Is MDHI going to make it?

"Helowriter" wrote in message
ups.com...
Boeing may be their only hope. Orders are reportedly being cancelled.
That's a shame, and sad comment on the US helicopter industry. Horny
Harry Stonecipher decided Boeing didn't want to be bothered with a
light helicopter business;

Boeing spun off MDHI in 1999, before Stonecipher was CEO if I recall
correctly. At the time, the light helicopter business was pretty dead.

Doesn't Bell make a suitable version of their 206B3?


now the company has to buy Little Birds
from a Dutch holding company for a US Army order.

HW

Bell is offering a re-engined 407 in the ARH competition.

Both Condit and Stonecipher were involved in the decision to dispose of
all Boeing commercial helicopter and commercial tiltrotor (BA609)
products.

In the epitome of hypocrisy, the SEC refused Bells attempt to purchase
the MD helicopter product line on the basis of reduced competition.
This was done after they stamped their approval on Boeing merging with
McDonnell Douglas.

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bell is offering a re-engined 407 in the ARH competition.

Both Condit and Stonecipher were involved in the decision to dispose of
all Boeing commercial helicopter and commercial tiltrotor (BA609)
products.

Did they ever announce a reason?


In the epitome of hypocrisy, the SEC refused Bells attempt to purchase
the MD helicopter product line on the basis of reduced competition.
This was done after they stamped their approval on Boeing merging with
McDonnell Douglas.

I don't think MD and Boeing were in direct competition at the time they
merged, were they?

MD was better technically, but their management was grossly incompetent.
Boeing was much the opposite.

Supposedly, when Boeing unloaded the light helicopter division, they
unloaded some of their most incompetent managers over to MDHI. Even during
boom years they (MDHI) were always behind.

Expect new ownership/maagement REAL soon now.

The 500 is such a neat aurcraft, I sure hope they survive.

Actually, Stonecipher bragged about the move in an AvWeek interview.
He said he gave the civil helicopter guys three years to make money.
When they didn't, he sold 'em.

The explanation from Mesa at the time of the divestituture was the
big-shots at Boeing did not want to waste their time selling one or two
MD500s or MDExplorers piecemeal to police departments or hospitals.
They saw themselves as global players moving 50 747s in a single order.
A 20-year Apache or Chinook program was worthy of their efforts.

Lost on such Captains of Industry is the fact that the civil and
military sides of the helicopter business are closely connected.
Suddenly, the Army wants 368 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters, and
Boeing has no air vehicle. The decision also gave Eurocopter global
market share it might not have otherwise gained.

I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW

"Helowriter" wrote in message
I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW


I don't think so. I only have a little time in them, but the 407 is a beast
compared
to MDs Ive flown . They also seem more survivable from my limited
perspective.
The MD's auto like a brick and have such a high CG that uneven terrain
almost
ensures a roll over. OTOH We landed on a rock in Donner Pass in a 500 at
about
13,000ft once and I was super impressed with its ability to function well
that high.

Bart

I have to agree with "Helowriter" on the 500 being the better for the
ARH. Ask anyone in special forces. They refuse to give up their's. And
they have been offered anything they want. With the C47 and canted
tail, the 500's have all the power and then some.

And manueverbility, a 500 will do circles inside a 407. And going into
confined area's is a 500 specialty.

As far as survivability, the roll cage design of the 500 makes it the
best. Do a little research with the numbers at the NTSB site and you
will find out that if you have to crash, you want to do it in a 500.
One example was an engine failure were they did an auto to a ridge
line, then the helicopter after landing rolled down the hill. The
pilot and passenger walked away from it.

Bart, not sure what the slop limits are on the 407, but I have done
lots of 10+ degree slop landings in a 500 with no problems.


On Thu, 5 May 2005 07:22:45 -0400, "B4RT" wrote:


"Helowriter" wrote in message
I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW


I don't think so. I only have a little time in them, but the 407 is a beast
compared
to MDs Ive flown . They also seem more survivable from my limited
perspective.
The MD's auto like a brick and have such a high CG that uneven terrain
almost
ensures a roll over. OTOH We landed on a rock in Donner Pass in a 500 at
about
13,000ft once and I was super impressed with its ability to function well
that high.

Bart

I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

Have fun,

CTR

Helowriter wrote:
Actually, Stonecipher bragged about the move in an AvWeek interview.
He said he gave the civil helicopter guys three years to make money.
When they didn't, he sold 'em.

The explanation from Mesa at the time of the divestituture was the
big-shots at Boeing did not want to waste their time selling one or two
MD500s or MDExplorers piecemeal to police departments or hospitals.
They saw themselves as global players moving 50 747s in a single order.
A 20-year Apache or Chinook program was worthy of their efforts.

Lost on such Captains of Industry is the fact that the civil and
military sides of the helicopter business are closely connected.
Suddenly, the Army wants 368 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters, and
Boeing has no air vehicle. The decision also gave Eurocopter global
market share it might not have otherwise gained.

I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW

MDHS dumped the commercial side of the business because it was never in
the black. The accounting methods for the commercial side were such a
mess that the company never could figure out exactly how much it cost to
build one and invariably wound up losing money on every one due to low
sales. Stonecipher (and the new president of MDHS at the time) gave the
commercial guys three years to show a profit - any kind of profit - and
they couldn't do it.

The two primes for the ARH competition are Bell and Boeing. When the
contract is awarded (ostensibly in July - but AMCOM rarely meets a
deadline) it will go to one of those - not to MDHI. Boeing is bidding
the basic airframe from MDHI and will do the conversion itself. MDHI
hasn't the technical or industrial capability of militarizing the
aircraft. Bell is hoping that the Army will think that it's 40 year old
flapper technology is really the future. Boeing is hoping that it
doesn't have to buy back MDHI to stay in the competition.

In typical Army fashion, they've taken what was supposed to be a light
armed recon aircraft and written a procurement spec for the ARH that has
turned it into a midget Apache. Many of those in the bidding are
referring to the whole process as the "Flying Bradley - Part Deux". A
hefty slug of the Army types that were involved in the Commanche fiasco
are now involved in the ARH program.

This could be one of those programs that the winner wishes they'd lost.

Vygg

BTW - the military and civil helicopter businesses are not closely
connected. FAA vs. MIL-SPEC, accounting rules, FARs, performance
requirements, etc. render the two very, very different. A UH-1 is a
JetRanger on the surface only.

Vygg wrote:

BTW - the military and civil helicopter businesses are not closely
connected. FAA vs. MIL-SPEC, accounting rules, FARs, performance
requirements, etc. render the two very, very different. A UH-1 is a
JetRanger on the surface only.

A UH-1 is a Model 204B on the surface only. It's an OH-58A-C that's a
JetRanger on the surface (except for the different length rotor blades, tail
boom, engine, etc.).

Jim

Vygg,

The Army is requesting that the ARH have civil certification and is
funding the FAA costs to obtain it. They are requesting FAA
certification to improve the resale value of aircraft when they divest
them.

You are partially correct in your statement that the specification for
the ARH has become "midget Apache". In a bizzare deviation from
conventional military specifications, the ARH specification
requirements are not all manditory. Requirements are broken down into
catagories ranging from must have to not required but would be nice to
have. Very different.

Still, having both qualified military hardware and FAA certified
civilian aircraft, I will take military hardware any day. Life is
easier when the certifying agency and the customer are one and the
same.

Take care,

CTR