Talk:Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion

In popular Culture
In movies 'The Jackal' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jackal_(1997_film), believe a couple others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.202.37 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No it was a CH-53E Super Stallion used in that film - FOX 52 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Largest?
Wouldn't the CH-47 be the largest rotary winged craft in the Western World, perhaps in single rotor classes it may be the largest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.1.3 (talk • contribs)


 * I think the Stallion, in particular the triple-engine Super Stallion, is classified as the WEST'S most powerful helicopter. Tomcat200 29 May 2006

Isn't the skycrane a larger helicopter on most counts than the Jolly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.73.71 (talk • contribs)

The latest models of the CH-47 can indeed lift more than the Skycrane, but the CH-53E is still dimensionally larger than both the CH-54 and CH-47. Bm5481 04:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Helocast photo
The "Helocast" photo is captioned as being a CH-53E, while (as has been acknowledged), the Echo model has a separate page on wiki. Just thought I should bring that to everyone's attention. Bm5481 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at CH-53E Super Stallion, and note the tail configuration of the CH-53E in the main pic. Compare that to the tail in the helocast pic. The CH-53E has the unique bent stabilizer; all other CH-53s (A-D, G, H, M) have the straight stabilizer. Also, tho it is hard to see, the 53E has a third engine one the left side of the top fairing. The image is mislabled, it's not an 53E. - BillCJ 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also meant to acknowledge everything about the empennage as Bill just did, but I forgot to. That was why I pointed out the discrepancy in the first place. haha Bm5481 05:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mexico
Mexico was listed as a user of the CH-53, but with no explanation or source. Possible sneaky vandalism. My sources have no record of Mexico using them, so I've removed it. - BillCJ 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill....

Check this out....



I know it to be true.... don't know number, however.

T Tipcapman1 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rotor system edits
Just to explain my edits...

The BIM indicator is located at the root of the blade, not at the tip as noted in the previous edition. It was located there for a number of reasons, including easy access during maintenance and shelter from damage during flight.

The S64E/CH-54A "SkyCrane" has a S-56 5 bladed main rotorhead with an additional blade grafted on for a total of 6. The S64F/CH-54B has a CH-53 nonfold type rotorhead, with a high twist version of the CH-53 blade for better hover performance.

The S64 and Ch-53 share virtually identical tail rotor heads and blades, all with S65 series part numbers.

So in summary, to say the CH-53 has rotor systems proven on the S64 is to put events out of sequence.

All CH-53 main rotor blades had BIM from the beginning of production.

I'll work on verification.Tipcapman1 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Blade Inspection Method (BIM) system was supposed to have started on CH-53Ds. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Verification would be good, especially since the S-64 was developed before the S-65 by most accounts. Granted, development on both systems probably occurred concurrently, but the S-64 is generaly recognized as the earlier system. Anyway, that's why the uncted changes were reverted. - BillCJ (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See picture of BIM indicator at root of blade here... File:Marine_CH-53D_Sea_Stallion.jpg ...it is the circular feature (cylindrical when viewed in 3D) on the blade in the upper right hand side of the photo, just inboard of the orange stripe. Also see the BIM indicator here... [http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50324 Tipcapman1 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the complete story of the S64 and S65 rotor systems.... quick summary...

The S64 was a development of the S60 aircraft. The S60 used the S56 main and tail rotor systems unchanged.

The S64A used the S56 main rotor system, including blades and rotor head, with the exception that they grafted on one additional main rotor blade for a total of 6.

Development flight testing revealed that the tail rotor system needed more thrust, but increases in both the tail rotor diameter and rotational speed were insufficient. In addition, there were concerns about the service life. This evaluation concluded in late 1963. By this time, the CH-53A was in development, so the decision was taken to use the CH-53A tail rotor system on the CH-54A and S64E.

Later development of the aircraft to the CH-54B and S64F to increase payload to 12.5 tons up from 10 tons of the previous model prompted adoption of a H-53 non fold main rotor and H-53 main rotor blade modified to the "high twist" version to provide better hover performance. Tipcapman1 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Civil Operators?
I think the Article should contain some Info about civil operators.

Are there any civil operators? If yes, who? If not, why not? Was the Stallion ever offered to civilian operators? ––130.149.52.33 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Two were used by an outfit called Heavy Lift in California for fire fighting as the "Fire Stallion", not sure how it worked out as they are big and complicated helicopters and not designed for small civvy companies to maintain easily. Can be added if we can find some reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Heavy Lift was bought out by Roger Helicopters, Inc. and their fleet appears absent of any 53's. Looks like the "Fire Stallion" was short lived. FOX 52 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The information about the Fire Stallions could be moved to the Operators section. It is currently in the United States part of the Operational history section and therefore, not obvious or easy to find for people who just discover this article. Moving it to the Operators section would be logical. What do others think about doing that? Dreddmoto (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109071259/http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ch53.htm to http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ch53.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Development origins
Is a WP:RS for the development of the CH-53? My 1962 Observer book of aircraft says that that CH-53 was a direct development of the Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While Air Vectors isn't really a reliable source as such, it is fairly accurate, and uses reliable sources. The information given isn't contradictory, however. The fuselage is obviously a scaled up version of the S-61/SH-3 (S-61R/CH-3C to be specific), while the dynamic systems (rotors, transmission, etc.) are from the S-64, which is Sikorsky's model number for the CH-54, specifically the civil Skycrane. - BilCat (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So Air Vectors isn't RS. What is the RS for the fuselage development? Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find one in my several print sources. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)