Jump to content

Civil tilt rotors? Pie in the sky?


Recommended Posts

Call me unadventurou and unimaginative....

 

But I think that if I was the kind of high net worth individual they're aiming the 609 at, I'd really rather fly from heliport to airfield on a nice, spacious S76, AW139 or Bell 222 and then be decanted to my waiting Gulfstream than to duck and wriggle into the cramped confines of the 609, unless I was going to be sitting behind the stick.

 

And if the whole Vortex Ring issue has come quite so close to scuppering military tilt rotor ops, can we really believe that a civil tilt rotor will be accepted (even if it somehow gets certificated) by enough people to make it a goer?

 

Feel free to point out where I'm going wrong, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pokey
S76, AW139 or Bell 222

Feel free to point out where I'm going wrong, please!

 

 

the 222. It's a dead elephant, just as ( in my opinion) the tilt rotor will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tilt rotor will find a niche place in the market. It will the quickest and most cost effective option for medium range transport. For short trips it will be much more expensive, but only a little quicker, than a helicopter. And for longer flights the speed of the jet will overcome the time lost by taking the slower helicopter to and from the airport.

Even though the tilt rotor is going to be a dearly expensive machine to aquire and operate, it will still probably be cheaper than owning and operating both a jet and a corporate sized helicopter.

 

Tiltrotors have a much higher downwash velocity than comparible size helicopters. The downwash velocity is what detirmines what rate of descent that is need to put a helicopter or tilt rotor into VRS. The onset of VRS begins at a rate of descent of about .7 of the downwash velocity. So it follows that you can put them in higher rate of descent than a helicopter of similiar weight.

 

Its hard to make a direct comparision of the setbacks the military has encountered with the V-22 to the civil tilt rotor program. Although similiar in design, the roles they will fufill and the types of manuvering they will be subjected to will have little overlap. The military flys their machines closer to the edge of their abilities and face the dangers encountered by doing so.

Edited by spw1177
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with the tilt rotor is, what do you do when the engine won't rotate back to heli mode? Bend the prop and a few other things...

 

I like the Carter Copter concept better. Its a slowed rotor with jump take off capablity gyroplane. They plan to have a turbo diesel installed on the production model. They have a working test ship flying now.

Carter Copters

Video

News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belive the whole tilt rotar concept is pretty sweet, and also if it makes it, its going to make it big. On the other hand, I looked at the model at the Heli Expo- for the estimated 22-25 million for the thing.( I think thats what the rep told me) The thing couldnt have carried more than 10 people with the set up I saw. :blink: Thats just not my deffintion of "cost-effective"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me unadventurou and unimaginative....

 

But I think that if I was the kind of high net worth individual they're aiming the 609 at, I'd really rather fly from heliport to airfield on a nice, spacious S76, AW139 or Bell 222 and then be decanted to my waiting Gulfstream than to duck and wriggle into the cramped confines of the 609, unless I was going to be sitting behind the stick.

 

And if the whole Vortex Ring issue has come quite so close to scuppering military tilt rotor ops, can we really believe that a civil tilt rotor will be accepted (even if it somehow gets certificated) by enough people to make it a goer?

 

Feel free to point out where I'm going wrong, please!

 

There is a larger demand for these then you think. I know that they have over 100 orders for the aircraft before certification. I spent a lot of time with the chief test pilot and one of the engineers at Heliexpo. Spent about 45 minutes in the sim they had at the show going through the paces. The mission and type of flying that the military subjected the V-22 to was very different from the test enviornment for the 609. Aerodynamicly the V-22 and the 609 face similar issues and much of the bugs were worked out in the V-22 test program. So we should not expect the same difficulties with the 609 certification. The V-22 was designed for a more aggressive flight profile as opposed to the 609, and unfornetly lessons were learned at the cost of lives. I truly believe the tilt rotors are the next big thing in rotorcraft.

 

I had a chance to talk with some of the MV-22 at the Cherry Point Airshow last weekend and we talked about the emergency proceedures. I was told it will autorotate to a certain degree (although there was some discussion over what some of the pilots would do in the situation). Quite a few said if they had the airspeed they glide it down rather then autorotate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you need a fixed wing or rotary wing rating to fly one of those?

 

One of the sales guys at heliexpo said the FAA is working on a new rating type. But I would imagine being dual rated would be a big help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the sales guys at heliexpo said the FAA is working on a new rating type. But I would imagine being dual rated would be a big help.

 

The new Category:

From 14 CFR Part 1"

Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked with the V22 on and off for 3 years and while I have to say I still like my Ch-53 more the MV-22 does present a very needed ability in the military aviation world. And I can see it transferring over extremely well to a large number of uses in the civilian world(oil rigs). The 609 is being billed as being much more cost efficient than a helicopter and that’s part of how they are justifying the cost. However I just got really bored and spent the last 20 minutes(my jobs oh so exciting!) looking up and figuring out the numbers and the operating costs for the 609 are not that great. When compared to the S76 it may fly twice as fast and twice as far but its using twice the fuel to do it. So unless the maintenance costs are significantly less it will not be that much cheaper if at all to operate. I would also have to add that I don't foresee the maintenance costs being that much lower based on the number of moving parts this thing has on it. Add in to all that that the average industry guess at the cost estimate was between twelve and fifteen million(more than double the S76). So basically (according to what I could find) unless you really need to get somewhere in a hurry it just doesn’t make since money wise. Here’s the numbers I was able to dig up from various sources.

 

S76- $6,000,000(utility version)

Passengers – 12

Cruise Speed – 155mph

Max Range (w/Full Fuel) – 370 miles

Fuel Capacity – 1064 liters

Endurance – 2.9 hours

Fuel Consumption – 340 liters per hour

 

 

Bell 609- $12,000,000(utility version)

Passengers – 12

Cruise Speed - 466 mph

Max Range (w/Full Fuel) – 750 miles

Fuel Capacity - 1400 liters

Endurance – 1.6 hrs

Fuel consumption- 870 liters per hour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mtbman, your figures are a bit off.

 

S76 - Vne 155 knots, not usually a cruise speed, but it is possible if you toss in enough fuel. At that speed, your fuel flow is considerably more than 340 litres per hour.

 

BA 609 - cruise speed 275 knots, not 466 mph, and only 6-9 pax, not 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said its just the numbers I pulled off the web for the stats not claiming to be an expert in the least(like I said my experience is all with 53s). And as far as the seating goes looking back at my source it was 4 years old and well stuff changes.... But it only helps my argument more because its less people for twice the fuel and still all you get out of the deal is more speed. For that much more money per aircraft, unless its a matter of life and death(EMS work), I dont really see alot of companies opting for the 609 over traditional helicopters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about for rigs/boats farther out to sea? They just keep moving farther and farther out, perhaps their niche is the FAR offshore market? I'll admit I'm completely ignorant of the off shore industry, just trying to stir up some conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...