Jump to content

CD48206 - 1/48 USAF HH-53/MH-53


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Great to see another sheet wtih Gulf war content in it :) That 66-14432 is from HH-53B, but as I can not see the sponson braces in the side profile, is that correct ? And one more question. I have info that this specific airframe was in Gulf untill 09/1990 only, and judging by the pics it had light grey undersides. If it was discussed there, can you point me to right directions ? I only have one pic of this specific airframe in sand/brown/grey camo.

Thanks !

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

Great to see another sheet wtih Gulf war content in it 🙂 That 66-14432 is from HH-53B, but as I can not see the sponson braces in the side profile, is that correct ? And one more question. I have info that this specific airframe was in Gulf untill 09/1990 only, and judging by the pics it had light grey undersides. If it was discussed there, can you point me to right directions ? I only have one pic of this specific airframe in sand/brown/grey camo.

Thanks !

The struts are shown, on the third of the grey side views...

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, andyf117 said:

The struts are shown, on the third of the grey side views...

Yeah, but not on the sand/brown profile, which is I guess incorrect ? As it was converted HH-53B...

EDIT: Is there even kit in any scale with those sponson struts ?

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

Yeah, but not on the sand/brown profile, which is I guess incorrect ? As it was converted HH-53B...

EDIT: Is there even kit in any scale with those sponson struts ?

 

The sand-brown profile belongs to 69-5795, which does not have the struts.

The sole airframe with the struts has historically interesting markings, which are provided for the more motivated modeler who can attempt to scratchbuild the struts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KursadA said:

 

The sand-brown profile belongs to 69-5795, which does not have the struts.

The sole airframe with the struts has historically interesting markings, which are provided for the more motivated modeler who can attempt to scratchbuild the struts. 

HA, thanks for the explanation :) I will correct my pages ASAP.

Btw, any chance thinking to add instruction sheets on your site ? Even in low-res ?

Thanks !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JakubJakepilot said:

HA, thanks for the explanation 🙂 I will correct my pages ASAP.

Btw, any chance thinking to add instruction sheets on your site ? Even in low-res ?

Thanks !

 

Not for the time being - I may consider it in the future if I ever get around to rearchitect the site as a full fledged e-commerce store.

Edited by KursadA
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JakubJakepilot said:

Yeah, but not on the sand/brown profile, which is I guess incorrect ? As it was converted HH-53B...

EDIT: Is there even kit in any scale with those sponson struts ?

As Kursad's just posted as I was typing, the sand/brown one is 95795 - originally a HH-53C, not a B...

....since realised you originally referred to 14432, which is the fourth grey profile and is depicted without struts, when it should have them -  originally a B:

th-53j_66-14432_10_of_55.jpg

...the third profile with the Anniversary marking is 14433...

 

As for modifying the Revell (or any) kit, as well as the bracing struts, a 'fairing' has to be added to the tops of the sponsons to replace the 'bat wing' mounts...

Edited by andyf117
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. And, now I know it is 69-5795, can you share some pics of this specific airframe ? Or PM for personal usage ? Thing is I have two pics from the crash and this helo had white invasion stripes but your profile does not show them. Maybe you have different pics ?

Thanks !

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andyf117 said:

As Kursad's just posted as I was typing, the sand/brown one is 95795 - originally a HH-53C, not a B...

....since realised you originally referred to 14432, which is the fourth grey profile and is depicted without struts, when it should have them -  originally a B:

th-53j_66-14432_10_of_55.jpg

...the third profile with the Anniversary marking is 14433...

 

As for modifying the Revell (or any) kit, as well as the bracing struts, a 'fairing' has to be added to the tops of the sponsons to replace the 'bat wing' mounts...

So I guessed right that no kit in any scale was produced with the struts, correct ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JakubJakepilot said:

So I guessed right that no kit in any scale was produced with the struts, correct ?

Correct. A Bilek issue claimed to be a B, but wasn't: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/bilek-966-sikorsky-hh-53b-c-super-jolly-green-giant--130005

Edited by andyf117
Link to post
Share on other sites

  I don't have photos of 69-5795 without the stripes but I believe these were painted in the field as I have seen photos of other airframes with or without the stripes. At any rate, the sheet has a complete set of digits that allow almost any serial number to be made: the modeler can build 5797 (which was photographed without the stripes) or paint the stripes.  I will specify this in the instructions. 

 

 I will correct the profiles for 14432. Again, the options requiring the struts are only there because they had interesting markings. Perhaps the Czech Republic or EU might have a law against including options that require scratchbuilding, but I am not yet aware of such legislation here in the States. If the laws change I will modify the future edition of the decal sheet to be in compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KursadA said:

I will correct the profiles for 14432. Again, the options requiring the struts are only there because they had interesting markings. Perhaps the Czech Republic or EU might have a law against including options that require scratchbuilding, but I am not yet aware of such legislation here in the States. If the laws change I will modify the future edition of the decal sheet to be in compliance.

I've never heard of any such law/legislation - if one existed, I can think of plenty of instances where kit manufacturers themselves would fall foul of it, when they've provided marking options that are inaccurate for the plastic as supplied!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, andyf117 said:

I've never heard of any such law/legislation - if one existed, I can think of plenty of instances where kit manufacturers themselves would fall foul of it, when they've provided marking options that are inaccurate for the plastic as supplied!

As if that has NEVER happened before!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dutch said:

As if that has NEVER happened before!

🤣 One of my earliest articles for Scale Models magazine back in 1989 was titled "Don't Assume - Check!" - it dealt with kit decals not being right for the plastic they were meant to go on...

....which is why we always need guys like Kursad, who will both do their own research and enlist the help of others in the interests of accuracy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 This sheet has been selling very well since I enabled preorders yesterday - thanks for your interest. In the era of $200 high-resolution resin SLA 3D printers and free 3D modeling software, it is only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the struts : and if not, I will definitely sponsor its development. In the meantime, the sheet has 11 other options (5 other MH-53) that do not require backdating; and a whole set of digits to allow you to build almost any airframe.

 

 You will need later USAF drop tanks (these look suspiciously similar to F-105 tanks) for many of the USAF options but the early tanks in the kit will work for some of them.  ResKit has been releasing many CH-53 parts lately and I will contact them about the USAF tanks/pylons and the struts.

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

  I don't have photos of 69-5795 without the stripes but I believe these were painted in the field as I have seen photos of other airframes with or without the stripes.

 

Whilst working on RAF Pumas in the Gulf we painted on the white striping a few days before the land war commenced. The rest of the British contingent also did, so I suspect that all forces did the same. HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, KursadA said:

 This sheet has been selling very well since I enabled preorders yesterday - thanks for your interest. In the era of $200 high-resolution resin SLA 3D printers and free 3D modeling software, it is only a matter of time before somebody comes up with the struts : and if not, I will definitely sponsor its development. In the meantime, the sheet has 11 other options (5 other MH-53) that do not require backdating; and a whole set of digits to allow you to build almost any airframe.

 

 You will need later USAF drop tanks (these look suspiciously similar to F-105 tanks) for many of the USAF options but the early tanks in the kit will work for some of them.  ResKit has been releasing many CH-53 parts lately and I will contact them about the USAF tanks/pylons and the struts.

As mentioned, Kursad, it's not just the bracing struts - the upper sponsons require modifying, to replace the 'bat-wings' here:

640px-Sikorsky_MH-53M_Pave_Low_IV_(S-65A

With a fuselage-to-tank mount 'fairing' as seen here:

004300CD-2132-4541-BD2B-1B43C4F5E2EE.jpeg.6b18c64d46ecccca2c4519fb2c4e4940.jpeg.5617d12d00f6c6954777fc6c0807bfd1.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kursad,

 

Not sure who mentioned the "scratch building" comments, but according to Domestic/International trade laws I have looked into, I have  not found a reference at all pertaining to the inclusion of multiple versions of Type/Model/Series subjects in one particular boxing of a scale model product.  As others have stated many, if not all the kit manufacturers out there provide the instructions/markings/painting guidelines as "recommendations" to build the model to match the box art.  "Scratch Building" parts to get the exact BuNo/Ser # you want is a normal practice.  So the industry I don't feel needs to be regulated to be responsible for "scratch building" whims of its customers.  At least the trade laws I read which I am NOT A LAWYER, so only what I read and opine for your consideration, is that this is not a law or regulation that I saw.

 

Onto the decals.  There are great experts here on this site and I feel they have chimed in on the markings of this USAF subject.  I think the sheet represents many USAF 53's excellently.  One of the things I often have to remind folks of, and I don't mean anyone here, but that these aircraft once they are in the "fleet", the "field" on "missions" are painted and marked in all kinds of ways pertaining to a myriad of requirements.  Not the least bit of one is availability of marking materials.  So the photographic evidence is only a snapshot in time, that one picture of that one airplane that one day.  So as modelers, we try and capture that moment as best we can, but even then, unless you were on the mission, the flight, the OP, it may not be exactly correct.  But, with the internet, photographic evidence, research, live stories, first hand experience, we do get often very very close, and sometimes when we use Caracals decals or the others offered by some of the other folks out there, we get darn near 100% accuracy for that model.  Because the aftermarket folks spend a lot of time, money and research to make it right.

 

For that I am thankful for all of the after market decal/markings vendors.  They work very hard to make it accurate, because modelers will demand it, and pay for it.

 

Wow, sorry for the rant.

 

OBTW.....................I preordered my sheets!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The whole mention of laws/regulations was in jest - sorry about my feeble attempt at humor 🙂 . Needless to say, if there actually were a law on the books against making markings for non-existing model versions, the "Early Years" series by itself would have landed me in a Supermax prison.

 

 I am glad you liked the decals, and rest assured that a 1/72 version is in the works for later in the year.

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...