Lockheed’s attack helicopter that almost changed Vietnam - AH-56 Cheyenne
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 кві 2024
- Want 10% off your first site and domain + Support the channel?
www.squarespace.com/found
Merch Store!
www.foundandexplained.shop
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Bell:"We're making America's first jet fighter."
Lockheed:"We're making America's first good jet fighter."
Bell: We're making America's first attack helicopter."
Lockheed:"We're making America's first good attack helicopter."
Bell:" ....Listen here you little shit!"
Lockheed build the F-104, Widowmaker in Germany, we lost 300 Planes and 116 Pilots. Now they build the F-35. 641 Errors per Plane and we buy it again.
@@stefankohler3060 The F-104 crashed often in Germany because the pilots were not used to supersonic aircraft with high stall speeds. The F-35 has proven to be the most affordable, effective, and popular stealth aircraft that every single nation flocks to buy
@@aviatorfushigi9718and for the price its cheaper then the f15 was when it came out
@@stefankohler3060 Makes you wonder who are members of the same country club
bell: fine, we'll move to canada and recoup our losses by over-charging for sub-standard utilities
Bell was building a current generation attack chopper, while Lockheed was already working on the future of attack helicopter. They could have coexisted.
there is no coexisting in capitalism
The expiration date to that coexistence wouldn't have been very far off.
One thing that the Russian war on Ukraine has shown is that Attack Helicopters need more range when a peer opponent is involved. Russian helicopter airfields were destroyed by ATACMS forcing use of the longer range Ka-52 in airfields far from the front line. Also in the Pacific the AH-64 is too short ranged. The 1970s Cheyenne could have done the job.
@@Some_Dingus I don't know about that. The AH-64 Apache has been around since the early 1980s and the Marines still fly Cobras and was buying new ones until very recently. The Army and Marines use attack helicopters very differently.
@@philsalvatore3902 I just can't see two companies like that actually cooperating, knowing that defense contractors don't simply compete but will actively screw each other over where they can to get ahead. A "friend" in that industry would be even less trustworthy than a competitor.
The moment I saw that rotating gunnery chair my mind immediately went to "Greetings, Starfighter..."
DEATH BLOSSOM! 😊
I see you are a man of culture.
You have been recruited by the Star League to defend The Frontier against Xur and the Kodan Armada
Fantastic movie!!
You too?
McNamara, his impact, cancelling programs he wasn’t invested in, is legendary
McNamara, if it wasn’t a ww2 equivalent design, then he was gonna cancel it.
We are still paying for McNamara's stupidity.
@@jacqueschouette7474
His corruption
Ladybird's worth a mention too. Bell kept getting contracts because of her stock in the company.
@@Einwetok Oh you mean a politician profiting from his or her office? Say it isn't so.
Seeing how much the Cobra have changed from it's original design, makes me wonder how the Cheyenne would look today.
Like an Apache
@@pegcity4eva The Cheyenne is faster and much much longer ranged than the AH-64 (about 3 times) . One think the Russian war on Ukraine has taught us is that longer range is needed for attack Helicopters. ATACMS was able to destroy multiple helicopter bases leaving the Russians only able to use the Ka-52 and aircraft with limited ability to fire behined cover.
Think of the Cobra as the Ford Mustang to the Huey's Ford Falcon: It lives on, but is so-much different from what it started from or as.
@@williamzk9083 As air defenses improved the Cheyenne's speed became moot. US Army Cold War helicopter tactics were to fly no higher than 50 feet above ground level. They used trees, foliage and terrain to hide behind so enemy air defenses would not detect them. They used scout helicopters and ground mounted sensors on cherry pickers to find and illuminate enemy formations so the attack helicopters could attack from difilade ( behind trees or terrain) and thus not expose their presence to the enemy before attacking. Airspeeds were low, 50-60 knots max as the scouts led the gunships through the forest. The Russians use their gunship helos more like close air support airplanes and suffer high losses as a result. They are also ineffective. The Cheyenne would have been equally ineffective.
@@williamzk9083 Attack Helicopters are not used for such deep strike missions, although there are exceptions the vast majority of the time they are used to support ground infantry troops and armor. In that role I guarantee you they're going to run out of bullets pretty quickly if the fighting is that intense that's why they don't go further away than they have to for their own FAARP's or forward area arming and refueling points. Does no good to fly 70 miles and be gone so long that by the time they finally get back to the battle the people they're supposed to be supporting are dead. We don't do much further away than 20 to 25 miles. Bottom line kind of staying out of artillery range. It was an Army tactical operations officer and Cobra pilot and the only time I have ever heard of an attack helicopter being used in what's considered a deep strike mission was the nine Apaches that went into remove the early warning radar systems in the Kuwaiti desert. There is no reason for us to use maximum range when that will also give us the maximum time away from the battle. In this case, the range is not a factor, what is a factor is ammo load and the ability to stay with the ground troops.
I built a Cheyenne model as a youngin' back in 1972 - was crushed to learn the project was cancelled. Amusing that in 1986 I became a Naval Aircrewman - and later did the Maverick missile tests for the Seahawk helicopter.
same but it was a commanche
Behold, the reason Lockheed never built another helicopter 😂
Edit: I didn’t know Lockheed acquired Sikorsky
They still are, if we consider their acquisition of Sikorsky.
@@paulsteaven oh I didn’t know that
@@chheinrich8486 yeah, not that well known as there's no major rebranding like when Boeing acquired MD.
@@paulsteaventhanks, didn't knew that happen at all
@@kazefw3834 Happened about 10 years ago now.
Nobody seems to have mentioned one of the best reasons for going with the AH-1. It has about 40% parts interchangeability with the UH-1. Really streamlines logistics.
Correct. Compare with the AH-56 where in hells teeth are they getting spare parts in Nam?
A big part about the cheyenne, was not only the push prop and actual functioning wings, but the special stsbilized rotor blade system. It didnt use a traditional swash plate, it used a system similar to what toy helicopters actually use, with a stabilizing bar on top for a inherently stabilized system gyroscopically.
This was not new at all. Bell pioneered this with the Bell 47, and it was also on the Bell UH-1. Bell upped Lockheed by completely eliminating the need for a stab-bar by introducing electrical stability system. So that huge merry-go-round clothes hangar on the AH-56 was also outdated, and Blom Und Voss built the first fully rigid rotor production helicopter with the Bo-105. No, that Cheyenne as cool as it was very out dated by the time it was in the prototype phase, and by the time it would have entered LRIP it would have been a dinosaur.
It was the US Air Force that primarily put a stop to the Cheyenne attack helicopter. The Air Force wanted the skies all to themselves.
It was the Close Air Support Mission.
In reality the Air Force wanted to abscond with the cobra. They felt that only the Air Force should have dedicated armed aircraft. The Army told them to go pound sand.
And now the US Army thinks they will be able to field an attack variant of the V-280 without the USAF pitching a fit about it. And there's a much more solid case for claiming that a tiltrotor is an airplane. Because it actually *is* a VTOL fixed wing aircraft and not a true rotorcraft.
Minor correction: AH-64 was started by Hughes. Which was bought by McDonnell Douglas 1984. Which was bought by Boeing 1997.
Having 130 successful missile tests and then your first display test failing is like something out of a movie. I like to imagine a bell employee snuck in and cut a wire.
Someone was bribed to scuttle the test for sure.
The AH-64 upgrade that is coming actually brings most of the AH-56 designs to it, minus the belly turret. The reasons for the AH-56 cancellation are superfluous at best.
Umm…..coming 50 years later…
You forgot to mention that the Air Force was exerting HUGE pressure that this was THEIR domain under the Key West Agreement. The Army was effectively barred from creating a fast helicopter again which is one reason the Apache is so slow.
Lesson learned time-to-time. "There is nothing more permanent, than a temporary solution".
Laughs in A-10
Don't you love when someone change the requirements without giving notive to the other but by some dark way, the opponent knew what would change
this helicopter is awsome! sad thath it got cancelled.
one of my favorite helicopter.
There's one on display at Ft. Campbell
Lockheed didn't need to build helo's anymore, as with the Griada treaty Skunk works got anti-gravitic technology in 1954.
"First attack helicopter"
The AH-1 litrally flying the same year
Ive seen concepts for a boeing ah64 upgrade package that would turn it into a cheyenne more or less. With bigger wings, and a pusher propeller.
I saw this copter, not knowing what it was, at Ft Rucker in 2005; impressive, rigid main rotor and pusher prop. By the time it was debuged, I understand it had state of the art avionics and control systems, as well as devastating firepower. Very cool.
I saw the Cheyenne at Ft "RUCKER" in 1980 when I was in Huey AIT...
The idea that any single weapon system could win the Vietnam War, is to misunderstand the conflict completely.
The brass and DC would have f'd it up anyway - they never wanted to win (apart from the fact they didn't even know what 'winning' entailed).
Bell: I ain't taking this humiliation! *makes a helicopter that would be quicker to make*
.
Lockheed: *surprised pikachu*
I love watching the release live!
thanks for watching!
Saw one at Ft. Rucker museum in ft Rucker, Alabama
WHAT I THINK IS THAT THIS HELICOPTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT, BUT POLITICS AS USUAL, GOT IN THE WAY.
I've always wondered why the canopie was so large. It has to be 3 feet higher than the gunners head! I bet he could have stood up and not needed to open it.
That's what I thought, would have made it a little lighter and cut down the crosssection a bit😅
@@CraigLandsberg-lk1ep I can usually figure out design features on aircraft but I never understood that one. I would to find out why.
The rotating CPG station would get you super sick lol
Actually no, as your inner ear is what controls your balance and equilibrium. The Cobra and Apache are worse for motion sickness because your eyes are looking left or right but your inner ear is still looking straight ahead so when the pilot turns your brain gets conflicting input, and up comes your lunch. 🤮
I think you missed the real problem. The Cheyenne was designed to attack from relatively high altitude in a fast steep dive, then pulling up to high altitude. This would have been safe in Vietnam as the main threat to helicopters was AA guns, which couldn't easily hit at the altitudes they'd have cruised at. Then, the Soviets brought out the SA-7 which would have decimated helicopters at altitude. The only way to avoid the SA-7 would have been going even higher (not feasible for helicopters) or lower, which would have made the high speed less useful as a defence.
The Cobra was actually introduced into combat while the Cheyenne was in test.
Ah finally somebody brought that up.
Exactly right. And Army SOP during the Cold War was to stay below 50 AGL where early Soviet MANPADS could not acquire you and the radars on their longer range missiles systems could not track you.
🤔 The AH 56 Cheyenne reminds me a bit of the A-10 Thunderbolt II 🤔
Built the Aurora model kit of this back in the early '70s. Soon after building it...I found the Cheyenne project was canceled. (Cue sad trombone...)
I love your enthusiasm, it encourages my own fascination and wonder.
This thing was always 50 years ahead of its time. The Army dropped the ball by cancelling it.
Thank you,gratefully, for covering this wonderful helicopter.
McNamara probably saw the Huey Cobra as his Ford Falcon being turned in the Mustang, all-over again...!😄
One of my personal favorite helicopters (mostly by design) is the Yak-60. Looks like a Chinook, just bigger, though I think the Mil V-12 has it beat in weight.
This premiere was awesome! You earned ur self a sub 👍
Legend!
When I was a undergraduate in mechanical engineering, my professor in my mechanical vibrations class (1979) said this helicopter had vibration problems that could not be corrected. Thus it was cancelled.
The lockheed engineers have said that they fixed the vibration problems. Until the last 10 years or so what was known about the AH-56 program was largely filtered through USAF propaganda.
I can understand the Army needing a combat helicopter right away thanks to the Vietnam war, but I agree that the Cheyenne should have gone to production and started on the upgrade cycle. It seems more viable as an anti-tank helicopter for Europe; especially if the Soviets felt a yearning to come west.
I grew up in the San Fernando Valley not all that far from the original Lockheed Skunk Works in Burbank. Back in the 1960s the sound track of the San Fernando Valley was sonic booms from jets screaming overhead and the roar of Clay Lacy's purple P-51 "Miss Omni" pylon racer making hot laps of the Valley from its home at Van Nuys Airport. Oh, and the sound of prototypes of the Cheyenne. One of them would fly over our elementary school right at recess time every day like clockwork, and I always noticed. One day I will never forget it pulled a loop right over our school. Even as a 4th grader I "knew" helicopters weren't supposed to pull loops but there it was right before my eyes. One nice clean loop on the way north probably to some test range out by Edwards Air Force Base. What a thrill for a little kid who would as an adult go on to fly helicopters, though nothing that hot.
Can you make a video about the new biggest plane in the world concept built to carry wind turbine blade, the Radia WindRunner?
Amazing video!
Great mini documentary 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Its lookalike ov 10 bronco
You didn't do your due diligence when researching this chopper. The US Air Force exerted a lot of influence to the powers that be to cancel this program since it would take away funds from their Close Air Support program. They argued that since it had functioning wings, the US Army should not be allowed to operate it since fixed wing aircraft are the Air Forces' domain. It's petty and silly but that's how the Air Force operated during the 60's and 70's. Also, it was Hughes Helicopters who produced and won the contract for the original AH-64 Apache until they were acquired by McDonnell Douglas in the early 80's and then MD merged with Boeing in the late 90's.
You're right, that USAF was against the Cheyenne, but it was not silly. The helicopter was planned to have performance close to a fixed wing aircraft and would encroach on the roles of fixed wing aircraft. At the same time the Air Force was developing the A-10 to support the Army in those roles. The proper use of aircraft on the battlefield can be argued about all day, and was a conflict within the Army long before the Air Force became a separate service. In this case the Cheyenne was going take food out of the USAF rice bowl, and the rice supply was limited by Congress.
This is true. I flew Cobras in the US Army and had the opportunity to chat with old-timers who had flown the Cheyenne as test pilots. They said the Cheyenne was a beast to fly. The A-10 turned out to be a great choice and in the Army we loved having them show up over the battlefield.
@@marioacevedo5077 does the A10 do anything that the Cheyenne couldn’t? I don’t think so, and I bet the AH56 had a lot more upgrade potential than the Warthog.
@@Shaun_Jones A10 has greater speed, range, and payload. So yes the A10 could do a lot more than the AH-56.
@@Shaun_Jones Survive in Congress or Combat? The A-10s combat record stands alone. And just as with any Helicopter, its Achilles' heel will always be its Tail Rotor.
The development of turboshaft engines was what took helicopters to the next level. The earlier use of piston powered craft was their limiting factor originally.
Just sad that it was cancelled.
Swear first time I saw this helicopter it looked hella cool
One is on display at Ft Polk, Louisiana...I was stationed there from 97-02
McNamara was a beancounter and a bully and we all know what means...he would have made the perfect merchant banker
the Bell UH-1D Huey multi mission helo gunship could have done with a twin-engined arrangement . . . for e.g. the 1,623 shp (1,283 kW) General Electric T700-GE-401 turboshaft engines . . . and a 4-blade main rotor instead of the typical 2-blade type . . . the ship borne Bell UH-1Y Venom maritime multi mission helo gunship is a heavily upgraded variant of the good old UH-1D & UH-1H . . .
The cancellation of the Cheyenne is just another reason why the USAF was a mistake.
Seen one of these things on static display at Ft Rucker. Cool as hell, too bad they couldn't have been put into production
Obsessed with landing everywhere
Great video i make lots of model kits of the experimental prototypes and have that kit you show on the desk nice touch! I only wish the old Aurora kit was as detailed as your 3D renderings are! You should make the 3D models available for the flight sim games!
Does anyone notice the nose and canopy is nearly spot on with an OV-10 Bronco?
Good point 👌
The "pusher" prop was a constant RPM feathering prop that was reversible (pitch range of the prop blades could be set either positive or negative angle of attack, in stationery hover it was set to 0 degrees) and could be used for deceleration as well as acceleration, During deceleration the prop would function as a sort of regenerative brake extracting energy from forward velocity and dumping it into the main rotor.
It looks a lot like that dragonfly aircraft
amazing helicopter video
Can you make a video about the secret weapons of the Luftwaffe. Like the Fritz X , Hs 293, X4, V1, and V2, etc...
V1 and V2 weren't exactly "secret" the moment they rained down on Britain by the thousands 😂
Still secret technology for the Germans.
Very epic video
I wanted to see this
Dude i swear some american tech that looks "Futuristic" are literally old as heck!
its crazy. in the 1960s we had tech that makes today look old!!!
@@FoundAndExplained Dude fr they need to take more inspirations from older tech!
Beautiful Graphics
please do the 1910 coanda, its the first "jet" biplane that was created before ww1. Would be interesting to do a what if it was successful and managed to be developed during the war.
Lockheed....Apple of defense industry
One thing i had hear about the cancellation due to the Air Force that didnt like Army took over their job on XAS role. The cancellation would led to the birth of the A 10 Thunderbolt II.
The Blackburn Beverly needs some found and explained love
Defiant X looks very similar to the AH-56 Cheyenne and it also got canceled! Bell helicopter 🚁 wins again! Makes you wonder 🤔
The Cheyenne's demise is tragic
But the Cobra is still iconic
hey, i love your videos for years now!
there is one plane i'd like you to look into:
the MBB Lampyridae, germany's stealth fighter from the 80's that wasn't to be... would love to see it coming to life with your great renders ;-)
I added it to the list
thank u ^^
looking forward to it
I feel like the program was sort of revived in the sense that it's idea was, ish, i think the V-22 Osprey can revive the idea if they made an attack helicopter variant
I saw one of these AH=56 helicopters in the local on post museum at what used to be called Ft Polk, LA, back in the mid 80's. I was serving in the US Army as an LT and recognized it what it was. May have been an example being tested at this post when the program was cancelled in 1972.. Perhaps its still there slowly turning to dust.
More lockweed content please
My Uncle flew Cobras in Vietnam. 👍🏼
Many years ago there was one on display. Walking around the helicopter it was unbelievable how that they were rejected. Then many years later there was a program about it. It was loaded with errors and overruns that killed the program.
what website do you use to make the AI videos??
According to military historian Hideo Kojima, a number of AH56 were deployed in Costa Rica, 1974 under a covert CIA operation. Most of them were destroyed or captured by the legendary mercenary, putting the last nail in the coffin for the AH56.
Oh oh oh “MGS” reference to the AH-56A Raider.
Notably, the reason Soviet choppers got "targeted" (shot down in huge numbers) was because the U.S. was slipping so many Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles to the Mujahideen that at one point they started using them as anti-vehicle and anti-personnel missiles since they had almost as many of them as they did RPGs. When a HIND flew near a Mujahideen force, it tended to get shot at by multiple Stingers from multiple angles.
3:10 - the tail propeller is working backwards xD
I watched the entire video and there are a number of serious discrepancies. First off, when the Army asked for a dedicated attack helicopter there were three contenders. The Cobra was not even one of them. Bell helicopter built the cobra in something like 9 months and had it flying in a year. By 1967 it was in Vietnam. As far as the true competition there were three helicopters up for purchase. The cheyenne, the Apache and the Blackhawk which is seen as a photograph of the S-67 seen at 6 minutes and 32 seconds. There are very very few photographs of this machine and it seems to have disappeared from history so I credit you guys with being able to dig the references on this helicopter up. The bottom line is through research and development the Apache is the only one that survived the culling process. The Cobra was meant as a stop gap until the winning design would have been chosen in approximately 8 to 10 years. The cobras service in the army wound up up lasting 33 years. That's a pretty impressive stop gap. It evolved through the decades and became what the Marines have today, they're viper. Which in my opinion is the most reliable and deadly Battlefield aircraft because it's much simpler in design than the apache. Much easier to maintain. And this is coming from an X cobra pilot. Ultimately the AH-64 won a contract that was started in the mid 1960's and the Army took the first orders in 1984, about 20 years later. Just a "taad" longer than the 8-10 years promised.
It didn't look badass enough. The most badass looking thing always wins
Yup
The AH-56 was created for a war against the Warsaw Pact overrunning Germany. Compared to what the Army needed right now. The AH-1 is still serving with the Marines and being purchased by foreign governments.
cool!
Chinook is one of the best helicopters ever made.
Thank you for this wonderful video. The helicopter is a great invention and its primary purpose was for rescue and flying ambulance.
I was waiting to see if you'd botch who made the AH-64, and you sure as hell did. The Apache was developed by Hughes Aircraft Company before it was absorbed by McDonnel-Douglas, this was years before Boeing took over M-D.
If I had a dollar for every video claiming an aircraft should not have been cancelled I could have my own helicopter. The Cheyenne faced as much competition from the A-10 as it did from the Cobra. The problem with the Cheyenne was not just developmental issues and cost, but that fact that it was seen as encroaching into the roles of fixed-wing ground attack aircraft.
The Cobra was a genius move by Bell and was so cost-effective that it is still flying today. The A-10 was simpler and less expensive than the Cheyenne, and the 30mm gun gave its proponents room to claim is was the more cost-effective solution to the Fulda Gap problem. The AH-64 that came along later did not overreach and try to take roles and budget away from fixed-wing aircraft, which is why it got the green light.
A10 had its own critics, too slow to survive over the battlefield, hence the proposed A-16. Àt least Cheyenne could hide behind terrain and lob ATGMs. Different tactics make countermeasures harder for enemy. Besides Cheyenne was tasked for escorting Chinooks & other helos and Warthogs probably not ideal for that. Building Apaches after the sky high inflation of the 70s and early 80s cost us all a fortune.
@@user-ul1ew5jq1x The A-10 is too slow to survive over the modern battlefield, and a slower helicopter is even less survivable if employed in the same way. But attack helicopters should not be employed in roles more suited to fixed wing aircraft. Firing from positions of cover is a good example of how they operate in different ways than fixed-wing. A helicopter is more like a high speed ground unit that brings support to critical points on the battlefield by responding quickly and then sorting and engaging its own targets with direct fire. Fixed wing is more like indirect artillery fire that is called in on specific targets by an observer. To many the Cheyenne looked like an attempt by the Army to cross the line into fixed wing capability.
Can you do a video on Indian military equipments like LCH Prachand or INS Vikranth
One of a principle reasons for cancellation of a project is the support of associated industries of a competitor project. This phrase is the whole history of US military projects.
As an interesting footnote, I was named after the test pilot that died in this aircraft. Also, I met his father at an airport bar in Kansas City.
One thing not mentioned is that the USAF also fought against the pusher-prop design, claiming that it was entering the speed domains "reserved" for the USAF's exclusive use, and lobbied hard to get the Cheyanne killed. Heck, they also complained that the long wings and speed made it an airplane in disguise. The biggest irony though is that in recent years, the US military as a whole realized the need for a faster helicopter, and pusher-prop designs like this were submitted by several groups, including again, Lockheed-Sikorsky.
But alas, it just doesn't seem meant to be, between losing the Blackhawk Replacement program (Lockheed's Defiant X) to Bell (V-280 Valor, although it was a fair loss, as the Defiant X was behind schedule), and the light-attack/scout helicopter replacement program being cancelled, which had the Defiant X as a Huey-like successor and Bell's Invictus being a spiritual Commanche/Cheyanne descendant (there's a certain irony in how the designs are reversed; Lockheed making a Huey-style design, while Bell made a Cheyanne-style design).
The Russo-Ukraine War is forcing the US Army to rethink both armored warfare and helicopter warfare. The Army also cancelled a drone program. Smaller cheaper and more numerous seem to be gaining favor over single platforms with eye-watering do everything tech.
Just another example of US military's short-sighted behaviors. Another is focusing primarily on stealth and BVR capabilities and downplaying the necessity of close-range dogfighting via thrust-vectoring technology. Enough said.
Also the Air Force was a little pissy that this helo was stepping on their toes matching performance of a fixed wing which would be against Army doctrine
Can you try and see if there’s any Canadian jets I would like to hear about more if there’s any prototypes or something
Our government always does this for example the F-16 XL and the XF-23... Even now they have the Abrams-X in testing but I bet it never goes into production.
YF-23? Its not what you think.
it has been rumored that the design has been passed on to Japan.
Even the modern rifles like the xm8, or the newest rifle in testing, wasting money to prove m4 is still better rifle?
The Abrams X is a tech demonstrator, it's GD's own venture and not a prototype for some Government project
@evo3s75 But yet the Army did acknowledge that they are currently looking at it for testing so at the end of the day everything I say is fact
I think the F16XL was rejected because although it could carry a lot of ordinance, it could only carry 500 pound bombs. Compare that to the F15E, which could carry multiple 2,000 pound weapons. Also, in my selfish opinion, the F16XL was pretty ugly.
Attempt 33. Could you make a video on the Bugatti 100P. It’s a plane, not a car.
Never knew there was a pusher prop helicopter back then
how badass this was... to have a rotating gunner seat for an attack helicopter
2 turbojet engines and a rotor that can be stowed away? Anyone else thinking “AIRWOLF”? Could be a reality since 1984., shame.
I actually like that design. I'm not one for bulbous cockpits but it's a really cool looking aircraft. I wish it was in War Thunder as a prem, I'd pay for it.
The genuis of the design, was not its setbacks, IE first gen attack package etc. No, it was the flight body, IE can cruise over 200 mph (AH64 is at 150ish) So you had a hybrid "small plane" and an attack helicopter. And nobody in charge ever realized they had a game changer on their hands. Even today, as in a new version that would have evolved during use. IE more weapons, different mission setup etc. The engine would have been made bigger, body slighty bigger, more carryweight, bigger wings even. In short, it might even have surpassed the speeds it started out with, due to increased range/package requirement.
So yeah, this is a great story of the things that never was, and still is not.