Does V-22 Go Twices as Far, carry Twice as Much?

Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
this:

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

Hey Nick,

Thanks for the link. I read your writings in PPRUNE usually and I find
you very knowledgable. Keep them coming Nick. Very much appreciated.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

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

CTR wrote:

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 those who might like a (hopefully) objective view of the possibilities of
upgraded conventional helos vs. tiltrotors or the like to meet the proposed
Future Transport Rotorcraft spec, and the technical and tactical issues raised
by the spec, I'd recommend reading the following:

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1713/

The article on heavylift rotorcraft (as well as the proposed ATT) here is also
useful:

www.vtol.org/pdf/hirschsping02.pdf

Guy

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

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

CTR,

You are wrong about the CH-53E weights, your mistakes weaken your case. Here
is the exact data that I used. that you didn't bother to read:
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,185,00.pdf

Also, according to the Navy Program Office web site, the V-22 carries about
2,000 lbs less than I show for its payload range. I was conservative in all
aspects, because the tilt rotor needs no help proving how poor it is at
carrying stuff. See this web site, which shows 484 mile range (242 mile
radius) with 24 troops (6,000 lbs). I credit it with about 8,000 lbs at
that range. I was helping it look good, so that I would'nt be accused of
sandbagging it.
http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/index....ction=aircraft.

Regarding stuffing V-22 to the gills and staggering off, it will not be
based on carriers, it must hover on and off Marine Assault ships. Its the
Mission, CTR, not the theoretical weight it can barely take off with. The
CH-53E (and all helicopters) have considerable overload margin, as well.
The Russians use it regularly, but US helos don't because it is hovering
that they get paid to do. Restraining helos to hover weights and allowing
tilt rotor to load up otherwise is one of the ways to put lipstick on that
pig. The max demonstrated weight ever flown by the V-22 is 10,000 lbs less
than what you count on for the long range mission. Of course, its only been
16 years since it first flew, lets give them a little more time..........

I read your assertions about 50X improvement due to systems safety for the
BA-609. I heard that about the V-22, and look how well that turned out! I
have a bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy.....

You seem to think I slanted the data, but I used published flight manual
performance. You haven't even dented the basic premise I asserted.
Helicopters carry twice as much, and go just as far. At least we picked up
this newsgroup a bit!!

BTW, did you know that the V22 cannot carry the payload of a Black Hawk when
both operate in Afghanistan? At 5 times the cost and 6 times the power, it
cannot carry the weight, and has less range than a UH-60L at 10,000 feet!
Great bargain, we all should buy one. No lets buy two, so we can lift what
one helicopter can carry.

Nick

"CTR" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Nick,

As Emeril the chef says, "Lets kick it up a noch".

We can battle about 3000 LBS all day. And the CH-53 doesn't have to
worry about pushing its envelope to the max, having an accident and
getting its program canceled. You have also never responded to my
points on deck spotting factor (size), self deploy range (even without
the benefit of external tanks) or max altitude. All areas where the
V-22 is better than the CH-53. You seem (like many Igor fans) intent
to make the Tiltrotor compete against a Helo where a Helo is best. Why
can you not accept that for missions where speed, range and CRUISE
altitude is required a Tiltrotor is better? And why would a V-22 hover
at 10,000 feet for extended cruise when it can fly like an airplane?

You also seem to want to beat on the BA609 as a key to your argument.
But again the BA609 is a civilian aircraft with a pressurized, sound
proofed and airconditioned cabin. It has more in common with a Lear
Jet 35 than a Helo. Remember its the MISSION.

I can tell you are fighting to close the holes in your premises when
you start making unsubstantiated comments like " I read your assertions
about 50X improvement due to systems safety for the BA-609. I heard
that about the V-22, and look how well that turned out! I have a
bridge in Brooklyn for you to buy..... "

How about learning something about the BA609 reliability before you
make a comment like that. Go to the AHS site below for a good read.

http://www.vtol.org/pdf/61PropulsionII.pdf

Your opinions have a lot in common with with the nay sayers of the jet
engine 65 years ago. "The jet engine is too expensive, unreliable and
burns too much fuel. Ok it is a little faster than a piston engine,
but is that extra speed worth the cost?"

Have fun and keep an open mind,

CTR

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

Nick,

Would it be fair to toss a third rotor configuration in to the competition?

How about the Side-by-Side Kamov KA-22 "Vintokryl:

http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/KamovKa-22.htm

~ Speed of 192 knots [record]

~ Payload of 36,343 lbs [record]

~ Gross weight of 65,036 lbs

This is a 44-year-old helicopter. Just think of what could be done with
today's engines and composite materials.

I think that it's a slam-dunk for the Vintokryl.

Dave



"Nick Lappos" wrote in message
...
Just to keep the juices flowing, and get this newsgroup buzzing again, try
this:

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