And here I was going to guess the project just wasn’t in the right Congressional district… 
Not that that would ever happen…
FARA replaced ARH which came and went in just 3 years. That would’ve been the ARH-70, or pretty much a next-gen OH-58. That program was only like $2bn or so. Even that supposedly had awful cost overruns, which given the fact that they were supposed to be under $10m each was pretty bad.
Far far cheaper than the RAH-66, but apparently it was mismanaged into the ground.
So now we have FARA, which will be more than the ARH-70 but less than RAH-66.
Not quite; the ARH got canned quite a while ago, then the resources were shifted back into the OH-58 which spurred the OH-58F upgrade. The reallocation back in '13 or '14 of Army Aviation resources resulted in the OH-58 being canned altogether, as “the Apache and drones can do that mission!” (spoilers: no, they can’t.) FARA right now is basically about bringing a “light” armed recon capacity back into the inventory, which is more or less a light gunship rather than recon (as that’s what the OH-58 ended up being used for anyways). It’s not going to be cheap and I’d bet that it’s more likely to get canned halfway through than result in a viable platform.
Looks like you could hit the canopy with the main rotor. Count me out.
1 Like
You’ll hate this then…
4 Likes
Pretty sure I still have that poster stored away with all my other vintage posters.
Wheels
1 Like
That is one beautifully balanced machine. Look how it aint rocking in even the slightest bit on startup. Amazing.
Compare that to my DCS Hip or Huey that hop around like excited little 6 year old boys about to go out.
Is the Bell design still in the hunt? That was a much better looking machine.
I’m not sure if they are still in the hunt, but you are 100% right…the Invictus is a cool looking machine…
Plus they have a cool videogame-like trailer…which is even better…haha…
3 Likes
OK so lets compare the two designs. One has a pusher, the other does not. But both have tail rotors.
Now about that tail rotor. It is only needed at lower speeds. At high speeds the asymmetry caused by torque at the main shaft can be countered with a small rudder on the vertical stab. So why not put the tail rotor (fan duct in the case of the Bell) on a gimbal so that it can convert to a pusher as the speed increases? Should I call Bell because I hate the thought of Boeing being awarded anything right now.
1 Like
Wasnt there a very cool ka-50 like thing in the running as well? Coaxial mains and a pusher on the tail?
Some development of the S-97, yes.
I hope that one wins.
1 Like
They should use TWO tail rotors, make them bigger, and them let them gimbal…!
6 Likes
I know, right!
Oh wait, you are talking about the helicopter not my poster…my bad. 
1 Like
Lazy animators… Look at the props texture. They don’t even spin right…
5 Likes
I’m rooting hard for the raider X
For the pusher prop or the counter-rotating rotors?
For both lol, in one airframe too! And the pop-out wings are sweet too.