@rickcain2320 That's exactly right, budget yourself for your later years. Be a responsible individual, don't count on collecting money for free just for being old.
@rickcain2320 it's not an either or situation. the people who build these things support many other industry's that pay taxes . also these jobs support a large chunk of economy's in places giving people reitrements in the future so they don't need to rely on hand outs.
@otacon451 No, it can take off like a plane, but it has the ability to do short take off, which is extremely valuable. Also, even if one engine fails, the other engine has the ability to power both rotors.
@noacronym this had to do with lack of training not anything to do with faulty design. crashes caused further reduction in training time ..... downward spiral .. no pun intended.
@circusboy90210 haha you are saying the USMC pilots who crashed the Osprey had "lack of training"?? you dont know jack about the military. Osprey IS A FAULTY DESIGN, just like the M-16 rifle which jammed when it was first used in Vietnam, cuz its faults werent fixed before deploying it in combat. Blackhawk can hover at well over 10,000 feet altitude but Osprey can only safely hover at 4000 ft in the heat of Afghan. due to its prop design. Plus sand can mess up the engine. V-22 Flying Coffin
@AccordGTR I know about this plane and it's history and the military. the pilot's never inherently had enough training when it was a new plane and an unproven design. nobody knew much about it , then when the crashes started training time was cut down to stop the crashes this created even more crashes. the osprey was not meant to hover for long periods of time . it's initial purpose was for stol not vtol.
@circusboy90210 U mean actual training? but the pilots were experienced in simulator, rotary and fixed-wing aircraft before flying V-22. Obviously the problem is one of matching capability with pilot expectation. I would expect any new system would be thoroughly tested but investigation shows the Osprey was rushed into service without testing it in the same combat conditions as Afghan. USMC pilots are used as human guinea pigs only to find out the flaws with deadly results. Am I wrong?
@AccordGTR the problem is the transition period requires a workload that overtaxes the pilot there should have been more automation included in the system. evedently the designers thought they had done their job there are two different control systems if I remember correctly. look it up on janes airplanes.
@circusboy90210 hmm maybe but I dont think its the avionics. I researched about the crash at Qulat, AFghanistan April 2010 where 4 KIA...the altitude was 5085 ft but at that heat and payload, the V-22 can only hover at 4000 ft. The official investigation board found engine failure. So that was 2 problems - 1, it has less capability than a Blackhawk in hovering altitude, 2 - engines ingest sand, they fail or lose power.
@circusboy90210 That's like saying the M-16 was not meant for wet or dirty conditions. How can u say a $100M V-22 is not meant for dessert conditions when US is fighting in those conditions?? STOL is only good on a carrier or concrete runway, impossible in the other landing conditions like desert or rough dirt. V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems so "pilot fatigue" is minimal. Even a gamer can fly it. Problem is when its in combat
@AccordGTR most accidents where in training. the vtol was not built for anyone theatre of combat that's how I cana say that. pilot fatigue is not only because of something being physically hard. other factors are like too many emergency bells or whistles etc. too many gauges to watch at once. your out of your league here you don't know what your talking about. cost has nothing to do with the issues.
@circusboy90210 hello! u r making no sense at all. U just said it wasn't designed for desert conditions and then u say it wasn't made for any one theater...so basically u proved wat I was saying in the first place that its a lousy design.
I think u don't understand wat Avionics and automatic flight controls are about. FBW means the computer flies it, not the pilot.
"Cost has nothing to do with the issues"? - hello! then as a taxpayer, u were shafted!
@AccordGTR not many applications of high caliber are for any specific theatre of operations. it's better to be medicore at everything that very good at just one because you don't know where you will have to deploy. also you have to keep in mind this is a first generation product it will never be perfect. there have been many planes that do way more and took many generations to perfect. I don't care about the cost as long as it makes thing better which it did . it produces jobs spins off tech.
@circusboy90210 Ah so the truth comes out. Never mind the poor unlucky devils who die from defective designs, right, so long as people have jobs? US soldiers risk their lives to save each other yet, are willing to sacrifice their own life "to make things better". So the trick is, to convince them that "things are getting better". Well, are they? Is a $100M Osprey really gonna help u fight Taliban than say a $35M Chinook or $40M Blackhawk? Would u rather get shot down or crash?
@AccordGTR hey when you join the military you know your going to die. you are gi property to be disposed of as necesary to fullfill national security objectives. also fly by wire does not mean the plane flies itself. what that means is wires or fiber optics translates the pilots input to electric or electro mechanical hydraulics actuators instead of cables or other systems. however some fbw systems as in some of the x series and stealth fighter and bomber supplement inputs. pilots are slow.
@circusboy90210 Wrong on both counts. People join to serve, win, adventure or earn, not die. What u r talking about is suicide, like suicide bombers or Kamikaze pilots. Death in war is a risk, not an absolute. Dead soldiers are useless in winning a war. In FBW, plane can't fly without computer as it controls the actual operation of the flight surfaces in the wings and other vital controls. Osprey has triple redundancy but FBW won't save u if u fly into the ground or engine fails
@AccordGTR hahaha your funny, people are lulled into joining for some mysterious mythical romantic reason. reality you are property to be killed if need be to fullfill objectives. fbw does not always control the operation in many cases it merely transfers commands . the only planes that i know of that override to a certain extent are some x planes and the stealth fighter/bomber. this is becausee they are instable in flight to such extent humans are not fast enough to react , most fbw is direct
@circusboy90210 Try telling that to any serviceman straight to his face. hahaha. No, FBW is not direct...Osprey is too hard to control without computer if there are winds or landing on a carrier deck especially under combat. Computer keeps it upright, stable and balanced while hovering, and not exceeding its flight envelope in forward flight. F-16, Rafale, SU-35 and Eurofighter are all fully-FBW. Also Airbus A320 and Boeing 787. Research again
@AccordGTR I remember reading about fbw on one of the first planes to use it. fbw is direct in most instances. I already have told servicemen that and they already knew they were just cannon fodder. look up fbw in wikipedia fly by wire.
@AccordGTR however your car is guilty of the same process; when auto designers make cars people get killed and the math is just what is cheaper a redesign or paying off a few people who are killed.
@circusboy90210 Out of 100+ Ospreys, 5 crashed from design defects killing 34 soldiers since 2000. How many drivers do you know have died from design defects out of the 250 million vehicles in the US since 2000? MAYBE a couple of Toyota Prius incidents?
prius ?? hahaha what a joke, hoever there have been many other cases of auto designs that killed more than a few , you just never hear about them. do you even remember the pinto? or the corvair?? these are just a few of the more well known killers. however the osprey is killing people from pilot error not design defects. if so then some peole have alot to explain.
@circusboy90210 haha you are digging deep, bro. Pinto was 50 years ago. Corvair even earlier. So how many died? Do u even know? With cars if there is a defect, people wont buy it or they give it back. Soldiers die if there's a defect and taxpayers lose millions.
@AccordGTR people did buy the car's buy the millions . there are even more cases that were suppressed with money. taxpayers themselves lost their lives. a soldiers life is no more important than anyone elses, they are payed to die.
millions???? hahaha that's mere chump change. agreed it should not be happening but it's part of the life cycle of almost any plane.
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
they are like OMG LOOK AT IT TAKE OFF! yeah, once you work on them like I do its not that special, I see them take off everyday on the flightline its not to special. they are great planes butv a bitch to fix.
Do you realize how full of yourself you sound? "yeah, once you work on them like I do its not that special" LOL How does your head fit through the hangar-doors?
who else thinks they should make a 4 engine version of this, kinda like a chinook osprey.
piloty5 5 months ago
Ok, this is sweet. But, when they put jet engines on the ends instead of props, then I'll be really impressed
Narsedax 7 months ago
@Narsedax It's a turboprop, so it does have jet engines on the end. But those jet engines also spin props.
miron721 7 months ago
@miron721 Yes, but I would love it if they just built a plane that only has jet engines on it.
Narsedax 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So far, each V-22 Osprey costs the US taxpayer over $67M. Huey used to cost less than $5M and is much more reliable and efficient.
AccordGTR 7 months ago
Filmed by a dwarf with a potato.
sunstarfire 7 months ago
Once upon at time, Mr Airplane and Mrs Helicopter had a child, they named him Osprey.
:o)
Alexvideoclip 7 months ago
"look how the rotors have now turned..." yes we wouldve done if you'd stopped shaking the bloody camera !!
altern8ive 8 months ago
Boeing :)
eagleclawproduction1 8 months ago
isn't this just another VTOL aircraft? Whats so amazing about it? Looks cool though :P
jony1710 9 months ago
Yeah we don't need health care for our old people, let's build more ospreys!
rickcain2320 10 months ago 3
@rickcain2320 That's exactly right, budget yourself for your later years. Be a responsible individual, don't count on collecting money for free just for being old.
cjshull 10 months ago
@rickcain2320 it's not an either or situation. the people who build these things support many other industry's that pay taxes . also these jobs support a large chunk of economy's in places giving people reitrements in the future so they don't need to rely on hand outs.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
10 dislikes? They must be from countries unable to build such a machine.
TonyN737 10 months ago
so it cant really take off like a plane, and if you lose an engine youre fcked?
otacon451 10 months ago
@otacon451 No, it can take off like a plane, but it has the ability to do short take off, which is extremely valuable. Also, even if one engine fails, the other engine has the ability to power both rotors.
glotwp55 8 months ago
@glotwp55 thanks!
otacon451 8 months ago
@porkyminch01 i had a stripper squirt boobie milk into my mouth last night...*true*...she was a hot latina.
jjjazzycraig 11 months ago
@jjjazzycraig thats a pretty intelligent move
zimThuet 10 months ago
the announcer is what helped me understand this complex aircraft.
jjjazzycraig 11 months ago
Vertibird =D
daladek 1 year ago
piękny!
szymonjary 1 year ago
And they used to call a p39 a death trap. I wouldn't stand within a mile of an Ospery.
noacronym 1 year ago
@noacronym shows you know so little of this aircraft design that was specially made so groups of marines could drop out of it and support them
this aircraft actually was named as one of the more protective aircrafts for troop support and transport
do your homework next time budd
YairKas 1 year ago 13
@YairKas I had 14 fellow Marines die in one of these in April of 2000, during training. It's not nicknamed the flying coffin for nothing.
afireinside44203 8 months ago
@noacronym this had to do with lack of training not anything to do with faulty design. crashes caused further reduction in training time ..... downward spiral .. no pun intended.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
@circusboy90210 haha you are saying the USMC pilots who crashed the Osprey had "lack of training"?? you dont know jack about the military. Osprey IS A FAULTY DESIGN, just like the M-16 rifle which jammed when it was first used in Vietnam, cuz its faults werent fixed before deploying it in combat. Blackhawk can hover at well over 10,000 feet altitude but Osprey can only safely hover at 4000 ft in the heat of Afghan. due to its prop design. Plus sand can mess up the engine. V-22 Flying Coffin
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR I know about this plane and it's history and the military. the pilot's never inherently had enough training when it was a new plane and an unproven design. nobody knew much about it , then when the crashes started training time was cut down to stop the crashes this created even more crashes. the osprey was not meant to hover for long periods of time . it's initial purpose was for stol not vtol.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 U mean actual training? but the pilots were experienced in simulator, rotary and fixed-wing aircraft before flying V-22. Obviously the problem is one of matching capability with pilot expectation. I would expect any new system would be thoroughly tested but investigation shows the Osprey was rushed into service without testing it in the same combat conditions as Afghan. USMC pilots are used as human guinea pigs only to find out the flaws with deadly results. Am I wrong?
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR the problem is the transition period requires a workload that overtaxes the pilot there should have been more automation included in the system. evedently the designers thought they had done their job there are two different control systems if I remember correctly. look it up on janes airplanes.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 hmm maybe but I dont think its the avionics. I researched about the crash at Qulat, AFghanistan April 2010 where 4 KIA...the altitude was 5085 ft but at that heat and payload, the V-22 can only hover at 4000 ft. The official investigation board found engine failure. So that was 2 problems - 1, it has less capability than a Blackhawk in hovering altitude, 2 - engines ingest sand, they fail or lose power.
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR they were not meant for desert environments. they also were not meant for hoverign the osprey is a stol not a vtol.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 That's like saying the M-16 was not meant for wet or dirty conditions. How can u say a $100M V-22 is not meant for dessert conditions when US is fighting in those conditions?? STOL is only good on a carrier or concrete runway, impossible in the other landing conditions like desert or rough dirt. V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems so "pilot fatigue" is minimal. Even a gamer can fly it. Problem is when its in combat
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR most accidents where in training. the vtol was not built for anyone theatre of combat that's how I cana say that. pilot fatigue is not only because of something being physically hard. other factors are like too many emergency bells or whistles etc. too many gauges to watch at once. your out of your league here you don't know what your talking about. cost has nothing to do with the issues.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 hello! u r making no sense at all. U just said it wasn't designed for desert conditions and then u say it wasn't made for any one theater...so basically u proved wat I was saying in the first place that its a lousy design.
I think u don't understand wat Avionics and automatic flight controls are about. FBW means the computer flies it, not the pilot.
"Cost has nothing to do with the issues"? - hello! then as a taxpayer, u were shafted!
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR not many applications of high caliber are for any specific theatre of operations. it's better to be medicore at everything that very good at just one because you don't know where you will have to deploy. also you have to keep in mind this is a first generation product it will never be perfect. there have been many planes that do way more and took many generations to perfect. I don't care about the cost as long as it makes thing better which it did . it produces jobs spins off tech.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 Ah so the truth comes out. Never mind the poor unlucky devils who die from defective designs, right, so long as people have jobs? US soldiers risk their lives to save each other yet, are willing to sacrifice their own life "to make things better". So the trick is, to convince them that "things are getting better". Well, are they? Is a $100M Osprey really gonna help u fight Taliban than say a $35M Chinook or $40M Blackhawk? Would u rather get shot down or crash?
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR hey when you join the military you know your going to die. you are gi property to be disposed of as necesary to fullfill national security objectives. also fly by wire does not mean the plane flies itself. what that means is wires or fiber optics translates the pilots input to electric or electro mechanical hydraulics actuators instead of cables or other systems. however some fbw systems as in some of the x series and stealth fighter and bomber supplement inputs. pilots are slow.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 Wrong on both counts. People join to serve, win, adventure or earn, not die. What u r talking about is suicide, like suicide bombers or Kamikaze pilots. Death in war is a risk, not an absolute. Dead soldiers are useless in winning a war. In FBW, plane can't fly without computer as it controls the actual operation of the flight surfaces in the wings and other vital controls. Osprey has triple redundancy but FBW won't save u if u fly into the ground or engine fails
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR hahaha your funny, people are lulled into joining for some mysterious mythical romantic reason. reality you are property to be killed if need be to fullfill objectives. fbw does not always control the operation in many cases it merely transfers commands . the only planes that i know of that override to a certain extent are some x planes and the stealth fighter/bomber. this is becausee they are instable in flight to such extent humans are not fast enough to react , most fbw is direct
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 Try telling that to any serviceman straight to his face. hahaha. No, FBW is not direct...Osprey is too hard to control without computer if there are winds or landing on a carrier deck especially under combat. Computer keeps it upright, stable and balanced while hovering, and not exceeding its flight envelope in forward flight. F-16, Rafale, SU-35 and Eurofighter are all fully-FBW. Also Airbus A320 and Boeing 787. Research again
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR I remember reading about fbw on one of the first planes to use it. fbw is direct in most instances. I already have told servicemen that and they already knew they were just cannon fodder. look up fbw in wikipedia fly by wire.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@AccordGTR however your car is guilty of the same process; when auto designers make cars people get killed and the math is just what is cheaper a redesign or paying off a few people who are killed.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 Out of 100+ Ospreys, 5 crashed from design defects killing 34 soldiers since 2000. How many drivers do you know have died from design defects out of the 250 million vehicles in the US since 2000? MAYBE a couple of Toyota Prius incidents?
AccordGTR 6 months ago
prius ?? hahaha what a joke, hoever there have been many other cases of auto designs that killed more than a few , you just never hear about them. do you even remember the pinto? or the corvair?? these are just a few of the more well known killers. however the osprey is killing people from pilot error not design defects. if so then some peole have alot to explain.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 haha you are digging deep, bro. Pinto was 50 years ago. Corvair even earlier. So how many died? Do u even know? With cars if there is a defect, people wont buy it or they give it back. Soldiers die if there's a defect and taxpayers lose millions.
AccordGTR 6 months ago
@AccordGTR people did buy the car's buy the millions . there are even more cases that were suppressed with money. taxpayers themselves lost their lives. a soldiers life is no more important than anyone elses, they are payed to die.
millions???? hahaha that's mere chump change. agreed it should not be happening but it's part of the life cycle of almost any plane.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
Um....this is a fair bit younger than the harrier m'boy. This is a first generation DROP SHIP >:D!!
tlucentefl 1 year ago
@tlucentefl now let the jet powered drop ship development begin
searchoverload8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
pilotdave1000 2 years ago
what is it?is it a plane,or a chopper?
Sevival 2 years ago
this is a stupid prehistoric harrier jet!
LOOPYMOOCOW 2 years ago
@LOOPYMOOCOW the harrier is a jump jet fighter whilst this is a VTOL dropship
searchoverload8 1 year ago
@LOOPYMOOCOW You need to go drain your brain pan!
sakoshooter48 1 year ago
they are like OMG LOOK AT IT TAKE OFF! yeah, once you work on them like I do its not that special, I see them take off everyday on the flightline its not to special. they are great planes butv a bitch to fix.
PopTartBandwagn 2 years ago
Do you realize how full of yourself you sound? "yeah, once you work on them like I do its not that special" LOL How does your head fit through the hangar-doors?
sugoi49 2 years ago 7
It is the most chill show and is so good for summer air show:D
flutteringleaf 2 years ago
looks really stupid in normal flight lol
coldfustion 2 years ago
stability? that's obviously the most unstable thing that's seen in this video! thanks for sharing, but geeez; how bout a tri/mono pod next time eh?
superspeedfreek 3 years ago
Bloody hard to fly.
ANarayan 5 years ago
It's a revolutionary aircraft!
Northax 5 years ago
"Revolutionary"... with two rotors going. Ba-dum kssh. :)
AnUndeadMonkey 3 years ago
@AnUndeadMonkey yes basic 7 small changes are where it really happens.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
Looks like an extrememly unstable helicopter/plane
martinwbc 5 years ago