Revell 1/72 MH-47E

Sal-
Well, with all things government, there is a process. I have been a technical reviewer on several Navy and Marine Corps competitons. The company proposals for any competition will be marked Competition Sensitive and will likely contain company proprietary information. This means they are handled as if they were classified. The review team will have to sign Non-Disclosure forms stating that they will not divulge any information contained in the proposals. They must also have on file a Financial Statement stating that they have no stocks or other financial interest in any of the competitors. They have to make the competition as fair as possible, or it will just get bogged down in post-award protests. On the Air Force side, there should be a Statement of Requirements document which details the requirements the Air Force asked for and the relative importance assigned to each. You may be able to get a copy of this, but once the competition has started, there's no way for anyone not on the review team to know the details of what each company proposed (other than company PR info) until contract award. I'm not too familiar with how the AF handles such competitions, do you know who in the AF would review the proposals? That's who will be making the decisions for all of you.

Phil

The cynic in me says "Why will those holding the purse strings listen to the actual experts and take their advice when they can just go with whatever shiny object catches their fancy, or their idea of what the mission requires?"  Isn't that how most procurement projects seem to go?

Hopefully, Sal, you and your guys will get a platform that is the best for what it needs to do, not which one has the best ad agency running it's psy-ops to sell it to the higher ups. 

Believe it our not, most of us in the USAF CSAR community aren't hearing much either.  In fact, I went ahead and e-mailed one of the HH-47 project managers at Boeing asking some simple operational questions concerning the Enviromentally controlled patient treatment area proposed configuration, hoist cable fairing and safety considerations, and several other things....basicvally what they were proposing for the baseline HH-47 Block 0.  I identified myself by rank, unit, position and occupation.  At first I got a response saying that he would gather the info and then get back with me.  The same day I got a response basically saying that Boeing couldn't divulge this info until the CSAR-X finalist had been chosen.  Don't get me wrong here as I along with many on my unit are actually hoping the HH-47 gets selected (in fact we'll be happy if the fighter mafia running the USAF sellects anything at all, instead of buying two more F-22s), but as someone who will be working in, around, and with the Pavehawk replacement.....shoudn't we in the USAF CSAR community at least get an idea as to what the hell it's going to have for employment as a CSAR/PR airframe?  And Pleeeaaassseeee don't tell me "Oh, the boys at the 422 TES will make that decision for the USAF."

Wile E,

So you can see (and not just from a modeler's perspective) how we would be very appreciative of any photos or drawings of what's being proposed.

Oh yeah, I just noticed that the PR poster that Boeing has been puting out depicting the HH-47 in a hover doing a hoist recovery with the starboard rear gun position blazing away, has recently been shown with a subtle change.  The first time I saw it the lower door with steps had been deployed.  In the most recent version there were no steps or lower door, rather there was a fairing over the base of the A/R boom. 

Very cool. We don't hear much about the CSAR-X competition so it's good to hear that these proposals are being thought out as purpose-driven instead of a "slap a hoist on it and it's ready for CSAR" mentality. For some reason, the fighter-mafia Air Force just doesn't send out many PRs about their helicopters. Do you work for Boeing?

They did borrow a G model for a flight demo. They also created a mock-up from a scrapped fuselage that was inducted into the F model line. It's purpose was just to demo the patient treatment area and other proposed furnishings. Other than the cabin interior, it pretty much a shell, no pylon, landing gear or equipment of any kind.

Sounds awesome! I didn't know that there was a mock-up, I thought Boeing had borrowed an MH-47 from the 160th last fall to show to the Air Force.

If they haven't moved it, I might be able to get some.

Awesome info Wile E, thanks for sharing this with us. Are there any images of the door treatment and patient treatment area?

Not to butt in but I work with the MH-47G and have seen the CSAR-X mock-up. The current G design has the lower cabin door removed for hoist missions and replaced by a plug that is used while in flight. Upon performing hoist ops, the plug is removed leaving the entire door area completely open. Also there is a step that extends over the refuel boom. The G also has another guard/cover that is rounded and smooth from the door bottom sill over the boom that is used for fast rope ops.

The HH-47G mockup, all be it crude, did extend the door opening by 48". It also added a large patient treatment area in the cabin just behind the door area. This doesn't even come close to filling the cabin. There is still plenty of room behind that. There are some other neat ideas being planned if the chinook wins

The G's are coming out now with a LH rear gun window that is the same as the right. Also the window opening opposite the cabin door is being enlarged upward for better visibility.

You're welcome intruder_bass!
As you say a resin copy of the miniguns will go on the Helix ... after I made some corrections!

Forgot to ask: Trigger did you shoot the pics of the "Pave-Hook"?
I'm asking because I'd be nice to get some of those in Hi-Res.

Avus,

Thanks a lot for the sprue pics!

I think I have to buy one for myself too)))))

BTW I asked about miniguns cuz I knew you wanna use one of them for your Helix project.

Andy

Avus wrote:

oldhooker wrote: Avus,    I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, there were "no eyes" on the cable, PJ, or survivor. Never said anithing like that! Guess something went wrong with "copy-paste".

Sorry Klaus... I meant "Sal".. :-)

Grant: Yes, on the Italeri kits and all those who use it's mold, the groove on the top/front of the Doghouse does need filling to appear accurate.     Examples of the minor fixes pictured below:

Take care, and sorry for the mis-quote.

Frank

salbando wrote:

....let that imagination run wild brutha for yours as well.

Encouraging my imagination huh? Be careful what you wish for - that reminds me - Cliff Clavin delivered the basis for my RESCORT concept yesterday. Heh heh heh....

Back to the Italeri/RoG kit for a moment - Looking at the composit pic Frank posted here and is it just me, of does it look like the front doghouse needs the forward part of that "canal" filled in?

Managed to get the pics online.

Follow the following link:

http://album.foto.alice.it/klaus_models/957614

oldhooker wrote:

Avus,    I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, there were "no eyes" on the cable, PJ, or survivor.

Never said anithing like that!
Guess something went wrong with "copy-paste".

Sorry 'bout that Frank.  Got the wrong mental picture there.  Thanks for the explanation and yeah...that makes a heck of a lot more sense.

 

Grant,

Actually, they're already planning on widening the door, but we haven't heard anything about the bumper bar, support or lower door configuration.  If not programed into the intial birds, I'm pretty dang sure that it would be a 422 TES (presumably) add on prior to IOC.  I got something in mind for my Pave Hook for the Group Build....let that imagination run wild brutha for yours as well.

salbando wrote:

Frank, WOW!!!!!!!!!  Never seen anything like that before.  Actually, our SOP has the FE manning the hoist and maintaining visual contact with the PJ (or whomever) on the hoist at all times.  In fact he's continually talking to the A/C letting him know the survivor/PJ position, hoist position, potential obsticals and such.  He'll even direct the A/C to "Come right 5ft", "Come Left 10 ft", "Hold your Hover", "Come up 10ft".  Especially during water hoists in realtively high seastates.  You don't want to shock load the hoist cable with anybody on the other end or you could loose everything.  If you're doing a hoist from a vessel, the FE is also looking to keep the cable and any occupants out of the rigging.  It's a constant chatter.  The co-pilot, gunner(s) and any PJ's left onboard are all also scanning for threats or obstacles.  I couldn't imagine not having any eyes on the cable, survivor or PJ during a hoist. Avus, Pics would be cool brutha!

Avus,

   I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, there were "no eyes" on the cable, PJ, or survivor.    

 I said, "...they would only open the CE door after the personnel had been winched all the way up and they were ready to pull him inside."     I guess I should have specified the bottom half  (steps) of the CE door.         During the simulated crew recovery I witnessed, the top of the CE door was retracted and the bottom closed, with the FE leaning out/looking down at the hoisting operation.     When the survivor was dangling just under the hoist, the steps were lowered, the survivor retrieved, then the door was pulled back closed.

Take care,

Frank

 

 

 

Let me post this (potentially very stupid) question:

Could the CE door be redesigned to open by sliding forward along the side of the fuselage, similar to how the door on the HH-3 and main H-60 doors open and forgo the steps in favor of some sort of foot holds?





Is that a possibility or just another one of my bat-s#!t crazy ideas?

Frank,

WOW!!!!!!!!!  Never seen anything like that before.  Actually, our SOP has the FE manning the hoist and maintaining visual contact with the PJ (or whomever) on the hoist at all times.  In fact he's continually talking to the A/C letting him know the survivor/PJ position, hoist position, potential obsticals and such.  He'll even direct the A/C to "Come right 5ft", "Come Left 10 ft", "Hold your Hover", "Come up 10ft".  Especially during water hoists in realtively high seastates.  You don't want to shock load the hoist cable with anybody on the other end or you could loose everything.  If you're doing a hoist from a vessel, the FE is also looking to keep the cable and any occupants out of the rigging.  It's a constant chatter.  The co-pilot, gunner(s) and any PJ's left onboard are all also scanning for threats or obstacles.  I couldn't imagine not having any eyes on the cable, survivor or PJ during a hoist.

Avus,

Pics would be cool brutha!

Trigger wrote:

Sal, I saw a Boeing illustration of the proposed HH-47G showing a downed pilot being hoisted up and thought about just that when I saw the open steps. Do you think that lower door would be removed and some sort of netting would be set in place in the doorway?

The times I saw someone being hoisted by this set up, they would only open the CE door after the personnel had been winched all the way up and they were ready to pull him inside.

Take care,

Frank

I'll try to get some shots tonight.

The miniguns don't look bad considering the scale (1/72), but there is room for improvements.

Awesome photos!!! Thanks Trigger!

Avus, would you be so kind to post couple of pics of your Italeri MH-47E? How is their minigun BTW? 

 

 

Andy

Trigger wrote:

MH-47G Walkaround

Great pics!
Thanks for sharing.

Yeah...saw the same illustration.  In fact it (along with another graphic ) have been posted on half the desks around the squadron.  Also saw the walkaround...good stuff.  Here's what's been thrown around at the squadron:

Basically everything were seeing right now are initial proposals and actual 160th MH-47G Mods/configurations.  While the HH-47G will no doubt have many if not all of these systems, some things will be added or changed.  One is going to have to be the lower starboard front door hatch/steps.  At the very least a sort of round tube bumper assemble to prevent the hoist cable from contacting the steps.  We're thinking that there will be 5 actual gun positions.  Mission will dictate which 5 are actually manned, and it will give us a mix of GAU-2B (M-134 for you Army types) and 50 Cals.  Two forward (left and right), two rearward (left and right) and a ramp position.  The starboard forward gun will swivel out of the way just like the current MH-47G (and like the HH-3's used to do) for hoist Ops.  The port rear position will probably end up being enlarged just like the current starboard rear gun position/window.  If for no other reason than to increase scanner visibility.  The ramp position might depend on whether or not fast rope Ops/SPIE or ladder Ops are going to be conducted, although we've done them before off the ramp of Pave Lows with the ramp gun installed.  That's a big wide bird and the ***-end is a vulnerable place.  The chaff/flare buckets will probably be upgraded to the current ones we use on the Pavehawks (better buckets) and there'll probably be DIRCM.  We're also supposed to get some sort of environmentally controlled internal medical work station/cabin which will have all the necessary powers supplies for certain medical equipment.  The hoist position/mount itself may even be modified somewhat. 

Anyway, it'll be real interesting to see what she ends up looking like...that is of course if the fighter mafia caves in and gives us our Pavehawk replacement.

Hell, rumor has it the Pave Lows might even be sticking around longer than what we thought.  Nobody wants to put all there eggs into one V-22 basket...even the Marines (CH-53K?) 

salbando wrote:

You guys are the Heat!!!!!!!!  Thanks for the info.  I'm gonna go ahead and pull the trigger (sorry Grant) on one. Hmmmm...just thinking of the HH-47G.....Looks like were talking about at least 3 and maybe four gunner positions.  I suspect a front left and right gun position, with the right gun being able to swivel out of the way for hoist ops, a right rear gun position, and I would think we'd put a .50 on the ramp for rear aspect threats.  Our current gunners are gonna love to hear that!!  But I will say (as a guy riding the hoist) that the current hoist position and steps worry me a little.  That thing is a ways out there and as we learned in the Pavehawk by losing a PJ in Korea, ya need to keep that cable away from any squared/sharp edged metal like that step/hatch.  That's why we put that round bar you see on the right underside of the Pavehawk.

Sal, I saw a Boeing illustration of the proposed HH-47G showing a downed pilot being hoisted up and thought about just that when I saw the open steps. Do you think that lower door would be removed and some sort of netting would be set in place in the doorway?

MH-47G Walkaround

You guys are the Heat!!!!!!!!  Thanks for the info.  I'm gonna go ahead and pull the trigger (sorry Grant) on one.

Hmmmm...just thinking of the HH-47G.....Looks like were talking about at least 3 and maybe four gunner positions.  I suspect a front left and right gun position, with the right gun being able to swivel out of the way for hoist ops, a right rear gun position, and I would think we'd put a .50 on the ramp for rear aspect threats.  Our current gunners are gonna love to hear that!!  But I will say (as a guy riding the hoist) that the current hoist position and steps worry me a little.  That thing is a ways out there and as we learned in the Pavehawk by losing a PJ in Korea, ya need to keep that cable away from any squared/sharp edged metal like that step/hatch.  That's why we put that round bar you see on the right underside of the Pavehawk. 

Hi Sal,

I took the liberty of combining the picture of Albert's Italeri MH-47E from my website, and the MH-47G that was at Redstone Arsenal a couple weeks ago.       As you can see, there are a few minor structural displacements from the manufacturer that should be an *easy* fix.   

Hope this helps a little for a comparison.

Take care,

Frank

Sal

I've got the Italeri kit too and from what Alby's told me, it and the RoG kit are the same. The big difference is the decal sheet. He said the RoG sheet puts the Italeri one to shame, that it contains a lot more stencils.

As for accuracy, Alby has a write up on the kit here on ARC and I've got some pix from a guy in Australia I sent some SOAR decals to of his completed MH-47E that I'll send ya so you can see a completed kit for yourself.

I recently bought Italeri's SOAR-Hook and seem to recall that those two kits (Revell and Italeri) are one the re-box of the other.
I can take some shots of the sprues so that you can see how the parts look like.