LHX Program

Artist's impression Sikorsky ABC LHX concept.

Source:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t202161.html

Ah the BAT...*sigh* as a young Air Cavalryman I got to sit in the mockup thinking "Army Aviaiton is gonna be so cool!"

Alas BAT = radical. Thus not for Army Aviation. Indeed no one less than the then SECArmy put out the edict conventional helicopters only.

If you have ever read teh RAND report on their analysis, the tilt rotor was judged better in six of ten missions, tied on two and lost on two. Shockingly the two missions deemed better for a conventional helicopter were reconnaissance and security. RAND even recommended that the Army needed to continue to explore the tilt rotor technology. Promptly ignored.

Thanks for the BAT pics. I've always liked the concept ever since seeing some photos on Bill Gunston's "future fighters" (including some that you posted). The spec sheet and three view are especially nice

Artist's impression Sikorsky LHX concept.

Source:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t202161.html

Boeing Sikorsky LHX mock-up.

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t202161.html

Hi,

the LHX was tested in NASA wind tunnel.

What was the main factor behind Bell dropping their Advanced Tiltrotor design? Was it the addition of the requirement for a utility variant of the LHX, or was it due to the weight requirements? When were the LHX requirements revised to include a utility variant?

Colonial-Marine said:

What was the main factor behind Bell dropping their Advanced Tiltrotor design? Was it the addition of the requirement for a utility variant of the LHX, or was it due to the weight requirements? When were the LHX requirements revised to include a utility variant?

Click to expand...

Mostly it was a decision at the Secretariat level of the US Army that they were not going to do radical rotorcraft (too risky it seems) and Bell being told that a tilt rotor would not be competitive.

Hello All. I recently came across a huge treasure trove of old Bell/McDonnell Douglas LHX material-gotta love a father who worked on the program who had this stuff buried in a box for the past 20 years. I have several artworks, advertisements, decals, cups, shirts, etc that haven't been posted here, plus, some drawings % schematics of the teams Full Scale development prototype. Not trying to revive a dead thread, but I will scan them and post 'em next time I'm at the house if y'all are interested.

Thank you, HaveVoid! We would be delighted to see these LHX SuperTeam materials!

Pwease! Because it was the most sexy of all LHX concepts ever!

What Flateric said

yasotay said:

Colonial-Marine said:

What was the main factor behind Bell dropping their Advanced Tiltrotor design? Was it the addition of the requirement for a utility variant of the LHX, or was it due to the weight requirements? When were the LHX requirements revised to include a utility variant?

Click to expand...

Mostly it was a decision at the Secretariat level of the US Army that they were not going to do radical rotorcraft (too risky it seems) and Bell being told that a tilt rotor would not be competitive.

Click to expand...

I just stumbled upon these last posts today, so excuse the tardiness.

The way the Army did it, they originally asked for a certain level of performance and capability and were looking to advance rotorcraft technology that might be used on future programs. . Bell proposed a Tilt-Rotor. Since it was a much smaller craft, closer in size to the XV-15, the scaling issues we ran into on the V-22 would be minimal at most. Given the XV-15's success, Tilt-Rotor was looked at as a safe bet for advanced technology. Sikorsky proposed some ABC concepts to meet the need, but given the disappointing performance of the XH-59 (given the technology of the time), it would probably have been seen as a high risk venture and might not have gotten too far. Boeing was toying with two concepts, one a conventional rotorcraft and one a Tilt-Rotor. It's not known which way they would have gone, I like to think they wold have gone with the latter.

Suddenly, the Army unexpectedly came out with revised requirements. The speed and part of the range requirement were lowered to what a conventional rotorcraft could comfortably reach. No credit would be given for exceeding this. More importantly, Army specified the maximum power the engine that a bidder proposed could produce and the maximum empty weight of the aircraft. These two figures were both somewhat too low for a Tilt-Rotor of that size (footnote: during the development of the RAH-66 Army allowed these values to grow to what a Tilt-Rotor would have required). Essentially the Army was now saying , "Read my lips: Hel-i-cop-ter". Bell and Boeing both shelved their Tilt-Rotor designs.

There has been much speculation over the years as to why this happened. My personal belief is that two factors played in. First, there night have been the fear that if Bell and Boeing both were looking at a Tilt-Rotor, they might choose to team as they did on the JVX/V-22. This would dominate the field and like what happened with JVX, eveyrone else might drop out. This was about the time when we were starting to look at competition not as a valuable means to an end, but as an end in itself. Second, a Tilt-Rotor might have too high a performance and look and fly too much like an airplane to the point where it might incur the wrath of the Air Force, who would lobby against it (V-22 being a Marines program it was not as much in conflict with the "roles and missions" situation with USAF). Army would then end up with nothing (ironically they did anyway), but for different reasons).

So, conventional helo. As I said, this is just me pontificating.

I have been told from some sage players from behind the green door (no the other one), that some of the old men in charge of Army Aviation procurement at the time got the Secretary of the Army to see the dangers of "to much technology risk" and so the "helicopters only need apply" ruling came about. I am sure that some of F-14D's reasoning was applied to get to the decision.
A decision that haunts Army Aviation to this day, especially regarding tilt-rotor technology.

" the disappointing performance of the XH-59 (given the technology of the time)"... really F-14D you are getting soft in your old age. ;D

hesham said:

Hi,

the LHX was tested in NASA wind tunnel.

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=e-MDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50&dq=LHX+helicopter&hl=ar&ei=Q9O-TLLMEIOaOuq1qEc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19&ved=0CG0Q6AEwEg#v=onepage&q&f=true

Click to expand...

Nice find Hesham!!

Looks somewhat like a refined and cleaned up development of the Bell Cobra - including a resorting back to a retractable landing gear arrangement of the original Bell Model 209 prototype!


Regards
Pioneer

yasotay said:

I have been told from some sage players from behind the green door (no the other one), that some of the old men in charge of Army Aviation procurement at the time got the Secretary of the Army to see the dangers of "to much technology risk" and so the "helicopters only need apply" ruling came about. I am sure that some of F-14D's reasoning was applied to get to the decision.
A decision that haunts Army Aviation to this day, especially regarding tilt-rotor technology.

" the disappointing performance of the XH-59 (given the technology of the time)"... really F-14D you are getting soft in your old age. ;D

Click to expand...

OK, it really failed. They had a good idea, they tried real hard and honestly but not only did they not know things, when they started they didn't even know what they didn't know, so it flopped. It didn't help that the XV-15, arguably the most successful NASA aircraft program of all was flying around in the same circles at the same time.

But then, compared to X-Wing, the XH-59 was a model of success, honesty, practicality and common sense.

From the USAAM archives:

AH-64 Advanced Cockpit Evaluation helicopter with the Bell 222 (with Bell 680 rotor system) and OH-6 NOTAR, used for the Superteam LHX studies:


http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/t43703465/the-lhx-program/?page=4

I was researching some studies on the NOTAR system and have found that it was rejected because it needs about 20% more power than a conventional anti-torque rotor, hence less range. It does not function very well in hot and high. And it does not function in high winds at all.

All of these conditions are very likely in military ops.

Loren said:

I was researching some studies on the NOTAR system and have found that it was rejected because it needs about 20% more power than a conventional anti-torque rotor, hence less range. It does not function very well in hot and high. And it does not function in high winds at all.

All of these conditions are very likely in military ops.

Click to expand...

Those are some of the reasons that the 160th SOAR ended up not adopting NOTAR on their MH-6s, after a long test program. Those reasons though were specific to how NOTAR was done on the MH-6, not NOTAR itself.

Artist's impression (top) of Bell/McDonnell Douglas "SuperTeam" LHX concept.

Artist's impression (second) of Boeing/Sikorsky "FirstTeam" LHX concept.

Artist's impression (third) of Boeing/Sikorsky "FirstTeam" LHX concept.

Artist's impression (fourth) of Bell/McDonnell Douglas "SuperTeam" LHX concept.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aviatorr727/1460341335/sizes/o/in/photostream
http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/t43703465/the-lhx-program/?page=2&sort=newestFirst
http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/t43703465/the-lhx-program/?page=1&sort=newestFirst

yasotay said:

I have been told from some sage players from behind the green door (no the other one), that some of the old men in charge of Army Aviation procurement at the time got the Secretary of the Army to see the dangers of "to much technology risk" and so the "helicopters only need apply" ruling came about. I am sure that some of F-14D's reasoning was applied to get to the decision.

Click to expand...

Though, flipside, considering the fate of the A-12, problems with the F35, and fiasco of Rockwell's VTOL fighter, I think you can argue they did have something of a point.

Greetings all -

A recent donation to the Museum had a 1983/84 Bell Helicopter Textron Reference Guide which included the following pages.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Thanks Mark! I always liked the Bell BAT - not sure it would have been an effective aircraft, but it sure was sexy!

X2!

I actually got to see the BAT mock up close at the Bell Plant those many years ago. Several other Lieutenants and I had "visions of sugar plums dancing through our head". We were giddy with excitement at all of the cool rotorcraft we might get to fly in Army Aviation.

Reality sucks.

A while back I bought off of EPay a pair of LHX brochures from the Boeing-Sikorsky team and the McDonnell Douglas-Bell Helicopter team. Here's the scans of these two, I'll start with the McDonnell Douglas Bell brochure....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

...and the Boeing Sikorsky team...

...and the rest...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Bgray said:

yasotay said:

I have been told from some sage players from behind the green door (no the other one), that some of the old men in charge of Army Aviation procurement at the time got the Secretary of the Army to see the dangers of "to much technology risk" and so the "helicopters only need apply" ruling came about. I am sure that some of F-14D's reasoning was applied to get to the decision.

Click to expand...

Though, flipside, considering the fate of the A-12, problems with the F35, and fiasco of Rockwell's VTOL fighter, I think you can argue they did have something of a point.

Click to expand...

And the success of the Blackbird, Harrier, B-2, B-1, B-52, etc. handily shoots holes in that assertion. If you want to get anywhere then you have to take risks. Else we should just build P-51s and call it quits.

Mark Nankivil said:

A while back I bought off of EPay a pair of LHX brochures from the Boeing-Sikorsky team and the McDonnell Douglas-Bell Helicopter team. Here's the scans of these two, I'll start with the McDonnell Douglas Bell brochure....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Click to expand...

I have the same package complete with the boxing gloves keychain and sticker! Like my old baseball cards, I wish I had kept all of the LHX propoganda that I had amassed over the years. Mrs. Yasotay probably chucked it all in one of the many moves we endured over the years.

sferrin said:

Bgray said:

yasotay said:

I have been told from some sage players from behind the green door (no the other one), that some of the old men in charge of Army Aviation procurement at the time got the Secretary of the Army to see the dangers of "to much technology risk" and so the "helicopters only need apply" ruling came about. I am sure that some of F-14D's reasoning was applied to get to the decision.

Click to expand...

Though, flipside, considering the fate of the A-12, problems with the F35, and fiasco of Rockwell's VTOL fighter, I think you can argue they did have something of a point.

Click to expand...

And the success of the Blackbird, Harrier, B-2, B-1, B-52, etc. handily shoots holes in that assertion. If you want to get anywhere then you have to take risks. Else we should just build P-51s and call it quits.

Click to expand...

I am reminded of the historical case of the US. Army Chief of Logistics in the Civil War who refused even the President of the United States recommendation to outfight the Army with Spencer Repeating Rifle because he thought it would be a frightful waste of ammuntion. Then there is the Chief of Cavalry in 1942 who still held that horses had a significant combat role in the US Army.

yasotay said:

I am reminded of the historical case of the US. Army Chief of Logistics in the Civil War who refused even the President of the United States recommendation to outfight the Army with Spencer Repeating Rifle because he thought it would be a frightful waste of ammuntion. Then there is the Chief of Cavalry in 1942 who still held that horses had a significant combat role in the US Army.

Click to expand...

"This is the biggest fool thing we’ve ever done. The bomb will never go off -- and I speak as an expert on explosives."

Adm. William D. Leahy, USN

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-Aerial-View-Concept-Aircraft-/360467483292?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53ed894a9c
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-031201-Concept-Aircraft-/360467483285?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53ed894a95
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-032275-Concept-Aircraft-/300727994404?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4604c90824
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-031186-Concept-Aircraft-/300727994411?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4604c9082b
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-029712-Concept-Aircraft-/300727994407?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4604c90827
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-031250-Concept-Aircraft-/360467483267?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53ed894a83
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Photograph-Art-Bell-Helicopter-Textron-Side-View-Concept-Aircraft-/360467483273?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53ed894a89

Splendid! Oh for some hi-res versions of these... :

Well, we could do a group buy perhaps.

Sikorsky ABC LHX cutaway


Source: Army Aviation Digest, January 1983

Mark Nankivil said:

A while back I bought off of EPay a pair of LHX brochures from the Boeing-Sikorsky team and the McDonnell Douglas-Bell Helicopter team. Here's the scans of these two, I'll start with the McDonnell Douglas Bell brochure....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Click to expand...

I missed these posts!


Awesome stuff, thanks Mark

Still available... for another day or so.

PaulMM (Overscan) said:

Well, we could do a group buy perhaps.

Click to expand...

One thing I do not quite understand: when a "group buy" is done, where do the purchased items end up "physically"?
I don't think I ever heard of an SPF collection that would be independent from the forum members.
And I don't see why the contributing members would pay to enrich a particular member's own collection.

So please clarify this for me. Thanks in advance!

they end up in collection of forum members that put an enormous efforts, time and own money in sharing info with other SPF members (Mark Nankivil, Scott Lowther, for example) - and we tend to take into account person's specific interests to reward him, sometimes it's a surprise or present
second choice criteria is, for example, can be specific member residence to save on shipping - I often prefer for eBay item like photos to be delivered to my US friends and get a high-quality scan that pay twice the price for hardcopy to be delivered in Russia

group buy is absolutely free-will enterprise, and none hesitated so far (well, we didn't have too much group buys either)