Warbird Information Exchange

Ok - hopefully someone out there has some insight into this question. Watching the wildfire season start And specifically watching the helo operations, are there any former H-53 on the civiie market? It seems to me that the 53 could pack a heck of a lot more water or retardant than a huey can. Any ideas or thoughts?

Tom P.

Yes, it would be handy. Lots of load and good performance (I was aboard one during a airshow flyby and the pilot did a fighter pull-up).
But I'd guess the operating costs are obscene....probably a couple of time more than a Sea King...and how many of those are out there?

I know the USMC still flies newer models, but I wonder if the ex-USAF ships and their spares are available?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

No civie CH-53's or MH-53's that I am aware off. Some of the earlier similar S-61/H-3s have been used. Yes a CH-53 COULD handle quite a load of water, but I think certification and cost would be prohibitive.

I do not believe the 53 series was/has been certificated for civilian use. Many other helicopters have been designed for both military and civil certification, and the companies love it if they can get civilian certification on the back of a "military" design. For a 53 to get certified in the "restricted" category by the FAA under 14 CFR Part 24 they would have to be declared surplus by the US military and then go through the certification process. I do not think any have been declared surplus and many mothballed airframes have been resurected for military use. Perhaps with the USMC retireng more of the early twin engined 53's some may be surplus down the road.

Cost is a second factor. The CH-53 is hugely expensive to fly and maintain, with large maintence per flight hours, complex hydraulics, and sucks fuel.

Third there are other medium and heavy helicopters that are larger than the huey that you mention and that are certified and cheaper to operate than a CH-53. This includes H-3/S-66/SeaKing, CH-64 Skycrane (old or new build), CH-47 Chinook civil, CH-46/Vetrol civilian, Mil"s, etc. I would buy one of these before trying to certify a CH-53. Google Erickson skycrane if you want to see a heavy firefighting helo.

Thanks! I had thought of the Chinook, but with two rotor hubs and sets of main blades I had thought the operational costs and maintanance would be really high.

One thing with the H-53 that interested me was that it seems you could load a smokejumper crew and insert them into a location with a lot of equipment quickly.

sitting here with my pondering cap on. . .

Tom P.

Most of the Boeing 234 civvie S--thooks are in tanker usage now I've seen at least two in COLUMBIA colors, they were a bit too much aircraft for day to day oil rig service use and I don't think any were used as city to airport shuttles like the really old 107's back in the 60's~~~ did I just say old and early 60's ??????:shock: my age seems to be sticking out

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I caught this one as it was filling up at the reservoir in Yucca Valley:

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Actually a SKYCRANE is a CH-53..... Skycrane has less sheetmetal on it and obviously much lighter....... Both are monster sized helicopters...

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

Yes, but the Sea King or a Super Stallion is sooo much sexier!

Tom P.

CH-54 is just the military version of the S-64. Both very similar. Although Eriksson builds new S-64's, many were rebuild ex-military CH-53's.

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

As I recall the S...hook that Columbia flys will pick up 3000 gal of water and the BV 107 would do 1000 gal. They had about 30 helos between those when I worked for them, but I just flew the Kingair for them.

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

Just to make it clear, I do not believe any CH-53's were rebuilt into S-64 Skycranes. Ex-military CH-54 Tarhes/Skycranes have been rebuilt as S-64 Skycranes. Yes there have been new built S-64's as well. A CH-54 Tarhe/S-64 Skycrane is not a 53. Yes they did share some many componants, especially with the drive train and rotors. Yes is does get confusing with all the names and numbers.

If there are any former USAF -53s and spares still in existence, they have almost certainly been devoted to keeping the USN and USMC birds in the air until the new H-53K is ready to hit the fleet.

While there aren't any civil CH-53's currently firefighting, when California was burning to the ground in 2008, the state was using everything possible at their disposal. At McClellan Airport alone there were eight MAFFS C-130's being used, Tanker 10, and the Marines brought in three CH-53E's and three CH-46's that were dispatched to different fires, along with four Conair Convairs from Canada that were on standby. At numerous other tanker bases there were all kinds of other tankers and helos being used.

Here's just a sample picture from one of the days I visited

_________________
Roger Cain
www.sfahistory.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stearman/


We must limit politicians to two terms:
one in office and one in jail.

No, I think you did a typo. Many Erickson aircraft are ex-Army CH-54s.

Think there is some confusion about Sikorshys....to recap:
S-64 is the CH-54.
S-65 is the CH-53.

I seem to recall seeing one ex-military H-53 on the civil register on this forum. I don't know if it ever flew.

According to the FAA, the S-65 has an ATC, so approving them for a restricted category license shouldn't be impossible.

The FAA also has 4 on its roster...or at least has issued N numbers for them.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... 3&PageNo=1

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Agree I think he had a typo, but the mystery deepens when looking at the FAA roster you posted, 2 CH-53E are listed on the FAA roster, but when clicking on them they show up as belonging to Siller Helicopters in Yuba City. The roster shows them as CH-53E's but as "reciprocating" powered and bulit in 1965 (way before the E came out). Further examination on the Siller sites shows only S-64's and 61's on their fleet list. My guess is these are listed on the FAA site as CH-53E's are actually rebuilt CH-54 Tarhes (which would make them civil S-64 Skycranes), or the S-61's. http://www.sillerhelicopters.com/sikors ... t.php#s61n

So in conclusion: everyone, including us web lurkers and the FAA , can get easily get confused over the S-64, S-65, SeaKing, H-3, Jolly Green, Sea Stallion, Sea Dragon, CH-54, H-53, CH-53 A/C/D/E/M/X, Augusta, VH-3, Westland, Mitsubishi, Tarhe, SkyCrane, Erickson, S-60, S-61, Carson, MH-53 (miss any?) nomenclature of these related helos, and thats not even going into the British Mk series birds!....