/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/c7/fc/c7fc744c-ab35-4db7-8338-362734ba30cc/13r_jj2017_n209jwilhiteviabellhelicopterhistoricalarchives0102_ah-1g_live.jpg)
Posted on 07/18/2017 8:54:43 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Bell Helicopter’s prototype for the AH-1G Cobra flies in front of two UH-1 Hueys, the aircraft it was designed to protect. (Bell Helicopter Historical Archives via Ray Wilhite)
What was on Mike Folse’s drawing board at Bell Helicopter that day in March 1965 was supposed to be a hovercraft. It wasn’t. “I had an idea instead,” he explains. “My boss would be on vacation for two weeks.”
Gloom pervaded Bell’s Preliminary Design Group. In a Pentagon competition to develop an ambitious concept for an attack helicopter, Bell’s proposal had just lost out to Lockheed’s—a demoralizing beat-down from an airplane company that had never made a helicopter. At Bell’s Hurst, Texas plant, an exodus was under way as dispirited engineers and executives started burning up accrued vacation time. On his way out the door, Folse’s boss issued explicit instructions: “Forget what you’re working on. While I’m gone, start on a hovercraft.”
The youngest design engineer ever hired at Bell, Folse climbed the ladder in the 1950s, working on projects ranging from the “goldfish bowl” Model 47 light helicopter, for which he was a flight test engineer, to designing airframe components for the UH-1 “Huey”—the most-produced U.S. military helicopter in history—to development of the 206 JetRanger.
Now among a skeleton staff in the design group that March, Folse took out a sheet of vellum paper and began rendering the sleek outlines of what would become the Bell AH-1 Cobra, the world’s first production attack helicopter. Designed, built, and deployed to the battlefield in just over two years from that day, the Cobra at last gave the rotary-wing genre a combat game-changer, purpose-built for offense.
Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/13_aug2017-birth-of-the-cobra-180963930/#Y521LEsHMWWuEIfs.99
(Excerpt) Read more at airspacemag.com ...
The Cobra lives on in the Viper. Unlike its single-engine forebear, the Viper has two engines. But both helicopters have stubby wings, which provide a stable platform for launching weapons. (Us Marine Corps/sgt Jamean Berry)
Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/13_aug2017-birth-of-the-cobra-180963930/#Y521LEsHMWWuEIfs.99
Silver Threads and Golden Needles
With the Charlie model 340 rotor head, and the t53 L11 Lycoming turbine, it would GIT!
good read thx for posting.
Yes, actually, we can - because the Russians came to an entirely different conclusion that's worked out just about as well in reality:
>Yes, actually, we can - because the Russians came to an entirely different conclusion that’s worked out just about as well in reality:
I don’t know much about attack choppers, but after looking at the failures of the Apaches in Iraq didn’t the Russians have a better solution with their attack choppers?
Bookmark
Did the Apache “fail” in Iraq? Several countries have purchased it after the Iraq invasion.
The bottom line is the attack helicopter was invented for political not military reasons. The A10 is a far better ground attack aircraft, but the Air Force has never cared about that role and hates having designated ground support planes. The Army isn’t allowed to have fixed wing craft, so they did what they could with choppers.
Just outside Tam Ky, RVN, 1/1 CAV, Americal, FEB 69, we were in very close contact with the NVA and had a Cobra strike come down practically right on top of us. Man, that was one bad can of whupass!
Too close. Phew!!!!
The Cobra was created because fixed wing aircraft took 30 minutes to get to where they were needed when they were needed. The Cobra was forward stationed.
(I got that from the article.)
Flying CH-46s, we liked having the Cobras as escort, as they would get to the LZ well ahead of us. Standard Hueys could barely keep up with us.
Did not know (why would I?) that helos were so dissimilar in flight characteristics. Very few Cobras during my time. Good thing in a way, we were not trained on the gun system. Any moron could rearm rocket pods.
>Did the Apache “fail” in Iraq? Several countries have purchased it after the Iraq invasion.
Small arms shot the crap out of them and the raids the Apache was sent on were not very successful. The Apache was designed to kill tanks not the roles it’s generally been used in.
Yes and no. The Apache is more technically capable, but the Hind is still their mainstay attack/limited transport chopper and the platform’s so old all the bugs have long since been exterminated. The Hind is also more heavily armored and rugged.
Typically, Russian helicopters trade off some advanced technology for a great deal of simplicity, reliability and ruggedness. Russian choppers are designed for minimal maintenance performed by undertrained conscripts and they do very well in service in less advanced countries like the third world. Western choppers require skilled maintenance technicians and generally more maintenance per flight hour.
Or, put another way - an Apache is mostly going to be a better tank hunter-killer when it’s on the battlefield when compared to a Ka-50/52M. But it’s going to be down for maintenance more so it will be on the battlefield less and it is easier to achieve a mission kill and force the Apache to have to RTB than it will be for any of the Russian counterparts.
It didn’t fail, but its relative lack of armor made for issues as combat in Iraq exposed its vulnerability to small arms and ground fire when not being able to operate in its traditional role (hide behind cover, pop up, take out target, drop back into cover). It was very effective in use, but there were vulnerabilities that were exposed.
Ed
The funny thing is just how different choppers that are similar size and configuration are to fly. The Mi-24 Hind reportedly flies more than a bit like the Cobra in a straight line and for minor deviations but while its large directional change capabilities at speed are not that great, it’s reportedly ridiculous at lower speeds and altitudes for a chopper as big as it is.
Then again, the Russians have guys that will take a monster like the Hind down low in an extreme close air support mission... as in “don’t raise your head, the gunship’s pylon will take your head off if you do” low:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv3iHs8_2GY
Low pass starts at 0:17, slow mo replay starts at 2:35. That’s one huge helicopter, moving fast *below* rooftop height.
I can believe that. CAS from a Russian would be a sight to behold, they are more crazy than our guys.
Last time I read about them decades ago, they had to taxi to take off with full load. I would wager the engines and transmissions have been upgraded since then.
Somewhat, and their newer types (like the Ka-52) don’t have to do that. The older designs like the Mi-6, Mi-8 and the Mi-24 do because their ‘winglets’ actually generate significant lift that they sometimes need to get off the ground at full load.
On the other hand, full load for an Mi-24 is actually heavier than the CH-46E. The Mi-24 has two 2200shp Isotov turbines and its max takeoff weight is 11,500kg/25,353lbs to the twin 1250shp GE turbines and 11,022kg/24,300lbs for the CH-46E. The Mi-8 the Mi-24 is built off of can lift even more and is the most produced helicopter in world history.
Something else to note - Mi-24s have been known to shrug off Stinger and Redeye hits. A Stinger or Redeye can take them down, but it’s not a all-but-guaranteed kill like it is on a Western chopper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.