Stop it junior! Remember what we talked about? Making statements backed up by opinion or from what a friend of a friend said... no. NO! Don't make me put you in the corner.


This thing has serious weaknesses, survivability is one of them (until it proves otherwise). The Phrog left big shoes to fill in that regard, and I don't think this thing will ever live up to that.


As a side note I just got a class A summary so far for FY10. 21 fatalities folks for the USN/USMC alone. Be safe out there.

 

Or my skipper telling me during cruise in '89 I should go to Kingsville to be one of the first IPs in the T-45. I would have been long done with my instructor tour before they started flying studs in it.

 

So true. VT-21 had four of them sitting on the line looking pretty at the time in March '93 when I was winged. The graduating class right after me got to hang around for a few months and be the simulator guinee pigs. They were put through the whole academics course and simulator syllabus. I'm glad I moved on
Fast forward now - I wouldn't mnd spending a couple of years flying the T-45C around the country on cross countries! I think Bunk certainly has something to look forward too in the coming future! HAVE FUN BUNK!

USMCFLYR

 

Sorry Sir,

The info, verbatim, came from a FRS IP for the MV-22 that I spoke to.

The facts of the CH-46 are 44 class A's in the first 5 years as was mentioned before. That's tough numbers!

 

Look, I've flown the damn thing, A LOT, and there are obviously still a ton of misperceptions out there.

Yes, you can FAST-rope from it. Don't know where that myth got started.

It is WAY faster than a 53E. When I was doing a troop movement for an exercise, we were literally making two trips for every one they made. I won't talk specific numbers here, but it will do over 250 knots at sea level. At altitude you can make a lot more than that TAS.

The cabin is the same as a -46. Take that for what you will. It could be wider. However, widening it would've imposed shipboard compatibility issues. Since it's primarily a Marine program, that's an issue. USAF can take that as they will. One of the reasons it might seem smaller than a -46 for pax is that they can't put gear under their seats anymore--because the seats are now crash-attenuating stroking seats.

VRS is NOT an issue. It is HARDER to get an Osprey into VRS than a helo. The consequences may be worse, but you practically have to TRY in order to reach VRS.

It can fly all day in APLN mode single-engine at anyweight and it CONV mode at most.

It kicks up a lot of dust. 40000 pounds in the air means 40000 pounds of lifties pushing down. Can't dispute physics. However, its onboard systems make it easier to land in the dust than the 46 was.

Those are a few common misperceptions I've seen here already. I'm happy to respond to any non-OPSEC questions that aren't preceded by something along the lines of "your aircraft is a POS because____, how about THAT!?!"

 

Glad to hear somebody speak up for it !

 

Welcome, glad to have some direct insight on this thread.

I knew that we could fast-rope, but didn't say anything because I wasn't certain about opsec on that.

 

I figured that if they can put pictures of Marines FAST-roping off an Osprey in the base paper, we can talk about it here!

 

Glad to hear that you like the new machine. I hope they get the kinks worked out of it and it's able to do all the things that Boeing said it could do.

Full disclosure: I guess it is personal for me, lost a family member of a close friend in that nasty mishap in AZ, never was able to look at the airframe the same way since. The acquisition process desperately needs to be overhauled. Again, I'm glad to hear that there is an operator that likes the new machine, never mind me, I'm a work in progress just like the Osprey.

Fly safe out there.

SD

 

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone that can make an educated argument otherwise. It's completely f'd.