Talk:UH-1 Iroquois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.See comments

Contents

[edit] Start

While there is a lot of data, there isn't much to the written article. (Born2flie 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Bell UH-1

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

[edit] 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

[edit] "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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/h/-/Talk%7EUH-1_Iroquois_ab01.html"