Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

V22s

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
S

saab fixr

professioanl speal kecker
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Posts
156
Anyone out there fly or work on these just curious with all the problems they have had in their past how things are working out ?
 
saab fixr said:
Anyone out there fly or work on these just curious with all the problems they have had in their past how things are working out ?
Click to expand...

From talking to guys in the know, they are exceeding all expectations in Iraq and performing superbly.
 
saab fixr said:
Anyone out there fly or work on these just curious with all the problems they have had in their past how things are working out ?
Click to expand...

I think the Osprey is a similar situation to the F-22. Both airplanes are very expensive, took a long time to get operational and had a lot of detractors and nay-sayers. But once they get into the field they blow the skeptics away by actually far exceeding the stated capabilities. Our technology is fantastic.
 
In October Newsweek had a big cover article about how much of a POS the V-22 was and how they wouldn't survive in Iraq. That rag is very quiet about it now. I wonder why? Because once again they were proven to be wrong.

I think it will turn out to be a good aircraft in the end.
 
As usual the press think they know it all It looks like a fantastic machine, but cant help but wonder why the CH53 and the 46 arent good enough anymore as they have served so well. I like the osprey but it seems expensive piece of machinerary to put in the enviorment the Marines have to operate in. I guess the question is why not improve what works? and no im not saying the 47 is the answear the Army can keep them but something like it that has the range and payload of the osprey, Speed isnt everything or maybe im wrong Thanks for the info so far
 
ive been flogged i was talking vertical not horizontal you jet guys rule but then again the f18 is awesome just wished i hung around the Marine Corp to actually get to see them !!
 
saab fixr said:
As usual the press think they know it all It looks like a fantastic machine, but cant help but wonder why the CH53 and the 46 arent good enough anymore as they have served so well. I like the osprey but it seems expensive piece of machinerary to put in the enviorment the Marines have to operate in. I guess the question is why not improve what works? and no im not saying the 47 is the answear the Army can keep them but something like it that has the range and payload of the osprey, Speed isnt everything or maybe im wrong Thanks for the info so far
Click to expand...

I bet you hear that allot from your lady! :D

The CH53 is old and probably a MX hog. Great aircraft, but in the end all great aircraft have to eventually be put in the boneyard. Every piece of equipement we have over in OIF/OEF is expensive. It's the nature of business.

The CH47 is still being built and will probably be around for a long time. The CH46 is what the V-22 is replacing.
 
pkober said:
In October Newsweek had a big cover article about how much of a POS the V-22 was and how they wouldn't survive in Iraq. That rag is very quiet about it now. I wonder why? Because once again they were proven to be wrong.

I think it will turn out to be a good aircraft in the end.
Click to expand...

It will be a great new aircraft that performs well.
I just won't carry CRAP and will hinder the mission.
You can put a toyota pickup and team members on a MH53. You can put a few team members on a V22.......from experience in Ops I can see this being an issue.
 
Hi!

In 1989, the HH-53s (AF Jolly Green Giants-2 engines vs. the Marines 3 engine models) were requiring about 65 maintenance hours PER FLIGHT HOUR!!! I wonder how much more they're at now.

The AF is looking at replacing them with CH-47s.

cliff
CLL
 
atpcliff said:
Hi!

In 1989, the HH-53s (AF Jolly Green Giants-2 engines vs. the Marines 3 engine models) were requiring about 65 maintenance hours PER FLIGHT HOUR!!! I wonder how much more they're at now.

The AF is looking at replacing them with CH-47s.

cliff
CLL
Click to expand...

You will soon see -53's on sticks somewhere. A loss to the community to say the least. As for the -47 entering service with the AF, that might be awhile. Until they get the bitching out of the way, the CSAR community will struggle with an aircraft that is being asked to do more than it was supposed to.
 
Hi!

I've seen a BUNCH or helos on a stick. I remember that Kaman (sp?) one in ABQ. It is a dual rotor bird with the two rotors placed side-by-side at a big angle so they intermesh! It doesn't look safe.

cliff
YIP
 
SIG600 said:
From talking to guys in the know, they are exceeding all expectations in Iraq and performing superbly.
Click to expand...
They do fine carrying toilet paper from the boat to shore or from FOB to FOB. As an air assault/special ops platform, however, it has an uphill battle to fight.
 
JungleJett said:
You will soon see -53's on sticks somewhere. A loss to the community to say the least. .
Click to expand...

I saw 68-4433 on display at ABQ this week. It was a HH-53B initially and finished as a MH-53J. It's over by the flying boats, near the HH-43.

Interesting to note that as the CV-22 replaces the AF H-53's that special ops is buying MH-47G's to fill that niche (flown by the 160 SOAR). The V-22 may yet be a fine aircraft, but a 53 replacement it isn't.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top