I've been imagining how cool it would have looked to arm UH-1N with XM16 or XM21 weapon system.
Then I saw several pictures of UH-1N carrying two rocket pods and two 12.7mm MGs. It would appear to me that the MGs can be positioned pointing forward when the passenger doors are closed.
Question One: can the MGs be replaced with M134 miniguns?
Question Two: can the MGs be trained (vertically and in a limited manner like the MGs on XM16 and XM21) and fired by the pilot/copilot when the MGs are positioned pointing forward?
Actually, does anyone have line drawings for UH-1 gunships with XM16 and XM21 systems respectively?
Thanks in advance.
I have seen UH-1Ns with cabin mounted flex M-134s for the rear crews and I can't think of any reason why the forward mountings off a -1D with M-134s & FFARs couldn't be used. I've got a book on US helo gunships that I'll have a squiz thru and see if i can't scan up some stuff.
Dunno if this site will be of help or the M16 and M21:
http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aawpns.htm (http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aawpns.htm)
Is this the .50 MG and pod installation you refer to?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guncopter.com%2Fimages%2Fuh-1n-rockets-gun.jpg&hash=d3e6bfee6e3da3333893bdce2cc23adc0474fbbe)
If so, it looks like the gun is manual control only.
Evidently the 7.62mm GAU-17A Gatlings installed on the new UH-1Y can be used as flexible or fixed weapons, in the fixed forward position the guns can be fired by either member of the flight crew.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 10, 2008, 12:25:11 AM
Evidently the 7.62mm GAU-17A Gatlings installed on the new UH-1Y can be used as flexible or fixed weapons, in the fixed forward position the guns can be fired by either member of the flight crew.
Can the flight crew train the guns a little bit (again, like M16 or M21 systems)?
There are some illustrations and drawings available at the U.S. ARMY HELICOPTER WEAPON SYSTEMS web page (http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aaarmsys.htm) that might be of interest.
As far as the flexibility of the weapons, that depends on the mount being used. There are some mounts that have the ability to be fixed in the forward firing position as well as being used as a flexible mount for the door gunners. The down side to this type of dual purpose mount is the increase in weigh and complexity which can reduce the amount of ammunition carried for the weapons.
While the M16 and M21 armament subsystems were designed for the M60 GPMG and the M134 gatling gun, I see no reason to not consider modifying the mount to carry a 12.7mm/.50" MG in lieu of the smaller caliber weapons. Since this is a WHIF, you can pretty much do what you want.
Has anyone attempted or contemplated a kit bash of the UH-1 with the rotor blades from the H-60? I know there is a Bell Model 412 out there now and a four blade rotor conversion for the UH-1 from someone in resin. But what about a kit bash of the H-1 and the H-60? Just for the sole purpose of expending some spare parts from the spares box? While you are at it, maybe try to use the wheels from the H-60 on the H-1 to give it something other than skids. Hey, even better, what about transferring the entire H-60 engine and tail rotor gear box fairing onto the H-1? This would look pretty wicked, maybe I need to create a quick drawing of what I am trying to describe so you can appreciate the depths of depravity that I have now sunken to :)
Once again, everyone is welcomed to provide his/her own take on any variants and offsprings of the UH-1 and AH-1 family.
But here is (more or less) mine: what prompted me to start this thread began when I read about the not-at-all convincing JUH-1H Hind-surrogate. Then I figured- why stopping at just looking similar when someone, as I remember hearing somewhere, tried to create an answer to the Crocodile out of a Huey in the form known as the American Aircraft "Penetrator"?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D13857.0%3Battach%3D17215%3Bimage&hash=3d903b94bd42e1423ce92d0795aeb97a803971d7)
I tried to augment what little I remembered of it by Googling and arrived at this link:
http://www.stealthstar.com/
Many picture links on the website are broken, but those that do work, while displaying mostly (by my estimation) movie props, show some interesting possibilities.
This former UH-1B carries a crew of four as well as six troops and has four 7.62mm miniguns, either a 20mm gatling gun or twin-barreled 40mm grenade launcher, as well as (in its "movie prop" form) two underwing and two wingtip hardpoints. What if the Penetrator was built from an UH-1H or an UH-1N instead? Huey II or Huey 800 upgrade? How about building a Penetrator from an UH-1Y? And perhaps the (IMHO) over-elongated nose can be replaced with a more business-like one similar to the configuration with twin 40mm GL in the nose but instead housing a navigation/targetting sensor turret?
Now come the questions:
1. Does anyone know if the cabin crew control all four miniguns or do the cockpit crew control the two at the front?
2. The miniguns are obviously remotely controlled, but does anyone how the minigun controls work?
On the totally fictitious side, I am still thinking about an UH-1 that looks like a Mi-24...... what prompted me to do so is that, before introducing AH-1W, Taiwanese did arm some of their UH-1H with 2.75" rocket launchers as a make shift gunships and copied or reverse-engineered the Russian 9K11 Malyutka anti-tank missiles. What if the ROCA found a niche for an up-to-date Malyutka copy for use alongside TOW systems (I'm under the impression that Malyutka is more man-portable than TOW)? And what if they wanted a more powerful helicopter gunship but, instead of being able to acquire AH-1 outright, had to make do with components of UH-1H for any reason?
Quote from: Shasper on October 14, 2008, 05:54:22 PM
So, would this thread be appropriate for AH-1 thoughts as well?
Yes. :thumbsup:
AH-1 and Penetrator are almost like different people's takes on a successor to the gunship UH-1s......
Cool :thumbsup:
I rather like the idea of the original 4-bladed AH-1 (think AH-1F meets the main rotor from the 412) that was tested as a OH-58 replacement, just stick the MMS on it and say g'bye to the Kiowa warrior!
Shas 8)
Like this one, AH-1Z. I've got a 1/72 kit of one of these but since buying it I've been reading that it's all wrong.
Quote from: Shasper on October 16, 2008, 02:24:52 PM
I rather like the idea of the original 4-bladed AH-1 (think AH-1F meets the main rotor from the 412) that was tested as a OH-58 replacement, just stick the MMS on it and say g'bye to the Kiowa warrior!
Could a modernised single-engine AH-1 benefited from components of the Huey II modification? Although I think the old canopy (which is retained by twin-engine AH-1) looks sleeker than the flat-panel one......
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 16, 2008, 02:39:17 PM
Like this one, AH-1Z. I've got a 1/72 kit of one of these but since buying it I've been reading that it's all wrong.
Yep, and that's because Italeri rushed the kit onto the market in the earliest days of Zulu development,
in other words before anybody (including Bell and the USMC) knew how the final machine would look. ;D
Good Zulu info here:
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/pdf/AH1Z_PG_3-06_web.pdf
Same for the UH-1Y:
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/pdf/UH1Y_PG_3-06_web.pdf
;D
Jon
Just looking at the 'In Action' book and on the last page are three photos of the Bell Model 249 or Cobra 2000.this says that it flew with the four-blade 412 system. Further back in the book there's some more photos of another four blader called the AH-1-4BW, this one looks more like the kit I have, which might have originated as an Italeri kit, it isn't boxed as one, mine is a Hobbycraft kit http://www.militaryhobbies.ca/product.cfm?ProductID=4086 This matches the photos of the -4BW so I think that's what it's supposed to be but got called the Z instead.
I believe it goes:
Hobbycraft = Zhengdufu = bad underscale copy of Italeri Zulu.
Jon
When you say 'underscale' what do you mean? I have 6 different Cobras in 1/72, a G, J, S, T, W and this Z. IIRC when I compared them all one time, the T,W and Z were the same, is the Z really a bigger helicopter than the T and W then.
The Hobbycraft/Zhengdufu 72nd Zulu was modeled after the Italeri 48th model. I think thats what he's trying to say. And yes, I'm refering to the Cobra 2000, not the -4BW/Zulu model.
Shas 8)
Gotcha, not building 1/48 models I didn't realize Italeri made a 1/48 Z. I take it then that the -4BW was the development aircraft for the Z, the In Action book doesn't have anything on the Z, at least the one I have doesn't, but as I said, looking at the photos of the -4BW, the Hobbycraft kit follows that more closely I think.
Quote from: Shasper on October 16, 2008, 07:39:38 PM
And yes, I'm refering to the Cobra 2000
Shas 8)
Looking at the photos of it, it looks like a mixture of two or maybe three others, the canopy has the square framework of the F or S, the engine covers look like a J and then the rotor is of course from the 412.
Quote from: Shasper on October 16, 2008, 07:39:38 PM
The Hobbycraft/Zhengdufu 72nd Zulu was modeled after the Italeri 48th model. I think thats what he's trying to say. And yes, I'm refering to the Cobra 2000, not the -4BW/Zulu model.
Shas 8)
Evidently, according to the heli-modelling types, the HC/Kitech/Zhengdefu is closer to 1/80th than 1/72nd and it was not an attempt to model the -4BW. Rather it was, just like the Italeri 1/48th Zulu they copied, a matter of rushing to market.
Jon
I believe the In Action book was pub before the Zulu program became official, hence the lack of references.
While I'm on the subject, why not add the W model style inboard underwing pylons to the Zulu?:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aircav.com%2Fcobra%2Fahgal20%2Fah1w-161rs.jpg&hash=168fb11de4239d55495dbdbc559374ed787d27e6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluejacket.com%2Fusmc%2Fimages%2Fah1z_super-cobra.jpg&hash=24b46f2bfabc9e20487ad323a7b806d9309bbfb7)
I figured that they'd fit & they would add some extra insurance against those pesky RPG wielding *insert appropriate term here* ;)
Shas 8)
I have attached an image that had been posted previously on Michael Benolkin's CyberModeler main page. While the two aircraft paired up in the image is in itself interesting there is one detail that caught my eye on the UH-1 aircraft in the foreground. Take a long look at the door guns and also take a look at the door gun on the Mi-17 Hip in the background. You will notice that these are the same weapons in both cases. I had not thought much about Russian weapon systems being mounted on American built aircraft but things like this make you stop and think about the possibilities of such things and mumble to yourself hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, what if...
Anyway, the weapons mounted in the UH-1 and Mi-17 appear to be same and I recognize this as the PKM series of GPMG chambered for the 7.62X54R cartridge. The breech covers are open and pointing upwards on all of the weapons visible in the image.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkalashnikov.guns.ru%2Fimages%2F158.jpg&hash=1e41354a601314c37e30d1101e7ae73de1f19902)
Standard PKM GPMG as used by ground troops
Image source: Kalashnikov Site (http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/) (http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka158.html)
Additional reference for the PKM GPMG available from
Valery Shilin's Gun Club Page on the PKM General Purpose Machine Gun (http://club.guns.ru/eng/pkm.html)
Wikipedia entry for the PKM GPMG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_machine_gun)
So, with that in mind, it might be time to stock up on those old DML/Dragon Russian Weapons sets that were so plentiful several years ago.
Heres some weapons tried on the Huey during the Vietnam war
^^^^^ :wub: :wub:
These guns are so cool :wacko: :mellow:
Quote from: Aircav on November 26, 2008, 03:11:50 PM
Heres some weapons tried on the Huey during the Vietnam war
The first pic actually reminds me of Maverick's profile of an alt. AH-1. It looks like the belly cannon mount on the profile.
I was reading the google news (Canadian edition) yesterday and it said that the CAF will be arming it's Hueys they have in Afganistan to protect the Chinooks when moving troops forward. Which poses a question, what are these Hueys camo'ed like? And another, which ones are out there, CH-135, CH-146 or both ?
One Huey variant I've never seen considered as a what-if, but would seem to make sense is a 414ST with a four-bladed rotor replacing that two-bladed one that was forced on it.
Slight OT here, but I've always wanted to build an AH-1W or -Z with a 4 or 5 blade main rotor, a retractable wheeled undercart, and a Fenestron tail rotor.
Jon
The original Cobra had retractable skids so theres no reason why you shouldn't have wheels, would you fit small blisters for them ?
All I've figured out for sure is that I saw this picture:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv383%2Fjpkustomz%2FRetractableGearAH-1.jpg&hash=b3bb50c99f0f1ba82cf9bd1675ed0fdf1984e6bf)
here on What If, and I thought, 'Damn, that's REALLY sexy...' So I just added the Fenestron tail and 4-blade rotor in my head. And I still really wanna build it if I can figure out the specifics.
Jon
You could use the main gear off a Seasprite, may be the rotors and hub off a Tiger plus a tail off a Dolphin
If I'm not mistaken, the -Z carries a fourblade rotor, but I think you'd have to uprate the engine to have the extra power to balance the prop's necessity. I don't quite know where you're going with the tail, but retracting skids wouldn't be too hard, since as they've mentioned, early AH-1's had retracting skids. Just my thoughts.
Quote from: SinUnNombre on November 27, 2008, 09:24:33 PMSlight OT here, but I've always wanted to build an AH-1W or -Z with a 4 or 5 blade main rotor, a retractable wheeled undercart, and a Fenestron tail rotor.
How badly do you want to build this WHIF? I trashed at least three of those crap 1/32nd scale Monogram Blue Thunder kits many years ago. I salvaged the interesting things such as the Fenestron rotor assembly which I thought would be ideal for a 1/48th scale UH-60 Blackhawk WHIF but it could be applied to an AH-64 or even the UH-1 and AH-1 with a bit of imagineering.
Here's a whiff that occurred to me today and which I might seriously do. I was looking at pictures of Westland Scouts and Wasps and it struck me that shape and style-wise, the Scout is pretty much a scaled-down UH-1 with no engine cowling. So what if Westlands had made a scaled up Scout/Wasp?
<trippy cross-fade....>
Easy bits:
Start with a Huey. Remove the skids, the tailplanes and the engine bay down to the "shelf" on which the engine sits.
Now take a Wessex and nick it's rotor and undercarriage.
Apply the Wessex four-blade main and tail rotors to the Huey (because the two-blade original screams "Bell"), the Wessex mainwheels behind the Huey's side doors and the tail wheel under the nose.
For extra style points, fit a couple more clear windows in the roof, a Scout or Wasp stlye tailplane, and external stringers to the rear fuselage and tail boom
Now the tricky bit:
Fit an exposed engine or engines. The Nimbus engines from two Airfix Scouts would be ideal (with single exhausts each) but I understand these kits are bit thin on the ground now. I've got a detailed (ish) turbojet from an Iskra which would be ideal although that's not exactly a common kit either. Alternately, there might be a Huey kit which has a detailed engine inside the casings: I've got a 1/100th Revell one which has.
I've got a picture somewhere of a Mil-2 hovering over a Pt-76 with "despatches" being handed down to the commander. I now have a vision of a Patchwork World diorama with an AVRO Hornet* helo (as above) hovering over a Crossley Crusader** armoured car in similar fashion.
*Since the Scout was developed by Saunders Roe before being taken over by Westland, and since in PW A.V.Roe would probably never have sold his shares in his his Cheshire factory and gone into the flying boat business with "Slippery Sam" Saunders, you could credibly claim a super-Scout as an AVRO product in PW.
**Saladin armoured car, possibly re-armed and up-armoured. In real life Crossley Motors in Stockport, Cheshire were scheduled to build the pre-productiono batch of Saladins, but it was then changed back to Alvis before they could get started. In PW, they could credibly be building their own version under licence.
Quote from: Weaver on January 07, 2009, 07:23:39 PM
Now the tricky bit:
Fit an exposed engine or engines. The Nimbus engines from two Airfix Scouts would be ideal (with single exhausts each) but I understand these kits are bit thin on the ground now. I've got a detailed (ish) turbojet from an Iskra which would be ideal although that's not exactly a common kit either. Alternately, there might be a Huey kit which has a detailed engine inside the casings: I've got a 1/100th Revell one which has.
The old Monogram UH-1 'Huey Hog' kit, re-released several times by Revell, has a full engine and transmission.
It is the short body type (UH-1B, C) Bell 204/205.
For a long body based twin in 1/72 you could use the engines and transmission assembly from the Tamiya 1/100 S-64(CH-54) Skycrane.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 07, 2009, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: Weaver on January 07, 2009, 07:23:39 PM
Now the tricky bit:
Fit an exposed engine or engines. The Nimbus engines from two Airfix Scouts would be ideal (with single exhausts each) but I understand these kits are bit thin on the ground now. I've got a detailed (ish) turbojet from an Iskra which would be ideal although that's not exactly a common kit either. Alternately, there might be a Huey kit which has a detailed engine inside the casings: I've got a 1/100th Revell one which has.
The old Monogram UH-1 'Huey Hog' kit, re-released several times by Revell, has a full engine and transmission.
It is the short body type (UH-1B, C) Bell 204/205.
For a long body based twin in 1/72 you could use the engines and transmission assembly from the Tamiya 1/100 S-64(CH-54) Skycrane.
Jon
Cheers John - that sound promising. :thumbsup:
I like the idea of a short-bodied 204 one actually: a bit more Scout-like.
Having done a bit more checking, a couple of other things have come to light:
1. The Wessex rotor is too big, so you'd either have to cut it down or find another 4-bladed rotor with a old-fashioned articulated hub (if you were updating to a Lynx-style one, you'd be losing the leggy gear too and it would probably end up looking more like a Bell 222 which isn't the point).
2. Logically, you'd use the Wessex u/c the same way as on the Wessex, i.e. tailwheel-style, because there's a solid "pillar" on the Huey between the cockpit and cabin doors and because it leaves a clear path for the cabin doors to slide back. I acutally started this line of thought because I'm going to end up with a spare set of Belvedere gear, which is not actually as stalky as I thought, but still interesting.....
Whoa that is excellent - thankyou very much Apophenia! :bow: :bow: :bow:
I think a Scout nose is significantly narrower than a Huey fuselage so grafting it on might be a problem. In any case, it was the general "Scoutishness" of the Huey that gave me the idea in the first place.
The vertical strip at the front of the Huey's sliding door is actually a hinged door, so your front gear strut would have to go bit further forward on the very narrow solid pillar just in front of it, but that's a very minor point. you got the position of the tailwheel just right: I only meant to use the component, not copy it's waaay aft mounting position on the Wessex. I think I might play with the part to see if I could make it longer (or the main gears shorter) to hold the fuselage more level, however:
I've had an idea that allows the reinstatment of the nosewheel layout which I prefer. The Hind has a side door which is split horizontally, i.e. the bottom half folds down and the top half folds up. It sounds like you'd have trouble opening the upper part against the rotor wash, but it must work, indeed the Belvedere had a full-size upwards opening door! You could cut the Huey door just below the window and give the the bottom half a flat liner so that when dropped 90 deg, it made an extended cabin floor, a bit like the tailgate on a pickup truck. Because this door wouldn't slide, you could then have the main gears right behind it and the nosewheel under the cockpit with a pair of fixed, exposed machine-guns alongside it to keep the '50s theme.
Cornwall would probably always have been independent in Patchwork World, so that's fine.
Just found out something else of background interest.
The Westland Scout was developed from the SARO Skeeter after Westland took over SARO, but the Skeeter was originally started by the Cierva Autogyro company before they were bought out by SARO. Now from the 1930s on, AVRO had a licence to produce Cierva autogyros and did, in fact produce quite a lot of them, so there's a legitimate link between AVRO and the Scout.
Although Juan de la Cierva did his intial development work in Spain, he then moved to Britain, but only maintained a drawing office rather than a full factory, choosing instead to contract other aircraft manufacturers such as AVRO to build his designs. This is, in fact, a very Patchwork World way of doing things, since it's much easier to licence a customer to build your design locally than it is to export big military hardware across PWs multiplicity of borders.
So in Patchwork World, Cierva Autogyro would probably have stayed in Spain and stayed independent, developed the "Skeeter", "Scout/Wasp" and "Hornet" (those certainly wouldn't be the original names) and licenced companies all around the world to build their designs with local variations (much as Westlands did with Sikorsky designs). You would therefore get basically similar "Westland-Cierva Hornets" in the South West of the British Isles, "AVRO-Cierva Dragonflies" in the North West, and even "Bell-Cierva UH-1s" in Texas.
Apo - could you do me a favour and post your Hornet profile, together with it's markings, on the Patchwork World thread here please?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20194.msg327528.html#new
Quote from: Weaver on January 09, 2009, 04:34:33 AM
Just found out something else of background interest.
The Westland Scout was developed from the SARO Skeeter after Westland took over SARO, but the Skeeter was originally started by the Cierva Autogyro company before they were bought out by SARO. Now from the 1930s on, AVRO had a licence to produce Cierva autogyros and did, in fact produce quite a lot of them, so there's a legitimate link between AVRO and the Scout.
Although Juan de la Cierva did his intial development work in Spain, he then moved to Britain, but only maintained a drawing office rather than a full factory, choosing instead to contract other aircraft manufacturers such as AVRO to build his designs. This is, in fact, a very Patchwork World way of doing things, since it's much easier to licence a customer to build your design locally than it is to export big military hardware across PWs multiplicity of borders.
So in Patchwork World, Cierva Autogyro would probably have stayed in Spain and stayed independent, developed the "Skeeter", "Scout/Wasp" and "Hornet" (those certainly wouldn't be the original names) and licenced companies all around the world to build their designs with local variations (much as Westlands did with Sikorsky designs). You would therefore get basically similar "Westland-Cierva Hornets" in the South West of the British Isles, "AVRO-Cierva Dragonflies" in the North West, and even "Bell-Cierva UH-1s" in Texas.
Pitcairn was Cierva's major US partner, so if Cierva (i.e. the man himself didn't die) continued as in your scenario perhaps Pitcairn Autogiro would also have survived and would have been the more likely partner than Bell.
Jon
BTW, Westland worked on Cierva patent derived autogiros in the '30s.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviastar.org%2Ffoto%2Fwest_cl-20.jpg&hash=b3cd4ff458bc95ca607c37d3431e5204943f3c4e)
Westland built Cierva-Lepere CL-20, project supervised by W.E.W. Petter and Arthur Davenport
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviastar.org%2Ffoto%2Fgallery%2Fbritain%2Fcierva_c-29.gif&hash=e354ea3ff87e521e2ae0eb9fa67ce1389f8facf7)
C.29, the largest British built autogiro attempted, never flew due to ground resonance problems. Cierva's death had a direct impact
on the project not proceeding.
p.s. the Cierva Company (formed in March, 1926 with James Weir as chairman, Cierva as technical director) designers and their colleagues from Weir (the Weir shipbuilding firm had taken the decision in 1932 to become directly involved in design and construction as a Cierva licensee. Weir moved their efforts to helicopters at the end of 1937) formed the nucleus of Britain's post-War helicopter designer capability.
p.s.s. its doubtful that Cierva would have had as much success if he stayed in Spain, the Brit connection supplied the funds used for development through the latter half of the 20s and the early 30s. By the time of his death in 1936 Cierva had become sidetracked by Spanish politics, he was supporter of Franco, and had been spending less time on design and engineering problems... this is considered a major factor in the later dissolution of Pitcairn Autogiro, without Cierva the necessary cross-ocean cooperation ceased. Cierva died in the crash of a KLM DC-2 at Croydon airport on Dec 9, 1936.
you could also do this to a attack helicopter which i believe is now flying on a uh 60
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo1%2Flenny100%2Fspeedapachesideview.jpg&hash=ae59de0dc643055a273f0a7ab3d49616f273b55e)
***edited to remove the extra identical images***
Quote from: dy031101 on October 14, 2008, 10:11:20 AM
Once again, everyone is welcomed to provide his/her own take on any variants and offsprings of the UH-1 and AH-1 family.
But here is (more or less) mine: what prompted me to start this thread began when I read about the not-at-all convincing JUH-1H Hind-surrogate. Then I figured- why stopping at just looking similar when someone, as I remember hearing somewhere, tried to create an answer to the Crocodile out of a Huey in the form known as the American Aircraft "Penetrator"?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D13857.0%3Battach%3D17215%3Bimage&hash=3d903b94bd42e1423ce92d0795aeb97a803971d7)
I tried to augment what little I remembered of it by Googling and arrived at this link:
http://www.stealthstar.com/
Many picture links on the website are broken, but those that do work, while displaying mostly (by my estimation) movie props, show some interesting possibilities.
This former UH-1B carries a crew of four as well as six troops and has four 7.62mm miniguns, either a 20mm gatling gun or twin-barreled 40mm grenade launcher, as well as (in its "movie prop" form) two underwing and two wingtip hardpoints. What if the Penetrator was built from an UH-1H or an UH-1N instead? Huey II or Huey 800 upgrade? How about building a Penetrator from an UH-1Y? And perhaps the (IMHO) over-elongated nose can be replaced with a more business-like one similar to the configuration with twin 40mm GL in the nose but instead housing a navigation/targetting sensor turret?
Now come the questions:
1. Does anyone know if the cabin crew control all four miniguns or do the cockpit crew control the two at the front?
2. The miniguns are obviously remotely controlled, but does anyone how the minigun controls work?
On the totally fictitious side, I am still thinking about an UH-1 that looks like a Mi-24...... what prompted me to do so is that, before introducing AH-1W, Taiwanese did arm some of their UH-1H with 2.75" rocket launchers as a make shift gunships and copied or reverse-engineered the Russian 9K11 Malyutka anti-tank missiles. What if the ROCA found a niche for an up-to-date Malyutka copy for use alongside TOW systems (I'm under the impression that Malyutka is more man-portable than TOW)? And what if they wanted a more powerful helicopter gunship but, instead of being able to acquire AH-1 outright, had to make do with components of UH-1H for any reason?
My oldest brother flew UH-1M Huey Gunships. An upgraded model of the UH-1B I think is what he told me. Anyway when they fired both miniguns at once the vibration shook the Huey. I'd hate to think what firing all four miniguns at once would do in real life to the bird.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 09, 2009, 01:22:28 PM
Pitcairn was Cierva's major US partner, so if Cierva (i.e. the man himself didn't die) continued as in your scenario perhaps Pitcairn Autogiro would also have survived and would have been the more likely partner than Bell.
Yes, indeed: now what would Bell have built if they'd stayed in the fixed-wing world?
Quotep.s.s. its doubtful that Cierva would have had as much success if he stayed in Spain, the Brit connection supplied the funds used for development through the latter half of the 20s and the early 30s. By the time of his death in 1936 Cierva had become sidetracked by Spanish politics, he was supporter of Franco, and had been spending less time on design and engineering problems... this is considered a major factor in the later dissolution of Pitcairn Autogiro, without Cierva the necessary cross-ocean cooperation ceased. Cierva died in the crash of a KLM DC-2 at Croydon airport on Dec 9, 1936.
True, although equally he might have found Spanish funding easier in Patchwork World, where the fractious little countries are very keen to develop any indiginous capability to avoid dependence on imports. He might have been pushed into more overtly military products though.
Cierva's death was truly ironic, because it was watching a low-level stall accident that got him interested in rotorcraft in the first place, and yet he died in a fixed-wing aircraft that stalled.....
Harold Pitcairn died in a "gun accident" that may or may not have been suicide, but I'm not sure if this was before or after the company was wound up.
Cheers Jon - mine of information as ever! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
More ideas on the Scoutised Huey:
1. There's a better way of getting 4-blade rotor than butchering an innocent Wessex. Italieri does a kit of the Bell 412/CH-146, which is basically a big, late twin-Huey with a 4-bladed rotor. Now if you swapped rotors with a 204 to make the Whiff, the bits you'd be left with (big, pointy fuselage and a 2-blade rotor) make a 212 (or so close that only a JMN would notice), so there's NO waste.
Of course, this doesn't solve the undercarriage problem, but in my case, I've going to have a spare set of Belvedere gear which is stalky enough for anyone, and for anyone who dosn't, it shouldn't be too hard to whiff one up from tube/rod/spares box.
2. The horizontally split door's lower half could drop down on u-shaped hinges to make a boarding step. On armed versions, it could have armour fitted to the inside of it and be left closed to offer the door gunner some protection. The door gun itself could be mounted on struts attached to the inside of the upper door so that it swings outboard as the door opens.
3. On a winch-equipped version, the whole side door could swing upwards with the winch in a bulge in the lower part of it, in the manner of the Belvedere. To compensate for the big door area being battered by the downwash, the winch door could be narrower than the standard one, and the forward-opening "strip" door could have a second section hinged to it, which folds up behind it, concertina-style.
4. A single helo, could, of course, have a split door on one side and a winch door on the other, making for a glorious asymetry..... :wacko:
When browsing the web regarding an unrelated topic, I came across this......
D-255...... it's said to be the first mockup that at last led to the AH-1, and I found it looking surprisingly similar to the later Mi-24......
So pairing it with a Malyutka-inspired ATGM system on under-stubwingtip rails, in a manner similar to the Mi-24......
QuoteSo pairing it with a Malyutka-inspired ATGM system on under-stubwingtip rails, in a manner similar to the Mi-24......
Wicked idea!!!
Regards,
Greg
I don´t know why the cobra was not selled in lage quantities to NATO countries other than the US. The TOW cobra was far more capable than the utility helicopter conversions of the time, like the Bo-105 and the Lynx. And sure the germans, danish, dutch and french needed something to stop the hordes of russian tanks coming from the east.
I thought the YEH-60B was fascinating enough...... turns out that there is a version of the UH-1H equipped for the Stand-Off-Target-Acquisition role.
I wonder if the radar could have been modified to function in an AEW capacity and be mounted on the Augusta/Bell 212 (which would also have been modified with the obligatory retractable skids)...... could have been an alternative for the AEW Sea King to some......
Quote from: gunfighter on March 20, 2009, 03:17:34 PM
I don´t know why the cobra was not selled in lage quantities to NATO countries other than the US. The TOW cobra was far more capable than the utility helicopter conversions of the time, like the Bo-105 and the Lynx. And sure the germans, danish, dutch and french needed something to stop the hordes of russian tanks coming from the east.
The AH-1 might have been more capable in the attack role but it wasn't as useful all up - the Lynx etc could fire missiles plus also carry troops etc thus being more useful all round.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 20, 2009, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: gunfighter on March 20, 2009, 03:17:34 PM
I don´t know why the cobra was not selled in lage quantities to NATO countries other than the US. The TOW cobra was far more capable than the utility helicopter conversions of the time, like the Bo-105 and the Lynx. And sure the germans, danish, dutch and french needed something to stop the hordes of russian tanks coming from the east.
The AH-1 might have been more capable in the attack role but it wasn't as useful all up - the Lynx etc could fire missiles plus also carry troops etc thus being more useful all round.
Regards,
Greg
Also, there's the issue of equal-cost quantities. If ALL you want to do is stop tanks then all you need are the ATGWs: paying for a cannon, rockets and a specialised airframe doesn't add anything you need.
Another thing: most of the utility helo conversions such as the Bo-105, Lynx, Gazelle etc.. had their TOW/HOT sights on the roof, which made it easier for them to hide in a tree line. The Cobra's nose-mounted sight precludes this.
Which leads me to my next thought, What if the old Army Cobras were modified for the armed scout role instead of the OH-58s? Why not use an updated Sierra or Whiskey Cobra with a mast mounted sight as a Kiowa replacement in lieu of the now defunct ARH-70?
Imagine, turreted gun instead of the .50 cal gunpod, more flexible weapon options & a narrower front profile than the 206/407 based aircraft . . . slap a T700 or T701 in there for commonality with the H-60 & Longbows . . .
Shas 8)
Quote from: Shasper on March 21, 2009, 12:45:57 PM
Which leads me to my next thought, What if the old Army Cobras were modified for the armed scout role instead of the OH-58s? Why not use an updated Sierra or Whiskey Cobra with a mast mounted sight as a Kiowa replacement in lieu of the now defunct ARH-70?
Imagine, turreted gun instead of the .50 cal gunpod, more flexible weapon options & a narrower front profile than the 206/407 based aircraft . . . slap a T700 or T701 in there for commonality with the H-60 & Longbows . . .
Shas 8)
Kind of similar to the Australian choice of the Tiger ARH as a Armed Recon replacement for the Kiowa.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: gunfighter on March 20, 2009, 03:17:34 PM
I don´t know why the cobra was not selled in lage quantities to NATO countries other than the US. The TOW cobra was far more capable than the utility helicopter conversions of the time, like the Bo-105 and the Lynx. And sure the germans, danish, dutch and french needed something to stop the hordes of russian tanks coming from the east.
Because it wasn't designed as an anti-tank helicopter?
Fitting TOW capability to the basic Cobra was a matter of expedience,
a way to supplement the true anti-tank machines.
For the USMC, adding TOW capability was a matter of adding another arrow
to the quiver, the Marines always like to have options.
The Cobra was designed an infantry support system.
Jon
I've been thinking about what I might build for the 'Beating the Air into Submission' GB & I grabbed a number of kits from the stash, including two short body Huey variants I've got. I was think along the lines of a Westland built UH-1 as an alternative to the Scout/Wasp, then I saw Weaves post about a Scoutised Huey.
My idea is for something much less 'in depth' than Weavers. My premise is that on acquiring Saro in 1958, Westland were either less than pleased with the P.513 (to become the Scout/Wasp), or there was some enthusiasm to carry on their relationship with American firms. There would be two variants, based around a Gnome engine (very new at the time), with the pre-production examples maybe having Nimbuses. The version built for the AAC would be pretty much a Huey, but with the Gnome powerplant & a four blade rotor. The FAA would receive a fully navalised variant with folding tail & rotors & wheeled undercarriage.
I could use the Italeri AB 204 as a basis as it already has the Gnome engine. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a fully navalised version of the Huey so that would probably be the most interesting. I've got a spare rotor with a Lynx kit that would probably work, although scratching the undercarriage might be interesting!
Quote from: Shasper on March 21, 2009, 12:45:57 PM
Which leads me to my next thought, What if the old Army Cobras were modified for the armed scout role instead of the OH-58s? Why not use an updated Sierra or Whiskey Cobra with a mast mounted sight as a Kiowa replacement in lieu of the now defunct ARH-70?
Imagine, turreted gun instead of the .50 cal gunpod, more flexible weapon options & a narrower front profile than the 206/407 based aircraft . . . slap a T700 or T701 in there for commonality with the H-60 & Longbows . . .
Shas 8)
The problem with that is that, as far as I know, it's impossible to fit an MMS to a Hueycobra. MMS needs a static tube up the middle of the rotor head, and the Bell "teetering" rotor system precludes this. You'd have to fit a new rotor head, gearbox etc... (don't know if the 214 system would work) which would probably be prohibitively expensive.
Mind you, in Whiff World, you could change the procurement equation: maybe the Apache got cancelled or ran into technical troubles? Perhaps a super-anti-tank Cobra might have the pilot and gunner stations reversed so that the latter could have a roof-mounted sight above his head? Longer wings for more TOWs? 30mm Chain gun instead of the M-197 (better for anti-APC work)?
Well I hadn't considered that, however the AH-1 rotor head doesnt look like the one used on the Huey . . .
The train of thought running thru my head right now is for a OH-58D replacement in place of the ARH-70, with the airframe being based on either a stock Whiskey airframe with the 412 main rotor, but a Zulu Cobra derivative wouldnt be out of the question . . . Maybe a roof mounted sight & a Longbow radar instead of a MMS? Either way a Cobra derived armed scout heli would be an overall better weapons platform than the current Kiowas (which are limited to 50cal MG pods, twin shot Hellfire, Stingers & 7 round Hydra rockets).
If the cobra was not intended as an anti-tank system, then why all the later dedicated AT helicopters have followed its general design?: apache, comanche, tiger, havoc, hokum, mangusta, Z-10, even the hind. All of them are tandem-seaters, sleek, feature small wings to carry the weapons, chin mounted guns...even until recently most of them had the sighting devices on the nose. I agree utility helicopters are more cost-effective, but the cobra is far more deadly in the antitank role than a gazelle or an A109.
Quote from: gunfighter on March 23, 2009, 02:41:03 PM
If the cobra was not intended as an anti-tank system, then why all the later dedicated AT helicopters have followed its general design?
Maybe because it's the best setup as far as the crew's vision is concerned?
Which was the priority in the Cobra's design as a ground-support aircraft.
Dedicated anti-tank machines use a similar layout for a similar reason.
Quote from: gunfighter on March 23, 2009, 02:41:03 PM
If the cobra was not intended as an anti-tank system, then why all the later dedicated AT helicopters have followed its general design?: apache, comanche, tiger, havoc, hokum, mangusta, Z-10, even the hind. All of them are tandem-seaters, sleek, feature small wings to carry the weapons, chin mounted guns...even until recently most of them had the sighting devices on the nose. I agree utility helicopters are more cost-effective, but the cobra is far more deadly in the antitank role than a gazelle or an A109.
To be totally honest, I think the breed of helicopters that began with the Cobra are more like anti-tank-capable helicopter gunships (except for the Comanche, a scout). In any case, the end of the Cold War and the subsequent change of battlefield environment made them more desirable. Whereas the likes of Gazelle and A-109 are better suited for using covers and ambush tactics over the tree line, Western armies after the Cold War found themselves going into someone else's home turf and becoming the ones getting ambushed. The configuration of the dedicated gunships does allow for a smaller frontal area when totally exposed.
The US and the Soviets have been out looking for trouble and going on the offensive long before their respective allies did- that's why they came up with the AH-1 and the Mi-24......
Quote from: gunfighter on March 23, 2009, 02:41:03 PM
If the cobra was not intended as an anti-tank system, then why all the later dedicated AT helicopters have followed its general design?: apache, comanche, tiger, havoc, hokum, mangusta, Z-10, even the hind. All of them are tandem-seaters, sleek, feature small wings to carry the weapons, chin mounted guns...even until recently most of them had the sighting devices on the nose. I agree utility helicopters are more cost-effective, but the cobra is far more deadly in the antitank role than a gazelle or an A109.
Why is a Cobra with 8 x TOW more deadly in the
anti-tank role than, say, a Lynx with 8 x TOW, who's sight is mounted higher and can therefore hide better? Granted the Cobras' got rockets and a cannon, but those arn't anti-tank weapons.....
The slim, tandem-seat layout is better for any armed helo, whatever it's warload and mission, because it gives the smallest, lightest fuselage, thereby maximising the payload available for weapons. Interestingly, the only purpose-built "European-style" anti-tank helo is the Mangusta, and that was originally designed without a gun turret. In essence, a Mangusta is a Lynx optimised for the anti-tank role.
I think my post has got buried within another discussion, anyone got any comments on a navalised Huey, Westland or otherwise?
:cheers:
Quote from: Weaver on March 25, 2009, 05:23:20 AM
Interestingly, the only purpose-built "European-style" anti-tank helo is the Mangusta, and that was originally designed without a gun turret. In essence, a Mangusta is a Lynx optimised for the anti-tank role.
Like this maybe ----- my CH-151 with Lynx rotor blades
Quote from: Mossie on March 25, 2009, 06:13:12 AM
I think my post has got buried within another discussion, anyone got any comments on a navalised Huey, Westland or otherwise?
What is the potential of battlefield surveillance radars for conversion into AEW gears? As part of my thinking about Shipbucketing what-if ROCN carriers/hybrids, I am wondering a version of UH-1N- or even UH-1H-based SOTAS......
(Although I was told that it's criminal to think about using single-engine choppers for shipboard use, the ROCN has been using the 500MD/ASW on ships that can't take the S-70......)
Then I've got a couple questions about the Australian Bushrangers- I've heard that the miniguns of the modified XM21 weapon system was fixed rather than flexible as in the original XM21...... can anyone confirm that?
Speaking of utility choppers with ATGMs, how would it have been like if the Australian Bushrangers were modified to fire TOWs?
There have been quite a few single engined naval helicopters, especially in the timeframe of early Hueys. Sikorsrky HO2S, Bristol Sycamore, Westland Wasp, Sikorsky S-55 all come to mind so a Huey should be possible.
Fitting AEW radar on a helicopter in the late fifties/early sixties might be doable. I can't think of any helicopters that fit the role in this period in the real world but something like the Fairey Gannet might be able to swap it's radar into a helicopter with a squeeze. Probably something larger than a short Huey though.
Later on, there shouldn't be much problem in fitting an AEW radar into a UH-1N, although it might be a squeeze getting the operators in there.
Quote from: Mossie on March 25, 2009, 09:29:44 AM
Later on, there shouldn't be much problem in fitting an AEW radar into a UH-1N, although it might be a squeeze getting the operators in there.
The timeframe I'm thinking about is around that of the HMS Invincible. Don't know if the US Army's use of the JUH-1 would have inspired someone else before the advent of the Sea King AEW though.
Using the configuration of the Kamov Ka-31 (Helix-B) with the folding flat plate radar under the fuselage, almost anything could be an AEW platform. I think there's a version of the Puma with a similar, but smaller setup as well.
You'd need something with a hefty ground (deck...) clearance of course, not sure that a 'normal' Huey has enough with its skids, but as this is Whiffland, so extended skids like a Jet Ranger, or even a wheeled setup might work.
[Later] After thinking about this for at least 30 seconds :lol: it occurs to me that a retractable landing gear of some sort would be almost essential or the radome wouldn't be able to rotate! :banghead: What a pillock I can be at times......
So that's the skids idea out the window anyway, and even a fixed gear setup wouldn't work. That's why the Kamov has fully foldable gear and the Puma has its radome mounted way aft on the fuselage pod.
The JUH-1 SOTAS uses retractable skids to allow for the rotating antenna.
Did you mean the Horizon battlefield radar Kit? The AdT has four Cougars so equipped. The radar folds up under the tail so you don't need any extra ground clearance, as opposed to the Ka-31's radar that is quite slim & fits under the fuselage. Dy, do you know how the SOTAS radar folded?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FCougarHorizon01.jpg&hash=6e28b5e3df4ded448aa806fce2e0aabe6f847ebd)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FCougarHorizon02.jpg&hash=314432f609031ccdc9eeb40869232db87c4fd40c)
Quote from: Mossie on March 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PM
Dy, do you know how the SOTAS radar folded?
AFAIK, it doesn't but is instead held parallel to the fuselage to allow the skids to deploy. The skids are apparently built with extended height as well to provide ground clearance for the radar antenna.
I wonder if the SOTAS radar antenna is semi-retractable to help with the clearance, too......
Mossie,
Yes, that's the thingie. I thought it was a Puma, but I never could tell the difference :)
My younger brother has a monstrous rambling farmhouse, part derelict, in the South of France, about 45 nms east of Mont de Marsan. The place is miles away from any large town, and there's a small hill in his grounds with a radar reflector permanently mounted on it, for which the AdT pay him a few hundred Euros a year. Every now and then a bunch of guys arrive in various choppers and abseil down onto his hill, sometimes lthe chopper lands and the crew pop in for a cafe or two.
While I was there the October before last one of those Horizon Cougars was hovering in range of the abseiling guys, but sadly never got close enough for photos. It certainly looks weird when the radar is deployed.
There's nowt much in it, to be honest the only way I can tell the unstretched Cougar & Puma apart is if the blurb in the caption says so! :drink:
Cougar/Super Puma has a pointier radar nose, deeper main gear pods, ventral fin extension and a "flying saucer" over the rotor hub.
If I ever get my Petrel finished --- but this is what I had in mind for a 'localized' AWAC.
And there was this Mohave variant:
Quote from: Mossie on March 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PMdo you know how the SOTAS radar folded?
The SOTAS APS-94 RADAR did not fold, it could rotate after it was extended for flight on a very small centrally located mast or stem. When landing the entire antenna was retracted up flush with the bottom of the fuselage with the landing skids extended. The landing skids allowed the aircraft to sit a bit higher off the ground to give the APS-94 antenna enough clearance between the aircraft and the ground.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 26, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
When landing the entire antenna was retracted up flush with the bottom of the fuselage with the landing skids extended.
That's what I suspected. :thumbsup:
Quote from: dy031101 on March 20, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
When browsing the web regarding an unrelated topic, I came across this......
D-255...... it's said to be the first mockup that at last led to the AH-1, and I found it looking surprisingly similar to the later Mi-24......
So pairing it with a Malyutka-inspired ATGM system on under-stubwingtip rails, in a manner similar to the Mi-24......
Hay I was just wondering
If the Italian Army or Air Force had put the AH-1 Cobra (there is a very good chance that they could have been license-built by Augusta!) into service in its contributing factor to NATO for use in the anti-tank / escort role.
I wonder if Italy would have been willing to sell its Augusta-built Cobra's to the likes of Libya – as it did with its AB.204/205 (Bell UH-1 Iroquois) and I think the Italian license-built CH-47 Chinook to the likes of Libya.
If this was the case then there could have been a very good chance that the Soviets could have acquired very workable copies for either self –development into a 'Cobraski' or at least studied in detail by the GRU.
This could have lead to the Bell D-255 / Mi-24 'Hind' style cockpit arrangement in their 'Cobraski'!
M.A.D
Quote from: MAD on March 28, 2009, 03:06:57 AM
This could have lead to the Bell D-255 / Mi-24 'Hind' style cockpit arrangement in their 'Cobraski'!
Did the Red Army make extensive use of specialized observation helicopters? I can see it filling the niche in scouting and escorting the Mi-24 as the latter provide fire support for the ground troops, but I'm not informed enough to know if I'm correct in thinking so.
I had a question about Huey maneuverability, and I couldn't see opening another thread. I watched (or started to, anyway) the new film of The A-Team. The opening sequence culminates in an aerial chase, with the heroes fleeing in a Huey air ambulance from the bad guys, who have a heavily-armed Eurocopter Astar. Early in the chase, the pilot, Murdock, rolls the helicopter in order to dodge fire from the other helo. Is this even possible with a Huey?
From everything I've read, very few helicopters have the rotor strength to be rolled. The Westland Lynx is one that can & I'm sure there are others, but I think it sounds like typical Hollywood BS if it's a Huey doing it. That being said, that movie sounds like ALL Hollywood BS anyway.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: Jschmus on December 29, 2010, 05:04:29 PM
I had a question about Huey maneuverability, and I couldn't see opening another thread. I watched (or started to, anyway) the new film of The A-Team. The opening sequence culminates in an aerial chase, with the heroes fleeing in a Huey air ambulance from the bad guys, who have a heavily-armed Eurocopter Astar. Early in the chase, the pilot, Murdock, rolls the helicopter in order to dodge fire from the other helo. Is this even possible with a Huey?
It is done in the movie and IIRC it doesn't look like CGI to me. I've always understood that the UH-1 rotors weren't strong enough to allow a roll but perhaps later ones can manage it after having been strengthened? I suspect its a lightly loaded machine though. UH-1's I've been in have always seemed a little flimsy to me. No doubt they are strong - after all experience from Vietnam would suggest it but they just don't seem all that strongly built to me.
The Lynx has a semi-rigid rotor mounting, the Huey doesn't which by all accounts allows the Lynx to perform the maneuver. Unless the UH-1 had been specifically modified for the movie, I seriously don't believe it performed the maneuver. As mentioned earlier, the chances of it being Hollywood BS is fairly high, given the nature of the movie.
Regards,
Mav
I've just done some googling. Barrel rolls in UH-1s are discussed in several places and it seems that Cobras could and did perform the manoeuvre fairly often but it wasn't recommended in the heavier UH-1 but was possible if the pilot was skilled and had sufficient speed and a low weight loading (and a late model rotor head). I'll have to watch the movie again this weekend and see what it shows.
One wonders how much stress the rotor assembly has on it during the maneuver though? If the maneuver was performed, could it be replicated again and again? Or would the Jesus nut, rotor hub or other assembly merely give way resulting in a smoking hole? The Lynx could routinely accomplish the maneuver. From what's out on the web, most pages quote highly skilled pilots and momentary maneuvers. It would also depend on their definition of a barrel roll too. Are they talking about an actual barrel roll about the fore-aft axis of the fuselage or some other maneuver?
Regards,
Mav
Oh, I agree, I wouldn't want to do it twice in the same UH-1 chopper, not without a major overhaul and inspection and replacement of the rotors and hub! Its just that it could be done. As I said, I'll watch the movie again over the weekend (I think my son has a copy, I'll have to check with him).
As big as the Sikorsky CH-53 is (I don't know about the bigger E), it can be rolled & looped. I understand the S-67 Blackhawk was looped & rolled routinely.
Quick query guys: as you may be aware, the RNZAF is retiring its fleet oh UH-1Hs this year to make way for NH-90s, but I'm working on a different timeline for the NZ defense force involving the Hueys maybe being retired by the mid-90s and wanted some help.
What colour scheme do you guys think would look good on and armed, New Zealand-based Bell 412? in R/L the Iroquois fleet - we have always called them as such - have worn SEA camo, allover dark green, currently allover dark grey, and one-offs such as UN white and all orange for Antarctic operations. Ideas?
Also armament, was thinking the rocket pods, mini gun one side, M60 the other? Or twin minis? Minis on the rocket pod struts?
Having flown both aircraft one did NOT roll them on a regualr basis. It was not uncommon to do a half split s in the Cobra to begin a gun run from altitude but it was not an every day event. The real trick with the tettering hinge rotor system on both aircraft was to maintain positive g loads. Going negative was a one way ticket to becoming a lawn dart. As mentioned above doing these sorts of things put incredible strain on both the rotorhead and the rotor mast. To much maneuvering could cause the rotor mast to snap and again you would be on a very quick ride to a smoking hole in the ground. Maintennace officers and commanders frowned on these maneuvers with equal disdain.
Hope this helps.
regards.
Quote from: Yasotay on February 28, 2011, 06:25:35 PM
Having flown both aircraft one did NOT roll them on a regualr basis. It was not uncommon to do a half split s in the Cobra to begin a gun run from altitude but it was not an every day event. The real trick with the tettering hinge rotor system on both aircraft was to maintain positive g loads. Going negative was a one way ticket to becoming a lawn dart. As mentioned above doing these sorts of things put incredible strain on both the rotorhead and the rotor mast. To much maneuvering could cause the rotor mast to snap and again you would be on a very quick ride to a smoking hole in the ground. Maintennace officers and commanders frowned on these maneuvers with equal disdain.
Hope this helps.
regards.
Well, that's pretty much it then. As I had suggested, the A-Team is BS, surprise, surprise. It seems they've got that from the old series down pat.
One wonders perhaps if people are confusing looping with rolling? Loops are hard on helos, but doable in some instances.
Regards,
Mav
I was wondering where this discussion went!
I did rewatch the "A-Team". Maverick, you're right. It was a bit of typical Hollywood sleight-of-hand. They show the chopper being chased in one scene. It flicks to the interior of the Huey and they show the panic of the occupants as the chopper is rolled and then they flick back to more views of it being chased and then into the chasing chopper and the reaction of it's occupants to the supposed roll of the Huey.
I have to apologise. I was under the impression that the movie did show a roll. It doesn't. Mea culpa! :wacko:
No sweat on that Brian :thumbsup:,
I'm sure there will be plenty of people out there who will swear that the helo rolled. Unfortunately it ends up like John Wayne's unlimited ammo in his six-guns and every other 'whizz-bang' that Hollywood finds necessary to foist on the public. People end up believing the hype ad infinitum.
It's a bit like the old 'shoot the gun out of his hand instead of shooting the bad guy'. Anyone who has used a handgun in a real world environment realises that's just smoke & mirrors, but I've had enough people tell me that it should be able to be done because they've seen it done on the movies... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Regards,
Mav
No! No! It can't be true! You mean the Duke actually had to reload his six guns? Oh, hell, all my childhood memories, destroyed in a single unthinking moment! How could you? :lol: :lol:
I expect next you'll tell me that Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny aren't real!
The problem is getting worse with CGI allowing directors to have audiences see previously impossible scenes.
However, I have to admit, having been watching "Generation Kill", I've been impressed with the use of CGI in that series. Very realistic. I think the Marines portrayed are lunatics and how they act over the top but I've been assured by others "in the know" that, that is in fact how they acted in real life but the portrayal of weapons' effects have been pretty spot on IMO. Which would have been impossible and extremely dangerous if done in real life. I just wish the Iraqis weren't portrayed like old style Westerns' "Red Indians" (ie unable to hit the broadside of a barn from inside with a handful of gravel and the Marines are all "dead-eye dicks" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ).
Haven't heard of Generation Kill. Is it a Foxtel sort of thing?
Sounds rather interesting. Marines I've met tend to be fairly intense characters. One guy I worked with in prison was as quite as a mouse, but when things went down, it was a 180 for him. All business & slightly psychotic with it. He used to be a SAW gunner back in the day and I could easily imagine him being very gung-ho in the field.
Just a shame, as you say, that all insurgents are supposedly untrained & useless. Must be disappointing when the 'good guys' get dead as often as they do.
Regards,
Mav
Generation Kill's been on the ABC-TV the last seven weeks. Not sure what time on free-to-air as I've been watching it on their iview service on my PC - http://www.abc.net.au/iview. I think they only have episode six and seven now. Yes, they appear intense and gung-ho. A lot of their stuff is pretty childish and I can't see diggers putting up with the stuff they spout nor officers acting the way they do.
Not to get too off-topic, but Generation Kill is based on the book by the same name by Evan Wright, who was embedded with 1st Recon when they went into Iraq. It's a little skewed, but considered to be mostly factual. It originally ran on HBO in 2008.
Thanks for the link Brian. Pity it's just show eps 6 & 7. I wasn't aware it was a fictional thing tho (altho based in reality). I had some impression it was more a doco. Might keep a lookout for the boxed set when I'm back in Bali next year.
Regards,
Mav
A question, if I may?
The USMC Super Sea Cobra has been upgraded to the gills over the years, far more so than the Army AH-1Gs were, and yet, it still has the curved plexiglass canopy from the original Cobra, instead of the flat-plate armoured glass one used on the AH-1G. Does anybody know why this is?
IIRC the curved canopy offered more head room. Marines use their Cobras differently than the Army. Simply, the USMC moves a lot more! :lol: Army tactics are (roughly) move, stop, spy, shoot, spy, move. Corps Cobras never stop moving. Run and gun. So more room in the cockpit means the pilots can look around much better and have better vis to the outside.
Again, not claiming to be all knowing, just going off faulty memory. ;D
The flat plate glass canopy was actually introduced on Army Cobras as part of the AH-1S upgrade. Supposedly the flat plates reduce glare, but that's the only distinction I've been able to identify. The only AH-1J derivative with a plate canopy is the Iranian Panha 2091
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portierramaryaire.com%2Fimagenes%2Fpanha.jpg&hash=27f9651d867e0c74f40202b622aa383603d2cacd)
Done a bit of reading now - Jschmus is correct: the flat plate canopy was introduced to reduce glare and is NOT armoured as I'd always assumed.
Just curious. Why is the BT kit crap? I've built a few & they all build up quite nicely.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 28, 2008, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: SinUnNombre on November 27, 2008, 09:24:33 PMSlight OT here, but I've always wanted to build an AH-1W or -Z with a 4 or 5 blade main rotor, a retractable wheeled undercart, and a Fenestron tail rotor.
How badly do you want to build this WHIF? I trashed at least three of those crap 1/32nd scale Monogram Blue Thunder kits many years ago. I salvaged the interesting things such as the Fenestron rotor assembly which I thought would be ideal for a 1/48th scale UH-60 Blackhawk WHIF but it could be applied to an AH-64 or even the UH-1 and AH-1 with a bit of imagineering.
I think you'll have a long wait for a reply famvburg, Jeffry is not on the forum anymore --
Quote from: famvburg on December 08, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Just curious. Why is the BT kit crap? I've built a few & they all build up quite nicely.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 28, 2008, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: SinUnNombre on November 27, 2008, 09:24:33 PMSlight OT here, but I've always wanted to build an AH-1W or -Z with a 4 or 5 blade main rotor, a retractable wheeled undercart, and a Fenestron tail rotor.
How badly do you want to build this WHIF? I trashed at least three of those crap 1/32nd scale Monogram Blue Thunder kits many years ago. I salvaged the interesting things such as the Fenestron rotor assembly which I thought would be ideal for a 1/48th scale UH-60 Blackhawk WHIF but it could be applied to an AH-64 or even the UH-1 and AH-1 with a bit of imagineering.
Holy thread-resurrection, Batman!
Apologies if this has been posted here before, but I could not resist sharing the only Huey-logged air-to-air victory of the Vietnam conflict:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no2/iac/an-air-combat-first.html
Looking at time lines it would have been interesting had the RAF or AAC bought the early UH1 to operate in Borneo
Saw this one at the Yuma Proving Grounds Main Gate
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FYuma%2520Airshow%25202013%2FYuma2013108_zps9629880e.jpg&hash=f44466d105b56ea0d9a76e8b6e81c4b97b598f87) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013108_zps9629880e.jpg.html)
And then this one at the Yuma Airshow last year.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FYuma%2520Airshow%25202013%2FYuma2013023_zpsf3d77350.jpg&hash=d6214125e8ef9dcd8da43b561cfca7d755e77e7e) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013023_zpsf3d77350.jpg.html)
I thought they were armoured as well ! Odd that they went back to the rounded style then.....
Love the Huey vs. Colt story. Too bad they didn't have 7.62, .50s or miniguns in the door and they could have downed all 4 !
Great pic of the gate guard Robert. Love them old Cobras.
Not a matter of 'went back', the USMC Sea/SuperCobras, from the AH-1J ordered in 1968 and on, always had the blown panels,
flat panels were a later Army mod.
That's funny Jon...I had never really put 2 and 2 together regarding the differences between Army and USMC Cobras ! In the back of my mind I guess I thought they were the same....the Army are all Apaches now ? Crazy.....
:banghead: :thumbsup: :cheers:
Question folks:
I'm building the Special Hobby Huey Cobra at the moment, and it has lots of optional parts, but no explanation of what they are and what applies to which version! The thing I'm particularly wondering about at the moment is the rotor mast. Two different versions are provided:
1. Shorter mast with a flat plate base that seals off the hole in the top of the fuselage.
2. Longer mast with a "frying pan" base that leave the hole in the top of the fuselage recessed.
What's the difference between them and which is earlier or later?
I think the closed one (#1) belongs to the single-engine versions, be it early or late (e. g. on the 'nam G versions, but also on the much later Fs).
AFAIK the two engine versions have an open top side, from which the rotor mast sprouts, but I am not certain if that matches #2?
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on June 21, 2015, 09:39:25 AM
I think the closed one (#1) belongs to the single-engine versions, be it early or late (e. g. on the 'nam G versions, but also on the much later Fs).
AFAIK the two engine versions have an open top side, from which the rotor mast sprouts, but I am not certain if that matches #2?
All the options in this kit are single-engined AH-1Gs, so I think the differences are "early production" and "late production" rather than different sub-types.
I think it may have been an aerodynamic covering that was later abandoned because the aerodynamic advantages didn't weigh out the disadvantages in maintenance.
EDIT: Straight from the horse's mouth: Floyd Werner (former Cobra pilot) said on ARC that the aerodynamic covers were quickly removed in the field after they found out that they didn't actually help the aerodynamics. He said about 99% of the Cobras didn't have it.
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on June 21, 2015, 01:26:36 PM
I think it may have been an aerodynamic covering that was later abandoned because the aerodynamic advantages didn't weigh out the disadvantages in maintenance.
EDIT: Straight from the horse's mouth: Floyd Werner (former Cobra pilot) said on ARC that the aerodynamic covers were quickly removed in the field after they found out that they didn't actually help the aerodynamics. He said about 99% of the Cobras didn't have it.
Excellent - thank you. :thumbsup: (and please thank Floyd for me since I don't have a log-on there)
Since mine is a mid 1970s export to Argentina, it won't have the cover.
Hmmm....you learn something new everyday ! Now what about the handed tail rotors ? I had no idea until I bought the kits !
:cheers:
Quote from: Captain Canada on June 29, 2015, 05:16:52 PM
Hmmm....you learn something new everyday ! Now what about the handed tail rotors ? I had no idea until I bought the kits !
:cheers:
Left side on very early ones, right side thereafter.
while reading this thread I came across one post asking about a navalized Huey. The US Navy had two squadrons of them during the 1980's. HAL-4 and HAL-5 both flew the HH-1K which was an UH-1E that had a corrosion resistant airframe, upgraded engines, rotor, avionic,s points for fast ropes and a rescue hoist that retracted over the cabin on the right hand side. The bird was armed with the M21 system the mounted two M134 GAU-2B/A miniguns, two M60 GPMGs installed on what are known as Kline Mounts and two seven shot 2.75 inch [70mm] FFAR rocket pods ( don't ask me the destinations as I'm too darn old to remember).
I served in HAL-5 as an AO3 and worked on the Kilo for about two years not only on the weapons but with other systems as well, all members were cross trained and our cook was fully qualified to do an engine change, you don't want to know what our medic was able to do.
Right now I have an old Monogram Rescue Huey that in 48 scale that has the proper roof and hoist but lacks the M21 system and the larger 540 rotor blades. Getting the weapon mounts will be easy, they can be robbed from a Huey Hog kit, it's the M134 thats going to be fun to find.
Try this strilekawk https://store.spruebrothers.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=1%2F48+M134&Submit=Search
Gondor
Quote from: strilekawk on August 01, 2015, 10:01:35 AM
you don't want to know what our medic was able to do.
Yes we do ;D ;D
Seriously it's always good to hear from people with hands on experience of the kit we use on our models :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on August 02, 2015, 02:05:51 AM
Quote from: strilekawk on August 01, 2015, 10:01:35 AM
you don't want to know what our medic was able to do.
Yes we do ;D ;D
Seriously it's always good to hear from people with hands on experience of the kit we use on our models :thumbsup:
Our corpsman (Doc) was also a door gunner and cook, if he got bored he could drum up business on his own.
Out of all the units I served in the best times were in the Huey and HH-60H squadrons. They were small and a family, I still see those guys as much as possible.
Quote from: strilekawk on August 05, 2015, 03:48:36 AM
Our corpsman (Doc) was also a door gunner and cook, if he got bored he could drum up business on his own.
Right, so if the mg doesn't get you, the stew will ? :rolleyes:
What if early attack helicopter
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FEarlyAttackHelo.jpeg&hash=7b182f5afdcf900096e76cce2a97987bc835f81e) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/EarlyAttackHelo.jpeg.html)
The Me 109 based one looks just right :thumbsup:
Well here's one I've not seen before. A "platformized" Huey with pilots either side of the engine and a gun turret with podded gunner for a 105mm howitzer. :o
The guy who posted it said it was a "recoilless gun", but the article imples a howitzer, so were discussing that at the moment.
EDIT: It seems the gun may have been a variant of the XM204 low-recoil 105mm howitzer. There was a scheme to mount two of these on a Chinook, with the otpino of firing from the air or the ground: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0750150.pdf
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcbyK1GWEAAuXE6?format=jpg&name=medium)
Article: https://www.army.mil/article/281353/it_wasnt_just_napalm_a_tale_of_the_huey_and_cobra_in_vietnam
Posted on Twitter ("X" :rolleyes: ) by @MassiasThanos (who is well worth a follow) here: https://x.com/MassiasThanos/status/1857438336652120162
Got a very "insect" look about it