Special Forces Helicopters

QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty Grant, I'll let you slide this time and chock it up to a momentary lack of reason. Lack or lapse? LemonJello - Nice work; I'm diggin' those colors on your Pig - they're ugly and they remind me of that AP-2H Neptune Gunship "Napalm Nellie" the Navy used in Vietnam: ------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..." Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:07 AM Actually, it doesn't look all that bad. The built I mean. If you like the Pave Low or not is entirely up to you. I for one love that thing. Anyway, what I meant was that it was a good thing you didn't dusted it of. It's good that you said that though, as I at first thought that the model was "weathered" as if it had been flying through a sandstorm or something! For the paint scheme... I don't really like it. But that's my personal opinion. I think this is still the best colour for the Pave Low: Remko Reply Edit Cobrahistorian Member since December 2002 From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing! Posted by Cobrahistorian on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:58 PM Man, that thing looks like the mutant offspring of a B-32 and an eggbeater. "1-6 is in hot" Reply LemonJello Member since February 2004 From: Green Lantern Corps HQ on Oa Posted by LemonJello on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:56 PM Remko, I dug out my 1/72 Pave Low and took some (admittedly poor) pics of it, since you wanted to see the kit. I'll be honest, it's not my best work, but it was one of the first I completed after getting seriously back into the hobby. Paint scheme is just something I wanted to try, but I had one of the junk Testors airbrushes, absolutely no control to be had and there was a lot of bleed between colors. Still, here they are: I should have dusted it off, but it wouldn't have helped it all that much. A day in the Corps is like a day on the farm; every meal is a banquet, every paycheck a fortune, every formation a parade... The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy? Yeah...The Men's Department. Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:54 PM You might be right regarding to the use of existing airframes. Actually, I don't understand why the USAF wants to replace the MH-53M by the CV-22.... Granted, the Osprey is much faster and has greater range, but that's it. The MH-53M carries more weight, is much bigger etc. etc. etc. The Marines version of the Osprey, the MV-22 is intended to replace the CH-46, a comparable aircraft. The MH-53 would probably better be replaced by the V-44 QTR concept. Cobra, you are correct regarding the Apache with wings. Although a Pusher prop would be very useful. The wings won't be adding the gunship, as you've pointed out already. But they would be useful on Naval and Cargo helo's, as demonstrated by this Russian Mi-6 HOOK: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mi-6-pics.htm HeavyArty, are you sure about these designs never leaving the drawingboard? Here's a pretty big article regarding the "V-44" Quad Tiltrotor: http://www.vtol.org/vertiflite/BellTiltrotors.htm It would be too bad if they did... They are both very interesting concepts. Sure, there have been many accidents, but what did you expect? It's a totally new kind of machine! The helicopter had a lot of accidents too, and it wasn't completely trusted until the Vietnam war, where it proved to be an extremely valuable asset!! BTW, here is a NASA technology demonstrator of an X-Wing the RSRA (Rotor Systems Research Aircraft): http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/ch9.htm And an advanced concept for a fighter variant of this type of aircraft, it was done in 1986: Remko Reply Edit HeavyArty Member since December 2002 From: Valrico, FL Posted by HeavyArty on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:29 PM QUOTE: Well, Gino probably only partially agrees with me The SOF helicopters we have now are pretty damn cool so if it ain't broke... (Here's where Gino's going to want to have me taken out back and shot) I'm all for concept builds as long as they're plausible... Grant, I'll let you slide this time and chock it up to a momentary lack of reason. Yup, I don't go for the conceptual (fictional) builds myself. If you want to, more power to you. Just remember the points brought out by Trigger74 and Cobrahistorian above. More engines, wings, and weapons add weight, drag, and extra fuel haul requirments and not necessarily improved performance. As I stated above, at some point, you reach the point of dimishing returns and the end result is worse than what you started with. Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!! Check out my Gallery: https://app.photobucket.com/u/HeavyArty "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell Reply Cobrahistorian Member since December 2002 From: Aaaaah.... Alpha Apaches... A beautiful thing! Posted by Cobrahistorian on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:51 AM Remko, Yep, lots of us are working on Spec Ops helos. I've got an AH-6 building right now and I know there are several others building them too. I did have a comment regarding wings on a helicopter. The wings on an attack helicopter are there primarily for weapons pylons. Any additional lift they do provide often degrades the rotor (the bird's REAL wings) efficiency and makes the bird work that much harder. If you're looking to make a gunship version of the 53, that's cool, but for a regular helicopter, you want the airframe to be as clean as possible so the rotors aren't hauling significantly more drag than they need to. Any lift gained from adding wings will degrade lift produced by the rotors. Certainly the idea for such a build is interesting, but looking at it realistically, it isn't technically feasible. "1-6 is in hot" Reply Trigger Member since February 2004 From: Moooooon River! Posted by Trigger on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:46 AM Well, Gino probably only partially agrees with me The SOF helicopters we have now are pretty damn cool so if it ain't broke... (Here's where Gino's going to want to have me taken out back and shot) I'm all for concept builds as long as they're plausible... For me, they're the best of both worlds. The challenge of doing something that's realistic (even if it doesn't exist) but at the same time there's a fun element to it. I've got a concept A-10 Group Build going on right now where I'm building both a Marine Corps and RAF Warthog, my Panda F-35B kit essentially is a concept at this point since they're not in service and I'm planning a USN Agressor F-20A down the road (Hey, they almost bought 'em!). I started a USAF SAR HH-101 last year, that now doesn't seem all that far-fetched since Lockheed won the Marine One contract. Now for every concept build I just mentioned, I've got five "actual" and historical builds either in progress or in the pipeline. Gino and I have had plenty of discussions about the HH-60G Pave Hawk and how to accurately build it; sometimes we've gotten into debates, corrected each other and shown something other didn't know before. But in the end, we learned something about that machine and we're both building more accurate models because of it. This concept thing is just a phase that I'm going thru right now to keep from geting bored A hypothetical next-gen MH-53 Pave Low may not be so crazy if the CV-22 is canceled. The Air Force would be in need of a heavy platform to support SOF. A fourth engine doesn't alway mean it's a good thing. That's just one more thing to break down, more weight and stress on the airframe. Now, the extra power would be useful in higher elevations (Afghan mountains), but for that requirement, they'd just get newer, more powerful engines instead of adding more. Plus, adding a fourth engine as well as extra drop tanks and any weapons would just add more drag and weight and suck more gas. It would probably cancel out any advantages they brought to it. I also can't help but wonder if there's a reason why we haven't seen more helicopters like that test SH-60 and the AH-56 with a pusher props and "big" wings. True, increased speed and range are why the Air Force wants the CV-22 over a helicoptor, but the airframes on the MH-53 aren't getting any younger and you can only do so much with an airframe.They'll have to be replaced by something. I'm sticking to my guns on adding weapons to an MH-53M - there's a reason it's called the "Pave Pig." ------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..." Reply HeavyArty Member since December 2002 From: Valrico, FL Posted by HeavyArty on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:34 AM Have to agree with Trigger74 here. There are plenty of Special Ops helos out there. Any helo with an MH designator is a Multi-Mission Special Ops bird. Lots of people building them here. I just finished up an MH-60 DAP and an MH-6J MELB, check out my Showcase III below to see them. Why do you want to add all sorts of fictional stuff to an actual helo? If you want that, it now becomes Sci-Fi and you can do whatever you want, since it doesn't exist. There is a limit to what you can add to a helo that makes it too heavy and you don't get more speed by simply adding wings. The MH-53 is a huge helo and not well suited as an attack helo. Look at current and past attack helo designs, they are relatively small and slim in profile to make them smaller targets. They are not lumbering giants such as the MH-53. As for the X-craft. The AVPRO Titan and V-44 were never brought past the drawing board stage and there are no kits of them. You could probably build them, but they would take lots of scratch-building and kit-bashing. Good luck. Gino P. Quintiliani - Field Artillery - The KING of BATTLE!!! Check out my Gallery: https://app.photobucket.com/u/HeavyArty "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:31 AM Wow guys, thanks for the quick reply. Hi Gerjan, it is a long way from DHS indeed!! About the V-44, as far as I know, Bell is already working on a windtunnel model of it. I think they also are getting ready to produce a prototype, but tehy didn't know how to. They thought about converting a C-130, but they might also produce a whole new airframe. Posibly with the help of Lockheed-Martin. Boeing will probably not be involved in this project. They are also studying a four engined variant of the Bell/Augusta 609 tiltrotor, which is essentially the Osprey's little brother, and which may be used by the US Coast Guard at some point in the near future. I have built a few helo's a while back. an AH-64 Longbow Apache and a RAH-66 Commanche in scale 1/72nd from Italeri and a SH-60 Seahawk in scale 1/100 from Revell (I think...). They all were pretty easy kits, and if I really had put some time in them they would have turned out just fine. Fitting was pretty decent as far as I can remember. Especially the Commanche was a very cool looking helo!! BTW, Trigger, you asked about the upgrades. Well, I know that the CH-53's have three engines, but would it be possible to add another engine to it? So that it would have four engines? The wings? Simple, it will extend te range and increase the speed (because of better lift) of the helo, and will also make the fitting of weapon pods more easy. Imagine this, a hypothetical MH-53N Pave Low V. Power will be four of the MH-53M's engines, giving a total output of 17520 shaft horsepower versus 13140 SHP on the MH-53M. It's small wings will extend the range and speed of the aircraft, as well as doubling as fuel tanks and weapon stations. Here's a website about the ill-fated Lockheed Cheyenne: http://www.internetage.com/cartercopters/pics9.htm Boeing's X-50 Canard Rotor Wing: http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/may/ts_pw.html http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/x50.htm YSH-60F with a Vectored-Thrust Ducted Propeller: http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=21 http://www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike/ Remko Reply Edit Trigger Member since February 2004 From: Moooooon River! Posted by Trigger on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Remko Has anybody here ever built any Special Forces helicopters? Wow! You are new to the helicopter forum! SF helicopters... let's see, I'm building three Little Birds, a Pave Hawk and I have a Nightstalker MH-60L, MH-60K and MH-47G waiting behind those. And that's just me There are a lot of people building SF Helicopters around here A 1/72 MH-53J Pave Pig won't take up as much space as you might think. True, it's big compared to other helicopers in that scale, but it's still a small kit. I saw a completed kit saturday and it looked beautiful. I think that kit's out of production though, but you still might be able to find it in shops. If you can find a 1/48 Revell CH-53, you can get a resin conversion set from Cobra Company to convert it to an MH-53 Pave Low. What are you wanting to add wings and a third engine to? A Pave Low? There already is a three engine variant and it's used by the Navy and Marines, the CH-53E Super Stallion. -53s don't have weapons systems on board (aside from MGs for protection) and probably wouldn't be very good as attack helicoptors. If you've got an SF hybrid-aircraft itch to scratch, then try out the updated 1/48 V-22 kit. The Air Force plans to replace (for better or worse) the MH-53 with the CV-22. This would be a good place to practice while maintaining your interest. Little Birds are good for practice too as they go together quick, are easy to paint and look good. I remember reading about X-wings 20 years ago. I don't think they got it to work then and this is the first I've seen of the concept since then. From the looks of the rotor, you'd probably almost be better off scratchbuilding rather than converting. Those four blades will be huge, a lot bigger than a 1/48 scale -53s. Besides, the -53D has 6 blades (the Navy's MH-53E has 7) That V-44 fuselage looks more like that of a C-27 actually. Looks like a major kit-bashing project consisting of no less than two Osprey kits and a Spartan (does anyone even make a model of that plane?) Either build will be pretty involved but both are doable ------------------------------------------------------------------ - Grant "Can't let that nest in there..." Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:08 AM Ha Remko! This is a long way from the DHS-forum! Interesting ideas! The V44 at first glance looks 'doable'! Is that fuselage also based on the Hercules? Good luck! Gertjan Reply Edit Anonymous Member since November 2005 Special Forces Helicopters Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:22 AM Has anybody here ever built any Special Forces helicopters? I've been reading about them in "Chariots of the Damned", which is mainly about the crew flying the helo's, and not about the Special Forces/Marines being carried inside it. I always loved the MH-53 Pave Low. I am still thinking about building one, but since I want a big scale model (1/72nd or 1/48th), I have not yet done this because of lack of space. I also collect Spawn figurines and Heavy Haulage models in scale 1/50th.... So, if anyone here has some examples of them, let me know, I'd love to see them!! Anyway, I was wondering how hard it would be to modify this model a bit. Say add another engine, and enhancing the weaponsystems. It might also be possible to add wings to the fuselage which will greatly increase range and speed. Secondly, I have this crazy idea, but because of lack of experience (really should do something about that...) I haven't done it yet. It's about the AVPRO Titan X-Wing Rotorcraft and the V-44 Quad Tilt-Rotor. Both aircraft, or rather rotorcraft, are about the size of a C-130 Hercules, with a similar fuselage. But they have the ability to hover and are of course fully VTOL. But they also have a fast forward airspeed, comparable to the C-130. Below are some images. First, the AVPRO Titan X-wing: And the V-44 QTR: Now, the V-44 uses four sets of Osprey engines and props. So, for a model of it you should at least have two Osprey's..... But there's a catch! For aerodynamic purposes the aft wing has a bigger span than the front wing!! Hmm... Difficult to say the least. Besides this, you could best use the fuselage of a C-130 Hercules, and replace the tail with the Osprey wings. The Titan X-wing would be more easily done. All you need (yeah, right, all...) is a large scale model of a Herc, say 1/72 to prevent it getting to big, and a special rotor, consisting of 4 blades. This might be a bit difficult, but using the main rotor of a CH-53 in scale 1/48th, and modifying the blades to be a lot wider, could do the trick. So, am I just guessing away here, or is this possible to do? Remko Reply Edit JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login Register SEARCH FORUMS FREE NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. FORUMS PRODUCT REVIEWS READER GALLERY HOW TO VIDEOS SHOP ABOUT US FREE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy