Talk:CH-47 Chinook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

Recent edits changed some facts. I don't have a way of knowing if they were correct or not. Can someone check them? Thanks - Taxman 19:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Which facts are you unsure of? (Born2flie 14:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
I am a current Flight Engineer in a Chinook, and I have the operators manual, so I'll go through it and change some of the stuff as I get to it....Severian if you want to get in touch with me, this is easier.--70.160.123.211 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seperate RAF page and Reputation in the RAF

Is there a reason why there is a seperate RAF Chinook page? Could someone combine the two. Especially with the addition of the newest section, it seems odd to have two seperate sections. - Thatguy96 13:15, Sept 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's good to keep the separate RAF Chinook page - they're a very large operator and use them extensively and almost exclusively in their role, unlike the US military which has other comparable aircraft. However, I have removed the bulk of the information regarding reputation in the RAF which was already copied verbatim in the RAF Chinook article (which it now links to) and I think that's a much better place for it.Iancaddy 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Then we should also remove the "Problems with the Chinook" and "Reputation of the Chinook" since they seem RAF-centric. (Born2flie 14:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Chinooks in use in Taiwan

I see Chinooks operating out of the army base Tainan County in Taiwan - concrete evidence that the Taiwanese military is using them too. Any thoughts about adding Taiwan to the list of militaries using them?

yes, would be great if you can get some photos! The 234 commercial variant and CH-47SD Super Chinooks are in use. [Boeing press release] Jor70 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Lift version purposed and cancelled twice

In 1971, the US Army started to build a Heavy Lift Helicopter version of the CH-47 Chinook, and it was designated: the Boeing Vertol HLH XCH-62. It was to supposed to be in the 22 tons payload class. It was cancelled in 1974, after the basic body shell had been built. It was reevualated in 1983, and again was rejected. The helicopter resembled an enlarged merger of a S-64 Skycrane, (CH-54 Tarhe), and a CH-47. The basic body shell of the helicopter was totally destroyed in a moving accident at Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Here is link to information about the helicopter and some photographs. [XCH-62]. 204.80.61.10 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

[edit] Development section

Several weeks ago, I added the development section with the intention of giving historical background on the Chinook, especially in relation to the CH-46. It has taken longer than I intended to work on this. I have moved the recently-added section in Variants on the prototype models to Develpment, and reworked the paragraphs. Hopefully we can add more info in the near future to flesh out this section. --BillCJ 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! A75 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures at Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/rooftop.asp#photo shows some really dramatic pictures of a CH-47 in Afghanistan in 2003 which were taken by U.S. Army personnel and so probably not subject to copyright, but in BMP format. Perhaps one of these could be converted for inclusion in this article. (I'm no expert in photo formats). Spikebrennan 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash in Mannheim, Germany - 1982

The Ch-47C Crash in Mannheim, Germany was added. I'm new to Wiki, but as I was at the crash (Sept. 11, 1982), I thought I could contribute. I put it there for informational purposes only.

On September 11, 1982, a Chinook CH-47C crashed in Mannheim Germany at an Air Show, in what is so far considered the second deadliest helicopter crash in history. The City of Mannheim requested two Chinooks to drop sky divers at the Air Show for the 375th anniversary of the city. Although both helicopters arrived on schedule, instead of two Chinooks executing the mission, someone made the decision to only take one aircraft. The Para-jumpers desired to set a world record by forming the largest joined circle of free-falling sky divers ever accomplished. As a result, 46 people climbed aboard one Chinook. Since there were only 33 seats available in the cabin, 11 people remained standing. The aircraft took off without difficulty.
After the decision was made that there were too many people on the aircraft, it was decided to land on the opposite side of the Autobahn when the aft rotorblades were observed departing the airframe. Shortly after the Aft Blades failed, the Aft Rotor Hub, along with half of the Aft Pylon separated from the fuselage, and the Chinook crashed on the Autobahn and a "G" force at impact was estimated at 200. All 46 people aboard were killed; there was no doubt that death was instantaneous.
Welcome! Your addition is very interesting, but we can't use uncited material, as it is considered original research. If you can find a newspaper, journal, or book account to cite, then a short version MIGHT be acceptable. I am posting your account above here, as the standards for talk pages are much less restrictive. -- BillCJ 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This rendition of the crash of CH-47C s/n 74-22292 is filled with errors. The actual facts of 74-22292's crash is available through official internet sites.

[edit] Amphibious

The Discovery channel show I just watched had a Chinook landing on water. Are all Chinooks able to land on water? Can we call it an amphibious helicopter? --Gbleem 08:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the military versions are all capable of water landings, as are their smaller brothers, the CH-46 variants. Whether that qualifies them as "amphibious", I don't know. I'll try to scare up a source for that one way or the other. - BillCJ 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
What's in the bulges on the sides? I'm assuming some tubes and wires but maybe flotation material? --Gbleem 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The bulges on the sides are the fuel tanks. There are six of them. When they are partially empty then they are able to act as flotation for a water landing. The water landings if I remember can only be for about 30 minutes or so, with rotors turning. It causes a helluva lot of maintenance after the fact...the wheel bearings have to be repacked (6EA) and all the drain plugs have to be pulled. There has to be a corrosion inspection also. Engine turbine washes need to also be preformed (all water has a degree of salt in it, therefore corrosion...) Whatever else that might be found on a post flight inspection. --Sevvvy (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force HH-47

Recenly read in the Arizona Daily Star that the Air Force is planning to procure some CH-47s (which in the Air Force will be called HH-47s) to replace the Pavehawks in the Combat Search and Rescue role, due to the Chinook being larger and faster, allowing them to carry more equipment and medical personel and such. I'm on my way to class, so if anyone wants to add this in, feel free. Here is the link to the article in the Daily Star: Noisy new chopper en route to D-M?--Raguleader 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The HH-47 is already in the article. We Aero-geeks are fast! - BillCJ 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CH-147

Eight CH-47C Chinooks were delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces in 1974. The Chinooks were in Canadian service from 1974 to 1991; they were designated CH-147. These aircraft were subsequently sold to the Netherlands and are now operated by the Royal Netherlands Air Force as CH-47Ds. On July 5, 2006, the Canadian government issued a notice that it intends to purchase 16 Chinooks.[1].

Did the Dutch dudes upgrade this helicopter to make it a D or does D just stand for Dutch? --Gbleem 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume they upgraded them to "D" standard before delivery, making them similar to US Army CH-47Ds. The Dutch usually call themselves some form of "Niederländer"; to them, the "Deutsch" are Germans. - BillCJ 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Price tag?

Was wondering if someone could add to the article how much the various models of the Chinook cost? Right now no prices are given at all, even one would be helpful. --70.51.231.248 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


The Dutch paid some 389,5 million euros for 6 CH-47F in 2007. Wich would be 65 million euros each. Fvdham 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, If an Apache costs 15 million then why would that thing cost 65 million? Doesn't make sence. 84.250.110.93 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rougly an American CH-47D costs around 20 million or so. I think the G- Models are a helluva lot more. Avionics and such. --134.155.99.42 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think the listed service ceiling is wrong

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avch47.html says it's 22,100 feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.198.192 (talk • contribs)

I think you're right. The problem we have is many people see a hover ceiling, either IGE or OGE and assume that it is the same thing as the service ceiling. --Born2flie 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Question?

Can the Chinook carry an M1A1 Abrams? 84.250.110.93 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NO . the only aircraft capable of carrying Abram tank is C-130 or C-5 (not sure which one) and capable of carrying only 1.--Max Mayr 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative, the M1 Abrams weighs more then double the gross weight of the Chinook. The Abrams can be [by] the C-17 Globemaster III or C-5 Galaxy. Both can carry 1 in battle configuration. The Galaxy can carry 2 in a lighter transport configuration. --Trashbag 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the CH-47F's payload weight is 25,000 lb (12.5 tons), which is less than 1/5 of the M1's 67.7 tons weight. -Fnlayson 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shet hawk

common name among US troops --Max Mayr 06:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Source? --Born2flie (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Shithook" might be what he's talking about. A Shit Hawk might be in reference to a Blackhawk (UH-60).--134.155.99.42 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard several US military personnel call it the "shithook". "You hook your shit on the bottom and away it goes!" I also heard one of the women anchors on the English version of NHK Japan news call it a "Chin ook", during a story on the crash of one in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[edit] Engines and rotors

How is the power from the engines in the back transmitted to the rotor in the front? If one engine fails, can the remaining one drive both rotors? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know specifically about the CH-47. But it started out as bigger version of the CH-46 Sea Knight. The CH-46 has 2 engines near the rear rotor. A driveshaft from the engine area goes to the forward rotor. The engines are coupled to a transmission so that one could fail and the other engine could power both rotors in an emergency. The Chinook surely has the same type arrangement. Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Info on the drive system [1] --Trashbag (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Even better. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I've added the link and the info to the article. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Good work, thanks. I moved a couple paragraphs including the one you added to the Development section. The first part (lead) was too long. It's supposed to summarize the article. I plan to work filling out the development section here in the future (hopefully near term). -Fnlayson (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Maximum Speeds

Someone needs to verify and standardize the speeds listed for this craft. The top of the page states 195mph. This is believable, albeit barely. The bottom of the page states 240 mph. Now unless there is something I don't know about, I don't remember the Chinook, or "shithook" as we call them in the service, laying claim to be the fastest helicopter ever built. 68.227.219.145 (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Right. Looks like an IP user changed that a couple days ago and nobody caught it til now. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Chinook is rated at 170 Kts VNE, which is about 195 or so. It's not the fastest Helicopter in the world, but it's faster than the Blackhawk or the Apache. --134.155.99.42 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico

Does Mexico use a CIVILIAN VIP type of CHINOOK?

heres a link to see a picture or too. user:Homan05

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/album360?page=1

Reply to unsigned comment above - the one helicopter in Image 7 and the line-up in Image 22 look like Pumas or variants of not Chinooks. Big clue only one rotor!. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

holy crap...i didnt see that...my mistake. that really is a puma.


[edit] Wrong Range

Hi guys, there's a mistake in the Range of the Chinook. Here's the information that is on the article.

Range: 400 nmi (450 mi, 426 km)

I don't know about the nautical miles, but converting 450 miles into kilometers has to be at least 720km, for a mile is roughly 1.6 km. I didn't want to change it before checking it, but I know it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBBenjamin (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)