Comments on: Has the Chinook met its FATE?

By: guest

guest — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:58:38 +0000

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.

By: Blight

Blight — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:10:10 +0000

We need a god-sized helicopter to transport a M113, either by sling or internally (or go with Skycrane instead?)

By: freight train 188

freight train 188 — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:52:57 +0000

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”?

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:23:50 +0000

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.

By: cheap rs gold

cheap rs gold — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:53:55 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:46:14 +0000

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.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:17:48 +0000

“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.

By: Wanderlust

Wanderlust — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:05:54 +0000

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).

By: Wanderlust

Wanderlust — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:03:45 +0000

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:39:11 +0000

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.