User talk:Born2flie/Light Observation Helicopter

Timeline

 * 1953
 * July 1953, Office of the Chief, Army Field Forces (OCAFF) submitted desirable military characteristics for a two-place reconnaissance helicopter to DA (Weinert 1991, p. 205.)
 * 1954
 * May 1954, OCAFF emphasizes need for aircraft and recommends procurement of troop test quantities of the YH-32 (Weinert 1991, p. 205.)


 * 1955
 * 11 October 1955, CONARC recommends DA initiate development project for new recon helicopter to replace aging H-13 and H-23 (Weinert 1991, p. 205.)


 * 1956
 * 19 March 1956, CONARC points out that recon helicopter need not being recognized in current research and development programs. Chief of Research and Development agrees to include new helicopter requirement in budget for fiscal year 1957 (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)


 * 1957
 * Sometime during or after this year, three aircraft are selected; Sud-Ouest Djinn, Hughes 269, and Brantly B-2. The aircraft are designated the YHO-1 DJ, YHO-2 HU, and YHO-3 BR, respectively. The YHO-3 BR is not user/service tested after engineering tests revealed significant deficiencies (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)


 * 1958
 * October 1958, service test of Sud Aviation YHO-1 DJ completed (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)


 * 1959
 * October 1959, desert and temperate testing of Hughes YHO-2 HU completed. YHO-2 concluded to be the most capable, but not capable of replacing H-13 due to limited load capability (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)


 * 1960
 * 27 March 1960, Army Chief of Transportation requests the Bureau of Naval Weapons let contracts for competition for a new light observation helicopter (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)
 * 31 March 1960, Bureau of Naval Weapons agrees (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)
 * 18 May 1960, Army provides Navy with military requirements for design, which are passed on to industry (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)
 * 16 June 1960, meeting consisting of 36 industry representatives, with a panel of Army and Navy officers was held at the Bureau of Naval Weapons.(Weinert 1991, p. 206.)
 * 14 October 1960, invitations were sent to 25 companies to compete in the program (Weinert 1991, p. 206.)
 * 10 December 1960, DOD authorizes Army to procure OTS aircraft without USAF/USN supervision after 1 July 1961 (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)


 * 1961
 * January 1961, twelve companies respond with 19 designs (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * February 1961, six committees were established to evaluate the designs to determine which designs met the requirements (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * 13 April 1961, joint Army-Navy technical and operational evaluation groups met to combine their findings. Navy favored Hiller, and the Army favored Bell first, and then Hiller.
 * 18 April and 3 May 1961, further meetings determined that Army should pursue both aircraft for development (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * 17 April 1961, Army Chief of Staff establishes the Light Observation Helicopter Selection Board, chaired by General Rogers (Ibid)
 * 3-4 May 1961, the board meets and receives the recommendation of the Army-Navy groups (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * 6 May 1961, the board notifies Chief of Research and Development that they accept the recommendations. Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations (DCSOPS) disagrees, suggesting that the Hughes design (Hughes 369) be developed as well (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * 17 May 1961, Army members of the board meet and recommend to the Army Chief of Staff that Army Chief of Research and Development pursue the Hughes design separately (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)
 * 19 May 1961, manufacturers are notified of the design selections (Weinert 1991, p. 207.) Bell and Hiller announced as winners (Holley and Sloniker, p. 6.)
 * 12 June 1961, Chief of Research and Development authorizes Chief of Transportation to procure test models (Weinert 1991, p. 207.)