Latest on the AW 609?

[Phoinix]

This is new…

You Tube

[Less Hair]

Now we need some F-35B business jet variant.

[Kulwin Park]

Is it only single pilot seat configured, or is that just for the test vehicle?

[rrekn]

This is only a demonstrator, designed to test technologies for a 19 seat tiltrotor called the Next Generator Civil Tiltrotor (NGCTR). In particular it is testing the new fixed engine, tilting prop configuration compared to the tilting engine on the AW609 (V-22 vs MV-75 configuration).

For more info, see here:
https://www.leonardo.com/en/business...iltrotor-ngctr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonar...ivil_Tiltrotor

[chopper2004]

According to press release put out
'MEDIA INFORMATION Company Internal EU CLEAN SKY 2’S NEXT GENERATION CIVIL TILTROTOR TECNOLOGY DEMOSTRATOR (NGCTR-TD) PERFORMS FIRST FLIGHT MARKING MAJOR PROJECT MILESTONE Rome, 19 December 2025 - Leonardo and the EU Clean Aviation JU (Joint Undertaking) are pleased to announce the first flight of the Next Generation Civil Tiltrotor – Technology Demonstrator (NGCTR-TD), which took place at Leonardo’s Cascina Costa di Samarate facility (Italy) today. This milestone marks the start of the flight test phase for one of the most advanced technology programmes in the European civil aviation landscape. The Next Generation Civil Tiltrotor (NGCTR) programme aims to revolutionise civil vertical lift by combining helicopter versatility with fixed-wing aircraft performance. With a cruise speed of 280 knots and a range of approximately 1,000 nautical miles, the tiltrotor opens new scenarios for mobility, freight transport and Search & Rescue missions, enabling faster coverage of larger areas with a significantly reduced environmental footprint. The NGCTR-TD has been developed within Clean Sky 2, a core initiative of the European Horizon 2020 programme and an EU-funded Initiative for the development and validation of aeronautical technologies that will improve environmental impact and enhance the European aerospace supply chain. The NGCTRTD brings together industry, research centres and academia to address the environmental and societal challenges of aviation, reducing emissions and noise while strengthening Europe’s global competitiveness.'





cheers

[Agile]

Billboard sized flaps - Down 90

[Luther Sebastian]

Excellent, operators can paste poster adverts on and offset some of the running cost.

[FH1100 Pilot]

I literally laughed when I saw that Leonardo had ditched the 609's engine/proprotor configuration and went with fixed-mounted engines for the new NGCTR model. I laughed again when I saw that they ditched the t-tail empennage for that hideous and draggy-looking v-tail setup. Obviously, they learned a bit after that terrible 609 accident TEN YEARS AGO that was attributed to a roll/yaw coupling and the inability of the onboard computers to effectively deal with it. But wait- doesn't the V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza also have a weird and uncomfortable yaw coupling in turbulence, which resulted in Beech switching back to a conventional tail for the stretched Bonanza (A-36)? 609 pilots are probably going to be told that hand-flying in high-speed cruise is PROHIBITED, and if the autopilot kicks off for any reason in turbulence, you're probably all going to die.

But then we come to the issue of pilot certification of these "powered lift" aircraft. Clearly, the FAA doesn't yet know what to do with them. I laugh yet again at the hubris of one Adam Goldstein, the CEO of Archer Aviation, who tells us that his Midnight eVTOL will be certified and carrying fare-paying passengers during the 2026 Olympics in Los Angeles. Hoo-man! That kid must be one silver-tongued devil, for he sure has convinced a bunch of wealthy (and obviously naive) investors to dump tons of money into his company when, in their own financial statements, Archer admits that their aircraft may not ever achieve FAA certification! Say what?! Archer's Midnight is a four-passenger eVTOL. Seems like there's only room for one single pilot up front, so getting dual in that thing is going to be a problem if the FAA sticks to making Midnight pilots have a powered-lift a type rating. Goldstein must be VERY optimistic that the FAA will create rules in his favor. Heh. Dream on, Macduff (sic).

Back to the 609... It has sure been quiet on that front...so quiet that it makes me wonder if Leonardo has given up on the design and transferred all of the important technical people over to the NGCTR program. I mean, after all, it was back in 1957 that Bell began playing with the idea of a tilt-rotor aircraft. You'd think that someone would have developed a workable, certifiable example in the nearly seventy years that have passed. But no... 609 is "close"...but it's been "next-year close" for as long as i can remember. Hey, maybe 2026 will be the year Leonardo gets the 609 certified! Hmm. I doubt it. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that there are issues (aerodynamic or otherwise) with high-speed tilt-rotor flight that are simply insurmountable, and Leonardo is reluctant to admit it and throw in the towel. Maybe that whole "tilting-engines-and-rotors" thing is just a bad idea?

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

Goldstein must be VERY optimistic that the FAA will create rules in his favor.

The FAA already has for powered-lift pilot and operations requirements with Part 194. And once the Joby and Archer complete the eVTOL certification process in the next 12-18 months, a new eVTOL aircraft certification Part XX should be released as an NPRM in the following months.

[Subs1767]

Nice Photos, any one know the updated final delivery pricing, or availability , estimated production rate per year etc ?

[SansAnhedral]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

I literally laughed when I saw that Leonardo had ditched the 609's engine/proprotor configuration and went with fixed-mounted engines for the new NGCTR model. I laughed again when I saw that they ditched the t-tail empennage for that hideous and draggy-looking v-tail setup. Obviously, they learned a bit after that terrible 609 accident TEN YEARS AGO that was attributed to a roll/yaw coupling and the inability of the onboard computers to effectively deal with it. But wait- doesn't the V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza also have a weird and uncomfortable yaw coupling in turbulence, which resulted in Beech switching back to a conventional tail for the stretched Bonanza (A-36)? 609 pilots are probably going to be told that hand-flying in high-speed cruise is PROHIBITED, and if the autopilot kicks off for any reason in turbulence, you're probably all going to die.

Back to the 609... It has sure been quiet on that front...so quiet that it makes me wonder if Leonardo has given up on the design and transferred all of the important technical people over to the NGCTR program. I mean, after all, it was back in 1957 that Bell began playing with the idea of a tilt-rotor aircraft. You'd think that someone would have developed a workable, certifiable example in the nearly seventy years that have passed. But no... 609 is "close"...but it's been "next-year close" for as long as i can remember. Hey, maybe 2026 will be the year Leonardo gets the 609 certified! Hmm. I doubt it. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that there are issues (aerodynamic or otherwise) with high-speed tilt-rotor flight that are simply insurmountable, and Leonardo is reluctant to admit it and throw in the towel. Maybe that whole "tilting-engines-and-rotors" thing is just a bad idea?

The 609 incident a decade ago was a result of AW modifying the vertical stabilizer and reducing its effective area (for reasons yet publicly unknown aside from maybe mere aesthetics ), which essentially reduced overall yaw authority. Seems immensely risky on an aircraft that already has no conventional rudder and relies on differential collective power for yaw control. Add into this the lack of lateral flapping cyclic on the rotors, and you get a recipe for disaster during high speed dive testing. All of these elements are a departure from the previous half century (and entire history since) of tiltrotor design, test, and flight - so using the 609 with its atrocious control design as good benchmark for a certifiable civil tiltrotor is a bit of a stretch. Ever consider that Bell got out of the program for a reason?

P.S. Unbeknownst to most, in July of 2014 a similar AW609 incident occurred in the same aircraft where the right rotor over-flapped in the same high speed dive scenario and the outboard half of all 3 blades were sheared off by the wing. Almost unbelievably the pilots were able to recover the aircraft and perform an emergency landing (goes to show that considerable loss of blades on a tiltrotor isn't necessarily doom).

[FH1100 Pilot]

The tilt-rotor concept seems like such a good idea, doesn't it?

Yes, Sans, in the July 2014 incident it was miraculous that the crew were able to recover from that upset and land the aircraft. And you're right, that event garnered zero publicity, and never would have come to light if the later, catastrophic one hadn't happened.

Ever consider that Bell got out of the program for a reason?

Heh. Considering that Bell initiated the tilt-rotor idea and concept in 1957, they must have felt proprietary of it. For them to get rid of the program in 2011 was immensely revealing. We can imagine that John L. Garrison (Bell's President and CEO at the time) must have had to stand up and (sheepishly) admit to the Board of Directors that they would probably never be able to make the 609 work, and even if they did, they would never, ever, ever recoup the development costs because the market simply doesn't exist and probably never will. So they sold it off to the Italians and said good luck. Then they issued the usual BS press release about how they want to focus on the V-22 and future tilt-rotor designs (Valor, I guess) blah blah blah. It's funny - There's a story on the HeliHub website in June of 2011 has the headline: "Finmeccanica sees 500 BA609 choppers sold by 2013." By 2013?? HAHAHAHAHAHAH! (Finmeccanica being the parent company of Agusta-Westland at the time.)

And so this brings us back to these new eVTOLs (Archer and Joby) that are supposedly "this close" to certification. Yeah. Right. I don't mean to be hopelessly skeptical, but just having certification rules in place doesn't mean that any particular aircraft will meet them. Archer CEO Goldstein thinks he's going to get his Midnight certified for commercial ops this year in time for the Olympics? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH. Like Garrison did with the Bell Board of Directors, there are going to be some other high-powered CEOs that are going to have to face their Boards with egg on their faces about all the money they've dumped into these plastic fantastic eVTOLs. (Hey Goldstein! How does the Midnight handle a birdstrike from a big seagull?)

[Lonewolf_50]

Valor, you guess? It's alive and well.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

And so this brings us back to these new eVTOLs (Archer and Joby) that are supposedly "this close" to certification. Yeah. Right.

Well, Joby started the final Type Inspection Authorization flights at the end of 2025 with the FAA pilots to complete the final conformity flights this year. I believe Archer is at the same phase but do not know their current status. Certification Phases 1-4 have been completed and passed. Joby is also at a similar position with its EASA certification as well. Plus, Joby, Archer, and EHang are also flying in the UAE where the 1st commercial large scale operations will take place outside of China. So, yeah, they are close to completing the process.

[SansAnhedral]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

Heh. Considering that Bell initiated the tilt-rotor idea and concept in 1957, they must have felt proprietary of it. For them to get rid of the program in 2011 was immensely revealing. We can imagine that John L. Garrison (Bell's President and CEO at the time) must have had to stand up and (sheepishly) admit to the Board of Directors that they would probably never be able to make the 609 work, and even if they did, they would never, ever, ever recoup the development costs because the market simply doesn't exist and probably never will. So they sold it off to the Italians and said good luck. Then they issued the usual BS press release about how they want to focus on the V-22 and future tilt-rotor designs (Valor, I guess) blah blah blah. It's funny - There's a story on the HeliHub website in June of 2011 has the headline: "Finmeccanica sees 500 BA609 choppers sold by 2013." By 2013?? HAHAHAHAHAHAH! (Finmeccanica being the parent company of Agusta-Westland at the time.)

You wont hear me argue in defense of anything with regards to eVTOL - its the most modern snake oil pitch going, and Adam's nonsensical public musings make Elizabeth Holmes look like quantum physicist. That being said, they are all a far cry from a legitimate practical large-diameter, low-disc-loading, flapping, conventional tiltrotor (a configuration which wins every single eVTOL trade on technical merits, but loses on market perception and the ability for neophyte aerospace startups to design and build a working non-rigid, flapping tiltrotor rotor).

Technically speaking, there's really no issue with a commercial tiltrotor other than the massive expense of certifying the first type, and the economics of making it profitable. The 609 point design was horrible in both these aspects (in addition to the previously mentioned poor design decisions), hence Bell selling the program - not because of some acknowledgement that "tiltrotors don't work".

Just like ABC rigid rotor aircraft, the economics of higher speed and cruise provided by tiltrotors are really not the driving factor for most existing vertical lift operators, so you would be hard pressed to get a foothold in the market especially without prior investment in the infrastructure to make them financially appealing from the outset.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Valor, you guess? It's alive and well.

Lonewolf, back in 2011 when Bell sold off the 609, the V-280 Valor had not yet been announced. And also at that point, the Future Armed and Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) competition had not been announced. I'm guessing that Bell had some inside information as to what the military was going to do to replace the OH-58, and needed to free up funds to develop it, and so sold off the 609 to that end.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Originally Posted by SansAnhedral

Technically speaking, there's really no issue with a commercial tiltrotor other than the massive expense of certifying the first type, and the economics of making it profitable. The 609 point design was horrible in both these aspects (in addition to the previously mentioned poor design decisions), hence Bell selling the program - not because of some acknowledgement that "tiltrotors don't work".

Sans, I've never thought (or said) that Bell divested themselves of the 609 because "tiltrotors don't work," only that the 609 "don't work." Tilting the engines along with the proprotors is not the way to go. Back in 1955 (I mistakenly said 1957 in an earlier post), Bell's original XV-3 just tilted the rotors, not the huge-ass radial engine mounted in the fuselage. It wasn't until they switched over to turbines (XV-15) that they started running into the well-documented problems. Let's give Bell credit for doggedly trying to make it work (for decades!), but the NGCTR proves that they've given up on the 609 concept of tilting the whole shebang. Osprey seems to be doing okay as far as that goes, but...is it? The November 2023 crash of that V-22 off the coast of Japan in which the aircraft lost the entire pylon shows us that there may still be some "issues" to be discovered. Granted, that was an accident in which the pilot ignored repeated chip lights and opportunities to land and "shouldn't have happened," but can't we say that about virtually every accident?

Wrench1 seems very optimistic about Archer and Joby achieving FAA certification of their aircraft "soon." He mentions FAR 194, but that only addresses pilot certification. The real issue is going to be what FAR the aircraft are certified under. And that's going to be 21.17b. Which says...

For special classes of aircraft, including the engines and propellers installed thereon (e.g., gliders, airships, and other nonconventional aircraft), for which airworthiness standards have not been issued under this subchapter, the applicable requirements will be the portions of those other airworthiness requirements contained in Parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as the FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts.

Heh-heh-heh, "equivalent level of safety" with other certified aircraft. So, since eVTOLs are "neither fish nor fowl," the FAA is going to pull parts of existing certification rules and apply them to each individual eVTOL certification program. This should be fun! We wonder about things like crashworthiness and performance...stuff like that. Will Archer have to demonstrate how damage-tolerant their little carbon-fiber props are to bird strikes at cruise speed? I seriously doubt that the FAA is going to make it easy on them at all. These little flying plastic eggs might seem cool to the media and investors, but I'll bet the FAA certification guys are standing on the sidelines, chuckling and going, "Yeaaahhhh, what's Goldstein smoking? If he thinks we're going to certify that little piece of crap just like it is, he and Joby have got another thing coming."

And we shall see.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

The real issue is going to be what FAR the aircraft are certified under. And that's going to be 21.17b. Which says... Heh-heh-heh, "equivalent level of safety" with other certified aircraft.

Exactly. But since you appear completely lost on the issue, here are the FAA Part 21.17(b) Special Class Airworthiness Criteria final rules for the Joby and Archer certification process along with additional FAA eVTOL certification guidance document. I also included a link to the EASA eVTOL certification guidance for comparison. So as soon as the FAA pilots complete the TIA flights, the certification testing process will be complete. As the rotor turns....

Joby Part 21.17 Special Class Airworthiness Criteria
Archer Part 21.17 Special Class Airworthiness Criteria
FAA Certification Guidance AC 21.17-4
EASA Certification Guidance SC-VTOL

Originally Posted by SansAnhedral

conventional tiltrotor (a configuration which wins every single eVTOL trade on technical merits,

Except you forgot one critical technical merit they do not win at, noise signature. Ironically, it was those excessive noise signatures that drove NASA to develop the technology to make eVTOLs possible to fulfill a mission helicopters/tiltrotors could not.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

...Tilting the engines along with the proprotors is not the way to go... It wasn't until they switched over to turbines (XV-15) that they started running into the well-documented problems... the NGCTR proves that they've given up on the 609 concept of tilting the whole shebang...

So what do you all make of the PteroDynamics Transwing? In that case, not only props/rotors rotate but the motors and the bulk of the wings as well! I am sure it has been discussed on another PPRuNE thread. So far only modest size unmanned versions operating.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

...I laughed again when I saw that they ditched the t-tail empennage for that hideous and draggy-looking v-tail setup...

That V-tail does look strange and large. But why are the tips of the tail cranked up like that? Were they perhaps making provision for a horizontal stabiliser to be attached to the top of it as well? I can't think of any other explanation.

As for the large flaps that were separately commented on, I guess ideally during lift-off the less wing that is exposed at right angles to rotor downwash, the less power that is required?