Rotorcraft Recognition Challenge: Name that variant!

fluttercopter · Veteran Member - Level 2

RE: Rotorcraft Recognition Challenge: Name that variant!

hannetonIII · Veteran Member - Level 2

rotorwash wrote:
Stingray wrote:
I have to confess... I've never seen this before! Looks like a JetRanger (or similar model) prototype, or experimental UH-1 for testing the systems of the future model.
Yes it was an experimental outfit of a standard Bell model. Not a jetranger. Looks like a UH-1 but not a military variant. Ah cummon, you guys love a challenge around here!
Ray

At the risk of losing I'll answer with D-326.

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

This bird is not related to the 206. It started life as the prototype of one of the civil variants of the Huey. Pretty short list of contenders now I think.

Ray

retroistic · Veteran Member - Level 2

I would go with Bell 205B. Has the pointy 212 nose while retaining the single engine and original fuselage shape.

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stargazer2006 wrote:
According to Aviastar.org:

"This machine has a much deeper history than what is listed here.

It was first Air Force contracted (1956) as a YH-40 for the U. S Army as Ship #4. The XH-40's, ships 1, 2, & 3, had an aft C. G. problem which was solved by adding a fuselage 12"forward extension at the ****pit door posts moving the ****pit forward! A correction that helped make the Huey the true utility machine that it has become.
The XH-40's had a design gross weight of 6643 pounds. Please notice final sentence below.

The military agencies discontinued the X & Y model development contracting during this era. This machine, therefore, became the first HU-1 which is the proper Air Force contracted designation. The HU-1's were the first Hueys used by the U, S. Army.

This machine was later modified as the first AUH-1B, which had a stabilizer bar fatigue life of 325 hours. As the prototype AUH-1B it was kept in Army test & development work. The stabilizer bar failed in flight & the A/C went thru a severely hard landing. It was subsequently contracted into the Model 533 Program as described above.

But it also has the distinction of being the first production Huey Helicopter & the first in the line of all military & commercial variants, including the Huey Cobra."

Man, a lot of that stuff just doesn't sound right. Ship 56-6723 was definitely orginally a YH-40. It was also converted to the YUH-1B. However, the first production Huey flown by the Army was the UH-1A (originally HU-1A hence "HUEY). the "Y" designation is for pre-production aircraft. I have no idea what the sentence "The military agencies discontinued the X & Y model development contracting during this era" even means. What era? There were stiill YAH-1 variants for example much later than the 533. In fact the AAH contenders caried YAH designations so that statement seems nuts. I have NO IDEA what a "AUH-1B" is and I can only assume that they mean YUH-1B. That part about the B pillar added to the YH-40 i the is correct though.

Ray

-- Edited by rotorwash on Wednesday 29th of February 2012 01:50:41 PM

Stargazer2006 · Former Deputy Administrator

Let's see... Tail rotor on the left hand side is compatible with Models 204 and 211. The latter also has the same horizontal stabilizers as the one in your picture, and a short fuselage too, but of course the rotor is different, and the side window is much smaller in yours. Also, yours has a step in the sides behind the ****pit.

From looking at all my pictures, I'm positive that the only airframe that is 100% compatible with your image is the Model 533 [56-6723], which even had the exact same color scheme as your picture...

Stargazer2006 · Former Deputy Administrator

According to Aviastar.org:

"This machine has a much deeper history than what is listed here.

It was first Air Force contracted (1956) as a YH-40 for the U. S Army as Ship #4. The XH-40's, ships 1, 2, & 3, had an aft C. G. problem which was solved by adding a fuselage 12"forward extension at the ****pit door posts moving the ****pit forward! A correction that helped make the Huey the true utility machine that it has become.
The XH-40's had a design gross weight of 6643 pounds. Please notice final sentence below.

The military agencies discontinued the X & Y model development contracting during this era. This machine, therefore, became the first HU-1 which is the proper Air Force contracted designation. The HU-1's were the first Hueys used by the U, S. Army.

This machine was later modified as the first AUH-1B, which had a stabilizer bar fatigue life of 325 hours. As the prototype AUH-1B it was kept in Army test & development work. The stabilizer bar failed in flight & the A/C went thru a severely hard landing. It was subsequently contracted into the Model 533 Program as described above.

But it also has the distinction of being the first production Huey Helicopter & the first in the line of all military & commercial variants, including the Huey Cobra."

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stargazer2006 wrote:
Let's see... Tail rotor on the left hand side is compatible with Models 204 and 211. The latter also has the same horizontal stabilizers as the one in your picture, and a short fuselage too, but of course the rotor is different, and the side window is much smaller in yours. Also, yours has a step in the sides behind the ****pit.

From looking at all my pictures, I'm positive that the only airframe that is 100% compatible with your image is the Model 533 [56-6723], which even had the exact same color scheme as your picture...

OK, lets put this 533 thing to bed. First, here's the 533 in all it's different iterations:

With wings:

Without wings:

With jet engines and no wings:

And finally, as she sits at Ft. Eustis:

Now, here's the pic in question:

mystery%2520helo.jpg

OK, first the color scheme. I think a close look at the photos shows clearly the mystery bird is different from every version of the 533,

Next, check the skids. In every photo of the 533 something is different, however the skids are always the same with wide faired over cross tubes. you can see that the mystery bird has completely different cross tubes.

Look at the vents behind the wierd transmission housing, they are totally different on the mystery helo than on the 533.

Next, check the ends of the tail boom. The mystery helo has position lights on either side of the tail boom just ahead of the tail boom end cap. Because the 533 was a modified YUH-1B, it does not.

Finally, check the tail fins, none of the iterations of the 533 have thesame ventral fairing on the tail fin. the last pic of the 533 on display at Eustis actually has a AH-1G tail fin and the surfboard on the transmission housing. I have no idea when those mods were added and i've never seen an operational pic of the 533 with them.

So you see, the two are not 100% the same, it only looks that way because of the crazy transmission housing.

You guys are so dang close!

Ray

Stingray · Administrator

The Air America Huey was a UH-1C, from what I've read. But that couldn't be it, because that was a military model.

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stingray wrote:
rotorwash wrote:
Stingray wrote:
The Air America Huey was a UH-1C, from what I've read. But that couldn't be it, because that was a military model.
Nope, Air America flew civil Hueys. The UH-1C has a different rotor head, rotor length, rotor chord, and tail. May I ask where you read that?
Ray

I just searched again to back up my claim, but it seems that I have referenced a scale modelling site. Big mistake!
Turns out it was a Model 204B.

BINGO, We have a winner!!!!!! Stephane was so close in that one post, but went away from the 204. In fact, the bird I posted is N204L the prototype for the 204B civil version of the short bodied Huey. There is no special designation for the stacked scissor rotors mod. the photo was taken in 1973. Sorry if I made that one too obtuse. On to you, Travis.

-- Edited by rotorwash on Thursday 1st of March 2012 12:16:18 AM

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stingray wrote:
I am truly noob to the world of Hueys.

Now you know how I feel about all those obscure helos you guys love so much!

Ray

-- Edited by rotorwash on Thursday 1st of March 2012 12:45:32 AM

Stingray · Administrator

Do you have more info about the mods on that 204B? I'd love to add it to the main site (plus make my signature text a bit more descriptive).

My next challenge:

Stingray · Administrator

I'll say. That was a Navy project. aww

fluttercopter · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stingray wrote:
Do you have more info about the mods on that 204B? I'd love to add it to the main site (plus make my signature text a bit more descriptive).

I'm curious as to how much Celestia will appreciate you spamming her with letters on the 'Magic of Rotorcraft'. disbelief biggrin

-- Edited by fluttercopter on Thursday 1st of March 2012 01:54:43 AM

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

i'm gonna say an AB 206. Definitely not a OH-58 as the cabin windows are wrong.

Ray

Edit:I'm wrong it's a Bell TH-67A Creek. Used for training ROC OH-58D pilots.

-- Edited by rotorwash on Thursday 1st of March 2012 02:06:55 AM

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

See my above correction, TH-67A Creek. I couldn't see the bulged windows from that photo but i found another online.

Ray

-- Edited by rotorwash on Thursday 1st of March 2012 02:08:14 AM

-- Edited by rotorwash on Thursday 1st of March 2012 02:08:40 AM

fluttercopter · Veteran Member - Level 2

rotorwash wrote:
Definitely not a OH-58 as the cabin windows are wrong.

OH-58A had the same windows pre-OH-58D.

BTW, Stingray canm I have a sig like that too? It's genious. biggrin

-- Edited by fluttercopter on Thursday 1st of March 2012 02:20:51 AM

Stingray · Administrator

Close, but you can see the difference in the attached pics. Ray got it.

And yes, you may use a similar sig. Just, make it original (for YOUR findings) and not a copy of mine. I don't want people thinking you're a sock-puppet of me.

Stingray · Administrator

Stephane, I wouldn't trust the comment section of aviastar.org. Many times I've come across horribly misleading information, and other whacko nonsense.

Stingray · Administrator

rotorwash wrote:
You guys are all around this one. It's not a 205 variant, nor is it related to the 214. The nose is a bit of a red herring. Note the bird I posted has a left handed "pusher" tail rotor. The civil 205, 210 and the 214 have right handed "tractor" tail rotors. The field is narrowing quickly!
Ray

I know I'll hate myself for guessing this:

Models 222 or 230 related?

Stargazer2006 · Former Deputy Administrator

I find rotorwash's answer sybilline at best... he doesn't actually answer my question as to whether his mystery aircraft is or isn't 56-6723 (or one of the other YH-40s). Given the shape of the airframe, window arrangement, placement of the tail rotor and such, I can't see what else it could be... Used for rotor tests, perhaps gaining a new Model designation in the process, but still one of the YH-40s...

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stargazer2006 wrote:
I find rotorwash's answer sybilline at best... he doesn't actually answer my question as to whether his mystery aircraft is or isn't 56-6723 (or one of the other YH-40s). Given the shape of the airframe, window arrangement, placement of the tail rotor and such, I can't see what else it could be... Used for rotor tests, perhaps gaining a new Model designation in the process, but still one of the YH-40s...

OK, here's an unambiguous answer. the mystery helo is NOT an Army bird. It never was an Army bird and it still is not an Army bird. It is a civil variant of the Huey. It most definitely is not 56-6723. I though I made that clear by pointing out several differences between that aircraft and the one in the photo. It also is NOT a YH-40. Once again that is an Army helo and this is not a military project. It's not a 222 or the 230 either. If you want, i'm happy to reveal the answer. I don't want you guys to get frustrated. It's just a game after all! How about this, it's the same short bodied Huey variant flown by Air America during the Vietnam War.

Ray

rotorwash · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stingray wrote:
The Air America Huey was a UH-1C, from what I've read. But that couldn't be it, because that was a military model.

Nope, Air America flew civil Hueys. The UH-1C has a different rotor head, rotor length, rotor chord, and tail. May I ask where you read that?

Ray

Here's a UH-1C, the first one in fact:

Here's the bird's flown by Air America:

Stingray · Administrator

rotorwash wrote:
Stingray wrote:
The Air America Huey was a UH-1C, from what I've read. But that couldn't be it, because that was a military model.
Nope, Air America flew civil Hueys. The UH-1C has a different rotor head, rotor length, rotor chord, and tail. May I ask where you read that?
Ray

I just searched again to back up my claim, but it seems that I have referenced a scale modelling site. Big mistake!

Turns out it was a Model 204B.

Stingray · Administrator

Oh my, I had no idea such an elaborate modification had to do with such a simple variant. I was seriously going to dismiss the 204 idea and go with some kind of RSRA testbed.

I am truly noob to the world of Hueys. biggrin

hannetonIII · Veteran Member - Level 2

SuperStallion wrote:
D-326 was the Clipper titlt-rotor.

-- Edited by SuperStallion on Wednesday 29th of February 2012 04:58:51 AM

I meant to say D-226 but misstyped. I would've lost anyway.

Stargazer2006 · Former Deputy Administrator

That's the Aerocraft Penetrator.

Stingray · Administrator

Correct.

To those who don't know, "Aerocraft" is the current name for American Aircraft.

Stargazer2006 · Former Deputy Administrator

This one ought to be pretty easy.

fluttercopter · Veteran Member - Level 2

Stargazer2006 wrote:
This one ought to be pretty easy.

Bell OH-58 Kiowa.