Comanche too heavy to meet combat-flying requirements

[Heliport]

From the Seattle Times
May 21 2001

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">WASHINGTON - The Comanche helicopter being developed by Boeing and United Technologies is too heavy to meet combat-flying requirements, making it doubtful the aircraft can begin production by 2005, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/comanchepic19_0518180712.jpeg

The helicopter's projected weight has grown to 9,475 pounds, making it 175 pounds too heavy to climb the required 500 feet per minute to escape enemy fire, according to a draft report prepared by the GAO, Congress' investigative agency.

The helicopter program's cost also has jumped to $48.1 billion from $43.3 billion, with more cost increases likely, the GAO said. The Army must pay for any increase.

The GAO report will ensure the program gets intense congressional scrutiny when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submits a defense budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

"The service and contractors should be worried," said Richard Aboulafia, a military analyst for the Teal Group. "Someone was bound to notice the risks of using helicopters of questionable early capability to move the program rapidly and silently from full-scale development into production."

Army spokesman Dan O'Boyle declined to comment on the draft report, which was prepared at the request of Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. DeFazio, who doesn't sit on the defense budget committee, has been a critic of the Comanche.

Boeing spokesman Jack Satterfield and Sikorsky Aircraft spokesman Bill Tuttle also declined comment.

The Comanche, which entered full-scale development in April 2000, is designed to perform reconnaissance and attack ground targets.

Boeing operates the Comanche program from its Philadelphia manufacturing plant, where it's making the tail section for 13 test aircraft that Sikorsky will assemble in Stratford, Conn.

The Light Helicopter Turbine Engine unit of Honeywell and Rolls Royce North America in Indianapolis provides the engine. Each chopper is estimated to cost about $39 million.

The Comanche is schedule to move into low production in June 2005. The Boeing-Sikorsky team would produce 14 helicopters in fiscal 2005, 26 in 2006 and 47 in 2007.

The Pentagon may make a decision on full-rate production in December 2006. If approved, the team would produce 60 helicopters in 2008 and 2009, and 72 a year between 2010 and 2023. The Army originally planned to build 4,168 of the helicopters; its goal now is 1,213 by 2024.

The $4.8 billion growth in cost stemmed from the aircraft's increase in weight, testing delays, inadequate facilities to test and integrate hardware and software, and money added to correct earlier, optimistic cost projections, the GAO said.</font>

[Vfrpilotpb]

Heliport, if the design of this machine is to climb at 500 ft per min to escape bandit fire, can we assume that the aggressor weapons used are sling shots, I think my old Purdy with a No3 shot could reach that sort of velocity!

[Lu Zuckerman]

The Comanche and the V-22 share a common problem. The Army address the weight of the Comanche and the Navy addresses the unreliability of the V-22 yet nobody ever mentions the reparability of the two aircraft. The Comanche is made mainly of composites and the entire rear end of the V-22 is composite structure. The nature of composites is that they must be repaired in the same manner as when they were produced. That involves the use of an autoclave.

If the V-22 suffers major damage to the back end it must be removed and sent back to Boeing for repair. The same is true for the Comanche. If it makes a hard landing and prangs itself on a rock or a tree stump it will break its’ spine or suffer other major damage. This will require that the airframe be sent back to Boeing or Sikorsky. Both aircraft might even be sent to the depot but in either cast the availability of each aircraft will suffer. When you figure in battle damage the attrition rate will be so severe as to effect the outcome of an Army mission or the Marines deployment of men and cargo.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 May 2001).]

[Cyclic Hotline]

http://bestanimations.com/Animals/Birds/Chickens/Chicken-02.gif

[This message has been edited by Cyclic Hotline (edited 22 May 2001).]

[B Sousa]

This is so very typical when folks try to spend money and get all the toys. We here in the states didnt have Gunships that you could fully load until the Apache came out. With the Cobra you could take on Weapons , but then you had to download fuel. If it was hot and you were loaded, off goes the ECU. In the desert it was like being in an oven.
I also had the pleasure of visiting the Rooivalk while it was under test. Same thing. The Army wants this, the Navy wants that and next thing is you have a good idea that cant get out of ground effect.
In todays war, I would be scared ****less, if all I could grab was a 500 fpm climb.
Sounds like too many Congressmen and Generals and not enough Pilot input into the design.

[Kyrilian]

B Sousa,
I'm not personally involved, but I'll post a response from a respected Sikorsky test pilot/S-92 program manager in response to these questions as posted on 'rec.aviation.helicopters'. I presume one may freely quote from such a public forum...

"The Comanche climb rate is a purely vertical climb from a hover at 4000 feet
and 95 degrees OAT while loaded to full mission gross weight with full fuel.
That makes the aircraft a screamer, especially since the transmission will
take the increased engine power at sea level and standard temperature, so the
climb rate at normal altitudes and temperatures is awesome.

The GAO data is a bit dated, the weight has come down and the engine power has
gone up to recover the required performance. Nonetheless, it is a good
wake-up call to assure proper discipline for the program.

Part of the weight growth has come from new equipment that has been requested
by the users to increase mission capabilities and safety, and part is from the
natural weight growth that affects all designs as they mature (ahem!)."

[Fortyodd]

Good Grief, surely things can't get any worse. Next thing, you'll be telling me is that you can't parachute out of the side doors on the new Hercules!! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

DOH!!!

[B Sousa]

Kyrilian
Thanks, it makes me feel a bit better. Hate to see another Aircraft hit the street without what is required.

[Nick Lappos]

Thanks Kyrilian, for clearing this up with the quote from my post on rec.aviation.rotorcraft. I always stand behind my words, feel free to quote at any time!

Some examples of what Comanche does to change the way we think about attack helicopters:

Snap turns to yaw 90 degrees at 100 knots to point weapons (like supermaneuverability)

Very low signatures (acoustic, IR and radar) to avoid detection and lock-on. Less that 1% of the radar signature of today's fleet.

Extreme maneuverability and agility - it can roll from 45 left to 45 right
bank precisely and hit 95 degrees per second while doing so

Very high cruise speed, about 175 knots with full war loadout

A Mission Equipment Package that seems more like something from science
fiction (automatic target detection, a full graphic crew interface, flight
controls that fly like cruise control in all axies, and self healing display
by exception health monitoring), triple systems for mission completion after
battle damage.

Dual eye wide field helmet mounted display with all critical info presented to the crew with heads up, eyes out.

Nick Lappos

------------------
Nick Lappos

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick Lappos

The operational capabilities of the Comanche are second to none but what about repairability resulting from major battle damage or when the pilot prangs the bottom of the hull on a big rock or a tree stump or, any other thing that sticks up from terra firma? Can that type of damage be repaired at the second level or, does the helicopter have to return to the depot or, the factory?

------------------
The Cat

[Nick Lappos]

The Comanche is virtually all composite, so repairs are pretty easy, and can be done at the unit level. But the tree stump trick might really break things up. Most current aircraft have to be re-tooled if there is major airframe damage, Comanche will probably have to also, although the rigidity and strength of the composites might make it less likely that such major damage will occur.

Most of the skin is non-load bearing, the structure has two keel beams running the length of the fuselage. Most likely, the damage would be to those skin panels, which is easy to repair. But never underestimate the ability of the guys in the field to innovate new types of damage!

[sling load]

Nick Lappos,

Good to see you cruise the posts,

By the way, are there any civilian trained test pilots in the helo world, or are they only from the military?

Just for my own interest

[Nick Lappos]

I don't know any purely civilian helicopter test pilots, honestly. The typical customer we develop for is military, and the mission experience is a help in trying to be sure the design meets the intended job.

I'll bet the light airplane guys have purely civilian test pilots on staff.

The biggest entrance requirement is an engineering degree, I think, and one or two thousand hours of varied experience, or more.

------------------
Nick Lappos

[sling load]

Nick Lappos,
thanks for that, got varied experience but obviously no test flying, working on an engineering degree though, without doing a formal test pilot school, what are the realistic chances of landing a job in that field, not a developmental testing one, but say a production testing or secondary role?
Just curious, and very interested.

[Nick Lappos]

I think the Test Pilot School certificate is a bit overblown for manufacturer test flying, as the skills are quite a bit different. Military test pilots check for compliance with the specification, OEM's test for structural fitness first, and TPS does not prepare a person for that at all. Waivers of TPS are allowed in the US (I did not attend any TPS) with good experience.

The engineering degree, some good experience, good flying skills (!) and willingness to start at the bottom (production and training) are key.

Good luck!

------------------
Nick Lappos

[sling load]

Nick Lappos

Thanks Nick, I will email you for any further questions that come up,
Thanks Again