"Eagle Claw" RH-53D

[Sanspapier]

I would be very happy to see a thread about Honey Badger! I have very little information about the helicopter part.

[Rotorman]

On 5/25/2024 at 5:06 AM, Sanspapier said:

I would be very happy to see a thread about Honey Badger! I have very little information about the helicopter part.

There is documentary that shows the whole fiasco.  

[YF65_CH53E]

My instructor in Millington Tennesee Basic Helicopter Course as well as later he became my next door neighbor at MCAS Tustin was then Sgt Brian Siebes.  Brian was apart of the squadron of Marines that took the Navy RH-53D's for use for the Hostage Rescue. So I have had first hand discussions with Brian, as well as heard the surviving pilots stories both written and in person.  Fascinating mission.  Brian is also an excellent modeller and we would each model late into the evenings, mornings in our base housing garages.

 

The RH-53D's were fitted with only XM-218 .50cals in the front LH observer window and front RH crew door.  They did not have a "Fixed" ramp gun on the RH's back then.  For Operation Honey Badger the PAVE LOWs did have a ramp gun.

 

I am not sure if they had a person on the ramp with an M-60D or other 7.62mm weapon, but nothing mounted.

[Loach Driver]

Thanks for that info re the gun positions on the RH-53D. It appears they had no seats fitted in the main cabin. It was simply an open area and everyone piled in with their gear and deposited on the floor. The only other item in the main cabin was an auxilliary fuel tank fitted centrally just to the rear of the gun positions in the forward cabin.

 

LD.

[YF65_CH53E]

This is correct.  The troop seats were taken out.  The internal fuel tank you speak of was brought over from the Marine CH-53A's.  Fiberglass internal tank, used normal USN Navy deck chains to secure it to the floor.  Had a giant orange/cream colored anti-slosh sponge in it, and the tanks were never painted.  Very old, very beat up.  I may have some pictures of us using internals in HMT-301 CH-53A's in the 1980's.  We crewchiefs absolutely hated them.  They leaked, once they were full they were heavy and extremely hard to move from plane to plane.  And, of course once they were full.......they always broke.  the harnesses and control boxes were ok, but the internal pumps were unrealiable at best.  For weight and balance (CG issues) the internals were always positioned at STA 162, which is about 20-24'' aft of the crew door.  We would flip our cargo rollers up to load the tank, then flip all the rollers back over except the set under the internal so we could load troops and they wouldnt trip all over the rollers.  it was a real nightmare.  Seats up, seats down, rollers up, rollers down, cargo then troops, etc etc.  made for a long day in the back of the helo.

 

But I would not trade a minute of it.  I had the great blessing to fly on CH-53A's, CH-53D's, CH-53E's, RH-53D's (Both USN and USMC, yes the Marine reserves had RH-53D's up at NAS Alemeda) and MH-53J PAVE LOW III.

[Loach Driver]

Thanks for all that useful info. Slowly, we are nailing down the specs for an Eagle Claw RH-53D.

 

From looking at the available photos, it looks like ships No. 2 and 3 were not fitted with nose wheel-bay doors. As well as the EAPS air intake covers being removed, it appears the RH-53D had no windshield wipers fitted. I don't know if that was the normal configuration for the RH-53D at that time or was a mod specifically for this mission. Antenna fit seems to be standard enough for the time. No RWRs appear to be fitted either. 

 

LD.

[Tailspin Turtle]

20 hours ago, Loach Driver said:

Thanks for all that useful info. Slowly, we are nailing down the specs for an Eagle Claw RH-53D.

 

From looking at the available photos, it looks like ships No. 2 and 3 were not fitted with nose wheel-bay doors. As well as the EAPS air intake covers being removed, it appears the RH-53D had no windshield wipers fitted. I don't know if that was the normal configuration for the RH-53D at that time or was a mod specifically for this mission. Antenna fit seems to be standard enough for the time. No RWRs appear to be fitted either. 

 

LD.

It's been a while, but I vaguely remember that EAPS was removed for this mission to maximize engine power for hover. EAPS was desirable to reduce compressor blade wear but these helicopters were going to be abandoned at the Teheran airport so engine TBO was not a concern...

 

[YF65_CH53E]

Configuration of the RH-53D's as far as I understood it from the squadron guys I served with:

 

RH-53D's had GE-415 engines which is why they were chosen over our CH-53D's with GE -413's.  So you are correct the EAPs barrells were pulled and left in the hangar deck as we could realize almost a 7% power gain with them off.  Sand/Dust ingestion was going to be an issue, but as stated these RH-53's were expendable, they had one job period, get from Desert 1 to Desert 2 get the hostages relocated to the pick area and be abandoned.

 

NLG door.  The CH-53 has been plagued over the years with thge NLG door fairing attachment point easily cracks.  Once cracked the NLG can hang up inside the NLG wheel well.  You have to pull into a hover, touch the mains down, crew chief hops out and has to pull the NLG center so it can lock down.  Doing that in a heavy sand and dust enviornment on NVG's - - no bueno!  So, if you see doors off on various Bluebeard 1 - 8 aircraft it was because the a-frame bracket was cracked and they didnt want to install a new one and have to conduct a jack and cycle of the gear system aboard the carrier.  Putting a CH-53 on jacks on the carrier can be done, but is sucks, could damage the airplanes etc etc.  So why risk it, pull the NLG doors, takes 10 minutes.

 

Windshield wipers - I do see Aircraft 1 - 8 that the wipers were removed.  Not sure why this was done.  The aerial refueling probes were pulled, so they did not need them for fuel spillage during AR ops.  They really do not get in the way of dusty landings.  One thought would be they pulled them so it was easier to mask off the wind screens for the desert tan painting....?  But yes they are removed.

 

Antenna's of the time - the standard UHF antenna is installed.  I have seen two aircraft with VHF antennas installed, this could have been done by the Navy or by the mod team so they had back up radios.  Not sure.  In the late 1980's our CH-53D's did begin getting VHF radios.  The RH-53D's had ADF navigation, Omega navigation VOR and TACAN. Those antennas are visible.

 

RWR - the Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) of the time was limited.  The Marine CH-53D's in 1980 started getting the APR-39's as well as CHAFF & FLARE buckets.  In 1980 those systems were/are highly sensitive.  i.e. - Secret/Top Secret systems.  Since the aircraft were to be abandon those systems could not fall into enemy hands.  But the configuration of the Navy RH-53D's of the time, those systems were not on the list of MODs that they would eventually receive. The way the mission was looked at from a threat point of view, I dont think they were worried about MANPADs or other missiles other than RPGs as a threat to the helicopter task force. The Navy CH-53E, as well as the MH-53E the requirement was there for ASE/RWR RAW gear to be installed but not the RH-53D.

 

I know there are a ton of great books out there as well as websites dedicated to this mission.  COL Beckwiths book alone is a great source of information.

 

Also of note since we are modelers, is the fact that US Navy and Marine fighter aircraft had to be identified as "Friendlies" due to the fact at the time the Iranians were flying F-14 Tomcats and F4 Phatoms!!  They had to have "Invasion Stripes" painted on them as a IFF measure.  See below:

Edited June 3 by YF65_CH53E

[Loach Driver]

Thanks for all of that fascinating information. Very useful to know and equally useful when it comes to building an OP Eagle Claw RH-53D. In relation to the antennae fitted, does anyone have photos of the various antennae as fitted to the RH-53D (Omega, VOR, etc)?

 

Here are a few screen grabs from a youtube video. The footage is from a BBC camera crew that visited the scene of Desert One and boarded and examined one of the RH-53Ds there. The internal auxiliary fuel tank is visible fitted in the cabin and also appears to be seen outside the aircraft in the hangar photo. The damaged fuel tank shows the numbers applied to each aircraft (1 to 8). A number on each tank and another on the nose. Also visible are the .50 cal guns and some indication of their mounts in the forward doorway and window directly opposite it on the other fuselage side. If anyone has further details on the gun mount, it would be appreciated. 

 

LD.

Edited June 5 by Loach Driver

[YF65_CH53E]

As promised here is a photo of the internal tank we used.  Your screenshot of the British reporters visit shows the internal and all the other gear they left behind.  I have many pictures of the XM-218 .50 cal mounts.  The CH-53D and RH-53D utilized the same "hard" mount cross bar and pintle for the .50 caliber guns.  It is a tube of steel that goes in ear mounts at the fron of the crew door in the cabin with a pip pin, and a ear mount aft of the door with a pip pin.  A canvas brass bag hangs below the crossbar to retrieve links and brass into one bag.  There is a support diagnol bar that enables the aft pip pin to be pulled and the entire gun, bag, ammo can swing in towards the cabin to allow the crew chief to exit his door.  The left side of the aircraft has the same set up, just reversed feed on the gun.  The gunner on that side can also swing his gun and mount into the cabin if need be to close his window.  See pictures below of internal installs and XM-218 installs.

 

[Loach Driver]

Thanks for those pics. They are very useful!

 

One other thing I forgot to mention was the fact that most of the RH-53Ds had their rear cabin windows removed. At least one airframe had its windows fitted but painted over. I'm not sure why that was. I wonder were the lack of cabin windows a feature to facilitate Delta to open fire with their personal weapons if the situation warranted it?

 

LD.

[YF65_CH53E]

LD, 

 

Most of the mission aircraft had all there cabin windows pulled on purpose.  Reduces glint and glare that could have given away their positions.  I know the cockpit still has all its glass, but it was routine for us to remove our cabin windows in theatre.  The one Bluebeard aircraft coming up on the port elevator does appear to have its rear windows in and painted over.  See attached pics.  I would "guess" this could have been done as a radio operator could've been stationed back there with an independant system or modified system.  The window would have given him some sort of wind/noise reduction.

 

To answer your other question yes having the rear windows pulled would have given the airplanes on the ground a better field of fire for rear hemisphere protection.  The CH/RH-53D is an extremely limited field of fire with the 650 gallon aux tanks installed, or even the 500 gallon tanks installed as some of them did.  So, having a Delta operator back there with some sort of firepower would have been very beneficial.  (On the ground)  In the air, small arms would not work very well with the 53's rotor wash.  And/Or airpspeeds they would have been flying at.

 

 

The first pic is of a RH-53D with 650 gal aux tank installed.  The 3rd pic is an RH-53D on the e;evator coming up with the low profile 500 gallon tanks and the rear windows installed and painted over.  Again notice some of the aircraft have NLG doors, some do not.

[YF65_CH53E]

I also forgot to mention having the rear windows pulled out, or all the cabin windows pulled out for that matter, is also a method of threat detection.  The 53A/D's crewman routinely pulled these windows so they can have expanded look out doctrine to look for enemy aircraft, Helo's or ground threats.

[Tank]

Good stuff Gunny. 👍

 

What color do we think the rotor blades are? They look “tan” as if painted over black blades but seems very strange to me. Maybe grey or some other color. 

[Loach Driver]

Gunny, thanks for your input on this topic. You are really helping out with so much great info.

 

It looks like they are light grey on the upper surface and black underneath. 

 

On a separate note, were the Bluebeard RH-53Ds fitted with Infra Red landing lights under the nose/forward belly area near the front wheel-well? Many photos of the Bluebeard aircraft show two small lights in the deployed position under the nose. Standard mine-sweeping RH-53Ds always appear to have these two lamps in the stowed position. Thanks. 

 

LD.

[Tank]

19 hours ago, Loach Driver said:

 

It looks like they are light grey on the upper surface and black underneath. 

Thanks LD.

 

 

[YF65_CH53E]

Tank,

 

The Navy did indeed paint their rotor blades with a light gull gray topside and a flat black underside with yellow tips for the main rotor blades.  The tail blades were all flat black both sides with red/white/red tips.

 

The USMC at the time was all black blades yellow tips, and the tail blades were the same as the USN. 
 

LD, in my post Friday at 3:24, the first pic you can see Bluebeard 2 the trainable spot lights are extended and with their IR covers installed.  Once these were installed those spotlights were no longer stowable. The landing lights are visible right above the spotlights. The spotlights were controlled by coolie hat switch on the collectives they could rotate 360 degrees as well as point up into the rotor arc so you could see your blade tip path at night. We had to remind the pilots all the time not to hit “stow” on the collectives while the IR lenses were installed.

 

We did have cockpit blue light kits that we installed in the 53D’s and 53E’s to cover all the red lights in the cockpit’s. Much later in the CH53E block upgrade contracts the aircraft were finally modified with standard blue light selectable switches.  But during Eagle Claw the crew chief and avionicsmen would have resorted to rags, black electrical tape to minimize the red light signatures in the cockpits. The full face PVS-5’s were a pain to fly on..lots of comments on how the pilots focused one eye out and one eye in for the gauges. 
 

In 1988 when I started crewing full time we in the back still had full face PVS-5’s. But the pilots had cut-away 5’s so they could look under the goggles for flight instruments but keep their tubes focused outside. 
 

This mission was ground breaking for the use of NVG’s in Marine 53’s. They wrote the book before the book was even invented. 😜😜

[Tank]

2 hours ago, YF65_CH53E said:

 

The Navy did indeed paint their rotor blades with a light gull gray topside and a flat black underside with yellow tips for the main rotor blades.  The tail blades were all flat black both sides with red/white/red tips.

 

The USMC at the time was all black blades yellow tips, and the tail blades were the same as the USN. 

Thanks. I had USMC assets on my mind when posting. That clears ups the confusion I had had. 

[Tank]

From a modeling perspective is there a difference between the RH and CH?

In 1/72 the a Fujimi RH-53D or Academy CH-53D the kit to use?

 

In 1/48 the old Revell kit?

 

Any kit needs to have the internal fuel tank and XM-218 mounts scratch built. 

[Loach Driver]

18 hours ago, Tank said:

From a modeling perspective is there a difference between the RH and CH?

In 1/72 the a Fujimi RH-53D or Academy CH-53D the kit to use?

 

In 1/48 the old Revell kit?

 

Any kit needs to have the internal fuel tank and XM-218 mounts scratch built. 

 

Correct with regard to the internal fuel tank and gun mounts.

 

The recent CH-53D release in 1/72 from Academy is the old Fujimi RH-53D kit. It has all the RH-53D components included as well as the HH-53C fuel tanks. From looking at the sprues, it looks like the kit has the option to build the engines without the EAPS fitted so an OP Eagle Claw RH-53D looks to be something that can be achieved with relative ease out of the box. It also includes the correct folding-blade-type rotorhead. The Italeri H-53 kit doesn't, as far as I can tell. That has the simpler rotorhead of the USAF HH-53 series. The same goes for the Airfix HH-53 kit in 1/72, which apparently is the best and most accurate of all the 1/72 H-53 kits. THe Academy/Fujimi kit does look nice though, even if it is an old-ish kit at this stage. 

 

I know very little about the 1/48 scale kit from Revell. It appears the German CH-53G has the folding blades so it should have the correct rotor system. The latest release of that kit has external fuel tanks included so that is probably the one to go for. 

 

YF-65_CH-53E, thanks for the additional info with regard to the lights.👍

 

LD.

[Tank]

12 hours ago, Loach Driver said:

The recent CH-53D release in 1/72 from Academy is the old Fujimi RH-53D kit. It has all the RH-53D components included as well as the HH-53C fuel tanks. From looking at the sprues, it looks like the kit has the option to build the engines without the EAPS fitted so an OP Eagle Claw RH-53D looks to be something that can be achieved with relative ease out of the box. It also includes the correct folding-blade-type rotorhead. The Italeri H-53 kit doesn't, as far as I can tell. That has the simpler rotorhead of the USAF HH-53 series. The same goes for the Airfix HH-53 kit in 1/72, which apparently is the best and most accurate of all the 1/72 H-53 kits. THe Academy/Fujimi kit does look nice though, even if it is an old-ish kit at this stage.

LD,

 

Thanks for the information. I knew they were the same plastic but wasn’t sure if it had the correct plastic as evidenced by the Italeri example. I don’t recall Italeri making a D kit. Is the Italeri rotor head issue just confined to the HH-53C kit and not the CH/MH-53E kit? 
 

For 1/48 I think one needs a G or GS/G kit (older GS/G boxing the better) as they have the correct blades and analog IP. The GA boxing has a digital IP. One review suggests it also has the older blades and analog IP included in the box. 

 

[Loach Driver]

12 hours ago, Tank said:

Is the Italeri rotor head issue just confined to the HH-53C kit and not the CH/MH-53E kit? 

 

As far as I can tell, the Italeri 1/72 HH-53C and MH-53J Pave Low kits both have the non-folding rotor heads which are correct for that version, but don't allow you to build an RH-53D using that kit. The rotor head is really the only thing that precludes building an Op Eagle Claw kit form the box. Pretty much everything else in the kit is just fine for an Eagle Claw machine. 

 

I believe the rotor heads for the Italeri CH-53E and MH-53E both have the correct style of blade but the instructions would have you fitting them the wrong way around, so care is needed in that area. I have built the MH-53J kit years ago and enjoyed the build a lot. I hope the Fujimi kit is as rewarding.

 

LD.

Edited June 11 by Loach Driver
Spelling error

[YF65_CH53E]

LD, 

 

The Italeri CH-53E and MH-53E are 7-blade rotorheads.  RH-53D's had 6-blade rotorheads.  The blades are not correct for a RH-53D.  They are the composite blades with trim tabs and blade extenders.  They are considered "Echo" blades. The Italeri HH-53C and MH-53J kits come with the correct blades.  The MH-53J kit contains both the old aluminum blades as well as the upgraded Echo composite blades.  It would be an excellent candidate for a Bluebeard aircraft.  Also the fujimi kits are good as well.  They have an RH-53D with the correct rotorhead and if like the picture on the box the correct tanks.  Remember the RH-53D has a "wethead" and most of the models depict a "dryhead" Elastomeric Rotorhead.  The beanie ring sits higher on the rotorhead on a dryhead.  You can cut it down with a xacto blade and it will in 1/72 scale look very nice.

Edited June 12 by YF65_CH53E

[Sarathi S.]

Does the Fujimi kit come with the dryhead as well, or just the wethead?

[YF65_CH53E]

I will consult my stash and look at each of these kits.  I will post here what kit would be the best candidate for a RH-53D depiction of Eagle claw.  Bluebeard 1-8.  I have a few Sea Stallions and Super Stallions in the barn awating to be built.

 

r/Gunny