Chinook Gets New Lease on Life
Arnold Christensen
with mods and pods for troops.
1st is that it was rare for the Army to send into a LZ a Chinook with
troops on an assault and rare to extract anyone under known active fire.
Big ships cost too much. They are the deuce and a halfs of Aviation, ie,
big trucks. One big truck can do the work of several 60's or Hueys.
2nd, In 1965 when the Cranes were introduced to Viet Nam with the 1st
Cav Div most of the soldiers did not have a good feeling about this
"people pod" hanging under the aircraft. The pods were quickly put to
other uses.
I would bet that that insecurity within the troops will not go away.
Problem is that the 54 has not been bein produced whereas the Hook has
been being produced. Sad fact that many old crane people do not like to
admit is, that the Hook in models after the old A model were able to
pick up the same load externally as the Crane and also had a place
intregal to the airframe to carry people or whatever internally.
She was a good aircraft in her day and still serves in civilian life,
but technology has passed her by.
Me, I am glad to hear that the fat lady is going to keep going. She,
CH47A 64-13140, brought me and my friends home everytime in 66. Good
ship and maintenance wise was not very difficult to keep mission ready.
Can't remember but one time we missed a mission. Always wondered if she
got moded up and is still out there with 2 burnin and 6 turnin.
Chris the Bigfoot
Micbloo
Boeing announced today that the CH-47 Chinook will be getting a new lease on
life. The first CH-47A flew in 1959. Boeing which has been manufactoring
Chinooks since 1962 is beginning a new program that will keep US Army Chinooks
flying to at least 2030. The Improved Cargo Helicopter Program will modernize
at least 300 CH -47D Chinooks to a more capable and efficient CH-47F
configuration. The first two Chinooks, designated the programs engineering
prototypes will enter the modernization line today. They will then be flight
tested and have systems evaluated before the program begins. The first -47F
will be ready by 2003 and at full production 26 Chinooks will be moderrnized a
year by 2013.
Major improvements include:
Fuselage "tuning" to reduce effects of vibration during flight on aircraft
systems.
Installation of a Military Standard 1553 data base to permit eventual digital
integration of the Chinooks flight controls and cockpit management systems.
Repair and replacement of aircraft structures and systems as needed.
Also Allied Signal will provide kits to upgrade Chinnok engines to the new
T55-GA-714 standard. These engines will provide better fuel economy and
increased lift
Gerard
Question? - what exactly is "Fuselage Tuning"?
RonPilotPI
>Chinooks since 1962 is beginning a new program that will keep US Army
>Chinooks
>flying to at least 2030. The Improved Cargo Helicopter Program will modernize
>at least 300 CH -47D Chinooks to a more capable and efficient CH-47F
>configuration. The first two Chinooks, designated the programs engineering
>prototypes will enter the modernization line today. They will then be flight
>tested and have systems evaluated before the program begins. The first -47F
>will be ready by 2003 and at full production 26 Chinooks will be moderrnized
>a
>year by 2013.
> Major improvements include:
> Fuselage "tuning" to reduce effects of vibration during flight on aircraft
>systems.
> Installation of a Military Standard 1553 data base to permit eventual
>digital
>integration of the Chinooks flight controls and cockpit management systems.
> Repair and replacement of aircraft structures and systems as needed.
> Also Allied Signal will provide kits to upgrade Chinnok engines to the new
>T55-GA-714 standard. These engines will provide better fuel economy and
>increased lift
>
> Gerard
Shucks - I was hoping this proposed upgrade program for the clunky Chinooks
wouldn't be approved. Instead, the Army should have brought back the Sikorsky
CH-54B airframe with mods and pods (for troops). Damn!
Ron
Micbloo
>wouldn't be approved
Gotta spread the wealth, Ron!!
Dont worry, the government will throw Sikorsky a bone somewhere down the line.
Gerard
Paul Baechler
ronpi...@aol.com (RonPilotPI) wrote:
> Shucks - I was hoping this proposed upgrade program for the clunky Chinooks
> wouldn't be approved. Instead, the Army should have brought back the Sikorsky
> CH-54B airframe with mods and pods (for troops). Damn!
Instead of bringing back the CH-54B, develop the old CH-54C proposal
(Crane airframe with CH-53E powerplant/drivetrain). Incidentally, this
wouldn't affect Sikorsky, the S-64 type certifecates, tooling, data, etc.
now belong to Erickson Aircrane.
Paul Baechler
<3A0FCC371DCCBA58.6108B3EF...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Arnold Christensen <ab...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Well you need to grasp these two items about coming back with the CH54B
> with mods and pods for troops.
>
> 1st is that it was rare for the Army to send into a LZ a Chinook with
> troops on an assault and rare to extract anyone under known active fire.
> Big ships cost too much. They are the deuce and a halfs of Aviation, ie,
> big trucks. One big truck can do the work of several 60's or Hueys.
The pod gives the Crane the capability to carry cargo and personnel
internally, a capability the Chinook also posesses. Having that capability
does not require that it be used in assault missions. Chinook units do
train for assault missions; at least one Crane unit flew NOE combat
assault missions at the NTC.
> 2nd, In 1965 when the Cranes were introduced to Viet Nam with the 1st
> Cav Div most of the soldiers did not have a good feeling about this
> "people pod" hanging under the aircraft. The pods were quickly put to
> other uses.
> I would bet that that insecurity within the troops will not go away.
The only Cranes in Viet Nam in 1965 would have been the YCH-54 service
test ships, the first CH-54As were '66 models.
> Problem is that the 54 has not been bein produced whereas the Hook has
> been being produced. Sad fact that many old crane people do not like to
> admit is, that the Hook in models after the old A model were able to
> pick up the same load externally as the Crane and also had a place
> intregal to the airframe to carry people or whatever internally.
Neither has been produced recently. The Ch-47D and MH-47E are conversions
of CH-47A/B/C airframes. The last new CH-47 was produced in the early
'70s. The Crane can wich up the load the Chinook can pick up. Remove the
winch and hang a cable from a load beam (like a Chinook operates) and the
Crane will pick up a heavier load.
> She was a good aircraft in her day and still serves in civilian life,
> but technology has passed her by.
No, the military chose not to pursue an upgrade program, and civilian
operators do not require the same technology the military thinks it needs.
The Crane is an excellent example of appropriate technology for its
intended mission. Perhaps that's why in the civil heavy lift market the
Skycrane has always outnumbered the Chinook.
> Me, I am glad to hear that the fat lady is going to keep going.
Why? Why should the Army rely on 60-year-old airframes for the cargo lift
mission? Would you really want to be flying combat missions in a 50 year
old helicopter? This isn't exactly another Huey; the Huey will last as
long but not as the sole member of the utility fleet and not assigned to
combat roles. Wouldn't it really make more sense to develop a new cargo
helicopter and retire the Chinooks? For that matter, wouldn't it make more
sense to buy new CH-53Es?
LRobin9900
>of CH-47A/B/C airframes. The last new CH-47 was produced in the early
>'70s.
This is incorrect.
When the Army rebuilt the CH-47s into D models from 1982 on , around 150
Airframes were new build.
All the MH-47Es are new Airframes.
Matt Dossey
>Shucks - I was hoping this proposed upgrade program for the clunky Chinooks
>wouldn't be approved. Instead, the Army should have brought back the
Sikorsky
>CH-54B airframe with mods and pods (for troops). Damn!
>
>
Ron,
Why do you call the aircraft "clunky?" Chinooks are superior to 54s in many
ways, one of which is the lack of a tail rotor. Granted, they do break a
LOT, but mostly on preflight or run-up.
The 47 is an ideal airframe for the US Army that deserved modern technology
years ago. It's a very versitile aircraft that is often misused, but is
capable of so much.
Matt
CH47D PC
LRobin9900
Flies 60 knots faster
Has superior High altitude lift.
Has a cabin
Engines are as strong but more reliable and
fuel efficient.
But chinooks are ugly uninspiring designs.
Must be a great helicopter and better than a CH-53E in most cases.
Only the US and Japan fly 53Es and there must be a reason for this.
RonPilotPI
>Only the US and Japan fly Sikorsky CH-53Es and there must be a reason for
this.
>
Skip
==================================
See - I'm not the only one who thinks the Chinook is a little clunky. I prefer
the big rotor on top, and the little rotor in back.
Problem with the Sikorsky 53Es is the price - about $30-35 million fully
equipped.
Ron
SWilli1054
RonPilotPI
swilli1054
=================================
AOG is "aircraft on ground" for those who don't know. Means they are broken
down.
Yeah but - that's because the Skycranes (Tarhe's) lifted and returned hundreds
of downed and broken aircraft back to base for repair and salvage. Tough strain
on the ship. Plus, the Army was too cheap to order a nice fiberglass skin over
the engine and quarter deck. Got those monsoon rains in there, gumming up the
works. Erikson and other S-64 operators have found a way to make them
profitable.
Ron
SWilli1054
posts in here when they say :"with new engines, new acft skin, new sling
equipment" it would be a good rival to the 47."
Now for my 54 story. I made a parachute jump out of a ch54 (of course the pod
was attached) in 1984 at FT. Bragg,NC. The 54 was from the ALNG and was at
Bragg for annual training. So I can say I have 1 take-off and no landings in a
CH-54. LOL
Paul Baechler
ronpi...@aol.com (RonPilotPI) wrote:
The Active Army had relatively low OR rates for the CH-54. When all the
Cranes went to the NG the OR rate rose dramatically. At one time the CH-54
maintained the highest average system OR in Army aviation. Of course the
NG had certain advantages, like dedicated maintenance personnel and more
flying time. Erickson operates the Crane the samw way, good maintenance
and lots of flying. The more it sits, the worse it gets. No one that I
know of found it necessary to put a skin over the engines.
Paul Baechler
swill...@aol.com (SWilli1054) wrote:
> I don't doubt the value of the Ch54 in its day. It is funny to read some the
> posts in here when they say :"with new engines, new acft skin, new sling
> equipment" it would be a good rival to the 47."
You might consider that since delivery of the last CH-54B there have been
two major upgrades to the CH-47, another is on the way, and when it is
finished the Chinook will still not have all the external load
capabilities of the Crane. You could argue that the Army doesn't need
those capabilities, but you can't argue them away. The CH-54 certainly
didn't need new sling equipment, the equipment it had was more
sophisticated, and more configurable, than anything on the 47.
SWilli1054
can't pick up that the 54 can. How well can the 54 support deep attack
helicopter strikes as opposed to the 47? How well could the 54 support Special
Operations as opposed to the 47? My point being that the 47 has many more
missions to accomplish than just sling loads. Yes everyone makes a valid point
that the 54 can lift, perhaps do slings better than the 47. My opinion though
is that the 54 is nowhere near as versatile as the 47.
Matt Dossey
"Heavy Helicopter Company."
Matt
jme...@sonetcom.com wrote in message ...
>In 1969 I was assigned to the 291st Aviation Company(Heavy Lift
>Helicopter)(CH-54). Across the parking lot were our rivals, the 154th
>Aviation Company(Medium Helicopter)(CH-47). Above his desk, my unit
>commander had a plastic model of the CH-54, with a CH-47 as a slingload.
>He constantly portrayed this image across the post either with his plastic
>training aid or with several illustrations he commissioned from the
>battalion draftsman. The CH-54A could lift a CH-47A(sans blades), but not
>the reverse; the CH-54 was a *real* helicopter while the CH-47 was just an
>aerodynamic slingload. An occasional fistfight ensued.
>
>Things got shaky when the CH-47B hit the street. The CH-47C and Super C
>wrote the death warrant for the CH-54. They could do everything the Crane
>could do and you could drive a Jeep inside one.
>
>The CH-54 was a historic aircraft because, in its prime, no other aircraft
>could accomplish the same mission.
>
>
>
>John
Micbloo
Doesnt the German and Israeli military also fly CH-53s??
Gerard
RonPilotPI
>
> Doesnt the German and Israeli military also fly CH-53s??
>
> Gerard
==================================
I believe that those two countries have the older CH-53A/D models, with only 2
engines. The CH-53E has 3 engines, and a heavier lift capability. You can
easily tell them apart by the rear tail pylon which is straight up on the
2-engine ships, but slanted up and supported with a brace on the larger
3-engine model.
Ron
Donald Robertson
civil introduction into the north sea in the early eighties. It flew
for Shell and BP to the northern platforms in the north sea approx
250 nautical miles each way with 44 pax crew of three and at AUW when
ever poss. The Norwegn sector also flew three machines for a number
of years. The end came in Sept 86 when G-BWFC flew in bits on
approach to Sumburgh in the Shetlands killing 43 pax and co pilot +
cabin attendant 1 pax and captain survived. It dephased in flt at 500
ft alt approx 1.3 miles from runway threshold and landed in the sea
just offshore. The cause of the dephase was the crack which occurred
in the fwd txsm bevel gear input housing thrust washer which
travelled along the gear itself which cracked also creating a phantom
tooth which given a few revs of the rotor caused the fwsd and rear
rotor blades to collide.
The problem of torque loss on the fwd bevel input housing
had been known to Boeing for a considerable time and they had
addressed the problem by making larger bolts with higher torque on
the housing as an answer to the problem of re torque every 300flt
hours which was ok for low sporadic military use but a real pain for
access on a commercial op putting up to 800 per month on the
airframe. Until the North sea ops the highest time airframe was
supposed to be with the Air Guard in Kentucky with 7000 hours on it
we exceeded that within three years of ops.The real worry about this
mod was that Boeing were that sure of it being a cure they did not
trial install it in say one airframe and monitor its performance they
fitted it to all fwd txsm,s . Post the crash of G-BWFC a further
three fwd txsm,s were found to have cracks in the bevel gear.
The initial op
of the BV234 as it was called in its civil guise was an uphill
struggle of poor build quality, aft end cracks due to 10flt hours per
day at AUW which it had simply not had in its military life. A
frequent quote of the numerous Boeing field reps attached to us at
Aberdeen was "Gee this did,nt happen to it in Nam". Vibration was
excessive and addressed by various mods to VTA absorbers under the
pilots seats 150Lbs of nodding weights which were in very close
proxsimity to the cockpit control rods under the floor . There was an
additional fixed absorber put into the Aft pylon to further dampen
Vibs and the Norwegn airframes had Pen Dabs fitted to the main rotor
blades. The cabin floor was suspended on IFIS mounts also the two
7000lb capacity fuel tanks which gave it 6.5 hours + endurance. There
were 38 pilots on the fleet at Aberdeen and up to 20 were under a
back specialist at the local hospital, the double opposite lateral
can do wonders to your spine after five hours of flt. Also the
cockpit seats held the crew within 2feet of 2500 shaft horse power
whining away in their ears the intercom had notch filters to reduce
headset noise to the crew. It was a machine with a very unforgiving bite.
On its plus side it could lift
a lot great range, if it had been flown at a reduced AUW it would
have done OK in the commercial enviroment the old story of trying to
get a bucks work out of fifty cents.
Don Robertson
Matt Dossey
longer than 4 hours in the aircraft without leaving the cockpit. My legs
and feet are usually somewhat numb after that time.
The E models have those large tanks (2000 gal or so).
Right now we have a significant problem with a C-box spline mod that went on
a year or so ago. Instead of ordering demods, the Army in its infinite
wisdom put a 2000' AGL "with a landing area in sight at all times and no
IMC" limit on those aircraft that have been moded. That absolutely sucks
for IFR training. However, the five aircraft we sent to Central America
magically were demoded.
Matt Dossey
Donald Robertson wrote in message <199901162...@zetnet.co.uk>...
SWilli1054
Anyone putting 800flt hrs a month on an airfame is going to have some serious
problems. You have to stop flying and do maintanace sometime.
Arnold Christensen
The pod gave people the chance to ride inside, but, I never met anyone
that liked the idea of riding in the pod. It was a perception thing
Paul by some of those who had the chance. It was not an intregal part of
the airframe. It hooked on.
I don't know exactly which model of Crane it was that went into Vietnam
with the 1st Cav, but there were 5 of them as I remember and I believe
the unit was the 478th Flying Crane Company. The book I have calls them
CH54A's and sure they were still being tested as was the Chinook
Battalion (228th Assualt Support Bn)
Would I still go flying on those old airframes. You bet your sweet
bippy. I was involved in upgrading b model airframes to C models in
Vietnam at Air Vietnam and most of those had been A Models and I can
tell you that as A models we beat the dickens out of them and they kept
bringing us home. Airframes did not have as many hours on them but with
proper inspection and care the airframe as a whole will continue to live
on as does the Huey you refer to.
Chris the Bigfoot
Arnold Christensen
Sickorsky . :-)
I know that he has never ridden in a Hook tree top level or lower balls
to the wall. Had he ever done so he would not be calling her clunky but
would probably be cleaning out his pants had he done it standing in the
right door watching the world flit by.
Don't let her size cause you to presume things Ron. The Fat Lady can put
some moves on most anything out there.
Chris the Bigfoot
Arnold Christensen
Chris
Charles Tackett
that in the right hands she can tango with the best of them. Also to a
grunt on the ground who is running short of beans and bullets, there isn't a
more beautiful sight.
Chuck.
Arnold Christensen wrote in message ...
Charles Tackett
LRobin9900
and sounds strong but the Army ones are just plain ugly.
Yea , we can all guess what Ron likes
but at least he`s loyal !
RonPilotPI
Chris
=================================
I've never seen a Chinook do a loop or a roll like some Sikorsky H-53's have. A
CH-54 could probably do one also, but we'll never know unless one gets on the
airshow circuit.
Ron (Sikorsky fan)
Arnold Christensen
do a loop or a roll. Wonder how that happened? Actually Ron that
capability proves little in the day to day operation of a helicopter.
With that sort of an answere to my question I guess I could respond by
saying that I personally don't know of any tail pylons falling off in
flight in a Hook killing all aboard.
The 54 is not coming back in any way, shape or form. The 53 will be
around for awhile. The Hook will be around for quite awhile.
Chris the Bigfoot.( Glad my front seaters didn't try looping or rolling
the Fat Lady.)
Arnold Christensen
66 that big destroyer escort definitely suddenly leaned when he saw us
coming at him at about 130 knots about 5 feet off the water surface.
Pappy up in front laughing and asking us if we saw the mast lean over.
Sure did.
Chris the Bigfoot
Arnold Christensen
same hind will just slow down and track and kill you out of the sky.
Phooey.
And the SU 27 Cobra trick. Just about any helicopter with the right
pilot of the right mind can haul back and come to a nose high stop.
Problem Ron is that you eventually have to get your nose back down cause
guess what happens when you hold it too long. Gravity takes over and you
stall/fall down. Again I don't think you have ever been there - done
that. Was in a Hook in 66 that was way aft of CG due to pick them up get
them and all the stuff out of this LZ now. On liftoff the nose came up
and up and up and finally the aft gear broke loose. 1 inch of fwd cyclic
was left according to the front office, but we got to get out of here.
Comming around some scud in the showers came a Huey and we almost met.
Front office honked back on the cyclic. Fat Lady stood on her tail and
shook like you have never been shook before. Full forward and enough sky
allowed us to go home in one piece. Had one crew on a medevac with a
Hook that picked up troop in the jungle and in IMC lifted off visually
and lost it and the nose came up and up and up and she slid backwards
from about 50' with the FE yelling all the time to get the nose down.
Cobra move, Phooey. Air superiority is the only way to go Ron, not
rolls and loops that the average pilot can't do and is never trained to
do.
Give you another thought to mull over since you never been there. In
cargo helicopters, except the 54 the crew is always moving around
checking things. How much time you going to give them guys in back to
strap in so they don't get tossed out? Wish I had the Rucker address so
you could read what happened to the Hook crewmembers when their aircraft
did a spontaneous roll or was it a loop. Think it was a roll and they
made the ground in one piece with damage, but what happened to the crew
is what is interesting. Maybe someone else has the article. Was entitled
"Keep on flying it" or something like that.
Chris the Bigfoot
Matt Dossey
Seahawk today while in cruise flight pulling just 55% at 135 kts (max
range).
I've heard the 60 can top that in a dive, though.
Matt
Arnold Christensen wrote in message ...
LRobin9900
entire CH-53A Drivetrain was overhauled or replaced after its loop and roll
in 1968.
RonPilotPI
>do a loop or a roll.
=================================
Actually, this maneuver, while not recommended for most routine Hook beans and
bullets re-supply missions, could come in handy if engaged in a dogfight with
an enemy Hind. It's good to know a Sikorsky helo could take such evasive
action. In fact, one Sikorsky ship even did the famous Su-27 "Cobra" maneuver.
Ron (Sikorsky fan)
Arnold Christensen
don't have Hook time and if you rode in the back probably hated it, but
do go check it out and read it.
While you are reading try and put yourself in that aircraft. If the
hairs on the back of your neck don't stand up, you must not have hairs.
Chris the Bigfoot. Thanks Matt.
*************************************
Chris,
I have it, and I'm impressed every time I read the article. I was also
apprehensive about picking up an aircraft from Corpus Christi Army Depot
last month. Here's the address:
Go to media, flightfax, and select May 1998. The article is about how
two
pilots managed to land upright and walk away from a CH47D after an
inflight
flight control hydraulic system malfunction, which I have heard
speculation
that it was caused by contaminated hydraulic fluid in one or both
systems.
The current flightfax has a CH47 safety review.
Matt Dossey
Matt Dossey
I have it, and I'm impressed every time I read the article. I was also
apprehensive about picking up an aircraft from Corpus Christi Army Depot
last month. Here's the address:
Go to media, flightfax, and select May 1998. The article is about how two
pilots managed to land upright and walk away from a CH47D after an inflight
flight control hydraulic system malfunction, which I have heard speculation
that it was caused by contaminated hydraulic fluid in one or both systems.
The current flightfax has a CH47 safety review.
Matt Dossey
B/159 AVN "The Best Hookers in the World"
rf...@mindspring.com
<6D89701B3AE3DED8.4449288D...@library-proxy.airnews.net
During the early 70's I was a CH-47 maintenance test pilot in Nam flying for
the 243rd. One day a CH-47 from another unit arrived at our outfit requesting
emergency assistance. Upon there arrival the CH-47 was missing her entire
right front landing gear. We utilized a 55 gallon drum and some sandbags as a
substitute. The two nervous pilots claimed that while departing CamRhan they
made an evasive maneuver in order to avoid a mid-air and hit a high flying
tree..
Well to make a long story short a few hours later a fishing boat arrived in
port with a landing gear embedded in her side. The pilots pleaded with me to
repair the aircraft and not report the incident. I told them we could replace
the landing gear but that significant structural damaged could not be
repaired at our facility. I never heard any feedback from the pilots but I'm
sure they took some heat from their CO.
RT
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
artc
>Chris,
I have read the article and it is a real barn burner.. I have been
through a couple of flite actions that scared me but to read this article
still makes me sweat to think of it..
Chris I have the article if you would like me to E-mail it to you.. You
need to have Adobe Acrobat to read it tho, same if you down load it from Ft
Rucker..
1st WOC 66-9 Art Cline CW3 Retired Senior Aviator
Participant "South East Asia War Games" 2nd Place Purple Heart Medallist
(1966 Phouc Vinh 162nd Copperhead28) (1967 Tay Ninh 187th RatPack18)
(1969 Pleiku 1970 An Khe E.co.704th Maint Bn 4th Div.)
Comeing to you from downtown Spokane, Washington
artc
Arnold Christensen
copies and they disappeared. Anyone that ever read it that had any time
in rotary wing aircraft just sort of shake their heads in wonder.
Quite a story to be able to walk away from indeed. Glad my Fat Lady
behaved while I crewed her.
Chris the Bigfoot