« Previous | Main | Next »

New Video of Plane Crashes; $63 Million Plane 0 for 49 in Tests

June 12, 2007 3:24 PM

New_video_of_pl_mn_2 Members of Congress watched videos today of what they got for $63 million spent on an experimental aircraft the military did not want: repeated crashes and significant failures.

Video: Watch Congress' $63 Million Investment Crash

The plane, designed to take off like a helicopter and then fly at high speed, failed to remain in the air for more than a few seconds in 49 separate tests last year, according to John Kinzer of the Office of Naval Research.

"None of these attempts resulted in controlled hover for more than a few seconds," Kinzer told members of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

Photos: See the Aircraft That Can't Fly

See the San Diego Union Tribune Cartoon

The videos played for Congress today show the plane's prototype lifting off and then crashing within a second or two.

"The good news is that when it crashes, it only crashed from a foot or two off the ground," said subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C..

Kinzer told Congress the Navy had no plans to extend the testing when current funds run out at the end of the year, even though Congress has appropriated another $6 million.

Since 1986, Pentagon analysts have consistently rejected the aircraft design as "technically flawed," but Congress has continued to pour money into the project.

Congressman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has led the effort on behalf of a hometown company, DuPont Aerospace.

In testimony today, Hunter said he considered the investment "prudent from a financial and risk perspective."

"One would be hard pressed to argue that a technology that could deliver greater speed and greater stealth capabilities has no military utility and is not worth some investment," Hunter said.

Hunter has received at least $36,000 in campaign contributions from the owner of the company, Anthony DuPont. Both men deny the contributions are connected to Hunter's continued support for the aircraft project.

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

June 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (52)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I believe an audit is proper and FBI investigation is warranted for this kind of waste. $63M is not peanuts.

Posted by: marc | Jun 12, 2007 10:29:00 PM

I'm an other country citizen.
I thought that everywhere we go, a higher officials are much the same.without exception..
Where will you use it?
The plane might be used to get your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan..
I hope to live in peace...

Posted by: Loura | Jun 13, 2007 12:14:02 AM

Campaign contributions from anyone apart from private individuals who make their donations through a third party which can be trusted to keep the identities and affiliations of donators from the recipients should be banned. Otherwise we'll continue to get politician's caring more to please these lobbyists and contributers than they do the actual voters.

Posted by: ron j | Jun 13, 2007 4:15:14 AM

Oh my people. Yer all morons. I am an engineer, and sure this thing can't fly at the moment, but where would we have been if Wilbur and Orville gave up? It is a continous effort of trial and error when it comes to producing new technology and innovations. Who knows this plane may fly. Right now it has not been designed well and needs lots of work. Come on and get your heads out of your rear-ends for once. It could take another ten years to perfect the technology and get the thing to fly. Because it doesn't fly now is no reason to attack the project.

The world is truly full of stupid people when it comes to reading your replies.

Posted by: LAB | Jun 13, 2007 7:02:16 AM

I'm an engineer also, and although I agree with LAB on many points, I must point out that the Pentagon DOESN'T WANT this plane. It should not be the place of Congress (or Congressmen) to determine what should be a tactical advantage to the military. This is Pork, pure and simple, and Congressman Hunter should be an ex-Congressman and an ex-Presidential-hopeful.

Posted by: Sporky | Jun 13, 2007 1:14:54 PM

LAB - You are not too bright yourself. This technology has been developed in the AV-8 Harrier and in the F-35 version for the Marines. Why these guys have been trying to re-invent the wheel for 20+ years is inexcusable. Even the most basic moron Engineer should be able to get thing to hover in this day and age.

Funny, look at the promos for this thing. The concept is for a large troop carrier, for the Navy? Here we have an uglied up Cessna. When I saw the pics I thought this was some old Soviet Era fighter. Even the most basic moron Engineer should be able to get thing to hover in this day and age.

Duncan Hunter, R-Calif is a fraud and so is Anthony DuPont.

Posted by: CLA | Jun 13, 2007 1:22:48 PM

With news like this can we start to put into regular use the phrase "spendthrift Republicans"?

Posted by: Trevor McArthur | Jun 13, 2007 7:51:34 PM

This plane, I can say as an engineer, is a waste of money. The airframe appears to be a much uglier, less aerodynamic version of the F-84 Sabre II that the US used during the Korean War (1951-53)... look it up.

I fail to see how the Navy needs a "high speed transport VTOL" when they have larger capacity, longer range, tried and true C-130s, C-2A Greyhounds, and now MV-22s that SEALs can (and probably do) use for combat/black ops insertion.

The Navy is making a move towards ease of maintenance by using the F/A-18 Superhornet platform for Interception, Strike, Electronic Warfare, Reconnaisance, and everything but early warning and transport. Within transport and early warning aircraft, as within all combat aircraft these days, interchangability of parts is critical while deployed or at sea. This aircraft obviously does not fit that criteria, as the E-2C and the C-2A are the same airframe with completely different missions, this would be an unnecessary complication to the supply of spare parts, maintenance and flight training, etc.

The FBI should tear Representative Hunter (and other elected officials)"a new one" for essentially taking bribes and wasting valuable defense funds.

Oh, and just to rebut earlier comments, the Fly-by-wire, computer stabilized vectored thrust system used by the F-35A,B,and C are NOT so easy any moron could do it... They are beyond what most mechanical and aerospace engineers consider EXTREMELY complicated, and require highly skilled and constant maintenance.

Posted by: JCA | Jun 14, 2007 9:36:41 AM

looks like a WWII Spitfire !!

Posted by: charles | Jun 14, 2007 10:48:59 AM

The article said the project started in 1986. For those that are casting stones if I remember correctly wasn't the democrats in charge of congress then? Repub didn't gain control until 1995. Sounds to me like there's plenty of blame to go around.

Posted by: Irony Master | Jun 14, 2007 12:32:38 PM

Oink, oink.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Jun 14, 2007 1:56:57 PM

Um, just how high was it expected to get before it hit the end of the tether which appears to be the cause of the failure.

Posted by: SubmarineSonar | Jun 14, 2007 5:17:08 PM

I reluctantly took a job there a number of years back and I could not wait to get out. The place was a joke, run by a bunch of jokers and as you can tell, the "thing" is the biggest joke. Man- the stories I could share. You can't even call that thing a plane - don't you think in order to call it a plane, it has to fly? Duh...

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 15, 2007 12:43:00 AM

What should we expect? from a useless government? you guessed it right, Colladeral damage, or in short American deaths. 0-49. My fellow Americans. ITS TIME! Bush is worried about terorrist and fighting them here. Dont worry GW you forgot, your worst nightmare is the American People, so continue to piss them off, and when something nasty does happen,the politicains should leave the USA, they will no longer be relavent.

Posted by: JB | Jun 15, 2007 11:09:52 AM

What a bunch of dummies to continue to feed a dead horse.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 18, 2007 3:57:20 PM

I believe that the Osprey is supposed to be our new vertical take-off plane, although it also had serious initial problems. This new plane looks ill conceived, and I wouldn't personally want a ride in the Osprey either. After four fatal crashes, they say they've finally fixed it. Hope so.

Posted by: Richard Shaw | Jun 18, 2007 5:45:52 PM

Don asked "Don't we already have an airplane like this: the Harrier".

Hell no, the Harrier FLIES man ... !!

Posted by: Richard W. | Jun 18, 2007 6:31:10 PM

As a previous comment stated, this was not meant to fly. The money is being diverted to a secret aircraft in development. It is called Dis-Information. How do you think we paid for F117's?

Posted by: CJ | Jun 18, 2007 6:39:51 PM

63 million of wasted dollars, and the US Government is going after the Brown's?? How about their own waste of money? INSANE.

Posted by: Dutch | Jun 18, 2007 9:40:43 PM

Well, every government and every military "wastes" a ton of money on projects that never exactly get off the ground. They do that because sometimes they stumble upon a good idea. During ww2, Japan and Germany gambled on several ideas for weapons that never worked and would be considered laughable today. I guess rather than look at it in perspective its more hip to just bash.

Posted by: Bill | Jun 19, 2007 12:22:53 AM

Post a comment