Is MDHI going to make it?

[Matt Barrow]

MDHI (makers of the MD500, 600, 900 series) has been dormant for some time
and is on the brink of bankruptcy.

Replacement parts are unavailable and they're delivering three or four
helo's a year.

Anyone care to speculate what's going to happen?

They have refused two or three buy-outs in the past few months. Could they
ever pull out with their reputation of late?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[CTR]

Matt,

Perhaps MDHI is pinning their hopes on that the Army picks the 500
(under contract with Boeing) for the ARH contract of 380 helicopters.

CTR

Matt Barrow wrote:
> MDHI (makers of the MD500, 600, 900 series) has been dormant for some
time
> and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
>
> Replacement parts are unavailable and they're delivering three or
four
> helo's a year.
>
> Anyone care to speculate what's going to happen?
>
> They have refused two or three buy-outs in the past few months. Could
they
> ever pull out with their reputation of late?
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO

[Helowriter]

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

HW

[Matt Barrow]

"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt,
>
> Perhaps MDHI is pinning their hopes on that the Army picks the 500
> (under contract with Boeing) for the ARH contract of 380 helicopters.
>
> CTR

I doubt the military would just give them the contract if they're just going
to sub-contract everything to Boeing...even if it is across the street.


>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > MDHI (makers of the MD500, 600, 900 series) has been dormant for some
> time
> > and is on the brink of bankruptcy.
> >
> > Replacement parts are unavailable and they're delivering three or
> four
> > helo's a year.
> >
> > Anyone care to speculate what's going to happen?
> >
> > They have refused two or three buy-outs in the past few months. Could
> they
> > ever pull out with their reputation of late?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt
> > ---------------------
> > Matthew W. Barrow
> > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> > Montrose, CO
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"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
>
>

[CTR]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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.

[Helowriter]

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

[gaylon9]

> 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.

The SEC was asked by an Arizona Police Dept. to block Bell's purchase on the
grounds that they 'assumed' that Bell was simply going to buy the MD line
and then stop production -- ie. buy out the competition. I think it was the
Phoenix Police Dept.. I bet they wish otherwise now. The Lubbock, TX
Aerocare service has 3 MD Explorers that are slowly becoming unusable
because of a lack of parts. For several months one or two of the ships have
been cannabalized to keep the other in the air. There are also problems with
a lack of factory support to upgrade the craft as certain parts show a much
shorter life than predicted or expected. Bad combination to have 'under
engineered' design areas and then a lack of parts for support.
Gaylon
http://www.aerocare-lubbock.com/

[B4RT]

"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

[hellothere.adelphia.net]

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
>

[CTR]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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.

[CTR]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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?

[CTR]

Matt,

Blackhawks? Not likely. For the same reasons the Army uses Humvees
instead of APCs to ferry soldiers. It would be great if all US
soldiers could have the protection of an APC all the time. But because
of logistics and cost it is just not practical.

The Army learned a tough lesson in Iraq by not having enough Humvees
with adequate armor early on. This forced soldiers to develop
improvised armor from what ever steel plate they could scavange.

They won't make the same mistake with the ARH.

CTR

[Jim Burt]

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.
>
>
>
>

[CTR]

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]

The fact that the Army seems determined to get rid of the OH-58D says
something about its perceived survivability in the armed recon mission.
The 407 is a different aircraft, and with the new engine will be
pretty far from an OH-58D, but at heart it's still got the
crashworthiness of a JetRanger.

UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but
they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat
is still coming. Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
ARH.

HW

[Matt Barrow]

"Helowriter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but
> they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat
> is still coming.

I agree; in a conflict with a more sophisticated enemy (than were up against
now), the present day UAV's would be far too vulnerable.

> Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
> ARH.

Why?

[Helowriter]

Well, the Army is determined to retire the OH-58D, and the 407 is an
OH-58D derivative. (Obviously, they're going to do more than move the
sensor suite and replace the enigine.) Not knowing just what Bell
intends to do with the tail rotor, transmission, etc, the ARH proposal
seems like it perpetuates OH-58D shortcomings in performance and
crashworthiness rather than taking a different ARH approach.

The Mission Enhanced Little Bird for the 160th is already getting the
Rockwell CAAS cockpit, which will provide training and supply
commonality with what the Army plans for the UH-60M and CH-47F. Bell
has said Lockheed Martin will integrate their systems, presumably with
a cockpit based on Navy MH-60R/S experience. Given a choice, I think
I'd rather have CAAS.

I've been corrected elsewhere that the ARH requirement is very
different from SOF, requiring longer endurance. I don't know what
Boeing intends to do to to add more fuel. (If you use the stretched 600
airframe, do you compromise crashworthiness?)

Neither of these aircraft will carry significant armor (RPGs are meant
to kill main battle tanks), but I do think the Little Bird is more
crashworthy. Again, I don't know exactly what Boeing plans to enhance
the AH-6M, but I think it would be a better starting point.

It's not the vulnerability of UAVs that makes them questionable, it's
the limited field of view from current sensors, and the organization
that has to integrate them with ground forces. A human crew brings
curiosity, flexibility, and judgement to use weapon on the recon
mission. Again, with time, UAVs will provide a useful adjunct to save
lives and expand situational awareness, but they're not a replacement
for a scout helicopter.

HW

[Jim Burt]

There are frequent references to the crashworthiness of the Hughes/MD 500
series versus the JetRanger/LongRanger/407 series, to the detriment of the
latter. However, if you consult the statistical record, the risk of serious
injury per 100,000 flying hours in the 500 series is several times higher
than that in the Bells. Much of that difference is attributable to the
forgiving qualities of the old teetering head rotor system, but the stats
continue to favor Bell even in the newer models. One reason for this is the
greater probability of rollover in the 500 series, and a related problem is
the greater risk of fire.

Jim

"Helowriter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The fact that the Army seems determined to get rid of the OH-58D says
> something about its perceived survivability in the armed recon mission.
> The 407 is a different aircraft, and with the new engine will be
> pretty far from an OH-58D, but at heart it's still got the
> crashworthiness of a JetRanger.
>
> UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but
> they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat
> is still coming. Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
> ARH.
>
> HW
>

[Jim Burt]

As I noted in a previous related post, the statistics belie the notion that
the 500 series is more crashworthy than the Bell. My experience with both
helicopters goes back to the days when OH-6As were famous for rolling down
hills, crew intact, after crashing, and I liked them for that and other
reasons, but for whatever reason, it's always been safer, on the average, to
fly in a Bell. Moreover, the back seat of a 500 series helicopter is a
really rotten place to be, from both comfort and safety perspectives.
Besides, MDHI is so rickety that a military contract probably wouldn't save
it.

Jim

"Helowriter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, the Army is determined to retire the OH-58D, and the 407 is an
> OH-58D derivative. (Obviously, they're going to do more than move the
> sensor suite and replace the enigine.) Not knowing just what Bell
> intends to do with the tail rotor, transmission, etc, the ARH proposal
> seems like it perpetuates OH-58D shortcomings in performance and
> crashworthiness rather than taking a different ARH approach.
>
> The Mission Enhanced Little Bird for the 160th is already getting the
> Rockwell CAAS cockpit, which will provide training and supply
> commonality with what the Army plans for the UH-60M and CH-47F. Bell
> has said Lockheed Martin will integrate their systems, presumably with
> a cockpit based on Navy MH-60R/S experience. Given a choice, I think
> I'd rather have CAAS.
>
> I've been corrected elsewhere that the ARH requirement is very
> different from SOF, requiring longer endurance. I don't know what
> Boeing intends to do to to add more fuel. (If you use the stretched 600
> airframe, do you compromise crashworthiness?)
>
> Neither of these aircraft will carry significant armor (RPGs are meant
> to kill main battle tanks), but I do think the Little Bird is more
> crashworthy. Again, I don't know exactly what Boeing plans to enhance
> the AH-6M, but I think it would be a better starting point.
>
> It's not the vulnerability of UAVs that makes them questionable, it's
> the limited field of view from current sensors, and the organization
> that has to integrate them with ground forces. A human crew brings
> curiosity, flexibility, and judgement to use weapon on the recon
> mission. Again, with time, UAVs will provide a useful adjunct to save
> lives and expand situational awareness, but they're not a replacement
> for a scout helicopter.
>
> HW
>

[CTR]

Helowriter,

>From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
and you start running out of flying helicopters.

Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
than 5% commonality of parts.

Take care,

CTR

[Jim Burt]

It should be noted that all the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very
extensively rebuilt and modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the
aircraft down to the frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of
the composites, built new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail
booms, and all new dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all
the instrumentation, avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as
OH-58As. The only "new" from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built
under contract to Taiwan.

Jim

"CTR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Helowriter,
>
>>From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
> retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
> of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
> been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
> attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
> and you start running out of flying helicopters.
>
> Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
> comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
> they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
> than 5% commonality of parts.
>
> Take care,
>
> CTR
>

[Helowriter]

The Saudi 406s based on the OH-58D were new-build too.

Understand the evolution, but I suspect the MELB-derivative for ARH is
also going to be pretty far from the OH-6A. The MELB is supposed to
have a better aft cabin door, and we haven't seen what the Boeing/MDI
ARH cabin yet.

The crashworthiness comparison has always seemed to favor the OH-6A
over the 58A/C. I don't believe either airframe has gotten a whole
lot better since those first models. You can argue that 58Ds have just
gone through safety enhancements including some seat improvements. I'm
curious to see how both teams address the crashworthiness issue.

HW

[Vygg]

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.

[Jim Burt]

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

[CTR]

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

[Vygg]

CTR wrote:

> 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
>
Yeah. Makes it a real pain in the tookas to try to bid, too. Instead of
just sending out an RFP stating "Based on an existing civil airframe,
build a helicopter that does this . . . ", the AMCOM guys have muddied
the waters to the point that the bidders are left guessing at what the
Army really wants in this thing. They want something that's just like
the SOF MELB only different - and cheap. The winner of this competition
could wind up wishing they'd lost it.

The user community has been telling us for years that they want more
weapons, more armor and more fuel. AMCOM instead gives them more Comm
gear. What an attack helicopter needs with an HF radio is beyond what
anyone that flies it has been able to figure out. Maybe the boys in
Huntsville want to be able to tune in to the action in Iraq. Rumor has
it that the Block III Longbow is going to drop the HF radio.

It will be interesting to see what happens in July - or maybe September
- or maybe next January - or whenever AMCOM actually decides to pick a
winner.

Vygg

[Helowriter]

Of course the military and civil businesses are connected -- in the
design, engineering, and manufacturing technology. The military OH-6
gave Hughes/McD/MDHI a still-viable civil product line. The Sikorsky
HSS-2 launched the civil '61s. Take another look at the Eurocopter
military product line derived from their civil products -- their
military and civil business is now split about 50-50 thanks to
Puma/Cougar, Dauphin/Panther, etc.

If the commercial side of MHDI could never show a profit, the smart
thing to do was improve the bookeeping, not dump the product line and
deal yourself out of light helicopters. That's how Boeing got into this
position of buying back a shot at ARH.

HW

[Vygg]

Helowriter wrote:
> Of course the military and civil businesses are connected -- in the
> design, engineering, and manufacturing technology. The military OH-6
> gave Hughes/McD/MDHI a still-viable civil product line. The Sikorsky
> HSS-2 launched the civil '61s. Take another look at the Eurocopter
> military product line derived from their civil products -- their
> military and civil business is now split about 50-50 thanks to
> Puma/Cougar, Dauphin/Panther, etc.
>
> If the commercial side of MHDI could never show a profit, the smart
> thing to do was improve the bookeeping, not dump the product line and
> deal yourself out of light helicopters. That's how Boeing got into this
> position of buying back a shot at ARH.
>
> HW
>
How many new OH-6s have been purchased in the last five years? The
European governments have had a vested interest in building up their
helicopter production capability for years and have been willing to
support it at any cost.

Straightening out the accounting was why the commercial side of MD was
given three years to turn a profit - they couldn't do it, even from a
clean slate. There were no military derivatives of any of the commercial
products that anyone was willing to buy. The U.S. Army had pinned its
hopes on Commanche and weren't about to go buy a passle of cheap
competitors to its sinkiing ship. Commanche was in enough hot water
without the Army asking someone to develop an alternative that Congress
could use against them.

The Europeans were buying militarized versions of their own civil
aircraft to reduce the red ink on their development. They certainly
weren't about to buy a bunch of militarized versions of MD commercial
helicopters. There was no market.

MDHI got a smokin' deal on the commercial business and still haven't
been able to make a go of it. I fail to see how holding on to a
money-losing operation with no potential for the future would be a smart
move. Sikorsky and Bell had most of the civil market wrapped up - MD was
a distant third, bleeding cash and losing steam.

Vygg

[Helowriter]

The MD500/M530/600 series share the OH-6 lineage. At least a few of
those have been sold commercially since the MDHI split. MDHI sold some
MDExplorers to the Mexican Navy, and some paramilitary versions in
Europe. The rotor system on the MELB was developed for the commercial
MD530F. That's the point - the civil and military markets and
technologies are complementary.

The Europeans didn't just buy militarized versions of civil aircraft to
improve their balance sheet. They developed dual-use aircraft to fill
their requirements from a domestic source. With a full product line,
Eurocopter can sell military or commercial as the markets shift. No, I
don't expect a commercial Tiger derivative, but giving Australia a
commercial helicopter assembly factory helped get that country to buy
the Tiger.

Technology development in military and civil helicopters is
interdependent. Rotor, transmission, HUMS, and other advancess carry
over from one market to the other. The flaw tolerance in the
commercial S-92 makes a very safe, crashworthy military helicopter (The
VXX competition chose to ignore that.) Commercial innovations -- HUMS,
on-condition maintenance -- can cut O&S costs for military operators.


Light helicopers have no future? Boeing abandoned the product line it
now needs to compete for a sizeable US Army order. It may have also
pushed itself out of the LUH contest. Tell me how that was smart
business.

HW

[Vygg]

Helowriter wrote:
> The MD500/M530/600 series share the OH-6 lineage. At least a few of
> those have been sold commercially since the MDHI split. MDHI sold some
> MDExplorers to the Mexican Navy, and some paramilitary versions in
> Europe. The rotor system on the MELB was developed for the commercial
> MD530F. That's the point - the civil and military markets and
> technologies are complementary.
>
> The Europeans didn't just buy militarized versions of civil aircraft to
> improve their balance sheet. They developed dual-use aircraft to fill
> their requirements from a domestic source. With a full product line,
> Eurocopter can sell military or commercial as the markets shift. No, I
> don't expect a commercial Tiger derivative, but giving Australia a
> commercial helicopter assembly factory helped get that country to buy
> the Tiger.
>
> Technology development in military and civil helicopters is
> interdependent. Rotor, transmission, HUMS, and other advancess carry
> over from one market to the other. The flaw tolerance in the
> commercial S-92 makes a very safe, crashworthy military helicopter (The
> VXX competition chose to ignore that.) Commercial innovations -- HUMS,
> on-condition maintenance -- can cut O&S costs for military operators.
>
>
> Light helicopers have no future? Boeing abandoned the product line it
> now needs to compete for a sizeable US Army order. It may have also
> pushed itself out of the LUH contest. Tell me how that was smart
> business.
>
> HW
>
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Again, at the time that Boeing
divested itself of the commercial business there was no market for the
aircraft, it was losing money (a lot of money) and was in a distant
third place to Bell and Sikorsky with no hope of catching up.

You're assuming that Boeing is going to win the ARH. What if it doesn't
and they've already bought back MDHI? Boeing is in the same boat that it
was in when it first dumped the enterprise. No market, unsustainable
sales and heavy negative cashflow. Selling "some" Explorers to the
Mexican Navy every few years isn't going to keep the business viable.

A few months ago the conditions at MDHI were so bad that the mechanics
were taking their toolboxes home with them every night because they
didn't know if the doors would be chained shut when they came in the
next morning. Their only hope for the future is if Boeing wins the ARH.
If Bell wins - bye, bye MDHI.

The vast majority of rotary wing innovations are military shifted over
to civil. Not the other way around. A civilian aircraft doesn't have to
be built to continue to operate after taking a half-dozen 7.62mm rounds
through major wire bundles. Having a crashworthy civilian airframe is
nice - having an airframe that's difficult to bring down is even better.
The civilian market is for inexpensive aircraft that can be operated and
maintained at a profit - not an aircraft that has to be rugged enough to
handle abusive and hostile treatment. A couple of civilian innovations
that can be migrated over to military (with modification) is hardly a
reason to continue to pour cash into a limited opportunity.

HUMS was based on military innovations like LIMMSS. On-condition
maintenance is great as long as you have a regular flying schedule with
plenty of logistics support handy. In any case, those are support
technologies - you don't have to be in the business of building
helicopters to develop support technologies for them.

If Boeing hadn't sold the commercial side and ARH hadn't come along
you'd be criticizing them for making a bad business decision for holding
onto a losing proposition. It comes down to a basic question of business
- how much of your profitable operation do you sacrifice to shore up a
money pit, on the off chance that someday it may get better?

MD did that for years with its commercial aircraft business and it came
close to sinking the whole company. The end result was that it got
bought out by Boeing.

A lot of stars had to line up in order to get to the situation that
we're in today - the sudden cancellation of Commanche, a MELB based on a
highly modified existing civil airframe and the Army's insistence that
its next scout helicopter be based on an existing civil airframe as a
result. That's a lot to hope for when you're holding a money-losing
civilian helicopter operation that has a bleak future ahead of it
otherwise.

Vygg

[Helowriter]

Yep, that's me, Monday morning quarterback, Tuesday afternoon 'told you
so.' And now that ARH and LUH are here, I'm telling you it was a
mistake for Boeing to take itself out of the light helicopter business.
Now they have to buy the airframe from a shaky partner, and may lose
the ARH because of that. They also dealt themselves out of the
light/commerical tilt rotor business - and ancillary
government/military sales. (I know -- it's a fad, and Bell will never
sell more than a handful of 609s and derivatives.)

Salesmen make business -- if Eurocopter and Bell could sustain
commercial product lines in tough times, I suspect Boeing could have
too. Do you blame people for not buying MD600s and Exploriers from a
Dutch holding company when the two major suppliers have stable support
networks? That doesn't mean the product lines were losers. And it
doesn't mean the technology in them is worthless.

The composite blades finally in test for the AH-64 are made like those
already on the 530F (same autoclaves, too). Bell 430s were using that
four-bladed composite rotor head and blade technology way in advance of
the AH-1Z/UH-1Y go-ahead. A lot of that flaw-tolerant S-92 technology
makes good sense for a military operator who has to fly alot, take
battle damage, and stay within a budget. HUMS and lot of this dual-use
stuff evolves in parallel.

Commercial utilization rates are typically higher than military, and
commercial operators get real mad when they can't fly -- that gives you
RAM technologies directly applicable to military helicopters. I'm told
some of the latest FARs are tougher than MILSPEC.

Boeing figured 20-year sole-source military contracts like Chinook and
Apache modernization and V-22 and Comanche were sure bets -- ooops
Comanche wasn't a sure bet. Now, DoD has no problem going offshore for
helicopters. I don't think we should just surrender the market and the
industry to Europe. Monday morning, that might be good for business,
and Tuesday afternoon bad for the country.

HW

[Vygg]

Helowriter wrote:
> Yep, that's me, Monday morning quarterback, Tuesday afternoon 'told you
> so.' And now that ARH and LUH are here, I'm telling you it was a
> mistake for Boeing to take itself out of the light helicopter business.
> Now they have to buy the airframe from a shaky partner, and may lose
> the ARH because of that. They also dealt themselves out of the
> light/commerical tilt rotor business - and ancillary
> government/military sales. (I know -- it's a fad, and Bell will never
> sell more than a handful of 609s and derivatives.)
>
> Salesmen make business -- if Eurocopter and Bell could sustain
> commercial product lines in tough times, I suspect Boeing could have
> too. Do you blame people for not buying MD600s and Exploriers from a
> Dutch holding company when the two major suppliers have stable support
> networks? That doesn't mean the product lines were losers. And it
> doesn't mean the technology in them is worthless.
>
> The composite blades finally in test for the AH-64 are made like those
> already on the 530F (same autoclaves, too). Bell 430s were using that
> four-bladed composite rotor head and blade technology way in advance of
> the AH-1Z/UH-1Y go-ahead. A lot of that flaw-tolerant S-92 technology
> makes good sense for a military operator who has to fly alot, take
> battle damage, and stay within a budget. HUMS and lot of this dual-use
> stuff evolves in parallel.
>
> Commercial utilization rates are typically higher than military, and
> commercial operators get real mad when they can't fly -- that gives you
> RAM technologies directly applicable to military helicopters. I'm told
> some of the latest FARs are tougher than MILSPEC.
>
> Boeing figured 20-year sole-source military contracts like Chinook and
> Apache modernization and V-22 and Comanche were sure bets -- ooops
> Comanche wasn't a sure bet. Now, DoD has no problem going offshore for
> helicopters. I don't think we should just surrender the market and the
> industry to Europe. Monday morning, that might be good for business,
> and Tuesday afternoon bad for the country.
>
> HW
>
The light airframes are still available if Boeing wins the ARH. MDHI is
shaky, but they only have to hold on long enough for AMCOM to make a
decision. If Bell wins the competition, Boeing isn't stuck with a
money-losing commercial operation. The decision to get out of the
commercial tilt-rotor was primarily a Bell decision - no market for the
aircraft. All of the tilt-rotor sales are for military, not an ancillary
government/military sale from a commercial product. Tilt-rotor has been
a military program from the beginning - not a commercial program with
military applicability. V-22 would have never been developed if it had
been a straight civilian product. The torrent of money put into it over
the years would have been turned off long ago if it were a commercial
aircraft - no way to ever make a profit after the development costs.

Salesmen make business - its easy when you already own the lion's share
of the commercial market (Bell) or have governments that protect the
industry (Eurocopter). A good product line that doesn't sell is a loser.
A technology that nobody is interested in has little worth in the
commercial industry.

Composite blades were originally in development for the AH-64A but MD
first used them on the MD-530 because the U.S. Army has always been much
more averse to advanced technologies than say, the USAF or USN. The MD
entry into LHX was viewed with suspicion by the Army because it used the
"unproven" NOTAR concept - the Army wanted something that they were
familiar with. Flaw tolerance isn't the same thing as rugged. A high UTE
rate in a stable commercial environment doesn't equate to a high UTE
rate in a combat environment. A commercial aircraft doesn't routinely
make high-speed descents into the trees, jink around, take fire and
still have to come home with the crew intact. The design, build and
performance criteria are very different between the two.

The FARs are getting tougher because the DoD stopped requiring MILSPEC
many years ago. In an attempt to "streamline" the procurement process,
the Pentagon decided that they would no longer require MILSPECs for new
aircraft acquisitions. Requiring FARs was a different matter. Not to be
outdone, the procurement types in the USG started migrating MILSPEC
standards into the FARs. We're gradually closing the circle on the old
onerous procurement process and will be right back where we started in a
few more years.

Boeing is the prime for Chinook and Apache. Bell is the prime for V-22
and Sikorsky was the prime for Commanche. Of the four aircraft
mentioned, Boeing's strategy is working.


I agree about surrendering the commercial rotary wing industry to Europe
being a bad thing for the country. But, you need to be talking to the
folks in D.C. about that, not the folks in Chicago. Boeing was skinned,
dressed and slow-roasted over an open fire for the 767T deal. They were
roundly criticized in public for trying to protect their commercial
B-767 product line by getting the USG to lease 100 aircraft. The company
will make the decision within the next couple of months whether or not
to terminate the product line as result of not having any future for it.
The European governments would have no problem with subsidizing their
commercial aircraft (or helicopter) industry in order to stay in the
game. That's a government decision, not a corporate decision.

Vygg

[CTR]

Vygg wrote

"The decision to get out of the
commercial tilt-rotor was primarily a Bell decision - no market for the

aircraft. All of the tilt-rotor sales are for military, not an
ancillary
government/military sale from a commercial product. Tilt-rotor has been

a military program from the beginning - not a commercial program with
military applicability."

Did you mean to write a Boeing or McDonnell decision? Bell in the end
was better off without Boeing as a partner on the 609, but at the time
BOEINGS decision to drop out almost killed the program. The engineers
at Boeing Vertol are some of the best, but their managers had no
concept on how to run a commericial aircraft program.

A Boeing Vertol management mentality of spending aircraft development
money on "engineering processes" instead of engineering design resulted
in Boeing claiming that they had completed 90% of all the 609
engineering. When Bell started opening files of what were supposed to
be stress analysis, what they found were one sentence notes stating
that the formal analysis would be completed at a later date. When all
Boeing enginnering was reviewed, it turned out they had only completed
about 40% of what they claimed. They had spent however over 100% of
what they were budgeted.

This is why Boeing Vertol managers were elated when presented the
opportunity to drop out of the 609 program. The grunt engineers
however were devastated. Many key engineers ended up leaving Philly
for Texas as a result

Take care,

CTR

[Vygg]

CTR wrote:
> Vygg wrote
>
> "The decision to get out of the
> commercial tilt-rotor was primarily a Bell decision - no market for the
>
> aircraft. All of the tilt-rotor sales are for military, not an
> ancillary
> government/military sale from a commercial product. Tilt-rotor has been
>
> a military program from the beginning - not a commercial program with
> military applicability."
>
> Did you mean to write a Boeing or McDonnell decision? Bell in the end
> was better off without Boeing as a partner on the 609, but at the time
> BOEINGS decision to drop out almost killed the program. The engineers
> at Boeing Vertol are some of the best, but their managers had no
> concept on how to run a commericial aircraft program.
>
> A Boeing Vertol management mentality of spending aircraft development
> money on "engineering processes" instead of engineering design resulted
> in Boeing claiming that they had completed 90% of all the 609
> engineering. When Bell started opening files of what were supposed to
> be stress analysis, what they found were one sentence notes stating
> that the formal analysis would be completed at a later date. When all
> Boeing enginnering was reviewed, it turned out they had only completed
> about 40% of what they claimed. They had spent however over 100% of
> what they were budgeted.
>
> This is why Boeing Vertol managers were elated when presented the
> opportunity to drop out of the 609 program. The grunt engineers
> however were devastated. Many key engineers ended up leaving Philly
> for Texas as a result
>
> Take care,
>
> CTR
>
V-22 has always been a Bell-Boeing enterprise. MDHS didn't become a part
of Boeing until the buy-out. Boeing Rotorcraft was, and still is,
headquartered out of Philly. MD didn't have a say in the 609. I can't
speak for the management or operation there as I'm only familiar with
the Mesa site. The two operations just . . . well, to be diplomatic
about it . . . tolerate each other.

In any case, Bell is the prime for V-22/609 and it was their call to
terminate the commercial product. Boeing probably had an input, but Bell
made the final decision.

Vygg

[CTR]

Vygg,

The decision to drop out of the 609 was Boeing Vertols. No doubt with
some influence by Harry Stonecipher. Per the provisions of the
partnership contract, by dropping out Boeing was obligated to turn over
at zero cost to Bell all hardware and enginering they had created.

Originaly this appeared to be a windfall to Bell. But over the past
five years Bell and their new partner Agusta have been forced to
redesign almost every part originally designed or specified by Boeing.
In their rush to justfiy all the money they had spent, Boeing Vertol
managers (not the engineers) demanded the release of engineering that
had more in common with fantasy than fact.

One 609 supplier to Boeing told me that when when they responded to a
critical RFP technical requirement "What you are requesting defies the
laws of known physics!" Boeing managers responded "You are awarded the
contract to develop this device". Turns out that they were the only
ones to respond at all to the RFP. Bell ended up scrapping all Boeing
engineering for this design and starting from scratch. Kept the same
supplier though. Honesty has its rewards.

Take care,

CTR

[Helowriter]

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

[Vygg]

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

[Guy Alcala]

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 are:

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

[Helowriter]

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

[Vygg]

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 are:
>
> 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

[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

[CTR]

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

[Helowriter]

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

[Guy Alcala]

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

[CTR]

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

[Vygg]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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.

[Helowriter]

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

[CTR]

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

[Helowriter]

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

[CTR]

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

[Helowriter]

It flew the next day. They were waiting to do a high-speed taxi run,
but I had to leave before that.

The 609 in real life is stylish, neat. I believe there is a market
for civil tilt rotor. I also think there's a market for a high-speed
coaxial. You have to pick your market niches.

More important, that sort of development is what the entire US
rotorcraft industry should be doing --- with the avid support of the US
government support. Europe has targeted rotorcraft as an area of
industrial growth. We seem determined to surrender it to them. Maybe
Boeing will get lucky with the A160 or Dragonfly technologies.

HW