Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Royal Canadian Air Force

Under the section Foreign Users I removed the line about the Royal Canadian Air Force using the UH-1 (CH-146). The reason is that the RCAF has not existed since the 1960's. See [[1]] Also, the Canadian Armed Forces no longer uses the UH-1. It was replaced by the CH-146 Griffon, a militarized version of the Bell 412. [[2]] L.J.Brooks 20:35, 2005 Oct 20 (UTC)

General Characteristics

Should we remove the stats from the "General Characteristics" section and put them all in the side box? Zaf 06:01, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anybody know what the correct correct pronunciation for "Huey" is? Would it be hu-EE, or hu-AY? (the helicopter was originaly designated HU-1, it's not hard to make the jump to HU I) Tronno 19:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Two of my flight instructors were former US Army pilots (one Viet Nam era). Both of them flew Hueys extensively, both of them pronounced it hu-EE. Just my $0.02 Madhu 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Madhu! Tronno

US Marine Pilot here. It is "hu-EE." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wongaboo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Bell UH-1

Front view of a Bell UH-1B Iroquois.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

Has been redirected here. Content was:

In aircraft nomenclature, the Bell UH-1 is a series of primarily military helicopters. It is formally called the "Iroquois" after the American Indian tribe, but more popularly known as "Huey". It was initially manufactured by Bell Helicopter (later part of Textron) in the 1950s for use in the Vietnam War. By 2005 an estimated 10,000 "Hueys" were made, and some being flown by about 40 air forces around the globe. The UH-1 helicopters have served a wide variety of missions including air support, medical and casualty evacuation, search and rescue, reconnaissance, gunship, and troop-, cargo- and VIP-transport roles. It is a versatile helicopter design, and the prototype for air mobility. "Hueys" as of 2005 are frequently used in maritime missions; some militaries lacking more modern alternatives still equip them as helicopter gunships.

Some primary armaments on UH-1s are the M-240 7.62 mm machine gun, GAU-16 .50 caliber machine gun, and GAU-17 7.62 mm automatic gun; it can also carry two 7-shot or 19-forward shot 2.75" rocket pods.

Rich Farmbrough 19:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Augusta-Bell AB helicopters

I'm of the thinking that one might want to move the Augusta-Bell helicopters to a seperate page, where proper attention can be paid to wide range of subvariants produced by them. Just a thought. -- Thatguy96 10:00, 4 April 2006

"variants" page that doesn't exist

It would if I had time to do it or if someone took the initiate to do it. In the format of one like the B-17 pages or the M4 pages, this one should have one, because the base page should be seriously upgraded. -- Thatguy96 20:12, 9 May 2006

Bell 214ST

I meant to place the Bell 214ST under the Bell 214 heading, but forgot the second "*". Even though it is a basically different aircraft than the Bell 214B, is it based on it, at least as a starting point for the design.

As stated in the topic above, an article on all the Bell 214s is being considered. When that happens, the variants will be replaced with "see main article tag", as I have done with the 212 and 412.

Striclty speaking, the 214ST may not be a 214A/B/C, but what else is it? It's not a 206 or a 209 either. But it is certainly descended from the UH-1 family, specifically the 214 variant.

So for the time being, let's just leave it here. Whenever the Bell 214 page is put together, it'll go there. As also stated above, it wasn't in production very long, so there's not likey to be enough material to justify its own article. And since the folks at Bell, for whatever reason, chose to name it a 214, let's just humor them. --BillCJ 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move the 214 article up on the priority list. The ST was, in concept, related to the 214A and C, but it was developed for the Iranians, and once all their requirements were accomodated during the design phase, there was nothing left in common. In answer to your question above of "what is it", the real answer is that it's a unique beast, unrelated in a strict design sense, to anything else in the Bell catalog. It has a completely different airframe, rotorhead, tail rotor, etc. When I was last at the factory, I asked why they retained the 214 number, and no one had a clue. Probably had contractual reasons, rather than physical. Akradecki 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill, a question: would you possibly reconsider having the 412 listed here? There really ought to be one complete list of all the variants from the 204/UH-1, that can be referenced in one place, and this article seems to be the logical place for it. Having most of it here, but making people go to a "main article" for other elements of the list just seems to be convoluting things. Thanks for considering this. Akradecki 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! Akradecki 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I should have considered that before deleting the 412, but I usually consider it a variant of the 212 myself, but I take your point also. It's back now, with a "main article" link. As to the whole 212/412 variant list, I really think one detailed place for the list (the main articles on each type) is enough. Otherwise, additions may be made to one list and not the other, and it just simplifies things that way. However, for sub-types with their own article, like the 412's CH-146 variant (a very skimpy article btw), I can see listing them too.

As for splitting off more variants, even the 204, I'm all for it, as long as there's a reasonable amount of content. It'll shorten the article some, and make more room for the ever-growing "Popular Culture" section. :) -- BillCJ 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the "pop culture" subject...don't know if this is worth mentioning somewhere, but there's an outfit in Mojave that provides Hueys, among other aircraft, to the movie industry, and a number of the movies listed in the article are from them. The outfit is MojoJets [3]. I have listed a coupe of subpages from this site as refs for the B and H models, but no more. I'm hesitant to write more because the owners of MojoJets are friends of mine, and I created the website, so that seems to be a conflict of interest if I refer to it much. But, given the big-name productions that their helos have been in, I thought I'd at least mention it to you so that you can be aware of it. Akradecki 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I recently found the Bell UH-1F article. From the history section, it appears this article was migrated from Wiktionary. However, the page itself is fairly short, and the unique content minimal. I think it would be better in the main UH-1 article. In addition, the variant itself is fairly insignificant, apart from its use of the T58 rather than the T53 engine.

The UH-1 article is fairly lengthy as it is. However, the best candidate for a split ought to be the UH-1D/205 variants. But for right now, I'd be for leaving the article as-is, once the UH-1F info is put in. --BillCJ 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that a merger is the best thing. Because the UH-1/205 legacy is so extensive, it seems to me that the existing article should provide a general overview of the type, a listing of the variants, and details of the variants should then be discussed in separate articles. Some already have such articles, others, as mentioned above, are good candidates. Because of the uniqueness of the F model, I think it should remain its own unique article. Just one rotorhead's opinion. Akradecki 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the UH-1F is that different, as it is still a Bell 204. However, if we keep the article on its own, it needs a lot of work, especially formatting and better pics of the F itself (there's a dark one of the UH-1P). The only other article I know of is the Bell 212, which covers the UH-1N also. Thats really the major variants there, except for the 205.

Um, check the Bell 533, Bell 412, and CH-146 Griffon articles. In addition, I'll be writing one on the Bell 214B. And, as mentioned above, the H model is a really good candidate for its own article. Akradecki 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 533 is a one-off test version, but nonetheless significant. The 412 and 146 are versions of the 212 specifically, so I kinda lump them in together. But I get your point. The D and H together definitely deserve their own article.

Good luck on getting it together. Post a list somewhare of what the articles needs, and I'll see if I can contribute. A talk page of the name you plan on using would be a good place; just let me know on my talk page when the list is up. I've been doing some work on this page, especially with the Infobox and the Related Contents sections, so you (or I) can cut and paste this article to the new page, and half the work will be done right there! Just add text and pics. Thats pretty much what I did to make the C-137 Stratoliner page, and it came out pretty good. -- BillCJ 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, remember the 214A and C built for the Shah's Iran. In addition, the Bell 214ST isn't covered anywhere on Wiki as yet either. Although it is technically a different aircraft, it used the same number, and is presumably based on the 214B. It wasn't in production very long, so there's not likey to be enough material to justify its own article. So Bell 214 would be a good title covering all these models. -- BillCJ 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would generally have to agree that this article would be better split into the various Bell model families, 204, 205, and some breakdown of the 212/412/214/414 (is there even a 414? I seem to remember there being one, but I can't remember now). The UH-1F/P should definitly be included in any article about the 204, rather than a seperate one. Its engine fit might make it more "unique" then others in the 204 family, but not enough to warrant a seperate page. The history of the UH-1F/P and covert operations in South East Asia can easily be mentioned in any historical overview of 204 service. I just realized it might be best to seperate the Bell 204 article from the UH-1 article as well. The UH-1 article, should by its title cover all variants, which includes 204s, 205s, and 212s. A seperate article on the international history of the Bell 204 might warrant its own article, from a US-centric one about the UH-1. -- Thatguy96 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the proposal has been here over two weeks, and there seems to be no clear-cut consensus one way or the other. However, only one editor supports leaving the UH-1F article as is; the other favor merging it with a Bell 204 variant article, and also spinning off a 205 article. Given the interests in having these split off, it is likely to happen in the near future. Therefore, to simplify the process of splitting off in the future, I am going to proceed with the merger, so that all information is in one place. I will try to paste in the text as whole as possible, though I may move the pics around to make it look and fit right. Thanks - BillCJ 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems no point in doing it to me. Leave it as it is. Dixonsej

HUH?? The merger was completed 4 months ago! - BillCJ 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Would the 'ride of the Valkyries' scene in Apocalypse Now be worthy of its own mention? 151.200.181.153 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell 204/205

I'm starting to put together an article on the 204 and 205 civil versions (and ex-military models in civil use) at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3. It's coming together pretty quickly, but still needs text on civil development and usage, plus at least 1 pic of a civil 204. I hope to get some text written next week or the week after. Just a heads-up. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunter-Killer teams

I've had a {{verify source}} tag for quite some time on the statement about UH-1s being a part of hunter-killer teams with OH-6s and OH-58s. Considering that neither of these aircraft came on the scene until the AH-1G was on board, with the OH-6 and the AH-1 arriving in theater approximately the same timeframe (late 1967) and the OH-58 arriving in 1969-70, I find it highly unlikely that this statement is valid. UH-1B/C gunships would've been working with OH-13 and OH-23 aircraft prior to the OH-6A arriving in theater, but I've never heard of a reference for that, either. From what I understand, it wasn't until both the OH-6A and the AH-1G were in theater that the hunter-killer concept was even considered, and it was based on the capabilities that both of those aircraft brought to the table. Please correct me if I'm wrong and provide a reference. --Born2flie 09:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of the Hunter-Killer team was being developed before then, its just that the characteristics of the AH-1 and OH-6 finally made it truly viable. I mean, the USAF and US Army tested a Hunter-Killer team using an A-1E and a UH-1B gunship during 1964, so its not like the idea only appeared during 1969. -- Thatguy96 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huey II offered for all operators?

I seriously doubt this beucase the current operators include nations to which USA is openly hostile, like Iran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but that's serious nit-picking! Iran has its own upgrade program for its Hueys, so it wouldn't be interested anyway. Of course, they call them "new" aircraft, which is illegal, since they don't have a license to produce new Huey versions. - BillCJ 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-1/AH-1 relationship

Now, though the edit which suggests that the AH-1 is related by a not a variant of the UH-1 is correct in terms of the actual reality more than in terms of how the US Military Desigated the System. The way the designation was applied to the Bell 209 series, it was in fact treated like a variant of the UH-1 in every way. There is no UH-1G, and technically, both are supposed to be variants of the H-1 pattern, one intended for the "Utility" role and one for the "Attack" role. The official US DoD handbook on aircraft designations as of 1974 even includes the AH-1 variants in the discussions about the UH-1, because its a member of the H-1 series, and uses the following description for the AH-1G: "Attack helicopter using dynamic components of UH-1B modified with 540 rotor sytem [UH-1C]; reduced cabin frontal area with tandem seating for pilot and copilot/gunner, integral chin-mounted gun turret, and provisions for external armament on stub wing." There is being treated as if its just a radical deviation for the UH-1B/C (UH-1C comment added for clarity, not included in text, UH-1C is UH-1B with 540 rotor system and other minor changes).

Furthermore, until the redesignation of the Army's AH-1S series, all AH-1s are completely in line with the rest of the H-1 series. There are no UH-1J (with the exception of the current Japanese designation, which I'm not sure even makes it into the current addition of DOD 4120.15-L), and no UH-1Q/R/S. In fact, the Army's redesignation of the AH-1S upgrade progression (AH-1P, AH-1E, and AH-1F) are the only AH-1s that overlap in the H-1 series. The USMC's AH-1T, AH-1W, and AH-1Z, all fit in with the rest of the designations.

So, regardless of how different the two designs seem, from the time the AH-1G was adopted and assigned a designation, the US military has been treating it very clearly as a variation of the H-1 line. -- Thatguy96 11:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur on the designation aspects. In fact, it was origianlly planned to be designated "UH-1H"! The Cobra is definitely developed from the UH-1, that much is undisputable. Whether or not it should be listed as a variant is a sticky issue, but I do believe it should be listed. - BillCJ 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be, and this all should be mentioned in both the AH-1 and Super Cobra articles. -- Thatguy96 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I have seen User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg make edits on other pages before. His usual pattern seems to be to make an edit he thinks is neccessary (it often is not), but then he moves on. In Aircraft carrier, he came back 4 or 5 months later and made the same exact edit with a similar summary, but never participated in the discussions I initiated on each occasion. I am assuming good faith on his part, he just doesn't seem to believe in duscussions. However, he does not seem to engage in revert wars either, which is a good thing! - BillCJ 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, AH-1 and UH-1 are tightly connected. The US military considered them variants of the H-1 line, but it's not likely they would be considered that way today. Anyway, can't the AH-1 variants be listed in a summary fashion here? The entries largely repeat what's in the AH-1 and AH-1 SuperCobra articles. I think a sentence at the bottom listing AH-1 models (AH-1G, J, N, ...) would cover it. -Fnlayson 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur, especially since the large entries repeat much of the smae thing word-for-word. Besides, he left out the AH-1P/E/F variants, which are duplicates of UH-1 variant leters. - BillCJ 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I added note like I was saying. So what happened with those dupe model letters? -Fnlayson 05:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

THe Army had four different AH-1S models, so in 1988, they redesignated the last 3 as the P, E, and F. - BillCJ 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. They must have given up on the dual path thing by then. -Fnlayson 05:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, firstly thanks for making that look better. I was hoping my edit would prompt someone with a better idea of how to tackle it to take action heh. Secondly, and unfortunately I have no seen a copy of DOD 4120.15-L from the 1980s to back this up, I get the feeling that by the time the US Army sought to redesignate the 3 blocks of the AH-1S upgrades, the USMC had removed their UH-1E and the USAF their UH-1F and UH-1P from service, allowing the case to be made the there should have been no confusion with the application of those designations. You'll note that the USMC had not used duplicate letters for the whole run of their AH-1 use (J, T, W, Z). -- Thatguy96 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a copy of DOD 4120.15-L from the 2000s? The Army models are listed in with the UH-1 models, in alphabetical order by variant letter. Remember though, this article is not about the H-1 series, but about the UH-1 single-engine models specifically. We've listed the twin because many people will be looking for them here, especially since they used to be covered here. - BillCJ 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We could do a Bell H-i series overview article, with a list of all the H-1 variants. However, there would have to more content than just a variants list and a bunch of pics, or it probably would not survive an AFD. This article already serves as somewhat of an overview page, though not by design. A specific overview page has been discussed before, but nothing was done at that time. I wouldn't mind setting up a sandbox of that, and we could play around with it and see if we come up with something worth keeping. What would be nice is to find a good in-depth article or book section on the whole H-1 series, with productions figures, usage, and aother info on the longevity ond usefulness of the series, and how it changed how helicopters are used, both in the military and civilian worlds.

• The sandbox thing is worth a try. If we can't get a decent article out of it, split up the info to the relevant articles. I have a book coming on the Huey Cobra that might be of some help. -Fnlayson 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

With all the H-1 variant articles, one might be able to do something along the lines of the Patton tank article. I also did not think the copies of DOD 4120.15-L from the 2000s still had the Army's AH-1 variants in them (I have 4 different versions from 1962 onward in .pdf). -- Thatguy96 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised at a lot of aircraft that were still listed in the DOD 4120.15-L from the 2000s. The Patton article looks nice. I think we might be able to come up with something half-way between that and the Harrier Jump Jet page in layout and content. THe variants list would certianly be the centerpiece to the article. I have also found several pics with USMC Hueys and Cobras (Sea and Super) in them, on of which might make a good lead pic for the overview page. - BillCJ 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Survivors

Someone began a section towards the end labelled "survivors" and I think it's worth expanding. I added some text as well as a mention of a UH-1 parked at the Intrepid Museum in New York. Can someone help me expand this section? it might be of interest to be aware of the divesting of the UH-1 fleet following the Vietnam War and during the 1980s. Maybe links and hyperlinks to pictures of UH-1 Hueys at VFW centers, air/space museums, and air shows. I figure this section should focus on UH-1s that have been decommisioned and on static display. October 19 2007 Ocn169 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1F, which is it?

The section for the UH-1F has conflicting statements. On the one hand it says,

The USAF asked Bell to develop a special version of the UH-1B in 1962 using the General Electric T-58 turboshaft as a powerplant...

And on the other it says,

Bell proposed a developed version of the Bell model 204 which had been used by the US Army as the UH-1B.

So, which is it? Did the USAF ask Bell to develop the aircraft, or, in response to an RFP, did Bell propose the variant using the model engine required by the RFP? --Born2flie 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right - the UH-1F section has a number of statements that need some work. It is a older section and hasn't been updated in a while. Since I have some good paper refs on that I am planning to fix it up this weekend, as well as add sections on the "L" and "K", to complete the series. - Ahunt 10:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have re-written the pre-existing UH-1F and P sections to better reflect the refs that I have and remove ambiguities - see if that makes more logical sense now! - Ahunt 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1V?

Is there anything on the last variant of the single-engine UH-1s? --Born2flie 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the "V" is simply an "H" with a few minor upgrades it is listed under the "H" right now, but that section could be made a bit more obvious. I will change the "H" sub-variants to a list with some bolding and you can see if that helps or if there should be independent sections on those variants (EH-1H, EH-1X, UH-1V, etc) - Ahunt 10:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your edits! --Born2flie 10:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Already done! I see that the list of variants at the bottom of the page is going to need some changes as well to make sure that it and the main body of the article are consistent. I am wondering if all the variants are included in the article main body if we need that list at all - something to discuss! - Ahunt 10:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We could also take the description of each variant out of the Development section and instead use that for the Variants section, leaving a developmental history that transcends each variant. --Born2flie 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be done that way, but the development history of the UH-1 family is really the history of the individual models, so there wouldn't be much left to talk about without them in there. - Ahunt 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way I looked at the sub-variants list in the UH-1H section and decided that slightly expanded individual sections for each variant that had a suffix designation other than the "H" would be less confusing and so I have done those. That includes the UH-1V. - Ahunt 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC

UH-1V Bell Iroquois - 1 [engine] - T53-L-13 - Army Upgraded UH-1H modified with special avionics for medical evacuation missions.

— DoD 4120.15-L, 12 May 2004

Okay, but UH-1V is official in the Army and the DOD.

As far as development of the UH-1, that is all minus the descriptions of the variants themselves and more how each variant came into being. An example would be the OH-58 Kiowa which has text descriptions in its variants section that describes each variant and in the Development section a history of how those variants came about. Just a thought. And I already created the variants article (UH-1 Iroquois variants). Need to cleanup a lot of the notes, especially since I'm sure some of those are on the same pages of Mutza's book. I will recommend any significant changes to the UH-1 article on a subpage here in the Talk space of the article. --Born2flie 08:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have gone ahead and created the variants article. I thought we agreed above in the "Variants and new expanded text" discussion that the editors working on this article would have a look at the length and discuss whether that needs doing or not and then reach a consensus on it? Personally I don't think the current article is too long and I don't think that a variants article is needed at this point. - Ahunt 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proportionally, there is more information in the Development section than the rest of the article put together, so this article basically is the variants article with a little extra information added in. Based on the discussion, it was bound to happen sooner or later, and sooner seems just as good a time as later. In the meantime, I already mentioned that I will work on condensing the pertinent information into a Development section that would be appropriate for an article about the helicopter as well as moving the descriptive elements about each variant to the Variants section. --Born2flie 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, I think you have missed the point. A number of editors working on the article agreed earlier to consult on splitting the article before splitting the article. As I said I personally don't see that it needs splitting at this point, but I am quite willing to live with a consensus of those working on the article. Going ahead and doing it without talking to anyone isn't a consensus. There is no damage done at this point, but before any more steps are made - for instance I have made some updates to the existing text in this article, so the two articles are already out of sync - we should discuss it and decide what to do. If we are going to spit them then let's decide to do that and then make the split, eliminate the overlap and not continue two parallel articles that will rapidly diverge. So to that end I will start a discussion item on this subject and perhaps as a group we cab decide whether to complete the split or not. - Ahunt 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to you as well, consensus is not necessary to create another article. I did not modify this article in creating it, and there is already an editor interested in running with it and making it a better article on its own. It's not contrary to any guideline and doesn't conflict with any consensus about this article. I can understand your desire to move with consensus, and I am all for consensus within the article itself, but consensus here on this article doesn't drive the train elsewhere. There is precedent, as previously mentioned on this talk page, for an article of that type to exist in the project and any information added to the current Development section is easily transferred by a willing editor. --Born2flie 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right that there is nothing to stop you from creating a new article as you have done, the photos are all PD and the text is all licenced, etc. Someone may stumble in and suggest that they be merged, however! Someone else may just see the overlaps and decide to delete the sections from this article unilaterally, too.

I am concerned that if the editors on this article decide not to remove the overlapped portion from this page then the two pages will diverge in content. Meanwhile there is a great deal of redundancy between them obviously. The large amount of overlap really needs to be resolved.

As you will have noted I have started a separate discussion item below on the subject. I am hoping you and everyone else who has worked on this article or who is interested in it will express an opinion and we can decide which way to go. - Ahunt 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1L armament questions

Hey, I noticed that apparently Mutza says the UH-1Ls with during Operation Sealords (also important, Sealords was an operation, the HH-1Ks and UH-1Ls deployed under that operation were deployed with HA(L)-3) were equipped with weapons and bombs no less. In all my research I've never seen that claim, with the official HA(L)-3 website suggesting they were used more as SAR and station hacks. Does he have any pictures or elaborate on what these weapons might have been? I know the USN tested and deployed the so-called "Helicopter Trap Weapon," an FAE for clearing LZs and that this system was deployed on USMC UH-1Es. Could this have been what he was talking about? -- Thatguy96 15:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. The whole UH-1L section says:

UH-1 L Navy Huey Shortly after the Marines received their UH-1Es, the Navy tested a few and decided to purchase their own Hueys. Under the designation UH-1L, a limited production Navy variant was produced with only eight examples being built. Intended for use in the utility role, the UH-1L model was ordered on 16 May 1968, and was essentially a modified UH-1E (the later version with the 540 rotor system) minus armor and armament, and powered by the L-13 engine. All eight aircraft had roof mounted rescue hoists and later style screened air intakes. Immediately upon delivery in November of 1969, painted Engine Gray, the first four UH-1 Ls were sent to Vietnam where they formed the Sealords Detachment to augment HAL-3. The Sealords' mission quickly expanded to include combat support and eventually they were adapted to carry weapons systems. The UH-1 Ls, including the four sent to Vietnam in January of 1970, were fitted with mounts capable of carrying a 500 pound bomb or 500 pound Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE).(Mutza, Wayne: UH-1 Huey In Action Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton TX USA 1986. Page 37, ISBN 0-89747-179-2)

That all seems to indicate that he thought that the Sealords were a detachment of HAL-3 and not an Operation. As you can see, he also doesn't say what they used the weaopns for. The other references I have don't mention the UH-1L or the operations. - Ahunt 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The UH-1Ls and HH-1Ks were deployed to augment HA(L)-3, but in support of Operation Sealords (I had to clear this up in my own research). I'm pretty sure Sealords was not just the deployment op, but in fact a true follow on to Operation Game Warden in 1968-69. More research might be needed here. Its referred to as an operation in the official USN history of Game Warden. The confusion might stem from the the fact that Game Warden and Sealords ran concurrently, and that support helicopters attached to HA(L)-3 appear to have been referred to by that name instead of "Seawolves" which was reserved for the gunships. For additional reference there are a number of pictures here of the helicopter trap weapon being tested at China Lake on a UH-1E. -- Thatguy96 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your information is exactly correct. I found another reference: Croizat, Lt Col Victor, USMC: Vietnam River Warfare 1945-1975 [Published in hardback as The Brownwater Navy], Blandford Press 1984, page 138, which clearly states:

On 15 October 1968 the U.S. Navy established Task Force 194 at Can Tho to conduct 'Sealords' operations. The main object of these operations was to form a deep barrier below the Cambodian border to interdict the flow of supplies to the communists from the Cambodian safe haven. A second and closely related purpose was to establish friendly control over the trans delta canal system that linked the branches of the Mekong River.

From that, and what you have added, I can conclude that when Mutza says "Sealords Detachment" it is really shorthand for "the HA(L)-3 detachment assigned to Sealords operations". I will fix up the UH-1L entry to make that a little clearer. - Ahunt 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1E

Can we confirm that the UH-1E was developed as a replacement for the USMC for the Cessna O-1 Birddog? --Born2flie 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You have found an interesting issue! Lou Drendel says it was:

"UH-1E
In 1962 the Model 204B won the Marine Corps competition for a new Assault Support Helicopter (ASH) to replace the Marine's fixed wing O-1B and C airplanes and Kaman OH-43D helicoptors (sic)." (Drendel, Lou: Huey, pages 9-21. Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, Texas, 1983. Page 10. ISBN 0-89747-145-8)

My other good reference on the subject is Mutza, which is more detailed on the development than Drendel and Mutza doesn't mention that at all - so I only have Drendel to go by, unless you can find another ref to back that up?

The O-1 was used for FAC, arty spotting, observation, recce and transport of course. None of the refs I have mention that the UH-1E was used by the Marines for other than the troop and VIP transport and gunship roles.

Were you planing to add that info to the Cessna O-1 article? - Ahunt 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm familiar with the mission of the O-1 Birddog, which was why I wanted to clarify that the Marines intended to "replace" it with the UH-1E. I think Drendel got confused with all the 1's in aircraft designations. --Born2flie 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When I get a chance I can update the entries from a number of sources including the official USMC helicopter histories. The UH-1E was used for a variety of roles, including artillery observation (supplementing the O-1C and replacing previous obs helos), helicopter escort, limited transport of supplies and personnel when needed (the official USMC history in fact has a picture of a UH-1E delivering artillery ammunition), and gunship operations (see my article on US Helicopter Armament Subsystems for a picture of armed UH-1Es). Now that we've forced the future issue, I might start adding information to the variants article and the objective here should be condensing the information into a development section ala the B-17 article mentioned elsewhere. I think that while the article is of fine size now, the service history sections will no doubt expand as the UH-1 series is one of the most widely used (if not the most) military helicopters in the world. -- Thatguy96 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Split or Not

As mentioned above in the section above on "Variants and new expanded text" there has been some discusson of whether this article needs to be split into "UH-1" and "UH-1 Variants" articles or not and when. As Fnlayson said two days ago: "Splitting off the variants would most likely be a long term thing."

However as mentioned above in the "UH-1V?" section above, Born2flie has already created the split article at UH-1 Iroquois variants, by copying the variants section into that new page. This existing article has retained its text to date.

This creates a bit of a conundrum as the two articles will now diverge due to the large amount of overlapped text, so despite Fnlayson's statement and intentions that this would be in the more distant future, the editors working on this article really have to decide now whether to:

• Uphold Born2flie's decision to split the article and go ahead and update the text at UH-1 Iroquois variants to the latest version and then remove the same text from this article, or

• Turn UH-1 Iroquois variants into a redirect page to this article and keep working on this one, or

• take some other action.

As I have said, personally I don't think this needs splitting at this point, nor do I see it as inevitable that the article will need splitting in the near future. That depends on contributions. I am also concerned that if we remove the variants sections from this article we won't have a lot left at the present.

I would like to hear from more editors working on this article on this subject to get a consensus before we proceed. - Ahunt 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the UH-1 Iroquois variants article is really hurting anything now. I don't think it is linked in this article. Long term the variant details should go there or it should be made into a redirect as you say. -Fnlayson 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of see it as inevitable. If we use the B-17 article (I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record) as a model for this, then we will have far more substantive text. Right now there really isn't a lot of common history, just disjoint ones for individual variants. As I also said, with the widespread use of the helicopter the service history will be vastly expanded. The history of the helicopter in US service by itself does little justice to the almost half century of service. If all the other sections in the article, plus a common development history are done to a high standard than the article will be very long. The variant history in my mind will then deserve its own page. As it stands now, its not hurting anything and the variants page can be left unlinked to be added to as time allows. In the meantime, I personally feel it would be better to work on changing the focus of this article away from individual variant histories toward a more common common history of the UH-1. Note that these are my personal opinions and don't reflect a consensus. -- Thatguy96 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so I created a sandbox article for myself, and hopefully tonight I'll have some time to convert it in ways I've already been thinking about. You can view it here (its only a copy right now), and I'll let people know when I'm done so that people can comment if this is the direction we want to go in. I have done this instead of just going ahead and making massive changes on this page in order to try and respect that a consensus hasn't even been discussed let alone decided on. You can view the page here: User:Thatguy96/UH-1 -- Thatguy96 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the first round of changes have been made, and it shows my general intentions for the article. I'm curious to know if people think this would be a positive direction. -- Thatguy96 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, the Development section is going like I'd hope it would; a chronology of its dev history. -Fnlayson 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Various splits have been discussed at times. I split off the civil 204/205 and the military UH-1N variants eariler this year, and it seems to have proven workable. Two other options to consider:

1. Splitting of the Operators list.
2. Splitting of the long-fuselage single models, basically the UH-D/H/V family.
3. Another proposal that has been discussed, and can be done concurrently with any other option, is to have an overview page of the entire H-1 Huey and Cobra families. I began work on one at User:Fnlayson/Bell H-1 series, but other than adding a few pics, have not worked on it any further. This would enable this article to be tighter, perhaps just focussing on the short (204) models. Another editor and I tried something similar at Harrier Jump Jet, and I believe it works pretty well. - BillCJ 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatguy96: Your sandbox work looks pretty good. I understand the direction you are going there - the main article variants would be cut down to an outline and some details, and the variant details would go into the UH-1 Iroquois variants article.

I think you have made a good start there in that direction (it would probably help you if I didn't keep editing the UH-1 page, eh?) The only concern I have with what you have created is that there is still a lot of overlap in the variants section between the two articles. Perhaps it needs to be virtually deleted from the UH-1 article and concentrate on the operational history, etc, there?

I still think that the development history of the UH-1 is the history of its variants and that if you split them out to another article then you really have to remove that section entirely and just put in a "see variants article" tag instead. The main thing I am concerned about is that other editors will come along in the future, see the details on this article are sparse and then flesh out more details over time here on the UH-1 article again. Then we will have a mess that can only be fixed by either merging the two articles (!) or else deleting the whole development section and putting it all in the UH-1 Iroquois variants article.

It maybe worth pointing out that there is a history here - the UH-1 and UH-1F/P articles were once separate and were merged (see above). That is how I came to add more details to the other variants - the result of that merger made it look like the "F" was the only model worth discussing! -Ahunt 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand that history, and it makes sense that you would've gone in that direction. The language in my sandbox would have to be cleaned up to flow better anyhow, and I would hope the variants article would become infinitely more detailed than it would be if left the way it is now. Basically, I would hope the language would morph in a way that duplicate information is that way only because its unavoidable for certain basics. I'm all for splitting the basic article further down as well, but I think the UH-1 variants article for all US single engined variants (maybe a name change is in order) is still a good way to do that. I think what would be best, rather than an overview article, is something along the lines of the Patton tank page, a sort of portal to all the articles dealing with the topic. That way you could link all the splits in one place under a common name. I would really prefer that, with the possibility of splitting off long fuselage UH-1s (though the 204/205 article seems to work just fine in my opinion and there's no reason a straight UH-1 article can't work just as well IMO). Just my two cents. -- Thatguy96 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That all makes sense for me. Between your sandbox article and the existing UH-1 Iroquois variants article I think we could do that fairly quickly (both would need updating from the current main article which has been edited recently).

In general most people commenting here on the split seem to think it will need doing at some point. I do agree with you - I don't see a need to split the long body 205s from the short body 204s in the main article, at least at this point.

Does anyone else working on this article object to doing the split along these lines then? Let's gather a few more opinions and if there are no serious objections perhaps we can proceed in a few days time?

- Ahunt 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime you can feel free to edit the sandbox page (if we decide to go that route, we can just copy it over). My ability to work on such things can be relatively sporadic, and its there for that purpose, so don't hesitate to use it. -- Thatguy96 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UH-1B, UH-1C and the 204B

I've read somewhere in a source that the 204B is basically similar to the UH-1C, but I've seen it portrayed as being a civilian version of the UH-1B. Any sources out there? --Born2flie 15:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• My Frawley Int. Directories say the later. The Bell 204B was based on the UH-1B and had the Lycoming engine with 1100 shp. -Fnlayson 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

From a little reading, it seems that the 204B is basically a UH-1B body with UH-1D components. It is configured with the same main rotor (14.63 m) and engine as initially offered with the UH-1D versus the rotor (13.41 m) and engine on the UH-1B. Considering that the tailboom for the UH-1D is longer than the UH-1B to accomodate the longer main rotor, it would imply that the 204B tailboom must also be longer to accomodate the same rotor and that it is not exactly the same as the UH-1B or the UH-1C. Although, the UH-1C also has a longer tailboom to accomodate its longer main rotor (15.24 m).

This carries implications for other UH-1 variants as to whether they are based on the 204B or UH-1B variants. For instance, the UH-1F is also listed as having a 14.63 m rotor diameter and a longer tailboom, suggesting it is based on the 204B and not a true UH-1B variant. An interesting puzzle. I'll look for sources to clarify specifications for the 204B, UH-1B, and UH-1C variants. --Born2flie 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like all this happened at about the same time. The UH-1B and 204B were first delivered in 1961. UH-1C development began in 1960, with production starting in 1966. So the design progression went UH-1B -> 204B -> UH-1C. -Fnlayson 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be hard to separate this issue out! Bell is famous for creating "new" models by taking various parts off the existing assembly lines and putting them together in new combinations. "OH-58D transmission and rotor system + Bell 206L Long Ranger = Bell 407! - Ahunt 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Although they did stretch the 206L body width by almost 8 inches. True, it will be hard to find a source that clarifies everything, just interesting note through reading. Thought we might want to be on the look out for references. --Born2flie 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane's Aircraft Upgrades has the following dimensions:

Model	Fuselage	Rotor	Overall Length
UH-1B	12.98 m	13.41 m	16.15 m
204B	13.59 m	14.63 m	17.37 m
UH-1D	13.59 m	14.63 m	16.42 m
UH-1F	13.59 m	14.63 m	17.40 m

--Born2flie 13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Characteristic Sound

Maybe it would be a good addition to note the characteristic sound of this helicopter. Which is supposedly caused by the advancing rotor blade breaking the speed of sound and creating a small sonic boom. I'm not knowledgable about helicopters, so I'm leaving this here.83.118.38.37 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't say I've any clue why Hueys sound like they do, but it's been said to be unmistakable. Trekphiler 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In normal cruise, the rotor tip speed is subsonic. It might get to 0.9 mach, you might want to check my numbers. The "thump" is due blade flap, AFAIK. This happens with all helicopters, but it's particularly acute with the Huey due to long blades and low rotor RPM. In right kind descent you can really to get it going. The CH-47 Chinook also has long blades, but there are more of them. They both thump loudly from a distance, but the low frequency "thump-thump-thump" from the Huey is definitely unique. Madhu 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The UH-1H maximum rated forward airspeed is 120 knots, approximately 139 mph. At the maximum forward airspeed and 100%Nr the maximum advancing rotor tip speed is 0.9 mach as you calculated, the rotor is subsonic. However the characteristic thump can still be created by supersonic flows as a normal shock will form on the upper surface of the airfoil at the Critical Mach Number for the airfoil. The Critical Mach Number depends on the airfoil cross section and can occur well below Mach 1, sometimes below Mach 0.7. While I don't know what the Critical Mach Number is for the Huey main rotor blade, if we assume 0.8 the normal shock would develop on the advancing rotor tip at 52 knots. I beleive that this is the source of the characteristic thump for several reasons:

First the characteristic thump only occurs in forward flight at moderate to maximum airspeed and grows louder as airspeed increases.

The characteristic thump is heard by an observer as the aircraft approaches and disappears as the aircraft passes overhead.

The characteristic thump increases as heard by an observer when the helicopter is in a turn probably due to the increased velocity over the top of the rotor due to increased loading.

Rotor flap may play a part in creating the thump but I would suspect it is minimal for a several of reasons:

First the pitch of the advancing rotor is decreasing as it comes around. If there were blade flap due to pitch it would not necessarily occur on the advancing rotor.

If there were an consistent inbalance in the lifting forces between the advancing and retreating blade due to flap it would cause the aircraft to turn or pitch.

Sound due to flap should be omnidirectional meaning you would hear it after the aircraft passes as well. You would also hear it in the aircraft as well and I don't recall hearing that. You do often get a 1 to 1 vibration but it is due to minor rotor trim differences, it occurs at all speeds and a thump would be a 2 to 1 vibration.

You get the sounds from the advancing rotor of many aircraft but it is more pronounced on the UH-1 and AH-1 It is a two bladed hinged main rotor, 48 ft. dia. on the UH-1H and 44 ft. dia. on the AH-1S. Two blades mean a higher main rotor RPM is needed to generate the same lift than would be need for 3 or more blades on the same rotor diameter. While the main rotor RPM is higher for the two bladed rotor, the number of blade passings would be lower making the thumps more distinct.

It is a distinct sound. Down at CCAD you could often hear the aircraft returning from flight test before you could see them especially near the end of the day when the pilots wanted to get back.--138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Variants and new expanded text

Hey, so I really like this idea of expanding in the text on the specific variants. I just wonder that with so many of them, a split into separate articles like B-17 Flying Fortress and B-17 Flying Fortress variants might be a better idea. Thoughts? -- Thatguy96 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Ahunt for adding all that info. Splitting off variants might be a good idea in the near future. Right now splitting it off would leave little development information here. -Fnlayson 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. But something to think about for the future for sure. Also, I want it to be clear wasn't my work if you're thanking me for it. -- Thatguy96 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. My mistake, Ahunt added the info. Corrected above. 'preciate it. -Fnlayson 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - good topic to discuss! I have been expanding the article with info on each variant from the paper sources that I have. I started on this mostly because there were some nice existing sections on the UH-1F and P but none on the more major variants, like the B,D and H. The earlier text made the F and P seem like the only versions worth mentioning, whereas they were a very small part of production. (COI admission - I spent a lot of my life flying UH-1Hs and so I thought they should be at least mentioned in the article as the most numerous type!)

I have been adding more info as I have time to write it and I don't have many more variants to cover in this article - only the E, L and K, all of which are fairly short sections. If I can suggest: give me a chance to finish those off and then I will post a note here indicated that is done. At that point let's discuss whether the article is too long and needs to be split into separate articles. How is that? - Ahunt 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Splitting off the variants would most likely be a long term thing. Keep going like you are, no rush. If a variant is a modified version of another, they can be put in the same section the designations bolded. Like what's done in Boeing 747 with the secondary variants like 747-100B. -Fnlayson 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I have "UH-1E" ready to go. I should have the rest of it done in the next couple of days - we have a rainy weekend in the forecast for here! - Ahunt 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I have finished the main part of my work on this article - doing write-ups on the variants, cleaning up the "F" and "P" sections and shortening the ""Variant overview" section to remove redundancies with the rest of the text.

The article is nowhere near "finished" and some questions remain at this time:

• Is the article too long and does it therefore need splitting into separate "UH-1" and "UH-1 Variants" articles, as suggested?
• Since I have incorporated all the referenced info that appears in the "Variant overview" list into the text body does this section need to stay in the article? Removing it would shorten the page considerably. There is some info in that list that is not referenced and that I cannot confirm (specifically the "G", "J" and "U" info) and therefore have not incorporated into the body, but that could be done if the list were to be eliminated from the article. I have tagged those as {{Fact|date=October 2007}} to mark which ones they are.

- Ahunt 14:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if it wouldn't be better to just remove all the variant subsections to the seperate UH-1 Variants article and leave the variants overview. This would also shorten the article dramatically, and I think there's still enough left and room for expansion in the base UH-1 article to make this viable. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Markings

I added info on Navy markings and it was deleted at least twice. I've tried to add more information about the markings carried on shipboard U.S. Navy UH-1Ns. Unfortunately I can't find any pictures of these "organic to the ship" helos, although at one time I think I found one somewhere on google. The only source I have for this information is my father, who was a Navy helo pilot on H-46s and UH-1s in the late 70s and 80s and flew the ship's helo on the USS Guadalcanal in 1983. I've seen pictures of this helicopter in some of my dad's belongings, but other than that I can't really find any on the internet. I know that generally Navy -1Ns flying rescue on bases were painted orange, but shipboard examples were indeed painted dark grey like other Navy helicopters. I'll try and find more verifiable info if anyone is dissatisfied, and help would be appreciated/welcome!Bm5481 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a photo of the helicopter my dad flew on Helispot.com. It was nicknamed "candycane." Here's a link http://www.helispot.com/photo/0000334 Bm5481 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Air Force Magazine[4] says that Bell was selected from 20 companies competing to design the Army's first turbine-powered medical evacuation helicopter on 23 February 1955, but then it also says that Floyd Carlson first flew the XH-40 on 26 October 1956. The latter date contradicts the 22 October 1956 first flight date found in nearly all other references. Typo or ? --Born2flie 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This source[5] claims the date as 20 October 1956. --Born2flie 07:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting issue - it is not surprising that with so many sources on this popular subject that the quoted "facts" would vary!

Lou Drendel says that the announcement of Bell as the winner of the design competition came on 23 Feb 55 with the first flight of the XH-40 on 22 Oct 56 (Drendel, Lou: Huey, page 9. Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, Texas, 1983. ISBN 0-89747-145-8)

Wayne Mutza says that Bell was given a contract to build three prototypes in June 1955 and that the first flight of the XH-40 was also 22 Oct 56 (Mutza, Wayne: UH-1 Huey In Action, page 4, Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton TX USA 1986. ISBN 0-89747-179-2)

I think we can say it was in October 1956, but the exact date isn't that clear! Having done a whole bunch of factory helicopter production test flying myself, I can only guess that the confusion in dates may be simply the difference between first "ground runs", "first hover flight" (probably six inches off the ground), "second hovering flight" (higher and with backwards and sideways hovering flight thrown in) and "first forward flight". Test flying these sorts of things is generally done in increments with lots of "leak checks and inspections" in between runs and even people who were there might not agree which is the significant "first flight date". - Ahunt 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, another source I have also says 22 Oct 56 for the first flight of the XH-40. (Apostolo, Giorgio: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters, page 47. Bonanza Books, New York, 1984. ISBN 0-517-439352) - Ahunt 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The latter date contradicts the 22 October 1956 first flight date found in nearly all other references. Typo or ?

— Born2flie 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, I was wondering why the disparity in the dates. Another reference is from a NAVAIR public affairs release that agrees with the tri.army.mil source, so the Navy and (part of) the Army don't agree with the Air Force, and neither agrees with the rest. --Born2flie 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just "military efficiency"! - Ahunt 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Air Force reference says it was the day that Larry Bell died, which the Wikipedia article says was 20 October 1956, which would agree with the date from the Army reference (tri.army.mil). So, I'm thinking the Air Force Magazine date is a typo, 26 when it should be 20. Which would make the Air Force Magazine, tri.army.mil and NAVAIR all in agreement on the date. I've also seen another web reference state 20 October and reference the day Larry Bell died. --Born2flie 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they all just disagree! Drendel in particular does mention the first flight in relation to Larry Bell's death and says:

In June of 1955, Bell was awarded a contract for construction and testing of three XH-40 prototypes. The first flight of the XH-40 was made on 22 October 1956. The exhilaration felt by the design team was tempered with sadness at the passing of the company's founder. Lawrence Bell had died on 20 October. This first flight was followed by a successful test program, which resulted in an order for six YH-40s for service tests, and was followed by a further order for nine pre-production aircraft. (Drendel, Lou: Huey, page 9. Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, Texas, 1983. ISBN 0-89747-145-8)

This agrees with many of the other sources, like Mutza and Apostolo, but not what you have found in the mil refs. You can't assume that the USAF was a typo - you never know!

I get back to my previous contention that the dates are probably all right, but represent different events. Perhaps they did the first hover on the 20th but the first forward flight on the 22nd? Perhaps it was brief rotor tracking flight and was under a minute and the first flight off the aerodrome was on the 26th? It is really hard to say, without better refs. It seems the more we check the less we know.

I suspect that Bell would be the authoritative source, since it was their test program - everyone else there was an observer. Bell's website has nothing useful on the subject - their history is very short and very incomplete. A scout of the internet finds a plethora of dates, with 22 Oct 56 the most often quoted (like this one Huey helicopters.com). The problem is that the majority of those are probably relying in the Wikipedia article as a reference! I don't see a clear answer here anywhere. - Ahunt 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For a definitive answer, we could ask User:Stefanomencarelli - I'm sure he has a childrens's book or a magazine (both written in Italian), and those sources are NEVER wrong. :) Seriously, I'm for leaving out the day until we clarify the issue> A correspondance to Bell would probably be the only way to clear this up, assuming they respond. Also, the Army Aviation Museum in AL (or related Army organizations) may also have detailed info available. - BillCJ 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can assume that the date in the Air Force Magazine was a typo since it says the flight occurred on the same date as Larry Bell's death, which we know for a fact was not 26 October 1956. I'll check Jane's sometime today and see if they list a first flight date as well. --Born2flie 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane's says that XH-40 first flight was 20 October 1956. --Born2flie 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Monograph, History of Army Aviation – 1950-1962, published by the Office of the Command Historian, TRADOC, dated 1991, says: 22 October 1956. Can't get anyone to agree on this thing. --Born2flie (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Former Operating Units

Over time there seems to be a concerted effort [6] [7] [8] to remove well sourced information on former units that operated the UH-1, particularly Canadian Forces units. I have just reverted one such edit that had a blank edit summary. As I noted in my edit summary reverting on-topic, sourced, information with a blank edit summary is assumed to be vandalism.

Rather than edit-warring on this subject, it needs to be discussed here first. I invited editors of this article to voice their opinions - let's see what the consensus of editors is. Does anyone think this information is not relevant to the article?

I think it should be retained - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ANigg is generally a sincere editor, though he may be somewhat younger than most of us. I'm certain his edits weren't vandalism, though he should have explained his edits. I'd recommend asking him what he thought the problem was, and I'm sure he'll tell you. Some of this type of deletion is done because other nationes don't have such detailed lists, and so some editors feel it is "unfair" for one to be listed like that, and not "their" nation too. It's typical of the type of national one-up-manship we see far too often on WP. Another summary did say it was "unnecessary", again probably because the other nations aren't listed. As the list stands now, I see no problem with including the Canadian units. An "expand" tag might be useful to encourage the units of otehr nations to be added. If this does happen, we will probably need to split the litst off to it's own page at some point. ALso, given the US Army had thousands of Hueys at one point, any attempt to list those units should probably be done on a separte page from the start. - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts, Bill. I have to agree that if the list gets very long that it would be worthwhile to make it a separate article! - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ANigg seems to be carrying on his determined campaign to rid this article of previous units that operated the UH-1. I thought we had dealt with this issue above, but apparently not. In the interest on finding some additional consensus on this issue I would like to hear from any editors working on this article who agree with deleting former units that operated the UH-1 (when properly referenced). Obviously I think these are relevant and should stay, although I do agree with User:BillCJ above that if the list gets too long that it should be moved to a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I always understood that the operator section of aircraft articles cover all operators both current and past. It is unusual to have the former operators in a different section. I would suggest splitting the list of into a List of UH-1 Iroquois operators, which would list all users and could have appropriate inline comments if former operators need to be identified as such. In other similar articles just the flags of countries is left behind in the main (this) article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion, particularly if the list gets substantially longer than at present. In the meantime I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus to delete units that currently operate or formerly operated the UH-1 from this article. The consensus is that they should either stay in the article or be moved to an article specific to that subject. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of UH-1 Iroquois operators article was created and all detailed info were moved from this article. Feel free to update this new article with all known units etc. Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AH-1 Cobra help

The AH-1 Cobra article has some early paragraphs about its background that cover the UH-1 and its arming during Vietnam. I don't have any sources that get into this content. If you can try to help reference the UH-1 paragraphs in the AH-1 article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Extra UH-1N Twin Huey photo

I have moved an extra HH-1N photo repeatedly added to this article to the article UH-1N Twin Huey instead. The section on the UH-1N Twin Huey in this article is really intended to be a short treatment for sake of completion and to guide people to the main article on the UH-1N. This really only requires one photo to illustrate it. The photo itself is fine, but UH-1N photos really belong on the UH-1N Twin Huey page. If there is a real need for an HH-1N photo on this page then I would be happy to hear that explained, since none of the edit summaries addressed that issue. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Ahunt actions - only one Twin Huey image is needed - lots of other variants in need of images but the Twin Huey has its own article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to give support for User:Wolfpac032 Since I turned him on to Wikipedia. Adam it’s not entirely that fair you have Canadian Huey pics everywhere. In this article alone you have two, the CH-118 & CH 135. In the List of UH-1 Iroquois operators You’ve got CH-118 twice there, & In former Operators you have the long list of Units that USE TO operate the “Huey” which I’m sure has some value to someone, somewhere. Not talking about even the UH-1N Twin Huey, with your Canadian CH 135 picture Gallery. You have done a phenomenal job on the Canadian end of things for the UH-1, but the Huey is a helicopter that has been used by many nations, and I think it be fair that in place of the CH 135, we submit another pic from an alternate country. The article should give readers a chance to see UH-1 in a different countries color.ANigg (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur I think the artcle should have more Pictures of Huey's from around the world period, one to many from the U.S.A.AQMD (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Only 1 UH-1N/CUH-1N/C-135 image needs to be in this article, since those are covered in the UH-1N article. The best UH-1N/CUH-1N/C-135 image should be used here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and support. In this case the substituted HH-1N photo is okay, but it was shot from a distance and doesn't clearly show the differences between the single and twin-engined versions, which are predominantly the nose and the engine cowlings. The existing photo, while of a Canadian CH-135, was chosen because the differences are most evident, particularly when contrasted with the two UH-1H images higher up in the article.

Note to Andrew: Yes I do have a large library of UH-1 photos, but you will note that I did make a point of contributing two US Army UH-1 images to this article, with a special view to national balance. The UH-1N Twin Huey article is a different case to some extent, since Canada was the launch customer and initiated the design of that aircraft. I recognized there that the CH-135 variants/colour schemes shouldn't dominate the article and that is why they are in a gallery at the bottom, instead of replacing other photos. The issue of operators/former operators was solved by consensus long ago.

I also note that User:Skydog1531 has reverted the deletion of the HH-1N picture referring that to this discussion page. I guess that means we need to come up with a consensus as to how many UH-1N photos this article needs and which one(s) best illustrate it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it should be one pic. Maybe someone could, find one to demonstrate the characteristics, of a UH-1N Twin, but as others have noted one from another country?Skydog1531 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

By my count there are 11 photos of US UH-1s (including two "N"s), 3 of Canadian (including one "N") and 1 Australian UH-1. Given the numbers that were used by different countries, is this current balance a problem? Is adding the second US "N" the best way to balance the article? - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC

No it isn't and the HH-1N will be removed, I would like to see moved foreign hueys put in to replace some of the US verison, & some of the Canadians as wellWolfpac032 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of it, but the UH-1 was designed and built in the US, and there were thousands of them in US service during the 1960s-90s. This, combined with the fact the almost all images taken by US military personnel or government employees while on duty are Public Domain (PD) (ie, free!), means there are far more images available of UH-1s in US military and government service. Also, there are several Cnadian editors who took lots of pics of Canadian aircraft over the years, and they have graciously taken the time to upload them onto Commons for everyone to be able to use. If you have access to free or PD images, then by all means find/upload them, and place them in the article, assuming they are quality images (not too blurry, faded, etc.) But images taken by most other governments have copyrights of some kind, so free images are much harder to find. If people are able to find free images and upload them, then that's great. But if not, you'll just have to live with the US and Canadian images. After all, it's not the pictures' falult they are free, and others are not~ ;) - BillCJ (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)