8 ms·

> Global rotorcraft production will likely total just 1,050 in 2016, which would be the fewest in at least a decade, according to Forecast International. This

by elihu 10y ago

> Global rotorcraft production will likely total just 1,050 in 2016, which would be the fewest in at least a decade, according to Forecast International. This is surprising to me; I would have expected the number of helicopters made per year to be a lot higher. (The figure accompanying the quote clarifies that it's referring to the civilian market; presumably military helicopters are being made in larger quantities?) Also, it's counterintuitive that they cite lower fuel costs as a reason for the decline (since they're popular with oil and gas companies).

gregmac 10y ago
> Also, it's counterintuitive that they cite lower fuel costs as a reason for the decline (since they're popular with oil and gas companies). The article mentions they use helicopters to survey prospective mines and oilfields, but they also use them to get workers and supplies to and from oil rigs. Apparently in the Gulf of Mexico alone, there are between 5,000 and 9,000 flights per day[0]. Lower fuel costs = less production = less flights to rigs = less need for newer helicopters. Of course it also mentions that drones are now often being used for surveys, and that's likey another big reason: for photography, surveying (not just oil but many other industries), inspections, surveillance, etc drones are much cheaper and easier than sending usually multiple people up in the air. [0] https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=21 https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=21
- cma 10y ago
  And safer.
rtpg 10y ago
Helicopters are constantly maintained, and basically rebuilt on site, so you don't need to be purchasing many. Helicopter builders make pretty much all of their money on the service contracts, not on the initial sale.
- jotux 10y ago
  I had a college friend that was a helicopter pilot in the reserves and shared this little tidbit with me: Rotor-craft maintenance per flight hour is typically around 4 hours. Really crazy to consider.
  - creshal 10y ago
    That's harmless by military standards – for jets it's in the order of 10+ hours. Even Humvees have an hour maintenance per 3 hours use by some reports (although I think that's for the up-armoured versions that overtax the chassis and drive train with all the applique armour).
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      For clarification: I'd assume that is man-hours in maintenance vs flight-or-field hours?
      - creshal 10y ago
        Maintenance ratio, i.e. total downtime time spent per hour in use. EDIT: But I mixed up the numbers for the HMMWV, whoops.
bluedino 10y ago
There are a lot of old helicopters out there. They're expensive so you can't just junk them and buy new like a car. A 1970's helicopter can still be $500,000 US
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  As an aside, this is something that's always bothered me. A good car/truck should last decades with proper upkeep but somehow manufacturers have talked us into thinking we need to keep buying new ones instead of repairing the old ones.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    For a specialised work vehicle... maybe. But for a personal car, even if a 20yo one still works perfectly, I'd still replace it with a new one for fuel economy and safety features. We made some serious improvements in that time. 1970s cars are deathtraps in comparison. I mean, in the US ABS wasn't even enforced until 2013!
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The "somehow" is that they sell us brand-new cars for relatively little money. If new cars cost a million bucks, we'd be keeping ancient cars on the road with gusto, just like we do with airplanes. But since cars are so much cheaper, the point where continuing maintenance efforts stop paying off is reached much sooner.
    - mgkimsal 10y ago
      Your comment reminded me of Cuba's car situation - all they have the option to do is continue to rebuild/repair existing cars.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    It's rather different in aviation though. There's countless mandatory checks and services along with mandatory engine rebuilds required to keep cert of airworthiness. You also get pretty strict type approval of what you can fit, where, and when. The regs get stricter if it's being used for commercial flying as opposed to private, also if turbine engined. So you get an awful lot of Pipers and Cessnas from the 60s and 70s still flying around with 40s technology carburetor Lycoming engines that are still being made for new aircraft. Just the same for the countless Bell 205 copters flying around with 50s Lycoming turbines. Cars have moved along far more by comparison and stop passing tightening emmissions regs, so they stop making a model or engine. Aviation emissions are often horrifying, though newer aero engines are getting much better. They've even started using fuel injection! edit: e.g. Buy a $700,000 2016 Piper Seminole twin, lift an engine cowl and it'll be a 6L carburetted, air cooled 4, magneto 50s engine, with 50s noise (probably open pipes still) and emissions. Far more 50s station wagon than Ford Taurus. Cockpit will have GPS and some toys though. Probably much nicer seats.
ac29 10y ago
>expected the number of helicopters made per year to be a lot higher. Why? Think about the number of times you (or an average person) has been on a airplane vs a helicopter. For me, the difference is approximately 2 orders of magnitude. 100,000 airplanes manufactured per year seems quite high (Boeing and Airbus make about 1000/year, each [0]). As mentioned below, aircraft last quite a long time. >presumably military helicopters are being made in larger quantities? Again, why? Helicopters probably reached their peak usage during the Vietnam War, when about 12,000 were used [1] over 20 years. [0] https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/03/airbusboeing-production-rates-forecast-through-2020/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/03/airbusboeing-production-ra... [1] https://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf https://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf
- x1798DE 10y ago
  > For me, the difference is approximately 2 orders of magnitude. But helicopters hold 4 people and airplanes hold ~200.
  - cornellwright 10y ago
    The most-produced airplane [1] seats 4 people. Only ~43,000 have been produced since the 50s. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
    - pc86 10y ago
      Having been in a 172 with 4 people, I can say definitively that 2 or 3 people is much better.
  - creshal 10y ago
    Aircraft go all the way down to single-seaters, and helicopters all the way up to ~100 passengers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26
tbabb 10y ago
It seems obvious to me that the reason for the decline is drones. If you want to look at something from above, it's now $200 instead of $2,000,000.
- pc86 10y ago
  Are drones prevalent enough to make a decline in the world-wide demand for helicopters "obvious?"
  - sean-duffy 10y ago
    Yeah I'm not convinced they are. As far as I know most blockbuster movies are still using helicopters for aerial filming, with drones being the exception rather than the rule.

by elihu 10y ago

gregmac 10y ago

> Also, it's counterintuitive that they cite lower fuel costs as a reason for the decline (since they're popular with oil and gas companies). The article mentions they use helicopters to survey prospective mines and oilfields, but they also use them to get workers and supplies to and from oil rigs. Apparently in the Gulf of Mexico alone, there are between 5,000 and 9,000 flights per day[0]. Lower fuel costs = less production = less flights to rigs = less need for newer helicopters. Of course it also mentions that drones are now often being used for surveys, and that's likey another big reason: for photography, surveying (not just oil but many other industries), inspections, surveillance, etc drones are much cheaper and easier than sending usually multiple people up in the air. [0] https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=21 https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=21

cma 10y ago
And safer.

rtpg 10y ago

Helicopters are constantly maintained, and basically rebuilt on site, so you don't need to be purchasing many. Helicopter builders make pretty much all of their money on the service contracts, not on the initial sale.

jotux 10y ago
I had a college friend that was a helicopter pilot in the reserves and shared this little tidbit with me: Rotor-craft maintenance per flight hour is typically around 4 hours. Really crazy to consider.
- creshal 10y ago
  That's harmless by military standards – for jets it's in the order of 10+ hours. Even Humvees have an hour maintenance per 3 hours use by some reports (although I think that's for the up-armoured versions that overtax the chassis and drive train with all the applique armour).
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    For clarification: I'd assume that is man-hours in maintenance vs flight-or-field hours?
    - creshal 10y ago
      Maintenance ratio, i.e. total downtime time spent per hour in use. EDIT: But I mixed up the numbers for the HMMWV, whoops.

bluedino 10y ago

There are a lot of old helicopters out there. They're expensive so you can't just junk them and buy new like a car. A 1970's helicopter can still be $500,000 US

HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
As an aside, this is something that's always bothered me. A good car/truck should last decades with proper upkeep but somehow manufacturers have talked us into thinking we need to keep buying new ones instead of repairing the old ones.
- viraptor 10y ago
  For a specialised work vehicle... maybe. But for a personal car, even if a 20yo one still works perfectly, I'd still replace it with a new one for fuel economy and safety features. We made some serious improvements in that time. 1970s cars are deathtraps in comparison. I mean, in the US ABS wasn't even enforced until 2013!
- mikeash 10y ago
  The "somehow" is that they sell us brand-new cars for relatively little money. If new cars cost a million bucks, we'd be keeping ancient cars on the road with gusto, just like we do with airplanes. But since cars are so much cheaper, the point where continuing maintenance efforts stop paying off is reached much sooner.
  - mgkimsal 10y ago
    Your comment reminded me of Cuba's car situation - all they have the option to do is continue to rebuild/repair existing cars.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  It's rather different in aviation though. There's countless mandatory checks and services along with mandatory engine rebuilds required to keep cert of airworthiness. You also get pretty strict type approval of what you can fit, where, and when. The regs get stricter if it's being used for commercial flying as opposed to private, also if turbine engined. So you get an awful lot of Pipers and Cessnas from the 60s and 70s still flying around with 40s technology carburetor Lycoming engines that are still being made for new aircraft. Just the same for the countless Bell 205 copters flying around with 50s Lycoming turbines. Cars have moved along far more by comparison and stop passing tightening emmissions regs, so they stop making a model or engine. Aviation emissions are often horrifying, though newer aero engines are getting much better. They've even started using fuel injection! edit: e.g. Buy a $700,000 2016 Piper Seminole twin, lift an engine cowl and it'll be a 6L carburetted, air cooled 4, magneto 50s engine, with 50s noise (probably open pipes still) and emissions. Far more 50s station wagon than Ford Taurus. Cockpit will have GPS and some toys though. Probably much nicer seats.

ac29 10y ago

>expected the number of helicopters made per year to be a lot higher. Why? Think about the number of times you (or an average person) has been on a airplane vs a helicopter. For me, the difference is approximately 2 orders of magnitude. 100,000 airplanes manufactured per year seems quite high (Boeing and Airbus make about 1000/year, each [0]). As mentioned below, aircraft last quite a long time. >presumably military helicopters are being made in larger quantities? Again, why? Helicopters probably reached their peak usage during the Vietnam War, when about 12,000 were used [1] over 20 years. [0] https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/03/airbusboeing-production-rates-forecast-through-2020/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/03/airbusboeing-production-ra... [1] https://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf https://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf

x1798DE 10y ago
> For me, the difference is approximately 2 orders of magnitude. But helicopters hold 4 people and airplanes hold ~200.
- cornellwright 10y ago
  The most-produced airplane [1] seats 4 people. Only ~43,000 have been produced since the 50s. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
  - pc86 10y ago
    Having been in a 172 with 4 people, I can say definitively that 2 or 3 people is much better.
- creshal 10y ago
  Aircraft go all the way down to single-seaters, and helicopters all the way up to ~100 passengers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

tbabb 10y ago

It seems obvious to me that the reason for the decline is drones. If you want to look at something from above, it's now $200 instead of $2,000,000.

pc86 10y ago
Are drones prevalent enough to make a decline in the world-wide demand for helicopters "obvious?"
- sean-duffy 10y ago
  Yeah I'm not convinced they are. As far as I know most blockbuster movies are still using helicopters for aerial filming, with drones being the exception rather than the rule.