AW-609 Leonardo

[falconito]

Plane vertical takeoff

 

Takeoff from Taipei.

ICAO: RCTP.

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagallich-_bymfg_97-4-1.html

[falconito]

Arrival in Jersey by plane with vertical take-off and landing.

Business trip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Airport

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagallich-_bymfg_97-4-1.html

[falconito]

Formation flight training near Belp

https://www.bernairport.ch/fr

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aéroport_de_Berne

[falconito]

Super short takeoff from LSGG,

my favorite airport.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aéroport_international_de_Genève

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagalli.ch-_bymfg_97-0-1.html

[falconito]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militärflugplatz_Ulrichen

Take off from Ulrichen, direction the Alps

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagalli.ch-_bymfg_97-0-1.html

[falconito]

Departure from LSGG, bridges control mission.

First bridge:

Pont du Mont-Blanc Geneva.

 

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ponts_du_canton_de_Genève

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagalli.ch-_bymfg_97-0-1.html

 

• 
   

[falconito]

Departure from KNEW, bridges control mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakefront_Airport

 

Vertical take-off

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Pontchartrain_Causeway

 

https://store.flightsim.com/pizzagalli.ch-_bymfg_97-0-1.html

[Rupert]

Sweet Shots!  Having said that, RW the spate of OSPREY incidents has put me off the swing motors, and props process.

[Lazerson]

2 hours ago, Rupert said:

Sweet Shots!  Having said that, RW the spate of OSPREY incidents has put me off the swing motors, and props process.

They've just been un-grounded. I saw one in the air for the first time since the last crash yesterday.

[Rupert]

2 hours ago, Lazerson said:

They've just been un-grounded. I saw one in the air for the first time since the last crash yesterday.

Makes me glad I'm not flying in the Corps today!  I'd rather chance my life in an inverted flying observation chopper, yes they tried to sell the Corps on a model of chopper that did exactly that in the 1960's and I was a passenger once on s demo flight, than an Osprey.

[PhrogPhlyer]

Let me be clear, I love the concept, but despise the aircraft.

I saw the XV-15 demonstrated at MCAS Tustin in the mid-80's.

I asked a simple question of the Boeing engineer standing next to me, 'What happens when the sprag clutch fails?', he said, 'It can't happen.'

Several of the V-22 incidents, including the latest, that have killed many service members, are from either a hard clutch engagement or failure (with nacelle fire).

And they have no idea WHY it happens.

Yup... "It Can't Happen!"

 

Wait until the 609 starts to kill civilians, THEN people will take notice.

[ViperPilot2]

I didn't know someone made one for Civil Aviation. Yikes!

 

I ain't flown mine in a while...

[Lazerson]

25 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Let me be clear, I love the concept, but despise the aircraft.

I saw the XV-15 demonstrated at MCAS Tustin in the mid-80's.

I asked a simple question of the Boeing engineer standing next to me, 'What happens when the sprag clutch fails?', he said, 'It can't happen.'

Several of the V-22 incidents, including the latest, that have killed many service members, are from either a hard clutch engagement or failure (with nacelle fire).

And they have no idea WHY it happens.

Yup... "It Can't Happen!"

 

Wait until the 609 starts to kill civilians, THEN people will take notice.

I always think about the 30 (THIRTY!) people, test pilots and crew, killed just during testing! Insane.

[Sirrus]

28 minutes ago, Lazerson said:

I always think about the 30 (THIRTY!) people, test pilots and crew, killed just during testing

Can you clarify this, please?

Leonardo have only lost two test pilots in the crash of N609AG according to the Aviation Safety Network. 

 

 

[Lazerson]

3 minutes ago, Sirrus said:

Can you clarify this, please?

Leonardo have only lost two test pilots in the crash of N609AG according to the Aviation Safety Network. 

 

 

I was talking about the Osprey, sorry for the confusion

[Sirrus]

18 minutes ago, Lazerson said:

I was talking about the Osprey

Ah, Boeing, these were the airplane builders that killed 346 people after they tested and certified the 737 MAX 8.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

17 minutes ago, Sirrus said:

737 MAX 8

Comparing the commercial 737 side of Boeing to the military V-22 is like comparing apples to oranges.

I agree, I have lost faith in Boeing commercial operations.

The issue with the V-22 is not QC or maintenance or corporate culture, it is design.

The ability to transfer power between nacelles with an engine loss is the same with the V-22 and the AW-609.

In 1996 Bell and Boeing formed a partnership to develop a civil tiltrotor aircraft. In March 1998, Boeing pulled out of the project. In September 1998, Agusta became a partner in the development program.

Boeing Vertol became Boeing Helicopter became Bell Boeing became Agusta Bell became Agusta Westland became Leonardo. All SOLID rotary wing focused companies.

The AW-609 started as a Bell Boeing design, and has been handed down with corporate partnerships.

So the 737 and the V-22/AW-609 have no connection other than the name Boeing in 1996.

 

[Sirrus]

9 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

it is design

Like introducing a flawed system to apply trim in the 737, like having lithium battery fires in the 787, like having a fuel system in the KC-46 that "leaks like a sieve"...

Poor design is related to corporate culture. The decisions made at the top trickle down to the shop floor, to the assembly line and to the design office.

Just having some say "it can't happen" when it regularly does happen, is a reflection of an attitude that comes from the boardroom, not just poor design work.

And the V-22? The downdraught is horrendous, the noise it makes is appalling and it's just too, too complicated. No wonder nobody else wants it.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

 

20 minutes ago, Sirrus said:

The downdraught is horrendous, the noise it makes is appalling and it's just too, too complicated.

I know, let's make a civilian version!

 

20 minutes ago, Sirrus said:

too complicated

Like the A-320?

 

CVR:

First officer: "TO/GA power! Go-around track!"

Followed by:

Cockpit area microphone (CAM): (increase in engine speed)

CAM: (noises of impact with treetops)

Captain: "Oh sh*t!"

END OF TAPE

 

The crew applied full power and attempted to climb. However, the elevators did not respond to the pilot's commands because the A320's computer system engaged its "alpha protection" mode (meant to prevent the aircraft from entering a stall). Less than five seconds later, the turbines began ingesting leaves and branches as the aircraft skimmed the tops of the trees. The combustion chambers clogged and the engines failed. The aircraft fell to the ground.[4]

Traditionally, pilots respect the inherent dangers of flying at low speeds at low altitudes, and normally, a pilot would not attempt to fly an aircraft so close to stalling with the engines at flight idle (minimum thrust setting in flight). In this instance, however, the pilots involved did not hesitate to fly the aircraft below its normal minimum flying speed because the purpose of the flyover was to demonstrate that the aircraft's computer systems would ensure that lift would always be available regardless of how the pilots handled the controls.

 

 

 

 

[jgf]

2 hours ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Yup... "It Can't Happen!"

 

Have engineering schools stopped teaching Murphy's Law

[ViperPilot2]

Personally, it's all about the Balance Sheet/the Suits, Skirts and Power Pantsuits in the Boardroom. They read or see some big Airline made a big deal with Airbus, and they have a collective conniption fit. That sense of panic filters down the entire structure of the company; everyone feels the pressure from above, multiplying as it gets lower on down to the Assembly Line. Everyone is in panic mode. Get the Frames sold, and move 'em out. Spirit Aerosystems is pumping out Fuselages just like Play-doh through a mold...

 

if I had to travel in the US, the last mode I'd choose would be to Fly. Overseas... hard no, period. That's like a Federation Starship without Warp Drive or Shields moving through Dominion territory at ½ Impulse Power.

[PhrogPhlyer]

Interesting that 3 of the 5 best safest commercial airliners by crash rate per million flights is the 737. And 3 of 5 are Boeings.

 

The Max, which is a new model, suffers statistically with a high rate due to lower number of total flights.

The devil of statistics is always in the denominator.

1. 0.03 - Embraer 170/190
2. 0.06 - Boeing 747-400
3. 0.07 - Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 (737NG)
4. 0.08 - Airbus A320 (includes A318, A319, A321)
5. 0.14 - Boeing 737-300/400/500

[Sirrus]

39 minutes ago, ViperPilot2 said:

it's all about the Balance Sheet/the Suits, Skirts and Power Pantsuits in the Boardroom

Very, very true. In both Boeing and Airbus the direction of travel comes from the top. 

Personally, I would like to see less accountants and more engineers in boardrooms. Companies make better "stuff" with engineers at the helm, Henry Royce and the Merlin, William Lyons and the E-type Jaguar,  as well as Enzo Ferrari and Henry Ford at their respective companies.

8 minutes ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

• 0.06 - Boeing 747-400
• 0.07 - Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 (737NG)
• 0.08 - Airbus A320 (includes A318, A319, A321)
• 0.14 - Boeing 737-300/400/500

I've flown quite happily on all the above types, spending ten years crossing the Atlantic, usually in a 747.

I want Boeing to be successful, I do not want Airbus to be my only option in airliners, so they have to clean up their mistakes (of which V-22 may be one) and get back to making great aeroplanes again.

And... if an aircraft kills 30 people in testing, and then a similar machine kills its test pilots, then perhaps, just perhaps we should look again at tilt-rotor technology. Maybe the idea is ahead of the engineering that makes it work.

 

 

[ViperPilot2]

2 hours ago, PhrogPhlyer said:

Interesting that 3 of the 5 best safest commercial airliners by crash rate per million flights is the 737. And 3 of 5 are Boeings.

 

The Max, which is a new model, suffers statistically with a high rate due to lower number of total flights.

The devil of statistics is always in the denominator.

1. 0.03 - Embraer 170/190
2. 0.06 - Boeing 747-400
3. 0.07 - Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 (737NG)
4. 0.08 - Airbus A320 (includes A318, A319, A321)
5. 0.14 - Boeing 737-300/400/500

 

And the recent "incidents" with UAL recently (wheel coming off, panel coming off, etc.) are not reflective of Boeing, but I would be querying UAL as to the nature of the mishaps.

[jgf]

2 hours ago, Sirrus said:

less accountants and more engineers in boardrooms.

 

Only works if the engineer is also the company head.  Otherwise they are looked on by those boardroom bumblers as glorified mechanics.  (At the ripe old age of 25 I found myself VP of Engineering for Western Electric.   Was quite proud of myself ...and came to loathe that job with a passion.  Couldn't have been happier when my contract expired.)

 

2 hours ago, Sirrus said:

the idea is ahead of the engineering that makes it work.

 

This has been true for ages.  People have thought of many things where it was years, or even centuries, before the technology existed to implement those thoughts.

Steam power was first demonstrated nearly 2000 years ago;  it took 1800 years for someone to build a practical steam engine.  The first submarine was demonstrated in the 1770s, 150 years later submarines were practical.  With the geometric expansion of technology today we are bound to have some developments hitting the market before they are "ready for prime time".  I've heard it said you must  be the first, the best, or the cheapest, otherwise you're a footnote.

On a personal note, some of my income is still from two proprietary patents;  the circuits were developed back in the 1920s, I made them work in the 1970s.