UH-1C Main Rotor Head Details Additional Pics

SSgt Macal,

  Thanks for your service, sir.  Here are several pics of Uh-1E's with the TK-2 system on them from the Huey Gunships Walkaraound Squadron book by Wayne Mutza.  I am the son of an Army doorgunner, so I don't have a lot of Marine Huey pics.  I hope these help.

      Ray

Photo 1Photo 2Photo 3Photo 4Photo 5Photo 6[

As I mentioned way back there somewhere, the first batch of UH-1E's were built after the Bravo model (pics 1-4), while the later ones were built after the Charlie model(pics 5-6).  In the first four pics you can clearly see the 204 rotorhead and nose mounted pitot.  However, all four also have the housing for the roof mounted rescue hoist, a hallmark of the UH-1E, UH-1L, TH-1L and HH-1K.  Also, the last two pics (5 & 6) show a Echo with the TAT 101 turret in place, but the guns are covered.  In addition to the inboard 60's, several pics show the white rocket pods borrowed from the Air Force and the  Pic 2 shows the XM-18 minigun pod as well. I hope these pics help.

       Ray
 

Way back up there we were talking about the M-5 system and it's ammo boxes.  I think this pic represents the ORIGINAL Army configuration for the M-5 with the itty bitty ammo box.

      Ray
 

[img]http://

Yikes! I'll bet those guys that had the hung rocket got a little excited. They are just training rockets but having the live motor burning among other live motors is very dicey. The intervalometer/ armament panel in the picture of my panel was reproduction. I've since replaced it with an authentic one. This panel came from a G that underwent at least MOD S because it had the fire light and NVG covers added to it. If it went on to AH-1F upgrade that's why the panel was removed, they were different. Otherwise, the aircraft was probably scrapped and somehow the panel made it into the surplus sales market.

Chief Snake 

Chief Snake,

  here's the panel pic:

Also, I thought it might be a good idea to post pics of the other weapons systems we have been talking about.  They are all pictured in various places, but its just electrons so here they are together:

M-3, 24 rd Rocket battery:

[img]http://

Maxwell system with SS-11 rocket and 18 shot M-3:

[img]http://" border="0" />

M-157, 7-shot rocket pod on M-21 armament subsystem:

Note that the center rocket is missing.  This is one of my dad's 190th ships.

M-158, 7 shot rocket pod with replaceable tubes, once again on M-21 armament subsystem:

" border="0" />

If anyone has ever wondered why you would use replaceable tubes, I think this answers that question!

[img]http://" border="0" />[/img]

M-200, 19 shot rocket pod with a good view of M-156 universal mount:

" border="0" />

I post pics by putting them on Photobucket and then copying and pasting the HTML tag using the images button in the message window.  There are probably other ways as well.

   Ray
 

I don't remember how to post photos here, I'll see if I can remember. There is a picture of it posted on the VHPA Museum site under the B Troop 3/17 Cav section. The M-3 system was basically an Aerial Rocket Artillery system, their dedication being largely battery support for ground troops. Even then, they were prone to reduce the rows in the rig to allow for using the M-5 and for mounting the "Maxwell" rig. That was an adapter that let the M-22 rocket system be employed in addition to FFARs. The SS-11 missile was quite suitable for bunker busting. 

Chief Snake 

Chief Snake,

  Thanks for the info.  Dad worked an all their gunships, both Hogs and M-21 ships, so maybe his unit didn't use mixed rocket loads.  The M-3 wasn't in service much, if at all, by the time he came in country (1968) so he never worked on one of those.  The 145 CAB was, of course, the first unit to field the AH-1 in Vietnam, but my father's unit never flew them, to my knowledge, so he was strictly a Huey gun dog.  Any chance of a pic of that restored AH-1 panel?  I'm sure it would be of interest to others as well.  Thanks again for the info.

         Ray
 

You have the basics down. The 157/158 is a 7 shot pod, the 159/200 a 19 shot pod. The inter panel you have illustrated is the 157/158 rocket pod application that typically was called the M-21 with M-5 capability. It also applied to the M-16 system with M-5 capability so yes, it seems to be a "multi use" unit. I've also seen that unit pictured in the very earliest AH-1G cockpits- which quickly became more sophisticated allowing front/rear control and per weapon control in addition to the rocket pod controls. More than one panel can be mounted in an aircraft like the Cobra. The selectors can be different per system loaded on the aircraft.  Judging by the illustration, mixed loads in the 7 shot would have to have been strictly by pair per station and as long as the pilot knew that combination he could carry a mixed load. With the 7 shot pods being of short duration as opposed to the 19 and 24 shot pods it's reasonable that your father didn't see mixed use loading. I have a restored AH-1 panel in my office, it has the intervalometer for the 19 shot pods in it and has pair select and salvo shot. It also has the 20mm M-35 mod on it. I have looked at the intervalometer for the M-3 (24 shot) and it has pair select and salvo select on it also. So there are obviously many different intervalometer combinations. As long as the intervalometer for each system was the most sophisticated possible then mixed loads were possible. Sounds tricky for Vietnam era aircraft, but the more modern systems are designed with that capability. Judging from your fathers' experience it seems it wasn't a common thing to do, but not undoable.

Chief Snake 

Chief Snake,

  My dad had never heard of GUN DOGS or GUN BUNNIES.  I guess it wasn't a universal term.  He also said that while he had no reason to discount mixed rocket loads as a possibility, at least in the 190th during 68-69 he has no recollection of loading mixed ordinanace.  Also, dad mentioned an instrument on the control panel called an intervalometer that controlled the order and number of rockets fired.   Supposedly they were different for M-158 vs M-200 pods.  Dad said they were always going bad and he had to replace a gagillion of them while in country.  Can you shed some light on exactly what this instrument is, what it looks like, and how it worked?  Since dad was just an old country boy, he doesn't know any of the particulars.  Was there a different instrument in AH-1's?  Thanks for taking time to help me get this stuff straight.

     Ray 

EDIT:  I found this diagram that is supposed to be the intervalometer.  If I interpret this correctly, the left hand switch selects weapon system (up would be 40mm, down would be minigins or quad 60's and middle would be left and right rockets).  I assume that this particular intervalometer is for a M-157 or M-158 armed ship since there are only 7 pairs of rockets labeled on the rocket pair selector.  Also, since no ships carried both 40mm and minis/quad 60's, this same intervalomter would work for a frog ship or a M-21 or M-16 armed gunship.  Am I interpreting this correctly?

" border="0" />

yup, gun bunnie is a gunship crewman. Just like gun dogs are the armorers. The Pods are zoned and can be fired by station select pairs. Ordered firing is the norm, however that can be manually altered on the weapons system control panel. So as long as the zones had matched pairs in them the rockets could be mix loaded into the pods. I have been reminded that there is also an illumination rocket that could be pod loaded.

Chief Snake 

Thanks for the info Chief Snake.  So you are saying that the order of firing for the tubes could be changed?  I have seen diagrams that show the firing order, and I always thought that was fixed.  By the way, my dad was a GUN BUNNIE.  At least I assume that you are referring to the armorer/doorgunner when you use that term.  I guess I should ask him about rockets as well.

     Ray
 

The rocket type would be set when the aircraft was armed for ready status or armed for a known particular mission. I wasn't a gun bunnie so I'm not absolutely certain if mixed rocket types could be loaded in the larger pods on a Hog. I think so, because the AH-1G could have mixed loads when the rockets were paired properly. As long as the pilot knew which tubes in the launcher held the matching pairs, he could select and fire them. This came with mission planning and co-ordination with the armorers.  10lb rockets and 17lb rockets were for different purposes, one being HE the anti- personnel. Gross weight is the major consideration and selecting various weapons types isn't a real problem as long as the weight is charted against the desired amount of each weapon added. So, you may not fill all the tubes on a pod and you may not have the max 40mm on board but you could have a spread of capability that would allow you flexibility when facing unknown or as yet developed contact.

Chief Snake 

Chris,

  Would a Heavy Hog UH-1C be more likely to carry rockets with 10lb warheads in conjunction with the 40 mm as apposed to 17 lb warheads?  That would save about 300 lbs for 40mm ammo. 

         Ray 

Granddad hit the nail on the head, any drum hanging in the hole would be a B***H to work with.

While I have no pictures in my possession, my recollection is that the 20mm storage box adapted  nicely and was easily obtained. I've also seen custom made sheetmetal bins, wooden boxes of various sizes and cut down cylindrical drums in use. From a flyer's point of view, the 40mm ammo could be altered in quantity to reduce gross weight depending on other armament or fuel needs. A UH-1C heavy Hog with full rocket load could still carry the thumper although it would have very little ammo, see the point?

Chief Snake 

Chris,

  I thought the eighty five round ammo box was originally supposed to be located in the hell hole.  Is there actually enough room for the 302 round drum in there?

     Ray

  Thanks for the info, Chris

 So basicly there is no such a thing as standard common design of the box? They where all different in size and capacity? Do you have any photos of "custom made" ammo boxes?

  Andy

Most folks don't realize that the tall drum was originally intended to be mounted in the hellhole under the transmission, from the lift link. The feed chute was supposed to come out of the access panel that's located in the center of the aft cabin wall. The only place I ever have seen the original configuration is in the TM. Considering the location it's no small wonder that anything that could fit into the cabin and hold rounds was preferred over the hellhole installation. Once the electric drive was removed from it's cap mount, anything you could make and attach it to was the order of the day.

Chief Snake 

Ed,

E-mail sent.

Regards
Steve

Hi Steve:

Yes it is a small world for us helicopter folks. I spent two years at New River 72-73 and then was at Campend from 86 to 89 and again in 92. Went to Cherry Point in 95 and remained there at the FST until 99.

The inverters should have been on the left side like the N model, at least that is where I recall seeing them.

Did you ever know any of the Bell tech reps?

 Regards,

Ed

Hey Ed,

2 things....

1.  Looked it up, had forgotten.  The AC generator was Tranny mounted and the DC was the starter/generator.  Has an inverter but I can't remember just where they hid it.  I keep remembering N compartments.

2.  Small world.  I was in HML-167 as we got the very first deliveries of the UH-1N.  Actually the first ones went to H&MS-29 as 167 was still in the process of moving from MAG-26 to 29.  The first ones were Flat paint but then the Poly started coming in.  Now I DO like a shiney bird.  Shipboard use made them look like crap though.  I guess we were too cheap to buy a touch up kit with the CORRECT color in it. 

Just be on the CORRECT road!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get to watch the V-22 shoot approaches almost everyday.  Yes, i wish I were flying them.

Regards
Steve

Hi Steve:

I'm not positive on the AC generator. I didn't work the aircraft but I seem to remember a larger than normal generator. If you had two rotor brakes, then the generator would have to be mounted on the front, maybe that is what I remember. The inverters in those days and even on the N are rotary type not the static type used today so they needed more electricity. It would be interesting what you find out in your NATOPS on the E.

New Y's and Z's are coming out, that should be something. Rotor, drivetrain, tailboom and engines are interchangeable. The buzzword is commonality. Replaceable ribbon cable for the avionics, you can change sections, not have to splice and end up with a big knot. If I stay and work longer I think I am headed for the CV-22 program. Something new for an old man.

The N really has grown from the early days. I was at New River in the early 70's and Bell was delivering new J and N's then. The paint was polyurethane, all nice and shiny.

As long as you can see them, roads always get you where you want to go.

Take care,

Ed

Ray,

I'm afraid I can't "clear" up the 40 mm ammo can debate.  If you noticed the drawing I had attached in one post of how small the original "box" type was I doubt if it could hold 40 or 45 rounds.  There were more rounds in the "chute" to the gun than in that little box.  I think any total's mentioned include the ammo in the chutes, not just the ammo box.  I don't have any pictures but the ones Andy posted is the type most used, large rectangular box.  Some were actually a little taller.  All were "field" modified.  Some could have been "shorter" and tall still leaving a fair amount of chute between the box and back of the center console.  The chute did a 90 degree at the floor and traveled along the left side of the center console towards the bottom of the instrument panel where it did another 90 degree to enter the area behind the instrument panel and into the nose compartment.  This slight "twist" may be evident in the drawing I posted previously. 

Ed,

Of all I've seen written on the AC vs DC, your description was the most understandable.  "Sparks"!!!  I can understand that one.

I never knew that about the guages.  So the generator was producing AC?  I assume then that there was a rectifier to change back to DC?  I need to get my books back out.  In the UH-1N the generators are DC with 2 big inverters for the "guys" that need AC. 

As far as naming "things", switching form manufacturer to manufacturer, everything is the same but called something else.  For me the Tailrotor Gearbox will always be the "90 deg gearbox".  Sikorsky guys looked at me funny when i called the Intermdiate GB the "42 deg GB". 

BTW....I followed roads a lot too. 

Regards
Steve

Andy,

  Yeah, I can't find any other pics other than that one either, but then again, it's hard to find interior pics from Vietnam of most things.  The reason I asked the question was that my father remembers hearing the rounds go through the ammo chute between the seats and it would seem that that would only occur with the drum ammo can since the ammo exits the long ammo box right behind the console.  Hopefully Mel can clear this up for us.  

     Ray

  Ray,

I still can not fing any picture of standard cilindrical drum installed on aircrafts in Vietnam.

In fact I havent seen any other pic of it exept for this one from Squadron Walkaround book.

And here is the custom made box spotted on 68th AHC birds

BTW anybody has other pics of it? Dimentions?

Andy

Mel,

  When Andy mentioned that you told him the ammo box he used initially wasn't correct for Vietnam, did you mean just for that ship, or for the entire war?  I was under the impression that either a 150 round box or 203 round drum were standard during the war.  My father remembers installing the M-5 system on one of their birds, but he doesn't rememebr which ammo box they used.  By the way, he said that the M-5 system he installed caused the airframe to crack.  Did you ever see that?  He also said that hearing those rounds go through the ammo chute between the seats while in flight was somewhat unnerving.  Any thoughts about that from your end? 

    Thanks,

          Ray

PS: Andy, I said it before, I'll say it again: Awesome Build!!! 

Steve:

Glad to hear you are a Marine. I enjoyed working with the Navy at HT8 however I spent more years with the Marines so there is more of a bond. Navy guys don't take offense, none intended.

You brought up a point I forgot about. Army aircraft also had two inverters, main and stndby.

The Navy required AC to be on their aircraft and this was because it was a shipboard requirement, no sparks to ground like on DC.

Tacan does require AC also Doppler, Army didn't have this, they followed roads, or IFR, couldn't resist this . Navy/Marines plan on overwater flights where there is nothing to tell you where you are at.

The big difference is Marines had AC engine instruments. You had to turn inverters on when you start so you could see engine temp and pressures, Army only turned on battery. Basically Army had DC instruments and Marine/Navy had AC instruments. As I recall E models had big AC generator on transmission where Army had DC generator with two small inverters. I know generally only DC power sources are called generators, however that is what they are called AC generators and even today the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior calls them AC generators.

Ed