Hajo L. Posted September 27, 2025 Share Posted September 27, 2025 I apologize since this thread will probably duplicate a lot of information that has already been posted here, but maybe I can get something new going on. In our german modellboard.net forum we have opened a "70ies" groupbuild. The rule is to build something that has been released at least in the 1970ies or older. I came up with the idea of building a HH-3E (I should have gone with an Airfix Puma or Gazelle... 😉 ), and bought an Aurora HH-3E. First question (among many others to come): - did they always flew with a starport-side cabin door of would it be "realistic" to have it off? As you can guess, I'd like to make that an open door, but am a bit hesitant to use that door after I had it cut out... HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trojan Thunder Posted September 28, 2025 Share Posted September 28, 2025 I don't think they flew with the door completely off, open maybe but not off. A scan of the internet shows a lot of pictures with the door open but still fitted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted September 28, 2025 Share Posted September 28, 2025 I'd agree - open at times, but never removed entirely. Even Special Ops kept the door on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted September 28, 2025 Author Share Posted September 28, 2025 Thank you! A couple of more questions: Armament consisted "always" of M60s during the Vietnam war? At least, was this kind of standard? I have the pictures of "709", a museum bird, which is fitted with M60s on the display. And another one: Anyone having a good camo-scheme instruction for a SEA-camo bird? HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted September 28, 2025 Share Posted September 28, 2025 1 hour ago, Hajo L. said: Anyone having a good camo-scheme instruction for a SEA-camo bird? Taken from https://forum.finescale.com/t/hh-3-sea-paint-scheme/208744/6 IMG_3442.webp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted September 28, 2025 Author Share Posted September 28, 2025 Thanks a lot! I sometimes see pictures of HH-3Es that look like the portion of "Tan" is a bit bigger and more prominent... Are those just the typical derivations of an official scheme or some special camo? HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted September 28, 2025 Author Share Posted September 28, 2025 Found an example: But it seems it's just a derivation, the original pattern is still recognizable. HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted September 28, 2025 Author Share Posted September 28, 2025 Ha! Where is the cabin door here??? Please have a look yourself - it really looks like no door? HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted September 28, 2025 Share Posted September 28, 2025 1 hour ago, Hajo L. said: Are those just the typical derivations of an official scheme or some special camo? Those photos didn’t come through but my guess is that they were trying to be close to the official scheme and the execution was not 100%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted September 28, 2025 Author Share Posted September 28, 2025 Uops, wonder why they didn't show... Its https://www.helis.com/h/h3usaf. jpg, just delete the space between the point and "jpg". On a second thought, it seems to be a CH-3, not a HH-3, it's missing the refueling-probe. HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
admiralcag Posted October 4, 2025 Share Posted October 4, 2025 One thing on the Aurora kit is it is missing the APU hump on the just behind the port engine. To my knowledge, HH-3Es always flew M60s with the potential of one on the cargo ramp in the rear. The HH-3E at the Air Force Museum is a good reference if you are doing the interior. I worked H-3s at my first job on active duty (56th ARS), so I will tell you what I remember. Vern Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted October 12, 2025 Author Share Posted October 12, 2025 The next question concerns the deflector shield in front of the jet intakes. I have the feeling it's "off" on most pictures of helos in-country...? HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YF65_CH53E Posted October 13, 2025 Share Posted October 13, 2025 HAJO, I guess it depends on the the mission. I know the defelctor caused a percentage of engine degradation as fas as avialable power in hot climate. Here is a few pictures either way. HH-3E during Operation "Pony Express", shield is installed. Yet another HH-3E with no shield installed. So I think it would come down to the specific aircraft, Squadron, ARS you are depicting and see if we can find a pic in country of that Ser# see if they flew with it off or on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnEB Posted October 14, 2025 Share Posted October 14, 2025 Isn't another external difference is the HH has drop tanks on the side of its sponsons and the CH does not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted October 14, 2025 Share Posted October 14, 2025 5 hours ago, JohnEB said: Isn't another external difference is the HH has drop tanks on the side of its sponsons and the CH does not? Also the retractable inflight refueling probe on the HH and rescue hoist (maybe a different design). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 14, 2025 Share Posted October 14, 2025 According to my H-3 subject-matter expert, Jodie Peeler, "The inlet shield was added as a result of icing incidents in 1964, one of which resulted in a double flame out and crash landing. It is often referred to as a FOD shield but my impression is that it wasn't of much benefit in that regard. It did affect engine performance so it was sometimes removed when there was no prospect of icing and maximum hover performance was required." Obviously an ice shield was superfluous in Viet Nam... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YF65_CH53E Posted October 15, 2025 Share Posted October 15, 2025 7 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said: According to my H-3 subject-matter expert, Jodie Peeler, "The inlet shield was added as a result of icing incidents in 1964, one of which resulted in a double flame out and crash landing. It is often referred to as a FOD shield but my impression is that it wasn't of much benefit in that regard. It did affect engine performance so it was sometimes removed when there was no prospect of icing and maximum hover performance was required." Obviously an ice shield was superfluous in Viet Nam... I understand it as an "ice shield", but like I said it is a FOD screen of sorts like on our CH-53's we had Engine Air Particle Seperators (EAPS) barrels installed and they stopped FOD from going in the engines in high dusty environments. But it came at a price, engine degradation. So if he said "maximum hover performance was required" that tells me with the basically airdam, shield installed it degraded power available in especially a hot humid environment like Viet Nam. The two pics I posted were of suppposedly HH-3E's, however the top pic I realize had no AR probe and no Aux Tanks HAJO - I would go with the likely assumption it was "off" due to the need of maximum engine performance in hot humid conditions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted October 15, 2025 Share Posted October 15, 2025 I also vaguely remember that it had some benefit in reducing salt accumulation on the engine compressor blades (lots of low-altitude hover over water when dipping a sonar). Again, if true, wasn't necessary over land. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted October 15, 2025 Share Posted October 15, 2025 It was officially referred to as the 'Foreign Object Deflector': Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted October 15, 2025 Share Posted October 15, 2025 (edited) On 10/14/2025 at 5:16 AM, JohnEB said: Isn't another external difference is the HH has drop tanks on the side of its sponsons and the CH does not? On 10/14/2025 at 10:33 AM, Tank said: Also the retractable inflight refueling probe on the HH and rescue hoist (maybe a different design). There's always an exception to the 'rule' - CH with external fuel tanks, or HH without the refuelling probe? Edited October 15, 2025 by andyf117 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Da SWO Posted October 15, 2025 Share Posted October 15, 2025 302nd SOS flew CH-3's with external tanks (and probes IIRC). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted October 16, 2025 Author Share Posted October 16, 2025 Thank you for your various inputs so far! Much appreciated! HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.