Hook & Loop on USAF HGU-26/P

[Wayward Son]

I have this wonderful USAF HGU-26/P with custom poured liner in my collection. The only thing that puzzles me is the use of hook & loop (Velcro) on the visor housing. From my experience, the use of hook & loop on USAF helmets of the period was rather rare. It has been on there for quite some time since the exposed glue has become yellow and brittle. Perhaps this was an early means of securing early NVG's. I would appreciate your educated feedback!

 

[72psb]

It maybe for canopy protection(anti scratch).The ALSE shop may not of had any mole skin to apply. Just a quess.

[Wayward Son]

Thought about that, but examples I have seen are ofter done with Moleskin applied across the crown of the housing. 

I was thinking it was for securing a PLTZ system, but from all the pictures I have seen that unit involves a fixed hard point mount in the middle of the visor housing.

🤔

[lancecriminal86]

Didn't the Navy have velcro patches on helmets for some kind of IR strobe? Could it be for a similar use?

[mohawkALSE]

Does that have snap studs added to the top screws on the visor housing?  It very well may have been an Air Force setup for the use of AN/PVS-5 NVGs.  Looks sort of similar to the pattern of mounting them on the Army SPH-4s using the Vee Strap from CVC use to mount to the visor cover and side straps that snapped on to a stud on each side.

[mohawkALSE]

Did a quick search, couldn't find anything that mentioned the HGU-26 specifically but this image is from USAF Aircrew Life Support Specialist manual volume 3 from the mid 80s.  Has a section on the PVS-5 NVGs and also shows the exact setup I mentioned strap wise, but exactly how your helmet is it it does have the snap studs on the visor housing.   The text describing it all mentioned mounting to the HGU-39 helmet but this is clearly a very similar setup with the velcro and studs.  The Army never mounted the snap studs to the visor housing like that on the SPH-4, they mounted them to the shell rear of the sides of the housing.

[Wayward Son]

That is it! The illustration sure makes sense.

Mohawk, you are an outstanding knowledge base and your experience is appreciated. Thank you! 

[mohawkALSE]

Anytime.  I was reading a report from the early 90s that said some MAC units were still using PVS-5A setups in the early 90s as ANVIS was still making its way into the branch.  Can any of the letters on the glue residue from where the dymo labels were be read?  Maybe get a name or unit on that.  

[Vark_07]

Cool-looking 26/P ! Every time I see one of there lovely camouflaged dual-visors helmets, I crave for owning one someday.

Too bad the nametapes have been taken off, however I notice that the glue-free embossed letter gaps left a name (or nickname) between the velcro bands : I read "MAYO".

 

I have actually seen recently on Eb*y a similar large V-shaped velcro applied on a camouflage-taped HGU-39 (from afar, it would look identical to yours, except for the bayonet receivers, naturally), so what Mohawk wrote about the PVS-5 NVG (along with the diagram) makes perfect sense and I tend to share his point of view.
Another example on SPH-4.

 

 

I don't know much about NVGs so this is mere speculation, but given the weight and size of these early googles and the G-forces at stake, I'm not sure this kind of setup would have been very stable or comfortable in the narrow cockpits of small jets.

Just a wild guess, but perhaps this helmet was used in a larger USAF aircraft, bomber, or slow-mover like the AC-130 -or even Special Forces chopper in replacement of HGU-39 or SPH-4 (however that would make the bayonet receivers irrelevant), three cases in which a 26/P velcro-fitted with NVGs could have likely been used in the Air Force.

What do you think ?

[mohawkALSE]

2 hours ago, Vark_07 said:

Cool-looking 26/P ! Every time I see one of there lovely camouflaged dual-visors helmets, I crave for owning one someday.

Too bad the nametapes have been taken off, however I notice that the glue-free embossed letter gaps left a name (or nickname) between the velcro bands : I read "MAYO".

 

I have actually seen recently on Eb*y a similar large V-shaped velcro applied on a camouflage-taped HGU-39 (from afar, it would look identical to yours, except for the bayonet receivers, naturally), so what Mohawk wrote about the PVS-5 NVG (along with the diagram) makes perfect sense and I tend to share his point of view.
Another example on SPH-4.

 

 

I don't know much about NVGs so this is mere speculation, but given the weight and size of these early googles and the G-forces at stake, I'm not sure this kind of setup would have been very stable or comfortable in the narrow cockpits of small jets.

Just a wild guess, but perhaps this helmet was used in a larger USAF aircraft, bomber, or slow-mover like the AC-130 -or even Special Forces chopper in replacement of HGU-39 or SPH-4 (however that would make the bayonet receivers irrelevant), three cases in which a 26/P velcro-fitted with NVGs could have likely been used in the Air Force.

What do you think ?

This type of helmet (26P) would have had a boom mic applied for any of the larger airframes or USAF rotary wing if they used a 26P at all.  That left O2 receiver doesnt really look like a MT-1627/AIR was ever installed.  Usually you would see scratches from that mount on the paint and the metal diamond shaped plates would be bend a little.  I was reading a report that pretty much all commands had been using the PVS-5 system,  which is very heavy compared to actual aviator night vision systems that came out in the late 80s, but they still did it.  All NVG flying in the US started with the PVS-5 setup in the early 80s going from the whole PVS-5A setup,  then modifying the masks to be a little lighter and better visibility looked under them, to flip up systems that didn't stay on your face continually til finally the AN/AVS-6 V1 ANVIS system came out specifically for aviation use.    Seems whatever this helmet was used in, it needed the O2 mask to have a microphone so was probably some tactical aircraft, A-10 maybe?  No way to really know. 

 

The USAF Life Support Tech manual did mention this type of NVG setup was used on the HGU-39, which I have also seen with the velcro strips like this, cant recall if the snap studs were installed or missing.  Seems the 39P was their backup helmet for all additional like Chemical Defense gear(MBU-13 with CRU-80)  and early night vision systems.

[mohawkALSE]

3 hours ago, Vark_07 said:

 

I have actually seen recently on Eb*y a similar large V-shaped velcro applied on a camouflage-taped HGU-39 (from afar, it would look identical to yours, except for the bayonet receivers, naturally), so what Mohawk wrote about the PVS-5 NVG (along with the diagram) makes perfect sense and I tend to share his point of view.
Another example on SPH-4.

 

 

 

That example shown is a HGU-39,  not a SPH-4.  Can see they added a MT-1627/AIC boom mic mount to that one since normal 39s dont come with a mic mount.

[Wayward Son]

23 hours ago, mohawkALSE said:

Anytime.  I was reading a report from the early 90s that said some MAC units were still using PVS-5A setups in the early 90s as ANVIS was still making its way into the branch.  Can any of the letters on the glue residue from where the dymo labels were be read?  Maybe get a name or unit on that.  

Other than "Mayo" between the Velcro strips there are a couple of lines of alphanumeric remnants on the lower right side of the visor housing. Can't make out any dates or words. Would this be a common area for noting component inspection dates dates? Thanks.

[Vark_07]

Thanks a lot for the detailed and enlightening comments -as always- Mohawk .

So even if the PVS-5 system was not very practical (I guess such a huge and heavy device would be poorly secured this way, not to mention it had to be constantly in place), it's good to know it was nonetheless used on tactical jets. A-10A of course, but also RF-4D, F-4G, A-7D and F-111F would be fitting for this era.

As for what I called an SPH-4 example, I trusted (wrongly) the shop's description, my bad, the devil hides in the tiny details.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

Other than "Mayo" between the Velcro strips there are a couple of lines of alphanumeric remnants on the lower right side of the visor housing. Can't make out any dates or words. Would this be a common area for noting component inspection dates dates? Thanks.

From what I've seen so far, when talking about USAF helmets' inspection dates, they mostly apply to the 0² mask, so the inspection labels are sticked to the mask's shell or one of the the bayonet receivers. On the visor housing, it's pretty common to see the pilot's nametape, rank, and identification number, like on this one for instance. Sometimes there's a reference to the unit. However, for what it's worth, the previously shown HGU-39 (not SPH-4 ^^) actually shows an inspection date on the visor housing.

There's a lot of label residue on your helmet (I count 4 of them, in 2 pairs), so apart from the likely name / ID number - and plausible unit / inspection date perhaps, I wonder what else was to be seen.

[mohawkALSE]

USAF helmets will have a peg number on both the mask and helmet as well as other life support equipment, then will have inspection date as well on the mask, and sometimes the helmet.  Older stuff you seem to only see the inspection date on masks, but more recently like the 80s and on both pieces usually have it.  Shops do different variations and locations of these.  Sometimes you will see names on helmets but USAF wise now its mostly the peg number.  Army helmets will have a last name and date on them.

[mohawkALSE]

I had found this a while back showing the Army mounting of their Type I NVG setup of the AN/PVS-5 which consists of the Full Face Mask AN/PVS-5 goggles, the Vee strap to mount to the visor housing velcro, and the 2 metal tabbed nylon side straps that snap to snap studs installed on the SPH-4 helmet shell.   The USAF adapted their own mounting of those snap studs on the HGU-39 and HGU-26 on the upper visor housing screws as the OP HGU-26 has above and the last image I showed from the USAF Life Support manual.   Sometimes these setups will be seen with the surgical tubing added to the helmet with Adel clamps which is more for the Type II NVG setup for the PVS-5 but those were intended for the Modified Face Plate PVS-5 setups though I have seen the tubing used with some Full Face Mask PVS-5s.  Attached 2 more images from an Army Night Flying manual showing the Full Face using the Modified Face Plate setup tubing, and the actual Modified Face Plate setup.  I was reading the USAF also used the MFP PVS-5 setups with tubing as well and have seen some HGU-39s with it.

[Vark_07]

Thanks for sharing these informations and pictures, Mohawk.

Found two very interesting 60-page evaluation and 38-page Tech Report unclassified PDFs from the ARMY, with many pictures / explanations / pros / cons about these NVGs (nothing about the 26/P though, but valuable nonetheless).

Looking a the pictures you've posted and the ones in the PDF, these googles sure do look bulky when strapped to the flying helmets, I would have felt concerned about these early setups to be insufficiently secured, and that the extra weight probably unbalanced the helmet and caused head / nape fatigue (especially when using the full face configuration and counterweight - average 2,5 and up to 3,3 kg for an SPH-4 full NVG setup according to my readings).

And we're talking about helicopters here, it must have taken a lot of guts to fly 4-times faster tactical jets whith the O² mask on and no copilot on your left to take over if needed.
 

Since we're talking about balance, I'm pretty sure AN/PVS-5 used a back helmet-mounted battery pack on a regular basis, and sometime (if needed) a counterweight, both of them being attached on the shell's back somehow (straps, velcro ?). However, no visible sign of back attachment on this HGU-26/P for battery and/or counterweight, which puzzles me, even if it is known that the USAF had their proper setups (unfortunately less documented than the ARMY's).

Still it leads me to a question : were there known PVS-5 setups on which the battery packs were not fixed to the helmet's shells and placed somewhere else, say, on the seat or the cockpit, or directly plugged to the aircraft ?

[mohawkALSE]

5 minutes ago, Vark_07 said:

Thanks for sharing these informations and pictures, Mohawk.

Found two very interesting 60-page evaluation and 38-page Tech Report unclassified PDFs from the ARMY, with many pictures / explanations / pros / cons about these NVGs (nothing about the 26/P though, but valuable nonetheless).

Looking a the pictures you've posted and the ones in the PDF, these googles sure do look bulky when strapped to the flying helmets, I would have felt concerned about these early setups to be insufficiently secured, and that the extra weight probably unbalanced the helmet and caused head / nape fatigue (especially when using the full face configuration and counterweight - average 2,5 and up to 3,3 kg for an SPH-4 full NVG setup according to my readings).

And we're talking about helicopters here, it must have taken a lot of guts to fly 4-times faster tactical jets whith the O² mask on and no copilot on your left to take over if needed.
 

Since we're talking about balance, I'm pretty sure AN/PVS-5 used a back helmet-mounted battery pack on a regular basis, and sometime (if needed) a counterweight, both of them being attached on the shell's back somehow (straps, velcro ?). However, no visible sign of back attachment on this HGU-26/P for battery and/or counterweight, which puzzles me, even if it is known that the USAF had their proper setups (unfortunately less documented than the ARMY's).

Still it leads me to a question : were there known PVS-5 setups on which the battery packs were not fixed to the helmet's shells and placed somewhere else, say, on the seat or the cockpit, or directly plugged to the aircraft ?

The original PVS-5 does not use a battery pack, it actually has a special battery that fits in a round battery box that was originally on the bottom side of the face mask.  When the Modified Face Plate mod was done to the mask, the batter box was moved to the top.  You can see the round cap of it good in the last pic showing the MFP setup.  Ive seen some use the winter battery adapter which was a cap that screwed in place of the battery cap and then had a long wire and small capsule that held the battery.  Was originally meant to be kept in your pocket and keep the battery from freezing but on Aviation setups was attached to the rear of the helmet.  Most pilots Ive talked to who used these old PVS-5 setups carried spare batteries in their left sleeve pocket of the flight suit ready to change out in flight.   The first setups of the PVS-5 to use an external battery pack like early ANVIS used was the GX-5 which was a shop made flip up shell using the PVS-5 guts.  Later this was replaced by the GM-6 Guard or COBB Mount.  This used the PVS-5 guts but had a pivot shelf with the ANVIS type break away mount.  I have also seen some battery cap adapters for the regular MFP PVS-5 setup to use a ANVIS type battery pack in the back as well.

 

Pics are if the GX-5 flip up mount, which actually used a commercial off the shelf Camera Flash bracket on a separate modified visor housing that velcroed over the helmets actual housing.  Can see the early lithium battery pack in back.    Second pic is the GM-6 COBB mount that used the ANVIS break away mount.

[mohawkALSE]

Forgot to add, the bags in the back of these SPH-4 helmets with the surgical tubing is the counter weight bag.  Those were usually shop made bags with various things used as weight from actual metal blocks to rolls of coins.   Its interesting enough that today on current USAF and USN low profile ANVIS battery packs, they can mount little counter weights at the bottom. There are threads for screws to install them and the weights come in various sizes.   The Army does not authorize the use of these and their battery packs lack the threads on the bottom of the packs.