The Tokyo Metropolitan Government recently announced the intention to evaluate the AW609 commercial tiltrotor’s capabilities to deliver transport to Ogasawara island.
Leonard say that the characteristics of the world’s first commercial tiltrotor, would deliver outstanding services to reach Ogasawara, approximately 1000 km from Tokyo. Missions would be performed in all weather conditions and with limited infrastructural impact thanks to its helicopter-like footprint.
“The AW609 excels at providing fast point to point transportation at long ranges, whether it is connecting city centres or providing timely access to remote locations. Thanks to 275 knots speed, a 25,000 ft altitude and 1000 nm maximum range, users will benefit from the AW609’s unique ability to fly above adverse weather in the comfort of a pressurized cabin while maintaining rotorcraft vertical take-off and landing / hovering versatility. Modern ‘green’ technology ensures reduced emissions and noise. The AW609 is ideally suited to meet a range of operational requirements in Japan such as passenger transport, EMS, SAR, surveillance, electronic newsgathering and VVIP transport.
With a fleet of over 130 helicopter of various models in Japan today performing a wide variety of civil, public service and military missions, Leonardo has a long-standing in-country presence with a comprehensive support service network that the AW609 will benefit from. The AW609 would support Japan in the introduction of innovative technology ways and solutions to meet connection and public service requirements across the nation, both in normal and in emergency and extreme natural events conditions. The AW609 will be the first civil certified tiltrotor aircraft and is poised to transform private and business travel, emergency medical service (EMS), search and rescue (SAR), offshore operations and patrol, among other uses. The AW609 carries up to nine passengers, flying safely above inclement weather and in known icing conditions.”
The first two production AW609s are currently being assembled in Philadelphia.
What are the chances this could be adapted for military applications? Instead of jumping in on whatever wins the US Blackhawk replacement competition, this could offer a practical and relatively cheap domestic option.
Yes Callum, but we’re missing that all-important ingredient, political will.
I’m not so sure. Look at how much of a fuss has been kicked up about the FSS contract, there seems to be a growing appetite for keeping production in-country. In the wake of covid and Brexit, it’s not implausible that domestic production will gain more support
and cash, we are also missing the green stuff.
Unfortunately Callum, there is no chance at all, it’s IP is for civilian use only, basically because of early joint work with Bell and the agreement that the 609 could only be used a civilian design so as not to compete with the military Bell design.
Fair point. In any case, having looked at it’s carrying capacity, the only helicopters the 609 would actually be suitable to replace are the Army’s Wildcats and remaining Gazelles in the scout and light attack roles (obviously not the Navy’s Wildcats, as there’s no way it would fit in an escort’s hangar).
Is there anything in the IP agreement that prevents AW from developing a successor for military use based on the technology in the 609?
Callum, that would be a technology derivative and the contest stated no technology developed with Bell could be used for military purposes as it would damage Bells sales
The AW609 maybe suitable for carrier AEW, but Not COD, the body is not wide enough to take an F-35 engine.
The V22 would be better for COD and air refuelling, due to the rear door/ramp to easy access to load
a fuel tank inside the plane.
A decision presumably made by the genius who decided that the A380 didn’t need to be able to take cargo through a tail or nose opening door…..
That sealed the fate of the A380’s after they are now being wound down for passenger use….
Hinging the tail on something like this that flies at a relatively low speed with lower stresses is not that big a deal.
Although I suspect that with an all up take off weight of 7900kg it is too lightweight to be militarised. And the fuel load it can take up isn’t going to be that useful for AAR once what it need to take off, land and have a margin is taken into acocunt.
As we have discussed many times, the increased all up weight variant of the V22, (US Navy COD) would be a perfect fit for the Royal Navy.
Add AAR and it would be a huge asset.
5 or 6 embarked on the carrier would be a fantastic force multiplier.
Yes, I’d agree.
What is good, though, is that a manufacturer with a relatively large manufacturing facility in the UK is getting into the tilt rotor game; upscaling from small is a good development approach. If they come up with a larger (Merlin-sized?) version of this in the next 5-10 years, that could be the solution to our future vertical ilft requirements and be a domestic product.
Or am I being overly optimistic again…?
I get the impression that Leonardo only do British legacy aircraft in the UK at Yeovilton, rather than farm out any of their latest products to us under the AugustWestland sub division, etc but would be pleased to be corrected. Certainly, Joe, if we took on another product one would trust the government would insist on local assembly, at least.
However, I saw red at the recent (very quiet) news that the Gov may ‘sit on it’s hands’ rather than insist on activating the UK base and investment provisions ‘committed to’ by Softbank when it took over ARM Holdings in 2016, should ARM now move to Silicon Valley ownership. Pathetic.
“I get the impression that Leonardo only do British legacy aircraft in the UK at Yeovilton, rather than farm out any of their latest products to us under the AugustWestland sub division, etc but would be pleased to be corrected.”
Yes mostly.
They developed the new Lynx – S.Korea ordered it, but i don’t know how much was already done before Agusta came. It is possible they put all EH-101 prod in Yeovil instead of doing it duplicated also in Italy but i am not sure.
Yes pathetic and more of the chaotic Non-policy of the Government on so many important business opportunities. The UK’s received wisdom that Government shouldn’t make investment decisions in business is BS.
Many of these decisions relate to Defence. In the UK there is a desperate need for people who have done a real job or come from the armed forces to go into politics and make a difference. We need a different centre-right party or for these people to get involved to change things for the better. Nuff said.
If there was the will investing in big infrastructure projects could include ship, aircraft and ground vehicle projects. Jobs, skills and an end product. The usual question of how to pay for it pops up but as is the case for a lot of HS2 the government creates its own money, the joy of owning your own currency and your own central bank. And as such the government does not need to pay itself off. What needs to be managed after that is inflation and unemployment. There would have to be some serious alpha project managers though to ensure that endless faffing over user requirements doesn’t slow things to a crawl.
Think in terms of how much ‘defence’ could be created using a budget the size of the current HS2 budget. Of course year on year running (etc) costs would have to be carefully managed in the overall defence budget which might be a limiting factor.
Sadly I think you are. This interest is very welcome but this is as others below have mentioned effectively its a Gen.1 Tilt Rotor. Worse still this aircraft was supposed to have been in service over 10 years ago (I believe they started taking paper orders in the early years of this century) but because of a long series of development problems has been delayed time and again. Indeed I am surprised (if pleased) to see that two production models are being produced because it had a major accident a couple of years ago while trying to complete its final acceptance trials for certification, which upon reading would have suggested major redesign required to rotor or/and wing to solve the particular rotor warping problem encountered. So I am interested to know what has happened since to resolve it, I can only presume it was an instruction in the manual to never actually carry out that particular manoeuvre again.
Again as others have said this cannot be adapted for military use due to contracts with Bell who seem to have moved on from this basic design for their more recent efforts on that front. So the question is 1) if (as would indeed be good news for Europe), they could develop a new 2nd/3rd Gen design based on all they’ve learned from this, whether that would be restricted by the same contract limitations and question 2) considering the 20 year gestation of this design just how long it might take to do another/greatly upgraded tilt rotor of new or modified design and whether finances would be available, as it would clearly be well behind time wise American aircraft in the same category by the time it arrived, unless it can find a useful niche.
Another point is that there is little likelihood of much direct building of any of these or its developments as its a predominantly Leonardo project and they are looking to use US production for the most part and will build any European models in Italy I am certain.
There won’t be a military version of the AW609 it’s part of the original deal with Bell the 609 can only be used for civilian roles.
The problem for the 609 is that the design first flew in 2003. So like the V22 Osprey, it is behind the times. It suffers the same problem as the V22 does, namely the whole engine and rotor assemble tilts, rather than just the rotor assemble as per the V-280 Valor. This means like the Osprey, the two engine exhausts are around 3 feet from the ground. Therefore, it will kick up a lot of dust etc when taking off or landing vertically.
If the aircraft was designed similarly to the Valor and used the tilting rotor concept. It would mean the is kept horizontal some 8 ft above the ground. Thereby allowing you to approach the aircraft’s sides without getting blasted by the engine’s exhaust.
Thanks, I wasn’t awaare of the limitations. I assume this is because it’s easier to allow fuel and hydraulic lilnes to rotate through 90 degrees to feed an entire engine, than rotate the drive shaft to the rotors from a stationary engine?
It’s a start, at least. I think most people here would be happy enough to “settle” for the V-22 or similar design if it gave us an enhanced AEW/AAR/COD capability for the QEs and options for longer and quicker commando/SF insertion, even with the limitations. I hope it develops into something worth getting (or maybe even producing at Yeovil?) in the next 5-10 years.
I totally agree that both the Navy and Airforce could do with a V22 type aircraft to fulfil a plethora of roles. The question is, will Bell look at redesigning the Osprey with lessons learned from the Valor?
When the Osprey was first designed, the US Navy had a long list of requirements. One of which, was that it had to be able to taxi on the Wasp class LHD with a minimum of 5 five feet between the prop-rotor tips and the island, with about the same distance between the landing gear and edge of the ship. This placed a massive restriction on the aircraft. The aircraft was designed to replace the CH46 Sea Knight, so the passenger and cargo requirements were a known factor, thus the amount of lift required. However, as the aircraft’s overall width was now restricted something had to give. Bell reduced the rotor disc diameter and wing span. To compensate for this, the prop-rotors were designed with a more rounded profile to generate more lift and the rotor rpm, was raised. This meant the disc loading of the aircraft substantially increased and generated a downwash similar to a Chinook.
The US Army’s future medium lift aircraft’s main requirement was that the replacement aircraft had to have a similar footprint to the Blackhawk. The V280 Valor therefore had a much laxer set of requirements. Thus the wing size and prop-rotor disc diameters are optimised for the projected weight of the aircraft, i.e. flying hot and high, with a full load of passengers and their equipment, plus armour and self defence weapons, whilst being able to cruise at 250 knots etc. The USMC have stated that they are looking at the US Army’s future medium vertical lift program, for an aircraft to replace their Hueys (UH1-Y Venoms). The Blackhawk is slightly bigger than a Huey. Bell have shown a demonstrator that includes a folding main wing and prop-rotors.
There are two main issues with the Osprey, which are cost and maintenance. The Osprey is nearly double the price of a new Model F Chinook. It’s serviceability record is not great and has only really improved in the last 5 years. The aircraft still has major issues with compressor erosion, due to recirculation when landing and taking off, as the engine air particle separators aren’t very effective. It is maintenance manpower intensive based on the US model, but is actually no worse than a Chinook. Bell have promised that the V280 will be a drastic improvement over the Osprey in both cost and maintenance requirements. Perhaps it is time, Bell looked at a newer version of the Osprey. I can definitely see the USMC looking at the Valor as their preferred option over the Defiant. Mostly down to its higher speed and longer range, which fits their Pacific model of operations.
Can a chinook perform aerial refueling? Of other craft?
The issue is that Chinook is not navalised and there is no fully navalised version of it.
Chinook isn’t set up to be a donor aircraft.
Theoretically you could use a palletised system VARS but that would need to go through an approval process. Haddon Cave put paid to improvised AAR: for good reason.
I guess you are suggesting Chinook for AAR -> F35B? I don’t know how stable the F35D would be in a flight regime that slow 180mph which would be below F35 wing alone stall speed; needs to be very stable for AAR. I would guess it would be having to use the lift fan when it is flying that slow which would wear it a lot.
Too slow for miltary fixed wing aircraft.
Why can’t we (Europe) just look at the CV22 and design and build a better one?
We have some of the greatest engineering companies in the world
Bell Boeing have already paid the upfront costs of making the first tiltrotor, let’s just stand on the shoulders and blood a better one.
STOVL carriers and helicopter landing docks are all the rage these days, there must be plenty of buyers out there?
Or maybe pinch the rotor balance trick from the Cheyenne, give it a pusher prop for speed and efficiency (the Cheyenne didn’t even need it rotors once it was flying forward fast enough.
Somebody give me a couple of grand, I’ll knock the design up in an afternoon ?
Hey, here’s an idea, we could crowdfund it, all of us armchair wing commanders can pitch in on a Kickstarter.
Why copy a US design, why not modernise a design built in the UK that was ahead of its time?
The Rotodyne concept was ahead of its time. Fairey who designed it recognised the limitations a “standard” helicopter faces, i.e. supersonic tip speed equals loss of lift which means it can’t fly any faster. The aircraft was a true compound helicopter, in that it could fly as a normal helicopter, but also when it reached a certain speed remove the drive to the main rotor completely and become an autogyro. Fairey concluded that by removing the drive, the rotors would spin at the local airspeed and thus stay outside the transonic zone. When the rotor was coupled with a wing the lift was balanced out. The thrust was provided by a pair of turboprops mounted under the wings. There was always an issue with the noise, as the rotor was spun using tip jets. However, just as the project was shut down Fairey had developed new jets that dropped the emitted noise significantly. The aircraft and its systems were all designed on paper and calculated via slide rules.
It would be easy to imagine how a modern version would turn out. Where the rotors and wing were now designed using up to date aerofoils and checked using computerized fluid dynamics. An airframe built using modern materials and a pair of new more efficient and powerful engines, all controlled using digital flight controls.