BA609 is now flying - will it change the industry?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA609 is now flying - will it change the industry?
With the BA609 now flying it seems an opportune time to discuss how it may affect the industry. They are saying FAA certification in 2007, so this is very much speculation, but here are some of my teasers
- are there any types of operation that it will bring which we were not able to do before?
- what will it be commercially (ie cost-wise) better at - I am thinking about wide area search, but will they put a hoist on it to make it an SAR machine? At 275 knots cruise there are some corporates who would like it I expect too.
- many heliports will be too small for it - will it get into EGLW Fayed Field, and can you imagine the landing fee structure in 2007 if it can?
- how will the V-22 experience (aka accidents, groundings etd) impact sales of the BA609, or if the V-22 has a clean sheet from now on, will those accidents be far enough back to be ignored in the sales process? Interestingly Bell announced the V-22 grounding the day before the BA609 flew!! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
Roll up, roll up! Have your cent/penny worth on the BA609!
- are there any types of operation that it will bring which we were not able to do before?
- what will it be commercially (ie cost-wise) better at - I am thinking about wide area search, but will they put a hoist on it to make it an SAR machine? At 275 knots cruise there are some corporates who would like it I expect too.
- many heliports will be too small for it - will it get into EGLW Fayed Field, and can you imagine the landing fee structure in 2007 if it can?
- how will the V-22 experience (aka accidents, groundings etd) impact sales of the BA609, or if the V-22 has a clean sheet from now on, will those accidents be far enough back to be ignored in the sales process? Interestingly Bell announced the V-22 grounding the day before the BA609 flew!! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
Roll up, roll up! Have your cent/penny worth on the BA609!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have a question: I flew the MV-22 sim down at MCAS New River and the one big difference was that the Osprey had a Blottle (named after General Blot who wanted the machine to have a jet style throttle) instead of a collective. Does the 609 have a collective or a Blottle?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Legs
Looking at the 609 from an Offshore viewpoint, there are a number of fields that could presently use it.........
North of the Shetlands.....South in the Gulf of Mexico and out of Darwin Downunder.....
All three fields are limited somewhat by the capacity of 332L1/2's, and B214ST's to reach the patch..........yet alone develop anything past that point.
Also at these extreme ranges of the above fleet, the Passenger load is down to 8-10........and guess what the 609 can carry??
My gut feeling is that it will kill the existing heavies on the longer range tasks...
With its range out to around 750 nm at 250 knots.........it will be a mean machine indeed.
With its cheaper purchase price than the 332 L2.......it certainly will be hard to beat.
However if there is any delays in certification..........or any accident or significant incident in the test program, then who knows about its future.
As far as the funny Blottle???....perhaps it is a fixed winged pilots machine afterall....
North of the Shetlands.....South in the Gulf of Mexico and out of Darwin Downunder.....
All three fields are limited somewhat by the capacity of 332L1/2's, and B214ST's to reach the patch..........yet alone develop anything past that point.
Also at these extreme ranges of the above fleet, the Passenger load is down to 8-10........and guess what the 609 can carry??
My gut feeling is that it will kill the existing heavies on the longer range tasks...
With its range out to around 750 nm at 250 knots.........it will be a mean machine indeed.
With its cheaper purchase price than the 332 L2.......it certainly will be hard to beat.
However if there is any delays in certification..........or any accident or significant incident in the test program, then who knows about its future.
As far as the funny Blottle???....perhaps it is a fixed winged pilots machine afterall....
Last edited by Old Man Rotor; 9th Mar 2003 at 11:24.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newton, AL
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have a question: I flew the MV-22 sim down at MCAS New River and the one big difference was that the Osprey had a Blottle (named after General Blot who wanted the machine to have a jet style throttle) instead of a collective. Does the 609 have a collective or a Blottle?
It has a collective.
Butch
Throttle...Blottle...Collective....Thrust Lever....ah heck...I am getting confused! The machine will be a real improvement on the longer legs for sure.....but it will really need to carry more pax to be really useful. The infrastructure will have to change to accomodate it as well. I can just see the PHI/Air Log guys scudrunning at 250-300 knots. Until the FAA accepts, and the helicopter industy matures, it will be a very scary thought to think of the 609 scooting around in the same manner the Gulf boys operate now. At least the 609 should be able to fly high enough to maintain radio contact with the FAA for the first bit offshore but the problems with communication will continue until the FAA gets involved with repeaters offshore sufficient to cover the entire gulf area.
A second thought is how companies that have a Jetranger mindset will be able to handle a complex aircraft like the 609?
A second thought is how companies that have a Jetranger mindset will be able to handle a complex aircraft like the 609?
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
Another point to consider.
When the 609 does go into service the pilots (no matter how many helicopter hours they have) will have a low level of experience at the controls of the 609 including flight time and simulator time. The same is true for the mechanics and electronic technicians. It is not that difficult (in my estimation) to convert from one helicopter to another but converting from a helicopter to a 609 may not be that easy as it is 95% fixed wing and 5% helicopter. This could cause some operational problems until the experience level increases to a higher level.
When I worked on the V-22 program the Marines that flew the V-22 were afraid of the fly by wire control system and as such they did not use the cyclic for forward flight in the helicopter mode. Instead, they tilted the engine Prop-Rotor three degrees forward. Having said that I ask you to return to the photo and look at the position of the engine Prop-Rotor.
When I worked on the V-22 program the Marines that flew the V-22 were afraid of the fly by wire control system and as such they did not use the cyclic for forward flight in the helicopter mode. Instead, they tilted the engine Prop-Rotor three degrees forward. Having said that I ask you to return to the photo and look at the position of the engine Prop-Rotor.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early on, we might expect it to open up some new areas - long distance offshore and offshore SAR. There will always be some mega-rich individuals who will get a "new toy", bought by their companies for them.
I can't see it making much difiference to your average Jet Ranger outfit though, for the foreseeable future.
I can't see it making much difiference to your average Jet Ranger outfit though, for the foreseeable future.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
Max cruise speed 275 knots
HOGE at MGW un-reported
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAi...cs.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
Maxumim cruise speed 149 knots
HOGE at 22000 lbs 3900 ft
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,C...ETI561,00.html
T700-701C, 1890 HP takeoff X 2= 3780 HP total
http://www.geae.com/engines/military...t700-701c.html
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
Max cruise speed 275 knots
HOGE at MGW un-reported
http://www.bellagusta.com/html/theAi...cs.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
Maxumim cruise speed 149 knots
HOGE at 22000 lbs 3900 ft
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,C...ETI561,00.html
T700-701C, 1890 HP takeoff X 2= 3780 HP total
http://www.geae.com/engines/military...t700-701c.html
Nick,
Shame on you...confusing the issue with facts!
Now a question.....if the 609 is going to fill a great demand (else they would not be building such a thing...) why can Sikorsky not beat them at that game by civilianizing the BlackHawk and improving the 76.....to the extent that the 609/412 families wither on the vine? It would seem....with the mix of the three aircraft....70/76/92 you guys would have the market tied up in the medium and heavy markets.
Shame on you...confusing the issue with facts!
Now a question.....if the 609 is going to fill a great demand (else they would not be building such a thing...) why can Sikorsky not beat them at that game by civilianizing the BlackHawk and improving the 76.....to the extent that the 609/412 families wither on the vine? It would seem....with the mix of the three aircraft....70/76/92 you guys would have the market tied up in the medium and heavy markets.
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
I object.
To: Nick
The V-22 and I assume the 609 have far fewer rotor controls than a conventional helicopter. The collective and cyclic controls are limited to the two sticks, which are directly linked to variable differential transformers. These VDTs send a signal via the computer to the servos of which there are three dual servos connected to the swashplate allowing the prop rotor to function as a conventional helicopter rotor. The electronic flight control system functions in the exact same manner as a CH-47 but no mechanical linkages. The same servos are used to adjust the pitch of the prop rotor which then functions as a propeller on a fixed wing aircraft when in the airplane mode.
The rigging of the all controls from what I understand is done electronically and this includes the servos that are used in the airplane mode.
I bitched and moaned while on the program about the higher than anticipated cycling of the hydraulic system but was ignored. The Prop Rotors are mounted in an elastomeric assembly and when the aircraft is in the Airplane mode any maneuver will cause the Prop to precess just like an aircraft propeller. The aircraft propeller however is rigidized by the support bearings on the prop shaft so they can’t precess but in some cases the tips will deflect. When the Prop Rotor precesses there are flapping sensors that will command the servos to bring the prop Rotor back to the radial position. With a great deal of maneuvering while on a mission the hydraulic system will operate at a very high duty cycle which can effect systems reliability. I was told that even though Boeing built the hydraulic system it was a Bell problem because it was the Prop Rotor that caused the problem. Boeing never told Bell so nothing was ever done.
The V-22 and I assume the 609 have far fewer rotor controls than a conventional helicopter. The collective and cyclic controls are limited to the two sticks, which are directly linked to variable differential transformers. These VDTs send a signal via the computer to the servos of which there are three dual servos connected to the swashplate allowing the prop rotor to function as a conventional helicopter rotor. The electronic flight control system functions in the exact same manner as a CH-47 but no mechanical linkages. The same servos are used to adjust the pitch of the prop rotor which then functions as a propeller on a fixed wing aircraft when in the airplane mode.
The rigging of the all controls from what I understand is done electronically and this includes the servos that are used in the airplane mode.
I bitched and moaned while on the program about the higher than anticipated cycling of the hydraulic system but was ignored. The Prop Rotors are mounted in an elastomeric assembly and when the aircraft is in the Airplane mode any maneuver will cause the Prop to precess just like an aircraft propeller. The aircraft propeller however is rigidized by the support bearings on the prop shaft so they can’t precess but in some cases the tips will deflect. When the Prop Rotor precesses there are flapping sensors that will command the servos to bring the prop Rotor back to the radial position. With a great deal of maneuvering while on a mission the hydraulic system will operate at a very high duty cycle which can effect systems reliability. I was told that even though Boeing built the hydraulic system it was a Bell problem because it was the Prop Rotor that caused the problem. Boeing never told Bell so nothing was ever done.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bert
Agree
Highway 1 around Big Sur has to be one of the most breath-taking sights in the world, from the air and by road. I can't decide if that's the famous Bixby Bridge in the background.
And the locals like helicopters - when there's a highway slide, it's their only means of getting in and out, sometimes for months. Still, I can think of worse places to be stranded than paradise!
Lu
Surely you weren't ignored? I can't believe that! 
Agree
Highway 1 around Big Sur has to be one of the most breath-taking sights in the world, from the air and by road. I can't decide if that's the famous Bixby Bridge in the background.
And the locals like helicopters - when there's a highway slide, it's their only means of getting in and out, sometimes for months. Still, I can think of worse places to be stranded than paradise!
Lu
Surely you weren't ignored? I can't believe that!
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
Yes, I was ignored. Where did you hear that before?
To: Flying Lawyer
In the past on other programs as well as on the V-22 many of my suggestions were ignored for cost reasons and for many other reasons including department management attitude or from the NIH attitude of engineering. I wasn’t the only one ignored but on this forum I can only speak for myself. In the case of the V-22 problem described above it was because of the adversarial relationship between the Product Integrity departments of Bell and Boeing. They did not talk with each other and when they did, nobody listened. That is the way of the aviation industry.
In the past on other programs as well as on the V-22 many of my suggestions were ignored for cost reasons and for many other reasons including department management attitude or from the NIH attitude of engineering. I wasn’t the only one ignored but on this forum I can only speak for myself. In the case of the V-22 problem described above it was because of the adversarial relationship between the Product Integrity departments of Bell and Boeing. They did not talk with each other and when they did, nobody listened. That is the way of the aviation industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think Lu confused the mechanical control linkages with the control servos.
Any fly by wire aircraft has a vastly simpler mechanical control linkage set, this is NOT a tilt rotor attribute.
Tilt rotors have all the rotor controls of a Chinook, and the tilt mechanism, and all the airplane controls of an airplane.
SASless, I think you are on to something. Perhaps Sikorsky should develop a large cabin Black Hawk with the power of the 609, but the payload of a helicopter! This helicopter would have more range, more payload, similar operating costs, and similar purchase price to a fully developed 609!
Gee, I wonder what that aircraft would look like?
Any fly by wire aircraft has a vastly simpler mechanical control linkage set, this is NOT a tilt rotor attribute.
Tilt rotors have all the rotor controls of a Chinook, and the tilt mechanism, and all the airplane controls of an airplane.
SASless, I think you are on to something. Perhaps Sikorsky should develop a large cabin Black Hawk with the power of the 609, but the payload of a helicopter! This helicopter would have more range, more payload, similar operating costs, and similar purchase price to a fully developed 609!
Gee, I wonder what that aircraft would look like?
Duh.....well errrrr...probably something akin to the old H-3 airframe....ramp in back....S-61'ish cabin.....Blackhawk mechanical bits......gosh....gee....almost exactly like the S-92 maybe?????? But that is too big to compete with the 412 sized helicopters.....but perfect for military SAR and ASW missions.....and even North Sea or other long distance pax haulling missions.......or do I miss something again?
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
Here we go again
To: Nick
No, I made the statement about the control system, which in your post you (possibly) alluded to the control system as being complex. That is what I assumed you were saying. My statement was that the only control linkage was between the collective and cyclic sticks to the respective VDTs as well as connecting the control sticks and from there on it was fly-by-wire. I also believe that the CH-47 would be vastly improved if it had the V-22 control system as opposed to the extremely complex control system presently installed.
I think Lu confused the mechanical control linkages with the control servos.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gee Lu, are we reading my post CAREFULLY????? I said, "For example, the typical tilt rotor has between 26 and 32 flight critical control actuators on it, while the typical helicopter has 8."
What part of ACTUATOR confuses you?
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?
After all that is said and done, the tilt rotor has three to four times the flight critical actuators of a helicopter. Period.
SASless, take care with the idea that a 609 is a 412 sized machine. It is a great big machine to the accountant, the mechanic and the fuel bill. It is in fact a fine way to pack all that cost in a smaller body. It does that to get speed, which is its advantage, of course. All I would like to do is be sure we all understant the cost of that speed.
What part of ACTUATOR confuses you?
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?
After all that is said and done, the tilt rotor has three to four times the flight critical actuators of a helicopter. Period.
SASless, take care with the idea that a 609 is a 412 sized machine. It is a great big machine to the accountant, the mechanic and the fuel bill. It is in fact a fine way to pack all that cost in a smaller body. It does that to get speed, which is its advantage, of course. All I would like to do is be sure we all understant the cost of that speed.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the tilt rotor will be a part of the future.
Sikorsky has a number of patents on a 'Variable Diameter Disk', for use on a tilt-rotor configuration of aircraft.
Sikorsky has a number of patents on a 'Variable Diameter Disk', for use on a tilt-rotor configuration of aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess
I couldn't agree more about Sikorsky's potential with the 70, 76 and 92. But they don't seem that interested in the civil market and Bell is going the same way. The S76 has averaged single figure sales for years now. The S92 looks like its going in the right direction, but a number of operators will go for a Carson blade 61 for the next N years and see how the S92 fares first. Nick's S70 comparison is interesting but irrelevant as it is never likely to appear in the civil market (OK, apart from that one logging one)
Bell is the same - they seem to be paying lip service to the civil market. 206, 206L, 407, 412 have been crying out for upgrades, now they are dying out for lack of them. The 430 follows the poor sales of the 230 and 222, and the 427 is not exactly rushing out of the door.
Eurocopter will continue to have the civil turbine market to themselves until Robinson develop one....
I couldn't agree more about Sikorsky's potential with the 70, 76 and 92. But they don't seem that interested in the civil market and Bell is going the same way. The S76 has averaged single figure sales for years now. The S92 looks like its going in the right direction, but a number of operators will go for a Carson blade 61 for the next N years and see how the S92 fares first. Nick's S70 comparison is interesting but irrelevant as it is never likely to appear in the civil market (OK, apart from that one logging one)
Bell is the same - they seem to be paying lip service to the civil market. 206, 206L, 407, 412 have been crying out for upgrades, now they are dying out for lack of them. The 430 follows the poor sales of the 230 and 222, and the 427 is not exactly rushing out of the door.
Eurocopter will continue to have the civil turbine market to themselves until Robinson develop one....