I had a CV-22 [Osprey] fly over the car when I was out today, and it didn’t crash!
It was in low and level flight and is probably one of the ugliest things I have ever seen in the air.
But, it didn’t crash, so there are exceptions to the common wisdom about the aircraft.
On-line Opinion Magazine featuring annoyed rumblings from the leading edge of the Baby Boom firmly tied to a reality-based world.
Established: 21 November 2004
The opinions expressed in Comments are those of the individuals making them. Truly absurd comments and opinions are subject to being cruelly mocked, but "flame wars" will take place on someone else's dime.
Your first comment, all comments with extensive links, and random comments that the software decides it doesn't like for no discernible reason will be held for moderation.
[Be aware that for unknown reasons the software rejects comments shorter than 15 characters, so if you want to leave a short comment fill the gap with periods ........]
2 comments
They *usually* don’t crash. And when they do, it’s because the software that controls the transition between hover and flight is still buggy. That’s what they call a “hard problem”, because the bird is both theoretically and practically unstable in that situation and requires the software to do fine attitude adjustments at a rapid pace, but it’s not an unsolvable problem by any means (the F-16 is theoretically unstable too, but it managed to fly even with 1970’s computer technology, albeit aerodynamic instability in level flight was/is *far* better understood than it is for tilt rotors).
I still don’t understand the attachment the Maroons have for the thing, other than that it’s self-deploying and thus doesn’t require precious Air Farce transport assets to get it in-theatre (but couldn’t they have just bought some Herky Birds of their own? A Herc won’t hover, but it comes damn near!), but some of the criticisms of the thing have been pretty ludicrous. Yeah, it’s a pork-barrel project par excellence. But that’s more an example of how the military designs and buys crap nowdays than a criticism of the basic concept.
This one belongs to Air Force Special Ops and it won’t do the job they need done. AFSOC has 130’s to do all the long distance things, including refueling the Low Paves and Pave Hawks that they need for the sneaky stuff.
The problem is the vulnerability when it’s in transition during take offs and landings.
The Marines have 130s and helicopters. They need new helicopters that can defend themselves and troops in a landing zone for hot insertions and retractions – not slow, big, noisy, unarmed, unarmored targets.
The instability is required for maneuverability in fighter aircraft. The F-22 is even more unstable and is totally unable to remain in the air if the computer fails. The computer in the F-15, F-16 on up also keep the pilots from killing themselves with the Gee forces generated by the ability of the aircraft to pull tight turns. In the old days the wings just broke off.
BTW we used to find the convenient jet stream over the Baltic and “hover” in RC-130s. I’ve got a lot of hours in 130s and some of them were “interesting”.
We have amphibious assault ships that can bring helicopters to within range of most of the world. We should built a replacement for the Blackhawk and more AASs to position them. Hell, we could use stepping stone carriers to move them to the theater.
Les Aspin was the godfather of this monstrosity.