Remember this wasn't chosen over the AH-56 Cheyenne because it was seen as comparatively too complex and risky. Since the Cheyenne itself proved to be too ambitious (back when we weren't afraid to spend extra to get what we needed if it was achievable) this bird would have probably been even more disasterous,and sooner.
The two had nothing to do with each other. This was a company venture much in the guise of the Northrop F-20. Sikorsky's competitor was the S-66 not the S-67. And the S-67 was a pretty standard helicopter compared to the AH-56. The Cheyenne had things like a rigid-rotor, a pusher prop, two gun turrets (yes, TWO), a weapons officer's seat that pivoted with the gun turrets, etc. But if you think the Cheyenne was complex you should check out Convair's entry.
Yes, this was a second-go for the 'Winged S' at the Advanced Aerial Fire Support mission aircraft. Sikorsky on their own dime tried to step in with this bird after the S-66 lost to the Cheyenne and the Cheyenne started having problems and delays (Bell did the same with a jazzed-up Cobra). While the aero/flight systems were simpler compared to the S-66, Sikorsky carried forward most if not all the system tech bells and whistles they wanted to field in the -66 to the -67.
well my focus isn't so much the tech that didn't work but how these guys with slide rules developed machines that were technical marvels. yeah they failed but they pushed the envelope.
look around today and what do we have that is pushing the envelope? the USAF has that super scram jet program going but everyone else is basically building on what has already been done.
check out NASA! they're basically doing the big apollo concept that middle NASA (old NASA stopped after the APOLLO mission...middle NASA guided things up to and through the Shuttle program and young NASA is what we have now) rejected!
@ Solomon. We've gone backwards in so many areas it's downright depressing. For all our fancy computers and analytical tools we can't even manage to do what they did back in the 60's. Experience is FAR more valuable than a piece of software.
@ Solomon: I had a chance to talk with an engineer that worked in structures on the F/A-18 for Boeing (the MacAir). He mentioned that very few engineers have experience building new supersonic tactical airplanes. The institutional experience is gone. You could be more right about us not pushing the envelope anymore.
While some S-66 tech worked its way n, the S-67 was primarily based on the S-61/H-3 design. That's how they were able to make it so fast and so cheap, and lowered risk. Had ti gone into service, it probably would have been designated AH-3, reflecting its basic design, much like the Cobra was the AH-1, since it was a derivative of the Huey.
Actually, as you start going faster with a conventional rotorcraft, drag starts going way up and control gets more complex. Going to a coaxial rotor won't change that, except in the case of Sikorsky's ABC, which could be thought of as a specialize subset within coaxial. Even there, they're only looking at ~ 230 knot cruise with dash maybe to 250 in a clean config. For speeds near 300 knots with sustained hover, you're pretty much looking at a Tilt-Rotor.
Bear with me as I use the buzzwords that were part and parcel with the times and sentiments. With the end of the Cold War, and the end of the imminent Soviet threat, came the call for the 'Peace Dividend'(as if Peace wasn't dividend enough). Suddenly, we moved from a "Technology Push to Requirements Pull" approach to equipping the force. At one time there was even very stupid talk of developing technology and 'putting it on the shelf' instead of fielding it (as if technological knowledge was linear and could progress predictably without fielding it). We 'right-sized' the military first by aiming at forces structure for a post-Soviet Union world where we maintained enough force structure (the 'Base Force') to meet our obligations as the world's sole remaining superpower. We were downsizing to the objective when the Clinitonistas took over and the POS named Les Aspin (spit!) who resisted the rationale behind the Base Force and contrived force objectives about 30% smaller than the Base Force using a dumbed-down National Defense Strategy with the 'Bottom-Up-Review': "Win-Hold-Win". The strategy ambitions have been progressively lowered aince that time to deal with decidedly smaller conflicts, then conflicts and 'contingencies'. I haven't checked lately but I think we're down to the equivalent of a contingency and a 'relief effort' these days. As Sferrin and Themav note, the infrastructure to build upon the past is a skeleton of what one was.It is rare to be in on more than one development program from start to production: the 'lessons learned' come too far apart to impact the developers and operators. Fortunately, if you look around the world, almost everyone is in the same boat. Unfortunately, 'almost' doesn't count in this game.,
Yep. China has got the pedal to the metal *and* the US has graciously declassified so many documents relating to past programs I'm sure they're like a kid in the candy store with his momma's credit card.
Remember this wasn't chosen over the AH-56 Cheyenne because it was seen as comparatively too complex and risky. Since the Cheyenne itself proved to be too ambitious (back when we weren't afraid to spend extra to get what we needed if it was achievable) this bird would have probably been even more disasterous,and sooner.
ReplyDeleteThe two had nothing to do with each other. This was a company venture much in the guise of the Northrop F-20. Sikorsky's competitor was the S-66 not the S-67. And the S-67 was a pretty standard helicopter compared to the AH-56. The Cheyenne had things like a rigid-rotor, a pusher prop, two gun turrets (yes, TWO), a weapons officer's seat that pivoted with the gun turrets, etc. But if you think the Cheyenne was complex you should check out Convair's entry.
ReplyDeleteYes, this was a second-go for the 'Winged S' at the Advanced Aerial Fire Support mission aircraft. Sikorsky on their own dime tried to step in with this bird after the S-66 lost to the Cheyenne and the Cheyenne started having problems and delays (Bell did the same with a jazzed-up Cobra). While the aero/flight systems were simpler compared to the S-66, Sikorsky carried forward most if not all the system tech bells and whistles they wanted to field in the -66 to the -67.
Deletewell my focus isn't so much the tech that didn't work but how these guys with slide rules developed machines that were technical marvels. yeah they failed but they pushed the envelope.
Deletelook around today and what do we have that is pushing the envelope? the USAF has that super scram jet program going but everyone else is basically building on what has already been done.
check out NASA! they're basically doing the big apollo concept that middle NASA (old NASA stopped after the APOLLO mission...middle NASA guided things up to and through the Shuttle program and young NASA is what we have now) rejected!
@ Solomon. We've gone backwards in so many areas it's downright depressing. For all our fancy computers and analytical tools we can't even manage to do what they did back in the 60's. Experience is FAR more valuable than a piece of software.
Delete@ Solomon: I had a chance to talk with an engineer that worked in structures on the F/A-18 for Boeing (the MacAir). He mentioned that very few engineers have experience building new supersonic tactical airplanes. The institutional experience is gone. You could be more right about us not pushing the envelope anymore.
DeleteWhile some S-66 tech worked its way n, the S-67 was primarily based on the S-61/H-3 design. That's how they were able to make it so fast and so cheap, and lowered risk. Had ti gone into service, it probably would have been designated AH-3, reflecting its basic design, much like the Cobra was the AH-1, since it was a derivative of the Huey.
DeleteNow, imagine a coaxial version of that thing flying to day. I bet it would break 300kts.
ReplyDeleteParalus;
DeleteActually, as you start going faster with a conventional rotorcraft, drag starts going way up and control gets more complex. Going to a coaxial rotor won't change that, except in the case of Sikorsky's ABC, which could be thought of as a specialize subset within coaxial. Even there, they're only looking at ~ 230 knot cruise with dash maybe to 250 in a clean config. For speeds near 300 knots with sustained hover, you're pretty much looking at a Tilt-Rotor.
Bear with me as I use the buzzwords that were part and parcel with the times and sentiments. With the end of the Cold War, and the end of the imminent Soviet threat, came the call for the 'Peace Dividend'(as if Peace wasn't dividend enough). Suddenly, we moved from a "Technology Push to Requirements Pull" approach to equipping the force. At one time there was even very stupid talk of developing technology and 'putting it on the shelf' instead of fielding it (as if technological knowledge was linear and could progress predictably without fielding it). We 'right-sized' the military first by aiming at forces structure for a post-Soviet Union world where we maintained enough force structure (the 'Base Force') to meet our obligations as the world's sole remaining superpower. We were downsizing to the objective when the Clinitonistas took over and the POS named Les Aspin (spit!) who resisted the rationale behind the Base Force and contrived force objectives about 30% smaller than the Base Force using a dumbed-down National Defense Strategy with the 'Bottom-Up-Review': "Win-Hold-Win". The strategy ambitions have been progressively lowered aince that time to deal with decidedly smaller conflicts, then conflicts and 'contingencies'. I haven't checked lately but I think we're down to the equivalent of a contingency and a 'relief effort' these days. As Sferrin and Themav note, the infrastructure to build upon the past is a skeleton of what one was.It is rare to be in on more than one development program from start to production: the 'lessons learned' come too far apart to impact the developers and operators. Fortunately, if you look around the world, almost everyone is in the same boat. Unfortunately, 'almost' doesn't count in this game.,
ReplyDeleteYep. China has got the pedal to the metal *and* the US has graciously declassified so many documents relating to past programs I'm sure they're like a kid in the candy store with his momma's credit card.
Delete