# RAH-66 Comanche



## Chief (Feb 10, 2007)

Here's the question, would it have been successful if it wasn't cancelled?

A Stealth helicopter would come in handy, but would it be necessary?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2007)

Well it certainly would have been successful but it was not economically worth it. The Apache Longbow can do anything the Commanche can do and for a cheaper price tag.

Also you have to look at Stealth on a helicopter. It will not work very well. You know why? The big blades that are turning up on top. The aircraft would have a smaller signature but not small eneogh to not know that it is not an aircraft.

At the same time though, all military helicopters operate below the radar in combat, so stealth is errelivent.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 10, 2007)

That summed it up in a nutshell as to why it was cancelled. Sexy looking helo, though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Yes she looked good but practically and economically not worth it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2007)

I worked for Sikorsky briefly in the early 1990s - I got to see the first one when it was at final assembly - pretty interesting ship but even then Sikorsky folks didn't think it would make it into full production.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2007)

Yeah she was an interesting helo, would of been interesting to see how she compared to the Ka-50. I suspect she would of been a lot better as the Ka-50 is probably around the level of the current attack helo's of the US.


FLYBOYJ said:


> I worked for Sikorsky briefly in the early 1990s - I got to see the first one when it was at final assembly - pretty interesting ship but even then Sikorsky folks didn't think it would make it into full production.


Why did they not think it would make full production Joe? Was it a case of too expensive or were there other reasons - like it not really being required?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Why did they not think it would make full production Joe? Was it a case of too expensive or were there other reasons - like it not really being required?


BILL CLINTON! Need I say more!?!


----------



## mkloby (Feb 11, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Yeah she was an interesting helo, would of been interesting to see how she compared to the Ka-50. I suspect she would of been a lot better as the Ka-50 is probably around the level of the current attack helo's of the US.
> 
> Why did they not think it would make full production Joe? Was it a case of too expensive or were there other reasons - like it not really being required?



It's the armament that truly makes the attack helo a devastating weapon. Longbows and Cobras (well with the Z model) can launch anything that the commanche could have. Avionics can always be updated, and it was decided that it was not needed. The commanche's performance may have been sexier, but that's not really the role of the attack helo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Exactly. In Combat attack aircraft are rather slow, picking out targets and attacking. The Longbow can do just what the Commanche could and cheaper. As I said abover a helo does not need to be stealth anyhow, because she flies low to the ground and hiding behing trees and hills.

The Commanche was too expensive and not worth it.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 19, 2007)

Also to be in stealth mod would reduce available weapons load because I think the AH-64D, the OH-6 Little Bird and other attack helicopters all carry the lions share of their attack ordinance on pylons. Whereas to get the benefit of stealth the RAH-66 Comanche would be relying on internal weapons load...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Also to be in stealth mod would reduce available weapons load because I think the AH-64D, the OH-6 Little Bird and other attack helicopters all carry the lions share of their attack ordinance on pylons. Whereas to get the benefit of stealth the RAH-66 Comanche would be relying on internal weapons load...



All of the ordinance on a AH-64D is carried on the pylons. The OH-6 does not really have pylons. It does not carry heavy armament anyhow. At most it carries a 50 Cal or mini gun and at most a small rocket pod.

The Commanche could carry the same amount of ordinance the AH-64 could on pylons that folded out when the aircraft was going to attack something.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 20, 2007)

Is this also factoring in the cannon rounds the AH-64D has in its belly? I just had questions about capacity to carry ordinance internally without making a bigger and more inviting target for enemy fire...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

Yes with cannons and everything.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2008)

What was reason behind the cancellation of this machine ?
I remember seen some Discovery Channel documentry years ago and the bird looked very promising, at list at that time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> What was reason behind the cancellation of this machine ?
> I remember seen some Discovery Channel documentry years ago and the bird looked very promising, at list at that time.



In the end it came down to:


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 11, 2008)

The Commanche was steeped in requirements for a cold war scenario. It was the right machine for a different time. And the $Billions that it cost have been freed up to pay for much more relavant equipment like the Lakota which frees up the Black Hawk for more missions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> The Commanche was steeped in requirements for a cold war scenario. It was the right machine for a different time. And the $Billions that it cost have been freed up to pay for much more relavant equipment like the Lakota which frees up the Black Hawk for more missions.



Exactly


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 11, 2008)

A reason good enough, too bad the money expended in development.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 11, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> A reason good enough, too bad the money expended in development.



Tell me about it. But then again, the technology curve still exists and will be applied to other platforms. All is not lost.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 11, 2008)

I see, just like this one, The Cheyenne, very apealing looking bird.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 12, 2008)

She lost to the Apache. But many of the concepts are being applied today in Sikorsky's attempt to exceed 260kts in the X2..


----------



## mkloby (Oct 12, 2008)

I've often wondered what could have happened to Boeing's 360 if it made it into production.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 13, 2008)

> She lost to the Apache. But many of the concepts are being applied today in Sikorsky's attempt to exceed 260kts in the X2..



Weird, two lift rotors and and push one, and why it needs a compensation one ?  

Usually the helicopters with double rotors hare counterrotative propellers so avoing the compensation in the tail.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 13, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Weird, two lift rotors and and push one, and why it needs a compensation one ?
> 
> Usually the helicopters with double rotors hare counterrotative propellers so avoing the compensation in the tail.



With the MV-22 yaw is acheived through differential longitudinal cyclic. I would think the CH-46 or CH-47 acheives yaw through differential lateral cyclic. This is possible since the rotors are on different shafts. If they are on the same shaft, I don't think this would be possible, hence the tailrotor.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 13, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Weird, two lift rotors and and push one, and why it needs a compensation one ?
> 
> Usually the helicopters with double rotors hare counterrotative propellers so avoing the compensation in the tail.




Not sure I understand your question CB. The Cheyenne had a single main rotor, a tail rotor to counteract torque and a push rotor for speed.

The Sikorsky X2 is two counter-rotating main rotors (thus no tail rotor for torque) and a push rotor for speed.

Did I miss something?


----------



## mkloby (Oct 13, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Not sure I understand your question CB. The Cheyenne had a single main rotor, a tail rotor to counteract torque and a push rotor for speed.
> 
> The Sikorsky X2 is two counter-rotating main rotors (thus no tail rotor for torque) and a push rotor for speed.
> 
> Did I miss something?



Disregard my last. I see it was a pusher prop, not a tailrotor. So, how would the X2 generate a yawing moment with two rotors on a single shaft?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 13, 2008)

Thanks you guys, for some reason I saw *two* tail rotors in the Sikorsky X2  

Maybe bad oftalmologist or maybe bad Chardonnay...or perhaps both.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Disregard my last. I see it was a pusher prop, not a tailrotor. So, how would the X2 generate a yawing moment with two rotors on a single shaft?



Vary application of torque between the two rotors. Yaw is induced relative to the direction of most torque.

Kloby I meant to ask you and have been forgetting. What are the cockpit control layout for the MV-22? Are the flight controls modeled after airplanes that have STOVL capability? Or helicopters with cyclic and collective? I am guessing the prior, but have never seen pics.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

Answered my own question. This is a great explanation. Man I'm jealous buddy.

V-22 Osprey


----------

