BA609 is now flying - will it change the industry?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sez who?
The original design concept for the LHA was to be alerted of a mission and starting from cold Iron build up a head of steam, load the troops and equipment and in eleven days or less be steaming in a two mile oval off the coast to be invaded. Granted this was pre V-22 and pre LCAC. The original design mission used a fleet of CH-53s and CH-46s along with a smattering of UH-1s and conventional landing craft. Now the LHAs are forward deployed and the 1800 marines are already on board. They will at some point have the V-22s on board but they will still have a contingent of large helicopters aboard as well as AV8-B Harriers. Since there is limited hangar space on the LHA, the numbers of each type aircraft will be limited. So, if they are twenty miles or more offshore the effectiveness of the V-22 may be shown up but the helicopters will have to fly further so there is a tradeoff in overall effectiveness.
The LHAs presently in the Persian Gulf are conventionally equipped with the exception of the LCACs however the troops and their equipment are already on shore so the original design concept is already out the window. If the V-22s were involved in the present day scenario they would be no more efficient than the helicopters and with the atmospheric conditions existent in the desert it would be stupid to send the V-22s in to support the troops fighting in the desert.
Over
The LHAs presently in the Persian Gulf are conventionally equipped with the exception of the LCACs however the troops and their equipment are already on shore so the original design concept is already out the window. If the V-22s were involved in the present day scenario they would be no more efficient than the helicopters and with the atmospheric conditions existent in the desert it would be stupid to send the V-22s in to support the troops fighting in the desert.
Over
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: GOM
Age: 66
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skaz said:
"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."
Why wouldn't it be viable for offshore? The current aircraft in the GOM can't go out to the edge of the waterfall with more than 6 or 7 pax's either, especially on the long legs where max fuel distance is required and there are no other platforms with fuel along the way.
212 Man,
Only the EC155 is near the class of aircraft that we have been talking about, I forgot about it.
PPRUNE FAN #1 said:
"It's fantasy. But whatever. If that's what people need to justify the 609, I guess that works."
I guess the 80 or so orders logged for the 609 are people who can fantasize in real terms as they put real money down.
What gets me is how everyone feels threatened by this aircraft, maybe its the old resistance to change. I don't think it will replace the helicopter but in fact find a niche market that neither a helicopter or fixed wing can currently do alone.
Chuck
"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."
Why wouldn't it be viable for offshore? The current aircraft in the GOM can't go out to the edge of the waterfall with more than 6 or 7 pax's either, especially on the long legs where max fuel distance is required and there are no other platforms with fuel along the way.
212 Man,
Only the EC155 is near the class of aircraft that we have been talking about, I forgot about it.
PPRUNE FAN #1 said:
"It's fantasy. But whatever. If that's what people need to justify the 609, I guess that works."
I guess the 80 or so orders logged for the 609 are people who can fantasize in real terms as they put real money down.
What gets me is how everyone feels threatened by this aircraft, maybe its the old resistance to change. I don't think it will replace the helicopter but in fact find a niche market that neither a helicopter or fixed wing can currently do alone.
Chuck
It's not that people feel threatened by the tilt rotor, it's just that some of us are v-e-r-y skeptical about its practical application. Let's look at operating costs, for instance. Let's assume that some corporation is going to buy a 609 and fly it 300 hours per year.
We'll ignore the debt service for now. But at US$10million per copy, the monthly note will no doubt be steep. We'll also ignore all maintenance costs on the assumption that Bell will probably have a pretty good warranty (for that first year, at least). We'll even assume that the corporation already has a helicopter mechanic on staff that can go to 609 school for free.
So let's start with crew costs. Bell humorously notes that the 609 crew will be "1-2" people. At 16,000 pounds gross weight? Yeah...right. Let's be realistic and say that there are going to be two people in corporate (if not *all*) 609's at a total cost (including benefits) of about $200,000 per year. And that's if you only hire one crew.
Oops, you mean you want better availability? Better hire at least another crew (just double the above figure). Bell will probably include the training for two pilots for every 609 sold. I wonder how much they'll charge for subsequent crews? Let's not worry about that right now then, eh? Let's also ignore the cost of recurrent training (perhaps at the six month level?) which will surely be mandatory and just as surely not be free.
Fuel. Bell is being very cagey about that. The 609 has horrible endurance- only three hours to dry tanks (and that's probably in its most-efficient mode). Since no figure is published, let's assume 100 gph per side for those huge engines. That's probably pretty close. 200 gph total times $2.00 per gallon gives us $400 per flight hour. For fuel. $120,000 per annum.
Insurance. Let's apply current helicopter rates of 10% of the hull for liability and 3% for the hull. If it's any better than that I'll be a monkey's uncle. Thirteen percent of $10million is $1.3million per year.
Let's leave off hangar rent (which will surely be expensive since the bl**dy thing takes up so much space).
Okay, so far we're up to $1,620,000.00 in operating costs for 300 hours of flying. Whip out yer calculators, boys. I did and I get an hourly rate of $5,400 per hour.
$5,400 per hour.
Perhaps an EMS operator could shave that a bit by hiring cheaper crews (oh, that's rich- considering the rarity and newness of the aircraft). Then again, an EMS bird will have to be crewed 24-7 (how many pilotos X dos is that?). Maybe other operators can budget cheaper fuel. But still, I wonder how much it's going to cost to haul some car-wreck victim or canyon-hiker from scene to hospital?
And so this is why I'm skeptical. Commercially viable? I don't think so, at least not in the U.S. On the other hand, corporations are notoriously cost-conscious, and the 609 is going to have a hard time justifying its existence there too. Heh- having a 609 in the fleet just might finally give helicopter pilots some job security! Then again, everybody would be worried about the bean-counters shutting the whole dang operation down.
Oh, there might be a few companies that buy/operate it for the prestige of saying so. But that's what Beechcraft thought about their Starship...and they were sooooo wrong. (But that aircraft didn't provide the leap in capability that the 609 does...over a regular helicopter - certainly not over a King Air...not with that measly 3-hour endurance.)
So we'll see. I think that when the numbers-crunchers put pencils to paper and see what this thing is really going to cost to operate, there will be more than a few heart attacks in corporate boardrooms. Hey, maybe that'll generate a need for the 609 after all!
We'll ignore the debt service for now. But at US$10million per copy, the monthly note will no doubt be steep. We'll also ignore all maintenance costs on the assumption that Bell will probably have a pretty good warranty (for that first year, at least). We'll even assume that the corporation already has a helicopter mechanic on staff that can go to 609 school for free.
So let's start with crew costs. Bell humorously notes that the 609 crew will be "1-2" people. At 16,000 pounds gross weight? Yeah...right. Let's be realistic and say that there are going to be two people in corporate (if not *all*) 609's at a total cost (including benefits) of about $200,000 per year. And that's if you only hire one crew.
Oops, you mean you want better availability? Better hire at least another crew (just double the above figure). Bell will probably include the training for two pilots for every 609 sold. I wonder how much they'll charge for subsequent crews? Let's not worry about that right now then, eh? Let's also ignore the cost of recurrent training (perhaps at the six month level?) which will surely be mandatory and just as surely not be free.
Fuel. Bell is being very cagey about that. The 609 has horrible endurance- only three hours to dry tanks (and that's probably in its most-efficient mode). Since no figure is published, let's assume 100 gph per side for those huge engines. That's probably pretty close. 200 gph total times $2.00 per gallon gives us $400 per flight hour. For fuel. $120,000 per annum.
Insurance. Let's apply current helicopter rates of 10% of the hull for liability and 3% for the hull. If it's any better than that I'll be a monkey's uncle. Thirteen percent of $10million is $1.3million per year.
Let's leave off hangar rent (which will surely be expensive since the bl**dy thing takes up so much space).
Okay, so far we're up to $1,620,000.00 in operating costs for 300 hours of flying. Whip out yer calculators, boys. I did and I get an hourly rate of $5,400 per hour.
$5,400 per hour.
Perhaps an EMS operator could shave that a bit by hiring cheaper crews (oh, that's rich- considering the rarity and newness of the aircraft). Then again, an EMS bird will have to be crewed 24-7 (how many pilotos X dos is that?). Maybe other operators can budget cheaper fuel. But still, I wonder how much it's going to cost to haul some car-wreck victim or canyon-hiker from scene to hospital?
And so this is why I'm skeptical. Commercially viable? I don't think so, at least not in the U.S. On the other hand, corporations are notoriously cost-conscious, and the 609 is going to have a hard time justifying its existence there too. Heh- having a 609 in the fleet just might finally give helicopter pilots some job security! Then again, everybody would be worried about the bean-counters shutting the whole dang operation down.
Oh, there might be a few companies that buy/operate it for the prestige of saying so. But that's what Beechcraft thought about their Starship...and they were sooooo wrong. (But that aircraft didn't provide the leap in capability that the 609 does...over a regular helicopter - certainly not over a King Air...not with that measly 3-hour endurance.)
So we'll see. I think that when the numbers-crunchers put pencils to paper and see what this thing is really going to cost to operate, there will be more than a few heart attacks in corporate boardrooms. Hey, maybe that'll generate a need for the 609 after all!
Oh dear! My bad, as the kids say. I made a huge boner...er, mistake. And that's something you won't hear the number one PPRuNe fan admit often. So bask in it, lads.
In my above calculations of what a tilt rotor *might* cost to operate, I completely forgot about overhaul reserves. I kind of glossed over them when I was coming up with maintenance costs. Sure, Bell will warranty the components against premature failure, but the operator will still be on the hook for the reserves to be set aside for the rotables.
...Which gets me a-wonderin' just how much all those proprotors, gearboxes, swivel thingees, and those big engines are going to cost to overhaul? Any guesses? Whatever you come up with, just add that number to the $5,400/hour figure. Do I hear $6,000 per hour? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Whew! Sorry. There, I've composed myself now. I'll try not to lose control like that again. And I hope you chaps won't let me get away with such an oversight in the future.
Many thanks.
In my above calculations of what a tilt rotor *might* cost to operate, I completely forgot about overhaul reserves. I kind of glossed over them when I was coming up with maintenance costs. Sure, Bell will warranty the components against premature failure, but the operator will still be on the hook for the reserves to be set aside for the rotables.
...Which gets me a-wonderin' just how much all those proprotors, gearboxes, swivel thingees, and those big engines are going to cost to overhaul? Any guesses? Whatever you come up with, just add that number to the $5,400/hour figure. Do I hear $6,000 per hour? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Whew! Sorry. There, I've composed myself now. I'll try not to lose control like that again. And I hope you chaps won't let me get away with such an oversight in the future.
Many thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
One of the things that is almost never discussed is the way the machine is going to be operated. It is certainly not going to have the flexibility of operation of a helicopter for some interesting reasons.
It is going to be certified to a basis that is not published yet (like Part 25 or Part 29 is open to all to see). The cert basis is being negotiated between the manufacturer and the FAA. But because of the weight, it will be a combination of Part 25 and Part 29, which has some interesting performance implications.
The manufacturer has to demonstrate compliance with some performance numbers for takeoff distance, hover capability and single engine height velocity. You probablyl will not be able to hover the machine inside the HV curve, just as you can't do that with a Part 29 machine with more than 10 seats. So, takeoff performance will have to be pretty tightly scheduled, and that will mean quite specific takeoff profiles to meet the Flight Manual performance. Ditto with landings.
And if the manufacturer wants more latitude in the takeoff and landing profiles, they will have to be demonstrated, which will make the flight test program huge - the variables are amazing when you start to think about them. The aim will be to get good enough performance out there quickly, so don't expect much flexibility in terms of takeoff and landing profiles.
Attempts to find out performance for helipads and the like from the XV-15 didn't have much response from anyone, so we're really pushing back the frontiers with the 609.
It will be an interesting evolution, as they say.
It is going to be certified to a basis that is not published yet (like Part 25 or Part 29 is open to all to see). The cert basis is being negotiated between the manufacturer and the FAA. But because of the weight, it will be a combination of Part 25 and Part 29, which has some interesting performance implications.
The manufacturer has to demonstrate compliance with some performance numbers for takeoff distance, hover capability and single engine height velocity. You probablyl will not be able to hover the machine inside the HV curve, just as you can't do that with a Part 29 machine with more than 10 seats. So, takeoff performance will have to be pretty tightly scheduled, and that will mean quite specific takeoff profiles to meet the Flight Manual performance. Ditto with landings.
And if the manufacturer wants more latitude in the takeoff and landing profiles, they will have to be demonstrated, which will make the flight test program huge - the variables are amazing when you start to think about them. The aim will be to get good enough performance out there quickly, so don't expect much flexibility in terms of takeoff and landing profiles.
Attempts to find out performance for helipads and the like from the XV-15 didn't have much response from anyone, so we're really pushing back the frontiers with the 609.
It will be an interesting evolution, as they say.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer some questions and make some points about the 609:
The FAA under Part 61 (pilot certification) talks about a POWERED-LIFT category rating, it is similar to airplane requirements.
In a previous post one of pprune’s fans mentioned some cost numbers about the 609. He gave an example of a corporation flying 300 hours a year. Having been involved in both air taxi and corporate flying there are two different mindsets. In air taxi you need to make money with your aircraft or you are OOB (out of business). In the corporate world the aircraft are a justifiable expense that is primarily used by the chairman and a few other higher ups. Gold plating cabin fixtures in a medium business jet for an extra $20,000 was only worthy of a 15 minute discussion between company officials and completion center reps before "yes" was reached. They did spend money on a good avionics package. In the air taxi Lear Jet we did have two HSI’s.
A corporate aircraft can fly 300 hours a year and be justified. No commercial operator can fly 300 hours a year and survive. The corporation I worked for flew 500-600 hours a year for corporate work.
From a previous post flying the 609 for 300 hours a year would cost $5,400 an hour (without reserves). However, flying it 600 hours a year would result in $2,900 an hour.
In believe in my area the S-76 walk in rate are $3,000-4,000/hr. Some folks are picked-up at their homes/estates and flown 150nm to their destinations. A cruise speed of 275 looks pretty good over a helicopter especially when the folks have to pay both ways even if it’s a dropoff. And 10 million for a 609 versus 8 million for a S-76 is close. Another factor is with the speed of a 609, an operator who has multiple helicopters may need less 609’s to do the same work of helicopters.
Last spring I looked into some Super Puma training in the U.K. I was quoted 3,800 pounds/hour, with currency conversion and the VAT the total would be about $7,000/hr.
Surely, the oil companies must get a better rate.
The FAA under Part 61 (pilot certification) talks about a POWERED-LIFT category rating, it is similar to airplane requirements.
In a previous post one of pprune’s fans mentioned some cost numbers about the 609. He gave an example of a corporation flying 300 hours a year. Having been involved in both air taxi and corporate flying there are two different mindsets. In air taxi you need to make money with your aircraft or you are OOB (out of business). In the corporate world the aircraft are a justifiable expense that is primarily used by the chairman and a few other higher ups. Gold plating cabin fixtures in a medium business jet for an extra $20,000 was only worthy of a 15 minute discussion between company officials and completion center reps before "yes" was reached. They did spend money on a good avionics package. In the air taxi Lear Jet we did have two HSI’s.
A corporate aircraft can fly 300 hours a year and be justified. No commercial operator can fly 300 hours a year and survive. The corporation I worked for flew 500-600 hours a year for corporate work.
From a previous post flying the 609 for 300 hours a year would cost $5,400 an hour (without reserves). However, flying it 600 hours a year would result in $2,900 an hour.
In believe in my area the S-76 walk in rate are $3,000-4,000/hr. Some folks are picked-up at their homes/estates and flown 150nm to their destinations. A cruise speed of 275 looks pretty good over a helicopter especially when the folks have to pay both ways even if it’s a dropoff. And 10 million for a 609 versus 8 million for a S-76 is close. Another factor is with the speed of a 609, an operator who has multiple helicopters may need less 609’s to do the same work of helicopters.
Last spring I looked into some Super Puma training in the U.K. I was quoted 3,800 pounds/hour, with currency conversion and the VAT the total would be about $7,000/hr.
Surely, the oil companies must get a better rate.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA609 gunship for Marine Corps?
Dallas Morning News report
Jul. 6
Full report here
Jul. 6
WASHINGTON
-- The Marine Corps' top aviation officer has asked Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. to study arming its executive jet-sized BA609 tilt-rotor aircraft as an escort for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor troop transport.
The request by Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, deputy commandant for aviation, is a striking vote of confidence in the V-22 and in the future of tilt-rotor aircraft. The V-22 program was nearly canceled after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.
"I would have done this earlier, but I didn't even know if I had a V-22," Gen. Hough said, referring to the Osprey's near-cancellation.
Critics still regard the revolutionary method of flight as highly risky.
Gen. Hough said the V-22 will need some type of armed escort to carry Marines into combat zones, and only a tilt-rotor will do. Helicopters are too slow for the job, and jets are too fast.
Bell expects to make a presentation to Gen. Hough and his staff this summer, he said.
The company's other concepts include:
--An attack tilt rotor designed more or less from scratch.
--Replacing the V-22's fuselage with a thin gunship fuselage but using the Osprey's wing and rotors.
--Creating a new type of tilt-rotor aircraft that could take off and land like a helicopter but fold its rotors in flight and use a jet engine in flight.
The BA609 designed for civilian use by Bell and British-Italian partnership AgustaWestland first flew in March 2003 and is in flight tests. Gen. Hough estimated that an armed derivative could be ready for flight testing as early as 2015.
That would be about the time that Bell will finish rebuilding 180 AH-1Z Cobra helicopter gunships for the Marines. The Cobra's missions include escorting the Vietnam-era transport helicopters that the V-22 was designed to replace.
Bell and AgustaWestland have promised to sell between 70 and 80 BA609s for about $10 million apiece to civilians who put down a $100,000 deposit, but the aircraft will cost more in the future.
The General said he asked Bell for a conceptual design of an armed escort because two years of flight tests of the revamped V-22 have left him certain that tilt-rotors will revolutionize military aviation. "It's the wave of the future, and it's going to change military aviation forever," Gen. Hough said.
Three years ago, after two crashes killed 23 Marines, Corps leaders feared they might have to cancel plans to buy 360 of the innovative aircraft to replace their aging troop transport helicopters. But after a special commission studied the causes of the crashes, the Pentagon approved a redesign of the Osprey followed by rigorous new flight testing that began in May 2002.
Gen. Hough said his "greatest fear" today is that once the V-22 receives Pentagon clearance to go into full production, other armed services will try to horn in on the Marines and get Ospreys first. The Marines plan operational tests of the V-22 over the coming year. They hope to win Pentagon approval next August to begin full production.
The Pentagon and Congress have approved purchases of 11 Ospreys a year since 2001 from Bell and its partner, Boeing Co.'s helicopter division, even as the aircraft was being redesigned and tested. If the Pentagon gives the go-ahead next summer, Gen. Hough said, plans call for ramping up that rate to 44 a year.
The Special Operations Command, for example, which is testing two V-22s at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., officially wants 55 Ospreys for commando operations and pilot rescue, but "their requirement's really 77," Gen. Hough said. The National Guard also is interested in V-22s for a range of missions, including homeland security, the general said, and several countries have expressed interest.
After the crashes in 2000, "people lost a hell of a lot of confidence in tilt rotors," Gen. Hough recalled. "As soon as they see that this thing works like a champ, I think they'll sell a lot of them."
The request by Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, deputy commandant for aviation, is a striking vote of confidence in the V-22 and in the future of tilt-rotor aircraft. The V-22 program was nearly canceled after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines.
"I would have done this earlier, but I didn't even know if I had a V-22," Gen. Hough said, referring to the Osprey's near-cancellation.
Critics still regard the revolutionary method of flight as highly risky.
Gen. Hough said the V-22 will need some type of armed escort to carry Marines into combat zones, and only a tilt-rotor will do. Helicopters are too slow for the job, and jets are too fast.
Bell expects to make a presentation to Gen. Hough and his staff this summer, he said.
The company's other concepts include:
--An attack tilt rotor designed more or less from scratch.
--Replacing the V-22's fuselage with a thin gunship fuselage but using the Osprey's wing and rotors.
--Creating a new type of tilt-rotor aircraft that could take off and land like a helicopter but fold its rotors in flight and use a jet engine in flight.
The BA609 designed for civilian use by Bell and British-Italian partnership AgustaWestland first flew in March 2003 and is in flight tests. Gen. Hough estimated that an armed derivative could be ready for flight testing as early as 2015.
That would be about the time that Bell will finish rebuilding 180 AH-1Z Cobra helicopter gunships for the Marines. The Cobra's missions include escorting the Vietnam-era transport helicopters that the V-22 was designed to replace.
Bell and AgustaWestland have promised to sell between 70 and 80 BA609s for about $10 million apiece to civilians who put down a $100,000 deposit, but the aircraft will cost more in the future.
The General said he asked Bell for a conceptual design of an armed escort because two years of flight tests of the revamped V-22 have left him certain that tilt-rotors will revolutionize military aviation. "It's the wave of the future, and it's going to change military aviation forever," Gen. Hough said.
Three years ago, after two crashes killed 23 Marines, Corps leaders feared they might have to cancel plans to buy 360 of the innovative aircraft to replace their aging troop transport helicopters. But after a special commission studied the causes of the crashes, the Pentagon approved a redesign of the Osprey followed by rigorous new flight testing that began in May 2002.
Gen. Hough said his "greatest fear" today is that once the V-22 receives Pentagon clearance to go into full production, other armed services will try to horn in on the Marines and get Ospreys first. The Marines plan operational tests of the V-22 over the coming year. They hope to win Pentagon approval next August to begin full production.
The Pentagon and Congress have approved purchases of 11 Ospreys a year since 2001 from Bell and its partner, Boeing Co.'s helicopter division, even as the aircraft was being redesigned and tested. If the Pentagon gives the go-ahead next summer, Gen. Hough said, plans call for ramping up that rate to 44 a year.
The Special Operations Command, for example, which is testing two V-22s at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., officially wants 55 Ospreys for commando operations and pilot rescue, but "their requirement's really 77," Gen. Hough said. The National Guard also is interested in V-22s for a range of missions, including homeland security, the general said, and several countries have expressed interest.
After the crashes in 2000, "people lost a hell of a lot of confidence in tilt rotors," Gen. Hough recalled. "As soon as they see that this thing works like a champ, I think they'll sell a lot of them."
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me count the ways......
To: diethelm
Two reasons (among many others) come to mind. The level of reliability does not meet the requirements for a presidential helicopter (Powered lift aircraft) and in the helicopter mode it can’t autorotate. Its rate of descent is 4-6000 feet per minute. When in the airplane mode it was assumed that the hydraulic servos would only be used to control the pitch of the Prop Rotor ™ which would be minimal however the design of the Prop Rotor ™ allows it to move due to gyroscopic forces during maneuvering causing a high demand on the hydraulic system effecting it’s reliability.
Two reasons (among many others) come to mind. The level of reliability does not meet the requirements for a presidential helicopter (Powered lift aircraft) and in the helicopter mode it can’t autorotate. Its rate of descent is 4-6000 feet per minute. When in the airplane mode it was assumed that the hydraulic servos would only be used to control the pitch of the Prop Rotor ™ which would be minimal however the design of the Prop Rotor ™ allows it to move due to gyroscopic forces during maneuvering causing a high demand on the hydraulic system effecting it’s reliability.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me a much cheaper alternative would be to either build some more OV-10 Broncos (twin turboprop used in Vietnam as a FAC aircraft) or just use A-10 Warthogs. Both can go low and slow and especially the A-10 can lay down some withering close support hell from above.
Back either of those up with an AC-130 gunship and the V-22s might even have enough time to descend at a rate that won't get 'em into VRS
.
Dave Blevins
Back either of those up with an AC-130 gunship and the V-22s might even have enough time to descend at a rate that won't get 'em into VRS
.Dave Blevins
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marines & Naval Ships...
That's why the V-22 is attractive... it fits the Marine Corps model. I'd rather have a Warthog (A-10) raining bullets on the LZ than anything else. It is S-L-O-W, armored, and deadly effective against anything on the ground. When the $hit makes contact with the fan, aircraft manueverability can be important, as well. The Osprey seems kinda weak in that arena. For moving troops from point A to point B in a fast and effecient manner, agility is not so important and the V-22 will do well.
For tactical operations, especially commando type insertions, a high degree of maneuverability and additional power will be EXTREMELY important. No matter what it is spec'd out for, you can bet that we will add more weight requirements for the special ops folks in short order. Just look at recent military history and the modifications made over the years. Heck, just look at how much they have to change just to get some tilt-rotor gun-ships!!! Why the heck don't they design these things with 5 times more power than you need so we can grow into them with safety to spare (and so the planners and war-fighters have the flexibility they need for future conficts)?
For tactical operations, especially commando type insertions, a high degree of maneuverability and additional power will be EXTREMELY important. No matter what it is spec'd out for, you can bet that we will add more weight requirements for the special ops folks in short order. Just look at recent military history and the modifications made over the years. Heck, just look at how much they have to change just to get some tilt-rotor gun-ships!!! Why the heck don't they design these things with 5 times more power than you need so we can grow into them with safety to spare (and so the planners and war-fighters have the flexibility they need for future conficts)?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common aircraft acquisition strategy in military helicopter aviation is that when the cargo and utility aircraft have longer legs or are faster than the gun cover; get a better gun cover provider.
The US Army tried to defeat the high long-term cost of this method by getting way out in front of gunship need with the Advanced Attack Aerial Weapons Platform (think that’s pretty close), the Cheyenne.
But they needed an interim aircraft to fill the gap till the AAWP could be built and fielded. Bell built the interim aircraft from current experimental designs and lots of off the shelf parts.
The Cobra.
Pretty good interim aircraft I'd say.
The US Army tried to defeat the high long-term cost of this method by getting way out in front of gunship need with the Advanced Attack Aerial Weapons Platform (think that’s pretty close), the Cheyenne.
But they needed an interim aircraft to fill the gap till the AAWP could be built and fielded. Bell built the interim aircraft from current experimental designs and lots of off the shelf parts.
The Cobra.
Pretty good interim aircraft I'd say.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Problems for the V-22
Navy orders investigation into latest Osprey mishaps
By ANTHONY J. SANFILIPPO , [email protected] 07/08/2004
The Navy has convened a board to investigate the latest problems with the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Following two test flights that went awry off the coast of Maryland, the Navy was required to enlist the board because the estimated cost of damage was between $20,000 and $1 million, or a "class B mishap."
The V-22 is a plane-helicopter hybrid being developed jointly by Bell Helicopter Textron in Texas and the Boeing Co. in Ridley.
The most recent malfunction occurredJune 28 when a blower that cools oil for the tilt-rotor failed as the aircraft hovered above the deck of the USS Iwo Jima.
The pilot was forced to land the Osprey in what officials call a "land as soon as possible emergency."
Without the cooling system, a pilot has only three minutes to land the V-22 before the rotors are destroyed.
However, if the Osprey is in airplane mode, the aircraft can fly, although the rotors would be destroyed when it lands.
This was the first incident of its kind in more than 6,000 flight hours.
The V-22, is no stranger to mishap review.
Two fatal crashes in 2000 forced officials to overhaul and restructure the program.
"This is totally routine and is done all the time," said Boeing spokesman Jack Satterfield. "By doing this, the Navy is looking to avoid similar incidents in the future."
Satterfield said there would be no effect on the production of the V-22 because test flights are continuing.
"There have been other minor incidents with the V-22 like this one, like warning lights going off in the cockpit," Satterfield said, "but nothing that would put the aircraft in significant jeopardy."
According to Satterfield, the problem has already been isolated and it appears the fan that failed was an older model, made by an outside contractor, that has since been upgraded and replaced in newer prototypes.
Navy officials have decided that a separate Judge Advocate General investigation is not needed.
Unlike JAG investigations, the details of a mishap board investigation are generally not made public.
©The Daily Times 2004
By ANTHONY J. SANFILIPPO , [email protected] 07/08/2004
The Navy has convened a board to investigate the latest problems with the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Following two test flights that went awry off the coast of Maryland, the Navy was required to enlist the board because the estimated cost of damage was between $20,000 and $1 million, or a "class B mishap."
The V-22 is a plane-helicopter hybrid being developed jointly by Bell Helicopter Textron in Texas and the Boeing Co. in Ridley.
The most recent malfunction occurredJune 28 when a blower that cools oil for the tilt-rotor failed as the aircraft hovered above the deck of the USS Iwo Jima.
The pilot was forced to land the Osprey in what officials call a "land as soon as possible emergency."
Without the cooling system, a pilot has only three minutes to land the V-22 before the rotors are destroyed.
However, if the Osprey is in airplane mode, the aircraft can fly, although the rotors would be destroyed when it lands.
This was the first incident of its kind in more than 6,000 flight hours.
The V-22, is no stranger to mishap review.
Two fatal crashes in 2000 forced officials to overhaul and restructure the program.
"This is totally routine and is done all the time," said Boeing spokesman Jack Satterfield. "By doing this, the Navy is looking to avoid similar incidents in the future."
Satterfield said there would be no effect on the production of the V-22 because test flights are continuing.
"There have been other minor incidents with the V-22 like this one, like warning lights going off in the cockpit," Satterfield said, "but nothing that would put the aircraft in significant jeopardy."
According to Satterfield, the problem has already been isolated and it appears the fan that failed was an older model, made by an outside contractor, that has since been upgraded and replaced in newer prototypes.
Navy officials have decided that a separate Judge Advocate General investigation is not needed.
Unlike JAG investigations, the details of a mishap board investigation are generally not made public.
©The Daily Times 2004
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cooling fans spin at very high speed and have lots of energy. If they catch debris or just come apart, they can toss chunks into critical areas, as this one did. The cooler can also be punctured and oil loss compounds the problem. One press report said an outside crewman was treated because he felt a piece hit him.
Modern fans are designed to contain the chunks, this one clearly was not able to do so. Reports indicated the newer design (that was not yet installed on this aircraft) has containment built in.
Such "turbine burst protection" is part of the new regulations, including all coolers and engines, but older designs do not have to refit to meet the new requirements.
Modern fans are designed to contain the chunks, this one clearly was not able to do so. Reports indicated the newer design (that was not yet installed on this aircraft) has containment built in.
Such "turbine burst protection" is part of the new regulations, including all coolers and engines, but older designs do not have to refit to meet the new requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL000
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA609 costs
What about scheduled city to city VIP transport? Assuming the 609 could reach a fixed wing scheduled operator's utilization (~3000hrs) then it would still have to charge about twice the business class fare.
This is assuming the 6 pax VIP configuration which I've sat in and I believe is the limit with regard to what people not accustomed to small aircraft would feel comfortable in-comfortable enough that is to justify the steep price.
The insurance figures I read above were enormous compared to what I'm used to seeing. Light Business jets are something like 0.20% for hull and $100m liability.
My estimation of fuel costs, (with $3.00/gal) are about $1.35/nm.
If it were to go into charter and operate leaving a 20% EBIT for the operator, than the prices are as follows:
1000hrs-$5,700/hr
600hrs-$8,700/hr
That's enormously prohibitive.
And BTW, this is with the latest acquisition price I've been told..."no more than $16 million".
So the only real solution for revenue service seems to be to put it on a schedule, in dense routes, and at twice the fares of current airline business class prices.
So the question comes down to whether passengers would be willing to pay prices this steep in order to avoid the entire airport/airline infrastructure.
And all this, assuming you could fly the aircraft for 3000hrs per year...
This is assuming the 6 pax VIP configuration which I've sat in and I believe is the limit with regard to what people not accustomed to small aircraft would feel comfortable in-comfortable enough that is to justify the steep price.
The insurance figures I read above were enormous compared to what I'm used to seeing. Light Business jets are something like 0.20% for hull and $100m liability.
My estimation of fuel costs, (with $3.00/gal) are about $1.35/nm.
If it were to go into charter and operate leaving a 20% EBIT for the operator, than the prices are as follows:
1000hrs-$5,700/hr
600hrs-$8,700/hr
That's enormously prohibitive.
And BTW, this is with the latest acquisition price I've been told..."no more than $16 million".
So the only real solution for revenue service seems to be to put it on a schedule, in dense routes, and at twice the fares of current airline business class prices.
So the question comes down to whether passengers would be willing to pay prices this steep in order to avoid the entire airport/airline infrastructure.
And all this, assuming you could fly the aircraft for 3000hrs per year...