![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is this the AH-56 or the AH-56A, as it is listed in the external link? Rigadoun 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
My real issue on this page was that this aircraft was not designed to replace the AH-1G, but rather the AH-1G was selected as the interim aircraft until the AH-56A could be put into production and deployed to the Aviation units. This is evident from the dates of the programs and design periods. The AH-1 survived much longer than intended as an 'interim aircraft' (due to the cancellation of the AH-56A) much like the OH-58D survived much longer than intended as the 'interim aircraft' between the OH-58A and OH-58C variants and the LHX (later the RAH-66 Comanche).
Additionally, the XH-51 was actually Lockheed's CL-595 helicopter purchased by the Navy for a test program, commissioned by the Army, to study the survivability of helicopters based on the extra speed of compound helicopters. The study consisted of two CL-595's redesignated XH-51 [1], both heavily instrumented. The XH-51A was simply instrumented, but the XH-51B was highly modified with stub wings. The left wing had a turbofan engine mounted on it and the right wing had a wingtip fuel tank to extend range, and the cockpit was reinforced to withstand the high speeds of the compound aircraft. The tests consisted of flying three circuits of three routes; 1. low, open terrain; 2. shallow hills; 3. mountainous; with motion cameras mounted in the helicopters and at likely anti-aircraft gun emplacement locations. The results showed that the significant speed advantage, while causing the aircraft to fly slightly higher, reduced the time available to detect, locate, and target the compound helicopter. Based on this study and the demonstrated performance capabilities of the XH-51B, the Army submitted the Request For Proposal for the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS).
Once I have my sources lined up, I plan on editing this page. -- Born2flie 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I googled on the AAFSS and found this interesting study from 1973 [2]. I think it could be a great resource for this article. I just peeked into it... -- Marvin talk 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I did numerous internet searches for that report and can not find an electronic copy. I searched on dtic.mil and googled *.mil sites and entire web using parts of that title with no luck. But it looks like Born's link 5 below is it. Don't know why file doesn't show up on a search.. - Fnlayson 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I rated this article as a stub class due to incomplete information. ( Born2flie 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC))
I think there is some confusion initiated by this article as to where the gunner's seat is located. The copilot/gunner is positioned in the front seat and the pilot is positioned in the rear seat like a typical American attack helicopter. If there is a dispute about this, I have photos of the front and rear seats (unsure of the copyright) and it is pretty evident which one is front and which one is rear. Not to mention that I've actually climbed on and into one of the copies at the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker and can personally attest to the rotating gunner seat's location. ( Born2flie 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Around this time shoulder fired missiles were being deployed by many of the world's armies. [3]
— Lyta79
Born2flie: Around what time? The MANPAD missile (e.g. SA-7 Grail) is popularly touted as one of the reasons for the demise of the Cheyenne, but the official Army documentation blames the Army for painting an inexperienced helicopter manufacturer into a corner. The SA-7 didn't enter the theater until 1971-2, well after the Army had cancelled the production contract (1968) and just before the Congress cancelled the program entirely. The truth about the final cancellation is probably much closer to the Army becoming focused on a Fulda Gap scenario, and while the Cheyenne could be adapted to the tactics, the powers that be determined that, based on lessons learned from Vietnam (shootdowns by crew-served weapons), more survivability measures needed to be incorporated in the aircraft design. Interestingly enough, neither the UH-60 nor the AH-64 were developed with survivability designs to withstand Surface-to-air missiles (MANPADAS or otherwise). So, even with the reference, the statement remains unqualified because no direct correlation can be made to the introduction of the SA-7 into the Vietnam theater and the cancellation of the Cheyenne program in favor of the AAH. --05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
See the this article at the centennial of flight website. [4] MANPADS did play a role in killing the AH-56. The inflation of the 70's did not help either. I wish I still had my "World Air Power Journal" books (lost them when I joined the army). Lyta79 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So, the SA-7 did not come close to being a reason the AH-56 program was ended."On 14 January 1972, the Army established a special task force to conduct a reevaluation of its attack helicopter requirements and to prepare an updated and defensible Materiel Need (MN) document. In the generation of this MN, the Task Force considered field tests, combat experience and computer simulations that have been conducted over the past several years as well as actual flight evaluations of the CHEYENNE and two company-funded prototypes (Bell KING COBRA and Sikorsky BLACKHAWK). The requirements identified for an Advanced Attack Helicopter which could be available in the late 1970's described an aircraft that would be more agile, smaller, slower and less sophisticated than the CHEYENNE. This requirement also defined a less costly system than that of the original AAFSS requirement, Based on these results, the Secretary of the Army announced on 9 August 1972 the decision to terminate CHEYENNE."
Inflation did not play a part, since the producibility/cost reduction studies had reduced system cost"During the Spring and Summer of 1971 LAC and the Army initiated a producibility/cost reduction (P/CR) study in an attempt to significantly reduce AAFSS costs. The then estimated procurement unit cost of $3.8 million was reduced by about $0.5 million through a variety of means. P/CR efforts continued up to cancellation of CHEYENNE."
Why does the Redstone Arsenal's Historical Information web site's TOW MISSILE SYSTEM CHRONOLOGY [6] reference the SA-7 twice? The army's experience with the AH-1 in Vietnam, where the SA-7 was used, caused the Cheyenne to be killed off.
May 1972 The decision to deploy the 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team to the Pleiku/Kontum area near the Dak Poko River was based on two main considerations. The first was the 2nd Corps Tactical Zone’s (CTZ’s) critical need for an antitank system to counter the high probability of a large number of NVA armored vehicles in that sector. Another reason was the need to protect the XM26 TOW/HUEY helicopter assets from the SA-7 Grail antiaircraft missile system which the enemy had deployed in the 1st and 3rd CTZs.
...
9 August 1972 The Army terminated the CHEYENNE (AH-56A) program. The experiences of the airborne TOW teams in Vietnam played a role in this decision. With a combat-proven point weapon system, the Army was able to convince Congress to support the AAH program. [7]
Lyta79 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Going by the Abridged History report, the AH-56 had several pending problems when it was canceled and that would probably drag out development and increase program costs. - Fnlayson 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is really accurate to list the XH-51 in the "developed from" field? I understand the Cheyenne's rotors are basically scaled-up versions on those on the XH-51, and as such it certanly qualifies to be listed under the "related" field in the {{ aircontent}} template. But other than the rotor systems, do they actually share any design features or components? Just asking. It's certianly not comparable with the AH-1 being developed from the UH-1, in my opinion. - BillCJ 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly makes them related, and I agree the rotor system design is key to the whole concept Lockheed developed. But the AH-1G is basically a UH-1C with a different front end. Everything on the Cheyenne is different in airframe and design, save for the rotor system design. I'm not trying to be picky, as I considered putting the XH-51 in that field myself. Just asking for your justification, and you've given that. At this point, I know where you stand on it, and I won't be engaing in a revert war over it, or I would have just deleted it without discussion. I've done that enough to know it's usually best to ask you first! I accept that you have a valid reason (you usually do), and it's not worth pursing beyond that. - BillCJ 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you fly helicopters, I READ about them - I know there's a difference! :) - BillCJ 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this article currently covers the AH-56 well enough to meet the "reasonably covers the topic" criteria for B class rating. Is that how others see it or not? - Fnlayson 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The AAFSS requirements were for a cruise speed of 195 knots with dash speed of 220 kt. What is the 212 knots dash speed mentioned in the article? The actual max speed it reached maybe. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Lockheed, 1007 reached a maximum speed of 240 knots during flight testing, the fastest of all of the prototypes that actually flew.
And since we're discussing dash speed, Allow me to better explain my opposition to the the original last sentence of the 1st paragraph. The sentence began by stating that the compound design was intended to produce a dash speed of 200+ knots and then stated that it was so that the cheyenne could escort tranport helicopters such as the Iroquois.
It seemed to me to be very much like saying that the police utilize interceptor type cars to deal with all the people driving Yugo's.
Additionally The speed requirement, according to the Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program, "Appeared to have been a combination of what was technically feasible and the rule of thumb (Pi/2 X [escorted vehicle cruise speed]" Utilizing this algorithm and the 212 knot dash speed, the escorted vehicle cruise speed would need to be around 140 knots which is of course in excess of the Iroquois' max speed
Lastly, should we not mention something about how a hybrid overcomes that which limits the speed of traditional helicopters, namely, retreating blade stall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.21.69 ( talk) 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI I have posted a clip which has a few seconds of the Cheyenne at low-level on LV:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/26958AF88B864CD4B154822DC09ACE0D/the-ill-fated-cheyenne-attack-.aspx
Fascinating plane. Good WP. Royzee ( talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a little clean up and maybe some referencing to do. What else needs to be done? Any details missing from the design section or elsewhere? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
On the vague wording..
I changed it to "Following the testing at Yuma, the prototype #9 received.." and removed the tag. The Landis/Jenkins book just says "Following the APE [Yuma testing] ..." with no specific time/date. I take that to be shortly after the testing, but that's my guess. If anyone has a source with this detail, please add it. - Fnlayson ( talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
On the who tag here:
I'm not sure how this can be clarified. This type of detail is not covered in any other source I have seen, unless there another Army report concerning this. - Fnlayson ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this be considered an auto gyro? (CnrFallon)-- 131.109.147.125 ( talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What about putting this article up for review in a month or so? I'm not sure how much a peer review will help and I think it is ready for an A-class review. What do you think? - Fnlayson ( talk) 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, started a Military History peer review subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/AH-56 Cheyenne. - Fnlayson ( talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this part "At the end of 2008, this aircraft was taken back into storage for later restoration due to the damage of long term contact with outside elements.{{Fact|date=March 2009}}" from the last entry (#7) in the Survivors section. It was unreferenced and I can not find anything online to reference that. If someone can find a reference for it or similar, please add text to the article with the reference. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 16:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nomiated this article for A-class review with WP:Military History. See WP:MHR#A-CLASS or WP:MilHist AH-56 review. Please help with this where you can. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is up for A-class review for WP:Aviation now at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/AH-56 Cheyenne. Some more copyeditting and suggestions by editors not involved will help polish this article. - Fnlayson ( talk) 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is this the AH-56 or the AH-56A, as it is listed in the external link? Rigadoun 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
My real issue on this page was that this aircraft was not designed to replace the AH-1G, but rather the AH-1G was selected as the interim aircraft until the AH-56A could be put into production and deployed to the Aviation units. This is evident from the dates of the programs and design periods. The AH-1 survived much longer than intended as an 'interim aircraft' (due to the cancellation of the AH-56A) much like the OH-58D survived much longer than intended as the 'interim aircraft' between the OH-58A and OH-58C variants and the LHX (later the RAH-66 Comanche).
Additionally, the XH-51 was actually Lockheed's CL-595 helicopter purchased by the Navy for a test program, commissioned by the Army, to study the survivability of helicopters based on the extra speed of compound helicopters. The study consisted of two CL-595's redesignated XH-51 [1], both heavily instrumented. The XH-51A was simply instrumented, but the XH-51B was highly modified with stub wings. The left wing had a turbofan engine mounted on it and the right wing had a wingtip fuel tank to extend range, and the cockpit was reinforced to withstand the high speeds of the compound aircraft. The tests consisted of flying three circuits of three routes; 1. low, open terrain; 2. shallow hills; 3. mountainous; with motion cameras mounted in the helicopters and at likely anti-aircraft gun emplacement locations. The results showed that the significant speed advantage, while causing the aircraft to fly slightly higher, reduced the time available to detect, locate, and target the compound helicopter. Based on this study and the demonstrated performance capabilities of the XH-51B, the Army submitted the Request For Proposal for the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS).
Once I have my sources lined up, I plan on editing this page. -- Born2flie 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I googled on the AAFSS and found this interesting study from 1973 [2]. I think it could be a great resource for this article. I just peeked into it... -- Marvin talk 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I did numerous internet searches for that report and can not find an electronic copy. I searched on dtic.mil and googled *.mil sites and entire web using parts of that title with no luck. But it looks like Born's link 5 below is it. Don't know why file doesn't show up on a search.. - Fnlayson 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I rated this article as a stub class due to incomplete information. ( Born2flie 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC))
I think there is some confusion initiated by this article as to where the gunner's seat is located. The copilot/gunner is positioned in the front seat and the pilot is positioned in the rear seat like a typical American attack helicopter. If there is a dispute about this, I have photos of the front and rear seats (unsure of the copyright) and it is pretty evident which one is front and which one is rear. Not to mention that I've actually climbed on and into one of the copies at the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker and can personally attest to the rotating gunner seat's location. ( Born2flie 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Around this time shoulder fired missiles were being deployed by many of the world's armies. [3]
— Lyta79
Born2flie: Around what time? The MANPAD missile (e.g. SA-7 Grail) is popularly touted as one of the reasons for the demise of the Cheyenne, but the official Army documentation blames the Army for painting an inexperienced helicopter manufacturer into a corner. The SA-7 didn't enter the theater until 1971-2, well after the Army had cancelled the production contract (1968) and just before the Congress cancelled the program entirely. The truth about the final cancellation is probably much closer to the Army becoming focused on a Fulda Gap scenario, and while the Cheyenne could be adapted to the tactics, the powers that be determined that, based on lessons learned from Vietnam (shootdowns by crew-served weapons), more survivability measures needed to be incorporated in the aircraft design. Interestingly enough, neither the UH-60 nor the AH-64 were developed with survivability designs to withstand Surface-to-air missiles (MANPADAS or otherwise). So, even with the reference, the statement remains unqualified because no direct correlation can be made to the introduction of the SA-7 into the Vietnam theater and the cancellation of the Cheyenne program in favor of the AAH. --05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
See the this article at the centennial of flight website. [4] MANPADS did play a role in killing the AH-56. The inflation of the 70's did not help either. I wish I still had my "World Air Power Journal" books (lost them when I joined the army). Lyta79 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So, the SA-7 did not come close to being a reason the AH-56 program was ended."On 14 January 1972, the Army established a special task force to conduct a reevaluation of its attack helicopter requirements and to prepare an updated and defensible Materiel Need (MN) document. In the generation of this MN, the Task Force considered field tests, combat experience and computer simulations that have been conducted over the past several years as well as actual flight evaluations of the CHEYENNE and two company-funded prototypes (Bell KING COBRA and Sikorsky BLACKHAWK). The requirements identified for an Advanced Attack Helicopter which could be available in the late 1970's described an aircraft that would be more agile, smaller, slower and less sophisticated than the CHEYENNE. This requirement also defined a less costly system than that of the original AAFSS requirement, Based on these results, the Secretary of the Army announced on 9 August 1972 the decision to terminate CHEYENNE."
Inflation did not play a part, since the producibility/cost reduction studies had reduced system cost"During the Spring and Summer of 1971 LAC and the Army initiated a producibility/cost reduction (P/CR) study in an attempt to significantly reduce AAFSS costs. The then estimated procurement unit cost of $3.8 million was reduced by about $0.5 million through a variety of means. P/CR efforts continued up to cancellation of CHEYENNE."
Why does the Redstone Arsenal's Historical Information web site's TOW MISSILE SYSTEM CHRONOLOGY [6] reference the SA-7 twice? The army's experience with the AH-1 in Vietnam, where the SA-7 was used, caused the Cheyenne to be killed off.
May 1972 The decision to deploy the 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team to the Pleiku/Kontum area near the Dak Poko River was based on two main considerations. The first was the 2nd Corps Tactical Zone’s (CTZ’s) critical need for an antitank system to counter the high probability of a large number of NVA armored vehicles in that sector. Another reason was the need to protect the XM26 TOW/HUEY helicopter assets from the SA-7 Grail antiaircraft missile system which the enemy had deployed in the 1st and 3rd CTZs.
...
9 August 1972 The Army terminated the CHEYENNE (AH-56A) program. The experiences of the airborne TOW teams in Vietnam played a role in this decision. With a combat-proven point weapon system, the Army was able to convince Congress to support the AAH program. [7]
Lyta79 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Going by the Abridged History report, the AH-56 had several pending problems when it was canceled and that would probably drag out development and increase program costs. - Fnlayson 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is really accurate to list the XH-51 in the "developed from" field? I understand the Cheyenne's rotors are basically scaled-up versions on those on the XH-51, and as such it certanly qualifies to be listed under the "related" field in the {{ aircontent}} template. But other than the rotor systems, do they actually share any design features or components? Just asking. It's certianly not comparable with the AH-1 being developed from the UH-1, in my opinion. - BillCJ 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly makes them related, and I agree the rotor system design is key to the whole concept Lockheed developed. But the AH-1G is basically a UH-1C with a different front end. Everything on the Cheyenne is different in airframe and design, save for the rotor system design. I'm not trying to be picky, as I considered putting the XH-51 in that field myself. Just asking for your justification, and you've given that. At this point, I know where you stand on it, and I won't be engaing in a revert war over it, or I would have just deleted it without discussion. I've done that enough to know it's usually best to ask you first! I accept that you have a valid reason (you usually do), and it's not worth pursing beyond that. - BillCJ 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you fly helicopters, I READ about them - I know there's a difference! :) - BillCJ 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this article currently covers the AH-56 well enough to meet the "reasonably covers the topic" criteria for B class rating. Is that how others see it or not? - Fnlayson 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The AAFSS requirements were for a cruise speed of 195 knots with dash speed of 220 kt. What is the 212 knots dash speed mentioned in the article? The actual max speed it reached maybe. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Lockheed, 1007 reached a maximum speed of 240 knots during flight testing, the fastest of all of the prototypes that actually flew.
And since we're discussing dash speed, Allow me to better explain my opposition to the the original last sentence of the 1st paragraph. The sentence began by stating that the compound design was intended to produce a dash speed of 200+ knots and then stated that it was so that the cheyenne could escort tranport helicopters such as the Iroquois.
It seemed to me to be very much like saying that the police utilize interceptor type cars to deal with all the people driving Yugo's.
Additionally The speed requirement, according to the Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program, "Appeared to have been a combination of what was technically feasible and the rule of thumb (Pi/2 X [escorted vehicle cruise speed]" Utilizing this algorithm and the 212 knot dash speed, the escorted vehicle cruise speed would need to be around 140 knots which is of course in excess of the Iroquois' max speed
Lastly, should we not mention something about how a hybrid overcomes that which limits the speed of traditional helicopters, namely, retreating blade stall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.21.69 ( talk) 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI I have posted a clip which has a few seconds of the Cheyenne at low-level on LV:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/26958AF88B864CD4B154822DC09ACE0D/the-ill-fated-cheyenne-attack-.aspx
Fascinating plane. Good WP. Royzee ( talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a little clean up and maybe some referencing to do. What else needs to be done? Any details missing from the design section or elsewhere? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
On the vague wording..
I changed it to "Following the testing at Yuma, the prototype #9 received.." and removed the tag. The Landis/Jenkins book just says "Following the APE [Yuma testing] ..." with no specific time/date. I take that to be shortly after the testing, but that's my guess. If anyone has a source with this detail, please add it. - Fnlayson ( talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
On the who tag here:
I'm not sure how this can be clarified. This type of detail is not covered in any other source I have seen, unless there another Army report concerning this. - Fnlayson ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this be considered an auto gyro? (CnrFallon)-- 131.109.147.125 ( talk) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
What about putting this article up for review in a month or so? I'm not sure how much a peer review will help and I think it is ready for an A-class review. What do you think? - Fnlayson ( talk) 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, started a Military History peer review subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/AH-56 Cheyenne. - Fnlayson ( talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this part "At the end of 2008, this aircraft was taken back into storage for later restoration due to the damage of long term contact with outside elements.{{Fact|date=March 2009}}" from the last entry (#7) in the Survivors section. It was unreferenced and I can not find anything online to reference that. If someone can find a reference for it or similar, please add text to the article with the reference. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 16:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nomiated this article for A-class review with WP:Military History. See WP:MHR#A-CLASS or WP:MilHist AH-56 review. Please help with this where you can. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is up for A-class review for WP:Aviation now at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/AH-56 Cheyenne. Some more copyeditting and suggestions by editors not involved will help polish this article. - Fnlayson ( talk) 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)