Jump to content

CD48184 - 1/48 CH-53


Recommended Posts

#5 

4T | 2T

 ---|---

4B | 2B

 

T = Top & B= Bottom.  I am not sure what the "2" & "4" refer to. Perhaps weights and balancing info or frame info for attaching towing equipment for the Mk.105 sled, though that would most likely be internal, not external.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dutch said:

#5 

4T | 2T

 ---|---

4B | 2B

 

T = Top & B= Bottom.  I am not sure what the "2" & "4" refer to. Perhaps weights and balancing info or frame info for attaching towing equipment for the Mk.105 sled, though that would most likely be internal, not external.

These number refer to water line and butt line, or frame numbers for referencing locations on the helicopter.  they are also there for weight and balance information when weighing the helicopter as to set the level on the jacks for correct CG for computing W&B.

 

The forward UHF antenna has the circle around it.  It is a no step circle as well as no placement of other electronic equipment as it is a pretty powerful UHF antenna.  It is on all high gloss CH-53A/D's RH-53A/D's. It varies on the low vis gray/gray paint schemes, but for the most part the stencil is always present.

 

Try to answer some of the pictures not already answered:

 

5. Out of curiosity, what does this marking mean?

This is the waterline/butt line of the RH Electronics Bay or E-bay

 

As far as the work platform is reads:

3-B-40

3-B-40-1

Work Platform

Limit 1-Man

 

Again waterline and butt line (frame line to ref location of the panel)

 

Also, I have the results of the Marine RH-53D research to BuNo's with the stars applied: 

(Reference: Col Rick Mullen USMC (RET), GySgt Gary Poteet USMC (RET) both attached to the unit when these marking were applied)

 

Aircraft 1.

RH-53D, USMC

Tail Flash MS

HMH-769

Side No 489

BuNo 158748

 

Aircraft 2.

RH-53D, USMC

Tail Flash MS

HMH-769

Side No. 488

BuNo 158760

 

I will post some more pics of the stenciling in a moment.

 

r/Gunny Dan

 

IMG_3554.JPG

IMG_3555.JPG

IMG_3556.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification on the work platform and antenna warning stencils! Those were the last remaining pieces - I think I am good on everything else, I was able to glean most of the visible ones from the same series of National Archives RH-53D photos you shared. I really appreciate the HMH-769 info as well - I think 489 will be the one on the sheet, although I will make an effort to include the smaller stars if there is space. 

 

Many thanks to Jakub for the HMH-769 photos as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kursad,

 

I hope I could help.  I know some of the pics did not show on the site here with the resolution I had hoped for.  But between Jakub, Andy, and myself I know we have high resolution pics we can email.  But, it sounds like you have what you need.  Very excited to see these.  The former CO Col Rick Mullen has already asked me to build him an RH-53D in 1/48th from the Revell offering, so I will be buying a few sheets (Like 10-15 😆).

 

Thanks again for all you do to further our hobby!!

 

Pics below:

Sooo much art and so little time, soooo many 53's to model......

 

r/Gunny

DN-ST-90-05416.jpeg

106291169_10157118058986951_4052230721092868508_n.jpg

120849853_3512326705457336_6408936838744292834_n.jpg

30739534_10155242446821951_9165955990623879168_n.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, YF65_CH53E said:

These number refer to water line and butt line, or frame numbers for referencing locations on the helicopter.  they are also there for weight and balance information when weighing the helicopter as to set the level on the jacks for correct CG for computing W&B.

 

A quick query reading those, Gunny - I've noticed similar aft of the aft windows on some (but not all) CH/MH-53Es, but not on any CH-53A/D or RH models.

Just curious as to why they only seem to appear there on the Echos - possibly because of different weight distribution due to third engine, bigger tail, etc?

 

And as another aside, the RH-53D aspect of this thread led me to re-visiting photos and other research not only to try to assist @KursadA, but with a view to moving my own minesweeper build up the 'to do' pile...

....that's been part-started for longer than I care to remember, and I realised yesterday that one thing that I did to it back way back when needs to be undone - the black-painted main rotor blades should actually be Light Gull Gray on their uppersurfaces! Planning on this one, Portsmouth, 1983:

38395844414_8ae71c5579_o.thumb.jpg.487d0ba1ef4a0e56808bbf130d25ff13.jpg

I may just cheat, and swap them for another set from another kit destined to be another version...

Edited by andyf117
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andyf117 said:

 

A quick query reading those, Gunny - I've noticed similar aft of the aft windows on some (but not all) CH/MH-53Es, but not on any CH-53A/D or RH models.

Just curious as to why they only seem to appear there on the Echos - possibly because of different weight distribution due to third engine, bigger tail, etc?

Andy, you are correct differing W&B points for the CH/MH-53E's than the Deltas.  The actual weighing of the aircraft does not occur that regularly if at all in the fleet.  It normally happens at the factory and at the depots when the aircraft goes in for overhaul/repair/battle damage repair.  But those stencils "should" be in place as to properly weigh the aircraft especially when breaking it down for a C-5 or C-17 load-ex.  The USAF is kinda picky that way.  😉

 

As far as the blades are concerned yes the Navy departed from the Marine Corps on the upper surfaces of the blades when it came to paint.  The Marines went with all black and the navy CH-53A's and RH-53A/D's had light gull gray upper surfaces.  The USN/USMC CH-53E's and MH-53E's always had black/black rotors.  But, as soon as I say that someone will find a pic of a lone blade out there that was gray on a USN 53E.....the fleet as you well know is a funny place when it comes to configuration management.  That's why its so difficult sometimes to pin down an exact configuration, the helicopter community, as I am sure the fixed wing community (not my area) has many differing schemes and stenciling.  Most reasons are once the aircraft are in the fleet aboard ship or around salt water we must do a lot of corrosion control on the aircraft.  So differing paints, reapplying stencils etc....is left to our corrosion shop and what's  available in the supply system. 

 

But, I am sure I am preaching to the choir here.

 

if you need spare rotors in 1/48th or 1/72nd I have plenty.............

 

Gunny

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YF65_CH53E said:

Andy, you are correct differing W&B points for the CH/MH-53E's than the Deltas.  The actual weighing of the aircraft does not occur that regularly if at all in the fleet.  It normally happens at the factory and at the depots when the aircraft goes in for overhaul/repair/battle damage repair.  But those stencils "should" be in place as to properly weigh the aircraft especially when breaking it down for a C-5 or C-17 load-ex.  The USAF is kinda picky that way.  😉

 

Gunny,

Don't I know it!  I remember breaking down the first four CH-53Es for Desert Shield for loading onto C-5s at Cherry Point.  What an ordeal, but the Air Force MAC-ALCE team was pretty good about the whole iteration.  It was one of the C-5 crew chiefs who was more picky than the others.  Swapped out the regular tires all the way around for F-4 Phantom nose tires from NADEP so we could increase the overhead clearance by a couple more inches, particularly when cresting the top of the ramp and clearing the nose opeing gear apparatus on the Galaxy.  We dismantled the probes, rotors, engines and transmission and the sponson fuel tanks & stuffed them all inside the bird or palletized them (rotor head).  We learned a lot and someone wrote it all down for the next itme, or for bringing them home again, if we went by C-5, which I don't think we did. Yes, the Air Force can be very picky. 

I remember loading some vehicles and cargo on a USMC KC-130 and the crew chief checked our back of the envelope math after driving off the scales and said Okay.  He showed how far to drive in, then we chained it down and put the cargo pallet on the ramp.  Too easy!  I love Marine Corps Corporals and Sergeants!

Semper fi!

Dutch

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2021 at 11:48 PM, Dutch said:

Gunny,

Don't I know it!  I remember breaking down the first four CH-53Es for Desert Shield for loading onto C-5s at Cherry Point.  What an ordeal, but the Air Force MAC-ALCE team was pretty good about the whole iteration.  It was one of the C-5 crew chiefs who was more picky than the others.  Swapped out the regular tires all the way around for F-4 Phantom tires from NADEP so we could increase the overhead clearance by a couple more inches, particularly when cresting the top of the ramp and clearing the nose opeing gear apparatus on the Galaxy.  We dismantled the probes, rotors, engines and transmission and the sponson fuel tanks & stuffed them all inside the bird or palletized them (rotor head).  We learned a lot and someone wrote it all down for the next itme, or for bringing them home again, if we went by C-5, which I don't think we did. Yes, the Air Force can be very picky. 

I remember loading some vehicles and cargo on a USMC KC-130 and the crew chief checked our back of the envelope math after driving off the scales and said Okay.  He showed how far to drive in, then we chained it down and put the cargo pallet on the ramp.  Too easy!  I love Marine Corps Corporals and Sergeants!

Semper fi!

Dutch

Kinda like this:

DN-ST-85-03934.jpeg

DN-ST-85-04086.jpeg

Scenes like these remind me of Mahoney's line from the valet-parking sequence in Police Academy: "It fits! The damned thing fits! Am I an idiot, or what?"

Edited by andyf117
Fixed 'broken' links
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digressing a bit to the subject of picky load masters... Years ago I was involved in coordinating the emergent movement of submarine rescue requirement for an issue in a foreign country. Part of the surge was our "pre-packaged for transport by the Air Force" DSRV.  The loadmaster of the tasked C-5 called BS and made the entire shipment get broken down and repackaged blowing through the critical timeline by almost 20 hours. Luckily, the DSRV was not needed as a Brit asset got on scene in time to support the rescue. The C-5 that arrived to grab the random pile of I-beams, semi- truck and trailer and fork lifts, etc basically just rolled it all in, lashed it down and bolted.

 

Back to cool Helo stuff...

 

Dave

Edited by parche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutch, ooh rah devil dog!!

 

I remember fondly breaking down for Desert Shield, we broke down at MCAS El Toro.  what a nightmare, we didn't have C-5 breakdown boxes or anything, thank god we some SNCO's that has been to factory training to break em down.  Learning curve was high, but by the 8th 53 we had it down.  QCU's palletized on 463L pallets was the way to go!!  Then cargo strap the sponsons and load the back with everything else.  Good fun.

MVC-002L.JPG

MVC-007L.JPG

MVC-008L.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunny,

Yeah, lots of fun!  I remember loading the Cobras and Skids a few days earlier. Those were way too easy. Stow the rotors fore and aft, lash em down, put on the wheels and roll them in, being careful to balance them as you crested the ramp.  I think we got nine Cobras or six Skids per C-5.  LimFac was the wheels.  We sent half of them with the first chalk of Cobras/Skids and kept the other half back for the next batch.  I may have some pics somewhere.  I will have to dig, though.  Your photos bring back the memories. We strapped the tanks above the sponsons, paletized the gear box / rotorhead, and the third engine.  I remember sending one of the MALS small mobile cranes to help with the re-assembly at the other end.  

Semper fi!

Dutch

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

Your photos of loading Navy RH-53Ds shows the proper use for those back breaking military mattresses! LOL! 🤣

 

Loading H-53A/Ds was so much simpler.  Lots more room for tolerances. Good luck with your hangar queen!

 

K/r,

Dutch

 

 

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AD-4N said:

Will the new CH-53K King Stallion be too wide to fit on a C-5?

No the actual dimensions of the CH-53E and CH-53K are extremely close to one another.  The cabin is wider, but there are no bat wings and external sponsons  to remove from the CH-53K to slide into a C-17.  the C-17 load ex is actually very smooth for the CH-53K.  The width of the cabin on the CH-53K was carefully modeled and test fitted 100's of times in both C-5 and C-17.  The CH-53K program team laser mapped the inside of both C-5 and C-17 during the design phase of the CH-53K.  Ensuring smooth air transportability of the finalized design.

 

When we conducted the C-5 Load Ex and the C-17 Load Ex all of that modeling paid off, as the aircraft fit as designed.  No special requirements either, no more F-4 nose wheels, very minimal removal of panels.  QCU the MGB and rotor head.  Pull tail gear box, roll her in.

 

The CH-53K width is 17' 6''

The CH-53E is 15' 6'' with bat wings aux tanks removed

s-65-34.jpg

s-65-37.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TomTheCat said:

036.jpg

 

Am I seeing things, or is this Lady flying with three of her rotor blades removed? Amazing...

Yes. This was done both at Stratfort CT as well as NAS Pax River. Proof of concept if the 53 could fly with three blades following battle damage. As you can see the answer is yes.  However these blades are true 53D blades. They saw service on the Marine 53Ds only at the 53D’s end of life tours.  The Marine Cor-s decided to use them only for the 53E and not retro grade the fleet to one blade for both type model series.  Big mistake as we needed the blades later in her life cycle anyways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kursad,

 

the RH-53 marking look fantastic. Are you doing both hi-vis and low vis markings for the USMC 53’s?  In other words I know you are doing a set of the engine gray markings for the USMC RH’s, but are you doing a USMC high gloss white markings? As well as a set of black markings so flat green or tri color cami birds can be done?  The only way to do these as of now is to kit bash the Academy CH-53E, which at over $225 a pop hurts, or try and find old micro scale sheets off the greed bay, and pray they don’t fall apart in the water bowl………

 

As I am sure you are well aware Microscale and Superscale did sheets of aftermarket 1/48 and 1/72 decals.

High Gloss RH-53D like you have

High Gloss CH-53A/D in HMH-463 Hawaiian colors rainbow stripe and pineapple on the nose…..

High Gloss USMC HMX-1 VH-53D in glossy marine green with white stripes. On this sheet is high vis Israeli markings. 
High Gloss markings for a HH-53C doing Aerospace in flight recovery of camera capsules from satellites, stationed in Hawaii as well.

 

But, no markings in all black stencils or black/green stencils.  The re-release of the kit out of Germany does not include the Marine Markings at all. 
 

just thoughts on a Saturday night…..staring at my stash of 53”s

 

62C9D9F1-A878-4F4F-9CD9-8C3E5CB5F223.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned these are early drafts to validate the dimensions of Navy markings and the base profile - they are in not intended to show all the options that will be on the sheet. The sheet is still a good two months away, we'll have time to finalize the option list with your inputs.

 

What I currently plan to offer on this sheet are:

  • RH-53D,  HM-12,  Navy hi-gloss engine gray
  • RH-53D,  HM-14,  Navy hi-gloss engine gray
  • RH-53D,  HM-16,  Navy hi-gloss engine gray
  • CH-53D, HMH-362, Marines hi-gloss green
  • CH-53D, HMH-772, Marines tri-color camo
  • perhaps another tri-color camo CH-53D from another unit and interesting markings
  • RH-53D, HMH-769, Marines flat gray (the "red star" birds we talked about before)
  • perhaps one Vietnam-era Marines CH-53 from the Saigon evacuation or some such 
Edited by KursadA
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...