BA609 is now flying - will it change the industry?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick

Why do you think a fly by wire system would not help a helicopter the same way, by eliminating all the mechanical linkages? Why do you think this is purely a tilt rotor advantage?

First of all I was referring to your comment that involved rotor controls among other elements in the V-22 control system. I assumed you were addressing complexity and in my reply I stated that they were not complex because they were fly by wire as opposed to mechanical linkage.

In reference to the quote above I stated the CH-47 would be a lot better if it had a flight control system like the V-22 (fly by wire) as opposed to the extremely complex system that is presently installed. I was not stating that this type of system should not be installed in helicopters but only on tilt rotor aircraft.

And all that it implies.

[Nick Lappos]

ppheli,
Please don't misunderstand the comparison of a 609 to a Black Hawk, The idea there is to show how a typical last gen helicopter stands up to the tilt rotor technology. I am sure lots of commercial helos will challenge TR's for the market. The point I was trying to make is that helos have lots to offer, even against tilt rotors.
Nick

[Old Man Rotor]

Missing the Point I think

You can certainly develop the existing conventional fleet of mediums and heavies...........however regardless of what you do you will always be a helicopter!!....with its normal limitations.

Offshore folk buy helicopter services on how much it will lift and how far it can haul that weight!!......speed is of a minor consequence.

If the 609 can lift the same weight as an existing heavy [With the heavies payload restricted due to full external and internal fuel tanks]......then it will be a winner by using its longer legs, and the passengers will love the lesser time in cruise.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Whether the 609 will "change the industry" or not depends on how much value is put on its speed. Let's look specifically at the oil industry. Someone has postulated that BH214ST's and the like are limited to 9-10 pax at full fuel; I'm not quite sure if that is true.

For argument's sake let us assume that a 609 will have to make two trips for every one of a 214ST. A 609 would then have to have DOC's half that of the helicopter to even make it worth a look. Somehow, I doubt this is going to be the case.

Initial purchase, DOC, crew costs, unscheduled maintenance, and insurance costs are surely going to be staggering. It will be interesting to see how many companies can find a way to justify them.

[Old Man Rotor]

Clarification

When I talked about 8-10 pax on the B214ST and the L1's.........I was referring to the seat capacity.......as the large internal [in the Pax Compartment] fuel tanks rendered some of the seats unusable.........

I have no idea if there was a MTOW problem at Max Fuel.......just a seat problem.

And I think its still the case today.

[leading edge]

Old Man Rotor

9-10 pax in a 214ST with full regular and Aux fuel is about right. Also, for a 332L1. FYI, aux fuel in the 332L1 can be held in the sponsons (I think Bristow uses them) which does not require an internal fuel tank/passenger seat configuration. In both, it is an MTOW limitation, not seat availability.

SASless

I think that while there are lots of 206s in the GOM, the whole mentality is not 206 driven any more. You will see larger types coming into service there (ERA has ordered the S92) in the near future.

BA609

I used to think that the 609 would be the end for the large transport helicopters. However, offshore ranges just are not much further than 2-300 miles from land or nearest alternate which means that the advantage of the speed is not really significant enough for most sectors to justify what will be the costs.

With the major manufacturers concentrating so hard on DMCs (Sikorsky led the way here with the stated $800 goal for the S92 but EC are trying the same with the EC225) I see the transport helicopter being the most competetive way to transport passengers over multiple ranges. The 609 will really lose out in terms of economic flexibility over shorter ranges, the versatility of helicopters will continue to beat it.

LE

[GLSNightPilot]

One problem with a 'civilianized' UH60 is weight. At 20,000lb, I don't know of any platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that it can land on. The 214ST/S61 is limited to <10% of the total. Heavy aircraft of any type power have a severe handicap down here.

As for scud-running at 300' - we don't do that in mediums if we can help it. IFR is common. True, the FAA is way behind on communication & radar coverage, but we get by using company flight following & relay to ATC. We get lots of practice in non-radar position reporting. The FAA seems to be working on improving communications, albeit primarily for airliners heading to/from the tropics, but it will help us anyway. There are several proposals for improved radar coverage also, but funding is the holdup for both. One of the problems with current helicopters is range. In order to fly IFR to a platform 200+ NM out, you have to be able to carry enough fuel to get there, then back to an alternate, which may very well be a few hundred miles north of the beach. The ability to fly 600NM or so, with full seats, can make the difference between flying & sitting. And there isn't one current civilian helicopter I know of that will do that. For alternate purposes, speed is very, very important.

As for whether the 609 will change the industry, I think that is yet to be determined, & no one knows the answer yet. If Bell can produce an aircraft with enough reliability, cheaply enough, they have a shot at selling some, but certainly conventional helicopters will still be in use.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Isn't Sikorsky looking at the gyrodyne concept?

[donut king]

change the industry

The fact that everyone here is in this discussion shows that the " wheels are turning" inside our heads.

That machine has already started to change our industry.

D.K

[offshoreigor]

JUST ONE BIT OF ADVICE:


NEVER, I SAY NEVER FLY THE "A" MODEL OF ANYTHING!


Cheers, OffshoreIgor

[BlenderPilot]

Just in Case . . . . . (not kidding)

In 2000 I got an opportunity to go fly for light jets (Beechjet 400A) for a fractional ownership program so I did and got my time in the things.

One of the main reasons for doing this was that I wanted to have the IFR, High Performance Aircraft, etc. etc. experience in case tiltrotors ever came by, I didn't want to be left out for not having enough fixed wing experience.

I got this idea from talking to some of the instructors at FSI who mentioned that whoever was going to fly those things definately had to have considerable experience in both, helicopters and high performance airplanes.

I remember them mentioning that it would be difficult to get a fixed wing pilot to learn to fly a tiltrotor in helicopter mode without previous experience, but almost equally difficult to teach a helicopter pilot with little or no Airplane and IFR experience to fly in the airplane mode.

Although to be honest after having flown both, I'm convinced its easier for a helicopter pilot to transition into thinking like an airplane pilot, than the other way around.

I hope I get my chance sometime in the future and all those hours of packing giant suitcases onto a small plane in the Seattle freezing rain or the boiling La Habana heat were not in vain.

[46Driver]

The Marine Corps is planning on transitioning all of our CH-46E helicopter pilots directly to the Osprey - without much in the way of fixed wing time.
I think you are correct - I went from flying a helo to an airliner and the jet is easier - the biggest hurdle was getting used to the glass cockpit and FMS.

[chuckolamofola]

Nick,

My replies are within your text <>.

Some comments on the Tilt Rotor's advantages, which are never put into true perspective by advocates (How many times have you read, "Tilt rotors carry twice the payload, twice as fast twice as far as helicopters"?) Here is some unvarnished info:

<I never heard any Bell marketing say it would haul twice the payload. I had heard that it would haul the same payload of Puma in the same time as the Puma but would have to make two trips to do so. Now that would be stating that it hauls twice its own payload in the same time as a helicopter twice its size...>

The typical tilt rotor/helicopter comparison made in the sales literature always compares the tilt rotor to the next smaller sized helicopter, a neat trick if the public laps it up. If one selects helicopters with the same empty weight and the same installed power (which is typically the next larger sized helicopter, because tilt rotors are so inefficient) then one finds:

1) Range - Its a draw - Tilt rotors have no range advantage over an equivilent helicopter. This is a fact born of the low payload of the tilt rotor, which never lets its better cruise efficiency catch up with a helicopter.

< But talking about range should also be further broken down on how many pax's you can haul. If all you can haul is both pilots and a verbal message for the max range then you aren't comparing apple to apples either. The Puma's useful load with full fuel to make its max range requires you to drop a lot of pax's and their baggage. One would think the same happens with the S76/BH412. Both the S76/BH412 useful load is a lot less than OEM's published data due to the addition of customer/mission equipment installed after the aircraft leaves the facory. I also don't think an S70/H60 can carry max personnel with full fuel and high density seating out to the published max range either.

BTW,
The 609 comes fully equiped with most customer/mission equipment, so growth after delivery to the customer should be mitigated, unlike the standard BH412/S76 which does not come with all radio's, IFR equipment, navigation displays etc.>

2) Speed - Yep, tilt rotors are lots faster - The max speed of the tilt rotor is 1.8 times faster, a great advantage. The best range cruise speed is somewhat less, about 1.6 times faster. For typical trips in the 200 to 300 Nm range, this yields trip times that are about 1 hour faster (1 hour by tilt rotor vs 2 hours by helicopter). If the city heliport requires Cat A/JAR Ops Class I, there might be more difficulty for the tilt rotor as its fuel and/or payload drops considerably as the heliport shrinks below 1000 feet length.

<I'll take that 1.6 times speed difference especially if I am waiting on a medivac or rescue...

2) Payload - Nope, tilt rotors lose bigtime - Tilt rotors carry half the payload of the equivilent helicopter to any range they can go. This is because the tilt rotor weighs so much more (the great big engines and the wing's greater vertical drag in a hover).

<So, whats your point here? It was never stated that it was an efficient helicopter. Yep, heli's can haul twice as much, 1.6 times slower>

3) Cat A performance - Tilt rotors are generally hurting - Tilt rotors have great difficulty meeting the Cat A requirements (or JAR Ops) because their rotors need very much more power.

<Don't know, have to wait until final certification to see >

4) Initial cost - Jury is out, lets see what they charge for 609, V-22 is no bargain - Tilt rotors seem to cost about twice what the equivilent helicopter costs because of all the transmissions, rotor controls airplane controls and tilt mechanism. Figures are hard to get on this, V-22 seems to cost between 55 Million and 80 million. Initial 609 numbers were 8.5 million, but these were withdrawn about 2 years ago. Any more current ones, guys?

<I have not seen an aircraft yet that did not grow in price after certification. Lets say the 609 grows to 10 million. For the corporate operator that operates an S76 or BH412 or BH430 and a KingAir 200 the 609 could replace both those aircraft with a little change left over.>

5) Maintenance ease - Tilt rotor loses bigtime - Tilt rotors are extremely complex, much more so than a helicopter. They have a full set of tandem rotor mechanisms, a full set of airplane mechanisms and a tilt mechanism. They are as if a Chinook and an F-14 had a baby. For example, the typical tilt rotor has between 26 and 32 flight critical control actuators on it, while the typical helicopter has 8. A typical tilt rotor can have 3 dual MR servos per rotor, 2 dual tilt servos, 2 dual aileron, stabilator and rudder servos, 2 dual flap servos makes 32! This situation is made much worse by the awful weight reduction tradeoffs made to keep the payload usable. Example - the hydraulic lines on the V-22 that handle its 5,000 psi are thinner (0.022" wall thickness) than any other manufacturer allows for pressure lines (0.028" wall thickness is standard for 3,000 to 4,000 psi)! The line that chafed and failed on V-22 was 0.022" thick, there are no plans to thicken them.

<Just like ths S92 there are aids that will help to reduce maintenance. Some are troubleshooting help within the avionics and system software that will help to locate the item at fault, to cockpit diplays that will indicated items like fluid levels where you won't have to rely on a sight glass to determine levels. The 609 also has design changes from lessons learned in the V22 that should also help to reduce unscheduled faults. In a lot of aspects it would not be any more complicated than a Gulfstream 5 other than the additonal gearboxes and shafts. I also strongly feel that a helicopter mechanic will be able to transition to a tilt rotor much quicker than most fixed wing mech's. I have always felt that helicopter mech's make a better fixed wing mech. Most fixed wing mech's are overwhelmed around helicopters. >

<6. Pressurized Cabin - The 609 can fly higher and over weather where the conventional helicopter can't. This could make the difference if the closer hospital is over the other side of a mountain ridge and all of the passes are fogged in. The 609 should be able to fly up and over to the other side. The helicopter has to stay home or head to the next closest hospital.>

<7. Flight into known iceing - None of the current commercial helicopters can do that. Perhaps the S92 will be able to do that in the future, but its not a class of aircraft that we have been comparing.


Some facts and figures:

While the 609 is often compared with the S-76 family (since it carries less payload than an S-76) , it actually has more installed power than the Black Hawk, and has virtually the same empty weight, too. When reviewing the below, remember the Black Hawk numbers are for the 3000th aircraft built, in full gear; the 609 numbers are for an as-yet unproven aircraft and likely to change very much for the worse.

Bell 609:
Max gross weight 16,800 lbs, empty weight 11,300 lbs, max useful load 5,500 lbs
Cabin Volume 237 cubic feet
Max Range 750 NM no reserve <I think is stated at 9 pax's>
Max cruise speed 275 knots
HOGE at MGW un-reported
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theA...ecs.html#6notes
PT-6C-67A, 1940 HP takeoff X 2= 3880 HP total
http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_3/3_0_3_2_2.asp

UH-60L/S-70A:
Max Gross weight 22,000 lbs, empty weight 11,700 lbs, max useful load = 10,300 lbs
Cabin Volume 372 Cubic feet
Max range 1140 Nm with 10% reserve, 10 kt headwind

<Will the Hawk make this max range number with full fuel and max pax's with airline type seats? How many souls do you leave behind to make this journey? I assume the extra fuel is carried out on the external stores pylon? There will be a lot of places the S70/UH60 can't go due to its physical size and weight over the 609.>

Maxumim cruise speed 149 knots
HOGE at 22000 lbs 3900 ft
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,..._ETI561,00.html
T700-701C, 1890 HP takeoff X 2= 3780 HP total
http://www.geae.com/engines/militar.../t700-701c.html

[John Bicker]

And the disk loading and the subsequent downwash? Can of worms on it's own. I think it would rule out ever fitting a winch. I don't think this is an aircraft that could land on an unprepared surface.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

I love these people who theorize that there are scads of companies out there operating both a (insert your favorite combination of fixed-wing and helicopter here) whose CEO's are sitting around the conference room table dreaming, "Gee, if there were just ONE aircraft that could do both jobs..."

The other laugh I get is when people think that cost-conscious hospitals are going to pay the incredible acquisition/operation costs of a 609 and the crews that will fly them (at least, in the U.S.)

It's fantasy. But whatever. If that's what people need to justify the 609, I guess that works.

[212man]

<7. Flight into known iceing - None of the current commercial helicopters can do that. Perhaps the S92 will be able to do that in the future, but its not a class of aircraft that we have been comparing.


...Apart from the EH-101 and the AS332 of course. Plus the EC-155 as of later this year.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Who do you believe?

The primary operating base for the USMC V-22 is the LHA (a small aircraft carrier) that positions itself about five to ten miles off shore depending on if the enemy is shooting back. So, the initial distance the V-22 has to travel is five to ten miles which means that it will be in the aircraft mode for a very short time so the speed advantage over a helicopter is minimal. They often talk about supporting troop movements hundreds of miles inland. If they were that far inland the US Army would have replaced the Marines in most cases so the Marine V-22s would no longer be involved. So there is really minimal reason to flaunt the speed advantage. The only reason you can flaunt the speed advantage is when addressing the Air Force V-22 that is used for pilot rescue. In this roll it vastly outperforms a helicopter in a similar roll. However it has minimal ground suppression capability and therefor is vulnerable when in the helicopter roll. The same problems relative to availability also apply (see below).

So in the operational world the speed advantage of the USMC V-22 is mooted. Another point never discussed is the survivability of the V-22. It is a sitting duck in the helicopter mode and if it suffers major structural damage the V-22 or its; major assemblies must be transported to the manufacturers facility or a military overhaul depot for repair. This seriously effects the operational availability of the V-22 squadrons attached to the LHA. Here is a little tidbit that was discussed by the Navy personnel at Boeing. They indicated that if a V-22 landed on an assigned parking spot and it could not fold its’ wings and prop rotor in a specified amount of time it would be pushed over the side to make room for the next V-22.

[slgrossman]

Lu,

You're thinking in terms of 1950's amphibious assault tactics. If your fleet is five to ten miles off the beach it becomes pretty obvious where the assault will be coming ashore.

From the very beginning one of the primary attractions of the tilt-rotor along with the LCAC (hovercraft) for the Marine Corps was its ability to deliver an assault from over the horizon. This prevents the enemy from concentrating his forces, while allowing the amphibious fleet the flexibility to maneuver at will and remain beyond the range of shore batteries.

In other roles, such as deep insertions or non-combatant extractions the significant increase in speed translates to less exposure time, giving the enemy less time to react, increasing the odds of successful completion.

I doubt the tilt-rotor is fast enough to make much difference against anti-aircraft weapons or to outrun an aerial threat, but the increased speed will undoubtedly make the difference as to whether an insertion is opposed or an extraction can escape before the enemy can respond.

-Stan-

[46Driver]

You beat me to the punch - the justification for the V-22 is so that it can do over the horizon assaults. However, with the assault into Afghanistan, the Corps proved that its own heavy lift CH-53E's were able to go long distance (and the Navy's MH-53E's carry even more fuel (about 22,000 lbs vs 15,500 for the CH-53E's) while being able to carry more than double the load of the Osprey. Who knows what is going to happen with the Corp's procurement....

[Skaz]

So if the 609 isnt commercially viable as a charter platform or hauling freight etc to oil rigs, then it kinda narrows the ops down.

Seems like EMS or SAR type ops fit the bill. Plus transport for high power executives/VIP's from urban areas to something like site office for exploratory mining/logging etc ops or Ski lodges etc...

Still wanna fly one though