>So many lives and millions of dollars lost just to develop an aircraft that can't actually do anything that couldn't already be done with a helicopter
BRAVO USMC
>>29919394
best safety record of any rotorcraft since the time it entered service
>>29919512
Damn that pic is badass
>>29919512
#rekt
bait thread
>>29919512
Thread was over before it began. Thank you anon.
>>29919512
Kinda looks like a boob
>>29919512
That supposed range has NEVER been verified in any test. It's just USMC propaganda to try and justify one of the shittiest procurement decisions they've ever made.
>>29919394
Hey. We needed a prototype moneysink program to help develop the F35. Without rotor-driven pieces of shit the US could have never developed jet-propelled pieces of shit. Have some respect.
>>29919394
>the USMC has CH-47's
>>29919512
>says my MSgt
>>29919621
>CH-47
wanna try again?
>>29919611
The Osprey has already flown distances at a speed that no conventional helicopter has been able to match.
>>29919832
Ah, but that only works if the Osprey is empty. Load it up with cargo and it slows down to the speed of a typical helicopter.
>>29919611
Because its impossible to know how far an aircraft can fly on full fuel without actually flying it till it crashes.
Hang on, I have to burn all my PIMs because they're full of lies and propaganda.
>>29919852
And helicopters magically retain perfect performance under full load?
>>29919852
>Ah, but that only works if the Osprey is empty. Load it up with cargo and it slows down to the speed of a typical helicopter.
Sprey tier logic
The V-280 will be better all around.
>>29919888
The V-280 is lucky in that it doesn't have to curl up like a pretzel because it is going to be purely land-based.
>>29919907
I just looked at some pics, I know its not as big as an osprey, but it would still be awesome if they build an aerial refueling probe onto them.
>>29919852
Except that its an airplane. Internal load doesn't cause drag numb nuts.
>>29919907
Still has to be able to get loaded into a C-17/C-5. The wings will have to come off completely.
Which will require HOURS of maintenance per ACFT. And maintenance test flights up the ass.
It'll be worse than prepping a chinook for transport.
>>29919971
Why the fuck would they move them around in cargo airplanes? Wouldn't it be easier to put them on carriers?
>>29919954
It's about weight, not drag.
The Osprey obtains its famous range and speed by flying at higher altitude where there is less air resistance.
However, pack it up with cargo and suddenly it is too heavy to fly at those altitudes. The V-22 is not pressurized and so it can't really fly high with human cargo either.
The end result is that the V-22 has to fly lower if it is carrying any real load, making it almost as slow as a typical helicopter.
>>29919971
Maybe tilt rotors are just a dumb idea after all.
>>29919978
and fully loaded conventional rotary wing aircraft are not limited to weight and altitude density?
What you don't get is that a fully loaded v-22 will still perform better than a fully loaded helicopter. They're still going to fly farther because there's less drag and they're still going to fly faster because they don't have to deal with retreating blade stall.
>>29919975
Because ships take weeks/months to cross the ocean. A C-17 takes hours. They'd still have to break them down for transport on ships anyway.
>>29919978
The osprey is limited to altitude just as much as a helicopter. With an un-pressurized cabin (And by extention cockpit), we can't fly over 10,000 feet. If a fully laden blackhawk can fly at 10,000 ft, I think an osprey can. And faster in forward flight by a long shot. You're full of shit.
>>29919654
that helicopter looks like a mildly annoyed quadruple amputee
>>29920096
The speed only comes into play in airplane mode at high altitudes. Ospreys are not pressurized so have to stay at lower altitudes, below 10K, where they operate at helo speeds. Nothing like delivering a bunch of oxygen starved soldiers to the battle field aye?
>>29920063
USMC is buying more helos so that tells you something. If V-22s were all they claimed then no need for more ancient tech helos. USAF is also buying helos for CSAR as V-22s suck at that too. The tests reports are not secret so much as they never happened.
The V-280 is being developed by Bell in the hopes it is adopted by the Army. It addresses some of the issues with the V-22 in that only the rotors move but some things will be the same based on the same design. Doubling down on stupid.
>>29920141
Bell's shill lady and gentlmen
>>29920132
They can use plane mode at low altitude at great speed. You're a goddamn retard.
>>29920147
The MV-22 is made by bell?
>>29920178
Only marginally faster than a normal helicopter.
>>29920195
>marginally faster than a normal helicopter
Its literally twice as fast.
>>29920222
The Osprey was a good idea pushed on the military that turned into a lemon. None of what you mentioned has come to pass. Load a V-22 and an equilavent helo up the same and the range difference would be negligible. A lot of what you are repeating has never been put to the test.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/30MldBL.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>29920141
I'm pretty fucking sure Ospreys can cruise at more than 150 knots
>>29920141
Ospreys aren't meant to replace helicopters completely. They fill in a huge gap between helicopters and tactical airlift. Helicopters are still needed in more heavily contested areas and places where they need to land/take off quick.
Before the Osprey came into service there was a giant hole that Blackhawks, Chinooks, Stallions and C130s couldn't fill. If you wanted to fly a long distance and land/take off without a long enough airstrip you had nothing. There was literally no aircraft in our inventory that fit this profile. That's why 8 people died in Operation Eagle Claw trying to refuel their 53s to make their long journey.
The DOD tried experimenting with hokey ass shit like having C130s swipe people off the ground while they flew by or putting rockets on them. So they came up with the something completely different called it an Osprey and yes it had troubles during development (much like the trusty blackhawk) but now everything is all good yet the Pierre Spreys of the world are trying to take them away. The Osprey has increased our force projection ability enormously.
>>29920235
>say something
>get corrected
>try a different angle
>get corrected again
>full sperg mode activate
>>29920235
Give me an equivalent helo in its weight/power class. I'm certain it has less load capacity, speed, and range.
>>29920251
He's worse than gliderfag.
>>29920285
There's not one. The MV-22 is a kickass airplane. This coming from a died in the wool army blackhawk crewchief.
That said, it'll never have the mobility of a helicopter in a hover.
>>29920453
tfw this will probably never happen
>>29920222
>>29920195
Osprey stall speed(in flight mode) 140 knots
Max speed at sea level and flight mode: 275 knots
Cruise speed of a CH-47, 160 knots
Max speed: 170 knots
CH-46: 144 knots and 166 knots
UH-60 159 knots and 150 knots
Not really sure what "a normal helicopter" you are referring to, but a decent 100 knots+ over the the CH47 is not exactly "marginal"
>Tilt rotor
I do not envy the poor sods who have to work on them. Wonder if the take more or less maintenance then variable geometry wings, I would assume more as you are moving the engines but who knows.
>>29921092
Considering that the system has to fold away the wings and rotors, in addition to tilting them, I'd say it was definately worse.
But they fill a niche.
>>29920529
Why should it? What advantages it can offer over the existing Little Bird, that aren't just expensive luxury?
>>29919394
Look it really did seem like a good idea at the time. Who doesn't want a plane that also a helicopter?
Sure what we got was a crappy version of either, but you can't blame them for trying to make it work.
>>29921381
>Sure what we got was a crappy version of either, but you can't blame them for trying to make it work.
What we got was a hybrid that has a niche.
>>29921452
That has a reputation for crashing.
>V-22 is shit because when loaded it's as slow as an empty helicopter
Pierre fuck off
>>29921528
A false reputation of crashing.
>>29921528
Perpetuated by retards and tinfoils, sure.
>>29919862
It's combat radius
It's the distane it can fly out and return on full tank
>>29919512
>safety record
Every time one crashes they call it pilot error even when it's not.
>>29921528
That's entirely from the early test units in the Arizona desert, which predated OIF/OEF deployments.
>>29920236
Osprey wouldn't last 5 minutes if people were shooting at it. It's peacetime equipment only, and way too expensive and dangerous for the capabilities it offers.
>>29921863
>striking the ground because you set the throttle incorrectly
>Decend dangerously fast and enter vortex ring state
>Brownout landing with poor approach with high decent rate
>fly through propeller wash
>None of these could possibly be pilot error!
>>29919394
Best aircaft in its roles, infact the only aircraft for some roles.
Operational range, speed and the ability to refuel in air are all things that adults like in their toys, life isnt a video game man.
>>29919862
You know we can calculate burn rate in flight, right?
>Have 2400lbs of fuel
>15 minutes later have 2175lbs of fuel
>Burning 900lbs/hr
>Have 2 hours, 24 minutes to burnout
>With a 30min reserve we have 1hr, 54 min
>We're flying at 120kts ground speed (woo GPS)
>We can fly 228 miles and still have 30 minutes to find a place to land
I failed math a bunch in school, but this stuff is easy peasy. What the fuck is your excuse for being this retarded?
>>29919862
>its impossible to know how far an aircraft can fly on full fuel without actually flying it till it crashes.
>>29921840
>>29922491
>>29922510
...did you not see the post it was replying to? It was sarcasm...
>>29922523
Sheeeeeeit, you right.
Otherdude is still a goddamned retard and my point >>29922491 stands.
>>29921029
>Present facts
>No one bothers to comment
This proves OP if a giant faggot.
>>29923218
I was sure posting that would bring about a shitstorm, but it became surprisingly quiet
>>29919971
>Still has to be able to get loaded into a C-17/C-5. The wings will have to come off completely.
I've never understood the point of this. I mean, if I want to drive to, say, Glasgow, I just get in my car and drive there, because that's the whole point of having a car. I wouldn't pay someone to take my car to bits, pay another man to put the bits in his lorry and drive them to Glasgow, get the train to the other end of the country then pay yet another man to put my car back togther.
>>29923567
You can't fly a helicopter across the ocean. It'll make it about 270 miles and drown. You can, however, put it in a c17 for the same effort of putting it on a boat and get it there faster.
>>29920236
8 people died in operation eagle claw because the retarded marines insisted on being involved, and they didn't know how to do aerial refuelings.
Then somehow they crashed their shit into each other while at one of their refueling bases
also: Military gliders could have done it for a fraction of the 30 billion spent on Ospreys(probably more because they hide real maintenance/procurement/rebuilding costs)
If you want to try and shit on USMC procurement decisions, why would you go for the Osprey when that retarded fucking M27 IAR cooked up by some general who decided that they should go back to the days of the BAR.
>>29923567
Because while self-deploying was a mandatory thing for the V-22 during development, it can't actually do it because its actual flight range is a total lie
>>29924927
>military gliders
You aren't welcome here.
>>29924977
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it couldn't be done
>>29923473
That only happens when you're exactly right. Such is life on 4chins
One of the big problems of the Osprey is that it can't hover & land above 5,000 ft
Places where helicopters can still operate with useful payloads
>>29925025
Just because you're obsessed with it doesn't mean it's superior, let alone practical.
>Gliderfag has returned
Oh boy, here we go again. Hang on to your sanity, folks
>>29919394
Oh good, another one of THESE threads again....
>>29921452
its an aviation futon. its a shitty couch and an even shittier bed, but hey it does both and fills a niche! poorly.
>>29925538
trolling is a art
>>29926751
The only thing thats shitty is that analogy.
>>29919852
Physics is not your strength.
Will we ever see a gunship version armed with cannons and missiles though?
>>29926833
https://youtu.be/IVoksf_2y5k?t=254
>>29920128
Cannot unsee. Calling those "Stumpies" from now on.
>>29921935
>Osprey wouldn't last 5 minutes if people were shooting at it. It's peacetime equipment only, and way too expensive and dangerous for the capabilities it offers.
It has triple redundant hydraulic control systems, and each engine is capable of powering both rotors, in addition to having a thicker fuselage than Blackhawks or stallions, and it can fly FASTER which makes it a harder target to engage. It can also fly higher, to avoid small arms fire altogether, when it is not flying faster than a helicopter would when low to the ground.
>>29924957
I was told they were keeping M249s and the IAR was a sneaky way to get the M16 replacement they've been craving
>>29926896
Beautiful.
>>29919621
Everyone laugh at this idiot!
>>29919394
It moves faster and can do 2 trips in the time it takes a rotor wing to do one.
>>29926998
equally powerful rotor wing carries twice as much as costs half as much
>>29927534
Not even a little bit true
>tfw live near a base that developed these shitstains
>they always flew over house at odd hours and woke me up
>loud and retarded at all times
>go on base
>these fuckers are always being worked on
>their shit always takes priority for some reason and their pilots/crew are total assholes
fuck the osprey.
I fucking hate it from the bottom of my goddamn heart.
>>29927534
nigga, you don't know shit about weight and balance.
>>29920128
>>29920128
>>29922491
lowly pi fag here... CE ? or PI/PC? I can clearly tell you know wtf you are talking about, I assume M model
The biggest issue of the osprey is that its fucking heavy & gigantic
Marines are supposed to be operating aboard amphibious ships, the size & weight & fuel consumption of the osprey cripples their capabilities
>>29927813
CE, and yes, Mike model. Pacifically the HH. How many hours?
>>29927959
300 military 300 civilian I'm a nasty girl working towards the airlines... my unit is all limas =[ maybe a gilmer of hope for Vs in the future. FYI if you want to be on your pilots good side(not that ce's give a fuck) do the fuel sample. I literally buy my CEs beers every time they do it
>>29925538
I'm getting drunk. my sanity is shielded.
>>29919984
Maybe you're just fucking retarded.
You have to prep every helicopter before air transporting it.
>>29927959
also don't you just love how all the people on k have no idea wtf they are talking about and argue about worthless things? I enjoy it
>>29921935
It's like you retards don't remember Black Hawk Down. You can shoot down any aircraft, being able to be shot down doesn't make it peacetime only. Helicopters aren't magically invincible against small arms, they have to be armored, like the Blackhawk and Osprey are.
>>29921221
Higher speeds, faster vertical movement, dodge.
There are loads of benefits that true vtol craft would have over their bladed counterpart.
>>29928282
Osprey is not armored at all
>>29928106
That's the medics job yo. Or the JR crewchiefs on the flight. You got some lazy SOBs bruh.
>>29928230
We all do it.
>>29928306
links or you're a faggot.
>>29928365
well part of it is because we are short on maintainers and our CEs are no longer assigned aircraft because we have so many down. but I fucking agree... its bullshit . that shit would not fly in the navy/af
>>29928376
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/afsoc-ospreys-armor-up-after-painful-lessons-learned-in-south-sudan/
The osprey base has no weapons and no armor
The aircraft had serious payload limitations before trying to add that shit
>>29923567
You also don't have to take your car to the garage and have it stripped down, checked and overhauled every couple hundred hours. Shit gets tiresome and expensive.
>>29928306
>A transport aircraft needs armor
>>29930085
It can be handy; in the RAAF, all personnel flying in RAAF C-130s (and probably C-17s too) have to be wearing their issued body armour. Sometimes though, bullets miss the body armour (dude was shot in the neck): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-06-28/one-killed-in-attack-on-raaf-hercules/2000264
>>29930085
If you intend to be using them in a combat zone, you will be taking fire, yes
