A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Pentagon axes development of Comanche helicopter"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 24th 04, 06:08 PM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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  
Old February 24th 04, 11:37 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 25th 04, 12:40 AM
jimmineecricket
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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  
Old February 25th 04, 08:30 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 25th 04, 02:45 PM
Peter Seddon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 25th 04, 06:31 PM
mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 25th 04, 11:49 PM
jimmineecricket
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old February 26th 04, 10:40 AM
Peter Seddon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 26th 04, 08:11 PM
Dave Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 27th 04, 06:15 AM
Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:22 AM
Commanche alternatives? Kevin Brooks Naval Aviation 23 March 24th 04 04:22 AM
Army ends 20-year helicopter program Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 12 February 27th 04 08:48 PM
RAH-66 Comanche helicopter could face budget cuts in 2005 Larry Dighera Military Aviation 0 November 19th 03 03:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.