# My favorite helicopter...if only a bit underused



## MacArther (Dec 11, 2006)

ACH-47A armed/armored Chinook Photos

The Chinook Guns ship!!!

Its so beautiful, and so well armed, I think I'm gonna cry    .


----------



## mkloby (Dec 11, 2006)

MacArther said:


> ACH-47A armed/armored Chinook Photos
> 
> The Chinook Guns ship!!!
> 
> Its so beautiful, and so well armed, I think I'm gonna cry    .



Awesome nicknames... Birth Control was my favorite!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

Gunships like the Huey Gunships and the Cobras were better suited for Gunship ops. The Chinook is too large and non maneuverable to be a gun ship. She is better suited for her load carrying abitlities and to carry large amount of troops. That is why the US Army stopped using the ACH-47 a very long time ago.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

Hey Adler, did I read right that the Chinook is the fastest helicopter in the US fleet????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

It is the fastest in the US Army yes. I believe the CH-53 is faster than the Chinook though.

It is a very fast aircraft but not very maneuvable and makes for a good target. When I was in Iraq they only flew at night because during the day they were getting brought down like crazy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

Yeah I just looked it up. The CH-53E Super Stallion is slightly more faster than the CH-47D and E however the new CH-47F might take the uphand back in speed for the Chinook.

One interesting note though is that Sikorsky is currently working on the new CH-53K which will look like the CH-53E but have same engines that installed in the MV-22 Osprey.

There are plenty of helicopters out there that are faster than either one though.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

I see those things lumbering around every now and then. They are so big that it is deceiving that they are moving more than a 100mph. Impressive beasts they are though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

The thing about a Chinook is this. Its top speed is when it is empty. You load her up to max, just like an aircraft her performance is going to suffer.

And when we talk about being the fastest, the Chinook is only faster than the other main helos in use by the US Army by only a few knots.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

Do they have a good reputation for taking damage? I see that they are front runners for the next SAR buy. Seemed like a big vehicle for that mission, but what do I know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2006)

To be honest I dont know how much damage a Chinook can take. I never really worked with them. The first time I worked with them on a day to day basis was earlier this year when my unit recieved Chinooks to compliment our Blackhawks.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

That transimission running along the dorsal makes me wonder. Seems liks a catastrophic failure waiting to happen.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2006)

I have heard that on certain occasions the different gear boxes will fail and the aircraft will basically have a mid air collision with itself.

I dont really like the Chinook.

We Blackhawk guys either called them **** Hooks or a Dumpster being ****** by two Palm Trees.

But then again we called ourselves S.L.U.T.S which was Sikorsky Light Utitility Taxi Service.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 14, 2006)

How do you recognize a Chinook pilot? They're the ones who walk around
nervously counting "one two three one two three....."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2006)

they've always served us pretty well!

and i've never seen much point in arguing about the speed of helicopters, i mean it goes without saying the British hold the world speed record for a Helicopter but on the battlefeild what's the difference between 150 and 200 mph? to a missile absolutely none, you're going down either way all helicopters are too slow to make dicussions on speed much use from a battlefeild point of view in my opinion.........


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 14, 2006)

"This diagram also denotes a region of reversed flow on the rotor. As the forward speed of the helicopter increases, a region near the blade roots on the retreating side actually experiences a reversed flow. Combined with the large blade incidence on the retreating side, as forward speed increases, the blades approach a stalled condition. At the same time, regions near the tips on the advancing side experience a very high velocity flow, approaching the point where shock waves form, leading to shock induced flow separation. Due to these limiting factors, the maximum forward speed of a helicopter is limited to about 250 mph (402 km/h).

Drawing a very close comparison to the theory, the world speed record for a helicopter is 249.10 mph (400.80 km/h). This record was set in August 1986, with a Westland Lynx from the United Kingdom flying over a 15 km course, piloted by John Egginton. "
Aerospaceweb.org | Helicopter Theory - Maximum Forward Speed

I like the Chinook, it doesn't make a practical gunship I would agree but still it does its main job fine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they've always served us pretty well!



Oh dont take me wrong. The Chinook serves fine and is a great aircraft I just dont like it. The only heavy lift chopper I would trade it for would be a CH-53E.

I just hate them. I hate flying in them. I love flying but I absolutely hated catching a ride to Balad in Iraq to catch a C-130 home in a Chinook. It leaked hydraulic fluid on me and was hot as hell because the exhaust came up the back.

Im just not a fan.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh dont take me wrong. The Chinook serves fine and is a great aircraft I just dont like it. The only heavy lift chopper I would trade it for would be a CH-53E.
> 
> I just hate them. I hate flying in them. I love flying but I absolutely hated catching a ride to Balad in Iraq to catch a C-130 home in a Chinook. It leaked hydraulic fluid on me and was hot as hell because the exhaust came up the back.
> 
> Im just not a fan.



you can always trust an a/c that is leaking!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2006)

That is true mkloby. If a Chinook is not leaking you dont fly it. That means there is no hydraulic fluid in the system.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 14, 2007)

Seriously, are they that bad? I was always under the impression that they were one of the best heavy lift helicopters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Seriously, are they that bad? I was always under the impression that they were one of the best heavy lift helicopters.



They are, but they leak alot, they are a lot of maintenance, they hard to work on...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 15, 2007)

And the US is leaning towards procuring another 200-300 of them? That doesn't sound good Adler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

From my understand they are not building new ones but upgrading older ones into a new model.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 15, 2007)

The Army doesn't use any CH-53E do they? Those are more powerful with greater payload capacity than 47s. New model CH-53K, when comes online, will be truly impressive. Supposed to have 3 osprey engines... 18,000shp!


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 15, 2007)

Is the lift capacity of the CH-53E more than the Chinook or is it that the Chinook has more ability to mount multiple cargo hooks that is keeping it in service?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2007)

mkloby said:


> The Army doesn't use any CH-53E do they? Those are more powerful with greater payload capacity than 47s. New model CH-53K, when comes online, will be truly impressive. Supposed to have 3 osprey engines... 18,000shp!



No the US Army has not used the the CH-53 or a version of it, since the Vietnam war. The Chinook replaced them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Is the lift capacity of the CH-53E more than the Chinook or is it that the Chinook has more ability to mount multiple cargo hooks that is keeping it in service?



The CH-47F Chinook has a load capacity of 27,000lb. The CH-53E has a load capacity of 32,000lb. The reason the army likes the Chinook better is for several main reasons the Chinook actually has a longer cargo area than the CH-53. The Chinook is about 25ft longer, a farther range of 1259mi (without ferry tanks or external tanks) compared to the CH-53E's 600mi, and the fact that the Chinook does not have a tail rotor allowing all power to be used for lift and thrust.

Both are great aircraft. The Chinook is better suited for the Army's needs and the CH-53E better for the Airforce and Marines.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> From my understand they are not building new ones but upgrading older ones into a new model.



I think that we are talking about two different procurements here, Adler. I think Congress just approved CH-47s for the Army as part of their regular fleet supplements. Of which I believe 25 or so are new airframes and the remaining (25 or so?) are refurbs.

What I'm referring to is the next generation SAR "vehicle". MV-22, MH-53, MH-47 and I think even a BlackHawk derivative is up for proposal. I don't think that any decision has been made yet, but I recall that it was a hundred and a half or so in order potential.

Your comments on maintenance being a nightmare caught my attention for such a large procurement and a mission whose sortie rate is so important.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I think that we are talking about two different procurements here, Adler. I think Congress just approved CH-47s for the Army as part of their regular fleet supplements. Of which I believe 25 or so are new airframes and the remaining (25 or so?) are refurbs.
> 
> What I'm referring to is the next generation SAR "vehicle". MV-22, MH-53, MH-47 and I think even a BlackHawk derivative is up for proposal. I don't think that any decision has been made yet, but I recall that it was a hundred and a half or so in order potential.
> 
> Your comments on maintenance being a nightmare caught my attention for such a large procurement and a mission whose sortie rate is so important.



I did just read an artical saying that 400+ CH-47F's (the lastest Chinook varient) have been ordered as well as a new MH-47 version. The new Blackhawk is the UH-60M and production on it started a few years ago. Not only are they building new UH-60M's but they are also converting older airframes to the new standard.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

Wow that many for SAR or a combination of both programs. Good for Boeing stock.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 16, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Is the lift capacity of the CH-53E more than the Chinook or is it that the Chinook has more ability to mount multiple cargo hooks that is keeping it in service?



I don't know about the multiple cargo mounts, but the CH-53E has a slightly higher payload capacity. New version of the CH-53E is coming out in a few years that will make the current heavy lift helos look weak.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 16, 2007)

Okay, interesting to see what happens to the CH-47 when those come out...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Gunships like the Huey Gunships and the Cobras were better suited for Gunship ops. The Chinook is too large and non maneuverable to be a gun ship. She is better suited for her load carrying abitlities and to carry large amount of troops. That is why the US Army stopped using the ACH-47 a very long time ago.


Its soo hard to shoot down though, and i think it would have made a good low level version of the Spetre, 12000 ft and a couple of miniguns on the side would have been devestating


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Wow that many for SAR or a combination of both programs. Good for Boeing stock.



Nope for the regular Army. The CH-47F is for the regular army and the MH-47 (not sure letter varient for it) is for the Spec Ops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Okay, interesting to see what happens to the CH-47 when those come out...



Wont change a thing for the Army. The Chinook is better suited for the roles that the Army requires. I think the CH-53 is a better aircraft overall but it is not what the Army needs or wants.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Its soo hard to shoot down though, and i think it would have made a good low level version of the Spetre, 12000 ft and a couple of miniguns on the side would have been devestating



Absolutely not. The Chinook is not hard to shoot down at all. It is actually easier than a Blackhawk, Huey, or Apache. 

It would have been a failure as a low level version of the Spectre as well. You know why? 

Answer: SAMs

It is too slow and would be even worse of a target at 12,000ft. I dont believe the Chinook has a cieling of 12,000ft anyhow. I think it is more like 8,000ft. 

Here is a comparison of Cielings for modern helicopters (only a few):

UH-60L Blackhawk: 19,150ft
UH-1 Iroquois (Huey): 19,390ft
AH-64 Apache: 21,000ft
CH-47 Chinook: 8,500ft
CH-53E Super Stallion: 18,500ft
AH-1W Cobra: 12,500ft
Eurocopter Tiger: 13,120ft
Super Puma: 19,750ft
Mi-24 Hind: 14,750ft
NH-90: 9,000ft (probably higher though)
Westland Lynx: 10,000ft

Ofcourse all of this depends on temperature and weather conditions.

In the end, how high a helcopter flies is really unimportant when it comes to military aviation because the kingdom of the helicopter is at NOE alltitudes. The only time a military helicopter would want to fly that high is when they are flying IFR or going over mountains. When we deployed to Kosovo we had to fly over the mountains over Albania and had to climb to 10,000 ft to get over them. That was pretty cool. We were IFR anhow because we flying through other countries airspace the whole damn day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

if you ask me helicopter gunships like the AH-64 are fine and dandy but the AH-47 is a flawed concept, leave that to the AC-130!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

Exactly thats what I said.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

It depends I suppose though, what sort of fighting you are doing. I think it might be perfect for fighting in Iraq as a light AC-130 that can hover... I don't know what the rest of you think but I thought a system like that could be used for pinpoint demolition of buildings...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> It depends I suppose though, what sort of fighting you are doing. I think it might be perfect for fighting in Iraq as a light AC-130 that can hover... I don't know what the rest of you think but I thought a system like that could be used for pinpoint demolition of buildings...



That is how you get killed in Iraq. I flew over 650 combat hours in Iraq, trust me I know when I say that if you stay in one spot you die. You have to keep moving and keep moving in an unpredictable way. You dont want to hover over a city.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is how you get killed in Iraq. I flew over 650 combat hours in Iraq, trust me I know when I say that if you stay in one spot you die. You have to keep moving and keep moving in an unpredictable way. You dont want to hover over a city.



That's just begging for an RPG to rip your helo apart. Just read an article that got hit w/ one flying low in the Marine Corps Aviation Assoc. Held together though, and allowed the pilots to autorotate it down. Luckily, nobody one board was killed.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2007)

The perfect close-support helicopters for situations like Iraq, in my opinion, is the AH-6 "Little Bird". It's small, fast and agile - very hard to hit, and very hard hitting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Yeap sitting in one spot is begging to get shot down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The perfect close-support helicopters for situations like Iraq, in my opinion, is the AH-6 "Little Bird". It's small, fast and agile - very hard to hit, and very hard hitting.



I got pictures of there somewhere in my photo album.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2007)

I remember seeing some pictures of them in your album. Is there any upgrades for them coming anytime soon? I like the Little Bird, it's little known in the world but it must do a hell of a lot for the U.S in these counter-insurgency operations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

I dont have really any info on what they are doing with them.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

Okay, interesting to know.


----------

