Is MDHI going to make it?

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

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

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.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Take care,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Okay...I think of RECON as the Marines "Force Recon".

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Blackhawks?

The other consideration with respect to the reconnaisance role is that the
McDonnell-Douglas designed mast-mounted sensor ball is, ironically,
incompatible witht the MD500 series but compatible with the OH-58D/407 rotor
system. It's a great asset in both the reconnaissance and "armed" modes.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

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.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Jim,

The mast-mounted sensor ball will be going away on the ARH. In its
place both the Little Bird and 407 propose mounting sensors on the nose
and belly. The mast-mount sensor ball was designed to site tanks and
other targets by poking above trees and other available cover in
Europe. This however leaves a blind spot directly below the aircraft.
For "Urban Warefare" what is directly below you appears to be more
important than ever before. Also the ball sensor made transport in the
C130s more time consuming on the Kiowas because it had to be removed.

Take care,

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.