If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"
Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter
The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in development costs. http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5809-1679r.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I sorta kinda agree with the reasoning that was given by the Army (as
detailed in the newspaper today), but (a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this? (b) I was really looking forward to its deployment - selfishly, as a helicopter pilot/enthusiast I think it's a beautiful aircraft. (c) may I please have one of the airframes that is currently on the production line to put in my pasture? I think it would make fine Yard Art. Dave Blevins On 24 Feb 2004 09:08:44 -0800, (Mike) wrote: Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in development costs. http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5809-1679r.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
(a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this?
I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all. The system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we are left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete before they are deployed. Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how well it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting down your own aircraft as working. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida
last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e. we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development tools *eventually*. In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long... I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste. May DOS rest in peace, Dave Blevins On 24 Feb 2004 23:40:15 GMT, idday (jimmineecricket) wrote: (a) did they have to spend $7B before deciding this? I find it amazing that they were able to come to the conclusion at all. The system so often just keeps on going after the momentum is initiated and we are left with weapon systems that either dont work right or are obsolete before they are deployed. Anyone see the report on the Patriot Missile? We have been misled on how well it works....or should I say how it doesnt work. Unless you count shooting down your own aircraft as working. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK
terrestial TV programme and looked amazing. On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan absorbs 900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said. Regards Peter "Mike" wrote in message m... Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter The Pentagon announced yesterday that it is canceling the Army's program to build a new helicopter after spending about $7 billion in development costs. http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5809-1679r.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Seddon" wrote in message ... Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK terrestial TV programme and looked amazing. On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan absorbs 900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said. That would be a peak of up to 900 HP in severe maneuvers. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BTW for my Real Job I did a customer visit to Lockheed-Martin in Florida last year, and one thing that blew me away is that they had been working on Comanche hardware and software for TEN YEARS. That kind of development cycle puts some interesting challenges in front of the companies that provide their hardware/software development tools - i.e. we would like to obsolete incredibly old versions of our development tools *eventually*. In other words, I believe that Windows 3.1 was state-of-the-art ten years ago. Or was it Windows 2.0? It's been so long... I just hope that some aspects of the Comanche development effort are used in some other products/systems, so that those 1o years of many peoples' work and sweat equity wasn't a complete waste. May DOS rest in peace, Dave Blevins I saw the briefing on TV and the general said that the block 3 apache will incorporate much of the comanche technologly with the exception of the stealth stuff. So it is not going to be a complete waste. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had
expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power. Regards Peter "mm" wrote in message ... "Peter Seddon" wrote in message ... Sorry to hear about its axing - the Comanche was featured in a recent UK terrestial TV programme and looked amazing. On that TV programme did I hear correct that the Fenstron tail fan absorbs 900hp - I'm sure that was what the presenter said. That would be a peak of up to 900 HP in severe maneuvers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The tail rotor is tilted to the side. Therefore it has a slight vertical
component to its thrust. Perhaps, the tilt was a tentative step by Sikorsky toward having both rotors face upward, and both contributing to lift. The world's first production helicopters had two main rotors. (http://www.unicopter.com/0474.html & http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/focke_drache-r.html). IMHO, rotorcraft configurations will move away from the tail rotor and back to where they should have been all along. Peter Seddon" wrote in message And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The reason for the high Hp rating on the Fantail is the sideward flight
capability - 80 knots. Dan Hollenbaugh Comanche Test Engineer Dave Jackson wrote in message ... The tail rotor is tilted to the side. Therefore it has a slight vertical component to its thrust. Perhaps, the tilt was a tentative step by Sikorsky toward having both rotors face upward, and both contributing to lift. The world's first production helicopters had two main rotors. (http://www.unicopter.com/0474.html & http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/focke_drache-r.html). IMHO, rotorcraft configurations will move away from the tail rotor and back to where they should have been all along. Peter Seddon" wrote in message And what are the main engines rated at then? I am intrigued as I had expected the tail to take no more than 10% of total power. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentagon Reviews Health of Helicopter Industrial Base | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | August 22nd 04 07:23 AM |
Commanche alternatives? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 99 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
Commanche alternatives? | Kevin Brooks | Naval Aviation | 23 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 0 | November 19th 03 02:18 PM |