the AH-1 Cobra is still one mean bird

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 

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

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The Mighty Canberra - Still Going Strong
Replies
4
Views
962
SaparotRob
A
And then there was one. How could the IDF destroy Iran's nuclear research bunker?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dimlee
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
754
SaparotRob
What is one plane that is underappreciated for how effective it was in combat?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
7K
Elvis
M
USN Still Flies the F-5?
Replies
16
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register