Help with that "special" Littlebird / Building the Seapray MD500

[11bee]

Thanks for all the good information, it's been very helpful.

On a somewhat related note, SEASPRAY (and it's other spin-offs) was supposed to be have been based at Ft Eustis, VA. Having some time to kill, I figured I'd have some fun with Google. There is lots of info online, your guess is as good as mine the validity of this stuff. There are many bits of info out there that suggest that a classified aviation unit still frequents Ft. Eustis. For S&G's I checked out the base using Google Earth.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fort+Eustis,+Newport+News,+VA+23604/@37.1331621,-76.6072382,1087m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b07bbdb8a5f05b:0x4c8d4b60501cce6

The airfield itself is surprisingly small and is located in a pretty isolated section of the base. One thing I noted was that there are three smaller helos in front of one of the hangers. Any ideas on what type they are would be appreciated. They don't appear to be H-6's, it's tough to tell but they look to be in civilian (or at least non-tactical) paint schemes.

One other thing I noted of interest is that if you follow "Mulberry Island Road" away from the airfield, you will go past some ammo bunkers and a couple of rifle ranges. Pretty much at the end of this road and far away from any other buildings on base, you will then see a walled compound, with some derelict helos inside. They include 2 Mi-8 Hips, a Hind, an AH-1 Cobra and some other types that I can't ID. The Hips and Hinds look to be in standard Russian camouflage. Looks like there is also a cockpit section from a larger aircraft nearby. This compound is adjacent to a pistol range. Just a bit interesting, especially for a base that is supposed to be training logistics troops and Blackhawk / Chinook mechanics.

Edited March 5, 2016 by 11bee

[Chief Snake]

Currently the link will not connect to the image. From memory, the late 80's and early 90's, the large hangar was the "spook" lodge. There was a chain link fence that ran from the sides of the building 100' out in front of it and then across the face of the building. The fence had a large two section gate which was usually locked and the whole thing was topped with razor wire. At the time I was in and out of there they usually had 3 NOTAR MD's on the ramp outside of the fence. They were painted in civil schemes, red/white, yellow/white and a metal flake gray. Anything that was to be mounted, wasn't, but the empty brackets were easily seen. When the hangar doors were open they usually were working on some aircraft and some others were pushed out into the fenced area. Lots of different stuff to include Russian made fixed wings. When we underwent NVG train up the instructors came from that unit and a unit at Fort Bragg.

I looked at google myself. The two helo's in front of the building are probably UH-72 Lakotas.

Chris M

Edited March 5, 2016 by Chief Snake

[11bee]

Currently the link will not connect to the image. From memory, the late 80's and early 90's, the large hangar was the "spook" lodge. There was a chain link fence that ran from the sides of the building 100' out in front of it and then across the face of the building. The fence had a large two section gate which was usually locked and the whole thing was topped with razor wire. At the time I was in and out of there they usually had 3 NOTAR MD's on the ramp outside of the fence. They were painted in civil schemes, red/white, yellow/white and a metal flake gray. Anything that was to be mounted, wasn't, but the empty brackets were easily seen. When the hangar doors were open they usually were working on some aircraft and some others were pushed out into the fenced area. Lots of different stuff to include Russian made fixed wings. When we underwent NVG train up the instructors came from that unit and a unit at Fort Bragg.

I looked at google myself. The two helo's in front of the building are probably UH-72 Lakotas.

Chris M

Hi Chris,

I just updated the link, it worked for me but maybe it won't work for others? Anyhoo, if one is interested, just go to Google Maps and enter Fort Eustis. The airfield is pretty apparent and if you zoom in, you can see those three helos in front of the "spook lodge" you mentioned above (which, when I view it in Bing - Birdseye, you can see a tall security fence surrounding the building).

I have no idea what they are, I'm just not up to speed on civilian helos. Maybe a Bell model or two?

Still curious about that other compound with the Russian helos inside. They are visible in the Bing Maps overhead viewer but when you go to "birdseye" view, the concrete pad is empty. No idea which image was taken first but that entire compound has some unusual buildings.

[rotorwash]

Hi Chris,

I just updated the link, it worked for me but maybe it won't work for others? Anyhoo, if one is interested, just go to Google Maps and enter Fort Eustis. The airfield is pretty apparent and if you zoom in, you can see those three helos in front of the "spook lodge" you mentioned above (which, when I view it in Bing - Birdseye, you can see a tall security fence surrounding the building).

I have no idea what they are, I'm just not up to speed on civilian helos. Maybe a Bell model or two?

Still curious about that other compound with the Russian helos inside. They are visible in the Bing Maps overhead viewer but when you go to "birdseye" view, the concrete pad is empty. No idea which image was taken first but that entire compound has some unusual buildings.

OK, John, I'm stepping outside my Huey comfort zone, but you have intrigued me. Below is a composite image showing UH-72s on the Flatiron pad at Cairn AAF at Rucker (they fly 60s now) on the left. The right hand image is you mystery helos and inset is a single Bell 407 on the pad at AirLife Denver. You guys make up your own mind, but I think the mystery birds are all Bell 407s. Just my 2 cents.

Ray

Edited March 5, 2016 by rotorwash

[Chief Snake]

Yeah, it working from the link now. You are looking at the wrong building. Look at the dark roofed building at the left of the ramp, near the Ch-47's. There are only TWO helicopters in front of it, look like UH-72's to me or even UH-60's, but what they are is actually irrelevant. That dark roofed hangar is right next to the airfield ops building (on the left side with the water tank behind it) which was where our company HQ was located.There appears to be a partial grass apron in the front of the big building. I don't remember that having been there. The buildings to the right, which are fragmented and have light color roofs, used to be repair hangars, supply shops and an inspection facility for aircraft accidents. The folks we had in my unit who were DAC's worked in those building during the week days.

Chris M

[Tgoetz]

OK, John, I'm stepping outside my Huey comfort zone, but you have intrigued me. Below is a composite image showing UH-72s on the Flatiron pad at Cairn AAF at Rucker (they fly 60s now) on the left. The right hand image is you mystery helos and inset is a single Bell 407 on the pad at AirLife Denver. You guys make up your own mind, but I think the mystery birds are all Bell 407s. Just my 2 cents.

Ray

I would agree with the 407 identification. If you zoom in just one more click you can see the shadow of the vertical tabs on the horizontal stabilizers.

[rotorwash]

Yeah, it working from the link now. You are looking at the wrong building. Look at the dark roofed building at the left of the ramp, near the Ch-47's. There are only TWO helicopters in front of it, look like UH-72's to me or even UH-60's, but what they are is actually irrelevant. That dark roofed hangar is right next to the airfield ops building (on the left side with the water tank behind it) which was where our company HQ was located.There appears to be a partial grass apron in the front of the big building. I don't remember that having been there. The buildings to the right, which are fragmented and have light color roofs, used to be repair hangars, supply shops and an inspection facility for aircraft accidents. The folks we had in my unit who were DAC's worked in those building during the week days.

Chris M

Chris,

You are gonna have to help me out. I have looked at this for a while and I can't see two other small helos. I count 11.5 CH-47s (one is only half visible for some reason) and the three small ones I posted before. I see te water tank and the buildings, but I just don't see the two helos. What am I missing?

Ray

[Chief Snake]

They don't show in your picture. The link John provides and me going straight through google shows 2 helos parked on the two right pads in front of the building. Your photo shows a single CH-47 on the extreme left pad. I cannot account for the differences but THAT building was the spook hangar.

Chris M

[rotorwash]

They don't show in your picture. The link John provides and me going straight through google shows 2 helos parked on the two right pads in front of the building. Your photo shows a single CH-47 on the extreme left pad. I cannot account for the differences but THAT building was the spook hangar.

Chris M

Now that's weird, Chris. I used John's link as well and captured the pic from the map it took me to.

Ray

[Chief Snake]

Take weird a step further. If I use Bing maps aerial view photo in Internet Explorer, there are NO helicopters in front of that building. There must be variations of what you see depending on the browser and mapping system you use.

Chris M

[rotorwash]

Take weird a step further. If I use Bing maps aerial view photo in Internet Explorer, there are NO helicopters in front of that building. There must be variations of what you see depending on the browser and mapping system you use.

Chris M

Well. if at first you don't succeed, try try again. So I used my phone to look up google maps and lo and behold here are your birds, Chris. They look to be UH-60's to me. The distinctive shape of the rotor tips and the stabilators on the tail would seem to confirm that. Anyway, others can chime in now. I think all the data is here.

Ray

[11bee]

Take weird a step further. If I use Bing maps aerial view photo in Internet Explorer, there are NO helicopters in front of that building. There must be variations of what you see depending on the browser and mapping system you use.

Chris M

There most definitely is a difference in the images from Google vrs Bing. They each use different imagery taken at different times. Often the zoomed in imagery is different from what they use for the panned out shots. The birds-eye (angled) shots are often taken at different times as well. I see this with pics of my own house. One shot is in the fall, another in the summer (I can see my hammock in the back yard!). On Google, one of my cars is in the driveway, on Bing, it's empty.

With regard to Eustis, I guess I got the building wrong. That being said, in the Bing birds-eye view, you can clearly make out a pretty tall security fence around the white hanger complex that is in front of those three helos. Somewhat unusual for a hanger on a secure military base....

On subject of those helos being Bell 407's, some of the online stuff you come across about this unit states that they operate more than just H-6 variants, they mention Bell products, Sikorsky commercial helos some European types, etc. They also are supposed to have flown a wide range of fixed wing types. In some of the map shots, I've seen various King Air variants as well as a CASA-212 (or it's military variant) on the ramps.

Anyone checked out those Russian helos yet?

[Sky Dancer]

Folks,

I probably going to get kicked off for numerous copyright infringements, but I feel the need just to clarify who is seeing what!!!!!

When I tried 11Bee's link, this is what was visible to me -

To me, these look like VH-60's from the 12th Aviation battalion. They look "broader" than normal, but could be carrying tanks:-

I would welcome further comment.

As to why we are all seeing different helo's, or no helo's at all, on the same or different websites, I do not know!!

Just remember that these are all "Black" helo's. As soon as I finish typing I am getting my tin foil hat on (do you guys call them aluminium hats in the U.S.?))

All the best,

Michael.

[Chief Snake]

The paint scheme matches as well as the outline. A UH-60 type aircraft for sure, probably a UH-60M variant.That unit used to be and may well still be at Fort Belvoir too. The insignia on the side is MDW, Military District of Washington. Or at least it was....- A detachment perhaps? That building used to house the spook aircraft. But much of what we are talking about wasn't there when I was there. New buildings are up, fences are gone and new ones are in different places.Some of the ramp space is new too. It has eveolved since then.

Chris M

[Sky Dancer]

Folks,

One of the other helo's on the other apron looks like a "Hip".

The blunt nose suggests a Mi-17.

Will have another look at the three smaller ones again.

Michael.

[Loach Driver]

The small four-blade helos look like Bell 407s to me. It would be my guess that Seaspray/Echo Squadron have replaced their MD530Fs with the 407 in the "Little Bird" role. The FBI HRT did the same some years ago and I'd guess they took their lead from Echo Squadron. It is interesting to hear that civilian-marked NOTARs were also used in the past.

LD.

[11bee]

The small four-blade helos look like Bell 407s to me. It would be my guess that Seaspray/Echo Squadron have replaced their MD530Fs with the 407 in the "Little Bird" role. The FBI HRT did the same some years ago and I'd guess they took their lead from Echo Squadron.

LD.

Suprised to hear that. What advantage would the 407 have of the MD530? I thought the MD had more power / maneuverability and was considered a better all-around helo. If the Army "spooks" have ditched the MD, I wonder if it's only a matter of time before the 160th does the same?

[Loach Driver]

Hi John. As I said, it was only a guess on my part. It could be that Echo are running the 407 and the 530F or some version of it. Maybe Echo have full-blown MELBs that are kept hidden away and the 407s are left out for everyone to see and are used in low-priority ops. Given the kind of ops that Echo are involved in, one would think they would have access to high-end equipment including their own small fleet of MELBs. What aircraft Echo actually have is a mystery, though. They appear to have 407s and Mi-17s but what other types they have, who knows.

The 407 is not a bad aircraft but it isn't a Little Bird. The 407 is very powerful, quick, manoeuvrable and has a little more room in the back. I would guess that it is also slightly noisier than a 530F when it is being flown at high speed. You will hear it from 3 miles out! It just doesn't have the robust construction of the 500 series. The 500 was designed as a military-spec aircraft from day one while the 407 is derived from the Long Ranger which is derived from the Bell 206 which is derived from the OH-4A which got its butt kicked by the OH-6A back in the LOH competition in the early-sixties! The story of the battle between the OH-6 and the OH-58 in LOH (1), LOH(2), AHIP and ARH is an interesting one! The Army at unit level wanted the OH-6 for AHIP but the Army Leaders and politicians made sure Bell won each time. The AHIP specs were actually written up to favour the OH-6 because the units wanted the OH-6 back as their scout ship but Bell still won. I am not sure what the story was with the ARH competition as regards the best aircraft on offer. The OH-58D was not a bad aircraft but it was ultimately based on a civilian aircraft design and was something of a compromise. I am slightly biased though! :D

As for the demise of the MELB, I wouldn't worry. The Block III MELB upgrade is coming and that should see the Little Bird in service until 2030 perhaps. I reckon they will replace the MELB with a new Little Bird too . The AH-6S Phoenix would be a perfect candidate for a future Little Bird while MDHI have recently announced a new single-engine military helicopter borrowing heavily from the 500 series, dubbed the MD6XX, which might also be in the running as an MELB replacement. Only time will tell.

LD.

[11bee]

Good info LD.

Could be that in some parts of the world, maybe MD products are somewhat uncommon and would attract more attention than a 407 or a European helo?

With regard to the original LOH competition, I did read that pilots and crews in Vietnam referred to the Bell product as the "OH-5.8" because it just didn't measure up to the OH-6 it was replacing. I'm sure many of those scout crews were pretty upset to have to hand in their OH-6's for OH-58's.

By the way, on the subject of "civilian" special missions aircraft, an interesting King Air made an emergency landing today in northern Iraq. Quickly surrounded by US forces.

Edited March 6, 2016 by 11bee

[rotorwash]

I am a Bell guy all the way, but LD is right, the OH-58A was a horrible choice. My understanding of the LOH competition is a bit different though. I thought pilots actually preferred the LOH-5 (HIller FH-1100) in this first LOH competition, but Hughes underbid the OH-6 so much they got the contract. Once the Army got the OH-6 and loved it, Hughes upped the price to the point that the Army opened a new LOH competition. Hiller bowed out of the second competition since it felt the LOH-5 had been passed over unfairly in the first competition. Of course the OH-6 wasn't going to win the second competition and with the Army already in bed with Bell, the OH-58 got the nod. One of the dumbest decisions in the long sad history of Army Aviation procurement, IMHO.

Ray

[Loach Driver]

It was strange that two helicopters went into the final of the LOH contest and that it came down to a closed envelope bid. Mr. Hughes used his government contacts, got a look inside the Hiller envelope and under-bid them for the contract. While this was underhand, the Army did get a great aircraft in the OH-6. If Hughes had been able to get over their initial production problems, the OH-6 would have been a legendary aircraft in Army service and would probably still be in service today as the OH-6D*.

We are giving the OH-58A/B206 a hard time but comparing an OH-58 with an OH-6 is comparing apples with oranges. They are just two completely different design philosophies. The 206 was designed from the start as a civilian heli and was 1000lbs heavier than the OH-6 with the same engine fitted! That alone means the OH-58 was always going to lag behind the Loach in terms of performance. The 206/OH-58 rotor mast is bolted onto a shock-absorbing base and rocks back and forth when you pull on it during pre-flight. It has been described as giving a "sloppy" feel to the cyclic whereas the OH-6 is instantly responsive. The story of the OH-6 in Army service is really a case of "what-might-have-been"! It never fulfilled its huge potential.

LD.

*I would love to build a speculative what-if build of how the OH-6D might look if it was in service today.

[11bee]

Just curious about the instrument panel on 11 Uniform. It seems like the consensus is that this helo has the older style

t-shaped panel. Staring at the picture, it does seem to be the case. Curious if anyone has thoughts on where the FLIR display screens would be mounted? On the later Littlebirds with the vertical IP, the screens are installed on either side of the instrument column.

With the t-panel, would there be enough room for the displays to be mounted outboard of the IP? Or any chance that this helo actually has the vertical panel and the part of the IP in the pic that can be made out with the glareshield might actually be the FLIR display? Anyone know if any 160th Littlebird variants had a t-panel and FLIR installed?

I know this is pure speculation but any educated guesses are appreciated. I'm trying to do some rough layouts of the interior.

Speaking of which, did civilian MD530's have the military style mesh seats? It looks like this helo has them but I can't be sure.

Regards,

John

[Loach Driver]

It is difficult to tell from the photo which type of panel 11U is fitted with. It does look like there is a shroud around the edge of the panel which seems to indicate that it is a T-Panel. However, this ship was built as a D-model which came with the narrower column panel, which the 160th retained and simply modified the layout of the instruments within the panel for their Little Birds. They also added a panel at the base of the original instrument panel that extended back to the seats base. My guess is that this has a similar panel layout to the AH-6Gs that flew in Mogadishu. There are a few photos in the AH-6C thread of the rear of the panel with FLIR monitors fitted on both sides.

The T-Panel can be fitted with a FLIR monitor but if two are fitted, they will extend the instrument panel from one door frame to the other! Police OH-6As often have FLIR monitors fitted to the T-Panel but it is usually only on one side. I'd go with the narrow panel and fit the two FLIR monitors, similar to the 160th FLIR ships. It is likely that the 160th maintenance guys did most of the conversion work on 11U too. At least that would be my guess. Ultimately, no-one can really argue you are wrong, whichever panel you choose until we get better photos of this helicopter.

LD.

[11bee]

It is difficult to tell from the photo which type of panel 11U is fitted with. It does look like there is a shroud around the edge of the panel which seems to indicate that it is a T-Panel. However, this ship was built as a D-model which came with the narrower column panel, which the 160th retained and simply modified the layout of the instruments within the panel for their Little Birds. They also added a panel at the base of the original instrument panel that extended back to the seats base. My guess is that this has a similar panel layout to the AH-6Gs that flew in Mogadishu. There are a few photos in the AH-6C thread of the rear of the panel with FLIR monitors fitted on both sides.

The T-Panel can be fitted with a FLIR monitor but if two are fitted, they will extend the instrument panel from one door frame to the other! Police OH-6As often have FLIR monitors fitted to the T-Panel but it is usually only on one side. I'd go with the narrow panel and fit the two FLIR monitors, similar to the 160th FLIR ships. It is likely that the 160th maintenance guys did most of the conversion work on 11U too. At least that would be my guess. Ultimately, no-one can really argue you are wrong, whichever panel you choose until we get better photos of this helicopter.

LD.

Thanks for the info LD. Kinda leaning towards the t-panel. If I squint hard enough, it looks like you can barely discern the overhand of a t-panel.

I also saw a pic somewhere or other of a civilian OH-6A that had a FLIR screen mounted on the pilot's side of the panel, so I'll probably go that route. As an added plus, this will allow me to use the really nice Eduard PE instrument panel. It really adds a nice touch to the kit part.

This will be pretty close to what I plan on using for 11U's panel. I'll still be adding the display for the APR-39 on top of the glareshield, similar to the setup on the AH-6C.

[FM-Whip]

It is difficult to tell from the photo which type of panel 11U is fitted with. It does look like there is a shroud around the edge of the panel which seems to indicate that it is a T-Panel. However, this ship was built as a D-model which came with the narrower column panel, which the 160th retained and simply modified the layout of the instruments within the panel for their Little Birds. They also added a panel at the base of the original instrument panel that extended back to the seats base. My guess is that this has a similar panel layout to the AH-6Gs that flew in Mogadishu. There are a few photos in the AH-6C thread of the rear of the panel with FLIR monitors fitted on both sides.

The T-Panel can be fitted with a FLIR monitor but if two are fitted, they will extend the instrument panel from one door frame to the other! Police OH-6As often have FLIR monitors fitted to the T-Panel but it is usually only on one side. I'd go with the narrow panel and fit the two FLIR monitors, similar to the 160th FLIR ships. It is likely that the 160th maintenance guys did most of the conversion work on 11U too. At least that would be my guess. Ultimately, no-one can really argue you are wrong, whichever panel you choose until we get better photos of this helicopter.

LD.

Here's a photo I took of a Navy TH-6B with two MFDs. This was taken at an airshow at Pax River in August 1993. As you say, the pit is full from one side to the other. Also of interest is the modified coaming. I was told that this was not a Navy mod - that the aircraft had come to the Navy from the Army like this. Marked as 696044, NTPS #43. There was no evidence of a previous FLIR mount, etc.

John Hairell

tpn18@yahoo.com