Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Diamondback on December 03, 2012, 04:29:35 PM
-
Didn't see one, so with all the ideas Evan and I have been lobbing at erach other I thought it was time for a thread on the S-65 and S-80 heavy lifters, aka:
-Sea Stallion (USN/USMC S-65)
-Super Jolly Green Giant (USAF S-65)
-Pave Low (USAF S-65 with nav upgrade)
-Super Stallion (USN/USMC S-80)
-Sea Dragon (USN S-80 minesweeper)
-CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement
I'm going to break this down into several categories, and add on as Internet access (hotel server got nuked in a power surge and isn't due to be repaired for at least six hours) and research and ideas allow.
DEPLOYED:
-DIRCM laser countermeasures.
ACTUALLY TESTED:
-AIM-9 Sidewinder launchers for aircraft self-defense. I've seen a photo of a test-launch, but the missile's already away and both angle and smoke-trail hide the launcher.
IN DEVELOPMENT:
-Redesign with 7500shp GE38-1B engines. (CH-53K HLR, if it makes it to first flight.)
PROPOSED:
-VH-53F heavy-lifter Marine One
-Reducing fuel capacity in the sponsons to mount a pair of 20mm turrets.
-"Super Pave Low" alternative to Osprey, a CH-53E fitted with the Pave Low avionics package.
WHIFfer-ORIGINAL CONCEPTS:
-A four-engine derivative.
-"AH-53 Direct Action Penetrator": Grafting aircraft wings for weapons hardpoints onto a Pave Low, a la Mi-24 Hind.
-Point-defense laser system to not just divert but destroy incoming missiles. (Requires much advance in laser tech, back in the '60s it took a system filling a KC-135 to zap a Sidewinder.)
-
I always thought the 53 would make a good basis for a large scale rotodyne type aircraft.
-
Well, of course there's my "Pave Stallion" concept that combines a Super Stallion with the latest round of "Pave Low" equipment fit for heavy and deep CSAR. I'm still doodling on a strictly rotary-winged AH-53 assault helicopter, something of a cross between a CH-53E and a Hind.
-
(http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/4/09fa8175-3af8-43b5-a4ed-4dc4f8243b2e.Full.jpg)
Look at a 53K in development. Its definitely gotten a "facelift"
-
PSR on a grand scale....
-
I think I've read somewhere it will have four engines, is that correct ?
-
Kitnut, not quite... it has the power of a 4-engine E, mainly from replacing the 3 4380shp T64's with 3 7500shp GE38-1B's. The four-engine Stallion is my MH-53X WHIF.which is also getting an eight-blade main rotor because of it. (Really, I wonder why Sikorsky engineers didn't just go with that config to start with... a little extra weight and material, but between performance and the cost-saving in engineering and machining man-hours...
-
Ah-Ha! thought it said something about four engines. I went with much more powerful engines and more rotors for my Petrel (Merlin/Cormorant) AWAC project too.
-
I did something similar in the concept for the -X, actually, along with the extra engine, though it doesn't use those new blade tips. (From 3x7500shp driving seven blades to 4x10,000shp driving eight...) This also helps cut down on ground support equipment... while the seven-bladed E and K need struts between the fuselage and the folded blades, I figure the back two on the X could support the other six without them, or only needing the struts in the tighter clearances of a shipboard environment.
Evan, your Pave Stallion and my Pave Low V as-built sound like almost the same concept... if you still have contacts at Sikorsky, or anyone at PMM-261 (H-53 System Program Office) you might ask them to poke around and see if they can find the old Sikorsky proposal from the '90s before Les Asspain administered an Osprey suppository.
EDIT: Just finished rendering the basic "star" sections of a reinforced 8-blade rotor hub in SketchUp, hope to upload a pic later this week. I was trying to keep the -E geometry as much as possible, hoping that the existing E knuckles (for lack of a better term) could be reused instead of having to craft a whole new part.
-
AEW version anyone?
-
AEW version anyone?
Cool idea. Maybe for operation off USMC LHD/LHAs?
-
AEW version anyone?
Hmm, given the CH-53's configuration, you could mount it in on the aft ramp, or in place thereof, rather than on the side as done on the AEW Sea King.
-
So in line with what the French did with the Puma?
(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/snias_cougar-aew.jpg)
net photo
-
That definitely works for me. It would be easy enough to swing the antenna back and up for landing.
-
;D I was wondering what helo I could do as an AEW bird and then saw this thread.
-
Here's an eight-blade rotor hub, based on the -E's but noticeably beefed up.
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/Diamondback6/Blackout/Blackoutrotor.jpg)
I figured since this hub is going to potentially have 40,000 shaft horsepower going through it out to the blades, the added rotational mass and weight was more than justified in its enhanced structural strength. Do need some help though... Need to know what angle that strut running from one blade's knuckle to the leg on the hub to its left peels off at so I can add the mount points. Other than that, look like it's ready for me to cut tubes and sheets and move on to the swashplate?
-
Do any of the existing CH-53E kits have this piece in sufficient detail? I didn't work on that one so can't comment.
-
Evan, that model's based on measurements taken from the Academy 1/48 E's hub--since I'm designing to fit that kit's blades, knuckles, etc, it seemed logical.
TBH, I'm kinda cheating, since I'm trying to just design it as a drop-in replacement for the kit parts, as long as it's "close enough"... The hub assembly builds up from 33 pieces, and one review I saw describes the rotor head alone as a complicated model by itself:
-top plate
-axle
-axle retainer
-upper hub
-lower hub
-fixed knuckle (non-folding, points aft in folded config)
-six folding knuckles
-six folding blade mounts
-seven (?)actuator struts (connect to trailing edge of knuckle, and other end slots in between two vertical plates on each arm of the lower hub)
-seven swashplate connector struts
-swashplate
The Academy kit really is a quantum-leap over the old Revell Super Jolly, even taking the differences between S-65 and S-80 into account.
-
Well, I worked up a quick 3-view of a PL-ized E from some drawings on Wikipedia... sorry it's huge, but I haven't really had time to downsize and I find bigger images easier to work with adding details. (I still have some stuff to add later...)
-
And, an addition idea... might the ALE-50 towed decoy system off a B-1 be a feasible addition?
-
Here are some more updated photos of the CH-53K's progression !!
M.A.D
-
Well, I worked up a quick 3-view of a PL-ized E from some drawings on Wikipedia... sorry it's huge, but I haven't really had time to downsize and I find bigger images easier to work with adding details. (I still have some stuff to add later...)
Is there something futuristic in this design as could detect anything new? No drag reductions..old radar...no advanced tail rotor.. no counter-rotating rotor etc...
-
Been reading up on ASW ships and equipment and I found reference to a proposal for an SH-53 ASW Sea Stallion. They would have occupied the larger SCS designs, dubbed VSS I-III, (up to 14 on III) and carried specialized towed sleds similar to the ones carried by the MH-53s when hunting mines, for detecting subs. No further details listed but one could assume further ASW equipment would have at least been trialed aboard them. Maybe even an attack version with a dipping sonar, sonobouys, and torpedoes? Seeing one in the classy white over gull gray scheme would have been neat 8)
-
Well, I worked up a quick 3-view of a PL-ized E from some drawings on Wikipedia... sorry it's huge, but I haven't really had time to downsize and I find bigger images easier to work with adding details. (I still have some stuff to add later...)
Is there something futuristic in this design as could detect anything new? No drag reductions..old radar...no advanced tail rotor.. no counter-rotating rotor etc...
Well, it's a mix of Pave Low V avionics and systems with the Super Stallion airframe and engines. His next step, from what Diamondback has said, is another engine and an additional blade to the main rotor for his MH-53X.
Me, I'm playing with a nose similar to that of a "Hind A", as well as some gear from the ACH-47, for an AH-53E assault transport.
-
arc, the point of that photochop was to go with the straight "slap an H/J/M nose on an E airframe" that Sikorsky had proposed as an interim replacement for the PL-IV to buy time for the Osprey to finish development back in the '90s. Quick, dirty and off the shelf. (Eventually, I'd like to, between myself and whoever I outsource some of the nastier bits to, create a "development history" series of 3-views from that circa mid-1990s to the initial shave of external antennas and addition of optical scanner arrays under the windows, and gradually piece-by-piece through the major mods that take it from a Boneyarded prototype up to its twenty-years-later form as the human-level-intelligence, ill-tempered and insanely armed Blackout. (And even here, part of the idea is to not get too radical in appearance changes... this beast needs to mostly pass for a standard trash-hauler until it's time to mount the gunship wings, stuff some hapless fool target into the Hurt Locker and weld it shut around them.)
I haven't even done anything with the #4 engine or eighth rotor blade yet... Contra-rotating props add a great deal of mechanical complexity, and just 'cause the radome itself is same old same old doesn't mean there couldn't be something new hidden under it. This thread I intended as an idea bank planning to start a build-plan thread later, but the FIRST thing I did on the build was eliminate all the external antenna blades and the Missile Warning Receiver bulges since they're being replaced by an F-35-style EODAS...
-
I think you're confusing two T-35 systems. There's the EOS and there's the DAS. The two are distinct and separate though the feed can be intermingled as the pilot desires. DAS is a situational awareness system whereas EOS is a targeting and designating system.
For the radar, one thing that would make a big difference is replacing the mechanically-scanned antenna with an AESA one. No external difference but major differences in radar performance and ability.
-
Evan, I had seen NG materials referring to it as "EODAS" (what other kind of DAS is there anyway? LOL)--both systems are going on anyway. LOL
-
Well, I worked up a quick 3-view of a PL-ized E from some drawings on Wikipedia... sorry it's huge, but I haven't really had time to downsize and I find bigger images easier to work with adding details. (I still have some stuff to add later...)
Is there something futuristic in this design as could detect anything new? No drag reductions..old radar...no advanced tail rotor.. no counter-rotating rotor etc...
Well, it's a mix of Pave Low V avionics and systems with the Super Stallion airframe and engines. His next step, from what Diamondback has said, is another engine and an additional blade to the main rotor for his MH-53X.
Me, I'm playing with a nose similar to that of a "Hind A", as well as some gear from the ACH-47, for an AH-53E assault transport.
a design closer to Sikorsky's (Sikorsky H-53) new x2 designs or what a new old? kinda sleepy..
-
Evan, I had seen NG materials referring to it as "EODAS" (what other kind of DAS is there anyway? LOL)--both systems are going on anyway. LOL
Ah, the good folks in Baltimore strike again. Yeah, the DAS has always, of necessity, been "EO". DAS originally stood for "Dual Aperture System", a dual spectrum sensor set in one unit (large and weighty sucker, too - between that and the canopy mechanism, mounting the one in the forward center equipment bay in front of the cockpit was quite the chore). NG has definitely evolved it nicely.
-
a design closer to Sikorsky's (Sikorsky H-53) new x2 designs or what a new old? kinda sleepy..
The intent is something that can slip in and out of normal operations without being especially noticeable. Something like a scaled-up X2 would be very different and noticeable whereas something that looked similar to the CH-53 that "everyone knows" would not stand out near as much.
-
How about an air-sea rescue (not CSAR) version based on the Sea Dragon airframe (big sponsons) AND a refuelling probe for maximum range?
-
How about an air-sea rescue (not CSAR) version based on the Sea Dragon airframe (big sponsons) AND a refuelling probe for maximum range?
Perhaps in USCG markings or equivalent markings from other countries? I'm thinking one such in Canadian markings would look spectacular.
-
I'm thinking one such in Canadian markings would look spectacular.
Agreed. This scheme:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Rescue_912_CH-149_Cormorant_Helicopter_Lands_in_Vancouver.jpg)
-
a design closer to Sikorsky's (Sikorsky H-53) new x2 designs or what a new old? kinda sleepy..
The intent is something that can slip in and out of normal operations without being especially noticeable. Something like a scaled-up X2 would be very different and noticeable whereas something that looked similar to the CH-53 that "everyone knows" would not stand out near as much.
For example, one day a forward-deployed HMH squadron gets "just another Echo" on the patch and then for a few nights thereafter Taliban training camps start mysteriously being "erased from existence"... and nobody ever stops to consider that "the new heavy hauler on the strip" might be more than meets the eye.
-
Blackout form the Transformers movie? Very good at making bases disappear.
-
Volkadov, hence the beast's name... though I'm explaining it as the AI didn't know the power of its own jammers and accidentally blacked out the entire county around the test site, and one of the techs tossed a snark about "Old Blackout over there" in the middle of the incident.
Definitely no "Giant Killer Robot mode", though, and as I've written it the machine (itself a film buff) likes to joke about "two steps ahead of that alien piece of scrap and all Home Team tech to boot."
-
(http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Grand-Theft-Auto-5-Screenshot_371.jpg)
From GTA 5
-
:-\
-
A Chop-Shop Special, how appropriate for that game series. ;D
-
Oh, I did notice something very interesting when I was looking at Pit-Road's 1/700 World Helicopter Collection box set... The CH-53 in that is distinctly an S-80 airframe and includes both CH- and MH-53E sponsons, but it also has a Pave Low nose section. WHIF In A Box?
Bonus for me, I also have several C-5s in that scale already to do a "loading up for transoceanic travel" display... :D
-
A
MH CH I saw down in Yuma (Corrected -- thanks to diamondback)
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa263/kitnut617/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013017_zps47f0c326.jpg) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013017_zps47f0c326.jpg.html)
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa263/kitnut617/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013085_zps238e32d7.jpg) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013085_zps238e32d7.jpg.html)
-
Actually, just a standard CH-53E, not to be pedantic. Echoes (and still-in-build Kilos) are the only variants with the gull-wing horizontal stab, and it doesn't have the fat sponsons of the Sea Dragon or K-model.
-
I saw earlier this week that the Kilo ground test vehicle recently had all its dynamic components mated up and the first engine runs in all-up configuration. The increase in engine power is definitely going to make a difference. Bell is being asked to look at adopting a version of the same engine for an Osprey update. Combined with some of the other efforts already in place, that could get "interesting", to say the least, since it would likely drive a re-design of much of the nacelle, including parts already being worked on as product improvements to address things missed in the original spec's.
-
Is there a fuselage cross-section diagram comparing the difference between the 'E' and the 'K' ?
-
There may be, somewhere online. As I remember it, the K is essentially the E lines with a new helicopter fitted into them and few, if any, parts interchangeable between the two models.
-
K is about a foot wider in the cabin, though, so that you can roll a Hummer up inside IIRC. Echo, IIRC you can roll a smaller vehicle up the ramp but unless you have the door removed you're stuck in the car for the entire flight...
-
I just been reading up on the 'K' and an article said it has a bigger cabin area and was to be able to carry 'three times' as much load. With almost twice the power now I would imagine something more was changed
-
Probably means triple by weight, not cubic inches--ISTR that fuel capacity and internal vehicle capacity were two of the main drivers in hull morphology, while maintaining a deck footprint no greater than an Echo.
I'll bet there's a lot beefier backbone carrying the drivelines and transmission for one... haven't seen anything about the rotor but I'd expect changes there. (Personally, I'd have gone up to an 8- or 9-blade rotor along with new blade technologies, allowing "headroom" for engine growth or development into a 4-engine superheavy-lifter variant, but then again I AM from the school of Nothing Begets Success Like EXCESS.)
-
Bell is being asked to look at adopting a version of the same engine for an Osprey update. Combined with some of the other efforts already in place, that could get "interesting", to say the least, since it would likely drive a re-design of much of the nacelle, including parts already being worked on as product improvements to address things missed in the original spec's.
Second test ship, then, one for as-designed and one to develop the GE38-powered variant? N410TR, maybe? LOL
-
Bell is being asked to look at adopting a version of the same engine for an Osprey update. Combined with some of the other efforts already in place, that could get "interesting", to say the least, since it would likely drive a re-design of much of the nacelle, including parts already being worked on as product improvements to address things missed in the original spec's.
oh man :-\ :-\
-
I'd also expect re-engining to mean beefing up the cross-connect drivelines, which in turn means a wing redesign to accommodate them...
-
Is there a fuselage cross-section diagram comparing the difference between the 'E' and the 'K' ?
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg1_zps09293bb2.jpg)
-
Thanks Greg, I think I'll wait for a kit manufacturer to produce one --- ;)
-
Yeah, about the most I might try to do is the engine nacelles... and even that job scares me.
-
(http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/lufei_bi.jpg)
-
I'd also expect re-engining to mean beefing up the cross-connect drivelines, which in turn means a wing redesign to accommodate them...
Detail re-design but with little external difference. Some of the fixes we have in work will make more difference in the external appearance (take a look at the LH nacelle of the ATTR, that's the Proof of Concept effort for what I'm now doing the production version of).
-
(http://img05.deviantart.net/2d89/i/2015/203/7/7/though_i_fly_____by_moffata-d92fjle.jpg)
(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/04/df-kingpixsikorskyaircraftpromo.jpg)
(http://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/imagelibrary/nri/naval/news/CH-53K.jpg)
-53K, King S**ter lives!
-
I'd like to see a -53E sitting next to the -K to get a feel for how much bigger/different it really is.
-
I'd like to see a -53E sitting next to the -K to get a feel for how much bigger/different it really is.
From what I've seen/read the differences are very subtle in terms of appearance whereas they are
significant in terms of tech and capability. They pretty much nailed the physics 40+ years ago,
so not much is going to change in terms of how stuff looks.
Flying machines of all sorts are going to look more or less the same for the foreseeable future.
-
A lot of the differences are internal where you would normally never see them. Manufacturing technology has changed considerably since the original CH-53E was designed, both in terms of processes and in terms of materials. That they have an opportunity to also use 3D design tools means that the interior systems (plumbing and wiring) arrangement is going to be more rationalized. It wouldn't surprise me to find that they've kept the same loft lines but have an all-new aircraft around them.
-
I'd like to see a -53E sitting next to the -K to get a feel for how much bigger/different it really is.
From what I've seen/read the differences are very subtle in terms of appearance whereas they are
significant in terms of tech and capability. They pretty much nailed the physics 40+ years ago,
so not much is going to change in terms of how stuff looks.
Flying machines of all sorts are going to look more or less the same for the foreseeable future.
I read something years ago on the Sikorsky large helicopter families that said the arrangement of the actual machinery raft was spot on and pretty much any fuselage could be successfully hung under it which is why the general configuration continues to be evolved and imitated today.
-
I read something years ago on the Sikorsky large helicopter families that said the arrangement of the actual machinery raft was spot on and pretty much any fuselage could be successfully hung under it which is why the general configuration continues to be evolved and imitated today.
Would be nice to see a new build CH-54 Tarhe based on the CH-53K machinery raft if it is as simple as they are describing. Maybe an MH-54 just to prove you can sneak anything in under the radar? :)
-
Possibly, except that Sikorsky has sold all rights, data, and material on the CH-54 to another company, Evergreen IIRC.
-
Erickson Incorporated own the S-64/CH-54 type certificate and manufacturing rights and have since 1992.
-
So...when will a injection-mold plastic kit of the -53K be released? (In the One True Scale...1/48, of course)
-
Erickson Incorporated own the S-64/CH-54 type certificate and manufacturing rights and have since 1992.
Great machines, a couple come down to Australia each summer fire season. As I understand it the reason Erickson sought the type certificate and manufacturing rights was specifically so they could continue to support this type that have proven so valuable as a firefighting asset. There were some comments in the media here that they were looking to build additional airframes but I don't believe this has happened yet.
-
Erickson Incorporated own the S-64/CH-54 type certificate and manufacturing rights and have since 1992.
I stand corrected. In my defense, I was working from memory, hence the IIRC qualifier.
-
Photos of the Day: America's Next Largest & Most Powerful Helicopter
(http://www.pddnet.com/sites/pddnet.com/files/embedded_image/2016/04/EDM2_009-684x1024.jpg)
Go here (http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/04/photos-day-americas-next-largest-most-powerful-helicopter#.VySZrsO_q6s.facebook) for more information and pictures.
-
I have an old Revell CH-53G kit which I got for £cheap a few years back. My intention is to do it as an RAF Westland Weyland HC.1, the backstory being that after the first RAF Chinook buy was cancelled in the 1960s, Westland used it's Sikorsky connection to propose a licence-built CH-53 with more UK content, jobs and spend, and the government bit.
-
I have an old Revell CH-53G kit which I got for £cheap a few years back. My intention is to do it as an RAF Westland Weyland HC.1, the backstory being that after the first RAF Chinook buy was cancelled in the 1960s, Westland used it's Sikorsky connection to propose a licence-built CH-53 with more UK content, jobs and spend, and the government bit.
Excellent idea Harold. Makes you wonder what could have been if that had been for real. Same with the Super Frelon.
-
The CH-53 has got to be my favorite helo, followed extremely closely by the Huey (& Cobra). :D
I have a UH-1N & an AH-1W in 1/35th, the only other I'd need in that scale is a CH-53D/E. :icon_crap:
-
A SH-53 with a very large and capable sonar, plus sonar buoys, torpedos and anti surface missiles, maybe even air launched stand off anti submarine missile?
-
I have an old Revell CH-53G kit which I got for £cheap a few years back. My intention is to do it as an RAF Westland Weyland HC.1, the backstory being that after the first RAF Chinook buy was cancelled in the 1960s, Westland used it's Sikorsky connection to propose a licence-built CH-53 with more UK content, jobs and spend, and the government bit.
I like your thinking. The Westland Weyland could also be considered a replacement for the similar sized Westland Westminster (see below).
(http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=179526&stc=1&d=1260170654)
Would this also lead to a Westland Super-Weyland as a variant of the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion?
-
Random Idea: Aéronavale CH-53 instead of Super Frelon
-
How about a CH-53 Super Stallion-CH-54 Skycrane hybrid Super Skycrane?
-
Would this also lead to a Westland Super-Weyland as a variant of the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion?
Quite possibly, although by that point they may be comfortable re-using a name like 'Westland Wyvern' rather than going for super-something.
Just noticed that I've got a Skycrane in the stash too. Hmmmmm.......
-
What about a CH-53 based Rotodyne?
-
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the rotor/blades/gearbox for the Westminster actually came from Sikorski, not sure if it was the Jolly Green Giant or the Mohave. But when the Westminster got cancelled it all was given back to Sikorski
-
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the rotor/blades/gearbox for the Westminster actually came from Sikorski, not sure if it was the Jolly Green Giant or the Mohave. But when the Westminster got cancelled it all was given back to Sikorski
According to Wikipedia, they came from the S-56/CH-37 which is quite believable. If Westland had received the go-ahead from the MOD for a UK license for the S-56 rather than just using portions in the Westminster, I wonder if they would have replaced the piston engines with turbines in that one, too?
-
I have an old Revell CH-53G kit which I got for £cheap a few years back. My intention is to do it as an RAF Westland Weyland HC.1, the backstory being that after the first RAF Chinook buy was cancelled in the 1960s, Westland used it's Sikorsky connection to propose a licence-built CH-53 with more UK content, jobs and spend, and the government bit.
That would be great. Grey/green Falklands diorama... wheels are turning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQoFdW6OLeI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQoFdW6OLeI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxjvtqibj2E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxjvtqibj2E)
video of the King
-
How about an ACH-53 equivalent to the ACH-47
(https://battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/chinook-ach-47.jpg)
-
How about an Agusta Sikorsky AS-65 for the AMI and MM to replace the Pelicans in the C/SAR role and the ASW roles?????
-
Anyone know if the S65/H-53 was ever fitted with skis for winter/arctic operations? The CH-54 Tarhe/Skycrane was fitted with skis which is why I felt the need to ask. Search engine results were abysmal.
-
I like the idea of a de-fuselaged skycrane variant of the CH-53 (as I do a CH-47!)
What about a winged variant of the Super Stallion - akin to the Mil Mi-6 'Hook', so as toto off-load the rotor system.
M.A.D
-
Anyone know if the S65/H-53 was ever fitted with skis for winter/arctic operations? The CH-54 Tarhe/Skycrane was fitted with skis which is why I felt the need to ask. Search engine results were abysmal.
I haven't seen any photos of such - they all show it just operating with wheels. Something like this CH-47 derivative would be cool though:
(http://www.airglas.com/Portals/6/LiveRotator/3345/Images/47%20with%20Skis%20(640x480).jpg)
Maybe with a scheme similar to this:
(https://img1.goodfon.com/wallpaper/big/c/37/sikorsky-s-61-sea-king-si.jpg)
-
How about an ACH-53 equivalent to the ACH-47
(https://battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/chinook-ach-47.jpg)
Perhaps with a cockpit and canopy similar to that of the "Hind A", a smooth canopy with no step?
-
Artist's impression of passenger Sikorsky S-65 based on the CH-53 Sea Stallion.
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/22048098_1026574470819150_3597379219802551114_o.jpg?oh=8951adce519db07901783b611257fc2c&oe=5A7D6713)
-
:smiley:
-
It shouldn't be too hard to build. But I would keep the sponsons. Good for fuel and baggage. Also note the large cargo door?.
-
It shouldn't be too hard to build. But I would keep the sponsons. Good for fuel and baggage. Also note the large cargo door?.
That fuselage shape of that concept is completely different, the proposed for production S-65-40 was
more in the vein of a stretched regular S-65. Note the different nose profile.
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-mDHWTS4/0/8792a4f0/O/S6540_01.png)
More info at these links, the first two giving configuration details:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202820.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202820.html)
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202821.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202821.html)
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202758.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202758.html)
-
It shouldn't be too hard to build. But I would keep the sponsons. Good for fuel and baggage. Also note the large cargo door?.
That fuselage shape of that concept is completely different, the proposed for production S-65-40 was
more in the vein of a stretched regular S-65. Note the different nose profile.
([url]http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-mDHWTS4/0/8792a4f0/O/S6540_01.png[/url])
More info at these links, the first two giving configuration details:
[url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202820.html[/url] ([url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202820.html[/url])
[url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202821.html[/url] ([url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202821.html[/url])
[url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202758.html[/url] ([url]https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202758.html[/url])
No ship lift restrictions, so you could do away with tail folding mechanism = lighter, stronger configuration; eliminate main rotor folding arrangement......
M.A.D
-
Thanks for the references Jon.
I don't think I am up to fuselage stretch but I will make an attempt to reshape the nose. Maybe add an external radar dome like some of the S-61s have.
(http://phxspotters.com/fire-assets-ready-for-2016/Coulson-S-61-in-2014.jpg)
-
Loving these ideas! First company to make a styrene 53K is going to get a lot of my cash >:D
-
Loving these ideas! First company to make a styrene 53K is going to get a lot of my cash >:D
Oh for sure I'd get one.
A neat display would be to build a CH-53D, CH-53E and CH-53K and show examples of the external payloads*/**:
CH-53D: 8,000 lb or 3,630 kg
CH-53E: 13,500 lb or 6,100 kg
CH-53K: 27,000 lb or 15,900 kg
*: a total range there and back of 220 nautical miles/ 407 km, and 30 minute loiter at the landing zone, would have a maximum mission load of only 12.25t/ 27,000 lbs.
**: my numbers may be wrong. Still looking for a single authoritative source.
-
I don't think I am up to fuselage stretch but I will make an attempt to reshape the nose. Maybe add an external radar dome like some of the S-61s have.
The external radome was an add on to the over-water/all-weather S-61 airliner versions because of
lack of room in the EE Bay, and the forward flight deck area immediately above. All of the flight/nav/radio
avionics added to those birds filled up an already space limited bay. A space with which I am intimately
familiar, having spent several weeks in one during a complete re-wire of a bare airframe, which was d
one on a very compressed schedule.
:-\ :-X
A great deal of the components we installed were taken from a beautiful North Sea transport bird, all
EE Bay cable runs in that bird were completely encased in wire braid to prevent/reduce electromagnetic
interference with the radios and nav avionics.
It was a shame to have to gut that bird, she was immaculate when she arrived and the interior was
gorgeous, super comfortable reclining leather passenger seats, a mini-galley/steward area and lav.
According to the Flight article, the intent of the lengthened nose on the S-65-40 was to be able to
incoporate all the civil avionics, including weather radar, within the EE Bay.
-
Interesting snippet that could provide a trigger for a RAAF and later ARA CH-53:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner139/BDFF7938-FF71-4C36-87E5-E0583218AFB3_zpswwqjushx.jpeg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/4c/06/bf/4c06bf473c533712c08f30fb5a46aa23.jpg)
S-65 Super Skycrane
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/07/fd/2b/07fd2bc68259c79c6170424b7d2da22e.jpg)
CH-53E Super Tahre (fixed)
-
More appropriate to call it the CH-54 Super Tarhe or Erickson
Sikorsky S-64 Super Sky Crane :smiley:
-
Found on the Secret Projects Forum.
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/58/58804-e026d27c38c40d980a1f0cdf7a612261.jpg)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/26/26978-238a0dd988822be81c9f94e5e51850d3.jpg)
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/30/30485-6e33ec61bf3609a0004e25ccde5d6692.jpg)
Thread is here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-crane-projects.7783/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-flying-crane-projects.7783/)
-
The secret projects images won't hotlink mate.
-
But I see them. Or that my imagination messing with me. What do you see or not see?
-
I think you see them since you already accessed via Secretprojects and they are in your cache or similar. All I see is a little blue square with a ?.
-
I think you see them since you already accessed via Secretprojects and they are in your cache or similar. All I see is a little blue square with a ?.
Okay! How about now? Chrome allows you to view the page source so I was able to locate the direct path to the file/file name vs previous the indirect reference path.
-
:smiley:
-
Yep! I can see them now too Carl :smiley:
-
Interesting snippet that could provide a trigger for a RAAF and later ARA CH-53:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner139/BDFF7938-FF71-4C36-87E5-E0583218AFB3_zpswwqjushx.jpeg)
A bit more on this. The team led by GPCAPT Raw included Australian Army officers and recommended the CH-53 based partly on its perceived better handling characteristics.
-
Interesting snippet that could provide a trigger for a RAAF and later ARA CH-53:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner139/BDFF7938-FF71-4C36-87E5-E0583218AFB3_zpswwqjushx.jpeg)
A bit more on this. The team led by GPCAPT Raw included Australian Army officers and recommended the CH-53 based partly on its perceived better handling characteristics.
Nice find GTX
MAD
-
I'm thinking a RAAF CH-53 in this sort of scheme would look cool:
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Chinook-A15-007/Chinook_A15_007_1976.sized.jpg)
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Chinook-A15-007/GC_3A15_007.jpg)
-
I'm thinking a RAAF CH-53 in this sort of scheme would look cool:
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Chinook-A15-007/Chinook_A15_007_1976.sized.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Chinook-A15-007/GC_3A15_007.jpg[/url])
Would that be the twin-engined version or the later three-engined version?
-
Either
-
Are decals available for that scheme of RAAF CH-47? I've got a CH-53E kit as well as a HH-53J kit that could use them.
-
Funny you should ask - look what i've just placed an order for:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rz4AAOSw6VReynlN/s-l1600.jpg)
-
What if Oz chose the CH-53E to replace the few Chinooks we've got ?
-
:smiley: