It's not that people feel threatened by the tilt rotor, it's just that some of us are v-e-r-y skeptical about its practical application. Let's look at operating costs, for instance. Let's assume that some corporation is going to buy a 609 and fly it 300 hours per year.
We'll ignore the debt service for now. But at US$10million per copy, the monthly note will no doubt be steep. We'll also ignore all maintenance costs on the assumption that Bell will probably have a pretty good warranty (for that first year, at least). We'll even assume that the corporation already has a helicopter mechanic on staff that can go to 609 school for free.
So let's start with crew costs. Bell humorously notes that the 609 crew will be "1-2" people. At 16,000 pounds gross weight? Yeah...right. Let's be realistic and say that there are going to be two people in corporate (if not *all*) 609's at a total cost (including benefits) of about $200,000 per year. And that's if you only hire one crew.
Oops, you mean you want better availability? Better hire at least another crew (just double the above figure). Bell will probably include the training for two pilots for every 609 sold. I wonder how much they'll charge for subsequent crews? Let's not worry about that right now then, eh? Let's also ignore the cost of recurrent training (perhaps at the six month level?) which will surely be mandatory and just as surely not be free.
Fuel. Bell is being very cagey about that. The 609 has horrible endurance- only three hours to dry tanks (and that's probably in its most-efficient mode). Since no figure is published, let's assume 100 gph per side for those huge engines. That's probably pretty close. 200 gph total times $2.00 per gallon gives us $400 per flight hour. For fuel. $120,000 per annum.
Insurance. Let's apply current helicopter rates of 10% of the hull for liability and 3% for the hull. If it's any better than that I'll be a monkey's uncle. Thirteen percent of $10million is $1.3million per year.
Let's leave off hangar rent (which will surely be expensive since the bl**dy thing takes up so much space).
Okay, so far we're up to $1,620,000.00 in operating costs for 300 hours of flying. Whip out yer calculators, boys. I did and I get an hourly rate of $5,400 per hour.
$5,400 per hour.
Perhaps an EMS operator could shave that a bit by hiring cheaper crews (oh, that's rich- considering the rarity and newness of the aircraft). Then again, an EMS bird will have to be crewed 24-7 (how many pilotos X dos is that?). Maybe other operators can budget cheaper fuel. But still, I wonder how much it's going to cost to haul some car-wreck victim or canyon-hiker from scene to hospital?
And so this is why I'm skeptical. Commercially viable? I don't think so, at least not in the U.S. On the other hand, corporations are notoriously cost-conscious, and the 609 is going to have a hard time justifying its existence there too. Heh- having a 609 in the fleet just might finally give helicopter pilots some job security! Then again, everybody would be worried about the bean-counters shutting the whole dang operation down.
Oh, there might be a few companies that buy/operate it for the prestige of saying so. But that's what Beechcraft thought about their Starship...and they were sooooo wrong. (But that aircraft didn't provide the leap in capability that the 609 does...over a regular helicopter - certainly not over a King Air...not with that measly 3-hour endurance.)
So we'll see. I think that when the numbers-crunchers put pencils to paper and see what this thing is really going to cost to operate, there will be more than a few heart attacks in corporate boardrooms. Hey, maybe that'll generate a need for the 609 after all!