Vietnam Huey

Ray,

Dont beat yourself up, im looking at both pics and they are virtually identicle. i would still leave those two close up pictures you had on just now for 50 and 30 cal comparison. i better go back and edit my post and pay homage to grandad for being able to tell the difference

Andy  

Andy,

  It's definitely a 50.  I srewed up big time.

   Here's your pic: 

[i

 Here's a definite 50 cal for comparison:

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

See, I just was mistaken.  It's the angle of the pic, I think.  Anyway, sorry for leading you astray.

   Ray
 

Ray,

For the life of me i cant remember how to quote on here, but Yep Mels "Clear left" always made sense Ive seen it mentioned on a few sites and Yep its cool but in my nievety i just thought he chose to sit on the left lol  ..silly me lol.

Andy

Andy,

  Sorry about that.  I guess I haven't sen enough 30' and 50's side by side!  Hopefully, I can remedy that soon.  The perspective of the photo also threw me I guess.  Thanks for keeping us honest, Grandad.

    Ray

Grandadjohn

Thankyou for the info and for correcting 30/50 cal issue, i was pretty sure it was a 30 cal but to be honest they both look the same to me anything over an M60 isnt my strong point lol.

Glad you made the point that Any D/H model that carried an M23 had it on both sides as the previous posts could be miss construed.

Though without meaning to disagree with you, i still think the main reason behind the use of ammo bags on the left side of air cav birds was to save on cleaning up the mess or hitting infantry passengers with brass lol. but i wasnt there and im only going on what ive read from various accounts so im not qualified to say.

I have pictures lurking somewhere, incase anyone questions the use of bags on one side, but untill i sort them out if you have a copy of Chickenhawk check the front cover, You will see what i mean, its a picture of 229th AHB birds (possibly A/Co, 1972) coming into a pick up zone with ammo bags mounted only on the left gun.

Andy    

Andy,

  Ever wonder why Mel always signs off "Clear Left"?  He was a crew chief.  Cool, huh?

    Ray

Howie,

Although much of my helicopter interest has been directed towards the history of the 229th AHB, Through research of the unit, the 227th has appeared numerous times through helicopter Buro number histories or operations, especially during the April 68 A Shau valley incursions, which thankfully you would have missed with a 69/70 tour, I would love to pick your brains at some point on your memories of your service with the 227th Im sure you could help me loads with my research. Its mentioned by the guys from 229 to thank a Vet every day, but as a UK resident thats easier said than done lol, So i jump at the chance from my side of the pond to say Welcome home Howie and thank you for your service.

Andy

Crew chiefs generally sat on the left side, he could then look at the instrument panel (it was off-set for this purpose) and monitor the instruments he needed to watch for maintenance purposes, the door gunner sat on the right side.

As mentioned the tail rotor was on the left side which was the reason the bag was carried on that side, if at all. It varied from unit to unit and from CO to CO, although some door gunners did use bags also.

Please note, if a D/H model carried the M-23 system it was mounted on both sides, not just one. So if you are going to build the Panda kit, break down and buy another crew set which is being sold seperately.

Note, the first picture is a Browning 50 not 30.

Andy

the picture's worth a thousand words all right! 

I never knew why the 1st Cav didn't want the grunts shooting while on board, while I was there (1969-70).  I thought they were afraid they'd shoot off our rotors, or the crewmen?!

As for Nighthawk/Dayhawk/Firefly - Support?  What argument?

Howie

The guy running the C/227 website has been vouched for by others whose tours overlapped.  Anyone who runs a unit's website or contributes regularly has got to have huge ones if he's a fake, phoney or fraud as it wouldn't be long before it blows up in his face.

The handheld M-60 was before my time so I can't add to that.  Some equipment was hard to find - on my ship we had only one, so the crewchief flew with a bag attached to collect expended brass while on the right side, gunner's side, I didn't.  The tail rotor was on his side of the tail boom.  Apparently my brass stayed clear of the rotor even though it ejected toward the rear.  It was more important to keep the brass out of the cabin!  Either so people didn't go flying tripping on them - or we didn't want to clean up at days end...

With all the neat stuff you guys are coming up with, you definitely should be wary of judges who think they know it all.  Definitely show 'real' photos by your contest winning models or they won't believe you.  If you thought Revell was crazy with it's 1/32 UH-1D gunships, they must wish they had your research back in the day, mounting two minis a .50 etc.  I wonder if anyone will jump on a Dayhawk conversion?  And how fast before someone yells, 'never happened!?'

Ray, I hope you get that study on all the weapons systems used - that'll be interesting to have.

Howie

Ray,

Yep you got me there, its a Browning 30 cal in first pic, but i thought it worth posting to give a general idea of various mixed armaments and mounts used regardless of weight issues by some of the units. I look forward to any new info you can get from the weapons systems study.

I remember posting a while back that i had noticed that 1st Cav Hueys only tended to have spent shell bags attached to the left M23 mounted door gun! I was told that it was to avoid TR damage from the spent brass but it still didnt explain why the right side door gunners 60 was lacking a shell bag! I felt that surely if the 1st Air Cav was going to mount bags on one side of their ships to avoid TR damage it would make more sense to have ammo bags on the right side M60 as spent shells from that side are expelled from the right of the gun towards the TR! on the left they are expelled towards the interior of the ship.

Anyway by chance i came across some pictures and a simple explanation that made sense.

Apparently the Gunners were asked to fire their guns like this....

to avoid having to clean up this lol....

Im not saying the info i was given on here was wrong, as through my research ive found that there where many cases of tail rotor damage caused by spent shells, but strangely enough the majority of TR damage was blamed on brass from infantry passengers firing their M16s coming into LZs. (blame the grunts lol). But it could explain why the most combat experienced huey crews of the time (Ia Drand Valley) 229th ships, issued with the new M23 mounts in early 66 chose to use the shell bags on the left side only! During the next major operation (Masher/White wing)

You learn something new every day, i had no idea who sat where, so i take it from your post that the gunner sat on the right and the CE on the left? thanks Ray for the info i have no idea who was responsible for cleaning up the ship but i presume it was the CE? but im sure that i read that the AC had asked the CE or gunner to fire their 60 inverted to avoid the mess, but i may be wrong, cant remember, anyway unless the picture is inverted also, heres a shot of the Gunner doing his best to avoiding the TR

Andy

P.S

With regards to the Nighthawk/Dayhawk/Gunship debate My "official" standpoint and new word, from this point on, is.. the Nighthawk/Firefly was a "Support" ship and im sticking with it lol .  

Andy,

   First, let me apologize for doubting your word about the "Dayhawk."  I knew I should have stayed out of that whole discussion.  Great pics by the way!  Isn't that a Browning 30 cal in the first pic?  I may have a lead on a study made of all weapons systems used on helicopters during the Vietnam war.  I'll know next week. 

  Yes, I have heard of firing M60's upside down to avoid FOD tail rotor damage.  I have no idea how common it was, though.  The doorgunner would be more likely to do this than the crew chief I think since brass from that side (right) is ejected towrds the rear of the ship.  Don't keep us in suspense, though, put the dang pictures up and quiet any impending criticism.

     Ray
 

Anyway getting away from the dreaded nighthawk debate for a bit and onto another point of interest Ive recently come across a few pictures of left side door gunners holding their M60s upside down and firing with the little finger ! Apparently it was to stop the spent shells from flying back into the helo. I have no idea if this is common knowledge or not but its new to me.

Just wondered if anyone knows if this was common practice amongst crew chiefs and gunners in the days before M23 mounts?

Im tempted to have one of my dragon gunners in the mrc gunship holding the 60 upside down for added realism but im not sure if its worth all the " HA Ha he cant even get the guns the right way up" comments lol.

Has anyone else come across this before?? or am i treading on controversial debate territory again lol (Be warned,im armed with pictures).

Andy

Howie

The information i got was from http://www.229thavbn.com/ Like many of the unit sites it is self run by the guys on there,The webmaster seems to know his stuff and many of the guys know each other served together and im sure would quickly route out any "wannabe's" The Charlie Company roster, put together by another C/Co member includes photos of Daniel E Tyler (The author of the Dayhawk comments) Then and now, he was an AC from 70/71 and has contributed alot to the Charlie Company Site and i am quite happy to believe his comments. There are pictures on the site of #082 "Judge" one from the front with only the left side visable but weapons are covered, another shot just shows a minigun close up.

Its terrible that people jump on the band wagon and pretend to be something they are not, its a sick insult to all you guys that served. I know theres a few little websites that look a little suspect but im sure the larger member governed ones would soon spot any tall tales and quickly deal with the wannabes. I hope so anyway! But like you say, its best to be careful and check check and double check info as best you can.

(EDIT)

You asked for photos but as you know its pretty hard to get a detailed shot of both sides of a helicopter at the same time lol. If the C/Co judge was armed with a 50 cal next to a minigun on the right side, i expect it looked like this.

Its obviously a nighthawk and if this was its normal configuration its probable that the spotlights were on the left side with another door mounted weapon.

Heres another pic i posted earlier of a Nighthawk that apparently comes from the 114 AHC and had two door mounted miniguns.

Anyway i thought the "dayhawk" info was interesting enough to share with you guys.

Andy

Ray

Thats the same thing i read, But not from the same web site link.It was from the C/company page on the 229th site, From reading the whole thing in context it sounds to me like the nighthawk is the same ship they used as the dayhawk, they added the minigun on the right side along with the 50 cal was the impression i got. in the past i would have doubted that a 50 and two miniguns would be installed on the same ship but in the past few months ive come across a few accounts of nighthawks being rigged out this way and theres a few photos floating about  with minigun and 50 cal on the same side (with no sign of the starlight scope! which i presume was mounted on the other side with some sort of door mounted weapon) Im no expert but i cant see why anyone would lie about it. It doesnt say we removed the 50 cal, just says we added a minigun to the right side of "nighthawk" Il try to find where i saw these other comments, in the bugship photo i posted further up you can see a 50 cal and a minigun but i remember the comment posted with the picture from the guy that flew in it said that it had door mounted miniguns on both sides.

Who knows? We need a picture of one flying dont we lol.  

That's some story!  I just helped research and flush out a 'wannabe,'  someone claiming to be a decorated vet who isn't.  They have gotten so out of hand since it's become respectable to admit that you're a VN vet, that Congress passed a 'Stolen Honor' law last yr making it illegal to falsely claim service and medals.  It has turned out that there are numerous congressmen who claimed vet status who never served, much less others in business and elsewhere.  I'm sorry to say, but you have to take a lot of stories with a grain of salt - and not take them as gospel.  I have no idea if this C/229 pilot is for real or not, nor do I accuse him of anything.

In researching and 'outing' the 'wannabe' I was involved with, I was in contact with a number of alumni from my C/227 as well as another unit.  It took a lot of digging to find anyone who had ever mounted a 50 cal on their Huey but it didn't remain long because the recoil was too much for the airframe.

Even 'more than one' mini and its ammo and additional crew put the Huey to its lift limit - and over its limit if they were to move troops around much less supplies.

I don't question a 'Dayhawk' existing because you used what you had, when you needed it.  If a Nighthawk was sitting around and the ****** was hitting the fan somewhere during the day, you used it.

Anyway, just a word of caution.  If you don't have photos and if the story sounds too good to be true (or some variation on that), it may not be true.  It might be a little exaggaratted - or highly exaggaratted.  So be wary is all I can warn...

Howie

Andy,

   Was this your source for the "Dayhawk" info?:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6485/Photos/index.html

Here is the original Nighthawk description:

"At about that time I got locked into reverse-cycle living, flying "Nighthawk", for a couple weeks. "Nighthawk" was an H-model Huey with a Starlight Scope, a Nightsun, and a 7.62 mm "minigun" - all mounted in the left door. It had a .50 cal. in the right door. We flew around low-level at night with our lights blacked out - all except for the top of our anti-collision light - escorted by a Cobra - looking for signs of the bad guys. We were radar-vectored around a "box" by a tactical radar station at one of the base camps. Several times it seemed like we were in the wrong place. When we checked, we found ourselves a couple "clicks" (kilometers) inside Cambodia."

Here is the "Dayhawk" description:

 "A few weeks before the incursion we had mounted a second mini-gun onto the right side of "Nighthawk" and sometimes that ship was added to our reaction force flights to help suppress enemy fire directly beneath the flight and when we were in hot "LZ's". Initially we called that ship "Dayhawk", but before long it became known as "Da' Judge". "Da' Judge" really came into its own on some of those low-level combat assaults into Cambodia."

I think if you read the account closely, you will see that the Nighthawk originally had a mini on the left and a 50 on the right.  The "Dayhawk" had a mini on both the left and the right, but no 50.  I think twin minis and a 50 were just too much to lug around! 

   Ray

Howie,

  I have the Dragon model on the way as we speak.  Gino has written a very good review based on the info he had both here and at Aircraft Resource Center.  I will take detail pics of the sprues with special attention to the new frets of PE and post them probably as a new thread. 

         Ray

Sorry Ray.

For purposes of this forum, so we're on the same page, I posted that this forum stated the dual definitions of 'official' and 'forward firing' define a gunship vs not a gunship.  That seemed to be the consensus here and that's fine with me.  You guys are past my level of expertise and knowledge - I've learned more than I knew on this forum - and I thank y'all!

More of interest to me right now is the Dragon release of the 1/35 UH-1D with 4 crewmen and photoetch.  Has anybody seen it?  Is it the Panda Huey with DML figures all in a new box?

And the post that there was a C/229 with 2 miniguns, a 50 etc by Andy!!  Do you have any pictures or at least can you describe it's layout?  Were the two mini's hanging outside  or mounted like a nighthawk in the doorway?  Ditto with the 50 - how/where was it mounted?  I've heard that the 50's recoil just shook the ship apart!

Howie

Just as a matter of interest, C/229 AHB had a "Nighthawk" in 1970 that they used on daylight assaults into Cambodia. It was a UH-1H armed with two miniguns a 50 cal, starlight scope and a nightsun. It was added to the reaction force to suppress enemy fire directly beneath the flight and in hot "LZs"  it was nicknamed "Dayhawk" by the guys untill it had its name changed to "Judge".

Andy

Howie,

  I have tried to stay out of this "are Nighthawks gunships?" discussion.  I think you meant Rich or Gino.  As far as I am concerned, you guys who served in Vietnam can call them whatever you want and I have NO problems with it.  I think you earned that right!

     Ray

To lay it to rest about there not being any official D or H model gunships as per Andy and Ray's posts, the keywords are 'official' and 'forward firing.'  Using those definitions I agree with you. 

Otherwise, when 'gunships' in general are mentioned, people often think of the first Spooky C-47s, later C-119 and C-135 fixed wing gunships where the guns fired out of the doors/windows and the a/c flew in circles, pivoting around their cone of fire.  So it would follow that a UH firing a minigun out the door followed that definition of a gunship.

Andy's "Unofficial Nighthawk with minigun" photo shows a 'standard' Nighthawk layout.  I don't know how many D/Hs were set up this way but it was far more than one or two field mods.  The exact same minigun mounting and searchlight mounting and hardware were used to create my company's (C Co/227 AHB 1st Air Cav).  I don't know how 'unofficial' they were if standardized mountings were produced.

But for our purposes, the dual definitions of 'official' and 'forward firing' eliminate D and H models as gunships. 

On a more significant note is the fact that Dragon has just released a new 1/35 Huey UH-1D with aircrew, M-60s and photo etch fret.  I haven't seen the parts but it may be the excellent Panda (aka DML/Dragon) UH1D, with DML crew which included a bungee M-60 and a pintle mounted M-60.  I think it is $34 msrp. If two pintle mounted M-60s are included, Dragon has done right by us and finally there's a UH-1D slick properly armed with the 2 official pintle mounted M-60s .  If like the figure set, only one is provided, you'll need a 2nd set for the 2nd M-60 mount.  Check out the Dragon USA website.

Howie

UH-1C head and other Huey data

/forums/785871/ShowPost.aspx

UH-1B/D, etc and other data

/forums/785884/ShowPost.aspx

Graydan,

  Thanks for the links.  I think most of us have spent a lot of time at the TACOM site, but some of the others are new (to me at least).  Do you have any pics of your UH-1 build?  What was your opinion of the Italeri kit?

     Ray

Greetings -

A few years ago, I built a 1/48 scale (Italeri) UH-1 for a freind of mine who recently retired.  He was with the 187th AHC and took a rocket through the windshield which failed to detonate and lived to tell the tale!

Like some of the other responders, I also did a lot of research before building this model.

Here are some of the internet sites I found that were very helpful:

http://www.a101avn.org/

http://187thahc.net/

Go to the photo sections to see the everyday photos of the ships and crews

I also found some great armament info here:

http://tri.army.mil/

Look around - there's a ton of info here including the M-60 door guns and mounting systems

If you are looking for M-60s in 1/48, Meteor Productions has them - CEC48003.  I had to scratch build the mounts but it wasn't too hard - and no, I'm not a talented modeler.

I also found some nice photos at the local library in books about Viet Nam - some very good close-ups in the old TIME LIFE series - specifically on the Viet Nam war.  

I found some awesome technical drawings of rotor head assemblies, among other things, at

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/iceman/data

BUT I CAN'T GET IT TO WORK ANYMORE!!!

Try this one, too, (it works) for some interesting technical info:

 http://www.tpub.com/content/aviationgenmaint/TM-9-1005-262-13/ 

Good Luck and I hope some of this information is useful!!!  

I think Andy's thread above pretty much (unofficially) wraps it up. During the war there were more helicopters flying in Vietnam than the rest of the world combined, so there were bound to be variations and hybrids of all sorts. If you're lucky enough to find a picture of a wierd or "unofficial" huey then model it. If you can't find a picture of one then make it up. Who's to say it didn't exist just because there are no pictures of it. That's the fun of modelling. Some of my favourite kits are the "what ifs".

Rich

John

I did mention The Utility helicopter -1A in about the 8th paragraph down in previous post, but concentrated on the B and C models because as you know, they were to become the most used UH-1s operating in the role of gunship and are most commonly recognised as the official gunships of the Vietnam conflict.

But the UH-1As role is well worth a mention, Originaly designed for use as a domestic air ambulance, it was later adopted for trials and use as a gunship in the early stages of the Vietnam war. Originaly fitted with skid mounted forward firing 30 cal machine guns and later after tests in Okinawa, fitted with rockets to help penatrate the triple canopy jungles of Vietnam.

Link to a great video dedicated to the UH-1A & B, posted way back on the first page of this thread 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gejLgsne65c

Andy