F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now cheaper to produce! By $4.5 billion - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.[/QUOTE] Doesn't it have two engines and both props are linked so if one engine fails you can still land?

[QUOTE=download;40775045]Doesn't it have two engines and both props are linked so if one engine fails you can still land?[/QUOTE] Even if it does, it's still a bigger risk than a traditional helicopter or plane which are much simpler. Even when I take the rule of cool into account, I wouldn't really want to put my faith in one.

[QUOTE=danharibo;40775058]Even if it does, it's still a bigger risk than a traditional helicopter or plane which are much simpler. Even when I take the rule of cool into account, I wouldn't really want to put my faith in one.[/QUOTE] Personally I'd prefer to land with 1/2 engines that to land by autorotation

[QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.[/QUOTE] I've seen a quote from an Osprey pilot saying it glides just fine with the engines powered down

[QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.[/QUOTE] In the event of an engine failure, if it's in low altitude and there's not enough time to turn it to plane mode. In the event that one engine goes out, you can shift it to plane mode and just land it normally.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;40780434]In the event of an engine failure, if it's in low altitude and there's not enough time to turn it to plane mode. In the event that one engine goes out, you can shift it to plane mode and just land it normally.[/QUOTE] Which I don't think you can do on a LHD.

[QUOTE=laserguided;40781095]Which I don't think you can do on a LHD.[/QUOTE] Okay? You'd have a hell of a time auto-rotating onto a moving ship, too.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40781379]Okay? You'd have a hell of a time auto-rotating onto a moving ship, too.[/QUOTE] Probably easier than landing a plane on a LHD.

Is it even worth mentioning the likelihood of losing both engines on landing approach

[QUOTE=teh pirate;40781420]Is it even worth mentioning the likelihood of losing both engines on landing approach[/QUOTE] It is not.

Wow. This thread turned into a flame war fast.

[QUOTE=Smartuy;40781516]Wow. This thread turned into a flame war fast.[/QUOTE] I dunno man. The flame war on the bottom of the last thread was extremely civil.

[QUOTE=Smartuy;40781516]Wow. This thread turned into a flame war fast.[/QUOTE] Pro V-22 vs pro F-35, I never thought I'd see anything that silly.

[QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design. In the event of an engine failure, you die. The blades aren't large enough to auto rotate and the lift surfaces aren't sufficient to glide. You lose power, you crash in a bad way. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have procedures for power loss. The V-22 doesn't. Unacceptable for a combat transport. The aircraft is a novel design, but has absolutely no place on a battlefield.[/QUOTE] Hold on, that's not true. The V-22 can glide and land like a turboprop. And a power-landing is highly unlikely, as a loss of power would require both engines to fail, since one engine can drive both rotors. Honestly, there are a lot of myths propagated about the V-22. It gained a bad reputation during development in the 90's, and the media constantly criticized the program. Even people within the US government really hated the V-22, Dick Cheney tried to cancel the V-22 four times. When the V-22 was deployed to Iraq, there was wide speculation that the aircraft would prove to be unacceptable for combat, and the pentagon would quietly end the V-22. Despite what people say, its probably one of the best aircraft in the US arsenal. The president's Marine One may be replaced by a V-22, and the Israelis have expressed their desire to purchase some V-22s for the IDF. The V-22 is credited with being one of the key factors in the US's victory in Anbar province, Iraq.

science (and military research) CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HEAPS!! (of broken expensive shit)

[QUOTE=Sableye;40784030]science (and military research) CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HEAPS!! (of broken expensive shit)[/QUOTE] You're right, scientific success in programs like these shouldn't cost this much. That's why the Apollo program and the LHC are so cheap. Science done right.

the LHC was overbudget, over schedule, and broke down frequently, YET it still got its job done when the bugs were fixed, the apollo project only made its deadline because NASA was really only devoted to the task of the moon, no planetary sciences, no avionics, climate, or aerospace research to take away from their budget, (im not advocating that they do less) they should be properly funded, and when they ask for cash politicians shouldnt try to ask "whats a rawket, and why do i need to buy you some" still we don't question that those things were successful and effective

[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;40773542]On the downside, they had to remove the cup holders.[/QUOTE] Noo, not the cup holders. They were designed to keep big gulp sized drinks from flying out while doing areal maneuvers. How will the pilots get their freedom drinks now?

[QUOTE=Sableye;40796082]the LHC was overbudget, over schedule, and broke down frequently, YET it still got its job done when the bugs were fixed, the apollo project only made its deadline because NASA was really only devoted to the task of the moon, no planetary sciences, no avionics, climate, or aerospace research to take away from their budget, (im not advocating that they do less) they should be properly funded, and when they ask for cash politicians shouldnt try to ask "whats a rawket, and why do i need to buy you some" still we don't question that those things were successful and effective[/QUOTE] I.. um. My point is that scientific advancement costs a lot. In your post above you made it sound like it should be cheap. Not sure what that rambling mess means.

There is only one reason I hate the F-35 It's going to replace the good 'ol A-10 Warthog :c

[QUOTE=paindoc;40807642]There is only one reason I hate the F-35 It's going to replace the good 'ol A-10 Warthog :c[/QUOTE] Pretty sure they decided it wouldn't

why do we even need these money sinks again? couldn't we be solving world hunger instead of dumping money into retarded jets to "ward off the commiess!!"

[QUOTE=catbarf;40771109]It's nowhere near as dangerous as something like a V-22.[/QUOTE] Actually that's not true. In development, the V-22 had as many problems as the F-35 does now, that's the purpose of testing. Ever since coming out of testing the only crashes that V-22 have made are all due to human error, not mechanical failure. Commanders and marines love V-22's, replacing traditional rotary squadrons with aircraft several times the range and deployment speed. [img]http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/27926/MV22Range1.jpg[/img] I understand the Osprey has a checkered past, but it has really become a good addition to the air fleet. Can't make an Omelette without breaking a few eggs right? I hope it's the same for the F-35, and wish I could ever say that about the train wreck of train wrecks 'F-22' [QUOTE=GunFox;40774652]Uhh no, they haven't. The V-22 is a fundamentally flawed design.[B] In the event of an engine failure, you die[/B]. [/QUOTE] Well... That's generally what happens when any rotary aircraft has an engine failure.

[QUOTE=lordOfShadows;40825620]why do we even need these money sinks again? couldn't we be solving world hunger instead of dumping money into retarded jets to "ward off the commiess!!"[/QUOTE] Solving world hunger lol.... I've never understood posts like this. No one government can make more then the tiniest difference overall. Take n Korea- we could airdrop them ten times the food their population needs, and we could do this every year. But n Koreans would still be starving. It's not even a matter of "could we produce x food" anymore- it's a complicated mess with no end in sight.