Originally Posted by
SansAnhedral
So what happens when these 2 single engine demonstrators get to finally flying (provided FARA funding isn't cut from congressional reaction to the AoA results)?
Now the real rub...based upon the "physics busting requirement" public admissions by the US Army, it stands to reason the possibility of a necessary evolution of FARA into a larger twin engine aircraft to achieve any level of actual operability. If this comes to pass, then the 2 demonstrator airframes and any subsequent flyoff with the Army would be pure lame duck action with actual FARA contract submissions having to be paper airplanes with large deviations from the flying hardware. This is all not to mention the almost certain litigation from AVX, Boeing, and Karem since they were ostensibly eliminated before their designs could have incorporated more power and larger airframes. Boeing in particular with their high speed Apache concepts seems especially likely to make a stink.
What a contractual nightmare.
I would opine that it would be more likely that Army would relax one or more of the FARA requirements. For example, lowering the required and desired max speeds, for example, could result in a noticeable decrease in weight if it permitted the elimination of retractable weapons/landing gear. Allowing a rotor diameter greater than 40' would allow more engine power to be harnessed through increased rotor thrust. And so on. This is not unprecedented. Performance requirements were relaxed for both the F-22 ("Your needs are speed, agility and range. Pick any two") and F-35 (requirements for acceleration and sustained g), among others.
Going back for substantial redesign, especially allowing two main engines would add major complexity, time and cost and would probably kill the program, already on less than totally firm ground. Keep in mind that FARA is the
sixth attempt to replace the OH-58. Questions would certainly arise (they already have) as to whether this kind of craft is needed at all.