As the kit (both Revell and Italeri) stands, the folded position of the main rotors is totally wrong so I’m slowly but surely hacking the kits to bits so that it will sit in the proper folded position. The main rotor head has to have the two front “tension links” cut and repositioned to get the proper configuration.
Hopefully I will post other pictures when I get round to tiding up the rotorhead and folding the tail
As for the other faults with these kits, well the list is BIG.
I also apologise if the pictures keep disappearing
I was searching the internet for images of the EH-101 Merlin , I also recently purchased the 1/72 Italeri kit . Anyway I came across a photo of the U.K.Navy HAS 1 Merlin , check out this site www.naval-technology.com On it’s main page , click on the sub title “Projects” then click on “Naval Aviation” , there are a series of different aircraft photo’s and technical information you can read . One of the images shows a Navy Merlin with it’s rotor’s in the stowed position , which is appears to be similar to the way Italeri designed their kit rotor’s to fold . Let me Know what you think - I would like to be as accurate as possible when I come to build mine .
Checked the link, definity folded, but if you look at the instructions for both the Revell and the Italeri kits it shows the blade outside the folded tail pylon, also when you dry fit the parts, there is no way that you could fit the blade in its “proper” folded position( inboard of the tail and sitting higher), that’s where surgery is required.
Here’s photo of the tiger strip Merlin with just the main blades folded.
Your correct about the folded rotor blade position in relation to the tail rotor ; I just realized this -stupid of me not to notice it before .I haven’t started my Italeri kit , I’m finishing off a CH-53D “VIP” Sea Stallion and a MH-53J Pave Low III . The Merlin will be my next project . Sorry my information didn’t help that much . As for posting photo’s -perhaps you could Email the Editorial Staff for assistance . Maybe they could post a Thread on how to do it . [I also would like to know how] .Good luck with your Merlin . Kind Regards John …
macmac, go to the post you did in the "Community Assistance (aka forum help) section. I replied a few minutes ago. I will look there if you need more help.
If anybody else is thinking of buying a model of the merlin, the best one (don’t know about the mk3 version) if you can call it the best is the revell as extra required parts are included, such as weapons carriers, sonar chute (flattish disc), HF aerial, rear view mirrors (that wouldn’t be out of place on a huge truck) better decals. In general the revell version has more to offer, but with still a hell of a lot of faults. If resin and photoetch parts were produced to do this model justice, then the company that made them would certainly make a killing.
If you want any pointers on these kits I’ll try and help (not the best builder in the world, but I thoroughly enjoyed the build and looking at my end results. Here is a Seaking MK6 I built quite a few years ago
I was just wondering what scale and kit brand was your Seaking MK6 . I always like model naval helicopters that come with rotor and tail folds. Also excellent work on the Merlin rotors.
Helo53 Thanks.
The Seaking is the 1/48 scale Hasegawa SH3 kit with 2 photoetch conversions (1 to convert too westland Seaking and another for Mk6, sorry I can’t remember the producer of the kits) plus various scratch built parts. This is the most expensive kit I’ve made to date, at approximately £90.00 and that was around 7 years ago, but as I said before I enjoyed making it.
Try following this link for the EH101 http://www.agustawestland.com/products.asp
I could try taking more photgraphs if they can help you in any way.
Uhhh… I’m going to take a wild guess here and say “Marine One?”
Just kidding. I pulled the following from the LM press release back in July:
“A popular name for the VH-71A is still under consideration.”
“Kestrel” is a rumored name I found online. I know, I know… that was the Harrier prototype’s name. A British VTOL design adopted by the American military in a controversial move. History repeats itself huh?
edit: Hmmm… HH-71 “Pave Kestrel” does have a nice ring to it though.
Not sure about “Pave Kestrel”, but it does sound better than “Marine One”. The version for the presidential transport looks like the Mk3 EH101 which doesn’t fold, so that option for the “pave Kestrel” is out, but you could have the cargo ramp down, That’s if there is going to be a ramp. I have seen some sketches of concept EH101s so here is one to get your teeth into
I have done a bit of tinkering on my model. altering the troop seats so that there is a single and a three man version, the electronics console required altering and and the internal avionics doors required reshaping , again when i get round to photographs I will post them.
EH101 is a piece of junk, the S-92 blew it out of the water in all testing, design, structural, performance, component life, and reduced operating expense. The S-92 had three aircraft in the air during the paris airshow, both EH101 where in the parking lot with transmission leaks. Plus i hear they are going to be 3 years late in delivering the presendents aircraft.
It was a sad day in Sikorsky History. I can’t believe we lost that contract.
Yes the EH101 has its fault, but ( in my view) it looks a hell of alot better than the S-92. The EH101 is a completely new design so there is going to be teething problems, granted big problems, but it will get there in the end.
Look at the model kit for the EH101 even that has major build problems, is there a link between the model and the full scale versions–you descide.
yes it is a sleak aircraft, i will give it that, but head to head, we won hands down. As far as politics are concerned, i would have to say it was, the contract specifications were almost directly written for the EH101 and thier current equipment, even though we have more advanced electronics as well as improved performance. from what i am told, the reason the EH101 was chosen is because it has 3 engines and the S-92 has 2, i guess from a survivability stand point 3 is better than 2, even though they can both safely land under the power of one.
Oh well, its frustrating. So whens that S-92 model coming out?
For the EH101, the aircraft went into military service at the end of 1998, the model was release in 2003. Will it take that long for the S-92, I doubt it. The model manufacturers have a larger choice of aircraft, vehicles and ships within the USA and as there is a much larger market within the USA then I would say about a year and you will start to see various versions of the S-92 appearing. How accurate they will be …
Many Apologies for not adding any posts, but I have been unable to do any work on my model for far to many months. I hope to finish detailing the rotor head and start adding internal details such as modified “mission console”, troop seats and adding the ADS sonar fit. Hopefully the photo links will stay intact ( I still don’t know why they keep failing and it peeves me off no end that they keep failing).
As to what the American presidental aircraft should be called --------Hope one---------------- Hope one day it will fly and keep flying.
As I have said before yes the EH101 does look better( sorry paintchips) but sikorsky aircraft WORK( I bow my head to paintchips)( Sorry paintchips but yes you are right, but teething problem do go with a new design, and no I am not defending british design). There is far to many faults with the EH101 that need sorting for it to be a valid aircraft capable of doing the tasks required of it( Again paintchips you are the man).
Here is a view of the underside of the EH101 ideal for positioning the aerials and the sonar parts in the kit
Anyway when I finish any work on the model I will post whatever I have done. If you all need or have any information please let me know.
All the best from the UK and keep modelling to the best of YOUR ability.
