Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US to offload its Osprey aircraft to Japan base despite its appalling safety record.

Comments

  • #2
    bluecode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭bluecode


    Here we go again!


  • #3
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 10,005 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Didnt this furor happen a few months ago?



    Never liked the Osprey, seemed too complicated for what it delivered. I understand the logic behind the design. I just don't think the resources/time/money spent on the program justified by the capabilities it brings to the field. $70M an aircraft while the CH-53 (with more troop carrying and lift capacity) costs $35M.
    (According to wiki it can hold 24 troops.....photos of the interior didn't seem to have that much capacity)

    Since 1991 there have been 7 majot crashes with 36 fatalities. There have also been several other incidents resulting in injuries or aircraft damage.
    From July '92 the test fleet was grounded for 11 months after a crash. There has been 1 combat zone crash in April 2010.....so far unexplained.


  • #4
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Tenger wrote: »
    Didnt this furor happen a few months ago?



    Never liked the Osprey, seemed too complicated for what it delivered. I understand the logic behind the design. I just don't think the resources/time/money spent on the program justified by the capabilities it brings to the field. $70M an aircraft.
    In 9 years of testing there were 30 fatalites (1991-2000)

    (According to wiki it can hold 24 troops.....photos of the interior didn't seem to have that much capacity)

    I presume the 30 fatalites were spread over numerous crashes.

    How many of these planes went down?


  • #5
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    V22 article
    "The computers of the V-22 are so advanced that they are able to take control of the aircraft during emergencies, such as when the wheels leave the ground."
    "After the V-22 consistently failed performance and safety tests, a comprehensive program was launched to make the tests easier to pass."


Advertisement