Talk:Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blackhawk vs. Cheyenne

Was the aircraft developed because the Cheyenne "failed to live up to expectations"? The sole fact is that Sikorsky developed the aircraft on their own without a contract with any military. While it is conceivable that they developed the aircraft in order to demonstrate a believed fallibility in the Army's search for a compound helicopter, or in order to demonstrate that the Army selected the wrong bid for the contract, that has not been established by fact as a motivation. What is fact was that in 1970 1972, the Army conducted a flyoff between Lockheed's AH-56 Cheyenne, Sikorsky's Blackhawk, and Bell's King Cobra. Neither of the other two aircraft outperformed the Cheyenne, and the subsequent RFP for the AAH did not include requirements that were unique to these aircraft. -Born2flie 10:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That firzt line you quoted is straight from this page, word-for-word (it's PD to my knowledge). A lot of the text on that site seems a bit simplistic in places. As far as I know, the fly-off took place in 1972, per several printed sources, and the Army site above. This would make the 1970 date for the S-67 reasonable. - BillCJ 01:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrected my incorrect year. --Born2flie 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that line and the source it is from are not exactly scholarly work except for the one thing that the people who created the source are good at, weapons systems. If you look at the idea of taking an established cargo/utility helicopter and then creating an attack platform by reusing all of the dynamic components, the Blackhawk looks more like a competitor for the Cobra than for the Cheyenne, knowing that the Cobra was an interim solution and that the Cobra was experiencing growing pains in the Vietnam theater. If the Cobra is halfway to the Cheyenne concept, then the Blackhawk is 3/4 of the way to the Army's then-dream machine, probably closer to 4/5.

Anyways, all of that is simply the same kind of conjecture as the statement that the Blackhawk was built because the Cheyenne failed to live up to expectations. At the time, the only thing decided about the Cheyenne was that Lockheed hadn't met the deadline and defaulted on the production contract. Development was still heavily funded and the Army's eggs were in the Cheyenne basket much like they'd been in the Comanche bucket for the last 20 years (1986-2004). I believe that Sikorsky saw a protracted contract process for the Cheyenne and was hoping to capitalize with the Blackhawk much like Bell did with the Cobra and catch an opportunity when the Army went looking for something better than the Cobra while they waited on the Cheyenne. It has nothing to do with the expectations on an aircraft.

If you look at the history of it, the Army had been working on Comanche since just after Vietnam; it just wasn't called Comanche at the time. The OH-58D is another instance where Bell capitalized on the Army looking for an interim fix until they could get what they really wanted. Seems Bell has made a killing on having an aircraft that fits the bill while the Army waits for what it really wants. My conjecture is that Sikorsky wanted some of that action. My desire is to remove the conjecture statement that is already contained in the article. --Born2flie 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This report [1] would help, if an electronic version was available. -Fnlayson 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1970 Date

Born, you have two tags on the first line of the lead, the first one after 1970. Are you questiong the date here? (Just asking for clarification.) Everything I've ever seen on the S-67 has 1970 as the year of first flight. - BillCJ 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I'm questioning the year it was built. Rarely do you have an aircraft "built" and then flown in a competitive program (Army study with Cheyenne and King Cobra) within the same year. Seems a little tight of a timeline to safely put your new aircraft up against a mature Cheyenne program. --Born2flie 02:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not if the competition was in 1972. - BillCJ 02:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind me...tired. --Born2flie 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky AAH

• Do you know anything about Sikorsky's proposed design for Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) in 1972? Seems like it would have be simplified version of S-67. -Fnlayson 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  I believe it was just the S-67, I'll have to reread some information on the AAH program. --Born2flie 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  www.helis.com has the AAH submission from Sikorsky listed as the S-71.[2] And Aerofiles.com says that the S-71 was based on the S-70 (H-60) rotor system/powertrain, a la the S-67.[3] There is a concept line-drawing of what it may have looked like, but I wouldn't quote it as the God's honest truth. And this picture is purported to be the actual mockup of the S-71. --Born2flie 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a printed source which states it was a "development of the S-67", but has no more details than that. After it and the Bell 309 didn't gain the Army's approval, leading to the AAH requirement instead, I can't see Sikorsky submitting the exact same thing again. The "simplified version" does make sense, probably a bit smaller, like the Lockheed entry, which is a smaller Cheyenne with stub wings. Would be nice to find out some more on both of them. Boeing's entry is worth finding a useable pic - it has a "side-by-side, staggered" cockpit! Everything aft of the rotor looks a bit like the YUH-61A. You might be interested in this printed source, Jeff. - BillCJ 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey thanks. Probably so. What's your source called, Bill? -Fnlayson 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Boeing's AAH entry. I couldn't find anything there on Lockheed's or Sikorsky's entries. THe book is Modern Battlefield Warplanes by David Donald. - BillCJ 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've seen that book used in a few articles. I'll look at it and probably get one. -Fnlayson 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Lockheed's entry was the CL-1700.[4] It looks like a bastardized Cheyenne, although not as much derived from the Cheyenne as the CL-1275, which is an attempt at a NOTAR system utilizing the Cheyenne airframe. --Born2flie 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Born. That link also has a pic of the S-71 mock-up of Sikorsky's AAH entrant. It looks more like the S-70 Black Hawk from the rotors/engine back, esp the tail and tailwheel. - BillCJ 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, thanks for all the link Born. Wow, I would not have expected that much info to be available online. It helps if you know the right names and terms to look for. -Fnlayson 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not a fan of creating aritlces on old competitions, the AAH is a significant one. There is a lot of data available that just wouldn't fit in the individual aircraft articles (AH-64, YAH-63, Bell 309, S-67). We might have to work hard to find some usuable pic of the other entrants we found above, or work those in as Fair-use, if we can find who holds the copyrights to them. If you want to continue the discussion, we could take it to the task fors talk page. - BillCJ 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I think that's a great idea. I still need to do some work on the LOH page. Maybe we can get WP:MILHIST to corroborate on that with us? --Born2flie 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - BillCJ 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Stub Start== Very little information from two websites. (Born2flie 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)) Article has been expanded considerably, now at least start class. M Van Houten 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)