Some Pics from Army Flight Test...

[Winnie]

I assume this 212 is being iced and that is what the yellow stuff is. I guess that would make this a HISS eye view of it's target.

That is a Bell 214ST, I believe, note the windshield wipers are mounted BELOW the windshield, and tthe long cowl, square intakes and so on. Initially it looked like a 214B, but the cowling/doghouse is wrong.

Cheers

H.

[rotorwash]

That is a Bell 214ST, I believe, note the windshield wipers are mounted BELOW the windshield, and tthe long cowl, square intakes and so on. Initially it looked like a 214B, but the cowling/doghouse is wrong.

Cheers

H.

My batting average on this one ain't to good, but I think you nailed it this time. Good eye to see the wipers and, as you say, the cowl matches perfectly. here's one on airliners.net for comparison.

Ray

214 ST

Edited February 2, 2010 by rotorwash

[salvador001]

Oh, i was thinking that this could be a 214ST after looking a few minutes to the windshield, wipers and roof plexis, it is very confusing the photo, yes, its a 214ST.

Rod.

[EDWMatt]

Matt I see that the Helo's used at Edwards had the same big white numbers on the sides of the aircraft. As you know the ATTC here at Rucker call those Bear Cat Numbers. Was this the same with Edwards Helo's?

Brock

Brock,

We didn't carry "Bearcat" numbers on the Edwards birds. What you see on the Blackhawk is an icing flight number. Icing trials are pretty extensively photographically documented, and having the flight number on the side of the aircraft helped keep things straight when you were looking through hundreds of photos.

The Blackhawk project guys got pretty sophisticated and used white contact paper for their numbers. We were lazier with the Huey. If you look at the pic of 318 on the first page of the thread, you'll see we used masking tape!

You can also see the flight number in the window of the 412 pic Ray posted

[EDWMatt]

My batting average on this one ain't to good, but I think you nailed it this time. Good eye to see the wipers and, as you say, the cowl matches perfectly. here's one on airliners.net for comparison.

Ray

214 ST

You've got it right, Ray. It is a 214ST. As the only rotary-wing icing tanker, the HISS provided services to contractor aircraft in support of FAA icing certification trials. The 214ST, I believe, was part of the 1983 icing season, which was the last season at St.Paul, MN, before we moved icing to Duluth.

Besides the ST, the 412 (which you also posted) and the Sikorsky S-76 also flew behind the HISS. The Army also provided icing support for other services. The CH-53E, V-22, Cormorant (Canadian Merlin) and even the Predator A have all flown behind the HISS.

The 214ST shot is from the ramp of the HISS. I have a similar "test aircraft" point-of-view pic of the HISS to the one you posted when we were actually in the spray cloud (I think I sent it to you). The HISS had radar altimeter antennas pointing out the back ramp which tied into a series of colored lights on the belly, which told the test aircraft pilot if he was at the correct distance from the tanker. Green was good, yellow was you're getting close and red was "you're way too close!"

The HISS would occasionally throw off golf-ball sized chunks of ice from malfunctioning nozzles on the boom. This could be exciting when they struck the test aircraft (sounded like a gunshot). We broke one of our very expensive heated glass Huey windshields with one of those chunks.

Icing testing could get very exciting. Sometimes you could get an "asymmetric shed", where different amounts of ice would shed from the blades, which could cause extremely high vibration levels. One crew was on the verge of bailing out until more ice shed and the vibration ceased. We took a tail rotor strike from shed ice in the clouds in the Huey during a natural icing flight that set up a high-freq vib in the aircraft. Helo guys know how dangerous tail rotor damage could be. That damaged tail rotor blade used to hang above the bar at a pub near the Duluth airport, until the bar burned down.

We always wore parachutes during icing testing (and most flight testing for that matter). We had a mini-icing symposium at Duluth one year and one of the participants asked why we wore chutes. Our Director of Flight Test (who had a mischievous sense of humor replied "It's to keep you busy so you don't scream so much on the way down."

[rotorwash]

Matt,

Good info as always. I have been dying to post this one and I hope you know the skinny on it. I have no idea what to call it except a stealth EH-60B.

Ray

OK, if you missed what was here, you should visit the forums more often. Probably being to careful, but no need causing problems when you don't have to.

Edited February 4, 2010 by rotorwash

[Albert Moore]

Man that is one crazy looking Black Hawk!

Cheers,

Alby

[EDWMatt]

Matt,

Good info as always. I have been dying to post this one and I hope you know the skinny on it. I have no idea what to call it except a stealth EH-60B.

Ray

Ray,

I was going to ask where you got that picture, but I know where it's from, as I was the test manager of that project and I had that photo taken. I hope you don't get into any trouble publishing this, as that aircraft was "sight sensitive" for quite a long time, and there are still aspects of it that are classified, although the external appearance is unrestricted. I have numerous photos of this aircraft, but have refrained from sharing because of these concerns. At one time we had to take off 1 hour before sunrise and arrive back 1 hour after sunset so the aircraft was not observed.

What I can tell you is that is an EH-60A (the EH-60B was the SOTAS and there was only one) with the "Direction Finding Enhancement Kit" installed. There were several of these kits produced and fielded. At one time, it had a more extensive treatment applied to it, but parts were found to be unnecessary. There were also similar kits produced for OH-58D's (there's a pic in Floyd Werner's book) and Apache's. It isn't too difficult to guess what the purpose of the kit is. After the sight sensitive restriction was lifted, we could freely park the aircraft on our ramp. A Lockheed project was in the hangar next door, and a King Air full of Lockheed engineers came up from Burbank and parked on the ramp. You should have seen the looks on their faces when they got out and saw this aircraft!

We used to call this aircraft as the "Black Blackhawk", and the test team picture is amusing, as I had the photog double expose it with us in and out of the picture so we all looked like ghosts.

This would be a real head-turner on the contest table.

Edited February 5, 2010 by EDWMatt

[EDWMatt]

Finally, I thought this one might bring back some memories.

Ray

Yup, sure does. This one's less controversial. Taken at Bakersfield in 1984 during early ESSS testing. Aircraft should be 77-22716 again. The fellow 6th from the left (Bill Kelly) was the junior flight test engineer, and is now an airline captain and is a member of my IPMS chapter. I'll have to share this with him - he'll get a kick out of it!

Edited February 3, 2010 by EDWMatt

[salvador001]

Oh god, that is one crazy and strangle looking blackhawk, ive never seen that in my life, i didnt think it exist.

Rod.

[rotorwash]

Oh god, that is one crazy and strangle looking blackhawk, ive never seen that in my life, i didnt think it exist.

Rod.

Rod,

it doesn't exist. In fact, you never saw it!

Matt,

If you think I should take that pic down, I will. it was in a public archive, but I know sometimes things slip in. I certainly don't want to post anything inappropriate.

Ray

[Tim Bradley]

Ed,

Was the RCS reduced much? Looks like the internal cockpit would the major part of the radar return.

That would make a great model!

Tim

[hovering]

This is a great thread.. and thanks for the last Black Hawk photo.

The modifications to the rotor head make it look huge.

Would be a great modelling subject, but appreciate that may be all we see of it.

I was going to say the nose reminded me of the OH-58.

Who knows Ray.. maybe you will get to see one up close

Greg

[rotorwash]

This is a great thread.. and thanks for the last Black Hawk photo.

The modifications to the rotor head make it look huge.

Would be a great modelling subject, but appreciate that may be all we see of it.

I was going to say the nose reminded me of the OH-58.

Who knows Ray.. maybe you will get to see one up close :D

Greg

Greg,

Hopefully one day if it still exists it will make it's way to the Army Aviation Museum. Heck, I never thought I get to sit in both Comanches either, so who knows. Anyway, here's one that should be less controversial. Caption of the pic says it all. Hopefully Matt knows about it, but, if not, maybe Loach Driver can fill us in.

Ray

[EDWMatt]

Ed,

Was the RCS reduced much? Looks like the internal cockpit would the major part of the radar return.

That would make a great model!

Tim

Tim,

Unfortunately, that is one of the items I am not at liberty to discuss. However, I can talk a bit about helicopter RCS in general terms. As you might guess, the rotor system (and the rotorhead in particular) are the largest radar reflectors by a large margin. Also, you might be surprised at what levels of signature reduction can be achieved by treatments and coatings. There are also operational strategies that can be employed to reduce rotor system signatures.

[11bee]

Greg,

Hopefully one day if it still exists it will make it's way to the Army Aviation Museum. Heck, I never thought I get to sit in both Comanches either, so who knows. Anyway, here's one that should be less controversial. Caption of the pic says it all. Hopefully Matt knows about it, but, if not, maybe Loach Driver can fill us in.

Ray

Interesting... where is the sight for the TOW system?

Makes me wonder, does anyone know if the older version Littlebirds ever flew operationally with anything besides miniguns and 2.75" rockets? I heard at one point that Littlebirds had hellfires, stingers, TOW's, etc, etc but have never seen any pictures to back it up.

Regards,

John

[Vic Russell JR]

We got 3 of these EH's in the 101st, 4/17 th Cav while I was there and I was assigned 658. We put these on and took them off in the hangar and they only came out at night, I always flew with my aircraft and we went into hot gas at just before dusk and I had to go and confiscate film from someone "trying to not get caught" in the refuel shack. It had airspeed and other restrictions as well. We never used them on missions though, they just were a pain in the neck. The Sikorsky crew that came with them to show us us the system worked was a bunch of great guys though.

Ray,

I was going to ask where you got that picture, but I know where it's from, as I was the test manager of that project and I had that photo taken. I hope you don't get into any trouble publishing this, as that aircraft was "sight sensitive" for quite a long time, and there are still aspects of it that are classified, although the external appearance is unrestricted. I have numerous photos of this aircraft, but have refrained from sharing because of these concerns. At one time we had to take off 1 hour before sunrise and arrive back 1 hour after sunset so the aircraft was not observed.

What I can tell you is that is an EH-60A (the EH-60B was the SOTAS and there was only one) with the "Direction Finding Enhancement Kit" installed. There were several of these kits produced and fielded. At one time, it had a more extensive treatment applied to it, but parts were found to be unnecessary. There were also similar kits produced for OH-58D's (there's a pic in Floyd Werner's book) and Apache's. It isn't too difficult to guess what the purpose of the kit is. After the sight sensitive restriction was lifted, we could freely park the aircraft on our ramp. A Lockheed project was in the hangar next door, and a King Air full of Lockheed engineers came up from Burbank and parked on the ramp. You should have seen the looks on their faces when they got out and saw this aircraft!

We used to call this aircraft as the "Black Blackhawk", and the test team picture is amusing, as I had the photog double expose it with us in and out of the picture so we all looked like ghosts.

This would be a real head-turner on the contest table.

[Loach Driver]

Greg,

Hopefully one day if it still exists it will make it's way to the Army Aviation Museum. Heck, I never thought I get to sit in both Comanches either, so who knows. Anyway, here's one that should be less controversial. Caption of the pic says it all. Hopefully Matt knows about it, but, if not, maybe Loach Driver can fill us in.

Ray

Ray, just when I thought I had a handle on all these H-6 test ships, you come up with this! I have no info on it, unfortunately. Here is my guess on what might be going on, though.

Looking at the serial number on the doghouse, it doesn't look like it is one of those early-production OH-6A's bailed back to Hughes in the late 60s for various tests. The style of TOW tube would probably be a good indicator of the possible date for this photo. Looking at the background, it could be parked up at one of the test ranges in California or Arizona frequently used by Hughes in the 70's and early 80's. Hughes Helicopters had two OH-6As at Culver City in the late 70's that were used for mock-up work, so I'd guess that this is one of those mock-up ships. The 500MD Defender armed with the TOW system first flew in 1977 so this helicopter might pre-date the Defender. Perhaps this OH-6A is being used in early development work for the Defender programme? I think I know someone who might be able to shed some light on this interesting Loach. If he has anything on it, I'll report back. Can you make out the serial, Ray? It looks like the last three digits are "817".

If you have any more H-6 gems like this, please keep em' coming. I knew this thread was going to throw up some fascinating stuff. Thanks.

LD.

Edit: Looking at the serial, it is also possibly "12917" which was 65-12917, which later became the NOTAR prototype. This OH-6A was retained by Hughes from the time it left the production line in 1966. It was involved in various test programmes with Hughes before it was converted into the NOTAR prototype.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Loach Driver

[thatguy96]

There's this really grainy photograph from the TACOM-RI website of a field modified helicopter then referred to as the "OH-6C" (not official):

The weight of the XM5/M5 armament subsystem and the 19-tube rocket pods apparently prevented it from taking off.

Otherwise, the only other authorized armament subsystems for the OH-6A that I'm aware of were the original systems developed for the LOH trials, the XM7 and XM8. The former had 2 M60Cs while the latter had a single 40mm automatic grenade launcher (initially an XM75/M75, but quickly replaced with the XM129/M129). The XM7, XM8, M27 series, and the HGS-55 (fitted with the Hughes EX 34 Mod 0 7.62mm chaingun) all used the same basic mounting hardware from what I understand. From the AH-6C thread, I now know that the HGS-55 was trialled on that helicopter, but not adopted because its rate of fire was deemed to be too low.

Rockets on the OH-6A were rare. Apparently, the Rock Island Arsenal fabricated a single 4-tube rocket pod for use on the OH-6A. Beyond that I'm not aware of any rocket installations on the -6A helicopter, besides those on the JOH-6A, which was redesignated as the AH-6C.

Edited February 4, 2010 by thatguy96

[rotorwash]

Joe,

That first pic you posted was a total joke aircraft that was cobbled together for the photographs. It was never intended to fly. The second pic, as I understand it, is of a in-country 4 rocket tube mod. I believe it carried WP rockets to mark targets. I have several pics of this setup.

Ray

Edited February 4, 2010 by rotorwash

[thatguy96]

The OH-6A picture comes from the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association website. The citation is: "Image courtesy of Carl L King via Rich Hefferman (B 7/17 CE/OBS)" There's also a caption: "Here is a photo of one of my ship's OH-6 SN# 67915 (Phan Thiet summer of '68). It carries the only known 4 shot 2.75 rocket pod from Rock Island Arsenal and the M27 mini-gun. The pilot in the photo is Carl L King, RED 6 Scout Platoon Leader in 1968. There are 3 rockets visible in the pod. The system was quite accurate. And it was a shocker, I'm sure, for the NVA when we rolled in "hot" punching off rocket's and cranking that mini at them. If you look or zoom in on the photo you can see the engine door's are open which was SOP for OH6 cool down to prevent fuel control problems similar to vapor lock in a car."

I can't really tell because of the quality of the VHPA picture, but these systems look different to me. The one from the VHPA seems to show a rocket "pod" that appears to not attached to a pylon that is truly vertical, giving the arrangement a diamond appearance. The pylons in the picture you posted do appear to be truly vertical, giving the arrangement a square appearance. Both could easily be field modifications though. They both no doubt incorporated spare tubes from M158 series pods and the pylons in your pictures look like MA-4As liberated from XM156/M156 multi-armament mounts. This would not be at all odd, since the 1st Cavalry Division had OH-13S helicopters between 1965 and 1966 fitted with improvised 8-tube kits.

Edited February 4, 2010 by thatguy96

[rotorwash]

The OH-6A picture comes from the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association website. The citation is: "Image courtesy of Carl L King via Rich Hefferman (B 7/17 CE/OBS)" There's also a caption: "Here is a photo of one of my ship's OH-6 SN# 67915 (Phan Thiet summer of '68). It carries the only known 4 shot 2.75 rocket pod from Rock Island Arsenal and the M27 mini-gun. The pilot in the photo is Carl L King, RED 6 Scout Platoon Leader in 1968. There are 3 rockets visible in the pod. The system was quite accurate. And it was a shocker, I'm sure, for the NVA when we rolled in "hot" punching off rocket's and cranking that mini at them. If you look or zoom in on the photo you can see the engine door's are open which was SOP for OH6 cool down to prevent fuel control problems similar to vapor lock in a car."

I can't really tell because of the quality of the VHPA picture, but these systems look different to me. The one from the VHPA seems to show a rocket "pod" that appears to not attached to a pylon that is truly vertical, giving the arrangement a diamond appearance. The pylons in the picture you posted do appear to be truly vertical, giving the arrangement a square appearance. Both could easily be field modifications though. They both no doubt incorporated spare tubes from M158 series pods and the pylons in your pictures look like MA-4As liberated from XM156/M156 multi-armament mounts. This would not be at all odd, since the 1st Cavalry Division had OH-13S helicopters between 1965 and 1966 fitted with improvised 8-tube kits.

Joe,

Thanks, what i needed was the unit info. here's the official 7/17 page on that bird and, as you can see, is the source for my account of the rockets mainly being WP for marking targets. Of course, the info is only as good as the source I guess!

Ray

B troop 7/17 Cav OH-6A with rockets

[thatguy96]

I just wish there were some side shots to compare to the ones you posted. The ones on the 7-17th Cavalry page pictures show pods that also look rotated to me versus the ones you've posted. Fascinating.

[rotorwash]

I just wish there were some side shots to compare to the ones you posted. The ones on the 7-17th Cavalry page pictures show pods that also look rotated to me versus the ones you've posted. Fascinating.

Joe,

It is interesting but I fear I have led us down a rabbit trail far from US Army Flight test, so to get us back on the main thread topic here's a couple of new shots.

Ray

I hope I have the nomenclature right here. I have this bird as a YEH-60B. I believe this bird eventually carried a SOTAS antenna underneath. Is that correct?

here is an H-3 in United States Army markings from a set of test board prints I recently scanned.

Edited February 4, 2010 by rotorwash

[EDWMatt]

We got 3 of these EH's in the 101st, 4/17 th Cav while I was there and I was assigned 658. We put these on and took them off in the hangar and they only came out at night, I always flew with my aircraft and we went into hot gas at just before dusk and I had to go and confiscate film from someone "trying to not get caught" in the refuel shack. It had airspeed and other restrictions as well. We never used them on missions though, they just were a pain in the neck. The Sikorsky crew that came with them to show us us the system worked was a bunch of great guys though.

Super, Vic! I actually knew about you guys but wasn't sure I should pass on the info. That big fairing on the rotorhead was a real PITA from a maintenance and pre-flight standpoint, and tended to collect sand and debris.

When this aircraft was really sensitive, we had to do all our flying at night also. One of my buddies, in a show of bravado, managed to stuff the rotor into the trees (we were flying at Sikorsky at the time. It was just like that video on YouTube. "I don't think you're gonna make it." "No problem, I can make it" "I don't think you're gonna make it." "No, I can make it." CRUNCH "Oh S**T!"). He took quite a razzing for a long time (like a tree branch appearing in his office when we returned to Edwards)

Edited February 5, 2010 by EDWMatt