Info on Tilt- Rototrs Needed

[[email protected]]

Hey guys, I am thinking on giving a seminar on Tilt-Rotor Aircrafts as
a part of my Mechanical Engineering Final Year Syllabus. However all
the info i found on the net (read Google) deals with the BA-609 and the
Osprey specifically and not with the concept of Tilt Rotors. Can anyone
help me out? The seminar has to be about 20 pages long.

[CTR]

730,

The predecessor to the V-22 and the BA609 was the XV-15 NASA program.
NASA is a great sourse for information. So is AHS International. AHS
has published papers from on tiltrotor reserch from many sources, not
just Bell and Boeing.

Good luck,

CTR

[Dave Jackson]

You may wish to consider tilt-rotor patents; at
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

A few are;

Sikorsky's Variable diameter rotor blade actuation system ~ 6,019,578

VTOL airplane with only one tiltable prop-rotor ~ US 6,382,556

Optimum speed tilt rotor ~ US 6,641,365





> wrote in message
> Hey guys, I am thinking on giving a seminar on Tilt-Rotor Aircrafts as
> a part of my Mechanical Engineering Final Year Syllabus. However all
> the info i found on the net (read Google) deals with the BA-609 and the
> Osprey specifically and not with the concept of Tilt Rotors. Can anyone
> help me out? The seminar has to be about 20 pages long.
>

[NickL]

There are many American Helicopter Society technical papers that have
been given at the AHS annual forum over the years, several at a level
which would be right for undergraduate work. Ask your school librarian
for help, these are usually available in a few days.
Also, Stepniewski and Keys "Rotary Wing Aerodynamics" (Dover
publications) has a major section on tilt rotor design aspects.

Nick Lappos
For some broad performance comparisons between helicopters and tilt
rotors and supporting sites, see my site:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/Disk-Loading.pdf


wrote:
> Hey guys, I am thinking on giving a seminar on Tilt-Rotor Aircrafts as
> a part of my Mechanical Engineering Final Year Syllabus. However all
> the info i found on the net (read Google) deals with the BA-609 and the
> Osprey specifically and not with the concept of Tilt Rotors. Can anyone
> help me out? The seminar has to be about 20 pages long.

[Nishant]

Thanks a lot Nick.....your comparison was really an eye-opener, so much
so that I am now wondering on whether I should change my topic...any
suggestions......(I will be seeking admission for MS in the Aerospace
in fall 2006....I guess having a related topic would help.)

[Nick Lappos]

That performance comparison should take little away from the reason why the
Marines are going toward the V22, it has the speed, and they have the
mission. It just makes sure that we all recognize the reduction in
efficiency and the cost of that speed. I do think that tilt rotors will
have their place in the spectrum.
Good luck on your paper. Look at the AHS Forum papers for lots of data to
help your paper. What school are you attending?
Nick


"Nishant" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks a lot Nick.....your comparison was really an eye-opener, so much
> so that I am now wondering on whether I should change my topic...any
> suggestions......(I will be seeking admission for MS in the Aerospace
> in fall 2006....I guess having a related topic would help.)
>

[Dave Jackson]

Should the subject of your seminar be 'future rotorcraft', you may wish to
focus on the coming ability of blades to vary their angle of attack at
desecrate locations, as defined by the rotor's polar coordinates. Radial
positions being set by active blade twist etc. and azimuthual positions
being set by higher harmonic control etc.

IMHO, when these two abilities become operationally viable, the two most
promising rotor configurations will be the Intermeshing for light agile
craft and the Interleaving for fast transport craft.

[Dave Jackson]

> .... to vary their angle of attack at desecrate locations, ....

Opps! Where's the Edit button?

'desecrate' sound a little to negative. Please substitute 'discrete' in the
above post. :)

[CTR]

Nishant,

If you intend to use data you have collected over the internet to
support your Mechanical Engineering Final Year Syllabus, I recommend
that you stick to published data from sources like SAE, NASA or AHS.
Referencing data, opinions or conclusions from individuals personal web
sites is not a good idea.

Do your own research of from reputable data sources and then draw your
own conclusions.

Good luck,

CTR

[CTR]

For those willing to take a close look at Nick Lappos's presentation
and it's referenced supporting data, please note the following:

1) The 1,050 KM range shown for the CH-53 in Nick's presentation is
with additional internal and external aux tanks installed. Using only
normal internal fuel tanks, the CH-53 ferry range is only 590 KM.

2) The 1,030 KM V-22 ferry range shown in Nick's presentation is
actually 2 X the 515 Amphib Assault mission range. With internal ferry
tanks installed the V-22 ferry range is 2,100 KM. Twice that of the
CH-53.

3) The 1,150 KM ferry range shown for the MILITARY UH-60L in Nick's
presentation is with four additional 230 gallon external aux tanks
installed. Using only normal internal fuel tanks, the UH-60L ferry
range is only 290 KM.

4) The 750 KM ferry range shown in Nick's presentation for the CIVIL
BA609 is with using only current internal fuel tanks. This is almost
three times the UH-60L ferry range. With internal tanks planned for
the Military BA609 version, ferry range is increased to 1,000 KM.

In short, for Nick's presentation, using as many internal and external
aux fuel tanks as possible for the CH-53 and UH-60L is acceptable. But
the use of even additional internal aux tanks on V-22 or BA609 is
prohibited.

So Nishant, do your own research before you draw any conclusions.
Don't take anyone's opinion (even mine) until you look closely at all
reliable data sources.

Good luck,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

CTR is right, use the flight manuals where possible, as I did. CTR is a
tilt rotor advocate (CTR stands for Civil Tilt Rotor) and he works for Bell.

His coments on my presentation are fundamentally wrong, he fails to mention
that the V22 also uses aux tanks for the plot I present, as well. The weight
of the tanks is subtracted from both aircraft, the payloads are correct as
published.

The charts are backed up by the published data for each model, I will
provide the source data to anyone who emails me.

As shown in the presentation at the below web site, a tilt rotor carries
half the payload, has no range advantage over a helicopter, and has much
less transport efficiency (speed times payload) at any range..

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


Nick



"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nishant,
>
> If you intend to use data you have collected over the internet to
> support your Mechanical Engineering Final Year Syllabus, I recommend
> that you stick to published data from sources like SAE, NASA or AHS.
> Referencing data, opinions or conclusions from individuals personal web
> sites is not a good idea.
>
> Do your own research of from reputable data sources and then draw your
> own conclusions.
>
> Good luck,
>
> CTR
>

[Nick Lappos]

CTR is so off base, he confuses the units on the charts. The ranges shown
are all in 1050 Nautical Miles.
Yes, in the presentation, aux tanks are used for both types, tilt rotors and
helicopters, and their weight (payload reduction) is accounted for properly.

I stand by my numbers, they are impeccable. A tilt rotor carries half the
payload to the same range as a helicopter, and it has less transport
efficiency, and costs twice as much for the same payload.

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

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> For those willing to take a close look at Nick Lappos's presentation
> and it's referenced supporting data, please note the following:
>
> 1) The 1,050 KM range shown for the CH-53 in Nick's presentation is
> with additional internal and external aux tanks installed. Using only
> normal internal fuel tanks, the CH-53 ferry range is only 590 KM.
>
> 2) The 1,030 KM V-22 ferry range shown in Nick's presentation is
> actually 2 X the 515 Amphib Assault mission range. With internal ferry
> tanks installed the V-22 ferry range is 2,100 KM. Twice that of the
> CH-53.
>
> 3) The 1,150 KM ferry range shown for the MILITARY UH-60L in Nick's
> presentation is with four additional 230 gallon external aux tanks
> installed. Using only normal internal fuel tanks, the UH-60L ferry
> range is only 290 KM.
>
> 4) The 750 KM ferry range shown in Nick's presentation for the CIVIL
> BA609 is with using only current internal fuel tanks. This is almost
> three times the UH-60L ferry range. With internal tanks planned for
> the Military BA609 version, ferry range is increased to 1,000 KM.
>
> In short, for Nick's presentation, using as many internal and external
> aux fuel tanks as possible for the CH-53 and UH-60L is acceptable. But
> the use of even additional internal aux tanks on V-22 or BA609 is
> prohibited.
>
> So Nishant, do your own research before you draw any conclusions.
> Don't take anyone's opinion (even mine) until you look closely at all
> reliable data sources.
>
> Good luck,
>
> CTR
>

[CTR]

Nick,

My only mistake is after a 22 hour day is typing KM instead of NM. All
numbers in my post are in Nautical miles. For those wishing go know
the full facts, go to:

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.htm

Under V-22 RANGE you will find:

Range
=B7 Amphib assault, nm (km) - 515 (954)
=B7 Max, self-deployment, nm (km)
2,100 (3,892)
(this is a direct paste)

Then for the CH-53 go to:

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf

>From the Load/Range chart for ferry range (0 payload) with internal and
external aux fuel tanks the CH-53 range shows 1050 nm (1946 km).

So if I am confused Nick, please explain why in your charts you only
show the V-22 self deploy 0 payload range being approximately 1030
Nautical Miles. While the source you reference using for your data
states this range to be 2100 Nautical Miles?

What external aux tanks did you use for the V-22 range, since the V-22
does not carry external aux tanks?

Again, I suggest no one ever use conclusions from some one's personal
web site. Go to reputable sources and check the data yourselves and
drow your own conclusions.

Take care,

CTR

[Dave Jackson]

Nick said;

> "Also, Stepniewski and Keys "Rotary Wing Aerodynamics" (Dover
> publications) has a major section on tilt rotor design aspects.'



OK Nick, what chapter is missing from my copy of "Rotary Wing
Aerodynamics"???? :)

Chapter II - IV is on the Winged (compound) Helicopter.

Chapter II - V is on the Tandem (fore & aft rotors) helicopter.

The Tilt-rotor is covered in 45 words and a picture in Chapter I - I.

As a mater of fact, Stepniewski recommends the Intermeshing configuration
for tomorrow's rotorcraft. http://www.UniCopter.com/1093.html


"NickL" > wrote in message
> There are many American Helicopter Society technical papers that have
> been given at the AHS annual forum over the years, several at a level
> which would be right for undergraduate work. Ask your school librarian
> for help, these are usually available in a few days.
> Also, Stepniewski and Keys "Rotary Wing Aerodynamics" (Dover
> publications) has a major section on tilt rotor design aspects.
>
> Nick Lappos
> For some broad performance comparisons between helicopters and tilt
> rotors and supporting sites, see my site:
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/Disk-Loading.pdf

[NickL]

CTR, your confusion abounds:

1) The range chart I show is based on a hover at takeoff, unlike the
rolling airport takeoff that you would like to claim. A mission from a
ship at your takeoff weight would qualify the V22 as a submarine, BTW.
My charts show flight manual mission capability, not your marketing
hype. Stick to the facts, stop selling.

2) Learn your aircraft before you waste our time, the V22 must be
fitted with its aux wing tip tank to make the range I depict, at a loss
of payload, just like the aux tanks used in the max range for the helo.
Nobody but you (in your confusion) said external.

3) As a Test Pilot for 27 years, Fellow of the AHS, Member of the SETP
and Distinguished Alum of Georgia Tech, Aerospace Engineering, I sign
my posts with my name, and stand behind the data as accurate. You post
marketing web sites, anonymously, so where is your credibility?

My point, proven = A tilt rotor carries half the payload to the same
range, and has much less transport efficiency than a helicopter.

Nick Lappos

[CTR]

Nick,

Thank you for finaly providing actual responses to critical comments to
you presentation. Perhaps now we can proceed with a constructive
technical discussion of your conclusions.

In response to your original post question to me "Let me ask, what
qualifications do you have to be so misunderstanding of this technical
data?" I responded "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?"


Again thank you for finaly responding to my question in response. Even
if it took awhile.

1) The data I reference is the same Prime Contractor data you reference
at the bottom of your Load Range chart for the CH-53 and V-22
comparison:

http://www.sikorsky.com/programs/stallion/stallion.html
http://bellhelicopter.com/products/tiltRotor/
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.htm

So why do your accuse me of marketing and selling?

Also since the V-22 data you reference states a 2100 ferry range, where
do you derive the approx 1030 NM range you show?

You have made it your personal quest to force the V-22 to fly the same
flight profile as a conventional helicopter and bend the numbers to
negate any benifits the V-22 wing affords in range and payload. Your
referenced data shows the V-22 capable of a 2100 NM ferry range. With
a 2100 NM ferry range there are few places on this planet that the V-22
cannot avail itself of a short rolling takeoff. And if in the real
world there is a need for the V-22 to fly a 2100 NM ferry from a ship
to shore, immediately after vertical takeoff and conversion to airplane
mode, it can top off its fuel while still beyond the 2100 NM radius of
its destination.

2) You said "Learn your aircraft before you waste our time, the V22
must be fitted with its aux wing tip tank to make the range I depict,
at a loss of payload, just like the aux tanks used in the max range for
the helo." This is a distortion of the facts. There are no V-22 aux
fuel tanks that change the external mold line of the aircraft.
Therefore they have zero effect on the V-22 drag. Also any additional
INTERNAL wing tanks consist only of a bladder in the existing wing
structure. To meet the CH-53 range you show you have added external
tank pods that both increase drag and weigh considerably more.

And while on the topic of external tanks, as an engineer, how can you
compare the range of a MILITARY UH-60 with four added external 230
gallon tanks to a CIVIL BA609 operating on internal fuel only?
Especially since to achieve the range you show the UH-60 has to limit
itself to 4,000 ft altitude. You don't even allow the BA609 to use
it's additional permanently installed fuselage tank for an additional
250 mile range. Please do not accuse me of being biased if you plan to
twist data to meet your preconcieved conclusions.

3) Nick, you accused me of the following "You post marketing web
sites, anonymously, so where is your credibility?" Again, I referenced
the same type of sites you referenced in your presentation. And if you
had bothered to take the time to check out and study the AHS link for
data on the the BA609 I recommended, you would have figured out who I
was a long time ago. Yes I am the primary author of this paper. Here
it is again to save you some time:
http://www.vtol.org/pdf/61PropulsionII.pdf

Nick, if you truly believe that your presentations conlusions can
withstand the scrutiny of the AHS, why don't you submit an abstract for
the next forum?

Finally Nick, as I said from the start: "Yes they (the V-22
supporters) twist the facts to make their case. But you also twisting
the
facts does not make your case stronger. It only makes it weaker"

I also stick by my statements.

Have fun,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

CTR, I accuse you of marketing and selling because you are. The data I show
is precise, but you post inane questions because you need to show
disagreement, kind of like a spin thing, huh? Please tell the group that
you are a hydraulics designer for Bell, and know lots about pipes and fluid
and O rings, but not a damn thing about rotorcraft performance, (as your
inept observations prove) and that your heart and soul are with the tilt
rotor (as they should be, but do not park your brain as you build that new
machine).

I have updated the presentation, and now include a US Navy payload-range
chart that agrees with my work, precisely. No facts twisted, not even bent
a little. Eat it and weep, CTR.

Regarding the 2100 miles of ferry range, for the FIFTH time I will tell you
that cannot be done from a transport ship, is not possible for a normal
troop carrying mission (which is what I am comparing) and has zero payload
when flown. It is not germain, but it has one virtue for you - it has a big
number, a really big number, and that seems to stick in your brain. As I
have posted to each of your inept comments, the V22 cannot take off from a
ship with the ferry fuel to go beyond the 1100 miles I have shown. The 2100
miles is a ferry stunt, troopless and unable to be done from an assault
transport. Deal with it.

Regarding the difference between a 609's takeoff payload and the size of a
fuel tank, suffice it to say that the aircraft must actually take off with
the fuel for it to be used in the mission, a fact that seems to escape you.
The 609's range shown is from a hover, and is all it can do because its
hover performance is so poor. Short of burning its wings and crew for fuel,
its range is stuck at the 700 miles shown. Do not try to understand this,
it is a heavy concept.

A tilt rotor carries half the payload of a helicopter, to the same range,
and has much less productivity.

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

Your hydraulics background explains your confusion about hover payload and
how it limits mission range. Airplanes use more runway when they get
heavier, but they take off. Helos make a big splash in the water if they
are loaded beyond their hover weight. Think hard about that, grasshopper.

Nick

PS I have 16 patents, and have authored over 20 papers, as well as several
AGARD and NASA TR's, and am a Fellow of that AHS you describe, for
contributions to understanding helicopter tactical maneuverability and
performance. AND I can read a payload-range chart, something you might
learn to do if you try real, real hard. AND I sign my name to my work, and
do not hide behind a fictious username.




"CTR" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Nick,
>
> Thank you for finaly providing actual responses to critical comments to
> you presentation. Perhaps now we can proceed with a constructive
> technical discussion of your conclusions.
>
> In response to your original post question to me "Let me ask, what
> qualifications do you have to be so misunderstanding of this technical
> data?" I responded "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?"
>
>
> Again thank you for finaly responding to my question in response. Even
> if it took awhile.
>
> 1) The data I reference is the same Prime Contractor data you reference
> at the bottom of your Load Range chart for the CH-53 and V-22
> comparison:
>
> http://www.sikorsky.com/programs/stallion/stallion.html
> http://bellhelicopter.com/products/tiltRotor/
> http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/v22/v22spec.htm
>
> So why do your accuse me of marketing and selling?
>
> Also since the V-22 data you reference states a 2100 ferry range, where
> do you derive the approx 1030 NM range you show?
>
> You have made it your personal quest to force the V-22 to fly the same
> flight profile as a conventional helicopter and bend the numbers to
> negate any benifits the V-22 wing affords in range and payload. Your
> referenced data shows the V-22 capable of a 2100 NM ferry range. With
> a 2100 NM ferry range there are few places on this planet that the V-22
> cannot avail itself of a short rolling takeoff. And if in the real
> world there is a need for the V-22 to fly a 2100 NM ferry from a ship
> to shore, immediately after vertical takeoff and conversion to airplane
> mode, it can top off its fuel while still beyond the 2100 NM radius of
> its destination.
>
> 2) You said "Learn your aircraft before you waste our time, the V22
> must be fitted with its aux wing tip tank to make the range I depict,
> at a loss of payload, just like the aux tanks used in the max range for
> the helo." This is a distortion of the facts. There are no V-22 aux
> fuel tanks that change the external mold line of the aircraft.
> Therefore they have zero effect on the V-22 drag. Also any additional
> INTERNAL wing tanks consist only of a bladder in the existing wing
> structure. To meet the CH-53 range you show you have added external
> tank pods that both increase drag and weigh considerably more.
>
> And while on the topic of external tanks, as an engineer, how can you
> compare the range of a MILITARY UH-60 with four added external 230
> gallon tanks to a CIVIL BA609 operating on internal fuel only?
> Especially since to achieve the range you show the UH-60 has to limit
> itself to 4,000 ft altitude. You don't even allow the BA609 to use
> it's additional permanently installed fuselage tank for an additional
> 250 mile range. Please do not accuse me of being biased if you plan to
> twist data to meet your preconcieved conclusions.
>
> 3) Nick, you accused me of the following "You post marketing web
> sites, anonymously, so where is your credibility?" Again, I referenced
> the same type of sites you referenced in your presentation. And if you
> had bothered to take the time to check out and study the AHS link for
> data on the the BA609 I recommended, you would have figured out who I
> was a long time ago. Yes I am the primary author of this paper. Here
> it is again to save you some time:
> http://www.vtol.org/pdf/61PropulsionII.pdf
>
> Nick, if you truly believe that your presentations conlusions can
> withstand the scrutiny of the AHS, why don't you submit an abstract for
> the next forum?
>
> Finally Nick, as I said from the start: "Yes they (the V-22
> supporters) twist the facts to make their case. But you also twisting
> the
> facts does not make your case stronger. It only makes it weaker"
>
> I also stick by my statements.
>
> Have fun,
>
> CTR
>

[Nick Lappos]

OOPS, I couldn't find my copy (still in cartons in the garage, after my move
South) so I THOUGHT I remembered a chapter on it. Oh well, sorry about
that.

Nick


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:sey1f.114567$tl2.98843@pd7tw3no...
> Nick said;
>
>> "Also, Stepniewski and Keys "Rotary Wing Aerodynamics" (Dover
>> publications) has a major section on tilt rotor design aspects.'
>
>
>
> OK Nick, what chapter is missing from my copy of "Rotary Wing
> Aerodynamics"???? :)
>
> Chapter II - IV is on the Winged (compound) Helicopter.
>
> Chapter II - V is on the Tandem (fore & aft rotors) helicopter.
>
> The Tilt-rotor is covered in 45 words and a picture in Chapter I - I.
>
> As a mater of fact, Stepniewski recommends the Intermeshing configuration
> for tomorrow's rotorcraft. http://www.UniCopter.com/1093.html
>
>
> "NickL" > wrote in message
>> There are many American Helicopter Society technical papers that have
>> been given at the AHS annual forum over the years, several at a level
>> which would be right for undergraduate work. Ask your school librarian
>> for help, these are usually available in a few days.
>> Also, Stepniewski and Keys "Rotary Wing Aerodynamics" (Dover
>> publications) has a major section on tilt rotor design aspects.
>>
>> Nick Lappos
>> For some broad performance comparisons between helicopters and tilt
>> rotors and supporting sites, see my site:
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/Disk-Loading.pdf
>
>

[CTR]

Nick,

I thought arrogance was limited to fast mover pilots. Most of the helo
pilots have worked with actually answer questions instead of degrading
the people asking them.

So why don't we try this again. And instead questioning the
capabilities of the questioner, answer the questions:

And to keep it specific and to the point, one question at a time. Lets
start with a straight forward one.

You use 750 NM 0 load range for the BA609. However the site you
reference in your presentation notes that the aircraft is can be fitted
with an additional internal tank to provide 1000 NM total range. Why
don't you use this 1000 NM range?

Carlos A. Fenny

AKA Civil Tilt Rotor

Note: In 29 years I have worked, hydraulics, mechanical controls,
landing gear, flight test, canopy/escape systems, composite structure
and advanced design.

[Nick Lappos]

CTR,
You ask, "..the aircraft is can be fitted with an additional internal tank
to provide 1000 NM total range. Why don't you use this 1000 NM range?"

As I have said now SIX times, the 609 cannot hover with that fuel and tank,
even when it has zero pax or payload. The hover weight is rigidly limited
by the rotor performance. With all the power the 609 has, it can only hover
with enough fuel to go 750 NM, leaving all passengers home. THAT IS WHAT THE
PAYLOAD RANGE CHART IS FOR, to tell you how to make the tradeoff between
fuel and payload, at a fixed hover takeoff condition.

You are clearly one of those guys who thinks a rotorcraft is like your car,
fill the trunk, fill the seats and fill the gas tank. That is not how we
can operate. The 609 can hover at 16,800 lbs, not one pound more. Its
empty weight is 11,300 lbs, then it must carry no more than 5500 lbs of fuel
when it starts its journey. In cruise, the 609 needs about 7.4 lbs of gas
to go one mile. Therefore, it goes about 750NM with no pax. If we add one
pax, we take out 170 lbs of gas, and its range drops by 23 NM. Get the
picture?

Now, if you are at an airport and want to allow rolling takeoffs, and load
the aircraft up until it cannot hover, that is fine, but don't try that at
Wall St heliport, the sound of proprotors cutting light poles is offensive
to the neighbors. Don't try that off an assault transport, the marines in
back do not have water wings. If the tilt rotor cannot hover at the start of
its mission, it cannot do the mission. Rotorcraft missions need rotorcraft
performance, thus we publish the performance with a hover at the start, so
that we can take off from small places, the reason why folks buy our
machines.

Get the picture?

Tilt rotors carry half the payload to the same range as helos, and cost
twice as much per ton of payload to do it.

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> I thought arrogance was limited to fast mover pilots. Most of the helo
> pilots have worked with actually answer questions instead of degrading
> the people asking them.
>
> So why don't we try this again. And instead questioning the
> capabilities of the questioner, answer the questions:
>
> And to keep it specific and to the point, one question at a time. Lets
> start with a straight forward one.
>
> You use 750 NM 0 load range for the BA609. However the site you
> reference in your presentation notes that the aircraft is can be fitted
> with an additional internal tank to provide 1000 NM total range. Why
> don't you use this 1000 NM range?
>
> Carlos A. Fenny
>
> AKA Civil Tilt Rotor
>
> Note: In 29 years I have worked, hydraulics, mechanical controls,
> landing gear, flight test, canopy/escape systems, composite structure
> and advanced design.
>

[CTR]

Nick,

Thank you for responding to my question. Now please consider my
response.

The BA609 shown with a 750 NM range is configured for executive
transport. It has sound proofing, thermal insulation, reclining
leather seats, mini bar, entertainment centers, full cabin
airconditioning and heating. It also limits its vertical take off load
to meet FAA Cat A performance for operating in congested urban areas.

For goverment and special civil operations outside congested areas
(ships and oil platforms) the BA609 will be able strip the glitter and
operate under Cat B restrictions. This will allow it to operate from a
hover to meet the 1,000 KM stated range. Currently the limiting factor
on BA609 higher load is the landing gear not power.

Does this clear up the picture for you?

Nick, you stated "...the reason why folks buy our machines" So who do
you work for?

Take care,

CTR

[CTR]

Nick,


Thank you for responding to my question. Now please consider my
response.

The BA609 shown with a 750 NM range is configured for executive
transport. It has sound proofing, thermal insulation, reclining
leather seats, mini bar, entertainment centers, full cabin
airconditioning and heating. It also limits its vertical take off load

to meet FAA Cat A performance for operating in congested urban areas.

For goverment and special civil operations outside congested areas
(ships and oil platforms) the BA609 will be able strip the glitter and
operate under Cat B restrictions. This will allow it to operate from a
hover to meet the 1,000 NM stated range. Currently the limiting factor
on BA609 higher load is the landing gear not power.

Does this clear up the picture for you?

Nick, you stated "...the reason why folks buy our machines" So who do
you work for?

Take care,


CTR

[NickL]

ctr,

You look for the siver lining in every coud when it comes to tilt
rotors, don't you. The 11,300 lbs is the empth weight given for the
609 on every web page pubished by Agusta and Bell, not just the
"executive transport" ones. If you know another weight publish it. As
a member of the 609 design team, you might have better data.

In any case, it would take 2100 lbs of chairs and carpet to provide the
fuel to get to 1000 miles, an absurd weight bogy for a cabin that size.
I would estimate that the difference between a utility and exec should
be about 400 lbs for the tiny cabin of the 609. I also believe the
empty weight given, 11300 is the utility empty weight, as is Bell's
practice.

Regarding Cat B (you are starting to learn things), there is no 609
benefit on this discussion because the 16,800 bs I use is the maximum
gross weight, and no further overload is allowed. (unless you know of
plans to grow the machine further.)

Thus, the range, as stated is correct.

BTW all the silver lining you found will not allow the 609 to get
closer than half the payload of the Black Hawk, so why don't you simply
agree to the basic argument that you have been struggling to avoid - a
tilt rotor carries half the payload, and has the same range as a
helicopter with the same weight and power?

Nick


CTR wrote:
> Nick,
>
>
> Thank you for responding to my question. Now please consider my
> response.
>
> The BA609 shown with a 750 NM range is configured for executive
> transport. It has sound proofing, thermal insulation, reclining
> leather seats, mini bar, entertainment centers, full cabin
> airconditioning and heating. It also limits its vertical take off load
>
> to meet FAA Cat A performance for operating in congested urban areas.
>
> For goverment and special civil operations outside congested areas
> (ships and oil platforms) the BA609 will be able strip the glitter and
> operate under Cat B restrictions. This will allow it to operate from a
> hover to meet the 1,000 NM stated range. Currently the limiting factor
> on BA609 higher load is the landing gear not power.
>
> Does this clear up the picture for you?
>
> Nick, you stated "...the reason why folks buy our machines" So who do
> you work for?
>
> Take care,
>
>
> CTR

[CTR]

Nick,

All available published data gives 1,000 NM as the maximum range of the
BA609 with an added internal fuel tank. Please advise of the source of
the data that provides other values or states that this is only
available in short take off mode.

You are correct that the weight savings is the smaller part of the
equation. Still this is much higher than most helicopters because of
the need to maintain a CEO level of comfort at 25,000 ft. The major
restriction is in meeting full Cat A.

As I stated before, for government and special civil applications this
restriction can be reduced (ie Coast Guard).

For a fair comparison to the UH-60 military aircraft, can you provide a
source of data that can confirm that the UH-60 meets the latest Cat A
requirements for loads values you are using?

Thanks in advance for providing this information.

Take care,

CTR

[NickL]

CTR says: "Please advise of the source of the data that provides other
values (less than 1000 miles)or states that this is only available in
short take off mode."

Nick responds: I wish YOU would do some work, here Carlos, it gets
exasperating when you do NOTHING but mis-read my data, foolishly, and
post inane observations that show you haven't even read the data your
company posts on your aircraft. You behave like a spoiled kid, arms
folded, who tosses yet another demand, and does nothing to add
information.

Before I post the published refutation of your wish for more range on
the 609, can I take it that since you ask nothing about the V22, you
cede to my (and the US Navy's)data?

Nick

CTR wrote:
> Nick,
>
> All available published data gives 1,000 NM as the maximum range of the
> BA609 with an added internal fuel tank. Please advise of the source of
> the data that provides other values or states that this is only
> available in short take off mode.
>
> You are correct that the weight savings is the smaller part of the
> equation. Still this is much higher than most helicopters because of
> the need to maintain a CEO level of comfort at 25,000 ft. The major
> restriction is in meeting full Cat A.
>
> As I stated before, for government and special civil applications this
> restriction can be reduced (ie Coast Guard).
>
> For a fair comparison to the UH-60 military aircraft, can you provide a
> source of data that can confirm that the UH-60 meets the latest Cat A
> requirements for loads values you are using?
>
> Thanks in advance for providing this information.
>
> Take care,
>
> CTR

[CTR]

Nick,

I spent two hours over the weekend looking for any information
available to show that the UH-60 can comply with FAA Cat A
requirements. No luck what ever. That is why I thought you might be
able to point me in the correct direction with a link or web site.
Especially with your previous company associations.

The extent of BA609 published range data is as follows:

Maximum Cruise Speed 275 kt 509 km/hr
HOGE(ISA, MGW, AEO) 5,000 ft MSL 1,150 m
Service Ceiling (MCP) (All Engines Operating) 25,000 ft 11,364 m
O.E.I. (ISA, MGW) 12,800 ft MSL 3,866 m
Maximum Range * (no reserve) 1,000 nm 1,852 km
* With auxiliary fuel at MTOW-ISA Pending Certification

You indicated that this 1000 NM range was not possible from a hover,
therefore I merely asked for the source of this information.

As you are aware, my current company employment places restrictions on
any information I can devulge. I can direct people to currently
published data, but I am prohibited from releasing any data that has
not been previously cleared for publication.

I do not know what agreements you have with your previous employer, but
based on your status you are most likely under much looser restrictions
than I.

As a constructive recommendation, if Cat A data is not available on the
UH-60, I was going to suggest that you compare the BA609 to the AB139.
Both are modern verticle lift aircraft designed to FAA Cat A. Plus
both use the same PW engines. In this comparison I would concur that
the 750 NM BA609 range should be used. Since adding extra fuel and
droping below Cat A would be unfair to the AB139.

In regards the CH-53 and V-22 comparison, our differences are much
smaller. Therefore I decided to concentrate on areas of your
presentation that I felt did not necessarily represent a fair
comparison.

Thanks in advance again for any information you can direct me to on
UH-60 Cat A capabilities and take BA609 take off hover range
limitations.

Take care,

CTR

[Nick Lappos]

CTR,
You seem to be quite challenged finding sources for the crappy performance
of tilt rotors, so let me help. Unlike you, who are merely a Bell designer,
I found these in the first hit on Yahoo, looking for "BA-609
specifications." This is a difficult thing, Carlos, so I don't expect you
to be able to do it, especially if it might prove you wrong, yet again. I
have taken the liberty of publishing some of the multitude of data that
shows only 750 nm range, as currently published in the 609 brochure,
available for download here:

http://www.bellagusta.com/pdf/BA609_2004.pdf

Quote:
Maximum Range* (no reserve) 750 nm
*With auxiliary fuel at MTOW-ISA Pending Certification

Also, please read the slide below that has been repeatedly briefed by your
company to the US Coast Guard, showing 250 nm radius with some short loiter
and hover, probably equalling about 650 NM of range with reserve (the same
as 750 without reserve, but with aux tanks.) Note the fact that the takeoff
will be a STOL takeoff or a Cat B, indicating the aircraft is out of poop at
the takeoff, just as I said it would be.
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/HV609_slide.gif

This Bell slide was published in lots of places, including several
symposiums where I presented papers. I think you should take the rose
colored glasses off once in a while. If a 609 goes to 1,000 miles, it must
make a rolling takeoff, and must be very much above max gross weight. NOT a
true mission configuration, kimo sabe.

Regarding Cat A, since that is a nice new thing you can question. Since you
have batted ZERO on every other point, you must bring up a new one, a
different one, so that you don't actually have to cede any of the points you
have been proven wrong about, right? No military aircraft is Cat A, and in
fact, Cat A means nothing in the military, so your question is a foolish
one. If you had a flight manual for the Black Hawk you could look up the
single engine climb performance. No, you would have to have someone read it
to you, because it is all a mystery to you, Carlos. Give it a rest. The
Black Hawk has single engine stay up ability for the long range mission,
which I think you are sniffing around.

I added these plots to the tiltrotor comparison slide set, thanks Carlos for
helping me close the confusing points and make the case stronger!

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

Nick


"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nick,
>
> I spent two hours over the weekend looking for any information
> available to show that the UH-60 can comply with FAA Cat A
> requirements. No luck what ever. That is why I thought you might be
> able to point me in the correct direction with a link or web site.
> Especially with your previous company associations.
>
> The extent of BA609 published range data is as follows:
>
> Maximum Cruise Speed 275 kt 509 km/hr
> HOGE(ISA, MGW, AEO) 5,000 ft MSL 1,150 m
> Service Ceiling (MCP) (All Engines Operating) 25,000 ft 11,364 m
> O.E.I. (ISA, MGW) 12,800 ft MSL 3,866 m
> Maximum Range * (no reserve) 1,000 nm 1,852 km
> * With auxiliary fuel at MTOW-ISA Pending Certification
>
> You indicated that this 1000 NM range was not possible from a hover,
> therefore I merely asked for the source of this information.
>
> As you are aware, my current company employment places restrictions on
> any information I can devulge. I can direct people to currently
> published data, but I am prohibited from releasing any data that has
> not been previously cleared for publication.
>
> I do not know what agreements you have with your previous employer, but
> based on your status you are most likely under much looser restrictions
> than I.
>
> As a constructive recommendation, if Cat A data is not available on the
> UH-60, I was going to suggest that you compare the BA609 to the AB139.
> Both are modern verticle lift aircraft designed to FAA Cat A. Plus
> both use the same PW engines. In this comparison I would concur that
> the 750 NM BA609 range should be used. Since adding extra fuel and
> droping below Cat A would be unfair to the AB139.
>
> In regards the CH-53 and V-22 comparison, our differences are much
> smaller. Therefore I decided to concentrate on areas of your
> presentation that I felt did not necessarily represent a fair
> comparison.
>
> Thanks in advance again for any information you can direct me to on
> UH-60 Cat A capabilities and take BA609 take off hover range
> limitations.
>
> Take care,
>
> CTR
>

[Nishant]

Nick, thanks for the help again. I am studying in the A.I.S.S.M.S's
Engineering college in India under the Pune University. I plan to
pursue a Master's degree in Aerospace Engineering after I finish my
Mechanical Engineering next year.......Due to obvious reasons getting
the AHS papers is not really an option, as ordering them over the net
translates into a lot of money, when converted into Indian Rupees. So,
I end up searching the net.

[Dave Jackson]

Nishant,

You may find this of value.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930008694_1993008694.pdf


>Due to obvious reasons getting
> the AHS papers is not really an option, as ordering them over the net
> translates into a lot of money, when converted into Indian Rupees. So,
> I end up searching the net.

[Nick Lappos]

Dave,
That is an INTERESTING paper, deeply flawed in many ways. I am amazed at
its inability to stay consistent within itself, and in its ability to
understate tilt rotor empty weights, over state hover payloads, and
understate cruise drags. The result is as if the author chose to simply
ignore the data, and used instead his (generous) assumptions to assure his
answers. A bit shocking, frankly, but interesting!
If he were right, the flightmanual data I published would be reversed!
Nick


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:A3C3f.174551$oW2.118938@pd7tw1no...
> Nishant,
>
> You may find this of value.
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930008694_1993008694.pdf
>
>
>>Due to obvious reasons getting
>> the AHS papers is not really an option, as ordering them over the net
>> translates into a lot of money, when converted into Indian Rupees. So,
>> I end up searching the net.
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

Hi Nick,

Are you saying that Stepniewski is no longer your favorite rotorcraft guru?
:)

Stepniewski's major contribution to the field of rotorcraft has been his
comparative evaluations of the different rotorcraft configurations. His
book, 'Rotary-Wing Aerodynamics', the linked report, and his last book,
cover most of the rotor-VTOL configurations. To my knowledge, no one else
has come near his output in the area of comparative analysis.

It would be out of character for me to not close with the comment that; in
Stepniewski's last work, he considered the Slowed Rotor Intermeshing
configuration (ABC - Synchropter) to being the optimal VTOL transport craft.

Dave



"Nick Lappos" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
> That is an INTERESTING paper, deeply flawed in many ways. I am amazed at
> its inability to stay consistent within itself, and in its ability to
> understate tilt rotor empty weights, over state hover payloads, and
> understate cruise drags. The result is as if the author chose to simply
> ignore the data, and used instead his (generous) assumptions to assure his
> answers. A bit shocking, frankly, but interesting!
> If he were right, the flightmanual data I published would be reversed!
> Nick
>
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:A3C3f.174551$oW2.118938@pd7tw1no...
>> Nishant,
>>
>> You may find this of value.
>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930008694_1993008694.pdf
>>
>>
>>>Due to obvious reasons getting
>>> the AHS papers is not really an option, as ordering them over the net
>>> translates into a lot of money, when converted into Indian Rupees. So,
>>> I end up searching the net.
>>
>>
>
>

[CTR]

Nick,

Been traveling. Hope the following is informative.

BA609 USCG Configuration:
Maximum Takeoff Weight. 16,800 lbs VTOL {18,000 lbs STOL}
Useful Load. 5,500 lbs VTOL (6,500 lbs STOL)
Empty Weight. 11,300 lbs

Fuel Capacity. 2,480 lbs Standard Internal
1,500 lbs Additional auxiliary Internal/External
3,980 lbs maximum usable fuel

Maximum Range (nm). 708 nm Std. Internal @ISA
Payload minus Internal Fuel. 3,020 lbs VTOL (4,020 lbs STOL)

Maximum Range (nm). 1089 nm Std. + Aux. Fuel @ISA
Payload minus Int/ExtFuel. 1,520 lbs VTOL (2,520 lbs STOL)


With effort all of the above information can be found on the internet.

In regards to comparing an FAA CAT A certified aircraft to a military
aircraft, the point is that it is not a fair comparison (as stated in
my first postings). If it was, Sikorsky would have FAA certified the
H-60 instead of selling the S-76.

I have no bias toward tiltrotors, helicopters or fixed wing aircraft
(having worked on all three). Each has their own nitch in the market
place. Not being a pilot like yourself, I have only flown simulators
for these aircraft. But the tiltrotor (in my unprofessional opinion)
combined many of the best handling qualities of both helicopter and
fixed wing aircraft. I hope, if you have not had the opportunity
already, that you get a chance to pilot either a BA609 or V-22
simulator.

Take care,

CTR