Best Helicopters

Korean Seaboy

Korean Seaboy

Active member
I've recently noted with interest that although this part of the forum has many threads about jets and airplanes, it has almost no threads that concerns with helicopters. So I've decided to start a thread concerning helicopters, primarily as a thread conerning which is the best.

My votes are for the Huey, Apache, and Pave Low
 
It depends on what you want.
For a battlefield bus, I prefer the likes of the Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters.
I don't know much about it but the Mi-6 doesn't seem like a bad deal either for transport of goods over rather safe areas.
They are cheap, and from what I know, reliable and have great carrying capacities.
I think Western utility helicopters are too expensive for what they are worth and with the exception of the Chinook, too small for general transport.
 
A Can of Man said:
It depends on what you want.
For a battlefield bus, I prefer the likes of the Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters.
I don't know much about it but the Mi-6 doesn't seem like a bad deal either for transport of goods over rather safe areas.
They are cheap, and from what I know, reliable and have great carrying capacities.
I think Western utility helicopters are too expensive for what they are worth and with the exception of the Chinook, too small for general transport.
Click to expand...

I don`t know a lot about the Mi-8/Mi-17, just curious why you prefer it. What criteria are you using in judging the worth of Western helicopters?
 
Mi-8 is cheap, reliable and unpretentious at any climate. It is perfect at insurgency war. Same with UH-1. Both are easily availiable for lack-all nations
 
Both the Mi-8 and the Mi-24 supported the UN mission to Liberia.
Reliable aicraft that flew when needed.
 
A Can of Man said:
Basically price, ease of maintenance and carrying capacity.
Click to expand...


That should be the main stay in all helicopters outside the show room floor. Take the exceptions like the old UH1, before the 20 upgrades into the technical marvel on paper it is today,the Chinook for instance, it has a excellent service record from around the world under different flags, and keeps getting better with it's ability to fly well in Afghanistan's high altitude climate.

That's where you see the advantage of Russian designs ,same can also sometimes apply to fixed wing aircraft, rugged, and can be fixed in the field by even a second rate fighting force. What's not to love? Id rather brush sand out a simple metric gearbox, than worry about wrestling wire harnesses in the same crappy conditions as well in a flying Radioshack of a utility helo.
 
Last edited:
For fighter jets and attack helicopters, I can see the need for high tech stuff but for utility helicopters, that's excessive and unnecessary.
 
Agreed! They are not spewing missiles twenty miles away from each other or targets, while sweeping the air for advanced threats, they are moving stuff and personnel.

Kinda shows where the flat screens go.
 
Last edited:
I'll go with the Mi-24 series, especially the modernized 'SuperHind'-versions by ATE. Proven design, very fast, heavily armored (for sth. that's able to fly), brutal firepower, can carry an infantry squad...
I mean: compared to that piece of crap called 'Tiger' we spent more than 25 years of development and 6 billion € on (and that's until now, it still isn't finished) just to find out that the engines won't work in very hot climates and high altitudes (no attack helicopters for you, German soldiers in Afghanistan)...
And all that after we had gotten 50+ Mi-24 for free from the former GDR military after its breakdown. Just great. -.-
 
Moloch

I disagree...

MI-24 were shot down in droves during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. It can withstand small arms fire and 20mm hits but extremely vulnerable to heat seekers. So vulnerable that the Soviets MI-24 was used a missile lure to shield transport aircraft.

It also lacks a decent AtA capability. The Iraqis lost several to Cobra J's and SeaCobras in their war with Iran.

Mi-24 are reliable but they are vulnerable. Excluding US choppers I like the Italian Mongoose or the SA Rooivalk.

For Utility choppers...UH-1 Iraqouis
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Moloch

I disagree...

MI-24 were shot down in droves during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. It can withstand small arms fire and 20mm hits but extremely vulnerable to heat seekers. So vulnerable that the Soviets MI-24 was used a missile lure to shield transport aircraft.

It also lacks a decent AtA capability. The Iraqis lost several to Cobra J's and SeaCobras in their war with Iran.

Mi-24 are reliable but they are vulnerable. Excluding US choppers I like the Italian Mongoose or the SA Rooivalk.

For Utility choppers...UH-1 Iraqouis
Click to expand...

Pretty much any helo is going to be vunerable to heat seekers, even unguided rockets, even Apaches are being shot down in the middle east.
 
Sukio said:
Pretty much any helo is going to be vunerable to heat seekers, even unguided rockets, even Apaches are being shot down in the middle east.
Click to expand...
Well, of course everything is being shot. Even stealth fighters can be shot down by 1960s-design SA missile. But if you compare Apache's price and the one of Mi-24, you'll think twice before sending an Apache against.. say.. Afghani mojaheds loaded with manpads.
 
Sukio said:
Pretty much any helo is going to be vunerable to heat seekers, even unguided rockets, even Apaches are being shot down in the middle east.
Click to expand...

Vulnerable yes, but it is less susceptible. The MI-24 has an enormous heat signature, the AH-64 has less of one.

For example the AH-64 engine exhausts are tilted slightly upwards and since man-pads are fired from the ground there is a lot less heat for it to lock-on to.

The MI-24 engine exhaust blows straight back so any missile fired from behind will have a much bigger signature to lock on to.

Helos are only vulnerable to RPGs if they are stationary at low altitude. One of the things the Wiki leaks scandal showed was that many of the helicopters shot down in Afghanistan were actually downed by missiles and not RPGs as claimed by the DOD. The DOD didn't want to admit the Taliban had access to anti-aircraft missiles.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top