UH-1C Main Rotor Head Details Additional Pics

Ray,

Yea, that's the same bird I took the "belly" shots of.  At one time it was sitting on the "floor".  I don't know if I have pictures of it then.  It was a few years back and I didn't have a digital camera back then.  I'll dig through my pictures one day and see if I have any more of it.  Glad the Post got so much activity!   

Mel, Let's get back to something a modeler can sink their teeth into.  Namely, PICTURES!!!

First let's begin with a little TH-1L (I hope) montage:

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

Here's a couple of the TH-1L's cockpit (I would love to know which parts are unique to the L model)

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

Here's a UH-1L (In fact, it is supposed to be the first one built, ser.no.157851):

" border="0" />

OK, now here is one of the four UH-1Ls sent to Vetnam in 1970 to form Sealords (Sealord 4) to augment HAL-3:

  Here's a Navy Smokeship. Anyone know for sure whether it is a UH-1L or HH-1K?:

[img]http://

Finally, let's finish this post with a few Navy (via the Army) B-models showing off miniguns in the door and M-156 mounts.  You just gotta love the gold plating on the minis!

[img]http://[img

 Many of these pics are from the seawolves site.  Hope they help keep the dialogue going.

    Ray
 

Hey Guys,

Let me re-introduce myself.    I used to be Hatter50 above.  I got locked out and had to redo my account.  Anyway, I'm back.

Ray, very interesting photos you have there.    You've been lurking where I've been before.  I took several of those shots as well as I'm in one.    (I'm glad you posted them btw).

Third down is me at Ellyson Field in 1972 as a student.  Yes a Marine.  Marines are Navalized too.  We get "salty" also.

The first 2 shots are from approx 1979 on a flight to Dallas.  I always LOVED to just stare at my wingman, from above, below, in front, behind.  EVERYWHERE.

I've added one shot of the rotorhead from the TH-1L.  I did that to show a well used but opreational head.  No rust, no corrosion, just some slung grease. 

Regards

Steve

Ray,

You asked about cockpit equipment peculiar to the L model in one of those photos.  Since all surviving UH-1Ls went to Whiting, all TH-1Ls and UH-1Ls were standardized in the cockpit.  The "civilian" style web pilot seats (none of that heavy hot and hard armor); dual IFR setup (basic and not fancy.....actually pretty crude).  Most of the Es were used in the transition phase, but most got the "soft" seats (not all, but the armor was taken out).  If they had hung around long enough they would ALL have looked the same, with differences just being the engines. 

We started to get engine failures due to "loose" engines in the Es.  The tolerances just couldn't be maintained anymore on the Dash 11 engines.  Friend of mine autoed to the Interstate after a failure and got a "parking" ticket from the highway patrol...in jest. 

I went on to fly the N model as well as others and wound up flying the CH-53D.

Regards

Steve

Just to keep everyone on thier toes, here is a UH-1N operational rotorhead.  The stab bar variety, not the AFCS version.  Close to the UH-1H but not quite.  All Bell 212 part numbers.

Photo was taken at the USAF Academy.  I just dropped in for a visit. 

Regards

Steve

Steve.

If the cowling wasn't showing and you hadn't said anything it looks just like a H model rotor head.  I imagine the blade grips were "beefed" up for the wider cord blades of the N. 

Steve,

   Great pics, thanks!  So your the guy holding the flight helmet?  By the way, did I identify the aircraft correctly?

       Ray

Ray,

Yes, that be me.  It's been a while.  I was surprised when I saw all those photos of mine. 

Yes, i think you have them pretty much IDed.  Just remember if you paint them all the same, it's really easy to standardize the cockpit so that you have to read the Bureau Num and nomenclature on the tail to know what it really is.

Regards

Steve

Hey Ray,

Sorry for the name change there, seems that this thing can't figure out which one I am.

Anyway, yes that was me in the photo holding the helmet.

One other difference in Marine (Navy) UH-1Es, from thier Army friends are the radios that require AC power and not the DC that the Army used.  Hence the need for inverters.  Maybe that was for the TACAN, who knows.

Rotorbrake, Radios, AC system, Aluminum vs Magnesium

Regards

Steve

Hey Ray and Mel,

getting back to the UH-1E thing.....

Here is a photo of the UH-1E "Change 7 Kit".  Maybe not the best shot, and no, not nice and pretty on a runway but you get to see some of the underside of it.

VMO-3 VN.

 Steve

Another overlooked detail was the M5 Sight and mounting details.  It was mounted in the rear portion of the left green house.  Additional bracing was installed in the chin bubble for the turrent.

Good Data Mel,

Here is the old Marine Sight. 

Steve

And then there is this sight.  I don't have nomenclature.  I believe it was used with the TAT.

Steve

Andy (Intruder Bass)

I was amazed at your rework of the UH-1C rotorhead.  Is there a thread of more of your UH-1C work?  It is just outstanding. 

I've also been following your 47 thread.  WOW. 

Regards

Steve

Andy,

Sorry about that....found the thread on "Dishmodels" 

http://dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=1530&lng=E

That just takes the wind out of my sails.    I can't come close, but i can now try.  Anyway, its just awesome. 

thanks for the show.

Steve

 Thank you, Steve

Sorry that thread is still partly untranslated - just dont have enough time.

  Just wanna add also that the ammo box for XM-5 in the kit is not really correct for Vietnam. Mel pointed that to me when I already glued mine in, painted the interior and finished with washes and weathering :-)) I had to reap mine off and start all over again.  New, custom box for ammo is much bigger - it is rectangular with feeding mechanism on top of it.

 Andy

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

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!!! 

  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

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

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

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. 

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

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:

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

Ed,

E-mail sent.

Regards
Steve

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