Was There Ever N9-472?

[Martin Edwards]

Received this via our question email


Hello,
Many sources seem to quote confusing figures for the RAN UH-1B / C?
Some quote N9-3101 / 3104 as being "Charlie" variants where others quote them as "Bravos", any ideas?
Was there ever a Charlie model delivered to the RAN as N9-472 (c/n: 1472)?
Thanks
Simon D. Beck

[Brendan Cowan]

Hi All,

The only reference that I have ever seen to a "N9-472" is at :

http://www.helis.com/database/cn/12294/

This site is run by Jorge Gazzola - who usually gets things pretty right - but just like us, runs a volunteer site with many contributors and errors can occur.

We often exchange information with each other.

I'll drop him a line and see if he can add any further information about this entry.

I don't have any further information about "N9-472" - I suspect that it's an error but happy to be proven wrong!


Cheers


Brendan

[batman]

Martin, Brendan

I must stick my hand up for spreading the "RAN UH-1C" myth.

I put this out in my article in Aust Avn, Apr 1996, on the RAN Iroquois.

I had taken as my source "US Mil A/c Designations and Serials", Midland Counties Pubs, 1979 pg.125.

Under "UH-1C" are listed 5 a/c for RAN, I quote"
"64-17621 to 64-17623 c/n 3101 to 3103, and
65-12772 c/n 1472 (!!), and, I know you want more..
65-12846 c/n 3104.

To RAN as N9-101, 102, 103, 472, 104."

What, you ask, five??
Well lots of errors here.
I cannot address them in the style that Gordy might, but I will try.

There were not 5, but only 4, as we all know.
Serials were not as advertised above, but used the full c/n after the naval N9- prefix, i.e. N9-3101, N9-3102, N9-3103, and N9-3104.

The spurious one, as rightfully queried by via Martin, is I think, just that, a spurious confusion with the RAN order, quoted in this source. I had discounted it in my 1996 article, as it never appeared in Aust.

For interest, part of the US Army UH-1C orders in c/n order were:
65-12738 to 65-12744 c/n 1465 to 1471
65-12772 c/n 1472
66-491 to 66-745 c/n 1473 to 1727

I would say that "1472" went to US Army, not to Australia.

RAN Hueys were UH-1Bs, and not UH-1Cs, as per the source, which quotes "UH-1C late production UH-IB but modified rotor and increased fuel capacity."

Someone credible (might have been Luig) confirmed they were all known as "Bravos", and someone checked the construction plate in the FAA Museum I think, and that confirmed "UH-1B".

So I used only one reference which gave them as UH-IC, and the myth has continued. All seven maritime Hueys (the 3 earlier 881/883, and these 4) were the UH-1B variant.

Apologies

[Brendan Cowan]

Thanks Batman,

That makes things a lot clearer.

So in summary:

- The RAN operated only the 7 UH-1B airframes (yes they are all Bravos'); and

- c/n: 1472 never became N9-472 or served with the RAN

Thanks for clearing this up (again)!

The other RAN Huey list that I would like to compile one day would be an inventory of the RANHFV/EMU/135th Assault Helicopter Company Hueys!

Thanks to everyone who chipped in with information on this topic.

Cheers

Brendan

[Brendan Cowan]

STOP PRESS!

One of our good friends at Nowra is checking out the airframes and paperwork at held there which might just reveal some interesting developments - this isn't over folks!

Cheers

Brendan

[Luig]

There was or used to be a 135th Company website - perhaps they would be helpful for your long list? I wonder if the US Army kept good records in this respect? A lot of records have been misplaced/lost/burnt/destroyed you name it - probably pilot logbooks would be more helpful but then you would have to contact a bunch of RAN pilots, and they may not have kept adequate details (just side numbers or whatever method used).