Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Plague of Frogs?

Can somebody who knows (more than me...) explain the difference between the Hogs & Frogs of 'nam? I understand the Hogs had rocket pods & Frogs didn't; am I wrong? Trekphiler 04:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Hog" configuration (also known as Heavy Hog) was the combination of the M3 rocket system (2 12 rocket packs, one on each side of the aircraft) and the M5 grenade launcher system (one 40mm M75 grenade launcher in a nose turret), while the "Frog" configuration simply used the M156 universal rack fitted with two aircraft type 19-tube rocket launchers. Both were configurations favored by UH-1s assigned to Aerial Rocket Artillery batteries. -- Thatguy96 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hog did not have a grenade launcher. The Hog was a UH-1C with two 24 tube rocket launchers. It was the Frog that had the two 12 tube rocket launchers along with the grenade launcher.

Aerial Rocket Artillery (ARA) consisted of AH-1 cobras with four 24 tube rocket launchers. lwanmjr@comcast.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.112.175 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

UH-1H sub-variants

The Variants Development section seems to have repeated info on a few of the UH-1H derivatives. Currently there are bulleted entries on them and some have short subsections as well. I grouped them together under the UH-1H section. However, I was not sure of a good way to combine them and cover the non-repeated ones (HH-1H, & EH-1H). Any suggestions, ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually put that together - my original idea was to list the Hotel model subtypes in the Hotel section and then keep the actual paragraphs describing them in alpha-numeric order. Since you moved the Hotel subtypes under the Hotel section the list is really redundant. I think looking at it now that either the subtype descriptions have to be returned to alpha-numeric order or the list needs to be removed. My original reason for putting them in order (i.e. UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1C...etc) was to make it easier for readers to find a specific variant that they were looking for. In other words the UH-1V would be after the UH-1P and not under UH-1H. The main thing I am concerned about is if you are going to put the V, X and JUH-1 under the H then the F and P should be under the B, the K and L should be under the E, the M should be under the C and the Y should be under the N. It would get pretty messy.- Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The basic description are repeated later in the Variants section, which is in proper model order. I think the Development section would be better without so many subsections. What about combining the H subvariants info in paragraph form where it is now? More timeframe/date in the Development section would help, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been a subject of debate in WikiProject Aircraft as to whether the development section should deal in generalities and stay away from model-specific details, leaving that for the variants section or whether variants should be detailed. We did rather argue ourselves to "no consensus" on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Variant_heading_levels and agreed to accept either approach for the time being.

I have always had a problem with having a development section that doesn't deal with the sub-models of an aircraft, especially when there is a long list of variants, as in the UH-1. I find the best way to tell the story of the development is through the models that make up the family. Most project members seem to disagree with that approach, preferring sub-models to be covered under variants, so I defer to that consensus.

Here is a proposal, then, based on what we discussed on the WikiProject as mentioned. It seems redundant to have the sub-models all described in the Dev section and then again listed in the Variants section. How about if I combine the two sections, moving the sub-model descriptions out of Dev and into Variants, leaving room to expand the Dev section if needed? - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Do you want to just add text to the entries currently in the Variants section or switch subsection labels for the main models (prototypes, A, B, C, D, F, H, ... N, Y) to better hold the text? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was essentially going to merge the sub-model parts of the Dev section with the Variants list in the Variants section itself, since that is where the Project has decided it belongs. I am not sure yet what that will leave in the Dev section. I should get to it later on today. I'll drop a note here when I am done and you can see if it is an improvement or not! Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I have a different interpretation of what the outcome of the Project's discussion on Variants was. To me, the Variants section is a list of the variants for a quick overview, with each section no more than a sentence or two long. THe Design/Development and Operational history sections are the places to cover the most of the details, in prose form, and chronologically if possible. It looks like a sentence could be added to nmost of the existing entries in the Variants list, but I wouldn't add much more. Just my opinion. - BillCJ (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill: The problem then is essentially that this would mean removing the headings in the Dev section to make it one long section describing the development of the family, which is essentially the story of all the sub-models, and adding a single line or two to each model in the Variants section. Unfortunately I believe that would make the article harder to understand than it is now as it would worsen the overlap between the Dev and Variants sections and make the end result even more redundant and longer.

I come back to the original problem with an aircraft type, like the UH-1, that went through a long evolution throughout its life that, once the prototypes are described the development history is then the history of each variant. Standing back and looking at it from a distance I don't see the need for both a Development and Variants sections.

If anything this is made more complex by the existence of the UH-1 Iroquois variants article, which was originally intended to remove all the variants detail from this article, but hasn't been really worked on since the end of 2007. That move was never completed. It could be done, leaving the variants list here but the remaining Development section will be very short, or else it will simply duplicate UH-1 Iroquois variants instead.

If you want to I can give that a try: expanding the existing variants section here with a one line or so description and moving all the variants detail over to UH-1 Iroquois variants. It isn't going to leave much in the Dev section in this article, however. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten we had the variants article, as there isn't a prominent link to it anywhere in the article. Also, it really seems to be a complete restating of the Development section here. I'd rather see a Bell UH-1 family variants-type article in list form that has all the UH-1/204/205/212 variants, with or without civil variants, and focus this article on the military 204/205 types (UH-1A/B and UH-1D/H sub-families). I'd even support splitting out the UH-1D/H variants, but I can see keeping them here too. There are many ways to go with the UH-1 family, and one way is not more right than the other, as long as the articles try to follow the basic WPAIR layout where possible and reasonable. As writen, this article is trying to be both a Huey overview page and a more-detailed history of the military 204/205 types. This is where a "Bell UH-1 family variants" article might be useful in giving a brief overview, allowing this page to focus the history of the types in the Development section, with a brief listing of A/B and D/H variants in the Variants section. - BillCJ (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The UH-1 Iroquois variants article is essentially an unfinished draft proposal, which is why it isn't linked to this article. We kind of fought this one to a standstill before and I really don't know where to go with it. I do know that if the Variants info is removed from this article that there won't be much to write about under Development, but maybe this article can focus on operational employment instead? - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill: In thinking about what you said earlier, you are quite right, we need a master list of all the UH-1/204/205 etc aircraft in one place so that people can find all the different articles related to this family of aircraft. I put this article together today at Bell Huey. By no means do I consider it complete, but have a look and see what needs to be done to expand it. Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam, that looks great! I'm sure others will strat adding to it and tweaking the format once it's listed in the Huey articles, but I can't see anything that you've missed in my first once-over. I did notice the yellow Hueys from the Land Up North that always seem to be in these articles - funny,, huh? ;) Btw, do you have any photos with more than one Huey variant in the image? That would be a good lead photo for this page - even yellow ones would be fine! My health problems (Fibromyalgia) have been aqcting up this week, so it's hard for me to make major edits that require a long sitting. You could go ahead and list in at New AIrcraft articles, and and it to the See also sections of the Huey variant articles, and see what happens - I think it's ready as-is. Again, good work! - BillCJ (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you aren't doing well this week. I have listed it all over the place, let's see if some others wade in and improve it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also redirected it from a few places, including your suggestion of Bell UH-1 family variants. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lacking any other thoughts here I have updated all the info in the article at UH-1 Iroquois variants and then removed the overlapping content from the Dev section here. This article was getting over the limit for size any way. The Dev section does need expanding now however. I am not sure what can be added here without talking about variants, however! On the plus side this does solve the original problem that Fnlayson and I were discussing earlier of the conflict between the Variants section and Dev section in this article. Have a look and see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Before re-adding movies like "Forrest Gump", once again, please read the guidelines for inclusion. Movies such as this do not meet the guidelines and should not be included in this list. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who flew the UH-1 in Vietnam?

I heard the US Army had to create a new "officer, but not exactly officer" rank for the many thousands of Huey pilots, who received a one-year accelerated training from civilian right to the Vietnam battlefield. That info could go into the article. 91.83.18.109 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of Warrent Officers. What you are looking for is at US_army_ranks#Rank_structure - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is supported by most of the official Field Manuals on helicopter units. Pilots were all WOs unless they were platoon leaders and as a result Lieutenants. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, they were Warrant Officers, WO-1 - WO-4. As opposed to a Commission, they held a Warrant. Based on the sources I have seen, this was an administrative convenience used by the Army to allow someone without a degree to fly. There is a long, storied, history behind this kind of maneuvering. In WWII the USN had NAP (Naval Aviation Pilots) and the Army used 'flying sergeants' to cope with the demand for rated aviators without a degree. In the source material I have read, usually a Warrant was awarded to a long-service enlisted man as a way to give recognition for that service at retirement, or to recognize a superior enlisted man (person) :-) who did not have the time to go back to school to complete a degree program. When Vietnam (and WWII) came up, it was recognized by DCSOPS (Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations) as a way to get a lot of pilots in the channel as a quick fix. We lost a lot of birds proving that theory. Not to be negative, really. There are a lot of veteran Huey pilots that used this as their first rung on the ladder to W-4, including people who rose from the non-commissioned ranks to perform some really amazing things....The first commander of the Night Stalkers comes to mind...Foamking (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The rank existed long before Vietnam. See the Warrant Officer (United States) article. --Born2flie (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

UH-1B on display in Bodø, Norway

One UH-1B is on display at the Museum of Aviation in Bodø, Norway. Shuld this be added to the article? (Source: luftfart.museum.no) Also, another UH-1B is used for educating aircraft technicians at the School's section of the museum. This aircraft is on display once a year at Bodø Airshow, which is held at the beginning of the summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.193.117 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I cant see any reason why the aircraft at Bodo should not be listed. Not sure the other is really notable enough, it really needs to be on permanent display otherwise the list would be expanded to list thousands of surviving UH-1s. With an aircraft type with many still in operation then the list should be restricted to those on public display. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More Basic Info please

I would really love to know more about this icon of the air. Although this article is very thorough in many ways, i feel some of the basics are missing.

Having an inquisitive mind but only a basic and lay understanding of helicopters and how they work, i turned to this article mostly to find out what made the Huey so successful and therefore special in its design.

For example, i have noticed it only had a two bladed main rotor. Why was this superior and chosen over a four bladed i have noticed on many other types. Furthermore, i only learned that the rotor rpm for the Huey was apparently rather slow compared to other helicopters by reading the DISCUSSION section where it talks about the unique thumping noise they make. NOT in the article where such information clearly belongs!

WHY was it chosen as superior. How many men could it transport. I read somewhere else that apparently troops would unusually to normal practice point their weapons upward as compared to toward the floor of the aircraft due to the position of the fuel tank on this type. Is this true? I would like some details about this. In fact, i was looking forward to learning about the machine's armour to protect personnel and/or vital components; i got absolutely nothing. What were its vulnerable spots? How did pilot tactics develop to negate these as much as possible? What for example was the layout like inside. I have seen tantalizing glimpses in movies and pictures, but what was it really like and why? Were the pilots vulnerable because of all the plexiglass or was this a good compromise for their visibility? What is the huge box like structure that occupies so much of the passenger cabin near the rear of same? Is it a transmission? And if so, why? With a turbine one would think an external gearbox would be redundant, or was it to step down the rpms to a low speed as mentioned earlier in only the Discussion Section?

Like i said, i am no expert so perhaps it takes someone like me to miss these sorts of facts and details. But i would really have liked to have known. After all this aircraft has such a special history to people of my generation who lived through the daily news from Vietnam (often showing Hueys in action) i feel very strongly that it deserves a very strong article listing more than the general knowledge provided. For my needs there is FAR TOO MUCH emphasis on numbers and models and variants and not NEARLY enough about the darned aircraft itself!

Sorry about my two cents worth but i am very disappointed and feel really hungry for more. That being said however, please let no one who contributed to this article feel the least bit slighted as i regard EVERYONE and ANYONE who contributes work to the wonderful repository that is the Wikipedia an absolute hero that the world and future generations owe a great debt to. I know of no worthier human project. Thank you! Outofthewoods (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a good point and the design section was tagged for expansion, too. I have dragged out my refs and added a fair amount of detail to the section. I hope that helps? I have hundreds more pages of refs and so if there is some more info you want to see included I can probably find it and add it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the big help there, Ahunt. Got a couple questions I have not been able to figure out. My Eden encylo lists the prototype XH-40 with a prototype XT53 825 shp engine and initial A-models with a T53 700 shp engine (later A-models had a 770 shp engine). Any idea on why the power decreased there? I think the capacity went from ~7 troops on the early UH-1As up to ~12 troops on the UH-1D/H (205). Did the UH-1D add another row of seats or bench? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the full story on development was in this article until it was split off into UH-1 Iroquois variants, where that info remains today. Unfortunatley it leaves this main article pretty bare. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that explains the seating part. The production engine was probably derated to 700 hp for better reliability. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The fluctuation in engine power was based on improvement in the engine technology. 700 shp was the maximum continuous power for the XT53 (T53-L-1), which went up to 770 shp for the T53-L-1A. Maximum power and maximum continuous power for the T53-L-13 was 1,400 shp.[1] --Born2flie (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did anyone do any research on the original RFP? It was designed to carry 11-12 combat loaded troops to the battlefield at a speed of >100 kts.Foamking (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

11-12 equipped troops? Medical evacuation was its main task when it was procured. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The short body UH-1A/B/C etc could never carry 11-12 equipped troops. They only had 9 seats in the back, including the one the crew chief occupied. Even without seats installed they didn't have the power to lift that much weight. When I flew UH-1Ns we only advertised carrying 8 equipped troops and that was a squeeze with rifles and rucksacks, just due to volume. The rucksacks were strapped down where the forward four-man bench would go and the rest of the seats were all filled by the eight soldiers and the Flt Engr. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I doubted there was room and payload capacity with the early variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Last produced in 1976 ?

I have a question on the last sentence in lead. Does "The last were produced in 1976 with more than 16,000 made in total.." mean the UH-1N as the last one produced? I have not found that detail in my books or sources. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it by removing the date. I think that was for the UH-1N, but is no longer correct as UH-1Y is in production. See page 6 of Bell UH-1Y pocket guide. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if 1976 was the last production of any single-engine variants? --Born2flie (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True, that's very likely. That would be a good thing to mention in this article if the date and reference for it can be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1982-83 talks about production of the UH-1H/Bell 205 for the US Army and export until December 1980, with the US Army production line due to restart for exports to Turkey, and deliveries of the UH-1N continuing until 1978.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jane's. Thank you. According to Jane's AWA 1989-90, production was stopped briefly in 1980 and restarted for Turkey's order and went until 1987. Fuji was still producing Model 205s in 1989. Jane's Aircraft Upgrades stated Fuji produced the single-engine UH-1J during 1988-1998. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Further development info

The Development sections covers things pretty well now. Although I think some mention on the UH-1H, -1N and -1Y should be added. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Born added a paragraph on the UH-1H. I added some text on the UH-1N and Y. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Operators list

In looking at the list of operators here in this article and comparing it to List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators it is obvious that this list is out of date and missing some operators that the main list has. I was going to try to figure out which are missing and update this list, but it occurs to me that this list of operators in this article is not serving much purpose. I propose removing the list in this article and leaving just the link to List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators under the section heading. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, normally we would leave behind a list of countries in the main article but this is such a large list it really does not give any value. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay it has been a week with no further discussion, so I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

The UH-1 is mostly known as the Huey, and that is it's official USMC designation. I propose that the name is changed to Bell UH-1 Huey. --Conor Fallon (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The USMC's versions, the UH-1N and UH-1Y, have their own articles. In almost all cases, WP US military aircraft articles use the official name even when nickname is more common. Also, do you have a source for "Huey" being the official USMC name? DOD 4120.15L lists "Iroquois" as the official name. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the whole line, so it would be fair to include USMC versions. --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article is on the single-engine military versions, which does include the USMC's now-long-retired UH-1E. The UH-1N and Y versions are mentioned, but covered on their own pages. All of which has nothing to do with the status of "Iroquois" as the official name. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

27 February 1991 shoot down

An IP editor has now added this incident three times and I have removed it twice. I am now moving the discussion from my talk page over here where it belongs. This is a combat loss, one of about 5000 UH-1s lost from various causes. It doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH and to my mind is non-notable and should be removed from the article. I note that User:Fnlayson has already trimmed it to match the cited ref and tagged it as of questionable importance. Moreover the ref cited looks from the main page like it is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This text would be OK with a better ref and as part of a paragraph on use during the Gulf War/Desert Storm and later combat/training use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are UH-1s flying around in my area near the Army base here. I saw one this morning, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be anymore notable than all the other thousands of combat loses, should be removed, as the addition was challenged it should not have been restored without a consensus here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I see.. you're wrong: "it doesn't involved fatalities". The crew was killed in action, so it fully fits the standard. Please just write the pilot name on google before removing any material or challanging it, saying "self-published". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter that somebody was killed it happens in combat and is not really notable, I suspect the number of UH-1s lost in fatal combat losses is not a small number but none of them are encyclopedic including this one. Also note that you have to gain a consensus to include it as the addition was challenged it can be removed straight away pending that consensus to add it. So really you need to make the case that this combat loss is far more notable than any other accident or incident related to the UH-1 and then get agreement to include it from other editors on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonono, you gave a rule WP:AIRCRASH, it totally fits the rule, so quit and stop messing around. Let's not use double standards here uh? Eventually if someone is going to add huey by huey and this acticle becomes too big you should start something like this: Boeing 747 hull losses, just to give you an idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.235.17 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to go back and read AIRCRASH again. For military crashes to be included in type article they have to involve fatalities and hull loss of damage on the ground and involve a change in rules, regulations or procedures. It has to satisfy all three criteria or it isn't notable. As I mentioned with over 5000 UH-1s lost over the years this guideline is in place specifically to prevent the type articles from being filled up with thousands of incidents like this one. Also the ref cited is not a reliable source as it is self published, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

198 please remember to be civil, the guideline says that for small military aircraft that the individual killed has to be notable, which means that at least one of the crew members has to have a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Having interacted with armyaircrews.com before on the accuracy of their information, I would like to point out that:

• joebaugher.com lists that same serial number as an RV-1D on the same date being shot down during a MEDEVAC. Interestingly, an F-16 is also listed as being shot down that day.
• Aviation Safety Network also lists the same serial number as an RV-1D, but lists the aircraft being operated by the USAF, with an Army unit designation and the names of the crew as listed on armyaircrews.com. Besides getting the number of fatalities versus occupants wrong, it lists four crew even though the RV-1D only has a crew of two.[2]
• According to helis.com, serial numbers for Army UH-1Ds produced in 1964 ranged from 64-13492 to 64-13901.[3]
• Consider that by the time of the incident in question, all U.S. Army MEDEVAC aircraft are UH-1V, possibly still UH-1H and carrying much later year serial numbers than 64.
• It is a matter of congressional record that CWO Hein was a pilot with the 507th Medical Company and died during the conduct of a MEDEVAC mission in Kuwait on 27 February 1991.[4]

Whether the aircraft was shot down or crashed is not adequately established, and Hein is listed as both a KIA and a non-combat death. I think there is significant doubt as to the circumstances surrounding the loss of the aircraft, as well as the identity of the aircraft. There is probably some bit of confusion with 3 helicopters being reported as shot down that day. --Born2flie (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, an RV-1D is a Grumman OV-1 Mohawk!! I think this tends to prove that the ref cited is not reliable. We seem to have a pretty good consensus here to remove the paragraph in question, unless there are further thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay a few days have passed with no further input, so I think we have a consensus to remove this para under WP:AIRCRASH and also for being referenced to an SPS source. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is so crystal clear, just remove the questionable part and move on. On the other hand, WP:BURDEN is the operating keyword for the party who keeps re-adding the questionable content. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree! It has been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)