Talk:Bell AH-1 Cobra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Armaments

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)

Because no one has added them or listed them. Be bold! --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget the TOW  :) Joe I 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, ask what you can do for Wikipedia :) HueyCobra 07:39, 28 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)

Proposal on AH-1 specs

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)

I recommend having two models' specifications. For instance, the AH-1G and the AH-1W. This gives an idea of how the capabilities and qualities of the aircraft have changed since the original version was produced. (Born2flie 05:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

I have added AH-1W to the specs, thought the figures need to be updated. We can change this to AH-1Z when that model is fully in service (several years). -- BillCJ 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: unopposed troop drops

It soon became clear that the unarmed UH-1 troop helicopters were not able to make unopposed troop drops in the landing zones, but that heavy firepower would be needed to clear the Viet Cong and NVA troops out of the way first.

"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)

I'm sorry, but that is clearly a typo, if the source supports the "unopposed statement". What does the source state? What possible reason would render a helicopter unable to make unopposed landings that firepower would fix? --Mmx1 04:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be desirable for any helicopter to make an unopposed troop drop. It would be unable to do so if it were opposed, i.e. the enemy was firing at them. Firepower would clear the site, thus making it unopposed. Thus if the site had enemy gunners, the helicopter would not be able to make unopposed troop drops. I disagree that it is a typo.

--BillCJ 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the site had enemy gunners, wouldn't that constitute an opposed drop? Okay, I see what you mean; that sentence does need to be edited. It's not that the helicopters were unable to make unopposed troop drops; it's that there were no opportunities to make unopposed troop drops.--Mmx1 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right.--BillCJ 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sioux Scout

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))

Once we get that much information on the Sioux Scout, it would make sense to give it its own article. --BillCJ 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is enough information on the Sioux Scout out there to create its own article without violating the Wikipedia policy on original research. There is only one or two pictures on the web that I have seen over and over again in reference to the Sioux Scout. As far as a private industry endeavour, the aircraft and its associated program wasn't long-lived. I feel that, if created, it will remain a stub or start article. However, it is directly tied to Bell's development of the AH-1, and deserves credit here. If you would like to work on an article for it, you can reference these links. [1][2](Born2flie 12:12, 26 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))

Disregard, I had Iroquois Warrior mixed up with Sioux Scout. I'm straight now. (Born2flie 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Or maybe your thinking of the kiowa Warrior OH-58D[[3]]ANigg 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The Iroquois Warrier was a early-1960s Bell study based on the UH-1B with a tandem cockpit. It was a precursor to the Bell 209, but the rear cockpit was a lot higher than was used in the 209. Only mock-ups were ever made of the Iroquois Warrior. I've seen pics of it in books, and would love to find one we could use for this article. - BillCJ 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Piasecki H-16/16H

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)

Easy enough to check, I just emailed them to see if they had any info as to which one might have been considered. (Born2flie 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Born2flie: The webmaster seemed confused by the question and I haven't received a reply since. Guess the Army may not be the only ones confused. Maybe a request to the Army Aviation Museum is necessary? --17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Found this reference[7] that seems to mimic the Piasecki compound helicopter information. May also be derived from it. I'm looking for more information on the interim program to get a program name or some other clue that will guide us in. I'm inclined to believe that it was the 16H and the author of my reference was unfamiliar with Piasecki's model information or copied a reference that transliterated it incorrectly. --Born2flie 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Users - Saudi Arabia

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)

Born2flie: This site[8] says, yes. However, this site[9] only lists the following countries as having AH-1 helicopters in service: Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey. Which is echoed by this site.[10] --00:24, 9 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).

I agree they don't have them now. But since we've been listing both past and present users together (they are now separate lists), can you aslo confirm that they never did use them? Thanks. - BillCJ 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Date

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)

Chilean AH-1?

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)

But which version, the F or the W? I hadn't heard of Chile using the W in my sources, but they are a few years old. Just wanted to make sure on this. - BillCJ 21:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference, but the verifiability of the reference and what is being referenced is unclear. The book costs $49 from Aviationnow.com[12]. It's new, so maybe it is up-to-date? --Born2flie 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone in the project has a copy, or access to a copy. - BillCJ 04:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to buy a copy myself, but I'd rather preview the info to see if it is worth it. --Born2flie 04:54, 18 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 deptANigg 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)

I'm gonna have to agree with ANigg on the Argentina reference that I added as well. Like most Central/South American countries, helicopters are part of the Air Force and not the Army. The Air Force website[13] lists UH-1. The uswarplanes.net website[14] shows that Chile received UH-1s, and the Argentine website also shows UH-1s in the inventory. What is likely, is that the CDI reference had misunderstood H-1 for AH-1, as it is the first H-1 one would come across alphabetically and it would fit the agenda of the article that was the reference for my addition. I think we need more than one independent reference to consider adding anything to this list of users. --Born2flie 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Born ANigg 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Operations map

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)

I've removed the map, as I can't find any evidence Saudi Arabia used Cobras. This is one reason I'm not much in favor of user maps - they can be inaccurate, and I've no clue how to change them! - BillCJ 06:00, 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. [16] ANigg 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Having AH-64s doesn't automatically mean they don't have AH-1s too. Although they may not. -Fnlayson 17:57, 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]]

• They don't have an entry for Cobra images there. However, a search for Cobra on that domain turns up not hits. -Fnlayson 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

He stated his reasons in the above section, tho I agree edit summaries would be helpful. Born and I agree the source for Argentinian use is somewhat questionable, given the "agenda" of the article and organization. As it's the only source we have, and given the article is 4 years old, I'm for leaving it out until we get more recent, independent confirmation. - BillCJ 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see reasons for Egypt's and Chile's removals. I did put a verification needed tag on the Argentina reference. -Fnlayson 23:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He thanked Born for his statements on Argentina, and then removed the item based on that. My interpretation anyway. :) - BillCJ 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I guess I'm just not sure then. I'll let others police this one henceforth.. -Fnlayson 23:38, 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)

• Thanks. I apologize too. I didn't go through the discussions above well enough before. -Fnlayson 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious operators

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)

• Argentina
  • 12 AH-1 aircraft transferred as Excess Defense Articles.

• Chile
  • AH-1F (24 in use)

• Egypt
  • AH-1W (5 delivered + 13 pending approval and delivery from US army surplus) {{verify source}}

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 reasonANigg 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tzefa what?

For those of us not bilingual in Urban Hebrew, can somebody translate? Trekphiler 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes you wonder what Google is for... --Born2flie 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

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)

• The pound values are probably correct. It was most likely designed in US customary units. It appears the F data was copied and changed for the W with the metric MTOW unchanged, since the F table lists 4500 kg as well. The globalaircraft page lists a MTOW of 14,750 lb (6691 kg). -Fnlayson 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Operators in Lead

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)

Oh my! I didn't realize it had gotten that big! I've gone ahead and cut it back to just the USMC. If you waat to put that list in the "More users" field in the infobox, that's fine with me. THe Lead is just supposed to be a summary, and the USMC is the primary user and developer of the type now. I'd like to see a good source on how many of the 202 AH-1Js Iran bought in the 70s are still operational, but the way everyone is caving into them politically, that's likey to be unknown for a long time. - BillCJ 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested split

AH-1 Cobra → AH-1 SuperCobra

• On recommendation from some members of the Rotorcraft Task Force, in preparation for making improvements to the Cobra article(s), we propose to aplit the twin-engine variants off to the AH-1 SuperCobra page. This will divide the variants almost in half, and allow us to add more info to each separate page. The US Army variants, esp the AH-1Q/R/S/P/E/F, have scant coverage here, but played a very important role in the 70s and 80s before the Apache's arrival. The USMC twin variants (AH-1J/T/W/Z) have also evolved separately from the Army's singles, meaning there won't be much overlap between the two articles. International users will be covered according to variant used (single or twin), meaning some operators may listed be on both pages (Turkey, for example).

• Naming: We are proposing AH-1 SuperCobra as the best of several not-quite-ideal options, as each variant has had a slightly different name. Currently, because of the AH-1W's use by the USMC in both Iraq conflicts, "SuperCobra" is the most widely known name of the twin variants. Others titles considered were AH-1 SeaCobra, AH-1 SeaCobra/SuperCobra, AH-1 Cobra (twins), and AH-1 Cobra (USMC). If you have other suggestions, please discuss them separately from your vote on the split.

Survey

Add  *[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''  or  *[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Proposer, as stated above. - BillCJ 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. John Smith's 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds like a plan. Fnlayson 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Still agree. --Born2flie 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose -

Discussion

• Since there's no SuperCobra article, I corrected the section header and stuff at top. Also if approved, the Super article will cover AH-1W, AH-1Z, etc, correct? Not just Z. -Fnlayson 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was still writing the proposal when you posted. Your questions should be answered there. - BillCJ 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would guess the SuperCobra info still stay in the AH-1 article in summary form, right? Thanks. -Fnlayson 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, probably in a short twin variants list, as well as mentions in the text, Infobox, and related content sections. - BillCJ 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Decision

No opposition after 5 days - will split shortly. - BillCJ 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Both articles still need LOTS of work. We really need some good pics of the various single models, especially in US Army service. - BillCJ 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

USMC

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)

Patuxent River NAS museum webpage on the AH-1G and AH-1J for a USMC reference.[20] --Born2flie 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Got it, thanks. Seems sorts like the Navy wanting 2 engine jets. -Fnlayson 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, actually. THe J was originally going to be a marinized (sea-worthy) single G, b/c they thought two engines would be too heavy and expensive, but when the PT6T was developed for the 212/UH-1N, it was realized it was perfect for the J also. As Born has noted, there's lots of gaps in the history coverage. I'll try to get tht sourced and put into the text in time. - BillCJ 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

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)

There really aren't any to my knowledge. The AH-1 was the first attack helicopter, having features such as a tandem cockpit and small stub wings. The first Soviet attack helicopter came in the 1970s, and was the M-24 Hind. There were armed versions of the Mi-8 before that, but both these helicopters were much larger than the AH-1, and carried troops. Given that the Cobra is still in production, I personally don't have a problem listing the other more modern attack helicopters here. - BillCJ 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cost?

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)

Model 209

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:

• Donald, David: Modern Battlefield Warplanes, page 165. AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-76-5

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))

It references most of the whole paragraph. I'm still new to citing here, so I'm not sure how exactly top cite the whole section.

The volume is a recently published book that is still available on the publisher's website. The section in the book on the Cobra is a reprint from International Air Power Review, Volume 12. AIRtime Publishing. 2004. ISBN 1-880588-77-3., from which much of the Wiki article is taken (not word for word, but clearly sourced from it). If you feel we need a separate source, then by all means add the tags back. But the information is in the book; that's what I verified. As far as to the TH-1G, I haven't seen anything about it in that book yet. -- BillCJ 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just found a reference to the TH-1G in an older book I have (1990). It also mentions the TH-1S Night Stalker, a PNVS trainer for the AH-64A. Do you want the source information? -- BillCJ 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably where the references on those other sites I mentioned came from. No, I don't really care for that source information. Easy enough to check against official DoD designations to see that there were no official designations other than the TAH-1S I mentioned, earlier. (Born2flie 03:46, 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.

• ¹ An Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program. (1973) Prepared by: Office of the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Office of the Director of Material Programs

(Born2flie 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

OK. Had I understood this from the beginning, I would have left the tag in. I simply misunderstood what you were asking to be verified. Anyway, we've confirmed that what is in the article is what was in the book.

As far as the UH-1s being inadequate to do the job or not, I can see where slow speed and gross weight would hinder the abillity to support troops. The aircraft were slower than the slicks they wer escorting, which could certainly affect troops on the ground waiting for reinforcements. Low gross weight would limit the amount of weapons that could be carried, which would affect support, especially if they ran out of weapons. Small quibble that could go either way, as this is more of a matter of interporetation by various sources. Your other points definitely need confirming one way or the other. -- BillCJ 04:26, 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)

Per this image, I'd say it's the US FAA registration number, though it appears under the canopy, not on the tail. Image is too dark as-is to see if the number's on the tail aslo. - BillCJ 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wasn't expecting 209 to be in the number though. -Fnlayson 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think putting the model number in the registration is a fairly common practice on experimental, prototype, and lead aircraft. Look at Image:707x.jpg and Image:Boeing 787 Roll-out.jpg for two examples from Boeing. - BillCJ 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• And this, Image:BA609 02.jpg, is a more recent Bell example. - BillCJ 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. Thanks! The Bell 209 caption that mentions the reg number may need some tweaking. I tried to mention it without a lot of wording. -Fnlayson 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I upset someone's apple cart by making changes to the prototype caption? If so, let me know and I won't change anything.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, just needed to understand what "N209J" was. Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the actual prototype as far as I know.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Single engine pictures

“ 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)

Thanks lots! - BillCJ 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted them to the AH-1 Cobra page on Wiki Commons so they'll be easy to find. I'm still considering which ones to add right away, but will add more as the article (hopefully) gets longer. - BillCJ 01:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For some silly reason, after you preview changes, you still have to save them! Thanks, Born, for adding those pics to the Commons for me. I was in the process of trying again, and you had done it all. Thanks again. - BillCJ 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wondered what happened with that. :) The article already had a couple that are on the Commons page. -Fnlayson 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, funny thing. You said you had posted them on the Commons so I went over to check them out and couldn't find them. I played around with it for a while and finally saved the mess I had been toying with and there were no edit conflicts. I figured there was another spot that I had missed where you had put them. <shrug> --Born2flie 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few more pics to the Commons that I found on other Wikis, and I've posted some pics to this article. I'm not really satisfied with the lead pic, so y'all feel free to play around with the pics. Born, thanks for labeling the pics you added, as I wasn't quite sure what models they were. - BillCJ 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out this site.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bell 249?

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)

If I remember correctly, it was a 4-bladed test version of the AH-1S. I'll try to run down a ref with correct info. - BillCJ 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. From http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avcobra.html#m10:

During the 1980s, the original YAH-1S prototype was modified to become the "Model 249" demonstrator, with an uprated engine, a four-bladed rotor, and various experimental equipment fits, such as Hellfire missiles, for an updated Army Cobra. The various configurations of the Model 249 never resulted in a production order, but they did help demonstrate systems for various Cobra updates. One of the configurations of the Model 249 was the "PAH-2" Cobra for export, which had an advanced sensor package, a four-blade rotor, and armament of eight Euromissile HOT antitank missiles. As with the other Model 249 configurations, there were no buyers.

• Thanks! I did internet searches with Bell 249. Never thought about Model 249. So in the end the 249 was a prototype/demonstrator. Should it be listed in designation sequences? As far as that goes, is there any need in the designation sequence for Bell products with the Bell product template below it? -Fnlayson 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did the search as "Bell Model 249", after "Bell 249" didn't bring anything relevant at the top of the search page. As to the sequnce list, probably not. That was there long before the templates were added, and no one has removed it as yet. - BillCJ 00:55, 24 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)

Pakistan and it's Ah-1s...

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)

• I guess AFM is AirForces Monthly magazine. This web page Pakistan AH-1 Cobra seems to cover this as well. -Fnlayson 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian AH-1s operational history

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)

Would you please be more specific as to the statement? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor is making the case that the Pakistani AH-1s are not donated Iranian AH-1s, but apparently has no sources to support, "I have checked into it..." --Born2flie (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Global Security says Iran operates the AH-1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/kerman.htm Proxy User (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that page says Iran has the AH-1J (AH-J International actually), which are covered in AH-1 SuperCobra per notes in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

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)

Infobox image with AH-1 in flight

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.

I'll make this change unless someone has a better flight image... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Civilian user

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)

That's fine. I'm glad you know what they were, because the guy adding it sure didn't, and I didn't either! Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know nothin' until I found their web site. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AH-1S/F

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)

Bill, I'm currently reworking the Variants section to clarify that mess a little bit more. I use two basic sources. Greg Goebel's AH-1 page on his Vectorsite.net and the Army's TACOM R-I page on Historical Army Helicopters and armament subsystems.

• AH-1G, round canopy, no sight on the nose, no TOW subsystem
• AH-1Q, round canopy, sight on nose, straight exhaust
• AH-1S, round canopy, sight on nose, scoop exhaust
• AH-1P, flat-plate canopy, dual gun turret
• AH-1E, flat-plate canopy, three-barrel 20mm, scoop exhaust, no rocket subsystem (Oops! --Born2flie 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
• AH-1F, flat-plate canopy, three-barrel 20mm, straight exhaust, IRCM mount above exhaust, WSPS, bulb on front of forward cowling, ADS on right side of aircraft.

Once you know where to look, it gets easier. --Born2flie 07:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs work, I'll have to tweak it later. --Born2flie 07:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that flat canopy was later determined to increase the visibility of the Cobra due to glint?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

TFI, the same thing with the flat-plate windshield on the OH-58C. The shark-nose OH-58D is another good idea gone wrong. --Born2flie (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple sources of mine say the curved panels caused glint?? -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

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)

• Is that an FYI or did you want that added somehow? The 1999 active and 2001 reserves retirement dates are mentioned near the bottom of the Operational history section now (covered by reference 2). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI mostly, but I've seen a couple sources for the Hawaii retirement. --Born2flie (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• That would be good to have in there. Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 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)

USAR vs. ARNG? --Born2flie (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as merge - The Bushranger 01:20, 15 December 2010 (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)

Merge! There is nothing here which merits a separate article. Komowkwa (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge away. Looks like it should be listed as QAH-1S in the Variants section. -fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iran

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)

Because this page covers the single-engined variants, Iran used the twin-engine AH-1J International, which is covered at Bell AH-1 SuperCobra. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And see the multiple notes that say "For AH-1J, AH-1T, AH-1W, and AH-1Z, see Bell AH-1 SuperCobra". -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Huey Operation

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)

By Huey do you mean the UH-1 Huey that can carry passengers? Those are covered at Bell UH-1 Iroquois. This article is about the two-seat AH-1 gunships, which to my knowledge the USAF never formally operated. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

TH-1G?

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 TH-1G/TH-1S (sometimes refered to as the Cadillac, only deployed at Ft Rucker, AL) has a hydraulic assist on the front Cyclic (short joystick type) to give it a 3.2 to 1 ratio increase which allows the IP in the front seat to have the same mechanical leverage as the full size cyclic in the rear seat. This and some armament override switches in the front cockpit are the only real differences from the AH-1S. (Which all the newer Cobras were - AH-1S(MOD), AH-1S(PROD), AH-1S(ECAS) and AH-1S(FMC), these were later changed). Excobrapilot 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out this.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:35, 13 November 2007 (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)

The TH-1G designation can be found in the 1974 version of DoD 4120.15-L. This document used to be on DesignationSystems.net, but is not longer available. Both the 1998 and 2004 versions do not have this designation, but instead have the TAH-1S designation. I believe that TH-1S in inaccurate, and should technically be TAH-1S, while TH-1G is also valid. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the above statement: "The TH-1G/TH-1S (sometimes refered (sic) to as the Cadillac, only deployed at Ft Rucker, AL)..." Incorrect, there was at least one TH-1G stationed at Godman Army Airfield, Ft. Knox, KY during the 1973-1975 time period. It was operated by the 7-1 Cavalry (Air) of the 194th Armored Brigade. CobraDragoon (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)