From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 14:53:32 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum) writes:

> In article <8qquVB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kenned
> >Expierence in Viet Nam 
> >showed that not only could a co-pilot take control of a helicopter 
> >before the situation became too critical, but also that wounded 
> >pilots could often land helicopters. 
> 
> This is true for UH-1's and similar Helicopters with two
> pilots, but I suspect that it may not be as likely for a tandem seat 
> attack ship where each crew member has his own duties to attend
> to. Unless the non-flying pilot is "quick-on-the-stick", serious
> trouble will follow. If the wounded pilot obstructs the controls in
> any way, serious trouble will follow. If the momentary confusion
> gives the enemy another shot, serious trouble will follow.

 I flew both the Huey gunship (UH-1C) and the Cobra (AH-1G) in Nam 
and you would be supprised how quick you can switch from gunsights 
to flight controls when it counts!

> In V.N., assaults into hot L.Z's where usually (always?) made with 
> the non-flying pilot "ghosting" the controls in case the flying
> pilot was wounded. This is one of the reasons that the things had 
> two pilots in the first place, and why more helicopters were
> not lost due to pilot incapacitation. Besides, even if the
> wounded pilot lands the thing, it's still outta the fight, no?
> Especially if the bad guys keep shooting.

 This was true of the "slicks" since the co-pilot had no other 
duties not related to flying the aircarft, but what they shot at 
most often was the gunships. Even in the UH-1C, the co-pilot had 
weapons to fire and was quite busy during a fight. Since I never 
flew "slicks", I tend to think in trems of gunships.

> 
> Don't misunderstand. Each (fixed and rotary wing CAS A/C) has
> its own special role to fill. In their present forms, niether
> can replace the other.

 True! and this is the real point, we need something for each 
role.

> I love (and fly) both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, but my
> personal preference has to be fixed wing in a combat environment,
> because of my (perceived?) better chance of getting the job
> done and making it home to the wife and kiddies (that is, after 
> all, what its all about, ain't it?).

 OK, but you'll understand that I would prefer the helicopter :-)

 Getting home to the wife and kids is what it's all about when you 
sit back and think about it later. What's hard for me, Toby, or 
any other Nam vet to explain is that *during* the mission, the 
mission becomes more important. Not because of some macho desire 
to be a hero, or anything like that, but because those are your 
guys on the ground (or, in my case, in the "slicks" and on the 
ground) who are relying on YOU for THEIR survival. When it's your 
guys getting killed down there, the wife and kiddies are the last 
thing you think about. And yes, there were cases where gunships 
stayed in the fight with a pilot or crewman wounded so that don't 
always "take them out". Both the UH-1C and the Cobra had 
provisions for the co-pilot to fire all the weapons with the 
pilot out of action, and although I'am not sure, I would assume 
the Apache is set up the same way.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------