Comments on: Chinooks To the Rescue

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:27:50 +0000

Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

By: Don

Don — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:25:58 +0000

The 47 is by far the best choice. Much to the chagrin of various internet experts who claim the Chinook “sure doesn’t have the speed of other helos and is quite the large lumbering target”, it is actually the fastest helicopter in the US Army inventory and is uniquely maneuverable because of the twin rotor design. Wouldn’t hurt to listen to some of these people with 20+ years experience in rotary wing aviation, they might actually know what they’re talking about. Also, check out just how “slow” and un-maneuverable this “lumbering beast” is:

By: Mike Morando

Mike Morando — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:06:52 +0000

I had been flying CH-47s for the Army for 22 years(A,B,C,D models), and am quite impressed with it’s performance. Even on one engine, it has superb performance, even at high altitudes (I’ve done mountain rescues on top of Mt. Rainier, 14,411 ft, and it performs as if at sea level. It’s service ceiling is 25,000 ft). It can do pinnacle landings that no other helicopter can do (footprint: 1 X 8 ft), and an LZ footprint is almost the same as a UH-60. Loiter time is greater than any of the other candidates, and fast arrival times will be a plus (150 mph+). It is no louder than most other designs. Vietnam service proves it is extremely rugged and can take punishment. Although it looks like a 40 year old design, it is in shape only, as everything else has been updated over the years, making it a modern design in an old overcoat. There is a reason almost every country on Earth either operates them or is trying to aquire them. The Chinook is that good.

By: Larry

Larry — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:09:22 +0000

The Chinook is by far the best choice for the CSAR mission. Speed, flexibility (Being able to snorkel), high altitude, proven design, combat reliability, endurance and a cavaneous interior beats the competition hands down. LZ size can on occasion be an obstacle, however, with it’s pinnacle landing capability, that should nullify the negative comments and solve that problem. It simply out flies the competition.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:07:46 +0000

Older doesn’t always mean less capable. Remember this design has been tested in multiple wars. As for the comment about .50 cal rounds, I doubt any of the entrants in the bidding can take a lot of hits from, especially in a vital area.
The bottom line is your not going to please everyone, and new designs usually cost a lot more in the long run

By: Dov

Dov — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:27:24 +0000

I worked on/with Chinooks for 23+ years at the
factory and with the test pilots. As I recall, the Chinook doesn’t fall out of the sky on one engine. It has an elaborate combining transmission and cross shaft mechanism to prevent that. The bird falls out only in a catastriphic accident where an opposite cross shaft or the main drive shaft is severed.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:30:09 +0000

Murc,
LZ is “Landing Zone” — basically any area a helo can land in.
Ralph,
The difference is not a couple of feet in rotor diameter. With rotors turning, the 47 is over 25 feet longer than the 101. Width is about the same, but obviously with two main rotors the 47 needs a lot more square footage, to say nothing of a pilot’s ability to keep the rear rotor clear in a tight LZ since he can’t see it.

By: Murc

Murc — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 08:06:16 +0000

Ralph, you seem pretty well informed on the Chinooks…so I gotta a question for ya: If one engine craps out, does one of the turbines stop spinning…or is it like the V-22 in which there is a shaft that connects the two engines so if one goes out, the other engine can safly give power to both props.(?)
also…what does LZ mean?

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:40:17 +0000

Bill, I suppose you are not aware but the HH-47 has the least downwash of the 3 entrants (simple physics really) the larger mass is distriibuted over an even larger surface area of the blades. The USAF measured the downwash very carefully at the Nellis demos of all 3 aircraft. The 47 has the lowest by 20–30%.
This aircraft is already faster than the 101 or the 92 without a new blade that the other 2 would have to develop and qualify. WE are already at 150 knots and going to 170 in Block 10 with a new blade that has chance at being done in a reasonable amount of time.
We will have a Ballistic Warning System on board in Block 10 and armour that is equal to the USASF requirements.
Oh by the way you don’t drop like a rock if 1 engine goes out, so stop spouting misinformation.
The footprint of this aircraft is not that much bigger than the other two. The difference is a coupel of feet in rotor diameter, so that crap about not fittining into LZs is untrue as well.

By: Benjamin Fan

Benjamin Fan — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:28:48 +0000

Perhaps yes, 141 choppers are needed, if you consider the entire globe, and the fact that you need a few SAR choppers perhaps stationed on each USAF foreign base overseas. Think about the vast, wastelands of Central Asia that need to be covered from Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.
Plus, take combat attrition and damage into account.