BA609 is now flying - will it change the industry?

[ppheli]

With the BA609 now flying it seems an opportune time to discuss how it may affect the industry. They are saying FAA certification in 2007, so this is very much speculation, but here are some of my teasers

- are there any types of operation that it will bring which we were not able to do before?
- what will it be commercially (ie cost-wise) better at - I am thinking about wide area search, but will they put a hoist on it to make it an SAR machine? At 275 knots cruise there are some corporates who would like it I expect too.
- many heliports will be too small for it - will it get into EGLW Fayed Field, and can you imagine the landing fee structure in 2007 if it can?
- how will the V-22 experience (aka accidents, groundings etd) impact sales of the BA609, or if the V-22 has a clean sheet from now on, will those accidents be far enough back to be ignored in the sales process? Interestingly Bell announced the V-22 grounding the day before the BA609 flew!! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!

Roll up, roll up! Have your cent/penny worth on the BA609!

[46Driver]

I also have a question: I flew the MV-22 sim down at MCAS New River and the one big difference was that the Osprey had a Blottle (named after General Blot who wanted the machine to have a jet style throttle) instead of a collective. Does the 609 have a collective or a Blottle?

[Old Man Rotor]

Looking at the 609 from an Offshore viewpoint, there are a number of fields that could presently use it.........

North of the Shetlands.....South in the Gulf of Mexico and out of Darwin Downunder.....

All three fields are limited somewhat by the capacity of 332L1/2's, and B214ST's to reach the patch..........yet alone develop anything past that point.

Also at these extreme ranges of the above fleet, the Passenger load is down to 8-10........and guess what the 609 can carry??

My gut feeling is that it will kill the existing heavies on the longer range tasks...

With its range out to around 750 nm at 250 knots.........it will be a mean machine indeed.

With its cheaper purchase price than the 332 L2.......it certainly will be hard to beat.

However if there is any delays in certification..........or any accident or significant incident in the test program, then who knows about its future.

As far as the funny Blottle???....perhaps it is a fixed winged pilots machine afterall....:p

[Heliport]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/ba-609-CoastGuard.jpg

[Butch]

I also have a question: I flew the MV-22 sim down at MCAS New River and the one big difference was that the Osprey had a Blottle (named after General Blot who wanted the machine to have a jet style throttle) instead of a collective. Does the 609 have a collective or a Blottle?


It has a collective.


Butch

[SASless]

Throttle...Blottle...Collective....Thrust Lever....ah heck...I am getting confused! The machine will be a real improvement on the longer legs for sure.....but it will really need to carry more pax to be really useful. The infrastructure will have to change to accomodate it as well. I can just see the PHI/Air Log guys scudrunning at 250-300 knots. Until the FAA accepts, and the helicopter industy matures, it will be a very scary thought to think of the 609 scooting around in the same manner the Gulf boys operate now. At least the 609 should be able to fly high enough to maintain radio contact with the FAA for the first bit offshore but the problems with communication will continue until the FAA gets involved with repeaters offshore sufficient to cover the entire gulf area.

A second thought is how companies that have a Jetranger mindset will be able to handle a complex aircraft like the 609?

[Lu Zuckerman]

When the 609 does go into service the pilots (no matter how many helicopter hours they have) will have a low level of experience at the controls of the 609 including flight time and simulator time. The same is true for the mechanics and electronic technicians. It is not that difficult (in my estimation) to convert from one helicopter to another but converting from a helicopter to a 609 may not be that easy as it is 95% fixed wing and 5% helicopter. This could cause some operational problems until the experience level increases to a higher level.

When I worked on the V-22 program the Marines that flew the V-22 were afraid of the fly by wire control system and as such they did not use the cyclic for forward flight in the helicopter mode. Instead, they tilted the engine Prop-Rotor three degrees forward. Having said that I ask you to return to the photo and look at the position of the engine Prop-Rotor.

:eek:

[Helinut]

Early on, we might expect it to open up some new areas - long distance offshore and offshore SAR. There will always be some mega-rich individuals who will get a "new toy", bought by their companies for them.

I can't see it making much difiference to your average Jet Ranger outfit though, for the foreseeable future.

[Nick Lappos]

Some comments on the Tilt Rotor's advantages, which are never put into true perspective by advocates (How many times have you read, "Tilt rotors carry twice the payload, twice as fast twice as far as helicopters"?) Here is some unvarnished info:

The typical tilt rotor/helicopter comparison made in the sales literature always compares the tilt rotor to the next smaller sized helicopter, a neat trick if the public laps it up. If one selects helicopters with the same empty weight and the same installed power (which is typically the next larger sized helicopter, because tilt rotors are so inefficient) then one finds:

1) Range - Its a draw - Tilt rotors have no range advantage over an equivilent helicopter. This is a fact born of the low payload of the tilt rotor, which never lets its better cruise efficiency catch up with a helicopter.

2) Speed - Yep, tilt rotors are lots faster - The max speed of the tilt rotor is 1.8 times faster, a great advantage. The best range cruise speed is somewhat less, about 1.6 times faster. For typical trips in the 200 to 300 Nm range, this yields trip times that are about 1 hour faster (1 hour by tilt rotor vs 2 hours by helicopter). If the city heliport requires Cat A/JAR Ops Class I, there might be more difficulty for the tilt rotor as its fuel and/or payload drops considerably as the heliport shrinks below 1000 feet length.

2) Payload - Nope, tilt rotors lose bigtime - Tilt rotors carry half the payload of the equivilent helicopter to any range they can go. This is because the tilt rotor weighs so much more (the great big engines and the wing's greater vertical drag in a hover).

3) Cat A performance - Tilt rotors are generally hurting - Tilt rotors have great difficulty meeting the Cat A requirements (or JAR Ops) because their rotors need very much more power.

4) Initial cost - Jury is out, lets see what they charge for 609, V-22 is no bargain - Tilt rotors seem to cost about twice what the equivilent helicopter costs because of all the transmissions, rotor controls airplane controls and tilt mechanism. Figures are hard to get on this, V-22 seems to cost between 55 Million and 80 million. Initial 609 numbers were 8.5 million, but these were withdrawn about 2 years ago. Any more current ones, guys?

5) Maintenance ease - Tilt rotor loses bigtime - Tilt rotors are extremely complex, much more so than a helicopter. They have a full set of tandem rotor mechanisms, a full set of airplane mechanisms and a tilt mechanism. They are as if a Chinook and an F-14 had a baby. For example, the typical tilt rotor has between 26 and 32 flight critical control actuators on it, while the typical helicopter has 8. A typical tilt rotor can have 3 dual MR servos per rotor, 2 dual tilt servos, 2 dual aileron, stabilator and rudder servos, 2 dual flap servos makes 32! This situation is made much worse by the awful weight reduction tradeoffs made to keep the payload usable. Example - the hydraulic lines on the V-22 that handle its 5,000 psi are thinner (0.022" wall thickness) than any other manufacturer allows for pressure lines (0.028" wall thickness is standard for 3,000 to 4,000 psi)! The line that chafed and failed on V-22 was 0.022" thick, there are no plans to thicken them.

Some facts and figures:

While the 609 is often compared with the S-76 family (since it carries less payload than an S-76) , it actually has more installed power than the Black Hawk, and has virtually the same empty weight, too. When reviewing the below, remember the Black Hawk numbers are for the 3000th aircraft built, in full gear; the 609 numbers are for an as-yet unproven aircraft and likely to change very much for the worse.

Bell 609:
Max gross weight 16,800 lbs, empty weight 11,300 lbs, max useful load 5,500 lbs
Cabin Volume 237 cubic feet
Max Range 750 NM no reserve
Max cruise speed 275 knots
HOGE at MGW un-reported
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAircraft/ba_609/techSpecs.html#6notes
PT-6C-67A, 1940 HP takeoff X 2= 3880 HP total
http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_3/3_0_3_2_2.asp

UH-60L/S-70A:
Max Gross weight 22,000 lbs, empty weight 11,700 lbs, max useful load = 10,300 lbs
Cabin Volume 372 Cubic feet
Max range 1140 Nm with 10% reserve, 10 kt headwind
Maxumim cruise speed 149 knots
HOGE at 22000 lbs 3900 ft
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI561,00.html
T700-701C, 1890 HP takeoff X 2= 3780 HP total
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/t700/t700-701c.html

[B Sousa]

Heliport
Nice picture of the Coastline South of Carmel California.

[SASless]

Nick,

Shame on you...confusing the issue with facts!

Now a question.....if the 609 is going to fill a great demand (else they would not be building such a thing...) why can Sikorsky not beat them at that game by civilianizing the BlackHawk and improving the 76.....to the extent that the 609/412 families wither on the vine? It would seem....with the mix of the three aircraft....70/76/92 you guys would have the market tied up in the medium and heavy markets.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick

The V-22 and I assume the 609 have far fewer rotor controls than a conventional helicopter. The collective and cyclic controls are limited to the two sticks, which are directly linked to variable differential transformers. These VDTs send a signal via the computer to the servos of which there are three dual servos connected to the swashplate allowing the prop rotor to function as a conventional helicopter rotor. The electronic flight control system functions in the exact same manner as a CH-47 but no mechanical linkages. The same servos are used to adjust the pitch of the prop rotor which then functions as a propeller on a fixed wing aircraft when in the airplane mode.

The rigging of the all controls from what I understand is done electronically and this includes the servos that are used in the airplane mode.

I bitched and moaned while on the program about the higher than anticipated cycling of the hydraulic system but was ignored. The Prop Rotors are mounted in an elastomeric assembly and when the aircraft is in the Airplane mode any maneuver will cause the Prop to precess just like an aircraft propeller. The aircraft propeller however is rigidized by the support bearings on the prop shaft so they can’t precess but in some cases the tips will deflect. When the Prop Rotor precesses there are flapping sensors that will command the servos to bring the prop Rotor back to the radial position. With a great deal of maneuvering while on a mission the hydraulic system will operate at a very high duty cycle which can effect systems reliability. I was told that even though Boeing built the hydraulic system it was a Bell problem because it was the Prop Rotor that caused the problem. Boeing never told Bell so nothing was ever done.

:eek:

[Flying Lawyer]

Bert
Agree :ok:
Highway 1 around Big Sur has to be one of the most breath-taking sights in the world, from the air and by road. I can't decide if that's the famous Bixby Bridge in the background.
And the locals like helicopters - when there's a highway slide, it's their only means of getting in and out, sometimes for months. Still, I can think of worse places to be stranded than paradise! :D

Lu
Surely you weren't ignored? I can't believe that! :eek: ;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flying Lawyer

In the past on other programs as well as on the V-22 many of my suggestions were ignored for cost reasons and for many other reasons including department management attitude or from the NIH attitude of engineering. I wasn’t the only one ignored but on this forum I can only speak for myself. In the case of the V-22 problem described above it was because of the adversarial relationship between the Product Integrity departments of Bell and Boeing. They did not talk with each other and when they did, nobody listened. That is the way of the aviation industry.

:eek:

[Nick Lappos]

I think Lu confused the mechanical control linkages with the control servos.

Any fly by wire aircraft has a vastly simpler mechanical control linkage set, this is NOT a tilt rotor attribute.

Tilt rotors have all the rotor controls of a Chinook, and the tilt mechanism, and all the airplane controls of an airplane.

SASless, I think you are on to something. Perhaps Sikorsky should develop a large cabin Black Hawk with the power of the 609, but the payload of a helicopter! This helicopter would have more range, more payload, similar operating costs, and similar purchase price to a fully developed 609!

Gee, I wonder what that aircraft would look like?:D

[SASless]

Duh.....well errrrr...probably something akin to the old H-3 airframe....ramp in back....S-61'ish cabin.....Blackhawk mechanical bits......gosh....gee....almost exactly like the S-92 maybe?????? But that is too big to compete with the 412 sized helicopters.....but perfect for military SAR and ASW missions.....and even North Sea or other long distance pax haulling missions.......or do I miss something again?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick

I think Lu confused the mechanical control linkages with the control servos.

No, I made the statement about the control system, which in your post you (possibly) alluded to the control system as being complex. That is what I assumed you were saying. My statement was that the only control linkage was between the collective and cyclic sticks to the respective VDTs as well as connecting the control sticks and from there on it was fly-by-wire. I also believe that the CH-47 would be vastly improved if it had the V-22 control system as opposed to the extremely complex control system presently installed.

:eek:

[Nick Lappos]

Gee Lu, are we reading my post CAREFULLY????? I said, "For example, the typical tilt rotor has between 26 and 32 flight critical control actuators on it, while the typical helicopter has 8."

What part of ACTUATOR confuses you?

Why do you think a fly by wire system would not help a helicopter the same way, by eliminating all the mechanical linkages? Why do you think this is purely a tilt rotor advantage?

After all that is said and done, the tilt rotor has three to four times the flight critical actuators of a helicopter. Period.

SASless, take care with the idea that a 609 is a 412 sized machine. It is a great big machine to the accountant, the mechanic and the fuel bill. It is in fact a fine way to pack all that cost in a smaller body. It does that to get speed, which is its advantage, of course. All I would like to do is be sure we all understant the cost of that speed.

[Dave Jackson]

Perhaps the tilt rotor will be a part of the future.

Sikorsky has a number of patents on a 'Variable Diameter Disk', for use on a tilt-rotor configuration of aircraft. :D

[ppheli]

SASLess
I couldn't agree more about Sikorsky's potential with the 70, 76 and 92. But they don't seem that interested in the civil market and Bell is going the same way. The S76 has averaged single figure sales for years now. The S92 looks like its going in the right direction, but a number of operators will go for a Carson blade 61 for the next N years and see how the S92 fares first. Nick's S70 comparison is interesting but irrelevant as it is never likely to appear in the civil market (OK, apart from that one logging one)

Bell is the same - they seem to be paying lip service to the civil market. 206, 206L, 407, 412 have been crying out for upgrades, now they are dying out for lack of them. The 430 follows the poor sales of the 230 and 222, and the 427 is not exactly rushing out of the door.

Eurocopter will continue to have the civil turbine market to themselves until Robinson develop one....

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick

Why do you think a fly by wire system would not help a helicopter the same way, by eliminating all the mechanical linkages? Why do you think this is purely a tilt rotor advantage?

First of all I was referring to your comment that involved rotor controls among other elements in the V-22 control system. I assumed you were addressing complexity and in my reply I stated that they were not complex because they were fly by wire as opposed to mechanical linkage.

In reference to the quote above I stated the CH-47 would be a lot better if it had a flight control system like the V-22 (fly by wire) as opposed to the extremely complex system that is presently installed. I was not stating that this type of system should not be installed in helicopters but only on tilt rotor aircraft.

:ok: And all that it implies.

[Nick Lappos]

ppheli,
Please don't misunderstand the comparison of a 609 to a Black Hawk, The idea there is to show how a typical last gen helicopter stands up to the tilt rotor technology. I am sure lots of commercial helos will challenge TR's for the market. The point I was trying to make is that helos have lots to offer, even against tilt rotors.
Nick

[Old Man Rotor]

You can certainly develop the existing conventional fleet of mediums and heavies...........however regardless of what you do you will always be a helicopter!!....with its normal limitations.

Offshore folk buy helicopter services on how much it will lift and how far it can haul that weight!!......speed is of a minor consequence.

If the 609 can lift the same weight as an existing heavy [With the heavies payload restricted due to full external and internal fuel tanks]......then it will be a winner by using its longer legs, and the passengers will love the lesser time in cruise.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Whether the 609 will "change the industry" or not depends on how much value is put on its speed. Let's look specifically at the oil industry. Someone has postulated that BH214ST's and the like are limited to 9-10 pax at full fuel; I'm not quite sure if that is true.

For argument's sake let us assume that a 609 will have to make two trips for every one of a 214ST. A 609 would then have to have DOC's half that of the helicopter to even make it worth a look. Somehow, I doubt this is going to be the case.

Initial purchase, DOC, crew costs, unscheduled maintenance, and insurance costs are surely going to be staggering. It will be interesting to see how many companies can find a way to justify them.

[Old Man Rotor]

When I talked about 8-10 pax on the B214ST and the L1's.........I was referring to the seat capacity.......as the large internal [in the Pax Compartment] fuel tanks rendered some of the seats unusable.........

I have no idea if there was a MTOW problem at Max Fuel.......just a seat problem.

And I think its still the case today.

[leading edge]

Old Man Rotor

9-10 pax in a 214ST with full regular and Aux fuel is about right. Also, for a 332L1. FYI, aux fuel in the 332L1 can be held in the sponsons (I think Bristow uses them) which does not require an internal fuel tank/passenger seat configuration. In both, it is an MTOW limitation, not seat availability.

SASless

I think that while there are lots of 206s in the GOM, the whole mentality is not 206 driven any more. You will see larger types coming into service there (ERA has ordered the S92) in the near future.

BA609

I used to think that the 609 would be the end for the large transport helicopters. However, offshore ranges just are not much further than 2-300 miles from land or nearest alternate which means that the advantage of the speed is not really significant enough for most sectors to justify what will be the costs.

With the major manufacturers concentrating so hard on DMCs (Sikorsky led the way here with the stated $800 goal for the S92 but EC are trying the same with the EC225) I see the transport helicopter being the most competetive way to transport passengers over multiple ranges. The 609 will really lose out in terms of economic flexibility over shorter ranges, the versatility of helicopters will continue to beat it.

LE

[GLSNightPilot]

One problem with a 'civilianized' UH60 is weight. At 20,000lb, I don't know of any platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that it can land on. The 214ST/S61 is limited to <10% of the total. Heavy aircraft of any type power have a severe handicap down here.

As for scud-running at 300' - we don't do that in mediums if we can help it. IFR is common. True, the FAA is way behind on communication & radar coverage, but we get by using company flight following & relay to ATC. We get lots of practice in non-radar position reporting. The FAA seems to be working on improving communications, albeit primarily for airliners heading to/from the tropics, but it will help us anyway. There are several proposals for improved radar coverage also, but funding is the holdup for both. One of the problems with current helicopters is range. In order to fly IFR to a platform 200+ NM out, you have to be able to carry enough fuel to get there, then back to an alternate, which may very well be a few hundred miles north of the beach. The ability to fly 600NM or so, with full seats, can make the difference between flying & sitting. And there isn't one current civilian helicopter I know of that will do that. For alternate purposes, speed is very, very important.

As for whether the 609 will change the industry, I think that is yet to be determined, & no one knows the answer yet. If Bell can produce an aircraft with enough reliability, cheaply enough, they have a shot at selling some, but certainly conventional helicopters will still be in use.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Isn't Sikorsky looking at the gyrodyne concept?

[donut king]

The fact that everyone here is in this discussion shows that the " wheels are turning" inside our heads.

That machine has already started to change our industry.

D.K

[offshoreigor]

JUST ONE BIT OF ADVICE:


:eek: NEVER, I SAY NEVER FLY THE "A" MODEL OF ANYTHING! :eek:


Cheers, :eek: OffshoreIgor :eek:

[BlenderPilot]

In 2000 I got an opportunity to go fly for light jets (Beechjet 400A) for a fractional ownership program so I did and got my time in the things.

One of the main reasons for doing this was that I wanted to have the IFR, High Performance Aircraft, etc. etc. experience in case tiltrotors ever came by, I didn't want to be left out for not having enough fixed wing experience.

I got this idea from talking to some of the instructors at FSI who mentioned that whoever was going to fly those things definately had to have considerable experience in both, helicopters and high performance airplanes.

I remember them mentioning that it would be difficult to get a fixed wing pilot to learn to fly a tiltrotor in helicopter mode without previous experience, but almost equally difficult to teach a helicopter pilot with little or no Airplane and IFR experience to fly in the airplane mode.

Although to be honest after having flown both, I'm convinced its easier for a helicopter pilot to transition into thinking like an airplane pilot, than the other way around.

I hope I get my chance sometime in the future and all those hours of packing giant suitcases onto a small plane in the Seattle freezing rain or the boiling La Habana heat were not in vain.

[46Driver]

The Marine Corps is planning on transitioning all of our CH-46E helicopter pilots directly to the Osprey - without much in the way of fixed wing time.
I think you are correct - I went from flying a helo to an airliner and the jet is easier - the biggest hurdle was getting used to the glass cockpit and FMS.

[chuckolamofola]

Nick,

My replies are within your text <>.

Some comments on the Tilt Rotor's advantages, which are never put into true perspective by advocates (How many times have you read, "Tilt rotors carry twice the payload, twice as fast twice as far as helicopters"?) Here is some unvarnished info:

<I never heard any Bell marketing say it would haul twice the payload. I had heard that it would haul the same payload of Puma in the same time as the Puma but would have to make two trips to do so. Now that would be stating that it hauls twice its own payload in the same time as a helicopter twice its size...>

The typical tilt rotor/helicopter comparison made in the sales literature always compares the tilt rotor to the next smaller sized helicopter, a neat trick if the public laps it up. If one selects helicopters with the same empty weight and the same installed power (which is typically the next larger sized helicopter, because tilt rotors are so inefficient) then one finds:

1) Range - Its a draw - Tilt rotors have no range advantage over an equivilent helicopter. This is a fact born of the low payload of the tilt rotor, which never lets its better cruise efficiency catch up with a helicopter.

< But talking about range should also be further broken down on how many pax's you can haul. If all you can haul is both pilots and a verbal message for the max range then you aren't comparing apple to apples either. The Puma's useful load with full fuel to make its max range requires you to drop a lot of pax's and their baggage. One would think the same happens with the S76/BH412. Both the S76/BH412 useful load is a lot less than OEM's published data due to the addition of customer/mission equipment installed after the aircraft leaves the facory. I also don't think an S70/H60 can carry max personnel with full fuel and high density seating out to the published max range either.

BTW,
The 609 comes fully equiped with most customer/mission equipment, so growth after delivery to the customer should be mitigated, unlike the standard BH412/S76 which does not come with all radio's, IFR equipment, navigation displays etc.>

2) Speed - Yep, tilt rotors are lots faster - The max speed of the tilt rotor is 1.8 times faster, a great advantage. The best range cruise speed is somewhat less, about 1.6 times faster. For typical trips in the 200 to 300 Nm range, this yields trip times that are about 1 hour faster (1 hour by tilt rotor vs 2 hours by helicopter). If the city heliport requires Cat A/JAR Ops Class I, there might be more difficulty for the tilt rotor as its fuel and/or payload drops considerably as the heliport shrinks below 1000 feet length.

<I'll take that 1.6 times speed difference especially if I am waiting on a medivac or rescue...

2) Payload - Nope, tilt rotors lose bigtime - Tilt rotors carry half the payload of the equivilent helicopter to any range they can go. This is because the tilt rotor weighs so much more (the great big engines and the wing's greater vertical drag in a hover).

<So, whats your point here? It was never stated that it was an efficient helicopter. Yep, heli's can haul twice as much, 1.6 times slower>

3) Cat A performance - Tilt rotors are generally hurting - Tilt rotors have great difficulty meeting the Cat A requirements (or JAR Ops) because their rotors need very much more power.

<Don't know, have to wait until final certification to see >

4) Initial cost - Jury is out, lets see what they charge for 609, V-22 is no bargain - Tilt rotors seem to cost about twice what the equivilent helicopter costs because of all the transmissions, rotor controls airplane controls and tilt mechanism. Figures are hard to get on this, V-22 seems to cost between 55 Million and 80 million. Initial 609 numbers were 8.5 million, but these were withdrawn about 2 years ago. Any more current ones, guys?

<I have not seen an aircraft yet that did not grow in price after certification. Lets say the 609 grows to 10 million. For the corporate operator that operates an S76 or BH412 or BH430 and a KingAir 200 the 609 could replace both those aircraft with a little change left over.>

5) Maintenance ease - Tilt rotor loses bigtime - Tilt rotors are extremely complex, much more so than a helicopter. They have a full set of tandem rotor mechanisms, a full set of airplane mechanisms and a tilt mechanism. They are as if a Chinook and an F-14 had a baby. For example, the typical tilt rotor has between 26 and 32 flight critical control actuators on it, while the typical helicopter has 8. A typical tilt rotor can have 3 dual MR servos per rotor, 2 dual tilt servos, 2 dual aileron, stabilator and rudder servos, 2 dual flap servos makes 32! This situation is made much worse by the awful weight reduction tradeoffs made to keep the payload usable. Example - the hydraulic lines on the V-22 that handle its 5,000 psi are thinner (0.022" wall thickness) than any other manufacturer allows for pressure lines (0.028" wall thickness is standard for 3,000 to 4,000 psi)! The line that chafed and failed on V-22 was 0.022" thick, there are no plans to thicken them.

<Just like ths S92 there are aids that will help to reduce maintenance. Some are troubleshooting help within the avionics and system software that will help to locate the item at fault, to cockpit diplays that will indicated items like fluid levels where you won't have to rely on a sight glass to determine levels. The 609 also has design changes from lessons learned in the V22 that should also help to reduce unscheduled faults. In a lot of aspects it would not be any more complicated than a Gulfstream 5 other than the additonal gearboxes and shafts. I also strongly feel that a helicopter mechanic will be able to transition to a tilt rotor much quicker than most fixed wing mech's. I have always felt that helicopter mech's make a better fixed wing mech. Most fixed wing mech's are overwhelmed around helicopters. >

<6. Pressurized Cabin - The 609 can fly higher and over weather where the conventional helicopter can't. This could make the difference if the closer hospital is over the other side of a mountain ridge and all of the passes are fogged in. The 609 should be able to fly up and over to the other side. The helicopter has to stay home or head to the next closest hospital.>

<7. Flight into known iceing - None of the current commercial helicopters can do that. Perhaps the S92 will be able to do that in the future, but its not a class of aircraft that we have been comparing.


Some facts and figures:

While the 609 is often compared with the S-76 family (since it carries less payload than an S-76) , it actually has more installed power than the Black Hawk, and has virtually the same empty weight, too. When reviewing the below, remember the Black Hawk numbers are for the 3000th aircraft built, in full gear; the 609 numbers are for an as-yet unproven aircraft and likely to change very much for the worse.

Bell 609:
Max gross weight 16,800 lbs, empty weight 11,300 lbs, max useful load 5,500 lbs
Cabin Volume 237 cubic feet
Max Range 750 NM no reserve <I think is stated at 9 pax's>
Max cruise speed 275 knots
HOGE at MGW un-reported
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theA...ecs.html#6notes
PT-6C-67A, 1940 HP takeoff X 2= 3880 HP total
http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_3/3_0_3_2_2.asp

UH-60L/S-70A:
Max Gross weight 22,000 lbs, empty weight 11,700 lbs, max useful load = 10,300 lbs
Cabin Volume 372 Cubic feet
Max range 1140 Nm with 10% reserve, 10 kt headwind

<Will the Hawk make this max range number with full fuel and max pax's with airline type seats? How many souls do you leave behind to make this journey? I assume the extra fuel is carried out on the external stores pylon? There will be a lot of places the S70/UH60 can't go due to its physical size and weight over the 609.>

Maxumim cruise speed 149 knots
HOGE at 22000 lbs 3900 ft
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,..._ETI561,00.html
T700-701C, 1890 HP takeoff X 2= 3780 HP total
http://www.geae.com/engines/militar.../t700-701c.html

[John Bicker]

And the disk loading and the subsequent downwash? Can of worms on it's own. I think it would rule out ever fitting a winch. I don't think this is an aircraft that could land on an unprepared surface.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

I love these people who theorize that there are scads of companies out there operating both a (insert your favorite combination of fixed-wing and helicopter here) whose CEO's are sitting around the conference room table dreaming, "Gee, if there were just ONE aircraft that could do both jobs..."

The other laugh I get is when people think that cost-conscious hospitals are going to pay the incredible acquisition/operation costs of a 609 and the crews that will fly them (at least, in the U.S.)

It's fantasy. But whatever. If that's what people need to justify the 609, I guess that works.

[212man]

<7. Flight into known iceing - None of the current commercial helicopters can do that. Perhaps the S92 will be able to do that in the future, but its not a class of aircraft that we have been comparing.


...Apart from the EH-101 and the AS332 of course. Plus the EC-155 as of later this year.

[Lu Zuckerman]

The primary operating base for the USMC V-22 is the LHA (a small aircraft carrier) that positions itself about five to ten miles off shore depending on if the enemy is shooting back. So, the initial distance the V-22 has to travel is five to ten miles which means that it will be in the aircraft mode for a very short time so the speed advantage over a helicopter is minimal. They often talk about supporting troop movements hundreds of miles inland. If they were that far inland the US Army would have replaced the Marines in most cases so the Marine V-22s would no longer be involved. So there is really minimal reason to flaunt the speed advantage. The only reason you can flaunt the speed advantage is when addressing the Air Force V-22 that is used for pilot rescue. In this roll it vastly outperforms a helicopter in a similar roll. However it has minimal ground suppression capability and therefor is vulnerable when in the helicopter roll. The same problems relative to availability also apply (see below).

So in the operational world the speed advantage of the USMC V-22 is mooted. Another point never discussed is the survivability of the V-22. It is a sitting duck in the helicopter mode and if it suffers major structural damage the V-22 or its; major assemblies must be transported to the manufacturers facility or a military overhaul depot for repair. This seriously effects the operational availability of the V-22 squadrons attached to the LHA. Here is a little tidbit that was discussed by the Navy personnel at Boeing. They indicated that if a V-22 landed on an assigned parking spot and it could not fold its’ wings and prop rotor in a specified amount of time it would be pushed over the side to make room for the next V-22.

:rolleyes:

[slgrossman]

Lu,

You're thinking in terms of 1950's amphibious assault tactics. If your fleet is five to ten miles off the beach it becomes pretty obvious where the assault will be coming ashore.

From the very beginning one of the primary attractions of the tilt-rotor along with the LCAC (hovercraft) for the Marine Corps was its ability to deliver an assault from over the horizon. This prevents the enemy from concentrating his forces, while allowing the amphibious fleet the flexibility to maneuver at will and remain beyond the range of shore batteries.

In other roles, such as deep insertions or non-combatant extractions the significant increase in speed translates to less exposure time, giving the enemy less time to react, increasing the odds of successful completion.

I doubt the tilt-rotor is fast enough to make much difference against anti-aircraft weapons or to outrun an aerial threat, but the increased speed will undoubtedly make the difference as to whether an insertion is opposed or an extraction can escape before the enemy can respond.

-Stan-

[46Driver]

You beat me to the punch - the justification for the V-22 is so that it can do over the horizon assaults. However, with the assault into Afghanistan, the Corps proved that its own heavy lift CH-53E's were able to go long distance (and the Navy's MH-53E's carry even more fuel (about 22,000 lbs vs 15,500 for the CH-53E's) while being able to carry more than double the load of the Osprey. Who knows what is going to happen with the Corp's procurement....

[Skaz]

So if the 609 isnt commercially viable as a charter platform or hauling freight etc to oil rigs, then it kinda narrows the ops down.

Seems like EMS or SAR type ops fit the bill. Plus transport for high power executives/VIP's from urban areas to something like site office for exploratory mining/logging etc ops or Ski lodges etc...

Still wanna fly one though:}

[Lu Zuckerman]

The original design concept for the LHA was to be alerted of a mission and starting from cold Iron build up a head of steam, load the troops and equipment and in eleven days or less be steaming in a two mile oval off the coast to be invaded. Granted this was pre V-22 and pre LCAC. The original design mission used a fleet of CH-53s and CH-46s along with a smattering of UH-1s and conventional landing craft. Now the LHAs are forward deployed and the 1800 marines are already on board. They will at some point have the V-22s on board but they will still have a contingent of large helicopters aboard as well as AV8-B Harriers. Since there is limited hanger space on the LHA, the numbers of each type aircraft will be limited. So, if they are twenty miles or more offshore the effectiveness of the V-22 may be shown up but the helicopters will have to fly further so there is a tradeoff in overall effectiveness.

The LHAs presently in the Persian Gulf are conventionally equipped with the exception of the LCACs however the troops and their equipment are already on shore so the original design concept is already out the window. If the V-22s were involved in the present day scenario they would be no more efficient than the helicopters and with the atmospheric conditions existent in the desert it would be stupid to send the V-22s in to support the troops fighting in the desert.

Over

:cool:

[chuckolamofola]

Skaz said:
"So if the 609 isnt commercially viable as a charter platform or hauling freight etc to oil rigs, then it kinda narrows the ops down."

Why wouldn't it be viable for offshore? The current aircraft in the GOM can't go out to the edge of the waterfall with more than 6 or 7 pax's either, especially on the long legs where max fuel distance is required and there are no other platforms with fuel along the way.

212 Man,

Only the EC155 is near the class of aircraft that we have been talking about, I forgot about it.

PPRUNE FAN #1 said:

"It's fantasy. But whatever. If that's what people need to justify the 609, I guess that works."

I guess the 80 or so orders logged for the 609 are people who can fantasize in real terms as they put real money down.

What gets me is how everyone feels threatened by this aircraft, maybe its the old resistance to change. I don't think it will replace the helicopter but in fact find a niche market that neither a helicopter or fixed wing can currently do alone.

Chuck

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

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!

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Oh dear! My bad, as the kids say. I made a huge boner...er, mistake. And that's something you won't hear the number one PPRuNe fan admit often. So bask in it, lads.

In my above calculations of what a tilt rotor *might* cost to operate, I completely forgot about overhaul reserves. I kind of glossed over them when I was coming up with maintenance costs. Sure, Bell will warranty the components against premature failure, but the operator will still be on the hook for the reserves to be set aside for the rotables.

...Which gets me a-wonderin' just how much all those proprotors, gearboxes, swivel thingees, and those big engines are going to cost to overhaul? Any guesses? Whatever you come up with, just add that number to the $5,400/hour figure. Do I hear $6,000 per hour? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Whew! Sorry. There, I've composed myself now. I'll try not to lose control like that again. And I hope you chaps won't let me get away with such an oversight in the future.

Many thanks.

[t'aint natural]

Okay, Lu says it's a goer...
Nick says it's a pile of poo (and gives the dimensions thereof)...

Tough choice.

[Shawn Coyle]

One of the things that is almost never discussed is the way the machine is going to be operated. It is certainly not going to have the flexibility of operation of a helicopter for some interesting reasons.
It is going to be certified to a basis that is not published yet (like Part 25 or Part 29 is open to all to see). The cert basis is being negotiated between the manufacturer and the FAA. But because of the weight, it will be a combination of Part 25 and Part 29, which has some interesting performance implications.
The manufacturer has to demonstrate compliance with some performance numbers for takeoff distance, hover capability and single engine height velocity. You probablyl will not be able to hover the machine inside the HV curve, just as you can't do that with a Part 29 machine with more than 10 seats. So, takeoff performance will have to be pretty tightly scheduled, and that will mean quite specific takeoff profiles to meet the Flight Manual performance. Ditto with landings.
And if the manufacturer wants more latitude in the takeoff and landing profiles, they will have to be demonstrated, which will make the flight test program huge - the variables are amazing when you start to think about them. The aim will be to get good enough performance out there quickly, so don't expect much flexibility in terms of takeoff and landing profiles.
Attempts to find out performance for helipads and the like from the XV-15 didn't have much response from anyone, so we're really pushing back the frontiers with the 609.
It will be an interesting evolution, as they say.

[talvin]

Hi everybody.

Anyone know what kind of licence will we need for 609? Helicopter, fixed wing or both?

[ATPMBA]

To answer some questions and make some points about the 609:

The FAA under Part 61 (pilot certification) talks about a POWERED-LIFT category rating, it is similar to airplane requirements.

In a previous post one of pprune’s fans mentioned some cost numbers about the 609. He gave an example of a corporation flying 300 hours a year. Having been involved in both air taxi and corporate flying there are two different mindsets. In air taxi you need to make money with your aircraft or you are OOB (out of business). In the corporate world the aircraft are a justifiable expense that is primarily used by the chairman and a few other higher ups. Gold plating cabin fixtures in a medium business jet for an extra $20,000 was only worthy of a 15 minute discussion between company officials and completion center reps before "yes" was reached. They did spend money on a good avionics package. In the air taxi Lear Jet we did have two HSI’s.

A corporate aircraft can fly 300 hours a year and be justified. No commercial operator can fly 300 hours a year and survive. The corporation I worked for flew 500-600 hours a year for corporate work.

From a previous post flying the 609 for 300 hours a year would cost $5,400 an hour (without reserves). However, flying it 600 hours a year would result in $2,900 an hour.

In believe in my area the S-76 walk in rate are $3,000-4,000/hr. Some folks are picked-up at their homes/estates and flown 150nm to their destinations. A cruise speed of 275 looks pretty good over a helicopter especially when the folks have to pay both ways even if it’s a dropoff. And 10 million for a 609 versus 8 million for a S-76 is close. Another factor is with the speed of a 609, an operator who has multiple helicopters may need less 609’s to do the same work of helicopters.

Last spring I looked into some Super Puma training in the U.K. I was quoted 3,800 pounds/hour, with currency conversion and the VAT the total would be about $7,000/hr.
Surely, the oil companies must get a better rate.

[Heliport]

Dallas Morning News report
Jul. 6 WASHINGTON -- The Marine Corps' top aviation officer has asked Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. to study arming its executive jet-sized BA609 tilt-rotor aircraft as an escort for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor troop transport.
The request by Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, deputy commandant for aviation, is a striking vote of confidence in the V-22 and in the future of tilt-rotor aircraft. The V-22 program was nearly canceled after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.

"I would have done this earlier, but I didn't even know if I had a V-22," Gen. Hough said, referring to the Osprey's near-cancellation.

Critics still regard the revolutionary method of flight as highly risky.

Gen. Hough said the V-22 will need some type of armed escort to carry Marines into combat zones, and only a tilt-rotor will do. Helicopters are too slow for the job, and jets are too fast.

Bell expects to make a presentation to Gen. Hough and his staff this summer, he said.

The company's other concepts include:
--An attack tilt rotor designed more or less from scratch.
--Replacing the V-22's fuselage with a thin gunship fuselage but using the Osprey's wing and rotors.
--Creating a new type of tilt-rotor aircraft that could take off and land like a helicopter but fold its rotors in flight and use a jet engine in flight.

The BA609 designed for civilian use by Bell and British-Italian partnership AgustaWestland first flew in March 2003 and is in flight tests. Gen. Hough estimated that an armed derivative could be ready for flight testing as early as 2015.
That would be about the time that Bell will finish rebuilding 180 AH-1Z Cobra helicopter gunships for the Marines. The Cobra's missions include escorting the Vietnam-era transport helicopters that the V-22 was designed to replace.

Bell and AgustaWestland have promised to sell between 70 and 80 BA609s for about $10 million apiece to civilians who put down a $100,000 deposit, but the aircraft will cost more in the future.

The General said he asked Bell for a conceptual design of an armed escort because two years of flight tests of the revamped V-22 have left him certain that tilt-rotors will revolutionize military aviation. "It's the wave of the future, and it's going to change military aviation forever," Gen. Hough said.

Three years ago, after two crashes killed 23 Marines, Corps leaders feared they might have to cancel plans to buy 360 of the innovative aircraft to replace their aging troop transport helicopters. But after a special commission studied the causes of the crashes, the Pentagon approved a redesign of the Osprey followed by rigorous new flight testing that began in May 2002.

Gen. Hough said his "greatest fear" today is that once the V-22 receives Pentagon clearance to go into full production, other armed services will try to horn in on the Marines and get Ospreys first. The Marines plan operational tests of the V-22 over the coming year. They hope to win Pentagon approval next August to begin full production.

The Pentagon and Congress have approved purchases of 11 Ospreys a year since 2001 from Bell and its partner, Boeing Co.'s helicopter division, even as the aircraft was being redesigned and tested. If the Pentagon gives the go-ahead next summer, Gen. Hough said, plans call for ramping up that rate to 44 a year.

The Special Operations Command, for example, which is testing two V-22s at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., officially wants 55 Ospreys for commando operations and pilot rescue, but "their requirement's really 77," Gen. Hough said. The National Guard also is interested in V-22s for a range of missions, including homeland security, the general said, and several countries have expressed interest.

After the crashes in 2000, "people lost a hell of a lot of confidence in tilt rotors," Gen. Hough recalled. "As soon as they see that this thing works like a champ, I think they'll sell a lot of them."

Full report here (http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=53620906&ID=cnniw&scategory=Aviation&)



http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAircraft/ba_609/images/coastGuard_500.jpg

http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAircraft/ba_609/images/BA609_1_800c.jpg

[diethelm]

Given the glowing assessment, any particular reason the V22 was excluded from the presidential lift proposal.............

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: diethelm

Two reasons (among many others) come to mind. The level of reliability does not meet the requirements for a presidential helicopter (Powered lift aircraft) and in the helicopter mode it can’t autorotate. Its rate of descent is 4-6000 feet per minute. When in the airplane mode it was assumed that the hydraulic servos would only be used to control the pitch of the Prop Rotor ™ which would be minimal however the design of the Prop Rotor ™ allows it to move due to gyroscopic forces during maneuvering causing a high demand on the hydraulic system effecting it’s reliability.


:E :E

[diethelm]

Lu:

I was being acidulous. Even a bit facetious.

sorry,

[blave]

Seems to me a much cheaper alternative would be to either build some more OV-10 Broncos (twin turboprop used in Vietnam as a FAC aircraft) or just use A-10 Warthogs. Both can go low and slow and especially the A-10 can lay down some withering close support hell from above.

Back either of those up with an AC-130 gunship and the V-22s might even have enough time to descend at a rate that won't get 'em into VRS :D .

Dave Blevins

[rjsquirrel]

It seems that maneuverability would be a real problem for a tiltrotor. Does a gunship have to maneuver much? Can a tiltrotor do it?

[OFBSLF]

While I'm certainly a fan of the A10, how would an A10 or Bronco operate off a helicopter carrier?

[RDRickster]

That's why the V-22 is attractive... it fits the Marine Corps model. I'd rather have a Warthog (A-10) raining bullets on the LZ than anything else. It is S-L-O-W, armored, and deadly effective against anything on the ground. When the $hit makes contact with the fan, aircraft manueverability can be important, as well. The Osprey seems kinda weak in that arena. For moving troops from point A to point B in a fast and effecient manner, agility is not so important and the V-22 will do well.

For tactical operations, especially commando type insertions, a high degree of maneuverability and additional power will be EXTREMELY important. No matter what it is spec'd out for, you can bet that we will add more weight requirements for the special ops folks in short order. Just look at recent military history and the modifications made over the years. Heck, just look at how much they have to change just to get some tilt-rotor gun-ships!!! Why the heck don't they design these things with 5 times more power than you need so we can grow into them with safety to spare (and so the planners and war-fighters have the flexibility they need for future conficts)?

[FlyAny]

Common aircraft acquisition strategy in military helicopter aviation is that when the cargo and utility aircraft have longer legs or are faster than the gun cover; get a better gun cover provider.

The US Army tried to defeat the high long-term cost of this method by getting way out in front of gunship need with the Advanced Attack Aerial Weapons Platform (think that’s pretty close), the Cheyenne.

But they needed an interim aircraft to fill the gap till the AAWP could be built and fielded. Bell built the interim aircraft from current experimental designs and lots of off the shelf parts.
The Cobra.
Pretty good interim aircraft I'd say.

[charlie s charlie]

Navy orders investigation into latest Osprey mishaps

By ANTHONY J. SANFILIPPO , [email protected] 07/08/2004

The Navy has convened a board to investigate the latest problems with the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

Following two test flights that went awry off the coast of Maryland, the Navy was required to enlist the board because the estimated cost of damage was between $20,000 and $1 million, or a "class B mishap."

The V-22 is a plane-helicopter hybrid being developed jointly by Bell Helicopter Textron in Texas and the Boeing Co. in Ridley.

The most recent malfunction occurredJune 28 when a blower that cools oil for the tilt-rotor failed as the aircraft hovered above the deck of the USS Iwo Jima.

The pilot was forced to land the Osprey in what officials call a "land as soon as possible emergency."

Without the cooling system, a pilot has only three minutes to land the V-22 before the rotors are destroyed.

However, if the Osprey is in airplane mode, the aircraft can fly, although the rotors would be destroyed when it lands.

This was the first incident of its kind in more than 6,000 flight hours.

The V-22, is no stranger to mishap review.

Two fatal crashes in 2000 forced officials to overhaul and restructure the program.

"This is totally routine and is done all the time," said Boeing spokesman Jack Satterfield. "By doing this, the Navy is looking to avoid similar incidents in the future."

Satterfield said there would be no effect on the production of the V-22 because test flights are continuing.

"There have been other minor incidents with the V-22 like this one, like warning lights going off in the cockpit," Satterfield said, "but nothing that would put the aircraft in significant jeopardy."

According to Satterfield, the problem has already been isolated and it appears the fan that failed was an older model, made by an outside contractor, that has since been upgraded and replaced in newer prototypes.

Navy officials have decided that a separate Judge Advocate General investigation is not needed.

Unlike JAG investigations, the details of a mishap board investigation are generally not made public.

©The Daily Times 2004

[NickLappos]

Cooling fans spin at very high speed and have lots of energy. If they catch debris or just come apart, they can toss chunks into critical areas, as this one did. The cooler can also be punctured and oil loss compounds the problem. One press report said an outside crewman was treated because he felt a piece hit him.

Modern fans are designed to contain the chunks, this one clearly was not able to do so. Reports indicated the newer design (that was not yet installed on this aircraft) has containment built in.

Such "turbine burst protection" is part of the new regulations, including all coolers and engines, but older designs do not have to refit to meet the new requirements.

[whitespiral]

What about scheduled city to city VIP transport? Assuming the 609 could reach a fixed wing scheduled operator's utilization (~3000hrs) then it would still have to charge about twice the business class fare.

This is assuming the 6 pax VIP configuration which I've sat in and I believe is the limit with regard to what people not accustomed to small aircraft would feel comfortable in-comfortable enough that is to justify the steep price.

The insurance figures I read above were enormous compared to what I'm used to seeing. Light Business jets are something like 0.20% for hull and $100m liability.

My estimation of fuel costs, (with $3.00/gal) are about $1.35/nm.

If it were to go into charter and operate leaving a 20% EBIT for the operator, than the prices are as follows:

1000hrs-$5,700/hr
600hrs-$8,700/hr

That's enormously prohibitive.

And BTW, this is with the latest acquisition price I've been told..."no more than $16 million".

So the only real solution for revenue service seems to be to put it on a schedule, in dense routes, and at twice the fares of current airline business class prices.

So the question comes down to whether passengers would be willing to pay prices this steep in order to avoid the entire airport/airline infrastructure.

And all this, assuming you could fly the aircraft for 3000hrs per year...

[GoodGrief]

Let's see
3000hours divided by 365 days/year gives a mere 8.3 hours a day, every day.
Not going to happen.
Well, maybe in the offshore business.

[SASless]

WhiteSpiral,

Add to your matrix of problems the complete absence of a low level off airport IFR enroute and terminal structure.

Nick has discussed the problem and cure here at Rotorheads before. Nothing has changed to improve the situation outlined so well by Nick.

(I drink single malt Scottish whisky, Nick!)

The 609 or any other Helicopter flight from off airport to off airport sites under IFR are so handicapped by the current IFR system's limitations, there is no hope of that kind of operation succeeding.

[B Sousa]

Just in case your interested as to Heliports superimposed picture. The backround is looking South along the Carmel California area.