Talk:Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne

Prototypes later use
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Each of the 10 prototypes was built for a particular task

1000, No serial Number, never flew, was simply a static test article, Aberdeen Proving Grounds as of 1982

1001, Ser 66-8826, Ground test vehicle, never flew, Used for various ground, engine and rotor tests, Used for ballistic survivability testing at Rock Island Arsenal, Was in state of dissasembly at Aberdeen proving grounds as of 1982

1002, Ser 66-8827, Flight Development Vehicle, Initial Flying qualities and areodynamics, 1st to fly, Fort Polk Display

1003, Ser 66-8828 Flight Development Vehicle, Envelope Expansion, Crashed, Killing Dave Beil

1004, Ser 66-8829 Weapons Integration Vehicle, Scrapped

1005, Ser 66-8830 Avionics Vehicle, 1st to have the full avionics (IHAS) Fort Rucker, Storage

1006, Ser 66-8831 Weapons Test Vehicle, Used in the Cheyenne / Cobra Flyoff at Hunter Ligget Fort Campbell Display

1007, Ser 66-8832 Missle and night Vision Vehicle, Fastest recorded flight of all prototypes 240 knots, Fort Rucker Display

1008, Ser 66-8833 Avionics Labrotory, never flew, Aberdeen Proving Grounds as of 1982

1009, Ser 66-8834 Flight Development Vehicle, replaced 1003 as the envelope expansion vehicle and was fitted with an F-104 Ejection seat in the front cockpit after the loss of 1003, scrapped

1010, Ser 66-8835 Complete Systems Vehicle, Destroyed in Ames wind tunnel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.21.69 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Hum, AH-56 numbers 1 and 8 never flew. Should this be mentioned in the article like in the infobox or somewhere? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Extra sources
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)


 * History Channel shows predecessors not mentioned in the article: scale model with rigid rotor, Lockheed CL-475 with control gyro, and the Lockheed XH-51. This article seems to focus too much on the army side of the program, and too little on the Lockheed side. I am not sure how to incorporate sources from the two articles into this one (I know youtube is not a source) . TGCP (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

AAFSS program review

 * "The Army convened a special task force under General Marks in January 1972, to reevaluate the requirements for an attack helicopter. The purpose of the Marks Board was to develop an "updated and defensible" material needs document.[4] The task force conducted flight evaluations of the AH-56, along with two industry alternatives for comparison: the Bell 309 King Cobra and Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk. Analysis of the three helicopters determined that the Bell and Sikorsky helicopters could not fulfill the Army's requirements.[4][8][37]"

Can we actually confirm that the Army flight evaluated the Cheyenne, King Cobra and Blackhawk together? I don't have the Landis and Jenkins ref. I never thought the Blackhawk was part of this program "officially" because Lockheed had won out against Sikorsky S-66 for the development contract. So I've thought the KC and B were more or less independent efforts by the two helicopter vendors. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can check, but believe the Bell and Sikorsky were evaluated separately in '72. The Cheyene went through various testing and evals up until the program was totally canceled later that year. That wording was not meant to imply/suggest they are all tested together at the same time and place. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I remember reading in my sources that there was an evaluation of all three type. I'll check later today. - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll also have wait until later to check when I go home.  The link to the Army Attack Helicopter Program document(ref. 4) is not working for me now.  Here's the relevant text from page 9 of that document.
 * "On 14 January 1972, the Army established a special task force to conduct a reevaluation of its attack helicopter requirements and to prepare an updated and defensible Materiel Need (MN) document. In the generation of this MN, the Task Force considered field tests, combat experience and computer simulations that have been conducted over the past several years as well as actual flight evaluations of the CHEYENNE and two company-funded prototypes (Bell KING COBRA and Sikorsky BLACKHAWK). The requirements identified for an Advanced Attack Helicopter which could be available in the late 1970's ..."
 * Maybe that'll explain things a bit better. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking more along the lines of OFFICIAL participation, because there's no arguing they built these helicopters in response to the existence of AAFSS. Of course S-66 and S-67 are closely related. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how closely related the S-66 and S-67 were. The S-67 was basically an S-61 with wings and a tandem cockpit, and used the S-61's dynamic components. It wasn't just a built version of the S-66, though it incorporated many features. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - It might depend on what you mean by 'official' here. But everything I've read says Bell and Sikorsky developed their prototypes on their own with company funds in the hopes of getting orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Official means an offerer in the AAFSS acquisition. I think the basic difference bet/ the S-66 and S-67 was the pivoting tail rotor. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference clearly states the three aircraft were flown in a common evaluation. The S-67 and KINGCOBRA were both flown ca 1972 for the Army's evaluation to determine their ability to meet the AAFSS requirements and possibly to determine whether any of the aircraft could meet the soon to be released AAH requirements. We know anecdotally that they did not meet the requirements, and we can only infer which features were shortcomings in comparison to AAH requirements.
 * Re: S-67 specifically. WP article says that it was started November 1969, well after AAFSS award, possibly to capitalize on Bell's success with the Cobra as an interim solution, to show the Army that Sikorsky could do it cheaper, better, and probably to solicit international sales (it was marketed to Egypt and Iran). When it crashed in 1974, they were unable (unwilling?) to recreate the aircraft because it was constructed as a one-off without any jigging developed for the airframe. While the cockpit and wing layout seems to be configured similarly to the S-66, the S-67 differed in powertrain. For instance, the S-66 is depicted as a single-engine, four-bladed main rotor design, while the S-61 and S-67 are twin-engined and five-bladed. Designs change, but the AAFSS competition was design-only, so I don't believe that the S-66 evolved into the S-67 with Army influence through an acquisition program. --Born2flie (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dash speed
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)

Draft:Advanced Aerial Fire Support System
I've created Draft:Advanced Aerial Fire Support System. I think there's more than enough information there already (cribbed from this and other articles) to make a good short article on the AAFSS competition. I have a couple of books that also deal with with the competition that I can try to use also. If anyone would like to help out, it would be much appreciated. BilCat (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say it was good to go as it stands with more or less the right length of content. If you made it any longer with blow by blow detail it'd probably lose conciseness and turn into the aviation equivalent of a five year old film article where Production section is one after another sentences like "on the nth October [producer] revealed on twitter/Instagram/Facebook that [actor name] had been cast as [character]". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 28 February 202editor,)


 * Thanks. It's mostly text dumps from other related articles right now, so it will get shorter once we start rewriting and integrating duplicate information. And yeah, a lot of articles are unfortunately written like that, even aircraft ones. The F-35 article is full of that type of stuff, most of it added by one particular editor who still doesn't get the idea that Wikipedia isn't for trivial news. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Self deployment requirement
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)


 * 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)

Feedback from New Page Review process
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)