@@paulsteavenI feel like bell is pretty reliable though
@paulsteaven
Ай бұрын
@@ZombaEdits it is. Even Boeing is reliable when it comes to military aircrafts, it's just that Osprey is really complex due to US military's unique requirements.
@user-ei9ui3lz5g
Ай бұрын
Crazy comment fr
@markedis5902
Ай бұрын
It was developed is 1988 when Boeing were still working as a team. It was post the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas that Boeing’s management valued stock prices over anything else.
@JarheadCrayonEater
Ай бұрын
I lost several friends that I went to Marine Corps Boot Camp with in 1999. Shortly after that, they went down in a Osprey crash. USMC 1999-2007
@salimmachila5736
Ай бұрын
How many killed by US soldiers in Iraq?
@JarheadCrayonEater
Ай бұрын
@@salimmachila5736, not enough, apparently. You get zero sympathy from me, since you have no idea what was actually happening.
@theadchefer
Ай бұрын
@@JarheadCrayonEateryes no idea cause it certainly wasn’t weapons of mass destruction. government dog
@JarheadCrayonEater
Ай бұрын
@@theadchefer, I totally agree about the BS of us going over there. What you seem to have forgotten, or aren't old enough to remember, is none of us commoners knew what was really going on. "government dog" is such a stupid thing to say. Notice, I didn't say ignorant. I'm no fan of the government, politically, but I do support my country and what we (as in citizens) actually believe in. We don't want war, but we do need a military, because without one we're just going to allow an invasion. Save the drama for your momma, because it's going to get you nowhere with me, son.
@cameronhermann9400
Ай бұрын
Sorry for your loss. Thank you for service
@ronaryel6445
Ай бұрын
The title of this video is clickbait. The Osprey does have a persistent problem with its clutch that has never been satisfactorily addressed and so more frequent parts replacements are needed. A new 2nd generation production tiltrotor has been selected to equip the armed forces, and the new tiltrotor will not be plagued with the same issues. The death and injury rate justifies continued use of the V-22, because beyond the accident picture, the V-22 does not remain in a hot fire zone for as long as a conventional helicopter, meaning it will get troops out of range of hostile fire faster than a helicopter. This video did not point out that the very first tiltrotor was developed and flown by Bell Aircraft in 1955. t was the XV-3, and its overall appearance resembles that of the German Focke-Achgelis Model 61 helicopter of World War II. Bell is a partner in the V-22.
@gssbcvegancat2345
Ай бұрын
Have you ever been one of those devils running out of one? It's not like you think honestly I would rather go in ground dismount and move to position. I know we're just dumb Marines and we don't really get a choice but I wish somebody would ask us what we prefer. We're the ones about to die, at least let us feel comfortable before we do it
@IonorRea
23 күн бұрын
@@gssbcvegancat2345 Ok, you are probably just random internet troll but anyway... Osprey is also used for the US president, it can fly above MANPADs, so that's likely behind the reason together with his speed which gives the enemy little time to react but it is overly complex and unable to safely land while experiencing complete loss of engine power which can do even Vietnam era Chinook. The upcoming Blackhawk replacement using a similar but simplified configuration to Osprey likely not win any survivability records while experiencing major technical failure or battle damage for that reason either but his performance may save marine's a$$ on the battlefield by avoiding being hit in the first place. However, it's unlikely that the US will replace Blackhawk with next-gen Valor completely as was the case of the F-35 simply because Blackhawk is good enough in many less demanding scenarios, and likely for a fraction of the total service life cost while Blackhawk due to ability to autorotate upon complete loss of power improving probability of Blackhawk's crew to survive a crash due to higher attrition ratio near the end of service life compared to a VTOL intended to replace it...
@isaac-vb1ng
Ай бұрын
2:40 I didn’t know they made m240s in 50 cal?
@LanceBeckman
Ай бұрын
Get a real job
@isaac-vb1ng
Ай бұрын
@@LanceBeckman found the writer who made the script
@Pseudomonasa
Ай бұрын
Lol thought the exact same, even though I'm not in the military and I'm not from the US
@LanceBeckman
Ай бұрын
@arjunhundal2698 get a life
@nomercyinc6783
Ай бұрын
@arjunhundal2698 people who smoke weed are better people that those who live off pharmaceutical pills. pill poppers are peoples society doesnt need
@NiteAtTheFort
Ай бұрын
that is not a 50 cal that was a 7.62 mm aka not a 50 cal
@Ragondarknes
Ай бұрын
Yeah i'm just a shut-in gamer and i instantly noticed that too, there's no way that's EVER an M2. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if it was a 249 5.56, but i can't tell.
@75THRANGER1
Ай бұрын
You can put 50s on the back. It just showed a 240
@Ragondarknes
Ай бұрын
@@75THRANGER1 Right i'm sure you can, but you get it.
@RoyalDog214
Ай бұрын
@@Ragondarknes Get what? You can still mount the .50 on the back, the video just happens to show a 240
@honkeykong9563
Ай бұрын
Thumbnail looks like the Osprey is flipping the double Bird.
@ebridgewater
Ай бұрын
Does 😆
@sageakporherhe783
Ай бұрын
i see what you mean
@john_in_phoenix
Ай бұрын
New technology has growing pains. This is not the first aircraft nicknamed "the widow maker", and it won't be the last. Unique capabilities come with risks, but the bugs will be worked out.
@asdfghjkl92213
Ай бұрын
Except it’s not new, it is quite old
@john_in_phoenix
Ай бұрын
@@asdfghjkl92213 Still the first production version.
@cruisinguy6024
Ай бұрын
Well said. The V-280 will undoubtedly have its own learning curve paved in blood and will inevitably be compared to the Osprey as those events happen My big issue with it is the insane pricing difference between the variants. How did we end up with the special operations version being TWENTY MILLION cheaper than the straightforward CV-22 which is FORTY million more than than the Marine variant. This is madness.
@drewcanton235
Ай бұрын
In answer to the question the headline asks: Ans: for the aircraft crew it is !!!
@JasonB808
Ай бұрын
New design? The V22 was being developed since 1986. 😒 See how people just generate their own “facts”, to suit their own biased opinions.
@hunterscott3000
Ай бұрын
When the title makes you wonder: for the people in it or the people near it? 😂
@coreyschafer8397
Ай бұрын
I absolutely love these machines and all things engineering but damn bruh 80 racks per hour per osprey 😂 shit cray
@tunafish4557
Ай бұрын
The parts are expensive but it's not just that there fuel hogs to
@tommypain
Ай бұрын
What language are you using? You should try English.
@coreyschafer8397
Ай бұрын
Its my second language eye don know I sorry for offense ❤
@tommypain
Ай бұрын
@@coreyschafer8397 Oh, not only do you choose to speak poorly, Corey, but you’re a liar, too.
@coreyschafer8397
Ай бұрын
@@tommypain i like ur screen name ❤️
@ZaiFuchigami
Ай бұрын
3:11 That's not the actual wreckage of the crash in Yakushima in 2023. That's an image from the Okinawa crash in 2016. I was there in Yakushima during the crash, saw the search and rescue ops being executed everyday for weeks in person.
@gssbcvegancat2345
Ай бұрын
Semper Fi brother. Don't give in to the 22
@ZaiFuchigami
Ай бұрын
@@gssbcvegancat2345 I should clarify I wasn't part of the search operation. Just a civ. I did talk to a couple of the guys who were though. Solid dudes.
@DarkMan1290
Ай бұрын
6000hp engines? Can it fit in a Miata?
@wurdig9224
Ай бұрын
😂sure
@ltrocola2740
Ай бұрын
Enjoyed my time flying on the Osprey, never personally had a mishap, never once had doubts for my or the rest of the crews safety. Everyone has an opinion on something which is fine, but the only opinions I personally care for are from those who have logged flight hours.
@cwr8618
Ай бұрын
Do you need to have smoked crack to prove it’s destructive?
@Sexynes
Ай бұрын
What about the opinions of those who died from it?
@Sefert79
26 күн бұрын
@@cwr8618 Because researchers and engineers have no valid opinions on it.
@cwr8618
26 күн бұрын
@@Sefert79 or anyone who can read mishap data. It's really weird to have that perspective when your life is the chip on the table. I've lost quite a few friends or colleagues to aircraft mishaps. Once someone is gone, that's it. Leaves a big hole with their family and friends.
@failedpilsen1714
10 күн бұрын
H-60: Death = 1.2 per 100k FH V-22: Death = 3.61 per 100k FH CH-53: Death = 5.96 per 100k FH you're welcome. :D
@John_Doe3
Ай бұрын
Are the prices for maintenance being inflated by the companies that make the parts artificially inflating their prices?
@SC_XOLOs
Ай бұрын
Of course !! If you want parts for it, you can’t go to auto zone
@John_Doe3
Ай бұрын
@@SC_XOLOs I also think that we, as tax payers, shouldn't be paying $90,000 for the military to buy a bag of bushings from a company that's gouging the military for parts just because they can.
@PowerSoilder
Ай бұрын
Capitalism and human greed don’t work.
@adamanderson3042
24 күн бұрын
@@John_Doe3 No, 95% of the cost of maintenance cost for aircraft and ships is the army-side labour costs associated with the amount of maintainers required per unit of that thing. Specifically for aircraft, the cost of spare parts is paid in the purchase of the aircraft for the entire lifetime of the aircraft.
@katana2k
Ай бұрын
Im 4 minutes in, and its clear to me that Business Insider has time to fill and little to say. How many times can you cut to a guy on his macbook without saying the first thing about his findings? Im about to block this channel
@tommypain
Ай бұрын
Then, when he finally opened his mouth, he knows nothing about statistics or data analysis. It’s just a bunch of hype to prove their premise.
@jdkgcp
Ай бұрын
That guy giving the numbers making it seem like the Black Hawk or Stallions are somehow worse based on the number of deaths, sort of "forgot" to factor in the sheer number of the amount of aircraft and flight times compared to the Osprey. Like bro... that's simple math. OBVIOUSLY the Osprey is the deadliest aircraft in the military. Everyone knows this. Here's the short layman's version with made up numbers for example. If there's 3,000 Blackhawks flying everyday and 15 people die a year and there's 30 Ospreys flying and 8 people die a year. Which do you think is statistically more dangerous? Noticed he neglected to mention that part.
@BobBombadil
Ай бұрын
You beat me to it. Spot on
@tjroelsma
Ай бұрын
You forget that the Black Hawk and Stallion are the product of many decades of development. The first helicopters also had big problems, but by now they've been solved and therefore they have become much more reliable. The Osprey still has a long way to go, but then it's been in use for not even 2 decades, making a comparison between the Osprey and the Black Hawk and Stallion an unfair one in my opinion. As the saying goes "Rome wasn't built in a day", meaning the Osprey simply needs more time to develop.
@BobBombadil
Ай бұрын
@@tjroelsma They osprey has been in use since like 1989...
@qwill8254
Ай бұрын
Exactly 24 accidents in 35 yrs with a new helicopter and low inventory is actually low .... Sure it carries more people and the fatalities rate is high per aircraft. But to call it a widow maker . Is just stupid .... Like here in India we have mig -21 been tagged as a widowmaker. We had more 1000+ airframes which flew for 60+ yrs , imagine the sheer number of flights , out which 400+ aircraft failed or had an issues.... The ratio is actually better than six Sigma and the general public know nothing abt aircraft operations least of all so called youtuber 😅😅😅
@bierhoff15
Ай бұрын
There are a few hundred operational Ospreys in the Marine Corps alone, not to mention all of the Air Force's inventory as well. Marine Corps has more Ospreys than Ch-53. Your assumptions are not correct.
@radrcer
Ай бұрын
I watched 5 osprey come in and land at Falcon in Mesa AZ from LA. Perfect landing….fuel… and take off to their next destination. They are majestic when changing from 200mph fixed wing to 50mph heli.
@mrgarland5210
Ай бұрын
For the other infamous widow maker, the F104, the main problem was pilot training. When Germany grounded the fleet and implemented a strict training protocol, accidents in the F104 in Germany decreased massively.
@tz8785
Ай бұрын
And another part was Germany forcing an interceptor into roles it never was meant to fill.
@MadDog8932
29 күн бұрын
The problem with the Osprey is not with the pilot training but within the aircraft itself.
@DiggerPrints0814
Ай бұрын
I still cant believe they use the same engines as a C-130 (An engine not designed for vertical use) Still a fun Aircraft to fly in.
@mendodsoregonbackroads6632
Ай бұрын
About 76 percent of parts are common between the T406 and the AE 2100 (C-130J engine) the AE 2100 is based on the T56 C130 engine.
@joshuamikus1516
Ай бұрын
You can tell it’s made by boeing when it has the nickname “widow maker”
@sunriseboy4837
5 күн бұрын
They don't call it the Widow Maker for nuthin'?!
@prizefighter8699
Ай бұрын
Fun fact an Russia engineer Igor Sikorsky who relocated to usa is the founder of one of the military aircraft helicopters
@reggiefurlow1
Ай бұрын
Been reading about these things going down
@ryanreedgibson
19 күн бұрын
It makes it hard for me as an American to take seriously a program that uses a foreigners "UK" voice to talk about our hardware. And cost is impossible to put in relative terms. It comes down to TROOP SAFTY! Children shouldn't lose their mothers and fathers to preventable crashes.
@QuanPookie
Ай бұрын
The government and military cares more its equipment and money than human lives.
@Hyperb2002
11 күн бұрын
2:40 - "A .50 caliber machine gun sits an the back ..." as the video shows an M240, a 7.62x51mm machine gun (Note: .50 cal, .50 BMG in this case, is 12.7x99mm. The M240 is nothing like the .50 cals used in aircraft.).
@lazurusknight2724
Ай бұрын
For those who are getting twitchy, yes that is a M240 shown at the first, but around 9:23 shows a Ma Deuce. Can't mistake that butterfly trigger for anything else.
@user-xp4ih5ir9n
7 күн бұрын
You got that right. Just think about all of the Marines lost their lives in that aircraft…😢
@ncrncr6574
Ай бұрын
This beast is magestic, i hope they find solutions to secure it :/
@kz03jd
17 күн бұрын
The 2000 V22 crash was in Marana, AZ not in Yuma. 7:14
@mmmmburgerz9442
16 күн бұрын
35 years later, still a failure. The full report on this and the B-1 Lancer crash highlights the leadership issues within the military. One of the crewmen on GUNDAM22 was from here and got a medal for trying to save the aircraft. RIP Brian Johnson, the DoD failed you as did the contractors whose sole task was to build dependable systems and failed titanically. There’s something to be said about the V-22 when the special forces across all branches selected new H-60 types and not new V-22s for future orders.
@nomercyinc6783
Ай бұрын
it took years for the blackhawk to be reliable and durable. brand new airframes arent immediately impervious to issues. people who arent in the military arent capable of being anywhere remotely close to being called an expert on military aircraft. opinions dont make anyone professional
@urbanstrencan
Ай бұрын
For me it's still one of the best development in military aircraft industry
@qhughes4555
Ай бұрын
you go fly in it then...
@Pedroaramburo
13 күн бұрын
If my car crashes due to a mechanical failure of the car maker and there is a recall they are liable. Why doesn't the same apply to whoever built the aircraft?
@mauri9289
Ай бұрын
5:30 Boeing 🙄
@aidancreager4095
Ай бұрын
Of course it’s made by Boeing lol
@blaskoxx4954
Ай бұрын
I remember the one that crashed in Marana, but yeah they were training.
@AA-xo9uw
Ай бұрын
Pilot error. Blatant deliberate violations of the 800/40 rule don't end well.
@El.Duder-ino
Ай бұрын
V280 will replace V22 "widow maker" and solve most of its flaws.
@cameronhermann9400
Ай бұрын
Hope the issues, parts and training, get worked out. Still seems like a useful aircraft
@AnonymousYouTubeconsumer
Ай бұрын
Tl;dw the Osprey is not the most dangerous aircraft in the US Military’s arsenal.
@user-cx9wv9dz6p
Ай бұрын
Yr right it's the chinook
@FloofyMinari
Ай бұрын
@@user-cx9wv9dz6p I'm wondering why they didn't include the Chinook. The Osprey was built to replace it.
@gssbcvegancat2345
Ай бұрын
It's whatever they stick us Marines in, but to be fair we know the score. We're expected to do the most with the absolute least and we'll get it done. Semper Fi
@sevegarza
Ай бұрын
I didn’t realize this until now, but the Osprey throws up gang signs when it’s blades are stored.
@alrightalready3957
20 күн бұрын
Even the lego version of the Osprey had problems, they had to pull it from the market.
@chocolat-kun8689
27 күн бұрын
This was actually Boeing foreshadowing their manufacturing.
@daddymoon666
Ай бұрын
They fly over my house regularly... I know it's them because of those thick blades... Louder than helicopter blades and the shake my house... They look cool at night, the blades have led dot light on them that highlights the spinning blades...
@CapybaraHunter187
Ай бұрын
you know your house is american when it shakes from an aircraft 600 feet in the sky
@hahahhahah1470
Ай бұрын
Makes a good collection with the f-104 starfighter, making them known as the widow makers
@markkeller8915
Ай бұрын
sort of weak on any meaning metric, a loose collection of disjointed sound bites-- similar to those drive in screen that change before you can read and decide what your choice is.
@floydwegienka6582
Ай бұрын
The Deadliest crash was in Marana (near Tucson)Arizona,not Yuma
@ricecakeFTW
Ай бұрын
Those number losses are low. They aren't counting thesouls and units thagwere lost during the decepticon invasions.
@jaimesan2609
Ай бұрын
If anyone thinks that weapons procurement has anything to benefit the military, you are a whole lot confused.
@128am1
Ай бұрын
The narrator sounds like the dude from PBS Spacetime
@Phantazmay
Ай бұрын
this helicopter must kick major ass because it keeps coming back.
@SHEEPS_123
Ай бұрын
Im a v22 crew chief...
@silverchairx
Ай бұрын
Can someone help me understand how it could possibly cost $80k p/hour to fly? Is that the cost of salaries, oils etc and then the inspection post flight? Seems really high
@azulaquaza4916
Ай бұрын
The biggest culprit --> Maintenance The internals get highly stressed when in use such as the engine, electrical components, wires and then you have liquids like Hydraulic fluid, fuel, and coolant that need to get replaced. These specific parts are usually only made by a single company which is contracted with the Pentagon and once the paper is signed, companies can really charge however much they feel like for the part and stress how “specialized” it is and only they can make it. Companies take advantage of the Pentagons massive budget and unwillingness to care about where their parts come from as long as it’s American and gets the plane in the air. Salaries of Pilots Cleaning cost Pre and Post flight inspections Ammo etc…
@adamanderson3042
24 күн бұрын
@@azulaquaza4916 None of that was accurate. 95% of the cost per hour to fly is just the total budget of the units divided by flying hours, spare parts are not just NOT significant, they're not EVEN paid on an ongoing basis, they're included in the purchase price of the aircraft for a lifetime.
@azulaquaza4916
24 күн бұрын
@@adamanderson3042 I love how people with 0 credibility just love to jump in with answers with 0 factual backing and overall produce 0 contribution towards an actual helpful answer. Goodbye.
@blackhawku
Ай бұрын
Yes it is!!! To answer your question. That thing been killing people way before I join the army in 09!
@jamesdrain2968
Ай бұрын
My grandfather wrote a book about how the US sent aircraft into battle during the Vietnam war even if the planes were broken and malfunctioning during the end of the war
@timbrelane
23 күн бұрын
How many pilots/planes (P39s and P-47s) were lost from Paine Field, Everett WA during WWII? Don't even ask. It's the cost of doing business!
@JohnAltenburg
Ай бұрын
This is the most dangerous airplane in GTA. (Grand Theft Auto)
@ledgamer3554
Ай бұрын
Best
@mackenziehauger1642
Ай бұрын
So freaking cool
@lofu32
Ай бұрын
That's weird. I call the Boeing 787 max the widow maker.
@Bofia817
Ай бұрын
Don’t forget the one who fell in 2022 in Europe
@Tiggaknock
Ай бұрын
One fell in San Diego in 2022 as well if I remember correctly.
@raypitts4880
29 күн бұрын
seems like crew (BOLD BUT NOT OLD) are above others more clever we are god seems they dont stop when osprey says land me now i know im dying
@GordCurry-it4xo
Ай бұрын
Uve flown Boeing, 75 & 72, never better aircraft, take care & be good!!
@DJL78
Ай бұрын
This is used as a support aircraft for Air Force One. Is it for protection? Or transport of security staff? I notice 2 flying over my house every time the president lands at our airport.
@taoliu3949
Ай бұрын
It's for transporting staff
@cruisinguy6024
Ай бұрын
Air Force One is just a call sign for any USAF aircraft with the president on board. More accurately those are Marine Corps MV-22s in HMX-1 to support Marine One by carrying non VIP staff such as staffers, journalists, additional security personnel, etc. If you’re seeing two of those flying it’s because POTUS is flying on Marine One - they’re not needed nor can they keep up with the VC-25 commonly referred to as Air Force One. There’s videos on KZitem of them landing in a field and a whole gaggle of press and such flood out of them.
@programmer437
Ай бұрын
It’s certainly the coolest
@Slcm02
21 күн бұрын
Whose congressional district is this built in ?
@nocancelcultureaccepted9316
Ай бұрын
To stabilize the plane, they need to add thrust at the end of each engine of the propeller. So the propeller provides lift, while the thrust provides control and additional lift
@ZS1736
Ай бұрын
The thrust coming from the engine is completely null and does basically nothing to the flight profile. Everything is controlled by the rotors
@nocancelcultureaccepted9316
Ай бұрын
@@ZS1736 Well, that’s why the Osprey isn’t a success, is it? They should try with the thrust…
@ZS1736
Ай бұрын
@@nocancelcultureaccepted9316 no you jack wagon…youd be redesigning the whole aircraft. Also that much jet exhaust in the ground will melt the belly. Its a turboprop aircraft.
@verdebusterAP
Ай бұрын
False The Osprey safety record exceeds the aircraft they replaced
@purplex_purple7717
Ай бұрын
East coast baby
@mercyln6646
Ай бұрын
So why continue using them...or even making them?
@user-wn8mg2jh1d
Ай бұрын
Great Aircraft just need updating improvements
@7415_Gamer
Ай бұрын
Too many transformation for a plane. We are not ready for transformers yet.
@nimaiiikun
Ай бұрын
as a military man, I prefer working around and riding a traditional helicopter
@cheeseman417
Ай бұрын
Watching this documentary should put all the reverse engineered alien technology conspiracy theories to rest, because obviously, the US military doesn't know what the hell its doing and makes lousy aircraft!😂😂
@One_Daily45
Ай бұрын
very cool, I like it. guys, let's stop by, there are cool and good things too, of course very useful.
@spacebuhl
Ай бұрын
It’s because it’s made in delco YEEERRP
@brianwarren2042
Ай бұрын
The original design of the Osprey was for an aircraft the size of a C-130 Hercules with four rotors. At that size, many of the issues with the current Osprey dissappear.
@AA-xo9uw
Ай бұрын
Incorrect. The QTR was a follow on proposal not the original.
@pahanin2480
Ай бұрын
They forgot to mention its 40 years old and repaired with used parts
@theroflcopternoob
Ай бұрын
Are you talking about the Blackhawk, Huey, F-15, F-16, CH-53, C-130, B-1 or A-10?
@Sefert79
26 күн бұрын
To compare its safety to the SH-53 is really fortunate.
@AA-xo9uw
Ай бұрын
"Is The Osprey The Most Dangerous Aircraft In The US Military?" Nope
@Pepe-dq2ib
Ай бұрын
F104 for jet and Chinook for helicopter takes the cake
@AA-xo9uw
26 күн бұрын
@@Pepe-dq2ib CH-53 and H-60 as well.
@Zyzyx442
Ай бұрын
Gotta go fast 😂
@marclaaq
Ай бұрын
The more complexed a system, the higher probability for failure.
@ForeverTheWar
Ай бұрын
yes!
@joaquinvaleri7022
Ай бұрын
I'm from Argentina
@IonOtter
Ай бұрын
Here's what you need to understand about the Osprey: *IT. DOES. NOT. FLY.* See, it doesn't have engines? It has exploders. It doesn't have rotors? Those are beating sticks. The exploders swing the beating sticks and pummel the air until physics throws up it's hands and says, "Whatever, I don't care, do whatever you want." It's essentially a violation of the Natural Order. And if you've ever flown in one, or even seen/heard/felt one as it passes by, you will understand what I'm talking about. It's the most unique sound in the air today. But every so often, physics gets tired of looking the other way, and reasserts itself.
@MrScotty5877304
Ай бұрын
During lockdown when flight paths were empty British and American forces would do training flights in the osprey over my city Glasgow Scotland. A lot of cool toys came out the box and got flown over my house during lockdown but the osprey was definitely the weirdest one. If I had to guess I'd say it was special forces doing deployment training
@igpr5287
Ай бұрын
AD VICTORIAM
@demetriusnunn6555
Ай бұрын
No parachute onboard? 🤔
@joshuaamado559
25 күн бұрын
There isn’t a helicopter crew on earth that use parachutes in an emergency
@oquendo0021
Ай бұрын
Narrator sounds like the youtube channel ahoy
@saysay_unique
Ай бұрын
The Average on GTA 😅
@auro1986
Ай бұрын
can't you replace rotors with jet engines?
@Boomkokogamez
Ай бұрын
It can but there will be major issue, new engines will need to be developed to give out the same or better power than the current turboprop and there is down wash issue that is still there.
@cruisinguy6024
Ай бұрын
They are powered by jet engines, specifically turboprops. If you’re thinking of a turbofan then no, that wouldn’t work for this application
@ErikThiart
Ай бұрын
Let me guess, Boeing?
@nomercyinc6783
Ай бұрын
out of 8 billion people individuals are replaceable.
@June-1980
Ай бұрын
The Avenger
@SC_XOLOs
Ай бұрын
I used to get flown around in Iraq on these birds. I didn’t know they were/are so dangerous
@davidfreeman2522
Ай бұрын
Evidently, it did good for you.
@bongo6652
Ай бұрын
The Widow maker 💀
@peaceknight5485
9 күн бұрын
I make a great wish for the whole world : Deeply hoping that every Prime Minister, President or Kings start working seriously onproviding Peace for each individual in the world ! I ask my God to bless each one of them and help most specificly the Ones who share my desire and work to reach this great goal into the best intsrest of each one and more for the whole world.
@farazahmed4743
Ай бұрын
You have everything but why do you fail everywhere?
@gregparrott
24 күн бұрын
I've seen a group of these in mountainous Marine training exercises in the Sierra. Indeed, these craft are impressive. Their range, speed and payload add a unique and extremely valuable capability set to our military. In a combat zone, such speed and mobility is a lifesaver in its own right. As for the Navy's use, there's a KZitem video where the Navy extolled it's value. One example was in expediting delivery of critical components to service jets and the ship itself. Both the V-22's speed, and especially its range, permitted delivery in record time and with the ship able to remain with the fleet, on course, far out at sea.
@go-goyubari8776
Ай бұрын
Wack engineering...
@ArtDocHound
Ай бұрын
The capabilities are endless 🤓🚁
@kumardigvijaymishra5945
Ай бұрын
Osprey V-22 is no less than an engineering marvel.
Пікірлер: 303