Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hind D Gunship  
User currently offlineDavid B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4576 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?


Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

In rough terms, the Apache, by far. But, the two do represent different generations (and ideas) of attack helicopters.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4326 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)

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4302 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.
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

"I think there was a wire guided missile on it but not sue there..."

Yep, the early ones were called "Sturm", I believe. It would carry two of those (or later equivalents) on a pylon under each wingtip.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Also, I'm pretty sure later models of those missiles were laser guided.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

Better to think of Hind as an assault chopper with an anti-tank capability.
Designed for the central front in Europe.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4242 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.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4125 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.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4114 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.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4114 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.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

Great, but until that day comes please watch your language.


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3021 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
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3002 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.
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 839 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2975 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
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

No, it doesn't fit the definition of an autogyro, because it does have a powered rotor.

Vzlet, what you say does make sense, I'll try and find that old Smithsonian article.

It wouldn't exactly surprise me if the Army was playing loose with some of the limits.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasperEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2878 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 !

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Hind D Gunship
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
C-17 Gunship Version Mooted posted Wed Apr 13 2005 03:17:15 by Cheshire
AC-130 Gunship Targeting Video, Afghanistan posted Sun Dec 22 2002 20:17:36 by Mirage
Hind D Gunship posted Fri Aug 2 2002 21:36:48 by David B.

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format