Over/Under on first Osprey downing in Iraq.

[Gabi Hayes]

after, what, 20 years and fifty BILLION dollars, or so, the first Osprey (tilt winged helicopter) looks to head into combat

if they haven't fixed all the crap that went wrong in development, and KILLED a bunch of Marines in routine operating situations, this could make the regular helicopter crashes/shootdowns look like a walk in the park

any experts out there?

is this going to be a flying Bradley Fighting Vehicle, or do have they fixed it?



google it, following post #1

[Gabi Hayes]

1. start here

Osprey Deathso Military personnel caught lying about the safety of the Osprey's safety. ... exists in the very situation the Marine Corps planned to use the Osprey. ...
www.zpub.com/notes/osprey.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Osprey MarineWe at Osprey Marine are well aware of these conditions and can advise our ... with the amenities offered aboard Osprey your comfort and safety is assured. ...
www.ospreymarine.com/hudson-bass.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

U.S. Marine Corps News - The New York Times - Narrowed by ...Pentagon is studying alternatives to Marine Corps' crash-plagued V-22 Osprey amid continuing concerns about production delays, high costs and safety issues ...
topics.nytimes.com/.../marine_corps/index.html?query=ACCIDENTS%20AND%20SAFETY&field=des&match=exact - 65k - Cached - Similar pages

U.S. Marine Corps News - The New York Times - Narrowed by 'OSPREY ...Marine Corps. Your search for OSPREY V-22 AIRPLANE in Marine Corps returned 7 articles ... MORE ON MARINE CORPS AND: ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY, ...
topics.nytimes.com/.../marine_corps/index.html?query=OSPREY%20V-22%20AIRPLANE&field=des&match=exact - 55k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from topics.nytimes.com >

Marine in Charge of Troubled Osprey Program Is Being Replaced ...The Marine Corps colonel who has managed the troubled V-22 Osprey program ... of a broader review of the Osprey's safety record, effectiveness and cost. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3D61F39F934A15751C0A9679C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%... - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Marines put Osprey on hold Service says investigation of hybrid ...The Osprey's troubles have not helped the Marine Corps' lagging aviation safety record. Of the four military branches, the Marines had the highest rate of ...
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/2131889s.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)Time Out for One Year: Osprey Safety Evaluation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House) ... To provide for a one-year procurement moratorium for the Marine Corps ...
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1554.IH: - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor AircraftIndeed, the Marine Corps considers the V-22 Osprey more than just an aircraft. ... On February 7, 2001 Senator Russ Feingold introduced the "Osprey Safety, ...
www.history.navy.mil/library/online/v-22%20osprey.htm - 63k - Cached - Similar pages

Why the V-22 Osprey is UnsafeA total of eight articles about the unsafe and costly V-22 Osprey have ... at Headquarters Marine Corps about lingering safety concerns over the V-22. ...
www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm - 86k - Cached - Similar pages

NPR : Military Officials Praise Improvements to V-22 OspreyMarine Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Gross, the Osprey's flight test director, ... designers have installed new visual and oral safety alarms to warn the pilot ...
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1306425

[Kagemusha]

2. I thought the Bradley was a fine vehicle and has lots of defenders.

Some claim anyway. I know Tom Clancy did but he doesn't count. I mean real people. Aside from it not being a tank, there's still stuff 'wrong' with it?

[cdsilv]

5. I've seen them flying here around Birmingham, AL

...really surprised me. I understand that with computer controls they can actually manage the evolution from vertical to horizontal flight.

I guess that the military wants to try all of their toys in 'todays' war.

We really need to get out of Iraq.

[trof]

122. Hi neighbor.

I'm in Foley.
Welcome to DU.

[MADem]

9. Have you seen PENTAGON WARS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

It's fictionalized, it has a few obvious 'milspeak' errors in it, but it tells it like it is.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. the book upon which it's based, by the same name, doesn't take the same liberty

with the facts that this HBO COMEDY, starring Kelsey Grammer, IIRC, did

whole nother ballgame, that book

[MADem]

19. I laughed my ass off at the movie, but it was laughter tinged with the "horrible knowledge"

because I have actually SEEN very similar procurement nightmares during my career.

[Gabi Hayes]

17. dupe....Osprey machine error

it was 'circling' for a landing in cyberspace

[TheWraith]

34. As much as I love that movie, you'll note a couple of important things

One is, it is a highly fictionalized representation of events.

Two is, at the end of the film, they noted that the Bradley received an additional $1 billion dollars in improvements.

[MADem]

36. Yes, it is fictionalized, highly fictionalized. It also has a load of comedy in it.

The characters are broad. The situations are over the top.

But I have seen similar things actually happen in real life, only they aren't funny when you're trying to work a project.

But the film does resonate--there IS more than a germ of truth in the farce of it all.

[jollyreaper2112]

85. dunno

I don't think Clancy has met a weapons system he hasn't liked. Then again, even a good weapon can appear to be crap if used ineffectively. And crap weapons can still be used well with the right tactics. The Flying Tigers were in P-40's, considered inferior to the Zero, but they had great success in combat. If I remember correctly, there were some other early-war aircraft that American forces did not care for that were used to great effect by the Finns in a ground attack role.

I think the biggest problem facing the American military these days is that all of the weapons they're using are inter-war designs. Over the past 100 years, weapons designed between wars have been pretty much crap, the victims of politics and corruption. Maybe it's a genuine best effort but moron generals push the requirements this way and that and cause crap to be delivered. Maybe the contractor lacks a single good idea but gives kickbacks and thus we're back to delivering crap. There's no incentive to stop the bullshit until bullets are flying, then putting out a solid, reliable weapon is a matter of life and death. Before WWI, we were totally ill-equipped for combat. Same went for WWII, we weren't planning for war and so hadn't bothered to keep up with the latest innovations that the other powers prepared for. After WWII we've been in a state of continued development with hits and misses. But I think that the corruption since the 80's has gotten a whole lot worse. Because really, it's not about delivering a proper weapon to the Pentagon, it's about milking contracts for every fucking cent that's on the table. Look at the goddamn F-22, how long did it take to bring that to production? Jesus!

A point that's worth considering, NONE of our forces have been seriously battle-tested in the kinds of fights they were designed for. The first gulf war was a nice live-fire exercise against soviet equipment with soldiers trained in soviet tactics but it wasn't the same as fighting the Red Army on the plains of Europe. Our Navy may drop bombs and launch cruise missiles but it hasn't seen an honest to god serious engagement since WWII. Until you enter the fight, theory is theory. Before WWII, theory was that the battleship was king and the carrier would be a support ship. Even the Japanese, advocates of air power, were surprised by just how effective their aircraft were. Early war successes against unescorted British warships were considered astounding. Since WWII, the American doctrine is that there's no way you can passively armor a ship to survive modern combat, you have to rely on active defenses that prevent bombs and missiles from ever hitting in the first place. Our Aegis system is immense and complicated and designed to fend off soviet cruise missile attacks, hundreds of supersonic targets inbound and capable of breaking a frigate in half with a single hit. Is the theory sound? Dunno, it's never been put to the test. Maybe it would have worked as advertised and the Russians would have run out of bombers and missiles before we ran out of ships, maybe it would have gone the other way.

There's also the question of just how survivable helicopters would be on the modern battlefield. What our pilots faced in Somalia and what they're seeing in Iraq now is nothing as bad as they would have seen in WWIII and we're still losing choppers like crazy. WWIII might have proven that choppers were simply too vulnerable to be used in a combat situation, the same way that we're seeing Hummers proven as nice for driving behind the lines in safety but suicidally stupid for use in a combat environment.

From the sounds of it, the Osprey is simply too delicate to use in a serious combat situation. I love the idea of the aircraft but it's just not a sound design.

[Kagemusha]

87. Thanks for your insights. I appreciated your view.

I must agree with what you've written. I learned of the issue of the hundreds of supersonic targets from something Clancy has apparently used himself, old "Harpoon" games. One of them anyway. Fortunately we never had to test that.

Osprey, unfortunately, we're gonna be testing that and I hope the results aren't as bad as I might expect.

[Rick Myers]

3. Less than 7 days from active operation in-theatre

This is just sad! We LOVE the idea, but the system as deployed is CRAP!!!

[Bruce McAuley]

4. I don't know if it can fly on one engine/rotor

I think it's a goner if someone shoots an Igla Russian shoulder fired missile and hits one of the engines, but I'm no expert.
I think it's just more money and troops down the toilet...

Bruce

[Gabi Hayes]

11. as I watched tonight on CNN that was the major claim: it CAN sustain

a hit on one engine

but, do you believe ANYthing they EVER tell you now?

anything?

and AFA the Bradley, it was a complete fiasco during development, and I remember heated arguments as to whether it's evolved into a decent machine, but I recall that, even in its late stages it was considered by realists to be underarmored, underpowered, and undergunned. other than that it was a GREAT vehicle...very "cheap," except for the gazillion dollars spent during development

[Rick Myers]

14. There is a driveshaft crossing between engines!!!

It goes thru the wing, thru the fuselage. Great place for a driveshaft!!!

[meldroc]

30. The Osprey can run both rotor/propellors on one engine.

It has a transmission on each engine, and a big driveshaft going between them, through the entire wing. So if one engine fails, the remaining engine can turn both rotors and bring the Osprey to a safe landing.

At least that's the theory. In practice, the Osprey, while good in theory, is an insanely complex aircraft. I predict that it's going to be a hangar queen. It has a computerized fly-by-wire system that has had more than a few bugs during development. A few will likely get shot down - while it has a tough airframe, it's vulnerable while hovering, and it can't have side gunners like a Huey or Blackhawk (the downdraft from those rotors is brutal.) And if the motors that turn the rotors from horizontal to vertical fail, leaving the rotors stuck in horizontal mode, the emergency landing will be hairy.

It does have a few advantages - because of its tilt-rotor design, it can fly a heck of a lot faster and further than a conventional chopper.

[Jonathan50]

6. As I understand it the real problem with the Osprey

Is that you have to land it very slowly, you can't just charge in to a hot LZ flare it out and smack it down like you can with a helicopter.

This leaves the Osprey vulnerable to ground fire for much longer than would be true with a helicopter.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. that's EXACTLY what they claim is the ADVANTAGE over a helicopter:

they were discussing, tonight on CNN how, as an airplane does, it comes in HOT, then goes VTOL. gets down fast, gets up fast, then hauls ass out of the field of enemy fire

interesting

[Jonathan50]

26. The V22 flys faster than a helicopter, true..

But my understanding is that you cannot really bring it in for a landing fast.

I'm looking for more info now.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

From my point of view, there are six critical issues whose operational consequences need to be understood by decision-makers as these may affect the future operational safety of this aircraft and the survivability of aircrews in a combat environment. The six issues are:

1. The V-22’s lack of an autorotation capability, or even a demonstrated all engine inoperative safe landing capability, remains cause for concern. V-22 fails to meet the ORD threshold requirement for a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative from a large portion of its operating envelope.
2. V-22 flight characteristics in VRS (vortex ring state) are problematic for roll control and the aircraft is susceptible to un-commanded rolling as a result of saturation in the roll channel of the flight control system when the aircraft is operated into VRS. This aircraft response to VRS phenomenon is drastically different than that of any conventional helicopter.
3. The V-22 is prone to roll PIO (pilot-induced oscillation) in helicopter mode during high gain pilot tasks such as shipboard operations, precision hover in confined areas, or precision hover/landing in obscured visibility.
4. The V-22’s high vibratory loads, coupled with a very flexible structural design and complex hydraulic system, is problematic for hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical systems and is likely to lead to high failure rates for these systems. Many such failures have safety implications.
5. The V-22’s susceptibility to wake or tip vortices from other aircraft is problematic for roll control and can result in un-commanded rolling of the aircraft. At low altitude, this could lead to a loss of an aircraft.
6. The V-22’s high downwash velocity field has the potential to produce significant detrimental effects on hovering operations in desert environments or over water.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. where's Leonardo? he says he's handled the stick on one.

he must know the answers to all these questions

[Jonathan50]

29. Hmm... I found this little post.. Kind of interesting

Apparently there's some "apples and oranges" comparisons going on with the V22 and conventional helicopters.

The really interesting part is that this was posted on Feb 1, 2007 and no one has yet disagreed with the post.


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003236_comments.html


The typical helicopter has no such restriction on its rate of descent at low speeds, and would certainly not flip upside down should a pilot chose to descend faster. The comparison of TR VRS to helo VRS is a chilling one. The TR loses control, flips upside down and creates a disaster when it is flown into the VRS region, which is close to its operating regime. Close enough so that it was found by the earliest OTE flights, disasterously.

Regarding helicopters and descent rate limits, no helicopter has such restrictive limits on approach. The "limits" that TR folks have quoted for helos to say they have "similar" limits are the landing gear structural limits based on ground contact, and have nothing to do with this discussion. They are a distraction that TR folks use to cover for the obviously poor capabilities of the TR.

I have flown at thousands of feet per minute descents in many helicopters at speeds near zero knots, and so have most helo pilots. To say that this is a forbidden zone is absurd. To know that doing so will flip you upside down should be a warning that the air vehicle that has this limit is not fit for combat insertions.

Furthermore, the small maneuver capability of the TR at lower speeds, less than 1.3 g's in helo mode, is a severe impediment to combat landings, and makes the TR a sitting duck on any contested landing. Helos have a much larger envelope, and are much more nimble at the close-in approach and departure regimes.

Posted by: rjsquirrel101 at February 1, 2007 02:43 PM

[Jonathan50]

32. Another interesting comment on the V22

http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?s=ea9be6bfdc1ace85255a4a74709f4208&t=5440

Does the Marine Corps plan on taking the MV-22 into hot LZ's to do medivacs, emergency ammo resupply etc like the 46's in RVN?

I was an eyewitness to what the 46's went through. I'm having great difficulty attempting to visualize a MV-22 attempting a high speed approach and departure being accompanied by a fusillade of small arms fire, RPG's, and the off .50 Cal thrown into the mix.

In my memory, I recollect that 53's were absolutely barred from going anywhere near a hot zone in RVN.

I'll save judgement until I see a MV-22 go into a hot zone at 40 knots, touch down and depart in seconds.

I don't suppose they have "hover aft" do they?




Hover Aft, Hell they can't auto. 53's did go into hot LZ's at least in 72 they did. I also have concerns abut that acft and rotor wash in LZ's, all the trash its throws up? Can we put more than 1 in at a time




Has the defensive weapons issue been resolved? Back in the mid-80's when I was the MAG 26 Ordnance NCOIC and the operational study was sent around for chop, the answer to my question about "where are the guns" was that problem will be addressed later. Last I heard there still wasn't a fix.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. thanks for that. this is why I posted. I remember reading about how

much trouble they've been having with this machine for the last several DECADES. I hope it's safe, and I hope nobody gets killed due to all the crucial wrinkles having to be worked out on the fly, so to speak.

that said, remember why these ships are being deployed: to help KILL MORE IRAQIS!

get the HELL OUT OF THERE, ASAP!!!!!!

[Jonathan50]

35. Here's even more stuff on the V22 and combat landings.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22videos.htm

The only advantage is the V-22 can fly 40% faster than helicopters, except during the vulnerable approach into a combat landing zone where it must descend much slower than helicopters and only in a straight flight path, lest it flip over. The V-22 is limited to a descent rate of 800 feet per minute for safety reasons. After a V-22 rolled over approaching a landing zone too fast in a May 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines, a reporter asked the head of Marine Corps aviation if this limit is practical for an combat assault aircraft. Lt. Gen. Fred McCorkle, a highly experienced combat helicopter pilot, forgot his sales role and uttered the truth:

Q: For a helicopter pilot going in a hot LZ, getting down fast is usually highly desirable. Is an 800-foot-a-minute rate of descent, you know, compatible? Is that a good rate --

Lt. Gen. McCorkle: Not below 500 feet.

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2000/t05092000_t0509asd.html

[MADem]

7. I remember seeing "concept drawings" of something called the

BELL MODEL 222 back in the 70s--it was, in essence, an OSPREY. Way more than twenty years, if you pull the thread out completely. There were actually earlier iterations in the very early zeventies--the XV15 or something like that.

The drawings looked a bit jazzier than the actual iteration--more space age, and streamlined, frankly.

Since we've already had some accidents with the thing, I'm sure more are a-comin'...hey, after all, it's only "personnel assets" in those things, don't call 'em "people" and certainly don't call them spouses or children -- that just " harshes the mellow" on this whole war thing, yaknowwhatImean?

[benEzra]

128. The Bell 222 was a conventional helicopter...

most famous as the black-painted one with fake guns and missles that starred on the '80s TV show Airwolf.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_222


Bell 222 S/N 47085, registration number N3176S, a.k.a. "Airwolf"

The XV-15 was the tiltrotor concept you are thinking of. Same configuration as the V-22, just smaller.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15

[MADem]

129. No, NOT the Bell 222 helicopter. I am familiar with the difference. The MODEL 222 is a different

thing altogether. From your last cite, above:

Boeing-Vertol Design
Boeing proposed a design, Model 222 (not to be confused with the later Bell 222 conventional helicopter) in which the engines were in fixed pods at the end of each wing, and a small, rotating pod with the rotor was slightly closer to the fuselage on the wing. This design simplified the engine design by keeping it horizontal at all times, without having very long driveshafts to the tilting rotors.

They are calling this a BOEING product, but I saw those concept pictures within the highly - secured walls of TEXTRON. And they had "BELL" written all over them, not BOEING.

History of Bell Tiltrotor: http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/bell_tlt/index2.html

It looked closer to this:



than the 1950s, pre XV15 iteration that they called 222 way back when, and it didn't look like the Boeing iteration. It was a thing unto itself. It may have been a response to Boeing, but it was not the Boeing product.

[benEzra]

144. Interesting! I didn't notice that.

Looks like that concept would have been a LOT bigger than the V-22. I've been in the cabin of a V-22 (at an airshow, not professionally), and it's smaller inside than an H-46.

I'll bet if it had proceeded to aerodynamic testing in tilt modes, they'd have had to go to a twin tail setup like the actual flying tiltrotors, though...

[MADem]

149. There were a couple of 'em--this was decades ago, and I am not as young as I used to be, but I know

what I saw. There was one configured with just a cockpit, with space for maybe a pilot and co, sitting, it seemed to me if I recall properly, fore and aft, like an F-4.

This was in a secure area. You needed ID up the yingyang to get in.

I found the concepts interesting, and over the years, as I've heard about this a/c getting tested, dumped, revitalized, dumped, and so forth, I remember that day long ago that I first saw those images.

It was all a bit 'Buck Rogers' to me at the time!

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Your Bradley comments are ill informed

And the V-22 has done well as of recent. The vortex ring state is pretty well understood at this point

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. LOL

Mmhmm.

The 1984 Omni was a finely built automobile.

Buy American.

:thumbsup:

[Gabi Hayes]

13. come back with your undocumented, unsupported assertions after you've read The Pentagon Wars.

I should have guess you'd be the one.....

and we'll see how well the wonderful Osprey holds up in combat

[genie_weenie]

16. As recently as Feb 10 2007 the ENTIRE

USMC Osprey fleet was grounded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901860.html

[Gabi Hayes]

18. but but but...that was a long TIME ago!

don't you have faith?

the other poster surely does.

maybe he'd like to be on board its first mission

[genie_weenie]

21. Egads! Zounds! Gadzooks!

I was thankful I got out of the Suck without having to ride in one of those well-crafted, safely designed, state-of-da-art vehicles!

[Solo_in_MD]

22. I've flown in them already, even got some stick time

[Gabi Hayes]

24. goody! why aren't you over there, showing them how to go in hot?

and before you hitch up, care to tell us about your last mission on the space shuttle before you go, OK?

thanks

[Solo_in_MD]

25. No longer medically qualfied to fly even commercial or private

thanks for asking :sarcasm:

Check my profile...I was a military pilot

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. Coming from you that is entertaining

[Gabi Hayes]

52. thanks! I thought it would be.

I notice you've forgotten to mention any positive contributions you've made to this forum.

seeing as how you appear to be quite connected to the defense biz, I find it somewhat surprising that you'd waste your valuable time here

care to answer the request I've posed above, and detail ANYthing you've contributed of a progressive nature here?

If you have, as I said, I'll gladly apologize for being so 'entertaining'

meanwhile, why don't you amuse the rest of us, and tell us how you'd go about getting this criminal regime out of power

since you know everything about everything, dabbling in mere political machinations should be cake for you, yes, compradre?

[karlrschneider]

37. Bush was a "military pilot" too.

...

[Solo_in_MD]

40. But he was NG, real pilots fly with tailhooks

[karlrschneider]

41. No, real pilots fly any aircraft with or without tailhooks.

The worst checkout I ever conducted was with a hotshot navy 'pilot' who wanted to rent a plane in Tulsa one day.
He was as bad as the typical doctor/pilot or lawyer/pilot...he probably could land a plane on a carrier but had absolutely no 'airplane sense'. All he knew how to do was aim the nose at a spot and keep it centered unit it hit something.
That's not a pilot, it's a trained chimpanzee.

[Solo_in_MD]

43. It gets worse. At the USN flying clubs the USN NFOs always seemed to have the worst accident rate

military wings are no guarntee...I went to the reserves and flew both military and commercial in parallel. Quite a contrast. However, I never did the CFI route to build hours and have less than a hundred hours in GA.

[karlrschneider]

45. I logged maybe 100 hours as a CFI, myself. Long ago.

About 9500 commercial which must be different from your experience. Apparently you flew for an airline...I never did (nor wanted to)

[Solo_in_MD]

For a short while until it died...there was a lot of that then

Airlines was the major customer for military pilots getting out. Fedex as I understand it still is.

[karlrschneider]

48. Well, now I'm confused. If you weren't flying GA and not with an airline,

where did the commercial flying fit in?

[Solo_in_MD]

54. My flying CV goes like this

Active USN
USN Reserves/Small Airline
Active Reserves
Ah Shit/No medical/Fly in the back of the plane

My GA time was limited to USN Flying Clubs mostly. 172s mostly and the occasional T-34

[karlrschneider]

57. You might (if you care to) check back with an AME. 3rd class requirements have been

relaxed a lot the last few years.

[Solo_in_MD]

63. For Type 1 Diabetics? I should hope not...

[karlrschneider]

67. There are waivers for that. Your AME can fill you in.

If you're type 1, I wonder why it wasn't addressed when you were a Naval Aviator.
http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy-and-legalresources/discrimination/employment/aopa_article.jsp

[Solo_in_MD]

76. Back then they were not letting Type 1s fly, or be line officers.

With all the time and anguish, I am not sure I would go back, even if I could. My pilot days are behind me. Only cockpit I have been in since have been simulators. Besides, with the cost of AvGas I am not sure I could afford it, and I certainly have higher financial priorities. Riding motorcycles in DC traffic is not quite like a cat shot, but it does get the adreniline pumping.

Appreciate the link.

[karlrschneider]

78. Well, I gave up motorcycles 20 years ago but I'll hang onto my 310

as long as I can. No, it isn't cheap but I think I've earned a little bit of conspicuous consumption,

[ddeclue]

117. Let's see..at 22 gallons an hour that makes my Dodge Ram 2500 look like a Honda Prius..

22 gallons per hour at about 4$/gallon for 100LL is $88/hr in fuel costs. Yikes..

It used to be affordable to own an airplane in this country.

Don't worry people. My pickup truck sits in the driveway 99% of the time because of the outrageous price of gas in the last few years. My Camaro gets much better mileage and its what I normally drive.

I haven't been flying since Oct 2002 because the price has gotten so high but I plan to resume sometime this year before the election season gets too busy so that I can finish my instrument rating.

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

151. It's not -quite- that bad...but almost. I can get avgas for $3.10/gal

which isn't $4 but then I burn 25 gph so it ain't cheap...but I usually have 2 or 3 other people to help out. I get about 8 miles per gallon which sounds awful but it saves an enormous amount of time and with 4 people splitting the cost it's equivalent to one person getting 32 mpg which wouldn't be too bad for someone driving a car. We can go a mile to the airport and fly directly to the other little airport 2 miles from our camp in Georgia in 3 hours. Flying commercial would include 150 miles by car and about 9 hours total...we can drive it in 12!

[MADem]

131. Have you heard about the research on diabetes? You could be flying again if it pans out and can

be extended beyond the newly diagnosed, and last longer than a finite period. Anyway, it's very promising.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6541887.stm

[ddeclue]

141. Well I think the issue is that light airplanes have low power loading and wing loading

so you can't just force it to do what you want so easily with the throttle so jet pilots (not just military ones) get spoiled by all that power and all the sophisticated avionics.

Doug D.

[MyNameGoesHere]

119. Most Military fixed wing aircraft have tailhooks

They use them for field arrest landings in case of hydraulic failures <Makes brakes work> but i guess being an Aviator you should know that already.

[Little Wing]

133. what a totally useless and irrelevant response

this, for future reference, is where your credibility took a dive off a cliff :)

[Monkeyman]

31. In Blown Sand ? I still think it puts Marines life's at risk

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Any motor, turbine or otherwise doesn't do well in sand

As you may recall it was a major problem during the Iranian hostage rescue mission.

[Jonathan50]

47. The V22 thanks to its small rotor diameter.

Has a very high velocity downwash which will kick up far more sand than the ordinary helicopter.

Maybe the military should talk to the Baja 1000 racers, they have a lot of experience in getting motors to run under very sandy conditions.

[Solo_in_MD]

49. There are filters for the helos, but IIRC they impact performance

Assume there is the equivalent for the V-22.

[Jonathan50]

50. I suspect that visibility will be an issue also

With the V22 kicking up so much sand, visibility will probably be adversely effected.

Hard to land when you can't see.

[Solo_in_MD]

51. The RADALT would help, but landing (and taking off) is a visual maneuver

[sanskritwarrior]

68. Agreed

Been in Bradleys for nearly 11 years, it's a fine vehicle, if my choice is a Brad or something built by another country, I'll take a Brad with one track off the wheels.......It kicks ass.

Solo, I find myself agreeing with you on so many military issues are you a vet? The reason I ask is that for all my love of DU there is so much misinformation about military matters it boggles the mind. Whenever I see one of your posts I know there is about to be some sanity injected into a thread........

[Solo_in_MD]

82. See my profile

Those of us actually know how things really work are indeed a rarity here. Speak up. Since you've had extensive time in a Bradley, talk about it. The person with the URL is clearly at the mercy of the person who has actual experience, though some will call your names for it.

Some here don't like it when their pretensions and illusions are destroyed with facts and so question my commitment and politics. Oh well, the doctrinaire and irrational are amusing to watch when they froth. The rest of us will continue to make progress toward a better society and planet while they chase their tails spouting nonsense.

Few here truly understand that the US military mirrors the population quite closely. They are not maniacal killers, they are our neighbors and family. So many here fail to realize that. They talk in one post how little Johnny or Jane is going off to the military and what a good person they are and in the next post how the military is nothing but stone cold killers. Even worse they do not see the conflict in those statements. The military is made up of everyones little Johnny or Jane. It can get disheartening.

To return to the topic at hand, I am not convinced that the V-22 is truly safe, then again, I never was all that sanguine about helos in general. However, given the attention paid to it at the working level, the design issues would seem to be as wrung out as possible. Its probably about as safe as a twin tilt rotor is going to get. Whether that is good enough or not remains to be seen. My fam flight was fascinating. I also got a little simulator time. The helos guys thought it was wonderful, I thought it needed an afterburner :evilgrin:

[MADem]

132. My experience was that the military mirrored the population, save that they were better educated,

But I don't think that's true anymore. They've been taking NHSG (non high school grads) up to twenty percent of the total incoming, for the Army, anyway. And they're also waiving felony offenses left and right, and that is a totally new measure. Unless, of course, the population of felons has gone up in the general population!

Though standards have been lowered, I will agree that they are just citizens, from varied walks of life, many quite young. They aren't the throbbing vein in the forehead, knife in the teeth killers that some like to envision. And sadly, lately, way too many of them, in leadership positions often as not, are fucking incompetent or lacking in intestinal fortitude.

[Squatch]

120. Same here. (D/1-23 IN (M))

Fort Lewis, Washington. 1998-2001.

The Bradley is a fine weapon system. Unfortunately, back in 2001, 3/2 IN turned them in and fielded the Stryker vehicle, which, as you know, has some serious shortcomings.

[me b zola]

12. The Pentagon has already covered the spread...

The Pentagon already covered their collective butt today on CNN.

CNN's Pentagon reporter, while "discussing" the history of the Osprey's unreliable history with Blitzer, stated that Cheney had tried to kill the program and Clinton saved the program from being shit-canned.

One doesn't need to be a fortune teller to know that the media coverage of the first one of these beasts to be downed will not be about the obscene & tragic deaths that could have been avoided if we would end the insanity of this occupation, but instead it will be about how Dems are killing our troops. Bet on it.

[Gabi Hayes]

23. I missed that part, but found a link in Daily Howler about how they attacked Kerry

for trying to kill the Bradley; Somerby showed how Cheney himself tried to kill it in 1991, as SecDef.

you know that's what they'll try to pull, but I can't WAIT for them......

then again, what am I thinking? that's exactly what the media will trumpet, ignoring the obvious fact that they've had six years to fix whatever's wrong with it, since they took the reins

I truly, deeply hope I'm wrong about this, as no more soldiers need to die (not to mention the innocents being slaughtered EVERY DAY because of this illegal occupation) due to the criminal incompetence of this gang of criminally insane incompetents

[me b zola]

46. I know, we all hope that not one more person needs to lose there life in Iraq...

Until we pull out, I think that everyday that we are there is another day of more Americans waking up to the insanity of it all, even more seething in anger, and fewer & fewer buying into the administrations lies and misdirections.

[symbolman]

38. Oh goodie, a helicopter thread

just what I've been looking for :)

Sorry, wrote a book about my two summers in Alaska, where I sampled for the DOE in Hughes 500ds, even crashed in one, deep in the tundra, took them four days to reach us, and they KNEW where we were! All Nam Vet Pilots, THE BEST, I could not BELIEVE what those guys could do, jetting through canyons near the rim, inches away from the blades, at 130 mph.. the first time I flew the pilot took me straight up and did a FIGURE 8 up there! Natually, we were falling the whole time, and I was upside down as shit from the floor flew out the doorless hole and PINGED back in at us..

He told me that NOW I'd never be scared again, then taught me the Philosophy of The JESUS BOLT.. which I use as a metaphor for the Universe, the Environment, and a person's inner core beliefs. Fun book, getting good comments from some Hollywood folks :)

In any case, at least One DU'r has written about Choppers..

SO, NOW Bush and Pals, are going to THROW these suckers into the FRAY and let them be blasted from the sky, works on so many levels, we get more PISSED at the supposed 'enemy', sympathy for dead troops (and there will be a LOT of them), and a NEW SPANKING DOD, Defense Industry Contract for NEW STUFF, Whoopee!

Assholes. I want to see BUSH visit in one of these. Be funny if he went there and the AF ONE was smacked, then he had to DEPEND on One of THESE Units to SAVE HIS ASS, Karma, baby.. :)

Thanks for all the INFO, this looks like a HUGE Scandal, and folks need to know this..


(Graphic added on edit, as sig lines are turned off)

[Blackhatjack]

44. The Osprey Faked Testing Results Was A Big Scandal In North Carolina...

The manufacturer had pressured the military brass to 'fictionalize' testing performance logs, and write up performance reports on flights that never happened.

Crashes kept occurring, and families were outraged. Someone on the inside 'leaked' the fact that the performance testing that was submitted never happened. Obvious flaws in design and performance were never mentioned in the testing logs.

Once exposed, the military pushed back approval for many years and supposedly addressed the inherent flaws, and now they are introducing this aircraft in Iraq --about the worst environment you could pick to debut this type of aircraft.

I am hopeful they addressed the flaws that caused all the problems. I am not optimistic that they have actually done this. I am fearful for the soldiers that will be transported by them.

[ddeclue]

53. V22 CANNOT AUTOROTATE! - A disaster waiting to happen.

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-051001-v22.html

"There is another concern raised by the dual-engine failure. Because the Pentagon and defense contractors have been saying that the loss of both engines in the V-22 is "remote, but possible," they have deleted the original requirement that the V-22 be able to autorotate like nearly all other helicopters to a soft landing in the event of engine failure. In the event of a single engine failure, V-22 flight procedures require the pilot to transition to aircraft mode and in the event of a second engine failure perform a "fixed wing glide approach to an emergency landing site," according to an April 2002 report to Congress."

Every HELICOPTER in the world can autorotate - that is, it can use the kinetic energy stored in its rotor system to make a controlled landing.

The V22 can NOT autorotate.

This means that if it loses its engines while NOT in fast forward flight, the lift from its stubby wings will not be able to support it and it will fall to the ground like a rock. This makes the V22 highly vulnerable while transitioning to vertical flight especially if close to the ground and especially if there are no convenient long runways very nearby to put down on, like over urban areas such as Baghdad.

The V22 costs too much.

It is too complicated and relies too much on software control.

It is too expensive. We could buy a dozen CH47's for the price of one V22.

The V22 should be limited to special forces use only on special missions which cannot be performed by conventional helicopters or for rescue of downed pilots beyond the range of a CH53.

It's only real advantage is extended range and even helicopters can refuel in the air these days. Other than that, it has no real advantage over conventional helicopters in Iraq and has a lot of disadvantages that they don't have.


Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech
Private Pilot Single Engine Land
Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[karlrschneider]

55. Actually a -double- engine/linkage failure might be less perilous than a 'single' one

the lack of autorotational ability will be compounded by the asymmetrical roll moments from the long levers involved.
Have any optimal glide figures been released for it in "airplane' mode? I would be surprised if it's more than around 3 to 1. One of the planes I often fly is pretty poor in that department and it doesn't have 30 foot props dangling in the breeze. There aren't more than a small handful of aircraft I wouldn't hesitate to fly, let alone even ride in, but this abortion is right up there up near the top of the list.

[Gabi Hayes]

58. so, what do you think? do they DARE deploy this thing if it's nothing but

a flying deathtrap, not ready for action yet?

I can't believe that even THEY, who are capable of ANYthing, would pull something like that

I hope they know what they're doing.

if they do, it'll be the first time

[karlrschneider]

69. A Republican President discussed the Military-Industrial Complex

many years ago. History isn't paranoia.
:eyes:

[ddeclue]

60. I love airplanes and will try just about anything once

but you are right, this thing has a crappy published glide ratio of 4.5-4.6 to 1 and a fairly high fixed wing stall speed of 91 knots (i.e. the minimum speed at which the fixed wings will generate enough lift at their maximum angle of attack without airflow separation and stall)

That's somewhat better than a rock, a falling refrigerator or the space shuttle (1.5 to 1) but much worse than anything I've ever flown.

Most light aircraft like those I've flown have glide ratios of at least 8 to 1 and when you start getting into retractables and jets, this can rise to 12:1 or better. The best glide ratio I've ever had was in a glider where it was 40:1.

As for V22 single engine out, the prop transmissions are supposed to be crosslinked to allow a single engine to power both rotors but I have my doubts about this working very well if we are talking about more than a simple engine out. If the transmission gets damaged at the same time as the engine, I would think that all bets are off.

The fact that this thing does not have to be able to autorotate means that they can't just put it down in any parking lot and will need either altitude or forward airspeed to trade for lift. If they have neither (such as while landing), and something takes out both engines they will be in a lot of trouble.

The V22's need to stay stateside.

Simplicity has its advantages - I'd rather be in a UH1 than a V22.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Solo_in_MD]

64. The new UH-1Y is supposed to be a very serious competitior to the Hawk series

Bell is real proud of it, but then again, they build the V-22 as well.

[karlrschneider]

65. I'm actually surprised the stall speed is that low, I'd have guessed 100 Kt+

just from what little I've seen of it. I wonder if that's figured at STP and gross wt. (?) Not sure I'd depend on that
at high density altitude. Not that I'd get in one to begin with. Wing loading isn't a big deal under ideal conditions but it sure can become important when things are dicey. I just hope there aren't tragedies with these things. (More, that is)

[ddeclue]

70. Usually yes...on the other hand..

STP is 15C.

Iraq is 40C.

Hotter = higher density altitude = worse performance.

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

72. Indeed, I have pushed the envelope more than once in that department

like departing COS with an OAT of +30C at MTOW. Having a spare change of underwear in the flight bag is a good thing sometimes.

[ddeclue]

75. COS? Colorado Springs? (KCOS?)

Yeah I hope you were turbocharged and had a really long runway with no trees at the end...

I used to live in TN and we had mountains but nothing like out west. I a took a few glider lessons at Estrella Glider Port out in Phoenix when I lived there but in that case we got towed into the air and the head helped because we got good thermals out of it.

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

77. Yes, KCOS just as one example. Same at lots of high altitude airports.

I did a lot of glider towing back in the 70s but only actually flew one a couple times. That was before I got a paying job flying. ;-)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

124. never forget that this is the military that forgot about the sand

impacting their tracked and wheeled vehicles immediately - and shortly thereafter, the chopper fleet. They had to ground them until they replaced the ait filters.

when you are about to invade a desert country, your military planners forget about SAND?

yes, this is a disaster in the making.

[Gabi Hayes]

56. interesting, scary about the no auto rotate bit. BTW, the reason I started this

thread was that I read about the scandalous dealings mentioned by others here, but didn't recall the details. Various Osprey stories popped into my consciousness over the VERY long time frame elapsed from its first trials to its apparently inevitable introduction to combat service.

When I saw the CNN story today, the first thing that occurred to me was whether they'd fixed the apparently VERY difficult problems that militated against its employment. After over 20 years in development, without deployment, I certainly hope all the bugs have been wrung out of this aircraft.

I can't imagine that they'd allow a flying deathtrap to be used in combat, but then, these are the same people that make soldiers BUY THEIR OWN BODY ARMOR!

do you put ANYTHING past these ghouls, who apparently value the bottom line of the companies that profit on this war, FAR ABOVE the bottoms of the personnel that the so cavalierly put into harm's way, then abandon without a second thought once they become damaged goods

[Jonathan50]

59. Ummml... As I understand it, troops have been barred from using

Non issue body armor.

Here it is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12088141/

Army bans use of privately bought body armor

Manufacturer refutes Army claim that non-official gear is ‘substandard stuff’

WASHINGTON - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies — including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

“We’re very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn’t provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they’re, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff,” said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

More:

[sanskritwarrior]

71. I'm sure I'll be called

all kinds of names. But I am sick of this "we had to buy our own armor" crap. I'm sure people will post links and links and links to prove me wrong, but in both my tours across the width and breadth of Iraq, I never met one single soldier that bought their own body armor. Not one. Granted I wasn't walking around with a microphone and a notebook interviewing soldiers on where they got their body armor, but I still have never met one soul that said they had to dish out their own dollars for armor. In fact today I kid you not my entire unit went down to CIF to get the brand brand new body armor with the brand brand new plates and the shoulder pads, new kevlar neck guard, ballistic eye protection, side armor panels and new style kevlar. We did this 6 months before our deployment. Sorry, I just get a little hot under the collar over this issue, it reminds me of the story that we didn't have enough ammo either............UGH!

[Jonathan50]

73. Not to be argumentative..

But why would the Army go to the trouble of banning non issue armor if there weren't any troops using it?

I doubt it is nearly as widespread as most would believe, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't happening at least every now and then.

[sanskritwarrior]

81. Because a lot of people were buying

DragonSkin armor which is Air Force approved but not Army approved. A lot of people were buying it because they thought it was better.

I guess I should correct my original statement, I never met one person that had to buy armor because they weren't provided any. I met lots of fools that spent money on stuff they heard was awesome.

[krispos42]

90. I saw the Dragonskin armor on "Futureweapons"

Neither an AR nor an AK would penetrate at close range. A full magazine of each into the same vest.

Even a grenade lying underneath a dummy wearing Dragonskin (the classic 'taking one for the team') wouldn't penetrate the body armor.

No word on what whould have happened to a real person's ribs from the blast, though.


Regarding the Osprey, I think I saw (again on "Futureweapons") that there was a ramp-mounted machine gun or gatling gun. As the Osprey approaches the target the ramp lowers, freeing the gun for coving fire.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it. It claims a safe vertical rate of decent similar to helicopters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22

[ddeclue]

97. We are talking about engine out performance here, not normal operations.

And since when has having a gun in the door ever saved an aircraft from being shot down? The V-22 is very vulnerable because it cannot autorotate. Case closed. Let an engineer from Boeing tell me why I'm wrong.

I await their answer.

Aerospace Engineer,
Licensed Pilot
Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[krispos42]

100. I'm not arguing with you

This thread went a fair bit deeper than most threads do, and past my casual understanding of such matters. I mean, Flight Simulator 2004 is fun and all, but hardly a replacement for a aeronautical eneineering degree! :-)

My total flight hours in a real airplane is about 0.3, when I got to pilot a Cessna 172 for my HS flight class for a little while. Managed to find my high school without much help, which was pretty cool!

I wanted to all attention to it because there were assorted references in the article that seemed relevant to the topic. Maybe there was additional information in the citations that could help. I did not know that the Osprey could not auto-rotate, and until this thread I did not fully understand how important that was in combat.

I probably should of. My boss at work was in Vietnam and had a helicopter he was flying in was hit by ground fire. The thing autorotated down safely, IIRC. I'll ask him on Monday.

[ddeclue]

105. OK..sorry, my mistake.. I thought you were...

:)

[krispos42]

107. No no no, I (usually) know when I'm in over my head

Unlike where I go to get into the really good arguments (Gungeon), there's much less opinion and a lot more engineering on this topic. :-)

[ddeclue]

99. And if you read the specs, the V22 has an extremely high wing loading:

Wing area: 301.4ft² (28m²))
Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

If it has to rely on the fixed wings in a dual engine failure or some combination which disables the props (much more likely in combat than everyone thinks) then the wing load varies between about 110 lb/ft^2 and 190 lb/ft^2. This is also another indication that the V22 has the engine out performance of a bank safe.

If you read the rest of the wiki, they are not talking about dual engine out performance and they mention quite a number of serious problems with the program until very recently including several fatal accidents. They also state that there are still experts who believe, like me, that V22 is fundamentally and fatally flawed in its basic design.

I am particularly concerned about the digital flight control system (FADEC) and the mishaps they've had related to it. Worse yet, what happens to the system when components of the system (for example sensors or actuators) become damaged in combat. Has that been thoroughly evaluated? Does anyone know what will happen? Software is often very fragile when you take it off its nominal operation path and give it something that no one thought of during the design phase.

I say V22 is a disaster waiting to happen.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[krispos42]

103. Yeah, throwing it into Iraq first thing might not be a good idea

In the same way that pissing on the third rail might not be a good idea.

I would rather have had the Navy, Air Force, and Marines wring the thing out operationally for a few years before this happens.

Have you ever read the book "Hammerheads" by Dale Brown?

[ddeclue]

104. No...sorry I never heard of it..

[krispos42]

108. It's a story about a military effort to stop drug smugglers

Essentially the Pentagon gets the job of intercepting and shooting down all unauthorized smuggling aircraft and interdicting speedboats and the like. The V-22 is featured prominately in it as they hunt down hidden drop points and the like, as well as search-and-rescue missions. It's been a few years since I read it, though. It came out in 1990. IIRC it was an entertaining read.

[karlrschneider]

74. Well, we don't know much more than what we hear from the troops,

and a fair number of them have specifically said they DID buy their own armor. So obviously someone is either mistaken or lying. Look, I'm not accusing you of either but others have said the opposite so what are we supposed to believe? Hey, just asking...?

[sanskritwarrior]

80. No I actually understand your POV

in my own personal experience that didn't happen. My experiences don't encompass all experiences so it's just my perspective versus others. Not asking anyone to believe me over other vets, I just haven't come across it and in this regard I pretend I'm from Missouri, you gotta show me, not tell me. Anyway glad to hear from you Karl........

[karlrschneider]

83. I think I had a browser glitch trying to reply earlier. I'm sort of from Missouri too,

in a way, lived there for some years...anyway I'm glad you understand I wasn't raggin' on you in any way, just mentioning that we hear so many different versions of what's going on over there it's hard to know what's real and what's propaganda. It's probably like most things, that the truth is somewhere in between the seemingly opposite claims.
Probably one thing we actually can agree on is that giving our troops the best possible equipment irrespective of -why- they're there is of utmost importance. (I just want them all to come home)

[Gabi Hayes]

84. Karl, those terrorist lovers just MADE up ALL the stories about the armor.

they made up ALL the stories about loved ones trying to buy the armor back home, too!

they also made up all the stories about the IEDs blowing up the non Stryker, unarmored Humvees.

they also made up all the stories about how, for four years, the Strykers have NOT been deployed, because the 8 billion dollars it would cost to have them manufactured and sent over represent SOME of the billions that have somehow disappeared down the rathole of Bush cronyism and Iraqi lord-knows-what-you-call-it

just ask John McCain. he'll give you a straight answer. don't believe your lying eyes/ears

the surge is working, and soon they WILL be giving us gifts of honey, almonds, and flowers.

SOON, just as soon as we turn the next corner. I can see it, over by the light at the end of the tunnel. right over by the tar pit.

[sanskritwarrior]

Excuse me

do you have a problem with my experiences. I did not say they are true for everyone, but they are true for me......so far.

P.S. I'm in a Stryker Brigade........ :)

[Gabi Hayes]

89. yeah....I have a problem with your 'experience,' as you call it.

your "experience" being the illegal occupation of a foreign nation

you had no business being over there in the first place, and I hope that, in your later years, you can live with the fact that you willingly participated in such a vile operation

other than that, I have no problem with your "experience"

[sanskritwarrior]

92. WOW

n/t..........

As I have asked many times can you cite me the Congressional resolution or the USSC ruling that states the war is illegal.

Because in my world, the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch are what matters to me, so far no branch of the American govt. has ruled this war illegal. So I think I'll sleep pretty well at night knowing in the eyes of the American government, my government, I did nothing illegal. Of course if you can find something from one of the braches of the American government that says the war is illegal, the one I am sworn to uphold and defend, then I'll listen to you. Otherwise you'll just be one more bleating sheep trying to prove something that you can't. Don't mistake me for freeper, I loathe the war, but to say it is illegal while no branch of the US govt agress with you is silly.

[Gabi Hayes]

101. you can believe whatever you choose to believe

live with your choice

[ddeclue]

96. Gabi: That's pretty harsh..save your criticism for the politicians.

I don't really hear sanskrit acting "gung ho" for the war here and he seems to be a pretty reasonable poster. Save your venom for the politicians who sent sanskrit to where he is right now.

Thanks,

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Gabi Hayes]

102. Harsh! tell it to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. explain to them

the meaning of "harsh"

but, wait! you can't. because they're

dead



people make choices; he made his, and justifies it with meaningless wordsmanship. let him save it for the Iraqis he helped liberate

[ddeclue]

106. Oh please...give your patronizing a rest..it's every bit as bad as the Republican version..

The troops are not responsible for this war. George Bush is. If you have a problem you have it with HIM, not them.

They really don't have a choice in the matter unless they'd like to go to jail.

And it's tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of dead. IraqBodyCount.org puts the number at 61394 to 67364.

There's no need to exaggerate. Certainly we can all agree that even 61,394 is horrible enough.

That said, again the troops have a duty to follow orders and ours is a system where the military is subserviant to civil authority (thankfully or we'd really have a banana republic). If you want to point a finger, point it at Bush and quit being such a jerk.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[sanskritwarrior]

109. Thanks doug

I'm trying to be reasonable but some people on DU want to blame me and other grunts for the war.....Sorry good leaders or bad leaders I have a country to serve and it doesn't stop when some fucktard gets elected, selected or whatever meme we are going with right now.

Gabi, I have 14 years in 14 proud years of my life, have I committed a war crime in Iraq? No. Have I ordered my men to fire at people we thought were a threat? Yes. Were those people unarmed after we killed them? On one occasion yes but they violated our security zone so according to my battalion's rules of engagement we were in a free fire situation. Do I feel horrible about it and think about it everyday? Yes. But I would feel worse had I not given the order to fire and some of my boys had been killed. It was the toughest decision of my life, every time I gave the order to fire it was tough because you never want to be wrong.

The reason I am telling you this story is to see what you think of me now. I have killed innocent Iraqis, but those innocent Iraqis had violated my security perimeter. My choice was to fire and kill them but spare my guys or not fire and hope they didn't have a VBIED (Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device) that would have killed us all at our checkpoint. You don't know the specifics of the story, what the rules of engagement are or what manner of insurgent pattern behavior those people were engaging in. You do know what happened and that I gave the order to fire. I want to know if you think I am a war criminal.

[Gabi Hayes]

111. Glad to see you're thinking about it

keep thinking

maybe you'll get it some day

MacNamara finally did

[sanskritwarrior]

112. Oh I think about it

but I would trade those Iraqis for my guys anyday. Call me a monster judge me however you will, I regret the loss of Iraqi innocent life, but if the choice was the Iraqis or American soldiers under my command that is a decision I will never lose sleep over.

[Gabi Hayes]

113. I don't judge you, believe me. I feel sorry for the choice you had to make

I understand that it was your profession. I'd probably have done the same thing, given the choice of my men or the other side.

Point is, the choice of profession led to the choice you made to go to Iraq. If you're still in, will you follow your CINC into Iran, if that eventuality occurs?

I would not have chosen the military as an occupation, hence I wasn't forced to make the choice of participating in an illegal, immoral invasion of a nation that represented NO threat to us, and never, ever would, lacking a navy or an air force.

In your place, I don't know what I would have done, but I DO know that those that I respect the most, ca. Vietnam, are those like Daniel Ellsberg, John Paul Vann, and John Kerry, among others, who saw combat, and realized the depths to which we'd been fooled (then acted on that knowledge), and others, like Bill Harris, who REFUSED to serve in another illegal conflict, and were jailed for following their consciences.

I don't mean to sound judgmental, and I'm not so good at making my point, so I'll link to this thread to give you an idea what goes through my mind as I wonder what's going to happen over there, which better expresses where my sympathies lie than I can, especially post number 19:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x657775

[Gabi Hayes]

114. last bit for me on this subthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=657775&mesg_id=658056

[INDIA]

140. To be fair, the majority of the dead you speak of...

weren't killed by US forces. The invasion may have enabled the killing, but when it comes down to it, guys like Sanskrit aren't the guilty party.

Save your anger for the politicians who started the invasion and for the Iraqis who pulled the trigger.

[Gabi Hayes]

145. nice try

rationalize all you want. YOU would be considered just another "Iraqi who pulled the trigger" if an invading army here decided that you were a terrorist for fighting them, just as the Brits considered American Revolutionaries 'terrorists' back then, just as the Germans considered the Maqui 'terrorists' in WWII.

'majority of the dead?' that's FUNNY, if it wasn't so twisted

what about the minority of the dead? do you see how ridiculous that sounds? who speaks for them?

and it takes more than just 'politicians' to make people die, majority or minoriry casualties, so DON'T patronize me by telling me for whom I reserve my anger. you have no idea where that resides, and DON'T twist my words, either.

as I said earlier, people make choices; they then live with the consequences. I'm not 'angry' at those people. they've had VERY difficult decisions to make. I feel sorry for the untenable position into which they've been forced. much like our countries intolerable choice in Iraq: chaos now, or chaos in five, ten, twenty years, when we leave. there ARE no good choices for ANYONE

[INDIA]

146. Around 3,000 a month are being killed by the insurgency/sectarian militias.

I'm sure you find that an inconvenient fact, since you would much rather place blame on your own countrymen, who have a duty to serve their country, regardless of whichever fuckwit is in office.

The climate was enabled by Bushco and Washington lawmakers. They started it, and are primarily to blame. The killings are being carried out by Iraqis and foreign fighters. I would assume that the assholes setting off bombs in market places, and killing other Iraqis because they follow a slightly different vein of Islam, would also be the most blameworthy, yet you seem to disagree.


The troops on the ground are one of the least culpable parties in this mess. I would argue that having good soldiers like Sanskrit in Iraq is actually saving lives. Yet you seem anxious to place blame on him/them. Why is that?

[Gabi Hayes]

147. look, bud. WE were the ones who invaded them. can you undersand that

simple fact?

apparently not, because EVERYTHING that has happened from that point on is our fault, which renders your tortured justifications moot

deal with it

[INDIA]

148. Who is "WE"????

I didn't give the order to invade, neither did you, nor Sanskrit or the others on the ground there. I don't blame him for Iraqis slaughtering each other. Yet you seem to insinuate he should feel guilty. Absurd.


I first blame Bushco and the policy makers (both Repuke and Dem) who enabled the situation, and then the thugs roaming the country killing muslims who are slightly different than they are. Blaming rank and file members of the military is absurd. They aren't the ones killing thousands of innocent Iraqis every month.

It's a pattern. God forbid anybody on DU show anger toward the assholes actually setting the IED's or blowing up the market places.

On edit: Nice try with the Revolutionary War comparison. I don't recall Paul Revere and Sam Adams blowing up crowded market places full of other colonists, or trying to exterminate different types of Christians. Nor did they systematically kidnap and murder "tories", colonists sympathetic to King George. The founding fathers, even in a bloody struggle, found it within themselves to act like human beings. Your comparison is wrong, and despicable.

What percentage of Iraqi fighters ONLY attacks US troops? 5%, 10% maybe? The rest find it necessary to kill, innocent women, children, police officers, Iraqi army soldiers, interpreters, foreign construction workers, slightly different muslims, politicians, government workers, teachers, etc. etc.

[sanskritwarrior]

86. Excuse me

do you have a problem with my experiences. I did not say they are true for everyone, but they are true for me......so far.

P.S. I'm in a Stryker Brigade........ :)

[karlrschneider]

61. The problem is that the basic design is fundamentally flawed.

It depends on dozens of workarounds of the basic principles of aerodynamics and physics. To make a less than optimal analogy, the thing is like building a bus that rides on one wheel like a unicycle. It has one desirable feature, and several dozen that are detrimental to success and safety.

[Solo_in_MD]

66. IIRC, Bell had a commerical version flying but after the big crash

rolled it into the hangar. They had gotten some approvals from the FAA on it already, but I am not sure how far along it was in the certification process. It was flying in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. There is also a new heavy lift helo being contemplated and a 4 rotor variant of the V-22 is one of the concepts.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

93. can anyone say space shuttle?

a bus, a plane, a truck, a rocket, and a mess? Great big beautiful mess, but still a mess.
If you need huge payload capacity, automate, and you improve costs.
if you need to send people up, concentrate on that, and you improve costs.
combine the two and you get the osprey of space vehicles.

[ddeclue]

62. Hey they sent the M16 to Vietnam before they worked its bugs out too..n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

79. exactly....and how many DIED because they didn't work under the

conditions there?

there are MYRIAD interviews of soldiers damning the lousy, FATAL flaws of that weapon, chief among which, IIRC, had to do with the lack of stainless steel somewhere in the chamber or barrel, which caused jamming out the ass at the worst times: as in firefight.

it was a real POS when they first sent it out there

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Ya want to take bets on American deaths? No thanks. n/t

[Imagevision]

91. umm.. "we're providing the troops with the best equipment??"

[ChairmanAgnostic]

94. If it takes two years to build a replacement chopper, and

we have lost 130 already, that explains exactly why they are sending the Osprey in. they need any vehicle they can get their hands on, even a fatally flawed one like this.

[ddeclue]

95. It doesn't REALLY take two years...

It only takes two years right now because there is no will power nor money to go faster.

We built 100,000 aircraft in the 3 years and 8 months of WWII so we COULD be building 100 a day if there was an actual political will (that comes with an actual declaration of war) to fight this war.

The simpler the helicopter is, the faster it can be built. I'm sure a V22 takes a lot longer than a Huey.

By the way there are plenty of choppers that could be brought back to operational use out in the desert in AZ on very short notice if that were really the problem.

Doug D.
Orlando FL

[Jonathan50]

110. Quantity has a quality all its own

-Joseph Stalin

[GCP]

98. My son was offered a ride on the one that went down in Arizona

He was still active duty at that time. Thank God he said no.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/n04122000_20004123.html

[gravity]

115. These fears of the Osprey are irrational

The problems that lead to the crash that killed 20 people have been fixed, so it shouldn't be a problem. The military tests all it's equipment thoroughly before it ever goes into service and makes sure it is robust as possible. Thats why it took 20 years to develop it.

The aircraft was never meant to replace the helicopter either, but instead have its own niche in the military. It's suppose to have the range, speed, and cargo capacity of an airplane with the vertical takeoff and landing of the helicopter. It has its weaknesses like anything else, but it can do things no other aircraft can do, making it a valuable asset for out military.

There are always possibilities for dangers since it hasn't been tested in real combat situations yet, but it's not different than any other new technology designed for combat, so give it a chance before you dismiss it.

I'm tired of everyone who thinks they know what's best for a military, but they have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

[Gabi Hayes]

116. funny stuff, especially the quote from your link, below:

''It's suppose to have the range, speed, and cargo capacity of an airplane with the vertical takeoff and landing of the helicopter.''

there's ample evidence, from published sources, with attribution to qualified sources, that would say that this vehicle has neither attribute you cite.

what expertise do you offer in support of your assertion?

did you read the articles cited in this thread?

if you're such an expert, why don't you go up to the posts that cite evidence for their own assertions, and provide evidence to back up your own assertions?

why should anybody believe you?

you can start proving you know what the hell YOU'RE talking about right here:
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22videos.htm

[ddeclue]

118. Hey Jackass... I AM the engineer and pilot here...what the hell qualifies YOU to comment?

It really doesn't have any "niche" in Iraq friend.

What happens the first time there's a double engine failure or the crosslink tranmission fails in combat? Answer: Crash and 20 something dead marines.

I know a hell of a lot more about aircraft than you do so butt out.

I get tired of people who think they know more about engineering than they really do who have no clue about what THEY are talking about telling me MY business.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[gravity]

135. I base my opinions off of the engineers who worked on the project

and the Marines Corp who plan to use it since they are the ones who know what they are doing.

There are risks associated with the V-22 Osprey, but their are many benefits with it too, and many people believe that the risks outweigh the benefits.

[ddeclue]

139. So you have NO qualifications to speak on the subject apparently.

They aren't the ONLY engineers who know what they are doing. You on the other hand have no ability to know the difference.

The engineers working on the project are only telling you what they want you to know and you are too damned dumb to realize you are being hoodwinked.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[gravity]

142. I still trust the engineers who work on the project more

You might be right and bring up some valid concerns, but I basing my opinion off the engineers who have the most experience working with the Osprey.

Really I respect the opinion of the Marines the most, since they are the ones putting their lives on the line.

[ddeclue]

143. That's a mistake.

It's not that I MAY be right...I am right. It's just a series of elementary performance analysis problems.

What is the rotor disk loading? Can it autorotate? How far will it glide? How fast must it fly not to stall?

These aren't complicated questions requiring a lot of research.

They are basic design performance issues which any competent aerospace engineer readily understands by a basic analysis of the wing area, rotor area, maximum takeoff weight, etc. None of these problems require any specialized knowledge from Boeing/Bell or the Marine Corps not already in the public domain.

The Marines really don't have a choice. They will do what they can with the equipment they are provided - of course they will put the best face on the situation and not complain.

The Boeing/Bell engineers working on the Osprey are not objective observers. They have a paycheck on the line and will do whatever it takes to protect that.

The Pentagon project managers likewise have a similar self interest in protecting their little fiefdoms.



Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

121. Oh and if you read the military's OWN V-22 site THEY claim its role IS to replace the helicopter.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/?fuseaction=history.main

"The MV-22 will replace the current Marine Corps assault helicopters in the medium lift category (CH-46E and CH-53D)"

Hey but it can't autorotate like these venerable (and REALLY tested by combat) helicopters that have served us well. The CH46 and CH53 have been tested for 40+ years and have served in ACTUAL combat. They are much simpler than the V22 and DO NOT rely on software control to the extent that the V22 MUST in order to fly.

If there is a specific mission that an existing helicopter cannot fulfill in Iraq, someone please identify it for me. I really don't believe it.

This digital flight control system is a key weakness of the V22 and I really doubt that there's any way they could have tested it thoroughly enough to account for what will happen when key sensors or actuators get damaged in combat.

The cross-link rotor transmission is another key weakness. The miltary claims that we don't have to worry about dual engine out failure and the need to autorotate but if this transmission system fails due to combat damage or if the transmission link plus an opposite engine fail or if both engines fail, the V22 because of combat damage, based on the wing loading, fixed wing stall speed and lift to drag ratio specifications, the thing is going to "glide" about as well as a bank safe to its crash site.

A helicopter, meanwhile would be able to autorotate in relative safety to a controlled landing.

Douglas J. De Clue
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech
Private Pilot Single Engine Land, FAA

[gravity]

134. Most modern combat aircraft now have digital control systems

and it has never been much of a problem

[ddeclue]

136. Most modern aircraft don't spend their time close to the ground

getting shot at by small arms fire. It's a different story than fighter jocks in F16's at 15,000 feet firing at but not being fired upon.

(Also why I'd rather be in an A10 than an F16 for close air support)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

Most modern aircraft don't spend their time close to the ground

getting shot at by small arms fire. It's a different story than fighter jocks in F16's at 15,000 feet firing at but not being fired upon.

(Also why I'd rather be in an A10 than an F16 for close air support)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

137. Most modern aircraft don't spend their time close to the ground

getting shot at by small arms fire. It's a different story than fighter jocks in F16's at 15,000 feet firing at but not being fired upon.

(Also why I'd rather be in an A10 than an F16 for close air support)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

138. Most modern aircraft don't spend their time close to the ground

getting shot at by small arms fire. It's a different story than fighter jocks in F16's at 15,000 feet firing at but not being fired upon.

(Also why I'd rather be in an A10 than an F16 for close air support)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

123. And here's another gem from the Navy on the V22

"The V-22 is no longer required to have an "air combat maneuvering" capability; instead it must demonstrate "defensive maneuvering."

OK, now who wants to sign up to fly this thing in Iraq where they have already shot down 9 helicopters this year?

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/v-22%20osprey.htm

In conjunction with resuming flight testing, the Navy Department modified certain V-22 requirements. For instance, the V-22 is no longer required to land in helicopter mode without power (also known as "autorotation"), protection from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has been eliminated. The V-22 is no longer required to have an "air combat maneuvering" capability; instead it must demonstrate "defensive maneuvering." Also, the requirement that troops be able to use a rope or rope ladder to exit the cabin at low altitudes has been eliminated.17 Also concurrent with the resumption of V-22 flight testing, DOD began an in-depth study of alternatives to pursue in case the aircraft does not pass muster. Options reportedly include purchasing the S-92, or upgrading CH-53, or EH101 helicopters.18

[ChairmanAgnostic]

126. defensive maneuvering consisting of running away at high speed?

If the final product does not match our original specs, let's do the military thing. Change the specs.

[ddeclue]

127. If you liked that read my new thread on the subject!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3217131&mesg_id=3217131


Don't you just love it when people like "gravity" try to tell you "don't worry - be happy"?

I think I've backed up my case pretty well.

All "gravity" has to say is "trust us"...where I have I heard THAT before?

Don't let "gravity" get you...stay out of V22's

:)

Doug D.

[Strelnikov_]

130. Wait . . . for . . . it . . . .

"Don't let "gravity" get you...stay out of V22's"

Bam!!!

[ddeclue]

125. And there's this from the military's OWN final report on the V22:

http://www.dau.mil/educdept/mm_dept_resources/reports/v22-final-report.pdf

"2.5 AUTOROTATION

The JORD states that the V-22 must be capable of performing a survivable emergency
landing with all engines inoperative, and identifies the requirement for the aircraft to be
capable of conducting a power-off glide/autorotation. The Panel members heard from the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation that, “Basic rotorcraft engineering analysis
indicates that the V-22 will have a difficult time achieving a stable autorotation following
a sudden power failure at high power settings, and that the probability of a successful
autorotational landing from a stable autorotative descent is very low.” According to a
white paper provided by the V-22 Program Office, the capability of the V-22 to perform
autorotations was examined during the developmental phase of testing. “V-22
developmental testing included autorotative descents in the aircraft and autorotations to
landing in the simulator…The V-22 has demonstrated stable autorotative descents as
described above in flight test and offers enough control to the pilot to touchdown at a
survivable rate of descent, but evaluations in the simulator have shown limited
repeatability of making a safe landing at the touchdown phase. This is largely due to the
small amount of energy in the rotor system available to the pilot for managing descent
rate and speed at touchdown.

The proprotor disc of the V-22 is relatively small when compared with those of
helicopters. The size of the disc was defined in large part by the requirement to
accommodate shipboard operations. The twisted proprotor blades were designed as a
compromise that would permit hover performance in the helicopter mode and turboprop
cruise performance in the fixed-wing mode. From an autorotative perspective, these
designs result in higher rates of descent, higher airspeeds, and less rotor energy at the
bottom of an autorotation available to convert to lift. This necessitates run-on landings at
higher airspeeds (60kts) than helicopters at the bottom of the autorotative descent.
NATOPS contains preliminary procedures (currently being revised) for autorotation.
While not fully tested in Developmental Test (DT), the intent is to give the pilot the
procedures that would maximize the probability of a favorable outcome should an
autorotation occur. FMF pilots are not cleared to conduct autorotations except in
emergencies; practice autorotative descents also are not allowed. All pilot training for
autorotation and airplane mode power-off glide is via simulator.

(i.e. it's too damned dangerous to practice!)


While autorotations may be problematic for the V-22, development test pilots have
concluded from simulation and high altitude tests that an airplane mode glide landing can
be performed with repeated success to a hard surface runway.

WHAT RUNWAY???

They believe its performance will be similar to other fixed-wing aircraft with similar glide characteristics.

4.6:1 glide ratio, 110 lb/ft^2 wing loading and 90knot stall speed? What "similar" aircraft do they mean? Only the space shuttle has a worse glide ratio of any similar sized airplane that I know of...

V-22 pilots receive simulator training in the proper techniques for unpowered airplane
mode landings, but as with autorotations, they do not yet practice them in the aircraft.

(Why not?)

The probability of the V-22 being forced to execute an autorotation vice a power-off
glide is low. The combination of high engine reliability, large separation between
engines, lower vulnerability to ground fire than CH-46/53 predecessors, and the lack of a
tail-rotor make the chances of an autorotation lower for the V-22 than for a typical
helicopter. It also must be stated that the V-22 is a hybrid aircraft designed to an
employment concept requiring 70 percent of its airborne life to be spent in airplane mode
and only 30 percent of its airborne time spent in conversion or helicopter mode. To
further reduce the possibility that the aircraft would be forced to perform an autorotation,
V-22 pilots are trained to transition to (or stay in) airplane mode after a single engine
failure. Helicopter and conversion modes are allowed to accommodate land ing, but this
proactive strategy places the aircraft into the safest possible posture should the second
engine or interconnect drive shaft (ICDS) fail. One note of concern, however, is that
according to the NATOPS emergency procedure for single engine flight, at the
conclusion of the airplane mode flight, aircraft should be landed vertically. According to
the Bell Boeing test pilot, this discontinuity is probably due to the lack of experience
among the V-22 community with glide landings, and the lack of sufficient developmental
test in this area."

(This whole paragraph is a bureaucratic excercise in rationalizing away a real risk as "unlikely" but in reality it is highly likely if the insurgents understand anything at all about the V22, they will take advantage of this weakness to bring it down by shooting at both engines simultaneously.)

Conclusion: The V-22 has less autorotative capability than most helicopters and more
than any fixed-wing aircraft.

(This is an idiotic statement - fixed wing aircraft don't have a need to "autorotate" because they don't hover near the ground in the first place. They maintain a decent altitude and have a high enough lift to drag ratio that they can actually glide somewhere SAFE to land.)

Conclusion: The high disc loading of the V-22 limits the potential for improvement to its
autorotative capability.

(i.e. Polite way of saying (disk loading is the helicopter equivalent of wing loading for a fixed wing aircraft) that this thing can't be autorotated.)

Conclusion: The V-22 has less power-off glide capability than most fixed-wing transport aircraft and more than any helicopter.


Recommendation: Reassess the requirement for autorotative flight in view of the low
need, low probability of improvement and the existence of alternatives.

(Translation: When you can't meet the specification, just find an excuse to waive the specification instead.)

Conclusion: The V-22 community does not appear to place enough emphasis on the
glide- landing capability of the aircraft as an alternative to autorotation, especially in the
one-engine-out procedures.

(No joke Sherlock...)


Recommendation: Reassess the capability of the V-22 to conduct power-off glides.
Explore design and operational techniques to optimize power-off glide capability (e.g.,
minimize proprotor drag commensurate with auxiliary power requirements).

(Again..what was I saying earlier???)

Recommendation: Ensure that the full flight simulator used by pilots at Marine Corps
Air Station, New River accurately emulates both autorotative and power-off glide
simulations to the degree required for effective pilot training.


(Translation: It's SO dangerous to practice autorotation or power off glide in the V22 that it MUST be simulated and only ever attempted in an emergency. This begs the question, "how accurate will the simulation be?" if they can't really practice it in actual flight.)

Some more from the same report:

"V-22 Autorotation Characteristics * Relatively high disc loading makes autorotation more problematic than for equivalent weight helicopter

* Autorotation and power settling per se are not unique tiltrotor risks, but depending on altitude, once in
autorotation or power settling situation, tiltrotor configuration lends itself to a potentially worse outcome
than for equivalent helicopter configuration."

Hmmm....just what I stated here... the damn thing will perform worse than a helicopter in engine-out.. they are being amazingly polite in glossing it over with "potentially worse outcome"...

"The ability to transition to airplane mode after an engine failure and perform a precautionary landing on a runway means there should rarely be a need for two engine-out autorotation."

Again WHAT runway are they talking about? If the thing is hovering or loitering in an urban area at low altitudes the runway will far out of glide range. 1,000 foot of altitude will equal, at best 4600 feet of glide range. What are they going to use it for? Perimeter patrol of the Baghdad airport? That's the only way it will be able to "glide" to a landing -i.e. if it is already in the traffic pattern at the airport.

This thing is dangerous and it's going to get Marines killed in combat.

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.