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/mil...22/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