Jump to content

question about MH-53 Pave low


Recommended Posts

Hello,

I would build the MH-53 Pave low in 1/48 scale, using Revell CH-53 G and Cobra Co. resin conversion sets.  I have a doubt about main rotor, is it the same of CH-53 E or it was different...?

Thank you for your help !

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luca said:

I have a doubt about main rotor, is it the same of CH-53 E or it was different...?

The rotor system of the CH/MH-53E uses seven blades, where the CH-53G and the MH-53J/M Pave Lows used a six blade system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank for all answers !! Ok for blades , but basically the mainframe

rotor head is the same ....? Where I could find detalles photos or drawings of  rotor?

 

Edited by Luca
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HeavyArty said:

The rotor system of the CH/MH-53E uses seven blades, where the CH-53G and the MH-53J/M Pave Lows used a six blade system.

 

I have the very old High Flight MH-53 detail set. I know it does not come with the extra blade. Did the original MH-53 have just six blades? I really don't have a lot of references on the CH-53.

 

Also, to get a seven blade system, I guess you could use Academy's kit of the Sea Stallion? But then you wold be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful guys, and do NOT confuse the MH-53E (Sea Stallion) with the MH-53J (Pave Low Spec Ops). As I understand it, Luca wants to do the Pave Low, which means 6 blades, 2 engines.

 

 

HAJO

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you take the Revell kit: the main rotor is too high, also the landing gear is too high. And better put the Revell wheels into the trash, they are totally wrong. Better take the wheel set from Res-kit for the E version. Even not totally correct but much closer to real ones than oob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hajo L. said:

Be careful guys, and do NOT confuse the MH-53E (Sea Stallion) with the MH-53J (Pave Low Spec Ops). As I understand it, Luca wants to do the Pave Low, which means 6 blades, 2 engines.

 

 

HAJO

 

Well there you go. I had tried to Google some images and I think I found some with only 6 blades but was still confused. I want to do a Pave Low so I guess I am okay with the Revell kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you plan on building the early MH-53J you can use the original Revell kit. If your desire is to build a later MH-53J/M use the Revell CH-53GS/G or CH-53GA . These kits contain but early and late rotor blades. The Revell kit is requires some serious interior work with or without Cobra Company MH-53 Pave Low resin set.  I've been slowly working on this kit for a couple of years in spare time. There will be some exterior parts that need TLC , which include a more detailed external hoist and other lumps and bumps  underneath the aircraft. I also recommend Wolfpack CH-53E Super Stallion Update set.  I say this because the LIRCM sensors , the SATCOM antenna and the engine exhaust burners can be used on your Pave Low to bring it to MH-53J/M standards before they were retired in 2008. Good luck and look forward to seeing your build. 

 

Keep Modeling Fun. 

ccrqw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CCRQW, I agree with you . I would build the early Mh-53J with 3 tones camouflage . I have also the Revell CH-53GS/G and GA for future builds  The ARC  walkaround on early MH-53 J helps for building. Interiors need a lot of work, and there are photos that help too. 

I have Reskit resin wheels and  I ordered pilot seats, front wheel bay. I have too Cobra Co. armament set cabin interiors and Wolfpack update set. Some part can be copied by Academy CH-53 kit

Another question is : Pave Low   air intakes are the same of CH-53E....? Looking at the pictures they seems different

Thanks !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 11:25 PM, tobiK said:

When you take the Revell kit: the main rotor is too high, also the landing gear is too high. And better put the Revell wheels into the trash, they are totally wrong. Better take the wheel set from Res-kit for the E version. Even not totally correct but much closer to real ones than oob.

Thanks Tobik , I think to use the SAC CH-53 metal landing gear...Is it correct (It's the copy of CH-53E ) ?

Edited by Luca
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Luca said:

Another question is : Pave Low   air intakes are the same of CH-53E....? Looking at the pictures they seems different

 

The MH-53J/M and the CH-53E are very different aircraft.  Most of their parts are not the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luca,

funny you should ask that question , I thought I could use at least two of the engine particle separators  from the Academy CH-53E cause they were more detailed on my Revell CH-53 to MH-53J/M build and found them to be a bit longer and bigger and not a good fit without some serious work. So in retrospect the answer is no they are not the same. The parts I am robbing from the Academy CH-53E are the fuel tanks, hoist, cabin seats, SATCOM antenna, and a few other small pieces I did not want to try to scratch build. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about the CH-53E and the MH-53J/M being different is true.   To use Sikorsky’s designations:  the Three engine versions are the S-80, while the two engine versions are the S-65.    Nothing on the three engine -53s are compatible with the two engine versions.  

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

I just noticed a conversion set for the revell H-53 kit to make it into a MH-53J.   Go to the Lone Star Models site.  They have most of what you will need.   They do not have the main rotor blades.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hawg53 said:

I just noticed a conversion set for the revell H-53 kit to make it into a MH-53J.   Go to the Lone Star Models site.  They have most of what you will need.   They do not have the main rotor blades.   

 

If you mean the one at the below link, that is the old Cobra Company set.  Good to see it is back on the market.

 

https://www.lonestarmodels.com/store/p_109344/lsmcc-48024-mh-53j-pave-low

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I might add the reminder, the conversions are for the J, not the final MH-53M variant. Just in case Luca was specifically wanting that. 

I did a build review of Cobra Co's set back in 2006 for Aerospace Modeler magazine, citing what all would be needed for an update. AM's former editor, Billy Crisler, wanted to send that info back to Chris for a future set, but it never came to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

I know this is an old thread but I just came across it.

 

Veteran Pave Crew Chief here.

 

Pave Low was the air force version of the 53, which were J and M models most recently until being retired.

 

Sea stallion, D and E models are Navy/Marines and it's been awhile my memory is fading but one or both had canted tail pylons.  The D had extra large sponsons for fuel while the E had similar sponsons and auxiliary fuel tanks to the Pave.

 

Us Pave guys always wondered why the AF didn't upgrade to the E as it was practically the same with the exception of more power due to the extra engine and rotor blade.  The pave was at it's weight limit on most flights due to it being loaded with electronics, ammo, and fuel.  Due to these weight concerns Paves do not have landing gear doors or cargo hooks.  Both removed to save weight when being converted a Pave.  Paves should have refueling probe,sx-5 spotlight, and the round dome for radar out front.  Straight tail(not canted) with tail skid out back.  Tail skid should be in the same position as the landing gear when off the ground but when on the ground tail skid retracts so equipment exiting and loading does not hit it.

 

Something that might also not be known is the 7 blade E model also had extensions bolted between the MRB's and rotor hub to give it a wider rotor wingspan also taking advantage of more power.  Don't hold me to this but I believe they were around 18" extensions.

 

I honestly don't remember whether the D had 2 or 3 engines or 6 or 7 blades but it had the larger sponsons, pretty easy to spot.

 

 

 

Ken

Edited by PaveChief
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great info.  Welcome aboard.

 

3 hours ago, PaveChief said:

I honestly don't remember whether the D had 2 or 3 engines or 6 or 7 blades but it had the larger sponsons, pretty easy to spot.

 

The USMC CH-53D had 2 engines and a 6 blade main rotor, but still had the smaller side sponsons.

 

 

CH-53D.jpg

Edited by HeavyArty
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...