![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Helowriter wrote:
Different kind of flaw tolerance -- this is the structues/dynamics margin to take damage and keep flying. It could be big stuff like a real hard landing or ballistic damage, or small screwups like a guy dropping a toolbox on a composite fairing. The point is cracks don't propagate, and you keep flying. It's a complicated thing with new design, test, and qualification tools that weren't available before. Sikorsky first civil certified that for the S-92 in 2002, and it has big payoffs for military applications -- Of course the Navy decided to pass on the Presidential competiton, but that's their insanity. Composites were developed for military aircraft and were in use long before Sikorsky got them civil certified or used them on a commercial product. Again, composite technology isn't a military derivative of a commercial development. Yep, 64B was the notional multi-stage improvement program considered before the C/D evolution that became the D to save money on manuals -- yes, I go back that far. My point was the 530F gave Boeing the opportunity to design, fabricate, and certify/qualify a composite blade while the Army thought about it, and thought about it. You don't just go and do stuff like that, and that's why multiple civil/military programs give you opportunities to develop dual-use technologies. Ah, notional programs. Actually, there was bit more to the story than saving on TMs. The AH-64D was the AH-64C with -701C engines and the FCR installed. Changing the aircraft designation simply because of a kit installation didn't make much sense. If the FCR goes TU and you pull the MMA and/or LPRF, but you leave the -701Cs and torque tube in it, what is the aircraft designation? AH-64C1/2, AH-64Dminus? It was causing all sorts of problems with building the IETM, the engineering documentation, the courseware, etc. Don't know why the Army decided to drop the C altogether and choose the D designation - flip of a coin, maybe. Yes, you do "just go and do stuff like that". Since when has it been a requirement to have a technology certified on a civil aircraft before using it in a military program? Why do you have to have your own commercial operation in order to develop dual-use technologies? Why not license it to an existing aircraft manufacturer without taking on the burden of creating your own full-up aircraft product line? If Boeing can work the bugs out of the Dragonfly technology, the civil applications are substantial. Does not having a commercial operation mean that Boeing can't get it certified for use unless they build the aircraft themselves? Not having MDHI didn't stop Boeing from developing composite blades or LWW or FCDB or . . . . Not having a commercial operation hasn't stopped the Phantom Works folks at Mesa from developing any of the items that they're working on. It hasn't stopped the rotorcraft engineers from developing anything new for any of the other aircraft built there. It hasn't stopped them from looking for civil applications for anything that they're working on, either. Not bleeding cash into a losing commercial operation has, however, freed up funds for doing in-house research. The same with the Bell 430 four-bladed composite yoke that started out as the 630 rotor (I don't know where they got the designation from). They knew the obvious application was the Marine Cobra, but it took a decade for the Marines to do it. Meanwhile the 430 put the thing into production and got it certified. Bell claimed over 80 orders in 18 countries for the 609 in 2003. How many they lost during the testing pause while they ran out of money I don't know. They just did a helo-airplane conversion on a ground rig, and they're supposed to do an in-flight coversion by the end of the year. They ran out of bucks, let the thing sit, and recruited Agusta as a partner -- that's the rotorcraft opportunity Boeing missed. Good holiday, folks HW Hmmm. So, Boeing dropped out as a secondary partner from an unproved and as yet to be produced commercial venture. Is it necessary to have your own commercial operation in order to partner with someone that does? Boeing doesn't build civil rotary wing aircraft - does that mean that they can't join up with a prime that does? Why does Boeing need it's own commercial rotary wing business in order to develop technologies for civil use? Cheers, Vygg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In My Humble Opinion,
I believe that in ten years time Boeings decision to drop out of the 609 will rival IBMs decision to give Bill Gates software rights for all time worst business decisions. In the V-22 Bell Boeing partnership, Bell had responsibility for wing, transmissions and rotors while Boeing had responsibility for the fuselage, avionics and FBW flight control systems (Fly by Wire). By dropping out of the 609 six years ago, Boeing forced Bell to develop their engineering capabilities in advanced flight control systems. The V-22 was first generation FBW flight controls, the Comanche was second generation and the 609 is third generation. Bell has sole rights to this technology. The Marines have already funded studies for turning the 609 into both a V-22 trainer and a V-22 gun ship escort. Like the MDH sale prior to the ARH RFP, time will tell. CTR |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
CTR wrote:
In My Humble Opinion, I believe that in ten years time Boeings decision to drop out of the 609 will rival IBMs decision to give Bill Gates software rights for all time worst business decisions. In the V-22 Bell Boeing partnership, Bell had responsibility for wing, transmissions and rotors while Boeing had responsibility for the fuselage, avionics and FBW flight control systems (Fly by Wire). By dropping out of the 609 six years ago, Boeing forced Bell to develop their engineering capabilities in advanced flight control systems. The V-22 was first generation FBW flight controls, the Comanche was second generation and the 609 is third generation. Bell has sole rights to this technology. The Marines have already funded studies for turning the 609 into both a V-22 trainer and a V-22 gun ship escort. Like the MDH sale prior to the ARH RFP, time will tell. CTR Could be. Then again, a lot of things change over the course of ten years, especially in the commercial marketplace. Ten years ago the industry pundits were vilifying MD for trying to hold on to their commercial operation. They said that the domestic civilian rotorcraft market simply wasn't big enough for three players and MDHC Commercial was small potatoes with no hope for the future. Not even Bell or Sikorsky wanted it (Bell made a half-hearted bid, but breathed a deep sigh of relief when the Feds shot it down). Now we're ten years down the road and Boeing is being ridiculed for selling a low-value operation that they were once criticized for not selling sooner. The civilian market is very difficult to predict with any certainty more than a few years out and it doesn't take much to upset the best laid plans of the marketers. Ten years from now the 609 could turn out to the Comet redux and Boeing will have something ready to take its place - just like they did with the 707. Hard to say. Boeing may not have MDHI, but it hasn't stopped working on potential new technologies for commercial rotorcraft products (to include a return to full-up aircraft manufacture, if necessary). Vygg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Vygg" wrote in message ... CTR wrote: Could be. Then again, a lot of things change over the course of ten years, especially in the commercial marketplace. Ten years ago the industry pundits were vilifying MD for trying to hold on to their commercial operation. They said that the domestic civilian rotorcraft market simply wasn't big enough for three players and MDHC Commercial was small potatoes with no hope for the future. Not even Bell or Sikorsky wanted it (Bell made a half-hearted bid, but breathed a deep sigh of relief when the Feds shot it down). Now we're ten years down the road and Boeing is being ridiculed for selling a low-value operation that they were once criticized for not selling sooner. The civilian market is very difficult to predict with any certainty more than a few years out and it doesn't take much to upset the best laid plans of the marketers. Problem is, MDHI's recent ownership/management has screwed the pooch even worse than Boeing did. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The EuroCopter VP at the AHS Forum said they view the civil and
military markets as complementary businesses -- both to sustain production numbers and nurture new technology. I hate to see our short-term business mentality surrender the long-term market to them. They're following the same plan Japanese carmakers used here -- grow market share, set up domestic lines, and take the market. HW |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Helowriter wrote: The EuroCopter VP at the AHS Forum said they view the civil and military markets as complementary businesses -- both to sustain production numbers and nurture new technology. I hate to see our short-term business mentality surrender the long-term market to them. They're following the same plan Japanese carmakers used here -- grow market share, set up domestic lines, and take the market. HW HW, If you were at the AHS Forum, what did you think of Walter Sonneborne's speech on the state of the US helicopter industry? Also, what did you think of the Sikorsky CEO's response to the Mil Helicopter engineers question on the technical feasibility of the Advancing Blade Concept X2? Take care, CTR |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Unfortunately, I had to duck out for an XWorx visit before Mr.
Sonneborne spoke. I'm going to try to get a copy of his remarks. Personally, I think Mr. Finger should have answered Mr. Tschenko(sp?) -- just walking off the stage seemed a little disrespectful. The Russians certainly have solid technical insights, but I think Sikorsky has a new set of answers to the limitations of the coax and the thruster. Take a look at the shaft-driven fan in the JSF. That clutch and transmission could drive a thruster. We'll see. HW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |