Unusual Vietnam Hueys

Jon,

   Thanks, I actually have that pic, but not in color!  the one i have shows the whole aircraft and the 55 is visisble on the tail.  Here's a little montge I put together:

[img]http://

I  think there is NO doubt that 1 and 2 are the same bird.  As you say, the splotches match.  What initially threw me was pic 3. As you can see, i have outlined the anti-stella kit and it doesn't appear to have cammo.  Since it didn't have cammo, but the pattern looked like pic 2, i assumed they were the same bird.  However, the FM antenna in pic 3 precludes this being anything but 554.  On close inspection the VHF antenna doesn't look white in pic 3 either. I guess they both existed for a while with unpainted toilet bowls.  Any chance you have a pic of the RIGHT side of 553 or 554 when she was in this same type cammo?  Anyway, I love this stuff!

   Ray 

Ok, here it is!  Its a little tough to see, but you can see the pitot tube.  If it had FM's you wouldn't be able to see it!

I also just pulled up Archives photos 3566 and 3567 and zoomed in on the tail.  Messing with the contrast just a little bit, I was able to make out "53" on the left side of the tail.

Jon

Jon,

  Glad I could be of service.  Just use the little camera icon in Acrobat to take a digital pic of the part you want.  it is copied to the clipboard.  open Photoshop and select NEW under FILE and say OK to the parameters.  Then CTL-V and your set.  Just save the pic as a JPEG.

    Ray

Ray, you ROCK!

That's the fourth one!  I've been sitting here for the past hour feeling really frustrated because I have a color profile shot of 553 in country and you can plainly see that there are no FM antennas on it, but I can't post it here!  It is embedded in a .pdf file that is over 4500 pages long and 48mb in size!

That is really fantastic Ray!  The NUH-1s are as follows:

#1 64-18261, initial test bird.  The single tube launcher Huey shown on an earlier page is 261.

#2 60-03553 to Vietnam, now at USAAVNM 

#3 60-03554 to Vietnam, now at USAAVNM

#4 64-14105 Test bird with the Cheyenne program.

Just too cool.  (of course, now I've gotta build models of all four of em.....)

Jon

Jon,

  Good enough.  I didn't know whether there was a record of the antennas being removed or not.

ON another note, remember the photo that started this whole thing:

[img]http://

WELL, I made a little discovery of my own, Drumroll please:

[img]http://

This pic is from the Jerry Scutts HUEY/COBRA book.   You will notice that this IS a early Charlie (bell mouth, nose mounted FM antennas).  Here's the caption that accompanies the pic:

[img]http://

I checked the USAF serial numbers site (thanks again for that one, Chief) and 64-14105 was in a batch of C model Hueys from the Bell Factory.  There is a list of birds converted to UH-1M as well, 105 was not among them. therefore, until otherwise proven, this is a UH-1C.  Notice we were all wrong about the sight although there is some kind of sensor or something on a pole sticking directly out of the windshield.  Also, i was wrong in assuming teh M5 mount was unique, you can clearly see all three braces.  I think this one at least is solved.  Except for the lack of a TOW sight. actually, if you look close, it almost looks lik the sight is IN the cockpit!  What do you guys think?

  Ray
 

No. One with FM antennae STATESIDE can be one of two birds, either 554 or 261.  553 had the antennas removed prior to the team going to Vietnam. THIS, however, is neither of them!  I finally found a picture of 261.  This picture was taken in 1964 and was published in National Guard Magazine in the October 1965 issue. 

If it is a camouflaged UH-1B IN Vietnam WITH FM antennae, it is 554. 

chief,

  WHEN were the FM antenna posts removed from 553?  Is there a photo of her stateside that shows they were gone prior to going to VN?  I know that any TOW bird without the posts is 553, what I want to know is whether any VN TOW bird with them HAS to be 554.  

         Ray

The one constant in identifying one airframe from the other is the nose FM posts. Regardless of the other variations of paint, VHF blades, toilet bowls and kill tallies 553 had the nose posts removed, 554 still has them to this day. In the ebb and flow of  combat and for all we know the possible intent to deceive the enemy with visual differences, those nose posts were always in place on 554. Paint changes can easily fall into deceptive tactics. While this has yet entered into any talks or written data that has been shared with anyone, it surely has merit when considering the effect it would produce. The NVA certainly didn't have any idea that a TOW aerial delivery system was operational in US hands and the fact that their precious tanks all of sudden found themselves dead in the middle of the road surely caused them to start looking for "why". The appearance of the TOW helicopters had to make something click in their intel system and you can bet it didn't escape them that something new was present. Collecting data on features of a sighted airframe can lead to tallies of strength, unless deception on the part of the owners of such system is present. With all the differences now being bandied about the thought has come to me that unless you knew better, you could think you're looking at 4 or more different airframes. Intentional, only surmised at this point. Plausible, you bet!

Addition here- the 195th AHC was tasked to MACV-SOG and further opcon to 20th SOS in support of SOG ops across borders. For a substantial period of time, the 195th aircraft were painted in the USAF SEA scheme that the 20th SOS used on their aircraft. Because? Deception used to disrupt NVA intel gathering ability. Think the NVA knew how many who and from where very quickly? Nope. And the deception worked up until the day it stopped. They never could get a handle on exactly what came from where because some of those cammo helicopters were not in Vietnam, they flew out of Thailand. 

Chief Snake 

Jon so what about these two?  I know this one is 553 (white VHF antenna and bunny head on door and kill marks and cammo nose)

 Which one is this, then?  You will note a red rectangle with white marking in the chin bubble of the above bird.  I see that same pattern on the BW below. Did both Aircraft have this sticker or panel or whatever it is?  The reason I ask is that the pic below clearly shows at least one of the FM antenna posts, it's hard to tell about the VHF antenna color, lots of kill marks (more than the above pic even though anti strella is missing), and no cammo on nose. This one should be 554 then.  I guess it jsut depends on whether both ships had the stcker in the chin bubble.

Edit:  Scratch that chin bubble sticker idea.  I see it on BOTH 554 and 553.  no help there I guess.

Ray 

Ok, if I click on those pics one more time and it takes me to photobucket and erases my post i'm gonna friggin kill something.

Third attempt. 

Photo 1: NUH-1B 60-3554 after August 1972.  1st CATT

Photo 2: NUH-1B 60-3554 early May 1972. 1st Airborne TOW Team.  I'll hit my files tonight and identify exactly which mission it is on in that pic.

Photo 3: the stumper.  Looks like NUH-1B 60-3554 in mid-May 72.  Additional camo was added to the paint scheme as they gained combat experience. The only thing that is throwing me is the white blade antenna.  Doesn't make sense.  Perhaps a combat replacement for battle damage?  Later photos of 554 show a dark antenna though, so who knows.  The antenna that's on there now is inconsequential and is a completely different type from what they flew with in Vietnam.

When I get home, I will post the pics of 553 that I have that clearly show lack of FM antennas.

Jon

Jon,

  You wrote:

   "Now I'm confused!"

Welcome to the club!!  Would one of you two who KNOWS this stuff PLEASE post each of the TOW pics and IDENTIFY the aircraft.  You guys are makin' my head spin.  so basically, you are saying any photo above where you canm see the nose is 554 and any photo where you can't is 553 (the last pic being the exception).  There are at least three significantly different cammo pattern represented by FM antenna bearing aircraft.  That's a lot of changes for one bird in such a short period of time.  [img]http://[img]http://[

T hese three pics are all supposed to be 554, right?  They have totally different cammo patterns in each pic!  If all three of these are 554, that's pretty dang interesting don't you think?  by the way, for what it's worth, 554 has a WHITE VHF antenna currently:

[img]http://

   Ray
 

I just had a fascinating discovery while going through our archives.  This photo was taken in late 66 and published in National Guard magazine in Feb 67.  It is an artist impression of the TOW system in action.  Interestingly, BOTH tail numbers are represented, although incorrectly as 212553 and 212554.  This painting is probably the reason for the VHPA having the incorrect tail numbers in the Gold Book (they are listed as 62-13553 and 62-13554 respectively instead of 60-03553 and 60-03554).  What blows my mind is, we know that 554 wasn't modified with the XM-26 system until mid-1971 by her logbook.  So how did they get these tail numbers?!

Oboy....

Ok, here goes.  BOTH aircraft did have the rough camo at some point. You're assuming that the camo had evolved by May 72.  The test team (1st Airborne TOW Team) arrived in-country on 27 April 72.  That pic was taken around 29 May 72 after they had several successes with the system.  It definitely evolved, but that picture of the team clearly shows 553 without and 554 with antennas.  You'd be able to see the antenna outboard of the pitot tube, and it clearly is not there.  554 was repainted with the smoother camo later on.  The "Whispering Death" patch on 554's nose came later as well.  The closeup of the bird with the Playboy Bunny on the door is 553. There are more pics in that sequence and there clearly are no antennas on the nose.   

The nose art came later.  To quote then-CPT Bentley Hill, commander of the 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team from the letter Chris mentioned previously: "The reason for the change in insignia was that my team did not want to be related to the TDY pilots from Fort Ord.  Thereafter we redesignated almost everything and came up with our own unique patches and designs on the nose of othe aircraft which indicated the 'Whispering Death'".

They repainted 554 at this point.  I'm not sure if they repainted 553 too, but my assumption is they didn't.  You can almost match splotch for splotch on the shot with the unpainted cowl and the shot we know to be 553 with the bunny on the door.

The bird previously identified as 553 with the kill marks on the door post is 554.  I don't think either Chris or I realized that 554 was painted with kill marks during the Test Team days.  That, along with the color pic without the toilet bowl exhaust confirms that it was.  I assumed it was 553 because of the kills.  Plus, that bird clearly has a black anti-glare panel.  As you can see in the 1st Airborne TOW Team (note that it is not referred to as the 1st Combat Aerial TOW Team) shot, 553 had a camo nose and 554's was black.  The later pics show that it kept the anti-glare panel even when repainted in the two-tone green scheme. My bad!

Jon

EDIT:  I also just noticed.  553 has a white VHF antenna. 554 has a green one. From what I've said about both aircraft, that matches up ALMOST perfectly.  The pic of 554 in flight where you can clearly see the FM antenna has a white blade antenna, not a green one. Now I'm confused!

Chief,

Your post:

"That has to be 533 being fitted with the toilet bowl and heat guard for anti-Strela measures. The cammo pattern is unique to 553 with smaller leaf looking splotches. As the other photo shows the first flights and engagements must have occured prior to the fitment of those pieces."

    The photos I posted last show a bird WITH FM antennas on the nose. By your own advice it would have to be 554 unless the FM antennas were removed later. The posts for the FM antenna are clearly visable in the TOW bird firing.  You stated earlier:

"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"

 I know this is true NOW because I saw both aircraft at the Museum.  Either 553 had FM antennas on the nose at some piont or the cammo patterns changed over time or both.  If you compare these two pics, you'll notice that the cammo pattern is different yet they are both the same bird I believe, you say 553:

[

[img]http://

Further more, this bird must be 553 based on your pont that "On the left pilot door of 553, there is a playboy bunny shape painted in black very clearly discernable."  You'll note that it is tan not black, but I assume it is the bunny head you meant.  This bird has at the very least a modification of the cammo pattern seen above:

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

If that's the case, what about this bird which has a totally different pattern than any of those above. Based on emblem on the nose and the FM antennas, this bird is 554, right?:

[img]http://

Here is another pic of a bird that must eb 554 if the antennas are indicative, but it has a totally different cammo scheme to the one above and no nose art:

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

Then there is this pic that shows what you identified earlier as 553, but notice the FM antenna post just above the external sight on the left side. I agree with your identification, by the way.

[img]http://

finally, there is this pic of the TOW teams with their birds that shows that by May of 72 553 had no FM antenna and 554 did. Also, notice there is NO TOW emblem on the nose of either aircraft.

[img]http://

So to sum up based on photos.  BOTH 553 and 554 had FM antenna post on the nose at some point.  The cammo pattern "evolved" over time and by May of 72 554 had the TOW emblem removed from it's nose.  The only other possible explanation for these pics is that there were three aircraft and I am assured that that is not the case. 

  Ray
 

Ray, the trunnion is the connecting point for the bearings that link the control tubes to the swashplate. The swashplate is the intermediate point for converting the pilots' input to the overhead rotor system. The B/D/H used the same design swashplate, the C/M had a different design for dynamic conversion reasons. If you look at the joints and the swashplate you tell which type of aircraft it's on no matter what else is missing from the picture. The C/M swashplate  also had a heavier link in the back because of control force changes made for the C/M series in conjunction with the 540 rotor head. The bearing connection points also were different as Mel pointed out.

Chief Snake 

That has to be 533 being fitted with the toilet bowl and heat guard for anti-Strela measures. The cammo pattern is unique to 553 with smaller leaf looking splotches. As the other photo shows the first flights and engagements must have occured prior to the fitment of those pieces. Remember, the deployment was done in amazingly fast time and with only the most basic of desirable components. Everything else was catch up in the middle of fighting. According the Bentley Hill, with whom I have communicated, the nose logo appeared a bit after the two teams came online. There was some measure of friction between the original in-country trained crews and the replacement crews who arrived to take the places of pilots whose time in country was expiring. I gave Jon my original communications with Mr. Hill for his research, the information in the sketch he supplied me with can be augmented by what is contained in the information Jon has already amassed and that which remains in NARA files. Stay tuned for that.

 Chief Snake

Thanks Marko! 

So, we're working with a load of 1,750lbs.  That allows us 1,250lbs of useable weight before we hit max gross weight (an area you DON'T want to be operating in in combat).  With a full bag of gas that's 242 gallons of JP4.  JP4 weighs 6.5 lbs per gallon, which brings us to 1,573lbs of fuel.  We're over gross by 300lbs.  So, trade off 50 gallons of gas for a full ammo load.  That leaves us 190 gallons or 1,235lbs of gas.  Right up near Max Gross still.  With the environmental conditions (temp, humidity, high DA) a running takeoff MAY be possible. 

Of course, now that I've calculated all of this, I forgot one other crucial element.  The flight crew and all of their gear.  Figure each crewman at 160lbs.  Add 35lbs for each chicken plate vest (yes, they are that heavy, I have one sitting in my hobby room).  23lbs for each M60.  400rds for each M60.  Not to mention the sundries that one finds in the cabin of a Huey.  Smoke grenades, frags, thermites, you name it.  Figure another 1300lbs for all of that stuff?

When it comes down to it, the XM50 system MAY have flown in Vietnam, but it wouldn't have been good for anything but short duration anti-mortar patrol around a base.  It'd probably burn off half of its fuel just trying to get airborne!

BREAK

Ray,

I think the first pic with the closeup of the anti-strela exhaust is 553.  Comparing the camo on the tailboom there and on the color pic of the one we know to be 554, there is a definite difference in pattern.  It could definitely have been redone, but it is my hunch that the closeup pic is 553 having maintenance done on it. Judging from the lack of camo paint on the cowlings, I'd say it was probably in the middle of getting "camo'd up"! 

Jon

Hello guys!

I was away for the weekend and couldn't check the forums, but boy You've certainly been busy :)

Ray, thanks for finding those helmet sight pictures, I really appreciate it! Great stuff!!!

As for the XM50 debate-I guess the chance of seeing both M5 and M21 on the same Huey in Vietnam is pretty slim, but as we have seen on this forum one should never say never :) I browsed through my UH-1 manuals and dug up some weight values for armament subsystems:

M21:

a) 6000 7.62mm rounds/M158 7-shot pods/14 2.75-inch rockets with 10-pound warheads:

        1108 lb.

b) 6000 7.62mm rounds/M159 19-shot pods/38 2.75-inch rockets with 10-pound warheads:

        1768 lb.

M5:

a) 150 40mm rounds:

          392 lb.

b) 300 40mm rounds:

          506 lb.

So, if You put M5 with 150 40mm rounds and standard M21 (7-shot pods/6000 7.62mm rounds) on the same Huey it would come up to 1500 lb, which is below the weight of the ''Heavy M21'' (1768 lb.). And we did prove that some Army units flew ''Heavy M21/M16'' armed Hueys in Vietnam! Unfortunately I haven't found any images of M5/M21 armed Hueys in Vietnam yet, so I guess it is safe to say that even if this configuration was tested/used in Vietnam it saw very very very limited use... and if we ever come to see M5/M21 armed Vietnam Huey I bet it's gonna be from one of the Delta based units.

And the closest thing to M5/M21 armed Huey I've ever seen is this 1967 shot of 114th AHC UH-1C armed with M5, XM157 7-shot rocket pods and door mounted miniguns; so it at least had some components of the M21 on it :)

Marko 

Jon and Chief,

  I was looking through my archive pics again and found this one:

[

That has to be one of the TOW birds with the anti-strella AND the cammo, right?  If so, it looks like the pic I posted of the TOW bird firing is the same aircraft because this closeup shot doesn't seem to have a cammo engine cowling just like the photo above:

[img]http://[

This one should be 554 based on the FM antenna in the bove pic, right?  perhaps this explains the photo I posted of her without the anti-strella kit.  Maybe that pic was before the anti-stella was installed since it now seems clear it was done AFTER the initial cammo paint was applied.   Does my logic make sense or am I off in lala land again?

   Ray

Edit: Here's another pic of 554 without the anti-strella but with cammo.  Based on the setting, it looks to be in country. You'll notice she already has some kill marks.  I think she fired a few TOWs without the kit installed. Also looks like she had different cammo paterns througout her sevice.  Or were there three birds in country?! (after all I don't see the emblem on the nose):

  [img]http://" border="0" />

I haven't checked out this thread in a while and saw the pictures of the bird with the M-5 and M-21 weapons systems.  If you flew without the Crew Chief and Gunner you probably would have an extra 700 lbs of additional weight you could carry so both weapons systems could probably easily be carried.  However I think in combat most Huey pilots would rather have the CE and GN back there with their free 60's covering thier "butts"!  As they say, anything is possilbe in therory, just always falls short in practical application!

Mel,

  Thanks for the info.  That is one wierd bird, though.  Maybe when I get back to the museum I can get more info.  I know I should look this up, but what's a "trunnion?"

    Ray

Having the M-5 and M-16 together isn't impossible but is limiting for several reasons. The first was space as you noted. The second is balance. If you have to short yourself any of the items you must balance you degrade the whole system and reduce it's potential effectiveness. If you reduce fuel you shorten flight duration which can often be the most critical factor. Using a modified ammunition load leaves little room for missing the target, having 25 rounds of 40mm ammo means you better hit what you're aiming at pretty quick. Shorting your 7.62mm ammo leaves strafing ability at short duration and the whole point of that is area saturation. Same with the rockets. To carry 7 rockets would be the optimal, they were very effective anti-people weapons. So shorting everything to carry some of everything has to be applied in very specific practice with a very narrow set of circumstances that act in your favor. The likelyhood of that seems at the low end of the scale and makes the choice for fewer systems at effective loads a more efficient choice.

Chief Snake 

rotorwash wrote:

Rich,   Wow!  that's some interesting stuff alright.  Thank for sharing. Jon,   Yeah, I fgured the artwork was jut a mistake, but I would like to see the TM regrding using the M16 and M5 together.  Who knows it may say "don't ever do this!"     Ray

I don't have any of the written explanation from the TM, just the chart. 

That white aircraft is civil, no question. The rotor brake visible about the pilot's head is a sure identifier. Notable blades sticking out under the cargo door, over the road truck driver seats leads me to think this was some kind of survey use aircraft. Nothing there makes me think its any more than a civil version of the UH-1B, it could be a C, but I don't know.There is also some sort of panel blocking the left door in the front seat. Whether that is for protective purposes or not is an interesting question. It looks like an intentional instal, but for what?

Chief Snake 

Rich,

  Wow!  that's some interesting stuff alright.  Thank for sharing.

Jon,

  Yeah, I fgured the artwork was jut a mistake, but I would like to see the TM regrding using the M16 and M5 together.  Who knows it may say "don't ever do this!"

    Ray

Ray,

Lou Drendel's a great artist, but I've noticed in a couple of his paintings that things aren't 100% correct.  For example, he's got an AH-64 painting that he did for the OIF book for Squadron.  At first glance it looks like a plain old Alpha.  But if you look closer, it has the EFABs (sponsons on the side of the cockpit area) of a Longbow.  I wouldn't take that Huey painting as 100% accurate.  

Plus, I just don't see a UH-1B in 1966 carrying that much gear on it, especially with a -9 engine.

Jon
 

Any ideas on these? The first two pics say that the Huey is carrying a sidewinder missile. No idea about the last one though.

Rich

I knew I had posted those XM 50 birds before.  Way back on page 9 Marko and I discussed them and he posted the following:

" I think we might at least have a chance of seeing M5/M16 combo on Vietnam Hueys. And I've got two reasons for believing that this combo was at least tested in Vietnam:

1) I have a 1972 UH-1B maintenance manual, and there is a note under the armament subsystems section saying that M5 could be used in conjunction with the M16-this is further referenced to M16 armament subsystem manual. So if anybody following this forum happens to have a M16 armament subsystem manual, I would really appreciate if they could check it up and possibly provide some additional info on M5/M16 combo.

2) I stumbled upon this image of Lou Drendel's painting of what was suppose to be a UH-1B of C troop 1st Squadron 9th Cavalry at Phu Cat in 1966. Since Lou Drendel's artwork is usually historically accurate, we may assume that he painted this UH-1B according to some photographic reference... Huey buffs will immediately notice the short rotor mast associated with UH-1A (mistake on Lou's part, I guess :)."

Any thoughts gentlemen?  I'd be especially interested in any info on Lou Drendels painting.

  Ray
 

Chief,

   I hear ya on that one!  Is there any chance that the photo below was the NUH-1M before conversion:

[img]http://[

I don't have any data on this bird, but the photo was in the Museum archives and I assume it has something to do with the Army.  The number on the airframe doesn't seem to match the one you gave, but I didn't know if civil numbers are different that Army ones.  Anyway, it's a wierd bird to be in an Army archive, don't you think?

     Ray