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
What is often missed on this concept is the awesome inefficiency of the tilt rotor type: ... 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.
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.
Also don't be fooled by the speed hype, the best range speed of the 609 is nowhere near 275 knots
...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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test Pilots Say AW609 is Easy to Fly
by Mark Huber
- March 4, 2015, 5:33 PM
AgustaWestland AW609 test pilots Dan Wells and Paul Edwards insist that the civil tiltrotor is “easy to fly” for those transitioning from either helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. The duo brought AW609 test ship number one to Heli-Expo from the manufacturer's 609 test facility in Arlington, Texas. (Photo: AgustaWestland)
AgustaWestland AW609 test pilots Dan Wells and Paul Edwards insist that the civil tiltrotor is “easy to fly” for those transitioning from either helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. The duo brought AW609 test ship number one to Heli-Expo from the manufacturer's 609 test facility in Arlington, Texas. Along the way they flew up to 23,000 feet and saw average fuel burns of 1,000 pph.
Wells joined the program three and a half years ago after serving as a U.S. Army test pilot and being seconded to the Air Force to fly its version of the military V-22 tiltrotor, the CV-22, test flying avionics packages. After serving in the Army for 26 years, he joined Bell Helicopter and then AgustaWestland when Bell sold its share of the 609 program to the Italian manufacturer. Wells has logged 650 hours in tiltrotors.
Edwards flew rotorcraft as a test pilot for the UK Royal Navy and was seconded to the U.S. Navy as a rotary wing test pilot. He has both rotary wing and fixed-wing aircraft experience. He joined the 609 program in 2013 and has 300 hours in the tiltrotor.
Edwards said the hardest thing about flying the 609 is to keep in the proper mindset given the aircraft's profile. “It changes from a fixed-wing aircraft to a helicopter in about 30 seconds. So you have to fly it like a fixed-wing when it is fixed-wing and then get ready to fly it like a helicopter. It sounds trite, but that is what it is like.
“The fly-by-wire system makes it very easy to fly,” Edwards added. “Dan and I also are both instructor pilots. When you transition from helicopter to fixed-wing you do have to increase alpha a little to get wing lift. A helicopter is designed for zero alpha. When you roll on the bank in the helicopter you increase a little collective. In an airplane when you roll on the bank you increase a little bit of alpha and that is exactly what you do with this,” Edwards said. “You just have to remember that when you roll into the turn unless you are in conversion mode, when you have to do a little bit of both.”
Edwards said development of the fly-by-wire system on the aircraft is largely done. “We're down to the minutiae,” he told AIN. “It flies beautifully.”
Flying an approach from fixed-wing configuration at full speed to a vertical landing is a busy event, but the fly-by-wire control system helps lessen the pilot workload. “You pull the power off at 250 knots and it slows down at about 10 knots per second,” Edwards explained. “Once you are below 200 knots, you make the first click on the thumbwheel. That speeds the proprotors up to 100 percent. They’re at 84 percent in level cruise for noise abatement and efficiency. That slows you down some more and in a couple of seconds you’re below 180 knots. One more click and the rotors come back off the stops to 50-percent nacelle. Another click and in five seconds you’re doing 80 knots at 75-percent nacelle turning onto final. You can go from 240 knots to 80 knots in about a minute. On short final you're at 82-percent nacelle and about 40 knots. Bring the nacelles back to 95 percent and that will stop you really quickly. You can be on the helipad a minute after you were on the downwind at 240 knots.”
Wells said the 609 really shines on steep approaches. “When you tilt the nacelles back to 95 percent, the fuselage is going to be at about minus seven or eight degrees. You can see exactly where you are going. You can see any obstacles. It is totally different than a helicopter. You'll feel yourself hanging in the shoulder belts. If you are going into an austere environment, that is an amazing ability.”
by Mark Huber
- March 4, 2015, 5:33 PM
AgustaWestland AW609 test pilots Dan Wells and Paul Edwards insist that the civil tiltrotor is “easy to fly” for those transitioning from either helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. The duo brought AW609 test ship number one to Heli-Expo from the manufacturer's 609 test facility in Arlington, Texas. (Photo: AgustaWestland)
AgustaWestland AW609 test pilots Dan Wells and Paul Edwards insist that the civil tiltrotor is “easy to fly” for those transitioning from either helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. The duo brought AW609 test ship number one to Heli-Expo from the manufacturer's 609 test facility in Arlington, Texas. Along the way they flew up to 23,000 feet and saw average fuel burns of 1,000 pph.
Wells joined the program three and a half years ago after serving as a U.S. Army test pilot and being seconded to the Air Force to fly its version of the military V-22 tiltrotor, the CV-22, test flying avionics packages. After serving in the Army for 26 years, he joined Bell Helicopter and then AgustaWestland when Bell sold its share of the 609 program to the Italian manufacturer. Wells has logged 650 hours in tiltrotors.
Edwards flew rotorcraft as a test pilot for the UK Royal Navy and was seconded to the U.S. Navy as a rotary wing test pilot. He has both rotary wing and fixed-wing aircraft experience. He joined the 609 program in 2013 and has 300 hours in the tiltrotor.
Edwards said the hardest thing about flying the 609 is to keep in the proper mindset given the aircraft's profile. “It changes from a fixed-wing aircraft to a helicopter in about 30 seconds. So you have to fly it like a fixed-wing when it is fixed-wing and then get ready to fly it like a helicopter. It sounds trite, but that is what it is like.
“The fly-by-wire system makes it very easy to fly,” Edwards added. “Dan and I also are both instructor pilots. When you transition from helicopter to fixed-wing you do have to increase alpha a little to get wing lift. A helicopter is designed for zero alpha. When you roll on the bank in the helicopter you increase a little collective. In an airplane when you roll on the bank you increase a little bit of alpha and that is exactly what you do with this,” Edwards said. “You just have to remember that when you roll into the turn unless you are in conversion mode, when you have to do a little bit of both.”
Edwards said development of the fly-by-wire system on the aircraft is largely done. “We're down to the minutiae,” he told AIN. “It flies beautifully.”
Flying an approach from fixed-wing configuration at full speed to a vertical landing is a busy event, but the fly-by-wire control system helps lessen the pilot workload. “You pull the power off at 250 knots and it slows down at about 10 knots per second,” Edwards explained. “Once you are below 200 knots, you make the first click on the thumbwheel. That speeds the proprotors up to 100 percent. They’re at 84 percent in level cruise for noise abatement and efficiency. That slows you down some more and in a couple of seconds you’re below 180 knots. One more click and the rotors come back off the stops to 50-percent nacelle. Another click and in five seconds you’re doing 80 knots at 75-percent nacelle turning onto final. You can go from 240 knots to 80 knots in about a minute. On short final you're at 82-percent nacelle and about 40 knots. Bring the nacelles back to 95 percent and that will stop you really quickly. You can be on the helipad a minute after you were on the downwind at 240 knots.”
Wells said the 609 really shines on steep approaches. “When you tilt the nacelles back to 95 percent, the fuselage is going to be at about minus seven or eight degrees. You can see exactly where you are going. You can see any obstacles. It is totally different than a helicopter. You'll feel yourself hanging in the shoulder belts. If you are going into an austere environment, that is an amazing ability.”
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21st Century is so 18th century
21st Century decided to debate:
TR Inefficiency== He says, "Not true, in fact just the opposite." Then he says, " in a hover the helicopter is far more efficient than a tiltrotor."
THAT was my point, 21st. The TR carries far less in the hover, were we make our living. To any range, an equivalent helicopter will carry about twice the payload of a tilt rotor. (Equivalent meaning same power and same empty weight)
He says. "The max t.o. weight of the AW609 is now 18,000 lbs" But he doesn't say what atmosphere it can hover at that new heavy weight. He also doesn't say what the heliport Cat A/JAR OPs 1 weight is to compare to that wildly high 18,000 lbs. What is the takeoff weight, sea level, heliport, 32 deg C? What is the real equipped empty weight and thus, what is the true useful load on that takeoff?
Max Speed- 21st century waxes on for a hundred words, and never tells us what the REAL cruise speed is. Since he tells us the 609 goes 720 nm on a load of fuel, maybe someday, after we pay for the machine, he will tell us how slow it has to be flown to get that far. My bet: 215 knots, a whopping 60 knots slower than the speed he still mentions.
The size of its niche: Tell us, 21st Centuy, the following - if the 609 takes off from a heliport at Cat A on a 32 deg C day, and flies to its max range, How far will it get, how fast does it fly and how many pax does it carry to that point? Some specifics (you have specifics, after 1200 flight hours, don't you? Unless those hours were all spent posing for magazine covers).
TR Inefficiency== He says, "Not true, in fact just the opposite." Then he says, " in a hover the helicopter is far more efficient than a tiltrotor."
THAT was my point, 21st. The TR carries far less in the hover, were we make our living. To any range, an equivalent helicopter will carry about twice the payload of a tilt rotor. (Equivalent meaning same power and same empty weight)
He says. "The max t.o. weight of the AW609 is now 18,000 lbs" But he doesn't say what atmosphere it can hover at that new heavy weight. He also doesn't say what the heliport Cat A/JAR OPs 1 weight is to compare to that wildly high 18,000 lbs. What is the takeoff weight, sea level, heliport, 32 deg C? What is the real equipped empty weight and thus, what is the true useful load on that takeoff?
Max Speed- 21st century waxes on for a hundred words, and never tells us what the REAL cruise speed is. Since he tells us the 609 goes 720 nm on a load of fuel, maybe someday, after we pay for the machine, he will tell us how slow it has to be flown to get that far. My bet: 215 knots, a whopping 60 knots slower than the speed he still mentions.
The size of its niche: Tell us, 21st Centuy, the following - if the 609 takes off from a heliport at Cat A on a 32 deg C day, and flies to its max range, How far will it get, how fast does it fly and how many pax does it carry to that point? Some specifics (you have specifics, after 1200 flight hours, don't you? Unless those hours were all spent posing for magazine covers).
RJ, if the civil T/R, was meant to be doing sling loading over 50 nm distances it would have been designed with a more efficient rotor system or not designed at all.
That is why the USMC has v-22s and (soon) 53Ks, two different missions.
The 609 has the same powerplant as the 139, however its GW is at least 2000 lbs higher and my guess is the empty weight is around 12000/12500 lbs.
The 609 is designed to fly efficiently, like a turboprop at altitudes requiring pressurization, hence the higher weight for structure.
I don't get your beef, I would not go offroading in a Ferrari and wouldn't go on a racetrack in a jeep Wrangler.
Even with the same powerplant as the 609, the 139 does not go 720nm period. And with 12 passengers you don't carry full fuel and auxiliary fuel, unless you operate at increased gross weights, but then you have compromises in CatA performance.
That is why the USMC has v-22s and (soon) 53Ks, two different missions.
The 609 has the same powerplant as the 139, however its GW is at least 2000 lbs higher and my guess is the empty weight is around 12000/12500 lbs.
The 609 is designed to fly efficiently, like a turboprop at altitudes requiring pressurization, hence the higher weight for structure.
I don't get your beef, I would not go offroading in a Ferrari and wouldn't go on a racetrack in a jeep Wrangler.
Even with the same powerplant as the 609, the 139 does not go 720nm period. And with 12 passengers you don't carry full fuel and auxiliary fuel, unless you operate at increased gross weights, but then you have compromises in CatA performance.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totogol,
I have no beef, at all. I love the potential for speed, and having flown the 609 simulator, I think its integration of controls, limits and displays is brilliant. But I'd love to know what the aircraft really does, not what its PR agents say it might. After 1200 hours of flight test these things are still unknown to the unwashed rest of us:
1) What is its real cruise speed? Best range speed?
2) What is its real payload? At what range?
3) What is the Cat A takeoff weight from real heliports?
You confuse sling load capability for some reason, which is a red herring, I believe we are truly interested in what the 609's passenger load will be on real missions. I don't know these answers.
Since you and 21st Century so strongly defend the 609, do either of you know these answers, which are the bread and butter of the 609's capability? Would you share?
for $25million, I think we all deserve to know before we follow the bandwagon.
I have no beef, at all. I love the potential for speed, and having flown the 609 simulator, I think its integration of controls, limits and displays is brilliant. But I'd love to know what the aircraft really does, not what its PR agents say it might. After 1200 hours of flight test these things are still unknown to the unwashed rest of us:
1) What is its real cruise speed? Best range speed?
2) What is its real payload? At what range?
3) What is the Cat A takeoff weight from real heliports?
You confuse sling load capability for some reason, which is a red herring, I believe we are truly interested in what the 609's passenger load will be on real missions. I don't know these answers.
Since you and 21st Century so strongly defend the 609, do either of you know these answers, which are the bread and butter of the 609's capability? Would you share?
for $25million, I think we all deserve to know before we follow the bandwagon.
21st, thanks for your thoughts.
I'm not against the Tilt Roter concept, I just think that as it stands today, the lack of pax for the range makes it unlikely to be a wild commercial success. The cabin is tiny for a start so the VIP/ royalty might not be that enamored with it. I can absolutely see the utility in the advantages of the concept which tilt rotor brings, I just don't think a 700nm range 9 pax ac is the winner. The energy market will be the nice earner that the whole project is based on. AW are not going to get their investment back on selling 30 in the Gulf to every rich member of a royal family IMHO, esp if they already have private jets.
When they can bring a roughly similar sized foot print version with a bigger cabin (15 pax ish) and 1000nm range it will be a huge increase in capability etc over EC225 or S92 with a tank(s).
Happy to be proved wrong but right now my risk averse nature thinks this will be close but no cigar as the investment case doesn't quite yet bring game changing capability.
FYI as a comparison EC225 in oil and gas slick mode is about $25m with a tank fitted and will give you up to about 250nm each way range.
I'm not against the Tilt Roter concept, I just think that as it stands today, the lack of pax for the range makes it unlikely to be a wild commercial success. The cabin is tiny for a start so the VIP/ royalty might not be that enamored with it. I can absolutely see the utility in the advantages of the concept which tilt rotor brings, I just don't think a 700nm range 9 pax ac is the winner. The energy market will be the nice earner that the whole project is based on. AW are not going to get their investment back on selling 30 in the Gulf to every rich member of a royal family IMHO, esp if they already have private jets.
When they can bring a roughly similar sized foot print version with a bigger cabin (15 pax ish) and 1000nm range it will be a huge increase in capability etc over EC225 or S92 with a tank(s).
Happy to be proved wrong but right now my risk averse nature thinks this will be close but no cigar as the investment case doesn't quite yet bring game changing capability.
FYI as a comparison EC225 in oil and gas slick mode is about $25m with a tank fitted and will give you up to about 250nm each way range.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....The 609 has the same powerplant as the 139.....
Would it be possible to fit some kind of retractable winch to that front door (it looks like a plug type door, but I may be wrong).
Surely something with that kind of speed to destination would have utility as a SAR platform?
Or would there be a problem with hot exhaust gas directed downwards while in helicopter mode?
I assume the fuse is far enough from the nacelle to avoid cooking anyone on a winch in helicopter mode - but again, may be wrong.
Interesting to note that the Bell Valor rotates only the prop-rotor, not the entire engine assembly - wonder if we will see new civil tilt rotors that do the same thing?
Surely something with that kind of speed to destination would have utility as a SAR platform?
Or would there be a problem with hot exhaust gas directed downwards while in helicopter mode?
I assume the fuse is far enough from the nacelle to avoid cooking anyone on a winch in helicopter mode - but again, may be wrong.
Interesting to note that the Bell Valor rotates only the prop-rotor, not the entire engine assembly - wonder if we will see new civil tilt rotors that do the same thing?
Last edited by tartare; 11th Mar 2015 at 03:08.
Would it be possible to fit some kind of retractable winch to that front door (it looks like a plug type door, but I may be wrong).
Surely something with that kind of speed to destination would have utility as a SAR platform?
Surely something with that kind of speed to destination would have utility as a SAR platform?
Fair point - side door obviously not an option.
But there are numerous pictures online of troops fast roping from the ramp of Ospreys in helicopter mode.
So downwash velocity can't be that much of an issue.
A civil tiltrotor with a rear door or rear belly hatch?
But there are numerous pictures online of troops fast roping from the ramp of Ospreys in helicopter mode.
So downwash velocity can't be that much of an issue.
A civil tiltrotor with a rear door or rear belly hatch?
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sans
Surprise! You're AW negative again....
AW 609 while not perfect, will be the FIRST. It will have an impact to the civil market not seen since the first civil certified helicopter because it will forever change civil aviation with a new category of flight besides fixed and rotary wing. Yes its small, but like the V-22 it will change conops and bring new capabilities in terms of range and speed never seen before to the civil vertical lift paradigm (think EMS, Offshore, SAR yes SAR, and even corp). Optimization of capabilities and design comes in versions v.2 and beyond.
Perhaps that's why a company as forward looking as Bristow chose to get involved with the 609 already......
AW 609 while not perfect, will be the FIRST. It will have an impact to the civil market not seen since the first civil certified helicopter because it will forever change civil aviation with a new category of flight besides fixed and rotary wing. Yes its small, but like the V-22 it will change conops and bring new capabilities in terms of range and speed never seen before to the civil vertical lift paradigm (think EMS, Offshore, SAR yes SAR, and even corp). Optimization of capabilities and design comes in versions v.2 and beyond.
Perhaps that's why a company as forward looking as Bristow chose to get involved with the 609 already......
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
downwash
Go figure out the downwash velocity - there probably wouldn't be anything left on the end of the cable!
The V-22 is more than double the MGW of the 609 and the disk loading on the V-22 is much greater factor because the prop-rotor diameter was artificially shrunk to fit on the US Navy ships in particular landing spots. This lead to a more aggressive disk loading factor, which results in a more violent downwash.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Finally, some insight into last year's AW609 testing incident, courtesy of HELiDATA News:
I/C
The second prototype currently remains based at Cascina Costa in Italy, having recently reflown following repairs after an incident late last year due to a reported in flight software failure. This is said to have led to a severe tail sideslip and apparent blade strike on the wing, causing an emergency diversion to the nearest airfield, which happened to be a base for Alenia Aermacchi, another Finmeccanica subsidiary.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I/C-
It IS still developmental, no?
I also heard at HeliExpo that 609 A/C 3 is near completion, and A/C 4, which is the first production baseline, has started its build. So it sure sounds inevitable and soon.
It IS still developmental, no?
I also heard at HeliExpo that 609 A/C 3 is near completion, and A/C 4, which is the first production baseline, has started its build. So it sure sounds inevitable and soon.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stinger,
Yes, and it's obviously preferable to wring out the bugs now, but it's remarkable how many journos I talked to re: the testing incident were unwilling to be seen as 'stirring up trouble' by reporting on the incident, lest they miss out on getting into the left seat. The fact that the aircraft recovered to a Finmeccanica owned airport added to the mystery. Still, more telemetry for the engineers to review!
A/C 3 & 4 have been in build since 2004, with A/C 3 "ready" since 2006... 
I/C
Yes, and it's obviously preferable to wring out the bugs now, but it's remarkable how many journos I talked to re: the testing incident were unwilling to be seen as 'stirring up trouble' by reporting on the incident, lest they miss out on getting into the left seat. The fact that the aircraft recovered to a Finmeccanica owned airport added to the mystery. Still, more telemetry for the engineers to review!
609 A/C 3 is near completion, and A/C 4, which is the first production baseline, has started its build
I/C
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-C,
you must have missed the part when AW took over full control, they had to rebaseline the design and test program since the previous "owner" had let it go dormant to attend to more pressing existential programs? My guess is that included all additional A/C like #3&4.
WRT to the incident, maybe there is no story? It sure sounds like a developmental issue that many programs go or have gone through. They simply found a "test point" and resolved the issue. Why so suspicious of the 609?
you must have missed the part when AW took over full control, they had to rebaseline the design and test program since the previous "owner" had let it go dormant to attend to more pressing existential programs? My guess is that included all additional A/C like #3&4.
WRT to the incident, maybe there is no story? It sure sounds like a developmental issue that many programs go or have gone through. They simply found a "test point" and resolved the issue. Why so suspicious of the 609?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stinger,
I missed that since, at the time of the handover in 2011, AW was insisting that it was "fully committed to rapidly proceed with the AW609 programme development," with "FAA/EASA certification...planned in 2015."
Why so suspicious, you ask? How can you not be suspicious after 15 years of repeated assurances from various CEOs that the program was 'on track for certification in 20XX'?
'Re-baselining' sounds cool, but is it not simply the inevitable obsolescence management required after 15 years of delays? Certainly some of the figures mentioned last week sounded familiar: per a BAAC "BA609 Presentation" from May 1999, 750 nm was the original range goal of the program (before being trimmed to "over 700 nm" and then "over 600 nm"), and the "higher weight" option (e.g. 17,500 lb or above, for 1,000+ nm range) was also always planned from day 1 (i.e. for STOL ops).
The Bristow tie-up is interesting, but I'm sure your own contacts have already explained to you the 'long-term' nature of this strategic move (the kind of blocking that would make Jim Brown proud), and Guardia di Finanza aside, the NGCTR surely remains the more likely success story?
The 609 is neat tech, but her cabin is so small! And you've only got to look at the mixed fortunes of the bizjet OEMs to see that "bigger is better" when it comes to cabin selection by corporate and HNW customers right now.
I/C
I missed that since, at the time of the handover in 2011, AW was insisting that it was "fully committed to rapidly proceed with the AW609 programme development," with "FAA/EASA certification...planned in 2015."
Why so suspicious, you ask? How can you not be suspicious after 15 years of repeated assurances from various CEOs that the program was 'on track for certification in 20XX'?
'Re-baselining' sounds cool, but is it not simply the inevitable obsolescence management required after 15 years of delays? Certainly some of the figures mentioned last week sounded familiar: per a BAAC "BA609 Presentation" from May 1999, 750 nm was the original range goal of the program (before being trimmed to "over 700 nm" and then "over 600 nm"), and the "higher weight" option (e.g. 17,500 lb or above, for 1,000+ nm range) was also always planned from day 1 (i.e. for STOL ops).
The Bristow tie-up is interesting, but I'm sure your own contacts have already explained to you the 'long-term' nature of this strategic move (the kind of blocking that would make Jim Brown proud
), and Guardia di Finanza aside, the NGCTR surely remains the more likely success story?The 609 is neat tech, but her cabin is so small! And you've only got to look at the mixed fortunes of the bizjet OEMs to see that "bigger is better" when it comes to cabin selection by corporate and HNW customers right now.
I/C
The AW609 wing strike incident is interesting (and a little gut wrenching) if due to a software problem, as reported. It would not be the first in-flight airplane mode incident to result in structural damage due to a software problem on the 609. Yaw control via differential collective requires very fine control of the rotor collective. Very small inputs result in large forces.
As for the economics of the aircraft, the break-even production run went stupid more than 15 years ago, at least from Bell's standpoint. I'm not even sure that AW's investment makes sense any more, but I have no direct knowledge on the particulars of their investment. I always felt it was a little on the small side, but certainly would have been a neat aircraft to introduce in the early 2000's and at 16,000 lb GW...
As for the economics of the aircraft, the break-even production run went stupid more than 15 years ago, at least from Bell's standpoint. I'm not even sure that AW's investment makes sense any more, but I have no direct knowledge on the particulars of their investment. I always felt it was a little on the small side, but certainly would have been a neat aircraft to introduce in the early 2000's and at 16,000 lb GW...