Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 04, 2012, 08:22:56 AM
-
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) entry for the Sikorsky Sea King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-3_Sea_King)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Sikorksy_SH-3_Sea_King_drawing.svg/574px-Sikorksy_SH-3_Sea_King_drawing.svg.png) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Sikorksy_SH-3_Sea_King_drawing.svg/574px-Sikorksy_SH-3_Sea_King_drawing.svg.png)
Click for larger image
(Source: Wikipedia - Sikorsky Sea King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SH-3_Sea_King_drawing.svg))
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
-
Amongst others, this Sea King with H-60 powertrain was done by me for Damian many moons ago.
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/South%20Africa%20and%20Rhodesia/H-3Variant1Damian22.jpg)
Regards,
John
-
^ That is excellent :-*
-
Agreed, that looks /great/.
-
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.
-
I did envisage the US army, possibly ArNG using early model Seakings in the transport role. The USAF did in real life.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Like this?
AH-3A "Jolly Mean Giant"
SH-3A with AH-1G nose + AH-1G stub wings moved to SH-3 sponsons
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3A.png)
AH-3W "Jolly Mean Giant"
SH-3A with AH-1W nose + AH-1W stub wings moved to SH-3 sponsons
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3W.png)
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.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3Whead-on.png)
EDIT: For completeness' sake, here's the top view from post #29.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3F.png)
Looks like it wouldn't need too much putty to adapt after all. The fuselage taper starts just ahead of the outrigger support strut.
-
Maybe go with a Mi-24 A style of greenhouse canopy?
-
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.
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/SeaKingSheetWeb.jpg)
My Site (http://michaelgoughan.blogspot.com/2009/06/oss-sea-king.html)
-
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.
-
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:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3Wmod.png)
-
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.
-
I meant this one:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/Helicopters/Mi24.jpg)
-
^ 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:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/mi24-fuses.png)
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.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/Hind-EMi24V_0815_CzechAF_Tigerfleet_front.jpg)
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. :-\
-
An S-67 style nose would be the ticket.
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/6269L.jpg)
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2022_S-67.htm (http://www.anigrand.com/AA2022_S-67.htm)
;)
-
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...
-
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?
(http://youjivinmeturkey.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/blue-thunder-1983.jpg)
;D
-
Eh... sorta, I guess... never thought of that!
-
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.
([url]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/SeaKingSheetWeb.jpg[/url])
My Site ([url]http://michaelgoughan.blogspot.com/2009/06/oss-sea-king.html[/url])
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.
-
Like this -
-
That certainly gives the Sea King a different look!
-
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?
-
Like this -
I've got an Airwaves 1/72 conversion to one of those --- Brit or Canadian scheme though
-
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?
Makes sense.
-
The modern rebuild S-61Ts have S-61L type landing gear.
(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_S-61T_lg.jpg)
(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_S-61T_Banking_lg.jpg)
(http://heligypsy.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/6164.jpg?w=640)
Most of the S-61s that are used in heli-logging are equipped with the L model gear,
regardless if they started as an L or an N or are ex-US military.
-
Maybe I'm too used to seeing CH-124s, but those rebuilt S-61s look a little odd to my eye. They don't look *bad* at all, just odd...
-
S-61T just looks like a re-painted SH-3 to my eye, it may be the Dagmar FOD cones that are throwing your visual.
Most of the logging 61s I worked on had the cones rather than the 'box'.
The maroon and white bird in the other photo is a shortened N model airliner.
-
Quickly cobbled together a top view of the AH-3 Jolly Mean Giant:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/WhIf/AH-3F.png)
Looks like it wouldn't need too much putty to adapt after all. The fuselage taper starts just ahead of the outrigger support strut.
-
I like!
-
dug out my old Hasegawa Seaking & thinking of doing this one-off prototype RN version at the front of the line-up ... anyone know what its called & any other pics of it ???
p.s. also looking for drawings of the Transavia Airtruck (nothing but a crude & inaccurate drawing on the 'net).
-
Hmmm...could be an AEW prototype? ???
-
Looks very much like the CASTOR system:
(http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CASTOR.jpg)
-
Here's the info ... used for development of Blue Kestrel radar for the Merlin helo.
It always helps to know what it's called !
(http://www.sonsofdamien.co.uk/sea%20king%20production_files/image007.jpg)
(http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=197012&d=1309880932)
two Blue Kestrel trials Sea Kings - XZ570 and ZB506
The former had an orange painted cockpit and other bits, and was the initial development aircraft flying initially out of Yeovil with some forays to Boscombe. The latter was raspberry ripple, with the RAE originally out of Bedford and later Boscombe.
-
The "fat lip" or "under bite" are descriptive of the look.
-
Anglo-French helicopter deal falls through and the RAF gets Commandos instead of Pumas?
-
That Blue Kestrel configuration makes me wonder if a Searchwater setup could have been done in a similar way. There would need to be a method to gather up the dome once deflated so it wouldn't contact the ground, maybe a cable run through the dome that is retracted and pulls everything in tight to clear the ground when landed. Do that and it could even be a straight swap for the Merlin.
-
The "fat lip" or "under bite" are descriptive of the look.
Also quite graphic as to the size difference between the Sea King and Merlin, the radome looking quite small on the Merlin
-
Something different: Sea King with Sea Eagle missiles:
(https://yooniqimages.blob.core.windows.net/yooniqimages-data-storage-resizedimagefilerepository/Detail/21632/dcc5a600-f460-4b19-bd78-e8466b0176b9/YooniqImages_216320092.jpg)
Source (https://yooniqimages.com/images/detail/216320092/Creative/westland-sea-king)
-
here's a German Navy Sea King with Sea Skua missiles 8)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3540/3418844547_19ca5fb518_z.jpg?zz=1)
(http://www.helikitnews.com/issues/mk41skua.jpg)
-
Interesting Iranian development:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eoP5N2VmjwY/WTSQl9oQFsI/AAAAAAAAM2g/athxOIYF6hAD7079GknJOOeHxMc6yZW4ACLcB/s1600/IRIN%2BAgusta%2BSH-3D%2BSea%2BKing%2BAS-61.jpg)
-
Land King: land based Sea King (with bits of Wessex)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/LandKing.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/LandKing.jpg.html)
-
A Wea King? :icon_fsm:
-
Personally speaking I’d go for S-61L type landing gear,
stronger than the S-58 type and designed for the heavier
machine.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/89/10/7389101336b2d6ddd9961a24630c148c.jpg)
When originally used as airliners the struts were covered
with fairings, these were removed on all the logging birds
I worked on, 61Ls and, 61Ns with L gear. The floats were
removed from the 61Ns as part of the conversion to heli-log
machines.
(http://www.aerobernie.bplaced.net/Fotos10/LAA-S61.jpg)
-
(http://www.helicopassion.com/images/WBL/WBL259/BC140h.jpg)
Love the paint.
-
S-61N Shortsky, done by Heli-Pro in the late '90s.
I don't recall if this is one that I worked on.
-
You take two RW models
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SeaKingWessex.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SeaKingWessex.jpg.html)
... and then you get two nice whifs
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SeaKingWessexCross.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SeaKingWessexCross.jpg.html)
-
Digital kitbash. :smiley:
-
:-\
Well ... I am tempted to do it in styrene 3D 8)
-
RH-3A Sea King minesweeping variant. 'Said to be underpowered but an interim anyway.
Air Vectors claims that Sikorsky thought up an ultimately-unbuilt three-engine Sea King variant. Or would a notional "RH-3H" be adequately powered, too?
-
Bump ! After seeing the new 35th Tahoe kit from ICM, it strikes me that the problem with all chopper kits is the size required to display them due to the main rotor.
So I thought to do away with the rotors & substitute variable position jets ala Harrier ....
I have an old Revell CH-54 & the engines always disappointed so maybe if I add the engine section of a 48th Harrier ??? ???
-
Intriguing :smiley:
-
@
Bump ! After seeing the new 35th Tahoe kit from ICM, it strikes me that the problem with all chopper kits is the size required to display them due to the main rotor.
So I thought to do away with the rotors & substitute variable position jets ala Harrier ....
I have an old Revell CH-54 & the engines always disappointed so maybe if I add the engine section of a 48th Harrier ??? ???
I would rather see you kit bash a V-22 Osprey with the CH-54. That would get rid of the ugly arrangement of the engines/transmission and drive train to the tail rotor. Replace the tail rotor and tail with the twin tail from the V-22. Still have an ugly aircraft but the performance might be a little better :smiley:
-
I would rather see you kit bash a V-22 Osprey with the CH-54. That would get rid of the ugly arrangement of the engines/transmission and drive train to the tail rotor. Replace the tail rotor and tail with the twin tail from the V-22. Still have an ugly aircraft but the performance might be a little better :smiley:
That could prove interesting
-
@I would rather see you kit bash a V-22 Osprey with the CH-54. That would get rid of the ugly arrangement of the engines/transmission and drive train to the tail rotor. Replace the tail rotor and tail with the twin tail from the V-22. Still have an ugly aircraft but the performance might be a little better :smiley:
V-22 fuselage to just aft of the electronics bay behind the cockpit, then a cleaned-up clpseput amd a bppm mating with the standard V-22 wing and extending back to pick up the tail surfaces. Landing gear would be similar to that of the Tahoe, again off the boom to the tail. overall design would have to take into account the large ring for the stowage of the wing.
-
Two shots of my friend Pete who flew Sikorsky S61N helicopters in Canada for several years. Sometimes that entailed a round-trip flight of three plus hours over water, out to 200 nautical miles from the coast to supply oil-rigs. A 6ft 6" Canadian now living in sub-Antarctica (Tasmania).
One of his memorable ferry flights was from Australia to Ireland .... Exmouth, Port Headland, Broome, Kupang, Denpaser, Dkakarta, Singalore, Hat Yai, Bangkok, Rangoon, Calcutta, Nagpur, Amadabad, Karachi, Seeb, Bahrain, Hail, Luxor, Cairo, Athens, Naples, Marseilles, Dinard, Shannon, Ireland. That was 107 flight hours over eleven days.
Planned cruise speed was 115 knots, always took off at maximum all up weight of 20,500 pounds with three full under floor fuel-tanks, an above floor ferry-tank and 4 drums of fuel.
He then went to Stravangar, Norway & transioned to AS332L/L1 Super Pumas.
Next month he wil tell the story of two Aussie RAAF glider pilots buried in the Commonwealth War Grave in Norway.