This is the 1/48 Monogram kit built OOB.
Leon.
OK - I bite: If it is OOB how did you get the rotors to turn - photoshop?
BTW - Monogram screwed up on this kit big time. The Marine UH-1Es never used an ordnance system anything close to the set up they include.
How do you keep it from flying? JK Staff, I think you do some very nice work. 44Mac
like to see the details of how you got it to work(rotors and tail-rotors)
have to agree with supercobra about weapons load not being accurate, not to mention with all that weight it would never get off the ground
Ok, how did you do the turning rotors? Electric motor for the main rotor and a fan for the tail rotor? Looks neat! Besides the kit having “too” much armament, it also has the “B” tail fin and not the longer “C” with camber. It would have been a “ground” bound “super heavy hog”! Unless flown single pilot maybe!
I think he uses a seethrough plastic-like material and paints it…
still looks AMAZING though
Leon,
I think you’re doing it with fans… it makes it look really good though! [:)] Thanks for an interesting post!
then
and
Lets see… there is a 40mm grenade launcher on the nose, a seven shot FFAR pod and a dual M60 mount on each side, with ammo cans in the cabin. Marine vs Army armament aside; just how is this an excessive armament load?
Mel, I know ya’ll (Sharks) dressed out your C-models similarly… unless I’ve missed something here… [:o]
Curious…
Frank
And Shark-41 will have to concur with Oldhooker!
That is just a Hog! Read Seawolves or any of the earlier Vietnam books (by helicopter crews) and you’ll find that loadout.
I’m curious to wether the USMC used the “thumper nose” tho.
Cool to see 'em turning however!
Hope yuo get those stabs fixed![:D][:D]
The USMC didn’t use the Thumper nose - at least not on the UH-1E. Some E’s had a twin 60 TAT-101 turret. The wing stores were twin 60’s and a pod but it was a completely different system than any other and not what is depicted in the kit. The USMC did have a few UH-1Bs or Cs they borrowed from the Army but I don’t think they had ordnance. I could be wrong, Monogram could have depicted one of those few aircraft.
Sorry to detract against the “props” to the orginal poster. Great job on the kit. Still want to know how you did the rotors “OOB.”
Frank,
Check out the 17th AHC Web page at www.174ahc.org and on the front page there is a head on shot of a Shark with the 40 mm and it only carries a 7 shot rocket pod. The main reason field modified 40 mm ammo cans doubled the original capacity and hence increased the weight. The Shark in the back ground has a 19 shot pod on each side and no 40 mm. The ships with mini-guns would have the 7 shot pods also due to the weight of the mini-gun ammo. This would be the same for the earlier quad 60 mounts. After they put some -13 engines in some of our birds and made them Mike models I think they could handle a thumper and 19 shot pods but not for sure on it. There may be a picture one on the web somewhere. No bird ever carried a 40 mm and quad 60’s or mini-gun combination. Just too much weight for the -11 engine.
That’s intriguing, don’t think I’ve ever noticed that point of detail[:)], thanks!
As far as the Marine armament, I found some good pictures of one such arrangement:
Turning out to be an informative article, cool! [:)]
Take care,
Frank
Frank,
I was mistaken on the 19 shot pods with 40 mm. There is a shot of Shark 157 with 19 shot pods and thumper in 1969. I don’t know if it had the larger capacity 40 mm ammo bin then or not.
Propable had the smaller capacity bin for the 40mm, but I’d have to check my reference’s for when the bigger capacity bins’s came into use. Last unit I was in had a mix of -C and -M’s, both carried the 19shot rocket pods and thumper with high cap bins for it. This was in the mid-70’s and later until they were replaced by snake’s.
Thanks for those pictures Frank. I thought I culled all of the good UH-1E pictures from the web but I don’t recall those. Do you remember the site? I’ve been planing to do a conversion for a long time.
Here you go, supercobra… the site features the 3rd Battalion 7th Marine Regiment in Vietnam. There are two or three good albums inside, along with a lot of great information… worth a look! [:)]
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2689/
Also, here’s the link to the 3rd picture, which is contained in an online photo album,
http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/albums/userpics/sharlein/
Take care,
Frank
Very cool pics, but they are kinda blurry.
Regards, Rick
I am happily, surprised, that my little huey has been of such interest,
I will admit, my knowledge of helos, in general, is very limited.
I am mostly a fixed wing builder, and just wanted an example, of what I thought of, as a Vietnam era chopper. I have learned much, just by reading the responces.
Here are some better close-up pictures, that my help,OR pour more fuel on the fire!!
I see that it’s an UH-1C, from the markings on the tail. Can the tail number be researched, to find more info out about this Monogram “Mystery” bird?
They were all kit supplied decals, sorry, but I’m at the mercy of Monogram, for this one.
Leon.
Great site to find any buno/serial number:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/navyserials.html
That buno belonged to a UH-1E which externally looked like a UH-1B or UH-1C (UH-1Es were built both ways and some of the B style fins also got the C style rotor head) but it was in fact a completely different airframe made of magnesium vice alum with rotor brake, different avionics, different weapons, etc.
153740 … 153767
Bell UH-1E Iroquois
c/n 6107/6134. For USMC
OK - I’m going to guess fan for the spinning rotors now too.
Leon,
You did a good job with what you had. Unless you really do extensive research on a model kit, everyone is at the mercy of the kit maufacturers. You just happened to to model a topic a few of us have had “personal” relations with! You become “attached” to a mess of moving parts flying in formation after it has carried you through some “hostile” enviroments. I sometime wonder what happened to my bird after I left Vietnam.
Leon,
There’s no doubt about it, you done an excellent job on the kit, in fact, you used one of my old Art/Painting tricks, of determining how many alterations are needed simply by showing what you got! Asking 500 questions about the same details is not only time consuming, but sometimes unrewarding… but, when you show your interpretation, those familiar with your subject will name out every little thing that’s not exactly accurate… then you just sit back take notes as you go because the fine detailing information will flow in, and itsn’t that exactly what’s needed to start with? [:)]
Hmmm… Mel, what was the tail # and type of your bird? I have access to the VHPA database, and may be able to give you a rundown on it.
As an example:
My Uncle, “Max” Grose, recently attended their (147th Hillclimbers) reunion in Nashville, spending most of one day at Ft. Campbell, at the Chinook Unit on the airfield. The two “D” models they had pulled out to sit in front of the hangar were not picked at random… they were in fact former Hillclimber “A” models in Vietnam that had been upgraded (a fact discovered in the VHPA database), one of which, him and fellow Vet Sam Taylor almost bought the farm in one night in '68. *read their chilling story: *
http://www.147thhillclimbers.org/AnNhutTan.htm
After reading their account, you’ll understand why their emotions flowed freely as they were taken back on board their old aircraft by it’s current Flight Engineer. Here’s some pictures made that day.
The experience bonded them, and they’ve remained in contact throughout the years. [:)]
Take care,
Frank