Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne

message: OK, there were 8 prototypes left after cancellation of the program.  I guess these just stored.  Seems like they would try using them for flight test research or weapons fitting, something.  Judging by what I've been able to find, any later use was minor or didn't happen.  Is this correct?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four prototypes have survived to be displays. One at Fort Campbell, KY, one at Fort Polk, LA, and two at the Army Aviation Museum at Fort Rucker, AL. I believe the rest were gunnery targets, I'm not sure what location. --Born2flie 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks.  I need to go see to one and other helos at Fort Rucker.  There might be some good pictures to take there. -Fnlayson 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that the Fort Polk aircraft is in the best shape, as it was recently restored in the 1990s. The Fort Rucker aircraft on display is in terrible shape and the one in storage is in a better condition but badly in need of a repaint. The Fort Campbell aircraft, the last I saw it, needs a lot of work. Pretty good, though, to have four displays of the aircraft that never made it into the inventory! --Born2flie 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * OK.  Fort Campbell is the next closer one to me.  I can't think of another aircraft where 10 prototypes were built of the same variant.  Maybe I haven't paid a lot of attention to that. -Fnlayson 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  This matches what the Landis & Jenkins AH-56 book says on a page in the back.  The book gives more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Make that number 0 (test article), 1 and 8 did not fly.  So 8 were flight airframes. Will try to mention this in the text in a summary manner. -fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prototypes later use 

message: Here's a source that may or may not be worthy, but at least interesting reading.
*Flight Global Archive - AAFSS
*History of Army Aviation
::This source really had nothing to say about AAFSS other than to say that development would be too long to influence Vietnam, a conclusion better spelled out in other references. --Born2flie (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CL-475 and XH-51 mainly served as tech demonstrators for the Lockheed's rigid-rotor design.  The rotor design did not scale up easily for the AH-56 though.  I'll try to add mentions with a cite in the "AAFSS competition" section.  That seems to be the most fitting place at the moment. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are related to AH-56 development directly, Lockheed merely used the concept it was developing as the basis of its design for the contract bid. It is a common theme with rotorcraft manufacturers. The AH-56 story doesn't start at all until the Army puts out the request to industry for their concepts to meet a requirement. CL-475 and XH-51 are not in that picture and to include them is to suggest that Lockheed was working in that direction. As far as Lockheed's side of the story goes, they shut down their rotorcraft division after the Model 286 (civilian version of the XH-51) failed to sell and the loss of the AH-56 contract. There simply isn't a lot of documentation for their side. It is like asking Cessna about the CH-1, "The CH-what?" --Born2flie (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra sources

message: It says several times that the "the Cheyenne was to have a high-speed dash capability to provide armed escort for the Army's transport helicopters, such as the Bell UH-1 Iroquois", but it never explains why the high speed was needed. "It needs to go 240mp so it can keep up with the 180mp transports" seems strange to many readers. I presume it is so the escort can pull ahead to attack or reconnoiter, and keep up a defensive weave or search pattern while still matching the overall ground speed of the transports. And so once it has blasted the heck out of an enemy it can easily catch back up to the main group without forcing them to slow down and wait. Still its not as obvious as, say, a escort fighter's speed requirement. The AH-54 doesn't have to dogfight anyone, and high speed is actually the bane of escort fighters when they are in transit with the bomber force. They don't zigzag because they want to, they do it to avoid pulling ahead of the bombers, and it means they have to cover more miles to cross the same ground.
Also like to know why none of the pictured aircraft appear to have the described "belly turrets" (really ought to be "ventral turret", it's much less informal sounding). Certainly nothing even close to large enough to contain a "30mm cannon" (again it would be really great to know what cannot they planned to use, because even the smallest and lightest that I know of would require a good sized turret. Were they going to use a ADEN cannon? An all-new short barrel, lightweight design for helicopters? The ADEN and DEFA are literally the only 30mms I can think of from the era. I assume none of the pictures show this turret because they never actually produced a turret, and none of the ten prototypes actually had the turret (I don't think they even had the chin guns). They were flight test models only. So it would be nice if it said somewhere that the armament described was the intended armament, but it was never actually fitted to any of the machines built. I guarantee you right now the readers of this article are squinting at the photos trying to make out where the "belly turret" is, and are unable to see it. Because it is not there.
64.222.86.44 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dash speed 

message: The Cheyenne had an interesting design requirement that is not mentioned in the article, and for which I do not have a RS; if an RS is found it would be good to add it. The requirement was that the aircraft was to have a ferry range that would allow it to fly direct from California to Hawaii, so that it could quickly self deploy across oceans. This is an interesting reflection of the thinking of the time. Now, the listed range of the aircraft is less than half this required ferry distance, so either the requirement was relaxed or else the range was to have been increased with drop tanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall coming across this before, but may have just missed it.  Ferry range is generally with little to no payload except fuel.  I'll check my AH-56 book for this weekend. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self deployment requirement 

message: I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from New Page Review process