"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"

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

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

(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

In article , Micbloo
wrote:

(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

http://homepage.mac.com/swaltner/flying/comanche.mov

For those that missed it the last time I posted the URL to the
newsgroup, I've got a 4.5 minute video of the Comanche flyinng around
at the Sikorsky facility stored at the URL above. I smile every time I
watch that video and hear that unique sound signature of the Comanche
in the high-speed flyover. Enjoy.

Steve

(Micbloo) wrote in message ...
(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

It's a damn shame they set unrealistic cost, schedule and performance
goals for that thing starting from Day #1. Wanna cause endless
problems, be unrealistic in your goals and spend the next 20 years
trying to meet them. There are other things too, but that IHMO was
the root of the problem.

Your humble opinion is only about half right. The original goals were
achievable. I've been lead Test Engineer in the Comanche PMO since 1989.
The original program as contracted in 1991 was achievable in cost, schedule,
and performance. In 1992 our funding was slashed. We then spent 10 years
just keeping things going and kicking the can down the road, fooling
ourselves we were making progress. We restructured the program every two
years from 1992 through 2000. In 2002 our PM went to the Army and said,
"fund us properly or kill us." We finally got the funding we needed to do
it right. There were some problem areas, but I'm convinced the program that
was just cancelled was achievable. Cost and schedule problems had nothing
to do with the cancellation.

You should see how fast the place is emptying out.....

Dan Hollenbaugh


TruthSeeker wrote in message
. ..
It's a damn shame they set unrealistic cost, schedule and performance
goals for that thing starting from Day #1. Wanna cause endless
problems, be unrealistic in your goals and spend the next 20 years
trying to meet them. There are other things too, but that IHMO was
the root of the problem.

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

"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.

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.