The first Boeing CH-47, a 33,000lb machine powered by two 1,640shp Lycoming (now Honeywell) T55 engines, achieved first flight on Sept. 21, 1961.
Nearly 47 years and seven major upgrades later, the CH-47F and MH-47G has doubled in weight to 50,000lb, while the engine shaft horsepower rating has tripled with introduction of the 4,868shp T55-GA-714 powerplant.
With only 10% of the CH-47F delivered, however, Boeing is again proposing to radically increase the size of the airframe. The “growth Chinook” would be stretched and widened to accommodate and up-armored HMMWV (Humvee) inside the cabin. This would increase maximum takeoff weight to around 70,000lbs and demand a much larger engine. Honeywell has already proposed a roughly 6,000shp T55-GA-715.
It’s still unclear what the army thinks about all this. After all, the army is planning to buy another 400 CH-47Fs. It’s also still debating how much it needs a Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft that would be more than twice the size of the CH-47F.
On top of all this, the army has also started a program to replace the venerable T55 with an all new engine in the 6,000shp to 7,000shp range after 2018. Last week, I confirmed that Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are each participating in the earliest stages of the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) program.
All this really means is that no one can predict the future of the army’s heavylift rotorcraft needs after 2015, when the Future Combat System will allegedly be fielded. When the future of FCS is finally settled, the army will have a range of good options for a Chinook replacement.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Found this at Rotor & Wing Magazine’s website. It’s dated April 9.
“…official referred to “the program formerly known as Joint Heavy Lift.” The new name, said Col. Rick Stockhausen, director of concepts and requirements at the Aviation Warfighting Center, is Joint Future Theater Lift. It is a concept, he added, and is looking at lifting a 28-ton payload”.
An earlier posting reads “At 30 tons, the senior Army aviation leader ventured, “the Army will never be allowed to own that aircraft.”
They should increase the airframe, only a matter of time before these old airframes start to break down. If Boeing wants to make these, they aught to make it out of composites, add a few thousand pounds to the payload, maybe even decrease radar signature, just for the hell of it. Hell they should be making everything out of composites these days, with composite armor. This is the frickin 21st century.
The chinook has HAD composites on it since the early 80's. More won't help, except to lighten weight. For structural needs, metal is better.
Good Evening Folks,
The CV-22 has ONLY a 10 ton payload, again why is it better then the CH-47?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron Skinner,
You are confusing the CH-47 with the CH-46. ;)
Byron, the V-22 payload is more like 10,000-14,000 lbs…not tons. I suspect it would have great difficulty hovering out of ground effect in many place in Afghanistan with any kind of load. That’s why the CH-47 is king there and in other high hot conditions…like the mountains of Iran.;)
So why again is the Air Force reluctant to buy this proven winner for CSAR-X?
How much bigger can the Chinook get and still fit
in a C-17 or C-5?
Cole,
The AF isn’t reluctant to buy the CH-47 for CSAR-X. That’s what they selected as the competition winner. The problem is that the losing bidders protested the award.
Jeff M, making a helo out of all composites causes a lot of “unknown unknowns” to crop up. My favorite little problem when I was on RAH-66 was the challenge of grounding the airframe.
No metal in airframe = heavy copper cable required for grounding.
To the best of my knowledge, that problem was never solved on RAH-66 (the cable put the already fat airframe waaaaay over its weight limit).
Jeff M, making a helo out of all composites causes a lot of “unknown unknowns” to crop up. My favorite little problem when I was on RAH-66 was the challenge of grounding the airframe.
No metal in airframe = heavy copper cable required for grounding.
To the best of my knowledge, that problem was never solved on RAH-66 (the cable put the already fat airframe waaaaay over its weight limit).
“The CV-22 has ONLY a 10 ton payload, again why is it better then the CH-47?”
In a word… speed. Whatever DOD may say, the Osprey is all about getting men fast and far, not heavy cargo. It’s easy to see why the Marines want it so bad. 350 mph will get men from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and back a lot faster than 140 mph.
The ch-46 and ch-47 had it hay day. It is time for the future of the Osprey to take over. With all the good reports from Afghanistan and Iraq it has provin itself. And if you have ever rode in any of those helicopter (ch-46 or ch-47) you better thank God that you made it back alive. I have such complete fate in the Osprey I would not only fly in this amazing aircraft that I would also let me Family fly it it to.
David: After @ 2000 flight hrs (in which 800 hrs were with night vision devides; 600hrs training student-pilots and 200 in combat conditions) on both D & F model versions of the chinook. I have to ask you "Have you look at the accident-mishapps rates"?
I also give my account to her, she want to play my number, she also can play. But one day, I found she had another husband, and she have no longer to play with me. And I found my number is empty, she took my things changed the cheap RS gold. I was very sad; I did not believe she is the girl that I know.
Sorry David,
The V-22 has its purpose, but when you can buy twice the number of CH-47F as V-22s for your $70 million, carrying twice as much external load at the same speed (try flying 250 knots with an external load), with a far more useful cabin size, you understand why helicopters aren’t going away.
I would also match the CH-47 safety track record against the V-22 anyday.
We need a god-sized helicopter to transport a M113, either by sling or internally (or go with Skycrane instead?)