armypilot
Airman
Still wish I were flying Cobras!
the AH-1 Cobra is still one mean bird
- Thread starter twoeagles
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Staff Sergeant
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
Airman
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
Staff Sergeant
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
Airman
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.
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:
Not true. Ever hear of a OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and what its job is?
Healzdevo said:
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
AH-64D can, for example, fire RF Hellfires from a defilade position, not being exposed. AH-1Z will also have this capability.
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #72
twoeagles
Senior Airman
Two different helo's built to two different specs. But it's still fun to debate.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
great info. I would have never guessed the performance between the two were in a similar class. Great posts!
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).
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
Airman
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Glock Perfection
Thanks for your perspectives for us numbnuts that can only admire.
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.
) 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.
Attachments
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
