Jump to content

Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:3033:408:5169:758b:75bd:3879:e7ba (talk) at 09:34, 10 December 2022 (Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBell Boeing V-22 Osprey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Number of units passed 400, not 200+ (source: https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/bell-boeing-delivers-400th-v-22-osprey/ as of June 22 2020) 155.201.42.25 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected Edit Request 28 June 2020

21st Special Operations Squadron began flying CV-22's out of Yokota as of July 1 2019[1]. List of Air Force Squadrons should be updated in Operators.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

there has been another accident, so its 13 now. the specific page Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey has already been updated, this page not.--91.64.59.86 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 91.64.59.86 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More accurate detail

Under Variant/CV-22B/last line Change: The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 Pave Low. To: The CV-22B replaced the MH-53 Pave Low. 2603:7081:3E07:782B:7989:A821:55C7:21C5 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

It is written that: "Because of the requirement for folding rotors, their 38-foot (11.6 m) diameter is 5 feet (1.5 m) less than optimal for vertical takeoff, resulting in high disk loading.[105]"

Unfortunately that source [105] nowhere states that. And also by an engineering point of view that claim doesn't make any sense: there's no universal "optimal" disk loading, each rotorcraft has its own optimal disk loading according to its mission. 95.91.254.251 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The source states "the Osprey’s rotors are 38 feet in diameter — about five feet less than would have been optimum for an aircraft designed to carry 24 Marines and take off vertically at a maximum gross weight of 52,600 lbs., according to engineers who helped design it." Loafiewa (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Regarding my edit request of the 9th December:

firstly, oops sorry I really didn't see that sentence; secondly, can then please the full sentence be copied over i.e. with the "in respect to an aircraft designed to carry 24 Marines and take off vertically at a maximum gross weight of 52,600 lbs". A comparison without a term of comparison doesn't make much sense.

Thanks 2A02:3033:408:5169:758B:75BD:3879:E7BA (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]