- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Better yet, I hope the Gov't makes you offers you can't refuse! $. Perks. Good duty stations. Housing. Medical. Bonuses. A lot of money is going into your training and in typical DoD fashion they will probably shortchange you and chase you off to the civil side. Hope they change how they operate. We need more highly trained, educated, and motivated guys like you Mkloby.
You know, amazingly - I tried to get in on the ground side before I went in... the recruiter was practically begging me to take the tests and go the aviation side. I thought to myself, "flying would be pretty cool." It really hit me a couple months ago, when I was up flying over Pensacola Beach at dusk courtesy of Uncle Sam, looking at the beautiful sunset and thinking... "holy sh*tballs, I get paid to do this..."
Nice beach to fly over. If you flew left hand pitch out patterns to the East runway at Sherman field (don't know the number) you would have flown right over my homestead at about 90 to final.
I never said the Wesserflug would or could have been viable. The point is that it is quite obvious that it, along with many German aircraft designs, were later incorporated by others around the world. It was the origiator of the concept nothing more. Give credit where credit is due.
I think, I can remember Da Vinci did something similar but I don't exactly have it in my collection... I have his steam powered tank though... Da Vinci was trapped in a world where he was ahead of what was technically possible. Ie. Steam Power doesn't really work for a tank- heavy armor and need to power those wheels that could dig in. Flight- Steam Power too heavy, also unsure about the availability of balsa wood or an equivalent...
I'd agree with that mkloby. Are there any overseas buyers? Or is just the Marines and the Army (or only the Marines)?
I could make a technical drawing of a space travel machine... doesn't really mean a thing though...
The Army has given a number of reasons as to why they are not opting for the Osprey as a tactical troop transport. I can give you my perspective as a career army aviator (22 years) as to why I feel the Osprey is not the right airframe for us. First the layout of the tilt-rotor airframe is not really conducive to flying at true Nap of the Earth altitudes (NOE). That environment is where we spend a large percentage of our time. In Iraq we usually operated at anywhere between 25' to 100' during the day and at night under NVG's we were usually between 100' to 200', during our approaches in and out of LZ's during combat air assaults we were lower. Also compared to the Army's primary assault helicopter the UH-60 Blackhawk the Osprey does not have the manueverability that we seek in a tactical aircraft. The Osprey was designed to meet the requirement that the Marine Corps has to move Marines from an amphibious assault ship (LHA) across the ocean at a high rate of speed and to deposit them on shore. We in the Army do not require that speed due to the fact we typically operate fairly close to the LZ/PZ and do not have to traverse great distances to reach our objective. I could go on, but the bottom line is that it just does not fit the needs of the Army. Our mission can best be accomplished with a conventional helicopter. BTW, hope Army JROTC is treating you well. I started out as a JROTC cadet in 1977 and have been in an Army uniform ever since.
BTW, hope Army JROTC is treating you well. I started out as a JROTC cadet in 1977 and have been in an Army uniform ever since.