Jump to content

H-53 Reference photos for 2020!!


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, 757flyer said:

A trio of Ironhorse -53Es stopped by the local airport on Sunday.  One of them appeared to be in a new scheme I had not seen before.  It looked to be overall 35237 with black, or VERY dark gray, markings.  Like this:

 

CH-53E Tiger 01

 

It isn't as noticeable in this photo (not mine), but having the one sitting on the ramp next to the other two in the traditional multiple grays scheme, it was obvious that the overall gray on this one is clearly darker and more blue than the 36375 used on most of the airframe in the previous scheme.  Is this truly a new scheme the whole fleet will be transitioning to?  Are the markings actually black?

 

On a different note, like other flights of Echos that have stopped at our airport, these did not shut down, and did hot refuelings.  Army helos (Chinooks, Blackhawks, Lakotas and Apaches) always shut down to refuel.  Is there a technical reason to do hot refueling vs. shutting down, or is it just a cultural difference been the USMC and the Army?

 

 

 

757flyer,

 

That is a new type paint job that was done when that aircraft went into depot rework Evergreen Helicopters in Medford Oregon. Trying to help the fleet keep their 53Es cleaner with a more satin finish than the flat paint of the past.  As you may have guessed, our beloved  53 leaks a little......

 

Onto your next question. Typically when I was flyIng in the fleet, if we could keep turning to take on fuel while away from base we would. Shutting down, would sometimes cause us to have some sort of mechanical as we would turn back up, and not carrying a ton of extra parts, we would rather hot fuel than shut down.   This could bring up reliability issues with the CH-53E, and I understand that. Not that the Army helicopters are more reliable, but, being around CH-47’s and CH-53E’s the 53 is one complicated helicopter. (3) 3,000 psi hydraulic systems. (3) large turbo shaft engines, 7 MRB, a rotorhead and man gearbox bigger than a Volkswagen. Old electro hydraulic servos. 1980’s flight computers. Over $25,000 dollars a rotorhead hour in costs. She’s a beast. So once she’s “turnin & burnin” we tend to keep her up and running. 

 

So nothing between Army vs Marines, as far as a rivalry is concerned. Just our policy of keep ‘em flying. 

 

Gunny Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gunny,

 

Many thanks for the info.  It definitely had a more satin sheen than the other two.  

 

I completely understand the desire to keep such a complicated machine running once you get it started.  Kind of like the C-5 - great machine once it got going, but they tended to break when they stopped (at least the pre-M birds).  And you're right, the -Echo is a beast!

 

Thanks again,

Mike

 

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

On a previous post, it was mentioned that late Vietnam War HH-53C’s had an IR countermeasures pod mounted.    Anyone have details on this system and / or some pics?    Only IR jammer I was aware of in that conflict was the AAQ-4 stuck on the tail of EB-66’s.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 11bee said:

On a previous post, it was mentioned that late Vietnam War HH-53C’s had an IR countermeasures pod mounted.    Anyone have details on this system and / or some pics?    Only IR jammer I was aware of in that conflict was the AAQ-4 stuck on the tail of EB-66’s.   

11Bee,

 

Earlier in this thread we were discussing some UK based HH-53C's with a peculiar jammer pod on the rear bat wings. in the 1980's and 90's. I am not aware of any HH-53C's in SEA having any IRCM equipment installed.  At least I have not seen any pictures of the gear installed.

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

11Bee,

 

Earlier in this thread we were discussing some UK based HH-53C's with a peculiar jammer pod on the rear bat wings. in the 1980's and 90's. I am not aware of any HH-53C's in SEA having any IRCM equipment installed.  At least I have not seen any pictures of the gear installed.

I think you mentioned it in your 2/11 post detailing the differences of the HH-53 versions.   

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

Two new Gulf war pictures of CH-53Es emerged and I was also able to add the correct BuNos to my site 🙂

HMH-466 CH-53E BuNo. 161382/YK-51 - https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p934046062/hc2992f5b#hc2992f5b

HMH-466 CH-53E BuNo. 161992/YK-55 - https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p934046062/hc2992ef4#hc2992ef4

(btw, this is the same helo but a few months earlier - https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p934046062/hc2992ef4#hc2992f02

Hope you enjoy it as much I did !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, how I could have used this thread when I was building my Revell/Italeri CH-53E.  Still ashamed how "tall" the landing gear look on this one.  

 

CH-53E by Robert Leonard (Revell 1/72)

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

I'm a bit late to the party, Gunny Hammer. But, I have the BuNo of the HMX-1 CH-53A conducting the external lift of the Skyraider from the Annacostia/Bolling. I scanned that from a negative in my collection. I will shoot you the BuNo offline.

The Sikorsky archives folks may not have given you the full story on the white top-CH-53A.

When the White House Military Office was looking to replace the VH-3, Sikorsky proffered a roll-on/roll-off executive suite for use with the CH-53, and that particular helicopter was the demo bird. It flew around DC and Quantico to demonstrate the suite, which is why a LOT folks believe HMX-1 had VH-53s when they did not.

LTC Gene T. Boyer, the CO of HMX-1 and Mr Scowcroft flew a Marine CH-53A to the White house and determined the helicopter was not suitable for the mission; as you might imagine, the downwash damaged the gardens and a few other things.

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...