Talk:Mil Mi-24

Speed

I remember reading somewhere that Mi-24 used to be one of the fastest (if not the fastest) combat helicopters of its time. Can anyone confirm this? --72.137.194.104 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, given that the Mi-24 still represents the majority of attack helicopters found in Russian military service, it's time hasn't passed. If you keep that in mind, then the Hind is not the fastest. My bet is that the single-seat Ka-50 has that honor these days, but not by much. Don't forget that, like a sports car, acceleration and not top speed are often what matters in a combat helicopter. And that, mate, the Hind definatly ranks low on.(USMA2010 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

The Kamov is contra-rotating and therefore has an inherent speed limit - it is by design a slower helicopter than new single-rotor types. The EH101 Merlin is probably one of the fastest (167 knots, 192 mph, 309 km/h) military helicopters in service today, although I think the world record for helicopters, combat or civilian, is still held by the Westland Lynx. I'm also not certain if the speed listed for the Mi-24 here in our article is a V_ne or maximum cruise. ericg ✈ 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: USMA is correct. It appears that Ericg has a little bit of Anglo-bias. The limitation of a contra-rotating, co-axial rotor system is the upflap of the advancing blade of the lower rotor and the downflapping of the retreating blade of the upper rotor. The contra-rotating, co-axial rotor system however minimizes the aircraft's susceptibility to retreating blade stall, the foremost inhibitor to helicopter forward speed. And, the Ka-50 is a "new" helicopter.

The UH-60 Black Hawk has a V_ne of 193 knots, but the CH-47 Chinook can realistically do its V_ne of 170 knots at cruise; the limitation caused by other factors than the aircraft's ability to go faster. The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, a traditional helicopter set a helicopter class speed record in the early 70's above 188 knots, but the X-2 technology demonstrator that Sikorsky is currently building will be a contra-rotating, co-axial rotor helicopter system designed to break the Mu limitations of the helicopter as well as the forward airspeed limitations of helicopters; Sikorsky is looking for 250 knots. --00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, all that aside, the original commenter seems to be correct. According to my information, a modified Mi-24A (A10) broke 8 world records in 1975. Among them were speed (368km/hr [[1]]), rate of climb and altitude. It continued to hold the speed and (I think) altitude records for about 10 years.

203.24.134.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Deleted the 'In Fiction' section

This stuff really needs to come to a close. The Mi-24 played absolutely no valid role in either Call of Duty 4 *or* Rambo. It was a placeholder helicopter, that could've been an Mi-28 and wouldn't have detrimented the product whatsoever.

If it plays a major, definable role (see: The F-14 in Top Gun) then include it. So far, it's just been in the posistion of 'Insert Generic Opfor Attack Helicopter Here' and nothing else. That's not mentionable. Keep that crap on IMDB. 75.149.203.222 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One attacked Rambo in Rambo II and in Rambo III, and a assault squad was attacking the Wolverines in Red Dawn. I have these tapes. In Rambo II, he shot one with a bazooka or a Russian RPG, in Rambo III, he ran into one with a T-72 tank. Powerzilla (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Still not notable. And IIRC, the Mi-24s in at least one of the Rambo movies were mocked-up Pumas. The Cold War was still on when these films were made, so real Mi-24s were not available. - BillCJ (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only western film to show a hind i belive is Lord of War as a early hind (by the cockpit canopy) is shown in a hanger then ready for transport being illegaly exported from the ukraine following the break up of the soviet union and billcj is right about rambo featuring pumas with stub wings to appear like hinds as if you watch rambo 3 the pilots are sitting in tandem next to each other to the hinds layout witch is one behind the other like the apache or cobra.--82.37.156.36 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other western films which have features real Mi-24s. Blood Diamond have the South African upgraded 'Super Hind'. Charlie Wilson's War about the CIA operation in Afghanistan in the 80s features some short clips with Mi-24s (but those might be CG). But in general I agree that all these appearances are too unnotable for a mention in this article. The only use in media I can think of which could earn a mention is Digital Integration's helicopter simulator for PCs in the 90s called Hind. There it was the only flyable helicopter, and its unique characteristics was a big part of the game play, including a historic campaign in Afghanistan. Arneh (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the game is here.

Also, not really western, but definately fiction and integral to the 'feel', if not the plot is the inclusion of a Mi-24 as well as a weird interlocking 2x main rotor version (obviously CG) in the japanese/polish film http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0267287/ called Avalon. 203.24.134.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Comparable how?

In the comparable aircraft section there are a lot of aircraft that have no capability to carry troops. Looks as though the only truly comparable one on the list is the UH-60. - (CHawc (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

The S-67 had passenger capability. Troop carrying is a secondary capability anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The others are comparable for the attack role. Looking at overall capabilities they are not comparable. At least one is new so that could be considered a different era. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think this whole section needs rewriting. I don't understand the point of comparing, nor do I think it would serve any value. Obviously the US decided to pursue a dedicated attack helicopter at this time, after the UH-1 gunships showed they were vulnerable and did not perform optimally. The AH-1 proved the speed and survivability benefits of an attack helicopter over a gunship. Consequently the US did not follow the incremental approach as did the USSR, which is basically the difference between the two nations until recent times. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Operators

Germany doesnt and didnt definetly not use the Mi24, never.--84.161.74.189 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that would support your claim? Svick (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They were East German. West Germany has never had soviet military gear. The page needs to be more specific. You know... 'The Wall' and all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mexico has never received, purchased nor operated the Mi-24. The article that is referenced has obviously made a mistake and most probably confused the the Mi-24 with the Mi-26 of which Mexico did purchase 2 units, one was lost in an accident. I think the author of the article meant to state the Mi-26 instead of the Mi-24 or it's possible that he confused them. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Flight International lists operators at "Directory: World Air Forces" as of November 2008. This is currently reference 35. Mexico is listed as having 1 Mi-26 and 0 Mi-24. No Mil helicopters are listed for Germany. The German entry currently says all Mi-24s were sold. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The operator entry for Germany currently says: "51 inherited from East Germany were sold to Hungary, Poland and two to the U.S. Army." This is not entirely correct; while the majority appear to have been sold to Hungary and Poland and two indeed went to the US, there are still several in German museums. I'm not sure where to get reliable data on this, though.Elanguescence (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Poland is still an operator of Mi-24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.106.103 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Operational History and Operators should split into sub-pages

Right now there's a whole freaking laundry list of all the wars the Mi-24's been used in as well as every country that's used it....it fills up the whole screen and just looks really messy in general. Someone should transfer these to a separate page and just have the main article link to them Masterblooregard (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting off the operators to a "List of Mil Mi-24 operators" or similar article seems the best choice for splitting off content now. Variants were split off before. The Operational history can be split off later or maybe combined with operators info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The operational history is too long and should be split. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested this on another article, and globally for all military articles like this (to adopt a standard format). I was insulted, the entire discussion was deleted, and nothing was done, so good luck. I put my 2c in for this as well though. Some of us aren't crazed maniacs wanting to know which countries sell these things (or "terrorists" if you prefer) and just want to know how it works. 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)~

Flying tank

"Flying tank" is common nickname for every attack aircraft and helicopter - from Il-2 to modern Su-25 and Mi-28.Ходок (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cockpit armor

Someone added a tag looking for a citation to support the assertion that the cockpit armor can withstand impacts from 37mm projectiles. Beyond the fact that it is unlikely that such a capability exists (37mm) is the question of what kind of 37 mm round. Nevertheless I find the claim dubious given the kinetic energy of such a projectile either HE or AP form. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly survive some 37 mm strikes instead of resisting them. The A-10's cockpit bathtub was tested to take some 57 mm strikes, though that's a totally different 'craft. In any event, I'll see what I can find in my books later. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For helicopters survival against HEI, 37mm is pretty large. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I could not find these details in the 2 or 3 books I have on the Mi-24. So I just removed that text. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-2012 Syrian Civil War?!!

This is a misleading and biased opinion, using an imprecise terms: 1- According to the reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-5-tlFfwk , the crisis in Syria called a "war" not a "civil war" because the clashes occur between two army. 2- There is nothing called "Asads forces", according to the reference it's called "Syrian Army". 3-The reference itself is a video clip from a single news channel who depends on another video clip taken by unknown activists with no way to confirm date or place of its events.

I suggest that this section should be deleted because it depends on a personal, single sided, and biased point of view in a controversial crisis, with no reliable source.31.9.113.202 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, Youtube is not a reliable source, and the American Civil War is called that despite the fact the Union Army and Confederate Army were two distinct and professional armies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Although you're right about the definition of civil war, but according to the used reference it's called a "war", and the writer should be committed to his reference, what I want to say that this section is placing a political point of view and try to prove it by a poorly reliable source rather than military facts referred to Mi-24, in this military view there's nothing called "assad forces" nor "Forces loyal to Bashar Assad", instead there is the Syrian Army depending on their signs,badges,and flags.31.9.19.115 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is messing up with the operators list ?

Today i saw the operator list and it said Albania operates 37 of these helicopters.But after good search on the net i found nothing of these kind Albanian force dose not have this aircraft in there inventory and also it says that Macedonia has 4 but in fact they have 8 of these helicopters with serial numbers 201-208 while serial numbers from 209-212 are retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.211.83 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)