What's New With The Civil Tiltrotor?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AgustaWestland Begins Production Phase of AW609 Tiltrotor
AgustaWestland's AW609 TiltRotor program has achieved key milestones, the company announced on March 2 at HAI Heli-Expo, and is initiating the production phase in anticipation of the first customer deliveries.
The company has expanded the AW609 TiltRotor program to include the AgustaWestland Philadelphia, Pa. facility through its designation as the first final assembly line for the only civil tiltrotor in development to date. A second final assembly line is expected to be established at AgustaWestland’s Vergiate facility in Italy at a later date.
Photo courtesy of AgustaWestland
The involvement of AgustaWestland Philadelphia in the AW609 program represents the anticipated progression towards assembly and certification with the FAA as the main certification authority. The move signifies an expansion of the capabilities present at AgustaWestland Philadelphia, particularly in the engineering and supply chain functions.
AgustaWestland currently has two prototypes undergoing flight testing with a third in final assembly. The first prototype aircraft will continue flying at the AgustaWestland facility in Arlington, Texas in parallel with FAA Certification support work at AgustaWestland’s Philadelphia facility. The fourth prototype will be assembled in Philadelphia in 2016.
Full integration of the AW609 program into AgustaWestland Philadelphia’s operations is expected by third quarter 2015, and will include facility expansions as required to accommodate the AW609 TiltRotor engineering, certification, and aircraft assembly activities.
The AW609 aircraft have so far logged nearly 1,200 hours, with achievements over the past year that include successful completion of envelope expansion, autorotation trials, and improvements in aerodynamics and aircraft systems. Nearly 60 aircraft have been ordered to date for a variety of roles and missions, including offshore transportation, EMS and patient transfer, search and rescue, VIP, and parapublic operations.
Last edited by 21stCen; 5th Mar 2015 at 19:12. Reason: Image too large for Rotorheads
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has got to have huge potential for those who commit early in offshore operations. It has the potential for operators to offer a new capability for a more comprehensive logistics solution. In these days of cutting cost it may allow operators to reduce the number of bases to essentially one hub and provides a needed increase in range of operations. As operations expand into the arctic areas of Northern Norway this may well be the answer to the long range ops there. However the limit to 9 pax may be a significant limiting factor, but when compared to an S92 with extended range tanks and the loss of pax seats there, this may prove to be a more palatable solution.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The D-value of the AW609 is less than that of an S92 which is certified for almost all decks in the North Sea. S92 d-value is 21 (20.88). I believe the Aw609 is a little less the 20. In addition full icing clearance and performance class 1 as well as cruise speeds of 250kts, it is easy to see some real advantages to the offshore sector.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'D' value of the 609 is about the same as a Bell 212 (60ft vs. 58ft) which has been operating to rigs and platforms around the world for decades. The advantage of the 609 is that the pilots can see the outer most rotating bodies of the aircraft (the proprotors) while maneuvering on the helideck, whereas we cannot see the same in our 212s (the tailrotor).
Add to that the fact that 609s no longer have the potentially fatal problem of having pax walk into the tailrotor which is an exponential leap in safety for deck handling ops.
Add to that the fact that 609s no longer have the potentially fatal problem of having pax walk into the tailrotor which is an exponential leap in safety for deck handling ops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The width of the 609, proprotor tip to proprotor tip, is 60 feet (hence the 'D' value). Pilots have a good visual of the stiff proprotor blades which are about 15 feet above the deck causing no hazard to persons walking on the deck and of course there is no tail rotor to walk into. The length of the 609 is 44 feet.
In comparison our Bell 212s have a 'D' value of 57 feet 3in from the forward tip of the main rotor disk to the aft tip of the tail rotor disk. The pilots cannot see the the tailrotor while maneuvering which is about 5ft 9in above the deck when sitting on the skids.
So no problem for the 609 operating to typical rigs and platforms. Many helidecks are sized for the old S-61.
In comparison our Bell 212s have a 'D' value of 57 feet 3in from the forward tip of the main rotor disk to the aft tip of the tail rotor disk. The pilots cannot see the the tailrotor while maneuvering which is about 5ft 9in above the deck when sitting on the skids.
So no problem for the 609 operating to typical rigs and platforms. Many helidecks are sized for the old S-61.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would not want to stand next to the outer side of the nacelles for an extended period when the engines are running as the exhaust duct from the PT6C-67A faces downward toward the deck when in the upright helicopter mode (and face aft when the nacelles are in the airplane mode in flight). I asked one of the test pilots if you could safely walk under it on the deck and he said you can, but I have not tried it myself!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No John, fortunately nothing at all like the problems they had with the V-22. The Osprey with its 6,150 SHP Rolls Royce AE1107C engines vent the exhaust directly out the bottom of the nacelle when in the upright position. The design of the PT6s with the exhaust circulated back up to the front of the engine and then out just happen to give it an advantage of being raised further above the helideck with the nacelles in the upright position.
I'm trying to think if this is likely to be a commercial success. It only takes 9 pax and while the range looks good, is it really going to be a game changer? It can go likely under 300nm each way and is there an idea of what it will cost?
Fuel on rigs will help massively though but 9 pax is not a lot and the numbers need to add up to make it worthwhile.
Have AW just gone into competition with itself with the AW101 and plans to use this in the O&G role?
Fuel on rigs will help massively though but 9 pax is not a lot and the numbers need to add up to make it worthwhile.
Have AW just gone into competition with itself with the AW101 and plans to use this in the O&G role?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NWS,
This aircraft will definitely fill a niche as it can do things that no other aircraft can do. It has a max cruise speed of 275kts and a range with aux tanks of up to 1100 nm. It will never replace airplanes or helicopters. In order for it to be successful the normal routine mission has to require a vertical take off and landing at least at one end of the journey - otherwise a fixed wing turboprop would be cheaper flying airport to airport. The minimum normal distance flown routinely should be greater than 150 to 200nm - otherwise a helicopter would be more economical. (other variables like number of pax, total payload req'd, etc. must be considered too)
In this part of the world the 609 will be very popular for VVIP transport - or palace to palace transport as we like to call it. The aircraft will be expensive, in the area of $24 mil USD as one AW exec alluded to, but over here that amount is a drop in the bucket. In addition to the added speed that is so important to heads of state and other VIPs (time is money), the added security of not having to go through an international airport is a huge plus. They can take off from their palace to any location in the region.
Military applications here are clear too. From the UAE the 609 can reach any naval vessel in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea unrefueled in a shorter time than any helicopter can do. They can also rapidly deploy a small number of people anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the west coast of India, or anywhere in Iran
if they need to.
SAR operations that use fixed-wing a/c to locate distressed vessels at sea and then call out helicopters could use the 609 to locate and perform a rescue all in one. Or the 609s could wait for the call out from a FW and respond in a much shorter period of time out to further distances than existing VTOL aircraft. Or as mentioned, they could reduce the number of helicopter bases and spread them out with the increased range and speed capability available.
EMS operaters could use 609s in places like western Canada, the outback in Australia, the Midwest US, and many other locations to conduct flights in vast sparsely populated areas with a quick response time over long distances that no other aircraft could perform.
On the corporate side, a company that uses a helicopter to fly their execs from their HQ to an airport, then take a turboprop or small jet to another airport where the execs get out and go to their manufacturing plant, could instead take a 609 direct from HQ to the plant without needing the helicopter, airplane, and limo.
In the offshore market the potential future is good when the price of oil climbs back up. Only long haul requirements will be viable for 609 ops. Heli One approached Sikorsky some years back asking about the viability of doing 600nm trips up in the arctic with an S-92. They were told it could be done by carrying additional fuel in the passenger compartment, but they would only be able to carry 7 to 9 passengers. The 609 could accomplish this type of mission more efficiently. Of course on shorter distance routes with larger passenger requirements the 609 would not be able to compete.
You can go on and on with possibilities. In the end it will be a balance of cost over importance of speed and range that determines how many 609s will be needed. When the aircraft comes out and begins regular use by customers that is when we will begin to see all the potential missions that can be performed efficiently compared to other modes of transportation. Interesting to see that the main stream media (as opposed to the industry media) is just learning that a/c exists! See NBC video:
Tilt-rotor goes commercial - NBC News
This aircraft will definitely fill a niche as it can do things that no other aircraft can do. It has a max cruise speed of 275kts and a range with aux tanks of up to 1100 nm. It will never replace airplanes or helicopters. In order for it to be successful the normal routine mission has to require a vertical take off and landing at least at one end of the journey - otherwise a fixed wing turboprop would be cheaper flying airport to airport. The minimum normal distance flown routinely should be greater than 150 to 200nm - otherwise a helicopter would be more economical. (other variables like number of pax, total payload req'd, etc. must be considered too)
In this part of the world the 609 will be very popular for VVIP transport - or palace to palace transport as we like to call it. The aircraft will be expensive, in the area of $24 mil USD as one AW exec alluded to, but over here that amount is a drop in the bucket. In addition to the added speed that is so important to heads of state and other VIPs (time is money), the added security of not having to go through an international airport is a huge plus. They can take off from their palace to any location in the region.
Military applications here are clear too. From the UAE the 609 can reach any naval vessel in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea unrefueled in a shorter time than any helicopter can do. They can also rapidly deploy a small number of people anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the west coast of India, or anywhere in Iran
if they need to.SAR operations that use fixed-wing a/c to locate distressed vessels at sea and then call out helicopters could use the 609 to locate and perform a rescue all in one. Or the 609s could wait for the call out from a FW and respond in a much shorter period of time out to further distances than existing VTOL aircraft. Or as mentioned, they could reduce the number of helicopter bases and spread them out with the increased range and speed capability available.
EMS operaters could use 609s in places like western Canada, the outback in Australia, the Midwest US, and many other locations to conduct flights in vast sparsely populated areas with a quick response time over long distances that no other aircraft could perform.
On the corporate side, a company that uses a helicopter to fly their execs from their HQ to an airport, then take a turboprop or small jet to another airport where the execs get out and go to their manufacturing plant, could instead take a 609 direct from HQ to the plant without needing the helicopter, airplane, and limo.
In the offshore market the potential future is good when the price of oil climbs back up. Only long haul requirements will be viable for 609 ops. Heli One approached Sikorsky some years back asking about the viability of doing 600nm trips up in the arctic with an S-92. They were told it could be done by carrying additional fuel in the passenger compartment, but they would only be able to carry 7 to 9 passengers. The 609 could accomplish this type of mission more efficiently. Of course on shorter distance routes with larger passenger requirements the 609 would not be able to compete.
You can go on and on with possibilities. In the end it will be a balance of cost over importance of speed and range that determines how many 609s will be needed. When the aircraft comes out and begins regular use by customers that is when we will begin to see all the potential missions that can be performed efficiently compared to other modes of transportation. Interesting to see that the main stream media (as opposed to the industry media) is just learning that a/c exists! See NBC video:
Tilt-rotor goes commercial - NBC News
Last edited by 21stCen; 6th Mar 2015 at 14:28.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midlands
Age: 78
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone near Wolverhampton on March 19th, there is a Royal Aerosoc lecture at Moog's new factory starting 19.00 (tea and coffee 30 minutes before) titled: "The Bell AW609 tilt rotor and the Bell 625 Relentless control systems". All welcome.
See more at: Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | The J D North Lecture - The Bell AW609 tilt rotor and the Bell 625 Relentless control systems
See more at: Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | The J D North Lecture - The Bell AW609 tilt rotor and the Bell 625 Relentless control systems
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is often missed on this concept is the awesome inefficiency of the tilt rotor type:
the 16,000 lb AW609 needs more power installed than the 21,000 lb Black Hawk, it weighs more empty weight, and it has a gross weight about 5000 lbs less, all lost payload.
It has no more range, dont be fooled by the fact that TRs have enormous fuel tanks as standard, where helicopters has smaller tanks. If the helicopters used even half the extra payload they have as takeoff fuel, they have more range than a tilt rotor.
Also don't be fooled by the speed hype, the best range speed of the 609 is nowhere near 275 knots, it is likely about 220 knots (don't try to find it in their material, that is a number they will tell you as you fly away after purchase!) The Best Range of the V22 is somewhere between 205 and 218 knots true airspeed.
And ask the question about Cat A performance. I don't think they have described what MGW it can have when PC2e from a small ground level heliport. Old Bell data said they needed about 1100 feet from a ground level heliport as Cat A landback, so stand by for the real info.
Does any of this mean the TR is not attractive? No, the speed and elan of the machine is awesome, but its reality is probably well inside its current hype. It niche will be smaller by far than the one folks have mapped out for it, I believe.
the 16,000 lb AW609 needs more power installed than the 21,000 lb Black Hawk, it weighs more empty weight, and it has a gross weight about 5000 lbs less, all lost payload.
It has no more range, dont be fooled by the fact that TRs have enormous fuel tanks as standard, where helicopters has smaller tanks. If the helicopters used even half the extra payload they have as takeoff fuel, they have more range than a tilt rotor.
Also don't be fooled by the speed hype, the best range speed of the 609 is nowhere near 275 knots, it is likely about 220 knots (don't try to find it in their material, that is a number they will tell you as you fly away after purchase!) The Best Range of the V22 is somewhere between 205 and 218 knots true airspeed.
And ask the question about Cat A performance. I don't think they have described what MGW it can have when PC2e from a small ground level heliport. Old Bell data said they needed about 1100 feet from a ground level heliport as Cat A landback, so stand by for the real info.
Does any of this mean the TR is not attractive? No, the speed and elan of the machine is awesome, but its reality is probably well inside its current hype. It niche will be smaller by far than the one folks have mapped out for it, I believe.
If the Blackhawk is so good, then why don't Sikorsky sell them to Civil Operators?
True, the max range speed won't be the same as the max speed, but AW do make speedy machines. Max in the 139 is 167, best range is about 150. The AW109 is even quicker and a massive rework of the 609 has yielded increased speed during development.
Is it going to be expensive? Yes. Are there offshore operators interested in it? Yes. Can it be upscaled, so increasing the per seat efficiency? Yes.
The "easy" oil is getting further offshore as inshore reserves are explored and used up. It is either something new that can go that far, or floating runways for fixed wing to operate out of. Which actually isn't as crazy as it sounds!
And I for one don't believe that AW will tell you that the max range speed is 275 and let you find out for yourself that it isn't. That would be like telling people that the MGB has been tested for 30 minute dry run, when in fact it hasn't been. Oh, bad example.
I'm sure as it gets closer to certification and the actual operating envelope is finalised, that performance data will be made available, at least to potential customers.
True, the max range speed won't be the same as the max speed, but AW do make speedy machines. Max in the 139 is 167, best range is about 150. The AW109 is even quicker and a massive rework of the 609 has yielded increased speed during development.
Is it going to be expensive? Yes. Are there offshore operators interested in it? Yes. Can it be upscaled, so increasing the per seat efficiency? Yes.
The "easy" oil is getting further offshore as inshore reserves are explored and used up. It is either something new that can go that far, or floating runways for fixed wing to operate out of. Which actually isn't as crazy as it sounds!
And I for one don't believe that AW will tell you that the max range speed is 275 and let you find out for yourself that it isn't. That would be like telling people that the MGB has been tested for 30 minute dry run, when in fact it hasn't been. Oh, bad example.
I'm sure as it gets closer to certification and the actual operating envelope is finalised, that performance data will be made available, at least to potential customers.
Last edited by noooby; 6th Mar 2015 at 19:07. Reason: Quicker typing means more spelling mistakes!!!
If the Blackhawk is so good, then why don't Sikorsky sell them to Civil Operators?
HMM. Late eighties they had that idea, the operators did not like the short ceiling (Hawk had to packup transportability reqt). Make it a "fat hawk" they all said.
It is now known as the S-92A.
HMM. Late eighties they had that idea, the operators did not like the short ceiling (Hawk had to packup transportability reqt). Make it a "fat hawk" they all said.
It is now known as the S-92A.