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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to your questions:
(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 wrote in message ... 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh wrote: [snip] (b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly. [snip] Dan Hollenbaugh Comanche Test Engineer I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it. Steve |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I have the PM's permission to bring it to Redstone for one last demo. I
expect to see the final flight. Dan H. Steve Waltner wrote in message ... In article k.net, Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh wrote: [snip] (b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly. [snip] Dan Hollenbaugh Comanche Test Engineer I hope you got to see the last flight of the Comanche this week. My brother said it was a pretty impressive demonstration. Hopefully someone was running the video camera. ;-) Too bad this impressive airframe is going away. I would have liked to see one in person, but some odd thing about national security. Oh well, hopefully one will show up in a museum somewhere so we can get a close look at it. Steve |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
(b) Me too - I'm one of the few people that's seen it fly.
Saw it fly once on the "Discovery Channel" show "American Choppers" where the team was making a motorcycle to look like the Comanche. Very cool looking ship. Damn shame with all those jobs lost also. And I thought I'd get a chance to see one or two buzzing around NYC on a test flight out of Ct. I guess after The Hulk did a number on them in the Midwest the writing was on the wall. :O) Gerard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
....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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
were given enough funding to do the
program right. That's the cruel reality - we were finally funded and on track to complete on schedule, and we were cancelled.... Dan Hollenbaugh Comanche Test Engineer I was sorry to hear that the program was canceled. I certainly do not know anything of the technical achievements or hurdles yet to overcome, but it certainly looked like an exciting new airframe. I felt the same way about the Navy's A-12 and then they ended up with the F/A 18E/F. Craig |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |