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

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

Nick,

You are getting closer to accepting the real payload value for the
CH-53. I got you to accept 1600 LBS for the external tanks. Now how
about the added internal aux tanks? How do you explain the approx 1500
LBS step at 470 KM in the Sikorsky data?. Could it posssibly be the
weight the internal aux tanks?.

While you are re-looking at the Sikorsky data, take a look at the air
refueling load/range line. Note that the Air to Air hardware has its
own weight penalty. So with internal tanks, external tanks and the
refueling probe installed the CH-53 payload is only 30,000 LBS, not
36,000 LBS, BTW, the retractable V-22 probe is included in the weight
you show.

Your chart is decieving because it infers that the same CH-53 that
lifts a load of 36,000 LBS can also fly 1,120 KM. That is why I stated
in a earlier post "Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan
to use the 1120 KM self deployed range then you will be accurate".

Next, when have I I tried to defend, justify or repute the V-22
HELICOPTER mode load/range data you quote. I just assumed that you
were using the worst possible values you could find anywhere to make
your case. Still trying to understand a V-22 cruising in hover mode at
10,000 ft instead of flying as an airplane. Can you explain why a
Tiltrotor would do that?

Also I never heard of wing tip tanks on a V-22. The MV-22 has
additional internal tanks in the fuselage, Do you mean sponson tanks?

Finally, to Dave Jackson, welcome to the sling fest.

Have fun,

CTR

CTR,

It is clear that you have no idea how to read a payload-range chart, why are
you even debating? The chart shows all possible missions, each range point
on the curve is a specific mission. The 36000 lb payload can be carried 1
mile, the 5000 lb payload can be carried 900 miles. If there is no payload,
the distance is over 1100 miles. Your ****-poor attitude leaves you unable
to learn here. The chart I provided is a simplification, quite accurate, of
the Sikorsky chart. You are doubly a fool, you are wrong, and you do not
know what you are talking about. You are simply not equipped to discuss
this.

The tip tanks are described on the Navy web site, and in the V-22 flight
manual I have read (and you clearly have not). That Navy web site shows the
V22 having 6000 lbs of payload at 485miles. Spot that on my chart and see
that I have given them closer to 8,000 lbs of payload, and they still suck
as compared to a helicopter.

When you mention the fuel probe, you grasp at straws, the probe is also in
the H-53E weight, wake up and smell the coffee. If you were not so
beligerant, you might learn something.

Why dont you email me and we can go slowly in private?

Nick


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

You are getting closer to accepting the real payload value for the
CH-53. I got you to accept 1600 LBS for the external tanks. Now how
about the added internal aux tanks? How do you explain the approx 1500
LBS step at 470 KM in the Sikorsky data?. Could it posssibly be the
weight the internal aux tanks?.

While you are re-looking at the Sikorsky data, take a look at the air
refueling load/range line. Note that the Air to Air hardware has its
own weight penalty. So with internal tanks, external tanks and the
refueling probe installed the CH-53 payload is only 30,000 LBS, not
36,000 LBS, BTW, the retractable V-22 probe is included in the weight
you show.

Your chart is decieving because it infers that the same CH-53 that
lifts a load of 36,000 LBS can also fly 1,120 KM. That is why I stated
in a earlier post "Correct your empty weight up by 3100 lbs if you plan
to use the 1120 KM self deployed range then you will be accurate".

Next, when have I I tried to defend, justify or repute the V-22
HELICOPTER mode load/range data you quote. I just assumed that you
were using the worst possible values you could find anywhere to make
your case. Still trying to understand a V-22 cruising in hover mode at
10,000 ft instead of flying as an airplane. Can you explain why a
Tiltrotor would do that?

Also I never heard of wing tip tanks on a V-22. The MV-22 has
additional internal tanks in the fuselage, Do you mean sponson tanks?

Finally, to Dave Jackson, welcome to the sling fest.

Have fun,

CTR

Nice input., Dave. The Vintokryl is a good alternative, and it compares
quite nicely with the helicopter. The payload was 36,000 lbs and the
horsepower was about right (13,000 HP) so it lays on the line with a single
rotor helicopter, and far above a tilt rotor. Dr. Mikheyev gave a paper at
a conference that I was at and espoused that configuration. I will dig up
some details (maybe email Dr. Mikheyev) and post the comparison.

I think that payload was done with a rolling takeoff, as the gross weight
was eyewatering, and the hover performance was much poorer than a single
rotor helo (wing drag costs about 10% of total payload, but the wing adds
about 20 knots of cruise speed). The program was cancelled, reportedly
because of the aeroelastic problems between the rotors and wing. That is
also the reason why the early tilt rotors were not successful, and why the
V22 is a testament to the dynamic analysis technologies designers have
today.

Note that both the KA-22 and the CH-53E have the same horsepower as a V22,
but carry twice as much payload as the tilt rotor, even though the V22 has a
much more efficvient structural design, due to the fact that it was designed
40 years later. If a helo were designed with the same tools, the V22's
payload would look even worse.

Nick


"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:IbHZe.556210$s54.151893@pd7tw2no...
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

Nick,

Now don't get snippy just because the holes in your case are causing
your myopia and prejudice to become evident. Your have distorted facts
to make your case by "simplifying" your data.

Yes I know how to read a load range curve, and it is obvious that you
know how to distort one. Note that I am kind enough to call you an
inadvertent liar instead of questioning your intellect.

Its the mission remember? Look at the air refueled line on the
Sikorsky chart. Now follow it to the vertical axis of load. Now read
the load. Is it 30,000 LBS? So you need to add approximately 6000 LBS
equipment to the CH-53 to perform this mission correct? For the V-22
to perform the same mission how much equipment do you need to add? 0
LBS!

Why can't you just be fair in your comparison instead of distorting
facts. I already said that the twice the speed and twice the range
clams of the V-22 guy were stretch of the facts. Why can't you be
better than them and keep your case honest?

And take this off line? Not until the civility of this discussion
drops to name calling. Then I drop out both on and off he group.

Have fun,

CTR

Again your lack of knowledge shows through, CTR. You do not know how to
read this technical data, and are not equipped to understand it. You have
not yet found the shortfalls of the V22 in the data, because you are too
biased to even try, yet you still seek the myhhical 3,000 lbs, now grown to
a mythical 6,000 lbs.

You misunderstand the refuel line, also. The aerial refuel line shows the
maximum weight at which the CH-53E is approved to hook up with the tanker,
CTR, and in no way infer that any equipment has been left off. The CH-53E
weights shown INCLUDE the USMC shipboard mission equipment, and represents
the weight of the hundreds of in-service CH-53E aircraft.

As I have stated, the helicopter, either a Black Hawk or a CH-53E outlifts a
tilt rotor by a factor of TWO to ONE, and goes the SAME range and you have
done nothing credible to shake that proof. Any distortions you think you
have found are in your understanding of HOW to measure these aircraft, not
the way I have done so, but you think I must somehow be biased. The fact
that you have not tried to understand the "extra credit" I have given the
V22 shows that you are the biased one here.

Let me ask, what qualifications do you have to be so misunderstanding of
this technical data?

Nick


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

Now don't get snippy just because the holes in your case are causing
your myopia and prejudice to become evident. Your have distorted facts
to make your case by "simplifying" your data.

Yes I know how to read a load range curve, and it is obvious that you
know how to distort one. Note that I am kind enough to call you an
inadvertent liar instead of questioning your intellect.

Its the mission remember? Look at the air refueled line on the
Sikorsky chart. Now follow it to the vertical axis of load. Now read
the load. Is it 30,000 LBS? So you need to add approximately 6000 LBS
equipment to the CH-53 to perform this mission correct? For the V-22
to perform the same mission how much equipment do you need to add? 0
LBS!

Why can't you just be fair in your comparison instead of distorting
facts. I already said that the twice the speed and twice the range
clams of the V-22 guy were stretch of the facts. Why can't you be
better than them and keep your case honest?

And take this off line? Not until the civility of this discussion
drops to name calling. Then I drop out both on and off he group.

Have fun,

CTR

Both articles discuss the pros and cons of alternative rotor configurations
etc. However, they give absolutely no consideration to Active Blade Twist.

Imagine a group of Roman generals sitting at the local winery have a couple
of glass of libation. They have come from watching the gladiators at the
coliseum and are discussing the pros and cons of different sword shapes.
They are so engrossed in this discussion that the fail to give any
consideration to the little oriental person in the corner who is busy mixing
potassium chloride, sulfur and charcoal.

Active Blade Twist is the essential precursor for Generation II rotorcraft.

It is significantly beneficial for all configurations. However, the
Interleaving configuration could well become the medium/heavy lift
rotorcraft of the future, and for this configuration, Active Blade Twist is
mandatory.

Nick,

Lets keep to the facts and lighten up on the name calling.

1) On slide 4 of your presentation you state the CH-53 max payload as
36,515 LBS. From slide 5 you show the max ferry range to be
approximately 1,100 KM. In the Sikorsky data you referenced however,
to achieve both these points the CH-53 has to be reconfigured by adding
or removing external and internal aux fuel tanks. The external tanks
by your own statement weigh 1,600 LBS. I extrapolated from the
Sikorsky curve the internal aux tanks to weigh approx 1,500 LBS (please
supply a wt. if you disagree). The V-22 does not require aux tanks to
meet this range. Therefore to be an unbiased comparison you need to
subtract the weight of the aux tanks from the max payload value. .Or
conversely not use the range provided by these aux tanks

2) From the Sikorsky data, any mission requiring air refueling reduces
the CH-53 range by 6,000 LBS. From this same chart I assumed that was
due to the combined weight of aux tanks and refuel hardware. You
stated that this in a inflight performance restriction. Either way,
does not this large drop in payload deserve at least a foot note on
slide 4 and 5. Especially since the V-22 does not suffer from this
restriction?

3) To make your case you are willing to use the best performance data
for the CH-53 with or without added aux tanks and not bothering to note
the air refuel drop in payload. However when asked to consider the
increase in V-22 maximum gross to 60,500 pounds (STOL) from the
52,600pounds (V/STOL) you dismissed this as being unrealistic. Data
source Naval Helicopter Association.

4) When you admitted to an error by omitting the CH-53 externat aux
tank weight, you said your case was still sound because you also made
an error on the V-22 data. Maybe in PPRUNE two wrongs make a right.
But in a professional technical paper two wrongs just call into
question all data that is presented. If you data is wrong (even if it
is minor), admit the mistake, correct it and check the rest of your
data for other errors.

Finally, if you plan to just post this presentation on the web to have
online bull sessions, your presentation and attitude is great
entertainment. But if you plan to submit this as a paper or
presentation to a professional society, don't bias the facts and loose
the attitude dude.

Have fun,

CTR

PS I have 25 years of Aerospace engineering experience on many verticle
lift aircraft including the AV-8B Harrier, won multiple awards for
best paper by both AHS and SAE and have seven patents in the field of
aerospace technology. How about you?

It is hopeless, CTR. You refuse to read the chart properly, and you refuse
to admit your inability to do so. You are hopeless. I only pray that you
do not fly aircraft, you would be dangerous if you did.

Nick


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

Lets keep to the facts and lighten up on the name calling.

1) On slide 4 of your presentation you state the CH-53 max payload as
36,515 LBS. From slide 5 you show the max ferry range to be
approximately 1,100 KM. In the Sikorsky data you referenced however,
to achieve both these points the CH-53 has to be reconfigured by adding
or removing external and internal aux fuel tanks. The external tanks
by your own statement weigh 1,600 LBS. I extrapolated from the
Sikorsky curve the internal aux tanks to weigh approx 1,500 LBS (please
supply a wt. if you disagree). The V-22 does not require aux tanks to
meet this range. Therefore to be an unbiased comparison you need to
subtract the weight of the aux tanks from the max payload value. .Or
conversely not use the range provided by these aux tanks

2) From the Sikorsky data, any mission requiring air refueling reduces
the CH-53 range by 6,000 LBS. From this same chart I assumed that was
due to the combined weight of aux tanks and refuel hardware. You
stated that this in a inflight performance restriction. Either way,
does not this large drop in payload deserve at least a foot note on
slide 4 and 5. Especially since the V-22 does not suffer from this
restriction?

3) To make your case you are willing to use the best performance data
for the CH-53 with or without added aux tanks and not bothering to note
the air refuel drop in payload. However when asked to consider the
increase in V-22 maximum gross to 60,500 pounds (STOL) from the
52,600pounds (V/STOL) you dismissed this as being unrealistic. Data
source Naval Helicopter Association.

4) When you admitted to an error by omitting the CH-53 externat aux
tank weight, you said your case was still sound because you also made
an error on the V-22 data. Maybe in PPRUNE two wrongs make a right.
But in a professional technical paper two wrongs just call into
question all data that is presented. If you data is wrong (even if it
is minor), admit the mistake, correct it and check the rest of your
data for other errors.

Finally, if you plan to just post this presentation on the web to have
online bull sessions, your presentation and attitude is great
entertainment. But if you plan to submit this as a paper or
presentation to a professional society, don't bias the facts and loose
the attitude dude.

Have fun,

CTR

PS I have 25 years of Aerospace engineering experience on many verticle
lift aircraft including the AV-8B Harrier, won multiple awards for
best paper by both AHS and SAE and have seven patents in the field of
aerospace technology. How about you?

Hello Mr. Lappos

Would it be fair to toss a fourth rotor configuration in to the competition?
www.diskrotor.com

George

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:IbHZe.556210$s54.151893@pd7tw2no...
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