What's New With The Civil Tiltrotor?
Though development of the civil tiltrotor has lagged in recent years, the allure of tiltrotor technology remains strong, as it combines the vertical-lift capability of helicopters with the higher speed and longer range of fixed wing aircraft.
In the executive/transport configuration, the aircraft will carry eight to nine passengers, but AWTR sees many other applications, including oil-and-gas operations...
Oil companies simply will *not* use the 609 on any sector that's already being served by a conventional helicopter. No matter how important those nine people are, they can go in the Puma with the rest of the roustabouts. No, the 609 would be used for really deepwater rigs, the ones that are (or will be) beyond the practical range of existing helicopters.
Which leads me to ask...
What is the emergency procedure for loss of oil pressure in one of the 609's engines?
Oh, but that would never happen. Right?
Let's ask the Sikorsky S-92 certification team how "extremely remote" such a thing would be!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 609 would be used for really deepwater rigs, the ones that are (or will be) beyond the practical range of existing helicopters.
1) A requirement for vertical take off or landing exists at one end of the trips flown routinely (otherwise a turbo-prop aeroplane would be more economical if flying from airport to airport).
2) Routine flights require a normal minimum distance of 150 or 200nm plus (otherwise a helicopter would be more economical).
Tiltrotors are a niche aircraft, they will not replace airplanes and they will not replace helicopters, but they will perform missions that no other a/c can do as efficiently. A good example was given to me by a couple of guys working at Heli One. They approached Sikorsky to determine how they could perform remote arctic flights in an S-92 over a distance of 600nm to a drilling rig and return. Sikorsky devised a potential recommendation to have fuel stored in the passenger cabin to complete the flight (maybe not considered a safety hazard by the Russian authorities?). However, as a consequence of the added fuel weight they would be limited to 7 to 9 passengers. A mission that the 609 could accomplish more efficiently.
What is the emergency procedure for loss of oil pressure in one of the 609's engines?
FH1100,
Both very basic but normal questions you raise. It's good that this time you are not trying to pretend to be an expert on tiltrotors (or helicopters, or aeroplanes). You still have a lot of unanswered questions that were posed to you in response to some of the astonishing statements you made on the V-22 thread. There are some there still anxiously awaiting your enlightening responses. As a reminder, here are the questions pending your answers (scroll down about half way):
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/204...osprey-71.html
thanks...
21stC
21st Century, please try to stay on point, okay?
I asked:
What is the emergency procedure for loss of oil pressure in one of the 609's engines?
21st Century replield:
So, no engine oil pressure is really no big deal then, is that right? So, there is a sprag clutch then? A sprag clutch that allows the proprotor on the shutdown engine to turn without back-driving the engine? Because we sure wouldn't want an engine with no oil pressure being driven by a prop. Would we?
I asked:
What is the emergency procedure for loss of oil pressure in one of the 609's engines?
21st Century replield:
If you were enroute the situation would be handled by routine checklist use. If the low oil pressure was accompanied by high oil temperature and/or the appropriate CAS warning the engine would be shut down and the flight continued to a safe landing location. The difference between a fixed-wing a/c and a tiltrotor is that it does not exhibit the same asymmetrical thrust in OEI ops that would occur in an aeroplane due to the fact that the proprotors are interconnected via a cross shaft that allows both sides to continue turning at the same steady RPM with the remaining engine driving them.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get on the Clue Train
Get on board, FH1100.
I am far from being a tilt-rotor proponent but your question apparently comes from ignorance of information that's been published in the trade press for about the last 25 years or so concerning the tilt-rotor's construction, i.e., the XV-15, the XV-22, and the whatever-it-is-now-609.
To wit: the two engines input to their respective prop-rotor gearboxes, and there is a cross-drive shaft connecting those two gearboxes. So, in the event of an engine failure scenario, which would include a loss of engine oil pressure, the failed engine would be shut down and the remaining engine would drive both prop-rotors through the connecting driveshaft...similarly to the way that both fore and aft rotors in a CH-47 are driven by the drive shaft that connects the combining transmission to the forward transmission.
As somebody else in this thread tried to point out to you, what this means is that a TR with one engine failed would be in the same situation as any other twin engine airplane with one powerplant failed, i.e., proceeding to a landing site on partial power, as such multiengine vehicles are designed to do...with the exception that the tiltrotor won't have the problem of asymmetric thrust/drag resulting from one failed plant, such as a King Air or other twin turboprop plane would have.
And yes, there is a sprag clutch mechanism that declutches the powerplant from the respective transmission when transmission speed exceeds plant speed, i.e., if that powerplant should fail.
Now, if you want to raise a serious question, by all means ask what should happen if one of the prop-rotor gearboxes should lose lubrication; but that is an entirely different situation than the engine oil pressure scenario you are thinking of.
Look, you can be against the tiltrotor all you want (again, I am myself), but try to make your objections from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because as it is you're making our side look bad.
I am far from being a tilt-rotor proponent but your question apparently comes from ignorance of information that's been published in the trade press for about the last 25 years or so concerning the tilt-rotor's construction, i.e., the XV-15, the XV-22, and the whatever-it-is-now-609.
To wit: the two engines input to their respective prop-rotor gearboxes, and there is a cross-drive shaft connecting those two gearboxes. So, in the event of an engine failure scenario, which would include a loss of engine oil pressure, the failed engine would be shut down and the remaining engine would drive both prop-rotors through the connecting driveshaft...similarly to the way that both fore and aft rotors in a CH-47 are driven by the drive shaft that connects the combining transmission to the forward transmission.
As somebody else in this thread tried to point out to you, what this means is that a TR with one engine failed would be in the same situation as any other twin engine airplane with one powerplant failed, i.e., proceeding to a landing site on partial power, as such multiengine vehicles are designed to do...with the exception that the tiltrotor won't have the problem of asymmetric thrust/drag resulting from one failed plant, such as a King Air or other twin turboprop plane would have.
And yes, there is a sprag clutch mechanism that declutches the powerplant from the respective transmission when transmission speed exceeds plant speed, i.e., if that powerplant should fail.
Now, if you want to raise a serious question, by all means ask what should happen if one of the prop-rotor gearboxes should lose lubrication; but that is an entirely different situation than the engine oil pressure scenario you are thinking of.
Look, you can be against the tiltrotor all you want (again, I am myself), but try to make your objections from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because as it is you're making our side look bad.
Seems like a very versatile Aircraft.
But 275kts max speed ?
Pretty slow really, many civil turboprops cruise much faster, Saab 2000 for example, 370 knots and at the top end the Avanti with a 400 kt cruise.
All that power and what looks like a very slippery shape you would think could do better.
But 275kts max speed ?
Pretty slow really, many civil turboprops cruise much faster, Saab 2000 for example, 370 knots and at the top end the Avanti with a 400 kt cruise.
All that power and what looks like a very slippery shape you would think could do better.
At the risk of stating the obvious the Saab and the Avanti can't hover, so to get 275 knots from a rotor which isn't purely a propeller seems pretty impressive to me. But then I'm no aerodynamicist.
Even a cruise speed of 240-250 Kts would yield an advantage over both fixed and rotory wing aircraft for some types of ops. Particularly in the SAR and EMS roles, where both FW and RW platforms could potentially be replaced. At least one EMS operator in Australia has expressed intrest in the 609.
Currently in NSW 4-5 B350/400s are used to conduct long range medical retrieval, and a network of 13 helicopters (AW139s, EC145s, BK-117s, B412s, Dauphins and an A109E) are used for shorter range EMS, IC hospital transfer and SAR. The 609 could trump the King Airs by flying direct from hospital to hospital (or accident scene), over long ranges. Taking IC Paramedics, Doctors and IC Ambulance bays with them. Patients could be retrieved from the scene and transported directly to a metropolitan operating theatre without the need for modal transfer. All this would likely be achieved in a quicker time frame than could be achieved utilising any of the existing platform types.
So, potentially, a small number of helos could remain for metro EMS, while everything elso could be achieved using 609s. All this is pie in the sky however. I have no idea of costs or the practicalities of such an operation. Just a thought.
I wonder how the efficiencies of the 609 will compare to the developments of Sikorsky's X-2/S-97 long term?
Currently in NSW 4-5 B350/400s are used to conduct long range medical retrieval, and a network of 13 helicopters (AW139s, EC145s, BK-117s, B412s, Dauphins and an A109E) are used for shorter range EMS, IC hospital transfer and SAR. The 609 could trump the King Airs by flying direct from hospital to hospital (or accident scene), over long ranges. Taking IC Paramedics, Doctors and IC Ambulance bays with them. Patients could be retrieved from the scene and transported directly to a metropolitan operating theatre without the need for modal transfer. All this would likely be achieved in a quicker time frame than could be achieved utilising any of the existing platform types.
So, potentially, a small number of helos could remain for metro EMS, while everything elso could be achieved using 609s. All this is pie in the sky however. I have no idea of costs or the practicalities of such an operation. Just a thought.
I wonder how the efficiencies of the 609 will compare to the developments of Sikorsky's X-2/S-97 long term?
Last edited by Trojan1981; 15th Feb 2012 at 22:55. Reason: Typos
Originally Posted by Colibri49
At the risk of stating the obvious the Saab and the Avanti can't hover, so to get 275 knots from a rotor which isn't purely a propeller seems pretty impressive to me
Kind of my point, it's no that impressive as a helicopter, or as a fixed wing turboprop.
Jack of all trades, master of none ?
Kind of my point, it's no that impressive as a helicopter, or as a fixed wing turboprop.
Jack of all trades, master of none ?
Jack of all trades, master of none ?
You get a King Air to hover/VTOL and I'll be impressed.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, I'd love to fly one of these when my time in the big green gun club is up.
At the same time, I think its application is going to be limited. The 609 is going to entail some serious expense to operate, which means it will be limited to applications where the return on investment is sufficient to justify it. The Osprey fills a tactical role, plus the government isn't concerned with turning a profit. Private users aren't constrained by an enemy, and they must make a profit.
For most corporate transport, it would be cheaper to take a helicopter to the airport, take a jet to the destination city, then a helo to the meeting than taking the 609. Only the biggest, most prestige-minded individuals are going to pay the premium for the speed and convenience of the 609.
For EMS, most trips are relatively short and not at the max range of existing helos. Also, they get reimbursed through insurance or local government funding, both of which aren't likely to enjoy paying a premium. It would be useful in remote areas, but there isn't enough volume, and thus money, to be affordable unless highly subsidized in some fashion.
Deepwater drilling is definitely the big possibility. The Deepwater Horizon hurt American deepwater drilling a lot in the short term. Eventually oil price will go up to the point that deepwater drilling is both necessary and prevalent. That's the one good market for the 609 in my opinion.
At the same time, I think its application is going to be limited. The 609 is going to entail some serious expense to operate, which means it will be limited to applications where the return on investment is sufficient to justify it. The Osprey fills a tactical role, plus the government isn't concerned with turning a profit. Private users aren't constrained by an enemy, and they must make a profit.
For most corporate transport, it would be cheaper to take a helicopter to the airport, take a jet to the destination city, then a helo to the meeting than taking the 609. Only the biggest, most prestige-minded individuals are going to pay the premium for the speed and convenience of the 609.
For EMS, most trips are relatively short and not at the max range of existing helos. Also, they get reimbursed through insurance or local government funding, both of which aren't likely to enjoy paying a premium. It would be useful in remote areas, but there isn't enough volume, and thus money, to be affordable unless highly subsidized in some fashion.
Deepwater drilling is definitely the big possibility. The Deepwater Horizon hurt American deepwater drilling a lot in the short term. Eventually oil price will go up to the point that deepwater drilling is both necessary and prevalent. That's the one good market for the 609 in my opinion.
I should clarify Ospreydriver.
Most EMS operators in New South Wales are 100% government funded. The King Airs are used for retrieval beyond the economical range of the helicopters. I'm only just getting into the field, so I am no expert. Perhaps someone who works for ANSW in EMS could shed some light? I know there are a couple of you on here.
Most EMS operators in New South Wales are 100% government funded. The King Airs are used for retrieval beyond the economical range of the helicopters. I'm only just getting into the field, so I am no expert. Perhaps someone who works for ANSW in EMS could shed some light? I know there are a couple of you on here.
the government isn't concerned with turning a profit.
There's one Marine that has a grasp of the obvious!
Twice in one day OD.....this is getting scary!
The current administration isn't concerned about the private sector turning a profit either it seems!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sas
Why the thread creep? Got nothing?
As to companies making profit, the President cares a lot about GM making a record S6.7B of profit. It is Mitt and Republicans who want to see American business destroyed. As to Santorum he is trying to figure out why everybody snickers at his name.
TC
Why the thread creep? Got nothing?
As to companies making profit, the President cares a lot about GM making a record S6.7B of profit. It is Mitt and Republicans who want to see American business destroyed. As to Santorum he is trying to figure out why everybody snickers at his name.
TC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deepwater drilling is definitely the big possibility. The Deepwater Horizon hurt American deepwater drilling a lot in the short term. Eventually oil price will go up to the point that deepwater drilling is both necessary and prevalent. That's the one good market for the 609 in my opinion.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: stateside
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah it may be getting certified for 9 but when you look inside you get the impression it might fit 5 rig workers maximum.
Theres also the pop-out windows vs pressurisation issue and thats just the tip of the iceberg to get it offshore ready.
I doubt it will ever be used in that role, in fact i think the whole aircraft is borderline commercially viable.
I say put a gun on it and make it a combat escort for the V-22, that would be a great team!
Theres also the pop-out windows vs pressurisation issue and thats just the tip of the iceberg to get it offshore ready.
I doubt it will ever be used in that role, in fact i think the whole aircraft is borderline commercially viable.
I say put a gun on it and make it a combat escort for the V-22, that would be a great team!
Civil pressurized aircraft have emergency exits....so what is the problem there?
The design of them will not allow bringing the exit doors inside as is done on some airliners and thus designing a pop-out exit door is going to be interesting I suppose. Also expensive and heavy....operative issue will be weight.
As long as the Oil Patch Clock and Weigh Scales remain standard as they are today....no problem getting the aircraft loaded.
The 165 pound Oily that looks like a Sumo Wrestler dragging a 40 pound Suitcase and 25 pound Toolbox....for a total weight of 230 pounds.....Nay Lads...no problem!
Getting off the ground might pose a small problem however!
Tcabot113....you convinced me finally.
Along with Jane-OH and Shell Management....you earned my "Ignore" tag
After all these years....you are exactly number three. You might ask yourself where the other two are now....and why they seem to be conspicuous by their absence.
The design of them will not allow bringing the exit doors inside as is done on some airliners and thus designing a pop-out exit door is going to be interesting I suppose. Also expensive and heavy....operative issue will be weight.
As long as the Oil Patch Clock and Weigh Scales remain standard as they are today....no problem getting the aircraft loaded.
The 165 pound Oily that looks like a Sumo Wrestler dragging a 40 pound Suitcase and 25 pound Toolbox....for a total weight of 230 pounds.....Nay Lads...no problem!
Getting off the ground might pose a small problem however!
Tcabot113....you convinced me finally.
Along with Jane-OH and Shell Management....you earned my "Ignore" tag
After all these years....you are exactly number three. You might ask yourself where the other two are now....and why they seem to be conspicuous by their absence.