CTR is so off base, he confuses the units on the charts. The ranges shown
are all in 1050 Nautical Miles.
Yes, in the presentation, aux tanks are used for both types, tilt rotors and
helicopters, and their weight (payload reduction) is accounted for properly.

I stand by my numbers, they are impeccable. A tilt rotor carries half the
payload to the same range as a helicopter, and it has less transport
efficiency, and costs twice as much for the same payload.

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/...comparison.pdf

Nick


"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
For those willing to take a close look at Nick Lappos's presentation
and it's referenced supporting data, please note the following:

1) The 1,050 KM range shown for the CH-53 in Nick's presentation is
with additional internal and external aux tanks installed. Using only
normal internal fuel tanks, the CH-53 ferry range is only 590 KM.

2) The 1,030 KM V-22 ferry range shown in Nick's presentation is
actually 2 X the 515 Amphib Assault mission range. With internal ferry
tanks installed the V-22 ferry range is 2,100 KM. Twice that of the
CH-53.

3) The 1,150 KM ferry range shown for the MILITARY UH-60L in Nick's
presentation is with four additional 230 gallon external aux tanks
installed. Using only normal internal fuel tanks, the UH-60L ferry
range is only 290 KM.

4) The 750 KM ferry range shown in Nick's presentation for the CIVIL
BA609 is with using only current internal fuel tanks. This is almost
three times the UH-60L ferry range. With internal tanks planned for
the Military BA609 version, ferry range is increased to 1,000 KM.

In short, for Nick's presentation, using as many internal and external
aux fuel tanks as possible for the CH-53 and UH-60L is acceptable. But
the use of even additional internal aux tanks on V-22 or BA609 is
prohibited.

So Nishant, do your own research before you draw any conclusions.
Don't take anyone's opinion (even mine) until you look closely at all
reliable data sources.

Good luck,

CTR