Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne/2008 draft talk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is the discussion page for a draft formerly in User:Born2flie's userspace which ultimately led to these edits: diff

Citations

Need to cite works. --Born2flie 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To Do

  • completed items are marked using strikethrough.

Things looks mostly done with the text. Check & strike out items are covered well enough to you, Born. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

History

Development

  • Roll-out/Christening: 3 May 1967 (Robb) Done
  • First flight: 21 September 1967 (Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • Public demonstration flight: 12 December 1967 (Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • Production contract: January 1968 (Attack, Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • Test flight program (Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • Weapons/Systems integration (Landis/Jenkins, etc) Done
  • Development problems (Landis/Jenkins, etc) Done
    • Requirements Document: (Attack)
    • 1/2p hop rotor issue (Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
      • Non-fatal and fatal accidents caused by rotor system: 12 March 1969, off the coast of California, sliced aircraft in two, killed pilot. Nov 1969, NASA Ames Research Center, 10th prototype destroyed. (Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
    • CURE notice (Attack, (Landis/Jenkins) Done) Done
  • Cancellation of production contract (Attack, Robb, Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • Continuing development (Attack, Landis/Jenkins) Done
    • Cost-Reduction Initiative (Attack)
  • 1971 fly-off with S-67 Blackhawk and Bell 309 King Cobra. (Attack)
  • 1971-72 Switched to Advanced Mechanical Control System (AMCS) Done which removed vibration feedback to controls issues. (Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • 1972 - Marks' Board - material need document "Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) Done". (Attack, AAH) Done
  • 1972 - Congressional hearings & report on Close Air Support (Attack, AAH, Bonin) Done
  • 1972 - Cancellation of the AH-56 Cheyenne program (Attack, AAH, Bonin, Landis/Jenkins) Done
  • 1972 - Move to AAH with different requirements (Attack, AAH, Landis/Jenkins) Done

Design

  • Expand some (Landis/Jenkins, etc)
  • Reference current text (Landis/Jenkins, etc)

Timeline

1962
  • June 1962, Bell displays D-255 "Iroquois Warrior" based on UH-1B components. (Attack, Robb)
  • December 1962, Army drafts QMR for 140-knot attack helicopter with 1,500-pound payload. (Attack)
1963
  • April 1963, Army develops QMDO for compound helicopter with 195-knot cruise speed, 220-knot dash speed, 6000 feet PA HOGE @ 95 °F (35 °C). (Attack)
1964
  • March 1964, CSA re-designates FAS as AAFSS (Attack)
  • August 1964, RFP issued to 148 competitors (Attack)
1965
  • February 1965, Lockheed and Sikorsky announced as design winners (Attack, Landis)
  • November 1965, Lockheed selected to build Cheyenne as AAFSS (Attack, Landis)
1966
  • March 1966, Lockheed awarded contract for Engineering and Development (Attack, Landis)
1967
  • Production contract awarded to Lockheed for 375 production aircraft (Attack, Landis, Robb)
  • 3 May 1967, First prototype introduced at Van Nuys, California (Attack, Landis)
  • 21 September 1967, First flight of prototype (Attack, Landis)
  • 12 December 1967, First public flight of prototype (Attack, Landis)
1968
  • January 1968, production contract finalized (Attack)
1969
  • 12 March 1969, Fatal crash of prototype (Attack, Landis)
  • 10 April 1969, Army issues cure notice to Lockheed to address problems (Attack, Landis)
  • 19 May 1969, Army cancels production contract, development & testing continues (Attack, Landis)
1970
1971
1972

References

  • Office of the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (1973). "An Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program" (pdf). Department of the Army. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Bonin, John A., MAJ, USA (1986). "Towards the Third Dimension in Combined Arms: The Evolution of Armed Helicopters into Air Maneuver Units in Vietnam" (pdf). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Command and General Staff College. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Government Accounting Officer (1974). "Staff Study: Advanced Attack Helicopter" (pdf). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Apostolo, Giorgio (1984). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters. New York: Bonanza Books. ISBN 9780517439357.
  • Taylor, John William Ransom (1969). Jane's all the world's aircraft, 1969-70. London: Jane's Yearbooks.
  • Robb, Raymond L. (2006). "Hybrid helicopters: Compounding the quest for speed" (pdf). Vertiflite. American Helicopter Society. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • "Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1969".
  • "Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1970".
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1972
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1973
  • Letter to the editor of ARMY magazine by COL.(Ret.) CECIL L. SHRADER, USA, Georgetown, Texas.
  • FAS
  • Global Security

Comments

I copied a couple of your references from here and added to main AH-56 article. I'll try to make use of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, that is no problem at all. You're welcome to take anything I'm working on to apply it to a mainspace article. I just build them here, when I get a source or get around to it. --Born2flie (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. Just trying to do things the right way and give credit where it is due. Doing some edits here and on the main space article, I noticed there's an AH-56 WarbirdTech book. I never would have thought to look for that. And it's less than $10 on Amazon. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What was the Mark's Board in 1971? There was an Army Preliminary Evaluation (APE I) about airworthiness at Yuma all that year. Are they the same thing? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Production contract

The Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program, page 6, quotes the amount that the SECDEF approved to initiate the production contract as US$31.4 million. $21.4 million is a number apparently referenced from the Warbird book? Which reference do you think should have priority here? Keep in mind, this was not the cost of the production contract, this was the monies set aside to negotiate and procure the production contract with the manufacturer. --Born2flie (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, the $21.4 million number came from the WarbirdTech book. They scrapped up funds for that to cover pre-production, engineering and ordering long lead items. One of the them could be a typo, since they only differ in one digit. With only 2 references for that cost, I guess we should go with the higher government number until another reference can be found to break the tie, so to speak. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, sir! --Born2flie (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good deal. Thanks, I don't feel I'm old enough at 36 to deserve "sir". ;) Any idea what problems were fixed by Jan. 1968 when this contract was signed? The only thing mentioned in the Warbird book is on the first flight the gyro was oriented 45 degrees from where it should have been. That seems to minor to mention. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, don't think of it as an age thing then, think of it as a sign of good will. :) The article by Robb mentions that there was some flight instability early on. --Born2flie (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good will is fine, just messin' with you. I'll look at the Robb report for the AH-56. Jan. 1968 is not long after first flight. The Warbird book mentions some minor problems being fixed by the time the 170 knots envelop was set in March. I'll move the text for that then. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Another solution would be just to say that the SECDEF approved funds and leave out the amount until we find the tiebreaker. 1968 dollars really aren't a necessary item for this article, now that I think about it. Some bean counter might be interested, but so long as we establish the fly-away cost from the production contract for the infobox, I just don't think it matters. --Born2flie (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

<Unindent> Thanks Born. That IS be better to just leave out that contract amount. I don't have any additional info on the pusher propeller changes. They had vibration problems with the rear cockpit canopy door for a while. They switched to a sliding door after the mockup review in 1966 or 67. I think they wanted more clearance between the opened door and the rotor blades. There was a vibration issue with the sliding door that was improved but not fixed until switching back to a swing up type door. Overall, I can add more info from the book. But it does not go much into why the program was finally canceled. The book is not long enough for that and that was complicated. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a good bit tonight. Please review and reword/adjust as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to finish writing what I can then really review it myself. I'm mainly using the Warbird book now. Other sources will be needed for details on the program cancellation though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'm focused elsewhere for a bit, but I see your work, and I'll throw Robb or the Army history in to fill the gaps where it might be needed. --Born2flie (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Army's first helicopter procurement

The WarbirdTech AH-56 book says this was the Army's first helicopter procurement. A footnote says in the 1950s and most of the 1960s the Army did helicopter research and wrote requirements. But the Air Force did the procurement under agreements made when the Air Force split off in 1947. This info comes from "Cheyenne - Killed in Roles and Missions Battle" (listing only) from VertiFlite. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Navy and Air Force shared the babysitting duty for the Army's aircraft procurement programs. Navy did the LOH (1962) and USAF did the UH-1 (I believe), etc. I'm not sure how it was divied up. I'm also not sure if it was the first procurement though, because I don't know about the AH-1 Cobra program; it may have just been sold as a portion of the UH-1 program (H-1G/H designation fiasco). Unfortunately, I have no reference. --Born2flie (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK, the Navy too. The AH-1 was probably considered a derivative program. Basically it seems the Army asked for too much on the AH-56, i.e. too big of a step technologically. Although I have not come across any issues with the avionics/weapons systems, just rotor/flight controls. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    I've encountered an individual on the web that claims that the change in the requirements document and a subsequent refusal by the Army to allow changes in dimensions resulted in the 1/2P hop and power issues. When the production contract was cancelled, Lockheed didn't have to adhere to the QMR, allowing them to upgrade the main transmission (since the rotors were already built) to solve the power problem. Solutions and systems developed for the Cheyenne, helped to shape the requirements for the AH-64 and the UH-60. In the end, it wasn't a total loss. However, the loss of the program kept us in the Cobra much longer than we should've been and bred the Apache, which gave birth to its own series of problems. Some of which are just now being solved.
    If you look at the Comanche and ARH programs, you'll see that a lot of these same issues continue to present themselves, indicating that the Army organizations responsible for developing and acquiring Army aircraft have not learned much from their history. --Born2flie (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good info. I can see some parallels with AH-56 in the 1960s and RAH-66 a few years ago. Both were big steps forward and ran into funding shortages during war time. SecDef McNamara's total procurement plan hurt both military and contractor on this program and others. I did not think listing S/Ns would help much, but I can add that in. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Including the serial number with the first mention of each prototype, to me, makes the information more resistant to challenging. I don't mind it being tagged {{cn}}, but I like to prevent/avoid {{fact}} tags. --Born2flie (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've got 1-2 paragraphs to add to finish up the main text in the Testing section. They did more testing in 1872 and even some in 1973 after it was canceled. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I finished that. I think I've largely added all the main events from the Warbird book. I can probably add a little here and there. I need to reference all the Design section. Is there another phrase for decrease "pilot workload"? The book's wording there needs to reworded. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DoD CAS study and Congressional report

I don't believe this wording is quite accurate

A 1972 congressional report from the Senate which recommended funding of the United States Air Force's A-10 and the United States Navy's Harrier programs brought the end to the Cheyenne, and the program was canceled by the Secretary of the Army on 9 August 1972. (U.S. Army 1973, p. 9.)

According to the Abridged Army Attack Helicopter report and my Warthog book, the DoD study said the A-X (lead to A-10), Harrier and Cheyenne aircraft had different capabilities that were needed. The book says

(About the April 1972 report from Congress)
Perhaps reflecting an awareness that the Army would soon terminate the Cheyenne contract for good—which they did in that August—the report's conclusions did not mention the Cheyenne by name: "Assuming the questions regarding the helicopter vulnerability are resolved successfully ... there is a valid requirement for a more capable attack helicopter." - The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate, p. 93.

That's more like pressure from Congress than a recommendation to not fund Cheyenne. Getting the original Congressional report would be great. Maybe this should be reworded to mention the Army's desire for a smaller, more agile and less complicated/cheaper helicopter from page 9 of the Army attack report. Ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the end, the Cheyenne was not to be. Politics, changing Army doctrine, and mounting pressure from the other military branches combined to doom the Cheyenne. Lockheed finally terminated the program in its entirety on August 9, 1972.

— Robb, Raymond L., Hybrid Helicopters - Compounding the Quest for Speed, Vertiflite 2006

The Senate report in April 1972 recommended full procurement of the A-X, limited procurement of the Harrier, and only lukewarm endorsenent of continued development of a more capable attack helicopter "assuming that questions regarding helicopter vulnerability are resolved successfully".

The Senate Report doomed the Cheyenne. Anticipating the report, the Army established a special task force to reevaluate its attack heliccpter requirements.

— MAJ Bonin, John A., Towards the Third Dimension in Combined Arms: The Evolution of Armed Helicopters into Air Maneuver Units in Vietnam, (bolding mine)
Major Bonin takes a different tack than your Warthog reference. He also mentions the DoD study earlier, however he goes on to mention that in response, the Senate, who was dissatisfied with the report, formed its own subcommittee to conduct hearings on CAS. He says that the Army started looking for a different solution in anticipation of the report, rather than Congress not being willing to fund it in anticipation of an Army desire to cancel the program. That seems more likely when reading the Abridged History:

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.

— Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army, Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program, (bolding mine)
Why would they need an updated and defensible document if their previous requirements were sound? Major Bonin and the Abridged History seem to suggest that the issue is primarily the survivability issues raised by Air Force General Momyer in citing the helicopter casualties from Lham Son 719. I keep in mind that the Abridged History was written for the Staff and may not be truly objective. Major Bonin's thesis is an academic endeavor requiring more critical analysis and a higher level of source reliability to establish conclusions.
I think we can rework the whole thing to show the complexity of the issue. But we'll probably need access to more information to be more conclusive about the relationship of the events to the cancelation. --Born2flie (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, good info. Looks like the Robb quote manages to summarize things decently overall. The Army conducted a Cheyenne weapons demo in 1971 or 72 for Congressional leaders. The first TOW launched in the demo failed and went into the ground. Later firings went fine. A failure of one rocket tainted the AH-56 to the Congressional folks. I'll try to add some text on that to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    Robb summarizes it, but his conclusion as to who canceled the program doesn't agree with Maj Bonin or the Abridged History. Whom do Landis/Jenkins say canceled the program? --Born2flie (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I saw the Lockheed cancel part and dismissed that as some mistake. Why would they want to. Lockheed got close to bankruptcy a little later. The Landis/Jenkins says the Army canceled the program in 1972. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    I saw your edit summary. Yep, I was mistaken and this paper is not his thesis. All papers at the CGSC are evaluated for referencing and academic quality, though. Still, I can find errors in his phrasings. For instance, he suggests that the AH-1G was procured after the demise of the Cheyenne program rather than being the interim answer that was prolonged once the development was canceled. So, it is really wading through a morass of conclusions and perceptions to find the facts and present them nakedly for NPOV/objectivity and allow the reader to reach the conclusions themselves. --Born2flie (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh OK. I thought the Bonin paper was something separate but related. You used that as an inline reference (#4) already anyhow. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Bonin mentions the AH-1G on page 22 and AH-1Q (TOW-Cobra) on page 33. Rereading it, it seems OK. Page 22 mentions planning to add TOW missiles on AH-1G as an interim thing around 1969. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, adding TOW to the AH-1 would've been after the cancellation. I believe prior to that, all funds were geared towards making it work with Cheyenne, and I think it was even designated as a dedicated Cheyenne-related weapons project according to the Abridged History. --Born2flie (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting the original Congressional report would be great.

— -Fnlayson (talk), 17:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The book, Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate, by Douglas Campbell, has a great synopsis of the testimony presented before the subcommittee. You can search most of the book in a preview version on Google Books. --Born2flie (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! That helps a lot. Difficult to search through a hardcopy book. I looked in that book and was on page 93 with what I stated above. But there's more testimony and the Cheyenne on many pages before that. book page -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image source

The WarbirdTech book uses several figures from the Army AH-56A operators manual. The manual is POMM 55-1520-222-10 "Operators Manual, Helicopter, Attack, AH-56A (Lockheed), 66-8831 (1006), July 1971" per the book. I'm doing some internet searches hoping to find it or any AH-56 operators manual. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I was in school at Fort Rucker, I had a month of casual duty where the warrant officers are farmed out to other organizations to keep them busy while they wait for school. I worked for the Army Aviation Museum. While I was there, I located Cheyenne materials and made copies of a couple of the videos, and even got to look at the draft operator's manual. --Born2flie (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How to add this in?

Check this out, pay attention to the bottom of the article. --Born2flie (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I might have to do the same search on the New York Times archive site. Also, Flight International has made its archives available online (in print for 100 years or so). --Born2flie (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The warbird book mentions Lockheed wanted to get the Cheyenne FAA certified and do that commercial version. They gave up on that to focus on fixes/changes on the AH-56. Not sure where that should go. Maybe a sentence to two in the Prototype testing section. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also AIAA paper "Development of V/STOL size, range and speed requirements" (see pg 6). Lockheed Compound Helicopters on aiaa.org -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting close

I think this is pretty close to complete. Nothing on Wikipedia is really ever finished though. Sorry if I'm being picky or difficult with wording and stuff. There's some items left on the To Do list above. I could add a little on the Convair proposed design if you still think that's relevant. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There's still the flyoff with the King Cobra and the Blackhawk, and that may go along with the AMCS installation on #7. I don't think the Convair is relevant any longer. I initially included it because that was one of the designs mentioned in a video about the selection program.
Re: wording of the AMCS development; if that is the correct timeframe of the development, then we should leave the wording about the unstable gyro feedback as I had put it. If we want to reference the length of time they'd been studying the issue, then I think the gyro issue needs to be established a lot sooner and not simply in that location when we discuss AMCS being developed. It seems to me, the way we have the article currently written, that ICS was envisioned to solve the feedback issues affecting stability and control per the preceding paragraph. I think it harms the article to step out of the timeline and go back to the late 60s to introduce the problem again in order to present the solution they came up with. I also think it harms the article to use a vague time frame (as in "previously studied") when we just got done talking about them evaluating the issue and introducing the ICS to hopefully solve it. --Born2flie (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The book says Lockheed started studying the gyro feedback issue "long before" the crash in 1969. No details on when and to what level of effort. They tested the AMCS rotor at the ground test site then installed it on #7 for flight testing which was completed by late 1972. I'm assuming they looked at different fixes around same time and implemented the simpler one (ICS) first. Wish I had another source on this. I don't know, will have to think about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    Does the book link the gyro feedback to the 1/2p rotor issue that is attributed to the crash (at least by Robb)? I think that with a little more copyediting of a couple paragraphs and then we'll be ready to blend it all into the mainspace article, followed quickly by an A-Class review from WP:AVIATION and maybe WP:MILHIST, and then maybe try for an FA-review. --Born2flie (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a mention of the AH-56, Bell 309 & S-67 fly-off eval. This is not discussed much in the references we're been using so far. Not sure if it is worth mentioning the cost reduction efforts. Any ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the cost reduction, since it does seem to disagree with the cost analysis at the time of cancellation. The same as the ARH article, I think we need to clarify the costs so that we're comparing apples and oranges. If we can't link similar costs, then I recommend we do the same as we did earlier in the article, and simply refer to "costs" without numbers and possibly consider putting any figures as footnotes, and possibly describe the conflict causing us to not use the figures. Thoughts? --Born2flie (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There's not a cost comparison in this article that I'm aware of. I mentioned the 1972 $3 mill unit cost figure. I think that sentence would be too vague without a number. It would not bother me to leave that info out though. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Abridged History mentions the producibility/cost reduction study in 1971. It quotes a procurement unit cost of US$3.8 million that the study was able to reduce by $0.5 million per airframe. That would be just over the US$3.2 million ceiling the AAH was shooting for, as stated by the section addressing AAH. Even then, officials believed that the AAH estimate was too low and figured that the cost would be closer to US$3.9 million, which was shown to be closer to the truth by the GAO study in 1974, which quotes a US$3.8 million figure for the AAH based on increased costs brought about by delays. If cost was an issue, then I think we need to include costs, but how to do it without making the whole thing boring? --Born2flie (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have thought about putting all the 3+ million costs in a footnote there. What about that? I'm trying to find more info about the fly-off, but the 'Army selected none of them' is about all I can add to what's stated in this article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    If you think we're ready, I'm good with releasing this thing into the wild. We need to see what survives and then get some critical evaluations to make this thing any better (IMHO). --Born2flie (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    One last thing I'd like to add is key airspeed milestones. If you have those available in the book? --Born2flie (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen any speed requirements mentioned in the Warbird book. They top speeds reached are the 215 knot level and 245 knot dive speeds mentioned for the AMCS equipped #7. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems to be in 1973 when they eval'ed it. That's mentioned at the the bottom of the Development section. I add a couple subsection labels near the top of that section. It needed breaking up. Change as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) I saw your changes, and I refactored all the Army bureaucratic stuff as a Background section. I also broke down the paragraphs again, with some refactoring and blending of sentences. I identified where we need to clarify some timeline stuff, but it might not be in your book reference, regarding test programs. --Born2flie (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done, and I think we're ready. What do you think? --Born2flie (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't help with the vague and when tags. You'll need to find better references for them. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know if the book had any of it. I moved it all over to the wild. So, it's all out there, anyways. --Born2flie (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The WarbirdTech book is generally written in chrono order and only lists some important dates. You should get a copy of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I will. I'm also going to Fort Rucker next year, so I'll make a point to look up some of the information in the Museum archive. --Born2flie (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Restructured contract

The footnotes for one of the supporting documents in the Abridged History says that a restructured production contract was being considered as late as August 1971. I think that lends a lot of weight to the effect of the Senate subcommittee hearing on the formation of the MARKS board to establish the new material need document for the AAH. --Born2flie (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. They restructured the development contract around that time (pg. 9) to help Lockheed with its financial issues. This adjusted some of the requirements (pg. 15). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne/2008_draft_talk&oldid=789532678"