JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

[Avimimus]

Regarding the 170kt AVX variant:

How is it ductedless fanless? I'd assumed that the AVX efficiencies were based on using the rotor for lowspeed lift and the fans for rotational control / propulsion once velocity was achieved. I could see smaller ducted fans... but would the 170kt version just be a co-axial helicopter?

 

[flateric]

http://hamaweb.org/presentations/2012/May2012WilliamLewis.pdf
https://ucsarchitecture.org/system/files/8/original/03_Dennis-AUVSI-2012-Brief.pdf
http://www.helispot.be/hs/documents/heli/rotor_wing_2013_05.pdf

 

[jsport]

So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design? : Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

How many rotorcraft has AVX produced? They're basically a startup consisting of disgruntled former Bell employees. I don't doubt that they know about rotorcraft but I do question their ability to tackle a program like this. I think their's is the most interesting of the four concepts but I'd put them at the bottom of the list for actually winning this thing.

The USG needs to stand up and assume the risk..this should not be another product party.. it should be focused on military effectiveness..and the USG can and should lead collabs. etc.
The AVX is the only design which would even have a chance of internally housing a survivable veh..( mid-future)
The other designs will be deadly all right.. to the carried dismounts who are left w/o a vehicle.

 

[sferrin]

So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design? : Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

How many rotorcraft has AVX produced? They're basically a startup consisting of disgruntled former Bell employees. I don't doubt that they know about rotorcraft but I do question their ability to tackle a program like this. I think their's is the most interesting of the four concepts but I'd put them at the bottom of the list for actually winning this thing.

The USG needs to stand up and assume the risk..this should not be another product party.. it should be focused on military effectiveness..and the USG can and should lead collabs. etc.
The AVX is the only design which would even have a chance of internally housing a survivable veh..( mid-future)
The other designs will be deadly all right.. to the carried dismounts who are left w/o a vehicle.

How do you figure? I don't see why the Sikorsky or Bell concepts would be anymore "deadly to dismounts" than the Blackhawk or Osprey.

 

[Triton]

The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs. If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.

 

[sferrin]

The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs. If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.

And all that has to go into the bid. Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that? (Minus tooling of course.)

 

[Triton]

And all that has to go into the bid. Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that? (Minus tooling of course.)

Perhaps. But you have to presume that the United States Army and Department of Defense are willing to pay for this next evolution in rotorcraft and wants this increase in capability or why increase the speed and range bar?

 

[Avimimus]

The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs. If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.

And all that has to go into the bid. Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that? (Minus tooling of course.)

Couldn't AVX win the design and another company bid on the production? This *sometimes* actually works in aviation.

 

[ouroboros]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

 

[sferrin]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

 

[sferrin]

And all that has to go into the bid. Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that? (Minus tooling of course.)

Perhaps. But you have to presume that the United States Army and Department of Defense are willing to pay for this next evolution in rotorcraft and wants this increase in capability or why increase the speed and range bar?

AVX's entry isn't "the next revolution in rotorcraft". It's an attempt at an X-2 knockoff that swaps out a pusher prop for ducted fans, being promoted by a company that's never built anything. The thing doesn't even have a rigid rotor. Look beyond the fancy powerpoint slide.

 

[Triton]

I said next evolution, not revolution, of rotorcraft.

 

[jsport]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist.. ..experienced at what? taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

 

[sferrin]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist.. ..experienced at what? taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years? What has AVX delivered? Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?

 

[jsport]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist.. ..experienced at what? taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years? What has AVX delivered? Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?

just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....

 

[sferrin]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist.. ..experienced at what? taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years? What has AVX delivered? Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?

just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....

AVX would be the most expensive, most risky proposal whos merits are dubious at best. It ain't gonna win. There's no way the US Army is going to take that kind of risk in this fiscal climate. In response to your question though let me ask you a question. When's the last time the DOD funded the creation of a new company for a new weapon system of that magnitude?

 

[jsport]

One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist.. ..experienced at what? taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years? What has AVX delivered? Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?

just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....

AVX would be the most expensive, most risky proposal whos merits are dubious at best. It ain't gonna win. There's no way the US Army is going to take that kind of risk in this fiscal climate. In response to your question though let me ask you a question. When's the last time the DOD funded the creation of a new company for a new weapon system of that magnitude?

Not sure how price can be judged apriori...please inform..
don't want to continue to bring up collabs again and again but willl.
No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..

 

[sferrin]

Not sure how price can be judged apriori...please inform..

A new manufacturing facility, completely new workforce, etc. doesn't come free. Which part of that is difficult to understand?

No internal vehicle capability...

Is it a requirement? No? So let's add "unnecessary excess cost" to the list of negatives as well.

dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...

Yes, you've mentioned it twice now without justifying it. Please do so. [/quote][/quote]

 

[2IDSGT]

No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..

Uh... I'm confused... was in an AASLT unit, don't recall anything about vehicles other than the LPC (leather personnel carrier) when it came to Blackhawks. This is about a UH-60 replacement, isn't it?

Yeah, we get it; everyone loves the underdog. Unfortunately, the AVX offering isn't over-aweing anyone (neither is the European bodge). There's no money to play around with, so it's pretty much down to the X-2 or tilt-rotor ideas (not that I'm optimistic the Army will follow through anyways).

 

[Triton]

If the JMR/FVL programs are about supporting the established domestic rotorcraft industry then it is a race between Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.

 

[sferrin]

If the JMR/FVL programs are about supporting the established domestic rotorcraft industry then it is a race between Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.

As well as if they're looking for the most viable option. Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.

 

[jsport]

No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..

Uh... I'm confused... was in an AASLT unit, don't recall anything about vehicles other than the LPC (leather personnel carrier) when it came to Blackhawks. This is about a UH-60 replacement, isn't it?

Yeah, we get it; everyone loves the underdog. Unfortunately, the AVX offering isn't over-aweing anyone (neither is the European bodge). There's no money to play around with, so it's pretty much down to the X-2 or tilt-rotor ideas (not that I'm optimistic the Army will follow through anyways).

Thank you for your service... Army myself...For someone who served in an AASLT unit and at your high NCO rank your response is quite shocking and scary....Hopefully, not indicative. One reason why the Marines can continue to laugh at the Army is at least they understand quite old Army studies which drove development of the V-22 and its internal vehicle. Their dispersed ops concept is from quite well understood from Vietnam era.. LPC egress, evasion etc. against a real adversary equals dead dismounts.. Yasotay, a former Army Aviator recently in a previous thread discussed the dangers of sling load vehicles in contested areas.. The Chinese have been deploying at least two 8whl vehicles inside Hips for quite sometime..The Marines understand the vulnerability of ITVs and hopefully will continue survivability enhancements..

 

[Triton]

As well as if they're looking for the most viable option. Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.

sferrin, I was replying to your previous reply which you wrote:

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

So I interpreted your reply to mean that the JMR/FVL programs should be corporate welfare to sustain the existing manufacturers in the rotorcraft industry. We don't need a startup, that might offer a better product, that will bleed out the established, experienced players. So why is the United States Army wasting their time talking to AVX, Piasecki, and Eurocopter and waiting until September to determine the downselect?



To interpret you original comment, you seem to be favoring that the United States Army

 

[F-14D]

As well as if they're looking for the most viable option. Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.

sferrin, I was replying to your previous reply which you wrote:

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

So I interpreted your reply to mean that the JMR/FVL programs should be corporate welfare to sustain the existing manufacturers in the rotorcraft industry. We don't need a startup, that might offer a better product, that will bleed out the established, experienced players. So why is the United States Army wasting their time talking to AVX, Piasecki, and Eurocopter and waiting until September to determine the downselect?



To interpret you original comment, you seem to be favoring that the United States Army

They're talking to AVX, Piasecki and Eurocpter because under contracting rules, they can't not talk to them at this point. Thi sis only a demonstrator, after all, and at this point, it's not even that, only studies. Of course, if ths wer either '50s or '60s, we'd see AVX get a contract to build their demonstrator just in case they can pull it off and to see what we can learn. Nowadays, though, "reducing risk" (to avoid looking bad) is as big a driver as "most benefit".

Judging by that criteria, Tilt-Rotor is the lowest risk, followed by X2 or X3, although the latter has to do something about the prop location. That's why the betting is on Bell and Boeing/Sikorsky. Of course, they could do what they did with LHX at the last minute: lower the speed to 160-170 knots and educe the range requirement. Hello conventional helo!

 

[Triton]

F-14D, your post reminds me of an old saying in IT Departments: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."

 

[Stargazer]

So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design? : Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

There is a name for that: a gamble. The problem is that there is very little space for gambling in today's business world...

Here is what I wrote about AVX's submission a few pages ago:

Notwithstanding the quality of the AVX proposals (and the fact that it is made up of many former Bell people), why would the DoD place a contract with a nascent company that has no record of mass-producing any type before when there are other capable and proven contenders with a half-century-long experience of military contracts? I doubt the military and government are very prone to such risk-taking, especially in the difficult economic context.

Does AVX stand any chance at all on JMR? And what of Karem? Is there hope for such new players to ever find their rightful place in the big leagues?

I think we are basically saying the same thing: AVX doesn't stand much of a chance here...

 

[sferrin]

So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design? : Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

There is a name for that: a gamble. The problem is that there is very little space for gambling in today's business world...

Here is what I wrote about AVX's submission a few pages ago:

Notwithstanding the quality of the AVX proposals (and the fact that it is made up of many former Bell people), why would the DoD place a contract with a nascent company that has no record of mass-producing any type before when there are other capable and proven contenders with a half-century-long experience of military contracts? I doubt the military and government are very prone to such risk-taking, especially in the difficult economic context.

Does AVX stand any chance at all on JMR? And what of Karem? Is there hope for such new players to ever find their rightful place in the big leagues?

I think we are basically saying the same thing: AVX doesn't stand much of a chance here...

Agreed. I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place.

 

[Stargazer]

I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place.

"Not enough work"... unless they are also firmly established on the civilian market. Companies like Piper, Beech or Cessna never waited upon the military to guarantee their existence. Their production of military types was kind of a "bonus", but when the contracts dwindled, they still had a strong civilian base to keep them going... AVX or Karem don't.

 

[sferrin]

I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place.

"Not enough work"... unless they are also firmly established on the civilian market. Companies like Piper, Beech or Cessna never waited upon the military to guarantee their existence. Their production of military types was kind of a "bonus", but when the contracts dwindled, they still had a strong civilian base to keep them going... AVX or Karem don't.

Yep. Same thing happened with Groen Brothers.

 

[yasotay]

A lot of good discussion here; and I agree that it is a long shot for AVX. Still they do have one of the most experienced military rotorcraft design teams in the industry (darn near every Bell rotorcraft since the UH-1). I suspect that if they get the nod as one of the teams they will find themselves courted by several of the DoD "Big Teams" who have all of the infrastructure and military design stuff anyone could need to bring a new rotorcraft to market. While it is not the sexiest of the concepts a little research shows an aircraft that is actually slightly smaller than an H-60 (if the booth info is to be believed) with a rotor diameter the same as an H-60. With a 6 x 6 cabin (Hugenormous compared to H-60) capable of 14 seated troops with doors and a ramp it certainly seems they have done a good job getting a assault ship put together. From the article in Rotor & Wing they can pick up 13K lbs externally which is not shabby either. All that said I have to agree with most here that it would be difficult to put money on AVX for the win.
Another note that might have not resonated here is that the Army is looking to get more expeditionary... yup their words. The Army Aviation CG briefed in January some slides that showed FVL self deploying through Alaska to the Philippines. Then there is the quote in Bells Quad A briefing that indicates the Army said Tilt Rotor was the most effective aircraft in a study.
So all that said I too have to say that Boeing/Sikorsky (cause it still looks like a helicopter) and Bell/(yet to be named)(cause the Army can't look to stoggie {the horse was still an effective battlefield weapon as late as January 1942}) are the sure bets.
Kinda hope they surprise us, but don't count on it.

 

[lantinian]

The AVX solution for the JMR is based upon their other proposals so far which are basically conversion kits for existing helicopters.

So while the JMR design is new, the concept itself includes a conventional helicopter in its DNA. They even listed as advantage removing the ducted fans to scale back the speed to 170kn if the Army dropped the 230kn speed requirement.

So if even it's most distinctive feature ( the ducted fans ) is not essential how can they they claim they have the Future of Vertical Lift? There is virtually no innovation into the verticle lift part itself.

I do see a bright feature for AVX if the FTL gets the axe though. They will have a lot of helicopters to upgrade, which maybe their ultimate plan.

 

[yasotay]

From Aviation Week at: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_04_2013_p0-585284.xml

"EADS North America has withdrawn its proposal for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstration, to focus company resources on its offering for the service’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) requirement. ...A Sikorsky-Boeing team confirms it has been invited to negotiate a cost-sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) for a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor compound-helicopter demonstrator. ...Industry sources say AVX Aircraft also has been invited to negotiate a TIA for a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan compound helicopter. The company declines to comment.
UPDATE: Bell has also announced: http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell-V-280-Valor-selected-for-Army-JMR-TD-Program

 

[Triton]

Does the cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) mean that the JMR program has already been downselected to Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX? Does this also mean that the United States Army is not interested in tiltrotor technology and the Bell V-280 Valor?

 

[yasotay]

Does the cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) mean that the JMR program has already been downselected to Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX? Does this also mean that the United States Army is not interested in tiltrotor technology and the Bell V-280 Valor?

Bell has also been selected (see last post by me). It was late breaking news. Also there is no confirmation yet that AVX has been selected.

 

[F-14D]

Came across this article
http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p18-575342.xml&p=1

wherein the President of AVX makes a rather unusual argument in pressing case. Basically, he's saying, 'You already know that the other guys' concepts work, so pick me so we can determine if ours does'.

If I were AVX I wouldn't consider that my strongest argument... ???

 

[Aeroengineer1]

I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is. I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design. These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

 

[sferrin]

I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is. I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design. These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

 

[F-14D]

I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is. I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design. These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

Oh, I know who Troy Gaffey is, and never thought any of them were crackpots. I'm simply saying he used a really unfortunate turn of phrase to promote why they should get a contract.

 

[yasotay]

I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is. I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design. These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Who was Frank Robinson? They laughed at him too. To be sure AVX has not produced one aircraft, but if the U.S. military starts looking like they are really interested, I suspect that those who have built a multitude of aircraft and does have the infrastructure to do so will be seriously talking to AVX.

 

[Aeroengineer1]

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production. For most of those he was a senior engineer. When he retired from Bell he was their Senior VP of Research and Development. He has other very senior, and well respected engineers on his direct team. As for producing parts, most companies are now design and integration houses. Very little production takes place on site. There is a lot of assembly work, but not a lot of manufacturing of piece parts. Companies like Auroa and Ducommun are big enough to do fuselage assemblies. My company specializes in rotor blade design and manufacturer. Others like Parker are skilled in hydraulics.

Like I said, they are a small core group, but they are drawing on the experience from many other groups. This core group has more experience in rotor craft design than most other groups could wish to have. Many of these guys that are working with him created the innovations that are on many helicopters today.

The other thing to remember, these guys are doing this for fun. They came out of retirement to do this. It was not that they needed the work, it is that they believe in their idea.