You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handling
Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good
fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.

Dan H.

wrote in message
. ..
...mmmmm... i think they cancelled the program bcs they had *very*
serious handling qualities problems. Who had worked on that machine
knows about them.

My personal idea is that helicopters are not good machines to fight,
and, overall, reality is confirming that.
It's better to have some millions in our pockets, rather than having
it flying.


"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Something to think about when you're trying to understand the
cancellation -
if the reason really was the lack of a Soviet tank army-type threat, why
weren't we cancelled ten years ago? Could it be that the stated reason
for
cancellation is (gasp) not true? You'd be amazed at what I'm hearing
about
signatures - it seems that, since no aircraft in the world can hover 200
ft
above a guy with an SA-7 (or an RPG), the folks in charge of the Army
have
decided that low observable helicopters are no longer worth pursuing.
Look
for the announcement of a large buy of Little Birds.

Don't know about any online pics of the cockpit. I have a few, and I'm
trying to gather up more for my record, and to build my own model. Drop
a
note to my e-mail address, and I'll send what I can find.

Dan H.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:28:54 GMT, "Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh"
wrote:

Answers to your questions:
Dan -

Obviously I was joking on question "c" - but it is fun to get an answer
from you on it nonetheless, even if it is "no" 8^) .

BTW my "condolences" on the cancellation of your program. As I said I
kinda sorta see the reasoning behind the cancellation - i.e. that the
Comanche was conceived when the threat was Russian tanks rather than SAM
(SAndal-Mounted) or TOW (Turban Optical Wire) missiles - but now it
seems that we won't have any truly new rotary airframes in the US
military for many years to come. So every helicopter in our arsenal is
like a giant billboard radar-wise - hmmm.

BTW#2 are there any web-accessible diagrams or high-quality photos of
the Comanche cockpits?

cheers,

Dave Blevins

(a) Yes, because fundiing was spooned out in totally inadequate
portions.
Had we been allowed to keep the initial funding profile we were given
in
1990, we would have fielded the aircraft in 1995 for far less than the
$6B
(not 7) spent to date. Instead, the Army just waffled along, wasting
money.

(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.

(c) Nope - I'm the civilian test director, and I own the only two
airframes. I'm hoping to send #1 to the Ft Rucker Aviation Museum, and
put
#2 on a stick in front of my office at Redstone Arsenal. (But I'm just
the
test guy, and probably won't get to decide)

Dan Hollenbaugh
Comanche Test Engineer