You may have a different view when you take into account the downwash levels of these things. Sure it will probably be less than a V22 but still high. GW versus Rotor Diameter.

Even a Bell 412 is not really suitable in Aus. Winching they bring down branches from trees that are an issue for whoever is on the winch cable for example.

Ground clearance between the fuselage and ground looks awfully low of off airport/helipad landings....similar to the S-76.

CTR thanks-and let me ask if I understand correctly, that the AEO run on utilizing wing aerodynamic lift is THE AEO procedure but there will also be a rotor autorotation capability offered as a plus?

Second question is about the simulated rotor autorotation, where the flare resulted in an altitude gain. Just theorizing, but the 609 has a decent sized wing and depending on the speed at flare, the altitude gain may have been mostly wing lift related? Of course, if the flare speed is decreased too much to avoid excessive wing lift, it might be too low to obtain a boost in prop rpm ( potential energy to be used for the pitch pull at landing ). I’d guess that by now, they have done additional simulation, varying pitch rate and max pitch attitude, and have all that resolved…..at least insofar as simulation can be trusted for these type dynamic maneuvers.

Well, time to try some real power recovery auto’s and find out what is what.
Can one assume that rooftop procedures will be developed for the 609?

John,

As always, there is never a simple answer. As you pointed out, a wing and forward air speed provide lift in addition to the rotor inertia. So depending on 609 weight, pylon angle, altitude, forward speed, distance to and length of potential places to land, the pilot needs to make some critical decisions. Do I do a running landing, shoot for a full autorotation landing, or a combination of both.

I wish I could give you the detail flight envelope
limits, but I not been connected with the 609 for almost a decade now.

Thanks, CTR. Its an interesting aerodynamic and piloting procedural subject. Perhaps we’ll have the benefit of someone close to the program who can contribute.

John,

This 2010 AHS award announcement may provide a lead. I recall the same year that Roy and Geoff made a presentation to a flight test pilot association meeting. That presentation should have the information you are looking for for the aircraft configuration at that time. But as I advised you, things may have changed.


The Frederick L. Feinberg Award is presented to the helicopter pilot or pilots who have made the most outstanding achievement in the previous year. This year’s award is given to Bell Helicopter experimental test pilots Roy Hopkins and Jeff Greenwood for completing a crucial milestone during 2009 including a reconversion test of the BellAgusta BA-609 illustrating the tiltrotors’ ability to land safely following an all-engines inoperative emergency.

https://vtol.org/news/ahs-announces-...ard-recipients

Shipborne trial
 

Using the AC4 aircraft, they conducted first shiborne trial on the Italian NAvy aircraft carrier the ITS CAvour

https://www.leonardo.com/en/press-re...trial-campaign


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....300db5f5aa.jpg


cheers

A "Catch-22" is showing up in FAA's rules for aircraft such as the AW609. According to Bryan Willows of the Bristow Grouip, an AW609 customer, the FAA now requires for training in the AW609 r at least a private powered lift license. The problem is that no civil pilot has one, so training others to get one is not possible. The only source is ex V-22 crews and they are in high demand from the airlines for conventional flying. How do we get there from here?

As with so many issues, money talks. Which means when the industry builds up an expensive inventory of aircraft without crews to fly them, funds will be devoted to lobbying the hallowed halls for changes to the FAA's way of thinking.

There will be lobbying,for sure, but it will have to be the whole community because of the precedent set. There isn't going to be an expensive inventory built if you can't train crews, because no one will buy a powered lift vehicle. This also affects the situation because the way the rule is written if you wanted to certify a powered lift vehicle for single pilot operation you would have to first design, build an certify a two pilot craft to meet the training requirement (simulators don't meet the rule) in order to provide the new person's PIC time with another person who has a powered lift rating they can't get. This will also affect eVTOLs

As you may be aware, getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake is one of the hardest tasks on earth

I'm sure it's not an insurmountable issue and clearly on the FAA's RADAR: https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...nts-related-to

Thank you, that is encouraging.


They still seem to be skeptical about simulators since they seem firm on requiring that for training purposes there must be a dual control version of any specific powered lift aircraft. But maybe there's hope; I am reminded of what broke the logjam at FAA regarding glass cockpits in regular General Aviation aircraft. There was little forward movement in getting them into said aircraft because of FAA requirements regarding reliability and precision. Someone high up actually grasped the concept that the avionics and displays did not need to be as reliable and precise as those in commercial airliners. All they needed to be was as reliable and precise as the "steam gauge" equipment already approved and operational. That realization opened the door to "affordable" (as much as anything is affordable in aviation) glass gear with all the attendant benefits in smaller aircraft.

Maybe we'll get another touch of realism.

There have been many aircraft over the decades that did not have dual controls. So, it’s unclear what the issue is. An entire war (WW2) was won without dual controlled fighters! Even the Buccaneer was never dual controlled and induction was via the Hunter T7(8?) with a Buccaneer instrument panel (which I had the pleasure of flying).

Well, the examples you cite are military, not aircraft certified by the FAA, and aircraft certified to military standards do not always meet FAA requirements and that's OK. The FAA also accepts licenses granted by the military. That's why V-22 pilots could theoretically qualify for powered lift ratings (powered lift looks like it's is going to be a type rating). The problem is that for a type rating is for a specific aircraft, not a category. For example, being qualified for multi-engine land means that your certificate is good for any multi-engine land aircraft that doesn't require a type rating. OTOH a G700 requires a type rating, so to fly as PIC in that you must be trained and certified in eh G700, not in another twin engine bizjet.

The proposed rule states (so far), "To the extent that manufacturers have suggested that there are alternate safe means to conduct flight training without a dual set of controls, the FAA finds that those means have not been demonstrated or validated to a level that would allow the FAA to propose relief from the requirement to conduct flight training with a dual set of controls". So, if you develop a single pilot powered lift aircraft without dual controls, you must either develop a second version of the craft with dual controls or else no civil pilot can get a type rating because there' no dual control version ch he/she can be trained. Looks like they aren't accepting simulators yet.

Might the F-35 show the way?

That is a military aircraft so the proposed rule doesn't. Besides, an aircraft like the F-35 could never achieve civil certification outside of the experimental category even if they wanted to. Harrier's the same way,and it does have a dual control version. Besides, I don't believe either of those aircraft would qualify as powered lift aircraft in the regular sense of the concept.

.
No news, is it good news ?
.

Hoping for certification this decade no doubt.

Well, you're taking a risk by saying that, there are only 5 years left ...
.

Any news on the status of the program and the aimed certification? I saw no communication during latest Verticon. Same goes for Racer concept for Airbus.