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/...comparison.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