David B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 6 Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4174 times:
Which is more advance? A MI24 Hind D russian gunship or a apache? I think that the Russians used older technology. The Hind D seems to have more fire power. Anyone have any experience with this aircraft?
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3924 times:
The AH-64 was designed from the ground up as a tank killer. Crew of 2, high survivability/manuverability, lots of Hellfire missiles and a heavy cannon. The Hind was more of a heavily armed transport/attack aircraft. It had the ability to carry a squad of troops, plus it's own canon and rockets. (I think there was a wire guided missile on it but not sue there...) The Hind is/was a fearsome machine but was built in a different time and for a different purpose than the Apache. Really a better comparison would be with the Hog models of the UH-1 (B and M models mostly)
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3900 times:
The Apache.
Remember the Hind was out about 10 years before.
Also I no longer consider the Hind a true helicopter after I read an Air&Space Smithsonian article about it that appeared a couple years ago.
Things about the Hind that stuck out to me.
Most of it's lift is generated by those two wings sticking out of the side, they aren't just weapons pylons. Also there is a 6 minute hover limit on the transmission before it has to be removed for overhaul.
The aircraft is more of a autogyro with a powered main rotor. It must maintain forward flight in order to keep from overstressing the mechanical components.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3840 times:
The Hind performed quite well in Afghanistan. Until the Mujahedin got Stingers that is...
twin barrel 25mm gun, 4 rocket pods, 4 guided missiles (different types, optical or laser guided depending on avionics package), and a squad of assault troops.
Heavy armour.
Effectively it's a flying AIFV, Apache is a flying battletank.
Both effective, but different.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3723 times:
Pacific, you do relize that they didn't just shoot them down. They killed the crews (if they got to them first) and dragged the bodies though the streets. As one can imagine that is something that should tick off any American, when the primary reason that they were there was to ensure the distribute food to the people by the UN.
So you can fathom the disjust that I have with you post.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Jwenting, it wasn't just the stingers. The natives found out that
if you shoot out the rear roter (wether with a RPG or a AK-47) it can bring down the helicopter.
Many of these people trained the people over in Mogadishu(sp).
And they brought down our helos with the expierence that they gained
from the Afghans that they hired.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Well Pacfic how about this, we Americans, can just tell the world to buzz off after we have the missle defence system up. Lets see how people would like it when they have to feed and defend themselves.
Then maybe you can understand why I have no respect for countries that not only take our aid but also kill our people in the process.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3695 times:
Great, but until that day comes please watch your language.
Vzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Some of the Mi-24 characteristics referenced in the Smithsonian article (which I admitedly haven't read) are ones that I'd consider to be in the "urban legend" category:
"...Also I no longer consider the Hind a true helicopter after I read an Air&Space Smithsonian article about it that appeared a couple years ago.
Things about the Hind that stuck out to me.
Most of it's lift is generated by those two wings sticking out of the side, they aren't just weapons pylons. Also there is a 6 minute hover limit on the transmission before it has to be removed for overhaul.
The aircraft is more of a autogyro with a powered main rotor. It must maintain forward flight in order to keep from overstressing the mechanical components."
The wings do generate a significant amount of lift in higher speed flight, helping to offload the main rotor, but they're not at all necessary for the Mi-24 to fly. How would a wingless Mi-24 perform? Pretty much just like an Mi-17, which uses essentially identical engines, transmission, and rotor. The high incidence of the wings allows a higher top speed and the incidence and anhedral serve to minimize the wings' negative impact on hover performance.
I can't say anything definitive about a 6-minute hover limit, but I've seen Mi-24s and Mi-17's hover for fairly long periods, such as during an SAR demo.
Just my opinions, based on observation.
-Mark
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
L-188 is that straight skinny? That is is an autogyro? Because there is a huge difference between helicopters and autogyros.
In an autogyro the rotor is not driven by the engine (except possibly brought up to speed by a small motor) The airflow in an autogyro in forward flight is UP through the rotor. In a helicopter it is DOWN throught the rotor. In other words, an autogyro is in constant autorotation.
So I am wondering if that is really possible, that it de-clutches the rotor once it has forward speed?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Vzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
It's a conventional helicopter that benefits from cleverly designed auxiliary surfaces. (I guess one could make the case then that it's a compound helicopter...) An autogyro has to have some source of forward thrust other than the rotor because, as SlamClick alludes, the rotor is driven by the airstream.
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
JasperEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
One is a computer controlled rapier the other is flying battleaxe ,10 years apart, but both are very scary. I can remember seeing Hind s patrolling the East German border whilst I was a poor infantry man in 1982 and they made me dig my trench just that little bit deeper. At the time they were thousands expected to come roaring down the Fulda Gap .We live in far better times !
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2698 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
