Boeing Vertol BV-235 (AAH contender)

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,934
Reaction score
21,841
Boeing-Vertol for Army AAH competition, 1973

Mockup only.
 

Attachments

  • boeing_aah.jpg
    boeing_aah.jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 1,569
Has anyone got a 3-view line drawing of the Boeing-Vertol AAH proposal???

Regards
Pioneer
 
The Boeing-Vertol model looks as if it shares components with the Boeing YUH-61A.Maybe they did it like Bell when they took the Huey and made the Cobra.Kept the engine and tailboom,but made the cockpit more for the gunship role and deleted the troop cabin.Maybe its me,but just something I noticed.
 
Iranian F-14A said:
The Boeing-Vertol model looks as if it shares components with the Boeing YUH-61A.Maybe they did it like Bell when they took the Huey and made the Cobra.Kept the engine and tailboom,but made the cockpit more for the gunship role and deleted the troop cabin.Maybe its me,but just something I noticed.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. Both helicopters shared some avionics, rotor system, shaft, many parts of tail etc.
 
Begging some front view of Boeing AAH project

The Boeing AAH project is very interesting, the mockup of it seem to show a skew cockpit?? or I am wrong?? ??? ???
 
My remaining duty is to post the frontal view of the Boeing AAH... ;D
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_AAH_front.jpg
    Boeing_AAH_front.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 1,161
In the last “Fana de l’Aviation” (#478, Sept.2009) is an article about the Bell YAH-63. Among other AAH 1972 proposals are presented:
- of course the Hughes YAH-64 Apache (do you pronounce Apatshee? The French pronounce it Apash…)
- the photographed! unknown Boeing 235
- the Sikosky S.71
- the Lockheed CL-1700
My main questions are:
1/ Where can I find other pictures (or a view from above) of the Boeing 235 (Google does not find it either with Boeing-235 or Vertol-235)?
2/ As it is absent from Aerofiles at http://aerofiles.com/_boe2.html and from the “full list of rotorcraft” at http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/full_list.html – is the photograph a mock-up project ant not prototype at all?
3/ Is the cockpit of this 235 asymmetric? With a starboard front windshield and a port rear windshield?
 
Please Tophe do not post scans from Le Fana current issue, it's unfair for those who work hard to bring us that superb mag month after month.

Le Fana is Unbuilt Project Lover's last great magazine alive, let's try to help it ;)
 
Thanks for your answers. And please accept my apologies:
- I performed the search tool but the "235" code appeared on the (linked) picture not in the text so the search tool did not find it. Sorry.
- Sorry also for the picture: this was not saying "no need to buy it: I give you all*", this was saying "look an example of wonderful things inside"... This is free advertisement rather than stealing according to me, but I let you judge.
* I respected the 600 pixels width maximum (from 1600 scanned, to 499 down with Photopaint).
 
This is free advertisement rather than stealing according to me, but I let you judge.
Click to expand...

Well, it can be viewed as free ad for sure but some publishers don't agree. So the forum staff decided to prevent any confussion and express full support to writers and publishers.
 
overscan said:
See three view here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,532.msg63897.html#msg63897
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have focused on the asymmetric cockpit for my asymmetric-aircraft site
http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/Asymm_addition.htm
If you have other rare asymmetric, I would be pleased to discover them.
Thanks again.
 

Attachments

  • boeing 235.JPG
    boeing 235.JPG
    96.1 KB · Views: 917
Tophe, there is a flipped-over caption right in the middle of your scan. Was that intentional?
 
Hi,

I put my drawing of the Boeing 235 made for the article. The top view posted in this thread makes me realize that my drawing was not precised enough.
I believe we should have made a 3 view plan but that's too late now...

Regards
Alain
 

Attachments

  • Boeing AAH Sm.jpg
    Boeing AAH Sm.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 771
Thanks Alain - I resized it down a bit, it was a bit too large to see easily even on my high res laptop :)
 
ok, thanks.
originally, we wanted to make a 3 4 view of it to show the unusual cockpit. But I'm not comfortable with 3 /4 views like that...

Regards
Alain
 
not bad Alain

that the drawing is not precised enough, dosend mater
it show clear this odd Cockpit
by the way how was cockpit arraignments,
pilot in front and Gunner on side ?
 
Boeing Vertol AAH submission mock-up

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • AH-1G and Boeing Vertol AAH mockup proposal (2).jpg
    AH-1G and Boeing Vertol AAH mockup proposal (2).jpg
    142.5 KB · Views: 1,074
  • Mockup of Boeing Vertol AAH proposal.jpg
    Mockup of Boeing Vertol AAH proposal.jpg
    100.7 KB · Views: 1,043
  • AH-1G and Boeing AAH proposal.jpg
    AH-1G and Boeing AAH proposal.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 974
Even had Boeing been short listed for demonstration the unique seating arrangement would have been a hard sell with a conservative organization like Army Aviation. Like Boeings JSF entry the ugly factor would have played against it. My opinion of course.
 
yasotay said:
Even had Boeing been short listed for demonstration the unique seating arrangement would have been a hard sell with a conservative organization like Army Aviation. Like Boeings JSF entry the ugly factor would have played against it. My opinion of course.
Click to expand...

The Apache ain't exactly a looker. :) Come to think of it the Cheyenne looked pretty dorky on the ground too (looked SWEET with the gear up though IMO).
 
yasotay said:
Even had Boeing been short listed for demonstration the unique seating arrangement would have been a hard sell with a conservative organization like Army Aviation. Like Boeings JSF entry the ugly factor would have played against it. My opinion of course.
Click to expand...

I agree that none of them are sexy, however the offset cockpit is VERY radical for Army Aviation. Army Aviation is not into radical.
 
What were the advantages to the cockpit configuration on the Boeing-Vertol aircraft? Better view for the guy in the back seat?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What were the advantages to the cockpit configuration on the Boeing-Vertol aircraft? Better view for the guy in the back seat?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Except for his right front quadrant
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
Boeing AAH
Click to expand...

Ok thanks to Tailspin Turtle's posting of the 3-view drawing of the Boeing-Vertol AAH, and a very interesting book titled 'Helicopter Gunships: Deadly Combat Weapon Systems' by Wayne Mutza (a book I can highly recommend, with plenty of pictures, mockups and information we have been looking for in 'Secret Projects' helicopter forums!), the Boeing-Vertol AAH design is in fact the Boeing-Vertol Model 235

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer is there in this book are new photos of Boeing-Vertol Model 235 as posted on this site.
 
I wonder what the was point of the camouflage painted onto the top of the Boeing Vertol AAH mockup? It seems to me that military rotors are black to minimize reflection and visibility. Wouldn't a camouflage scheme with multiple contrasting colors alternating across the span of the rotor just create multiple rings, like a bullseye, when viewed from above in operation? The pattern seems consistent from blade to blade, so the rings would be reinforced. I'd think that anyone with time in helicopters, in the Army or at Vertol, would see this as a non-starter.
I wonder if the bottom of the mock-up's blades were painted air-superiority blue or would that have invited another fight with the USAF?
 
Helicopters spend most of their time on the ground.

MASSTER experimented with camouflaging rotors around the time of AAH and supposedly got good results. Some aircraft in MERDC schemes had camouflaged blades. The biggest potential problem was differing weights of paint causing imbalances.

Even with military helicopters you want the blades to have a certain degree of visibility in operation.
 
Last edited:
Mater_(Cars).png
ecbmud4xkaehnsr-jpg.636675
 
Wyvern said:
What benefits would the asymmetric cockpit layout have?
Click to expand...
As I recall, it was supposed to provide the advantages of a tandem cockpit with better forward view for the pilot. But I suspect that the real reason was that it let Boeing reuse the design of its losing UTTAS (UH-60) competitor for the attack helicopter (AH-64) competition, potentially recouping some of their investment.
 
It was a way of making side-by-side seating work better for pilot visibility, but as iverson suggests, this was most likely because they wanted to reuse YUH-61 elements rather than because it was the best solution.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
It was a way of making side-by-side seating work better for pilot visibility, but as iverson suggests, this was most likely because they wanted to reuse YUH-61 elements rather than because it was the best solution.
Click to expand...

I doubt that commonality with the YUH-61 was a major driver of the side-by-side layout:
- the expensive part of a helicopter that is carried over between designs is the rotor/engine/transmission system. The fuselage configuration is a lesser part of the cost and engineering effort.
- the differing demands of an attack helicopter with a large gun and sensor package mounted on the nose vs a utility transport with a substantial cabin would, I think, severely limit fuselage commonality forward of the tail boom.
- without knowing the details of the competition, contractors that are downselected to the prototype stage are usually generously rewarded if they lose the competition, otherwise it would be a fool's game. Often their participation in prototyping is more profitable than that of the winning competitor, who gets the bigger but longer-term prize of a production contract. So Boeing's investment in the YUH-61 had probably already paid off so that there was nothing to recoup.
- AAH was a major weapon system program with a long time horizon, without the severe time or cost pressures that force designers to adopt hardware from existing designs. Boeing would have been very foolish to compromise their entry with features that were anything but what they perceived to be "the best solution".
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom