I had the opportunity to go up the ramp of a CH-53 once... it's hard to fathom how big these helicopters really are. The ramp alone is bigger than some helicopters. Respect to the pilots and the crews that maintain them.
I work at Sikorsky. Fun fact. The tail rotor gearbox in the Kilo is about the same size (shorter, but similar diameter) as the main rotor gearbox of a Blackhawk variant. That's how big the K is.
I worked on the C models at McClellan in the late 70's. Do I remember correctly that the tail boom is basically held on with only 4 bolts. I remember we took one off to do an inspection of the mount. Memory fades...
@@obsoleteprofessor2034 Out Phantoms didn't leave trails of sooty smoke, LOL. I suspect some one did something to remove those tell tale "here I am come and shoot me" black sky trails. Still miss those thuderous beauties.
In WWII the US military used a P-61 as a distraction, taking advantage of its relatively large size to essentially put on an air show while friendly ground troops did their thing. In other words it COULD be useful for confusion to spin
@@Palmtop_User having a slow moving helicopter spin across the battlefield isn't a good idea, at least with a plane is shows up loud as hell and gone the next. The helicopter would probably get hit with an anti-tank rocket or even shot at by a cannon, unless it was against purely small arms but fixing battle damage is annoying and expensive
Worked on the CH53K program for years, and it is an amazing machine. 100 feet long, carbon fiber that is stronger than steel by weight and volume. Absolutely fantastic.
That difficulty might be why designing a fly by wire system was so hard. Or it could be that planes are more profitable so there was just more resources to do them first.
@@480darkshadow It could also just be that redundancy is a lot harder with mechanical transmission of forces and planes are more commonly used to transport large numbers of civilians.
@@480darkshadow Not really because the fly by wire system was developed simply to make what would be an almost unstable jet fighter fly perfectly. It's why the flying wing style plane that was developed during WW2 was never used because it simply wasn't stable and required constant VERY minor adjustments by the human pilot, but with fly by wire we have the B-2 stealth bomber which seemingly handles as if all that instability doesn't exist because a computer is constantly making those adjustments instead.
@@SilvaDreams The Ho229 v1 was a wooden glider, the v2 flew and crashed, and the v3 was being built and developed but the western front advanced too quickly and the v3 and another glider were captured by the allies. It has nothing to do with the intricacies of the flying wing design because the concept of a flying wing has been around since the 1910s with operational flights of flying wings as early as the 20s.
@@SadisNic And they all still have the same flaw, their flight characteristics are unstable. Fly by wire uses a computer to constantly fix and adjust things at a rate a human pilot can't (and likely would miss till too late) to keep the vehicle stable and that is my point. The same thing goes for how it functions for this new model which allows it to fly so smoothly.
I’m a marine truck driver and I’ve flown in a ch53 only one time. We were doing a training exercise and I was notionally “killed when my truck got hit by mortars” so they called in a casevac to evac me and the others that were in the truck. I remember lying in a stretcher and hearing the chopper land and they grabbed me and the others and rushed us out to the chopper. It was a CH-53. I remember them carrying me in there and setting me down and just being amazed by how big this chopper was. When it flew off I was just chilling in this stretcher and enjoying the ride lol. Of course it was just a training event and me and everyone else wasn’t actually hurt but it was a cool experience nonetheless.
I had a chance to go on a training flight with the 1st SOW in an MH-53 Pave Low II when I was in AFROTC back in the 90's. They were in Asheville, NC for training in mountains. There most terrain at Hurlburt might be a sand dune on the beach. Standing on the rear ramp in total darkness with NVGs while on a terrain-following flight was the most thrilling thing I've ever done. There was a safety line and I was with the rear gunner. Listening on the intercom to the pilots and crew as they hovered in a valley for a simulated pilot rescue was really inspiring. The aircrew acts as spotters and give corrections to the pilot. Over beers after flight the pilot told me hovering a helicopter with precision is like holding a basketball and balancing another basketball on it.
I red an article in the Israeli Airforce magazine about 25 years ago. A reported joined a night time training flight of Yas'ur (CH-53). The reporter wrote how the were flying inside deep canyons in the Judean desert, bellow the cliffs, zig zaging. The flight crew were wearing night vision goggles that had a restricted field of vision of about 30 degrees. He reported they were throwing the huge chopper left and right in pitch darkness.
@@redrider7xbilly548 from the local area as well. joined the marines in 2018 got out. only reason got stationed at Lejeune as a Amphibious assault vehicle operator was due to having highest grades of my MOS class. so i got first choice in duty station. First thing that surprised me is the number of flights at the base vs Asheville area. then the 2nd thing that i realized living off base. was these guys don't fly nearly as low as they do out there. when visiting family in Asheville i remember seeing CH-53s and Chinooks and Black hawks. flying 20 feet above tree top level. right over a one of my family members houses, and here at Lejeune its nowhere that low even on base near training areas. lowest i ever seen one here is maybe 300 or 400 feet.
At first I scoffed at the basketball analogy... but I suppose it's not too far off. Always wanted to try my hand at the really big birds like this, I'm sure it's world's away from the lights and mediums I've known. Although I will say the larger the bird, the easier it seems to be to hover with precision.... maybe when they get that big, it's a different ballgame.
@Stewpacalypse If you flew on an MH-53 Pavelow in 91, it was either a Pavelow III or IV. Hurlburt Field sits on the southern edge of the Eglin military reservation, surrounded by forest and swamps. I was stationed there in the early 80s, attached to the 20th A.M.U., 1st S.O.W. Ours was the only unit that wasn't activated for operations in Greneda in 83. Glad you enjoyed your morale flight.
My sister flew 53's for 6 years while in the Navy. I got a chance to do a flight out of Mayport to JAX, it was soooo impressive. As impressive as it is, these birds are so complex and have so many points of failure, the are frequently out of commission apparently. But if you're a helo pilot, you understand the flying brick concept. Go Navy!
Very cool way to start a sentence; MY Sister...." It reflects well on your family . She is who she is because of who raised her, siblings included. Very nice.
@@trevormiles5852 Well how qre you supposed to say it? Saying just "sister" sounds stupid and calling her "a person I know" ot something similar sounds even stupidier. Saying "my sister" definitely sounds the best.
The hours of maintenance required for every hour of flight in most military aircraft is outrageous. The design and production process favors job creation.
Yeah, I just noticed that cause you pointed that out. It really goes to show how much the blades stay the same while the body of the heli moves around under it.
The pilot pumped the cyclic (similar to a stick in a fixed wing aircraft) forward, aft, and then forward again while "chasing" the refueling basket. The second forward motion caused the rotor tip path to dip while the aircraft attitude was in an up position. The result was the rotor blades made contact with the refueling probe. The probe lost that battle, and all 7 main rotor blades were damaged.
2:46 I never knew it could actually do that. When I first saw Transformers' Blackout, who had a vehicle mode similar to this, I thought the rotors folding was just a part of its transformation. its cool to actually see that the rotors do fold in like that. Its also an amazing show of a transformer incorporating a vehicle's feature into its design.
Only the Navy/Marine variants fold their rotors and tail pylon. The extra functions require extra components which, of course, mean extra mass (weight).
No kidding! I was stationed in Ft. Belvoir, VA working as a Black Hawk crewchief. We always loved when the Super Stallions did low flybys over our airfield and pulled max power at the end of the runway. The rate of speed at which they climbed made us giggle like little kids. It looked so fake, like weightless blankets being blown by the wind. Our birds were very powerful, but that spectacle made us feel like we had gnats for aircraft. 😄
@@ANSWERTHECALLOFJESUSCHRIST yep. USS Okinawa and USS Tripoli. I was an ABH3. Almost got blown off the flight deck a couple times by their down drafts. Lol. Had to grab a padeye to stop from getting wet.
At the beginning I thought “oh that maneuver is easy with computer flight controls”, and it turned out to be FBW. It’s really interesting, as feedback loop command interpreters are common enough to be used in home made drones. Tom Stanton has some videos on making FBW/stability augmentation addons for his flying creations, particularly ones that require better control responses than a human can manage.
This can lift nearly 50% more weight than the Chinook. Very impressive. As far as I can find the only in service helicopter capable of lifting more is the MI-26.
Hardly, we lifted a 30k pump manifold and put it on a flatbed truck @ Kuwait international Airport back in '91 with a D model CH-47 by just taking on less fuel with only two burning and six turning. Doing more with less, the definition of efficiency, Fly Army!
I served in the IAF for 5 years as a CH-53 Sea Stallion mechanic and as much as the Sea Stallion is an even older platform, it still flies up there like a beast, but very soon will be out of commission in Israel because there are no spare parts left, and the air frames are getting weaker every day (lots of cracks and whatnot). But the King Stallion though, that's a different beast, maybe the mother of all beasts in the western heavy-lift helicopters if not in the entire world.
My father served 30 years in the US Navy, and the majority of it within the helicopter mine countermeasures community. We have photos of a 3 year old me in BUFE, which stood for Big Ugly F@#%ing Echo, and was the transition airframe for them to the MH-53E. Great bird. If it's not leaking, you know you have a problem.
While I was in service, I got to talk to one of the engineers working with VMX-1. We talked about (and he showed me firsthand video of) the MH-60 rescue just days after it happened stating "this was the first real world mission performed by this series of aircraft". One of the cooler moments of my military career. :)
my school used to have a military appreciation day every year, they brought a bunch of trucks and flew in some helicoptors and even an osprey. i got to go in all of them a couple times. one of the coolest experiences during my time in school Edit: i went to Somerset County Votech in New Jersey, and pictures and videos of the king do not do it justice. its so massive in person its amazing it can fly
So I was in the Us Navy Squadron HM-12 from 1987-1990, the squadron consisited of RH-53D's, CH-53E's, and also the MH-53E Sea Dragons named after our squadron Hm-12 Sea Dragon's. I was a electronics tech (AT) on all 3 of them and our squadron was the test squadron for Sikorsky on the MH-53E which was the very first varient of this "King" helo. The Mh-53E could lift it's own weight (33,230lbs) with either duel point or single lift eyes. it was quite a thing to watch and I did log about 100hrs as part of the flight crew for testing of avaionics dueing operations. Biggest help we have and being on it proved that!
@@kylehenline3245 same bruh I only think it's just have almost the same size of Russia's mi 17 or maybe a little bit larger but I was wrong it's massive no wonder it's price is expensive haha
Great video! I miss working on the 53E sometimes, glad I was able to work on them while I did. When I got out they were preparing to start rolling out the 53K for testing but I never had a chance to work on one. 53s are amazing aircraft.
I love your videos, every time you upload I'm instantly happy, and you never disappoint to deliver information in a very serious but entertaining way, I'm sure you love what you do and it shows bruh
I just realized that the king stallion may have been the inspiration for the Razorcrest. I mean look at where the side doors are and how the ramp in the back looks. Even the exhaust ports/intakes on the top are in the same spot as the engines of the Razorcrest. Just a theory.
I want this as a water-bomber aircraft for combatting bushfires in Australia. 30,000-lb of water in one go would be a game-changer for a future potential Black Summer scenario.
@@KristiContemplates If the container is completely full it will act like a solid object, so it would be a matter of managing the filling and emptying process. That would be something to see.
I worked at a training squadron in NC when the Kings were initially being distributed for training, we had 2 on base for a while, and then we got 4 more. I believe we received a 7th after i left, and i guess were supposed to get and 8th or 9th as well. They were super cool to see in person. The unit that had them shared my hanger, so I got to check them out all the time on the flightline and in the hangar. We were so used to seeing the 53E's that when the new birds arrived it was like Big Brother came to town. They are HUGE.. like, Ive seen studio apartments that are smaller. Shes a loud fucker too. I used to think the ospreys were loud until i heard one of these things spool up.
Actually, in the video, the two Echoes were daisy chaining the refueling process on the left side of a C-130K, one aircraft at a time and not simultaneously. The C-130K could refuel 2 Echoes simultaneously but refueling from the right side of a C-130 is very tricky. Riskier than the left side. Also, the 4 HUMVEE's (2 per aircraft) in an external that AquaAtrae is referring to is from a published picture, not this video. Still, AquaAtrae is correct, the picture is wild.
When our aircraft carrier (USN) was anchored in Abu Qir Bay, Egypt a Sikorsky S-61 landed on our flight deck. Although it's a smaller model in comparison it was still huge compared to the SH-3's we had.
Given that fly by wire is digital, and replaces an analog system of pulleys and cables, I think a better analogy would be a standard record player which is analog, but has electrical components versus a CD player.
TBH it's still not a great analogy as neither of them are actually control systems with feedback loops or computer control / intelligence, they're just converting one signal to another.
Is that true that fly by wire systems are more durable than legacy systems? Like in my car, the electronic systems seem to go out faster than the mechanical ones. I realize fly by wire's other advantages, but not entirely convinced about durability
military electronics tend to be heavily overbuilt compared to consumer electronics. its one of the only areas where a calling a product "military grade" is actually a compliment rather than a clever marketing way to disguise "built by the lowest bidder."
From what I understand, most military electronics follow NASA's protocol of durability and redundancy, so instead of just one processor for instance, they'll have a backup, and both are also made to be more durable
Your videos are so perfectly timed I love it haha! I was sat here going "WAIT, it fits in a c-17?????" to which I get "That said, the King Stallion doesn't fit inside the C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft, at least not in one piece." Had me laughing over here.
I've never experienced a loadout in a C-17, so no comment there. To get an Echo model in a C-5, the tail had to be folded, and the tail rotor blades and gearbox, plus the main rotor blades and gearbox all had to be removed. Finally, tires for an old F-4 Phantom replaced the normal aircraft tires. This provided a couple inches of height clearance so that the Echo could fit in a C-5.
My heart goes to the entire community for Amazons AMZ2023X building up something even my grandpa can understand. This is so smart by them to launch it to shatter the doubts and fears of the common folk which is not even correct to begin with. Everyone knows the state of inflation and recession now and the way out is already in progress. Now it's just about catching the big fish
I'll be a dinosaur in 2030 when I tell people I crewed the echo....The King is a beauty. Semper Fi and Bravo Zulu to all the folks who got it done. It's needed. 🇺🇸
I loved being stationed at New River Air Station in N. Carolina back in the early 70's being around the CH-53's. They were my favorite to see and be around besides the Huey's. GO AIRWING!! MAG-26!
There's an MIT lecture given by a test pilot about the F-22 flight control system, and he says that the military makes the ridiculous decision to take the people who score the worst on pilot exams and put them in helicopters, which are much harder to fly than planes. Now that I know fly-by-wire helos exist, I'm kind of surprised they aren't the norm.
There are some inaccuracies in this video. For example, it states that the Kilo model has lifted 35,000 lbs., incorrectly stating that it is 3 times what the Echo model could lift. Plus, it incorrectly states that the lifting of an LAV-25 would have been an accomplishment for the Echo. In reality, the Echo could lift 32,000 lbs., which is only 3,000 lbs. less than the article's stated lift of the Kilo, and it could easily lift an LAV-25. I know this for a fact for while flying an Echo I lifted a 28,000 lb. LAV in 1985 in the high, hot desert of 29 Palms, CA. I've also lifted even heavier bulldozers. The difference between the models is probably in the fuel load. The Echo would need a reduced fuel load for a heavy lift, but the Kilo can probably carry a larger fuel load with a heavy lift. So, the difference is not so much how much weight the models can lift, but rather how much fuel can be carried simultaneously.
So, what are your thoughts on the 53 Kilo?
I dont know but defenitly not what you think
First saw this series of helicopters in the opening of transformers (2007) and it Was awesome
Its one of my favourite helicopters, only the Chinooks beats it
@@theshinywaffle only the mi24 beats it for me
good
I had the opportunity to go up the ramp of a CH-53 once... it's hard to fathom how big these helicopters really are. The ramp alone is bigger than some helicopters. Respect to the pilots and the crews that maintain them.
Concur. you really have to see them up close in real life to appreciate the size. Bigger than a twin rotor Chinook
Yes they're something else.
We have the same last name Alex. Relatives in NJ?
I could transport two of the ones I worked, inside the Chinook.
@@emilyhofland8219 Chinooks are good. Closest I got was riding in a CH-46.
And they you stand next to a MI 26, his size is just mind blowing
I work at Sikorsky. Fun fact. The tail rotor gearbox in the Kilo is about the same size (shorter, but similar diameter) as the main rotor gearbox of a Blackhawk variant. That's how big the K is.
I worked on the C models at McClellan in the late 70's. Do I remember correctly that the tail boom is basically held on with only 4 bolts. I remember we took one off to do an inspection of the mount. Memory fades...
CT or FL?
Please convay to the engineers, thay are doing a great service to the Armed forces.
Ex IAF structural technician F-4 F-16 MD-500.
@@trespire D for diesel?
@@obsoleteprofessor2034 Out Phantoms didn't leave trails of sooty smoke, LOL. I suspect some one did something to remove those tell tale "here I am come and shoot me" black sky trails.
Still miss those thuderous beauties.
Could you imagine seeing a giant helicopter just spin around like that in battle. The enemy would be so confused.
In WWII the US military used a P-61 as a distraction, taking advantage of its relatively large size to essentially put on an air show while friendly ground troops did their thing. In other words it COULD be useful for confusion to spin
paired with a warthog gun on both sides LOL
@@Palmtop_User having a slow moving helicopter spin across the battlefield isn't a good idea, at least with a plane is shows up loud as hell and gone the next. The helicopter would probably get hit with an anti-tank rocket or even shot at by a cannon, unless it was against purely small arms but fixing battle damage is annoying and expensive
@@watch.v-dQw4w9WgXcQ i said could in a joking matter
@@watch.v-dQw4w9WgXcQ People have this thing called Humor you should try it some time.
These helicopters look like regular size then you see a person standing next to one and you realise how large they are.
I only realized when i saw it lift the LAV 💀
@@defuncthusky6649 I'm pretty sure the russians have an even large heavy lift helicopter, crazy how large they are.
@@bradleywoods1999 yeah they do
They're a foot longer than a c130 lol
Pretty sure that one whole person sitting on the rotor hub from the thumbnail says it all
Worked on the CH53K program for years, and it is an amazing machine. 100 feet long, carbon fiber that is stronger than steel by weight and volume. Absolutely fantastic.
Holy cow it's even bigger than I realized
Considering how hard flying a Helicopters are vs planes is its surprising that a fly by wire system hasn't come sooner.
That difficulty might be why designing a fly by wire system was so hard. Or it could be that planes are more profitable so there was just more resources to do them first.
@@480darkshadow It could also just be that redundancy is a lot harder with mechanical transmission of forces and planes are more commonly used to transport large numbers of civilians.
@@480darkshadow Not really because the fly by wire system was developed simply to make what would be an almost unstable jet fighter fly perfectly.
It's why the flying wing style plane that was developed during WW2 was never used because it simply wasn't stable and required constant VERY minor adjustments by the human pilot, but with fly by wire we have the B-2 stealth bomber which seemingly handles as if all that instability doesn't exist because a computer is constantly making those adjustments instead.
@@SilvaDreams The Ho229 v1 was a wooden glider, the v2 flew and crashed, and the v3 was being built and developed but the western front advanced too quickly and the v3 and another glider were captured by the allies. It has nothing to do with the intricacies of the flying wing design because the concept of a flying wing has been around since the 1910s with operational flights of flying wings as early as the 20s.
@@SadisNic And they all still have the same flaw, their flight characteristics are unstable. Fly by wire uses a computer to constantly fix and adjust things at a rate a human pilot can't (and likely would miss till too late) to keep the vehicle stable and that is my point.
The same thing goes for how it functions for this new model which allows it to fly so smoothly.
I’m a marine truck driver and I’ve flown in a ch53 only one time. We were doing a training exercise and I was notionally “killed when my truck got hit by mortars” so they called in a casevac to evac me and the others that were in the truck. I remember lying in a stretcher and hearing the chopper land and they grabbed me and the others and rushed us out to the chopper. It was a CH-53. I remember them carrying me in there and setting me down and just being amazed by how big this chopper was. When it flew off I was just chilling in this stretcher and enjoying the ride lol. Of course it was just a training event and me and everyone else wasn’t actually hurt but it was a cool experience nonetheless.
I had a chance to go on a training flight with the 1st SOW in an MH-53 Pave Low II when I was in AFROTC back in the 90's. They were in Asheville, NC for training in mountains. There most terrain at Hurlburt might be a sand dune on the beach.
Standing on the rear ramp in total darkness with NVGs while on a terrain-following flight was the most thrilling thing I've ever done. There was a safety line and I was with the rear gunner. Listening on the intercom to the pilots and crew as they hovered in a valley for a simulated pilot rescue was really inspiring. The aircrew acts as spotters and give corrections to the pilot.
Over beers after flight the pilot told me hovering a helicopter with precision is like holding a basketball and balancing another basketball on it.
I live north of Asheville and they will fly so. Low over my house I worry about the windows breaking lol
I red an article in the Israeli Airforce magazine about 25 years ago. A reported joined a night time training flight of Yas'ur (CH-53). The reporter wrote how the were flying inside deep canyons in the Judean desert, bellow the cliffs, zig zaging. The flight crew were wearing night vision goggles that had a restricted field of vision of about 30 degrees. He reported they were throwing the huge chopper left and right in pitch darkness.
@@redrider7xbilly548 from the local area as well. joined the marines in 2018 got out. only reason got stationed at Lejeune as a Amphibious assault vehicle operator was due to having highest grades of my MOS class. so i got first choice in duty station. First thing that surprised me is the number of flights at the base vs Asheville area. then the 2nd thing that i realized living off base. was these guys don't fly nearly as low as they do out there. when visiting family in Asheville i remember seeing CH-53s and Chinooks and Black hawks. flying 20 feet above tree top level. right over a one of my family members houses, and here at Lejeune its nowhere that low even on base near training areas. lowest i ever seen one here is maybe 300 or 400 feet.
At first I scoffed at the basketball analogy... but I suppose it's not too far off. Always wanted to try my hand at the really big birds like this, I'm sure it's world's away from the lights and mediums I've known. Although I will say the larger the bird, the easier it seems to be to hover with precision.... maybe when they get that big, it's a different ballgame.
@Stewpacalypse
If you flew on an MH-53 Pavelow in 91, it was either a Pavelow III or IV. Hurlburt Field sits on the southern edge of the Eglin military reservation, surrounded by forest and swamps. I was stationed there in the early 80s, attached to the 20th A.M.U., 1st S.O.W. Ours was the only unit that wasn't activated for operations in Greneda in 83. Glad you enjoyed your morale flight.
My sister flew 53's for 6 years while in the Navy. I got a chance to do a flight out of Mayport to JAX, it was soooo impressive. As impressive as it is, these birds are so complex and have so many points of failure, the are frequently out of commission apparently. But if you're a helo pilot, you understand the flying brick concept. Go Navy!
Very cool way to start a sentence; MY Sister...." It reflects well on your family . She is who she is because of who raised her, siblings included. Very nice.
@@trevormiles5852 Well how qre you supposed to say it? Saying just "sister" sounds stupid and calling her "a person I know" ot something similar sounds even stupidier. Saying "my sister" definitely sounds the best.
@@hullukana214 OUR sister, comrade.
The hours of maintenance required for every hour of flight in most military aircraft is outrageous. The design and production process favors job creation.
Air force > Navy
The fact that the Navy itself has aerial vehicles says a lot
6:22 Crazy the pilot chops off the refueling boom with his rotors.
Yeah, I just noticed that cause you pointed that out. It really goes to show how much the blades stay the same while the body of the heli moves around under it.
It breaks from G loads it seems
@@thomgt4 nope
The pilot pumped the cyclic (similar to a stick in a fixed wing aircraft) forward, aft, and then forward again while "chasing" the refueling basket. The second forward motion caused the rotor tip path to dip while the aircraft attitude was in an up position. The result was the rotor blades made contact with the refueling probe. The probe lost that battle, and all 7 main rotor blades were damaged.
CH-53K King Stallion is such a beautiful helicopter
2:46 I never knew it could actually do that. When I first saw Transformers' Blackout, who had a vehicle mode similar to this, I thought the rotors folding was just a part of its transformation. its cool to actually see that the rotors do fold in like that. Its also an amazing show of a transformer incorporating a vehicle's feature into its design.
I noticed that later on as well, super cool
Only the Navy/Marine variants fold their rotors and tail pylon. The extra functions require extra components which, of course, mean extra mass (weight).
Loved the humor in this one and the jokes peppered in :) and I appreciate the actual subtitles that you've taken the time to put in!
*"Just checking your reflexes"*
Don't worry bro, sponsor block got my back.
I fast forwarded so fast
It’s got to be a good feeling being the engineers of this project knowing they did the best job possible
Ok, im subscribing. The humour in this one was just too good for me to hesitate anymore
I used to launch and recover the CH-53e super stallion when I was in the navy. Powerful aircraft.
No kidding! I was stationed in Ft. Belvoir, VA working as a Black Hawk crewchief.
We always loved when the Super Stallions did low flybys over our airfield and pulled max power at the end of the runway.
The rate of speed at which they climbed made us giggle like little kids. It looked so fake, like weightless blankets being blown by the wind.
Our birds were very powerful, but that spectacle made us feel like we had gnats for aircraft. 😄
@@ANSWERTHECALLOFJESUSCHRIST yep. USS Okinawa and USS Tripoli. I was an ABH3. Almost got blown off the flight deck a couple times by their down drafts. Lol. Had to grab a padeye to stop from getting wet.
I worked on the CH-53E for 16 years. Incredible machine.
3:53 got me good 😂
UA-cam vanced bro
At the beginning I thought “oh that maneuver is easy with computer flight controls”, and it turned out to be FBW. It’s really interesting, as feedback loop command interpreters are common enough to be used in home made drones. Tom Stanton has some videos on making FBW/stability augmentation addons for his flying creations, particularly ones that require better control responses than a human can manage.
Thank you for not taking a sponsor, it greatly increases our enjoyment of the video.
This can lift nearly 50% more weight than the Chinook. Very impressive. As far as I can find the only in service helicopter capable of lifting more is the MI-26.
Hardly, we lifted a 30k pump manifold and put it on a flatbed truck @ Kuwait international Airport back in '91 with a D model CH-47 by just taking on less fuel with only two burning and six turning. Doing more with less, the definition of efficiency, Fly Army!
Our Super Shitters could’ve picked up that load and then flown it 50 miles to that truck.😉
I really appreciated the size of the CH53 after having one spiral down at me after losing tail rotor power during rappels 😶
RIP to the SSgt that didn’t make it
Did it sling a blade or s**t a gearbox or driveshaft?
I served in the IAF for 5 years as a CH-53 Sea Stallion mechanic and as much as the Sea Stallion is an even older platform, it still flies up there like a beast, but very soon will be out of commission in Israel because there are no spare parts left, and the air frames are getting weaker every day (lots of cracks and whatnot). But the King Stallion though, that's a different beast, maybe the mother of all beasts in the western heavy-lift helicopters if not in the entire world.
I'm surprised they don't have an agreement with the U.S. to get parts off our boneyard fleet in Arizona.
Imagine being proud about "defending" stolen land... 👏
Did you shoot at any American ships, like the USS Liberty in 1967?
My father served 30 years in the US Navy, and the majority of it within the helicopter mine countermeasures community. We have photos of a 3 year old me in BUFE, which stood for Big Ugly F@#%ing Echo, and was the transition airframe for them to the MH-53E. Great bird. If it's not leaking, you know you have a problem.
I love watching these fly over. See them probably every three months or so.
While I was in service, I got to talk to one of the engineers working with VMX-1. We talked about (and he showed me firsthand video of) the MH-60 rescue just days after it happened stating "this was the first real world mission performed by this series of aircraft". One of the cooler moments of my military career. :)
my school used to have a military appreciation day every year, they brought a bunch of trucks and flew in some helicoptors and even an osprey. i got to go in all of them a couple times. one of the coolest experiences during my time in school
Edit: i went to Somerset County Votech in New Jersey, and pictures and videos of the king do not do it justice. its so massive in person its amazing it can fly
So I was in the Us Navy Squadron HM-12 from 1987-1990, the squadron consisited of RH-53D's, CH-53E's, and also the MH-53E Sea Dragons named after our squadron Hm-12 Sea Dragon's. I was a electronics tech (AT) on all 3 of them and our squadron was the test squadron for Sikorsky on the MH-53E which was the very first varient of this "King" helo. The Mh-53E could lift it's own weight (33,230lbs) with either duel point or single lift eyes. it was quite a thing to watch and I did log about 100hrs as part of the flight crew for testing of avaionics dueing operations. Biggest help we have and being on it proved that!
3:53 thanks for the laugh! That was brilliant!
When it was lifting the 30k Lbs I was wondering what the coning looked like on the rotor, so I’m glad you pointed that out
That guy at 6:41 casually firing an Mashinegun while sitting
Haha! You had me with the sponsor. My finger was a few mm away from skipping 10 seconds. Glad you interupted in time! Great video
When you see a chopper lifting 2 hamvees at the same time or lifting a striker apc like nothing you can really say that chopper is really poweful
I didn't realize how fucking massive this thing is until I saw it making a striker look like a toy.
@@kylehenline3245 same bruh I only think it's just have almost the same size of Russia's mi 17 or maybe a little bit larger but I was wrong it's massive no wonder it's price is expensive haha
Great video! I miss working on the 53E sometimes, glad I was able to work on them while I did. When I got out they were preparing to start rolling out the 53K for testing but I never had a chance to work on one. 53s are amazing aircraft.
Same here.
I love your videos, every time you upload I'm instantly happy, and you never disappoint to deliver information in a very serious but entertaining way, I'm sure you love what you do and it shows bruh
Cheers man!
We love you (our fans) too 😊
3:56 that was brilliant. Nicely played. My finger was over the video ready to skip… love me some clever dry humour.
The KING stallion has such a nice ring to it!
The sponsor gag😂😂👍👍
I just realized that the king stallion may have been the inspiration for the Razorcrest. I mean look at where the side doors are and how the ramp in the back looks. Even the exhaust ports/intakes on the top are in the same spot as the engines of the Razorcrest. Just a theory.
love all this info and all the stuff im learning :D
I want this as a water-bomber aircraft for combatting bushfires in Australia. 30,000-lb of water in one go would be a game-changer for a future potential Black Summer scenario.
Mind you, a live load is a different kettle of fish than the static loads 53 Kilo seems to have been tested on.
@@KristiContemplates If the container is completely full it will act like a solid object, so it would be a matter of managing the filling and emptying process. That would be something to see.
Buy three CL-415s for the cost of one CH-53K.
I worked at a training squadron in NC when the Kings were initially being distributed for training, we had 2 on base for a while, and then we got 4 more. I believe we received a 7th after i left, and i guess were supposed to get and 8th or 9th as well. They were super cool to see in person. The unit that had them shared my hanger, so I got to check them out all the time on the flightline and in the hangar. We were so used to seeing the 53E's that when the new birds arrived it was like Big Brother came to town. They are HUGE.. like, Ive seen studio apartments that are smaller. Shes a loud fucker too. I used to think the ospreys were loud until i heard one of these things spool up.
What happened to that enormous heĺi the Russians had?
8:06 Hang on! Whoa! That's two King Stallions engaged in mid-air refueling from a single KC-130... WHILE CARRYING FOUR HUMVEES! ! Okay, mind blown! :)
Actually, in the video, the two Echoes were daisy chaining the refueling process on the left side of a C-130K, one aircraft at a time and not simultaneously. The C-130K could refuel 2 Echoes simultaneously but refueling from the right side of a C-130 is very tricky. Riskier than the left side. Also, the 4 HUMVEE's (2 per aircraft) in an external that AquaAtrae is referring to is from a published picture, not this video. Still, AquaAtrae is correct, the picture is wild.
Their next trick is to refuel the HMMWVs in flight
Thank you for sharing this information with us
The size of that swashplate is mindboggling.
You should try greasing one lol
3:20 that helicopter in the back made everything else look like absolute monsters
4:00 nice.... my hand had gone form propping up my head to holding the mouse! lol
3:54 Well you got me.. I was about to skip ahead but got a good chuckle instead. 😂
Keep up the lovable personality.
When our aircraft carrier (USN) was anchored in Abu Qir Bay, Egypt a Sikorsky S-61 landed on our flight deck. Although it's a smaller model in comparison it was still huge compared to the SH-3's we had.
Awesome video man!
Given that fly by wire is digital, and replaces an analog system of pulleys and cables, I think a better analogy would be a standard record player which is analog, but has electrical components versus a CD player.
TBH it's still not a great analogy as neither of them are actually control systems with feedback loops or computer control / intelligence, they're just converting one signal to another.
I actually reached for my mouse at the fly by wire bit. Got me good. Cheers!
Is that true that fly by wire systems are more durable than legacy systems? Like in my car, the electronic systems seem to go out faster than the mechanical ones. I realize fly by wire's other advantages, but not entirely convinced about durability
military electronics tend to be heavily overbuilt compared to consumer electronics. its one of the only areas where a calling a product "military grade" is actually a compliment rather than a clever marketing way to disguise "built by the lowest bidder."
From what I understand, most military electronics follow NASA's protocol of durability and redundancy, so instead of just one processor for instance, they'll have a backup, and both are also made to be more durable
The little bit of comedy you put in with the fake ad was amazing, keep making content please
Got a few rides on the CH53. Old and wore out. Was told of it is not leaking fluid you should be worried. That means it is out of fluid.
Awesome video as always!
I've never heard a 53 mech call their bird anything nicer than "the trash can."
or commonly referred to as a "Shitter" amongst the 53 community.
@@JS-sj3dn it definitely smells like one.
Thanks for inserting the metric units!
finally, a troop transporter capable of lifting americans
lol dead
The clip at 6:25 is crazy!! Great video
Damn bro the 53 kilo can travel at 200mph? God damn.
LOVE it, i was so sad to hear the awesome sea stallion was leaving, but i'm glad theres a bigger better replacement
I mean if you've ever seen the shaft on a real stallion you'll understand the power
I suspect we might get along.
Gold
God bless the United States of America 🇺🇸
Ahh the Mh53 variants of these helicopters are my favorites!
I used to work and fly on 53Es and I love these big birds...... amazing feels of engineering!
That’s called a yaw spin
(With fpv drones)
FPV is the only place it’s called that
@@gpaull2 could be but did I say it wasn’t
Your videos are so perfectly timed I love it haha! I was sat here going "WAIT, it fits in a c-17?????" to which I get "That said, the King Stallion doesn't fit inside the C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft, at least not in one piece." Had me laughing over here.
I've never experienced a loadout in a C-17, so no comment there. To get an Echo model in a C-5, the tail had to be folded, and the tail rotor blades and gearbox, plus the main rotor blades and gearbox all had to be removed. Finally, tires for an old F-4 Phantom replaced the normal aircraft tires. This provided a couple inches of height clearance so that the Echo could fit in a C-5.
@@rotorheadpictures3038 oh that's cool! Thanks man i didn't know that!
My heart goes to the entire community for Amazons AMZ2023X building up something even my grandpa can understand. This is so smart by them to launch it to shatter the doubts and fears of the common folk which is not even correct to begin with. Everyone knows the state of inflation and recession now and the way out is already in progress. Now it's just about catching the big fish
Nice bot
288 likes... Wow.
The fuck is that? Am I supposed to google it before I can click the scam link now? LMAO
@Dennis W the coin is legitimate, these third parties and bots promoting are not.
@@x67th “legitimate” lol
I'll be a dinosaur in 2030 when I tell people I crewed the echo....The King is a beauty. Semper Fi and Bravo Zulu to all the folks who got it done. It's needed. 🇺🇸
"I'm kidding. There is no sponsor. Just checking your reflexes." 🤣🤣🤣
That thing is amazing! So glad they boosted and modernized it!
Nice video, you guys really did your homework.
Thank you for the metric conversions:-)
Bro I shed a tear when he said there was no sponsor. This might be one of the very first plane related videos I’ve seen without a sponsor.
😉
The sponsorship really got me 😂
Thank you for your subtitle!
3:50
That was hilarious, I immediately reached for the L button hahah.. And then the "good reflexes" comment.. made me chuckle :)
Flew in 53Es several times in 90s as Marine at Camp Pendleton. Love them
USA just has it man...They have the budget (over 750 BILLION A YEAR)...the weapons...The skills...The people.
Worked near those back when I was stationed in hawaii. You would not believe how loud those things are when they're starting up on the ground.
I can't get over how large those exhausts are. Big enough to fit a grown man.
The king stallion looks awesome and if one heck of a beast at its job
the little sponsor bait made me laugh...... earned a sub
That sponsor was brilliant.
I can’t wait till we get a heli that’s on the same level as the MI-26.
3:57 Legit LOL, OK, you win a subscription just for that!
That fake sponsorship was a test of my eyeroll capabilities i didn't know i needed
I loved being stationed at New River Air Station in N. Carolina back in the early 70's being around the CH-53's. They were my favorite to see and be around besides the Huey's. GO AIRWING!! MAG-26!
You mean MAG+26
Back in the 70's. H&MS-26
Component shop
Mi-26: finally, a worthy opponent! Our lifting will be legendary!
There's an MIT lecture given by a test pilot about the F-22 flight control system, and he says that the military makes the ridiculous decision to take the people who score the worst on pilot exams and put them in helicopters, which are much harder to fly than planes. Now that I know fly-by-wire helos exist, I'm kind of surprised they aren't the norm.
NWYT really loves to change titles of his videos. Still quality content through.
Rode on the older CH53 in the 90’s. Things were big and fast. Also took a turn in a 53 simulator. Quite a machine.
finally YT has recommended me something cool
this is my favorite helicopter of all time
I am a huge fan of the CH-53 and the K model in particular. Fast big & powerful. Want one!
Great vid. Thanks.
There are some inaccuracies in this video. For example, it states that the Kilo model has lifted 35,000 lbs., incorrectly stating that it is 3 times what the Echo model could lift. Plus, it incorrectly states that the lifting of an LAV-25 would have been an accomplishment for the Echo. In reality, the Echo could lift 32,000 lbs., which is only 3,000 lbs. less than the article's stated lift of the Kilo, and it could easily lift an LAV-25. I know this for a fact for while flying an Echo I lifted a 28,000 lb. LAV in 1985 in the high, hot desert of 29 Palms, CA. I've also lifted even heavier bulldozers. The difference between the models is probably in the fuel load. The Echo would need a reduced fuel load for a heavy lift, but the Kilo can probably carry a larger fuel load with a heavy lift. So, the difference is not so much how much weight the models can lift, but rather how much fuel can be carried simultaneously.