Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
texl1649 wrote:AW is actively pursuing an Italian purchase (their military released a white paper about 5 years ago on it), and they have released a spec which is basically for the 609 so I am guessing this will be their goal. It’s a weird deal as most of the aircraft of course (engines, avionics, the whole fuselage etc) are built in the US so it has been in a no-man’s land I think for a bit politically. I figure AW is at the forefront now in Europe from a regulatory/certification perspective on tiltrotors, and would expect more to follow over the coming decade, with or without Airbus.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2015/0 ... re-vision/
Leovinus wrote:texl1649 wrote:AW is actively pursuing an Italian purchase (their military released a white paper about 5 years ago on it), and they have released a spec which is basically for the 609 so I am guessing this will be their goal. It’s a weird deal as most of the aircraft of course (engines, avionics, the whole fuselage etc) are built in the US so it has been in a no-man’s land I think for a bit politically. I figure AW is at the forefront now in Europe from a regulatory/certification perspective on tiltrotors, and would expect more to follow over the coming decade, with or without Airbus.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2015/0 ... re-vision/
It must be possible for them to transfer some of the production to Europe if that is one of the stumbling blocks. Knock-down kits until such times that major parts can be sourced locally surely. Italy needs the work desperately, so I certainly understand the political dimension to this.
texl1649 wrote:I think the project is mainly a regulatory/safety/developmental one for them is all (hence the long developmental cycle).
Leovinus wrote:texl1649 wrote:I think the project is mainly a regulatory/safety/developmental one for them is all (hence the long developmental cycle).
Meaning AW got stuck with precisely the regulatory work Bell didn't want to deal with. I'm not much for corporate give-aways, but AW ought to get some EU funding through a tax deduction on the certification work considering how important it its for the future of civilian VTOLs. I can imagine it taking a lot of time precisely because the FAA and EU equivalent want to make rules that are broadly applicable, not tailored to the AW609. At the same time making rules that actually work for the AW609 et. al.
I can see the AW609 being very handy in reconnaissance, transport, and support for smaller aircraft and helicopter carriers though. Frances Mistral-Class, Spains San Juan-class, Italys various (like Cavour or Trieste). Places where you might not need or want a large aircraft or helicopter. Though I base this on pure and unadulterated speculation from my favourite armchair.
Leovinus wrote:texl1649 wrote:I think the project is mainly a regulatory/safety/developmental one for them is all (hence the long developmental cycle).
Meaning AW got stuck with precisely the regulatory work Bell didn't want to deal with. I'm not much for corporate give-aways, but AW ought to get some EU funding through a tax deduction on the certification work considering how important it its for the future of civilian VTOLs. I can imagine it taking a lot of time precisely because the FAA and EU equivalent want to make rules that are broadly applicable, not tailored to the AW609. At the same time making rules that actually work for the AW609 et. al.
I can see the AW609 being very handy in reconnaissance, transport, and support for smaller aircraft and helicopter carriers though. Frances Mistral-Class, Spains San Juan-class, Italys various (like Cavour or Trieste). Places where you might not need or want a large aircraft or helicopter. Though I base this on pure and unadulterated speculation from my favourite armchair.
texl1649 wrote:I don’t think it’s particularly fair to say Bell stuck Leonardo with anything. Let’s not forget that AW benefited tremendously from Bell running out of funds on other projects.
steman wrote:I might be wrong but I seem to recall that the agreement between the then AgustaWestland and Bell when the forme took over the BA609 program (then renamed AW609) was that AW would not develop and offer military variants of it.
Max Q wrote:Modifying it to incorporate those features is possible I suppose but would be a significant redesign and add a lot of weight
It is one cool machine though, very flexible and the ultimate personal aircraft for when I win the lottery
Leovinus wrote:texl1649 wrote:I don’t think it’s particularly fair to say Bell stuck Leonardo with anything. Let’s not forget that AW benefited tremendously from Bell running out of funds on other projects.
My words can be seen as needlessly harsh. I meant it in jest. Leonardo quite rightly knew exactly what they were doing. If I remember things correctly Bell lost interest in the AW609 (why is beyond me, their financial situation perhaps? The certification conundrum?), meaning Leonardo had the choice of of bringing it to market by themselves with Bell supporting them. So saying they stuck Leonardo with certification is to be taken more in jest against that backdrop than anything else. My apologies for being vague.steman wrote:I might be wrong but I seem to recall that the agreement between the then AgustaWestland and Bell when the forme took over the BA609 program (then renamed AW609) was that AW would not develop and offer military variants of it.
Now that you mention it I seem to recall something similar... This program has been going for so long my memory of it all is getting blurry. And with Flight Global limiting my ability to look up articles these days (200+ Euros for a years subscription? It's a princely sum for me, but oh so tempting regardless) I can't as easily clear the cobwebs.
I'm sure Bell would love to collaborate with Leonardo on European military contracts though. They have a far better presence in European defence than Bell does alone.Max Q wrote:Modifying it to incorporate those features is possible I suppose but would be a significant redesign and add a lot of weight
It is one cool machine though, very flexible and the ultimate personal aircraft for when I win the lottery
True, I wonder if the footprint of it would improve enough by making the rotors foldable alone. Making the wing structure swing is most likely too much of a stretch. You'd need basically a new wing and fuselage joint.
If you do win the lottery I'd say you're welcome to Sweden with it. Maybe we could take a ride?
Max Q wrote:Was just looking at the dimensions of this ‘indefinitely gestating’ tilt rotor and it appears it has the same width (rotors included) as the CH47
Interesting, I had thought this aircraft wouldn’t be seriously considered by, for example the USN or RN because the wings don’t fold and it would be too wide to put on an elevator and into the hangar
However the RN recently demonstrated, with a CH47, on the QE class it landed aboard was taken on an elevator and down into the hangar without folding or removing the rotor blades
Considering the payload capability, speed and overall flexibility of the Chinook that was good planning by the RN
Since the AW609 could also be accommodated below on the QE class I wonder if it’s being considered, it’s faster and quieter than the V22 and unlike the V22 it’s pressurized, seems like a perfect special forces insertion aircraft, long distance rescue and perhaps a candidate for AEW