If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 he 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/...comparison.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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nishant,
You may find this of value. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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/ca...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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EW model "D" IGC approved flight recorder- info needed | MC | Soaring | 0 | March 7th 05 07:14 PM |
Ball 620H vario info needed | Ray | Soaring | 0 | December 16th 04 03:13 PM |
Info needed: Slingsby Sky | Erwin Janssen | Soaring | 0 | January 13th 04 08:35 PM |
Groom Lake/area 51 Migs from 70s info needed | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 23 | September 13th 03 05:16 PM |
RB-47H info needed for model | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | August 3rd 03 03:54 AM |