Does V-22 Go Twices as Far, carry Twice as Much?

[Nick Lappos]

Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
this:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf

[Flyingmonk]

Hey Nick,

Thanks for the link. I read your writings in PPRUNE usually and I find
you very knowledgable. Keep them coming Nick. Very much appreciated.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[CTR]

Nick Lappos wrote:
> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
> this:
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf

Nick,

Thank you for stirring the pot. This group has been pretty dry lately.

I think in your your zeal however, some of your data has become some
what skewed. When making comparesons between aircraft I usually try to
use data from the same source. Comparing data from different sources
only leads to errors. The source for the data I am using is from:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER and the Naval
Helicopter Association.

For example, you show a self deployed range for the CH53 of 1,120 KM.
But this is the range of MH53 which weighs 3,100 lbs more than (and
carries 3,100 less) than the CH53 whose weight you note. You also fail
to mention that the self deployed range of the V-22 is 2,100 KM, almost
twice that of the MH53. Maximum altitude of the V-22 is also 8,000 ft
higher.

In comparing payloads, you have used the narrow vision of those who
will never accept a helicopter that is not built in Conn. Unlike the
MH53 the V-22 has WINGS. Therefore maximum gross take off weight is
60,500 pounds in STVOL mode or 52,600 pounds in V/STOL mode.

In comparing size, yes empty weight is close but not size. This is a
critical factor on a shipborne aircraft. The CH53 fuselage is 16 feet
longer than the V-22.

Remember that the V-22 mission is not the MH53 mission. The USMC and
USAF feel that speed is critical for their missions. Your CH-53 versus
V-22 compareson is not apples to apples.

As far as comparing the H-60 to the BA609, this is apples to kiwi
compareson. The BA609 is a civil transport aircraft with a 25,000 ft
pressurized fuselage. Don't brag to hard on the safety aspects of the
H-60 either. The redundant systems of the BA609 give it a a MTBFCF
(Mean Time Between Flight Critical Failures 10 times better than the
V-22 and 50 times better than the H-60. This was required for FAA
certification and is one of the reasons for the higher weight to paylod
ratio.

Thanks again for stirring the pot,

Have fun,

CTR

[Guy Alcala]

CTR wrote:

> Nick Lappos wrote:
> > Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
> > this:
> >
> > http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
>
> Nick,
>
> Thank you for stirring the pot. This group has been pretty dry lately.
>
> I think in your your zeal however, some of your data has become some
> what skewed. When making comparesons between aircraft I usually try to
> use data from the same source. Comparing data from different sources
> only leads to errors. The source for the data I am using is from:
> DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER and the Naval
> Helicopter Association.

For those who might like a (hopefully) objective view of the possibilities of
upgraded conventional helos vs. tiltrotors or the like to meet the proposed
Future Transport Rotorcraft spec, and the technical and tactical issues raised
by the spec, I'd recommend reading the following:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1713/

The article on heavylift rotorcraft (as well as the proposed ATT) here is also
useful:

www.vtol.org/pdf/hirschsping02.pdf

Guy

[Nick Lappos]

CTR makes a few points, all wrong. He says that comparing a helicopter to a
tilt rotor is apples to kiwi fruit. But it is tilt rotor people who say
stupid things like "It can carry twice as much twice as far" so I am
answering their comparison. Nothing more.

1) The CH-53E is the aircraft I used, its weights and range are accurate.
The CH-53E carries TWICE the payload, troops or supplies to any distance the
V22 can fly to. The data comes from different sources, but even the US Navy
data in the "Naval Operational Logistics" source (slide 8) confirms that the
CH-53E has twice the transport productivity of the V22. Deal with it.
2) The V22 can theoretically take off above its hover weight, in order to
make the theoretical self deploy you discribe. After how many years of
testing, it has yet to do anything close to this, and in order to self
deploy, it must have a runway. You can tell when V22 takes off on a mission
when it is above hover weight by the big splash next to the boat, and the
oil slick, CTR.
3) The maximum weight that a CH-53E could use is considerably above its max
hover weight, also, thus extending its theoretical range but since it hovers
to do its work, that is how it is published.
4) Before you spout off about BA-609 safety, please tell us what the crash
load factor of it is, how many feet per second crash it can stand. I will
bet you it is not half that of any military helicopter, including the Black
Hawk. That extra safety translates into lost payload, yet the Black Hawk
easily outlifts and out ranges the BA-609.

So, as long as you say "Tilt rotors carry half what a helicopter does, to
the same range" we are square!

Nick
"CTR" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Nick Lappos wrote:
>> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again,
>> try
>> this:
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
>
> Nick,
>
> Thank you for stirring the pot. This group has been pretty dry lately.
>
> I think in your your zeal however, some of your data has become some
> what skewed. When making comparesons between aircraft I usually try to
> use data from the same source. Comparing data from different sources
> only leads to errors. The source for the data I am using is from:
> DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER and the Naval
> Helicopter Association.
>
> For example, you show a self deployed range for the CH53 of 1,120 KM.
> But this is the range of MH53 which weighs 3,100 lbs more than (and
> carries 3,100 less) than the CH53 whose weight you note. You also fail
> to mention that the self deployed range of the V-22 is 2,100 KM, almost
> twice that of the MH53. Maximum altitude of the V-22 is also 8,000 ft
> higher.
>
> In comparing payloads, you have used the narrow vision of those who
> will never accept a helicopter that is not built in Conn. Unlike the
> MH53 the V-22 has WINGS. Therefore maximum gross take off weight is
> 60,500 pounds in STVOL mode or 52,600 pounds in V/STOL mode.
>
> In comparing size, yes empty weight is close but not size. This is a
> critical factor on a shipborne aircraft. The CH53 fuselage is 16 feet
> longer than the V-22.
>
> Remember that the V-22 mission is not the MH53 mission. The USMC and
> USAF feel that speed is critical for their missions. Your CH-53 versus
> V-22 compareson is not apples to apples.
>
> As far as comparing the H-60 to the BA609, this is apples to kiwi
> compareson. The BA609 is a civil transport aircraft with a 25,000 ft
> pressurized fuselage. Don't brag to hard on the safety aspects of the
> H-60 either. The redundant systems of the BA609 give it a a MTBFCF
> (Mean Time Between Flight Critical Failures 10 times better than the
> V-22 and 50 times better than the H-60. This was required for FAA
> certification and is one of the reasons for the higher weight to paylod
> ratio.
>
> Thanks again for stirring the pot,
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[CTR]

Nick,

"CTR makes a few points, all wrong. He says that comparing a
helicopter to a
tilt rotor is apples to kiwi fruit. But it is tilt rotor people who
say
stupid things like "It can carry twice as much twice as far" so I am
answering their comparison"

Yes they twist the facts to make their case. But you also twisting the
facts does not make your case stronger. It only makes it weaker.

"1) The CH-53E is the aircraft I used, its weights and range are
accurate"

Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan to use the 1120
self deployed range then you will be accurate.

"The CH-53E carries TWICE the payload, troops or supplies to any
distance the
V22 can fly to. The data comes from different sources, but even the US
Navy
data in the "Naval Operational Logistics" source (slide 8) confirms
that the
CH-53E has twice the transport productivity of the V22. Deal with it."

Where did I dispute this fact? The CH/MH-53 is a great truck. But the
Marines and USAF wanted something faster that would take up less
carrier space. Its the MISSION remember? Deal with it.

"2) The V22 can theoretically take off above its hover weight, in order
to
make the theoretical self deploy you discribe. After how many years of

testing, it has yet to do anything close to this, and in order to self
deploy, it must have a runway. You can tell when V22 takes off on a
mission
when it is above hover weight by the big splash next to the boat, and
the
oil slick"

Its got WINGS remember. Not to mention two huge engines. STOVL (Short
Take off Vertical Landing) allows the V-22 to take off above its hover
weight with out a splash. When it reaches its mission critical point
sufficient fuel is burned off to permit vertical take off. Rolling
take offs on land or carriers have been tested and is part of the
Marine mission plan for the V-22. Its the MISSION remember.

"3) The maximum weight that a CH-53E could use is considerably above
its max
hover weight, also, thus extending its theoretical range but since it
hovers
to do its work, that is how it is published."

This extra margin is for opperating OEI. Even with three engines using
this margin gets risky.

"4) Before you spout off about BA-609 safety, please tell us what the
crash
load factor of it is, how many feet per second crash it can stand. I
will
bet you it is not half that of any military helicopter, including the
Black
Hawk. That extra safety translates into lost payload, yet the Black
Hawk
easily outlifts and out ranges the BA-609."

Hmmm. Let me see your point. You say that if I crash I am more likely
to survive in a H-60 versus a BA609. I replied that based on publisled
MTBFCF numbers the H-60 has a 50 times higher probability of crashing
than the BA609. I guess if I plan to get shot at alot, I may prefer
the H-60. But if I am a CEO going from NY to Boston, I think I will
prefer a lower chance of crashing in the first place. Its the MISSION
remember.

"So, as long as you say "Tilt rotors carry half what a helicopter does,
to
the same range" we are square!"

To agree with you on this point will require a comparison of a
conventional helo and a Tiltrotor designed for the same mission
requirements. The JHL research contracts just issued by the Army may
just provide this information objectively. Until then, let the
postings flow!

Its all about the mission.

Have fun,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

CTR,

You are wrong about the CH-53E weights, your mistakes weaken your case. Here
is the exact data that I used. that you didn't bother to read:
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf

Also, according to the Navy Program Office web site, the V-22 carries about
2,000 lbs less than I show for its payload range. I was conservative in all
aspects, because the tilt rotor needs no help proving how poor it is at
carrying stuff. See this web site, which shows 484 mile range (242 mile
radius) with 24 troops (6,000 lbs). I credit it with about 8,000 lbs at
that range. I was helping it look good, so that I would'nt be accused of
sandbagging it.
http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=aircraft.

Regarding stuffing V-22 to the gills and staggering off, it will not be
based on carriers, it must hover on and off Marine Assault ships. Its the
Mission, CTR, not the theoretical weight it can barely take off with. The
CH-53E (and all helicopters) have considerable overload margin, as well.
The Russians use it regularly, but US helos don't because it is hovering
that they get paid to do. Restraining helos to hover weights and allowing
tilt rotor to load up otherwise is one of the ways to put lipstick on that
pig. The max demonstrated weight ever flown by the V-22 is 10,000 lbs less
than what you count on for the long range mission. Of course, its only been
16 years since it first flew, lets give them a little more time..........

I read your assertions about 50X improvement due to systems safety for the
BA-609. I heard that about the V-22, and look how well that turned out! I
have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy.....

You seem to think I slanted the data, but I used published flight manual
performance. You haven't even dented the basic premise I asserted.
Helicopters carry twice as much, and go just as far. At least we picked up
this newsgroup a bit!!

BTW, did you know that the V22 cannot carry the payload of a Black Hawk when
both operate in Afghanistan? At 5 times the cost and 6 times the power, it
cannot carry the weight, and has less range than a UH-60L at 10,000 feet!
Great bargain, we all should buy one. No lets buy two, so we can lift what
one helicopter can carry.

Nick

"CTR" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Nick,
>
> "CTR makes a few points, all wrong. He says that comparing a
> helicopter to a
> tilt rotor is apples to kiwi fruit. But it is tilt rotor people who
> say
> stupid things like "It can carry twice as much twice as far" so I am
> answering their comparison"
>
> Yes they twist the facts to make their case. But you also twisting the
> facts does not make your case stronger. It only makes it weaker.
>
> "1) The CH-53E is the aircraft I used, its weights and range are
> accurate"
>
> Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan to use the 1120
> self deployed range then you will be accurate.
>
> "The CH-53E carries TWICE the payload, troops or supplies to any
> distance the
> V22 can fly to. The data comes from different sources, but even the US
> Navy
> data in the "Naval Operational Logistics" source (slide 8) confirms
> that the
> CH-53E has twice the transport productivity of the V22. Deal with it."
>
> Where did I dispute this fact? The CH/MH-53 is a great truck. But the
> Marines and USAF wanted something faster that would take up less
> carrier space. Its the MISSION remember? Deal with it.
>
> "2) The V22 can theoretically take off above its hover weight, in order
> to
> make the theoretical self deploy you discribe. After how many years of
>
> testing, it has yet to do anything close to this, and in order to self
> deploy, it must have a runway. You can tell when V22 takes off on a
> mission
> when it is above hover weight by the big splash next to the boat, and
> the
> oil slick"
>
> Its got WINGS remember. Not to mention two huge engines. STOVL (Short
> Take off Vertical Landing) allows the V-22 to take off above its hover
> weight with out a splash. When it reaches its mission critical point
> sufficient fuel is burned off to permit vertical take off. Rolling
> take offs on land or carriers have been tested and is part of the
> Marine mission plan for the V-22. Its the MISSION remember.
>
> "3) The maximum weight that a CH-53E could use is considerably above
> its max
> hover weight, also, thus extending its theoretical range but since it
> hovers
> to do its work, that is how it is published."
>
> This extra margin is for opperating OEI. Even with three engines using
> this margin gets risky.
>
> "4) Before you spout off about BA-609 safety, please tell us what the
> crash
> load factor of it is, how many feet per second crash it can stand. I
> will
> bet you it is not half that of any military helicopter, including the
> Black
> Hawk. That extra safety translates into lost payload, yet the Black
> Hawk
> easily outlifts and out ranges the BA-609."
>
> Hmmm. Let me see your point. You say that if I crash I am more likely
> to survive in a H-60 versus a BA609. I replied that based on publisled
> MTBFCF numbers the H-60 has a 50 times higher probability of crashing
> than the BA609. I guess if I plan to get shot at alot, I may prefer
> the H-60. But if I am a CEO going from NY to Boston, I think I will
> prefer a lower chance of crashing in the first place. Its the MISSION
> remember.
>
> "So, as long as you say "Tilt rotors carry half what a helicopter does,
> to
> the same range" we are square!"
>
> To agree with you on this point will require a comparison of a
> conventional helo and a Tiltrotor designed for the same mission
> requirements. The JHL research contracts just issued by the Army may
> just provide this information objectively. Until then, let the
> postings flow!
>
> Its all about the mission.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[CTR]

Nick,

As Emeril the chef says, "Lets kick it up a noch".

We can battle about 3000 LBS all day. And the CH-53 doesn't have to
worry about pushing its envelope to the max, having an accident and
getting its program canceled. You have also never responded to my
points on deck spotting factor (size), self deploy range (even without
the benefit of external tanks) or max altitude. All areas where the
V-22 is better than the CH-53. You seem (like many Igor fans) intent
to make the Tiltrotor compete against a Helo where a Helo is best. Why
can you not accept that for missions where speed, range and CRUISE
altitude is required a Tiltrotor is better? And why would a V-22 hover
at 10,000 feet for extended cruise when it can fly like an airplane?

You also seem to want to beat on the BA609 as a key to your argument.
But again the BA609 is a civilian aircraft with a pressurized, sound
proofed and airconditioned cabin. It has more in common with a Lear
Jet 35 than a Helo. Remember its the MISSION.

I can tell you are fighting to close the holes in your premises when
you start making unsubstantiated comments like " I read your assertions
about 50X improvement due to systems safety for the BA-609. I heard
that about the V-22, and look how well that turned out! I have a
bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy..... "

How about learning something about the BA609 reliability before you
make a comment like that. Go to the AHS site below for a good read.

http://www.vtol.org/pdf/61PropulsionII.pdf

Your opinions have a lot in common with with the nay sayers of the jet
engine 65 years ago. "The jet engine is too expensive, unreliable and
burns too much fuel. Ok it is a little faster than a piston engine,
but is that extra speed worth the cost?"

Have fun and keep an open mind,

CTR

[CTR]

Nick,

You need to look a little closer at the data from Sikorsky at :
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf

Did you even notice those steps in the load range curve? Or didn't you
read your own data? Those drops in load capability correspond with the
added weight of the external and internal fuel tanks required to meet
the 1120 KM range. These steps in load carrying capability total over
3,000 LBS (why does that number sound familiar). So if you plan to fly
the CH-53 over 470 KM you need to add over 3,000 LBS of fuel system
hardware. This of course reduces the CH-53 paylod capability by .....
(pause for added drama) over 3,000 LBS.

So how sure are you about the rest of your data?

Have fun,

CTR

[Dave Jackson]

Nick,

Would it be fair to toss a third rotor configuration in to the competition?

How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 "Vintokryl:

http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm

~ Speed of 192 knots [record]

~ Payload of 36,343 lbs [record]

~ Gross weight of 65,036 lbs

This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be done with
today's engines and composite materials.

I think that it's a slam-dunk for the Vintokryl. :)

Dave



"Nick Lappos" > wrote in message
...
> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
> this:
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
>

[Nick Lappos]

Well at least you read data, CTR. Now read the tilt rotor data with the
same vigor! Just as I left off the minor load reduction for the 53 (2 tanks
at 800 lbs each, not the mysterious, non-existant 3,000 lbs), I left off the
wing tip tank weight for the V22, and did not discount the payload by the
2,000 lbs shown on the Navy web site. As a little exercise for you, now
that you are finally reading data, find these V22 reductions and reduce the
V22 payload, too. Don't make too much of your new found knowledge, CTR,
note that my chart shows the CH53E carrying 5000 lbs to 900 nm, and so does
the Sikorsky data (which I gave you, BTW). My chart is quite accurate, thank
you, CTW.

I do admire how you decided to take over this debate by continually trying
to find the 'missing" 3,000 pounds, but you never discuss the fact that the
V22 carries 2,000 lbs less than I show! Nice work, CTR.

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> You need to look a little closer at the data from Sikorsky at :
> http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf
>
> Did you even notice those steps in the load range curve? Or didn't you
> read your own data? Those drops in load capability correspond with the
> added weight of the external and internal fuel tanks required to meet
> the 1120 KM range. These steps in load carrying capability total over
> 3,000 LBS (why does that number sound familiar). So if you plan to fly
> the CH-53 over 470 KM you need to add over 3,000 LBS of fuel system
> hardware. This of course reduces the CH-53 paylod capability by .....
> (pause for added drama) over 3,000 LBS.
>
> So how sure are you about the rest of your data?
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[CTR]

Nick,

You are getting closer to accepting the real payload value for the
CH-53. I got you to accept 1600 LBS for the external tanks. Now how
about the added internal aux tanks? How do you explain the approx 1500
LBS step at 470 KM in the Sikorsky data?. Could it posssibly be the
weight the internal aux tanks?.

While you are re-looking at the Sikorsky data, take a look at the air
refueling load/range line. Note that the Air to Air hardware has its
own weight penalty. So with internal tanks, external tanks and the
refueling probe installed the CH-53 payload is only 30,000 LBS, not
36,000 LBS, BTW, the retractable V-22 probe is included in the weight
you show.

Your chart is decieving because it infers that the same CH-53 that
lifts a load of 36,000 LBS can also fly 1,120 KM. That is why I stated
in a earlier post "Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan
to use the 1120 KM self deployed range then you will be accurate".

Next, when have I I tried to defend, justify or repute the V-22
HELICOPTER mode load/range data you quote. I just assumed that you
were using the worst possible values you could find anywhere to make
your case. Still trying to understand a V-22 cruising in hover mode at
10,000 ft instead of flying as an airplane. Can you explain why a
Tiltrotor would do that?

Also I never heard of wing tip tanks on a V-22. The MV-22 has
additional internal tanks in the fuselage, Do you mean sponson tanks?

Finally, to Dave Jackson, welcome to the sling fest.

Have fun,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

CTR,

It is clear that you have no idea how to read a payload-range chart, why are
you even debating? The chart shows all possible missions, each range point
on the curve is a specific mission. The 36000 lb payload can be carried 1
mile, the 5000 lb payload can be carried 900 miles. If there is no payload,
the distance is over 1100 miles. Your ****-poor attitude leaves you unable
to learn here. The chart I provided is a simplification, quite accurate, of
the Sikorsky chart. You are doubly a fool, you are wrong, and you do not
know what you are talking about. You are simply not equipped to discuss
this.

The tip tanks are described on the Navy web site, and in the V-22 flight
manual I have read (and you clearly have not). That Navy web site shows the
V22 having 6000 lbs of payload at 485miles. Spot that on my chart and see
that I have given them closer to 8,000 lbs of payload, and they still suck
as compared to a helicopter.

When you mention the fuel probe, you grasp at straws, the probe is also in
the H-53E weight, wake up and smell the coffee. If you were not so
beligerant, you might learn something.

Why dont you email me and we can go slowly in private?

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> You are getting closer to accepting the real payload value for the
> CH-53. I got you to accept 1600 LBS for the external tanks. Now how
> about the added internal aux tanks? How do you explain the approx 1500
> LBS step at 470 KM in the Sikorsky data?. Could it posssibly be the
> weight the internal aux tanks?.
>
> While you are re-looking at the Sikorsky data, take a look at the air
> refueling load/range line. Note that the Air to Air hardware has its
> own weight penalty. So with internal tanks, external tanks and the
> refueling probe installed the CH-53 payload is only 30,000 LBS, not
> 36,000 LBS, BTW, the retractable V-22 probe is included in the weight
> you show.
>
> Your chart is decieving because it infers that the same CH-53 that
> lifts a load of 36,000 LBS can also fly 1,120 KM. That is why I stated
> in a earlier post "Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan
> to use the 1120 KM self deployed range then you will be accurate".
>
> Next, when have I I tried to defend, justify or repute the V-22
> HELICOPTER mode load/range data you quote. I just assumed that you
> were using the worst possible values you could find anywhere to make
> your case. Still trying to understand a V-22 cruising in hover mode at
> 10,000 ft instead of flying as an airplane. Can you explain why a
> Tiltrotor would do that?
>
> Also I never heard of wing tip tanks on a V-22. The MV-22 has
> additional internal tanks in the fuselage, Do you mean sponson tanks?
>
> Finally, to Dave Jackson, welcome to the sling fest.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[Nick Lappos]

Nice input., Dave. The Vintokryl is a good alternative, and it compares
quite nicely with the helicopter. The payload was 36,000 lbs and the
horsepower was about right (13,000 HP) so it lays on the line with a single
rotor helicopter, and far above a tilt rotor. Dr. Mikheyev gave a paper at
a conference that I was at and espoused that configuration. I will dig up
some details (maybe email Dr. Mikheyev) and post the comparison.

I think that payload was done with a rolling takeoff, as the gross weight
was eyewatering, and the hover performance was much poorer than a single
rotor helo (wing drag costs about 10% of total payload, but the wing adds
about 20 knots of cruise speed). The program was cancelled, reportedly
because of the aeroelastic problems between the rotors and wing. That is
also the reason why the early tilt rotors were not successful, and why the
V22 is a testament to the dynamic analysis technologies designers have
today.

Note that both the KA-22 and the CH-53E have the same horsepower as a V22,
but carry twice as much payload as the tilt rotor, even though the V22 has a
much more efficvient structural design, due to the fact that it was designed
40 years later. If a helo were designed with the same tools, the V22's
payload would look even worse.

Nick


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:IbHZe.556210$s54.151893@pd7tw2no...
> Nick,
>
> Would it be fair to toss a third rotor configuration in to the
> competition?
>
> How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 "Vintokryl:
>
> http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
>
> ~ Speed of 192 knots [record]
>
> ~ Payload of 36,343 lbs [record]
>
> ~ Gross weight of 65,036 lbs
>
> This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be done with
> today's engines and composite materials.
>
> I think that it's a slam-dunk for the Vintokryl. :)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Nick Lappos" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again,
>> try this:
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
>>
>
>

[CTR]

Nick,

Now don't get snippy just because the holes in your case are causing
your myopia and prejudice to become evident. Your have distorted facts
to make your case by "simplifying" your data.

Yes I know how to read a load range curve, and it is obvious that you
know how to distort one. Note that I am kind enough to call you an
inadvertent liar instead of questioning your intellect.

Its the mission remember? Look at the air refueled line on the
Sikorsky chart. Now follow it to the vertical axis of load. Now read
the load. Is it 30,000 LBS? So you need to add approximately 6000 LBS
equipment to the CH-53 to perform this mission correct? For the V-22
to perform the same mission how much equipment do you need to add? 0
LBS!

Why can't you just be fair in your comparison instead of distorting
facts. I already said that the twice the speed and twice the range
clams of the V-22 guy were stretch of the facts. Why can't you be
better than them and keep your case honest?

And take this off line? Not until the civility of this discussion
drops to name calling. Then I drop out both on and off he group.

Have fun,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

Again your lack of knowledge shows through, CTR. You do not know how to
read this technical data, and are not equipped to understand it. You have
not yet found the shortfalls of the V22 in the data, because you are too
biased to even try, yet you still seek the myhhical 3,000 lbs, now grown to
a mythical 6,000 lbs.

You misunderstand the refuel line, also. The aerial refuel line shows the
maximum weight at which the CH-53E is approved to hook up with the tanker,
CTR, and in no way infer that any equipment has been left off. The CH-53E
weights shown INCLUDE the USMC shipboard mission equipment, and represents
the weight of the hundreds of in-service CH-53E aircraft.

As I have stated, the helicopter, either a Black Hawk or a CH-53E outlifts a
tilt rotor by a factor of TWO to ONE, and goes the SAME range and you have
done nothing credible to shake that proof. Any distortions you think you
have found are in your understanding of HOW to measure these aircraft, not
the way I have done so, but you think I must somehow be biased. The fact
that you have not tried to understand the "extra credit" I have given the
V22 shows that you are the biased one here.

Let me ask, what qualifications do you have to be so misunderstanding of
this technical data?

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> Now don't get snippy just because the holes in your case are causing
> your myopia and prejudice to become evident. Your have distorted facts
> to make your case by "simplifying" your data.
>
> Yes I know how to read a load range curve, and it is obvious that you
> know how to distort one. Note that I am kind enough to call you an
> inadvertent liar instead of questioning your intellect.
>
> Its the mission remember? Look at the air refueled line on the
> Sikorsky chart. Now follow it to the vertical axis of load. Now read
> the load. Is it 30,000 LBS? So you need to add approximately 6000 LBS
> equipment to the CH-53 to perform this mission correct? For the V-22
> to perform the same mission how much equipment do you need to add? 0
> LBS!
>
> Why can't you just be fair in your comparison instead of distorting
> facts. I already said that the twice the speed and twice the range
> clams of the V-22 guy were stretch of the facts. Why can't you be
> better than them and keep your case honest?
>
> And take this off line? Not until the civility of this discussion
> drops to name calling. Then I drop out both on and off he group.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[Dave Jackson]

Both articles discuss the pros and cons of alternative rotor configurations
etc. However, they give absolutely no consideration to Active Blade Twist.

Imagine a group of Roman generals sitting at the local winery have a couple
of glass of libation. They have come from watching the gladiators at the
coliseum and are discussing the pros and cons of different sword shapes.
They are so engrossed in this discussion that the fail to give any
consideration to the little oriental person in the corner who is busy mixing
potassium chloride, sulfur and charcoal.

Active Blade Twist is the essential precursor for Generation II rotorcraft.

It is significantly beneficial for all configurations. However, the
Interleaving configuration could well become the medium/heavy lift
rotorcraft of the future, and for this configuration, Active Blade Twist is
mandatory.

[CTR]

Nick,

Lets keep to the facts and lighten up on the name calling.

1) On slide 4 of your presentation you state the CH-53 max payload as
36,515 LBS. From slide 5 you show the max ferry range to be
approximately 1,100 KM. In the Sikorsky data you referenced however,
to achieve both these points the CH-53 has to be reconfigured by adding
or removing external and internal aux fuel tanks. The external tanks
by your own statement weigh 1,600 LBS. I extrapolated from the
Sikorsky curve the internal aux tanks to weigh approx 1,500 LBS (please
supply a wt. if you disagree). The V-22 does not require aux tanks to
meet this range. Therefore to be an unbiased comparison you need to
subtract the weight of the aux tanks from the max payload value. .Or
conversely not use the range provided by these aux tanks

2) From the Sikorsky data, any mission requiring air refueling reduces
the CH-53 range by 6,000 LBS. From this same chart I assumed that was
due to the combined weight of aux tanks and refuel hardware. You
stated that this in a inflight performance restriction. Either way,
does not this large drop in payload deserve at least a foot note on
slide 4 and 5. Especially since the V-22 does not suffer from this
restriction?

3) To make your case you are willing to use the best performance data
for the CH-53 with or without added aux tanks and not bothering to note
the air refuel drop in payload. However when asked to consider the
increase in V-22 maximum gross to 60,500 pounds (STOL) from the
52,600pounds (V/STOL) you dismissed this as being unrealistic. Data
source Naval Helicopter Association.

4) When you admitted to an error by omitting the CH-53 externat aux
tank weight, you said your case was still sound because you also made
an error on the V-22 data. Maybe in PPRUNE two wrongs make a right.
But in a professional technical paper two wrongs just call into
question all data that is presented. If you data is wrong (even if it
is minor), admit the mistake, correct it and check the rest of your
data for other errors.

Finally, if you plan to just post this presentation on the web to have
online bull sessions, your presentation and attitude is great
entertainment. But if you plan to submit this as a paper or
presentation to a professional society, don't bias the facts and loose
the attitude dude.

Have fun,

CTR

PS I have 25 years of Aerospace engineering experience on many verticle
lift aircraft including the AV-8B Harrier, won multiple awards for
best paper by both AHS and SAE and have seven patents in the field of
aerospace technology. How about you?

[Nick Lappos]

It is hopeless, CTR. You refuse to read the chart properly, and you refuse
to admit your inability to do so. You are hopeless. I only pray that you
do not fly aircraft, you would be dangerous if you did.

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> Lets keep to the facts and lighten up on the name calling.
>
> 1) On slide 4 of your presentation you state the CH-53 max payload as
> 36,515 LBS. From slide 5 you show the max ferry range to be
> approximately 1,100 KM. In the Sikorsky data you referenced however,
> to achieve both these points the CH-53 has to be reconfigured by adding
> or removing external and internal aux fuel tanks. The external tanks
> by your own statement weigh 1,600 LBS. I extrapolated from the
> Sikorsky curve the internal aux tanks to weigh approx 1,500 LBS (please
> supply a wt. if you disagree). The V-22 does not require aux tanks to
> meet this range. Therefore to be an unbiased comparison you need to
> subtract the weight of the aux tanks from the max payload value. .Or
> conversely not use the range provided by these aux tanks
>
> 2) From the Sikorsky data, any mission requiring air refueling reduces
> the CH-53 range by 6,000 LBS. From this same chart I assumed that was
> due to the combined weight of aux tanks and refuel hardware. You
> stated that this in a inflight performance restriction. Either way,
> does not this large drop in payload deserve at least a foot note on
> slide 4 and 5. Especially since the V-22 does not suffer from this
> restriction?
>
> 3) To make your case you are willing to use the best performance data
> for the CH-53 with or without added aux tanks and not bothering to note
> the air refuel drop in payload. However when asked to consider the
> increase in V-22 maximum gross to 60,500 pounds (STOL) from the
> 52,600pounds (V/STOL) you dismissed this as being unrealistic. Data
> source Naval Helicopter Association.
>
> 4) When you admitted to an error by omitting the CH-53 externat aux
> tank weight, you said your case was still sound because you also made
> an error on the V-22 data. Maybe in PPRUNE two wrongs make a right.
> But in a professional technical paper two wrongs just call into
> question all data that is presented. If you data is wrong (even if it
> is minor), admit the mistake, correct it and check the rest of your
> data for other errors.
>
> Finally, if you plan to just post this presentation on the web to have
> online bull sessions, your presentation and attitude is great
> entertainment. But if you plan to submit this as a paper or
> presentation to a professional society, don't bias the facts and loose
> the attitude dude.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>
> PS I have 25 years of Aerospace engineering experience on many verticle
> lift aircraft including the AV-8B Harrier, won multiple awards for
> best paper by both AHS and SAE and have seven patents in the field of
> aerospace technology. How about you?
>

[George Vranek]

Hello Mr. Lappos

Would it be fair to toss a fourth rotor configuration in to the competition?
www.diskrotor.com

George

> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:IbHZe.556210$s54.151893@pd7tw2no...
> > Nick,
> >
> > Would it be fair to toss a third rotor configuration in to the
> > competition?
> >
> > How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 "Vintokryl:
> >
> > http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
> >
> > ~ Speed of 192 knots [record]
> >
> > ~ Payload of 36,343 lbs [record]
> >
> > ~ Gross weight of 65,036 lbs
> >
> > This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be done with
> > today's engines and composite materials.
> >
> > I think that it's a slam-dunk for the Vintokryl. :)
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > "Nick Lappos" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again,
> >> try this:
> >>
> >> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Nick Lappos]

George,

I have seen that arrangement before, it seems to have the ability to blend
the properties of a helicopter and a wing, but there are enormous practical
considerations to be overcome before it could fly. None are deal-killers,
but the sum of them is quite a bit of development work to assure production
capability. Mostly, concerns center on the 1) structural capability of the
rotors, which have virtually no hinge (about 50% hinge offset) and 2) the
ability to stop/stow and redeploy while airborne, with the tremendous
stresses and dynamic changes inherent in that trick. The X-wing tried that
(with a larger rotor) and was never successful, in the end.
Certainly, the Diskrotor tries to win back some low disk loading, a very
good first step!

Nick


"George Vranek" > wrote in message
...
> Hello Mr. Lappos
>
> Would it be fair to toss a fourth rotor configuration in to the
> competition?
> www.diskrotor.com
>
> George
>
>> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
>> news:IbHZe.556210$s54.151893@pd7tw2no...
>> > Nick,
>> >
>> > Would it be fair to toss a third rotor configuration in to the
>> > competition?
>> >
>> > How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 "Vintokryl:
>> >
>> > http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm
>> >
>> > ~ Speed of 192 knots [record]
>> >
>> > ~ Payload of 36,343 lbs [record]
>> >
>> > ~ Gross weight of 65,036 lbs
>> >
>> > This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be done with
>> > today's engines and composite materials.
>> >
>> > I think that it's a slam-dunk for the Vintokryl. :)
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Nick Lappos" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again,
>> >> try this:
>> >>
>> >> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/tiltrotorcomparison.pdf
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[George Vranek]

Nick,

here are my answers on your concerns.

"Nick Lappos" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> George,
>
> I have seen that arrangement before, it seems to have the ability to blend
> the properties of a helicopter and a wing, but there are enormous
practical
> considerations to be overcome before it could fly. None are deal-killers,
> but the sum of them is quite a bit of development work to assure
production
> capability. Mostly, concerns center on the 1) structural capability of
the
> rotors, which have virtually no hinge (about 50% hinge offset) .....but
thanks to the GFRP technology, the helicopters with hingeless rotors are
quite succesfull.

and 2) the
> ability to stop/stow and redeploy while airborne, with the tremendous
> stresses and dynamic changes inherent in that trick.....the trick is in
the sequency: first stow, than stop and first rotate, than redeploy. It is
even possible to keep the disk in a slow rotation after stowing the
rotorblades and use it as a small AWACS.

The X-wing tried that
> (with a larger rotor) and was never successful, in the end.....but the
X-wing equipped with the disk rotor could be the world first supersonic
helicopter!!!


> Certainly, the Diskrotor tries to win back some low disk loading, a very
> good first step!....thanks for the flowers....and not only this! The disk
brings law and order in to the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor.
>
> Nick
>

[Helowriter]

This will fix the entire problem.

http://www.vtol.org/issues.html#mono

Of course, I don't think I'd like to ride in it, or under it, or
whatever you do with it.

Frank

[George Vranek]

Hello Helowriter,

The machine on the www.vtol.org is a tiltrotor! Remember, the tiltrotors
have not optimal rotors for howering and not optimal props for crusing.
Therefore they are the wrong way to make a helicopter flying fast. The V-22,
which is a result of 50 (five, zero) years of development, carries half as
much, just so far, at twice the cost of an equivalent conventional
helicopter and is only 50 % faster!!! The diskrotor helicopter shown at
www.diskrotor.com equipped with two F-119 engines will take off, hower,
autorotate and land as a convetional helicopter and cruise supersonic as the
Concorde did!!!

George


"Helowriter" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ups.com...
> This will fix the entire problem.
>
> http://www.vtol.org/issues.html#mono
>
> Of course, I don't think I'd like to ride in it, or under it, or
> whatever you do with it.
>
> Frank
>

[NickL]

George,
The only disagreement I have with your posts is the statement of
futurity that pervades your thinking, as in "The diskrotor will...."

Don't take this the wrong way, but nothing "will" until it "has" and
not even a model of the diskrotor "has" flown. The technical hurdles in
making a rotor that operates in a wide variety of speeds, rotational
rates and maneuver states is a very challenging undertaking.

When do you think you will fly something, even a part-scale model?

Nick



George Vranek wrote:
> Hello Helowriter,
>
> The machine on the www.vtol.org is a tiltrotor! Remember, the tiltrotors
> have not optimal rotors for howering and not optimal props for crusing.
> Therefore they are the wrong way to make a helicopter flying fast. The V-22,
> which is a result of 50 (five, zero) years of development, carries half as
> much, just so far, at twice the cost of an equivalent conventional
> helicopter and is only 50 % faster!!! The diskrotor helicopter shown at
> www.diskrotor.com equipped with two F-119 engines will take off, hower,
> autorotate and land as a convetional helicopter and cruise supersonic as the
> Concorde did!!!
>
> George
>
>
> "Helowriter" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ups.com...
> > This will fix the entire problem.
> >
> > http://www.vtol.org/issues.html#mono
> >
> > Of course, I don't think I'd like to ride in it, or under it, or
> > whatever you do with it.
> >
> > Frank
> >

[George Vranek]

Nick,
I am sorry for my statement "The diskrotor will...." You know, my mother
speech is czech and not english, therefore...
A balsa model with disk dia 10" (254 mm), 1/10" (2.5 mm) thick, with C.G.
exact in the center of the disk and with the horizontal tail at + 2
deg.relative to the disk plane, flown stable and stright with a glide ratio
of ca. 1 : 3.
I have got the Diskrotor idea in July 1993 after reading the page No. 62 at
the World Aerospace Technology 91, where Mr. Evan Fradenbourg describes a
High speed stowed rotor design aircraft. I have sent him a letter with a
description of my idea and he answered, that he is no longer associated with
Sikorsky Aircraft and that "...they are conducting research on advanced
tiltrotor aicraft, not stowed rotor concepts. Therefore I doubt that they
would be interested in the diskrotor idea..." If you want, I could scan both
documents and sed them on .

George


"NickL" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
> George,
> The only disagreement I have with your posts is the statement of
> futurity that pervades your thinking, as in "The diskrotor will...."
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but nothing "will" until it "has" and
> not even a model of the diskrotor "has" flown. The technical hurdles in
> making a rotor that operates in a wide variety of speeds, rotational
> rates and maneuver states is a very challenging undertaking.
>
> When do you think you will fly something, even a part-scale model?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> George Vranek wrote:
> > Hello Helowriter,
> >
> > The machine on the www.vtol.org is a tiltrotor! Remember, the tiltrotors
> > have not optimal rotors for howering and not optimal props for crusing.
> > Therefore they are the wrong way to make a helicopter flying fast. The
V-22,
> > which is a result of 50 (five, zero) years of development, carries half
as
> > much, just so far, at twice the cost of an equivalent conventional
> > helicopter and is only 50 % faster!!! The diskrotor helicopter shown at
> > www.diskrotor.com equipped with two F-119 engines will take off, hower,
> > autorotate and land as a convetional helicopter and cruise supersonic as
the
> > Concorde did!!!
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> > "Helowriter" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > ups.com...
> > > This will fix the entire problem.
> > >
> > > http://www.vtol.org/issues.html#mono
> > >
> > > Of course, I don't think I'd like to ride in it, or under it, or
> > > whatever you do with it.
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
>

[NickL]

Thanks for the response, George. I worked with Evan Fredenberg for
many years. There is no reason to send the documents.

Good luck with your concept!

Nick