Author Topic: Sikorksy S-61 Sea King (Read 20937 times)

Jeffry Fontaine · « **on:** July 04, 2012, 08:22:56 AM »

Wikipedia entry for the Sikorsky Sea King

Click for larger image
(Source: Wikipedia - Sikorsky Sea King)

Designed by Sikorsky to meet a U.S. Navy requirement and eventually put into production by Sikorsky and license production by Augusta, Mitsubishi, Westland, and United Aircraft of Canada. The Sea King has been around for a long time and has performed many different missions with some more successful than others.

A long time ago on another forum that shall remain nameless I put forth an idea to kit bash the Sea King with the Black Hawk in the same scale to come up with an amphibian helicopter that would have a Sea King appearance with much modification provided by the addition of the Black Hawk tail rotor, main rotor, tail empennage and what ever else could be added on with minimal effort. The idea was met with some enthusiasm and one of the members volunteered to take on the project. All of the kit parts for the project were boxed up and sent off to that member and not long after the project stalled thanks to life getting in the way of the hobby.

I still like that idea of an improved Sea King with signature features that would set it apart from a stock Sea King. As to what that would be really depends on how much putty and patience you have for such a project. Granted, the original concept of an amphibian Black Hawk with a Sea King being the basis for the project might be a bit far fetched. I think now that something a bit more conservative might be in order such as just replacing the main and tail rotors with the same parts from a Black Hawk to establish a visible difference. Other bells and whistles such as a nose mounted FLIR would be attractive and of course some kind of interior which is seriously lacking in the 1/48th scale Hasegawa kit. It would take little effort to add in the passenger seats from the Black Hawk and maybe the auxiliary fuel tank that is often found inside of the special operations Black Hawks to extend range. Door guns for the passenger and crew doors would be sourced from the same Black Hawk kit as well as the forest of antennas that now appear on the top of the fuselage.

That is all I have to start off this new topic. Looking forward to seeing what others can suggest on this subject.

***Edit to address broken image link -- jjf

Maverick · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2012, 09:53:06 AM »

Amongst others, this Sea King with H-60 powertrain was done by me for Damian many moons ago.

Regards,

John

taiidantomcat · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2012, 12:27:22 PM »

^ That is excellent

Litvyak · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:09:19 PM »

Agreed, that looks /great/.

elmayerle · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:16:40 AM »

There are a number of S-61s being rebuilt to a new S-61T standard with upgraded equipment fits. A number of these are intended for US Department of State.

Geoff · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2012, 06:27:01 PM »

I did envisage the US army, possibly ArNG using early model Seakings in the transport role. The USAF did in real life.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2012, 04:07:11 AM »

How about a AH-3 derivative with a tandem attack nose (ala AH-1 or Mi-24D) and wing pylons but with cabin still in back?

Geoff · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2012, 04:19:22 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on July 08, 2012, 04:07:11 AM

How about a AH-3 derivative with a tandem attack nose (ala AH-1 or Mi-24D) and wing pylons but with cabin still in back?

Like a Hind -hmm.

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2012, 09:55:09 AM »

Like this?

AH-3A "Jolly Mean Giant"
SH-3A with AH-1G nose + AH-1G stub wings moved to SH-3 sponsons

AH-3W "Jolly Mean Giant"
SH-3A with AH-1W nose + AH-1W stub wings moved to SH-3 sponsons

I suppose you could move the stub wings a lot further up (much like an UH-60's ESSS) and make them into "proper" wings (as on the Mi-24).

There is one big problem, though: the AH-1's fuselage width vs. the SH-3's.

EDIT: For completeness' sake, here's the top view from post #29.

Looks like it wouldn't need too much putty to adapt after all. The fuselage taper starts just ahead of the outrigger support strut.

Litvyak · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:23:32 AM »

Maybe go with a Mi-24 A style of greenhouse canopy?

Cliffy B · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:26:40 AM »

I did a spec-ops light gunship variant a while back for my alternate history. I added a couple of door guns in the forward cabin doors and sealed them, reconfigured the after cabin doors (one on each side sliding opening forward), added a radar in the nose, and added some stub wings and braces to the pontoons. I have it carrying some rocket pods, drop tanks, and an chaff/flare pod aft. Even gave it an RAF Temperate paint scheme since the story was taking place in N. Europe.

My Site

elmayerle · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:47:23 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on July 08, 2012, 04:07:11 AM

How about a AH-3 derivative with a tandem attack nose (ala AH-1 or Mi-24D) and wing pylons but with cabin still in back?

What do you think was part of the inspiration for the S-67 Blackhawk? It even had a cabin for troops, not a large one, but a cabin.

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:53:25 AM »

Quote from: Litvyak on July 08, 2012, 10:23:32 AM

Maybe go with a Mi-24 A style of greenhouse canopy?

Yes, that might work. Although when seen from above, the outline between a Mi-24A and a Mi-24D/V isn't different. They solved that by giving the Mi-24D/V a sort of "hamster cheeks" below the cockpits and tapering the area where the "tunnel" between the cockpits and the troop compartment is. On the AH-3, it would sorta need fleshing out like this:

elmayerle · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:33:10 AM »

I think the reference is for the greenhouse of the "Hind-A" which is different from all the other Hind variants. For that matter, take a look at the first prototype Hind which was converted from a Mi-8, that should gibe some definite inspiration.

Litvyak · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:53:41 AM »

I meant this one:

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:12:03 PM »

^ Yes, I know what you two mean.

What I meant is that using the greenhouse won't make things all that much easier. Here's a drawing to better explain what I mean:

If you cut the fuselages of both the Mi-24A and the Mi-24D/V at the red line, the resulting cross section is virtually identical. The A's nose is ever so slightly more bulbous and the Mi-24D/V's nose is slightly longer.
If you cut the fuselages at the green line, anything aft of the cut is similar (safe for some troop compartment details).

EDIT: Here's a real Mi-24V, with cuts, "hamster cheeks" (red brush strokes) and "tapers" (green brush strokes) drawn in.

If I were to build an AH-3, I'd have the fuselage taper in about the same way.

Hope this explains it a little better. Whew! Trying to put 3D thoughts into words is difficult. $:-\$

jcf · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:36:16 PM »

An S-67 style nose would be the ticket.

http://www.anigrand.com/AA2022_S-67.htm

Litvyak · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:40:53 PM »

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at now. Looking at it closer now, the greenhouse does give the optical illusion of it being broader than the later Hinds...

Though, another thought: instead of the hamster cheeks and tapers, what about splitting the Hind-A greenhouse down the middle (fore to aft) and widening it like that to match the width(s) of the H-3? This'd probably give it a bit of a slab-sided look, but that's not necessarily a bad thing...

jcf · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2012, 01:36:52 PM »

Quote from: Litvyak on July 08, 2012, 12:40:53 PM

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at now. Looking at it closer now, the greenhouse does give the optical illusion of it being broader than the later Hinds...

Though, another thought: instead of the hamster cheeks and tapers, what about splitting the Hind-A greenhouse down the middle (fore to aft) and widening it like that to match the width(s) of the H-3? This'd probably give it a bit of a slab-sided look, but that's not necessarily a bad thing...

Uh, the Blue Thunder look then?

Litvyak · « **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2012, 01:50:35 PM »

Eh... sorta, I guess... never thought of that!

Geoff · « **Reply #20 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:56:53 PM »

Quote from: Cliffy B on July 08, 2012, 10:26:40 AM

I did a spec-ops light gunship variant a while back for my alternate history. I added a couple of door guns in the forward cabin doors and sealed them, reconfigured the after cabin doors (one on each side sliding opening forward), added a radar in the nose, and added some stub wings and braces to the pontoons. I have it carrying some rocket pods, drop tanks, and an chaff/flare pod aft. Even gave it an RAF Temperate paint scheme since the story was taking place in N. Europe.

My Site

Thats the sort of thing I had in mind. I did wonder about the floats, I thought an army job might have the Commando type u/c.

Geoff · « **Reply #21 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:59:43 PM »

Like this -

Litvyak · « **Reply #22 on:** July 08, 2012, 09:30:10 PM »

That certainly gives the Sea King a different look!

Cliffy B · « **Reply #23 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:00:21 PM »

I chose to keep the pontoons since I was going for a spec-ops helo (versatility) and it is an amphibious helo (one of its major features) so why take that away?

kitnut617 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 08, 2012, 10:23:39 PM »

Quote from: Geoff on July 08, 2012, 07:59:43 PM

Like this -

I've got an Airwaves 1/72 conversion to one of those --- Brit or Canadian scheme though


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Sikorksy S-61 Sea King (Read 20937 times)