Jump to content

UH-1C HUEY 1/35 Academy


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, L-GREECO said:

 

Of course, my friend! 

Just grab it!

Waiting for your verdict.

 

m60 1-35 OBJ Without supports.zip - just models  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D5IjDNmRxRZYXIzfh5EfMM2tP2Bn22Nw   

m60 1-35 OBJ With supports.zip - ready to print with resin printer https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mu-jogilH9zl-uFG-19DoRJFhQmRyNU2

 

If you can't download it, just let me know.

 

 

Downloaded files.
Thank you very much friend!
I will evaluate!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, JohnEB said:

Just wondering, has anyone here ever built the kit as a civil Bell 204 (built as a civil ship), or a surplus UH-1 now doing external load (logging, heavy fift, firefighting, sprayer) ship?I

 

 

 

Sorry my friend, can't help you with this question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnEB said:

Just wondering, has anyone here ever built the kit as a civil Bell 204 (built as a civil ship), or a surplus UH-1 now doing external load (logging, heavy fift, firefighting, sprayer) ship?I

 

 

 

John,

 

There is a good bit of difference between the UH-1C and A Bell 204.  I'm slowly working on a conversion of the 1/48 scale Monogram "UH-1C" to a 204.  The conversion requires a longer tailboom and a different rotor system.

 

There are pictures of surplus UH-1C's in civilian colors.  Mostly in the heli-logging industry.

 

C2j

Link to post
Share on other sites

C2J...

Yes, I appreciate the differences...I was just wondering if anyone has done a conversion (to a 204) or even just a paint job, bubble windiws, mirrors and hook for a surplus B, C/M, or E/L.

 

Would the 204s (the 75 civil machines built in the '60s) really that different from the military ships built at the same time? My reference says they had the same engine as the B, no mention of different rotors, and the tailbone had a baggage compartment.

I understand that some "Super 204s" were  later built, whether from new-build fuselages or updated 204s or ex-military ships I don't know...my books are vague on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

I'm unaware of any conversion in any scale for purchase.  I have seen individuals that have done conversions by kitbashing the 1/48 Monogram "Huey Hog" with the ESCI UH-1D.  I'm not aware of anybody doing it in 1/35.

 

As to your second question, I do and don't understand it.  99% of people will Identify a 204, and UH-1A, B, C/M, E/L and P as "a Huey" i.e. you can take this 1/35 UH-1C kit and paint Air America colors on it and 99% of people wouldn't know the difference.  To the 1%, it's grossly in error.  I'd wager that real 204's were lighter than UH-1's as they had no armor or armament.  I'm guessing the 204 had better performance than the UH-1B because of it's rotor system (longer rotor blades).  Air America 204's appear to have pretty bare bones interiors.  Remember too that the 204 was built under license by several other countries.  Maybe this is where the "Super 204's" came from.

 

Principle visual differences of the 204 v.s the UH-1:  bell mouth air intake, rotor system and longer tail boom with baggage compartment.

 

C2j

Link to post
Share on other sites

C2J..thanks. 

My primary source is the really mediocre (in comparison with the other manufacturer books published by Putnam in the 60-90s)  "Bell Aircraft Since..." book. It just mentions a baggage compartment, but doesn't note it was lengthened. Makes sense if it had longer blades, and it may have been a production issue if most 204s were built concurrently with D/Hs.

 

As far as Air America, I always assumed theirs were military spec examples obtained from the Army.

 

You are also correct, Agusta made a bunch of 204s, some for civil use (see the mountain attack scene in the Bond film "On Her Majesty 's Secret Service", as well as Japan's Fuji.

 

I always thought a 204 would be a great civil utility ship, being a lot stouter than the lightweight (bordering on flimsy) 206. Of course, operating costs would be a lot higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...