MBU-12/P and derivatives in the US Navy
Article on Flightgear On-Line

Message 130:
Hi Sven, Basically (VERY basic) the MBU-14/P is the same as the MBU-12/P except for the mic. I think the Navy designates the type of mask depending on the mic used. Also different oxygen hose connectors (I'm sure any number of other of people can fill you in more...I don't have my specific reference in front of me). I also think you'll find Navy MBU-14s in green (older) or grey (newer). Also, you'll find high-pressure oxygen systems in Navy jets, which require REDAR regulators to provide air at a useable level. These are attached at the bottom of the regular hose, and have a smaller-diameter high-pressure hose coming out the bottom of that. Comms are integrated into the hose (cloth-reinforced). These can be seen zipped into a little pouch and velcro'ed to the front of the SV-2 vests. I think these were first used on the MS-22001. Everyone, correct me if I'm wrong! Cheers, Darren

Message 529:
All, Below please find a fairly recent change order (see link below [pma202.navair.navy.mil unfortunately not active, Bluelight remark]) that makes a convenient mention of the MBU-5/P mask in naval use. I also recently saw a close up on a television program( wish I could remember the show ) of a back seater in an EA-6B prowler wearing an HGU-68 helmet and an MBU-5 mask. A friend with VF-103 and former helmet collector said the MBU-5 is still being used for pilots and crew that have difficulty getting a proper fit from the MBU-12 and it's variants. The MBU-23/P mask and it's sealing method may have solved the fit problem and made the MBU-5 unnecessary. Hope this helps, Steve Vallejo

Message 530:
Now that you mention this, I recall other sources referencing the fact that the MBU-5/P was favoured as an more suitable alternative to the MBU-12/P type mask due to face seal problems encountered with the latter mask within certain percentile parameters of the face-fit envelope. I subsequently conducted some face seal tests of my own on the MS22001 silicone mask, the MBU-5/P mask, the MBU-12/P mask, and the TLSS type MBU-20/P precursor mask a while back and found that I also had face seal pressure problems at normal delivery rates of pressure-demand atmosphere (I used air room instead of 02). The MBU-12/P type mask has shown itself to be less than favourable when used by certain facial conformation types, a situation that was probably somewhat embarrassing to USAF and USN anthropomorphic test engineers well after the mask came into standard service use. The newer MBU-20/P type (and HA/LP) masks provide far better face sealing than the MBU-12/P type mask--this is particularly true during high-G or ACM manoeuvring, when G forces tend to induce or magnify existing distortion at face/mask seal periphery. Cheers, Chris

Message 903:
The MBU-12/P (and its USN variants) was developed specifically to provide greater wearer comfort, improved downward peripheral fields of vision, and substantially enhanced face-seal for high pressure/high-G situations. Imagine the chagrin of the USAF's Aircrew Systems Lab when it performed a study comparing face-sealing efficacy between the original MS22001, the MBU-5/P, and the MBU-12/P, some time ago and found that the vaunted "improved design" MBU-12/P was actually more prone to high-G face-seal leaks at high pressure rates that either the MS22001 or the older MBU-5/P. It is ironic that while the MBU-12/P and its variants are more 'desirable' to collectors (as newer gear), the old MBU-5/P mask actually sealed more completely in many comparative tests. Check out the relatively high value of HGU-55/P and MBU-12/P sets that appear on eBay: they just seem to have a 'sexier' cachet or collector appeal for many people than the old reliable MBU-5/P (that continues to soldier on) attached to an HGU-33/P or HGU-26/P. This was a further incentive to pursue development of the MBU-20/P and HA/LP type masks--a need that conveniently coincided with the initial Air Force TLSS studies carried out in the early 80s. The resulting TLSS system mask-component intended for 'regular flight mode' essentially became the MBU-20/P component of the USAF Combat Edge system (& the HA/LP, which was simply a non-occipital bladder variant intended originally to replace the MBU-12/P in non-ACM applications), after it was decided that the TLSS system was just too costly to field as a complete omnienvironmental protective system for USAF fighter ops. Cheers, DocBoink

Message 1285:
Hi everyone, Try to take a look at the MBU-12 mask advertised on eBay. Is this a fabricated hybrid or are they really used with grey face piece, green hose and the old U-75/U plug? The oxygen hose connector is missing, too.Cheers, Bluelight 14

Message 1286:
You are looking at an USN MBU-? Rich Mays

Message 1288:
Hi Rich, Thanks. After receiving your answer I checked the CSA website. They have a nice article about the differences between MBU-12/P and MBU- 14/P. Cheers, Bluelight 14

Message 1291:
The mask pictured looks to be an MBU-14/P US Navy. The MBU-12/P is considered a sub-assembly by the Navy and is modified for use Naval aircraft. Each mod is assigned a new MBU number or variant such as MBU-14(V)1/P. The mask looks like a standard MBU-14(V)1/P. Note the Am-7067/A Amplifier replacing the comms block and the CX-13126/A comms cord (Y) cord on the mask. The CRU-79 mini oxygen regulator is missing which is standard on many of these masks. Another cable is used to connect the mask to the helmet. So the short lead isn't expected to reach all the way to the flight helmet. There are 3-4 variations of the MBU-14, an MBU-15, 16 and a couple of -17 variants. They are still in use but being phased out by the MBU-23/P. Cheers, Steve

Message 1300:
I just took a look at it and Rich is correct: it is a USN mask. You can clearly see the special Navy preamp connector situated on the nose bridge. These masks, if I am not mistaken, came without a distal hose connector (as this was selected for specific application intended and added by ALSE personnel). Cheers, DocBoink