I have heard that the Apache Helicopter was named not for the tribe of Native Americans, but rather for a high school football team (which itself was named for the Indians). Is there any truth to this? I have not found any evidence one way or the other.
All US helicopters, with the exception of one, are named after Indian tribes. The exception was due to funding considerations by the manufacturer, they got to name it. No, it’s not the Huey, which is officially the Iroquois, which absolutely nobody uses.
U.S. Army helicopters are named for Indian nations. Navy copters generally are named “Sea _______.” Air Force copters used to follow Army nomenclature, but have begun using variants of those beginning PAVE or odd function code names beginning PAVE.
The Apache simply followed the normal naming conventions for Army use.
The Cobra? Does it perhaps have a ‘official’ Indian name?
Actually, while the general practice of the Army has been to use indian names, I am aware of several Army helicopters that did not, and I am not sure which plane Tedster was referring to.
The USAF’s Piasecki H-16 Transporter was used by some Army units without, as far as I know, a separate name.
The Army bought into USN’s Piasecki HUP Retriever program, numbering their planes H-25 and calling them either Retriever or Army Mule.
The Army’s Hiller H-23 Raven was not named for any Indian nation of which I am aware.
(I do not know whether the Army ever picked up any of the H-3’s that the USAF had modified from the USN Sea King. The USAF called theirs Jolly Green Giant. If the Army bought any (and they may have simply stuck with the Chinook), then they also called them JGG.)
The Cobra name has a number of odd elements.
The Iroquois originally carried the designation HU-1 from which the nickname Huey arose. During Vietnam, the Army started loading all kinds of offensive weaponry onto some of their copters to use as escorts for troop carriers and, later, as attack copters in their own right. (By the agreement that created the USAF, the Army is forbidden to mount weapons on their fixed-wing aircraft which is why they have invested so much in attack helicopters, fearing to be at the mercy of Air Force scheduling when needing air support.) These copters picked up the nickname “Huey Cobra.”
Toward the end of the Vietnam War, the Army asked Bell to design a plane specifically to be an attack copter, narrowing the fuselage to reduce weight and target size, among other things. The result was the AH-1 “Huey Cobra” which should, by any logical choice, have been given a new numeric designation and a new name, since it is a complete redesign of the original UH-1 series. However, the military is nothing if not inconsistent in nomenclature, so now we have two "H-1"s that have nothing in common but the manufacturer and part of the nickname.
Isnt this rather a GQ fellas?
Well, we could debate whether the armed services should be allowed to pick separate names for the same aircraft.
Alternatively, we could debate whether we should refuse to answer a question until it is moved to the proper forum. 
Actually, although its a bit of a hijack, could you go further on the topic re: the army not being able able mount weapons on fixed wing airplanes due to the agreement that created the airforce, tomndebb? I find that to be very interesting. Do you know why such an agreement was made? Off hand I’d think maybe professional rivalry or allocation of resources, but that’s just an uninformed guess. Thanks,
montag01
Also, was that agreement the National Security Act of 1947? It seems to be the legislation that mandated the creation of three distinct military departments–Army, Navy, Airforce.
Ya, I guess I should have thought this through more carefully, all current US Army helicopters are named after tribes, afaik, with the exception of the Cobra.
Kiowa
Chinook
BlackHawk
Iroquois
Apache
Comanche
The restrictions on Army aircraft were more complex than I indicated in my one-liner, above, resulting more from politically engineered directives from the Defense Department than from actual Congressional action. There are numerous allusions to the restrictions on the internet, but I have not found a comprehensive history.
Quick history of the USAF origins including sections 207 - 209 of the National Security Act of 1947 (You can also look up the Key West Agreement of 1948 and Executive Order 9877 that it superseded, but there were numerous “battles” throughout the years.)
Here are two articles that allude to the historic fights (as background) from Slate and from The Lexington Institute.
An Army view of the development of the helicopter as a tactical weapon (among other things). (No doubt, an Air Force telling of the same story would differ.)
Argument for change strategies to allow Army to control its own Close Air Support. (Lo-a-d-s r-e-a-l s-l-ow) (It also notes several instances where the Army “illegally” armed planes in violation of Air Force expetations.)
Always ready to raise hell 
Thanx for the info, guys. Looks pretty cut and dried to me!
SuperDave62
What about the AH-6J Little Bird? (although it is an offshoot of the OH-6A Cayuse).
Thanks for that great informative post, tomndebb–it’s really appreciated!
Montag01
Let me also mention the TH-67 Creek.
As for the Little Bird, I’d suggest that this isn’t an “official” designation. Like the name Iroquois, I don’t think Cayuse ever really caught on. Kiowa, either, although I’ve heard people using it more lately.
But when the special ops folks got into the Little Bird business, the aircraft morphed so far away from the old OH-6 that it needed a new name. But, special ops guys being the way they are, I don’t think they wanted to draw attention, so “Little Bird” just sort of caught on.
Creek is an indian nation. It was against them that Andrew Jackson made his fame as an indian fighter: first against the Upper Creeks who had joined the British during the War of 1812, and then against the Lower Creeks who had fought alongside U.S. troops, but whose land settlers from the U.S. wanted.