Unusual Vietnam Hueys

I just snagged a Heller N model and a Revell Seasprite in one lot.  Can't beat that with a stick!  Maybe my craving for both aircraft will be sated for a while now...

naaaaaaaaah!

Jon 

It comes with 20th SOS markings, but I'm gonna build it as a current Marine bird, and yes, it is 48th scale.

Jon

that's cool, but I only build 1/72 scale

Jon,

  PLEASE HELP!  What the heck is going on with this TOW bird!?

I  found this in a helo weapons article from the museum.  Where's the chin mounted sight?  What's up with the nose?  It looks like this bird used to carry a thumper, but the bracing is all wrong.  there is only a single brace in the chin instead of the usual three.  Could there be a sight higher up that the pic doesn't show?  Did the missiles stick out of the tubes when they were loaded?  Most pictures I have seen show three holes not what appear to be three missile nosecones.  Please explain these conundrums!  Thanks in advance!

    Ray 

Edit:

  Dang, Jon, i found another one.  What do you make of this pic?:

[img]http://[

I t looks like the only pic of one of the original TOW birds firing I have ever seen!  Cammo, anti-strella, the missile in th edge of the frame, the whole nine yards!  Are you as excited as I am to see this one?

  Here's a closeup of the bird so you can judge for yourself:

[img]http://" border="0" /> 

Cobrahistorian wrote:

I just snagged a Heller N model and a Revell Seasprite in one lot.  Can't beat that with a stick!  Maybe my craving for both aircraft will be sated for a while now...       naaaaaaaaah!   Jon

Andy

Ray,

You are incredible!  I've never seen either of those shots!  Here's my theory.  The first shot there, if you had the ability to pan up, I bet you'd find that roof-mounted TOW sight we were talking about earlier.  That's definitely a chunker nose on it too.  Early one at that. The caps over the TOW tubes were probably just aerodynamic fairings that popped off when the missile launched.  Either that, or they are just mock tubes.  I've seen similar caps on the twin pods that the earliest Apache mockup and an AH-1G carried.  

As for the second shot, that looks to me like its 60-3554 in action!  One of the things I'm hoping to do is get into NARA's film collection.  The TOW teams filmed EVERY TOW launch they fired.  That film's gotta be somewhere!   I'll search NARA if you'll search the USAAVNM archives!

Andy,

Madman?  Well... yeah, probably.  But I have a hell of a lot of fun that way!  I'm gonna convert that SH-2F to an HC-2 UH-2A in full camo.  Either that, or I'll build it as Clyde Lassen's Medal of Honor UH-2A from HC-7.  Either way, I'll be doing up the masters for an A model conversion!

Jon
 

Jon,

  Glad you like 'em. Thanks for the input on the half TOW bird!  I basically thought what you said, but you know th TOW's history better than I.  So, 3554 got the anti-strella kit?  I have seen pics of a TOW bird with and without the kit.  Did one have it and one not?  Any other way you can tell it's 3554?  Man, I can't believe we were in that bird just a few weeks back.   I love history!

     Ray
 

The odd looking Huey is the test platform for the AH-56 weapons systems. It may or may not be the third NUH-1B that is "missing", but is likely the NUH-1M airframe 63-8684.

edit) that is the NUH-1M. There are two lights on the bottom of UH-1C/M airframes, one is a search light the other a landing light. The UH-1B airframe did not have both of them, only the forward landing light. In the picture you can see the search light under the left mid-section of the aircraft so it's 63-8684. 

Chief Snake 

Ray, there were three NUH-1B TOW aircraft. One was taken off the Bell production line and used as the development, test and training platform in 1964. Its' whereabouts is unknown but the serial is known. It may be the TOW you see without the exhaust suppressor. The two NUH-1B combat aircraft can be differentiated most easily by the FM antennas you would see on the nose. 553 did not have them, 554 DID have them. Also, the paint schemes are different. 553 has very irregular black patches with many in leaf shapes. 554 is very gentle in it's application with larger smoother patches. On the left pilot door of 553, there is a playboy bunny shape painted in black very clearly discernable.

Chief Snake 

Cobrahistorian wrote:

I just snagged a Heller N model and a Revell Seasprite in one lot.  Can't beat that with a stick!  Maybe my craving for both aircraft will be sated for a while now...       naaaaaaaaah!   Jon

Jon, Jon, Jon.....If I had only known you were looking for an "N" bird, I could have sweetened the pot even MORE!!!!! 

Chief,

  Thanks for the info!  I had already noticed the antenna thing and talked to Jon about it.  I just wasn't sure that was consistent throughout the history of the airframes.  The pic I saw of the bird that I didn't think had the anti-strella kit installed is in two refs: Army Gunships in Vietnam- Chenoweth, p.71, fig 135 and Squadron Uh-1 Hueyin Action-Mutza, p. 43.  It is a three-quarters shot, but when I compare it to the three quarters shot in squadron UH-1 huey in color-mutza, p.30, the toilet bowl is clearly visible in the latter, but not in the former.  Since the pic shows a bird with kill marks painted on her, I'm pretty sure it's one of the VN birds.  In fact, it should be 553 based on missing nose antennas. Check it out and see what you think.

     Ray

Chris,

You sure that's an M?  Aren't those the lower portions of the FM aerials on the nose?  This one's definitely got me stumped, but I think that's a mutant B.  In any case, if you look at the closeup of 554 firing the missile, is it me, or can you just make out the outline of the "Whispering Death" patch on the nose?

Ray,

As Chris said, both birds had the Strela kits when they were in country.   We've found some additional documentation at NARA that I'm hoping to delve into at some point in the near future.  I may try to swing by there after work today.  The one with the kill marks was definitely 553.  In fact, in one of the pics that I've got, you can clearly see the "55" on the tail, only the tail rotor blade is covering up most of the last digit.  The kill marks are visible in that pic as well, IIRC. One of the Squadron books did a profile of it, but incorrectly identified it as "551".  With the documentation I came across at TTU, that confirmed that the tails were 553 and 554. 

Jon

Jon,

  Did you check out the figs I mentioned?  I have no doubts as to which two birds were in country, you convinced me on that one.  It just doesn't look like the anti-strella kit is installed on the one in the photo. You should see the end of the toilet bowl sticking out of the exhaust and it ain't there as far as I can tell.

     Ray

Edit:  Here's the photo I'm talking about:

 [img]http://

I see no toilet bowl here as opposed to this pic from a similar angle where the toilet bowl is clearly visible (i reversed this image so that the pics look the same):

[img]http://

The top pic is at a more oblique angle and should show the anti-strella kit BETTER than the lower pic if it were there.  So whaddaya think guys?

   Ray 

The upper picture is 553, the toilet bowl and armor over the engine cowl vent screen has been removed for some reason, maintanence or repair maybe.. The lower picture is 554 (and it's reversed!!), it was the only one to have the logo of "Whispering Death" on it and from what both Jon and I have recently learned 554 was referred to as Det1 and 553 was Det2. This came from narrative provided by the Det1 commander and was seen to be matching collected materials at NARA research facility. There is plenty of interesting historical material to be reviewed as time permits Jon to access it. This is primarily something that is of significant importance to his work and while interesting to me the value of Jon researching and making it known will serve his long term goals.

There is no question in my mind that the other photo with the AH-56 test equipment on it is the NUH-1M. The FM antennas are there as you point out but given the contract year of 63, that stands in line with the early production models. It could very well be that it was originally a UH-1B that got C/M upgrades and was redesignated as NUH-1M because it was used with the TOW modifications. The only time the N prefix shows up is with TOW invovled aircraft. I've not found it anywhere else.

Chief Snake 

Chief,

  Thanks for the info.  I reversed the image on purpose (as I noted when I posted it) so that it would match the other photo better.  I realize that both birds had the toilet bowl at some point, but no one seemed to believe that a photo existed of one of the VN TOW birds without it.  I figured a picture is worth a thousand words.  Jon (and perhaps yourself) is the TOW  huey expert.  I just provide the photographic fodder for conversation!

    Ray
 

Ray,

Chris and I bounced some ideas around tonight and actually found some additional supporting documentation on the Vietnam Archives to further document the TOW teams.  I've seen references to the 2nd Combat Aerial TOW Team, but I haven't been able to nail it down.  The piece I found tonight puts the 1st CATT with both 553 and 554 (identified by tail number) in MRIII (III Corps) from early November 72 through the end of the war.  What I'm trying to find out now is, where were they between the end of May 72 and the beginning of November 72?  I have record of SS-11s being fired in August, but no TOWs were fired in that reporting period.  That's about all I can find at present.  Chris and I found that additional documentation does exist at NARA and I just have to get in there for it. 

I've got a dozen original documents now that deal with the 1st CATT including crew names, aircraft designations and locations.  The puzzle is definitely coming together.  There may be a book in here!

Jon

EDIT: Looks like the civilian 204B that became the test TOW bird was given the serial 64-18261.  It is the ONLY UH-1B to have a number in that serial range, so it kinda makes sense that it was a civilian bird.

Over in the other UNUSUAL VN HELO froum, Marko posted this a few days ago:

"I came across a very interresting piece of information while reading the 162nd AHC history: under 1968 part of the history You can find the following paragraph (direct copy/paste):

''In the October-November period the 162nd was chosen to experiment with helmet sights for the XM-21 Minigun system. Sperry Rand sent a technician over to work with the Copperheads on the test of what was called the Viper Sight, or “the Look of Death”. SP5 John Ohmer (armorer) and WO Dennis O’Brien helped install and test the system which electrically/mechanically linked the pilots’ helmets to both miniguns and the M-5 grenade launcher. Wherever the pilot looked, the miniguns would be automatically aimed. It worked well under ideal conditions but the dust, heat and humidity played havoc with the small servos attached to the helmet. The system wasn’t quite ready for field conditions. This was the forerunner of the helmet-mounted sight used in the current day Apache gunship.''

Well, something in the paragraph tickled the back of my mind, but i couldn't figure out what.  Finally, it hit me while looking through some Aviation museum archive pics tonight.........SPERRY RAND!  I give you the LOOK OF DEATH:

" border="0" />

[img]http://[img]http://[img]http://[img]http://[

Check out the control box.  I also included closeups of the system attached to the pilots helmet.  You can clearly see the M21 gun sight in the deployed position.  I think this was almost surely a test bird in the states, but it is still cool!  I have looked at this phooto any number of times and had NO CLUE what it was.  Thanks for the lead Marko!!

     Ray
 

Ok here's one. 

UH-1D 60-06029 High speed testbed.  Set several records for speed in class.  Check out the tail.

Image is Copyright National Guard Association of the United States

Jon

Jon,

  Cool pic!  Any idea how the tail was made?  It looks like an extra fairing was applied to the stock 204 tail to me.  I have several pics of 6029 in other configurations if you're interested.   By the way, she is still configured as a YUH-1D in this pic with the 204 rotor and tailboom. If you look close you can see the blade counterweights which were not present in the 205 rotorhead.

           Ray

Chief,

  With regard to this pic:

" border="0" />

    You posted the following comment:

"There are two lights on the bottom of UH-1C/M airframes, one is a search light the other a landing light. The UH-1B airframe did not have both of them, only the forward landing light. In the picture you can see the search light under the left mid-section of the aircraft so it's 63-8684. "

 Check out the  pic below:[

This is 554 in the Museum.  As you know, she's a Bravo.  The photo was taken from the rear of the aircraft looking forward.  I see what appears to be the second search light you alluded to in the above paragraph right next to the strake on the left side.  Is this the light you meant?  If so, at least some Bravos have 'em as well.

   Ray
 

That one is retro fit. Late B's could have the second light. Originally only one light was installed. When the M-5 was developed the necessity for the second light became obvious. The forward light served as both landing and searchlight, the aft light was simply a landing light.

Chief Snake 

Chief,

  That's 60-3554, the second TOW bird.  While I don't doubt you that it is a retrofit, it clearly shows that the test TOW bird above could still be a Bravo model. The article the photo comes from is from 1971, I think.  

    Ray
 

Ray,

I dunno if that's 554.  From everything I've seen, it never had the Chunker nose on it.  Granted it would be simple to replace the battery compartment door, but still.  I'll see what I can find on it.  The logbook up to late 71 is in the museum at Rucker.  Gonna see if I can get copies of it.  That may give us some idea of how it was configured.  I think Chris may be on to something there.

Jon

The first testbed, as Jon pointed out, was a civil airframe. It was assigned a DOD serial number and was pulled off the Bell production line. The nose FM posts generally were not part of the civil package to my knowledge, I'll have to do some research. Maybe they were or maybe they were retrofitted. It's quite possible that is in fact the civil airframe because Hughes retained the airframe and the installed package XM-26 into 1972. According to some documents Jon shared with me on TOW history the package was yanked in the spring of 1972 and sent with 553 and 554 to Vietnam. Both of those aircraft came from Ft Lewis and had T53-11 engines in them, the same as UH-1Ds. The uprated engines were commonly retrofitted to UH-1Bs and in many cases the tailbooms were replaced with the C model type with larger chord fin. The lift capacity beyond normal base weight for the UH-1D was 2,000 lbs. In my view, they were probably close to max ability with the hardware they had and the exhaust suppressor does affect (degrade) the overall performance envelope to a small degree. The turret fitting sure looks like the AH-56 turret with the 40mm in it, it was swapped because the feed system for the minigun was proving to be difficult to maintain. Since 5 total XM-26 packages were built and at minimum 2 were in Vietnam, 3 were still in the US in 1972. The Cheyenne project funding was yanked in 1972. SO the photo may predate the TOW deployment during AH-56  system testing and may well be the civil airframe and have the latest and most up to date equipment installed on it. But, in my view, they would be really walking the safety line by adding weight to an already stretched airframe unless power upgrades were made. Even then the limitations of the -11 engine in a B type rotor system lift envelope is being challenged. Since only one NUH-1M is documented it would make sense that it's increased ability would be preferred in the testing enviroment. The TOW development continued for the AH-1 series and of course was eventually adopted and installed. The TOW history papers do not specifically address the total number of airframes used in testing but do allude to the single initial test airframe and the two deployed airframes. At this point I'd say it's very hard to determine exactly which one that is based on a single photo. There are alot of anomolies in the picture, the partial M-5 system supports and the nose modified access door. And that may not be the Cheyenne turret at all, but a test package with sensor probes sticking out of. And since the TOW history states the package was yanked off the test bird, only part of the system is installed on this one. If the site has been relocated to the roof, since being able to sight the weapons is required, the implication is that an additional airframe is in use. Given the text mentioning the AH-56 there is no question it's a test use airframe, which one is still at question.

Chief Snake 

An additional thought- given the experience that Hughes would have in dealing with the airframe and associated systems in a hot weather enviroment it makes perfect sense that they would use a better airframe than the initial B provided. The XM-26 package had been validated and sidelined in 1968 and "stored" according to the TOW history documents. IF it was stored in 1968 and that picture is 1971, and the the package was yanked from the "stored" airframe, that sure implies that a different airframe would exist (NUH-1M?) and be in use. AND the time requirement for deployment was critical. The best available close airframes were 553 and 554 with uprated -11 engines in them. It certainly stands to reason that the best available UH-1C and M airframes were most likely still in combat use in Vietnam and in DEMAND given the uptempo of NVA activity. The whole package was assembled and airlifted from Ft Lewis in 7 DAYS! Since 5 total packages were assembled, it wouldn't be neccessary to have the weapons pods pulled off an aircraft but it WOULD be neccessary to pull off the sighting systems if only TWO existed. That airframe clearly does not have the sighting system that 553 and 554 used. Is the documentation wrong in that the system was pulled off the stored aircraft? Maybe, like all records they could contain errors but I don't think this is in error. I'm leaning to a totally different airframe, the NUH-1M. The need (common sense) had to be recognized, and it's known for sure that such an airframe was in existence.

Nope, -11. That's what was in (553 & 554) then and still is. The -13 proved to much torque for the B rotor and airframe to handle unless they got the C tailboom. But at that point I'm wondering if the full range of ability the -13 provided could be exploited in a modified B airframe/rotor system combination. And I'll wager that some limitations had to be applied for installation to avoid overtorque/ loss of control issues. I'm not at all saying that ONLY -11's went into B's, I'm saying the -11 and C model tailboom seems to be a fairly relevant and common occurence. If the -13 engines were available they could certainly be put into uprated B airframes once the demand for M airframes had been satisfied. It sure would make sense to give the best potential operating power available to the airframes with the least amount of expenditure. Alot of stuff is overlapping in this time frame, the C was in production before all the B's had been delivered and the AH-1G was in development before all the C's made it to the field. I would not at all be surprised to find out there were UH-1B's with -13 engines and C tailbooms, I've even seen one of the few "540 B" aircraft that existed. Those were B models with all the C upgrades on them including the 540 rotor. It's an assumption that they were for evaluation of just slapping the parts on a B and seeing what the success was because obviously the C/M application is what surfaced as the standard.

Chief Snake 

I think I see what you're pointing at. The B's had -5 engines in them originally, the -11 became the standard B engine later in development. So for some B's the -5 is standard, others -11 was standard. If all B's got the -11, I don't know. Maybe they did. I'd guess you would have to look at each individual aircraft maintanence history data to compile a listing of what was in what and how many there were of each type. Same for -13 engine applications in B airframes, plausible for sure but known applications probably uncompiled. I don't know how widespread that practice could be or was taken. And since the UH-1D upgrade to UH-1H was mainly the -13 engine going into the airframe it sure looks like taking the -11 and retrofitting it to -5 airframes would be desirable.

Chief Snake