"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"

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

....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

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

El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =

escribi=F3:

You're very wrong. There were some early problems with directional
stability and rotor vibrations, but those were solved long ago. Handl=
ing
Qualities were not a problem. If you don't think helicopters are good=

fighting machines, you're in the wrong newsgroup.

Dan H.

No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct=
, =

the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics, =

communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganista=
n =

& Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently.
The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time.
The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any =

helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no cre=
w =

run risk.

Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground =

troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and th=
en =

will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like =

the hellfire will eliminate all objectives.

Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next =

battlefield troopers.

Regards,

I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an autonomous
human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.

Dan H.

DumDum wrote in message ...
El Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:46:41 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
escribió:

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.

No Dan, I'm also a system engineer, the Pentagon choice, was the correct,
the Commanche was visualized early the 80's, then the Robotics,
communications and the AI evolved to levels never foreseen, at Afganistan
& Iraq the UAV's and UCAV's performed excellently.
The Commanche really is a wonder, but a wonder out of time.
The stealth reconnaissance can be performed better by an UAV than any
helicopter, the UAVs are much smaller, so are hard to detect, and no crew
run risk.

Will be developed an VERY small ucav to be used on helos and ground
troops, launched on a rocket. Will fly to the reconnaissance area and then
will start an prop to flyover and mark hard targets. then missiles like
the hellfire will eliminate all objectives.

Is not only the economy, also is strategy, the robots will be the next
battlefield troopers.

Regards,

El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh =

escribi=F3:

I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an =

autonomous
human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.

Dan H.

Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate huma=
n =

curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the differenc=
e =

and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real time =

transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's a leve=
l =

of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach.

Sorry are the facts.

-- =

Regards,

DumDum wrote in newspr4ahr8gs2nlmxq@localhost:

El Wed, 03 Mar 2004 02:30:42 GMT, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
escribió:

I've heard of these wonders before - a robot can never replace an

autonomous
human with two eyes and innate human curiousity.

Dan H.

Yes, the robots lacks the autonomous human with two eyes and innate
human curiousity. But the Robot's controllers are Humans, that's the
difference and the reality of the new technology, the key is the real
time transmission of data. Also the AI could give to the robot's eye's
a level of intuition and "curiosity" that no human could reach.

Sorry are the facts.


Until somebody jams transmission...

Sorry, facts are demonstrations of reality. And you have a long long
ways to go before you understand the severe limitations of "AI" controlled
systems. "Intuition and curiosity" indeed!


- Al, whose buddy is designing autonomous explorer systems and "swarm
technology" for future Mars landings...

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain