Talk:Bell UH-1 Iroquois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany[edit]

German UH-1D
The 352 licensed German UH-1D variants built by Dornier between 1967 and 1981 saw service with the military (Bundeswehr) by the German Army and German Air Force as light utility as well as search and rescue (SAR) helicopters. In addition the German Federal Police (Bundespolizei) made extensive use of the UH-1 before replacing them with newer Eurocopter EC135 helicopters.[citation needed]

A citation that the Bundespolizei, or better Bundesgrenzschutz (BGS = former designation) was using the UH-1D and the Bell 212 can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bell_UH-1_Iroquois_operators#cite_note-16 and http://www.airventure.de/BGS05/BGS_05_Bell_212_GS_Nord.jpg or http://www.airventure.de/BGS05/BGS_05_Bell_212_GSG_9_auf_Kufen.jpg (from http://www.airventure.de/BGS05_01.htm)

However, if they made "extensive use" of them is another question as the BGS also operated other helicopters at the same time like the Aérospatiale SA 330/332 "Puma". Hope this helps. 85.176.61.222 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just went through them and none of the refs you have pointed out support the text. Let me see if I can find a better ref. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a partial ref. We still need one for the police use and replacement by the EC135. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHOA... "the Iroquois"?! NOT that I have ANYTHING against such name, but... !![edit]

Hello All - Ummm... since WHEN was the Bell UH-1x "Air Cav' " helicopter EVER called/known as "the Iroquois"?!! Not that I have ANYTHING wrong with the (name) "Iroquois"... HARDLY. A very proud people. However, NEVER have I heard the Bell Huey referred to as "the Iroquois"!! And... I'm "of the Era" (and RELIED on those sweet birds, as well as those bravest-of-brave 101st Air Cav' pilots). Wow... why didn't this "original" name seem to "stick" with these legendary/iconic troop transport craft? Maybe... "too many SYLLABLES for some folks'?  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomphus69 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Gomphus69, yeah we called them lots of things, even Iroquois on rare occasion, but usually “slicks”, “hogs” (gunships), dustoffs or dusty (MEDEVAC), “birds”, “ships” (as in a two-ship flight). I remember one guy always called them “dump trucks” owing to constantly “dumping off” troops, ammo, rations, etc. in the LZs. Another guy called them “Cadillacs” because they were so much better (he claimed) than the UH-34s he formerly piloted. We even called them aircraft, airplanes, and sometimes even helicopters, but never ever “whirlybirds”, “choppers”, “copters”, or “helos”. We called them UH-1s or B, D. or H “models”, but the whole world knows and loves them as “Hueys”. BTW, what 101st Air Cav pilots? Unless, of course you mean elements of the 17th Cavalry as I believe they (2-17 and 3-17) were the only “real” Air Cav in the 101st. Signed a “real” Air Cav pilot (7-1 Cav) CobraDragoon (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of we're going to go to personal recollections (OR) territory, I served about 8 years in the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Australian Navy. We operated a number of UH1-Bs. They were most certainly known as helos and Iroquois and UH1-Bs but Hueys not so much. Before you make such sweeping statements such as "the whole world knows and loves them as..." you're going to need to back it up with some reliable sources. - Nick Thorne talk 01:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nick, lighten' up there, mate. Glad to know you "Down Under" boys got to experience the "Huey shuffle" in the old "B model", but since this is a Talk page and therefore, not part of the encyclopedia article itself, per se, and I was responding to Gomphus69's presumably tongue in cheek remarks re the Iroqois moniker vice Huey as the UH-1s nom de guerre, I saw no need for a "reliable source". (BTW, just for my information, would an official award citation that accompanied a personal decoration, that used the term Huey in the narrative of the citation satisfy the requirement for a "reliable source"?)... Anyway, yeah, the US Naval Services (USN, USMC, & USCG) use the term "helos" as well, but not the USA or USAF and, of course, my "whole world knows" comment intentionally betrayed my typical American hubris, that insinuates that because we were/are the overwhelmingly largest users of any version of the Huey, that our (US) experience informs the remainder of planet earth. Now, please pour me another middy of Kalgoorlie, throw another shrimp on the barbie, and ask that shiela over there to come keep me company while I regale her with some, "Now, there I was..." stories. Peace, love, and rugby. CobraDragoon out. CobraDragoon (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus below, especially the reason that mixing official and unofficial names. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bell UH-1 IroquoisBell UH-1 Huey – "Huey" is by far the most common name associated with the UH-1 BilCat (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose not because I dont agree that Huey is a common name but I dont like mixing official and unofficial names (I dont think we do that anywhere else?), I am not sure "Bell UH-1 Huey" is a common name in that format. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as MilborneOne. There's already a redirect at Bell UH-1 Huey, so there's no problem finding the article. Thomas.W talk 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I don't see a strong reason to use an unofficial name in this context, especially when we have a redirect in place. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

And UH stands for?[edit]

Kind of the first thing I want to know. Underwater helicopter? Usually hovers? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The UH-1 is mainly a utility helicopter; this is stated in the Lead, Infobox and elsewhere. It is the first in the helicopter series (H-) with a mission of utility (U) under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the article states this, but it doesn't not state what that this is what the U stands for. The connection might be obvious to an aircraft buff, but not to the casual reader. Thanks for that link; most informative. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dash/Hyphen[edit]

Right now, the article contains mixed uses of "twin-engine" and "single-engine", sometimes with an n-dash and at other times with a hyphen. Since they are used as regular words rather than as part of a name, normal English rules should be applied, prescribing a hyphen. I feel if we deviate from the standard use, the reason should be made clear in the article. Since I've seen changes in both directions, I wanted to give a reason why I picked my choice. --Bfx0 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your reasoning is correct here, thanks for fixing it. There is an issue Wikipedia-wide with "ndash warriors" - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hueys at Port Stanley[edit]

The caption to this picture claims the location is Port Stanley in the Falklands. However the citation on the original image states "Argentine UH-1H Iroquois helicopters at Comodoro Rivadavia air base shortly before" I think this should be amended by an editor to remove confusion 90.254.145.109 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]