Talk:OH-6 Cayuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.43.9 (talk • contribs)

>> 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirling (talk • contribs)

[edit] Xian H-6

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)

[edit] MD Helicopters MD 500

I have completed the major portion of the MD Helicopters MD 500 article, tho it still needs pics of MD 500s. I have tried to keep the overlap to a minimum by focusing on the civilian models of the Hughes/MD 500, as this article already focuses exclusively on the military models. Any input on the new page would be appreciated, especially new pics! - BillCJ 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew number

This article says this helicopter has a crew of two. Does this mean 2 pilots, or a pilot and an observer? Jecowa 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This aircraft is traditionally a single-pilot aircraft. During Vietnam, it would've carried a pilot and observer/gunner, or two pilots for training or familiarization. The AH and MH versions use two pilots for survivability if the aircraft is struck by small arms and the pilot on the controls is incapacitated. --Born2flie 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you. Jecowa 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Jon E. Swanson

Captain Swanson was recently, posthumously awarded the U.S. Army Medal of Honor. I wanted to include him as a notable because as far as I can find, he is the only OH-6A pilot that has been awarded the MOH, although I have to say, I've read/heard enough stories of OH-13/OH-23/OH-6 pilots in Vietnam to know that Captain Swanson's actions are the standard. The problem is how do you write that and maintain NPOV without simply being politically correct? Here is what I had edited from the award citation:

“ Captain Jon E. Swanson was a U.S. Army OH-6A pilot in Vietnam. On 26 February 1971, Capt. Swanson was flying in support of ARVN Task Force 333 to direct attacks against enemy positions, requiring him to fly his aircraft at treetop level at a slow airspeed and making his aircraft a vulnerable target. After attacking multiple enemy bunkers, and directing several attacks by AH-1G Cobra gun ships against enemy machine gun positions, and with his aircraft heavily damaged from enemy fire, Capt. Swanson identified another machine gun position. As Captain Swanson attempted to continue to direct attacks against this new machine gun position, his aircraft exploded in the air and crashed to the ground. For his actions, Captain Jon E. Swanson would become the only OH-6A pilot awarded the United States Army Medal of Honor. ”

Please let me know what your suggestions are to be able to include this mention of the kinds of conditions faced by OH-6A pilots in combat. --Born2flie 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

I was trying to determine which numbers in the specifications applied to which aircraft. I'm pretty sure that they don't apply to the OH-6A since they are those would be relatively close to the following:

[edit] Specifications (OH-6A)

Data from McDonnell Douglas MD 500/OH-6 Cayuse Light Helicopter (military and civil). and U.S. Army Helicopter Info.

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2
  • Length: 30 ft 4 in (rotors turning) (9.24 m)
  • Rotor diameter: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
  • Height: 8 ft 2 in (2.48 m)
  • Disc area: 544.63 sq ft (50.60 m2)
  • Empty weight: 1,230 lbs (560 kg)
  • Useful load: 1,000 lbs (455 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 2,400 lbs (1,090 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1× Allison T63-A-5A turboshaft, 252 shp (188 kW)

Performance

Armament

  • Guns: One M134 7.62 mm gatling gun (1500 rounds) or one M129 40mm grenade launcher (150 rounds)

--Born2flie 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much info on specic operations

I don't think it's appropriate for this article to have so much blow-by-blow info on specific operations the Loach was involved in. Sure, it's interesting and relevant to discuss this stuff, but the length and detail is over the top.

Somebody want to have a go at condensing this stuff? I'm hesitant to just start pruning as I'd like the person who included this info to have the opporunity. But if the article stays like this, I'll pull out the clipers. It's just too bloated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionsquid (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to. I've been looking for information on the Vietnam use. Too much of it is anectdotal and way too many stories and operations to include here. I've thought that maybe the 160th SOAR section was a bit much. Maybe what we have is the necessary information to split the article back into a separate A/MH-6 Little Bird article, where such a detailed Operational History would be very appropriate? --Born2flie 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd support a separate article, either on the 160th SOAR's use of the LB, or on the LB itself. As far as I know,the current Little Birds are new builds, not upgraded or rebuilt early OH-6s. If that's so, then a separate article makes sense, as they do have different missions that the original OH-6s. If we do split off the LBs, then I'd support renaming this page as the OH-6 Cayuse, the early model's official name, with "Loach" in quotes in infobox, as now. As for the new article, A/MH-6 Little Bird would work. - BillCJ 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that addressing the variants, it would look a somewhat like the OH-58 Kiowa article which addresses several rebuild and reconfigurations over the history of the aircraft. I concur with all of your suggestions. --Born2flie 18:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
After a couple of false starts, I've crearted the spin-off page at the old MH-6 Little Bird ariticle. Talk:A/MH-6 Little Bird seemed to think it was a subpage of Talk:A, so I didn't stick with that one. However, If that bug causes no problems, we can still move the new page to A/MH-6 Little Bird if we want. - BillCJ 07:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Now what to do with the H-6 redirect, continue to redirect it to OH-6 Cayuse or to a disambiguation page? --Born2flie 10:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since we how have at least 3 articles on H-6s, I think a DAB page at H-6 is warranted. Otherwise, we just leave it as a redirect to OH-6 Cayuse, since it is the original H-6 helicopter model. - BillCJ 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)