I really did change my personal text
- Oct 4, 2007
- Reaction score
Given their wording, I'm wondering if they're looking at offering an electric tail rotor(s) solution down the road, and see the Increment 1 COTS tail as a better path to get there.Here's how Bell has changed its design for the prototype it is building for the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.www.defensenews.com
It could also be that Bell has been pushing how their proposal is low risk, a very important thing nowadays. I am looking at verbiage such as, "...we would modify to leverage a proven 525-based open tail rotor design for which we have a lot of flight hours substantiating.”. Army knows open tail rotors, and what Bell may be implying is that that technology would give Army more of a warm fuzzy than a ducted tail rotor.
After all, in order to offer newer technology (assuming it's worth the cost and logistics complications) later, you've got to first win the contract.