Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne/2008 draft talk

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

message: *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)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: *Previous U.S. Army gunship development
**Howze Board --20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough, sir! --Born2flie (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I added a good bit tonight.  Please review and reword/adjust as needed.  -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Production contract 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image source 

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

text: * 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)

text: *:Another mention. This time in Flight magazine along with a larger proposed design. This commercial version and FAA certification smacks of the ARH-70/Bell 417 issues that Bell experienced early on. History repeats itself.--Born2flie (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  How to add this in? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructured contract