# the AH-1 Cobra is still one mean bird



## twoeagles (Nov 14, 2006)

Photo from an associate working targeting systems for the latest Marine Cobra at China Lake...

That is still a very menacing, tough looking helicopter, and there are many
insurgents who have greeted Allah personally thanks to the Marines
who have their hand on collective and cyclic. "mkloby" will appreciate this!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2006)

The Cobra is a great aircraft. I personally like it better than the AH-64 Apache.

Here are some pics of some Marine Cobras that I took in Iraq. These are the older Whiskey models though that they currently are using.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 14, 2006)

Damn skippy I appreciated that! Nice pics guys. Gotta love the Cobra - the Zulu model is a huge advance too...


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 15, 2006)

Ah, this was based from memory on the experience of using Hueys and Iroquois for supporting troops in Vietnam. The doorguns were used from the air for enemy suppression and close air support. Some types also were armed with rockets. I know somewhere I have something talking about the armaments of an ACH-47 Chinook which is the armoured gunship version of the famous Chinook, and really I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of what that helicopter gunship carries!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2006)

Yeap the US Army used the Huey as gunships in Vietnam. The Marines still use Hueys as gunships. Below is a pic of me standing next to a USMC UH-1N Huey Gunship in Kuwait before I flew north into Iraq. Ofcourse in my superior Blackhawk! 

Just kidding mkloby. I love the Huey, if the Army had let me I would have gone Huey instead of Blackhawk.

I will post the pic tomorrow actually. I have a guest.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 15, 2006)

Blackhawks are definitely excellent helos. It dwarfs the UH-1N with most of its capabilities. Thankfully the Yankees are coming out soon, then it will actually be a utility helicopter. I know Huey pilots that said in Iraq they were so overloaded that they bounced them on the skids on takeoff!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2006)

Here is one of the pics. This one unfortunatly is not the one with the rockets and the 50 Cal. This one only has the .50 Cal. I will have to find the other pics of the "real" gunship Hueys in Iraq.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 16, 2006)

nice pics chris - you're right they do look much more intimidating w/ the 2.75" pods


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 19, 2006)

Yes, do post the photo of the Huey please. They are an interesting looking helicopter. Can't remember ever being in one though. I know I looked at one somewhere but from memory that was an RAAF Iroquois... Similar but not quite...


----------



## rockettmann67 (Nov 20, 2006)

I loved working on the cobra. It is a beautiful aircraft that has alot of personality. Loved working on the miniguns of the S model. 
The C-nite was a great bird to work on too. I think it added another dimension for a great aircraft.


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 20, 2006)

Cobra plus Huey...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

I have that pic as well. It is a really nice one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2006)

really shows the similarities between the two i could never really see it before i saw them side by side..........


----------



## mkloby (Nov 22, 2006)

the cobra is really just a modified huey for attack. From the turbines forward it's just a cockpit and hardpoints!


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 26, 2006)

Okay, nice photos thanks, although my favourite is the AH-64D Apache Longbow. It is my favourite aircraft/helicopter.


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 28, 2006)

We tried awfully hard to sell Apache to the Aussies...A pity they didn't buy
as I was all ready for an assignment in southern latitudes. AH-64 pretty much
raised my two children...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2006)

Ah the UH-60 all the way!


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 28, 2006)

AH-64Ds down UH-60s just as quickly as Mi-24 Hinds. They are the greatest gunships yet in the world...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

that's if you can get them flying, that'll be the last time they use Windows XP in an attack helicopter  and what's not to like about the hind? next time you watch Star Wars Ep.II look for the similarities between the Republic Gunships and the Hind, and we all know how much the gunships rocked


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> AH-64Ds down UH-60s just as quickly as Mi-24 Hinds. They are the greatest gunships yet in the world...



What are you talking about? The Apache is a ground attack/anti tank helicopter. It is not a air to air aircraft. The movie Firebirds is fake. They dont shoot aircraft down with there cannon or the rockets in the pods.

The Blackhawk is actually faster and just as maneuverable and is actually a more stable weapons platform, which is why the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment "Night Stalkers" uses the Blackhawk as a gunship with hellfires and rockets and miniguns instead of the Apache. They dont use a single Apache as a matter of fact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

Please tell me Healzdevo that you dont get this stuff from the movie Firebirds.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)




----------



## abramsteve (Nov 30, 2006)

Wow thats the meanest looking Huey Ive ever seen! Nice pic!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Please tell me Healzdevo that you dont get this stuff from the movie Firebirds.



I thought all you needed to down a hind was a bow and arrow... rambo did it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

What about firing an RPG out the cockpit of a Huey and not taking your own aircraft down by the back blast. Rambo did that too!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

C'mon Adler. Its a simple matter of physics. Rambo put non-trigger hand over the aft end to hold the blast in. Jeez. I have to explain everything.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 1, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> C'mon Adler. Its a simple matter of physics. Rambo put non-trigger hand over the aft end to hold the blast in. Jeez. I have to explain everything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> C'mon Adler. Its a simple matter of physics. Rambo put non-trigger hand over the aft end to hold the blast in. Jeez. I have to explain everything.



I am not worthy....


Damn I should have tried that when I was in Iraq!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)

You didn't have the proper training. That's not a learned response, son.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 2, 2006)

Just remember to use your left hand if you try it


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)

Your thinking of the Muslim Rambo. Never block the rocket exhaust with the same hand with which you wipe your arse.


----------



## Smokey (Dec 2, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I thought all you needed to down a hind was a bow and arrow... rambo did it...



There is this rumour

"Its cables and fuel lines were so vulnerable to small arms fire it was even rumored that a CH-21 had been downed by a Viet Cong spear."


From 

CH-21 Shawnee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)

The Flying Banana.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 2, 2006)

AH-64Ds can actually do shoot-downs. They can carry four AIM-9 Sidewinder ATA Missiles on the end of the wing pylons. Both AH-64A and AH-64D can go ATA if they have to. I can remember missions in Jane's Apache Longbow Anthology where you hunted down Hinds and other helicopters in action. If you are lucky in that game you can use the Apache to take out an aircraft although they are more difficult to hit... That game is based on what happens in real life. The AH-64D Apache Longbow can be used as ATA but its main mission is ground-attack and close-air support. I think it also does lazering of targets on the ground, and destruction of SAM sites. I can remember there were a few missions in campaigns in that game where you had to scan for SAM sites from cover and then eliminate them before friendly aircraft got there to take out the main target... But Black Hawks would be very vulnerable in that role as they can't do the safety tricks quite as well as the Apache can... Black Hawks make better targets though... When I am talking about safety tricks I am meaning being able to perform slide-slips and that when a missile is closing so it will overshoot. Could be crucial if you miss seeing the missile earlier... AH-64 never exceed speed is 197 knots or 365km/h while the Blackhawk's maximum speed is 193 knots or 357km/h.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> AH-64Ds can actually do shoot-downs. They can carry four AIM-9 Sidewinder ATA Missiles on the end of the wing pylons. Both AH-64A and AH-64D can go ATA if they have to. I can remember missions in Jane's Apache Longbow Anthology where you hunted down Hinds and other helicopters in action. If you are lucky in that game you can use the Apache to take out an aircraft although they are more difficult to hit... That game is based on what happens in real life. The AH-64D Apache Longbow can be used as ATA but its main mission is ground-attack and close-air support. I think it also does lazering of targets on the ground, and destruction of SAM sites. I can remember there were a few missions in campaigns in that game where you had to scan for SAM sites from cover and then eliminate them before friendly aircraft got there to take out the main target... But Black Hawks would be very vulnerable in that role as they can't do the safety tricks quite as well as the Apache can... Black Hawks make better targets though... When I am talking about safety tricks I am meaning being able to perform slide-slips and that when a missile is closing so it will overshoot. Could be crucial if you miss seeing the missile earlier... AH-64 never exceed speed is 197 knots or 365km/h while the Blackhawk's maximum speed is 193 knots or 357km/h.



Flightsim games.... 

AH-64s were tested in 1987 for an air-to-air capability. Since then a number of helicopters have been configured for an air-to-air capability. As far as I know the only helicopter kill happened in viet nam when a Huey shot down 2 AN-2 biplanes.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Flightsim games....
> 
> AH-64s were tested in 1987 for an air-to-air capability. Since then a number of helicopters have been configured for an air-to-air capability. As far as I know the only helicopter kill happened in viet nam when a Huey shot down 2 AN-2 biplanes.



Joe - are you saying that flight sims are not actual representations of real life!?!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Joe - are you saying that flight sims are not actual representations of real life!?!?



 

About a year and a half ago I gave an introductory ride to a 17 year old kid who was real bright but also a real know it all - he flew all the flight sims and pc flight games ya know, so flying in a 172 would be a piece of cake so I was told!

His continual "I know that" comments for everything I was trying to show him was really starting to piss me off. Since his mom was paying for this, I figured I'd give him his money's worth. I asked him he he knew what a stall was, and he looked at me like I was an idiot - I then quickly pitched up about 60% and did one of the nastiest departure stalls you'll ever see - I think the kid was zero g for 5 seconds. After that he understood the difference between sims and real aircraft!


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 3, 2006)

I think the missing item bteween a sim and real is that an airplane doesn't have pause button


----------



## evangilder (Dec 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Flightsim games....
> 
> AH-64s were tested in 1987 for an air-to-air capability. Since then a number of helicopters have been configured for an air-to-air capability. As far as I know the only helicopter kill happened in viet nam when a Huey shot down 2 AN-2 biplanes.



Gee, now there is a hard target to hit!


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 3, 2006)

Ha, that's nothing, Blue Thunder took out heaps of choppers and a couple of F-16's. That proves helicopters can dogfight!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I asked him he he knew what a stall was, and he looked at me like I was an idiot - I then quickly pitched up about 60% and did one of the nastiest departure stalls you'll ever see - I think the kid was zero g for 5 seconds. After that he understood the difference between sims and real aircraft!



You should've held some backyoke, full rudder, and put him into a spin! By the way - what's the 172's tolerance for 0g flight?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2006)

mkloby said:


> You should've held some backyoke, full rudder, and put him into a spin! By the way - what's the 172's tolerance for 0g flight?



-1.5Gs


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2006)

Had an A-4 mechanic tell me the story of his introduction to the squadron. Everyone had to do an initial checkride. He was young and cocky and was running his mouth he said. He climbs into the back, is strapped in. All the while talking about how excited he was for this "joy ride". In his words, he said they lined up at the threshold and were given clearance. Full throttle they go and the pilot yanks a max-G pull-up. He said he instantly puked inside his mask, it ran down the front of his suit and between his legs. The pilot never said a word to him and yanked him around for about 5 minutes. He said it felt like an hour, the whole time he was puking and going through dry heaves.

Once they landed he was instructed to clean it up. A rather humbling experience he noted. Never more did he run his mouth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> AH-64Ds can actually do shoot-downs. They can carry four AIM-9 Sidewinder ATA Missiles on the end of the wing pylons.



No actually it can carry two missiles on the end. Not 4. It is capable but never been used in combat. There are no units that train for it either. They leave the Airforce and the ADA for that.



HealzDevo said:


> Both AH-64A and AH-64D can go ATA if they have to.



No only the AH-64D Longbow can have Air to Air capability. The original Alpha model does not. Trust me I know Healz. I was in Army Aviation for 6 years and was stationed with Apaches. Flew missions with Apaches. Both Longbow and Alpha Model.



HealzDevo said:


> I can remember missions in Jane's Apache Longbow Anthology where you hunted down Hinds and other helicopters in action. If you are lucky in that game you can use the Apache to take out an aircraft although they are more difficult to hit... That game is based on what happens in real life.





I have played the game HealzDevo and it is far from what happens in Real Life. Trust me I know. I have over 650 hours of combat flight time.



HealzDevo said:


> But Black Hawks would be very vulnerable in that role as they can't do the safety tricks quite as well as the Apache can...



What do you mean by that? The Blackhawk is just as maneuverable than the Apache. It can do everything the Apache can when it comes to flying.



HealzDevo said:


> Black Hawks make better targets though...



Actually in reality make no different a target than the Apache. I know I flew the Blackhawk for 6 years. 



HealzDevo said:


> When I am talking about safety tricks I am meaning being able to perform slide-slips and that when a missile is closing so it will overshoot.



Side Slipping or what ever you are talking about is not the maneuver to evade a missile being fired at you. You actually turn into the missile. Trust me I know I trained for it for 6 years and had missiles fired at me in Iraq.



HealzDevo said:


> Could be crucial if you miss seeing the missile earlier... AH-64 never exceed speed is 197 knots or 365km/h while the Blackhawk's maximum speed is 193 knots or 357km/h.



That is actually wrong. The Blackhawks top speed is 197.The Blackhawk uses the more powerful T-701C engines while the Apache uses the less powerful T-700. Also using less power than the Apache, a Blackhawk can cruise at higher speeds than the Apache. I know I escorted the Apaches into Iraq and we had to slow down so they could keep up with us.

You are talking to an expert here on the Blackhawk and Apache, HealzDevo. The game that seems to make you an expert on the matter is very very fake. Trust me, you see the pics below, thats me. That is not a video game that is real life.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Had an A-4 mechanic tell me the story of his introduction to the squadron. Everyone had to do an initial checkride. He was young and cocky and was running his mouth he said. He climbs into the back, is strapped in. All the while talking about how excited he was for this "joy ride". In his words, he said they lined up at the threshold and were given clearance. Full throttle they go and the pilot yanks a max-G pull-up. He said he instantly puked inside his mask, it ran down the front of his suit and between his legs. The pilot never said a word to him and yanked him around for about 5 minutes. He said it felt like an hour, the whole time he was puking and going through dry heaves.
> 
> Once they landed he was instructed to clean it up. A rather humbling experience he noted. Never more did he run his mouth.



Yeah we used to get kids all the time that would come out to the aircraft and tell us that we could not make them sick. Well this one time, the last time I was in the field before I got out of the army we had this 18 year old Private come to the aircraft, tell us we cant make him sick and that helicopters are slow and boring. Needless to say we flew doors open and gave him a nice NOE flight yanking and banking for about 20 minutes. He puked all over the place in the first few minutes and the best part was he was sitting in the "hurricane seat" and all his puke blew right back into his face. Man I was laughing!

I ran into him the Friday night at the local pub here and he seems to think I am his friend now...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

Oh and here is what it normally looks like when we get those kids in our aircraft that think they know everything because they play video games like Longbow and stuff like that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2006)

hehehehe.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

Pretty nasty actually. I think he ate a Beef Stew MRE before the guy flew with us.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 3, 2006)

Nice Chris. Luckily I never had any real problems w/ airsickness - almost lost it during my first T-34C flight, and again on my first aerobatics flight. When I was doing formation aerobatics my wing puked all over his glareshield, instruments, and down the A/C vents  He spent an hour cleaning that bird up...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

I have never been air sick. The one time I threw up in flight was because I ate something really bad during a small break in our flight at the Pristina Airport in Kosovo and on the flight back to camp I had to have the pilot stop since I had not bags on board and sit at a hover, while I puked out my window.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2006)

I had a real bad airsickness problem when I first started flying - i later found out i had some inner ear damage that was causing me to chuck even under the slightest movements. Eventually I overcame it...


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 3, 2006)

Ok, still, Iraq hardly had an airforce even before the second US pounding in Gulf Storm revisted, did it? It would be different in terms of what helicopter you'd favour against a proper airforce wouldn't it?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 4, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> Ok, still, Iraq hardly had an airforce even before the second US pounding in Gulf Storm revisted, did it? It would be different in terms of what helicopter you'd favour against a proper airforce wouldn't it?



Helos are not used for that. You would obviously be running much more air-superiority missions, but you aren't going to put sidewinders on apaches or cobras and go mig hunting. That's what the 15s, 16s, 22s, 18s, etc are for.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 4, 2006)

Air superiority today is radar driven, and no matter what weapon one hangs
on a helo, lacking a proper radar, it is short range line-of-sight combat and
as much fun as that is on computer games, it isn't what you want to be doing
with the real thing. It would get you dead real quick.

Hey - I used to get airsick almost to the point of puking *when on airlines*.
Years of aerobatics behind me, too. The day airlines banned smoking, my
airline sickness disappeared. I'm allergic to the smoke!!!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

You have animosity for this dude? He was just green. Everyone has their comeuppance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> Ok, still, Iraq hardly had an airforce even before the second US pounding in Gulf Storm revisted, did it? It would be different in terms of what helicopter you'd favour against a proper airforce wouldn't it?



It does not matter that is what I am trying to say to you. Your video game is not what happens in real life. Even if the Iraqi Airforce was powerful and active it would not have been the job of Apaches to take out the Migs. They never would have been armed with sidewinders in Iraq. That is not the job of the Apache. That is the job of the Airforce.

The Apace is only used for ground support and anti tank, period!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 4, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> You have animosity for this dude? He was just green. Everyone has their comeuppance.



But then where are we going to get our laughs from Matt? Everyone in the mil has been "that guy" at one point or another!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

That's my point. You can't steal my point! I own that point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2006)




----------



## armypilot (Dec 6, 2006)

I would have to agree that I like the Cobra better than the Apache. Flew Cobras for almost eleven years and was on the flight of our last six to turn in at Fort Drum, NY in 2001. The Cobra has a certain mystic and personality that the 64 just does not have. Don't get me wrong, the 64 is hands down in all aspects a much more capable A/C than the Army Cobra ever was or could ever had hoped to be. The 64 is just a brute, a machine in every sense of the word. Flew them for two years and just never developed the type of attachment and fondness that I had for the Cobra. I was only an A model Apache guy never got to fly the Longbow but it is still pretty much the same, still a brute! Flew the following variants of Cobra: AH-1S(Mod) AH-1P, AH-1E, AH-1F and an NAH-1S for NASA at NASA Ames Research Center from 92-96.


----------



## armypilot (Dec 6, 2006)

Still wish I were flying Cobras!


----------



## mkloby (Dec 6, 2006)

armypilot said:


> I would have to agree that I like the Cobra better than the Apache. Flew Cobras for almost eleven years and was on the flight of our last six to turn in at Fort Drum, NY in 2001. The Cobra has a certain mystic and personality that the 64 just does not have. Don't get me wrong, the 64 is hands down in all aspects a much more capable A/C than the Army Cobra ever was or could ever had hoped to be. The 64 is just a brute, a machine in every sense of the word. Flew them for two years and just never developed the type of attachment and fondness that I had for the Cobra. I was only an A model Apache guy never got to fly the Longbow but it is still pretty much the same, still a brute! Flew the following variants of Cobra: AH-1S(Mod) AH-1P, AH-1E, AH-1F and an NAH-1S for NASA at NASA Ames Research Center from 92-96.



The AH-1Z is going to be a tremendous improvement over the whiskeys now - it will definitely be a much more capable aircraft over it's replacement.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 6, 2006)

I was not suggesting that it was the Apache's job to take out the Migs. I was just saying that it had better defensive capabilities than the Blackhawks... I know its main role would still be search and destroy, a role it is better at than the Blackhawks. Having the ability to assess the situation from behind terrain if available has got to count for something, even in the real world... The AH-64A, AH-1Z and Blackhawks have to almost totally expose themselves to get a tactical view of the situation before they can decide whether to engage a target or not. That is why AH-64Ds even in the real world would be better than those other types, because they can assess for SAM sites, I would have thought. Note that when I say AH-64D, unlike the US Army I don't consider those without the Radar Dome as AH-64Ds. I consider them to be As although I did come across what I think was a mistake in a photo representing an AH-65, unless it was an upgraded one that they did the upgrades on some other As and kept the same number... Mystery as to that number. I don't know of it actually existing...


----------



## armypilot (Dec 6, 2006)

Not aware of an "AH-65" the Coast Guard has the HH-65. All the D model Apaches in Iraq had the radars removed but they still had the huge improvement over the A model with the dual AC units in the FABs and the GE T700-GE-701C engines at approx 1800 SHP each over the older GE T700-GE-700 at approx 1560 SHP each.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 7, 2006)

Nor am I. What a travesty to destroy what makes the AH-64D better! If anything this capability needs to be expanded to the whole fleet. Idiots!!


----------



## armypilot (Dec 7, 2006)

Eventually the U.S. Army fleet will all be D models with one in every four with the mast mounted millimeter wave targeting system. With the type of war we are currently engaged in, the system is not needed but if we get involved with a country that has large armor and ADA assets they sure will be.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I was just saying that it had better defensive capabilities than the Blackhawks... I know its main role would still be search and destroy, a role it is better at than the Blackhawks.



Exactly but that is not the job of the Blackhawk. What I am saying is this and it is fact. The AH-1 and UH-60 are overall better aircraft than the AH-64 Handsdown, no matter what varient you are talking about. Also the AH-64D will never do any Air to Air combat...



Healzdevo said:


> The AH-64A, AH-1Z and Blackhawks have to almost totally expose themselves to get a tactical view of the situation before they can decide whether to engage a target or not.



Not true. Ever hear of a OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and what its job is?



Healzdevo said:


> That is why AH-64Ds even in the real world would be better than those other types, because they can assess for SAM sites, I would have thought. Note that when I say AH-64D, unlike the US Army I don't consider those without the Radar Dome as AH-64Ds.



No there AH-64Ds. They have the upgraded avionics packages, they are slightly different in design and they have the better engines. They work in tandem with the ones with the other ones.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> Nor am I. What a travesty to destroy what makes the AH-64D better! If anything this capability needs to be expanded to the whole fleet. Idiots!!



Why it is not needed in Iraq. It is just another expensive component that could be damaged and cost more money to repair or replace. In Iraq we are not fighting hoards of Iraqi tank columns and Divisions. It is a completely different kind of war over there.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 7, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> The AH-64A, AH-1Z and Blackhawks have to almost totally expose themselves to get a tactical view of the situation before they can decide whether to engage a target or not.



AH-64D can, for example, fire RF Hellfires from a defilade position, not being exposed. AH-1Z will also have this capability.


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh and here is what it normally looks like when we get those kids in our aircraft that think they know everything because they play video games like Longbow and stuff like that.



ROFL...that's cute.

I took a few young F-15 pilots (from McCord AFB) out to Yakima Proving Grounds back in the late 80's in my Alfa model Hawk...near same result...except their lunch was dripping from the upper cabin sound proofing. 8) 

Good sports they were though...said they had a blast and they never imagined a helicopter could pull some of the manuevers we did.


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> AH-64Ds down UH-60s just as quickly as Mi-24 Hinds. They are the greatest gunships yet in the world...



I'd much more prefer this:







Minus the refueling boom of course...that dart really limits extreme low level pitch axis manuevers.

Also, these things pig out sitting on the ramp at like 21K lbs and the stub wings and external stores increase profile drag and exponentially increase parasitic drag.

What I really loved to play in was a vanilla Lima model Hawk with a half bag of gas. I'd do circles around Apache's and out run em at my pleasure. 

In either case...at standard mission gross weights; Hawks have more reserve power available then Apache's...never mind the all that parasitic drag hanging off the 64.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 8, 2006)

Two different helo's built to two different specs. But it's still fun to debate.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2006)

great info. I would have never guessed the performance between the two were in a similar class. Great posts!


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

*AH-64A/D * 

from: BOEING AH-64 APACHE - Jane's Air Forces 

Weight empty: 
without Longbow approx 5,165 kg (11,387 lb) 
with Longbow 5,352 kg (11,800 lb) 
Max fuel weight: internal 1,108 kg (2,442 lb) 
external (four Brunswick tanks) 2,712 kg (5,980 lb) 
Primary mission gross weight 7,480 kg (16,491 lb) 
*Design mission gross weight 8,006 kg (17,650 lb) *
Max T-O weight: -701 engines 9,525 kg (21,000 lb) 
-701C engines, ferry mission, full fuel 10,432 kg (23,000 lb) 
Max disc loading 60.1 kg/m2 (12.31 lb/sq ft) 

*Performance (A: with -701 engines, without Longbow at 6,552 kg; 14,445 lb AUW, L: Apache Longbow at 7,530 kg; 16,601 lb with -701C engines)*

*Never-exceed speed (VNE) 197 kt (365 km/h; 227 mph)*

*Max level and max cruising speed: 
A 158 kt (293 km/h; 182 mph) 
L 143 kt (265 km/h; 165 mph)*

Max rate of climb at S/L: L 736 m (2,415 ft)/min 

*Max vertical rate of climb at S/L: 
A 762 m (2,500 ft)/min 
L 450 m (1,475 ft)/min *

Service ceiling: A 6,400 m (21,000 ft) 
L 5,915 m (19,400 ft) 
Service ceiling, OEI: A 3,290 m (10,800 ft) 

*Hovering ceiling: 
IGE: A 4,570 m (15,000 ft) 
L 4,170 m (13,690 ft) 
OGE: A 3,505 m (11,500 ft) 
L 2,890 m (9,480 ft) *

Max range, internal fuel: 30 min reserves: 
A 260 n miles (482 km; 300 miles) 
L 220 n miles (407 km; 253 miles) 
no reserves: L 257 n miles (476 km; 295 miles) 
Ferry range, max internal and external fuel, still air, 45 min reserves 1,024 n miles (1,899 km; 1,180 miles) 
Endurance at 1,220 m (4,000 ft) at 35ºC 1 h 50 min 
Max endurance, L: internal fuel 2 h 44 min 
internal and external fuel 8 h 0 min 
g limits at low altitude and airspeeds up to 164 kt (304 km/h; 189 mph) +3.5/-0.5 



Now...the *UH-60A* 

Since the searches on the net all showed glooming errors of some or most of the data, what I will for you is pull out my trusty ole Army TM 1-1520-237-10, dated 31 Oct 1996 (updated to Ch4, dated 29 Jan 99). I'm certain there is a more current H-60 operators manual and/or update, but I am equally certain I can crunch the performance numbers utilizing chapter 7's performance charts and provide a a comparision of performance, focusing on the bolded items above on the AH-64D (with the GE 701C engines).

Now, a couple of assumptions...

1. The enviornmental/atmospheric base utlized to derive the performance information. I will assume, as with most aviation performance data (unless otherwise indicated) Standard Day atmospheric conditions were used. Meaning a temp of +15C (59F) and a pressure altitude of 29.92 inches of mercury (or sea level).

2. H-60A Mission gross weight as indicated in the operators manual of 16,825 lbs.

That is how I will enter my charts.

*Design mission gross weight 7,632 kg (16,825 lb) *

*Performance A model H-60 7,632 kg (16,825 lb) with T-700 engines)*

*Never-exceed speed (VNE) 193 kt (357 km/h; 222 mph)* 

*Max level and max cruising speed: 
A 152 kt (282 km/h; 175 mph)* 

*Max vertical rate of climb at S/L: 
A 792 m/min (2,600 ft)/min*

*Hovering ceiling: 
IGE: A 4,633 m (15,200 ft) 
OGE: A 4,298 m (14,100 ft)*

That's for the Alfa model Blackhawk...the original model H-60 which entered service begining in 78 or 79 and of which I have the majority of my 4000+ hours operating H-60's. I can tell you with most certainty that the L model Hawk (with the 701C engines) performance does leaps and bounds in most areas then A model Hawks (with the 700 engines).

A couple of notes, if I may;

1. Vne: no real military helicopter I know of can attain Vne in straight and level flight at any pressure altitude and/or temp. Sorry, you gotta dive to reach structural Vne (there may be an imposed enviornmental Vne as well). 

Also, the fastest in straight and level flight I've gone in any H-60 model variant was an early production 1978 A model (even painted in the old slick olive drab)...and did (on a fair spring day at about 8K altitude) about 170 kts indicated (equaling about 190 kts or so true airspeed).

Other than that the fastest I've gone is in Honduras...placing my L model Hawk in a 3 degree dive from 10,000 feet and slowly applying power to maximum. Got 225 kts indicated and a ground speed abit higher (we had a tail wind).


----------



## armypilot (Dec 8, 2006)

Well stated Husky! Do not understand all this banter going on about which aircraft is better. Two completely different aircraft designed for two completely different missions. Like comparing apples to oranges or asking which was the better aircraft the P-51 or the B-17? I used to be an Apache pilot and currently am a Blackhawk pilot and I can say from combat experience they are both very capable machines in the roles they were designed for.


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

armypilot said:


> Well stated Husky! Do not understand all this banter going on about which aircraft is better. Two completely different aircraft designed for two completely different missions. Like comparing apples to oranges or asking which was the better aircraft the P-51 or the B-17? I used to be an Apache pilot and currently am a Blackhawk pilot and I can say from combat experience they are both very capable machines in the roles they were designed for.



Exactly AP.

I must tell you that I disagree in metaphorical terms (I’m assuming) of your association (in performance) of an H-60 with a B-17 and an AH-64 with a P-51. But I agree totally with your general assessment; two totally different airframes with two different totally different design missions.

The thing about the Hawk is; it CAN do all. Hell, I’ve done it; from assault, to air mobile, to service and support, to VIP, to scout, to attack, to defensive suppression, to MEDEVAC, to C4, to ECM jamming….the platform is so flexible and yet so capable.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 8, 2006)

Husky said:


> Exactly AP.
> 
> I must tell you that I disagree in metaphorical terms (I’m assuming) of your association (in performance) of an H-60 with a B-17 and an AH-64 with a P-51. But I agree totally with your general assessment; two totally different airframes with two different totally different design missions.
> 
> The thing about the Hawk is; it CAN do all. Hell, I’ve done it; from assault, to air mobile, to service and support, to VIP, to scout, to attack, to defensive suppression, to MEDEVAC, to C4, to ECM jamming….the platform is so flexible and yet so capable.



There was hype going throughout the Corps earlier this year about picking up the 60 to replace the aging UH-1N's... but they are still going ahead w/ the Yankee.


----------



## Husky (Dec 8, 2006)

mkloby said:


> There was hype going throughout the Corps earlier this year about picking up the 60 to replace the aging UH-1N's... but they are still going ahead w/ the Yankee.



I'm sure all kinds of reasons...

maybe primarily, the UH-1Y has 70% commonality with the AH-1Z's.

...then there's the internal and external politics.

Not always the best machine...but the best that can be allowed.

As a side note, the Army did a good thing with the H-60 (wonderful machine) that has demonstrated incredible mission flexiblity and ability to grow within the airframe (I think Bell is really pushing the edge with future growth of the UH-1 airframe for utility).

Also, I think the Army screwed the pooch with the Apache and should have adapted the Marines AH-1 mod program...that Z model is quite capable and would have saved the Army millions.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 9, 2006)

Thanks for your perspectives for us numbnuts that can only admire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2006)

I can tell you I am very biased toward the Hawk. I crewed her for 6 years and on 2 deployments and she never failed on me. Got around 1500 hours in her including over 650 combat hours and almost as many imminate danger hours and only once had a problem (we lost both engines about 6 months ago taking off out or an international Airport in Germany, we were only at about 10ft. ) other than stabilator failures and once a generator failure. She kept on trucking! Had aircraft get filled with holes in Iraq and she kept going! A buddy of mine was flying into Kirkuk in northern Iraq and an engine ingested something and it literally exploded and started sparking. Fuel went everywhere, but she made into the Airfield. 

Now that I am no longer in the Army and not flying her anymore I will never forget this beautiful aircraft.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 9, 2006)

I disagree with the assessment that Army "screwed the pooch" with Apache.
You have to remember where we were 28 years ago - and today's AH-1Z
isn't your Daddy's Cobra by any stretch. In 1980, when we were doing a lot
of developmental work on Apache in Yuma, the best AH-1 pilots the Army
could muster were ready to sell their Gandma's to get into the AH-64. That
the AH-1 has grown significantly truly understates the case - it is a fine
machine. As for the UH-60 back in 1980 timeframe, remember that we called
them Lawndarts, and it, too, has come along an evolutionary path and grown
into an amazingly capable bird. But it wasn't always that way.

But then, I still think the A-4 Skyhawk is the best plane I ever flew, and the
most capable, and had incredibly diverse talents. I sure wouldn't tell the
Navy that they ought to have upgraded the A-4 for the last 30 years
rather than start down the F-35 path. History is a funny thing. You just
move forward and you can't tell today precisely where you'll be next week.

Anyway, it's all good. What I want for our pilots is the very best we can build
in terms of firepower, survivability, and reliability, whatever shape that takes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2006)

Lawndarts!  I remember that. The Blackhawk had a problem with when flying over HRTA sites and then the stabe programing down and the aircraft falling into the ground. Problem was corrected by installing pin filters and the manual slew switch.

The Blackhawk has really grown into a great aircraft. The L models the I flew had all the bugs worked out, the transmission problems were gone and she was a great aircraft who loved to fly. I did not fly A models until the last 6 months that I was in the Army but they were a pain to work on. They were very old (82 models compared to the 95s we had when we had the Limas). and it took a lot to maintain them.


----------



## Husky (Dec 9, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> I disagree with the assessment that Army "screwed the pooch" with Apache.
> You have to remember where we were 28 years ago - and today's AH-1Z
> isn't your Daddy's Cobra by any stretch. In 1980, when we were doing a lot
> of developmental work on Apache in Yuma, the best AH-1 pilots the Army
> ...



I'm not trying to "dis" the Apache...certainly a most capable airframe, I just think it costs waaaay too much for it's limited misssion. I fully understand it what it was developed and then contracted for...a different time, place, and battle.

Also, I am quite familiar with the term "lawndart". I've probably had 300-400 stabilator failures...the vast majority in the mid to late 80's and significantly decreasing after the 90's with MWO's for the pin filters (of which I believe Sikorsky recommended to the Army at contract) then Stab Amplifier improvements.

I never considered Stabilator failures any big deal...even in the hay day of Stab failures and "Lawndart" being snickered at us Hawk drivers. Never once did the Stabilator uncontrollably hardover down - never. It always failed in place...possibly at a down angle...but it failed in place.

I think pilot training and system understanding was the failure (as well as the Army not initially installing the EMI filters).

I flew with a number of pilots that upon Stab failure, would just continually press the 'Auto Reset" button and never look at the Stabilator indicator to see how the Stabilator is programming. See, upon failure, the two Stabilator Amplifies that recieve airspeed date from the two air sensors (I think air data and airspeed sensors) sense zero (0) airspeed as 'Auto Reset' is pressed for about a second. During this second the Stabilator will program down 1-3 degrees further. Continual pressing of 'Auto Reset' with contiinual Stabilator actuators miscompairs will continue to cause the stabilator to program down a few degrees with every 'Auto Reset'...and if going fast enough the possibility of loosing longitudinal control.

Anyway...it appears I'm blabbering


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

We still had regular Stab failures even now in the 2000 era. They were never any problem. They would either auto reset or we would just manually slew the stab and continue with our mission. I never really considered the Stab Failure anything serious.

I had a Hawk that had been struck by lightning and even though she went back to the Depot and when she cam out she was a good aircraft again she was never the same. Her Stab would fail every flight and we could never duplicate it for the Avionics guys. Crazy little thing...


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 10, 2006)

Interesting fact. Wonder whether it was something partially damaged in the components by the lightning that was causing the stabilizer problems...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 13, 2006)

Lightning can cause damage that can take years to sort out. We had a rack of gear take a direct strike when I was at Lakenheath. They were still seeing weirdness years later...

Back in my day (God, I never thought I would say that!), the Blackhawks were still new and were having regular problems. We use to say that it killed more Marines than the Vietcong. I am glad they worked out all the bugs, they have become a very capable helo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2006)

Ill bet my money on the Hawk anyday now. She allways brought me home everyday.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

Here is a video that I love! I have it on my computer but I can not post it for some reason on this site. I just found it as well on You Tube and so I decided to post it. It shows why US Army Aviation is the best when it comes to helicopters.

Damn that is the only thing I miss about the Army was flying around in my Hawk.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIP70248ZXo_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

Here is another video that I have found on You Tube. This was my Units Video from 2001. I am even in a few of the shots in the video.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoX6aLIJmfA_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2007)

Here is another video from my Company for the return flight from Kosovo to Germany. The song fits the event and the video.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBugZy80Z-c_

And another video from Kosovo.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0gIMoopkPc_


----------



## Aggie08 (Feb 17, 2007)

I was under the impression that the Cobra and Apache were built with attack as well air-to-air capability in mind. Can any heli-junkies verify this?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

They were never built with that role in mind. They were tested in the 1980s for that capability and it was found that they can. The AH-64A has no air to air capability at all. The AH-64D can be fitted for Air to Air but that is not three role. They have never been used for Air to Air and never will be. That is simply not there job, that will be left for the Air Force.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 17, 2007)

Yup - same for new Cobras. They can carry sidewinders - but you're not going to see them mounted on them!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2007)

All of the tests that were done to were just to see if it was feasible to do it. There is no point. Real Combat is not Hollywood. An Apache or Cobra is not going to win in a fight against a jet fighter or anything like that. The Apaches and Cobras are for ground support or anti tank roles. The Airforce will handle the air to air.


----------



## Aggie08 (Feb 17, 2007)

I know it's not the Army's job, but I thought that if needed they were able to just in case. What would happen, then, if a flight of Apaches was jumped by a helicopter with air-to-air capability? Suppose it flew in under radar and there was little or no warning. How would they deal with a threat like that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Its not going to happen. You will never see an Apache armed with a Sidewinder or any other aircraft as a matter of fact.


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 18, 2007)

I thought the Russian Mi-24 Hinds actually did carry Russian Sidewinders on the end bits of the wings. I have seen photos of them in the air with them on so I don't know whether it was a counter-test or a real patrol mission...


----------



## Aggie08 (Feb 18, 2007)

What about a Cobra?


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 18, 2007)

I think Cobras can but the US doesn't let them. Certainly be a great deterrent to jet aircraft to attacking the helicopters. Besides Harriers do fighter work and they are not really that much faster than helicopters in reality...


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I think Cobras can but the US doesn't let them. Certainly be a great deterrent to jet aircraft to attacking the helicopters. Besides Harriers do fighter work and they are not really that much faster than helicopters in reality...



Dude - our harriers can fly do 600 knots, helos usually doing about 130-150 knots. Why would a cobra take to the sky wasting payload on a sidewinder. Their mission is close air support - they're dropping 20mm rounds, hellfires, 2.75" rockets, TOWs. Our pointy-nosed friends will secure air superiority for us


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 19, 2007)

Still you know how vulnerable you are without them. All it takes is one enemy to get lucky and you are not there... At least it provides a momentary pause in the mind of an attacker...


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

That enemy would be pounced upon by F/A-18s, 22s, F-15s, and F-16s before he knew what hit him. He'd be lighting up AWACS or Hawkeye radar before he got close.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Okay everyone lets set this straight. There are no Cobras or Apaches in the US military inventory that are modified to carry the Sidewinder missile. You just can attach them to the end of the wing pylon when there is no attachment point. 

The aircraft has to be modified to do so. There are none...Period!

How do I know this, because I was in US Army Aviation for 6 years. My unit had Apaches and Blackhawks. I have also seen the Marine Cobras in a combat zone and they do not have the modifications either.

2nd Air to Air combat is not part of there training. They dont even recieve a quick course in air to air combat and how to fire a sidewinder. Therefore there would not be a mission given to the crews to carry a sidewinder.

That is not there job.

3rd. It is not a deterrant to an enemy because none of our enemies carry them. Even if they did they would not stand a chance because the Airforce would get rid of them before they could get the Apaches or Cobras.

An Apache or Cobra is not going to waste valuable Ground Support Ammo such as Hellfires, TOW or rockets to carry a sidewinder missile.

*I know everyone thinks that Apache Longbows are standard to carry them because they see it in Video Games. These Video Games such as Longbow are not reality and not even close to being realistic.*

*Also the movie Firebirds is not real either. The air to air combat scenes in the movie with the Apache firing its regular rockets at other helicopters is not real. It will not happen in real life and you can not target those rockets to shoot at the enemy aircraft.*

*REAL LIFE COMBAT IS NOT LIKE IN THE GAMES AND MOVIES*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I think Cobras can but the US doesn't let them. Certainly be a great deterrent to jet aircraft to attacking the helicopters. Besides Harriers do fighter work and they are not really that much faster than helicopters in reality...



No it is not a deterrent you know why. Because the Jet fighter does not care if you have the sidewinder or not. He is going to either kill you before you know you are there or he is going to outmaneuever you. It does not matter.

*I REPEAT HELICOPTERS DO NOT DO AIR TO AIR BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM AND THEY WOULD BE VAPORIZED BEFORE THEY HAD THE CHANCE*


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

Why does the issue of air-to-air longbows and cobras keep coming up???

We had a section of cobras come to NAS corpus the other day, as well as a division of army kiowas. Always nice to have visitors bring by some cool birds. I think a section of MV-22s are supposed to come by in a week or two, but I haven't confirmed it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

I agree. I allways enjoyed seeing different units with different kinds of aircraft come through. Get to hang out and see them. That is another reason why I enjoye being stationed in Europe. We would get to see all the other nations aircraft and train with them. Was a good experience.


----------



## hueygunner (Sep 16, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay everyone lets set this straight. There are no Cobras or Apaches in the US military inventory that are modified to carry the Sidewinder missile. You just can attach them to the end of the wing pylon when there is no attachment point.
> 
> The aircraft has to be modified to do so. There are none...Period!
> 
> How do I know this, because I was in US Army Aviation for 6 years. My unit had Apaches and Blackhawks. I have also seen the Marine Cobras in a combat zone and they do not have the modifications either.




Really? Not trying to start a flame war here, but I've been on several MEU deployments and every time we've transited the Straits of Hormuz (as well as some other, not so nice littoral countries), we've carried AIM-9s on LAU-7s on stations 1 and 4. The AH-1Z (and W, for that matter), are indeed capable of carrying the AIM-9. Every single one of them... 

Never say never, just sayin'....

HG


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2011)

hueygunner said:


> View attachment 178569
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I probably should have said US Army Aviation. Are there aircraft in the inventory that can do so? Of course, but will you find US Army Apaches carrying Sidewinders and going out doing air to air operations? No...

But I will agree with you, never say never. I for one can not speak for the Marines or the Navy. That post of mine was probably a bad choice of words...


----------



## hawkeye2an (Nov 17, 2011)

Just ran across this thread. Not that I'm any kind of expert, but I do keep up on most things US Aviationwise (is that a word?). Thanks guys, in a very brief time I learned quite a bit about helicopters that I didn't know.


----------

