I stopped by and talked to AVX while at the Quad A show this week. Some interesting points that I took away from my brief conversation:
1. Performance is listed as 120kts as mentioned before. Anyone know what the speed is on a standard OH58D?
2. Even with the added height it is still supposed to be able to fit into a C17
3. I asked if the fuselage would handle the added stress from the forward thrust of the fans and was told "no problem". I wouldn't argue the point as I'm not an engineer but as I recall that isn't the most sturdy area of that airframe so I guess we will see.
4. Yaw control is accomplished by differential thrust but there will be an additional twist grip on the collective to add forward thrust.
5. I asked if the current hydraulics from the OH58 would be up to the task with two rotor systems to control and he wasn't sure. He said they would have to wait and see how it goes. I would have expected that to be figured out ahead of time but maybe not.
6. He said they actually have a gearbox already designed but nothing made yet. He said they could have a working prototype aircraft in under 18 months ....if the money was there.
I think it is a neat concept to use what you already have and make it better but I'm not sure if the bennefits out weigh the effort. The speed doesn't seem to be anything to write home about. The high altitude performance (6K 95) might be better than the over loaded OH58D but do you really need to go to a coaxial rotor system and pusher props to get there? Bell seems to think a bigger engine and larger diameter rotor system in a conventional layout will get it done just fine if you look at their ARH offering. I admit I haven't compared performance specs between Bells ARH and what AVX is proposing but with the same basic airframe underneath I can't see AVX getting THAT much more.
My two pesos!
Max