/ag/ Avionic General

>>34768785
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

>>34768785
Per flight hour, they're the safest aircraft in the US inventory.

>>34768785
>Is the MV-22 Osprey the crashiest military aircraft in history?
Not even close.

S60 Blackhawk is a riskier flight and has killed more military personnel, and even the S60 Blackhawk isn't the worst.

>>34768835
>>34768866
>osprey spends most flight hours in level airplane flight
>helicopters are always flying like a helicopter

>>34768785
loser posts loser thread that fails surprise surprise

>>34768879
>Moving the goalposts like a child
It's got a smaller accident-per-flight-hour rate than either rotary or fixed wing aircraft. Check up on the Stratotanker if you want a real, honest death trap of a plane.

China's not even copying it. Shows how shit it is.

>>34768835
>>34768866
OK, but not since production/active service. Can't be. These fucking things are always dropping from when it first went into service. You gotta one stupid fuck to get in one of these. That or they hire semi-retards to fly them.

>>34768888
Fuck your mother

File: safetyreferences.png (135KB, 678x647px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 678x647px

>>34768965
Except literally every part of that is wrong and fake news.

It has fewer Class A (Million+dollar damage, death or permanent disability) Mishaps than the Sea Knight, about half as many as the A-10, 1/5th of the F-16, marginally fewer than the Blackhawk, about half that of the Chinook, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the Apache.

>>34768965
>You gotta one stupid fuck to get in one of these.
Safer than any other aircraft in USMC inventory.

Ospreys are higher profile when they crash because there's more people in them.

You are suffering from visibility bias.

>>34768965
Fuck off rotary shill. You still got attack and utility chopper contracts

>>34768914
China can't even copy their own carrier into existence, something we did before WWII, so what makes you think they would attempt to copy this advanced step forward in rotary aircraft?

Is China now the arbiter of what is good based on what they copy? I haven't seen the copy a blue water navy yet, so obviously every blue water navy is shit.

>>34769088
Yeah, it's like when everyone freaked out about Chinooks when Seal Team 6 was killed, but they ignored the 100+ crashes and shoot down that happened over the course of the early 21st century wars in the Middle East

>>34768785
This is why they crash:
>Is a helicopter/plane
>Has low wing surface area vs. overall weight
>Pilots fly VTOL roto-wing like plane
>Bank like plane
>Slip out of sky because lack of wing surface area
>crash

>>34769029
And yet all those aircraft have been in service for decades more than the MV-22 Balsa Wood Deathtrap Extraordinaire

>>34768785

Not even close to worst. KC135 is probably the worst in-use aircraft. Things fall out of the sky like crazy for the dumbest reasons.

>>34768914
>Does not meet China's quality control standards.
LET'S PUT MARINES IN THEM!!

>>34769715
>I don't understand what mishaps per flight hour means

The Osprey is safer than most fixed and rotary wing aircraft.

>>34768835
What about the F-35? That hasn't crashed yet. Or is Lockheed lying and they've actually suffered horrendous losses per airframe?

>>34769945
Considering we have over 240 of them constantly flying, and to quote an Air Force General: "No sorties have been cancelled due to maintenance failures," sounds pretty good to me.

>>34768914
But china's been toying with rotary wings since the early 2000s
Why haven't we seen anything come of it?
Because tilt rotors are hard.

>>34769985
I think an military aircraft crashing is technically a canceled mission. But leave it to stupid warhawks to put a good light on failures.

>>34772055
He's talking about the F-35, I believe.

>>34769985
The numbers anon is using are from before the F-35 entered service.

>>34772055
>technically a canceled mission
Failed, not cancelled. And he was referring to missions cancelled due to maintenance, ie missions cancelled because the aircraft assigned was deem not airworthy at the time.

>>34769715
People are literally showing you that you're wrong, but you're straight up saying you don't believe what they are showing you. Why is you being right and disregarding some objective facts so important to you? Being wrong and learning from it is one of the most important things you can achieve

>>34769734
Got any good examples?

>>34769191
Except no Osprey crashes have happened in the scenario you described.

>avionic general
>not on emention of avionics
>more shitposting about the V-22 from the same guy who has made four or five threads about them now

Sage goes in all fields.

>>34768965
>That or they hire semi-retards to fly them
well it is the marines, so...

>>34768785
A lot of people think the deadliest weapon in the world is a marine and his rifle, but thats demonstrably false. Because the most effective counter, is the v-22 sorry. That thing will kill the shit out of marines.

>>34768785
I think the starfighter takes that title.