- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Another CV-22 Osprey Crash, one Marine dead
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:15 am
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:15 am
How many of these things have to fall out of the sky for the military to admit their flying death traps?
bbc.com
quote:
Japan's Coast Guard said one person had been found dead near the crash site.
Japan's NHK broadcaster said the CV-22 Osprey hybrid plane had been trying to land at Yakushima Airport with one engine on fire. There is no US comment.
Ospreys - which can function as a helicopter and a turboprop aircraft - have been involved in a string of fatal crashes over the years.
quote:
The aircraft that went down on Wednesday was thought to be heading from Iwakuni base in the western Yamaguchi prefecture to Kadena base in the country's south-westernmost Okinawa region. Japan's defence ministry said the aircraft disappeared from the radar at 14:40 local time (05:40 GMT) on Wednesday. The Coast Guard received a distress call five minutes later, saying the plane had crashed.
quote:
An eyewitness told local TV that the plane had been circling before exploding and crashing into the sea on Wednesday.
bbc.com
This post was edited on 11/29/23 at 7:15 am
6
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:18 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Cool place on the planet.
Yakushima
Go if you have the chance.
RIP to the deceased.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:22 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
How many of these things have to fall out of the sky for the military to admit their flying death traps?
How many time has this sort of thing happened? (I honestly haven't heard of any before today)
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:28 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
How many time has this sort of thing happened? (I honestly haven't heard of any before today)
I hadn't heard of it happening in a while, but it was relatively frequently when they were first put into service from what I remember.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:32 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
How many time has this sort of thing happened? (I honestly haven't heard of any before today)
They have a bad reputation. As for the numbers…
quote:
The V-22 Osprey has had 16 hull loss accidents that have resulted in a total of 55 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000, there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had 11 crashes, including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 25 fatalities.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:33 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The V-22 Osprey has had 16 hull loss accidents that have resulted in a total of 55 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000, there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had 11 crashes, including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 25 fatalities.
Damn. How does that compare to other vehicles during those same timeframes?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:39 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Damn. How does that compare to other vehicles during those same timeframes?
Not good at all. I did a search for Chinook crashes over that same timeframe. There isn’t much there other than some shot down in combat. The Chinook has been in service since the early 1960s.
I only see two crashes during the same 2007 to today timeframe. One was a Peruvian Chinook, the other Canadian. I don’t see any American accidents since 2005 and that was caused by the pilot becoming disoriented in a sandstorm.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/29/23 at 7:43 am
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:42 am to Darth_Vader
What the hell are we still using these things for then? Stubbornness because we (assumedly) paid so much money for them? Was this some pet project of some general high up or some shite?
Seems like a pretty easy/rational call to discontinue using these if they are so crash-prone.
Seems like a pretty easy/rational call to discontinue using these if they are so crash-prone.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:43 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
What the hell are we still using these things for then?
You answered your own question.
quote:
Was this some pet project of some general high up or some shite?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:45 am to CocomoLSU
Yulista services these about a mile from my house. They hover over my house and I’m just waiting for one to drop.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:45 am to Darth_Vader
Is this the first crash for this variant? It’s the Air Force’s plane. I think it’s reserved for Special Operations
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:47 am to CocomoLSU
quote:they fill a pretty niche role in terms of range speed and vtol
What the hell are we still using these things for then?
idk what the truth is but I've always read it's a maintenance nightmare, if you stay on top of it then it's just as safe as anything else
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:50 am to Dudley Humptyfrats
quote:
Is this the first crash for this variant?
Far from it. There’s been like 11 since 2007. I think this latest crash brings the total to 12 now.
quote:
variant? It’s the Air Force’s plane. I think it’s reserved for Special Operations
The Air Force does operate some but I think most of them are used by the Marines.
This post was edited on 11/29/23 at 7:54 am
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:00 am to Darth_Vader
V-280 can't get here soon enough.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:01 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The V-22 Osprey has had 16 hull loss accidents that have resulted in a total of 55 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000, there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had 11 crashes, including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 25 fatalities.
And all of those incidents occurred without a shot being fired at any of those aircraft.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:02 am to wileyjones
quote:
idk what the truth is but I've always read it's a maintenance nightmare
There is a dude on instagram that makes a joke about this. mandatoryfunday or something.
Lots of moving parts on this aircraft. choppadoc might be able to share some more light.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:02 am to wileyjones
quote:
they fill a pretty niche role in terms of range speed and vtol
Out of curiosity, I checked the Osprey’s performance against the Chinook
Chinook
quote:
General characteristics
Crew: 3 (pilot, copilot, flight engineer or loadmaster)
Capacity:
33–55 troops or
24 stretchers and 3 attendants or
24,000 lb (10,886 kg) payload
Length: 98 ft (30 m) [190]
Fuselage length: 52 ft (16 m)
Width: 12 ft 5 in (3.78 m) (fuselage)[190]
Height: 18 ft 11 in (5.77 m)
Empty weight: 24,578 lb (11,148 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming T55-GA-714A turboshaft engines, 4,733 shp (3,529 kW) each
Main rotor diameter: 2 × 60 ft (18 m)
Main rotor area: 5,600 sq ft (520 m2)
Blade section: root: Boeing VR-7; tip: Boeing VR-8[191]
Performance
Maximum speed: 170 kn (196 mph, 315 km/h)
Cruise speed: 160 kn (184 mph, 296 km/h)
Range: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km)
Combat range: 200 nmi (230 mi, 370 km)
Ferry range: 1,216 nmi (1,399 mi, 2,252 km) [192]
Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Rate of climb: 1,522 ft/min (7.73 m/s)
Disk loading: 9.5 lb/sq ft (46 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.28 hp/lb (0.46 kW/kg)
Armament
Up to 3 pintle-mounted medium machine guns (1 on loading ramp and 2 at shoulder windows), generally 7.62 mm (0.300 in) M240/FN MAG machine guns, and can be armed with the 7.62 mm M134 Minigun rotary machine gun.
Osprey
quote:
General characteristics
Crew: 3–4 (pilot, copilot and 1 or 2 flight engineers/crew chiefs/loadmasters/gunners)
Capacity: ** 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded), or
20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook)
1× M1161 Growler light internally transportable ground vehicle[268][269]
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.48 m) * Length folded: 62 ft 7.6 in (19.091 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (13.97 m)
Width: 84 ft 6.8 in (25.776 m) including rotors
Width folded: 18 ft 5 in (5.61 m)
Height: 22 ft 1 in (6.73 m) engine nacelles vertical
17 ft 7.8 in (5 m) to top of tailfins
Height folded: 18 ft 1 in (5.51 m)
Wing area: 301.4 sq ft (28.00 m2)
Empty weight: 31,818 lb (14,432 kg) * Operating weight, empty: 32,623 lb (14,798 kg)
Gross weight: 39,500 lb (17,917 kg) * Combat weight: 42,712 lb (19,374 kg)
Maximum take-off weight VTO: 47,500 lb (21,546 kg)
Maximum take-off weight STO: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg)
Maximum take-off weight STO, ferry: 60,500 lb (27,442 kg)
Fuel capacity:
Ferry maximum 4,451 US gal (3,706 imp gal; 16,850 L) of JP-4 / JP-5 / JP-8 to MIL-T-5624
2,436 US gal (2,028 imp gal; 9,220 L) in optional cabin auxiliary tank
1,228 US gal (1,023 imp gal; 4,650 L) in three sponson partial self-sealing tanks
787 US gal (655 imp gal; 2,980 L) in ten wing self-sealing tanks
1.93 US gal (1.61 imp gal; 7.3 L) engine oil
25.375 US gal (21.129 imp gal; 96.05 L) transmission oil
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce T406-AD-400 turboprop/turboshaft engines, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each maximum at 15,000 rpm at sea level, 59 °F (15 °C)
5,890 hp (4,392 kW) maximum continuous at 15,000 rpm at sea level, 59 °F (15 °C)
Main rotor diameter: 2 × 38 ft (12 m)
Main rotor area: 2,268 sq ft (210.7 m2) 3-bladed
Performance
Maximum speed: 275 kn (316 mph, 509 km/h) [270]
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[271]
Stall speed: 110 kn (130 mph, 200 km/h) [75]
Range: 879 nmi (1,012 mi, 1,628 km)
Combat range: 390 nmi (450 mi, 720 km)
Ferry range: 2,230 nmi (2,570 mi, 4,130 km)
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
g limits: * g limits, helicopter mode:
+3 -0.5 at 39,500 lb (17,917 kg)
+2.77 -0.46 at 42,712 lb (19,374 kg)
+2.5 -0.42 at 47,500 lb (21,546 kg)
g limits, airplane mode:
+4 -1 at 39,500 lb (17,917 kg)
+3.7 -0.92 at 42,712 lb (19,374 kg)
+3.3 -0.84 at 47,500 lb (21,546 kg)
+2.87 -0.72 at 55,000 lb (24,948 kg)
+2.61 -0.65 at 60,500 lb (27,442 kg)
Maximum glide ratio: 4.5:1[75]
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8–20.3 m/s) [75]
Wing loading: 20.9 lb/sq ft (102 kg/m2) at 47,500 lb (21,546 kg)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (0.426 kW/kg)
Armament
1 × 7.62 mm (.308 in) M240 machine gun or .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun on ramp, removable
1 × 7.62 mm (.308 in) GAU-17 minigun, belly-mounted, retractable, video remote control in the Remote Guardian System [optional]
Payload/troop capability: Chinook
Speed: Osprey
Range: Osprey
Not randomly falling from the sky: Chinook
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:07 am to Darth_Vader
There was a time when I worked on aircraft. My rule was that if I wouldn't put my family in it, I wouldn't OK it for launch. I wonder what Osprey mechanics would say about that aircraft and whether or not they'd put their families in one.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:26 am to Darth_Vader
The Air Force variant rarely crashes. I think this is the first one in around 10 years.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News