by Tommy H. Thomason

Thursday, September 18, 2025

Sikorsky HH-3A Sea King for Combat Rescue

 This is a work in progress...

 With the advent of the Korea War in mid-1950, enemy-opposed rescue of pilots who had been shot down had become a mission for which the U.S.Navy was unprepared. The obvious solution was the use of the Sikorsky HO3S helicopter that had only recently become the standard plane guard for carrier takeoff and landings, supplementing the destroyers that had been utilized for that role. It had a rescue hoist and could carry three passengers, although from a practical rescue mission standpoint, the crew was limited to a pilot and a hoist operator and only one passenger, the rescuee. For a combat rescue, the pilot was armed with a revolver and the hoist operator, a carbine. There was minimal protection from small arms and none from heavier weapons. This is a screen grab from one of the most accurate aviation movies ever produced, The Bridges at Toko-Ri (also see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/11/most-accurate-aviation-movie-ever.html):

As upon occasion in real life, the movie did not end well for the downed pilot and the helicopter crew.

After the armistice in July 1953, the priority for maintaining a combat-rescue capability rapidly lowered to be indistinguishable from zero, with no chance of rescue in August 1964 for the first Navy carrier-based pilot to survive being shot down over North Vietnam. He was quickly captured and remained a prisoner of war for more than eight years.

The solution was again to assign the mission to the existing carrier plane-guard helicopters, the Kaman UH-2A/B Seasprite* and the Sikorsky SH-3A Sea King. The former was assigned to air groups on the attack carriers and the latter, ASW carriers that had ASW Sea Kings assigned for detection and destruction of enemy submarines. At first the addition of armor and armament to them was not significantly improved over that implemented for the HO3S but it was constantly upgraded as quickly as possible. In addition, both contractors began to design significant modifications to improve both passive and active protection from enemy fire.

Early in the war, only offshore rescue attempts were attempted but on 20 September 1965, the crew of an HC-1 UH-2  flying from the cruiser Galveston—to minimize the distance to be flown—and escorted by two VA-25 Skyraiders was able to rescue a pilot unable to get past the coast and over the water before ejecting. In August 1965, Hornet had deployed to WestPac with five of its 18 HS-2 SH-3As stripped of ASW systems, minimally armed and armored by later standards, and with subdued markings to provide more range and payload capability than the smaller H-2's.

Kaman received a contract for 12 HH-2Cs, which added a second engine for better hover and payload performance, armed not only with M-60 door guns but a remotely controlled turret under the nose that contained a 5.56 mm six-barrel "microgun", and with some armor protection.

However, only six were delivered, the turret was deleted early on for various reasons, and the second engine further reduced range and endurance. While it was used for combat rescues beginning in 1970, the Sikorsky H-3, nicknamed the Big Mother in view of the size difference, was more capable with a bigger cabin and eventually replaced it.


 Twelve HH-3As were delivered beginning in 1970 although not operationally employed until 1971. The prototype was a heavily armed and armored Sikorsky modification of an early (No. 14) SH-3A, BuNo 148036:

Uprated T-58-GE-8F engines were installed to somewhat compensate for the greater weight. A window was added in the aft fuselage for the aiming of the remotely controlled miniguns. It was located one frame forward of a similar window in the RH-3A minesweeper variant (see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2022/12/sikorsky-rh-3a-seaking-minesweeper.html):

Note that some SH-3As modified for combat rescue and painted/marked accordingly are misidentified as HH-3As since they lack that aft cabin window, not to mention the additional armor:


 The HH-3A engine and transmission armor:


 The remotely controlled turret was not used operationally because of weight among other shortcomings:


 It was replaced by a cabin-door mounted minigun and an M60 machine gun located in the forward entry door.

Note that the forward entry door has been modified to provide a larger opening. A second M60 was reportedly employed from a left-side window but I have not seen a depiction of that option.

The HH-3A was also intended to carry two 175-gallon external tanks for additional range.


 In addition to the prototype, BuNo 148036, 11 SH-3As were modified from Sikorsky-furnished kits by the NARF at NAS Quonset Point, RI: 149682, 149896, 149903, 149912, 149916, 149922, 149933, 151531, 151552, 151533, and 151556. All 12 were initially assigned to HC-7, tail code VH. It is a credit to the modifications, training, tactics, and mission planning that none were lost in combat rescue missions. Most of the 10 remaining were transferred to HC-9, a Reserve squadron dedicated to maintaining combat-rescue capability, when HC-7 was deactivated in June 1975**. 151531 had crashed in California while on a training exercise and 149896 was stricken in May 1973, an innocent bystander parked on a carrier, when an A-3 Skywarrior landed too far to starboard on 8 January 1973, hitting it with a wingtip.

HC-9, tail code NW, was capable of deploying around the globe within 15-days of notification. In 1986, a two-aircraft detachment was deployed in support of Operation Prairie Fire in the Gulf of Sidra, Libya.  Three Carrier Strike Groups in the Mediterranean Sea needed CSAR support due to possible overland operations while enforcing freedom of navigation.  The detachment was based on Coronado (AGF-11), the command ship of the U.S. Sixth Fleet.   

When HC-9 was disestablished on 31 July 1990, replaced by Helicopter Combat Support (HCS) squadrons assigned the much more capable Sikorsky HH-60S Sea Hawks, that was still not the end of HH-3A air frame utilization (helicopters are the aeronautical equivalent of George Washington's proverbial ax). One, 151556, is on display at the American Helicopter Museum in West Chester, PA. The other eight survivors** were eventually purchased for civil applications (one even became an S-61T). In most if not all cases, the extra rear windows were no longer present on the fuselage. This is the former 149916, in civil service for fire fighting and heavy-lift construction:

One remaining mystery is the purpose for the four "lunch boxes" (my nickname for them) scabbed onto the HH-3A fuselage—two on each side and one each fore and aft, with no apparent opening— following Vietnam, possibly following transfer to HC-9. They are faceted, with the side not being a rectangle: the side of the aft box is angled slightly forward; the forward box is a mirror image of it with the side angled slightly aft. My guess is that they are associated with a warning system, either radar or gunfire detection.


 *For a complete history of the H-2 Seasprite, buy this book: https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2025/06/hu2k-seasprite-book-wayne-mutza.html 

 ** At least one HH-3A, BuNo 149912, was transferred to HC-1 and subsequently stricken in October 1976.

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Navy F4H (F-4) Phantom 370-gallon External Tanks

4 September 2025: An update of Hypersonic Models 1/72 tanks

There were at least three different suppliers of the F-4 370-gallon external tanks that were slightly but clearly different externally. See http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/06/things-under-wings-f4h-f-4-phantom.html

Few F-4 kits provide the original McAir tank, which did not have a constant diameter at any point from either end to the middle and did have flanges on both sides at the midpoint of the tank. Jeffrey Kubiak of Hypersonic Models originally provided a 1/72 option for this several years ago when he lived in the UK:


These were 1/72 scale,  accurate in size, and include the handed pylons to which the tanks were attached. The resin in my example, provided by Hypersonic, was flawless. (These are also available in 1/48th. at the time)

However, Jeffrey has since moved to Japan and has been updating his product line. For his replacement of this aftermarket item, see https://www.hypersonicmodels.com/products/coming-soon/mcdonnell-370-gal-wing-tanks-f-4-phantom-1-72 

"A revamped, re-designed and 100% 3D printed set of McD 370gal wing tanks in 1:72, with pylon mounting pins designed to be a drop fit for the FM F-4 kits. Mainly aiming for the F-4B of course, but also applicable for F-4C, F-4D, F-4N and F-4J (the latter rarely though as the tanks had mostly been replaced by Fletchers by then).

I have no idea when shipping to the US may be available again. This is of course doing great harm to my business (the US has always been my main customer base, from day one, when I was still in the UK).

My products can be bought at Victory Models in the US, I hope they themselves can survive. There is a way to ship trade orders to them for not a lot more cost than using Japan Post, but it's not viable for insividual customer orders.

It's all, hmmm, less than ideal....

Jeffrey"

This is the current Hypersonics website: https://www.hypersonicmodels.com/all-products/all-products

Friday, August 15, 2025

A4D Skyhawk Early and Later Pylons

 The first production A4D Skyhawks carried two 150-gallon external tanks. These were soon superseded by 300-gallon tanks for additional range. At some point, the original 52" long pylons were replaced by longer ones.

Original:

    
 Longer:


The later wing pylons were increased in length by 10 inches, all added at the aft end. In other words, the leading edge of the pylon remained just aft of the slat and the lugs/sway braces were in the same location under the wing. Note that the 300-gallon tank could be loaded on the early pylon. It appears that the additional length may have been necessary for compatibility with the multiple ejector rack.

Bill Larkins Photo
 
For better illustration of the external tanks:
 

 

Sunday, June 22, 2025

Vought F4U Corsair Bomb Racks

 A brief history...

For a short tutorial on Korean War era outboard wing panel bomb racks, see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/12/things-under-wings-aero-pylons.html 

 The Vought XF4U-1, like the Bell XFL-1 and Grumman XF5F-1, had small bomb racks located within the wing structure. These were actually antiaircraft bombs, aimed by a downward-vision window between the pilot's legs. This capability was determined to be unworthy of incorporation in the production design. For a bit more more, see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/06/antiaircraft-bombs.html

Production F4U-1s were initially fitted with provisions for a small bomb rack on each outboard wing capable of carrying a 100-lb bomb.


 Or a practice bomb dispenser (see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2014/07/things-under-wings-training-wheels.html):


Since adding more significant bombing capability to the Corsair was desirable, Brewster (contracted to be a second source for F4U production early in WW II) designed an adapter to be mounted under the center fuselage for the standard Mk 51 bomb rack. To provide clearance for opening of the intercooler flap that was located there, like the center-line fuel tank it was attached to existing structure ahead of and behind the flap (a small cutout in the aft edge of the flap was required). This is the original design for production; a redesign that followed was similar but simpler.


 Note that the F3A was a Brewster-built Corsair and the FG-1, Goodyear's.

According to Dana Bell, who can be relied on for the accuracy of his statements, the Brewster adapter came first and crude imitations created in the field, followed. 

Note that the Mk 51 bomb rack used the two logs on the bomb and the field adapter, the single one.

Production bomb-carrying capability was added to the F4U-1D with a pylon under each inner wing.

In this case the fairing that was provided to cover the bomb shackle is not present on either side. Vought also provided a removable fairing to close out the bottom of enclosure when bombs or fuel tanks were not carried.


The inner wing bomb racks were carried over to the F4U-4. The -4's initial outboard wing pylons that were suitable for rockets only were subsequently modified to carry bombs. Scroll down here: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/f4u-4-modelers-notes.html. Note that the F4U-4B's were different to accommodate the change to four 20 mm cannons, which were located on the same waterline on in line with the wing leading edge:


The F4U-5, as well as the AU-1 (F4U-6) and F4U-7, was produced with a center-line pylon capability similar in design to Brewster's with a more streamlined fairing. There is still a gap between the pylon and the fuselage so the intercooler flap can be opened. Note that the armament on the -5 outboard wing panels was identical to the F4U-4B's.



 It doesn't seem to have been frequently carried and even when photographed, not well lit.

The front end of the pylon is secured to a fitting that is bolted to the engine mount and the aft end is secured to a fitting on the main spar located just aft of the main wing spar.


The AU-1 and the F4U-7 had an outboard wing panel with five multipurpose pylons that were mounted vertically, not perpendicular to the wing like the F4U-4/5.


Wednesday, May 7, 2025

AD-3 versus AD-4 Skyraider

 Sword has just released a very nice 1/72 AD-3/4 Skyraider kit. This is the illustrated Hyperscale review: 

https://www.hyperscale.com/2025/reviews/kits/sw72151reviewbg_1.htm 

Brett mentions the addition of armor as a result of combat experience (also see discussion and link below) but not that the kit fuselage does not have it. Sword was aware of the option and chose to produce the kit without the armor. For one thing, most if not all of the Skyraiders represented by the decals in the kit did not have the armor. It is a lot easier to add it than to remove it. The most obvious difference is a fixed step on the side of the fuselage (armor) versus a kick-in step. The presence of the 1/2" thick applique plating itself is subtle, not much more than a layer or two of paint in 1/72 scale. 

Of note is that the -4 was initially very similar to the -3 but there were a few external detail differences. In fact, the only external difference between the last AD-3 built and the first AD-4 appears to be the windscreen, both of which are in the kit :

However, over time, changes were made to the -4 in production, which were retrofitted to delivered AD-4s and some AD-3s. For example, the addition of "armor" (it was really only effective against shrapnel and glancing bullets). See https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/07/ad-armor-all.html 

This is a work in progress on the AD-4 configurations: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2022/04/douglas-ad-4-skyraider-variants.html

 I advised Sword that these configurations were representative of late AD-3 and AD-4 production :

 AD-3

- no armor
- two cannon
- early rudder (no bottom notch)
- no static source boom at the top of the fin
- no nose flaps

AD-4
- armor
- four cannon
- later rudder (bottom notch)
- static source boom at the top of the fin
- exhaust glare shield
- nose flaps
 
However, there would be significant variation from that with individual aircraft, e.g.  Antennas, wing tip lights, exhaust glare shield, etc.

The AD-3 and AD-4 had the same centerline (except for the -4B), and inboard stores pylons. There were three different outboard pylons: small (rocket only); bigger (rocket and small bomb); and biggest: it's likely that the AD-3 could utilize the "bigger" one; for sure the biggest one that was standard on the AD-5/6/7 could be used on the AD-4. See https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2013/12/things-under-wings-aero-pylons.html

 These are my notes on Jay Sherwood's Skyraider Modeling Guide: https:tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/10/ad-skyraider-modeling-notes.html

More later...

Monday, April 28, 2025

Target Towing and Drone Control Color Scheme: Engine Gray and Orange Yellow

 The same MIL specification dated 23 February 1955 that implemented the Gull Gray/White paint scheme changed the paint scheme of target towing and drone control aircraft. From Elliott, Volume 3:

The fuselage, cowling, and engine nacelles on multi-engine aircraft were Engine Gray except surfaces extending into the topside of wings. In this case, these surfaces were painted to match the wings. The horizontal stabilizer, elevators and vertical fin were Orange Yellow. The vertical fin fairing was painted to match the fuselage. The Orange Yellow terminated on a line formed by projecting the fin leading edge down to the fuselage. Wing walkways could be either Engine Gray or, in the case where the wing is utilized to enter the aircraft, they could be antiskid black material. The rudder was painted Insignia Red. Insignia Red bands three feet wide encircled the wing panels. On single-engine aircraft, the bands were located one-third the distance from fuselage to wing tip, with the center line parallel to the thrust line. On multi-engine aircraft, the bands were located midway between the national aircraft insignia and the engine nacelle with the center line of the bands parallel to the thrust line. However, in the event there was insufficient space to locate these bands as specified above they could be located adjacent to the outboard nacelles. The national aircraft insignias could overlap the wing bands, but the bands could not overlap the insignia. The national aircraft insignia could not be altered in size or location to accommodate these markings.

 

In August 1959, florescent Red-Orange replaced Insignia Red and the entire vertical fin was to be red.


 Florescent paints weren't very durable, so in May 1965, they were replaced with International Orange.


 

More later...



Monday, March 31, 2025

Ginter Books

 Steve Ginter no longer has his own website but he is still creating and publishing books. You can contact him directly for availability and pricing (nfbooks@sbcglobal.net ) or look for them here: https://daviddoylebooks.com/ginter-books-covers?rq=Ginter