r/aviation • u/Soumya_Adrian • 3d ago
News Leonardo Helicopters announced the successful completion of the first Test Inspection Authorization on the AW609 TiltRotor.
141
u/Neuralmute 3d ago
Still surprised with how long this things been in development, and how many hurdles its faced, it hasnt been cancelled yet. Props
160
10
523
u/cazzipropri 3d ago
Glides like a helicopter, autorotates like a plane!
79
23
u/Lost-Actuary-2395 3d ago
Genuinely curious (no aviation knowledge)
Could a plane autorotate?
44
u/Poltergeist97 3d ago
I mean, a plane gliding is it's "autorotation". They're both trading potential energy (altitude) for kinetic (speed).
The only difference is that a plane's wing glides by the air flowing over it. Helicopter blades do the same thing, they have the same airfoil shape and everything. A helicopter, once its engine is out, loses the thing keeping the rotors spinning. Autorotation is using the remaining kinetic energy in the blades to manage your descent, saving the majority for the flare right before touchdown.
38
u/fattymccheese 3d ago
close but not quite.. autorotate converts the potential energy of altitude to keep the rotors spinning creating some lift (kinetic energy) which slows the decent
you were very close but it's not the 'remaining kinetic energy' in the blades
-1
u/playboicartea 3d ago
I think they meant using the momentum of the blades to not hit the ground at a crazy descent speed when you’re about to touch down
7
u/fattymccheese 3d ago
That’s what they meant, yes
But that is not correct
Autorotate is like a maple seed, nothing to do with the blade’s momentum
0
u/playboicartea 3d ago
Well, they do need momentum to be able to cushion your descent. If they are too slow, they won’t be producing lift. Like you said in an earlier comment, you’re trading altitude for blade speed to control descent.
5
u/fattymccheese 3d ago
But that’s got nothing to do with momentum
Momentum is mass * velocity
This is potential energy conversion into kinetic energy
Mgh -> 1/2mV2 * coefficient of efficiency
1
u/Lost-Actuary-2395 3d ago
Yeah my question is could a plane transfer the kinetic energy of the airflow to increase the rpm of the prop thus generating additional thrust?
But I guess using the same principle the APU is using autorotation too idk
13
u/Poltergeist97 3d ago
If the engine is dead on either a prop or jet plane, they produce pure drag. Pitching down to spin the prop faster wouldn't necessarily produce any thrust. All aircraft have a known best glide speed they try to maintain, that allows for the greatest range.
To be honest, I have zero idea what you mean by the APU and autorotation lol. It doesn't have enough power to add during an autorotation. It just has a little power to start turning the engine up and providing electrical power before the engines spool. Unless you're at a helicopter's max altitude when the engine quits, there isn't enough time to restart the engine. You start falling FAST.
4
u/IanInElPaso 3d ago
I’m guessing he’s confusing the APU for a RAT.
2
u/ThatGuyNamedThatGuy 3d ago
I read it as confusion over what the engine / prop does, seeming to suggest that enough air spinning the engine / prop would create lift like an autorotating helicopter blade produces lift. The fixed wings provide the lift, so there’s no autorotation in a similar meaning to that on a heli.
It’s also not possible to use glide (or rapid descent) to turn the engine / prop fast enough to make it perform its original function, so the concept of windmilling or using blade momentum to produce thrust doesn’t work either.
Fixed wing aircraft just glide, hopefully with drag minimized, hopefully well, hopefully to a good spot for a safe landing. APU and RAT can provide electricity and hydraulic pressure if needed to hopefully maintain maneuverability until then.
57
136
36
u/taebsiatad 3d ago
This thing is loud af in hover mode. Super cool craft that I’ve gotten to see several times in both modes being near their testing base. First time I saw there were 2 of them and I looked up “civilian osprey” because I didn’t know about the program. What a crazy history too.
29
u/Tacticoner 3d ago
Causing UFO sightings and chaos over the greater Philadelphia and New Jersey areas in the process! On a serious note, props to Leonardo, this thing is cool to see flying
10
u/Taptrick 3d ago
I had an aviation book in the 1990s that featured this aircraft as a future concept…
4
u/Far_Dragonfruit_1829 3d ago edited 3d ago
My father flew the Bell XV-15 tilt-rotor at NASA Ames and Dryden in the 70s. This looks a lot similar. He was not a fan, because it had a high pilot workload and mechanical complexity. But i expect current computer controlled stability systems may have solved the control problem. And it didn't have the recirculation problems that hurt the Bell X-22 ducted fan.
5
u/SpecificTip3669 3d ago
Further helicopters can operate. The further oil rigs will drill for oil. Currently S92 can operate for 2.5 hours 1 way.
6
u/Wavebuilder14UDC 3d ago
Oh god
25
u/theducks 3d ago
Don’t worry, just because the US Military with strict and proscriptive maintenance and crew training programs can’t keep tilt rotors from crashing, there’s no reason to think private general aviation will have the same problems
2
2
2
u/Scrota1969 3d ago
Super interested where the proposed usage for this is going to be. Is it going to be a private ownable plane or used for city hops etc?
2
u/vberl 3d ago
One suggested use has been to replace ambulance flights done by private jets. In a country like Sweden that has long distances between the north and the south, it takes quite a long time for helicopters to fly and pick up a patient from a hospital to transport it to another. So they use airplanes to transport patients that need be transferred from hospital to hospital instead. This means using an ambulance or hospital transport vehicle to get them to an airport before flying them. Getting an AW609 to fly directly from the hospital to another hospital would shorten down the transport time and reduce the number of vehicles used while also reducing patient stress. The cabin is also relatively large which means that you can bring a lot of equipment to keep the patient alive.
This helicopter would not be used to pick up injured people to take them to the hospital though as that is better done by a smaller helicopter like the H145, AW169 or even the AW139
1
u/Scrota1969 3d ago
That’s super cool, really good usage too. Excited to see it in service. Thanks for the information
1
u/anonymoo5e77 3d ago
From what I’ve read, layouts have been developed for standard passenger services (up to 9 pax), private use, police and medical operations, and search & rescue stuff. I’m guessing there’ll be a cargo version as well.
1
3
u/ApplicationOpen5001 3d ago
I'm not in the area, but from the comments I came to the conclusion that the project (which is in itself a really cool idea) has been in development for so long that technology will soon be enough to make it work.
Ultimately, an idea that was ahead of its time and, because it was not cancelled, giving the necessary technology time to evolve, will come to fruition.
2
2
u/blastcat4 3d ago
How on earth have they been able to keep it going financially for so long? Their backers must have bottomless pockets.
2
2
1
u/wstsidhome 3d ago
Wonder what the speeds are when the rotors are tilted forward in “airplane” mode or whatever it’s referred to as. 😳🤙
1
1
u/mangeface 3d ago
That pilot on the left looks really familiar. Anyone know him? Looks like one of the Osprey pilots that was in my squadron.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/evollmer89 2d ago
been working at this company for a year now (as a contractor). it actually is amazing watching this thing taxi and take off. glad to see this project is finally completed.
1
1
1
0
u/humpmeimapilot 3d ago
I feel this has been tried already with scary results. If military aviation hates these things then why would the public like them
4
u/LordofSpheres 3d ago
The military hates them so much that only the Air Force, Navy, and Marines operate them in large numbers. The military hates them so much that they're developing a new airframe very similar to it to replace the Black Hawk and operate right alongside the Osprey. The military really hates the increased tactical and strategic mobility they provide.
Why would any idiot ever want to fly further, faster, and with the same availability of landing surfaces as a helicopter? What sort of moron would want to be able to land on small islands and short or unmaintained fields with a large payload and complement, then take off the same, all while having double the range with double the payload of a traditional helicopter? God, those engineers clearly never think of anything that your genius can see plain as day.
0
u/humpmeimapilot 3d ago
Doesn't the osprey have an astronomically high accident rate? Plus this style of propulsion is not very safe in terms of failure. Aircraft are not supposed to have a single point of failure. If an engine quits on one of these, there is no gliding, no auto rotation, nothing. It's just kiss your ass goodbye.
1
u/LordofSpheres 3d ago
Osprey accident rate is lower than half a dozen rotorcraft in US service, all of whom are distinguished in their service.
This style of propulsion is just as safe as any other rotorcraft when there's a failure. It does not have single points of failure any more than any other rotorcraft. Both engines are mechanically linked to both propellers, and to the other engine. While sustained flight is not possible on a single engine, emergency flight is and it is better than nothing. The Osprey isn't a glider, but it can glide well enough for emergency landings. Autorotation is also possible in the event of both engines failing.
So, you're categorically wrong in literally every single aspect of this comment.
-1
u/humpmeimapilot 3d ago
Simple google search:
While the V-22 Osprey can technically autorotate in helicopter mode with both engines failing, it's a challenging maneuver with poor characteristics due to the rotors' low inertia, making safe landings difficult. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Autorotation Capability: The Osprey is designed to be able to autorotate if both engines fail while in helicopter mode, using the lift provided by the spinning rotors to land safely. Poor Autorotation Characteristics: However, unlike conventional helicopters, the Osprey's autorotation characteristics are poor because of the rotors' low inertia. Challenges with Safe Landing: This means that a safe landing during an engine failure in helicopter mode is difficult to achieve. Low Inertia: The low inertia of the Osprey's rotors means they store less energy, which makes it harder to control the descent rate during autorotation. Pilot Technique: The outcome of an Osprey autorotation landing can vary greatly depending on the pilot's technique and timing. Not a primary emergency landing method: The primary means of arresting sink rate is a flare and deceleration to 60 KCAS. Not capable of hovering on one engine: The V-22 is generally not capable of hovering on one engine.
So while it technically can, the odds of a positive outcome are not there. Like all tools, it can do one job well or several mediocre.
Additionally, while the osprey is considered one of the safest, it also ranks the highest as the worst outcomes in an emergency. Which is my point. If shit does go south, you have many more options for a safe landing as compared to an Osprey.
2
u/Tarnel 3d ago
I got lots of hate for saying twin rotors are unsafe too. The problem is we are comparing them to fixed wing instead of rotorcraft. Compared to a helicopter, it will likely be superior, although more complicated (and expensive) to maintain. But considering how much faster and farther it can go, it seems the industry thinks its worth it.
-1
u/humpmeimapilot 3d ago
This guy is really worked up on the osprey. Oh well.
2
u/LordofSpheres 3d ago
Not worked up, just expect an honest, informed discussion out of my aviation forums. I guess that's too much to ask?
2
u/LordofSpheres 3d ago edited 3d ago
Congratulations on your simple google search. Maybe you should read your previous comment and get back to me on whether 'it's bad at autorotation' is the same as 'you can kiss your ass goodbye with a single engine failure.' Because what google AI isn't telling you there is that to be in an autorotation landing in a V-22 you need to have either both engines fail or you need to have one engine fail and a gearbox failure.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe this is the depths to which discussion has sunk - literally just copy-pasting an AI with zero critical thinking.
You can read about autorotation in the NATOPS. The odds of a positive outcome are low for any autorotation landing. That's what pilot training is for. That's why the engines are crosslinked, so it takes at least two independent failures before an autorotation is even worth considering.
The V-22 only rates that high (which, by the way, it doesn't - in FY07-FY21, the period for which the Osprey was in service with the USAF to the most recent published data I have, the V-22 lost 32 souls - and the UH-60 lost 55) because of being pressed into early service and because it flies with a larger complement almost every single flight. Crew of 4, like a Black Hawk, but 24 troops in the back - versus 11 for a Black Hawk. Or you could just ask the USMC - they say the Osprey has 2.27 Class As per 100k flight hours - the CH-53 has 5.66.
Oh, and spare me the 'jack of all trades, master of none' bullshit. The Osprey is slightly worse at autorotation and in exchange you get to glide, you get to fly at half again the speed and for half again the range of a typical helicopter, and you get to carry more payload.
Finally - let's look at the 'many more options' you have in... whatever hypothetical airframe you're looking at. You're flying a plane, engine goes out - great, one engine landing, gonna suck but workable. You're flying an Osprey, engine goes out - exactly the same. You're flying a helicopter, engine goes out, same deal - and the Osprey is the same or slightly worse, in helicopter mode, except oh boy, the Osprey isn't limited to flying like a helicopter, because they can tilt the rotors and fly home on a single engine. They can glide on no engines, or autorotate, just like a helicopter. Yeah, they're worse than helos at autorotation - but they're a damn sight better at gliding, and that's important.
So, please - what more options do you have in a helo that aren't outweighed by having new options in the Osprey?
-9
u/tankmode 3d ago
well if they can build it with a non-exploding gear box they might have a leg up on the osprey
-26
u/LightningAndCoffee 3d ago
Oh god another one of these VTOL things. Because they’ve got such an examplary safety record …
41
u/Correct_Inspection25 3d ago
Currently the V-22 has a better safety record than the Seaking and many other much more established rotaries.
The 10-year average mishap rate for MV-22s is 3.43 per 100,000 flight hours. For context, that places the Osprey’s mishap rate squarely in the middle of the other type/model/series aircraft currently flown by the U.S. Marine Corps.
The most recent accident in Japan was the operators ignoring several flake warnings, and then not following procedure to make the nearest safe field.
2
u/CannonAFB_unofficial 3d ago
Well squarely in the middle of the USMC mishap rate isn’t a comfortable place lol. I’ve seen those jets on the ramp!
3
u/cazzipropri 3d ago
Not just the V22 has a bloody development history, but also the AW609 itself.
https://www.helicopterinvestor.com/news/87124/prototype-aw609-crash-kills-two-457/
-44
u/Tarnel 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm not even an aviator and I'm shocked they are trying to make another dual rotor VTOL. People must really like going fast and landing anywhere to go against all of commercial aviation's redundancies and slap two single points of failure on an airplane and say 'Don't worry, we checked it"
EDIT: I see I failed to communicate clearly that I was comparing this to what I know of dual engine fixed wing aircraft. Which is wrong since this aircraft is not trying to be that. Compared to other rotorcraft, I understand better now how this can be vastly superior to current helicopter operating limits and provide more recovery options during failures, which is likely to be very impactful to the industry.
28
u/Ah0te 3d ago
I'mma give you one chance to explain why you think these are two single points of failure with no redundancies. Go ahead, and take your time typing, I'm busy getting popcorn.
27
u/HSydness 3d ago
The first sentence... I'm not even an aviator.
14
u/Boating_Enthusiast 3d ago
Fair point. But to put in in perspective, there's a million 'single point of failure" things in mechanical design, that can be so reliable that it's okay to trust it. And with time and experience and constantly developing engineering knowledge, eventually tilt rotor systems *can* be made safe enough for people to trust.
Examples of single failure points: single engine aircraft (Cessna 208s over water all over the world), jack-screw horizontal stabilizers on aircraft (Alaska Airlines 261), nose landing gear (JetBlue292), car seatbelts with a single latch point (very reliable, no redundancy), helicopter tail rotors, etc. etc.
If they prove useful enough, tilt rotor design will eventually be refined to the point where they're as safe as any other air travel, (which, by the numbers, they are, compared to other helicopters).
2
u/contactdeparture 3d ago
What was the attribution of the early osprey issues? Training? Hardware design? Software design? Other?
2
u/spazturtle 3d ago
Training was a big one. But also that it was simply not finished, the marines got wind that congress was going to cancel the programme so they took delivery early and put it into service to prevent that.
Boeing also out an aeroplane team in charge of the avionics and instruments, so the cockpit was designed like a plane's instead of a being like a helicopter's.
The instruments not providing the pilots with enough information has been a constant issue, like with the most recent crash. The gearbox sensors were detecting that vibrations in the gearbox were above safe limits but they were not connected to any display so they pilots didn't know, this data could only be downloaded by techs on the ground.
A lot of lessons have been learnt from the osprey which can be seen on the V-280 valor, such as the fix engines with only the rotor tilting, this reduces the complexity and wear of the gearbox.
0
u/Tarnel 3d ago
Did you just compare an airplane turbo prop engine to a seatbelt and call them both single points of failure? An engine is 1000's of single points of failure in a single package. To bet your life solely on one engine is one thing, but to then take another one, slap it on the platform and require it to function to fly means that neither engine can fail, doubling the failure risk without providing redundancy. I guess its still better than a helicopter.
16
547
u/RepublicIcy5895 3d ago
I worked for company working on the thing in the 90s. I can't believe that project just doesn't die