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/...comparison.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/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