drifand Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 (edited) On a whim, I decided to buy a small diecast toy of the Comanche, seeing as how it may soon go the way of the YF-23. It's a cheap little thing, made by MAISTO with an overall length of about 13.7cm (roughly 1/100 scale). Most online photos don't show the optional attack-profile pylons at all, but I guess MAISTO felt it would make for a cooler looking product. I'm already thinking of getting some 1/100 kit weapons to replace the grubby rockets on the toy... Overall, not the most accurate Comanche you can get, but pretty nice for a cheap and small diecast toy :-) Edited February 25, 2004 by drifand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjenius81 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I'm surprised no ones mentioned the fact that it looks like its been dropped in favor of beyond next generation technology like unamanned vehicles. As the article says Rumsfield is entirely in favor of unmanned tech and probably wants an advanced version of the predator to take the place that was reserved for the commanche. In that case i really cant blame him. Its smaller, cheaper (esp when you figure in the cost of the pilot) and can be launched and recovered with a minimum of infrastructure. I had a friend who sadly im out of contact with who used to work for Sikorsky on the Commanche project, but I'm sure hes now out of job. I just wish if they were going to cancel a project, do it in the early design stages, dont wait twenty years down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander McBride Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 You want to know why it's been killed? Because it's a Boeing/Sikorsky project. For decades, the US military has had a relationship with Lockheed that has caused them to favor Locheed over other suppliers. Look at the ATF competition, the Lockheed F-22 was chosen over the much superior YF-23. Look at the lack of funding for Boeing's Osprey. How about the superior (and cooler, IMO) YF-32, passed over in favor of the F-35, manufacturered by (you guessed it), Lockheed. The only odd exception I can find it the Navy's preference for the Boeing F/A-18 over Northrup/Grumman's (part of Lockheed now?) F-14 series. Maybe the Navy has some sort of connection with Boeing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 C'mon guys!!! Talking about political agendas in relation to our military is skimming pretty close to politics, but you's are now crossing the line. Sorry. Btw drifand, that small diecast toy of the Comanche might have some value, since the Comanche project had been cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I've always wondered would the Commanche really have been that stealthy. I mean don't large spinning rotor blades create a huge radar cross section (RCS)? It's a long time since I read up on the Commanche, but what where supposed to be it's advantages (besides stealth) over the Apache? Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 It's a long time since I read up on the Commanche [sic], but what where supposed to be it's advantages (besides stealth) over the Apache? Well, it's been a long time for me too, but I heard that the Comanche can do everything the Apache can, and better. Given the Apache's considerably low RCS, the Comanche's is 600 times smaller than that. Of course, take that with a chunk of salt, because it's been a long time, and I don't remember where I read it. You want to know why it's been killed? Because it's a Boeing/Sikorsky project. I don't know if the fact that Boeing had a hand in the project had anything to do with its death. I mean, let's face it, of the load of fighters in the US arsenal today, how many of those are Boeing? The F-14 is Grumman. The F-15 is McDonnell Douglas. The F-16 is General Dynamics. The F/A-18 is McDonnell Douglas. Sure, the F-15 and F/A-18 are made by Boeing now, but only after McDonnell Douglas has win the contract for them. Only the new generation stealth stuff is really Lockheed, but let's face it, they have the stealth knowledge. Can you blame them? PS: I thought the Comanche was a Lockheed/Sikorsky project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Btw drifand, that small diecast toy of the Comanche might have some value, since the Comanche project had been cancelled. Don't know about that... except the box does mention it is officially licensed product. Might pick up another one because I'm already making modifications to it. I cleared the inner pylons on the stub wings as the real internal bay doors would need the clearance to deploy. Also drilled out the triangular hollow on the molded front gears to replicate proper landing struts. Considering prying off the canopy to insert some 1/100 pilot figures. Definitely getting some olive drab for a repaint :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 A friend found this large but rather bland looking display model... 'only' $160. And here's a report on the Comanche's cost overruns and shortcomings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 You want to know why it's been killed? Because it's a Boeing/Sikorsky project. For decades, the US military has had a relationship with Lockheed that has caused them to favor Locheed over other suppliers. Look at the ATF competition, the Lockheed F-22 was chosen over the much superior YF-23. Look at the lack of funding for Boeing's Osprey. How about the superior (and cooler, IMO) YF-32, passed over in favor of the F-35, manufacturered by (you guessed it), Lockheed.The only odd exception I can find it the Navy's preference for the Boeing F/A-18 over Northrup/Grumman's (part of Lockheed now?) F-14 series. Maybe the Navy has some sort of connection with Boeing? Are you sure it is biased but not performance? From what I heard, the F-35 was far superior because of the VTOL. From my friends in Boeing told me (I use to work for Boeing Commercial Division), they knew they were dead if Lockheed got the VTOL engine to work. The F-14 is being phased out prematurely if you ask me. So did a lot of Tomcat pilots I talked to agreed with me when I was on the USS Constellation for the 2002 Seattle Seafair. The F-18 has been around for a while, it is the Super Hornet is coming in. The Tomcat is being phased because it role as fleet defender/interceptor. Of course it can bomb now (AKA the Bombcat) but the conversion took on too late (I am quoting from a Tomcat driver). The F-18 is a multirole fighter. Anyways there is no bias against Boeing. Boeing was never into the military fighters until they acquired MD. MD makes the harriers, hornets and Eagles at the St. Louis plant. Sure Boeing has other military contracts like the AWACs, satellites, and now the tankers. Boeing was into commercial and space at the time before acquiring MD. Why do you think Lockheed left the commercial aircraft business? They were doing well with their C-130 and C-141. The c-141 are now being replaced by the C-17 made by Boeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Just a quick snap. I bought a 1/100 scale Armour Collection AH-64A Apache on sale and got a AH-1W Super Cobra for free! So now I've three of the best US attack helis together... well, make that two. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 have you seen what boeing is up to??? i know my whole family works for them. try to shoot 1000's of these baby's down. UCAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 have you seen what boeing is up to??? i know my whole family works for them. try to shoot 1000's of these baby's down. UCAV Perhaps a Ghost X-9 in the works? Don't know about that... except the box does mention it is officially licensed product. Might pick up another one because I'm already making modifications to it. I cleared the inner pylons on the stub wings as the real internal bay doors would need the clearance to deploy. Also drilled out the triangular hollow on the molded front gears to replicate proper landing struts. Considering prying off the canopy to insert some 1/100 pilot figures. Definitely getting some olive drab for a repaint :-) Drifand, you're gonna post pics of your mod right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 The Predator's have been working great so far. Both for recon, and with two hellfires attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander McBride Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Going back to what I said the other day, it's really not a bias against boeing, bit a bias toward Lockheed. It's understandable, there are a lot of former Lockheed people in the DOD. As for the JSF, the Boeing one had VTOL as well. And it was a plane that had a better performance, due to the radical design. I think a large part of Lockheed's successes is that they tend to go with more conventional designs, rather thant cutting edge wierd ones, and that figures a lot in why the conservative (IE technically, not politically) military and congress often favor Lockheed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drifand Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Don't know about that... except the box does mention it is officially licensed product. Might pick up another one because I'm already making modifications to it. I cleared the inner pylons on the stub wings as the real internal bay doors would need the clearance to deploy. Also drilled out the triangular hollow on the molded front gears to replicate proper landing struts. Considering prying off the canopy to insert some 1/100 pilot figures. Definitely getting some olive drab for a repaint :-) Drifand, you're gonna post pics of your mod right? Well,you can already see some of the improvements in the newer shot, like the inked-in panel lines and the modified landing gear, although things like the proper clearance for the stub-wing pylons and painted cockpit details may be harder to notice. I still want to remove the bulky 'rotor guard' covering the tailfan, and maybe sanding down the edges of the 5-blade rotor and then painting them in flat black to match the finish on the Armour models. Another option is to paint the hub in bright orange to replicate the look of the prototype craft. Anyway, I just bought another one to keep in original condition, so I'll probably snap some comparison pix once I'm done. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Thanks. I love to see that sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Heh... from The Onion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Funny how I was reading Tom Clancy's Armored Cav. He was saying that the Comanche would be a great addition as part of the 2010 light army. The comanche was suppose to replace the Kiowa. He touting how great it was going to be. I thought the Comanche program was going way too long as it stands... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tico0001 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Pardon my ignorance, but i'm just curious. Weren't those Comanches in the Hulk movie?? If so, were those the actual things or were they just CG? ~Tico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 If so, were those the actual things or were they just CG? I'm sure Lockheed Martin and the Army had no problems loaning testing prototypes to film crews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.