Buildup pics of the CH-53E

Great Looking build.  It's really nice.  I see some exhaust streaks, and some exposed blade leading edges.  The thing must have a few flight hours on it since its last trip to the wash rack.  Great looking build.  It's just like the Ironhorse 08 I'd pass on the way to only working soda machine in the hanger.  Those 461 guys got annoyed that we'd help empty "thier" soda machine. 

Semper Fi,

Chris

Lemon-

It was a good build-  attaching fuse halves was tough-  probably my fault but floor and roof need to be perfectly aligned-  mine was not!

Other than that-  easy build-  rotor blades did not even require glue-  fit so tightly into their sockets...

good luck...

Len

Since it's so clean, how about straight from the factory. Regardless nice build, worth getting kit.

Bell-Textron is still owned by them, they worked with Boeing on the Osprey

That is one fine looking helo.  Nicely done.  How long did it take you and did you notice any problems with fit or the directions?  I'm planning on getting one of these soon, hopefully I can do as nice a job as you did.  Thanks for the peek.

hello all-  here is my just finished-  CH-53E....they are built right down the road from me here in Stratford, CT-  first helo build in a looooong while:

(NOTE:  these pics seem to be getting cut off-  click my phoitobucket album to see the pics if these look screwy:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v34/lenroberto/

-Len Roberto

IPMS Igor Sikorsky, Stratford, CT

Hello Gents,

I used to fly the MH-53E and have a couple of the 1/48 scale CH-53E kits, does anyone know if they are going to do any type of conversion for the Academy kit? 

AH1Wsnake wrote:

Think of it as your showroom-model 53 .

Man, that's a showroom I'd love to wander around in for a while, though the sticker prices would be outrageous!  Do they come with a leather interior option? 

And would Bell-Textron (Or is it all owned by Boeing now?) have a similar showroom across the street?

With all this talk of overweathering vs. underweathering, I'll just reiterate the fact that the link states that this bird was the subject of FSM's upcoming build review of the kit. Understandably, the author probably wanted this thing done in a timely manner, thus the straightforward paintjob and lack of extreme weathering. For a magazine review, I think it is perfectly acceptable for it to have a 'neat' appearance. Think of it as your showroom-model 53 .

ridleusmc wrote:

SNOOPY, I see your point and you're right.  People should build their models to look anyway they want.  My personal belief is that the chopper crud which is always present on a 53E (except rolling out the paint hanger) is part of the beauty.  How can something that dirty fly so well?  That's my opinion.   Semper Fi, Chris

Chris,

It sure does not look like the one you guys brought to Sikorsky, what last year.  For an open house, that was looking pretty grubby but it give you a real feel for in the feild looks.  I remember everyone wanting us to wash ever piece of equipment for deployment.  Not easy washing dozen to the point of no dirt.  It just does not look the same clean, I agree.  Me, my models are not at the real look stage yet so all my models look as if they just rolled off the assembly line.

Semper Fi and take care!

Scott

Snoopy, I see your point, and its a good one.  I'm not knocking the build, it looks great, and I'd never say it was wrong not to weather it more, it just doesn't look like a USMC -53 to me unless there's the exhaust staining and general "dirty"-ness.

The patchwork of paint would be a unique look, too, Redlion.  I'd like to see that.

When we're in flight test frequently the helos won't get a full paint job until they're ready to go to the customer. I've often thought one of those 'patchwork' color schemes would look kind of interesting on the shelf.

While it is strange to see a clean, green -53 it will be awesome to have the Ks out on the flightline up here in a couple years!

Take care,

Dan

ridleusmc wrote:

SNOOPY, I see your point and you're right.  People should build their models to look anyway they want.  My personal belief is that the chopper crud which is always present on a 53E (except rolling out the paint hanger) is part of the beauty.  How can something that dirty fly so well?  That's my opinion.   Semper Fi, Chris

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.  I am so used to seeing the dirt, grease, oil, etc. on aircraft that they look naked without it.  When we got our a/c painted, they looked strange, not quite like helicopters any more.  The funny thing is that I like to build airplanes clean.  I guess the real test of whether you did everything right is when you ask yourself if you had fun doing it.

I still have to say that Big Iron looks strange when it is clean!

Mac

SNOOPY,

I see your point and you're right.  People should build their models to look anyway they want.  My personal belief is that the chopper crud which is always present on a 53E (except rolling out the paint hanger) is part of the beauty.  How can something that dirty fly so well?  That's my opinion.  

Semper Fi,

Chris 

Okay this Seabee has an opinion about the too clean looking CH-53 here.  If it is going to sit on a shelf or in a display case and not in a diorama, why would you add weathering to it.  You want people that do not know the subject on display to appreciate the beauty of the machine.  Now if it is a diaorama or a display base showing it in the jungle/desert then by all means weather the beast. 

Great looking model!  I must now build one!

LemonJello wrote:

I thought the same thing, not near enough soot and grime for a -53E, but the green really threw me off.  I'm so used to seeing  those monsters in grey.  It looked like a good build, though.  Can't wait to get one!

I agree with both of you, that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw it as well. The only '53s I ever saw that approached being that clean were maybe HH-53s at Kadena AB and some of the Pave Pigs out of Hurlburt, but then those were Air Force birds.

Looks to be an impressive kit though.