I've had a USMC CH-47N planed for ages, will probably do it in 2 tone low viz greys. Was pondering whether to use the larger fuel tanks from the special forces versions along with a refuelling probe
On the other hand I've got a couple of RAF Stallions planned, one HC.1 (CH-53K) in grey/green Falklands colours and another upgraded HC.2 (3 engined CH-53E equivalent) in overall green ;)
Been thinking about a Japanese ASW Chinook ;) :D :D
Mine will be highly modified anyway, into a 350th scale boat. It'll have a new island, and probably a ski jump with a single cat, or maybe two.
:wub:
All this talk about Sea Chinooks has made me think of various uses...
Inevitable RH-47 minesweeper
SH-47 long-range ASW platform, with stub wings for Harpoon?
EH-47 AEW platform for smaller carriers (like Sea Control Ship) with Nimrod AEW.3 type radomes fore and aft, or one big Sea King AEW-style radome as a retractable underfuselage unit?
CH-47J COD bird -- like SH-47 but with tanks on stub wing?
Think I need some kind of medication. One night off the beer and just look what happens...
:dum: :dum: :dum: :dum: :dum: :dum:
definately a million uses for a Chinook !
Your Sea Thing type, how about some kind of radome that comes out the back door and hangs there ? Now that would be cool !
There's a CDN SAR bird somewhere on the net, can't remember where, painted exactly like a Labrador, but it just doesn't look right.........
QuoteThere's a CDN SAR bird somewhere on the net, can't remember where, painted exactly like a Labrador, but it just doesn't look right.........
In the WAPJ with the article on Chinook variants, there is a photo of a concept model of the Chinook in canuckian SAR colours as proposed by Boeing - looks pretty cool :wub:
Quote
In the WAPJ with the article on Chinook variants, there is a photo of a concept model of the Chinook in canuckian SAR colours as proposed by Boeing - looks pretty cool :wub:
I see yer finally getting the picture, Nevster.......ANYTHING in leafy roundels looks cool ! Mind you, save for Alvis' underwear !
Hi folks,
How about some Chinook whiff ideas. To give some inspiration, here are some real world winged chooks:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2F347wing.jpg&hash=81975cc47ac22c001d70decf8e343d04b78a6db3)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.combatreform2.com%2Fchinookwithwings.jpg&hash=a6960a46d2be6df437122b972646f7b29c1d250c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.combatreform2.com%2Fboeing347banking.jpg&hash=c1baa1d8b4ad8629c855fbc2ae9fdb00cd67ab88)
Now I know there was an Attack Chook (ACH-47):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FGG_In-Flight_700x546.jpg&hash=401f86102a3d8a2505990dd8700c6027b0559e66)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2F64_13149.jpg&hash=10578191696e950f3e602c61f5c97c99742d1d09)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fem.jpg&hash=c7383fc7d42ed3ba61ca6bbfe3a7e47da5638d28)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2F64_13154.jpg&hash=6d22752930cc2e4f399c2862b400fe1443509e09)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Farmament_c.jpg&hash=668f52a08d0d676c6e43827690ec3f3f8f2e751d)
And there was apparently a proposal for a Sea Chook (ASW bird).
What other possibilities?
Regards,
Greg
I don't think there was ever a passenger bird,like the Boeing 107 Sea Knight used over New York.I could see say Pan Am in NY or a Japanese communter line getting some good usage out of the larger Chinook.BA did use a couple Civie Chinooks for awhile for oil rig flights,but I think thats as close as a passenger Chinook got.
Maybe an airborne command post.The Russians used their Mi-6s,Mi-8s and Mi-26s as such,and the CH-47 has a good amount of floor space.Also along those lines,you could do a EW/ECM jammer type,something like say either a Guardrail or Quick Fix.
The commercial version of the Chinook could seat up to 44 passengers, but as you mention, there was never a dedicated passenger variant. Commercial Chinooks retained the loading ramp & were short on frills for the civillian market, although a few Roughnecks on the way out to a rig in the North Sea weren't going to worry too much!!!
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=118 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=118)
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.sear...ine_version=6.0 (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=Chinook&range=1&sort_order=&page_limit=120&thumbnails=&calccount=1248882&truecount=false&engine_version=6.0)
How about a Chinook tilt rotor or Gyrodyne (Fairey Rotodyne)? Remove the masts, shorten the panniers & add conventional flying surfaces for a fixed wing aircraft?
Greg, I just get :redx: for the ACH-47.
How about a Marine One version? A VH-47? Given all the gear the USN is insisting on adding to the VH-71, perhaps VH-47 might sense after all. *G* I'm getting the gear together to do a VH-53E.
I have this one relegated to the "what-to-do-with-it" heap
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq14%2Frafaelgonzalez65%2FIMG_1954.jpg&hash=7c471efce79959ec5078c533ce8e52adfa007c1a)
It has wings and stabilators from an old seahawk
Rafa
What if we combine the winged chook and the attack chook and maybe redo the cockpit into a tandem style ala cobra/Hind. We also use the rear to carry a small assault squad - the resulting ACH-47B? could be an early precusor to the HH-47:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%2Frotorcraft%2Fmilitary%2Fhh47%2Fposters%2FMSF07-1850-3.jpg&hash=c6073fcb7f9502cec74f75e9b77d3c45859ca68c)
Regards,
Greg
Real world developments:
QuotePiasecki reveals new look for hot-rod Chinook
By Stephen Trimble
Piasecki Aircraft has revealed new images of a Boeing CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter augmented by ducted-fan thrusters, which can be vectored to boost maximum speed to 250kt (462km/h) or lift capacity by 30%.
The conceptual drawings, which reveal twin thrusters mounted on either side of the Chinook's mid-fuselage, were made public in a patent application published in mid-January. According to Piasecki's description, the vectored thrust is controlled by differential pitch propellers and horizontal vains.
The patent filing is an extension of Piasecki's ongoing experiments with the X-49A vectored thrust ducted propeller system, a Sikorsky UH-60 modified with a tail-mounted ducted fan and wings.
So far, the US Army has not created a requirement to augment the speed or lift capability of its helicopter fleet. However, Boeing acknowledges making a "minor" investment in the Piasecki project. In an interview, Phil Dunford, vice-president and general manager for Boeing Rotorcraft, said the compound rotor concept has potential.
"There is a potential for the compound to be a capability that extends the current configuration of our aircraft into something quicker, with modifications to our aircraft that aren't as big maybe as a brand new programme," Dunford said.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fassets%2FgetAsset.aspx%3FItemID%3D27219&hash=9134d2628033dcec6154d5ec68dd1ae23d056072)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe-dewline%2Fassets_c%2F2009%2F01%2Fch47_speednook2-thumb-445x301.jpg&hash=b5603646580f522d27f1041159bc6c2063a91136)
Regards,
Greg
Found this on Secret Projects:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FChinookFlyingCrane.jpg&hash=59ce6338d26fda4245a38983d77e0ccf9b969a9d)
More Beoing Vertol (& others) flying cranes in this thread:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,565.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,565.0.html)
Quote from: Thorvic on February 27, 2010, 01:45:36 AM
...... operate 4 ASW Chinooks (which for a time were favoured instead of the Seakings at that time - Twin rotors were thought to provide a more stable dipping sonar platform and of course it had the capacity for plenty of sensors, weapons and fuel for endurance).
Now THERE'S an idea! -_-
Has anyone here had a go at that before?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 27, 2010, 02:16:42 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on February 27, 2010, 01:45:36 AM
...... operate 4 ASW Chinooks (which for a time were favoured instead of the Seakings at that time - Twin rotors were thought to provide a more stable dipping sonar platform and of course it had the capacity for plenty of sensors, weapons and fuel for endurance).
Now THERE'S an idea! -_-
Has anyone here had a go at that before?
As in building the ASW Helicopter in an aircraft scale ?, i dont think so although Martin may recall one before is joined the SIG.
G
I meant building a Chinook as an FAA ASW aircraft?
I'm imagining it in RN Dark Blue with big white nos. on the sides, with two sets of Mk 46s down each side of the sponson. The dipping sonar could be deployed over the open ramp perhaps? It might need a bigger side door, maybe with one sponson cut doo in length a tad too.......
I'll have the thing virtually built at this rate...... -_-
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 27, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I meant building a Chinook as an FAA ASW aircraft?
I'm imagining it in RN Dark Blue with big white nos. on the sides, with two sets of Mk 46s down each side of the sponson. The dipping sonar could be deployed over the open ramp perhaps? It might need a bigger side door, maybe with one sponson cut doo in length a tad too.......
I'll have the thing virtually built at this rate...... -_-
Well, hurry up with the pics then! ;D
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 27, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I meant building a Chinook as an FAA ASW aircraft?
I'm imagining it in RN Dark Blue with big white nos. on the sides, with two sets of Mk 46s down each side of the sponson. The dipping sonar could be deployed over the open ramp perhaps? It might need a bigger side door, maybe with one sponson cut doo in length a tad too.......
I'll have the thing virtually built at this rate...... -_-
Deploying the dipping sonar from the tail would result in it being hoiked up and down with pitch-attitude changes as the Chook moved. I think it would be better to deploy it from a hatch in the middle of the belly: it's not like there isn't room...
The logical place for a surface search radar would be in a flat radome under the nose, in the manner of a Seahawk or Merlin, however that would compromise the Chook's amphibious capability, so if you wanted to make it "perversely British" you could give it the Sea King's radar "camel hump" on the spine in between the rotor pylons... ;D Perhaps a more practical idea would be to go for the two-aerial solution seen on the Super-Frelon, but put them on the sides of the forward rotor pylon, or lower a "flying saucer" radome out of the tail ramp.
Quote from: Weaver on February 28, 2010, 02:50:41 AM
Deploying the dipping sonar from the tail would result in it being hoiked up and down with pitch-attitude changes as the Chook moved. I think it would be better to deploy it from a hatch in the middle of the belly: it's not like there isn't room...
The logical place for a surface search radar would be in a flat radome under the nose, in the manner of a Seahawk or Merlin, however that would compromise the Chook's amphibious capability, so if you wanted to make it "perversely British" you could give it the Sea King's radar "camel hump" on the spine in between the rotor pylons... ;D Perhaps a more practical idea would be to go for the two-aerial solution seen on the Super-Frelon, but put them on the sides of the forward rotor pylon, or lower a "flying saucer" radome out of the tail ramp.
Hmm, I'd have thought that with current control systems a feedback signal from the pitch channel could be fed to the sonar winch to counteract the pitch issues. ;D But as the Chinook already has a belly hatch anyway, for the central cargo hook, putting the sonar there might work better.
The 'camel hump' radar would be at great risk of being thumped by either of the rotors in various flight and non-flight modes I reckon, but I take the point about having it on the bottom of the fuselage. In passing, it looks like the Navy have foregone their amphibious helicopter capability with the Merlin, as that's exactly where the Merlin's radar is fitted.
How about mounting the radar actually ON the floor of the ramp, and just lower it to the deployed position? Then if a water landing was need you could lift it back up again.
If I may be naive ? Why do you need to land on water other then in an emergency ? You can pick survivors up with a winchman ?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 28, 2010, 04:10:08 AM
Quote from: Weaver on February 28, 2010, 02:50:41 AM
Deploying the dipping sonar from the tail would result in it being hoiked up and down with pitch-attitude changes as the Chook moved. I think it would be better to deploy it from a hatch in the middle of the belly: it's not like there isn't room...
The logical place for a surface search radar would be in a flat radome under the nose, in the manner of a Seahawk or Merlin, however that would compromise the Chook's amphibious capability, so if you wanted to make it "perversely British" you could give it the Sea King's radar "camel hump" on the spine in between the rotor pylons... ;D Perhaps a more practical idea would be to go for the two-aerial solution seen on the Super-Frelon, but put them on the sides of the forward rotor pylon, or lower a "flying saucer" radome out of the tail ramp.
Hmm, I'd have thought that with current control systems a feedback signal from the pitch channel could be fed to the sonar winch to counteract the pitch issues. ;D But as the Chinook already has a belly hatch anyway, for the central cargo hook, putting the sonar there might work better.
With current systems yes, but I thought we were doing this in the 1960s for the Escort Cruiser?
The belly hatch is the way the Swedes do it with their 107s, and AFAIK they're the only outfit in the world to use a tandem rotor machine for ASW.
Quote
The 'camel hump' radar would be at great risk of being thumped by either of the rotors in various flight and non-flight modes I reckon,
Fair point: I wasn't being entirely serious anyway.... ;D
Quotebut I take the point about having it on the bottom of the fuselage. In passing, it looks like the Navy have foregone their amphibious helicopter capability with the Merlin, as that's exactly where the Merlin's radar is fitted.
How about mounting the radar actually ON the floor of the ramp, and just lower it to the deployed position? Then if a water landing was need you could lift it back up again.
Depends on what sort of water landing you envisage: the Chook can actually open it's tail ramp
on the water with a special dam fitted to stop the cabin flooding, but that would still dunk a ramp-mounted aerial. On the whole, I think that either a retractable aerial or twin side-mounted ones is the way to go. You can put it on (rather than under) the nose of course, but then that makes an already long aircraft even longer.
Speaking of the ramp, an ASW Chook with the same sensors as a Sea King would have an awful lot of space to spare, so why not stow torpedoes and depth charges internally and simply roll them out of the back? That would give you enormous flexibility in weapon choice, not least when it came to tac nukes.
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 28, 2010, 08:27:21 AM
If I may be naive ? Why do you need to land on water other then in an emergency ? You can pick survivors up with a winchman ?
You probably don't but it's the stated reason for the Sea King's radar not being under the belly, so presumably the same reasoning would apply to the Chinook.
Perhaps because that's the way the aircraft came from Sikorsky in the first place? :lol:
In reality I don't think they do use the capability as a regular operational capability, but it might come in handy sometimes.
Thanks Weaver and Kit - glad I wasn't missing anything obvious ;D
Quote from: Weaver on February 28, 2010, 09:00:28 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 28, 2010, 08:27:21 AM
If I may be naive ? Why do you need to land on water other then in an emergency ? You can pick survivors up with a winchman ?
You probably don't but it's the stated reason for the Sea King's radar not being under the belly, so presumably the same reasoning would apply to the Chinook.
I seem to remember there is a radar aerial on the Seaking "under the water" when it lands on water - its in the nose, below the cockpit. So it is possible. I think a much worse problem would be the clearance under the fuselage when landing for the Chinook. There isn't that much room under there. I think having twin antenna, one each side and a bow one would be sufficient and more useful.
This is the sort of thing you can do with a Chinook on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq8ol9XJPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7rqcKFcaBI&feature=related
;D :blink:
Quote from: Weaver on March 01, 2010, 04:55:54 AM
This is the sort of thing you can do with a Chinook on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsq8ol9XJPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7rqcKFcaBI&feature=related
;D :blink:
Second link shows just how "leaky" the hull of the Chinook is. Check out where all the water comes out of when they lift off. Now, is it SEALs as claiming in one or SBS as claimed in the other?
I think that's mostly coming from the undercarriage sections of the sponsons and the winch hatch by the look of it, and don't forget, you wouldn't routinely open the tail ramp all the way on the water without the dam in place. There are loads of still photos of them landing on water and according to Boeing's website a) they're often pre-delivery tested in the river next to the factory and b) you can land on water and shut the engines down, so it's a proper landing, not just "hovering below sea level".
I think they're two different events rather than different videos of the same event. One claims to be a practice run and the other is supposed to be in Afghanistan, but how true that is? ......
I imagine it could look a little like this, only put the Chinook fuselage back in between the sponsons instead of the Cormorants
Why not put a retractable dustbin radar in place of the floor hatch? You can then fit the MAD bird at one end of a sponson, dipping sonar in the other sponson. You haul the sonar up to move, so no real issue there.
You probably want a weather radar in the nose... I'm not sure what else would be appropriate for a 60's era machine.
definatly 2 diffent sets of shots, in the 1st the crewman on our left climbs up out of the way of the rigid raider, in the second he dosnt.
:cheers:
Split topic so as not to hijack Roughnecks Escoert Carrier thread with disccuion about the possibilities and capabilities of the projected ASW version of the Chinook from the early 60s.
Renamed topic back to ASW Chinook from CH-47 Chinnok that Jeff decided to retitle it to so that thread stays on topic about the ASW version so as to distinguish from the exsisting trash hauler.
Geoff
Geoff,
You're too sensible by half, what are you doing in here though? ;D :lol:
I like 'Silver Fox's' ideas about the placement of the systems, I can see that working well. Of course if you started with an HC3 it already has the weather radar in the nose and LOTS of room in the monster sponsons for all the extra bits. Apparently Revell do, or did an HC3 but I've never seen one in the UK, anyone else?
I already have an HC2 out of The Loft, and a Sea King as well, as a bits provider, but I'd rather have an HC3 as a starter.
How much room is really spare in the sponsons though? I thought they were mostly full of fuel.... :unsure:
On real HC3s they are, yes, but this is the ASW4............ <_<
So you're going to move the fuel out of the sponsons and into the fuselage and put the ASW gear in the sponsons? Why not just put the ASW gear in the fuselage? Even if you want a retractable dustbin radome, there's plenty of room for that and a dipping sonar hatch on the underside, and you can trail the MAD bird from the tail ramp.
Bit more research:
1. The exisiting side door is routinely fitted with a winch, so no need for a bigger door/shorter sponson.
2. My side-of-the-front-pylon radar aerials won't work: they block big maintenance hatches on the sides and their view to the rear is restricted by the engines: no point having the penalty of twin aerials if you don't get near 360deg coverage.
3. Some Chinooks have a weather radar in an extended nose, which looks big enough to house a late Sea King or Lynx radar with 90deg scan as standard or 180deg with a modest extension. This would make the airframe longer, however.
4. As far as I can tell, the fairing on the back of the rear rotor plyon is empty. It occurs to me that it could be replaced with a drum-shaped radome capable of housing at least the early Sea King radar with only a modest change of shape, with 270 deg scan. Combining this with the nose radar seems to me the best solution.
So why not a sort of Nimrod AEW arrangement ;D if you're going for a dedicated AEW platform, the rear loading ramp can be dumped too.
Quote from: Weaver on March 02, 2010, 09:53:20 AM
So you're going to move the fuel out of the sponsons and into the fuselage and put the ASW gear in the sponsons? Why not just put the ASW gear in the fuselage? Even if you want a retractable dustbin radome, there's plenty of room for that and a dipping sonar hatch on the underside, and you can trail the MAD bird from the tail ramp.
Bit more research:
1. The exisiting side door is routinely fitted with a winch, so no need for a bigger door/shorter sponson.
2. My side-of-the-front-pylon radar aerials won't work: they block big maintenance hatches on the sides and their view to the rear is restricted by the engines: no point having the penalty of twin aerials if you don't get near 360deg coverage.
3. Some Chinooks have a weather radar in an extended nose, which looks big enough to house a late Sea King or Lynx radar with 90deg scan as standard or 180deg with a modest extension. This would make the airframe longer, however.
4. As far as I can tell, the fairing on the back of the rear rotor plyon is empty. It occurs to me that it could be replaced with a drum-shaped radome capable of housing at least the early Sea King radar with only a modest change of shape, with 270 deg scan. Combining this with the nose radar seems to me the best solution.
No, only SOME of the fuel. The sonar winch and the MAD winch wouldn't take that much room out of the rear of the sponsons.
The HC3 has that extended nose with the weather radar already, which is why I suggested it. See attached. (The baby is deliberately blanked out, to apease the widly OTT PC people in our current Governent......... <sigh>)
The side door of a Wokka is quite a lot narrower than the sliding door on a Sea King, and it would be difficult to haul a victim aboard with the winchman as well, if they were on a stretcher it would be impossible.
The 'Twin radar' system, fore and aft, like the Nimrod AEW3, sounds a good move, but Marconi are NOT getting the job! -_-
With you on the HC.3 now Kit. Italieri do an MH-47E with the same nose that's available in the UK: http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=IT1218
I found an account, but not a clear picture, of a stretcher case being winched aboard a Chinook during a mountain rescue training mission, but it wasn't clear if they were winched in through the side door or an enlarged floor hatch. I've also got a feeling that I've seen a rescue winch being used from the rear ramp of a big helo, though not neccessarily a Chook.
Quote from: Weaver on March 02, 2010, 07:16:16 PM
With you on the HC.3 now Kit. Italieri do an MH-47E with the same nose that's available in the UK: http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=IT1218
Now that's REALLY handy, thanks. The MH-47E is almost the same shape as the HC3, complete with uber large sponsons and the extra bulges etc. I feel some plastic cutting coming on...........again! :lol:
Stick the retractable AAR boom onto the back as a retractable MAD stinger.
Not sure about the MH-47 kit... but some kits give you optional parts for extended or retracted, you could still retain the AAR probe if you do get both.
Don't forget its an ASW Chinook the Cabin & Doors would be configured for the crew entry only as the Cabin would be fitted for Radar & Sonar equipment and operators. The Radar itself would be probably fitted under the fuselage in a similar manner to the Spanish Seakings. Torpedoes, Depth charges and sonar bouys would likely be carried in eith a weapons bay or attached to the enlarged sponsons.
SAR & Utility role aboard RN ships would probably remain with the Wessex although a Navalised CH-47 would probably take over the role as the Seakings actually did.
The adoption of the Chinook as the RNs large Naval Helo instead of the Seaking does raise another interesting aspect, as most post 60's designs have had Sea King compatability built into them. Would designs such as the Type 22 (II, III), Type 23, Type 45, Ocean and RFA's now have larger flight decks and hangers to allow for navalised Chinook to be operated and hangered (The newer ships are designed to allow a Chinook to use the flight deck but not hangered !!!.
G
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 02, 2010, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: Weaver on March 02, 2010, 07:16:16 PM
With you on the HC.3 now Kit. Italieri do an MH-47E with the same nose that's available in the UK: http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=IT1218
Now that's REALLY handy, thanks. The MH-47E is almost the same shape as the HC3, complete with uber large sponsons and the extra bulges etc. I feel some plastic cutting coming on...........again! :lol:
And if you look at a sprue shot, it's the standard fuselage complete with moulded-in standard sponsons that you have to cut off to fit the set of big ones that come on a separate sprue. That gives you the option of using the standard sponsons which are narrower: anything to reduce the Chinook's enormous deck/hanger footprint particularly since you're making it longer with the radar nose.
In terms of sonar placement, why not go with something similar to the Swedish HKP4 (KV107)?
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Navy/Kawasaki-Hkp4C-(KV-107-II-16)/0797498/L/&sid=2e8099f6362ea736bb3dbe256783718c (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Navy/Kawasaki-Hkp4C-(KV-107-II-16)/0797498/L/&sid=2e8099f6362ea736bb3dbe256783718c)
Quote from: Thorvic on March 03, 2010, 12:04:35 AM
Don't forget its an ASW Chinook the Cabin & Doors would be configured for the crew entry only as the Cabin would be fitted for Radar & Sonar equipment and operators. The Radar itself would be probably fitted under the fuselage in a similar manner to the Spanish Seakings. Torpedoes, Depth charges and sonar bouys would likely be carried in eith a weapons bay or attached to the enlarged sponsons.
SAR & Utility role aboard RN ships would probably remain with the Wessex although a Navalised CH-47 would probably take over the role as the Seakings actually did.
The adoption of the Chinook as the RNs large Naval Helo instead of the Seaking does raise another interesting aspect, as most post 60's designs have had Sea King compatability built into them. Would designs such as the Type 22 (II, III), Type 23, Type 45, Ocean and RFA's now have larger flight decks and hangers to allow for navalised Chinook to be operated and hangered (The newer ships are designed to allow a Chinook to use the flight deck but not hangered !!!.
G
The requirement for big helos on frigates was driven by the need to prosecute long-range contacts made by the new towed-array sonars. Options would be:
1. Buy an off-the-shelf design (Sea King? Seahawk?) until Merlin was available,
2. Develop a new big frigate helo nationally. Since not buying the Sea King would almost certainly mean that Westland didn't build it at all, probable the best option would be the WG.30, i.e. the big-cabin Lynx. That would cost a packet in the short term, but it would then position Westland to win both the Puma replacement and NH-90 competitions, which would be very good in the long term.
3. Re-organaise the RN to have more Chinook carriers, so that a towed-array frigate didn't have to relay on it's own air assets to prosecute the contact. Building more RFAs with this capability, plus the ability to re-fuel and re-arm them (but not hanger/service them) on the frigates would be one solution.
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 03, 2010, 01:46:57 AM
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 01:03:33 AM
And if you look at a sprue shot, it's the standard fuselage complete with moulded-in standard sponsons that you have to cut off to fit the set of big ones that come on a separate sprue. That gives you the option of using the standard sponsons which are narrower:
I've got a couple of these kits, cutting out the standard sponsons is made very easy by it having a score line moulded in on the inside. It's where I got the sponsons for my EH-101 Petrel project.
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 03, 2010, 01:46:57 AM
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Never been near an Angry Chook have you?
Quote from: rickshaw on March 03, 2010, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 03, 2010, 01:46:57 AM
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Never been near an Angry Chook have you?
Nope - how does it compare to a Merlin? (Should have said "one of the
theoretical advantages..." ;D)
Quote from: rickshaw on March 03, 2010, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Never been near an Angry Chook have you?
Beat me to it ---- I was going to say the downwash was one of the big things that was griped about when the Chinook got awarded the USAF CSAR job.
I was just gonna say that I've been around taxying & hovering Chinooks before & I think I'd rather stand in a hurricane!
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 03, 2010, 01:46:57 AM
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Okay, okay! ;D
My point was that a twin-rotor helo should have a lower-energy downwash than a single-rotor one of equivalent power, but that doesn't change the fact that a Chook is a damned big machine with upto 9000 shp pushing air about. As to whether this would be a problem on board ship, it's worth remembering that the CH-53E Super Stallion is routinely used on board ships despite having over 13,000 shp.
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 06:44:37 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on March 03, 2010, 06:27:36 AM
Quote from: Weaver on March 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 03, 2010, 01:46:57 AM
This is a dual role ASW/SAR aircraft, it's surely big enough. :lol:
Actually the issue about the hangar size is only one factor in the 'shipability' of the aircraft. When the first Merlin made a landing on the after deck of RFA Fort Victoria, then in dry dock in Portsmouth, the downwash blew the 'roller-blind' hangar doors right into the hangar! I'd think a Wokka would be even worse from that point of view.
Possibly, possibly not: one of the advantages of a twin-rotor design is lower disc-loading, which translates as lower-energy downwash.....
Never been near an Angry Chook have you?
Nope - how does it compare to a Merlin? (Should have said "one of the theoretical advantages..." ;D)
No, idea. Never seen a Merlin. However, I've worked fairly extensively with Angry Chooks and yes, they have a hell of a downwash. I've also worked with UH-1, Kiowa and Blackhawks. None compare to a Chook. I was standing under a Seaking a few weeks ago, when one was dipping into a pond at our local park during a small bushfire (it and two Squirrels were doing firebombing). I was impressed with its downdraft. Not as much as Chook but a hell of a lot more than a Blackhawk.
Having spent quite some time standing under various Chinooks (my daughter wasn't based at Odiham for fun you know..... -_-) the downwash is HORRENDOUS! Specially as they open up just before lift-off. You can 'feel' each individual blade going past as well as hear them.
Quite how the cargo handling guys manage when they're hooking or un-hooking I'm not sure, and how do they keep their berets on?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 04, 2010, 02:46:00 PM
Quite how the cargo handling guys manage when they're hooking or un-hooking I'm not sure, and how do they keep their berets on?
Hair grips ? :blink: Must admit you wouldn't get me anywhere near one of those with the rotors turning
Why don't instead of basing them on ships, we just keep them at coastal heliports(like the Swedes). To increase it's range, just add a inflight refueling probe & some KC-130's. :cheers:
Quote from: Fulcrum on March 05, 2010, 01:01:52 AM
Why don't instead of basing them on ships, we just keep them at coastal heliports(like the Swedes). To increase it's range, just add a inflight refueling probe & some KC-130's. :cheers:
In another context, I thought of that (but with S-80s) as an uber-SAR setup: a C-130 with search radar and FLIR does the area search, finds the target, then refuels the helo when it turns up.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 04, 2010, 02:46:00 PM
Having spent quite some time standing under various Chinooks (my daughter wasn't based at Odiham for fun you know..... -_-) the downwash is HORRENDOUS! Specially as they open up just before lift-off. You can 'feel' each individual blade going past as well as hear them.
Quite how the cargo handling guys manage when they're hooking or un-hooking I'm not sure, and how do they keep their berets on?
Do they wear headgear? SOP downunder for helicopter operations is no headgear, except helmets to be worn. Too much danger of them to be sucked into the engine we were always informed by the chappies who flew them. We also routinely wore ski-mask goggles during cargo operations because of the dust.
Looks like they're wearing bonedomes below, so they'll have straps to hold the darn things on.
I've been trying to buy an Italeri MH-47E, but no-one's got one as yet. I have one on order naturally..... ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 05, 2010, 07:13:20 AM
I've been trying to buy an Italeri MH-47E, but no-one's got one as yet. I have one on order naturally..... ;D
Says here they have them in stock Kit.
http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=IT1218
Robert,
Having been had like that before I phoned them and they said they were 'expected'........... -_-
They must be a second release or something, 'cause I've got a couple of these a year or so ago.
The first time I watched an S-92 land on the Goodrich it almost knocked me over.....lotsa wash compared to the Super Puma.
Great thread, guys. Is anybody going to build it ? We need another Helo GB around here....maybe a naval one ?
:cheers:
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 05, 2010, 07:36:19 AM
They must be a second release or something, 'cause I've got a couple of these a year or so ago.
Yes, I found build articles on it.....
Quote from: Captain Canada on March 05, 2010, 08:03:10 AM
Great thread, guys. Is anybody going to build it ?
Who, us? Nah, we'd never contemplate such a mad idea.......................... -_- ;D :lol:
I've already stolen the big sponsons for my Kitnutted Cy-clone but you guys have me itching to get another to do a navalized bird. You've also got me thinking of an AEW version using the parts off of Revell's beautiful Sea King.
:ph34r:
After weeks of being on the waiting list at my LHS, I finally got my hands on an MH-47E. ;D
But the LHS still have it on order apparently, I got mine from other scources. As Robert says the kit comes with both sets of sponsons and both noses, you get to mix and match as you desire, very handy.
I wouldn't mind doing a RAN one in these markings:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FSea-King-N16-114%2FDC_N16_114.jpg&hash=93ea070928830ace2f7e035882d41513da7eeb3e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdecals.kitreview.com%2Fdecals%2Fimages%2Fms489020reviewlp_cover.jpg&hash=42a32ac9c0a2f5f4d52ea44e2091535ae5e2bdfc)
Regards,
Greg
How about a UH-47?
You know... for cash-strapped army aviation forces.
Gives a lot more "bangs for the buck" than UH-60's or Mi-17's.
Would also make a lot of sense if the operating country is mountainous.
Any opinions?
Quote from: Fulcrum on November 18, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
How about a UH-47?
You know... for cash-strapped army aviation forces.
Gives a lot more "bangs for the buck" than UH-60's or Mi-17's.
Would also make a lot of sense if the operating country is mountainous.
Any opinions?
Erm, certainly a lot more capable than either a Blackhawk or Mi-17 but also a lot more expensive. Those "cash-strapped army aviation forces" are
keeping their UH-60s and Mils to
save money.
Then again U.S. & British Special Operations Forces use this type & is most reliable in operations in Afghanistan as the heat & mountainous terrain created problems for the UH-60 Blackhawk.
Found another whiff idea for a Chinnok the other day while at my local mall. There was a kiosk with RC models, 2 of them were interesting. The first was a RC leopard 2 & the other was a CH-47 model with has co-axial rotors on both it's original rotor positions-sorta like a Ka-47 or Yak-47.
Quote from: Fulcrum on November 21, 2010, 01:13:15 AM
...... & the other was a CH-47 model with has co-axial rotors on both it's original rotor positions-sorta like a Ka-47 or Yak-47.
I've got one of those. ;D
When I've learned to fly the darn thing it's going to be repainted as 'Bravo November' of course.
Quote
When I've learned to fly the darn thing it's going to be repainted as 'Bravo November' of course.
Trust me on this mate,( I sell the things all day) You will never learn to fly it properly........only children can do that ;D ;D ;D
QuoteFound another whiff idea for a Chinnok the other day while at my local mall. There was a kiosk with RC models, 2 of them were interesting. The first was a RC leopard 2 & the other was a CH-47 model
At work we have RC, Tiger 1s,Tiger2s, Panthers, Leopard 2s, M1s, Shermans, M47s, MRLS rocket launchers, anti tank guns.......yes anti tank guns, Chinooks, AH64s, two helicopters in Chinease markings which i don't know enough about to positivly identify as well as RC F35s, Corsairs, Spitfires and Mustangs..........it's a big boys toy world out there ;D ;D ;D
The British were looking at getting the Chinook to replace the Belvedere. Would be interesting if the had had them for the Borneo confrontation
Never thought of it before, but a Chinook would look awesome in those old-school Belvedere colours !
:cheers:
Having just read Eric "Winkle" Browns book, I'm about to build a Royal Navy sub hunter.
Quote from: Devilfish on January 30, 2014, 11:19:32 PM
Having just read Eric "Winkle" Browns book, I'm about to build a Royal Navy sub hunter.
Which book ?
Ah yes the Chinook was a serious contender for the Royal Navy's ASW helicopter selection in the mid 60's which eventually settled on the Sea King. Plenty of mentions in Naval Warship projects books about their being a selection (CVA-01 and the proposed Escort Cruiser had to be able to accommodate either type in terms of deck space and aircraft lifts/hangers) but virtually nothing in the aviation media about an ASW Chinook option !!
Looking forward to seeing an RN ASW Chinook :thumbsup:
"Wings on my sleeve"
He mentions the choice between the Sea King and Chinook and how, with blades folded the Chinook would take up less deck space. Also how the Chinook would be a better ASW dipping platform as it doesn't have to turn into the wind. Not really sure what he means by that, but then he's the test pilot, not me.
It may have taken up less deck space folded but it would have been about a third or more larger with them unfolded.
It would have also been rather interesting operating one off the flight deck of a destroyer.
Quote from: Captain Canada on January 30, 2014, 10:42:44 AM
Never thought of it before, but a Chinook would look awesome in those old-school Belvedere colours !
:cheers:
Or even a Belvedere in modern Chinook colours. An uprated Belvedere (looking more like a helicopter and less like a London Underground carriage that had inadvertently become airbourne) might be a challenge too.
Quote from: rickshaw on January 31, 2014, 02:23:08 AM
It may have taken up less deck space folded but it would have been about a third or more larger with them unfolded.
On the CVA-01 this wouldn't have been a problem. Or on my solution, which is that we bought ex-USN non nuclear carriers that were being replaced with nuclear ones.
Quote from: rickshaw on January 31, 2014, 02:23:08 AM
It would have also been rather interesting operating one off the flight deck of a destroyer.
Did Sea Kings operate off Destroyers?
Quote from: Devilfish on January 31, 2014, 03:30:32 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on January 31, 2014, 02:23:08 AM
It may have taken up less deck space folded but it would have been about a third or more larger with them unfolded.
On the CVA-01 this wouldn't have been a problem. Or on my solution, which is that we bought ex-USN non nuclear carriers that were being replaced with nuclear ones.
Quote from: rickshaw on January 31, 2014, 02:23:08 AM
It would have also been rather interesting operating one off the flight deck of a destroyer.
Did Sea Kings operate off Destroyers?
Not really as the County class was modified to accommodate the Wessex and the Type 42 were designed for the Lynx, however the Sea king did operate on-board the later Batch II and batch III Type 22 frigates as they had a taller hanger and the flight deck widened. the new Type 45 is designed to allow a Chinook to land and can operate a Merlin or up to 2 Lynx.
From a project aspect the Type 43 large AAW destroyer intended to complement the Type 42 with double ended sea dart and 4 Sea wolf launchers was designed to accommodate and operate a Sea King from amidships (this was a 70s design so it was designed for the Sea King, but it the same would count for the Chinook if it had won the selection )
Did Sea Kings operate off Destroyers?
[/quote]
Perhaps not in UK service, but Sea Kings routinely operated from Japanese and Canadian destroyers.
but if the Chinook had a viable folding rotor wouldn't it have replaced the CH53
Quote from: DarrenP on March 11, 2014, 01:25:36 PM
but if the Chinook had a viable folding rotor wouldn't it have replaced the CH53
Might have taken up less room in the hangar too, if the rear rotor had stowed forward and the front one rearward, but it'd probably have taken up more height.
would be nice to see one of the British Fleet Air Arm CHF sqns with a navalised Chinook fleet
I like that Type 43 idea Geoff.....sounds interesting.
And speaking of Chinooks, have you guys seen how awesome the new CDN ones look ?
Would that be the ones in grass green and olive drab Captain? Very nice.
Paul Harrison
I also seem to recall that the Compound Chinook had four-bladed rotors... combine that with ACH-47 loadouts and MH-47E nav gear and you might really have something.
BTW, the version I heard with ACH-47's collapse (wish I could remember whose book...) was it was designed to operate with at least two aircraft flying together, and after two combat losses (with only three converted) they didn't want to build more. (Never mind how many F-4s, A-6s, etc. we were busily decorating the landscapes of both Vietnams with at the time because of the military incompetence of LBJ, McNamara and their little cabal of Freaking MORONS...)
I had a go at stretching the fuselage, didn't really add that much in length. Contra-rotating rotors might be worthwhile if have the patience. I tried the Rotodyne route but couldn't get it to work. So I went for a mega stretch Sea Knight instead.
More pics of the BV-347 (winged Chook) posted on Twitter ("X" :rolleyes: ) by @PAVE_naught here:
https://x.com/PAVE_naught/status/1674072663034155011
"The BV-347 was an experimental derivative of the Chinook designed in the <early 1970s - my edit>. Significant changes were made, including a 2.8m lengthening of the fuselage, the installation of new rotors and engines, and a pivoting wing system. it contributed to the XCH-62's development."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fzo0OCAWIAABZ2M?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fzo0-SXWAAIb6jh?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fzo08opXwAMLXhR?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fzo09XOWwAI_X-F?format=jpg&name=small)
VERY interesting.
And it looks like it had a retractable crane operator's cabin too.
I wonder what those large bulges are for right at the rear end of the side sponsons.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 28, 2024, 05:26:08 AMI wonder what those large bulges are for right at the rear end of the side sponsons.
My guess is that they're something to do with the retractable undercarriage.
I'd guess that these bulges became necessary to house the retracting landing gear's mechanics - another upgrade vs. the conventional CH-47A
A short but informative video of the aircraft. There is a bit in it which should make Kit happy as they extended the length of the rotor blades.
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on November 28, 2024, 01:51:42 PMThere is a bit in it which should make Kit happy as they extended the length of the rotor blades.
Even Boeing/Vertol agree with me then. Result! :thumbsup:
With a name like BV-347, shouldn't it have been asymmetrical? ;)
It has it's own Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_BV-347
Seems to have been very successful and only not adopted due to cost, plus the fact that it was intended to support the XCH-62 programme.
What a beautiful machine. Love that top shot ! Just looks fast. I didn't know that it was longer, makes sense tho.
One of my plans for my never-ending Falklands build is a Chinook with the wing of Harrier on top. With the way the Harrier wing is removed from it's fuselage, seems it would be an easy fit. Extend the range of the beast, and what better way to deliver a new wing to field units ? It's just too bad I threw out the Dragon 144th scale harriers I had. The canopy on them just ruined it. The wings would have been perfect tho !