles and knots, but it's used for comparison.

Both aircraft an sling loads underneath.

Tactical situation may require either or both aircraft.  The Marines have CH-46 Sea Knights, the Navy version of the CH-47,  available if the tactical situation makes that a better choice.

Deliver less, but faster and farther, or more, slower and  closer.

edited to add for those  land lubbers.

A nautical mile was originally set at the distance of one degree of latitude at the equator.  It has since been standardized (I hate to verb an innocent noun) at around 1.15 land miles (1850 kilometers.)

A knot is one nautical mile per hours, about 1,15 land miles per hour.

 

I wrap my head around Nautical miles by thinking in terms of 2,000 yards, my way of thinking.

[LostinTexas]

1 hour ago, tous said:

The V-22 Osprey can carry up to 32 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 275 knots (315 mph, 500 kmh) and a range of about 880 nautical miles (1000 miles, 1600 km.)

In contrast the current version of the CH-47 Chinook can transport around 55 light troops, has a cruising speed of around 170 knots (190 mph, 300 kmh) and a range of about 400 nautical miles (460 miles, 740 km.)

Yes, I know that Army guys don't use nautical miles and knots, but it's used for comparison.

Both aircraft an sling loads underneath.

Tactical situation may require either or both aircraft.  The Marines have CH-46 Sea Knights, the Navy version of the CH-47,  available if the tactical situation makes that a better choice.

Deliver less, but faster and farther, or more, slower and  closer.

edited to add for those  land lubbers.

A nautical mile was originally set at the distance of one degree of latitude at the equator.  It has since been standardized (I hate to verb an innocent noun) at around 1.15 land miles (1850 kilometers.)

A knot is one nautical mile per hours, about 1,15 land miles per hour.

 

I don't think it matters. Air Heads use both, no matter the branch of service or civilian, so do sea faring sailors, no matter the uniform.

[tous]

Just did more looking.

The Bell project of the 1950s was the XC-142A, the X indicates that it was a prototype and not adopted.

I believe they also had the XV-3.  Likely the XC-142's predecessor.

Many European aircraft companies also created VSTOL (vertical short takeoff and landing,) tilt-rotor aircraft.

With so many examples, both experimental and flying, the idea can't be that bad or more dangerous than other types.

I'm a fan.

 

[tous]

23 minutes ago, janice6 said:

 

I wrap my head around Nautical miles by thinking in terms of 2,000 yards, my way of thinking.

That's close and a good approximation, but 1850 meters (nautical mile) = 2023 yards.

Close enough for government work, but sort of risky for navigation.

Twenty-three yards error for a while can put you places you didn't intent to go.

Good thing they kept you in the radio shack.

[janice6]

Just now, tous said:

That's close and a good approximation, but 1850 meters (nautical mile) = 2023 yards.

Close enough for government work, but sort of risky for navigation.

Twenty-three yards error for a while can put you places you didn't intent to go.

Good thing they kept you in the radio shack.

Yeah.  I didn't plot the course or track the position.  However, I did relieve the radar operator occasionally and most of the time we used that for navigation. Kind of like Columbus did.

[tous]

Columbus didn't. 

The means of navigating longitude by time was not developed until the mid-1700s when a naval chronometer became practical.

One of the most significant inventions of the last 500 years.

 

Again, for the lubbers:  latitude is the theoretical up and down lines of degree on the Earth from the equator, longitude is the right to left lines of degree from the equator.

The Earth is a giant sphere with 360 theoretical degrees of circumference in any and all directions.

A degree can be divided into minutes and seconds, even tenths of seconds * for an accurate description of angular distance.

Like port and starboard, it doesn't make any difference which way you are oriented, longitude and latitude remain consistent.

 

Kind of important in sea and air navigation, but pretty much a yawn for the average  galoot.

 

So, there.

 

* I have asked a lot of people. even famous physicists, why we measure time in hours and minutes (hour/60) and seconds (minute/60) and then revert to decimal increments (10ths.)

Why not just keep dividing by a multiple of 60?

None could off a good explanation, just kind of shrugged and said, That's the way it is.

Since our measurement of time is arbitrary anyway, someone made it up, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with, That's just the way it is.

 

[LostinTexas]

Columbus was using a Sextant. I never figured that thing out, even a little bit. At least they had it down enough they weren't going in circles, maybe. 

Fortunately, the Americas are near impossible to miss when heading west from Europe. A good thing, it seems by accounts they would have perished at sea if it would have taken much longer. Columbus was going "Yonder", for all practical purposes.

The Europeans had no charting for the Atlantic for very far out, according to main stream. It seems Europeans weren't all that bright in the grand scheme of it all.

Funny, it seems many civilizations did have them. They seem to have been in existence for the Pacific as well. Go figure. LOL That is for another rant though.

 

[tous]

Something fun to ponder, how do you navigate in space?

And once the familiar landmarks are too distant to detect, where are you and how do you get back home?

 

[LostinTexas]

3 minutes ago, tous said:

Something fun to ponder, how do you navigate in space?

And once the familiar landmarks are too distant to detect, where are you and how do you get back home?

 

Stars.

The big thing is, we won't live long enough to find out, even if we launched today.

[tous]

Indeed.

You would navigate is space the same way Columbus and mariners of his era did.

Dead reckoning by sighting on the sun and the stars.

A sextant was just one instrument designed to do that.

I often wonder if desert tribes navigated the deserts the same way.

One thing about humans, regardless of how difficult or improbable to solve the problem, we'll figure it out.

 

One nice thing about navigation at sea, if you go in any direction long enough, you eventually run into dirt.

[janice6]

27 minutes ago, tous said:

Something fun to ponder, how do you navigate in space?

And once the familiar landmarks are too distant to detect, where are you and how do you get back home?

 

Preliminary is inertial guidance, yes star position is also used.

[janice6]

Just now, tous said:

Indeed.

You would navigate is space the same way Columbus and mariners of his era did.

Dead reckoning by sighting on the sun and the stars.

A sextant was just one instrument designed to do that.

I often wonder if desert tribes navigated the deserts the same way.

One thing about humans, regardless of how difficult or improbable to solve the problem, we'll figure it out.

 

One nice thing about navigation at sea, if you go in any direction long enough, you eventually run into dirt.

Incidentally, at that time our ship used the Sextant, we then checked the radar at maximum range and readjusted our course to get to our objective.  We were a wooden ship, 180 feet long and according to the Navy, we were expendable in all respects being a minesweeper.