Is MDHI going to make it?

Helowriter wrote:
Hate to tell you, but the commercial 609 is still quite alive, and Bell
claims an order backlog. Bell market studies a couple of years back
projected 45% of the small tilt rotor market would be US and foreign
governments.

Whatever the origins of the Apache composite blade, going back to the
AH-64B, MSIP, etc. the technology to make the things got a chance in a
commercial development - 530F. That's how these things sometimes work,
and denying yourself a commercial avenue denies you development
opportunities that pay off later. Would Boeing Mesa have been better
just learning how to make the Apache blade from scratch today?

Flaw tolerance does indeed equate to ruggedness - the margins to
tolerate flaws caused by damage and keep flying. That is a good thing
for any helicopter - military or civil.

HW

Flaw tolerance is the ability to recover from something going wrong
(back-up systems, automatic reset, etc.). Ruggedness is the ability to
avoid it altogether (armor, maneuverability, "dropability", etc.). If
you've ever dealt with a military helicopter procurement spec, the two
are separate and defined in detail in the requirements.

Origins of the composite blade were the whole point of your argument.
The composite blades for the Apache have always been in development -
despite not having a commercial operation. The fact that the blades were
first used on a 530 (outgrowth from a military program) certainly
doesn't mean that blade development was dependent upon having a civil
use for it, first. Blade development for Apache was and is developed
from scratch - it didn't stop because of the sale to MDHI nor did it
originate with a commercial program. What development opportunities has
Boeing denied itself by not having a commercial rotary wing venture?

AH-64B?

So, Bell claims to have a backorder for the 609? Who has bought it? Firm
orders or wish list? When does the first one get delivered? Commercial,
now, not V-22. I haven't seen anything in the press on any 609 sales.

Vygg

Vygg wrote:

Helowriter wrote:
Hate to tell you, but the commercial 609 is still quite alive, and Bell
claims an order backlog. Bell market studies a couple of years back
projected 45% of the small tilt rotor market would be US and foreign
governments.

Whatever the origins of the Apache composite blade, going back to the
AH-64B, MSIP, etc. the technology to make the things got a chance in a
commercial development - 530F. That's how these things sometimes work,
and denying yourself a commercial avenue denies you development
opportunities that pay off later. Would Boeing Mesa have been better
just learning how to make the Apache blade from scratch today?

Flaw tolerance does indeed equate to ruggedness - the margins to
tolerate flaws caused by damage and keep flying. That is a good thing
for any helicopter - military or civil.

HW

Flaw tolerance is the ability to recover from something going wrong
(back-up systems, automatic reset, etc.). Ruggedness is the ability to
avoid it altogether (armor, maneuverability, "dropability", etc.). If
you've ever dealt with a military helicopter procurement spec, the two
are separate and defined in detail in the requirements.

Origins of the composite blade were the whole point of your argument.
The composite blades for the Apache have always been in development -
despite not having a commercial operation. The fact that the blades were
first used on a 530 (outgrowth from a military program) certainly
doesn't mean that blade development was dependent upon having a civil
use for it, first. Blade development for Apache was and is developed
from scratch - it didn't stop because of the sale to MDHI nor did it
originate with a commercial program. What development opportunities has
Boeing denied itself by not having a commercial rotary wing venture?

AH-64B?

So, Bell claims to have a backorder for the 609?

Yes, see below.

Who has bought it? Firm
orders or wish list?

The former, apparently. This list (from FlugRevue) is a bit old, but
indicative of the kind of firms/individuals who planned to buy it:

In March 2003, Bell said there were "nearly 70 advance orders” from
40 customers in 18 countries.
In July 2001, Bell had claimed 80 orders from 42
different customers in
18 countries, apparently down from the November 2000
figures of 83
aircraft from 44 customers in 23 countries. At the
Farnborough Air
Show in September 1998, Bell had put the total at 68
aircraft from 40
customers in 17 countries. Buyers identified at one
time or another a

Aero-Dienst GmbH (Germany)
Aero Gulf Service (Dubai)
AeroValls (Andorra)
Air Center Helicopters Inc. (USA): 2
Austin Jet (USA)
Bristow (UK): 2
Canadian Helicopter Corp. (Canada): 2
Don Carter
Evergreen Helicopters (USA)
Form Air (Turkey)
Helicopter Services (Norway): 2
Helitech DTY Ltd. (Australia)
Hillwood Development (Ross Perot jr., USA)
Wayne Huizenga
Lider (Brazil): 3
Loyd´s Investments (Poland)
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance (USA)
Mitsui (Japan): 3, announced at the Asian
Aerospace in February
1998
Greg Norman (USA)
Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. (Canada)
Petroleum Helicopters (USA).
Petroleum Tiltrotors International (Sheikh Sultan
Mohammed Bin
Al Shaikh Mejeren, Dubai): 2
Textron Inc. (USA)
United Industries (South Korea)

IIRR, a deposit of $100,000 was required at the time the a/c made its first
flight, which was about 2 years ago.


When does the first one get delivered? Commercial,
now, not V-22.

IIRR, Certification is scheduled for the 4th Qtr of 2008 (IIRC it was
originally scheduled for 2003). Bell put the 609's development on hold for a
couple of years while they straightened out the MV-22, not for technical
reasons but because they figured that it was necessary for PR (or if you
like, confidence-building) for commercial sales, and because they needed the
cash to take care of the MV-22 and AH-1/UH-1 upgrade development.

I haven't seen anything in the press on any 609 sales.

AvLeak has covered the a/c a fair amount, as have other sources. Here's a
site which I think is fairly current:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ba609/

or you can go to Bell's own website.

Guy

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.

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.

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

Guy Alcala wrote:
snip

Yes, see below.


Who has bought it? Firm
orders or wish list?


The former, apparently. This list (from FlugRevue) is a bit old, but
indicative of the kind of firms/individuals who planned to buy it:

In March 2003, Bell said there were "nearly 70 advance orders” from
40 customers in 18 countries.
In July 2001, Bell had claimed 80 orders from 42
different customers in
18 countries, apparently down from the November 2000
figures of 83
aircraft from 44 customers in 23 countries. At the
Farnborough Air
Show in September 1998, Bell had put the total at 68
aircraft from 40
customers in 17 countries. Buyers identified at one
time or another a

Aero-Dienst GmbH (Germany)
Aero Gulf Service (Dubai)
AeroValls (Andorra)
Air Center Helicopters Inc. (USA): 2
Austin Jet (USA)
Bristow (UK): 2
Canadian Helicopter Corp. (Canada): 2
Don Carter
Evergreen Helicopters (USA)
Form Air (Turkey)
Helicopter Services (Norway): 2
Helitech DTY Ltd. (Australia)
Hillwood Development (Ross Perot jr., USA)
Wayne Huizenga
Lider (Brazil): 3
Loyd´s Investments (Poland)
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance (USA)
Mitsui (Japan): 3, announced at the Asian
Aerospace in February
1998
Greg Norman (USA)
Northern Mountain Helicopters Inc. (Canada)
Petroleum Helicopters (USA).
Petroleum Tiltrotors International (Sheikh Sultan
Mohammed Bin
Al Shaikh Mejeren, Dubai): 2
Textron Inc. (USA)
United Industries (South Korea)

IIRR, a deposit of $100,000 was required at the time the a/c made its first
flight, which was about 2 years ago.



When does the first one get delivered? Commercial,
now, not V-22.


IIRR, Certification is scheduled for the 4th Qtr of 2008 (IIRC it was
originally scheduled for 2003). Bell put the 609's development on hold for a
couple of years while they straightened out the MV-22, not for technical
reasons but because they figured that it was necessary for PR (or if you
like, confidence-building) for commercial sales, and because they needed the
cash to take care of the MV-22 and AH-1/UH-1 upgrade development.


I haven't seen anything in the press on any 609 sales.


AvLeak has covered the a/c a fair amount, as have other sources. Here's a
site which I think is fairly current:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ba609/

or you can go to Bell's own website.

Guy


Hmm. It'll be interesting to see how many are actually bought. Judging
from the reduction in the number of orders over the years and the amount
of the deposit, it sounds as if none of the "advanced orders" are firm
sales, yet. The deposits were just to hold the customer's place in line
- it happens all the time with commercial airline orders. They can pull
out at any time. Apparently, some already have.

I'm curious as to what Greg Norman wants with one. Status symbol? It'll
certainly top all of those movie stars and their Hummers. ;-)

Vygg

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

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

The flaw tolerance in the S-92 is not just the composite parts - it's
everything - titanium rotor hub, aluminum fuselage, composite fairings,
all the dynamic components, all tested in a damaged conditions. It's
partly learning how to add sufficient margin to prevent crack
propagation without over-designing every piece with excess weight, and
learning how to quantify the flaw tolerance to ensure things don't fail
before the next phase. -- It's an innovative step that came along first
in a commercial program and should be an edge in military competitions.
(In a rational world, of course.)

Now now, I didn't say it had to be certificated first to go military. I
said the 530F experience was a nice to have when the Army decided to
put the composite blades on the Apache. If you have a proven
manufacturing process for composite blades, for example, it removes
risk, time, and cost from subsequent military developments, even though
the aircraft themselves are totally different.

Yes, I do believe Bell lost orders when it stopped 609 testing. They
hover-tested the thing for about 40 hours and just stopped --
supposedly to let the V-22 get past its problems. The real answer was
money. They're great-guns again, so we'll see how many of those
deposits turn into deliveries. The thing has enormous potential.

Did Boeing need MDHI to stay in the civil tilt rotor business - nah.
But I think the reason they got out was the same reason they got rid of
MDHI - if you think of yourself as a big shot prime, you don't want to
waste your time selling rotorcraft one or two at a time (unless you're
trying to sell Boeing Business Jets.). That mindset denies you the
technology for big contracts like ARH and LUH when they come along. I
suspsect Boeing military salesmen would now rather have an ARH without
dealing with MDHI.

Can Boeing play the big-shot prime for future programs and let lower
forms worry about rotor systems, transmissions, and flight controls?
Of course - it seems to have worked for the rotorcraft experts at
Lockheed Martin. But with so few new programs starting up, I still
think it was short-sighted of Horny Harry to take Boeing out of the
civil market altogether.

HW

Vygg wrote:


Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

I haven't seen anything in the press on any 609 sales.


AvLeak has covered the a/c a fair amount, as have other sources. Here's a
site which I think is fairly current:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ba609/

or you can go to Bell's own website.

Guy


Hmm. It'll be interesting to see how many are actually bought. Judging
from the reduction in the number of orders over the years and the amount
of the deposit, it sounds as if none of the "advanced orders" are firm
sales, yet. The deposits were just to hold the customer's place in line
- it happens all the time with commercial airline orders. They can pull
out at any time. Apparently, some already have.

IIRC, there was an initial $10,000 place-holding deposit, which (I think) was
refundable. Once the a/c flew, progress payments were required starting with the
first $100,000, which were _not_ refundable (don't quote me on that amount, as I'm
working off memory here; it might have been more, but almost certainly wasn't
less). The order drop-off came at the time of the V-22's problems, in 2001 or so.
I'd imagine that those drops came in two categories; the 'gee-whiz' orders, and
the serious companies that had to make equipment upgrades/replacements on a
timeline. The value of the 609 for certain missions hasn't changed for the
serious helo transport companies, and indeed, several of them along with Bell and
the FAA are involved in writing the new Vertical Lift FAR certification
requirements. In short, they're in no doubt about the potential benefits, and
have made a realistic assessments of the risks. They know the a/c will work, the
only issue is being able to overcome customers' irrational fears based on
media-hype.

I'm curious as to what Greg Norman wants with one. Status symbol? It'll
certainly top all of those movie stars and their Hummers. ;-)

He does have a lot of business interests, so I guess having the same mobility as
the various corporations that signed up to buy a/c makes reasonable sense for
him. And it's still a lot cheaper than Travolta's collection;-)

Guy

The BA609 is flying again!

My friends as Bell sent me a message that the BA609 has resumed flight
testing today with four flights totaling about one hour total. This
puts them on track for converting to airplane mode sometime this
summer. More news should appear in the press and internet tomorrow.

Take care,

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