Bell 609 program in trouble?
Y'all of little faith,
I am very disappointed, while generally progressive (as any pilot ought to be) I feel like this thread is populated by a bunch of old and fat "big ship table" pilots (FH1100 knows who those were).
The fact that Bell was pulling out of the 609 was clear when they hired Nick Lappos, but Bell is also a company that has not been able to introduce a single winning product for the last generations of helicopters, of any size, and it's still looking for the Holy Grail (TM).
Name the last Bell helicopter product that has sold and actually produced more than 150 airframes in the last 15 years.
427, 430, 417, 210, ARH, LUH all these are failures by the number produced if compared by the years in service, not to mention their complete performance debacle AS A CORPORATE STRUCTURE in the LUH competition and their soon to be EX-ARH.
My bet is that whichever bright and motivated Bell engineer is still working on the 609 shall jump ship and get well rewarded by AW.
AW has already shifted their target to the parapublic/military crowd with much deeper pockets than the civilian market, Mr. Orsi has "unveiled" a SAR variant that in his words shall be very attractive for SAR/patrol work.
As far as entering the upper airway/IFR system from any point other than an airport, we ought to consider that 99% of departure arrival are generated from a restricted number of locations called AIRPORTS and that the initial time separation/routing plays a big role in the delays.
The helipads at the hospital we operated from had four letters locations assigned and were part of the NAS structure, apart from Ops Specs and GOM policies not allowing us take off in IFR conditions, we never experienced any significant delay even in those times of peak traffic.
Bob, a 609 landing at a Manhattan heliport? It's politics and the one with the deepest pockets win.
A 609 landing on a drilling rig with 206s and 350s scattered around? Policies in the Gulf of Mexico have changed considerably since you left and the trend is going to separate the chaff from the wheat, those 206s are a dying breed and most helicopters now have more than two blades.
Bell separating themselves from the 139 was not only a bad decision but in my opinion it costed this airframe the selection for the LUH, and that particular decision started a very marked trend of BAD corporate decisions.
Need to know why Bell's customer support is the best? Because they have to, in reason to keep after nothing but a fleet of older airframes with scant performance.
In the end ladies, can anyone of y'all disprove the performance figures reached so far by the 609?
I am very disappointed, while generally progressive (as any pilot ought to be) I feel like this thread is populated by a bunch of old and fat "big ship table" pilots (FH1100 knows who those were).The fact that Bell was pulling out of the 609 was clear when they hired Nick Lappos, but Bell is also a company that has not been able to introduce a single winning product for the last generations of helicopters, of any size, and it's still looking for the Holy Grail (TM).
Name the last Bell helicopter product that has sold and actually produced more than 150 airframes in the last 15 years.
427, 430, 417, 210, ARH, LUH all these are failures by the number produced if compared by the years in service, not to mention their complete performance debacle AS A CORPORATE STRUCTURE in the LUH competition and their soon to be EX-ARH.
My bet is that whichever bright and motivated Bell engineer is still working on the 609 shall jump ship and get well rewarded by AW.
AW has already shifted their target to the parapublic/military crowd with much deeper pockets than the civilian market, Mr. Orsi has "unveiled" a SAR variant that in his words shall be very attractive for SAR/patrol work.
As far as entering the upper airway/IFR system from any point other than an airport, we ought to consider that 99% of departure arrival are generated from a restricted number of locations called AIRPORTS and that the initial time separation/routing plays a big role in the delays.
The helipads at the hospital we operated from had four letters locations assigned and were part of the NAS structure, apart from Ops Specs and GOM policies not allowing us take off in IFR conditions, we never experienced any significant delay even in those times of peak traffic.
Bob, a 609 landing at a Manhattan heliport? It's politics and the one with the deepest pockets win.
A 609 landing on a drilling rig with 206s and 350s scattered around? Policies in the Gulf of Mexico have changed considerably since you left and the trend is going to separate the chaff from the wheat, those 206s are a dying breed and most helicopters now have more than two blades.
Bell separating themselves from the 139 was not only a bad decision but in my opinion it costed this airframe the selection for the LUH, and that particular decision started a very marked trend of BAD corporate decisions.
Need to know why Bell's customer support is the best? Because they have to, in reason to keep after nothing but a fleet of older airframes with scant performance.
In the end ladies, can anyone of y'all disprove the performance figures reached so far by the 609?
Last edited by tottigol; 9th Jul 2011 at 07:19.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that a highly respected contributor, whose name I seem to have forgotten (must be my age...), has recently discussed at the highest level, with a certain manufacturer, the true operational limitations, practicalities and likely sales potential of this type of aircraft ....
..... if you know what I'm thinking, just reading between the lines here
Edit: Oh yes, the previous poster just pipped me to it - so that's the fellow's name
..... if you know what I'm thinking, just reading between the lines here
Edit: Oh yes, the previous poster just pipped me to it - so that's the fellow's name
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure about the BA609 "being attractive for SAR/patrol work," but the Italian government is certainly an attractive enough customer for the type. Just look at the P180 Avanti: a nice-looking business aircraft, but heavily dependant on Italian Government orders for its survival, operators including:
- Italian Air Force
- Italian Navy
- Italian Army
- Italian State Forestry Department
- Corpo Nazionale dei Vigili del fuoco
- Italian Civil defense
- Polizia di Stato
- Carabinieri
- Guardia di Finanza
This probably also explains the low-viz paint job on N609AG...
I/C
- Italian Air Force
- Italian Navy
- Italian Army
- Italian State Forestry Department
- Corpo Nazionale dei Vigili del fuoco
- Italian Civil defense
- Polizia di Stato
- Carabinieri
- Guardia di Finanza
This probably also explains the low-viz paint job on N609AG...
I/C
All my respect to the person you mentioned above, however he did carry around a certain amount of negative opinion on the matter when already working with a certain other manufacturer.
As I mentioned before, I am certain there is a connection between his hiring and the divesting of certain programs by a certain manufacturer.
But the question remain, what was the amount of testing that this highly respected person actually did on the 609?
After 30 plus yeas with a certain manufacturer....
As I mentioned before, I am certain there is a connection between his hiring and the divesting of certain programs by a certain manufacturer.
But the question remain, what was the amount of testing that this highly respected person actually did on the 609?
After 30 plus yeas with a certain manufacturer....
I think Nick Lappos is enough of a professional to assess the 609 in a fair way. He would not have been hired by Bell, if they did not know this. Everybody is entiteled to an oppinion. Even I could write what I think about the 609. (I think it is a cool toy for tech freaks but will be a complete failure in the market). But Nick Lappos voice was certainly more important because he knows how the thingis we fly are built. Bell does not have other laws of physics to deal with and some things are just obvious. They knew what he said and still hired him. And probably that was just the reason why they hired him.
Unfortunately as a pro he will not comment this thread and rant a bit.
Unfortunately as a pro he will not comment this thread and rant a bit.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell's been grasping at straws over the V-22 when they said this so it is no surprise the 609 is a flop:
"Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing."
"These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.
Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Business News | Dallas Morning News
"Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing."
"These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said.
Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Business News | Dallas Morning News
Man! It's tough to ask realistic questions about the tilt-rotor without being labled anti-technology or anti-progress. Hey, I like new technology! I just don't think the tilt-rotor is showing us any.
Ian, the FAA database shows 85 Piaggio Avanti's registered in the U.S. The fractional ownership program Avantair claims that they are adding new machines all the time. It's a wonderful airplane with amazing speed, capabilities and economics. Although it's not a brand-new design it has definitely "come of age" and will surely enjoy a long and prosperous future as jet fuel becomes increasingly expensive.
Tottigol, when I made the comment about a 609 landing in Manhattan, I was thinking more about the sheer size of it and the downwash. Where will they put it, physically? Similarly, if a 609 lands at a typical (albeit sufficiently large) heliport and there happens to be an Astar on the next spot, I'd hate to see what happens. Even if 206's are a thing of the past, there will always be light helicopters in the EC-120 weight range. Wherever it goes, the 609 will likely need dedicated facilities - or at least one where they can land off in the distance and ground-taxi in. Which means they'll have to be big.
Speaking of which, there are probably GOM shore bases at which the 609 could not even operate because there isn't enough room.
We talk about big, deep-water drilling/production rigs needing instantaneous response when they're down - and this is true. But when they go down, it's for mechanical reasons, not personnel. I've carried my share of heavy, unwieldy rig parts, sometimes sticking out the back of my Bolkow (clamshell doors removed) to rigs that were down. A civilian version of the 609 would have to have a *big* cargo door.
We've all seen the neat video footage of the tilt-rotor in a hover and then making that screaming, nacelle-tilting take-off. Very impressive! But I wonder... Obviously they do that at fairly light weights. But can it do it at MGW/MAUW? This gets to what Shawn spoke about in his post: What happens when you lose an engine on a take-off from the vertical at max gross? What happens if you lose an engine on a running take-off at max gross with the nacelles tilted forward? The regulatory agencies are going to want to quantify these things.
Which brings up another thing: How big an engine will the 609 need to have SE-OEI hover capability? What about Cat-A capability? And what will the fuel burn be then? It would be terrific if we could design an engine in which the fuel burn decreased proportionately as the power decreased, but so far that's been unattainable. Turbines burn "almost as much" at flight idle as they do at full-power. Thus, if the 609 needs two honking-big 2,000+ h.p. engines for the hover, the cruise fuel burn is going to be jaw-droppingly astronomical too. Recent experiments with non-linear engine control technology in an H-60 helicopter with GE T700's only yielded reductions of less than 5% between hover and loiter modes over the baseline engine.
But again, Bell knows all of this. They cannot have studied this design since 1953 and *not* have figured this stuff out. It's still going to take X-amount of horsepower to lift X-amount of weight given two proprotors of X-diameter. Plug in your own numbers. As "Star Trek's" Scotty used to say to Captain Kirk all the time, "Ye canna change the laws o' physics!"
I wonder about more esoteric things. Like, all of that weight out at the ends of the wings and the polar moment it will cause...and that narrow landing gear... Just how "forgiving" is this thing going to be of sloppy pilots? We fantasize that every 609 pilot will be Chuck Yeager, but the reality is that there will be some weak pilots (perhaps SIC's) driving these things. Those engines look awfully close to the ground when they're vertical. What kind of slope can this thing take? Not much, I'd imagine - no "off-airport" landings for the 609!
And what about a hard-landing? Or even just a harder-than-normal landing? That gear sure looks skimpy...but with all that unsupported weight at the wingtips, how much vertical impact can the 609 take without snapping the spars like little twigs? I wish pilots were perfect, but history has shown us that we screw do up once in a while.
If this were the 1950's we might imagine a big terminal building in midtown Manhattan where 609's come in and land on the roof, then depart and whisk (nine) passengers to Washington D.C. or Boston. But we know now that it's impossible for a variety of reasons. When we dreamt back in the '50s we didn't consider things like noise, or downwash, or economics...or crashes. Too, there is a limit as to what people will pay for speed. Proof? Umm, just how many Concordes are still operating today?
My prediction: Pigs will fly before a commercial/civilian 609 does. And I say that with the honest realization that people have said some outrageous things in the past and been wrong. But no amount of wanting the 609 to succeed will make it so. As Shawn Coyle put it, the tilt-rotor is a solution looking for a problem. Adding to that, I think it's the answer to a question nobody is asking anymore.
The 609 might make a cracking good government-funded SAR craft, but it still remains to be seen if the oft-mentioned downwash will be a problem, especially when rescuing people from smaller boats (sailboats and stuff). Will they have to longline them up?
Ian, the FAA database shows 85 Piaggio Avanti's registered in the U.S. The fractional ownership program Avantair claims that they are adding new machines all the time. It's a wonderful airplane with amazing speed, capabilities and economics. Although it's not a brand-new design it has definitely "come of age" and will surely enjoy a long and prosperous future as jet fuel becomes increasingly expensive.
Tottigol, when I made the comment about a 609 landing in Manhattan, I was thinking more about the sheer size of it and the downwash. Where will they put it, physically? Similarly, if a 609 lands at a typical (albeit sufficiently large) heliport and there happens to be an Astar on the next spot, I'd hate to see what happens. Even if 206's are a thing of the past, there will always be light helicopters in the EC-120 weight range. Wherever it goes, the 609 will likely need dedicated facilities - or at least one where they can land off in the distance and ground-taxi in. Which means they'll have to be big.
Speaking of which, there are probably GOM shore bases at which the 609 could not even operate because there isn't enough room.
We talk about big, deep-water drilling/production rigs needing instantaneous response when they're down - and this is true. But when they go down, it's for mechanical reasons, not personnel. I've carried my share of heavy, unwieldy rig parts, sometimes sticking out the back of my Bolkow (clamshell doors removed) to rigs that were down. A civilian version of the 609 would have to have a *big* cargo door.
We've all seen the neat video footage of the tilt-rotor in a hover and then making that screaming, nacelle-tilting take-off. Very impressive! But I wonder... Obviously they do that at fairly light weights. But can it do it at MGW/MAUW? This gets to what Shawn spoke about in his post: What happens when you lose an engine on a take-off from the vertical at max gross? What happens if you lose an engine on a running take-off at max gross with the nacelles tilted forward? The regulatory agencies are going to want to quantify these things.
Which brings up another thing: How big an engine will the 609 need to have SE-OEI hover capability? What about Cat-A capability? And what will the fuel burn be then? It would be terrific if we could design an engine in which the fuel burn decreased proportionately as the power decreased, but so far that's been unattainable. Turbines burn "almost as much" at flight idle as they do at full-power. Thus, if the 609 needs two honking-big 2,000+ h.p. engines for the hover, the cruise fuel burn is going to be jaw-droppingly astronomical too. Recent experiments with non-linear engine control technology in an H-60 helicopter with GE T700's only yielded reductions of less than 5% between hover and loiter modes over the baseline engine.
But again, Bell knows all of this. They cannot have studied this design since 1953 and *not* have figured this stuff out. It's still going to take X-amount of horsepower to lift X-amount of weight given two proprotors of X-diameter. Plug in your own numbers. As "Star Trek's" Scotty used to say to Captain Kirk all the time, "Ye canna change the laws o' physics!"
I wonder about more esoteric things. Like, all of that weight out at the ends of the wings and the polar moment it will cause...and that narrow landing gear... Just how "forgiving" is this thing going to be of sloppy pilots? We fantasize that every 609 pilot will be Chuck Yeager, but the reality is that there will be some weak pilots (perhaps SIC's) driving these things. Those engines look awfully close to the ground when they're vertical. What kind of slope can this thing take? Not much, I'd imagine - no "off-airport" landings for the 609!
And what about a hard-landing? Or even just a harder-than-normal landing? That gear sure looks skimpy...but with all that unsupported weight at the wingtips, how much vertical impact can the 609 take without snapping the spars like little twigs? I wish pilots were perfect, but history has shown us that we screw do up once in a while.
If this were the 1950's we might imagine a big terminal building in midtown Manhattan where 609's come in and land on the roof, then depart and whisk (nine) passengers to Washington D.C. or Boston. But we know now that it's impossible for a variety of reasons. When we dreamt back in the '50s we didn't consider things like noise, or downwash, or economics...or crashes. Too, there is a limit as to what people will pay for speed. Proof? Umm, just how many Concordes are still operating today?
My prediction: Pigs will fly before a commercial/civilian 609 does. And I say that with the honest realization that people have said some outrageous things in the past and been wrong. But no amount of wanting the 609 to succeed will make it so. As Shawn Coyle put it, the tilt-rotor is a solution looking for a problem. Adding to that, I think it's the answer to a question nobody is asking anymore.
The 609 might make a cracking good government-funded SAR craft, but it still remains to be seen if the oft-mentioned downwash will be a problem, especially when rescuing people from smaller boats (sailboats and stuff). Will they have to longline them up?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tilt-rotor is , imo, an unnecessarily complex means to an end.
The FAIREY ROTODYNE appeared at the Farnborough air show in 1958 and was reported to cruise past at "about 170 mph"
Gleaned from "meccano magazine,"July 1958 (I was 11, and still have the full year's copies
) 48 passengers, 46'6" wingspan, with 2, 3500HP Napier Eland Turboprops. the 4 rotor-blades were hollow, containing air and fuel lines to pressure-jets on the tips of the 90' diameter rotor. The air was supplied from compressors on the back of the main engines.
engines on low -power for directional manoeuvering,rotor powered for vertol power increased to engines for forward flight, wereupon the wing added lift.
The compressors were de-clutched,when sufficient speed was attained, thus it was effectively sconverted to an autogyro. fuel economy was said to be comparable with a similar-sized fixed-wing aircraft. It would operate from a 400' x 200' runway.
6 Nov. 1957 was first flight, Sq. Ldr Ron Gellatly firs flew in Autogyro mode on10 April '58..
Unfortunately, according to an internet article (Wikipedia, IIRC ) the project was scuppered by politics, the government of the day withdrew support inorder to finance some other, abortive project.
Thus, a pioneering British hybrid flying-machine was sidelined.
With modern technology, this would surely be a far more viable enterprise than the tilt-rotor.
The FAIREY ROTODYNE appeared at the Farnborough air show in 1958 and was reported to cruise past at "about 170 mph"
Gleaned from "meccano magazine,"July 1958 (I was 11, and still have the full year's copies
) 48 passengers, 46'6" wingspan, with 2, 3500HP Napier Eland Turboprops. the 4 rotor-blades were hollow, containing air and fuel lines to pressure-jets on the tips of the 90' diameter rotor. The air was supplied from compressors on the back of the main engines.engines on low -power for directional manoeuvering,rotor powered for vertol power increased to engines for forward flight, wereupon the wing added lift.
The compressors were de-clutched,when sufficient speed was attained, thus it was effectively sconverted to an autogyro. fuel economy was said to be comparable with a similar-sized fixed-wing aircraft. It would operate from a 400' x 200' runway.
6 Nov. 1957 was first flight, Sq. Ldr Ron Gellatly firs flew in Autogyro mode on10 April '58..
Unfortunately, according to an internet article (Wikipedia, IIRC ) the project was scuppered by politics, the government of the day withdrew support inorder to finance some other, abortive project.
Thus, a pioneering British hybrid flying-machine was sidelined.
With modern technology, this would surely be a far more viable enterprise than the tilt-rotor.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HELI-EXPO: AgustaWestland to learn BA609 fate by end of June
By John Croft
AgustaWestland CEO Giuseppe Orsi says the long-delayed decision on whether Bell Helicopter will cede its majority share in the BA609 civil tiltrotor program to minority partner AgustaWestland will be made by the end of June.
“The deadline to close one way or another is the end of June,” Orsi said at a press conference in Houston on 20 February as part of the 2010 Heli Expo show. “We have said we are ready to take the lead on that program.”
Orsi in September told Flight International that AgustaWestland parent company, Finmeccanica, had “authorised us to conclude negotiations within certain conditions to reach this important achievement", and more recently, that the two companies have been discussing a “restructuring and optimization of the programme” and have been evaluating the “best way forward” to ensure the success of vectored thrust twin-turboprop aircraft.
©Bell/Agusta
He notes test flight activities for the first two prototypes “are progressing” while the two additional aircraft will join the test flight programme in 2011 and 2012, respectively. “I am convinced the tiltrotor technology based on the BA609 continues to be one of the most highly anticipated concepts ever, dramatically expanding the possibilities of what an aircraft can do,” he says.
Finmeccanica has said there is a market for 500 aircraft within 10 years of first delivery, including 40-50 for the Italian government. Orsi says BA609 certification in the US and European Union is on schedule for 2013 and that more than 80 of the $29 million aircraft have been ordered so far by 40 customers, including government agencies.
Luca Peruzzi in Italy contributed to this report.
Hope that "$29 million aircraft" is a misprint...
By John Croft
AgustaWestland CEO Giuseppe Orsi says the long-delayed decision on whether Bell Helicopter will cede its majority share in the BA609 civil tiltrotor program to minority partner AgustaWestland will be made by the end of June.
“The deadline to close one way or another is the end of June,” Orsi said at a press conference in Houston on 20 February as part of the 2010 Heli Expo show. “We have said we are ready to take the lead on that program.”
Orsi in September told Flight International that AgustaWestland parent company, Finmeccanica, had “authorised us to conclude negotiations within certain conditions to reach this important achievement", and more recently, that the two companies have been discussing a “restructuring and optimization of the programme” and have been evaluating the “best way forward” to ensure the success of vectored thrust twin-turboprop aircraft.
He notes test flight activities for the first two prototypes “are progressing” while the two additional aircraft will join the test flight programme in 2011 and 2012, respectively. “I am convinced the tiltrotor technology based on the BA609 continues to be one of the most highly anticipated concepts ever, dramatically expanding the possibilities of what an aircraft can do,” he says.
Finmeccanica has said there is a market for 500 aircraft within 10 years of first delivery, including 40-50 for the Italian government. Orsi says BA609 certification in the US and European Union is on schedule for 2013 and that more than 80 of the $29 million aircraft have been ordered so far by 40 customers, including government agencies.
Luca Peruzzi in Italy contributed to this report.
Hope that "$29 million aircraft" is a misprint...
Last edited by 21stCen; 21st Feb 2010 at 18:06.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Seems to be a slight difference of opinion between the partners. According to Rotor & Wing, Bell's new President "...added that Bell’s relationship with AgustaWestland over the AB609 would 'only strengthen and improve as we go forward.'"
The $29M price has been around for a year or so, based on a reported 20M Euro pricetag.
The 2013 date is new though -- up to now Agusta has been inisting that it would be certified by 2011, publicly rejecting previous claims by Bell that it might slip to 2012/3.
I/C
The $29M price has been around for a year or so, based on a reported 20M Euro pricetag.
The 2013 date is new though -- up to now Agusta has been inisting that it would be certified by 2011, publicly rejecting previous claims by Bell that it might slip to 2012/3.
I/C
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any updates ?. Have they built any production versions.
s/n 6002 on FAA database shows manfg year of 2003 and cert issue date of 2006. Does anyone know the status of the flight test program. In 2007 they were expecting to have 4 flight test aircraft by 2008.
Bell Helicopter - News: BAAC 609 Flight Test Continues Development Pace
s/n 6002 on FAA database shows manfg year of 2003 and cert issue date of 2006. Does anyone know the status of the flight test program. In 2007 they were expecting to have 4 flight test aircraft by 2008.
Bell Helicopter - News: BAAC 609 Flight Test Continues Development Pace
In the late 80's I attended an NHA in San Diego CA. At the time, the XV-15 to V-22 move was being made, and one of our (Navy) presenters described what was seen in industry as a significant potential market: Japan. Not a lot of land for runways, plenty of market for air travel, tilt rotor deemed then an excellent fit for their needs.
He'd been approached by some Japanese in the business world and (if I recall this correctly) been advised that "if you don't take advantage of this technology, we can and will. It meets a lot of our needs." Or words to that effect. (At the time, the LAMPS world in the Navy had fantasies of a V-22 style acft on the back of frigates and cruisers ... which hasn't happened. Seahawk meets the needs sufficiently).
I think some assumptions on cost were made that have since not born out as true. Also, high speed rail may be filling some of that niche requirement in Japan. I am guessing also high speed rail in Europe.
What is the market sector/niche that this aircraft fulfills, now, and in the year 2015, and year 2025?
I think it's a great bit of aircraft, but as other transport options mature and evolve, doesn't the 609's market niche shrink? Getting it to market in a timely fashion may help create or improve market. But it needs to get to market.
I see considerable wisdom in FH1100's post: when can this be gotten to market and sold, with support contracts as well?
How do you then grow the market?
To me, the key advantage of 609 is that you decouple your transport requirement from airports and trainstations, which are chokepoints/time sinks. But one still needs "X" quality of surface to operate from, and "Y" clearance, and "Z" adherence to noise abatements requirements in urban areas. Anyone have insight on the noise profile of 609? Noise has been a concern for the civil helicopter market, urban areas in particular, for quite a while.
He'd been approached by some Japanese in the business world and (if I recall this correctly) been advised that "if you don't take advantage of this technology, we can and will. It meets a lot of our needs." Or words to that effect. (At the time, the LAMPS world in the Navy had fantasies of a V-22 style acft on the back of frigates and cruisers ... which hasn't happened. Seahawk meets the needs sufficiently).
I think some assumptions on cost were made that have since not born out as true. Also, high speed rail may be filling some of that niche requirement in Japan. I am guessing also high speed rail in Europe.
What is the market sector/niche that this aircraft fulfills, now, and in the year 2015, and year 2025?
I think it's a great bit of aircraft, but as other transport options mature and evolve, doesn't the 609's market niche shrink? Getting it to market in a timely fashion may help create or improve market. But it needs to get to market.
I see considerable wisdom in FH1100's post: when can this be gotten to market and sold, with support contracts as well?
How do you then grow the market?
To me, the key advantage of 609 is that you decouple your transport requirement from airports and trainstations, which are chokepoints/time sinks. But one still needs "X" quality of surface to operate from, and "Y" clearance, and "Z" adherence to noise abatements requirements in urban areas. Anyone have insight on the noise profile of 609? Noise has been a concern for the civil helicopter market, urban areas in particular, for quite a while.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Widgeon,
No production a/c yet. #3 and #4 are now due to join the test program in 2011 (Cascina Costa) and 2012 (Fort Worth). #1 and #2 have logged 550 flight hours to date. #1 was grounded for a while earlier this year due to a proprotor gearbox crack, reported by Helicopter International to be attributed to 'extreme handling,' possibly during the OEI trials for which Roy Hopkins and Jeff Greenwood were given the 2010 AHS Frederick L. Feinberg award.
The anticipated announcement regarding the realignment of the Bell/Agusta partnership did not happen, and it would appear the discussions are still on-going.
Av Week confirmed earlier this year that the Italian government is likely to bail out the program with an order for up to 50 BA609s for the various Italian government agencies (GdF, Guardia Costiera, Carabinieri etc.)
Av Week also reported that the program will need $1 billion to complete development and put into production, hence the on-going discussions between the partners...
I/C
No production a/c yet. #3 and #4 are now due to join the test program in 2011 (Cascina Costa) and 2012 (Fort Worth). #1 and #2 have logged 550 flight hours to date. #1 was grounded for a while earlier this year due to a proprotor gearbox crack, reported by Helicopter International to be attributed to 'extreme handling,' possibly during the OEI trials for which Roy Hopkins and Jeff Greenwood were given the 2010 AHS Frederick L. Feinberg award.
The anticipated announcement regarding the realignment of the Bell/Agusta partnership did not happen, and it would appear the discussions are still on-going.
Av Week confirmed earlier this year that the Italian government is likely to bail out the program with an order for up to 50 BA609s for the various Italian government agencies (GdF, Guardia Costiera, Carabinieri etc.)
Av Week also reported that the program will need $1 billion to complete development and put into production, hence the on-going discussions between the partners...
I/C
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to meet you too A9. I've been working on and off for thirteen years on this program thinking at some point it would go into production. I would have preferred it stay in the States, but maybe Agusta will do something with it?