Talk:Bell OH-58 Kiowa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

OH-58 vs Bell 206

In the original LOH competition, Bell submitted a proposal that was designated the HO-4 (later OH-4) to compete against Fairchild-Hiller's OH-5 and Hughes Helicopters' OH-6. It wasn't until the airframe was redesigned into the current model 206 that the aircraft resembled the OH-58, so I'm not quite certain that it is accurate to say that the OH-58A spawned the Bell 206 JetRanger. It would be more accurate to say that the HO-4, when modified, became the JetRanger (model 206A) which in turn was submitted to the subsequent LOH competition and became the OH-58A.

However, it would be correct to say that the OH-58D contributed to the Bell 407 which in turn has evolved into the ARH-70A. --Born2flie 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deception Point

Friends of mine, who are also OH-58D pilots, deride Mr. Brown for his use of the nomenclature and name of a current aircraft and changing its capabilities to one that, in part, mirrors other past and present aircraft (rotor design, passenger capacity and armament payload), and yet transcends all of them to demonstrate capabilities that none of them have.

So, my contention is that the Deception Point reference either be removed or seriously altered to show how drastically Mr. Brown misrepresented this particular aircraft. --Born2flie 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a note pointing out the ridiculous Hellfire loadout in the book. The helicopter fires 4 Hellfires during the story and is still allegedly carrying 15 more when it crashes. That makes a total of 19, while the real thing can only carry four (two if it is also carrying a machine gun, which it does in the book). 63.161.86.254 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I say remove it. There's way too much material discussing how a fictional representation is inaccurate. I am so very shocked. Move the content to Deception Point. --Mmx1 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections, and it's been over a month. I'm moving it. (Born2flie 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Funny, it was already there. Anyways, it is gone. (Born2flie 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Removed another reference to Deception Point today. hint: the mythical helicopter Dan Brown describes is not an OH-58 of any variant, except in Mr. Brown's mind. (Born2flie 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Bell

Should the Bell series be added to the footer? A75 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First let's agree on whether we're going to agree on the WikiProject Aircraft style guidelines on designation sequence, then we can talk about whether or not we should add another sequence to argue over. Continuing to add variants (HH-60, MH-60, SH-60, or CH-53, CH-53E, MH-53, etc.) of an aircraft as a part of a designation sequence is distracting and disruptive. I don't think it is relative to the article. (Born2flie 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

First, the modified mission series are just as important as the number sequence. Nor does the non-vertical format break the "style guidlines" that self-important mob is so keen on bullying everyone into using. In addition, I never added or created the original 'vertical' CH-53 format, which was why it seemed ok to use in the first place. A75 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a team player...got it. (Born2flie 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Sometimes, but they aren't a 'team'. A75 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some historical issues with the project that go beyond your current username.

In regards to "Modified" mission identifiers, modified mission identifiers aren't used in the case of U.S. military helicopters, since they are primarily designated by their aircraft type ("H" for helicopter) and not by mission like fixed-wing aircraft are. Helicopter mission identifiers are more often than not tied to the series of the aircraft (A-model vs. B-model). In the case of the majority of designation sequences on Wikipedia, minus the ones that I've seen you modify for Army helicopters, the primary MDS (minus the series) that the aircraft was designed under (or first accepted for military use) is used and all others are ignored. That would appear to be a consensus standard. (Born2flie 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

The the orignal 'vertical' code was previously used on one CH-53 page. This was why I though it was "approved" and added it to other pages- I had no intention of triggering the wp:air rule nazi's. It seemed a elegant solution to seperate modified mission aircraft pages (or letter series for that matter). As you point out, often one MM is chosen, and the others ignored. Arbitarly choosing one is not accurate to the sequence when each MM is not much more important then the other. It comes down to how important maintaing the number series is, as opposed to the real world importance of the aircraft. There is a seperate F-18E/F page (and a CH-53E) page even though the vast majority of letter series are all on the same page. Its because what the aircraft represent in the real world, designations aside. If the footer sequence is going to reflect the real world, then it cannot be totally arbitrary. Somewhere between 'fiddling' and 'arbitrary' is a creative solution that reflects the reality of these aircraft. A75 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote again, what I wrote.

"...the primary MDS (minus the series) that the aircraft was designed under (or first accepted for military use) is used and all others are ignored."

Therefore, there is a rhyme and reason to this and it isn't quite as "arbitrary" as you or anyone else supposes until someone comes along "fiddling" around, injecting their own ideas without bringing the rest of the editors along in consensus. The sequence is simply to show where in the progression of the designations of military aircraft the particular aircraft design falls, and has nothing to do with diminishing the other aircraft in that design series, which are generally referenced or covered in the article to the main design MDS article anyways. So, injecting them into the designation sequence makes it less aesthetic and somewhat confusing. I disagree that it is elegant, I find it extremely cluttering and dislike the likelihood that it will confuse other editors who may not be familiar with html.

Once again, I will also state that there is no such thing as a "mission modifier" for U.S. military helicopters. They are identified by the type of the aircraft ("H") and preceded by the helicopter's basic mission (A, C, E, H, M, O, R, S, T, U, V, and X)[1] and [2] (See Attachment 2)

The idea of consensus, is that one person doesn't get to make all the decisions simply because they decide that that's the way it should be. There should be the makings of a general agreement. Which is why I seem to be wasting my time discussing it with you here so we don't keep reverting and editing back and forth (which is contrary to official policies of Wikipedia), and trying to come to an agreement on how the page and its information will be presented. I happen to be a member of WP:Air simply for the fact that I don't like to work against a group who has already declared themselves to take an interest in the thing that I'm interested in. I personally take affront at being called a Nazi simply because I point out that there are guidelines already in place and operating under consensus. (Born2flie 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

You have misunderstood me on several counts.

1st- I was not calling you a nazi, I was using it as a adjective (e.g. soup nazi) and I was thinking of the guy who deleted the entire footer from the page, not you. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for somone in the Army, and especially a combat pilot.

2nd- I am more then willing to abandon the HTML code (a more normal way code would be better). The irony of this is that I used that html code (which I found on the CH-53E page) because I thought it was 'kosher' with WP:AIR and thus avoid the kind of discussions we are engaged in now.

3rd- I am well aware of what a consensus is, the designation system, and footer guidlines.

4th- I am in fact earnestly interested in finding a compromise, or recognizing that I was wholly in error.

5th- I understand your interested in following the wp:air bureaucracy, and can in fact understand that.

That said, what I was interested in, is to have the sequence reflect the real world, as opposed to arbitrarly adhering to its system. It already makes execptions for the real world- multiple sequences are listed, numbers are skipped, etc.. Its not just about modified mission (or basic mission designators) but reflecting whats important. As I mentioned, the wiki has a seperate page for the F-18E/F because it makes sense, even though normally this is not standard. It seemed more logical to try and have the sequence be true to whats actually out there, in this case the other basic mission H-60 variants that had their own pages.

In any case, this has all far exceeded the amount of work its worthy of. Spending hours debating the minutiae of page formating, and agonizing if we are following the rules closely enough is not exactly a good time. Good luck on your edits and flying. A75 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure it was slightly less frustrating and more worthwhile than an edit war on the article page. :shrug: (Born2flie 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Infobox

I definitely do not like the infobox and feel that it doesn't add anything to the page The pictures were fine where they were. (Born2flie 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

See Talk:ARH-70 for my response on the Aircraft Infobox. Also, thanks for the correction on the TH-57. --BillCJ 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

♠ Having a photo of a Kiowa Warrior in the inforbox with a maiden flight of 1962 is a bit misleading in my opinion. To my knowledge the D was virtually new production, was it not? I think a photo of an A model is more appropriate.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The caption below the infobox image only says "OH-58D Kiowa Warrior". There's not supposed to be any connection to the rest of the infobox data. It'd be difficult to find images if we did.. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? Not sure I understand your comment.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I still don't see why anything needs to be done. The caption makes it clear what the helicopter is and there's no implied connection to the OH-58's maiden flight and other info listed below. Somebody else can deal with this... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not trying to be an ass, it just appeared a bit misleading the way it's presented, and certainly isn't purposeful. It's not worth debating if there's real objection to a change. I appreciate some thought on the OH-58X discussion. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now, with the action in Iraq, the most recognizable variant/series of the OH-58 is the D-model. The majority of people coming to this article will more than likely be looking for information on that variant. It is what is in the news, it is what is current. In my mind, that makes the D-model the most purposeful aircraft to have in the infobox. Other considerations are the quality of the pic and the ability of the picture to display as many of the features of the aircraft as possible. Let's face it, Bell wasn't very good at slick marketing of their airframes until the recent past, otherwise the OH-58D wouldn't still be the best kept secret in Army Aviation.

"Which aircraft do you fly?"

The OH-58D.

"Is that the Apache?" --Born2flie (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the OH-58D is a rebuild of OH-58A airframes with the new OH-58D dynamic components. Consequently, many aircraft have two or more data plates and serial numbers, although only the OH-58D is considered to be current. --Born2flie (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"No, the Apache is the CH-47D!"

Seriously, Founder, all Aircraft Infoboxes are set up that way. THe Infobox is basically an overview of the page, and just gives the basic information of the type. The Lead pic (in the infobox) is just to be the most representative image of the type, but the info isn't intended to be a descriptor of the image itself - that's only for the caption line. If you have some suggestions for how to clarify this situation, then ask on the WT:AIR talk page, and we can try to adress some tweaks/changes to alleviate the confusion, if it can be done. - BillCJ (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Uncle."--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

HO-4 was a USAF designation?

Bell submitted their design for the Model 206, which was selected out of the design phase and designated as the YHO-4A; a U.S. Air Force helicopter designation, since the USAF administered the procurement for this particular program for the Army. (Emphasis added.)

I have never heard the part about the LOH program being administered by the USAF. It is not referred to in the source at the end of the paragraph. This source has a list of US Army AF (USAAF) designations, under which is listed the HO-4. According to [3] and [4], the HO-4 designation is part of the US Army Air Force's (not the WWII organization, but Army Aviation) separate desigantion system used from 1956-62. This system included the YHC-1A (the CH-46 prototype), YHC-1B (CH-47), AC-1 (CV-2/C-7), and the famous HU-1 (UH-1 HUey), all originally Army aircraft. -- BillCJ 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking the article history, I found that it origianlly stated it was a US Navy designation/program. All references I've ever read point to it only having been an Army program. -- BillCJ 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go back to my original edit that said it was a Navy-administered program, based on this primary source document, which jibes with what I had originally understood and written. You could argue that the HO-4 was an Army designation, influenced by both the Navy and Air Force's systems of designation at the time. I have issues with both of your references since neither one shares a reference for their source of stating that the source of the designations were the Army. I guess the same issue is presented by my reference of globalsecurity.org. Specifically, the issue becomes apparent when the H-13 procured by the Air Force is named as the OH-13, and likewise, the Hiller UH-12 (company's designation) is named as the OH-23. Why do these other three helicopters have different designations?

According to Wikipedia's Air Force article, the Army shared designations with the Air Force from 1948-1962¹. It was under that statement along with others² that led me to edit the program as being Air Force-administered. Also, current designations are assigned and approved by the Air Force^3,4, since it was a modified version of the Air Force's system that was adopted across the DoD. The Army controls only the popular name of an aircraft, not its designation, although there are instances where the designation system has been subverted⁵.

It is apparent that the Army wasn't allowed to develop its own aircraft until recently. The other issue is that aviation, as it developed in the Army after the separation of the Air Force isn't well documented prior to Vietnam. It also appears that the HU-1, HC-1/HC-2 and HO-4/HO-5/HO-6 designations may have assisted in facilitating the creation of the joint designation system that adopted a modified version of the Air Force's system.

• ¹ "Until 1962, the Army and Air Force maintained one system of aircraft naming, while the U.S. Navy maintained a separate system." [5]
• ² "During the Korean War, the Air Force handled aircraft procurement, depot maintenance, and supply, while the Army determined requirements and handled supply and maintenance at the organization and field levels. This division of responsibilities created obvious problems."[6]
• ³ "The current regulations for allocating aircraft and missile designations, called MDS (Mission, Design, Series) designations, are defined by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 16-401(I)."[7]
• ⁴ From AFI 16-401(I):

"Section B— Aerospace Vehicle Designation System

4. HQ AFMC/LGSI assigns and HQ USAF/XP approves designators for DoD aerospace vehicles according to their MDS. DoD established the current designator reporting system in 1961 to standardize identification of military aerospace vehicles. This system uses letters and numbers to symbolize identifying characteristics of aerospace vehicles of direct interest to the DoD.

Section C— Procedures for Requesting an MDS Designator

5. Military Departments must submit a written request for assignment of a distinctive MDS designator as early as possible in the aerospace vehicle development cycle. Requests must be coordinated with their respective Military Department point of contact and HQ AFMC/LGSI, as soon as possible, to have an MDS designator assigned. HQ AFMC/LGSI will assign and reserve the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission for new vehicles. Do not use MDS designators before approval.[8]

• ⁵ "The RC-7B is not a modified version of the de Havilland C-7A Caribou (DHC-4). Instead, the designation was assigned by the U.S. Army to the de Havilland Dash-7 modified as intelligence gathering aircraft for the ARL-M (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - Multimission) program. Apparently, someone in the Army just liked to assign the number "7" to the DASH-7 airframe."[9]

(Born2flie 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

Just found this. (Born2flie 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

From that source:

In 1955, with an interest in a utility helicopter designed around a turboshaft engine, the Army had the Air Force develop a new helicopter for its use. At that time the Army did not have its own aircraft development capability.

Being a source from a Navy historical site, it is probably correct, so I won't quibble on LOH being an Air Force-administered program. However, an AF designation would have probably been OH-40-something (perhaps -46 or -47), not HO-4/-5/-6 series.

Also from that source:

When the Army adopted its own two-letter designation system, the H-40 became the HU-1 (Helicopter Utility). From this designation came Huey, the name by which it has remained known. The DOD standard designation system reversed this to UH-1, the first designation in the new DOD helicopter series.

This is consistent with what I have observed, that the Army had its own designation system circa 1956-62. Apparently, Army aircraft procured before 1956 were not redesignated, hence the continued use of OH-13 and OH-23, along with the H-21 and H-25. According to {http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/o/dob104/aviation/us/hobserve.html}, the HO-series did include and HO-1, HO-2,and HO-3, though I have not seen this anywhere else. I have seen in published sources that the Mohawk was designated AO-1 (Army), and OF-1 (Navy/MC), before becoming the OV-1 in 1962.

I agree the "RC-7B" designation was non-standard, though it is recent (1990). On 15 August 2004, the designation EO-5C was officially allocated to the ARL-M aircraft. This is one of the rare cases where a non-conforming designation was officially replaced by a correct one. [10]. This site's sources are are usually government documents. It does not cover the pre-1962 designations in any detail, except to list the ones that were redesignated under the new system. -- BillCJ 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, Yeah. I was already pointing out that second quote by posting the link. The Army had its own designation system, according to the Navy Historians. That's why the time stamp on that comment of finding the document is later than my earlier one and why the article is edited to reflect that the Navy administered the development contract, the Army selected the Bell (even though the Navy preferred the FH1100, and even though the Hughes OH-6 was eventually selected) and the reference to the USAF and a USAF designation is removed.

Again, the problem with the two links you shared, and as I already admitted about my link to globalsecurity, is that none of these are primary sources, as secondary or tertiary sources they are unreliable because they are unreferenced as to where they get their information. They could've just as easily gotten their information from each other as from a reputable source. As such, I hold the rest of the work in question until it can be established by a separate source, such as the Navy History source that I found. I'm actually very happy to have a source that discusses the Army's designation system in a context outside of discussing designation systems without references. (Born2flie 05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification, both here and in the article. You probaby saw the article on the TH-57 on the same site; the PDF file there confirms that the Navy conducted the LOH program, though there was nothing about the Army designations. If I can ever find documented sources on the Army 1956 system, I'll let you know. Btw, I sometimes restate the obvious; it can be annoying, even to me. Even to me. (STOP THAT!!!) --BillCJ 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Found this here:

According to Stephen Harding, author of “U.S. Army Aircraft,” the letters “VZ” were part of the Army designation system used between 1956 and 1962, and signified a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Amazon has two used older editions, plus a recent one, of the Stephen Harding book here. Might be worth checking out. -- BillCJ 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Captain Obvious, myself! (Born2flie 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

No wonder both our posts are so long! -- BillCJ 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Army Aviation

I've tried to find an article on the US Army Aviation, but there doesn't seem to be one. Army Aviation redirects to Aerial warfare, while Army aviation redirects to Military aviation. There is some information of the current Army Air Corps on the United States Army Air Corps page, which also covers the 1926-41 USAAC. A search for US Army Aviation or United States Army Aviation brings up a search list. United States Army Aviation and Missile Command comes up near the top, but this is a Systems Command. I didn't think that was the same thing. Anyway, does anyone know of a single article covering US Army aviation in all its forms/names since 1947? --BillCJ 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

US Army Aviation didn't exist until the 1980's, before then it was always Army aviation (small "a"). It was mostly considered a part of Transportation Branch and that branch was responsible for training the maintainers. (Born2flie 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

OK, thanks. --BillCJ 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page, called United States Army Aviation Branch which is what is most commonly referred to as Army Aviation within the United States Army. It is used to refer to the branch in part or in whole (e.g. aviation assets are referred to as "Army Aviation"). --Born2flie 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bell design vs. Hughes design

Bill, it was intentional to say it this way for a more dramatic reading and is not a grammar issue but may seem so because of the "s" ending of "Hughes":

Once again, Bell design faced off with Hughes design.

It could be restated this way to alleviate the problem:

Once again, Bell's design faced off with Hughes' design.

(Born2flie 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

I understand your intention now. I've added the apostrophes for clarity. - BillCJ 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shootdowns and Crashes

I don't believe that every shootdown or every crash, just because it occurs when an editor is active on Wikipedia, should be considered notable, even if it can be said to meet the criteria of the notability guideline. The crash during Operation Prime Chance and the shootdown of the OH-58 during Operation Just Cause are notable because they are singular events that occurred during those operations. The shootdown of Bobby Hall's OH-58C over North Korea is notable because it became an international incident that received worldwide attention as the tensions along the DMZ between the two Koreas were increased. There have been quite a few Kiowa Warriors shot down in Iraq, this one does not stand out from others where the pilots also survived, so it is not a unique event. I think that should be the driving criteria for aircraft articles. If there is an article or project that deals with shootdowns and crashes, the information I removed today should go there. --Born2flie 12:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I forgot about this or I would have removed it myself. -Fnlayson 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Operations

I do know the OH-58 Kiowa helicopters were used in the 1994 intervention in Haiti. They flew off several different ships, including the Navy's Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.--Mtnerd 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OH-58C/S

I have photos of this aircraft, but have copyright issues as mentioned above. We need to find a way to fix this problem, it really hampers the ability to uses images from the net. Thoughts?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kiowa Warrior Armament

It is my understanding that the .50 caliber used on certain OH-58Ds is not actually the M2, but a different weapon based on it. Specifically, I recall it having a shorter barrel than the venerable Ma Duce. I'll dig up some evidence of this, any help would be appreciated. (USMA2010 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

• M296

Originally referred to as the XM296, it is essentially a modified M2 mounted in a cage that houses additional components and provides mounting to the weapons point as well as a modest amount of recoil/vibration dampening for the airframe:

"XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Gun. The XM296 machine gun is an automatic, recoil-operated, link-belt fed, air-cooled, .50 Cal. machine gun, for use in the left side mounting gun pod of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The XM296 has a maximum rate of fire of 750-800 spm (500-650 spm desired). The XM296 machine gun functions in the same manner as the M2 .50 Cal. machine gun, except it is fired remotely using an electrical solenoid and does not have the bolt latch which allows for single-shot operation. The XM296 has not been type classified." Link

--Born2flie 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently the OH-58 is authorized to mount the GAU-19 .50 calliber machinegun.Paulwharton (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no it is not. The reference in the GAU-19 article is inaccurate. GAU-19 testing has been going on for years and has never been approved for use by the OH-58D Program Manager. --Born2flie (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean to say that Library of congress budget records are incorrect and the photographs of OH-58 mounting GAU-19 are fakes?Paulwharton (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that your statement is incorrect, the conclusion drawn by the Congressional committee record is erroneous, and 3 years later, the GAU-19 is still not being mounted on operational helicopters. The Army approved testing for mounting the GAU-19, but the testing revealed problems and so the weapon system was never approved. The pictures you've seen are of an aircraft with a test weapon mounted. It is pretty, but the technical problems have never been overcome to make it a reality. --Born2flie (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reason's I posted here first is that Unless one is an end user there is alot of BS one has to sort through and frankly there is very little confirmable information to go one. As you appear to be an "End User" I Thank you for the update. Paulwharton (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I recognize and appreciate that. If I come off brusque, it is my lack of social grace and finishing. I have been known to use sledgehammers where scalpels were warranted. Hope I have not been too offensive, though. Regards. --Born2flie (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OH-58X?

Does anyone hear about OH-58X? Google gave me just few results ([11] [12]). It seemed to be developed in 1992 but what is the current status? Probably they're lookin' at Bell ARH-70 at the moment and there's no further development envisioned? If you have any reference the citation is appreciated. Thanks in advance, --marsian 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can't help, but thanks for the links. Added them to EL section for reader information. -Fnlayson 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed variant but never accepted by the Army. Jane's has a little blurb about OH-58X. I'll have to look to remember what Jane's says about it. If it is the one I'm thinking of, I saw it arrive at the AHP I was working at circa 1992-93. It is also depicted in the pictures with the face of the Kiowa Indian painted on the side of the aircraft. --Born2flie 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

♠ I don't remember an OH-58X, but I'll check on it.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

♠ I have uploaded an image of the OH-58X, but have no information source to discuss it. Based on my engineering source, it was a Bell in-house project, and looks like a KW variant that was 18" longer aft of the crew. If I can obtain some documented info, I'll add it to the article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a DTIC doc (ADA180259) that mentions a JOH - 58C Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) as a flight test surrogate for the OH-58X. Also I found another photo of the OH-58X, but unsure of the copyright. So many sites have pics without copyright data. Consequently it's really frustrating, because I believe that many of the images of military aircraft belong to the military (meaning free use), nevertheless it tough figuring out how to be able to use them.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Army Aviation book by Harding says there was a single OH-58X helicopter also known as "OH-58D Variant" that first flew in March 1992. It incorporated some partial stealth features and a flattened nose with a night vision turret and electronics. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Full back seat

I saw a OH-58D at an air show this weekend. The back area that's the backseat on the Bell 206 is closed off. I asked the pilot if there's some storage space back there and he pulled a panel off to show that it's full of avionics boxes. He had a display showing 3 stages of upgrades, CDS2, CDS4, CDS5. Here's a picture of the display. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have told you that. ;) I don't like the chin-mounted sight, it could cause some issues. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, but the back seat thing was not something I thought about before. I have not been able to find much on these upgrades on .mil sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, we run out of room really quick once we stash our helmet bags. TFI, what don't you like about the chin sight? I do have a question about that, are they going to put a Frahm damper on top of the rotor like the 407? --Born2flie (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed this. My concerns are usual regarding crashworthiness and occupant injury. Strike hazard are the leading cause of head injuries. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Air Cav pilot at the air show said the Chinook folks could carry a cooler and stuff with them in field, but all they get is helmet bag. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Optics support contract

Saw this article on an optics support contract today. The contract looks pretty minor, but the info in the article might be of use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OH-58A/C

The OH-58A/C is not a variant. It is simply lumping all OH-58A and OH-58C together, because any differences that remain, now that all OH-58A are upgraded, are usually restricted to a few structural differences.

The following is from the current Operator's Manual titled, "Operator's Manual Army Model OH-58A/C Helicopter" (dated 17 January 1989):

"1-11. DESIGNATOR SYMBOLS.

NOTE

All OH-58A and OH-58C model aircraft are now equipped with the T63-A-720 Engine.

Designator symbols [A] OH-58A and [C] OH-58C are used in conjunction with text contents, text headings and illustration titles to show limited effectivity of the material. One or more designator symbols may follow a text heading or illustration title to indicate proper effectivity, unless the material applies to all series and configurations within the manual. If the material applies to all series and configurations, no designator symbols will be used. Where practical, descriptive information is condensed and combined for all models to avoid duplication.

NOTE

Armament subsystems are no longer applicable to OH-58A/C aircraft. All references to armament subsystems have been removed from this manual."

The Army continues to designate this aircraft as either OH-58A or OH-58C but refers to both together as OH-58A/C when not distinguishing between either series aircraft to avoid duplication of reference. (Born2flie 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

• What are the Army's A- and C-models used for these days, in general terms? Aviation Week's 2010 sourcebook lists the US Army as having 150 OH-58As and 209 OH-58Cs in inventory as of January. I ask partly because Bell received a contract this week to convert up to 18 OH-58As into Ds to replace lost OH-58Ds and had wondered where the As were coming from. -fnlayson (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Both A and C models are used as liaison aircraft at the Army's Training Centers (NTC, JRTC, JMTC) and in the Army National Guard. Over 116 have been modified into RAID aircraft, and many are probably mothballed. I can't find the reference, but one article suggested that the reactivation of the conversion assembly line may lead to new-build aircraft. Maybe whenever the TH-67 is replaced, the Army could also recapitalize the 206B3 airframes into OH-58F aircraft. It may take that long for the Army to come up with an OH-58F replacement. --Born2flie (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And will we ever know exactly how much money has been wasted trying to replace the OH-58D after the RAH-66 was cancelled? By the time we actually do replace it, we'll have probably spent more money than we would have if we procured the RAH-66 in the first place. This is quite common in other western nations too, especially Canada and the UK. Politics! - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The curse word you are looking for is acquisition. It is one thing the Army does not do well, and the rest of DoD is even doing poorly with. The problem is the contract and the idea that you have to order everything all at once. It is a rigid process that is removed from the end-user. The combination of which means that once the contract is signed, neither the government nor the contractor have the ability to react to changes in reality. Lawyers will be the downfall of western civilization despite their best efforts to write the contract for its survival. --Born2flie (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

Some of the numbers are off between the OH-58A and the OH-58D. First, I really don't think the OH-58A can aerodynamically fly faster than the OH-58D. Granted, the KW has more flat plate drag, but also a better engine and rotor system. That and my operator's manual says that the OH-58A can't exceed 120 knots (140 mph; 220 km/h). Source: Army Technical Manual TM 55-1520-228-10, dated 31 March 2006. Since it is approved for public release, I will revise the OH-58A data where applicable. This is not the same case for the OH-58D, so I must defer to Jane's and Mr. Harding. However, are we sure Mr. Harding labeled his section as "Bell H-59 Kiowa"? --Born2flie (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The H-59 thing was a typo on my part. Harding lists higher speeds for the OH-58D than the C and A-models (in that order). The max and cruise speeds are 138 and 117 mph for the OH-58A and 149 and 138 mph for the D. However the service ceiling decreases some with the newer model. I guess that's related to the higher gross weights. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to find the listing for the engine shp for the T63-A-700 installed on the OH-58A. I know it wasn't 317 shp, because the A was restricted to 3,000 lbs MGW, or something less, prior to installing the -720. Now, all OH-58A still in service have been upgraded to the -720 engine. I will keep looking to refine the information. --Born2flie (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just happen to have the answer to that one! The Canadian Forces never upgraded their CH-136s from OH-58A configuration (the CF has always been a flying museum) and I flew them and have the C-12-136-000/MC-000 Checklist here! The power output is 317 shp take-off for 5 minutes (92 psi of torque) and 270 shp continuous (79 psi torque). Gross weight was indeed 3000 lb and even that was optimistic in the summer! The T63-A-700 designation is the civil Allison 250-C18 engine. The main difference between this engine and the similarly rated -720 (Allison 250-C20B) is that the C20B is 420 shp derated top 317 shp, whereas the C18 isn't derated. This means that any time the density altitude was above sea level the engine wouldn't produce the full 317 shp. I have flown them on warm days in Edmonton, AB when they wouldn't even hover at all with two people on board. Cruising cross country could be slow. Most would barely indicate 90 KIAS at max continuous, some would only go 85 KIAS and that is with two people on board at 2000 ft AGL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ref if you want to cite it: <ref name=MC>[[Canadian Forces]] DLA 2, ''C-12-136-000/MC-000 Operating Checklist Kiowa CH-136'', Canadian Forces Technical Order, November 1976.</ref> - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The FAA Type Certificate says that the engine for the OH-58A is the 250-C10D, same shp and torque pressures as you listed. On the 206A, which is the C18 and C18B engine, the same shp values, but the torque pressures are different. Also, the output shaft speed for the OH-58A is 103% rpm, whereas the civilian 206 airframes are all 100% rpm. You can reference the FAA TCDS for the 206 airframes from the 206 article. --Born2flie (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The CH-136 is limited to 104% N1. I might have my C10 vs C18 confused, the MC lists it as a T63-A-700. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Public Library Named for KW Capt Kimberly Hampton

I'm new on this page and do not know enough to contribute. However, I bring to the attention of those who do that a public library has been named after a captain of a KW, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, and "the first female combat pilot killed by enemy fire in United States history.":

http://www.pickens.lib.sc.us/locations_hours/pickens_library/capt_kimberly_hampton.htm

I am especially happy to bring this to your attention on Memorial Day weekend. Perhaps someone may wish to add this somehow to the Wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to include that information in this article, since the library was not named for her because she was a KW pilot. Also, the information is already included in the article on Kimberly Hampton, as well as the highway named for her. It would be appropriate to link to her article in the See also section because she is a notable OH-58D pilot. --Born2flie (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Born2flie: I agree with that approach - it makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thanks, I knew the regular editors on this page would know how to handle this. That the change adding Kimberly Hampton occurred on Memorial Day is even better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Boldface

Just to clarify on the boldface issue ...

WP:Boldface says that boldface should be used only in very limited situations. Generally it is reserved for section headers and the name of the topic in the first sentence. Most other uses of boldface are inappropriate. In other words, even if the name of the topic or some alternative name appears elsewhere in the article, even elsewhere in the lead, it is almost always inappropriate to put it in boldface. Typically it also inappropriate to put alternate names for the topic in boldface although there are limited cases where this may be appropriate. Even in those cases, though, it should normally be done in the first sentence (or very close to it).

I personally think that the argument that Kiowa Warrior is a synonym for the OH-58 Kiowa is rather gratuitous, but since I am not an expert in the topic I'll defer to those more directly involved. I have put in a compromise in the lead keeping the boldface in the first sentence as the guidelines specify. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I have taken it out - Kiowa Warrior is not an alternate name, but the name of a variant of the Kiowa as the article explains. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt, I agree with your assessment but that doesn't explain why you reverted my change rather than simply putting in what I had previously proposed. In any event Fnlayson did it for you I guess. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is the problem with the MOS where one part is reviewed, edited, and even read and interpreted by any editor, separately from the other parts of the MOS. Under WP:BOLD, the editor is lead to believe that the lead section only applies to the "(first paragraph)". However, in WP:LEAD, an article of significant length is described as having more than one paragraph in order to properly summarize and delineate the breadth of the article. WP:Lead still only implies only a single paragraph in describing introductory text, but when an article is evaluated for Good Article or Featured Article status, the number, size, and content of paragraphs in the lead become critical.

The compromise was how I originally formatted the reference to OH-58D Kiowa Warrior in the second paragraph, which was also part of the only lead paragraph at one point. I didn't check the history extensively, so I don't know if I bolded it or not, but I believe there is a precedence in other aircraft articles, and perhaps the few FA aviation articles should be checked to see if this is the case. --Born2flie (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Operational use: Australian

Did the Aussies use the helicopter in Vietnam? I think I saw a picture of an Aussie Kiowa in Vietnam Chwyatt (talk)

Australian use of the Kiowa in Vietnam consisted of 8 aircraft loaned by the United States Army. The Australian Army acquired its first OH-58A (CAC CA-32)in 1973.[13] --Born2flie (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Post 9/11

This sub-section heading under Operational History is severely U.S.-centric. I think the sub-section should be renamed to something that requires less explanation to non-U.S. readers. --Born2flie (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I changed it to "Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq". Remove the Operations part or try something else if you like. -fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Max Gross Weight

The design max gross weight, as stated in several of the cited references, is 5,500 pounds. Any OH-58D pilot that wants to change it because his Operator's Manual says something different needs to read the front cover of the TM more carefully. The public sources of information state 5,500, to include the accepted civilian de facto standard of Jane's ATWA. Even the Army's fact file states 5,500.[14] Leave it alone. Stop trying to correct it. --Born2flie (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Differences to civil Bell Model 206 JetRanger" section

I removed this section before as unreferenced and containing wrong information. The IP editor has now re-added it with a ref. I do not have access to this ref, but the text contradicts a lot of other facts about the aircraft from other refs and also my own experiences as a test pilot on the OH-58A as well as the civil 206B. The initial OH-58A did not have rotors and transmissions from the 206L, as the OH-58A (1966 introduction) predates the 206L (1975 introduction) by many years, in fact the OH-58A has a downgraded -18 engine that puts out only 317 shp, compared to the 206B with its 420 shp -20B engine. These features were added to the OH-58 in much later series (C and D) and this is causing confusion here. The OH-58A uses the same 317 shp-limited transmission as the 206A and B, but has different blades with mid-span and tip weights to improve autorotation. The OH-58A also has a longer tail boom than the 206, due to the longer blades. The rest of the claims about "battery relocated to behind the fuel tank, doors that can be jettisoned, armour-backed seats and hard points for weapon systems" are correct. Despite the ref cited, I think this contains obviously erroneous information that needs to be corrected. Perhaps the IP editor who added this can quote the ref text here so we can all see exactly what it says and sort this out. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not certain, but I believe the 206L transmission is shared with the OH-58D, not the OH-58A. The tail rotor for the OH-58C/D (and OH-58A since 1978) may be the same as the one on the 206L. Was the battery relocated? In the OH-58D, the primary battery is located in the nose and a provision was made for an additional battery in the aft electrical compartment (baggage compartment) for cold weather starting.

What I have found in uninitiated authors of obscure reference material is that they misunderstand which OH-58 model is being discussed. This would appear to be the case here, where the reference is not specifically about Bell products. --Born2flie (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the author of the ref may be confusing different models here. Your idea that the OH-58D may use 206L components makes sense to me, as Bell always uses off-the-shelf parts whenever they can, they seem to avoid developing anything new unless absolutely necessary. The OH-58A does indeed have its sole battery in the "avionics compartment" in the back. (called the "baggage compartment" on the 206A and B). I think this was to offset the weight of the cockpit-mounted armour plate. Overall it seems there are some serious errors in the ref cited and the section confuses the various OH-58 models and 206 models. Since in its current state it is full of non-model specific and incorrect information I propose it be removed as the article would be better off without this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support removal of the section here to the Talk page until it can be clarified about which models of both the 206 and the OH-58 that each difference is related to. --Born2flie (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is a good way to proceed. Here it is: - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Differences from civil Bell Model 206 JetRanger === Among many differences that the initial OH-58 Kiowa has when compared to a civil 206 JetRanger, its most notable features are rotor and transmission systems from the 206L Longranger due to larger rotor disc-loading requirements, an uprated turbine engine, battery relocated to behind the fuel tank, doors that can be jettisoned, armour-backed seats and hard points for weapon systems. It can also be fitted with an optional flat-plate canopy screen to reduce windscreen glint during tactical operations.<ref>Mark Lloyd ''The Guiness Book of Helicopter Facts and Feats''. Guinness Publishing Ltd,, 1993. ISBN 0-85112-577-8.</ref>

Jsut a note from Andrade, US Military Aircraft Designations and Serials p.124 - Army light observation version of the Bell 206A with a larger-diameter rotor driven by a 317 shp T63-A-700 and revised equipment. The T63-A-700 is a 250-C18 as noted my Ahunt. Another source I have has very similar wording having a larger-diameter main rotor and detailed change in internal layout and the provision of military avionics. Clearly nothing to do with the 206L which as has been said came along latter.MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

MB1: thanks for adding that source, that is consistent with other sources, plus my own knowledge test flying the OH-58A (CH-136). It seems pretty clear that the passage above was confusing various OH-58 models and is therefore not very useful. I think it is better omitted. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

M129 links to highway in michigan

Somebody make it link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M129_grenade_launcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.230.124 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that error out! - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)