Hughes/MD 500
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
An informed source tells me that rumors of the Loach's demise have been greatly exaggerated, and that the MD500 and MD530F survive.
Reading the rag (this month's AIN) again, the claim was actually made by MDHI's new owner. Given the rather tasty full length leather body suit she was wearing at Helitech, it may have been a simple case of restricted blood flow to the brain...
I/C
Reading the rag (this month's AIN) again, the claim was actually made by MDHI's new owner. Given the rather tasty full length leather body suit she was wearing at Helitech, it may have been a simple case of restricted blood flow to the brain...
I/C
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
From: At Work
It is unlikely that MD would discontinue all but the N model of the 369 series. It is likely based upon Kaman's recent SEC filings that a deal with MD was close to being finalized which is a major stumbling block to a restart of production.
Given the loss of the ARH contract and the competition related to the LUH contract, in the event the LUH contract does not go to MD, Patriarch's investment is contingent upon a component overhaul/service business and sales of as many new models as necessary. To limit themselves to N models of the 369 would be unduly constraining.
Boeing owns the ability to sell the 369 series for military purposes which limits the market for new product placement of this aircraft to commercial.
Patriarch spent a lot of money and management has continued to be evasive with respect to an actual date that parts, components and support will improve. My bet is that things will continue to improve but that they are spending a considerable amount of resources on the LUH contract.
Even though the statistical probablility of winning LUH is not very high, in the event they win the contract, the resources necessary to improve support and service for the 369 series will continue to be limited. If you operate 900 series aircraft, hope for a LUH win as that will result in substantial product improvement. In the event you operate 369 series aircraft, hope they lose so you can become the most important customer to their business.
Given the loss of the ARH contract and the competition related to the LUH contract, in the event the LUH contract does not go to MD, Patriarch's investment is contingent upon a component overhaul/service business and sales of as many new models as necessary. To limit themselves to N models of the 369 would be unduly constraining.
Boeing owns the ability to sell the 369 series for military purposes which limits the market for new product placement of this aircraft to commercial.
Patriarch spent a lot of money and management has continued to be evasive with respect to an actual date that parts, components and support will improve. My bet is that things will continue to improve but that they are spending a considerable amount of resources on the LUH contract.
Even though the statistical probablility of winning LUH is not very high, in the event they win the contract, the resources necessary to improve support and service for the 369 series will continue to be limited. If you operate 900 series aircraft, hope for a LUH win as that will result in substantial product improvement. In the event you operate 369 series aircraft, hope they lose so you can become the most important customer to their business.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
From: Ask the voices!
Re: Hughes 369 question
Lead,
I think you will find, and I am sure MD600driver will be able to clarify, it is only a Hughes 369 and an MD 500.
A change of ownership thing I think, bit like the aerospatiale/eurocopter thing.
I think you will find, and I am sure MD600driver will be able to clarify, it is only a Hughes 369 and an MD 500.
A change of ownership thing I think, bit like the aerospatiale/eurocopter thing.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Re: Hughes 369 question
It’s a combination of change of ownership and grandfathering rights on the FAA Type Certificate. The list includes:
FAA designation & MDHI sales designation
369A = OH-6A
369HE = MD500
369HS = MD500C
369HM = MD500M
369D = MD500D
369MD = MD500MD
369E = MD500E
369FF = MD530F
FAA designation & Schweizer sales designation
269C = Schweizer 300C
269C-1 = Schweizer 300CB
269D = Schweizer 330/330
Schweizer also uses the Model 379 designation for the Fire Scout UAV.
I/C
FAA designation & MDHI sales designation
369A = OH-6A
369HE = MD500
369HS = MD500C
369HM = MD500M
369D = MD500D
369MD = MD500MD
369E = MD500E
369FF = MD530F
FAA designation & Schweizer sales designation
269C = Schweizer 300C
269C-1 = Schweizer 300CB
269D = Schweizer 330/330
Schweizer also uses the Model 379 designation for the Fire Scout UAV.
I/C
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
From: South of the North Pole
Re: Hughes 369 question
I'd take a slightly different line than that. The 269/369 names were the internal model numbers which appeared on the certification paperwork and thus is the type description which appears on the FAA/CAA/etc registers. However, these numbers were considered "not good enough" by the marketing department at Culver City (at the time, prior to Mesa) and hence the 300 and 500 names appeared on all the brochures and the sides of the aircraft as being more "marketing focussed"
Similar problems exist with the likes of the "MD902" not being a name that MDHI would like heard because it's different from the (FAA certified) MD900 and "MD902" would thus need a new certificate in the FAA's eyes (ie loadsa money etc etc). Thus they should be referred to as "MD Explorer" only, even if we all know what "MD902" really refers to.
IanC, nit picking, perhaps, but MDHC (and later MDHI but not MDHS) never marketed any of these things prior to the 369E/500E and thus all the earlier models (and the 269A, 269B which you rightly omitted from the second list) were always "Hughes" 500 or 300 and never MD500s. Some early 500Es were Hughes aircraft, but the majority have been MD500Es. The NOTAR lines have always carried MD names like MD520, MD600 etc as the only (albeit significant in technical terms) involvement Hughes had were the prototypes and MD owned the outfit by the time marketing of those lines started.
Now, is a Lama
- Sud Aviation SA315B Lama (hence the SA part of the title), or
- Aerospatiale SA315B Lama (eg. one built after Sud Aviation merged into Aerospatiale), or
- Eurocopter SA315B Lama (eg. an older SE313B Sud-Est Alouette II converted in the last 10 years) ??
And is an EC130 really an AS350B4?
And an EC145 really a BK117C2?
pp
Similar problems exist with the likes of the "MD902" not being a name that MDHI would like heard because it's different from the (FAA certified) MD900 and "MD902" would thus need a new certificate in the FAA's eyes (ie loadsa money etc etc). Thus they should be referred to as "MD Explorer" only, even if we all know what "MD902" really refers to.
IanC, nit picking, perhaps, but MDHC (and later MDHI but not MDHS) never marketed any of these things prior to the 369E/500E and thus all the earlier models (and the 269A, 269B which you rightly omitted from the second list) were always "Hughes" 500 or 300 and never MD500s. Some early 500Es were Hughes aircraft, but the majority have been MD500Es. The NOTAR lines have always carried MD names like MD520, MD600 etc as the only (albeit significant in technical terms) involvement Hughes had were the prototypes and MD owned the outfit by the time marketing of those lines started.
Now, is a Lama
- Sud Aviation SA315B Lama (hence the SA part of the title), or
- Aerospatiale SA315B Lama (eg. one built after Sud Aviation merged into Aerospatiale), or
- Eurocopter SA315B Lama (eg. an older SE313B Sud-Est Alouette II converted in the last 10 years) ??
And is an EC130 really an AS350B4?
And an EC145 really a BK117C2?
pp
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Re: Hughes 369 question
During the design it was noted that there was 369 reasons not to own one , fly one or maintain one but when it came out there was over 500 and still counting so they left it at that.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
md 600 pilots
guys
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
what is the running cost per hour extra over a jetranger
how fast a they full fuel full pax.
what would i expect to pay for a 8 year old machine ok spec.
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
what is the running cost per hour extra over a jetranger
how fast a they full fuel full pax.
what would i expect to pay for a 8 year old machine ok spec.
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: 1 deg south, avoiding Malaria P Falciparium
There was a bad 600 accident last month in Canada. Rumor ( this is a rumor network) and accounts from witnesses indicate mid flight break up. Tail boom was found seperated intact away from airframe. Pilot did not survive.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00392&key=1
word is AWD maybe in the pipeline.
rb
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00392&key=1
word is AWD maybe in the pipeline.
rb
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: lancashire
For information, thats if anyone is looking for one!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MD-Helicopters...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MD-Helicopters...QQcmdZViewItem
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 603
Likes: 65
From: South of UK
I saw that 500 on eBay - funny the bloke is also selling a JetRanger - and both machines have been for sale (at higher prices) through brokers in the UK.
An opportunity for a bargain, or another eBay scam? I came the conclusion it's probably the latter, if only because the descriptions are very similar to those on the broker websites!
An opportunity for a bargain, or another eBay scam? I came the conclusion it's probably the latter, if only because the descriptions are very similar to those on the broker websites!