I hope that’s sarcasm bc tilt rotor aircrafts don’t look right or natural to me lol

Nope. Can you say VRS and destroying anything within 1000 feet with its rotor wash?

I'm an old pilot. It looks bad. It will kill a lot of people.

@@Chris.Davies Only a few at a time. Still thousands of times safer than using suborbital rockets for point to point global travel as some people are suggesting.

@@Chris.Davies Well, let's see if this aged well in the next few years

That's the nice new modern world ...

What about a sex change? That's pretty awesome too!

@@siphotheguy1870 lol no thanks

@@siphotheguy1870 Lmao no thank you

I agree, but cost and running costs? Apart from speed, does it compete with a similar helicopter?

@@malcolmabram2957: A tiltrotor will never be as good at hovering as a helicopter, nor as efficient as an airplane when flying horizontally, but like any hybrid design, it's not expected to. If you need to move point-to-point within a couple hundred miles at speeds up to 130 mph, you get a helicopter for a couple million dollars. If you need to get from airport-to-airport within several hundred miles at speeds up to 200 mph, you get a single engine propeller airplane for $50,000+. If you need to get from airport-to-airport within 1,500 miles at speeds up to 400 mph, you get a light private jet for several million dollars. If you want to go point-to-point within several hundred miles at speeds up to 300 mph, you get an AW609 for $20 million+. This gives it the speed and range comparable to turboprops but able to skip airports altogether. You could go from a rooftop or parking lot in New York to another in Chicago (or San Francisco to Seattle) nonstop with an ample fuel reserve and get there faster than someone taking a car or helicopter to an airport, taking a jet to another airport, then another car or helicopter to the destination. A tiltrotor is perfect for things like search and rescue, taking people to offshore oil platforms, delivering cargo between ships at sea, emergency response, and regional executive transport. Note: The launch of a civilian version of the V-280 Valor that uses a newer tiltrotor system is anticipated soon.

They made stupid design choice too, only the blades needed to tilt 90 degrees not the entire engine along with blades.

@@homijbhabha8860 what?

@@JAnx01 just look up the bell valor helicopter, they made a better version.

@@homijbhabha8860 Correctomundo.

@@homijbhabha8860 What's the downside to having the entire engine tilted instead of just the blades, and maybe also what's the advantage compared to only tilting the blades.

It's a mediocre helicopter that transforms into a mediocre airplane. That's the problem with tiltrotors they have to compromise between disk loading in hover and prop drag in forward flight and there is no way around that. Helicopters will always be more efficient in hover and airplanes will always be more efficient in flight. And any development in engines or prop design will also be applicable to helicopters and airplanes which will always keep them ahead.

@@atomicskull6405 uhh what about being faster than helicopter but being able to land anywhere ?. Look i know they suck at loiter time, maintenance and cost but theres the pro's at least.

@@atomicskull6405 You totally missed the point of tiltrotors.

@@TFT-bp8zk I'm sure there is something you are interested in but will never be able to participate in yourself... lame question.

@@TFT-bp8zk Like watching the olympics or any world cup, or following the space program, or being interested in anything not related to what you do in your life. Why are you commenting a video on an helicopter you're never going to fly on or in or whatever?

You forgot the Breville BBL620

@@TFT-bp8zk Why do you look at women?

Glad you enjoyed it Thanks for watching!

How much money do you have in your account?

737 Max

Most applicants run ODAs now with the FAA providing oversight. The FAA doesn't have the manpower, so it works for both sides. That doesn't make for good PR though, so they don't advertise it.

You seem to overlook this is a completely new class of air vehicle. The FAA is basically working from scratch.

@@WALTERBROADDUS True, but a similar and much more complex aircraft has been safely flying for some time. Not knocking the positive work going on there at the FAA, but seems a bit sluggish. This is the kind of thing that bankrupts a company going through those hoops and kills innovation.

@@batmojuice5704 Helicopters had the same issue 80 years ago. Military flight and civil flight have different regs. The change in companies slowed things too. They call D.C. a swamp for a reason....

Gliding is safer than autorotate, especially with light rotors which don't hold much energy.

Read the wiki before. It have common driveshaft and autorotation.

@@nicklaich I can't see which was the wiki before. The two sets of props surely must either be driven together, or autorotate together. tail is too small for tail to resist force of of power to only one engine.

@@peteregan3862 Your ideas don't really make sense or are needed.

I think you should shut up a single prop in the middle? Sounds dumb.

No more noise than anything else. Nor is the maintenance special.

No it wouldn't because if you thought maintenance costs where eyebrow raising for conventional helicopters then this thing wold make you run for the hills.

lol

You mean 500 ft/minute, not second. No aircraft descends at 500 ft per second.

The 46 is never going to have the speed, range, or altitude.

@@WALTERBROADDUS Not to mention they were old and getting very expensive to maintain.

@@JustaPilot1 I don't get the negative Nancy's comments on tilt rotors? Half have no clue about engineering or aerospace. The other know only myth and rumor.....

@@WALTERBROADDUS This ^^^ all of this. You are correct. Most of what they believe is, as you said, myth and rumor with a side order of silly conspiracy theories. I hear it at all levels of aviation from General Aviation, where I'm at, to space flight.

Considering they're already at the production level, your concerns are misplaced.

@@WALTERBROADDUS Are you sure it went into production? Or are you launching fake news like the Covid19 pandemic? :))

@@liviubivolan7352 The video stated they have built 4 and are opening a building for the full production separate from the chopper projects.

If you are paying $300 per hour per passenger for oil rig workers to commute two hours to an offshore rig this looks very attractive. A number of offshore facilities being planned are also out of helicopter range at the moment (I know of one where a runway on the top deck was planned to handle 737’s).

@@allangibson2408 Okay, that makes sense, but a plane like this, with a long development history, and something that is much more complicated than a helicopter or plane, has to have a broader market in mind than just off shore oil rig workers(?)

@@jameskwon7617 Offshore oil rigs are the biggest users of helicopters (and a number of developments are pushing their limits). Basically oil companies have money and would buy a couple of hundred tomorrow if they were available. That’s who Bristow (the launch customer) serve.

@@allangibson2408 Didn't know that. Good bit of information. My guess is that the current landing platforms may need to be modified and new ones redesigned. The heat generated by the turboprops can melt regular asphalt. Also, the footprint of a tiltrotor is larger because of the wingspan. I'm assuming the platforms would have to be resized to accommodate this and for safety reasons when boarding and disembarking.

@@jameskwon7617 The offshore helipads are already vented and the helicopters overhang them already (having the engines overhang the sides would actually be safer).

Rotors are connected. If an engine fails, both rotors keep turning.

@@rubentorrespina9188 thats cool thanks RTP

It would've replace the CH-47 and CH-53.

Tilt rotors are faster than conventional helicopters. For certain operators that speed is worth paying for.

Basically it offers a longer range higher speed civil V/STOL. Thing people forget is Helicopter flight is not fun and games. Choppers place a toll on the flight crew and passengers compared to fixed wing most chopper flights don’t last over an hour it’s just to taxing. These don’t do that as the fixed wing is smoother, more fuel efficient and as both insulated and pressurized more able vs even V22 to operate at max altitude. For a VVIP in example it means that they can hop a AW609 at a helicopter pad at say a office, palace or site and fly directly to destination without need of landing at an airport and switching unless the destination is intercontinental. Where for such a costumer the Helicopter would be a Taxi cab this becomes a middle range option. For flying ambulance it drops flight times and offers the legs to get to a better hospital. For Search and Rescue you have longer range more ability to search over a wider reach and get back to refuel. For Off shore drilling you can fly the humans to destination farther and faster.

@@terranempire2 OK ok.. Makes more sense. Def a niche market but a market nonetheless. Someone has to fill it

@@dawsonj7016 It's not a niche market. It makes the helicopter the niche market as only heavy lift or very small helicopters will have a niche. This can replace most other uses in the large helicopter market and is especially useful for SAR and Medi work. It replaces two aircraft or types of transport for one trip objective with it's long range and speed direct to the landing pad capability.

It can out fly any helicopter. Has better speed , better range and altitude.

I never met a Marine or AFSOC V-22 pilot who said that. They felt a really great aircraft to fly.

I think that may have been it has taken a while

Everything that was ground-breaking had setbacks and losses. You don't improve by avoiding.

....the Navy/Marines had a lot of Deaths also 🤨 ...because of poor testing and operating procedures, Pentagon bloated bureaucracy, and because they were trying to ramming the development of the tilt rotor concept prematurely 🤔

@@Texaca I definitely don't disagree with you.

@@Texaca V-22 has least deaths of any US military helicopter.

Who gives a f*ck, you won't be able to afford this thing anyway 🙄😒

Which will likely be passed over for the coaxial helicopter competitor because the army wants a utility heli and gunship based on the same parts inventory like the USMC's Hueys and Snakes (the UH-1 and AH-1 are basically the same helicopter from the rotor back) and the key west agreements bars the Army from having armed fixed wings. The last time the US Army tried a hybrid with the AH-56 Cheyenne the USAF ended up lobbying against it because they felt that despite the rotor the pusher prop and stub wings made it an airplane and poached on their close air support mission (which it kinda did). The AH-56 was one of the most capable attack helicopters ever designed but in the end politics killed it.

No. This a civil aircraft. Bell And Boeing have the Military market.

Understand here, your inventing an entirely new FAA class.

Also poor safety records of v22 osprey will be a hurdle for it's success.

@@tweetteet2786 Bell has proposed a new tilt rotor that would only rotate the prop rotor hubs, not the entire engine. Since Leonardo basically redesigned the 609, I’m a bit surprised they didn’t change to just rotating the prop rotor hubs.

@@tweetteet2786 that was when the tech ws being fleshed out, the perception is still there

@@tweetteet2786 The V-22 has an excellent safety record today.

Unless we go all out on nuclear, fossil fuels will power the world indefinitely. Meme energy doesn't work.

Wikipedia: "In the event of a single engine failure, either engine can provide power to both proprotors via a drive shaft; the AW609 is also capable of autorotation."

@@timmurphy5541 thanks

It's no more likely than your average Cessna twin engine to have that issue.

It’s connected by shaft

The Engines are not big.

The props are connected by shaft

There is no issue

Had a conversation will an engineer about tilt-rotor auto rotation. Long story short is they can auto rotate and it has been demonstrated. However, the conclusion during development was that gliding to a crash landing is more feasible and safer in most conditions thus auto rotate is not taught as SOP for tilt-rotors.

It would probably glide as well as it auto rotates.

From wikipedia, with quotes: In early summer 2014, the AW609 performed FAA-monitored autorotation tests; more than 79[32] power-off conversions from airplane mode to helicopter mode were made across 10 flight hours; during these tests it was stated that the minimum autorotation altitude is 3,000 ft (910 m), and that the system keeps rotor rpm above the minimum 70% for stable recovery.[51] The test pilots subsequently received the Iven C. Kincheloe Award for their role in the tests.

This obsession with autorotation is a false one. It rarely comes in play. And it has a fixed wing for lift.

@@WALTERBROADDUS A statement like that would be backed up by a degree in aerodynamics. or a rotary wing rating ?

I think there's a power shaft in the wing that runs between both engines, so the plane can fly okay with either one of the engines running. It would be pretty exciting to say the least.

@@tobuslieven some pax might worry. It’d be a massive torque load resulting in order to keep level and or straight. No thanks.

@@davidpearn5925 There's no torque on the aircraft, as both rotors will be powered and spinning with either engine running. Still seems a bit iffy though.

@@tobuslieven yeah of course. Just so long as there is no transmission linkage problem to start with, but still no thanks.

@@davidpearn5925 Lol, yeah.

The purpose? Civil transport, air ambulance, oil rig support, Etc. It does everything a twin engine aircraft medium-range can do with vertical takeoff capability.You can avoid need to use busy airports to smaller ones. Fly faster than any helicopter can. Better range too.

@@WALTERBROADDUS Yes I've been thinking about it... as a replacement for a chopper... dam good come to think of it... :)

The engines are connected through each other

No, most turboprop have the same ceiling.

@@Mediiiicc apparently in order to get certified above 25,000 ft an aircraft needs passenger oxygen masks.

The big rotors limit the speed somewhat, as they need a relatively low angle of attack on the air to generate thrust efficiently. That means the tips end up supersonic when going quite slowly compared to other turboprops, and that is bad. The low airspeed means low lift, which means low ceiling. The certification about that has requirements, but I would think the main reason to not meet those requirements is that you couldn't get a ceiling much above that anyway.