Slater Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I have one of Revell's 1/48 HH-53's on order, and I'm thinking of rendering it as one of the Navy RH-53D's used in the abortive 1980 Iranian hostage rescue attempt. The intakes (I'm told) would need to be modified somewhat. Anyone know what shade of brown (or tan) those helos were painted? From looking at old pictures, it looks kind of like the brown used in USAF Southeast Asia camo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 In the Squadron Signal publication of the H-53 Sea Stallion in Action, it states the color scheme as painted overall Desert Sand [FS30279] with no markings. That sounds about right. From a post of a similar question on FSM a while ago. "Photos of the Eagle Claw '53s show them be in a more yellowish shade of sand, possibly Tan Special 20400, or Sand 33531. Seeing how Navy and Marine Corps aircraft during the 80s, especially helicopters, occasionally recieved local desert camo schemes in the Middle East using 20400, Tan Special, I would suggest that as a more likely color." Here are a couple pics of them. Good luck and post some pics when you get going on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doupnik Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Is this the hot topic of the month? Ever since the Revell HH-53 came out it seems like this idea is pretty popular. I've been starting my research and hope to start my own before too long. In the Squadron Signal publication of the H-53 Sea Stallion in Action, it states the color scheme as painted overall Desert Sand [FS30279] with no markings. That sounds about right. I've been looking at the pics and while they don't have any markings, there appears to be a small number below the nose bay panel. In the first pic Gino posted you can see a small "2." I'm wondering if they all had them to ID the A/C, so 1-8, right? mason Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slater Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Looking at the pictures towards the bottom of this page, one of the helos appears to be sporting a national insignia. Or is that some other marking?: http://www.helis.com/featured/eagle_claw.php Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Yup, it does look like a white/light gray star and bars national insignia on the side of the one below. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
helsupspecron-5 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Hey guys, heres a link to some pics i ran into while researching for my build (soon hopefully). http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...ight-Eagle-Claw the following link is a video of a news report it shows the dessert one site after the abort, with video of the RH-53s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxg6Krggx3I "The guts to try" by Colonel James H. Kyle. is a great book i just re-read it. The book details seemingly every part of the air component. the Helos were painted right before the mission (24-48 hours) i think that pic you found with the stars and bars may not be typical of the mission birds. i have looked at the above pics several times. the paint jobs look rushed. in some shots it looks like some of the cabin windows were painted over, hoist removed, etc. it looks like the only markings were numbers 1-8 like someone posted earlier. on the nose and on the aux tanks. if you watch the vid you will see a 7 on the aux tank of one of the helos. according to "The guts to try" the RH-53s had the callsign Bluebeard 1-8 Helos 1,2,3,4,7,8, made it to dessert 1 5 returned to the Nimitz due to problems with the instuments 6 aborted en-route due to a BIM indication, its crew was picked up by #8 #2 aborted at dessert 1, due to a faulty hydralic pump 7 and 8 were "hanger queens" and keeped the other birds flying by being a spares source. they were made air-worthy in record time to be used for the mission. my model will be 8, to represent not only the importance of the mission but also the resolve of the maintenace folks that got those aircraft flying. good luck with your project. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doupnik Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Hey guys, heres a link to some pics i ran into while researching for my build (soon hopefully). http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...ight-Eagle-Claw I have already copied those pics, great links! the following link is a video of a news report it shows the dessert one site after the abort, with video of the RH-53shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxg6Krggx3I That is a great video! Very interesting, I remember the event and the mixed stories that were reported. Nice catch on the numbers on the tanks. The interior shot of the 53 are nice. A lot more inside than I thought, including the internal tank. "The guts to try" by Colonel James H. Kyle. is a great book i just re-read it. The book details seemingly every part of the air component. the Helos were painted right before the mission (24-48 hours) i think that pic you found with the stars and bars may not be typical of the mission birds. i have looked at the above pics several times. the paint jobs look rushed. in some shots it looks like some of the cabin windows were painted over, hoist removed, etc. it looks like the only markings were numbers 1-8 like someone posted earlier. on the nose and on the aux tanks. if you watch the vid you will see a 7 on the aux tank of one of the helos.according to "The guts to try" the RH-53s had the callsign Bluebeard 1-8 Helos 1,2,3,4,7,8, made it to dessert 1 5 returned to the Nimitz due to problems with the instuments 6 aborted en-route due to a BIM indication, its crew was picked up by #8 #2 aborted at dessert 1, due to a faulty hydralic pump 7 and 8 were "hanger queens" and keeped the other birds flying by being a spares source. they were made air-worthy in record time to be used for the mission. my model will be 8, to represent not only the importance of the mission but also the resolve of the maintenace folks that got those aircraft flying. good luck with your project. "Guts to try" is great book, I wish I still had my copy. I am thinking about doing #3. My dad flew with Maj Schaefer and talked to him about the mission afterwords. With all of the interest, we should do an Eagle Claw GB with 53s, F-4s, etc. mason Edited November 11, 2010 by doupnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
helsupspecron-5 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I have already copied those pics, great links!That is a great video! Very interesting, I remember the event and the mixed stories that were reported. Nice catch on the numbers on the tanks. The interior shot of the 53 are nice. A lot more inside than I thought, including the internal tank. "Guts to try" is great book, I wish I still had my copy. :D I am thinking about doing #3. My dad flew with Maj Schaefer and talked to him about the mission afterwords. With all of the interest, we should do an Eagle Claw GB with 53s, F-4s, etc. mason thats awsome, #3 would be a good ship to do. i really been looking for pic or a good discription of the PINS box that was mounted in the forward cabin, at first i thought it eas the internal tank then i saw all the hoses and things. another thing i noticed is the lack of the tail drive shaft cover mabye an effort to save weight? i've seen other pics of RH-53s without it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doupnik Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 thats awsome, #3 would be a good ship to do. i really been looking for pic or a good discription of the PINS box that was mounted in the forward cabin, at first i thought it eas the internal tank then i saw all the hoses and things. another thing i noticed is the lack of the tail drive shaft cover mabye an effort to save weight? i've seen other pics of RH-53s without it. Don't know what the PINS box looks like, that was the special nav gear, right? I looks like there was only one internal tank, shouldn't it had been in the center of the cabin? Looks like I'll need to break down and try to make some of those... If I remember correctly, there were a lot of weight saving/performance things going on, like the EAPS being removed. In a couple of pics, it looks like at least one of the 53s doesn't have nose gear covers, and it looks like most, if not all cabin windows were removed, though one or two windows look painted over. The missing tail shaft cover doesn't seem too uncommon. In the Oct issue of AFM, there is an article on Marine in Afghanistan, and there is a pic of two current Ds, and one or maybe both seem to have the cover removed. mason Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rampage55 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Is this the hot topic of the month? Ever since the Revell HH-53 came out it seems like this idea is pretty popular. You know I'll be jumping on the band wagon with this one. Thanks for the great info guy's and I look forward to seeing some of these "Eagle Claw" 53's come together. I'll be following in your footsteps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slater Posted November 11, 2010 Author Share Posted November 11, 2010 A bit off topic, but for those interested in the history of this mission, I recommend the fllowing site: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/iran_hostage/ There's a metric ton of declassified documents there, from Confidential all the way up to Top Secret. And a detailed look at the helos (maintenance, history, BuNo's, etc.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BMH Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 I have one of Revell's 1/48 HH-53's on order, and I'm thinking of rendering it as one of the Navy RH-53D's used in the abortive 1980 Iranian hostage rescue attempt. The intakes (I'm told) would need to be modified somewhat. Anyone know what shade of brown (or tan) those helos were painted? From looking at old pictures, it looks kind of like the brown used in USAF Southeast Asia camo. The UN boxing of the kit includes an extra sprue that has the no filter intakes (the standard filters that come in all the other boxings are also there), so you might be able to score those from somebody who built a non-UN 53 from that kit if you can't find one for sale. Worth a shot before attempting a scratch build and I'd hazard a guess there a few sets out there along with some unused UN decals--all white helos just don't look as cool as ones in any camo scheme out there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 A bit off topic, but for those interested in the history of this mission, I recommend the fllowing site:http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/iran_hostage/ There's a metric ton of declassified documents there, from Confidential all the way up to Top Secret. And a detailed look at the helos (maintenance, history, BuNo's, etc.) Very interesting stuff. http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/526.pdf has approx 440 pages of secret / top secret memos. Although heavily censored, there are some interesting tidbits including discussions on modifying OH-58C's with guns and revamped skids, interest in the status of a couple of Iranian helos that apparently were still at Ft. Rucker for (I assume) previous training of Iranian helo pilots. Also some mention of using attack helos to target Iranian SAMs and AAA in the Tehran area. Mention is made a few times of the 101st Air Assault div, which I assume would actually be Task Force 160. Lastly and on a more comical note, there are multiple memos suggesting that an Air Force historian be investigated because he was a bit too persistent in asking for info on SAC's contribution to the first hostage rescue attempt. Too bad it is so heavily censored, I'd bet the full documents are much more informative. Thanks for the link. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spruemeister Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Of the these two kits; Revell HH-53C and the ROG CH-53G, which is the best start point for making an RH-53D? Are the external tanks on the D longer, and does one of these kits have the correct tanks? Some other observations on the pictures of the RH-53Ds on board Nimitz: One bird has the rescue hoist installed over the starboard door. The others don't appear to have it installed. Most of the color pictures I've found seem to have a pinkish cast to the sand paint. The refueling probes are removed, and in its place is either a flat blanking plate or a dome cover. Some of both in the photos. I don't get the star and bar insignia on the one helo. Doesn't look right. You can go here to Airliners.net for a series of photos of RH-53D 158686 on display in Iran. It has the nose number 7. It was canabalized for parts, and is just a shell. How did we all get the idea to build these kits at relatively the same time? Rick L. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doupnik Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Of the these two kits; Revell HH-53C and the ROG CH-53G, which is the best start point for making an RH-53D? Are the external tanks on the D longer, and does one of these kits have the correct tanks?Some other observations on the pictures of the RH-53Ds on board Nimitz: One bird has the rescue hoist installed over the starboard door. The others don't appear to have it installed. Most of the color pictures I've found seem to have a pinkish cast to the sand paint. The refueling probes are removed, and in its place is either a flat blanking plate or a dome cover. Some of both in the photos. I don't get the star and bar insignia on the one helo. Doesn't look right. You can go here to Airliners.net for a series of photos of RH-53D 158686 on display in Iran. It has the nose number 7. It was canabalized for parts, and is just a shell. How did we all get the idea to build these kits at relatively the same time? Rick L. I think the current repop of the Revell HH-53C is all you need. The tanks are correct for the RH-53D used. Depending on the boxing, the RoG has the same tanks and includes the newer CH-53E style tank, but it seems to be rarer and more expensive. The RoG kit does include the non-EAPS intakes that you will need, let me know if you need some. I don't think any of them had stars and bars, your right, it looks wrong. They had small numbers on the nose and on the tanks. A video someone posted shows the number on the tanks. Now that I am almost done with my CH-53D, I am thinking about doing a quick Eagle Claw build as well, the old Revell kit doesn't look bad when they are done. mason Edited April 19, 2011 by doupnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pminer Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Hey Mason! You got pics of your newest 53? Would love to see them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
helsupspecron-5 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Of the these two kits; Revell HH-53C and the ROG CH-53G, which is the best start point for making an RH-53D? Are the external tanks on the D longer, and does one of these kits have the correct tanks? Some other observations on the pictures of the RH-53Ds on board Nimitz: One bird has the rescue hoist installed over the starboard door. The others don't appear to have it installed. Most of the color pictures I've found seem to have a pinkish cast to the sand paint. The refueling probes are removed, and in its place is either a flat blanking plate or a dome cover. Some of both in the photos. I don't get the star and bar insignia on the one helo. Doesn't look right. You can go here to Airliners.net for a series of photos of RH-53D 158686 on display in Iran. It has the nose number 7. It was canabalized for parts, and is just a shell. How did we all get the idea to build these kits at relatively the same time? Rick L. Rick, thats a good shot of Bluebeard 7, i hadn't noticed the "630" it's prolly from the original paint job as the 53s were from an HM squadron. the helos were painted just before the mission. you are correct the pic with the stars and bars looks altred. according to the book "the guts to try" the planners wanted the helos to look like Irainian CH-53s. Jose Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gmat Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) I believe that the one with the stars and bars was taken after the raid when there was no longer any need for the helicopters to be unmarked. Best wishes, Grant Edited April 21, 2011 by gmat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
doupnik Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Hey Mason! You got pics of your newest 53? Would love to see them. They are in the 53 build thread, here. mason Quote Link to post Share on other sites
helsupspecron-5 Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 I believe that the one with the stars and bars was taken after the raid when there was no longer any need for the helicopters to be unmarked. Best wishes, Grant never thought about that, it would be a rare sight since only one RH-53 returned to the nimitz. Jose Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spruemeister Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 That photo is bisected laterally in a wierd way. You can see a mismatch through the tail rotor blades and again through the engine. There's some colored thingy behind the engine that is probably a photo flaw. That very well could be the only returning Bluebeard helo. What if he had made it to Desert 1? That would put the operation at minimum helo strength and a GO. Would it have altered the circumstances under which the crash occured? What would the rest of the night have been like? Lot of what ifs run through my mind. Too many to dwell on I guess. God Bless the eight souls who gave all, and the others who had the guts to try. 32nd anniversary in two days. Rick L. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
helsupspecron-5 Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 That photo is bisected laterally in a wierd way. You can see a mismatch through the tail rotor blades and again through the engine. There's some colored thingy behind the engine that is probably a photo flaw. That very well could be the only returning Bluebeard helo. What if he had made it to Desert 1? That would put the operation at minimum helo strength and a GO. Would it have altered the circumstances under which the crash occured? What would the rest of the night have been like? Lot of what ifs run through my mind. Too many to dwell on I guess. God Bless the eight souls who gave all, and the others who had the guts to try. 32nd anniversary in two days. Rick L. Rick, they would have had 7 helos. According to "The guts to try" Helo #5 had a spare hydrualic pump that would have repaired #2. the crew estimated 45 mins to change the pump, which commanders at the time didnt feel they had. however they may have been able to fly 2 empty to hide site and change it there. the crew also had concerns about flying a fully loaded aircraft without back up hydrualics. But you put it very good in your post. Jose Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.