Talk:Hughes H-6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hughes H-6 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal


Contents

[edit] Armament question

In the box, it says two miniguns or two rocket pods, yet in Black Hawk Down (both movie and book), it states that AH-6's carry two 70mm rocket pods AND two miniguns. In addition, various sources say that MH-6's carry arnament. Explain.

>> Explanation: some H-6's at this point have gone through substantial refit, including some special operations aircraft which have gone through structural refit and now have four hard points (two mounted to the extreme interior) to accommodate four briefcases. It should be noted these modifications are not sufficiently substantial structurally to allow four heavy briefcases (four chaingun pods plus ammunition) but plenty stout to mount either two chaingun pods and two rocket pods or, in some situations where the range compromise is not an issue (the Mogadishu operation), two rocket pods AND two chaingun pods. The H-6, even in its modified, most modern fighting form, cannot carry a full range of weapons and ammunition, however, even if range compromise is not a consideration and even if weight of payload is only a minimal consideration. For instance, the H-6 cannot mount a 30mm chaingun weapons compliment that includes M799 ammunition, due to prohibitions in its payload manuals.

Add short note and redirect link for Xian H-6 aircraft -- Adeptitus 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MH-6 Little Bird merge

The MH-6 is not that important to have his own article. There's enough space here to handle this H-6 subversion. --Denniss 12:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm not even sure how accurate the MH-6 article is. It looks like it was written by a Black Hawk Down or Battlefield 2 fan. ericg ✈ 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon that article. I've cleaned it up a little, but support the proposed merger. The proposal has had more than long enough and no objections; I don't have time right now but if anyone here does, we should go ahead. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name and focus

This article should be more about the Hughes Model 369 and its derivatives rather than the Hughes H-6. That would justify the discussion of the Hughes 500MD Defender and NOTAR. (Born2flie 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

The Wiki naming conventions suggest that this article should be named the OH-6 Cayuse. This produces several problems.
  • The article attempts to address civilian and militarized derivatives (Hughes/MD500 and variants) as if they were variants of the OH-6.
  • Causes a name/search conflict with the MH-6 Little Bird (AH-6 is used to refer to the armed MH-6). Earlier versions of the Little Birds were true OH-6 variants. Current Little Birds are MD520/MD530 militarized variants.
I think that a split of this article could be possible in the future if all the aircraft are treated properly. I remember that there was much discussion about joining the previous Little Bird article to this one, and that merge happened. So, it is possible that those two could remain together in this article so long as it is developed more completely and the Little Bird given prominent treatment in the structure and development of this article. You can reference the OH-58 Kiowa article for an example of how I have attempted to do this for the original OH-58A and the OH-58D which is more of a derivative than a variant, but still considered a variant by virtue of its designation. P.S. I renamed this section to more accurately reflect the issue.
--Born2flie 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem solved. The type certificate for the Model 369 shows many of the MD 500 to be in name only. They are listed on the Type Certificate as 369 variants.[1] Which one is which? You tell me!
--Born2flie 07:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Another part is solved now also, as we are covering the civilian MD 500 variants and its derivatives (including the MD 600; does its type certificate call it a 369 also??) in the MD Helicopters MD 500 article. We can mention the military MELB there in passing, but as they still designated H-6 in US Army service, I have no problem with them being covered in detail here. We may need to decide where to covr the civilian variants from before they became MD 500s. I don't think we need another article for the civilian Hughes 369/500; there's just not enough content as yet. Your thoughts? - BillCJ 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is which on the type certificate. It's going to take quite a bit more work to find a reference that "detangles" the whole designation thing for the 369. I believe the 520N is the 500 and there is no missing which one is the 600.
--Born2flie 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I read this week (I'm not sure where, but I think it was on Wiki) that McDD made the number "500" offcial when they renamed in the MD 500. As far as the type certificate goes, though, I would surmise they continued to use the 369's so as not to have to go trough a new certification process, or because the FAA deemed a new certificate unnecessary for a minimum-change variant. You mentioned that the 520N is the 500 (I assume you meant that it is not on the 369's TC), which is probably due to the NOTAR. I would think the 600 would be different too, both because of the stretched fuselage and the NOTAR. I have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of type certificates, but this seems logical from what I have heard. Of course, being a government buearacracy, the FAA doesn't have to be logical.
For the article's purposes, I think what a company calls the aircraft should be sufficient. Hughes named the 269, shouldn't they be allowed to name the 269B the 300? Same with the 369 and the 500. Companies aren't always consistent, but even with the 269/300 and the 369/500, there's some consistency (tho one might say to be completely consistent, it should have been the 400!) - BillCJ 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill, look at the Type Certificate in the link. The 520N is listed as the 500N[2][3] and the 600N is, well, the 600N. The FAA allows things to happen like the Bell 407 to be type certificated on the same TC for the 206.
What we probably don't understand is the reasonings of either the FAA or these corporations that make decisions about variants based on market research or some other motivator (Bell reportedly named the 47 because of the year they offered it, not an actual model number). But, look at the Boeing history site;[4] Hughes seems to have started the issue with the name of the 500, not MD.
--Born2flie 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't say what I meant about MD renaming the 500. I should have that MD made the MD 500 their official model number for the type, rather than just a marketing version of Model 369. Anyway, I think we've just about flown this topic to death. :) - BillCJ 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MELB

I would like to see the addition of information concerning the MH-6M Mission Enhanced Little Bird (MELB). I will do it if I get time. (Born2flie 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Hughes Tool Co. Aircraft Division vs. Toolco Helicopters.

I've found a reference for the Hughes Tool Co. and its various incarnations at Boeing's site under history.

  • 1953, Hughes created the Hughes Medical Institute and gave the Hughes Aircraft Co. as its sole asset.
  • 1955, Hughes separated the helicopter unit out of the Aircraft Co. and joined it to Hughes Tool Co. as the Aircraft Division. It was during this time that the OH-6 was developed and produced.
  • 1972, the Aircraft Division was reformed as the helicopter division of the Summa Corp. when Hughes sold the Hughes Tool Co.
  • 1981, it became Hughes Helicopters Inc. [5]
  • 1984, Hughes Helicopters Inc. became a part of the McDonnel Douglass Corporation.
  • 1985, it was renamed McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. and then later that year, it was renamed again to McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems.

I will be editing the article for content specific to this timeline. (Born2flie 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Allison T63

The type certificate for the Allison T63-A-5A shows 317 shp, but the type certificate of the OH-6A, with the T63-A-5A installed, shows the 5 minute limit at 250 shp. I'm assuming that there is a transmission limit that isn't described, but I have no references to establish that. Anyone have an anecdotal reference?

--Born2flie 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/g/Talk%7EHughes_H-6_2816.html"