![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How come only the M197 gun is listed under araments? What about AGM-114 Hellfire, 70m rockets, AIM-9 sidewinders, and bombs? Adeptitus 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on how far down in the weeds you want to get, you can also mention that the Whiskey can carry 5.00 in Zunni rockets in a 4-shot pod. The 2.75 in rockets can be loaded in a 7-shot or 19-shot pod.-- Mbaur181 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose we change the AH-1 Cobra specs from AH-1S to AH-1W/Z. The specs for AH-1W can be found here:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/index.html#supcobra8
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/specs.html
The reason for this suggestion is because the AH-1W represents a more modern model more than AH-1S.
-- Adeptitus 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Unopposed" keeps being changed to "opposed". At first glance, "opposed" seems to be correct, but it is not. I have checked the original source for this paragraph ((2004) International Air Power Review, Volume 12. AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 1-880588-77-3.), and it does read "unopposed". We may need to reword this sentence to make it clear what is meant. For now, I have put "unopposed" back in, as in the original source. -- BillCJ 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If Bell 207 (Sioux Scout) is going to redirect to this article, the article should have a bit more about the development, and possibly a picture, of the Sioux Scout. ( Born2flie 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
I remember somewhere, that the Bell 47 demonstrator was called the Bell Warrior and the actual Sioux Scout was merely a body design that never flew. (
Born2flie 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
Or maybe your thinking of the kiowa Warrior OH-58D[ [3]] ANigg 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Piasecki PV-15 Transporter (YH-16) was a 15-ton helicopter which flew c. 1953, and was not put into production. It resembles a larger version of the YHC-1A/CH-46, and "may" be a direct ancestor. So I am inclined to think that the 16H may be correct, tho I do not know what it is either. Piasecki had sold Vertol to Boeing c. 1959, but continued to make helicopters, tho I have no info on what they were producing in 1964 that would have made an interim solution. -- BillCJ 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Piaseki website you gave. At [4], the first line states, "In 1964, development of the H-16 was initiated in response to a U.S. Air Force requirement for a long range (1432 mi.) Rescue helicopter . . ." Yet further down, it states, "The first flight of the YH-16 was 23 October 1953." My printed source also gives a early-50's date, so I believe the "1964" is a typo.
[5] lists three compound aircraft: the 16H-1 (flown 1962), the 16H-1A (flown 1965), and the 16H-3 (never flown). The 16H-1A [6] appears to be the one in question here, as it was developed for the Army in 1964. Whether it was actually submitted for the Interim AAFSS remains to be seen. -- BillCJ 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Is/was Saudi Arabia really a user of the Huey Cobra? I've never seen any reference anywhere else to the Saudis owning them, with Bell 406CS scout helecopters and AH64 Apaches being the only attack helecopters owned. Nigel Ish 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Got say the Saudis don't have any Huey Cobras, AH-64 Yes. I think the site is inaccurate [11]all though this site has serial/Bu Number which I have to say is more on the ball [ http://www.uswarplanes.net/uh1ah1.html
I'm gonna kill it in the users List until there's more evidence to proof otherwise. I can Promise you all 100% that the Saudi's don't have Cobras in there inventory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANigg ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Born2flie: Akradecki, I noticed you undid/reverted the change to the Infobox date by an IP editor.
new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date.
— Wikipedia Manual of Style
I wonder if that was a necessary revert. In fact, the examples on the template show inputting dates as other than ISO 8601 format. Is there a Project discussion that I haven't found or come across (...again) on a WP:AIR guideline that suggests ISO 8601 format? --17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The following article, Chilean Army, has the following reference for Chile operating AH-1 aircraft:
"World Military Aircraft Inventory", Aerospace Source Book 2007, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 15 January 2007.
-- Born2flie 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not worth it, I’ve been subscribing to AW&ST for years & I can tell you that info unfortunately is not accurate, in their source book. I’ll update ref; material ASAP FYI you can just go down to your local Library and check out the AW&ST 2007 Source book in the Magazine dept ANigg 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna dump'em in the users List until there's more evidence to proof otherwise. I can Promise you all 100% that the Chilean & Egyptian Amries dont have Cobras in their inventory ANigg 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanx Born ANigg 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
the map [15] shows Saudi Arabia as a user country of AH-1 Cobra , and doesnt mark Egypt . while the article shows Egypt as a user country and not Saudi Arabia , shall we post some of the {{ Fact}} template here ? Ammar 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is definetly not a AH-1 Cobra User. They have AH-64 Apaches which they just up grade to longbows. [16] ANigg 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is definetly NOT a AH-1 Cobra User. They have AH-64 Apaches which they just up grade to longbows. [17] ANigg 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Find me a cobra & i'll be a beleiver [ [18]]
Why do you keep removing operators without stating any reason what so ever in the edit summary? That could be taken as vandalism by some. -
Fnlayson 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanx Bill & Fnayson. I apologize for the mix up in the edit summary I put it in. I thought talk page was suffient enough for comments on changes. ANigg 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The article's operators section menitoned past and present. That past ones will be more difficult to check. Should the past part be removed?
Here are the entries that have been removed recently. - Fnlayson 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay but at this point the only true past operator is the AH-1G for the spanish Armada [ [19]] ANigg 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted the edtior at air forces monthly magazine, to see if they can give us any insight to this matter. They are very good source of info. The title of Air forces monthly isn't there for no reason ANigg 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of us not bilingual in Urban Hebrew, can somebody translate? Trekphiler 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the weight section
The AH-1W Super Cobra reads "Max takeoff weight: 14,750 lb (4,500 kg)"
I know that 14,750lb does not equal 4,500 kg, but I don't know if the lb needs changing to match the kg, or the kg to match the lb? perfectblue 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's 9 users listed in the lead now. (Upgraded versions continue to fly with the United States Marine Corps, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, the Japan Self Defense Forces, the Republic of China Army, the Pakistan Army, the Republic of Korea Army, the Turkish Armed Forces and several other users.) Seems like listing the top 3-4 would be enough. From the numbers in the article, that'll be USMC (269), Iran (202), Japan (89), and Pakistan (78). Does that sound reasonable? - Fnlayson 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No opposition after 5 days - will split shortly. - BillCJ 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the USMC still be listed here after the Army? I'm assuming they used the earlier Cobra versions, which may be wrong. - Fnlayson 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What Soviet/Russian helicopters can be compared with AH-1? Ka-50 and Mi-28 are more modern and are counterparts to AH-64... -- Alexander Ivashkin 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Mil_Mi-28#Cost.3F. RebDrummer61 alalala! [22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)]
I wasn't able to find a cost on the AH-1 on *.mil sites. This is one the sites I find on a general internet search. Anybody got something on this? Thanks. - Fnlayson 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I had labeled this paragraph as unreferenced since several of the statements seemed beyond credibility, but the unreferenced tag is removed with only one reference:
Since the requirement for references is that they be verifiable by the reader, and I have no access to the above volume, is this reference intended to apply to the whole paragraph or the statement it follows in the very last paragraph of this section? ( Born2flie 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
Well, issues I have are the claim that in 1965 the AAFSS was experiencing technical problems and that 1965 was the deadline for the AAFSS. The Source Selection Board (SSB) did not select Sikorsky and Lockheed as the winners of the Project Definition Phase until February 1965. Lockheed wasn't announced as the winner of the design competition until November 1965 and the Equipment Development contract wasn't awarded until March 1966. Comparatively, the Model 209 wasn't evaluated until late fiscal year 1965 (early autumn 1965) and wasn't awarded a production contract until April 1966. And, even though it had already flown, didn't enter theater until over a year later. There weren't technical problems as the author/editor suggests, but there was an impatience for something with more capability than a UH-1B/C and waiting for the AAFSS was going to take too long. Technical and political issues with the AH-56 began in 1967 as Lockheed attempted to adjust requirements to allow modifications to the design (reportedly increased rotor diameter) to meet performance requirements.1
Additionally, the article claims, "In Vietnam, events were also advancing in favour of the Model 209. Attacks on US forces were increasing, and by the end of June 1965 there were already 50,000 US ground troops in Vietnam." Not quite sure that this makes a case. It doesn't even make the case that UH-1B/C aircraft were inadequate to the job. The shortcomings of the UH-1B/C were slow speeds because of design and gross weight, not inability to support troops.
The article mentions the Piasecki 16H being evaluated. Army documents1 state that it was the H-16. The Piasecki website (piasecki.com) says that in 1964 the Air Force was interested in the turbine version and the Army was on board with that program. Since the Army was evaluating the CH-47 (and in fact, had test ACH-47s in theater), it is possible that it was the H-16 and not the 16H being evaluated for an interim aircraft. As it is, conflicting source documents suggest that somewhere else, another source needs to be introduced to validate one or the other.
( Born2flie 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
What exactly is the N209J? A serial number for the 209 prototype? That should be added to the Bell 209 section to clarify. Thanks. - Fnlayson 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | We really need some good pics of the various single models, especially in US Army service. - BillCJ 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Umm, there you go. Delete this section when you're done. -- Born2flie 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the Bell 249 their model number for some version of the AH-1, like the J (twin engine) model? These Bell articles don't seem very clear on the Bell models numbers sometimes. Thanks. - Fnlayson 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the Bell part of the Designation sequence since there's a Bell template to cover that. FYI: here is the sequence: Bell: 205 - 206 - 207 - 209 - 210 - 212 - 214 - Fnlayson 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of points.
The numbers are always incorrect so here is a article from AFM (April 2007)
(Copyrighted text removed - BillCJ 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
So there are no Iranian Ah-1's in Pakistani use and the numbers are 20 (minus attrition) plus the additional 20 (being delivered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysersoze25 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a statement in the operational history re use of Iranian ah-1's. I am yet to see any actual proof of this from a non-partisan source. If there is none I think it should be removed as there is none that i can find. I have checked into it and apparently the Iranian's assisted the Pakistani army (did not donate any aircraft). Also they used UH-1H's with mounted weapons and not the AH-1
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysersoze25 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Joes" helicopters in the animated TV series G.I. Joe were AH-1 Cobras, though not called that. (I don;t remember if they ever were referred to by a name.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.250.88 ( talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked on Defenseimagery.mil for a flight AH-1 image to put in the Infobox here. I searched on Army and AH-1 to get single engine Cobra images. I like this one Image:Army AH-1S 1985 crop.jpg, but there are other good ones on that site.
The Sky Soldiers Demo team uses some AH-1Fs, an OH-6, UH-1s and other aircraft for performances. [21] They are part of the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation, which would make them civilians most likely. Should we list them like the Collings Foundation on the F-4? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Born, thanks for the corrections on the S/F, though technically they were AH-1S Mods when Isreal bought them, near as I can tell ;) Japan also uses the S Mod, but did not rename them to F; I don't know if Israel renamed their or not.
I'd love to have a long talk talk with the genius who decided that the world's most ubiquitous helicopter (until the H-60 at least) should share a designation series with the world's first and most prolific attack helicopter. I understand that the 209 had a lot in common with the Huey, and it made sense to assign it to AH-1G originally (actually it was going to be UH-1H at first), but someone should have given it a new H-# soon after (would have probably been the H-57/58/59). Now we have the silliness of the first Army Cobra being a G, and the last being an F! But now with the H-1 Upgrade, the UH-1Y and AH-1Z have about 70% commonality, so sharing the same series makes sense even now, except the Marines have just used up all the empty letters! So what's next? AH-1A and UH-1G? Then you have the TH-57 and OH-58 series being basically the same aircraft, especially compared to the Huey and Cobra! Oh well, thanks for keeping me straight on which is which. One question: how do you tell the G, Q, R ,amd S apart then? - BillCJ 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Army retirement of the AH-1 Cobra on active duty occurred in 1999 at Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii. [22] -- Born2flie ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure about the 2001 retirement date? My state's National Guard operated cobras until 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.216.64 ( talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bell AH-1 Cobra/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think this article lacks a lot of focus. Trying to conform to the WP:Air page content guidelines could solve that. There are a lot of good images, information and specifications to work with, but there is a serious lack of citing of sources other than wiki links. The development section seems to be coming along well, but the significant events of a history section about the aircraft's performance in operations is pretty much absent.(
Born2flie 05:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
== November 2007 == Article is in much better shape. More references in first part of the Development section, along with most of the Variants and Operators sections. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe that Bell-Bristol Aerospace Hokum-X, a one-paragraph, poorly-referenced stub, should probably be merged into this article, as the aircraft in question was a modified AH-1S. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
How come Iran isnt listed as a current or former operator of the AH-1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wims ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Between 1969 and 1971 I recall as an Air Force Technician I served as a aircraft electrician. Between 1970 and 1971 while stationed in Thailand I serviced the Huey and 2 two other choppers to aid troops in Vietnam and Laos. Why do you not report that in the description of these aircraft? Sometimes my partners were detailed to deploy to recover injured choppers in the war zone flying on these choppers. Why are you leaving the US Air Force out the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.202.19 ( talk) 21:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reference I found for a TH-1G was here. On this site, I found a reference to a TH-1S circa 1970. Using the DoD references as shared on this site, I could only find a reference to a TAH-1S for the purpose of instructing AH-64 pilots.
Not quite sure this meets the definition of a variant, either. Still, I think it needs more research if it is to be included in the variants list to establish what the designation was. My bet would be on the TAH-1S as there are also references to TH-1s that are UH-1 variants. ( Born2flie 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
The dual-control trainer part is supported by Donald The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft book (see link for text). But this detailed part "The principal difference was addition of hydraulically boosted controls in front cockpit to equalize mechanical advantage with rear cockpit." is not in any source I have or anything I can find. If you have a source for it, readd and cite it. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How come only the M197 gun is listed under araments? What about AGM-114 Hellfire, 70m rockets, AIM-9 sidewinders, and bombs? Adeptitus 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on how far down in the weeds you want to get, you can also mention that the Whiskey can carry 5.00 in Zunni rockets in a 4-shot pod. The 2.75 in rockets can be loaded in a 7-shot or 19-shot pod.-- Mbaur181 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose we change the AH-1 Cobra specs from AH-1S to AH-1W/Z. The specs for AH-1W can be found here:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/index.html#supcobra8
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/specs.html
The reason for this suggestion is because the AH-1W represents a more modern model more than AH-1S.
-- Adeptitus 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Unopposed" keeps being changed to "opposed". At first glance, "opposed" seems to be correct, but it is not. I have checked the original source for this paragraph ((2004) International Air Power Review, Volume 12. AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 1-880588-77-3.), and it does read "unopposed". We may need to reword this sentence to make it clear what is meant. For now, I have put "unopposed" back in, as in the original source. -- BillCJ 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If Bell 207 (Sioux Scout) is going to redirect to this article, the article should have a bit more about the development, and possibly a picture, of the Sioux Scout. ( Born2flie 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
I remember somewhere, that the Bell 47 demonstrator was called the Bell Warrior and the actual Sioux Scout was merely a body design that never flew. (
Born2flie 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
Or maybe your thinking of the kiowa Warrior OH-58D[ [3]] ANigg 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Piasecki PV-15 Transporter (YH-16) was a 15-ton helicopter which flew c. 1953, and was not put into production. It resembles a larger version of the YHC-1A/CH-46, and "may" be a direct ancestor. So I am inclined to think that the 16H may be correct, tho I do not know what it is either. Piasecki had sold Vertol to Boeing c. 1959, but continued to make helicopters, tho I have no info on what they were producing in 1964 that would have made an interim solution. -- BillCJ 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked the Piaseki website you gave. At [4], the first line states, "In 1964, development of the H-16 was initiated in response to a U.S. Air Force requirement for a long range (1432 mi.) Rescue helicopter . . ." Yet further down, it states, "The first flight of the YH-16 was 23 October 1953." My printed source also gives a early-50's date, so I believe the "1964" is a typo.
[5] lists three compound aircraft: the 16H-1 (flown 1962), the 16H-1A (flown 1965), and the 16H-3 (never flown). The 16H-1A [6] appears to be the one in question here, as it was developed for the Army in 1964. Whether it was actually submitted for the Interim AAFSS remains to be seen. -- BillCJ 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Is/was Saudi Arabia really a user of the Huey Cobra? I've never seen any reference anywhere else to the Saudis owning them, with Bell 406CS scout helecopters and AH64 Apaches being the only attack helecopters owned. Nigel Ish 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Got say the Saudis don't have any Huey Cobras, AH-64 Yes. I think the site is inaccurate [11]all though this site has serial/Bu Number which I have to say is more on the ball [ http://www.uswarplanes.net/uh1ah1.html
I'm gonna kill it in the users List until there's more evidence to proof otherwise. I can Promise you all 100% that the Saudi's don't have Cobras in there inventory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANigg ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Born2flie: Akradecki, I noticed you undid/reverted the change to the Infobox date by an IP editor.
new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date.
— Wikipedia Manual of Style
I wonder if that was a necessary revert. In fact, the examples on the template show inputting dates as other than ISO 8601 format. Is there a Project discussion that I haven't found or come across (...again) on a WP:AIR guideline that suggests ISO 8601 format? --17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The following article, Chilean Army, has the following reference for Chile operating AH-1 aircraft:
"World Military Aircraft Inventory", Aerospace Source Book 2007, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 15 January 2007.
-- Born2flie 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not worth it, I’ve been subscribing to AW&ST for years & I can tell you that info unfortunately is not accurate, in their source book. I’ll update ref; material ASAP FYI you can just go down to your local Library and check out the AW&ST 2007 Source book in the Magazine dept ANigg 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna dump'em in the users List until there's more evidence to proof otherwise. I can Promise you all 100% that the Chilean & Egyptian Amries dont have Cobras in their inventory ANigg 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanx Born ANigg 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
the map [15] shows Saudi Arabia as a user country of AH-1 Cobra , and doesnt mark Egypt . while the article shows Egypt as a user country and not Saudi Arabia , shall we post some of the {{ Fact}} template here ? Ammar 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is definetly not a AH-1 Cobra User. They have AH-64 Apaches which they just up grade to longbows. [16] ANigg 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Egypt is definetly NOT a AH-1 Cobra User. They have AH-64 Apaches which they just up grade to longbows. [17] ANigg 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Find me a cobra & i'll be a beleiver [ [18]]
Why do you keep removing operators without stating any reason what so ever in the edit summary? That could be taken as vandalism by some. -
Fnlayson 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanx Bill & Fnayson. I apologize for the mix up in the edit summary I put it in. I thought talk page was suffient enough for comments on changes. ANigg 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The article's operators section menitoned past and present. That past ones will be more difficult to check. Should the past part be removed?
Here are the entries that have been removed recently. - Fnlayson 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay but at this point the only true past operator is the AH-1G for the spanish Armada [ [19]] ANigg 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted the edtior at air forces monthly magazine, to see if they can give us any insight to this matter. They are very good source of info. The title of Air forces monthly isn't there for no reason ANigg 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of us not bilingual in Urban Hebrew, can somebody translate? Trekphiler 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the weight section
The AH-1W Super Cobra reads "Max takeoff weight: 14,750 lb (4,500 kg)"
I know that 14,750lb does not equal 4,500 kg, but I don't know if the lb needs changing to match the kg, or the kg to match the lb? perfectblue 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's 9 users listed in the lead now. (Upgraded versions continue to fly with the United States Marine Corps, the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Air Force, the Israeli Air Force, the Japan Self Defense Forces, the Republic of China Army, the Pakistan Army, the Republic of Korea Army, the Turkish Armed Forces and several other users.) Seems like listing the top 3-4 would be enough. From the numbers in the article, that'll be USMC (269), Iran (202), Japan (89), and Pakistan (78). Does that sound reasonable? - Fnlayson 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No opposition after 5 days - will split shortly. - BillCJ 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the USMC still be listed here after the Army? I'm assuming they used the earlier Cobra versions, which may be wrong. - Fnlayson 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What Soviet/Russian helicopters can be compared with AH-1? Ka-50 and Mi-28 are more modern and are counterparts to AH-64... -- Alexander Ivashkin 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Mil_Mi-28#Cost.3F. RebDrummer61 alalala! [22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)]
I wasn't able to find a cost on the AH-1 on *.mil sites. This is one the sites I find on a general internet search. Anybody got something on this? Thanks. - Fnlayson 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I had labeled this paragraph as unreferenced since several of the statements seemed beyond credibility, but the unreferenced tag is removed with only one reference:
Since the requirement for references is that they be verifiable by the reader, and I have no access to the above volume, is this reference intended to apply to the whole paragraph or the statement it follows in the very last paragraph of this section? ( Born2flie 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
Well, issues I have are the claim that in 1965 the AAFSS was experiencing technical problems and that 1965 was the deadline for the AAFSS. The Source Selection Board (SSB) did not select Sikorsky and Lockheed as the winners of the Project Definition Phase until February 1965. Lockheed wasn't announced as the winner of the design competition until November 1965 and the Equipment Development contract wasn't awarded until March 1966. Comparatively, the Model 209 wasn't evaluated until late fiscal year 1965 (early autumn 1965) and wasn't awarded a production contract until April 1966. And, even though it had already flown, didn't enter theater until over a year later. There weren't technical problems as the author/editor suggests, but there was an impatience for something with more capability than a UH-1B/C and waiting for the AAFSS was going to take too long. Technical and political issues with the AH-56 began in 1967 as Lockheed attempted to adjust requirements to allow modifications to the design (reportedly increased rotor diameter) to meet performance requirements.1
Additionally, the article claims, "In Vietnam, events were also advancing in favour of the Model 209. Attacks on US forces were increasing, and by the end of June 1965 there were already 50,000 US ground troops in Vietnam." Not quite sure that this makes a case. It doesn't even make the case that UH-1B/C aircraft were inadequate to the job. The shortcomings of the UH-1B/C were slow speeds because of design and gross weight, not inability to support troops.
The article mentions the Piasecki 16H being evaluated. Army documents1 state that it was the H-16. The Piasecki website (piasecki.com) says that in 1964 the Air Force was interested in the turbine version and the Army was on board with that program. Since the Army was evaluating the CH-47 (and in fact, had test ACH-47s in theater), it is possible that it was the H-16 and not the 16H being evaluated for an interim aircraft. As it is, conflicting source documents suggest that somewhere else, another source needs to be introduced to validate one or the other.
( Born2flie 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
What exactly is the N209J? A serial number for the 209 prototype? That should be added to the Bell 209 section to clarify. Thanks. - Fnlayson 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | We really need some good pics of the various single models, especially in US Army service. - BillCJ 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Umm, there you go. Delete this section when you're done. -- Born2flie 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the Bell 249 their model number for some version of the AH-1, like the J (twin engine) model? These Bell articles don't seem very clear on the Bell models numbers sometimes. Thanks. - Fnlayson 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the Bell part of the Designation sequence since there's a Bell template to cover that. FYI: here is the sequence: Bell: 205 - 206 - 207 - 209 - 210 - 212 - 214 - Fnlayson 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of points.
The numbers are always incorrect so here is a article from AFM (April 2007)
(Copyrighted text removed - BillCJ 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
So there are no Iranian Ah-1's in Pakistani use and the numbers are 20 (minus attrition) plus the additional 20 (being delivered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysersoze25 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a statement in the operational history re use of Iranian ah-1's. I am yet to see any actual proof of this from a non-partisan source. If there is none I think it should be removed as there is none that i can find. I have checked into it and apparently the Iranian's assisted the Pakistani army (did not donate any aircraft). Also they used UH-1H's with mounted weapons and not the AH-1
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysersoze25 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Joes" helicopters in the animated TV series G.I. Joe were AH-1 Cobras, though not called that. (I don;t remember if they ever were referred to by a name.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.250.88 ( talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked on Defenseimagery.mil for a flight AH-1 image to put in the Infobox here. I searched on Army and AH-1 to get single engine Cobra images. I like this one Image:Army AH-1S 1985 crop.jpg, but there are other good ones on that site.
The Sky Soldiers Demo team uses some AH-1Fs, an OH-6, UH-1s and other aircraft for performances. [21] They are part of the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation, which would make them civilians most likely. Should we list them like the Collings Foundation on the F-4? - Fnlayson ( talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Born, thanks for the corrections on the S/F, though technically they were AH-1S Mods when Isreal bought them, near as I can tell ;) Japan also uses the S Mod, but did not rename them to F; I don't know if Israel renamed their or not.
I'd love to have a long talk talk with the genius who decided that the world's most ubiquitous helicopter (until the H-60 at least) should share a designation series with the world's first and most prolific attack helicopter. I understand that the 209 had a lot in common with the Huey, and it made sense to assign it to AH-1G originally (actually it was going to be UH-1H at first), but someone should have given it a new H-# soon after (would have probably been the H-57/58/59). Now we have the silliness of the first Army Cobra being a G, and the last being an F! But now with the H-1 Upgrade, the UH-1Y and AH-1Z have about 70% commonality, so sharing the same series makes sense even now, except the Marines have just used up all the empty letters! So what's next? AH-1A and UH-1G? Then you have the TH-57 and OH-58 series being basically the same aircraft, especially compared to the Huey and Cobra! Oh well, thanks for keeping me straight on which is which. One question: how do you tell the G, Q, R ,amd S apart then? - BillCJ 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Army retirement of the AH-1 Cobra on active duty occurred in 1999 at Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii. [22] -- Born2flie ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure about the 2001 retirement date? My state's National Guard operated cobras until 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.216.64 ( talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bell AH-1 Cobra/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I think this article lacks a lot of focus. Trying to conform to the WP:Air page content guidelines could solve that. There are a lot of good images, information and specifications to work with, but there is a serious lack of citing of sources other than wiki links. The development section seems to be coming along well, but the significant events of a history section about the aircraft's performance in operations is pretty much absent.(
Born2flie 05:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
== November 2007 == Article is in much better shape. More references in first part of the Development section, along with most of the Variants and Operators sections. - Fnlayson ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe that Bell-Bristol Aerospace Hokum-X, a one-paragraph, poorly-referenced stub, should probably be merged into this article, as the aircraft in question was a modified AH-1S. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
How come Iran isnt listed as a current or former operator of the AH-1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wims ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Between 1969 and 1971 I recall as an Air Force Technician I served as a aircraft electrician. Between 1970 and 1971 while stationed in Thailand I serviced the Huey and 2 two other choppers to aid troops in Vietnam and Laos. Why do you not report that in the description of these aircraft? Sometimes my partners were detailed to deploy to recover injured choppers in the war zone flying on these choppers. Why are you leaving the US Air Force out the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.202.19 ( talk) 21:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reference I found for a TH-1G was here. On this site, I found a reference to a TH-1S circa 1970. Using the DoD references as shared on this site, I could only find a reference to a TAH-1S for the purpose of instructing AH-64 pilots.
Not quite sure this meets the definition of a variant, either. Still, I think it needs more research if it is to be included in the variants list to establish what the designation was. My bet would be on the TAH-1S as there are also references to TH-1s that are UH-1 variants. ( Born2flie 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
The dual-control trainer part is supported by Donald The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft book (see link for text). But this detailed part "The principal difference was addition of hydraulically boosted controls in front cockpit to equalize mechanical advantage with rear cockpit." is not in any source I have or anything I can find. If you have a source for it, readd and cite it. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)