4 ms·

The Osprey has a reputation, for sure, but it's mid-pack. They called the F-104 the widow maker for a reason, for example. And the F-16 has a fairly high acci

The Osprey has a reputation, for sure, but it's mid-pack. They called the F-104 the widow maker for a reason, for example. And the F-16 has a fairly high accident rate, too, slightly higher than the Osprey. Though I think the F-16's history is a bit more lopsided, they made some changes after early production airframes proved pretty accident prone.

sedatk 7mo ago
In Turkey, F-104 was called “flying coffin”.
- TitaRusell 7mo ago
  The Netherlands had problems with it too. The procurement of the Starfighter was also a huge corruption scandal. Lockheed was a very scummy company in the cold war.
hyperific 7mo ago
Maybe the Osprey's reputation is due not only to the accident rate but also to the fatality rate. A fatal accident in a standard F-16 (not the 2 seater), assuming no one outside the plane is killed, means 1 death. A fatal accident in a V-22 with the same assumptions would have a minimum of 2 deaths (pilot and copilot) at a soft maximum of 26 deaths (2 crew + 24 passengers, possibly more if overloaded).
- remarkEon 7mo ago
  This is correct.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- ikekkdcjkfke 7mo ago
  All flying craft that cannot glide by itself should have failsafe parachutes. If one engine goes out the other engine needs to stop too to prevent flipping. Parachute is easily acceseible behind a red lever with glass to break
  - iancmceachern 7mo ago
    The osprey has both engines tied together for this exact reason. One engine can turn both props. It's part of the complexity of the thing. It's just too complex.
nstj 7mo ago
> The Starfighter had a poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, leading the German public to dub it Witwenmacher ("widowmaker").[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
- LargoLasskhyfv 7mo ago
  That is because the Germans used it as all-weather fighter-bomber with more heavy load, in different airspaces, with different weather and terrain, as opposed to the initial, more air-superiority/interceptor concept. And had a different way of training their pilots. In masses. "Wo gehobelt wird fallen Späne. Ein bisschen Schwund ist immer da." Other european airforces using them were more lucky, IIRC. That aside, they could be seen as the exported rests of the bargain-basement of the MIC of the USA, when the USAF/Navy already had better options(seen as a whole weapon-system, not a few speed/climb/altitude records(for the initial, only lightly loaded version) which won't matter in real combat).

sedatk 7mo ago

In Turkey, F-104 was called “flying coffin”.

TitaRusell 7mo ago
The Netherlands had problems with it too. The procurement of the Starfighter was also a huge corruption scandal. Lockheed was a very scummy company in the cold war.

hyperific 7mo ago

Maybe the Osprey's reputation is due not only to the accident rate but also to the fatality rate. A fatal accident in a standard F-16 (not the 2 seater), assuming no one outside the plane is killed, means 1 death. A fatal accident in a V-22 with the same assumptions would have a minimum of 2 deaths (pilot and copilot) at a soft maximum of 26 deaths (2 crew + 24 passengers, possibly more if overloaded).

remarkEon 7mo ago
This is correct.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
ikekkdcjkfke 7mo ago
All flying craft that cannot glide by itself should have failsafe parachutes. If one engine goes out the other engine needs to stop too to prevent flipping. Parachute is easily acceseible behind a red lever with glass to break
- iancmceachern 7mo ago
  The osprey has both engines tied together for this exact reason. One engine can turn both props. It's part of the complexity of the thing. It's just too complex.

nstj 7mo ago

> The Starfighter had a poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, leading the German public to dub it Witwenmacher ("widowmaker").[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

LargoLasskhyfv 7mo ago
That is because the Germans used it as all-weather fighter-bomber with more heavy load, in different airspaces, with different weather and terrain, as opposed to the initial, more air-superiority/interceptor concept. And had a different way of training their pilots. In masses. "Wo gehobelt wird fallen Späne. Ein bisschen Schwund ist immer da." Other european airforces using them were more lucky, IIRC. That aside, they could be seen as the exported rests of the bargain-basement of the MIC of the USA, when the USAF/Navy already had better options(seen as a whole weapon-system, not a few speed/climb/altitude records(for the initial, only lightly loaded version) which won't matter in real combat).