This graph shows how much better the Osprey's tiltrotor design is compared to the Fairey Rotodyne's compound design:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/AW...

there are times where the V22 looks straight out of a science fiction movie. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/3rd_Batt...

That was my first thought as well (off the title alone), and I'm somewhat surprised the article didn't mention the Osprey at least in passing.

I mean, you can certainly argue that the program was not worth the cost in money or lives lost (as is already being done in this subthread), but ultimately the thing works -- as someone who lives in San Diego, I see them flying overhead multiple times per week.

I was watching a documentary years ago (vhs tape) that talked about how there were problems with the Osprey. The lingering question I had was whether it was a problem of that design or the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involv...

Although not meant for passenger service, the AH-65 [1] would likely have been a successful hybrid had the stopgap Cobra not been such a resounding success.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

Eh. The total cost of its program ($35.6 billion) almost came to exactly $1 billion per death incurred by accidents during its testing from 1991-2000(36 fatalities). All that money and life spent on a somewhat functional newly minted freedom boner.

I don't think "death per budget" is a meaningful metric, unless talking about weapons or serial killers. You can't just take two numbers we want to minimize, divide one by another, and claim significance.

Multiplying them would be more meaningful.

Is $35 billion a lot of money? We did get a step forward in engineering. The lessons learned advanced our knowledge forever. The money spent in actual wars for little things like air conditioning, for example, cost more:

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w...