Dave Jackson wrote:
Excerpt from initial posting;
A long sixty years after the inception of the helicopter, you [Sikorsky]
appear to be acknowledging the need for a second-generation craft.


Kevin O'Brian's replies;
Sikorsky has built something like thirty-odd distinct types of
helicopter and experimental rotorcraft.


Statement of Roger Krone, Senior Vice President Boeing Army Systems;
"The Chinook was developed in the late 1950s, less than a decade after the
B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two follow-on bombers have been
fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."

Dave, I believe you many of your arguments have sound technical
merit, but comparing heavy lift helicopter development to US bombers
is not quite fair. Logistics helicopter to bomber development, or
heavy-lift helicopter to heavy bomber, yes.

I would disagree that the B-52 has had two successful follow-ons for
heavy bombers, I would say just one: the B-1, which is a succussful
heavy bomber. The B-2 is too revolutionary, specialized, expensive
and produced in too few numbers- it is an apples to oranges
comparison. It is a successful weapons system because warfare has
changed- accurate munitions instead of carpet bombing. Meanwhile the
B-52 continues to be successful at the heavy bomber mission.

Similarly, the Chinook is still successful, and so is the H-53. The
Boeing guy didn't mention the 53, even if admittedly he did state
"new" heavy-lift helicopter.

But there you have two and only two major types of aircraft that are
still successful in each mission (heavy bomber and heavy lift helo).

If you want to compare bombers, include the B-2 but also the B-58 and
B-70, A-5, A-6, F-111, but on the helicopter side also include H-46,
H-1, H-3, H-53, H-60, S-92, and now the rotary wing side doesn't look
quite so stagnant. Revolutionary no, evolutionary yes.

Food for thought anyway, I thought all of your remarks were interesting.