Update 1:35 CH 47, 1:48 CH53E

Very interesting indeed! I'll be looking for more sightings of that 1/48 -53E, that's for sure. Thanks for the link.

I like it!!! Can't wait!!!

cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter,

QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter,

By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo.

If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale.

I'm EXTREMELY interested in that fire engine in the background of the CH-47 photo's....

Anyone have any info on this!?

QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale.

All Marines know the CH-53E as the *hitter. The nickname stems from the black smoke trail that follows it. Hardly anyone calls it the Sea Stallion or Super Stallion. The actual spelling of sh*tter has been discouraged on this forum on in the past.

QUOTE: Originally posted by supercobra QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale. All Marines know the CH-53E as the *hitter. The nickname stems from the black smoke trail that follows it. Hardly anyone calls it the Sea Stallion or Super Stallion. The actual spelling of sh*tter has been discouraged on this forum on in the past.

O.K., never heard it called that. I thought he was referring to the Chinook's nickname of the $hithook.

ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

The pic shows the HOOK built as the D again! What gives!!!!

I can't stand it!!!!! ......Unless thats just the parts the builder was given from the factory?

Crapy build up from what I can see. I hope the top portion of the rear cargo door swings up and in......looks like they got the ramp details correct.

That MRC kit looks pretty darn cool too!

QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale.

No, I think he means CH-53.

At least that is what we used to call them when I was in the Marines (1975-80)

'46s were known as Phrogs and CH-47s were commonly referred to by those outside the Chinook community as $hithooks.

HTH
Jonathan Primm

QUOTE: Originally posted by Papa-Echo-64 ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! The pic shows the HOOK built as the D again! What gives!!!! I can't stand it!!!!! ......Unless thats just the parts the builder was given from the factory? Crapy build up from what I can see. I hope the top portion of the rear cargo door swings up and in......looks like they got the ramp details correct. That MRC kit looks pretty darn cool too!

Yeah, I saw that too and wondered WTF? The ramp and hatch on CH-47s works differently than it does on CH-46s.

When the ramp is lowered a sequence valve operates to draw the hatch INSIDE the ramp. The only thing that holds the hatch up is the ramp, there are no attachment points on the fuselage for the hatch.

Getting a good fit on the hatch and fuselage was sometimes difficullt and it was often common practice in A and C models to attach a cargo strap on the ramp and run it over part of the aft transmission in order to keep the ramp from falling.

This was when the aircraft was parked. It only took once or twice getting a call around midnight from airfield guards reporting an unsecured aircraft for people to start using that method until they could replacement parts to fix the problem.

I don't recall having the problem on D models, but then ones I crewed were relatively new from the conversion process.

HTH
Jonathan Primm

Thanks a lot for those 1/48 CH-53E test shots....I will definitely be anticipating that release!

That Navy phrog also looks very interesting....will that be a special decal release? I had the great pleasure of actually seeing that very aircraft conducting vertreps a hundred yards away from me while underway in 2003 in the CENTCOM AOR. Stunning to see that paintjob in person and in flight. Of course my camera was 7 decks down in berthing at the time!

Can't wait for the -53

QUOTE: Originally posted by Papa-Echo-64 ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! The pic shows the HOOK built as the D again! What gives!!!! I can't stand it!!!!! ......Unless thats just the parts the builder was given from the factory? Crapy build up from what I can see. I hope the top portion of the rear cargo door swings up and in......looks like they got the ramp details correct. That MRC kit looks pretty darn cool too!

I'm guessing that whomever they had build that has never seen a Chinook up close.... That big empty gap in the ramp would have been a dead giveaway...

Nice NEW pix of the Trump HOOK!!!! Thanks!!!!

The rear view pic is very funny...... The top half of the ramp being glued in place and the ramp down. I laughed when I saw that!!!!! The guy who builted that one doesn't know the Chinook to well for sure!!! I am a little confused about something.
Why do they keep calling it an A model and keep showing what is deffinitly a Delta model kit???? At the Great Models site, they have it up for preorder for $112.00 and in ther discription of it they mention markings for a HOOK from Desert Storm (Delta model) and one from Nam era (A model) . So it looks to me that all the parts should be there in one box!!!! Can't wait to open up mine an see for my self!!!

Very intresting!!!!

Mark

Okay, Mark. Bear with me on this.
I could be wrong but, I do not believe that there will be parts to build one of two versions in one box. It wouldn't matter if they were, you would still have to buy two kits to build both versions anyway.
I, personally, think the days of 3-1 kits are a thing of the past. Oh, sure, there are a few armor kits offering 3-1 formats. But, take a look at Academy as an example. They could have included different sponsons in the CH-46 kit to build other versions. But, they didn't. They marketed it as two different kits. They also could have included something as simple as two extra decal sheets to build different special and different unit markings. But, they didn't. They, again marketed it as two different kits.
As for the description of decals for an 'A' or a 'D'? It could very well be a misprint. Maybe not. Maybe they didn't do their homework and honestly feel that you can build an 'A' version from Vietnam or Desert Storm, which we know can't be done because our resident hook experts on the boards have told us that there were no 'A' models in Desert Storm..
Now, as I said, this is just my opinion. I think that the day of the AMT 3-1 car kits are gone. Even then, you had to buy more than one kit to build the 3 versions.

All I can say is....



ARGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale.

53's are $h*tters... but not only because of the exhaust smoke. They also leave stains whereever they park. We don't mean CH-47, who needs those things? The 53E is the King of Heavy Lift. Sorry Hook fans, but it's the truth.

QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale. 53's are $h*tters... but not only because of the exhaust smoke. They also leave stains whereever they park. We don't mean CH-47, who needs those things? The 53E is the King of Heavy Lift. Sorry Hook fans, but it's the truth.

Yeah, but what good is it, if you can't get it off the ground?

Unless things have changed with the Es, I remember earlier CH-53s being notorious for going T.U. prior to launch. I was in the CH-46 det of HMH-461 Dec76-May77 and when I was in Okinawa (77-78) with HMM-164 it was the rule rather than the exception to have to pick up Island SAR whenever HMH-462 or the Air Force '53 Det couldn't deal with it because of NMC aircraft.

The CH-47 units I was in on the other hand enjoyed high Operational Readiness Rates, usually 78-85%,

Now if you really want to talk heavy lift, lets talk about Mi-26s!

I ubject that remark!!!!

The HOOKER has a very bright future in the skies man!!!!
Can't say that for the Jar head 53's because the AV-22 Osprey will soon send them packing and the CH-47 CHINOOK will continue on!!! Why?? Because HOOKER's RULE!!!!!!!!!! How that for truth??!!

SAs much as I enjoy the news of a new C/HH-53 Stallion coming out (whether its a rehash of the old Revell kit, or a new tool), I need some information on a USMC unit that supported a largely 'top secret' marine special operations unit in Vietnam from 1962 (thereabouts) to around 1965, that were supported by Boeing V-107 (pre-military CH-46 "fphrogs"), that had a three tone camoflage, black markings, and supposedly tailcoded 'AHT'. I'm in the process of building a CH-46 for a friend who was involved in 'Nam at that time with a Marine Force Recon/Eagle Force unit, and this a/c was thier only means of support/transportation in/out of an L/Z.
If anyone should have ANY INFORMATION on this a/c, PLEASE contact me off-board. Thanks!

QUOTE: Originally posted by plasticutter SAs much as I enjoy the news of a new C/HH-53 Stallion coming out (whether its a rehash of the old Revell kit, or a new tool), I need some information on a USMC unit that supported a largely 'top secret' marine special operations unit in Vietnam from 1962 (thereabouts) to around 1965, that were supported by Boeing V-107 (pre-military CH-46 "fphrogs"), that had a three tone camoflage, black markings, and supposedly tailcoded 'AHT'. I'm in the process of building a CH-46 for a friend who was involved in 'Nam at that time with a Marine Force Recon/Eagle Force unit, and this a/c was thier only means of support/transportation in/out of an L/Z. If anyone should have ANY INFORMATION on this a/c, PLEASE contact me off-board. Thanks!

Plasticutter. You might try these two sites.
http://www.scarface-usmc.org/
http://www.popasmoke.com/
Someone on one of these sites might be able to help.

COOL!!!!

I knew that my local Hobby shop owner and asst manager were going to that Show in L.A. that we all saw the new CH53 and Hook pics from.....

Well some DIGI pics were taken and when they get back early next week they will e-mail the photos and then I will post them here!

They were told that it would be a FIRST QUARTER release! Should be no later than MARCH!!!

AND!!!

Revell of germany is releasing ( to go with their 1/72 scale WWII VII German Sub )....a 1/72 U.S. Navy Gato class sub! That will be one heck of a BIG kit!

Thanks Papa!!!!

Can't wait to see those pics!!!!!!!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jonathan Primm QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale. 53's are $h*tters... but not only because of the exhaust smoke. They also leave stains whereever they park. We don't mean CH-47, who needs those things? The 53E is the King of Heavy Lift. Sorry Hook fans, but it's the truth. Yeah, but what good is it, if you can't get it off the ground? Unless things have changed with the Es, I remember earlier CH-53s being notorious for going T.U. prior to launch. I was in the CH-46 det of HMH-461 Dec76-May77 and when I was in Okinawa (77-78) with HMM-164 it was the rule rather than the exception to have to pick up Island SAR whenever HMH-462 or the Air Force '53 Det couldn't deal with it because of NMC aircraft. The CH-47 units I was in on the other hand enjoyed high Operational Readiness Rates, usually 78-85%, Now if you really want to talk heavy lift, lets talk about Mi-26s!

I guess things have changed, because our op readiness rates haven't been that low since just after OIF 1 when 3/4 of our squadron was on leave. Funny you mention Mi-26's. A Halo landed here the 3 days ago. It was a big white whale that made all kinds of noise until it finally set wheels on deck. The pilot cut power and the thing taxied in wispering. I must admit it was a sight. The Osprey can't take mission from the 53 or hook. It can't lift as much, and it can't go into airplane mode with an external load. As for 46's: the only way to get them into the air with a full load is with a running start. They're too heavy nowadays for their worn out engines. Those engines have 30 to 40 years of rebuilds, and can't produce the power they once did.

Hook vs 53E
www.fas.org

Max gross 47D 50,000 lbs
53E 73,500 lbs

cruising speed
hook 143 kn
53E 150 kn (max allowable) (to heck with Natops)

range
Hook 230 nmi
53E 480 nmi

it's all in the numbers, sorry hook fans

QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by Jonathan Primm QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale. 53's are $h*tters... but not only because of the exhaust smoke. They also leave stains whereever they park. We don't mean CH-47, who needs those things? The 53E is the King of Heavy Lift. Sorry Hook fans, but it's the truth. Yeah, but what good is it, if you can't get it off the ground? Unless things have changed with the Es, I remember earlier CH-53s being notorious for going T.U. prior to launch. I was in the CH-46 det of HMH-461 Dec76-May77 and when I was in Okinawa (77-78) with HMM-164 it was the rule rather than the exception to have to pick up Island SAR whenever HMH-462 or the Air Force '53 Det couldn't deal with it because of NMC aircraft. The CH-47 units I was in on the other hand enjoyed high Operational Readiness Rates, usually 78-85%, Now if you really want to talk heavy lift, lets talk about Mi-26s! I guess things have changed, because our op readiness rates haven't been that low since just after OIF 1 when 3/4 of our squadron was on leave. Funny you mention Mi-26's. A Halo landed here the 3 days ago. It was a big white whale that made all kinds of noise until it finally set wheels on deck. The pilot cut power and the thing taxied in wispering. I must admit it was a sight. The Osprey can't take mission from the 53 or hook. It can't lift as much, and it can't go into airplane mode with an external load. As for 46's: the only way to get them into the air with a full load is with a running start. They're too heavy nowadays for their worn out engines. Those engines have 30 to 40 years of rebuilds, and can't produce the power they once did. Hook vs 53E www.fas.org Max gross 47D 50,000 lbs 53E 73,500 lbs cruising speed hook 143 kn 53E 150 kn (max allowable) (to heck with Natops) range Hook 230 nmi 53E 480 nmi it's all in the numbers, sorry hook fans

Sorry for what? If the CH-453 is so damned hot, why isn't it bein used in the same numbers that CH-47s are? Who else besides NAVAIR is usin CH-53Es?

This could go on and on! Different missions, different requirements.

The longest flights I was ever invovled in, was while I was in 2/160th (MH-47Ds) when we deployed from Fort Campbell to Guayna. We left Ft Lauderdale and flew non stop with one in flight refueling to St Croix, then the next day from St Croix to Georgetown, Guyana. (Apr-May 93). Earlier that year we had a couple of aircraft fly non-stop San Juan to Fort Campell (refuelled inflight twice).

In the states the longest flight I crewed was from Fort Sill OK to Camp Shelby MS, then to Jackson MS and back to Fort Sill OK, again with 2/160th Jan 1990. ETD was about 21:00, RTB was ~ 08:00 the next morning.

Cruise was 140 Knots, but we routinely flew at around 150 with a VNE at around 160 depending on the aircraft and how the blades were tracked and balanced. The max gross on '47s is in excess of 50K, (yeah I know what the stats say) I know of at least one instance where a '47 hauled an external load of nine full fuel blivets out of an LZ in Honduras, so if you figure 500 gallons of JP-4 at 6.5 lbs/gallon your talkin 29,250, plus the wieight of each blivet, which puts the weight of the external load well over 30K.

When I was crewin '46s the D models were only ten or twelve years old. We still used GE-T-58-10s, we could haul twenty five troops with all their trash with no problems. I guess the SRM, mods, floatation gear, ECM gear and all the rest of the crap loaded onto the Echo, plus havin had the transmissions and engines reworked so many times has finally reduced some damn fine aircraft into flying relics.

When I was detached from HMM-162 to HMH-461 as part of the '46 det, I used to tell people not to tell my parents I was in a CH-53 Sqaudron, they thought I was a piano player in a whorehouse!

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jonathan Primm QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by Jonathan Primm QUOTE: Originally posted by ridleusmc QUOTE: Originally posted by HeavyArty QUOTE: Originally posted by SSgtD6152 cool, all I need in 1/48 for my all MARINE AIR collection is a $hitter, By a $hitter, if you mean a CH-47 Chinook, USMC doesn't/didn't use them. CH-47 is an Army only helo. If you mean a CH-46 Sea Knight, Academy has one in 1/48 scale. 53's are $h*tters... but not only because of the exhaust smoke. They also leave stains whereever they park. We don't mean CH-47, who needs those things? The 53E is the King of Heavy Lift. Sorry Hook fans, but it's the truth. Yeah, but what good is it, if you can't get it off the ground? Unless things have changed with the Es, I remember earlier CH-53s being notorious for going T.U. prior to launch. I was in the CH-46 det of HMH-461 Dec76-May77 and when I was in Okinawa (77-78) with HMM-164 it was the rule rather than the exception to have to pick up Island SAR whenever HMH-462 or the Air Force '53 Det couldn't deal with it because of NMC aircraft. The CH-47 units I was in on the other hand enjoyed high Operational Readiness Rates, usually 78-85%, Now if you really want to talk heavy lift, lets talk about Mi-26s! I guess things have changed, because our op readiness rates haven't been that low since just after OIF 1 when 3/4 of our squadron was on leave. Funny you mention Mi-26's. A Halo landed here the 3 days ago. It was a big white whale that made all kinds of noise until it finally set wheels on deck. The pilot cut power and the thing taxied in wispering. I must admit it was a sight. The Osprey can't take mission from the 53 or hook. It can't lift as much, and it can't go into airplane mode with an external load. As for 46's: the only way to get them into the air with a full load is with a running start. They're too heavy nowadays for their worn out engines. Those engines have 30 to 40 years of rebuilds, and can't produce the power they once did. Hook vs 53E www.fas.org Max gross 47D 50,000 lbs 53E 73,500 lbs cruising speed hook 143 kn 53E 150 kn (max allowable) (to heck with Natops) range Hook 230 nmi 53E 480 nmi it's all in the numbers, sorry hook fans Sorry for what? If the CH-453 is so damned hot, why isn't it bein used in the same numbers that CH-47s are? Who else besides NAVAIR is usin CH-53Es? This could go on and on! Different missions, different requirements. The longest flights I was ever invovled in, was while I was in 2/160th (MH-47Ds) when we deployed from Fort Campbell to Guayna. We left Ft Lauderdale and flew non stop with one in flight refueling to St Croix, then the next day from St Croix to Georgetown, Guyana. (Apr-May 93). Earlier that year we had a couple of aircraft fly non-stop San Juan to Fort Campell (refuelled inflight twice). In the states the longest flight I crewed was from Fort Sill OK to Camp Shelby MS, then to Jackson MS and back to Fort Sill OK, again with 2/160th Jan 1990. ETD was about 21:00, RTB was ~ 08:00 the next morning. Cruise was 140 Knots, but we routinely flew at around 150 with a VNE at around 160 depending on the aircraft and how the blades were tracked and balanced. The max gross on '47s is in excess of 50K, (yeah I know what the stats say) I know of at least one instance where a '47 hauled an external load of nine full fuel blivets out of an LZ in Honduras, so if you figure 500 gallons of JP-4 at 6.5 lbs/gallon your talkin 29,250, plus the wieight of each blivet, which puts the weight of the external load well over 30K. When I was crewin '46s the D models were only ten or twelve years old. We still used GE-T-58-10s, we could haul twenty five troops with all their trash with no problems. I guess the SRM, mods, floatation gear, ECM gear and all the rest of the crap loaded onto the Echo, plus havin had the transmissions and engines reworked so many times has finally reduced some damn fine aircraft into flying relics. When I was detached from HMM-162 to HMH-461 as part of the '46 det, I used to tell people not to tell my parents I was in a CH-53 Sqaudron, they thought I was a piano player in a whorehouse!

We do not need that many 53's, we only take 4 with us on a ship. Now I'm a Phrog guy, but 53's are bad @$$. The Corps is not the ARMY we do not need 500 birds on the line, to make the mission. We just give'um some TLC to make the mission.

Now as for a Phrog with 25 packs in it, a Delta at that, it's hard for me to see.
I have been flying and working on them for 10ys now. Back in 1995 we only took 12 now we take 10. I'm going to talk to Norm Clark when I see him next.He will know, He made the thing.

The SSGT has it right. It doesn't take as many 53E's to do the job. You may be able to exceed the stats in the website I just referenced, but I've never seen a hook external an LAV while AR'ing. Oh yeah, the stats on said website may not be as accurate for a 53 either. In a race, my $ is on the 53 any day. That goes for an endurance race. We carry more weight in fuel that most helicopters weigh. The numbers point to the 53E.

F#$K the Marine H-53's!!!!!!!! The Army HOOK is king of the U.S. Heavy lifter!!!!
They are always called upon when there is a desaster!!!!
Why!! HOOKs RULE and are why more reliable !!! That's why!!!

Case closed!!!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by marke F#$K the Marine H-53's!!!!!!!! The Army HOOK is king of the U.S. Heavy lifter!!!! They are always called upon when there is a desaster!!!! Why!! HOOKs RULE and are why more reliable !!! That's why!!! Case closed!!!!

Now how can the hook be king of US Heavy Lifters if it can't lift as much as the CH-53E? The 53's are right next to the hooks in disaster areas, so that arguement doesn't work. Hooks require less maintenance hours to flight hours (I can't argue with that), but they aren't as capable. 53E has greater lift, range, and speed. That's why The CH-53E is the King of US Heavy Lift.

I know I started this arguement. I hope everyone is taking it as a good natured debate.