Jump to content

Some Pics from Army Flight Test...


Recommended Posts

I don't believe it's either one. Here's why. Ray's filename for the pic contains "DARCOM 78". I assume that's from information printed on the picture or slide and the "78" probably means 1978 (correct me if I'm way off base here, Ray). Also, Army Material Command (AMC) was called DARCOM between 1976 and 1980, so that would fit the 1978 timeframe.

The first (and to my knowledge, only) Army Huey to receive a -703 was JUH-1H 69-15532 in 1985. There were no external changes to 532 to denote the 703 installation. 15532 was also the first Army Huey to receive a T800 installation, in 1994. I posted a pic of it at the beginning of this thread. There were no external changes due to the T800 either, although the tailpipe was slightly smaller in diameter. There were 4 other Army T800 Hueys, all of which were transferred to the Border Patrol to get operational experience with the T800 prior to Comanche. Neither fits a 1978 timeframe.

Not all 703 Hueys receive tractor tail rotors. 532 retained the pusher tail rotor, which led to a loss-of-tail-rotor-effectiveness accident at Coyote Flats, CA (elevation 11,000 ft) during flight testing. Also, South Coast Helicopters currently operates a 703 powered UH-1H with a pusher tail rotor.

So, the mystery continues... Now that I have a "guesstimate" on the year, I'll dig into my report biblio and see if anything jumps out.

BTW, here's what 532 looked like before the Border Patrol paint job...

Photo10.jpg

The Arctic paint job on Huey's freakin rock!!!!!!!!

Brock

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arctic paint job on Huey's freakin rock!!!!!!!!

Brock

Wow, Brock likes the arctic scheme so much he posted it twice! OK, lets go back a bit. Here's Bearcat 4, the first UH-1C in July of 66 at Yuma Proving Ground. I had previously hypothesized that the particle separator began to replace the bell mouth intake about mid 66 or early 67 from looking a a gagillion Vietnam pics but never had any definitive evidence. The test info for this set of pics says it they are testing the particle separator and you can see that it is a different color from the rest of the helo. It's always nice to confirm a hypothesis and it is also nice to see what is almost certainly the first install of this mod. I just wish these were color. By the way, while the mounting is there for both the XM6 quad M60C setup and the M5 40 Mike Mike, both the guns and grenade launcher are absent.

Ray

UH-1C%2064-14101%20particle%20separator%20Yuma%20July%2025%201966-3%20small.jpg

UH-1C%2064-14101%20particle%20separator%20Yuma%20July%2020%201966-close.jpg

Edited by rotorwash
Link to post
Share on other sites
Photo37.jpg

OH-58D(I), s/n 89-0308, Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG), 1991. This was initial testing of the Improved (armed) configuration of the OH-58D. This aircraft was instrumented and operated by Bell, having come right off the production line at Amarillo. There was a second 58D(I) used for the evaluation (s/n 88-0083), also with a “patchwork†paint scheme, although it had more CARC green and less chromate.

Most of these are my personal photos, so please contact me before posting them anywhere else.

Hi Matt

Could I also trouble you for some more pics of that OH-58D(I) as above? I also feel a modelling project coming on :mellow:

I'm curious as to the shade of brown on the front section of the dog box (?). Would that be due to the material it's made of?

Thanks

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, while the mounting is there for both the XM6 quad M60C setup and the M5 40 Mike Mike, both the guns and grenade launcher are absent.

Ray, it actually appears to be the XM16, not the M6. You can make out the rack and support assembly in the first picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray, it actually appears to be the XM16, not the M6. You can make out the rack and support assembly in the first picture.

Joe,

I saw the rocket mounts but figured if I said XM16 you would say there was no rocket pod! I guess it's still the M16 (surely it was type classified standard B by this time) if the rocket pod attachments are there.

Here's another one for Matt. What the heck is on the Cobra's nose?!

Ray

AH-1%20misc%20test%20pics%200057%20small.jpg

Edited by rotorwash
Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe,

I saw the rocket mounts but figured if I said XM16 you would say there was no rocket pod! I guess it's still the M16 (surely it was type classified standard B by this time) if the rocket pod attachments are there.

I would hope I wouldn't have given you too much of a hard time hehe. The M60Cs (as you mentioned) and the flexible feed chutes are also missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I flew with Doug Dowd, who may have been the Army's first astronaut or at least one of them, at the Test Board and introduced him to real aerobatics in a dual-control OV-1C. He was killed in a mast bumping incident at Pax. See:

http://www.flyarmy.org/DAT/datD/G60689.HTM

Wow, how unfortunate.

My friend Larry Higgins was also involved in a mast-bumping accident while he was an IP at Pax. It was also in a Cobra (an S-model). They were doing static lateral-directional stability training, which is usually benign. It appears the student was too aggressive on his recovery from the sideslip and got into a low-G condition and a mast-bumping incident. One blade came through the forward cockpit (where the student was seated) and cut the nose off the aircraft. Larry was thrown out of the aft cockpit and was able to use his 'chute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks to all for a wonderful topic. I've been lurking for a while, but do have something to contribute. Edwards AFB Open House, 5 November 1985.

nIMG1773c.jpg

nIMG1775c.jpg

Thanks for posting those! 532 had the -703 engine installed then. I believe I was flying the SIRS program on 532 at that time. SIRS was a structural loads program to re-assess the component and structural life of the Huey

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe,

I saw the rocket mounts but figured if I said XM16 you would say there was no rocket pod! I guess it's still the M16 (surely it was type classified standard B by this time) if the rocket pod attachments are there.

Here's another one for Matt. What the heck is on the Cobra's nose?!

Ray

AH-1%20misc%20test%20pics%200057%20small.jpg

I think it's a pilot vision system. I'll have to research it a bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost looks Comanche-ish...

It is a bit odd. Cars in the parking lot make me think it was an optic system for a possible Cobra replacement, being tested. Doesn't look like the Apache's PNVS though, maybe an early version of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe,

I saw the rocket mounts but figured if I said XM16 you would say there was no rocket pod! I guess it's still the M16 (surely it was type classified standard B by this time) if the rocket pod attachments are there.

Here's another one for Matt. What the heck is on the Cobra's nose?!

Ray

AH-1%20misc%20test%20pics%200057%20small.jpg

Okay, here's the answer. I figured this might be a Cobra Surrogate Trainer, but the sensor installation didn't look right (compare with the picture of NASA 736 earlier in the thread).

Turns out my earlier supposition that this is a pilot vision system is correct, and this is a Cobra Surrogate Trainer. However, this is the Northrop PNVS, the loser of the Apache PNVS competition. The Northrop system actually retracted when not in use. There was a Surrogate Trainer fly-off conducted between the two systems (Martin Marietta and Northrop) in 1978.

Edited by EDWMatt
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, here's the answer. I figured this might be a Cobra Surrogate Trainer, but the sensor installation didn't look right (compare with the picture of NASA 736 earlier in the thread).

Turns out my earlier supposition that this is a pilot vision system is correct, and this is a Cobra Surrogate Trainer. However, this is the Northrop PNVS, the loser of the Apache PNVS competition. The Northrop system actually retracted when not in use. There was a Surrogate Trainer fly-off conducted between the two systems (Martin Marietta and Northrop) in 1978.

Matt,

Thanks. I wondered if it was retractable because of these pics. I ASSUME this is the same bird with the system retracted. I called this one an AH-1S (ECAS) as you can see where the gun should be. You can see the pilot station has been blacked out. When I saw this it reminded me of "the bag" from Firebirds (yes, unfortunately I have watched it). I guess that is pretty much exactly what it is. Below it is what I also assume is the other PNVS that was eventually adopted. Thanks for the info as always.

Ray

AH-1E%20question-3%20small.jpg

AH-1E%20question-2%20small.jpg

I was wondering if this one was either a Q or an S (MOD) before this mod:

AATB0108%20small.jpg

AATB0120%20small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt,

Thanks. I wondered if it was retractable because of these pics. I ASSUME this is the same bird with the system retracted. I called this one an AH-1S (ECAS) as you can see where the gun should be. You can see the pilot station has been blacked out. When I saw this it reminded me of "the bag" from Firebirds (yes, unfortunately I have watched it). I guess that is pretty much exactly what it is. Below it is what I also assume is the other PNVS that was eventually adopted. Thanks for the info as always.

Ray

AH-1E%20question-3%20small.jpg

AH-1E%20question-2%20small.jpg

I was wondering if this one was either a Q or an S (MOD) before this mod:

AATB0108%20small.jpg

AATB0120%20small.jpg

IMHO, it's a Mod S. Canopy Removal System (CRS) visible in the second photo of Copilots door, and the t/r is on the r/h side. I don't know if the few Q's had tractor t/r's. Also looks like a fake turret just for weight and balance.

GT

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, it's a Mod S. Canopy Removal System (CRS) visible in the second photo of Copilots door, and the t/r is on the r/h side. I don't know if the few Q's had tractor t/r's. Also looks like a fake turret just for weight and balance.

GT

Good eye, GT.

That's the Surrogate Trainer with the Martin Marietta PNVS at Edwards, which was a Mod S, as were the "production" JAH-1S/TH-1S Surrogate Trainers. I suspect the turret is functional, but the PNVS sensor itself is a dummy, just for aerodynamic purposes. Also note the blister on the transmission door for the bigger alternator from the S(MC).

Best I can tell, the Northrop PNVS bird's an ECAS. Can't read the serial clearly, but it looks like it could be from the ECAS block.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good eye, GT.

That's the Surrogate Trainer with the Martin Marietta PNVS at Edwards, which was a Mod S, as were the "production" JAH-1S/TH-1S Surrogate Trainers. I suspect the turret is functional, but the PNVS sensor itself is a dummy, just for aerodynamic purposes. Also note the blister on the transmission door for the bigger alternator from the S(MC).

Best I can tell, the Northrop PNVS bird's an ECAS. Can't read the serial clearly, but it looks like it could be from the ECAS block.

Matt,

The Northrop pic would seem to have to be an ECAS as it has the mods for the 20mm under the chin but none of the AH-1F mods that I can see. Good to know about the blister on the transmission door.

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
Helo%20history%20pics0088%20small.jpg

My contact had a look at the photo and reckons the following might be the case:

The airframe appears to be 65-12917 which went on to be the NOTAR prototype. It remained with Hughes for its entire life, even though it was paid for by the Army. He can't identify the location from the background but at a guess, believes it is possibly the Yuma Proving Grounds. The two white flight helmets hanging in the cockpit are of a type issued to Hughes test pilots so that indicates that this is a test programme being run by Hughes or at least Hughes test pilots are doing the flying. The date could be around 1968 as Hughes were finishing up development work on the TOW system around that time. It appears that this trial is concerned with testing the effects of missile launch on the OH-6 in flight. Its possible that the missile is equipped with a rocket motor that has a shorter burn than a standard missile. It is also possible that the missile used lacks any form of guidance as the OH-6A doesn't appear to be fitted with any kind of sight.

I hope this helps. Thanks.

LD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HU-1A, Edwards AFB, 1962.

nIMG1777.jpg

Cool! A UH-1A (as you say HU-1A in 1962) with M22 missile system. It used French SS-11 missiles. The ones in the photo are practice missiles. There were actually at least two separate pylon systems used for the M22. I think that is the older type, but I can't tell for sure. Thanks for posting that one. I love the old high vis trainer scheme.

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
HU-1A, Edwards AFB, 1962.

nIMG1777.jpg

Great shot! Interesting thing about the M22, it was still around in the '80's- if you check the Hind Surrogate pic earlier in the post, you'll note those are M22 launchers they used for the "stub wings"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great shot! Interesting thing about the M22, it was still around in the '80's- if you check the Hind Surrogate pic earlier in the post, you'll note those are M22 launchers they used for the "stub wings"

Well since you and Grandad brought it up. Here's a UH-1M with the M22 system from the Wayne Mutza collection I am digitizing. This particular photo is UH-1M 64-14123 WI NG via Terry Love. Once again with training missiles I know it's not flight test, but hey it fits the conversation, right?

Ray

UH-1M%2064-14123%20WI%20NG%20Terry%20Love.jpg

Here's a few more of the M-22 system from the Army Aviation Digest files at Ft. Rucker. As you can see one of these birds is a Test Board aircraft.......so we're back on track! I have many more of the M22 system if anyone else wants pics.

M-22-4.jpg

accompanying caption:

M-22-5.jpg

More practice missiles I suspect:

M-22-1.jpg

These look to have yellow tips meaning a live missile:

M-22-2.jpg

M-22-3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great shot! Interesting thing about the M22, it was still around in the '80's- if you check the Hind Surrogate pic earlier in the post, you'll note those are M22 launchers they used for the "stub wings"

The usage of the M22 on the JUH-1H VISMODs is one of the reasons why the M22 technical manuals are still active, while none of the other UH-1 armament systems are. What's also interesting is that they use a combination of the M22 and the M156 so that they can mount the M80 MILES pod originally designed for the AH-1.

Ray, the third and fifth photos you posted (not counting the caption to the second) are not of M22s. They are of whatever came first, before the XM22 system was developed using the Bell Universal Stores Mount. The TACOM webpage refers to these are XM11s, but other sources say that the XM11 designation was never used. I have taken to calling them XM11s for lack of anything more descriptive.

There's also this picture you sent me of a helicopter from C/3-17th Cavalry, which shows a modified M22 with the outermost rail replaced with one for launching the SS.10/MGM-21 missile. I have no more information on this configuration.

8853.jpg

Edited by thatguy96
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray, the third and fifth photos you posted (not counting the caption to the second) are not of M22s. They are of whatever came first, before the XM22 system was developed using the Bell Universal Stores Mount. The TACOM webpage refers to these are XM11s, but other sources say that the XM11 designation was never used. I have taken to calling them XM11s for lack of anything more descriptive.

Joe,

I'm definitely not as adept with these weapon system designations as you are, but I believe all the systems I posted are M22 systems based on this evidence from the November 1971 Army Aviation Digest Griminger piece. First off let's consider the definition he gives for the XM11:

XM-11.jpg

Now here's the info on the M22 system:

M-22%20small.jpg

Here is what I believe happened with this particular system. Now mind you, I could be very wrong. I think when the missiles were still designated SS-11's the experimental XM11 system designation was assigned. However, after the SS-11 was redesignated the AGM-22B in Army service, any system with an AGM-22 launcher was referred to as an M22 system. At least that jives with the evidence you can see above and would include the older system designed before the M156 universal mount as well as the "Maxwell" system which combined the M22/M3 systems. It is curious to me, however, that NEITHER system is listed as being for the UH-1A even though it was clearly installed on many Alphas (perhaps this was because the Alpha was obsolete by 71). As you can see the system was type classified in July of 64 which is well ahead of the M21 gun system so it would seem the M22 wasn't named sequentially but based on it's primary component the AGM-22 missile. At least, that's my story till you come up with something obvious I have probably missed!

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...