Apache cockpit armor
Figure 2-13. Armor Protection
Figure 2-13. Armor Protection
Hit Probability, Rate of Fire Muzzle Velocity
- Thread starter bruno_
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Matt308
Glock Perfection
It was inevitable.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'll call BS on this as well - I worked for Teledyne Ryan, they made the fuselage of the Apache. A .22 could go right through the structure in some areas.
I don't know what you did "DoD." I worked DoD projects (some classified) since I was 21 and have worked fixed wing and rotor wing aircraft in assembly, maintenance and inspection capacities. So tell me what you're basing your assessment on, I'm all ears.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So you're basing your comments on what you read in magazines rather than "real world" experience.
So now its "I know Someone who"...
Sorry you are in over your head.
1. Engines cowls are regular honeycomb material.
2. Hydraulic Deck us covered in regular honeycomb material.
3. Yes there are redundent systems, but they are not "bulletproof".
4. Yes the transmission and gear boxes are rated for 30 min., but guess what, afterwards you are still going down.
Your claim that the Blackhawk is impervious to .30 and .50 is flat out wrong. What do I know though? I only flew them in combat and fixed them on a daily basis.
Sorry you are in over your head.
1. Engines cowls are regular honeycomb material.
2. Hydraulic Deck us covered in regular honeycomb material.
3. Yes there are redundent systems, but they are not "bulletproof".
4. Yes the transmission and gear boxes are rated for 30 min., but guess what, afterwards you are still going down.
Your claim that the Blackhawk is impervious to .30 and .50 is flat out wrong. What do I know though? I only flew them in combat and fixed them on a daily basis.
Zjtins I might be tolerant of getting shot with a .22 cal, but it would depend on where I got shot, and how many times.
The same as the Apache main rotor being "tolerant" of 23MM fire. Such open ended statement leaves a lot of wiggle room, and really doesn't mean much. It depends on where the rotor blade might be hit. A hit near the blade root would be a lot more serious than one near the tip. And then there's multple hits possible too.
Plus you said the Apache and BLACKHAWK were impervious to .30 and .50 cal. fire, but all you post is your defense on the Apache. They're two completely different aircraft.
The same as the Apache main rotor being "tolerant" of 23MM fire. Such open ended statement leaves a lot of wiggle room, and really doesn't mean much. It depends on where the rotor blade might be hit. A hit near the blade root would be a lot more serious than one near the tip. And then there's multple hits possible too.
Plus you said the Apache and BLACKHAWK were impervious to .30 and .50 cal. fire, but all you post is your defense on the Apache. They're two completely different aircraft.
Plus you said the Apache and BLACKHAWK were impervious to .30 and .50 cal. fire, but all you post is your defense on the Apache. They're two completely different aircraft.
Who cares, you don't even accept the first one.
You miss the point anyway as the UH-1 and Blackhawk/Apache are vastly different in survival abilities on the battlefield. They we designed to different standards
I guess I will try and watch my comment try to make them as literal as possible since they will always be treated than way.
Who cares, you don't even accept the first one.
You miss the point anyway as the UH-1 and Blackhawk/Apache are vastly different in survival abilities on the battlefield. They we designed to different standards
I guess I will try and watch my comment try to make them as literal as possible since they will always be treated than way.
Not if you are an hour from home.
The aircraft was built to be more survivable, but it is not "bullet proof".
Again what do I know? I don't get my information from a magazine or from "a friend of a friend" or "a former boss".
On both the Blackhawk and Apache you can lose a certain amount of each blade, for instance the tip caps which are removable. They can take damage. Anything beyond that and the acft is going down.
That is what they mean by tolerant. The blades themselves are made out of composite honeycomb, that is not tolerant to bullets.
The problem with our friend here is that he reads the word tolerant, equates that to bullet proof, read it on the internet so it has to be true. Next he will say that you can fly acrobatics in a UH-1, because he saw it on the A-Team.
I am going to quit now, as I sm getting annoyed, and I don't want to be the one to get out of hand.
No you keep changing the point, because you got in over your head in a convo with people who have real world experience on the matter.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes, if put in the right place, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end to find out, be it with one or 100 rounds.
Try two different eras....
And while you're at it also be aware that some of us have ACTUALLY worked on and flown some of the machines discussed here. Unless you've been there my suggestion is to listen and learn...
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I'm confused. Did he say the Apache and Blackhawk were impervious to .30cal and .50cal but admits a .22 might be dangerous? I will hold off comment about how 100s of AK47s could "hole" the impervious Blackhawk.
I just scanned thru a copy of Chickenhawk, by Robert Mason. I saw no mention of a Huey shot down by a crossbow, or bow.
Though he does describe an attempt by using two trees under tension to shoot a large pole as a arrow, but it was unsuccessful.
Though he does describe an attempt by using two trees under tension to shoot a large pole as a arrow, but it was unsuccessful.
From Na'vi archery in Avatar [Archive] - ArcheryTalk Forum: Archery Target, Bowhunting, Classifieds, Chat
SO I may have misquoted the source from 20 year ago.
