Unusual Vietnam Hueys

The heavy hogs are the circumstance that had to be balanced with finesse. That combination demonstrates the highest value loading figures that could be accepted without placing the aircraft and crew in alarmingly high jeapordy. If ever there was circumstance where trading fuel for firepower was applicable, that's it. Trading flight duration for super whallop can be done when the battlefield conditions favor the weapons system, engagement in close proximity to departure point, target in fairly fixed or confined space and readily identifiable. The risks associated with maximum weapons loading AND maximum fuel loading simply cannot be ignored but they can be adjusted by manipulating certain factors. 12 rockets per pod beats 7 rockets per pod any day of the week. 800 lbs of fuel and 14 rockets per pod plus a 40 chuncker rounds certainly will make the enemy wary for few moments and when done at the right moment will kick his butt into next week. But put 19 rockets in each pod, load the chuncker to the max and take on a full bag of gas? Not with me on board you won't.

Yup, space is a major impediment. Overloading is a path to destruction. 

Chief Snake 

Jon and Chief Snake,

  I never said it the XM-50 flew in country. I have NO evidence that it did.  The XM designation woudl lead one to surmise that it was simply a tested weapons combination.  Jon, do you have any documentation on this system?  I want to know if there was ever a loaded XM-50 fitted bird that flew ANYWHERE and made a gun run or expended live ammo.  If I ever do see a picture of this system from VN, it will be the eqivalent of proof the Loch Ness Monster is real!

    Ray

Ray,

Sure they tested the XM-50 system, but with all three weapons systems on board and all of the associated ammo, they wouldn't even be able to do a running takeoff.  The C/M model Hueys had enough trouble getting off the ground with just two weapons and ammo aboard (and had balance fuel and ammo in many cases) the third system would make it next to impossible to get off the ground.  

High density altitude, high temperature and high gross weight make for very limited performance.  You had all of those in Vietnam and therefore, chances of the XM-50 system ever flying in Vietnam were slim.  Literally, with that much weight on board, they may not have been able to pull enough torque to get off the ground before getting into a limiting range.

Jon 

Chief,

  It wasn't just stateside Charlies that had the nose mounted FM antennas.  These two pics that I posted earlier from the 2/20th ARA are of one of the earliest C models in country.  It has both the nose mounted antenna and the bell mouth intake as well as th M16 armamant system with M157 rocket pods.  Very old school Charlie gunship!:

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

So are you saying you don't think the XM-50 ever flew armed?  It seems strange that at least two (probably three) seperate airframes would be configured for a weapons system that wasn't at least tested.  

You said:

"The M-5 was so nose heavy and the ammunition supply so tricky that it seems to have precluded itself in most possible combinations other than the 7 shot rocket pods."

What about heavy hogs with both the M3 24 shot or M200 19 shot pods and a thumper.  they were fairly common and were able to get off the ground.  My understanding was that the major impediment to an XM-50 arrangement ws space for all the ammo boxes, since the M5 would use the same space as the M21. I'm just going on what I read and have seen, of course, since i never actually flew a Huey.

   Ray
 

I think the photos you're showing are largely Army classification photos, they show a valid combination of weapons on an airframe and are assigned a classification description. The M-5 was so nose heavy and the ammunition supply so tricky that it seems to have precluded itself in most possible combinations other than the 7 shot rocket pods. Thinking practically, they don't work well in combination because the weight factors are so far to the extreme that having the aircraft loaded like that requires the most optimal takeoff parameters that it just wasn't a likely combination. There are known circumstances of an aircraft having to take short fuel loads to compensate for maximum munitions and then struggling to get airborne even to the point that crewchiefs and gunners literally ran alongside the bumping aircraft until it grabbed into translation. Those events were extreme and not commonplace but borne of neccessity. Never say never but it would be a questionable practice to accept the worst set of circumstances when able to choose a better set of circumstances.

As for the NUH-1M, there isn't too much pointing at that second set of photos that convinces me it is the NUH-1M. But it does show that C type airframes had the FM posts fitted. Not commonplace, but proven to be in existence. The serial for the NUH-1M is within the window for a line production C model to wind up having the FM posts. Adding the -13 engine to it makes an M, easy as that. As for the dates on the photos, may have something to do with when the photo was provided as information to an inquiry. The FM posts on the nose have me leaning heavily to "military" airframe as opposed to civil airframe, which was the case with 64-18261. Civil airframe given a military serial for expedience in acquiring the airframe in light of the demand for "military" compliant airframes. 

If you look at the nose of the aircraft in the second photo showing the XM-50, you can see the plates that were installed over the holes were the FM posts had been. This too was an early production UH-1C. 

Chief Snake 

Andy,

  Sorry, as far as I am aware, no XM-50 birds made it in country.  You listening, Marko.  Please prove me wrong!  I'd love to be mistaken.

       Ray

Ray,

Did any of those test birds you posted make it to Vietnam or are we back to the usual Vietnam UH-1B/C configurations? have i jumped the gun?

Andy

Andy,

  Perhaps you could usher in a whole new era of huey modelling, Test Birds!  Has anyone else ever seen a model of experimental armamant configurations for the Huey?

       Ray

Ray,

Ok i take back my praise for the Monogram researchers and point a disapproving finger at the Monogram decal choosing guys. Its still nice to know that you can use the thumper, rockets and quad 60s from the Monogram kit or the miniguns from the MRC kit and still have an accurate UH-1C. (Armament configuration i mean)

Andy.

Andy,

  The Monogram  "researchers" missed a lot of stuff (just ask Chief Snake).  Not the least of which is the fact that no Marine Huey ever carried that loadout! Let's not get carried away!

          Ray
 

Ray,

Thank you my good man .

I think i should probably go back and edit some of those old posts now . Gotta hand it to the Monogram researchers, either they knew their stuff or they were very lucky .

Great stuff Ray!

Andy

Andy,

  Ask and you shall recieve!:

Here's a tighter shot of the photo above: 

I thought this may have been the same bird as well, but the above pic has a date of 71 and this one 66.  I wonder if the date on the above pic is incorrect since these birds have the nose mounted FM antennas and the bell mouth intakes only seen on early Charlies?  Unfortunately, the TACOM site doesn't give test dates for this system :

Here is another test bird:

" border="0" />

 All of these birds are C/M models and all have M158 rocket pods.  Finally, here is the exact configuration sold as the Monogram HUEY HOG (quad m60C's and M157 rocket pods):

" border="0" />

Note that the caption leads you to believe that this is a Bravo, but it is clearly a C/M.  This photo is from the GUNSLINGERS squadron book.  NEVER say NEVER!

     Ray
 

PS; I'd swear I posted these before, but I can't find 'em anywhere!

Ray,

What a fantastic shot!!!!!

Ive never seen a gunship armed with thumper, rockets AND miniguns. I think in the Huey thread, you, me and everyone else had concluded that a configuration like that would be far to much weight and probably didnt exist. Im very happy to say your pic has just blown that theory straight out of the water! Great stuff (opens up some more modelling options aswell).

Please post the other pics

Andy

Chief Snake wrote:

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

Thanks, just wanted clarifiation, but you are right, a lot of mods were made and never recorded or if they were examination of each a/c records would need to be made. Plus how much was done in the field to expidite repairs and parts available?

Chief,

  Great stuff there. i know I still have a lot to learn.  Thanks for the info. Check this out:

" border="0" />

Check out the bracing on the M-5.  As you can see, the info for this pic gives a specific date of October 4, 1971.  This bird is a C/M because I have other pics of it that show the  540 rotor, roof mounted pitot, and most inportantly, no fuel filler on the rt side.  She also has the nose mounted FM antennas and would show the chunker fitted nose if refitted.  I think there is a decent chance that this is the bird in the TOW test configuration above.  Can you tell if it's the NUH-1M?  I can post the other pics of her if you would like. Actually, I already have farther back in the thread.  By the way, this bird is fitted with the XM-50 weaons system incorporating M5 and M21 weapons systems. 

   Thanks,

           Ray
 

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 

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 

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.

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

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
 

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,

  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
 

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

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

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
 

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.

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
 

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 

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