Talk:Boeing CH-47 Chinook/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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.

In Viet Nam the UH1D was called a "slick" and the CH47 was called a "shithook". I never heard them called anything else when I was in Viet Nam '69–'70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.101.67 (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Section Sounds Like First Person

I refer to: "The "sizing" of the Chinook was directly related to the growth of the Huey and the Army's tacticians' insistence that initial air assaults be built around the squad. There was a critical stage in the Huey program when the technicians insisted that we should not go beyond the UH-1B model with Bell; that there should be a new tactical transport "between" the Huey and medium transport helicopter. Major General von Kann and I fought a rear-guard action in a Pentagon battle to keep the Huey program viable. When it was decided to go to the UH-1D (after an awkward pause on the original "C" design), the proper Chinook size became apparent. By resolutely pushing for the Huey and the Chinook, the Army accelerated its airmobility program by years."

Changing this style to be a bit more encyclopedic. --202.169.31.178 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Speed citation?

There is no way a Chinook can go nearly 2000km/h that's absurd. The rotorcraft record is less than a quarter that. Here's a link to the actual specifications which reckons its top speed is 160kts (about 320 km/h). I'm gonna edit it roughly but if some wikipedian vet would be so kind as to fix it up that'd be superTwyn3161 (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/chinook.cfm

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)

What complicates the cost is the fact that almost all the D's are rebuilt A, B, or C models, a lot of the F's are projected to be rebuilt D's, and so on. Yes, there is a cost savings in using some pre-existing portions of the aircraft, but there are also costs involved in tearing down, reconditioning, and rebuilding. I don't know if Boeing has a baseline price on that or if the billing varies from aircraft to aircraft based on work required. 10 August 2010.

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)
        • A section needs to be added to explain how pitch yaw and roll control are obtained with the dual rotors. This must be quite interesting and complex. Are the rotors rigid? Trojancowboy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Tandem rotors and Helicopter rotor are the articles to cover that type of thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • The Tandem rotors article is totally inadequate in itself. Someone should work on that page then. I will post there if needed.Trojancowboy (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Trojancowboy, you may want to use the website I have referenced above as a source to research your additions to the Tandem Rotors article. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated.--Trashbag (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Operational history" version focused exclusively in "US" usage

Hi, I believe the mentioned section in the article is not only brief but focused only in the Chinook's usage by the US Army (Ok, it's the biggest user of this chopper!). To make it more diverse, I'll add a paragraph about the use in the Falklands War by Argentina and UK. I encourage other editors to add info about operational usage by other countries' armed forces.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Combat/operational history is not as readily available on cargo and utility type helicopters (airplanes too). British usage should be covered in their article: Boeing Chinook (UK variants) -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Compares with CH-53 Sea Stallion

The article doesn't gives a comparasion with the CH-53 Sea Stallion. some countries uses the CH-53 Sea Stallion , whyle others uses the CH-47 Chinook. what's the best option, in things such as economy and range? Agre22 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

M240/MAG machine guns

Who keeps changing the section on weapons to M240s when i change it to the MAG? An M240 is a MAG but a MAG is not an M240. MAG covers all opperators that call them different things (like the Australian army's MAG58 or UK L...something) becasue it what the design is patented under. 124.177.0.11 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Users Map

It seems to me that the users map in this article mistakes the Sultanate of Oman for the United Arab Emirates. I would like to be able to rectify this issue myself, but I am not familiar with Wikipedia's media formatting or uploading formats and techniques. Thank you. AiRsTrIkE1 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)