What's the latest on tilt rotors?

[Banjo]

out of interest does anyone know how the CAA will class the tilt rotors? fixed or rotary licence or yet another new one altogether with many many silly rules to aquire one.

[belly tank]

Banjo

I think you may find pilots will have to be dual rated, hold both commercial licences, IFR,ATPL ETC. dont quote me on this i just heard it somewhere about 12 months ago.

cheers BT

[Tony Chambers]

licencing

thats a good question and im sure someone will have the answer. i know that the us military on the v22 osprey have to do both lots of training. and its not quite vtol either.

[NickLappos]

In the US, the certification of tilt rotors has been careully planned, and a new FAR Part for tilt rotors has been drafted, bearing similarities to the airplane and helicopter sections of FAR where needed.

Pilots will have to be certified in the tilt rotor with a "powered lift" certificate, with emphasis on the limits and transitions, and use of simulators to a great extent. Here is a page that describes the training needed:

http://www.bellagusta.com/html/FAQs/...html#15special

Note - That page has one obvious error on it, where it says:
"What are the range comparisons between tiltrotor and helicopters? A tiltrotor will have somewhere between two and three times the range of almost any helicopter made." In point of fact, a tilt rotor has no great range advantage over a helicopter of the same empty weight and power. A modern helicopter always has a payload and range advantage over a similar tilt rotor, due to the much poorer payload capability of the tilt rotor.

The Boeing civil tilt rotor does not yet exist, and they have backed away from the Agusta-Bell 609, which is undergoing flight test (progress check, anyone?) The Bell web site is years out of date, it doesn't even mention the successful first flight of the 609 months ago.

[Ian Corrigible]

The first BA609 prototype logged 14 flight hours (all in helicopter mode) in 9 flights between March and May last year, after which it was subjected to a comprehensive teardown inspection. The aircraft is scheduled to resume flight testing in Q4, with the first of three Italian-based prototypes flying in Q1 2005. BAAC expects the BA609 certification program (being conducted under FAR Part Special Condition (21.17(b))) to take 3,000 flight hours, and is targeting joint FAA/JAA cert in 2007. BAAC claims 65 orders from 43 customers in 18 countries.

Nice ship, with clear benefits to those who can afford it, but I’m still surprised that 30% of those orders come from offshore operators, given the potential on-rig downdraft issue.

I/C

[Tony Chambers]

thanx for the feedback this project is definately 1 to watch. i am interested in the fact that the offshore market as taken on this machine. it will be interesting to see how it operates in extreme weather.

[Robbo Jock]

What's happening in the Tilt Rotor world ? As I understand it, the MV-22 is moving on, but what about the BA-609 ?

The Bell site's latest Program Update includes:

When functional system tests and ground runs are completed, the aircraft will be ready for first flight, anticipated for the second quarter of 2002 .

So not exactly up-to-date. Any more recent info ?

[Gregg]

BA 609 flew its first flight on 7 Mar 2003 and completed a 14 hour flight test program in helicopter mode.
It is scheduled to begin ground run testing for conversion mode later this fall and begin the full flight test program at the end of this year or early next year.

Here is a link to the last news release on the BHTI web site.

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.co...bellagusta.cfm

[Robbo Jock]

Thank you. They foxed me by having a different web-site. Here's me, fool that I am, expecting BA609 programme updates to be on the programme update page of the BA609 site !

[gadgetguru]

3rd category?

Was wondering about the tilt-rotors the other day, what is the story with an endorsement in those (tilt) types

would a pilot have to be both rotary & fixed wing or does this fall into a 3rd 'fuzzy' category?

just curious

[JimL]

Still in the melting pot; one expressed preference is that a pilot should be entitled to an endorsement from any licence providing the theory and competencies have been demonstrated on the conversion.

In plain terms that could be: a helicopter pilot has to demonstrate the fixed wing capabilities and problems of high(er) speed flight, stall and pressurisation; a fixed wing pilot the low speed helicopter manoeuvres; and both, the special elements of the Tiltrotor transitions (controlling the nacelles).

More difficult would be the ab initio training - but hey, who could afford that.

[XEMS]

United States has it all figured out. This is for the Private Pilot Powered-lift category. Of course this doesn't address how one goes about getting the training.

FAR 61.109e

(e) For a powered-lift rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a private pilot certificate with a powered-lift category rating must log at least 40 hours of flight time that includes at least 20 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor and 10 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.107(b)(5) of this part, and the training must include at least—

(1) 3 hours of cross-country flight training in a powered-lift;

(2) Except as provided in §61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night flight training in a powered-lift that includes—

(i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total distance; and

(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

(3) 3 hours of flight training in a powered-lift on the control and maneuvering of a powered-lift solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;

(4) 3 hours of flight training in preparation for the practical test in a powered-lift, which must have been performed within the 60-day period preceding the date of the test; and

(5) 10 hours of solo flight time in an airplane or powered-lift consisting of at least—

(i) 5 hours cross-country time;

(ii) One cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight being a straight-line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and

(iii) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.

[helterskelter]

Does anybody have any information about the ICAO Tilt Rotor Working Group that was supposed to be convened in order to produce relevant info for Annex 6?

[JimL]

They are at present working on all the subjects given to them. Next meeting will probably be in November.

[visibility3miles]

(I hope I'm not repeating a previous post.)

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8...omposites.html

August 30, _2004
Volume 82, Number 35
pp. 34-39
Chemical & Engineering News

COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Custom blending of materials with distinct characteristics leads to advanced composites with tailor-made properties

MITCH JACOBY, C&EN CHICAGO

Want to know the secret of Batman's success as a crime fighter? It's Robin. The fictional Caped Crusader didn't fight the dregs of Gotham City single-handedly--at least not in the TV series--because he could do his job more effectively with the Boy Wonder at his side. The Dynamic Duo, just as the name implies, worked as a team--each part complementing the other.

The idea that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts isn't limited to superhero teams. It applies just as well to some real-world materials. By blending distinct components into composites, scientists and engineers make advanced materials with improved properties that outperform the constituents of the composites.

Plastics impregnated with glass or carbon fibers, for example, can be made tougher, stronger, and stiffer than the pristine plastic and fiber from which the composite is made. And by tailoring the composition and processing conditions, researchers can prepare custom materials endowed with combinations of properties that aren't found in other materials. The unique blend of properties has led manufacturers to replace steel and other conventional materials with advanced composites in many industries including aerospace, automobile, defense, and sports and leisure.

Blending two or more components to form composite materials isn't a new concept. Nature has been doing it for millennia. Bone, for example, a tough and rugged material, is a combination of brittle calcium phosphate and jellylike collagen. Other natural composites include shell, dentin, and tendon.

Synthetic composites have also been around for ages. But unlike natural composites, some of the oldest common synthetic examples, such as the interlocked wood and clay material used to build ancient dwellings, are based on mixing at a very coarse scale.

Finer composites--and the advanced properties they provide--were developed primarily after World War II in response to the aerospace industry's search for lightweight yet stiff replacements for common metals. Ultimately, the demand led to a large number of polymer-based materials, so-called metal-matrix composites, and other types of composites.

Although such materials have been used in commercial applications for decades, researchers continue to look for ways to improve materials' properties and performance and reduce costs. Some of the strategies include using new or modified components and developing new manufacturing processes. One approach that has drawn a lot of attention in recent years is incorporating nanometer-sized additives or nanoscale structure to make new types of engineering materials.

"ADVANCED COMPOSITES" typically refers to materials in which a polymeric resin (often called a matrix) serves as a kind of glue that holds a reinforcement material in place. Common matrix materials include epoxy, bismaleimide, polyimide, and phenolic (phenol-formaldehyde) resins. Reinforcements made from glass, carbon, boron, and other fibers impart stiffness and strength to the polymers, yet enable the products to remain lightweight.

Some 50 years ago, aircraft designers began taking advantage of the high strength-to-weight ratio associated with composites by replacing aluminum parts with others made from the newer materials. The design change helped reduce aircraft weight--thereby increasing fuel efficiency. In addition to lower weight, composites were also attractive to engineers because their resistance to corrosion and fatigue compares with metals.

The type of composite and extent to which the materials have been used in aircraft have changed over the years. For example, a few percent of fiberglass, which is a resin containing filaments made by drawing molten glass, was used in the 1950s in Boeing 707 passenger jets. By the 1960s, high-stiffness boron and graphite fibers embedded in epoxy resins became available, and the U.S. military focused on using these materials in rudders, ailerons, and other movable parts that control the motion of aircraft. Not long thereafter, boron fibers became widely used in the horizontal stabilizers of F-14 Tomcat fighter jets. And in today's F-22 fighters, carbon fiber composites and related materials compose nearly one-third of the jet's structure. Even greater reliance on composite materials is predicted for future military aircraft.

"We're moving from a force made up primarily of metal aircraft with riveted structures toward one that's making greater use of advanced compo sites," said Roland Cochran, polymers and composites branch head at the Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. Cochran's remarks were delivered last month in Washington, D.C., at the "Lightweight Materials for Defense" conference organized by the Institute for Defense & Government Advancement.

Cochran noted that some of the sophisticated capabilities of modern military aircraft wouldn't be possible without today's advanced composites. The V-22 (Osprey) tilt-rotor craft, for example, is able to take off, land, and hover like a helicopter, as well as reorient its rotors in midair and fly like a turboprop airplane. That kind of aeronautical split personality is due in part to the graphite-fiberglass rotors and other lightweight composite-based structures in the rotor system that are strong enough to tolerate high centrifugal forces yet remain slightly flexible.

Similarly, the extreme aerial maneuverability of F-18 fighter jets is partly due to composites used in the aircraft's wings, flaps, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and other crucial parts.

Flying higher than military jets, satellites also benefit from composite materials. Cyanate-based resins are used by some designers, in preference to epoxies, because of the materials' inherent toughness, resistance to forming microcracks, and ability to withstand radiation damage.

[This is only part of the article. See link for the rest & the illustrations.]

[Heliport]

V-22 Osprey - new round of testing

Star-Telegram feature

V-22 Osprey faces new test
Test pilots have flown more than 2,000 accident-free hours since the hybrid aircraft, which was grounded for 18 months, returned to the air in 2002. Program officials say the V-22's capabilities are unmatched by conventional helicopters. But, as a new round of testing is scheduled to begin, questions remain about its cost, reliability and suitability for combat.
The dual-engine V-22 cruises like an airplane and takes off and lands like a helicopter. The propellers are forward as the aircraft cruises. To prepare for landing, the pilot tilts the propellers upward. In full helicopter mode, the propellers function as rotors, allowing vertical landings. The V-22 lands like a helicopter on the deck of a Marine amphibious assault ship. Its wings are rotated and the propellers folded for storage.

Is it reliable?
• Issue: Maintaining a technically complex aircraft.
Critics say
The V-22 is harder and more expensive to maintain than existing helicopters. Low maintenance costs are a military requirement.
Supporters say
Performance is improving as refinements are made.


Is it safe?
• Issue: Aerodynamics upon landing. A phenomenon known as vortex ring state, in which a rotorcraft loses lift after encountering its own downwash while descending at high speed, can cause the V-22 to roll.
Critics say
The V-22 is more susceptible to the problem than conventional helicopters, and flight rules calling for slower descents are unrealistic in combat.
Supporters say
Flight tests have shown that the V-22 can descend safely and that it is less likely to encounter the problem than conventional helicopters.

• Issue: Emergency landings
Critics say
Unlike a helicopter, the V-22 cannot perform a controlled vertical landing should it lose both engines to enemy fire or malfunction.
Supporters say
Losing both engines to a malfunction is extremely unlikely. If it does occur, the pilot can switch to airplane mode and glide to a landing.


Can it perform the mission?
• Issue: Brownouts. The V-22 generates a strong downwash on landing that can kick up dust and debris, obscuring the pilot's view.
Critics say
The V-22 is more susceptible to brownouts than conventional helicopters, rendering it ill-suited for desert environments such as Afghanistan or Iraq.
Supporters say
Downwash is an issue for all rotorcraft. The V-22 pilot can angle his thrust and rely on advanced instrument displays to overcome the problem.

• Issue: Small cargo space.
Critics say
Space is a significant problem. Military vehicles such as the Humvee do not fit into the cargo compartment, and it will be costly to buy smaller vehicles.
Supporters say
The smaller space is necessary to allow the V-22 to be used on ships. New vehicles are being developed to fit.

• Issue: High-altitude performance.
Critics say
It has not been proved that the V-22, with its smaller rotors, can make vertical landings in the mountains while carrying troops or cargo.
Supporters say
Future tests will show that the V-22 can land safely in the mountains.


Can costs be cut?
• Issue: The aircraft currently costs about $74 million.
Critics say
The cost, which has climbed over the years, outweighs the benefits.
Supporters say
They hope to trim the cost to $58 million apiece by 2010.

Estimated production cost per aircraft
In millions
1986 $24
1989 $35
2004 $74

Any thoughts on this analysis?

[Robbo Jock]

I must say I like the:

Future tests will show that the V-22 can land safely in the mountains

A little like the sign in pubs: "Free beer tomorrow"

[The Rotordog]

That particular newspaper, the Ft. Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram has been extremely critical of the V-22 so far. So that article was surprisingly "fair and balanced" (as one of our faux news cable t.v. channels bills itself). But I wonder if there was not just a hint of tongue-in-cheekiness to it?

With regard to maintenance, the V-22 will never be "easy" or "inexpensive." It is a hideously complicated piece of machinery which will certainly give technicians nightmares for generations to come. I predict that the military will downplay, minimize, falsify, fudge or directly try to decieve the American public as to the true mission availability of the aircraft. They have done it before, they will do it again.

With regard to VRS, it's all been hashed out before too.

Supporters say
Flight tests have shown that the V-22 can descend safely and that it is less likely to encounter the problem than conventional helicopters.

Yes, well.... "Less likely." That's putting the best "spin" on the subject, I suppose. The problem is, if a helicopter gets into full-blown VRS at a low altitude (where it will happen), the resulting crash is not necessarily fatal. In the V-22, if one proprotor goes into VRS close to the ground, the aircraft rolls inverted and hits the ground that way. Worth it anyway? Supporters say yes.

Issue: Emergency Landings.

Supporters say
Losing both engines to a malfunction is extremely unlikely. If it does occur, the pilot can switch to airplane mode and glide to a landing.

Yes, well... What makes the V-22 particularly vulnerable are those two engines/proprotors spaced so widely apart. If one were to take a missile hit which severs the driveshaft linkage to the other side, the aircraft will roll over and crash inverted. Worth it anyway? Supporters say yes. (This is not to say that helicopters are not vulnerable in their own ways.)

Issue: Cargo Space:

Supporters say
The smaller space is necessary to allow the V-22 to be used on ships. New vehicles are being developed to fit.

They've already got a vehicle that will fit inside. It's called a Jeep. I wonder how much money they're going to spend re-inventing it?

Issue: High altitude performance.

Supporters say
Future tests will show that the V-22 can land safely in the mountains.

Robbo Jock already dealt this one and nothing more need be said. But I'll say it anyway. You would think that since the V-22 first began flying, it's high-altitude performance would be quantified by now. Why the delay? Waiting for more powerful engines before publishing the "official" numbers? But yes, we will keep coming back for the free beer tomorrow.

Costs?

Critics say
The cost, which has climbed over the years, outweighs the benefits.

And here the Supporters take the completely opposite view: No matter what faults or weaknesses the V-22 has, no matter how expensive it gets, the benefits far outweigh them. Look, if Dick Cheney could not cancel the thing, nobody can. The V-22 will be fielded. You can be sure that the military will be working overtime to find an application- any application at all- for it so they can proudly point their fingers and say, "See? We told you it was worth it!"

Hey, have they put a gun on that thing yet? Or do they still intend for it to go into the field without any ability to defend itself?

[rjsquirrel]

• Issue: High-altitude performance.
Critics say
It has not been proved that the V-22, with its smaller rotors, can make vertical landings in the mountains while carrying troops or cargo.
Supporters say
Future tests will show that the V-22 can land safely in the mountains

This is surely a joke! According to its flight manual, the V-22 can carry less payload than a Black Hawk to 10,000 feet on a standard day. That means a 50,000 pound monster Tilt Rotor with 13,000 horsepower cannot carry what a 20,000 pound helicopter with 3500 horsepower can carry.

The joke continues.

[RDRickster]

Costs, maintenance, and size issues are very important. However, the key issue is combat effectiveness and how they relate to those issues. Let's assume requirements for major conflicts where armies are at war with each other (we won't go into other operational requirements, like urban or gorilla warfare, yet).

To win a battle and the war, you must take your enemies ability to wage combat against you FROM that enemy. Sometimes, it CAN be boiled down to economics (albeit rather simplistic). Example...

Previous version of the shoulder fired Dragon missle could penetrate almost any armor the previous Soviet block had. Soviets spent millions of rubels to develop and implement reactive-armor (small explosive charges mounted to the skin of their tanks that explode outward, preventing the incoming missile's shape charge from penetrating their armor). The U.S. solution was to spend about $36 dollars to put an 18" probe on the end of the missle... probe explodes reactive armor, clears the way, and the main missle body does it's job. (By the way, the current version of the Dragon missile has independant tracking abilities and will actually attack the target from the top... weakest point on tank is usually the top of the turret).

Can't we meet current operational requirements with less money and have more beef? I'd rather have a CH-53 with 1/2 of the troop capacity but have 7.62 mm mini-guns mounted on the side and the ability to carry a HMMMV (army jeep). Also, there are more options for true VTOL aircraft than the V-22.

Besides, if you REALLY need a light forced-entry capability, you can send the Rangers, the 82nd ABN, or Forest Recon. I'm not even counting small unit insertions like Special Forces or Navy Seals or SAS. I've been out of the game for a long time, but I don't see an operational requirement that the V-22 can fill in a hot zone. If a Slick or Blackhawk takes a few holes, it's back in the theatre of operations in a short-period of time... can't see that with the Osprey.