UH-1C Main Rotor Head Details Additional Pics

 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

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

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

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

Steve

Good Data Mel,

Here is the old Marine Sight. 

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.

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

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

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

Steve,

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

       Ray

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. 

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

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

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

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
 

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,

  I thought we might have lost you there for awhile.  Glad you jumped back into it.  I must confess that I thought I had done pretty good research before posting stuff about the Echo, but the guys who flew it and the folks who built it seem to indicate that I need to hit the books a little more.  That's OK, though, it just makes me want to know that much more.  By the way, did you think the aircraft pic I posted WAY back there was the one you photographed in Pensicola?

    Ray

Hey Guys!  Play nice!

I don't mind the shift to the Navy and Marine variants as long as it helps modeler to build a more accurate model.  That's what I intended by this Post on the UH-1C.  I'm really surprised it's getting a lot of attention with most of the guys building UH-1D's or H's lately.  I don't think anyone has professed to "know everything", just that the "data" they have supports a certain figure.  As we all know any "data" can be wrong or misinterpeted.

Thank everyone for replying to this Post!

Locked and loaded!  Coming hot!

Ed,

  Thanks for the info on the numbers.  Anyway, I think I should apologize to Mel for hijacking his UH-1C thread and turning it into a UH-1E, UH-1L, TH-1L, HH-1K thread instead.  This stuff is fascinating though, and I will probably keep posting just to see where it goes!

My next move is to post some UH-1E and subvariant pics to see what Steve makes of the various models. 

   Ray
 

Ray:

Still awake huh?

Whoever originally copied the numbers did something that I sometimes do and that is forget to count the first aircraft as one.

Rather than go through all the numbers, the first aircraft was 6001 , 151266,and the last number in the first group is 6033, 151298. When you add 6001 and 6033 you get a difference of 34 aircraft.

I still show 155337, 6192 thru 155354, 6209 for a total of 18 aircraft on a contract.

Also there is 157851, 6210 thru 157858, 6217 for a total of 8 aircraft on a contract. 

Remember there is 25 aircraft that were UH-1L's in that contracted group. It is possible that someone thought those aircraft you mentioned were cancelled E models, however my guess is they were UH-1L models for the Navy.

You guys do amaze me for finding all that information.

I am going on vacation tomorrow, be back on Monday my time.

Regards,

Ed

Hi Ray;

Do you know who did the upgrade? The only two places that I know of that could handle such a job would be Corpus Christi and or Bell. 

Bell contracts show 160 pure E's built, then there were 57 of the UH-1E/UH-1L made. I suspect someone had the Marine records of E models and then that would mean that in the last order of aircraft 25 of them were L models, and 32 were E models. My records didn't give a breakdown of how many of each were built on the last order.

Yes it is great to have another vet join us.

Ed

Ed,

  I'm glad to see your numbers jive with the ones I posted above.  Here is what I have for the UH-1E production summary:

Serial nos.                         Number Built             Construction nos.

151266/151299                          34                      6001/6034      based on the B model

151840/151887                          48                      6035/6082   based on C model from here 

152416/152439                          24                      6083/6102

153740/153767                          28                      6107/6134

154750/154780                          31                       6135/6165

154943/154969                          27                       6165/6192

155337/155367                 would have been 31         6193/6223 this last batch was cancelled

I hope you find these numbers accurate as well.

Steve,

  Since my dad was a Army doorgunner, I haven't spent as much time researching the Echo and it's subvariants, but I hope that some of the info I have provided will be useful.  As one well known new organization puts it:  I report, YOU decide!  By the way, thanks for the excellent web site.  It will take a while to look through everything there!

     Ray

Hi Steve:

I noticed your comment about the E being a Navalized C model. I know you are Navy because a Marine would have called it a Marinized C model. As noted below I had the pleasue of working with the Navy, great group of folks, very sharp.

I was the tech rep for HT8 in 1972-73 timeframe. We were at Ellison (sp) field in Pensacola and then move to Whiting Field. HT18 was right next to us at Whiting and I was called over there one time for something, not sure what though. When were you at HT18? It would be neat if we were there at the same time.

I'm trying to think what structure was still Magnesium. The B model had only the bottom of the tailboom mag, all other skin was aluminum. My bird 62-2046 was this way as my tailboom had a big crack down the bottom. Originally the transmission  and other drivetrain components had some mag cases, and those would have been changed to aluminum, but the Army got those later anyway.

Bell actually made 27 HH-1K's so all were made that way not a rework later. I just noticed that 8 UH-1L's, 45 TH-1L's and 27 HH-1K's  were made under the same contract number. In the days of 1966 Bell was running three assembly lines, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Every 8 hours a Huey came off the line.

Bell has a habit of using the basic model print, in this case say a B model cabin, then modifiying that print to create all the rest of the small cabin aircraft or 204 cabin versions. I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to the prints, all the various versions listed here started from a basic B and then you added the mods necessary to come up with whatever final version you wanted.  Whenever I have to go to the old prints, the first few pages are nothing but notes and changes.

Ed

Ray you are most probably correct.  I'm not looking at in depth documents.  Don't forget that contracts let don't always mean that they get completed as ordered, and then Marine Corps orders (make that Navy orders) many times were piggy backed off of Army ones.  It's all a very confusing incestuous system.  Designed to confuse the enemy.....and ourselves.

I'm sure that you have been to the Scarface website?  http://www.scarface-usmc.org/  If you haven't seen it, there are a lot of photos from the VN era.  (predates me)

Regards

Steve

Steve,

   I have multiple sources that indicate that the Echo was produced in two distinct variations.  The first batch consisting of 34 aircraft built in the UH-1B pattern with the added rescue hoist, rotor brake, and aluminum frame.  these birds had the T53-L11 engine and were first delivered to MAG 26 on Feb 21, 1964.  The second batch of Echos were patterned after the UH-1C and featured the 540 rotor system and greater fuel capacity (242 gals. vs 165 gals.).  Clearly these latter are the ones you refered to earlier.  As I said before, the intigrated resue hoist housing is the only way I know to tell an Echo externally.  I have mutiple pics of both B and C-type Echos with the rescue hoist clearly visible.  Also, to make things interesting, many of the B-type Echos were upgraded to the 540 rotor system and C-type tailboom later.  Supposedly 192 Echos were built in all.  I'm not trying to confuse things, but I would be very interested in any referrences that contradicted this info.  By the way, thanks for your service.  It's great to have another vet on the forum!

   Thanks,

          Ray
 

I think i'd better thank all the others here for posting detail shots also.  I have saved them.  I am enjoying this thread.

Regards

Steve