I understand about the H-1 line so AH-1G was the first attack model. But what about "Cobra"? The US Army usually use Native American names for its helicopters. Anybody know the background for the Cobra name? Thanks. -Fnlayson18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, section 1.0 on thefaqs.org page explains it here:

UH-1 Hueys operating in Vietnam at the time were known as ... "Cobras" if they were armed with machine guns and rockets.

They took a slang type name for an armed Huey and gave it to the AH-1. Interesting.. -Fnlayson21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about adding this to the article? Would it be worth it? -Fnlayson02:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If got sources that claim the armed UH-1s were called "Snakes", tho both terms may well have been used concurrently. Let's check around and see if we can find a more thorough source. -BillCJ02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• True, too iffy for 1 source.That could be like a glorified rumor. That might be hard to confirm. A couple Army pages ([1] &[2]) list "Snake" as the nickname for the AH-1G Cobra. -Fnlayson02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The AH-1 was named Cobra instead of a Native American name, because the DoD had been sued by Piper over a name for a helicopter similar to one of their airplane models, according my Huey Cobra book. So the Army went with Cobra, which had been a nickname for UH-1s with guns. -Fnlayson03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

In response to your original comment, it was originally namedHuey Cobra as the whole name. It was never intended to be a separate aircraft, exactly. Rather, it was intended to be just the next variant in the line of H-1 armed variants. --Born2flie (talk)13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also wanted to ask if your Huey Cobra book mentions Charles Siebel? I'm looking for more information about him after he left Cessna and went to Bell Helicopter. --Born2flie (talk)14:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Bishop book does not that I can find. But it's only is some 50 pages long. :( -Fnlayson (talk)14:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Coincidently, Bell had been using Cobra quite a bit prior to this on their fixed wing aircraft. Nevertheless, I think there was a significant transition going on with version designation, since many Army helicopters were being upgraded. I believe the "G" designation was initially meant t indicate "Gun" rather than the usual "A" model which never existed. Of course the "A" in "AH" meant attack. So I think in this respect the AH-1 was a guinea pig for nomenclature. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT^PRAISE14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "G" did not indicate "Gun", it was simply the next letter in the series; there had been UH-1s designated as A, B, C, & D in Army service, the E was a USMC model and the F was a USAF model, the G was the original HueyCobra, then came the UH-1H, I was not used, J was a USMC model, K, L, M, N, & P were UH-1s, there was no O model, Q was the first TOWCobra, R was an uprated G model, S was an uprated Q, T was an uprated J, the U, V and X are UH-1s, W is the Super Cobra, Y is the Venom and Z is the Viper. The Army later went back in the letter sequence and reused some UH-1 letters (E, F, & P) for post AH-1S versions as AH-1E, AH-1F and AH-1P models.CobraDragoon (talk)21:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

I recently tried to access one of the references cited in this article (World Air Forces 2013)...the link looks like it once led to a PDF, but currently leads elsewhere on the flightglobal.com page. Is this source behind a paywall? Or is it simply no longer available? Given that it's cited 8 times in the article, should we make sure it (or an alternative source) are readily available?

Cheers!Skyraider1 (talk)20:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just because you can no longer find it on the internet doesnt stop it being a valid source, World Air Forces 2013 was also published in Flight International so it does exist in published form in libraries and other depositories. No requirement on wikipedia for sources to be online, thanks.MilborneOne (talk)21:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that the recent entry from an IP about Kenya is just a copy and paste from the entry above and unlikley to be in that source, thanks.MilborneOne (talk)21:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Flight Global hasa page for the the WAF 2013, but one must fill out a sheet to register and download. I suggest changing to a newer source like the WAF 2016available here instead, which requires logging into flightglobal.com. --Finlayson (talk)21:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's not listed in WAF 2017. I think the IP just copied another entry that was cited, and changed the text to Kenya. -BilCat (talk)00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, glad others reached the same conclusion I did about the IP edit. Next time something like that comes up, I'll ping someone with access to WAF (or get my own account). Thanks!Skyraider1 (talk)11:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think, the term "Kurdish insurgents" as used in this article is problematic. My understanding is that "insurgent" is the term used by Turkish politicians, Kurdish politicians will probably use other terms: ;-)My suggestion is to make this sentence more neutral, e.g. by using Kurdish forces or Kurdish positions.Philippschaumann (talk)13:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about Turkey specifically, but in most aircraft articles dealing with such situations, the government sources tend to call such opposition forces "rebels", "terrorists", and the like. In those cases, "insurgents" is the more neutral term, and why it's used here. Simply calling them "Kurdish forces" is probably going too far the other way, though not as far as terms like "freedom fighters".BilCat (talk)21:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pakistani AH-1 Cobra.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk)10:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply