S58T (tubine UH-34) in US military use?

Aaronw wrote:

I knew they did one in 1/72, I missed the one in 1/48 so I didn't mention it. Now we just need Italeri to scale up their 3 kits then the 1/48 guys can enjoy the funkyness of the S-58 family.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew they did one in 1/72, I missed the one in 1/48 so I didn't mention it. Now we just need Italeri to scale up their 3 kits then the 1/48 guys can enjoy the funkyness of the S-58 family.

Cobra Company makes an S58T Nose Conversion in 1/72 too.

helonewb wrote:

There's an 1/48 H-34G made by Revell and discontinued.  It seems to be a pretty good kit (#4467).  Revell also produced the Westland Wessex version (#4468).  You see them from time to time on EBay, but that will cost you about $40.00 to get them.  I have them both, but I am NOT willing to part with them.  Let me know if you want to find out more about these kits, and I can take pictures of the box/content/decals. Helonewb.

 

Italeri covers the whole series in 1/72 H-34, Wessex HAS3, Wessex HU5, and with the right combination of parts / kits almost any version except the S58T can be built. It's too bad they don't scale them up to 1/48 as has been done with some other kits.

There's an 1/48 H-34G made by Revell and discontinued.  It seems to be a pretty good kit (#4467).  Revell also produced the Westland Wessex version (#4468).  You see them from time to time on EBay, but that will cost you about $40.00 to get them.  I have them both, but I am NOT willing to part with them.  Let me know if you want to find out more about these kits, and I can take pictures of the box/content/decals.

Helonewb.

Yamafreak72 wrote:

Anybody know if they make a UH-34 kit in 1/48?  I've found only a bunch of 1/72 so far...

 

Revell-Germany did a kit in 1/48th, but reports indicate the mold was damaged beyond repair. You may still find them at E-vil Bay or other site for collectable kits

I bought my Corcorans in 1978, and they definitely came with leather soles.  As far as I was concerned, they were garrison use only.  Funny thing about the Navy - unless they were dirty, wet, cold, and generally uncomfortable, they didn't think they were doing their job.

Comanche Test wrote:

Those interior pics of the -46 and -47 don't give a real feel for the differences in size.  IIRC, the -47 will seat 44 troops, and in addition to the cabin being taller, it's substantially wider.  In the late 1970s I spent some time with a Navy squadron flying UH-46Ds, and did some flying on CH-47Cs from the US Army Aviation Logistics school.  The other difference I remember is that the Navy guys didn't spend as much time as the Army cleaning up the hydraulic fluid leaks endemic to both airframes.  The first time I stepped onboard a UH-46 I entered through the forward cabin door.  I was wearing leather-soled Corcoran jump boots, and I slid the complete length of the cabin to the ramp before I could grab hold of something and stop.  After that, I always wore vibram-soled jungle boots when flying with the Navy.  So if you're doing a CH/UH-46, make sure to use a gloss finish on the cabin floor :^)

I've crewed both types

4.5 years on CH-46D/F/ and Es with HMM-162, HMH-461, and HMM-164

17.5 years on CH-47As/Cs and CH/MH-47Ds with  132nd Avn Co   213th Avn Co.  B Co, 2/160th SOAR.  H Co 2/159th Avn.  A Co 2/501st Avn and B Co 2/159th Avn

I've often heard the claim that '46s and '47s were notorious for hydraulic leaks and that the interiors were completely covered in hydraulic fluid (this, invariably from those who never crewed them), yes there were some leak points on both types, but only a complete slob would let their aircraft get to the point where it was a slip hazard such as you describe.

CH-47Ds have seating for 33 troops, CH-46s had seating for 25 troops. Newer versions of the CH-47 have additional seating in the aisle... However the number of bodies that can be packed into either type is not restricted by the number of seats. When I was with the 160th we routinely hauled between 50 and 75 troops...usually SRO and no seats intsalled.

The interior of the cabin on CH-47s is about four-five feet longer than on CH-46s. What accounts for most of the increase in interior size is the fact that the interior cabin dimensions on CH-46s are something like 6' wide by 6' high, and on CH-47s the dimensions are 7.5' wide by 6.5' high.

Also, you must have had leather soles put on your Corcoran jump boots, because for as long as I can remember, all the pairs that I bought during my 17.5 years in the Army (1980-1997) had rubber soles, and the ones that my father wore while he was in the Army (1947-1972) never had leather soles on them.

 

The CH-47 Chinook is quite a bit larger than the CH-46 Sea Knight.  Here are a few examples:

And an article on their differences.

Those interior pics of the -46 and -47 don't give a real feel for the differences in size.  IIRC, the -47 will seat 44 troops, and in addition to the cabin being taller, it's substantially wider.  In the late 1970s I spent some time with a Navy squadron flying UH-46Ds, and did some flying on CH-47Cs from the US Army Aviation Logistics school.  The other difference I remember is that the Navy guys didn't spend as much time as the Army cleaning up the hydraulic fluid leaks endemic to both airframes.  The first time I stepped onboard a UH-46 I entered through the forward cabin door.  I was wearing leather-soled Corcoran jump boots, and I slid the complete length of the cabin to the ramp before I could grab hold of something and stop.  After that, I always wore vibram-soled jungle boots when flying with the Navy.  So if you're doing a CH/UH-46, make sure to use a gloss finish on the cabin floor :^)

J.H. Primm wrote:

Aaronw wrote:  ridleusmc wrote: It's worth noting that the Pilots, crews and maintainers didn't want to see the old Sea Horse (UH-34) retire.  Semper Fi, Chris  That was what I understood, the crews liked it a lot. Considering the gap between the UH-1 and CH-46 isn't really that big (nothing like the CH-47 to UH-1) there wouldn't really be much point in an in between "heavy" medium. Actually CH-46s were significantly more powerful than UH-34s, especially when the A model with it's GE-T-58-8s were replaced with CH-46Ds with uprated GE-T-58-10 engines (The F model followed shortly and was fitted with enough changes...mostly avionics, to warrant a seperate model designation). When I crewed Ds and Fs in the 1970s, it was not uncommon to haul the designed load of 25 troops with equipment or slingloads of up to 13,000 lbs (or a combination thereof), but from what I understand with the passage of time, the airframes were subject to more and more restrictions so that by the mid 1990s they were limited to about a dozen troops and that was even with the considerably more powerful GE-T-58-16 engines first introduced on CH-46Es ithat went to HMM-162 at New River in 1977 The overall length difference between CH-46s and CH-47s is not that great, but floor to ceiling room in the cabin area is somewhat more voluminous in Chinooks, but not as much as one would think. It also must be remembered that when the CH-47A was introduced it was only rated at 10,000 lbs externally on a single hook and endurance was only about an hour and a half.   CH-46D Interior   CH-47D Interior

 

I meant the S58T is kind of in between, not the UH-34.

The S58T is about a 50% increase in passenger and load capacity over the UH-1. 19 passengers/ 5000 lbs vs 12 passengers / 3500 lbs. The CH-46 has 2-3x the capacity of the UH-1, 25 passengers / 9000lbs quite a difference but probably not worth the training and maintenance to provide something in between. The CH-47 is 55 passengers / 18,000lbs or about 2x the CH-46. These are all off the specs, I realize in the real world these numbers might change (ok, we can take off add some more... ok, we can't take off throw something out. )

Aaronw wrote:

ridleusmc wrote: It's worth noting that the Pilots, crews and maintainers didn't want to see the old Sea Horse (UH-34) retire.  Semper Fi, Chris  That was what I understood, the crews liked it a lot. Considering the gap between the UH-1 and CH-46 isn't really that big (nothing like the CH-47 to UH-1) there wouldn't really be much point in an in between "heavy" medium.

Actually CH-46s were significantly more powerful than UH-34s, especially when the A model with it's GE-T-58-8s were replaced with CH-46Ds with uprated GE-T-58-10 engines (The F model followed shortly and was fitted with enough changes...mostly avionics, to warrant a seperate model designation).

When I crewed Ds and Fs in the 1970s, it was not uncommon to haul the designed load of 25 troops with equipment or slingloads of up to 13,000 lbs (or a combination thereof), but from what I understand with the passage of time, the airframes were subject to more and more restrictions so that by the mid 1990s they were limited to about a dozen troops and that was even with the considerably more powerful GE-T-58-16 engines first introduced on CH-46Es ithat went to HMM-162 at New River in 1977

The overall length difference between CH-46s and CH-47s is not that great, but floor to ceiling room in the cabin area is somewhat more voluminous in Chinooks, but not as much as one would think. It also must be remembered that when the CH-47A was introduced it was only rated at 10,000 lbs externally on a single hook and endurance was only about an hour and a half.

 

CH-46D Interior

 

CH-47D Interior

 

 

HeavyArty wrote:

None were updated and used by the USMC as far as I know.  The USMC made the decision to go with the larger CH-46 at that time, as opposed to upgrading the older UH-34s.  I guess given the option of a new model, or reworking older ones, they chose the new one.  Their budget wasn't as much of an issue for them at that time either.

I asked the same kinds of questions when I was going through the basic helicopter course at NAS Memphis, (Millington, TN) in 1976. I was told that the '46 was a direct replacement for UH-34s...The performance of UH-34s was fine...until they got to SE Asia and the hot humid conditions meant decreased performance.

 

Anybody know if they make a UH-34 kit in 1/48?  I've found only a bunch of 1/72 so far...

Helo 53 wrote:

I came across these two pic's on airliners.net John

 

That looks like its just sitting in some guys yard. I want one of those for my kid to play on, what an awesome jungle gym.

If FMJ was filmed in England I guess that would make sense that a Wessex would be easy to get, hard to believe they could film Vietnam in England but I guess most of the movie was set in Hue city so they didn't need any jungles. I think traditionally in the movies the Philipines stand in for Vietnam, although I know they shot a lot of We were soldiers at Ft Hunter Ligget in California.

Ah,

That's a horrible fate.  Maybe some flight museum will restore her.

Semper Fi,

Chris.

 

I came across these two pic's on airliners.net

John

My younger brother who is a bit of a movie guru/buff , tells me the film Full Metal Jacket was made in England . I suppose it was convenient to use Westland Wessex helicopters .

John .

Helo 53 wrote:

It's been a while since I saw the movie Full Metal Jacket . If my memory is correct the UH-34 helicopter's you see in the film with large white "MARINES" on the fusalge sides look to be actually Westland Wessex helo's . I'm sure they had the bulbous nose cone/screens on the front , it looked a bit odd . John

 

I remember reading somewhere that they had used a Wessex in the movie. Seems kind of odd since they were still a fair number of working S58's around in the logging and construction industry when that movie was made.

It's been a while since I saw the movie Full Metal Jacket . If my memory is correct the UH-34 helicopter's you see in the film with large white "MARINES" on the fusalge sides look to be actually Westland Wessex helo's . I'm sure they had the bulbous nose cone/screens on the front , it looked a bit odd .

John

ridleusmc wrote:

It's worth noting that the Pilots, crews and maintainers didn't want to see the old Sea Horse (UH-34) retire.  Semper Fi, Chris

 

That was what I understood, the crews liked it a lot. Considering the gap between the UH-1 and CH-46 isn't really that big (nothing like the CH-47 to UH-1) there wouldn't really be much point in an in between "heavy" medium.

 

 

Thanks guys, just a slow sunday and I've been working on a couple of H-19s and UH-34's. Doing the research on them this thought popped into my head.

I didn't even think about the CH-46, I guess that would make a turbine powered UH-34 kind of redundant. 

I had the chance to talk to a UH-34D pilot who saw the CH-46 introduced.  The attitude at the time was that The Marine Corps was getting a whole modern new design which would last them at least 30 years into the future.  It's 40 years later and the 46 is finally getting replaced.

It's worth noting that the Pilots, crews and maintainers didn't want to see the old Sea Horse (UH-34) retire. 

Semper Fi,

Chris 

None were updated and used by the USMC as far as I know.  The USMC made the decision to go with the larger CH-46 at that time, as opposed to upgrading the older UH-34s.  I guess given the option of a new model, or reworking older ones, they chose the new one.  Their budget wasn't as much of an issue for them at that time either.