Well at least you read data, CTR. Now read the tilt rotor data with the
same vigor! Just as I left off the minor load reduction for the 53 (2 tanks
at 800 lbs each, not the mysterious, non-existant 3,000 lbs), I left off the
wing tip tank weight for the V22, and did not discount the payload by the
2,000 lbs shown on the Navy web site. As a little exercise for you, now
that you are finally reading data, find these V22 reductions and reduce the
V22 payload, too. Don't make too much of your new found knowledge, CTR,
note that my chart shows the CH53E carrying 5000 lbs to 900 nm, and so does
the Sikorsky data (which I gave you, BTW). My chart is quite accurate, thank
you, CTW.

I do admire how you decided to take over this debate by continually trying
to find the 'missing" 3,000 pounds, but you never discuss the fact that the
V22 carries 2,000 lbs less than I show! Nice work, CTR.

Nick


"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nick,

You need to look a little closer at the data from Sikorsky at :
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf

Did you even notice those steps in the load range curve? Or didn't you
read your own data? Those drops in load capability correspond with the
added weight of the external and internal fuel tanks required to meet
the 1120 KM range. These steps in load carrying capability total over
3,000 LBS (why does that number sound familiar). So if you plan to fly
the CH-53 over 470 KM you need to add over 3,000 LBS of fuel system
hardware. This of course reduces the CH-53 paylod capability by .....
(pause for added drama) over 3,000 LBS.

So how sure are you about the rest of your data?

Have fun,

CTR