Is MDHI going to make it?

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

HW,

While at the Bell Xworx did you get a chance to see the BA609? Were
you their to see it fly? What did you think?

Take care,

CTR