- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,400
- Reaction score
- 2,719
He edited the postHave to disagree Moose.
I do believe it is YAH-63
He edited the postHave to disagree Moose.
I do believe it is YAH-63
It's the dark blotch of camo-paint that throws it off.It's YAH-63 but it does look asymmetric somehow.
Don't think a Bell ad would tout Boeing's product. It is a dfferent angle though to look at the Bell design.That's the Boeing, this is the Bell 409 thread
He edited the post, it's all goodDon't think a Bell ad would tout Boeing's product. It is a dfferent angle though to look at the Bell design.
Mark
Rather, both have a whiff of AH-1 Cobra.The YAH-63 has a whiff of the A-129 about it.
More than a whiff. The Bell model numbering system keeps the same suffix but will change first digit when you change the rotor blade count.Rather, both have a whiff of AH-1 Cobra.
Under-rotored, too. Needed more blades than it had to put the power down.The YAH-63 was overweight and underpowered from the start.
Under-rotored, too. Needed more blades than it had to put the power down.
Given the AH1W->AH1Z transformation, I suspect so.I recall reading that Bell was proud of how durable and resistant to gunfire the big 2-bladed rotor on the YAH-63 was. Yet later in the program with failures to meet speed and maybe other requirement, I wonder if they were reconsidering that design choice behind closed doors? Too late to change horses by then.
Weight. Hugely over weight, and thus the maneuvering capability was in question. The rotor system did not help. Weight is also how DoD estimates cost.Given the AH1W->AH1Z transformation, I suspect so.
Probably shouldn't be.Weight is also how DoD estimates cost.
As you know, changing mega-bureaucracies is not an expedient process.Probably shouldn't be.
I don't think that's been a decent rubric for cost estimation since 2000 at the latest.
But it's so cathartic to apply baseball bats to heads!As you know, changing mega-bureaucracies is not an expedient process.