HGU-27/P Aircrewman's Helmet - any idea?

[rabakenz]

So, I scored this helmet at a thrift store, of all places. Can't find any info on it. The inside of the lining says Helmet, Aircrewman's HGU-27/P. Made by Gentex. Seems simple enough. But, I was a little confounded when a quick google search for "hgu-27/P helmet" yielded only 3 hits. 3 hits on Google is pretty rare. One of the hits was a Navy archive that seemed to suggest that a helmet with that nomenclature would be introduced for use in 1978. However, the date on the label is from 1971. The rest of the label below the nomenclature says: Size 7 ===AS-2612===N00156-71-C-0677===Gentex Corporation=== Test No 94 3/71

 

(The equal signs are to signify a new line on the label tag.) The "94" is stamped in ink and the "3" in "3/71" is handwritten in marker. Everyone here always has way more knowledge about these things than I so I figured I'd put it up to the forum for discussion. Basically, the helmet looks like a HGU-26/P (more or less) But I am wondering if perhaps it's a prototype for a helmet that never got introduced. The artwork on the back was done with stickers, cut by hand, and is a crude hand holding a tomahawk. So, oh knowing forum members, what do you think? Is this a prototype? Is it rare? Is it run of the mill yet somehow not on Google or Yahoo search engines? Would love to know what you're all thinking. Oh, the one hit on google was an archived pdf file of the Naval Aviation News from July 1978. On the bottom of page 10 it mentions that a Mobile Helo Crewman helmet, with radio (HGU-27/P) was under development. So, does that further support my "prototype" theory? Thanks in advance for your help.

[hawkdriver]

I believe it to be a Navy helo deck hand helmet. It wouldn't be used for flight because of the ear muff style ear pieces. The tape job is common with Navy helmets, thus supporting the Navy attachment. The Navy was having a rash of guys getting hit in the head with rotor blades for awhile, this helmet was probably the answer to that.

If I was to lay my money down, this would be the helmet of a non-flying Navy helo crewman. I'll put it to some of my other sources to see what I can come up with.

[rabakenz]

I believe it to be a Navy helo deck hand helmet. It wouldn't be used for flight because of the ear muff style ear pieces. The tape job is common with Navy helmets, thus supporting the Navy attachment. The Navy was having a rash of guys getting hit in the head with rotor blades for awhile, this helmet was probably the answer to that.

If I was to lay my money down, this would be the helmet of a non-flying Navy helo crewman. I'll put it to some of my other sources to see what I can come up with.

 

thanks. That was suggested by a former fighter jock at the thrift store, (who may be you?) but the only thing is that the deck hand helmets I've seen on other sites are not typically full helmets but rather partial. This is a full helmet Also, those aren't strictly earmuffs, they are comparable to the David Clark style aviator headsets that are available for both military and civilian use. I would think that the comm cords would pose a significant safety hazard for a deck hand. Furthermore, the cords on the helmet are only about a foot and a half long. I personally have used simliar earmuffs when I've flown in small craft. There are speakers and a microphone. (not that deck crews don't have comm, but the helo carriers I've been on they usually had different set-up...often they used hand signals or wireless radio comm)

 

Keep in mind that there is nomenclature on the label and it doesn't match any other deck hand helmet. In fact, it doesn't match anything in the inventory. Since the only thing on google that includes the exact nomenclature is for a mobile helo crew helmet I'm wondering does "Mobile" mean flying or does it mean deck crew? Not saying you're not totally, 150% correct, just wondering if you'd thought about the comm cords, etc...especially since there is no info out there....which is rare indeed. So, that still begs the question: Is this a prototype?

[hawkdriver]

Well, the safety officer side of me says that the short cord is to keep from getting tripped up on it when it isn't plugged in. I have a guy working the issue right now with helmet affectionadios, I should have an answer soon. Remember, a flight helmet is designed to give "crash" protection and a cloth sided helmet like this one is strictly "bump" protection. My theory, as I hope to have brought out, is that someone decided that the deck hands needed something better than goggles for eye protection, but didn't float so to speak, and it wasn't adopted. Can you add a side, rear, and inside picture?

[rabakenz]

Well, the safety officer side of me says that the short cord is to keep from getting tripped up on it when it isn't plugged in. I have a guy working the issue right now with helmet affectionadios, I should have an answer soon. Remember, a flight helmet is designed to give "crash" protection and a cloth sided helmet like this one is strictly "bump" protection. My theory, as I hope to have brought out, is that someone decided that the deck hands needed something better than goggles for eye protection, but didn't float so to speak, and it wasn't adopted. Can you add a side, rear, and inside picture?

 

Thanks again. It IS a mystery that I am interested in. I just added 3 more photos...one of the tag and another of the front and one of the back...all on pages included with the link that I added http://robaikins.weebly.com (the site is only for photos that are too big for USMF) I have to take care of the yard before dark comes so I'll have to wait to post more photos...but I will add whatever is needed. Since the Navy Aviation News does mention and show a similar helmet, I'm hoping I got something rare. Not really a helmet collector, so I'm open to the idea of selling or auction. (just to be up front with that info) Another link is to that Naval Aviation News article: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues.../1978/jul78.pdf On page 10 is a description of the new gear with the exact nomenclature of this helmet. The next page is a photo of a crewman dressed in all the new prototype gear and a similar helmet...but it doesn't appear to have the boom mic. Check it out and let me know what you think.

[hawkdriver]

Based on the article, it appears that this was a prototype helmet for the non-rated crewmembers in the back of the helo's, and SAR workers. Appearently, it didn't take. It will be interesting to see what this post bears out.

[rabakenz]

Based on the article, it appears that this was a prototype helmet for the non-rated crewmembers in the back of the helo's, and SAR workers. Appearently, it didn't take. It will be interesting to see what this post bears out.

 

I agree. What I find most interesting is that the helmet I have is dated 1971 and the article is dated 1978. Of course, there were a few budget cuts in those years, but it's still interesting to see that there's such a long lag time for something as simple as a helmet. But, in government years, that must not be a long time. Probably explains why we still had WWII style shelter halves in the 1980s USMC when all the civilian backpackers had nice, lightweight gore-tex bivy tents. If it's a good idea it has to be sent to committee to make sure they legislate all the good out of it. Just kidding...sort of. Anyway, would love to hear what the helmet collectors think. Thanks again Hawkdriver. Your input is great.

s

[Lee Ragan]

You might check this website and see what turns up over there: www.flightgear.dk/

[Bluehawk]

You might check this website and see what turns up over there: www.flightgear.dk/

Re-typed it Lee, so it could be clicked

 

http://www.flightgear.dk/

[hawkdriver]

That's where my buddy hangs out, no reply yet.

[rabakenz]

That's where my buddy hangs out, no reply yet.

 

thanks Lee and Hawkdriver. I actually checked that site out first. They don't have a listing for this helmet. I'm still going on the "prototype" theory...especially since the stitching for the helmet liner goes through the label, which indicates to me that the label was sewn on as the liner was made and is not a later addition. So, the nomenclature is from the factory. However, I will contact the website in case they know something...or, at the very least, would like to add a photo of this particular helmet. I should note that I had incorrectly added my additional photos to the links but have corrected that error, so there are now more photos available. I love a good challenge, and I know that some helmet collector out there has some info on this model. Thanks again.

[Bob Hudson]

Your answer is right on the label:

 

"Test No 94 3/71 "

 

This was indeed a prototype, one of many apparently and the Navy hoped to have a final version in 1978 (or later), which is not a long time in the military development process (The Navy's Task Force Uniform was created in Feb 2003, and the rollout of the New Service Uniform is not scheduled completion until Dec. 2010).

 

That 1978 Navy Aviation news article makes it appear that this was the helmet design on the boards by 78:

 

 

[rabakenz]

Your answer is right on the label:

 

"Test No 94 3/71 "

 

This was indeed a prototype, one of many apparently and the Navy hoped to have a final version in 1978 (or later), which is not a long time in the military development process (The Navy's Task Force Uniform was created in Feb 2003, and the rollout of the New Service Uniform is not scheduled completion until Dec. 2010).

 

That 1978 Navy Aviation news article makes it appear that this was the helmet design on the boards by 78:

 

 

I had wondered about that part of the label. Wish I were able to find the original owner of this helmet in order to get the whole story... re: the tomahawk on the back, etc. If anyone has any ideas about that, I'm sure we all would love to know. Not sure how the prototype status affects the value. Lower or higher values??? Guess it depends on the collector? I mostly collect ephemera and USMC items. Thanks again.

[Bob Hudson]

I had wondered about that part of the label. Wish I were able to find the original owner of this helmet in order to get the whole story... re: the tomahawk on the back, etc. If anyone has any ideas about that, I'm sure we all would love to know. Not sure how the prototype status affects the value. Lower or higher values??? Guess it depends on the collector? I mostly collect ephemera and USMC items. Thanks again.

 

It may still be Marine, since they are part of Naval Aviation. I'd look around and see if there was a Navy or Marine helicopter squadron that used the tomahawk in their logo. Typically experimental items such as this would have been sent out for testing on the job.