Eurocopter, 4 new rotorcraft by 2020, X4, X6, X9, ..

[keesje]

Eurocopter is developing 4 new helicopters this decade.

X4 - 4-5t helicpter, first flight 2015
X6 - 11 t helicopter, first flight 2017
X9 - light twin, first flight 2019
X? - medium helicopter using X3 technology (militairy?) first flight 2017-2020

Little information available it seems, this artist impression has been floating being representative for the X4. The tail looks unsymmetrical. The other types would use the same technology as the X4, that is under full development.W'll see more p[robably this summer. Fly by wire, side-sticks, glass cockpit etc. are part of the program.

http://oidnes.cz/13/021/cl6/VSE4902d5_EurocopterX4b.jpg

Eurcopter tested the new 70% more silent rotor. These are sound recordings from inside the cabin:
Eurocopter Blue Edge rotor blade noise reduction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dBS1NRsYuF8)

http://www.onera.fr/actualites/images/2010-0503-helicopter-eurocopter-pales-blue-edge.jpg

[SASless]

One of them to be a replacement for the 225 I bet.

What kind of trade-in value would you get for a used 225 I wonder?

[nbl]

How predictable:sad:

[keesje]

That would be the X6 a 11t helicopter first flight in 2017.

Eurocopter To Launch Super Puma Replacement | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2012-12-13/eurocopter-launch-super-puma-replacement)

[Rig shifter]

Let's just hope that they can supply bits for the things faster than they can for our Gazelle!

[keesje]

Gazelle, that would be the X9 :} :ok:
Eurocopter to build X9 at Donauwörth (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurocopter-to-build-x9-at-donauwrth-375101/)

I must say launching 4 programmes for first flight this decade surprized me. EADS Eurocopter must be extremely confident and well financed.

It seems they managed to complete the X3 program satisfactory. In secrecy until roll out, very unusual for Europe. The forth unnamed program should build on X3 and X4 technology. No doubt a very fast and expensive machine, suitable for e.g. special operations.

Apart from the militairy double rotor push fan development, are there similar advanced technology programs in the US? I remember the US companies were dominant until the nineties with Bell, Sikorsky, Hughes, Boeing, MD.. Victims of the fall of the wall?

[SASless]

I thought France was on our side of the wall? Did I miss something?

[keesje]

SASless, I checked the OEM websites and get the impression those US manufacturers are strong on militairy machines

- Bell; UH1/Cobra, Kiowa, 525 being a fresh civil one.
- Sikorsky; BlackHawk and civil variants, CH53s, a few light ones
- Boeing; Chinooks, Apaches from 30-50 yrs ago, Ospreys
- MD; limited portfolio there was there 20 yrs ago

Bell has been mass producing the 206 since the sixties, a popular series with many derivatives. The new Bell 525 Relentless seems well positioned for the future, but doesn't look extra efficient / high tech / silent compared to other rotorcraft of the last 20 yrs.

I get the impression on the civil side the US companies haven't seen much R&D investmentd during the last 10 yrs and I do not see any future programs getting launched.

Most civil products seem to have a militairy background. Cutting back on that after the wall falling, might have something to do with it. But maybe I missed something, hence my question.


---------
A FG graph I just found seems to suggest the european manufacturers have taken over. What went wrong in the US, IMO the largest heli market?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/assets_c/2011/10/BizTable-thumb-560x457-142415.jpg

[John R81]

What we actually need is a gearbox upgrade to the EC120 to release more power.

Or is that just me????

[Bitmonx]

R81.......you couldn't be more correct!!!

Upgrade the EC120 now!!! Kind of like they did the AS350B to the AS350BA.

[SansAnhedral]

What went wrong in the US, IMO the largest heli market?

Tough to compete with a european consortium funded by huge sums of interest-free multi-government-backed loans and grants.

[heli1]

Oh and the US manufacturers aren't? They get more than enough investment through their government programmes but haven't invested the profits in R and D,relying instead in spinning off technology from the military research programmes.

[Gemini Twin]

Blind reliance on continuing military orders and complacency killed the US commercial helicopter industry.
Can it come back? Time will tell but it's going to need much more than the Relentless!

[keesje]

It seems the US Army is all to aware of the position of the US industry. The Osprey is the last big new innovative program and dates back from the eighties.

Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Investing in the Future (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/Investing-in-the-Future_76258.html#.URrPYaN5mSM)

[riff_raff]

Oh and the US manufacturers aren't? They get more than enough investment through their government programmes but haven't invested the profits in R and D,relying instead in spinning off technology from the military research programmes.The situation surrounding the pace of commercial rotorcraft technology development is different than that of other types of commercial aircraft. It takes huge amounts of time and money to bring any new commercial helicopter model to market, even more so if the model involves lots of new technologies. The total global annual market for new commercial rotorcraft is not that large, in terms of numbers or value, compared to the market for commercial/business fixed-wing aircraft. Thus it is very hard for management of a publicly-held company like Sikorsky or Bell to justify committing hundreds of millions of shareholder dollars on a completely new model, for a period of up to 6 or 8 years until it produces some positive cash flow and profit.

This is not to say that there is no new technology in the commercial rotorcraft market. It's just that the types of new technologies are those that can be integrated into existing models. Things like better blades, better avionics, active vibration control systems, FBW controls and software, etc.

A perfect example of how difficult it can be to bring an advanced commercial rotorcraft model to market is that of Bell with the 609 tiltrotor. I would also point out that Sikorsky/UTC is spending its own money to develop the S-97 model.

[keesje]

A perfect example of how difficult it can be to bring an advanced commercial rotorcraft model to market is that of Bell with the 609 tiltrotor.

From Wiki:

In 1996, Bell and Boeing had formed a partnership to develop a civil aircraft; however, in March 1998, Boeing pulled out of the project. In September 1998, it was announced that Agusta was now a partner in the development program.[1] This led to the establishment of the Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company (BAAC), a joint venture between Bell Helicopter and AgustaWestland, to develop and manufacture the aircraft.[2]
...
On 21 September 2009, AgustaWestland chief executive Giuseppe Orsi said that corporate parent Finmeccanica had authorised buying Bell Helicopter out of the program in order to speed it up.[10] By 2011, negotiations centred on the full transfer of technologies shared with the V-22.[11][12] At the 2011 Paris Air Show, AgustaWestland stated that it will assume full ownership of the programme, redesignating the aircraft as "AW609", and that Bell Helicopter will remain in the role of component design and certification.[13] In November 2011, the exchange of ownership was completed, following the granting of regulatory approval.[8]

Riff_raff, it seems even when they were the driver seat for new technology Boeing and Bell pulled out. While they were selling quiet well it seems.


I would also point out that Sikorsky/UTC is spending its own money to develop the S-97 model.

Reading the PR it seems they are competing for a US DoD program. It sure looks like a promising design. Maybe civil spin off in a later stage. As far as I can see there's nearly always NASA, Darpha and or AFRL contributions in. Indirectly, providing basic technology, patents, facilities, resources. Just like in Europe.

[Ian Corrigible]

Upgrade the EC120 now
Shame this (http://www.helilynx.com/images/pdf/120FX%20STC%20Concept%2015Feb08.pdf) never proceeded past the study phase

Tough to compete with a european consortium funded by huge sums of interest-free multi-government-backed loans and grants
As with the Airbus vs. Boeing spat, there's some truth to both arguments. In the rotorcraft world, the high-volume DoD programs allowed Sikorsky, Boeing and Bell to enjoy significant scale economies, underpinning the production efficiencies and low cost sourcing introduced by these primes. And the European loans are to some degree countered by DoD Independent Research and Development (IRAD) funding under FAR 31.205-18 (though ironically one of the civil programs to have most benefitted from IRAD is the AW609 (http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1901089&postcount=1)).

Blind reliance on continuing military orders and complacency killed the US commercial helicopter industry
This is an interesting question. When Bell's Terry Stinson famously stated in a Rotor & Wing interview in February 2001, "In all honesty, if we had the chance to enter the commercial helicopter manufacturing business from scratch, in today’s market, I wouldn’t do it. It’s not profitable enough." he was widely derided. But from Stinson's perspective, he was probably just calculating that 360 V-22s and 280 UH-1Y/AH-1Zs were equivalent in value to 23,000 JetRangers. And at the time it probably seemed a lot easier delivering Ospreys, Venoms and Vipers than that many 206s.

I/C

[PhlyingGuy]

It looks like the X4 is finally going to be released to the public:

6Z1WVCVYsy0

.... ummm... that looks kind of familiar....

fs4RWw-ZuzM

I guess there are only so many ways to introduce a helicopter?

[tottigol]

Best way to introduce a new design is to follow up with orders and deliveries, and most and foremost delivering the performance you promise.
Airbus and Bell are selling vaporware.

[jimf671]

... What kind of trade-in value would you get for a used 225 I wonder?


If you want to trade it in for type that fewer people have died in then you might struggle.

[riff_raff]

Best way to introduce a new design is to follow up with orders and deliveries, and most and foremost delivering the performance you promise.
Airbus and Bell are selling vaporware. I would agree that the delivery delays of most new commercial aircraft products in recent years seems to have gotten completely out of hand. But I would not agree that Airbus and Bell are "selling vaporware" with these marketing videos. From what I have seen the commercial helo market is entering a phase of significant technology development. There are advanced composite structures being widely used for airframes and blades. There are active control systems for improving aerodynamics and significantly reducing NVH. And there are many new turboshaft engine models that will provide significant improvement in power, reliability and fuel economy. These technologies all exist, are ready for use on production aircraft, and we will see them used on the new models from Airbus and Bell that were teased in the videos.

[NickLappos]

Not Vaporware:


Sikorsky S-97 Raider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-97_Raider)


Sikorsky, Boeing Expect To Fly JMR Demonstrator in '17 | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://archive.defensenews.com/article/M5/20141014/SHOWSCOUT04/310140036/Sikorsky-Boeing-Expect-Fly-JMR-Demonstrator-17)

[riff_raff]

NickLappos-

The S-97 prototype rolled out last Oct. sure is a pretty aircraft, and I hope it performs as good as it looks.

Are there any technical developments being used on the S-97 (beyond those obvious from published photos) that you can publicly discuss? There isn't much on the internet and I didn't find anything in the AHS index. I'd love to learn more about the S-97's unique rotor hub arrangement and drivetrain. Has Sikorsky published any technical papers on the rotor hub or drivetrain that are available to the general public?

[SansAnhedral]

:= To date the S-97 has the exact same time aloft as the 53K, X4, and 525...not to mention late itself!

The S-97 hub and drivetrain are derived from the X2, essentially the same. There are numerous ABC patents that illustrate some details.

It appears, from press photos at least, Sikorsky maybe solved the riddle of the sail fairing that never flew on the X2. I suppose we will have to wait until the Raider actually flies to see if thats the case, as the X2 was always photoed with the fairings installed on the ground as well.

And Nick, a 30,000+lb GW rigid rotor ABC coax is still squarely in the vaporware category. I'm sure you can appreciate the scaling issues between the two; as long as Sikorsky keeps spinning the S-97 into only being a "slight" step from SB-1 I am convinced that they will try to use the Raider as the FVL demo aircraft.

It certainly would be embarrassing when they make the requisite changes to get an ABC up to 30,000lb (rotor spacing) and can only fly 170kt due to the massive drag increase.

[Stinger10]

Tough to compete with a European consortium funded by huge sums of interest-free multi-government-backed loans and grants.

SANS- Are you kidding me? Take a look at how many $BILLIONS have gone to US OEM's as sole source, "single source" competitions or "ECP" upgrades which are a whole new aircraft :ok:

VXX, CRH, FVL/JMR, Navy C-2 replacement (V-22), Navy H-60 fleet, Marine H-1 fleet, H-53K, Army TH-67 replacement (new UH-72s) ....... Any questions?

US companies are well taken care of by US gov't backed funding.:ugh:

[SansAnhedral]

For every sole-source contract awarded in the US there are equal numbers awarded in the Eurozone.

What I am referring to are state sponsored industry consortiums that are funded for decades-long pie-in-the sky R&D projects - something which most certainly does not happen on the same scale in the USA. IRAD money is a trickle in comparison, especially considering civilian applications.

Consider NICETRIP (http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/201210/20121026_104409_61291_Aerodays_2011.pdf), a civilian-specific program funded entirely by government funding. That would be unheard of in the USA.

[Ian Corrigible]

Sans,

The US has had plenty of its own civil-funded programs - AGATE, GAP, SATS etc. - though the funding associated with Clean Sky 2 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/544202-airbus-helicopters-plan-follow-x3.html#post8642120) is eye-watering, to say the least ($1.99 Bn).

I wouldn't agree with IRAD being a trickle, though. As we know, Bell spent "roughly $300 million or more" (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/507723-eurocopter-4-new-rotorcraft-2020-x4-x6-x9.html#post7696747) of taxpayers' money on the BA609 (before handing the program to AW), and having seen first-hand a top-tier OEM deciding what to expense against IRAD each year, the word boondoggle comes to mind.

I/C

[skadi]

Next video:

NZTVd4UM8FE

skadi

[Stinger10]

sans- You're right because the "real" money and unlimited revenue stream without any expectation of ROI is in DoD where as I pointed out there is NO shortage of US Gov't subsidization aka: Sole source contracts/Single source solicitations

You can't be suggesting that revenue gained, without the need of expending company resources to win the gov't business (because the award was sole-source or single competitor), doesn't get rolled back into commercial endeavors? :ugh:

Just look at the open "UH-60 checkbook" the gov't has supplied Sik. and tell me that they haven't rolled any of those $$ into other R&D efforts (including civil S-76D, or S-92) ? ..... and I don't criticize them for doing it either. Revenue should be plowed back into R&D.

WE should really watch how self-righteous WE are about this topic.

Competition in DoD is really a UNICORN. Frequently discussed, but rarely seen......

[SansAnhedral]

Well it appears we are in agreement....because every aspect of defense procurement you are bemoaning with the USA occurs in European defense acquisitions just the same.

The only difference is that, in addition to sole source contracts and rolling profits back into products, we see massive, multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar civilian projects that are directly funded by government cheese without the auspices that it isn't just for the socialist-style employment guarantee and industry development to compete with the USA.

Think Boeing vs Airbus. Airbus enjoys the $2 billion investment the Eurozone makes in Cleansky 2. The counter argument is that Boeing enjoys the profits from US tanker contracts, AH-64, F/A-18, etc. Well, Airbus also enjoys the same funding from their own domestic military contracts like the A400, C295, Eurofighter, etc with the same sort of shenanigans going in contract award.

[heli1]

Hmmm Sans Anhedral.This argument is a bit chalk and cheese.What you haven't factored in are the huge orders guaranteed by the U.S. government through direct purchases and subsidised FMS ,compared with Europe. Take the Apache versus Tiger for example or the H-60 family versus NH90.....huge profits for the U.S. industry ,much of which incidentally they have failed in the past to reinvest in R and D.

[Stinger10]

Heli_1 - couldn't have said it better myself :ok:

Sans-I believe you were the one who started the conversation bemoaning European subsidization, and now you are simply rationalizing the same "subsidizing-like" activities by the US government. The field is level from that perspective.

Why I said "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."

New AF-1 is another bright shining example. A simple trade study was all the USAF did before deciding that Boeing wins...... I believe the P.M. of the UK flies in a 777. Why not at least challenge Boeing so the taxpayers get the best deal possible?

Does anyone doubt that competition is best for the consumer in a free market?

[ShyTorque]

Airbus quote:

Our latest offering will be in a class by itself. Literally.

There was a highly disliked and delinquent kid from a troubled family background, at our local village school, who was like that.

[MikeNYC]

And the A-Star has unceremoniously been renamed the H125, among other renaming.

Airbus Helicopters Unveils H160 Medium Twin | Business Aviation: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-03-03/airbus-helicopters-unveils-h160-medium-twin)


EC120 Colibri is now H120

AS350 B3e Ecureuil/AStar is now H125

AS355 Ecureuil/TwinStar is now AS355

EC130 is now H130

EC135 is now H135

EC145 is now H145

EC155 is now H155

AS365 Dauphin is now AS365

EC175 is now H175

AS332 Super Puma is now AS332

EC225 Super Puma is now H225

[Hawkeye0001]

And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... :} I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French... :rolleyes:

[keesje]

This helipcopter was planned to have a much more radical cockpit and FBW. But it would have be ready for service by 2018.

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large/public/uploads/eurocopterx4cockpit_0.jpg?itok=hcxxz2fC

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large/public/uploads/eurocopterx4cockpit_0.jpg?itok=hcxxz2fC

A few years back new Airbus Helicopter management decided getting to market early had priority. Specially the Agusta Westland helicopters proved very succesfull in this segment.

Operators weren't really demanding the new cockpit / FBW so they let it go to speed up the project.

http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/content/dam/avi/online-articles/2015/March/AirbusHeliAvionics.jpg

What will be interesting is if it will really be more quiet, fast and comfortable. It's a head turner anyway.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/03/DF-AIRBUSX4_3_AirbusHelicopters.jpg


They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference.

dBS1NRsYuF8

[Bravo73]

And I thought there was a logical system behind the naming conventions at Eurocopter... :} I would've expected that a Civilian 6 Ton Twin would be designated as EC165 (or AH165 for that matter...). And designating the AS-350 as H125 would make it a 2-ton civilian twin.
Oh, the French... :rolleyes:

My post from the H160 thread:

Also, a small point for the spotters/nerds, H160 seems to change the previous EC naming convention. '1' = civi, '6' = 6 tonnes but '0' = single engine. I would've expected it to be the H165.

[HeliHenri]

Hello Bravo73,

The EC naming convention is over.
We are now in the "H Generation" and that's a mess.

The EC145T2 is now the H145, logical.
But .... the EC145e is now the EC145 ! Why not the H145e ?! :ugh:
And the AS365N3e is now the AS365N3e !! Same thing for the AS332C1e !! :ugh:

[Hawkeye0001]

@Bravo73: Saw. Made me happy to see that I'm not the only nerd around :ok:
I really begin to wonder what kind of person is running Airbus Helicopter's marketing department (I'll never get used to that bloated new name...). Eurocopter had such a cool ring to its name... and now this pathetic mess with the new random naming conventions.
Perhaps they should invest all this energy and money into working on their terribly slow product support

[Rigging Pin]

"They have been testing the quiet rotor technology for some years & it seems to really make a difference"

But what is the point if they keep on using the noisy fenestron?
On the 120/130 variants it sure is quiet but on a N3/155 the thing seems to make more noise then the main rotor.... Maybe that's just me :hmm:

RP

[John Eacott]

http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/comics/2015-03-10-cw0878.jpg

Nuff said ;)

[keesje]

John too funny ;)

Now that the X4 (H160) is out, next one would be the X6, twice as big.

Should already be in production.

What will be become its name?

The usual political / jobs / financing fight for industrialization is there.

UPDATE 2-Airbus faces deadlock over French helicopter development loan | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/airbus-helicopter-loans-idUSL6N0WM31M20150320)

[Ian Corrigible]

Further to the 'H brand renaming (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/507723-eurocopter-4-new-rotorcraft-2020-x4-x6-x9-2.html#post8887714),' the AS332 C1e/L1e has now "evolved" into the H215 (https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Romania-to-host-production-of-new,-robust,-and-cost-effective-H215-heavy-helicopter_1865.html) (not to be confused with the H125 (https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/ref/H125_29.html)).

Perhaps more interesting, from the perspective of the new naming philosophy, is the low-key launch of a further iteration of the H135 (https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Norwegian%20Air%20Ambulance%20becomes%20launch%20customer%20 for%20the%20newly%20improved%20H135_1842.html) (ex-EC135) during Helitech (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/567055-helitech-2015-a.html).

Vertical (http://www.verticalmag.com/digital_issue/2015/v14i6/files/2.html) reports that this latest variant will feature a redesigned aft cabin roof offering an additional 5.8 cu. ft. of volume (enabled by the elimination of the old-style frontal engine air intakes in favor of lateral intakes on the H135, and the subsequent re-positioning of avionics gear), plus the Helionix avionics suite and a 4-axis autopilot.

So now we will have four aircraft using the same H135 designation:
The Turbomeca-powered model formally known as the EC135 T3 (which was first delivered last October (https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Airbus-Helicopters%E2%80%99-first-enhanced-EC135-T3/P3-enters-service-with-Aiut-Alpin-Dolomites-in-high-altitude-rescue-operations_1632.html))
The Pratt & Whitney Canada-powered model formally known as the EC135 P3 (which was first delivered in March (https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/VIDEO:-First-H135-with-Pratt-&-Whitney-engines-delivered-to-German-rescue-organization-ADAC_1735.html))
The TM-powered version of the updated H135
The P&WC-powered version of the updated H135.
Gonna be interesting to see how long this new 'suffix-free' naming convention lasts, given the confusion that the EC145 (ex-EC145e) is already generating (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-helicopters-works-to-enhance-capabilities-of-419704)... :E

I/C