Huey retired down under officially
Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:01 am
I found this on another forum
"Its official folks today was the last day of the Australian military use of the greatest helicopter ever - Bell UH-1 Huey.
Since entering since in early 1960s with RAN and RAAF and finally Army aviations squadrons it has become THE helicopter of the century.
Today the last 2 RAAF ADRU Huey flew out to their green pastures.
Hopefully someone might get a RAN Museum UH-1B and a AAvn UH-1H together as a photo for the album in flight before its no more.
I do hope they are sold within Australia to warbird owners who will use them as joyrides platforms, as many people overseas use Hueys for warbird airshows and joyrides.
Here is hoping..............."
Sure is sad.. how many other countries allow Hueys as warbird? Im told South Africia and England does and i assume here in USA there are some also.
"Its official folks today was the last day of the Australian military use of the greatest helicopter ever - Bell UH-1 Huey.
Since entering since in early 1960s with RAN and RAAF and finally Army aviations squadrons it has become THE helicopter of the century.
Today the last 2 RAAF ADRU Huey flew out to their green pastures.
Hopefully someone might get a RAN Museum UH-1B and a AAvn UH-1H together as a photo for the album in flight before its no more.
I do hope they are sold within Australia to warbird owners who will use them as joyrides platforms, as many people overseas use Hueys for warbird airshows and joyrides.
Here is hoping..............."
Sure is sad.. how many other countries allow Hueys as warbird? Im told South Africia and England does and i assume here in USA there are some also.
Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:22 am
US allows them, there are quite a few here. The US Military's still flying the UH-1 as are the Canadians (in the form of the 412 Griffon) and are the Brits. I'm surprised the Aussies are retiring them so soon.
Australia retires the Huey
Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:52 pm
With regard to the retirement of the Bell Huey in Australia I am pleased to report that a number are already preserved here. The RAAF Museum holds three in its collection including a recently delivered UH-1H in Bushranger gunship configuration. I believe that the RAN Fleet Air Arm also has one.
What will happen to the rest of them is anybody's guess. Obsolete military aircraft are generally disposed of by tender in Australia and often there are restrictions placed upon what civilian buyers can do with them. In other cases, notably the disposal of the RAAF's Mirage fleet, aircraft are sold as a job lot by Government without going to public tender.
It will be interesting to see what the Australian Government does with the
F 111 which is due for retirement in the near future. I can guarantee you that they will not be sold as flyable warbirds.
What will happen to the rest of them is anybody's guess. Obsolete military aircraft are generally disposed of by tender in Australia and often there are restrictions placed upon what civilian buyers can do with them. In other cases, notably the disposal of the RAAF's Mirage fleet, aircraft are sold as a job lot by Government without going to public tender.
It will be interesting to see what the Australian Government does with the
F 111 which is due for retirement in the near future. I can guarantee you that they will not be sold as flyable warbirds.
Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:03 pm
Just a few riders, folks -
I very much doubt that there will be a civilian operated Iroquois in Australia. It's possible, provided you are rich enough to jump through CASA's hoops, but it's not that attractive for the cost, I suspect. As Keith says, in terms of preservation, they are well catered for, including several examples with the RAAF Museum. I could see the RAN FAA Museum flying one, but they've a few hurdles to get over first.
The British military (Army, Navy or Air Force) NEVER operated the Iroquois or Huey 'officially'. There have been a couple of civilian examples pass through the UK, and the current 'warbird' civilian operated example 'G-HUEY' is a captured ex-Argentine Falklands War war prize; I suspect the only Huey to have flown in British Military service, when in use in the early eighties.
Most Australian Iroquois are Vietnam era machines, delivered in the 1960s or early 70s, so hardly 'soon' and have also been replaced by Tigers and Blackhawks. It's a great aircraft, but unarguably old for front-line military use.
Seen at the RAAF Museum Pageant two years ago:
Regards,
HGUCSU wrote:I do hope they are sold within Australia to warbird owners who will use them as joyrides platforms, as many people overseas use Hueys for warbird airshows and joyrides.
Here is hoping..............."
Sure is sad.. how many other countries allow Hueys as warbird? Im told South Africia and England does and i assume here in USA there are some also.
I very much doubt that there will be a civilian operated Iroquois in Australia. It's possible, provided you are rich enough to jump through CASA's hoops, but it's not that attractive for the cost, I suspect. As Keith says, in terms of preservation, they are well catered for, including several examples with the RAAF Museum. I could see the RAN FAA Museum flying one, but they've a few hurdles to get over first.
CAPFlyer wrote:US allows them, there are quite a few here. The US Military's still flying the UH-1 as are the Canadians (in the form of the 412 Griffon) and are the Brits.
The British military (Army, Navy or Air Force) NEVER operated the Iroquois or Huey 'officially'. There have been a couple of civilian examples pass through the UK, and the current 'warbird' civilian operated example 'G-HUEY' is a captured ex-Argentine Falklands War war prize; I suspect the only Huey to have flown in British Military service, when in use in the early eighties.
CAPFlyer wrote:I'm surprised the Aussies are retiring them so soon.
Most Australian Iroquois are Vietnam era machines, delivered in the 1960s or early 70s, so hardly 'soon' and have also been replaced by Tigers and Blackhawks. It's a great aircraft, but unarguably old for front-line military use.
Seen at the RAAF Museum Pageant two years ago:
Regards,
Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:33 pm
JDK wrote:CAPFlyer wrote:US allows them, there are quite a few here. The US Military's still flying the UH-1 as are the Canadians (in the form of the 412 Griffon) and are the Brits.
The British military (Army, Navy or Air Force) NEVER operated the Iroquois or Huey 'officially'. There have been a couple of civilian examples pass through the UK, and the current 'warbird' civilian operated example 'G-HUEY' is a captured ex-Argentine Falklands War war prize; I suspect the only Huey to have flown in British Military service, when in use in the early eighties.
The Griffon is still a very active part of the fleet for the next couple of years and is very much a Huey. The 412 is a direct descendant of the 212 (Huey) with the major change being the installation of a 4-blade rotor but keeping essentially the same transmission and engines as the UH-1N.
CAPFlyer wrote:I'm surprised the Aussies are retiring them so soon.
Most Australian Iroquois are Vietnam era machines, delivered in the 1960s or early 70s, so hardly 'soon' and have also been replaced by Tigers and Blackhawks. It's a great aircraft, but unarguably old for front-line military use.
Umm... many of the UH-1s still flying in the US are Vietnam-era birds too. The first UH-1Ns entered in 1970 and the last ones rolled off the line in 1982, but many of the early airframes are still flying, especially with the US Air Force although none are combat vets. With proper maintenance and periodic rebuilds, the USAF expexts to be operating the aircraft for quite a while more. The USMC will be converting their aircraft into UH-1Zs, but still, the base airframe will still be an aircraft manufactured in the 1970s or early 1980s.
Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:50 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:The Griffon is still a very active part of the fleet for the next couple of years and is very much a Huey. The 412 is a direct descendant of the 212 (Huey) with the major change being the installation of a 4-blade rotor but keeping essentially the same transmission and engines as the UH-1N.
So, because a descendant operates with the British, you are saying the predecessor, a differently named, designated and nicknamed helicopter also 'did'? Can't agree. The 412 family is not called an Iroquois, or UH1 / 'Huey' or is that type of helicopter, but is a descendent, as you say. If you prefer, 'The British forces never operated the UH- family as such'. OK? Either way, the machines the Australian Army are retiring are a different type to the UK's much newer (into service in 1997 - 2003) Bell 412 Griffons.
CAPFlyer wrote:Umm... many of the UH-1s still flying in the US are Vietnam-era birds too. The first UH-1Ns entered in 1970 and the last ones rolled off the line in 1982, but many of the early airframes are still flying, especially with the US Air Force although none are combat vets. With proper maintenance and periodic rebuilds, the USAF expexts to be operating the aircraft for quite a while more. The USMC will be converting their aircraft into UH-1Zs, but still, the base airframe will still be an aircraft manufactured in the 1970s or early 1980s.
Interesting. I'm not interested in, or privy to, the decision process to retiring the Australian Iroquois. Having looked several over, and talked to the Army crews, the choppers are in good condition and the crews clearly like them, but they have been retired. IIRC, I vaguely heard mention of limitations for potential equipment upgrades, but that may be misleading.
Certainly a significant number of the Army, ex-RAAF Iroquois are Vietnam veterans, delivered in the late sixties early 70s and for other operations / peacekeeping efforts. Much as they are impressive machines, they have been replaced, IIRC, by Blackhawks and Tigers - newer and more advanced machines.
Cheers,
Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:50 am
The one "major" limitation of the Huey has always been speed. They aren't fast aircraft. The Blackhawks and Tigers are much quicker, but less rugged. The speed makes up for the loss of durability though because you get hit less when going fast. 
Also, with helicopters they're much easier to rebuild an "zero time" than aircraft as they don't typically have load-bearing wings to replace (Russian helicopters being the exception) and the rotors are designed to be replaced, so by replacing the skids/landing gear, drive train, and rotors, you have replaced most of the critical fatigue areas of the airframe. Re-skinning and replacing other fatigue areas like the tailboom is straightforward as well as they're already bolted on and thus you can simply replace the entire structure with a new one. As such, you can see helicopters being around a lot longer than some airplanes as they are nearly infinitely rebuildable and upgradable within the load and physical limits of the airframe. At some point however, the electronics and the design just get old enough that it becomes too expensive to continue rebuilding the aircraft and it gets retired due to cost instead of fatigue which grounds most fixed-wing aircraft.
Also, with helicopters they're much easier to rebuild an "zero time" than aircraft as they don't typically have load-bearing wings to replace (Russian helicopters being the exception) and the rotors are designed to be replaced, so by replacing the skids/landing gear, drive train, and rotors, you have replaced most of the critical fatigue areas of the airframe. Re-skinning and replacing other fatigue areas like the tailboom is straightforward as well as they're already bolted on and thus you can simply replace the entire structure with a new one. As such, you can see helicopters being around a lot longer than some airplanes as they are nearly infinitely rebuildable and upgradable within the load and physical limits of the airframe. At some point however, the electronics and the design just get old enough that it becomes too expensive to continue rebuilding the aircraft and it gets retired due to cost instead of fatigue which grounds most fixed-wing aircraft.