SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

1/48 Comanche

4835 views
11 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2004
Posted by DPD1 on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:51 PM
As much as I liked the Comanche, I do think it was a bit over kill for the times. At any rate, it would appear we'll be seeing many versions of the 60 for years to come. And the H-1Z looks like it will be pretty potent.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW 'Military Aircraft' Photo CD -
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:04 PM

That was the AAFS system, wasn't it ... with the first Sikorsky chopper to be named Blackhawk and the AH-64 Cheyenne in competition.  Then Bell stepped in with a "heavily modified" Huey (AH-1G) and the Army bought the Cobra on existing contracts.

You are right ... history repeats itself.

Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Huntsville AL
Posted by Comanche Test on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:12 AM
Not for the foreseeable future.  There's one way in which this time in Army history is analogous to Vietnam - significant development is being shelved in favor of buying what works now and fighting the current war.  In a decade or so, the Army might come back to long-range vision, and create something like Comanche again.  By then, I'll be retired.....
On the bench: Not much right now, just getting started again.
  • Member since
    November 2004
Posted by DPD1 on Thursday, December 1, 2005 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><table class="quoteOuterTable"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/FSM/CS/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">&nbsp;<strong>Comanche Test wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4"><P>I have the kit, but I haven't started to build it.  It's in line behind my next masterpiece, a WWII destroyer.  I was the lead test engineer for the Army on the Comanche, so I know a little bit about it.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff... Do you think the design will ever make a reappearance? Or do you think it's pretty much dead forever? Seems like so much work was done on it, but I guess they can use all that data on whatever they do next.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW 'Military Aircraft' Photo CD -
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Huntsville AL
Posted by Comanche Test on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:17 PM

Most of my career (14 years) was spent on Comanche.  Now I'm running test for the next generation (Block III) Apache.  There's nothing that interesting on the drawing boards - the Comanche budget was split out to buy the Block III Apache; the Advanced Recon Helicopter (ARH), which is really just a next generation OH-58D, using an "off-the-shelf" airframe; the Light Utility Helicopter, a cheap replacement for the NG Blackhawk for domestic missions only, a fixed wing cargo to replace the Sherpa, and upgrades/life extensions for the UH-60 and CH-47 fleets.  The budget wasn't cut, it was just spread around on more, less expensive, aircraft.  The Army traded the expensive, high-tech future for more of the plebian present.  I's as if the USAF cancelled the F-22 and bought a bunch of updated F-15s and F-16s.  Some of the technology from Comanche is being used - electronics, digital engine controls, 2nd generation FLIR, but not the composite, low-observable fuselage.  UH-60 and AH-64 contemplated adapting the fly-by-wire flight controls technology, but it was too expensive for too little return compated to the current versions.

And yes, there are many great stories.  Ever flown inverted in a helicopter?

On the bench: Not much right now, just getting started again.
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:17 AM

Welcome, Comanche Test,

Always great to have a top-drawer subject matter expert on board.  And I was sorry to see the program cancelled, too.  Most of us watched the whole LHX development program and it seemed like Comanche was the culmination of all those years of research.  The only reason it was axed was budget cuts, because you folks did a great job on the bird itself.  I only hope it will rise from the ashes, either as a state-of-the-art final version, or as a new airframe using the lessons-learned technology on-board the prototypes.

So, let me ask you ... is there something else on the drawing board now?  And I'm sure you have an extensive background ... what other choppers have been involved with? 

I bet you have some good stories ...

Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:27 AM
Wow, talk about getting the facts straight! Welcome to the boards Comanche Test! Sign - Welcome [#welcome]

That's what I like about this place. Sooner or later someone involved with a program shows up to set us straight.


------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2013
Posted by intruder_bass on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:31 AM

Very interesting info! Thanks! I am looking forward to see your build - hope you will post some pics here.

Andy

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Huntsville AL
Posted by Comanche Test on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:42 AM

I have the kit, but I haven't started to build it.  It's in line behind my next masterpiece, a WWII destroyer.  I was the lead test engineer for the Army on the Comanche, so I know a little bit about it.  What I've seen from looking at the cover art and instructions:

The tail numbers are correct for the two prototypes:  94-0327 (aircraft 1 - structural test) and 95-0001 (aircraft 2 - mission equipment package test).

We never flew the full NVPS/EOTADS on the nose.  95-0001 got a prototype NVPS late in the program.  The rest of the time we flew with a blank dummy of the correct shape, with internal ballast to match the estimated weight.  The dummy had the upper turret turned 180 degrees, back towards the cockpit, in the "stowed" position, and had no lense openings - surfaces were solid.

As someone else mentioned, we flew a different tail configuration on 94-0327 near the end.  This was to fix some aerodynamic problems, and the final configuration would have been part of the production design.  The aft pylon was also changed on 94-0327, and this is not reflected in the Italieri kit.  The fuselage shape reflects the early flight test configuration of both aircraft.  Oh, the model also doesn't have the anhedral main rotor blade tips that were tested on 94-0327, and would have been on a production bird.

We never flew the external wings and stores on any of the aircraft.  We did mount dummy missiles in the internal weapons bays for displays, but the bays were filled with instrumentation for flight test, so the doors couldn't be closed with the dummy missiles mounted.  I have some photos that show one of the prototypes ready to fly with the doors open and dummy missiles mounted.  The most correct way to build it would be without the external wings, and with the weapons bays closed.  I'm contemplating building mine with one of the bays open, and modeling the "orange wire" instrumentation package, but that's just me.

The headrests were black, not red as shown on the cover.

GEN Sullivan's name was on 94-0327 at aircraft rollout, as he was CSA at the time.  I talked to him briefly during the ceremony.  his name disappeared after first flight, as he had retired.

The aircraft was occasionally displayed with a dummy 20mm gun.  We never flew it with the dummy, and the real gun was never mounted.  The flight test aircraft flew with an orange airspeed boom mounted on the gun location, with a YAPS head on the end.  Oh - the production gun only had two barrels, not three.

The cutouts on the landing gear doors are incorrect.  The real ones had a rounded cutout to clear the wheels only, not the oblong cutout on the model.

The model does not have the radome for the Comanche version of the Longbow radar mounted above the mast.  We flew an aerodynamic dummy of this - it looked like Darth Vader's helmet.  Had we continued, 1/3 of the fleet would have been fielded with it.

During the flight test program, 95-0001 was renamed "The Duke" in honor of John Wayne, as a USO promotion.  Garth Brooks sang at the naming ceremony.  The name was painted on the left side of the forward cockpit, and remains to this day.

The two pitot/static tubes on the nose are correct for the prototype aircraft, but would not have appeared on the production version - they were for flight test only and would have been replaced by an airspeed system based on sensors mounted on the rotor blades.

Basically, the shape is the original DEM/VAL aircraft.  Cover the windows on the NVPS/EOTADS, mount the upper turret facing the cockpit, leave off the wings, close the weapons bay doors, and leave off the gun (sealing the opening), and you'll have an early flight test prototype.  Put all that stuff on, and you'll have a concept of what we thought the production aircraft would be as of about 1995.  Put on the NVPS, and you'll have aircraft 2 as of about 2003.  Add the anhedral tips, vertical tail endplates, and revised aft pylon, and you'll have aircraft 1 as of about 2002.  Converting it to the final configuration, representing what we expected the production aircraft to look like as of 2004, would require mods to the tail and aft pylon, and changing the gun to 2 barrels.  The production engine inlets were also planned to be different, having a square rather than a triangular shape, and the production fuselage was a bit longer in the cockpit area.

E-mail me with any questions:  hollenbaugh@mindspring.com

On the bench: Not much right now, just getting started again.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: phoenix
Posted by grandadjohn on Thursday, November 3, 2005 8:30 PM
There is a seam on the fan itself that needs to be cleaned up, but it's not easy to do
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Moooooon River!
Posted by Trigger on Thursday, November 3, 2005 6:46 PM
Here's some of the things I ran into on my build:

– Interior detail looks is a little soft
– I'm not sure the Hellfire are the correct shape.
– There's a gap when you install the tailfan that'll require some filling that's tricky
– The kit is based on the early configuration of the Comanche. Towards the end of it's life, the RAH-66 had small vertical stabilzers at each end of the horizontal tail and a Longbow radome atop the mast (more thimble shaped, not at all like the flat radome on AH-64Ds)
– My kit's decals weren't the best (your results may vary), so I used TwoBobs OIF Apache sheet for my markings (plus I wanted to build an in-service model anyway)
------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..."
  • Member since
    November 2005
1/48 Comanche
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 3, 2005 6:25 PM
Does anyone know of any of any flaws in Italeri's 1/48 Comanche or of any aftermarket kits for it. Any thoughts about the kit would be appreciated. I still think its a shame that the project was cancelled, it was such a beautiful chopper.
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.