Who upset grandpa? 

"Badum tssss" lol

Except their tank turrets.

Great comment...😄😄😄

My 2 year old nieces projectile vomit flysheet better than most of the Russian arsenal does.

How is it a joke when it's only facts....

Yeah the crash rate is like a fourth of the Blackhawk's per flight hour or something.

That make's sense.

The Osprey would be far more stable and reliable if they did go to a more proven system V.T.O.L. jet thrust.

with only over 400 made its quite a major crash rate in my opinion.

​@@josepheasley5869Condor from Battlefield 2042

yeah, but do you fly the thing :3

If by "ready to go" you mean that they have a rapid, unexplained mechanical function that leads to this aircraft lazily careening into the ground at the very moment that they are stuffed with 18-24 year old marines, who just got done scaring kindergarteners on the playground, finger painting and filling up on the finest wax Crayola has to offer, then yes, I would agree that they are "ready to go"

​@@Foehammer335The Blackhawk has killed more and is twice as likely to crash

​​@@MommyKhaosthat's like justifying commiting crimes agaisnt humanity by bringing up hilter.

@@massgunner4152 God this comment section is beyond entertaining, keep it going PLEASE

St. Augustine here. The 904 concurs.

As someone who lives NEXT (1.2 miles) to Florida in Saint Marys, GA, I also agree with the impression.

407 and 321 reporting in, we agree too.

As a 6th gen Floridian (though no longer in Florida), I concur.

As someone in the UK who once experienced a feral dog-boy-child biting other children at a water park, a manic fire engine that wanted to run down and crush our little tourist hire car on our way to Osceola County, and a panhandling, I agree with this heartwarming Florida impression too. ❤

Conversion is 1.6 kilometers per mile.

An easy way to remember is that 1 meter is very close to 1 yard (3 feet) in length. Thus 1 KM is ~1000 Yards so ~3000 ft... which is < 5280 ft in a Mile. ;)

To be specific, 1 mile = 1.6 Km. Simple math gives you this progression: 10 miles = 16 Km 100 miles = 160 Km 1000 miles = 1,600 Km You can figure out the in-between shit from there.

@@Rotorhead1651 Forgive the super pedantry but when you get up around a thousand miles the exact conversion becomes more important. 1 mile is exactly 1.609344 km so 1,000 miles is actualy around 1,610 km.

​@@Rotorhead1651my old man taught me arithmetic and this is how he showed me how to do calculations in my head, quickly. I thought for the longest time that most everyone else looked at numbers in this same way. I was wrong and have never been really able to explain properly what you're describing here. I work in finance and your comment could help some of these folks do calculation without having to take their phone out, so thanks!

It also can't exactly autorotate, realistically speaking, which adds to the fatality rate when it does crash. Turns out an airplane-helicopter hybrid has some of the more unpleasant safety aspects of both platforms. That said, the concept is very promising.

Well you also forgot key points too in its defence 1-it has just as good a combat record, a group of ospreys took a major beating under fire through several hours of flight that killed several men aboard but still got home safe 2- it was the potus chopper in Afghanistan during a presidential tour 3- most deaths didn’t come from deployment more that half came from testing and development and most of those was a single crash that was cause by a common phenomenon in helicopters that can be unrecoverable for them 4-Huey’s and blackhawks during their debuts had a much worse rating and time of it too Also most importantly this is literally first of it kind in service so far everything working against it it’s done pretty well

ok, but with the budget of the US armed forces - I would WANT A DAMN AIRCRAFT that kept my troops safe, and would be seeking a damn refund at this point.

@@rianmacdonald9454 Considering that when the brits showcased the Harrier it flipped. The AF said nope, the army said Nope the Navy said nope and the Corps signed a contract. Its about the mission and the bugs will get worked out.

@@grega2362Harrier: *"DO A FLIP!"* _yeet_

Right!

Right up there with the "Clunk" from Canada

his 'give a fuck' is long past its expiration date and he's starting to realize it

Is the v22 that bad? It’s such a cool idea though

​@@Lone_Vaquero684not really. It's a falling death machine if one rotor gets damaged. It doesn't have auto-rotate like helicopters and can't glide like most planes. Basically the only thing keeps it in the air is the twin tilt-rotors.

To put you on perspective... Only the Marines are crazy enough to be okay flying in a V-22 even after its longtime record of crashing.

I think the most polite way to describe the Osprey is a good idea that was poorly implemented.

Damn, those are all some fair points, i guess I’ll just stick to flying it in trailmakers where there’s nothing that could down me besides my friends

I think it's a cool design. A cool design that is VERY poorly executed.

Yeah I agree! 😂 This one got me rolling

....and the USAF replaced my beloved 53s with this hunk of shit.

They are total shit and we knew it back in 2010 yet there are more and more deaths from design failures. Stupid thing looks like it came from Avatar.

I would rather fly in a normal helicopter. Or bring pain with an attack helicopter. It seems insulting to call it a osprey considering the bird of prey in question is a skilled fisher. I don’t know what they were trying to do here with the design itself.

As someone whose grandfather helped with that thing's creation, I'm very sorry.

@@Ragnarra someone realized we needed transformers in the military is the explanation I can come up with to the design on these.

Pretty much goes for any US aerospace firm. Doubly so for Lockheed though. I swear they must have photos of Pentagon Brass doing some really unsavory acts for as much as they end up landing Air Force contracts these days over firms with a longer and more recent history providing fighter jets.

No, the V22 was actually a Bell Helicopter product, but military contracts require more than one manufacturer for some reason. The military forced Bell to work with Boeing. And every single one that Boeing built has had far more problems than the ones Bell built. Bell even sued to try to get Boeing off the contract. The problem is that Boeing executives have far too many contacts high up in the military. Boeing only exists because corrupt Generals and Admirals. When you see how many high ranking military officials have been given Boeing aircraft, things will make sense.

Just wait till HLC learns how many people more people the Blackhawk has killed in the same time frame...

I'm pretty sure we were all thinking that.

Something to consider: In the 33 years that the Osprey has been flying (Yes, the Osprey's first flight was in 1989), it had 51 service members perish in crashes. In the first 33 years the UH-60 and its variants flew, over 180 Americans perished in crashes involving it. (This jumps up dramatically when you include foreign users). ...But how often do you hear of Blackhawk crashes being national news? Very, very rarely. It happens every time a V-22 Osprey goes down, however. As for the issue with it can't auto-rotate in case of engine issues - *_BOTH_* engines need to stop working in order for it to fall out of the sky. Because of how the gearing and transmission works, it can safely land with one engine. I mean, you could say the same for any aircraft with two-engines that can't fly under its own power without them. Do you also think the C-41 (the CASA C.212-200 Aviocar) is dangerous? Because you aren't going to go far in it if you lose both engines, either.

​@@matchesburnare you a bot or just really annoying?

@@massgunner4152 Cope and seethe harder.

I say that the Scorpions in James Cameron’s Avatar works rather well as a design concept

The f-35 is a better vtol

@@The_Racr1 Actually it isnt. Osprey has a lower mishap rate than the f-35.

​@The_Racr1 the f-35 is a stovl not a vtol

Something to consider: In the 33 years that the Osprey has been flying (Yes, the Osprey's first flight was in 1989), it had 51 service members perish in crashes. In the first 33 years the UH-60 and its variants flew, over 180 Americans perished in crashes involving it. (This jumps up dramatically when you include foreign users). ...But how often do you hear of Blackhawk crashes being national news? Very, very rarely. It happens every time a V-22 Osprey goes down, however. As for the issue with it can't auto-rotate in case of engine issues - *_BOTH_* engines need to stop working in order for it to fall out of the sky. Because of how the gearing and transmission works, it can safely land with one engine. I mean, you could say the same for any aircraft with two-engines that can't fly under its own power without them. Do you also think the C-41 (the CASA C.212-200 Aviocar) is dangerous? Because you aren't going to go far in it if you lose both engines, either.

53: "Fuck no"

*pulls out the Kim, Tuvok meme*

Black Hawk: *_Also has a worse track record of crashes and fatalities._*

@@jonathanoriley8260 - That doesn't mean it wants to be associated with the Osprey

@@herrzimm As it shouldn't, because the Osprey is vastly safer by every statistic. The Black Hawk has always been a flying coffin above all the rest.

It's been known to drop outta the air while landing. It's NOT a great platform.

I seriously thought the Osprey was a beloved vehicle that tributes massively to the Aircraft Carrier fleets, as they have long range and are fast like a plane, but can land easily on a very small area like a chopper. So they should have the best of both worlds. and they are in such high demand from all the branches that, they don't have enough for their original purpose, which was transport of cargo to carriers. At least that's what :Its Not What You Think : has made me believe.

From what I've heard via news reports. The soldiers riding them triple their life insurance amounts.

It actually has a good safety history. Better then every helicopter then the Sea Stallion if I am recalling the data sheets correctly. Has a lot of crash survival features built in. Being unique just makes a crash more dramatic therefore more attention on it then yet another UH-60 accident. Now maintenance wise they are still a PITA especially when the drive to rotate the booms fails and you get the fun of spinning speed wrench for the next 15 minutes.

It's a shame because the V-22 is one of my favourite aircraft

Well, think about how many old men in Corvette convertibles you see accompanied by sweet young things way too hot to be their daughters! Try that in your Prius. What do you get? Greta Thunberg.

true@@richardfabacher3705

Immediate petition for the Cobra to sound like Solid Snake. Man was dubbed the Snake Eater for a reason.

​@@Nempo13yes?

I keep saying he needs to add the MH-60 DAP. kiiiiinda miffed that the osprey got in before it 😂😒

These statistics aren't complete unless you also give the numbers of each of them made and their number of flights taken.

@@imkluu Wrong. Class-A accidents with aircraft from the USAF (lifetime figures), per 100,000 flight hours: V-22 Osprey: 0.32 UH-60 Blackhawk/variants: 0.65 Statistically the Blackhawk has twice the major accident rate than the Osprey. When you're comparing flight hours per accident rate, the numbers difference is meaningless. Because you're comparing each aircraft flying the same amount of time. Yes, the UH-60 has a worse accident record than the V-22. Statistically proven, comparable, apples-to-apples comparison.

@@matchesburn There's lies, damned lies and statistics, but I'm going to agree with you on the statistics here. Plus I haven't seen any Hollywood production of "Osprey Down" in the works...

Knowing some of the guys that work on them that makes sense Sikorsky is a good place but probably not as picky as it should be LOL

May they rest in peace.

You should look up the number of times the UH-60 has crashed and killed.

May God comfort them, Isaiah 61:2.

Grand Idea

take my money!

It's an unfair stench, as the Osprey has about half the Class A mishaps of the Blackhawk. But bad news sells, and so the Osprey is a death trap reputation appeared

Something to consider: In the 33 years that the Osprey has been flying (Yes, the Osprey's first flight was in 1989), it had 51 service members perish in crashes. In the first 33 years the UH-60 and its variants flew, over 180 Americans perished in crashes involving it. (This jumps up dramatically when you include foreign users). ...But how often do you hear of Blackhawk crashes being national news? Very, very rarely. It happens every time a V-22 Osprey goes down, however. As for the issue with it can't auto-rotate in case of engine issues - *_BOTH_* engines need to stop working in order for it to fall out of the sky. Because of how the gearing and transmission works, it can safely land with one engine. I mean, you could say the same for any aircraft with two-engines that can't fly under its own power without them. Do you also think the C-41 (the CASA C.212-200 Aviocar) is dangerous? Because you aren't going to go far in it if you lose both engines, either.

Worse of all is that there is nothing really wrong with the Osprey. It's just that some retired marine Officer with nothing better to do decided he didn't like the Osprey one day and went full reformer with making hit piece articles on it.

@@MEGATRYANT Yeah, that must be why every AFSOC wing that had it forced on them to replace their MH-53s and MH-60s all absolutely hate them and they can't even speak about accidents without risking their entire career like the Cannon AFB whistleblower have to! (well, they couldn't hide it when the 7th SOS got the entire fleet unwitting grounded over an issue that still isn't fixed emergency landing in Norway, but I'm sure that just means there's nothing wrong with it!) Seriously, can you idiots please shut the fuck up if you have zero clue about what you're talking about don't talk to literally anyone in the SOA community? thanks.

There's a lot that can go wrong with any aircraft, the Osprey is no different. If you have a favorite Helicopter that too can easily crash.

They're a capable and relatively safe aircraft now.

IIRC they found that the vast majority of Osprey were due to pilot error, and so made pilot training better in response.

Embracing the future. A Helicopter that can travel faster than a Helicopter, how is that not an idea to pursue? You can't dismiss an entire concept just because initial test flights aren't perfect.

​@@MikMoenThat doesn't explain the Valkyrie, but I think you're referring to a more radical concept than that, yes?

Gotta love a nickname that actually describes what it does. *PLOP*

I highly doubt that. Whenever an aircraft goes down, an investigation immediately starts looking at all the people who have worked on that aircraft. They listen to conversations recorded on the craft for months, and if they find out you were the root cause of the crash, you *will* be going to prison for a very long time. Source: USAF avionics tech

That's fucked up

@christianpalmer He told me because of that one screw, the osprey crashed In a field with no injuries. Dude laughed about his commander coming up to him and asking if he forgot something and said just don't do it again.

@@RichardL.1453 Yea I'm going to tell you straight up that this guy is BS'ing you. If I messed something up that caused a single system to fail and it was due to my negligence, I'd be facing serious disciplinary action. Causing an entire aircraft major incident would have him behind bars without exception.

@@RichardL.1453 oh ok

vtol vr?

Because flight simulators always get it right.... even some of the most realistic simulators suck at actually modelling flight dynamics... this is especially true of those with focuses on one type of aviation over the other (like MSFS) where helicopters are a bastardized hack into the game engine designed for conventional aircraft. OF COURSE something with complex aerodynamics like an MV-22 is going to be difficult to fly because of the changes in aerodynamics between the flight modes.

I hear the older you get the less your filter works.

@@jdotozI was always told “a good landing is just a well controlled crash” 🤷‍♂️

All planes land…eventually. Kind of a play on a joke we have in healthcare. “All bleeding stops…eventually.”

Yes, it is.

Because the Osprey is a good aircraft that fills needed roles on a modern battlefield, which is actually pretty safe and well liked despite what some retired Marine officer may claim in his hit pieces. The A-10 on the other hand is an expensive plane for bombing goat farmers with AKs and a death trap against anything with even the most basic of air defenses.

Have you ever flown in a 53 or 46? 😂😂 I've ridden in plenty of Ospreys and they were better than those old helos.

Blackhawk might be higher in absolute terms, but what about the number of flight hours? I'd wager there were a lot more hours flown in blackhawks, so you'd expect to see more crashes even if they were just as safe as each other.

@@BritishTeaLover Class-A accidents with aircraft from the USAF (lifetime figures), per 100,000 flight hours: V-22 Osprey: 0.32 UH-60 Blackhawk/variants: 0.65 So, yes, statistically the Blackhawk has over twice the major accident rate than the Osprey. Blackhawk is twice as likely per 100,000 flight hours to have a major accident than an Osprey. As for the discrepancy: Keep in mind that a single V-22 Osprey can carry the same amount of passengers as multiple Blackhawks. So while Ospreys are, statistically, less likely to crash, when they do, it's often catastrophic. (Not all times, however. There's been a few times where an Osprey has crashed with no passengers on board.)

@@matchesburn thanks for the numbers!

The Osprey was political debacle from the late 70s/80s and was a pet project of powerful senator John Tower of Texas. The present accidents/incident rate is artificially low because of mission restrictions. Pilots didn’t transition from either helicopter or fixed wing very well and subsequently air crew were fresh recruits without prior habits of other aircraft. Aboard ship were a myriad of problems. Wings couldn’t be rotated for storage because “things broke”. Landing is/was a problem because of unbalanced powered lift (because one side was near ground effect of deck and the other side lost lift because the ocean was 50 feet lower) the deck was scorched/with heat damage from the turbine exhaust. The marines exiting/entry had to be VERY careful not to step into or near the exhaust. Would have been great but, as one program detractor stated “it was supposed to be everything helicopter and fixed wing weren’t and turned out to inherit all the bad of both”.

@@markyuresko "The marines exiting/entry had to be VERY careful not to step into or near the exhaust" False. You just run straight out the back. To get near the exhausts at landing, you'd have to make a MORE than 90-degree turn immediately on exiting the ramp, and the engine nacelle at the end of the wing that would be directly over your head are both exceedingly obvious.

Because it can do what no other airframe in service can do and it has a better safety record (mishaps per 100kk flight hours) than almost any other aircraft in service. Don't believe media hype.

Yeah, because the blackhawk has been around since jesus. of course it has more crashes per flight hours. And we are not OK with the crash-hawk either. When a platform is new, it SHOULD have less mishaps per flight hour. All of the airframes are NEW. There is less time for improper maintenance, fatigue, etc to set it.

@@mobeus5019 and yet that's never how it works. Whenever a new aircraft goes from limited testing (hundreds of flight hours) to full use(tens of thousands of flight hours), edge cases will be found that cause accidents, and the best we can do is fix them or train for them, hopefully preventing repetition. The reality is rotary wing aviation is dangerous, especially when operating at low levels and high speeds, which is the mission profile that modern missile systems have forced helicopters into. I'm never happy to see a crash, and I mourn for those who have been lost, but the reality is the osprey is the best platform for the role it occupies, and it's been very safe once it passed it's teething period, and the military learned how to use it and how to train pilots for it. It's not going away any time soon. (Also, crash per flight hour as a metric makes how long the Blackhawk has been in service irrelevant, as it's purely the number of accidents per hour in the air. Crashes total would be a fallacious comparison, but crashes per hour is an objectively positive stat for the osprey).

@@mobeus5019 you seem not to understand what RATE means. The amount of time the Blackhawk has been in service is TOTALLY IRRELEVENT when talking about mishaps PER FLIGHT HOUR. The fact that the RATE is listed PER HOUR accounts for the additional years and additional sorties, it literally makes it an apples-to-apples comparison.

It does.

Yeah, the real difference is that the Black Hawk's accidents are more common but noticeably more survivable. The Osprey is substantially larger and more temperamental for pilots, relatively minor error can cause the craft to lose lift and fall out of the sky like a brick during transition from helicopter to plane mode. This is a very bad flight envelope to be having problems in, with little way to recover. Tilt-rotors may need more advanced computer systems to keep everything stable, since they can't autorotate in such conditions and that seems to be where most of the problems are.

When Buff gets mad. Countries no longer exist.

Yeah but IT still goes against the biggest Rules for military Equipment: KISS: keep it simple soldier

Nuclear power plants are far more complex than Osprey and thank god they don’t melt down as often as Osprey crash.

@@matthewhuszarik4173 Class-A accidents with aircraft from the USAF (lifetime figures): V-22 Osprey: 0.32 UH-60 Blackhawk/variants: 0.65 The Blackhawk is twice as likely to be involved in an accident than the Osprey. But you never hear about it. Ask yourself *_why_* that is...

@@matchesburn I'm curious if combat flights are included in those or not. I don't have a horse in this race, I simply find the statistics fascinating. Edit: As a possible answer, the osprey holds more passengers than a blackhawk, so if something does go wrong there are more casualties. It would make sense that the higher casualty events are the ones that get headlines.

@@damoclesecoe7184 In the first 33 years of the Osprey, about 55 people have died in them... the first 33 years of the H-60 variants saw 180+... sure, way more flights in the H-60, but it's a far cry from meaning the Osprey is some crazy death trap.

Yeah.... no. The tilting engine design is a right nightmare. Knew a few peeps who worked aviation and aircraft. The main issue with the Osprey is the fact when the engines are stationary, everything is fine. It's when they start moving engine position that stuff goes south, as the main problem has to do with the fact the motion either tilts the whole craft, OR snaps vital cables/fuel/lube/control lines in the process, amongst other things

Something to consider: In the 33 years that the Osprey has been flying (Yes, the Osprey's first flight was in 1989), it had 51 service members perish in crashes. In the first 33 years the UH-60 and its variants flew, over 180 Americans perished in crashes involving it. (This jumps up dramatically when you include foreign users). ...But how often do you hear of Blackhawk crashes being national news? Very, very rarely. It happens every time a V-22 Osprey goes down, however. As for the issue with it can't auto-rotate in case of engine issues - *_BOTH_* engines need to stop working in order for it to fall out of the sky. Because of how the gearing and transmission works, it can safely land with one engine. I mean, you could say the same for any aircraft with two-engines that can't fly under its own power without them. Do you also think the C-41 (the CASA C.212-200 Aviocar) is dangerous? Because you aren't going to go far in it if you lose both engines, either.

To be fair to the Osprey, I've heard the same thing about the good ol CH-47 Chinook.

That’s been said about literally every helicopter in the US military.

You know why military folks jump out of a perfectly good airplane? They don't, they jump out of military planes. Tip your servers folks

That MV-22 joke was the same joke as for the CH-53 and CH-46, as well as classic British and Italian sportscars. I've flown on all three of the former and worked on both of the latter, as well as owning one of the latter. The Osprey was better than all of them