Info on Tilt- Rototrs Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.