Most the references I’ve seen for the Cheyenne list an operational range of over 1000 miles. That seems awfully long for close-support helicopter. Is that number correct, or are they all quoting the same inaccurate source?
The thing cost a lot per copy, and made a mighty big target for ground fire compared to the Cobra head-on.
This came out of the period of a bunch of weapon systems that were highly complex, not that reliable, and cost a fortune to build.
Two others were the MBT-70 and M-551 Sheridan* tanks.
While the giant cockpit glazing no doubt gave the crew a great view, I would have felt awfully vulnerable in that mass of Plexiglas, and would have thought they would have gone with a lot smaller glazing made out of bullet-resistant panels.
* That somehow ended up on The Military Channel’s top ten tanks.
It should ended up on ten worst tanks, somewhere between the T-35 and A7V.
It was a very cool system, but as the Army’s tactics in the 1970s changed from high-speed CAS to nap-of-the-earth tank-busting, it would have been the wrong platform for the era. Plus the single engine would have undoubtedly been a problem with respect to survivability.
It does seem that the Army projects of the day, such as the ones Pat mentioned, were often problem-plagued. I’d add Nike-Zeus as originally configured to the list.
Even though this machine was never in production, it certainly was a large leap forward, albeit on the “wrong track” for the doctrine that eventually came into use. Awesome concepts like this often were beyond the technology of the time in terms of reliability, cost, mainainability, etc. Just think how the Apollo prgram was executed – now THAT was ahead of its time. Imagine oding the same thing today – it would never happen.
I have a hunch it would have been a maintenance pig. Hell of an idea just the same though.
Jim
I’m partial to the Sikorsky S-67 myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67
Most the references I’ve seen for the Cheyenne list an operational range of over 1000 miles. That seems awfully long for close-support helicopter. Is that number correct, or are they all quoting the same inaccurate source?
The thing cost a lot per copy, and made a mighty big target for ground fire compared to the Cobra head-on.
This came out of the period of a bunch of weapon systems that were highly complex, not that reliable, and cost a fortune to build.
Two others were the MBT-70 and M-551 Sheridan* tanks.
While the giant cockpit glazing no doubt gave the crew a great view, I would have felt awfully vulnerable in that mass of Plexiglas, and would have thought they would have gone with a lot smaller glazing made out of bullet-resistant panels.
* That somehow ended up on The Military Channel’s top ten tanks.
It should ended up on ten worst tanks, somewhere between the T-35 and A7V.
It was a very cool system, but as the Army’s tactics in the 1970s changed from high-speed CAS to nap-of-the-earth tank-busting, it would have been the wrong platform for the era. Plus the single engine would have undoubtedly been a problem with respect to survivability.
It does seem that the Army projects of the day, such as the ones Pat mentioned, were often problem-plagued. I’d add Nike-Zeus as originally configured to the list.
Even though this machine was never in production, it certainly was a large leap forward, albeit on the “wrong track” for the doctrine that eventually came into use. Awesome concepts like this often were beyond the technology of the time in terms of reliability, cost, mainainability, etc. Just think how the Apollo prgram was executed – now THAT was ahead of its time. Imagine oding the same thing today – it would never happen.