AW609 Tiltrotor - Licence Type?
AW609 Tiltrotor - Licence Type?
I was watching the first ever display by the AW609 Tiltrotor at Yeovilton and wondered what sort of pilot's licence one needs to operate it. It is essentially designed for civilian roles and any pilot will no doubt require a Type rating.
However, does one approach it with a fixed wing or rotary licence? I suppose that it would be a rotary licence because, at the end of the day, it doesn't do anything more than a helicopter except fly higher and much faster.
It was a very impressive display by the way.
However, does one approach it with a fixed wing or rotary licence? I suppose that it would be a rotary licence because, at the end of the day, it doesn't do anything more than a helicopter except fly higher and much faster.
It was a very impressive display by the way.
I went to a presentation on the AW609 at the RAeS and licensing was discussed. As has been said it has the US "powered lift" category applicable to it and I do not believe there is an equivalent EU license.
This is an old article that also relates:-
Osprey Pilots Receive First FAA Powered Lift Ratings - Aug 21, 1997
Although frankly one fails to see where the market is for the machine, even in the presentation the AW609's chief test pilot's best efforts at giving colour on a market is best summed up as "The wealth individual that already has a jet and/or a helicopter and just must have the latest thing...."
Hmmmm...
This is an old article that also relates:-
Osprey Pilots Receive First FAA Powered Lift Ratings - Aug 21, 1997
Although frankly one fails to see where the market is for the machine, even in the presentation the AW609's chief test pilot's best efforts at giving colour on a market is best summed up as "The wealth individual that already has a jet and/or a helicopter and just must have the latest thing...."
Hmmmm...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Logic says that the tilt rotor market in UK will be very small.
I think its almost unsaleable.
I mean why would you ever buy one? AW were very cagey about giving any data either on range at their maximum cruise speed or speed at their best range, because at 275knts it does not have 700 miles of range.
Goodness knows what it costs per hour to operate and as per the title of this thread, who flies it?
In an emergency its transition into auto-rotation is interesting and the rate of descent and the interaction of the wing in the flare is such that one wonders how much time pilots will need in the sim to stay on top of things.
I mean why would you ever buy one? AW were very cagey about giving any data either on range at their maximum cruise speed or speed at their best range, because at 275knts it does not have 700 miles of range.
Goodness knows what it costs per hour to operate and as per the title of this thread, who flies it?
In an emergency its transition into auto-rotation is interesting and the rate of descent and the interaction of the wing in the flare is such that one wonders how much time pilots will need in the sim to stay on top of things.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
I mean why would you ever buy one? AW were very cagey about giving any data either on range at their maximum cruise speed or speed at their best range, because at 275knts it does not have 700 miles of range.
My own view is that it's a compromise too far. But, speaking as someone qualified RW and FW, I'd fly it if someone foolishly wanted me to...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The Rotodyne was way ahead of its time. It had an amazing lift capability compared to its basic weight and was a fast machine, even by today's standards.
9pax travelling offshore at twice the speed of a Super Puma in a pressurised and quiet to long range....what's not to like. In two trips carrying the equivalent of an S-92 but more efficiently......It will happen...that's why Bristow are backing it.,and yes...corporate too .why travel to an airport to board your private jet to fly to another airport and then drive to an office when you can fly car park to car Park?
why travel to an airport to board your private jet to fly to another airport and then drive to an office when you can fly car park to car Park?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by heli1
9pax travelling offshore at twice the speed of a Super Puma in a pressurised and quiet to long range....what's not to like. In two trips carrying the equivalent of an S-92 but more efficiently......It will happen...that's why Bristow are backing it
Re: Bristow, is there really any intent to use the 609 operationally? Other sources suggest this is just a blocking move by BRS to get first in line for the NGCTR, should it ever happen.
I/C
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Pay for Speed, a Lot.
Take care with the performance hype. The speed of the 609 is terrific, a true 250 knots in the dash (but about 225 at long range cruise). There is no doubt the 609 will be safe, fast and comfortable. What you pay for this speed is also terrific, and almost never discussed.
AW has publicized that the price of the 609 should be about 25 Mill Euros, which is perhaps the same as a 225 or S-92, both of which carry two to three times more payload!!). There are no public estimates of the support costs, but they, too should be impressive. The 609 complexity makes the parts count eye-watering, where for example the critical parts for power, drive systems and flight controls sum up to the total of both a tandem helicopter and a swing-wing airplane. The critical servo count alone is a example, with six dual servos for the twin rotors, a twin set of servos for ailerons, elevator, rudders and flaps, and another twin set for the tilt mechanism. That is about 16 servo pairs, as compared to four pairs for a typical single rotor helicopter. A similar parts comparison can be made for transmissions, and for shafting, and for airframe structure. These extra elements cost weight, money, and also cost repair and maintenance time.
The 609 engine power needed is about 40% more than a similar helicopter, enough so that the TR salesmen usually compare a tilt rotor to the next larger sized helicopter, that way the abysmal payload/power ratio is nicely hidden. Example? I have seen sales literature that shows the 609 vice the S76 or 412, both of which need less than 2/3 the power. I have also seen a presentation that shows that the 609 has about the same installed power as an S-70 Black Hawk, where the Black Hawk weighs about 21,000 lbs MGW as compared to the 609 at perhaps 16,000 to 17,000 (both at perhaps the same empty weight). And at those weights, the helicopter vastly out-performs the 609.
Where the 609 shines is cruise efficiency, where the miles flown on a kg of fuel are perhaps half again farther, so the deficit in the hover is partially recovered the farther you fly. By the time both types are at their maximum range (with aux fuel) the 609 and S-70 go about the same distance.
Nothing will make the helicopter match the speed, that extra 100 knots is the best and most important 609 feature, and its shining virtue. But don't think the speed comes free, and also don't think the customer base doesn't know the actual cost. Rumor has it Bell dumped the 609 because of these numbers, and decided to spend their money on the 525 instead. AW, owned by the Italian government, has far deeper pockets, it seems, and is less concerned with profits and losses.
AW has publicized that the price of the 609 should be about 25 Mill Euros, which is perhaps the same as a 225 or S-92, both of which carry two to three times more payload!!). There are no public estimates of the support costs, but they, too should be impressive. The 609 complexity makes the parts count eye-watering, where for example the critical parts for power, drive systems and flight controls sum up to the total of both a tandem helicopter and a swing-wing airplane. The critical servo count alone is a example, with six dual servos for the twin rotors, a twin set of servos for ailerons, elevator, rudders and flaps, and another twin set for the tilt mechanism. That is about 16 servo pairs, as compared to four pairs for a typical single rotor helicopter. A similar parts comparison can be made for transmissions, and for shafting, and for airframe structure. These extra elements cost weight, money, and also cost repair and maintenance time.
The 609 engine power needed is about 40% more than a similar helicopter, enough so that the TR salesmen usually compare a tilt rotor to the next larger sized helicopter, that way the abysmal payload/power ratio is nicely hidden. Example? I have seen sales literature that shows the 609 vice the S76 or 412, both of which need less than 2/3 the power. I have also seen a presentation that shows that the 609 has about the same installed power as an S-70 Black Hawk, where the Black Hawk weighs about 21,000 lbs MGW as compared to the 609 at perhaps 16,000 to 17,000 (both at perhaps the same empty weight). And at those weights, the helicopter vastly out-performs the 609.
Where the 609 shines is cruise efficiency, where the miles flown on a kg of fuel are perhaps half again farther, so the deficit in the hover is partially recovered the farther you fly. By the time both types are at their maximum range (with aux fuel) the 609 and S-70 go about the same distance.
Nothing will make the helicopter match the speed, that extra 100 knots is the best and most important 609 feature, and its shining virtue. But don't think the speed comes free, and also don't think the customer base doesn't know the actual cost. Rumor has it Bell dumped the 609 because of these numbers, and decided to spend their money on the 525 instead. AW, owned by the Italian government, has far deeper pockets, it seems, and is less concerned with profits and losses.
RJ, the 609 has roughly the same installed power as the 139, as a matter of fact the latest GW increase puts the 139 about 1000 lbs below the 609.
Please leave the dynosaurs (76 and 412) out of this, they are a couple of performance classes below either of the AW machines.
The 609 is also in a different category compared to the 92 and not all the actuator pairs you mentioned are hydraulic.
The 609 shall have a succesfull commercial nice.
Please leave the dynosaurs (76 and 412) out of this, they are a couple of performance classes below either of the AW machines.
The 609 is also in a different category compared to the 92 and not all the actuator pairs you mentioned are hydraulic.
The 609 shall have a succesfull commercial nice.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "different category" argument means "don't bring that up, it is a different bin in my brain".
If you compare the 139 with the 609 (same engines, same basic empty weight) and simply ask them both to hover at the same power-limited atmosphere, you will find they are indeed in "different categories" since the 139 whomps the 609 payload, to about the same ratios I mention. Comparing a 609 doing near running takeoffs to a 139 that can hover on one engine wins the PR bet with the lay public, but leaves helicopter professionals laughing.
If you compare the 139 with the 609 (same engines, same basic empty weight) and simply ask them both to hover at the same power-limited atmosphere, you will find they are indeed in "different categories" since the 139 whomps the 609 payload, to about the same ratios I mention. Comparing a 609 doing near running takeoffs to a 139 that can hover on one engine wins the PR bet with the lay public, but leaves helicopter professionals laughing.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have come full circle. Back in the late 1940's, everyone said there was no market for the helicopter. Even the US Coast Guard was positive the helicopter was just a flash in the pan. And now there are multiple websites dealing only with helicopters.
Time will tell. There is a market for the machine. Its up to that industry and the potential users ti make it happen.
Time will tell. There is a market for the machine. Its up to that industry and the potential users ti make it happen.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Africa
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with RJ, most of helicopters do business and have to be profitable.
I have had enough money, I surly buy one of this aircraft because it technically amazing, but if I want to do business, the cost per nautical miles is still too high versus classic helicopters.
I have had enough money, I surly buy one of this aircraft because it technically amazing, but if I want to do business, the cost per nautical miles is still too high versus classic helicopters.