Aussie MRH-90
Thread Starter
In early days when I was at Albatross and they seemed to refer to some as 'C' models. Not sure why then as the regulated noon Friday stand-down washed away many cells...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What many might not know about the Navy B models was their radio/naviads fit. (I must say, I never heard anyone refer to them as 'Charlies'.)
When they arrived, equipped with (then) pretty much state of the art American radios, the Navy retrofitted them with (awfully old fashioned 'clunker', I think few would disagree) British radios etc as fitted to their other aircraft.
BUT... how did they go about doing this, I hear some ask? Did the Navy techs simply unscrew the canon plugs to disconnect the American kit? Oh, no, no, no, no... they *** CUT the looms - short of the canon plugs, making it impossible to re-fit the American radios and naviads later!!!
Only in Australia....
When they arrived, equipped with (then) pretty much state of the art American radios, the Navy retrofitted them with (awfully old fashioned 'clunker', I think few would disagree) British radios etc as fitted to their other aircraft.
BUT... how did they go about doing this, I hear some ask? Did the Navy techs simply unscrew the canon plugs to disconnect the American kit? Oh, no, no, no, no... they *** CUT the looms - short of the canon plugs, making it impossible to re-fit the American radios and naviads later!!!
Only in Australia....
]Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ARH Tiger, SnapperKharn; re posts #110, 149, 150.
Great to know that somebody is realising that Tiger will not adequately replace Kiowa functions; neither will it suffice as a Bushranger gunship replacement for intimate close air support with envisaged weapon fits – see 'Tiger troubles' thread, my post #18.
I am not across the AAvn project you refer to SK. Coincidentally, 'Kenny' was a FAC callsign in Vietnam.
As some have said; this thread has become a bit omnibus and I will later post an interesting table re Conceptual Huey II Gunship capabilities on the 'Tiger troubles' thread so comparisons might be made with Tiger. They would of course have differing capabilities in some respects.
I will also prepare a couple of new threads for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum covering key aspects of Bushranger gunship development and procedures for trooping operations as conducted by 9SQN RAAF in Vietnam. These are intended more as abbreviated historical records, but should be useful references for debate in other forums and threads. Quite a bit of imagery involved so they will take a while to emerge.
Great to know that somebody is realising that Tiger will not adequately replace Kiowa functions; neither will it suffice as a Bushranger gunship replacement for intimate close air support with envisaged weapon fits – see 'Tiger troubles' thread, my post #18.
I am not across the AAvn project you refer to SK. Coincidentally, 'Kenny' was a FAC callsign in Vietnam.
As some have said; this thread has become a bit omnibus and I will later post an interesting table re Conceptual Huey II Gunship capabilities on the 'Tiger troubles' thread so comparisons might be made with Tiger. They would of course have differing capabilities in some respects.
I will also prepare a couple of new threads for the Aviation History & Nostalgia forum covering key aspects of Bushranger gunship development and procedures for trooping operations as conducted by 9SQN RAAF in Vietnam. These are intended more as abbreviated historical records, but should be useful references for debate in other forums and threads. Quite a bit of imagery involved so they will take a while to emerge.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helo Spares Provisioning
ARH Tiger; there has been much ill-informed criticism of the RAAF on a number of threads regarding spares provisioning, but it is an Army problem as you guys now own the aircraft. Have you ever thought how the enormous overspend on Army Aviation over years has disadvantaged the other fighting arms of Army? There have certainly been considerable rumblings in that regard over time. It seems highly likely that the Generals have seen fit to impose budgetary constraints on your spares provisioning.
I will shortly be posting data on the 'Tiger troubles' thread re Huey II so you will have more cause to grind your teeth.
I will shortly be posting data on the 'Tiger troubles' thread re Huey II so you will have more cause to grind your teeth.
Ooohhh, I can not wait! Let me guess, more supersonic, intergalactic, museum piece upgrades. Bring back the mustang. It even has a turbine upgrade and features in a lot of TV history documentaries.
Great to hear that the MRH is back in the air and it will hopefully mean an end to the comedy articles about PooieII
Great to hear that the MRH is back in the air and it will hopefully mean an end to the comedy articles about PooieII
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors Off, check the RoE on Jetblast. I assume the same rules apply here.
Your last post, like your first, is way out of line and offers nothing to this debate but a display - by you - of personal animus for BR71 and an arrogance - and ignorance - which does you no credit.
Your last post, like your first, is way out of line and offers nothing to this debate but a display - by you - of personal animus for BR71 and an arrogance - and ignorance - which does you no credit.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM and BBadanov, As BR71 says elsewhere you can't always take official sources as the real gen. ALL the Navy Hueys were B models. Said so on the manufacturers data plate, and you can check on the Historic Flights N9-3104 (898) which is still flying.
Distinguishing features of a C model,
Dual hydraulics (B had one)
Longer tail boom
Broader chord vertical stab which had an asymmetric airfoil to off load the tail rotor (B symmetrical)
Larger horizontal stab
540 rotor system with larger chord blades
Pitot mounted on the roof (B on nose)
Fuel capacity 242 US Gals (B model was either 160 or 242, Navy 894 and 898 had 242, the others 160, but not sure about 896)
Vne 140 (B 120)
Andu, correct about the radios. Had to make the radios compatible with the stores holding of spares for the Vampire and Venom. 5 channel crystal tuned and the designation 1939 rings a bell. The year they were introduced for Spitfires and Hurricanes for the Battle of Britain so the story went.
Distinguishing features of a C model,
Dual hydraulics (B had one)
Longer tail boom
Broader chord vertical stab which had an asymmetric airfoil to off load the tail rotor (B symmetrical)
Larger horizontal stab
540 rotor system with larger chord blades
Pitot mounted on the roof (B on nose)
Fuel capacity 242 US Gals (B model was either 160 or 242, Navy 894 and 898 had 242, the others 160, but not sure about 896)
Vne 140 (B 120)
Andu, correct about the radios. Had to make the radios compatible with the stores holding of spares for the Vampire and Venom. 5 channel crystal tuned and the designation 1939 rings a bell. The year they were introduced for Spitfires and Hurricanes for the Battle of Britain so the story went.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 24th Jul 2010 at 12:43.
Thread Starter
The MRH requires a public inquiry..
[BA - re Navy B or C Huey's, it is often the case with production lines, that at some crossover point, aircraft built initially as one version are converted at the factory etc to another version. You'd better tell the RAN Museum. They think we had both types!]
[BA - re Navy B or C Huey's, it is often the case with production lines, that at some crossover point, aircraft built initially as one version are converted at the factory etc to another version. You'd better tell the RAN Museum. They think we had both types!]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The history of the C was that it incorporated improvements (listed above) to overcome the deficiencies found when using the B in the gunship role. The C's were new build airframes.
Andu,
am not!
If I was bragging about minister meetings = caught up in my own self importance = arrogant and backward (suggesting that an old defunct platform is better than two new platforms (MRH/ARH) without having a thorough knowledge of both) = ignorant, your comments about me would be correct. Alas, I think your accusations are directed at the wrong person.
Ref ROE, I think that you may have broken them. The moral high ground is a long way to fall from.
Greenknight's comments on Tiger Troubles are pretty much on the money about historical articles and you might like to call in the police on him as well.
am not!
If I was bragging about minister meetings = caught up in my own self importance = arrogant and backward (suggesting that an old defunct platform is better than two new platforms (MRH/ARH) without having a thorough knowledge of both) = ignorant, your comments about me would be correct. Alas, I think your accusations are directed at the wrong person.
Ref ROE, I think that you may have broken them. The moral high ground is a long way to fall from.
Greenknight's comments on Tiger Troubles are pretty much on the money about historical articles and you might like to call in the police on him as well.
BA may be quite correct, but a post in this forum or any blog site does not constitute fact - but I would say his arguement has more validity than say wikipedia.
What sources can validate your claim - the Dash 1, for example. I don't have production lists for UH-1s, but based my reference on the Cs purely from that US Serial book I quoted. Unfortunately, it's purely a sole secondary source. [Sorry about the thread drift from MRH-90]
What sources can validate your claim - the Dash 1, for example. I don't have production lists for UH-1s, but based my reference on the Cs purely from that US Serial book I quoted. Unfortunately, it's purely a sole secondary source. [Sorry about the thread drift from MRH-90]
Thread Starter
It is good that the Govt purchased new equipment for Army and Navy with MRH-90. Maybe the engine choice was wrong; after-all the Italians have the proven T700 option....
Mr Bushranger's ideas, while I acknowledge his own 40 year old experiences, is not at all forward thinking. Looking at the AH-64's picking off the Iraqi tanks etc with NVG's/cannon etc etc was something that the venerable Aussie Bushrangers could never do...
Also Brian A. re B's and C's, my source of info includes the RAN Museum's own website. Why would they get it wrong???
Mr Bushranger's ideas, while I acknowledge his own 40 year old experiences, is not at all forward thinking. Looking at the AH-64's picking off the Iraqi tanks etc with NVG's/cannon etc etc was something that the venerable Aussie Bushrangers could never do...
Also Brian A. re B's and C's, my source of info includes the RAN Museum's own website. Why would they get it wrong???
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM-Legend; re your post #162.
I just happened to live in Kuwait for a couple of years post-Gulf War 1 and crawled all over the derelict and captured Iraqi armour. Some of it had been disabled by accurate groupings of 20mm cannon fire with evidence of good fixed wing shooting in that regard. Same NATO stuff as deliverable from the NC621 low recoil 20mm cannon pod that hangs on multiple fixed wing and helicopters, also as envisaged for the conceptual Huey II Bushranger configuration. A recent post added to the thread 'Tiger troubles'.
Doors-Off; re further insults in your post #160.
For your awareness; I am low profile oriented and not a braggart as you contend. The benefit of forums like these is reasoned debate among worldwide contributors so the lessons of war-fighting can be better appreciated. You seem determined to continue projecting bile which does you no credit. Why not just be polite and allow others to enjoy participating?
I just happened to live in Kuwait for a couple of years post-Gulf War 1 and crawled all over the derelict and captured Iraqi armour. Some of it had been disabled by accurate groupings of 20mm cannon fire with evidence of good fixed wing shooting in that regard. Same NATO stuff as deliverable from the NC621 low recoil 20mm cannon pod that hangs on multiple fixed wing and helicopters, also as envisaged for the conceptual Huey II Bushranger configuration. A recent post added to the thread 'Tiger troubles'.
Doors-Off; re further insults in your post #160.
For your awareness; I am low profile oriented and not a braggart as you contend. The benefit of forums like these is reasoned debate among worldwide contributors so the lessons of war-fighting can be better appreciated. You seem determined to continue projecting bile which does you no credit. Why not just be polite and allow others to enjoy participating?
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 25th Jul 2010 at 23:12.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A synopsis of the genesis of the C.
Bell Helicopter proposed upgrading UH-1Bs with the "540" rotor system. This modification was made to about four-to-six UH-1Bs in the U.S. The results were promising enough that additional "540" rotor heads were shipped to a very few units in Vietnam. They didn't receive the full UH-1C retrofit: "540" rotor head, new engine, new powertrain, gears, and rotorshaft, bigger canted tail, bigger tail rotor, asymmetric horizontal stabilizers; just the "540" rotor system.
The first UH-1B/UH-1C hybrid was a plain UH-1B with the "540" rotor head only. It was discovered that in Vietnam's "hot and high" flying environment, their performance was marginal, and they could exceed the tail rotor torque limits. Also, they were too heavy for the UH-1B's T53-L-5 960 shp engine.
The second type of hybrid was the UH-1B with the "540" rotor, T53-L-11D 1100 shp engine upgrade, powertrain, and tail rotor. These modifications improved performance, but with the increased torque from the more powerful engine, and larger tail rotor, the tail had to be modified by adding the camber and increasing the width. These modifications were incorporated into what became the UH-1C model. One unit which flew UH-1B/UH-1C hybrids was the 174th Helicopter Assault Co.
As to why the museum has its facts wrong I don't know but am in contact with them to right matters. N9-3104, which the records you quote to be a C, is in fact a B, as recorded on both its data plate and its civil registration VH-NVV papers. The Navy never possessed any C's.
BTW, I flew the Navy Hueys for a total of 675 hours and put in a few hours on the C in Vietnam.
Bell Helicopter proposed upgrading UH-1Bs with the "540" rotor system. This modification was made to about four-to-six UH-1Bs in the U.S. The results were promising enough that additional "540" rotor heads were shipped to a very few units in Vietnam. They didn't receive the full UH-1C retrofit: "540" rotor head, new engine, new powertrain, gears, and rotorshaft, bigger canted tail, bigger tail rotor, asymmetric horizontal stabilizers; just the "540" rotor system.
The first UH-1B/UH-1C hybrid was a plain UH-1B with the "540" rotor head only. It was discovered that in Vietnam's "hot and high" flying environment, their performance was marginal, and they could exceed the tail rotor torque limits. Also, they were too heavy for the UH-1B's T53-L-5 960 shp engine.
The second type of hybrid was the UH-1B with the "540" rotor, T53-L-11D 1100 shp engine upgrade, powertrain, and tail rotor. These modifications improved performance, but with the increased torque from the more powerful engine, and larger tail rotor, the tail had to be modified by adding the camber and increasing the width. These modifications were incorporated into what became the UH-1C model. One unit which flew UH-1B/UH-1C hybrids was the 174th Helicopter Assault Co.
As to why the museum has its facts wrong I don't know but am in contact with them to right matters. N9-3104, which the records you quote to be a C, is in fact a B, as recorded on both its data plate and its civil registration VH-NVV papers. The Navy never possessed any C's.
BTW, I flew the Navy Hueys for a total of 675 hours and put in a few hours on the C in Vietnam.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the topic: if we're realistic, I don't think the affordability issue can be ignored. Money is going to hard to come by for everyone in government over the foreseeable future, and Defence has traditionally been an easy mark for both major Parties when the culling begins. (I won't even go anywhere near what might happen with the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate.)
I suppose it comes down to a single question: which would you prefer? A very small number of very expensive state of the art machines (with doubtful performance) that could support only a very few units in the field (if they ever get up and running, which, if we throw enough dollars at them, we can only assume they eventually will),
or,
as well as those very small number of state of the art machines, having a second string of cheap, easy to maintain and plentiful machines that could provide support for many units, allowing the expensive, state of the art machines to be reserved for the high value, high risk tasks where their state of the art kit could be used to great effect?
Anyone who's ever been involved in helicopter ops. in whatever era, (and it would seem quite a few of the respondents here have), would agree that 90% of helo tasking is, as someone before me has already mentioned, 'bread and butter' stuff, not requiring anything more than a lifting platform that in some cases, can defend itself.
Australia, despite what many on Russell Hill might wish for, simply can't afford to operate only top of the range equipment, at least not in sufficient numbers to provide effective support to every unit that wants - and deserves - it.
The RAAF has seen the sense in this approach in using the Hawk as a lead-in, second string fighter/ground attack platform. By the time a RAAF pilot gets on to an F18 squadron now, he's done at least a full tour on Hawks.
The same thinking could - I would say should - apply to the rotary wing world. The advantages are huge. More (cheap) helicopters provides a larger pool of pilots - (even Reserve units, partially manned by Reservists, could operate them). Probably most importantly, it would provide a surge capacity, something the RAAF lost when the helicopters were handed over to the Army, and if stories I have heard are to be believed, the Army manning and retention levels for helicopter pilots are so low that they don't have any surge capacity either.
I suppose it comes down to a single question: which would you prefer? A very small number of very expensive state of the art machines (with doubtful performance) that could support only a very few units in the field (if they ever get up and running, which, if we throw enough dollars at them, we can only assume they eventually will),
or,
as well as those very small number of state of the art machines, having a second string of cheap, easy to maintain and plentiful machines that could provide support for many units, allowing the expensive, state of the art machines to be reserved for the high value, high risk tasks where their state of the art kit could be used to great effect?
Anyone who's ever been involved in helicopter ops. in whatever era, (and it would seem quite a few of the respondents here have), would agree that 90% of helo tasking is, as someone before me has already mentioned, 'bread and butter' stuff, not requiring anything more than a lifting platform that in some cases, can defend itself.
Australia, despite what many on Russell Hill might wish for, simply can't afford to operate only top of the range equipment, at least not in sufficient numbers to provide effective support to every unit that wants - and deserves - it.
The RAAF has seen the sense in this approach in using the Hawk as a lead-in, second string fighter/ground attack platform. By the time a RAAF pilot gets on to an F18 squadron now, he's done at least a full tour on Hawks.
The same thinking could - I would say should - apply to the rotary wing world. The advantages are huge. More (cheap) helicopters provides a larger pool of pilots - (even Reserve units, partially manned by Reservists, could operate them). Probably most importantly, it would provide a surge capacity, something the RAAF lost when the helicopters were handed over to the Army, and if stories I have heard are to be believed, the Army manning and retention levels for helicopter pilots are so low that they don't have any surge capacity either.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wiley
... (even Reserve units, partially manned by Reservists, could operate them) ...
The idealised situation you have described (I think it has much merit, for what it's worth) would not work in the Army without a humungous attitudinal adjustment that I think is beyond many of the Army's leadership. If the RAAF operated the fleet I suspect the use of reservists would be tolerated, even encouraged. Army? Not a chance.Army went into Senate Estimates, for example, and without even a smirk told them that armoured vehicles were beyond the capabilities of mere reservists, despite decades of proof to the contrary, and despite plenty of examples in the forces of our allies.
Having said all that - even 'enlightened' Ronnie would baulk at employing any sort of reservists à la the US Air National Guard, ie genuine part timers as opposed to ex full timers. That would apply no matter how simple and cheap the platform or system.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army went into Senate Estimates, for example, and without even a smirk told them that armoured vehicles were beyond the capabilities of mere reservists, despite decades of proof to the contrary, and despite plenty of examples in the forces of our allies
In 1971 a chap talked to the RAAF to see if it was possible to swap from dark to light blue as he wanted to fly fixed wing. In the dark once you were helo that was pretty much it. The RAAF conceded it was possible to swap over but Caribous would the only airframe on offer, and there he would stay.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 26th Jul 2010 at 03:30.
The RAAF conceded it was possible to swap over but Caribous would the only airframe on offer, and there he would stay.
Well BA, at least you could have kept flying up until 2009 !!
Well BA, at least you could have kept flying up until 2009 !!