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

[11bee]

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

Great picture, thank you John. Wonder why they kept those displays if there was no FLIR mounted? Regardless, unless I come across something else, I'll use that pic as the basis for the IP. I was just going to install the display on the pilot's side but I think I'll go with a dual display after all.

Also, is it me or does the panel itself look wider? Seems like there is some additional, unused real estate on the left side. You wouldn't happen to have a pic of the backside of those MFD's would you (or any other cockpit shots)?

Thanks again for posting, hope you don't get in trouble with the ARC OPSEC enforcer.

[FM-Whip]

Great picture, thank you John. Wonder why they kept those displays if there was no FLIR mounted? Regardless, unless I come across something else, I'll use that pic as the basis for the IP. I was just going to install the display on the pilot's side but I think I'll go with a dual display after all.

Also, is it me or does the panel itself look wider? Seems like there is some additional, unused real estate on the left side. You wouldn't happen to have a pic of the backside of those MFD's would you (or any other cockpit shots)?

Thanks again for posting, hope you don't get in trouble with the ARC OPSEC enforcer.

I don't have any more photos of the cockpit or anything showing the back of the MFDs. Although in the photo the panel looks wider than normal, it wasn't. This was the only TH-6B with this kind of setup. There were several Navy pilots from the NTPS rotary wing section at the show and it turned out although they flew the TH-6Bs they actually knew very little about them or their history. They knew OH-6s had been used in Vietnam but not how, for example. They didn't know they could be armed - I showed them the small door blank where the minigun was mounted. After that I was an instant "expert" and had an audience of several pilots asking me about their aircraft. Kind of funny, and weird. At that time the TH-6Bs were painted gloss gray before they got their later spiffy white/red paint schemes and the taller skids. At the time when I saw them they were pretty much Army standard inside except I think they had been fitted with different radios/antennas and a civilian engine.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[Loach Driver]

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

The USNTPS TH-6Bs are interesting ships. They are a mix of four converted OH-6As and 2 x OH-6A (OVL). The OH-6A (OVL) is probably more commonly known as the "OH-6B" or "OH-6B Super Cayuse". Neither name is correct for the OH-6A (OVL) but they were commonly used in a number of aviation publications and the name has stuck.

The OH-6A (OVL) was a planned 1988/89 National Guard upgrade of the OH-6A which the NG hoped would see the Loach kitted out to the latest standard to allow it participate in the RAID counter-narcotics mission. The OH-6A (OVL) was the highest-spec version of the OH-6A flown by the Guard. It was upgraded with the 250 C-20C engine, Blackhole exhaust, NVG cockpit, FLIR, CARC and additional radios. They were unarmed. As far as I can tell only two airframes were converted by the AVCRAD with assistance from MDHC. The two airframes converted were 65-12967 and 69-16041. The FLIR monitor was mounted on the left side of the console only. Even though the OH-6A (OVL) was a successful upgrade and flew RAID missions with success, the old OH-6 versus OH-58 political tug of war within the Army ensured the OH-6A fleet upgrade never got the go-ahead and the first two machines were the only ones converted. The two OH-6A (OVL) ships were turned over to the Navy and another four were upgraded with the C-20C engine and other improvements though they weren't full OH-6A (OVL)-spec machines. From photos I've seen of the TH-6B instrument panel, additional instrumentation was incorporated into the wider panel. I'd guess the additional instrumentation was to help fly the precise flight profiles necessary in real-world test flying. I'd imagine AVCRAD made the new instrument panels and fitted them out to the required Navy spec that would have been dictated by the USNTPS. The only other OH-6 panel that looks similar to the TH-6B panel is that fitted to the AH-6C. A few old black and white photos were posted in the AH-6C thread of the AH-6C panel and the shape of the coamimg looks similar although the actual gauge layout is different.

It is difficult to say what the MFDs are in the photo. Maybe they are some kind of instrument display for the test flight role. 69-16044 was not a FLIR-capable TH-6B as far as I know and I've never seen a TH-6B flying with a FLIR fitted. I hope this doesn't confuse things further.

LD.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Loach Driver

[FM-Whip]

The USNTPS TH-6Bs are interesting ships. They are a mix of four converted OH-6As and 2 x OH-6A (OVL). The OH-6A (OVL) is probably more commonly known as the "OH-6B" or "OH-6B Super Cayuse". Neither name is correct for the OH-6A (OVL) but they were commonly used in a number of aviation publications and the name has stuck.

The OH-6A (OVL) was a planned 1988/89 National Guard upgrade of the OH-6A which the NG hoped would see the Loach kitted out to the latest standard to allow it participate in the RAID counter-narcotics mission. The OH-6A (OVL) was the highest-spec version of the OH-6A flown by the Guard. It was upgraded with the 250 C-20C engine, Blackhole exhaust, NVG cockpit, FLIR, CARC and additional radios. They were unarmed. As far as I can tell only two airframes were converted by the AVCRAD with assistance from MDHC. The two airframes converted were 65-12967 and 69-16041. The FLIR monitor was mounted on the left side of the console only. Even though the OH-6A (OVL) was a successful upgrade and flew RAID missions with success, the old OH-6 versus OH-58 political tug of war within the Army ensured the OH-6A fleet upgrade never got the go-ahead and the first two machines were the only ones converted. The two OH-6A (OVL) ships were turned over to the Navy and another four were upgraded with the C-20C engine and other improvements though they weren't full OH-6A (OVL)-spec machines. From photos I've seen of the TH-6B instrument panel, additional instrumentation was incorporated into the wider panel. I'd guess the additional instrumentation was to help fly the precise flight profiles necessary in real-world test flying. I'd imagine AVCRAD made the new instrument panels and fitted them out to the required Navy spec that would have been dictated by the USNTPS. The only other OH-6 panel that looks similar to the TH-6B panel is that fitted to the AH-6C. A few old black and white photos were posted in the AH-6C thread of the AH-6C panel and the shape of the coamimg looks similar although the actual gauge layout is different.

It is difficult to say what the MFDs are in the photo. Maybe they are some kind of instrument display for the test flight role. 69-16044 was not a FLIR-capable TH-6B as far as I know and I've never seen a TH-6B flying with a FLIR fitted. I hope this doesn't confuse things further.

LD.

Liam,

I saw one of the upgraded "OH-6B"s at Weide AAF in 1990 and was told at the time that 6 airframes had been so modified in Biloxi, which matches your info above. The one at Weide had the Blackhole exhausts, upgraded radios, CARC paint, and the NVG mods, the panel was modified, but it had no FLIR, no FLIR mount, and no MFD or MFD mounting. The data tag on it said OH-6A like normal. I don't know about the engine. I was told there were also some internal wiring differences, and the cyclic and collective stick heads were somewhat modified. Externally it looked exactly the same as a standard OH-6A except for the side exhausts and the tail cone which blocked off the normal exhaust. The cone was held on by two diagonal tubes in what looked like a flimsy arrangement. The aircraft also had "civilian" front doors, i.e. they did not have the horizontal bracing found in the original OH-6As. It also had the full wire strike kit with the nose bracing, the spotlight box under the right front, RWR mounts on the front frame members and the rear of the doghouse (but no antennas), and a dual 52-inch FM whip antenna set under the tailboom in an upside-down V arrangement. The Pitot tube was the heavier spike type instead of the original thin bent reed type. There was no lifting eye on the rotor head. I'm looking at a photo but the angle is such that I can't see the serial. I will have to dig out my old notes to see if I can ID this specific airframe.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Edited April 5, 2016 by FM-Whip

[Loach Driver]

Hi John. That ship you have described sounds like an OH-6A (OVL). There is some speculation over how many exactly were converted. I managed to contact one of the pilots who was involved in the project and as far as he was aware, only two were converted. If you have photos of the machine you saw at Weide, I'd love to see them.

Apologies for the thread hijack.

LD.

Edit; I also noticed today that some of the OH-6As upgraded for DEA use had a bigger instrument console fitted to include IFR instrumentation. It looks similar in shape to the TH-6B console. Maybe the AVCRAD guys had a standard-sized "big" panel for any upgraded versions of the OH-6A. It looks like the AH-6C, OH-6A (OVL), TH-6B and DEA OH-6As might all have been fitted with the larger modified instrument panel.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Loach Driver

[FM-Whip]

Hi John. That ship you have described sounds like an OH-6A (OVL). There is some speculation over how many exactly were converted. I managed to contact one of the pilots who was involved in the project and as far as he was aware, only two were converted. If you have photos of the machine you saw at Weide, I'd love to see them.

Apologies for the thread hijack.

LD.

Edit; I also noticed today that some of the OH-6As upgraded for DEA use had a bigger instrument console fitted to include IFR instrumentation. It looks similar in shape to the TH-6B console. Maybe the AVCRAD guys had a standard-sized "big" panel for any upgraded versions of the OH-6A. It looks like the AH-6C, OH-6A (OVL), TH-6B and DEA OH-6As might all have been fitted with the larger modified instrument panel.

Your wish is my command (this is 967, in June 1989):

Also, two shots of TH-6B 696044, in September 93:

I didn't notice it before but there's an antenna mounted where the bottom wire strike cutter used to be, and behind the red light (where the old Army red-color streamlined light fairing used to be) there's a box of some sort.

John Hairell

tpn18@yahoo.com

[Loach Driver]

Great photos. Thanks.

LD.

[11bee]

LD.

Edit; I also noticed today that some of the OH-6As upgraded for DEA use had a bigger instrument console fitted to include IFR instrumentation. It looks similar in shape to the TH-6B console. Maybe the AVCRAD guys had a standard-sized "big" panel for any upgraded versions of the OH-6A. It looks like the AH-6C, OH-6A (OVL), TH-6B and DEA OH-6As might all have been fitted with the larger modified instrument panel.

LD,

Any idea what year those helos where modified? If earlier than 87, might be safe to assume that 11U has the same basic panel.

[FM-Whip]

LD,

Any idea what year those helos where modified? If earlier than 87, might be safe to assume that 11U has the same basic panel.

Somewhere around 86-87 the FBI also had an Army OH-6A bailed to them. Don't know the serial. May be the same airframe as a DEA bird. Maintenance was done at Weide AAF.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[Loach Driver]

LD,

Any idea what year those helos where modified? If earlier than 87, might be safe to assume that 11U has the same basic panel.

1988 is the year they were converted, I believe. Not 100% sure of that but it is in or around that time. They were certainly converted and flying by 1989.

LD.

[11bee]

I was all set to start working on this project but given the news that KH is releasing a very nice looking MH-6J, I think I'll hold off a bit and see if this kit makes a better starting point than the Dragon kit. I'll still need some bits from the earlier kit but I'm hopeful the new KH is going to be much more detailed. In the meantime I'll continue to research what I can.

My list of info needed so far is:

Hopefully to find additional info on those plank / tanks. LD was very helpful but some detailed pics would still be great. The search continues.

Try to find some pictures of the early FLIR display that was mounted to the original "T" style IP. I have scoured all the info out there, nothing shows what these displays look like or how they mount to the IP.

Try to figure out if civilian MD500's from this time frame had the military style canvas over steel tube pilot's seats or something plusher. All the googling I've done so far shows the interiors of more modern helo's.

[Loach Driver]

John, waiting for the new kit is probably the best option at the moment, especially if the new KH kit proves to be a winner (I expect it will be).

I looked through a few sales brochures for the Hughes 500C, 500M, 500D, 500M-D Defender and the MG Defender. As a general rule, the military versions were fitted with the mesh seats as standard while civilian machines were fitted with plush, padded seats as standard. The mesh seats were an option for civilian-production machines but had to be specially ordered.

Why does -11U have mesh seats (It does look like it is fitted with mesh seats)? Maybe "they" asked Hughes to supply that helicopter with mesh seats or maybe, when it was over-hauled in an Army facility, it lost its cushioned seats and got the mesh seats. The AH-6Fs in GT's thread are also fitted with mesh seats even though they too were constructed as civilian 500Ds. Maybe the idea was keep things similar to the AH-6C interior. I'd also guess that the mesh seats are slightly more comfortable if you are wearing extra gear on your body like a load-bearing vest, inflatable vest (for over-water flights?) and a sidearm or other equipment on your belt. That's all I can offer in relation to the seats. I'll see if I can find out anything in relation to the other queries.

LD.

[11bee]

So I ended up submitting a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with Special Operations command, asking them to provide a picture or two of a late-80's vintage Littlebird instrument panel that had a FLIR display installed. I had good luck getting IP shots of the AH-6C, figured they would definitely have some documentation of later helos.   After about a month, got a letter from SOCOM informing me that a search turned up nothing.   Disappointing...  I might try again, using a slightly different search request, really have nothing to lose.  Hard to believe that there are no official pictures out there, someone had to document the modifications applied to these airframes (BTW - who actual built these, Hughes or did the Army dress out standard H-6's at one of their maint / refurb facilities?).

 

Anyhoo, it's a bit of a moot point since the KH Littlebird seems to be delayed by at least a few months,   If nothing turns up, I'll probably go with this IP (minus the MFD's on the side).  Looks like the panel has enough empty space on the left for a single FLIR display.

 

[FM-Whip]

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

So I ended up submitting a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with Special Operations command, asking them to provide a picture or two of a late-80's vintage Littlebird instrument panel that had a FLIR display installed. I had good luck getting IP shots of the AH-6C, figured they would definitely have some documentation of later helos.   After about a month, got a letter from SOCOM informing me that a search turned up nothing.   Disappointing...  I might try again, using a slightly different search request, really have nothing to lose.  Hard to believe that there are no official pictures out there, someone had to document the modifications applied to these airframes (BTW - who actual built these, Hughes or did the Army dress out standard H-6's at one of their maint / refurb facilities?).

 

Anyhoo, it's a bit of a moot point since the KH Littlebird seems to be delayed by at least a few months,   If nothing turns up, I'll probably go with this IP (minus the MFD's on the side).  Looks like the panel has enough empty space on the left for a single FLIR display.

 

 

FOIA requests are funny in that the results are often entirely due to the willingness of the receiving office to do some legwork.  It's not necessarily that what you want doesn't exist - it may be that the people who have it aren't willing to spend any time digging it out.  I have a contact in DOD who told me that for their FOIA requests they open a random desk drawer, look in, say, "Yup, what is being asked for isn't there", and that's the end of that request.  They don't have the time or the budget to pursue it, and they don't much care.  And some people in these agencies don't think anybody in the public should have ANY of this info, even if it's 50 years old.  Other agencies have contractors do their FOIA work, and the contractors charge an arm and a leg for the stuff, sometimes copyrighting the results prior to release.

 

So what you are looking for probably exists, but it may not exist where you think it does- half the battle is identifying who may own it.  Several years ago SOCOM let a contract for a company to straighten out their Little Bird technical documentation.  Evidently there was a lot of it.

 

One specific place to try is the SOCOM TAPO.

 

John Hairell

tpn18@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

[11bee]

23 hours ago, FM-Whip said:

One specific place to try is the SOCOM TAPO.

 

John Hairell

tpn18@yahoo.com

 

Thanks John,

 

Not to sound dense but what exactly is a TAPO?  I'll definitely try this approach, got nothing to lose.   

 

Funny about FOIA's, you are probably correct.  I guess it does come down to the person who receives the request. I submitted one for info on a USN crash circa late 70's.  The Navy rep contacted me and offered an option that would be free vrs another one that would cost me > $100.  Sent me the full, 300 page crash report with appendices and when I wrote her asking if they had any additional pics, she dug deeper and sent me a CD full of them.  Compare that to this request, which I thought would be relatively straightforward....

 

Any idea who would have done the mods on N111U and the 160th Littlebirds circa late 80's?  Would it have been a military depot or the Hughs (McD?) factory?  Just trying to think of some other entities I could reach out to.

 

 

 

[FM-Whip]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Thanks John,

 

Not to sound dense but what exactly is a TAPO?  I'll definitely try this approach, got nothing to lose.   

 

Funny about FOIA's, you are probably correct.  I guess it does come down to the person who receives the request. I submitted one for info on a USN crash circa late 70's.  The Navy rep contacted me and offered an option that would be free vrs another one that would cost me > $100.  Sent me the full, 300 page crash report with appendices and when I wrote her asking if they had any additional pics, she dug deeper and sent me a CD full of them.  Compare that to this request, which I thought would be relatively straightforward....

 

Any idea who would have done the mods on N111U and the 160th Littlebirds circa late 80's?  Would it have been a military depot or the Hughs (McD?) factory?  Just trying to think of some other entities I could reach out to.

 

 

 

TAPO:

 

http://www.soc.mil/USASOAC/TAPO.html

 

Quote:  " TAPO was classified prior to 1997.  After 1997, the unit moved from St Louis, MO (adjacent to Aviation Missile Command) to Ft. Eustis, Va., where the Program Office is currently co-located with the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD)."

 

As far as FOIA, one time I did an FOIA request for crash data to a DOD aviation safety office where I was told the database dump would cost $5000, for a CD's worth of info, 700 meg.  The work involved might have taken one person 15 minutes, if that.  I know this because I've done that kind of work myself.  I was also told that I could go to a commercial source and get the same data, which had been given to the company for free!

 

I have no idea where the mods were done on N111U.  I believe some of the LB mods were done at Blue Grass Army Depot and at Ft. Eustis, among other places.  The whole subject of the early Little Birds, and how they were procured, modified, and who did what and when as far as equipment design, testing, etc is of great interest to me but there's almost no open info on that.  It's a history that remains to be written.  Perhaps some of the remaining TF plank owners could push for that.  It's only been 35 years...

 

John Hairell

tpn18@yahoo.com

 

 

[Loach Driver]

On 1/26/2017 at 1:35 AM, 11bee said:

Any idea who would have done the mods on N111U and the 160th Littlebirds circa late 80's?  Would it have been a military depot or the Hughs (McD?) factory?  Just trying to think of some other entities I could reach out to.

 

 

 

 

The following is my assessment of how the Little Bird/Seaspray 500 evolved from standard airframes into the modified helicopters that went into special ops use. This is based on my research into the history of Hughes/MD500 helicopters since 1963.

 

Starting with the first generation of LBs, the AH-6C was modified with the Blackhole IR exhaust and C-20B engine. The IR Exhaust was probably supplied in kit form from Hughes to the Army and they fitted the AH-6C fleet at either the Loach AVCRAD or at the original TF158 hangars. The rocket pod fit was a standard fit for the 500M-D Defender so it was an easy mod. The C-20B engine conversion probably underwent a short flight test programme at Hughes to get a basic release-to-flight sign-off. Given the urgent need to get the aircraft flying, a short flight test programme was probably flown to get a basic idea of the performance changes the new engine brought. I would guess torque was the major limiting factor with the new engine fitted so it was down to the pilot to keep it within limits. As soon as the Iranian Hostages were released, it appears the AH-6C went into a full flight test programme at Edwards. The MH-6E was probably modified with the first benches by the Army while the rest of the airframe was basically a 500M-D Defender. The AH-6F was almost identical to the 500M-D "Armed Scout" version of the Defender. I reckon any avionics upgrades were undertaken by the Army.

 

The first version of the LB that was a non-standard version of the 500 was the MH-6H/AH-6G. This took the 500D airframe and added the 530F main and tail rotor, 530F drive-train and C-30 engine but retained the 500D transmission. The first airframe was probably sent back to Mesa for conversion and for the McDonnell Douglas test pilots to again run an abbreviated flight test programme to ensure flight safety. Once the MD pilots were able to assess and report on the performance limits of the C-30-engines LB, it went to the test activity at Edwards and they drew up the pilot's flight manual via an Airworthiness & Flight Characteristics evaluation or similar.

 

Any FLIRs, armament upgrades/mods were developed by various companies that had whatever clearance was required to work on classified defense projects. 

 

The MH-6N NOTAR was an MDHC conversion and again would probably have first flown with MDHC test pilots before going to Edwards and the 160th for testing.

 

The first H-6M MELB prototype was converted and first flown by Boeing. Once it was approved by the Army, I reckon either all LBs went back to Boeing at Mesa for conversion or conversion kits were sent to Fort Campbell to be converted by the 160th themselves (my guess is Boeing did the conversion at Mesa).

 

It looks like the Block III upgrades for the MELB are all currently being developed by various defense contractors once SIMO have drawn up the requirements.

 

N1111U and all the other Seaspray/CIA ships were either converted in parallel with the 160th ships while any of the top secret electronic gear was possibly fitted by the technical guys at the CIA. The CIA gunships that flew in El Salvador were relatively simple conversions and the CIA or Army probably fitted the early FLIR units to them.

 

At least that's my guess........

 

LD.  

 

   

Edited January 29, 2017 by Loach Driver

[11bee]

On 2/25/2016 at 9:47 PM, FM-Whip said:

Some rudimentary photo analysis - varied the brightness and contrast:

Plank and tank - the fuel tank appears to be strapped to the bottom of the plank using the two wide metal bands that some people have thought were electronic panels of some kind. You can see clamp-on connectors at the top end of each band.

Fuel tank tubing/wiring:

 

Given that it appears the Kittyhawk Littlebird is delayed for the foreseeable future (indefinitely?), I think I'm going to proceed with using the Dragon MD500 TOW, parts from their OH-6A and some of the Cobra resin bits.   The Dragon kit really isn't that bad. Of course, I have no doubt that the minute I finish this, the KH kit will hit the streets and put the Dragon one to shame but I grow tired of waiting for KH to get their act together. 

 

I still need to source an Eduard OH-6A PE set.  So far, the retailers I've checked into either don't carry it or have it out of stock, so if any of you folks out there have one in the stash you wish to part with, let me know.  It's critical for the IP, seatbelts and the canopy defroster ducts.  

 

I've got even more questions (sorry to keep asking).  In the pic above of those two lines coming off the external tank, are they both fuel lines (feed and return lines?), if so, don't they seem to be of pretty small diameter?  The fuel line used for the Blackhawk's cabin mounted tank appears to be much thicker (like 3-4" dia). Any thoughts on whether one or both of these are fuel lines or electrical / instrumentation?

 

I still haven't decided how to proceed with the FLIR display but was wondering - for an early FLIR installation, where would the turret controller reside?  I thought the Blackhawk had a joystick mounted on the center console, would this be the case for the helo above (doesn't appear to be one visible, or would they have been fitted with a "coolie hat" controller on the collective?  Lastly, since this aircraft has a SATCOM antenna, any idea what kind of cockpit controller would be used?  Anything very elaborate or would it just be a couple of inconspicuous switches?

[Crash Test Dummy]

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

I've got even more questions (sorry to keep asking).  In the pic above of those two lines coming off the external tank, are they both fuel lines (feed and return lines?), if so, don't they seem to be of pretty small diameter?  The fuel line used for the Blackhawk's cabin mounted tank appears to be much thicker (like 3-4" dia). Any thoughts on whether one or both of these are fuel lines or electrical / instrumentation?

 

 

The forward connector looks like an electrical connector for a fuel pump and fuel quantity sensor in the tank. The rear would be a steal braided hose for the fuel. Last summer, I worked on a Bell 407 with the Allison 250 engine and the fuel lines looked like AN-6 or 3/8"ID. It would work out to a steel braided hose a little bigger than 1/2" OD. 

[DarkKnight]

did dragon rerelease the littlebird?

 

[JesusNut]

On 3/6/2016 at 9:08 AM, rotorwash said:

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

 

I know I am a little behind on this conversation, but saw it and had to comment.  This is an interesting subject that I was just talking to my Dad about the other day.  He mentioned the same thing about the -6 and -58.  The guys in Vietnam loved the -6 because of the nimbleness, but even more so because of the survivability of the aircraft.  He told me the engine and transmission were designed to break away from the cockpit in the event of a crash and because of the shape of the cockpit, it did not collapse very easily.  He relayed a story of one aircraft that the pilot flew into the side of a mountain over there and the cockpit broke away and rolled 5-600 ft down the side.  The pilot walked away with cuts and bruises.

[11bee]

50 minutes ago, JesusNut said:

 

The guys in Vietnam loved the -6 because of the nimbleness, but even more so because of the survivability

I believe one of the vets who frequents this site mentioned that in Vietnam, the Bell helo was referred to as the "5.8" because it just didn't measure up to the LOACH.  By the way, if you are into this subject, get LOACH by Wayne Mutza.   Great book.  Lots of pics of shot down/shot up OH-6's, which still got their crews back in one piece.  

Edited April 16, 2017 by 11bee

[JesusNut]

27 minutes ago, 11bee said:

I believe one of the vets who frequents this site mentioned that in Vietnam, the Bell helo was referred to as the "5.8" because it just didn't measure up to the LOACH.  By the way, if you are into this subject, get LOACH by Wayne Mutza.   Great book.  Lots of pics of shot down/shot up OH-6's, which still got their crews back in one piece.  

 

I will check that book out eventually.  I have so many references I need to get....hahaha!  This hobby has gotten expensive since I've been gone!  I think I like the research even more than the actual building.

[11bee]

33 minutes ago, JesusNut said:

 

I will check that book out eventually.  I have so many references I need to get....hahaha!  This hobby has gotten expensive since I've been gone!  I think I like the research even more than the actual building.

I actually like the research part better as well. My two most enjoyable builds were the AH-6C flown by GT, one of the vets who stops by here once in a while and a US-2B Tracker that crashed in a nearby town when I was a kid.   Both took a year of researching, submitting FOIA's, reading the crash report (in the case of the Tracker) and planning the build.   

Edited April 16, 2017 by 11bee

[11bee]

Quick question and I apologize since I've been asking about this for quite a while.  However, I'm still struggling with the IP.   As I understand it, this helo was a civilian 369D, later upgraded to a 369F.   All the pics I've seen on the web of 369D's show them to have the vertical panel.  Would the folks that upgraded this helo have gone to the trouble of taking out the stock IP and installing the earlier "T" panel?   That seems a bit unnecessary.   As such, I'm now back to thinking that this helo actually had a vertical panel and the glare shield you can make out in the pic might actually be for a side mounted FLIR display and not the IP itself.

 

So my question is - did any 369D's leave the factory with a T panel?  

 

If the answer is no, I'll go with the vertical IP with FLIR's on either side.  If some of these were built with T panels, I'll go with the T and try to shoehorn in a FLIR display on one side (my theory would be that pilot in the left seat would operate the FLIR, the A/C in the right would have a bit more forward visibility.  

 

Thanks gents!