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