Talk:Kaman HH-43 Huskie/Archive 1

Archive 1

First and Last

H-43 Huskie History
Pedro the GIANT KILLER

Most people when asked about Air Rescue in the Vietnam War, they immediately think of the JOLLY GREEN GIANTS . The truth is, the first USAF Rescue helicopter into Vietnam and the last to leave was the venerable Huskie. The what, you ask? The Kaman HH-43B/F Huskie, largely built of fiberglass & Sheet metal,for the most part unarmed and topped with hollow Wooden Blades.

Built by the Kaman Aircraft Corporation http://www.helis.com/timeline/kaman.php of Bloomfield, Connecticut the H-43 series was flown by the USN, USMC and the USAF. Initially powered by a large noisy reciprocal engine, the little chopper came into its own as the first turbine engined helicopter ordered by the USAF.

The H-43A (only 18 were built) was initially purchased as a stop gap until the turbined powered H-43B could be produced and delivered in 1959 (58-serial numbers). Designed as a Firefighting and short ranged (75 mile mission radius) Local Base Rescue (L.B.R.) helicopter, H-43A’s were first assigned to ATC Pilot training bases.

The Aircraft was designed as a short range (75 mile mission radius) Local Base Rescue (LBR) and Firefighting helicopter. The standard mission crew of six, consisted of a (RCP) Pilot, (RCCP) Copilot, (FE) Flight Engineer/Crew Chief, (MT) Aero Medical Technician and 2 (ABR) Airborne Rescuemen/Firefighters. The FE usually remained on the ground to launch the aircraft and hook up the sling loaded (FSK) Fire Suppression Kit. If a bailout did occur, time permitting, the ABRs were dropped off and the FE and MT became the primary Aircrew Recovery personnel.

Nick-named “Sputnik”, the FSK contained 78.5 gallons of water, 5 gallons of mechanical foam concentrate, weighed 950 pounds and would generate 690 gallons of aerated foam. The Airborne Rescuemen (ABR) would clear an 8 X 10’ Rescue Path from the edge of the fire to the cockpit facilitating the removal of the trapped pilot.

The Huskie’s unique side by side counter rotating (Syncopter) rotor system provided a powerful downwash that suppressed the height of the flames, injected fresh air, cooled the ABRs and assisted in spreading the aerated foam. Once rescued, the injured pilot would be treated by the MT and flown to the nearest Medical Facility.

At one point, the HH-43 served in 100 Detachments world wide. Based in the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Europe,[Ethiopia & New Guinea TDY mapping missions], Libya, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Guam, Thailand and Vietnam. Prior to the deployment to Southeast Asia (S.E.A.), in a two year period from 31 January 1962-1964, HH-43 Crews saved 262 military and civilian lives and assisted 1,473 other persons. Many of these were rescued from precarious situations, and undoubtedly would have loss their lives without the help of the H-43. In addition, Huskies scrambled 12,613 times to assist aircraft in trouble.

Although not designed for combat, this unarmed little helicopter was the only USAF Rescue Helicopter available to go to war. Starting in June 1964, Air Rescue Service (A.R.S.) L.B.R. Detachments were notified to implement OPS PLAN 510 http://users.acninc.net/padipaul/pnl001_01_03/3sea.htm , a contingency plan for deploying LBR detachments. Initially planned for deployment to Bien Hoa, DaNang and Soc Trang Air Bases in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

The shoot-down of Lt. Charles E. Klusmann’s RF-8 Crusader over the Plain de Jars (PDJ)in North Central Laos on 6 June 1964 sent the Temporary Duty (TDY) HH-43s headed for Soc Trang to be diverted to Nakon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base (RTAFB). http://users.acninc.net/padipaul/pnl_12_2005_04sea.htm Rushed into the Theater, these crews were without combat experience or training and their aircraft lacked the range or equipment to performed the Search and Rescue (SAR) missions for which they would be tasked.

As Marines like to say, it’s adapt and overcome. This was nothing new for the men of the Air Rescue Service. All rescues are different requiring G.I. ingenuity, so the Pilots, Aircrew and Support Personnel had plenty of experience in solving problems.

It was 200 + feet through the triple canopied jungle, so a 100 foot length of rope with a weight on the end was attached to the 110 foot hoist cable. Although this required that the survivor be lifted clear of any trees or obstacles then flown to a clearing for retrieval, several rescues were successfully completed in this manner. http://users.acninc.net/padipaul/pnl_04_2005_2sea.htm This problem was later solved by swapping a HH-43F 216’ hoist cable spool for the shorter “B” model spool.

The Mission Radius of 75 miles basically eliminated the Huskie from reaching the PDJ and other rescue areas in Northern Laos and along North Vietnam Border. With the assistance of Air America, fuel was cashed at various LIMA Sites to allow the short legged Huskie a chance to refuel and extend its SAR range. Later, the HH-43 mounted 3 to 4 - 55 gallon drums of fuel in the cabin and gravity fed the JP4 as fuel was burned. The barrels were kicked out the back of the aircraft when empty and/or full to felicitate the pick-up of a downed Airman. Although this was contrary to the U.S.A.F. policy of not allowing unapproved modifications to aircraft; realization of the need forced Senior ARS personnel to “play the 3 monkeys” when confronted with these mission enhancements.

One enhancement not overlooked by the “High Command” was the addition of armament to the little bird. On an unannounced HU-16 “Duck Butt” visit, one unnamed 0-6 after finding BARs on the Alert Birds told the crews “get those damned weapons off the aircraft. This showed the differences between the Headquarter types afraid their Rescue Helicopters would become Attack Helicopters and the Combat Rescue Crews worrying about flying into a “Rat’s Nest” without adequate protection. True to their orders, the crews removed the offending weapons, stashed them nearby in empty 55 gallon drums and didn’t pull them out until launching on their next SAR mission. As one crewmember put it, “he didn’t say to keep them off”.

The HH-43s later staged at LIMA Sites 36 & 108 as a Forward Operating Location (F.O.L.). In South Vietnam, the F.O.L. was in Quang Tri just south of the DMZ allowing the crews from DaNang a head start and extended range launching into Route PACK I & II. In April 1965 DET Provisional 5 Pacific Air Rescue Center (PARC) initiated operations from UDORN RTAFB, located 40 miles south of the Laotian Border and 50 miles from Vientiane the Capital. This allowed DET Prov.2 at NKP to cover Central and Southern Laos along with Route PACKS III & IV. DET Prov.5 concentrated on Northern Laos and Route PACKS V & VI. Regular SAR missions continued in Laos and North Vietnam for 6 months after the arrival of the first HH-3s in Dec 1965, allowing their crews to get up to speed and solve maintenance related problems. As late as 28 Dec 1970 a little Huskie with a crew from Nakon Phanom RTAFB dashed across and rescued USN LDCR Robert N. Castle after ejecting from his “battle damaged” A-7E Corsair 17 miles into Laos from NKP. http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/castle.html

The last HH-43s to leave Vietnam were from 37ARRS and departed DaNang AB in November 1972.

At one point during the war, there were 14 Detachments in the 38th Air Rescue and Recovery Squadron (ARRS), 9 in South Vietnam and 5 in Thailand. The last flight of an HH-43, tail # 64-17559 was on 20 Sep 1975 at DET5 40ARRS UDORN RTAFB. During its service in S.E.A , the venerable Huskie is credited with more combat saves than either the HH-3 or HH-53. Earl H. Tilford’s report, “Search and Rescue in Southeast Asia 1961-75” provides3rd ARRG Combat Save statistics. The HH3 is credited with 755, the HH53 with 371 and the winning HH-43 with 888*. *This does not include rescues during the period from Jun 1964 to 1 Jan 1965 before arrival of the JOLLYs into the Combat Theater. Additionally, the H-43 Huskie during its 16 years operational life (1959-1975), rescued more people than all other types of helicopters and 30 years later still retains that record.

Want to read more, go to the Pedro News Archives or click on the links below:

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military020105.html

http://users.acninc.net/padipaul/pedrohome.htm

— Stephen P. Mock, MSGt, USAF(ret)
HH-43B/F Airborne Rescueman/Firefighter

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.129.92 (talk • contribs)

Pre-1962

Born2flie: The pre-1962 designation sequence mixes USAF helicopter designations with the bolded USN designations for the Huskie prior to 1962. --05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Move article?

Who was the most prominent user of this aircraft and what should the name of the article be according to the naming conventions? --Born2flie 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the USAF and HH-43 Huskie. - BillCJ 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just see a lot of USN and USMC reference in the Variants list. Do we have references for the number of aircraft used? --Born2flie 08:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the USN/USMC were all redesignated in 1963, so H-43 at least is appropriate. Kaman H-43 might work, but I've always read it as HH-43 Huskie in most print works. I'll see if I can find some numbers on the users somewhere. - BillCJ 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Internal Kaman designation seems to have been K-600. Drutt (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It was the Kaman Model K-600. I would agree that it could be H-43 Huskie according to the naming convention but the HH-43 Huskie is by far the most common variant with 200 built, the quantities are on the list of variants. So I would support leaving the title alone. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that the stub Kaman HUK article would be best served by merging into this article, as the HUK was redesignated into the HH-43 sequence in '62, the article is, as noted, a stub, and, minor but there, the navbox for U.S. Navy rotorcraft sends you to this page for the HUK... - The Bushranger (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Looks like an orphan, with not many regulars having edited it. - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree as per comments above. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Really?

This article states: "Composite – HH-43F on static display at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. This airframe is painted as 60-0289, but was built up from parts of various HH-34s" I'd be impressed by any assembly of Choctaw parts that might be mistaken for an HH-43, but sadly, I suspect that this is just a typo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kaman HH-43 Huskie/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is no information on the helicopter's development and an intimation to a higher importance without reference or further justification. (Born2flie 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Last edited at 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The enormous difference in weight and power between the K-240/HTK-1/TH-43E version and other versions needs to be made clear.

I've added a note that the HTK-1 (K-240 or TH-43E) was powered by a 240 hp (180 kW) Lycoming O-435-4 flat-six piston engine. Surprising as this sounds, the Navy pilot's handbook confirms it. This explains the big difference in model number between the K-240 and the K-600; the number obviously states the horsepower. With this engine, weight was greatly reduced; max weight was only 3,000 lb (1,400 kg). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a trainer, so it's not really "shocking". But it does illustrate the difference between small piston engines and turboshaft engines, and why the change was almost revolutionary. Even today, only the lowest end of helicopters where price is more important continue to use piston engines. BilCat (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

True, but I was talking about the change from the small piston engine (Lycoming O-435) to the big piston engine (Pratt & Whitney R-1340), not the later change to the turboshaft. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok, it wasn't very clear, to me anyway. But I do believe it was because it was a trainer, and didn't need the bigger engine,.and that's understandable. BilCat (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, agreed there. My initial shock was because I had naively expected the HTK-1 to have the same engine as the HOK-1 and HUK-1, since there was no explicit mention of a different engine in the article. So when while looking through the HTK-1 manual to compare its max weight with those, I saw "3,000 lb" and then the mention of the 240 hp Lycoming, my initial reaction was "wait, what?!" I just didn't expect a huge difference like that. It did make sense to me that a trainer might have far less power, though. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

In context, I understand. BilCat (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)