• atocci@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I will not have the Osprey’s good name besmirched like this, I’ll have you know these things fly around here all the time and only one two have ever crashed in the forest outside town!

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Considering the level of protection the Secret Service provides, candidates are safer riding in an osprey than giving a speech.

    • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ya know,I’ve had Ukraine on my mind so much, I’d forgotten about that? Thanks for the reminder, I was going to hire a few retired agents as security for a concert in Aurora.

    • nuke@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Flying deathtrap. VP on an Osprey, we just witnessed an assassination attempt!

    • circuscritic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Ignore them. They’re just haters who can’t handle the fact that despite it’s youth, the Osprey is already a legendary platform.

      Think of it like the A-10, except instead of repeatedly slaughtering friendly forces, it just regularly kills anyone dumb enough to ride in one, or pilot it.

    • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      fudds like to call the osprey a death trap because they read some headlines early on and never bothered looking into the data. that’s my understanding of it, as i have also not looked into the data.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unlike helicopters, they cannot autorotate, meaning if you lose power in any position other than forward cruise, you’re fucked. Asymmetric power loss is also extra bad.

        The design is inherently less safe than either a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft.

        • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          again, as someone who doesn’t know much about this, aren’t they only using the VTOL configuration during takeoff and landing? and, doesn’t auto rotation require a certain amount of altitude? if both of those are true, then they would be in danger at the same time

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            They’re flying with the engines facing at least partially upwards during takeoff and landing, even when taking off like an aircraft, meaning they’re in trouble if they lose power, not just in a hover. The Japanese crash happened on final approach as they were slowing down, but still a few hundred feet in the air.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height–velocity_diagram

            This is the combination of airspeed and height you cannot perform an autorotation from, the graph shown is worse than many other helicopters. Robinson aircraft can auto from zero airspeed at around 400 feet. It’s all about having enough forward speed to flare off your rate of descent and land with only forward airspeed, you could successfully flare at head height and enough airspeed over good ground.

            Other tiltrotors are capable of autorotation.

            • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              I like that the chart there has a little red sliver to indicate that it is, in fact, a bad idea to fly very fast at ground level.

          • atocci@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Anecdotal, but I almost exclusively see them flying in VTOL configuration

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s at least partly because that’s the easiest time to photograph an aircraft.

              • atocci@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                I don’t mean in photos, they just fly around town in VTOL configuration all the time. Hardly ever see them at full tilt.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    I was watching a video about the crash in Japan just last night, actually.

    Basically, they dismissed multiple warnings, and should have landed the aircraft much sooner than they did. They were on final approach when the failure happened, meaning if they’d landed a few minutes sooner, they would have been fine.

    • Estiar@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a thing on the stuffy r/credibledefense that might change your mind on pilot error. TL;DR the flight manuals and warning design failed the pilots and the checklists didn’t communicate the urgency

  • WanakaTree@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ah cool, I was at the park with my kid Tuesday evening and saw this fly over us. We figured Kamala was in there but nice to have confirmation