Chinooks Grounded

I was always happy to get off of those things. Even if it meant exiting while it was still in flight....:D

As they built RPMs on the ground you would swear they would vibrate apart prior to flight being achieved.
 
A lot of magic smoke escaped there. Obvious cause factor.
 
I always felt confident riding in a hook. Tons of power. The aerodynamics of twin rotors still mystify me though.
 
The -714A engine has a sophisticated combustion chamber drain valve that is designed to prevent spillage of fuel during shutdown. It was added to keep the usual bed wetters from complaining about fuel spilled on the ground.

The -714A has a FADEC system and uses a computer to control the flow of fuel into the engine. The old mechanical fuel control unit was replaced in order to give this newer engine additional power to match the internal improvements.

After years of service, the mechanical portion of the fuel control that controls that drain valve and the valve itself begin to fail and fuel is sucked into the hotend without ignition and it causes what we call a stack fire. That allows burning fuel to pour out of the tailcone.

There have been a few reports of this happening lately, mostly from the Foreign Military Sales customers, so I guess the Big Army decided to stand down and have everyone check their valves.

Hopefully, Honeywell can produce enough of them to satisfy the safety people and make it all go away...
 
No doubt it’s a workhorse but it’s not the equivalent of 5 Black Hawks in an air assault and it isn’t used for any high altitude ops in Afghanistan that a Black Hawk can’t do. Don’t know why that second part keeps getting circulated.

 
Only rode in a Chinook once. Supposed to pick us up for R&R at 2200, didn’t show until almost 0200. Bunch of soldiers half asleep on their rucks and get a rude awaking by two fugly Chinooks. :D Never really noticed before but walking up the ramp, the red glow of the exhaust stood out in the blackness.
 
Velocity173 said:
No doubt it’s a workhorse but it’s not the equivalent of 5 Black Hawks in an air assault and it isn’t used for any high altitude ops in Afghanistan that a Black Hawk can’t do. Don’t know why that second part keeps getting circulated.
Click to expand...

Chinook is too big a target for the typical air assault mission in my opinion. Army thought that way for a long time, too. Don't know about now.

I do recall some operations in the early days of Afghanistan being done with Chinooks due specifically to their load carrying ability at high DA. Agreed a Hawk can fly very high, but how much can it carry up to that high place?
 
I rode in them quite a lot. My unit specialty was winter and alpine warfare, and they were quite handy in that environment. Two funny stories:

Once in the Colorado flattops we got picked up at night in chest deep snow on snowmobiles. We rode right up the ramp. One guy lost his nerve, slowed down at the edge of the ramp, then gunned it. If you know snowmobiles, you know what happened next. He dug himself a 4 foot pit and sunk into it. The machines we had were heavy as hell, probably 600 pounds each. 4 of us spent about 20 minutes trying to dig it out and lift it onto the ramp by hand, the whole time standing in chest deep snow directly under the rotor wash and the turbine engine exhaust.

Infiltrating 100 miles above the Arctic Circle in Norway on my first exercise as a team leader. My team sergeant said we would not need to wear skis or snowshoes because the snow depth at our launch site was only 6 inches. But that was on the coast, where the climate is warm due to the gulf stream. Mission was 10 days, so our rucks were ginormous, at least 100 pounds, plus a sled full of radio batteries. We landed and ran out the back at night. I watched the 3 guys in front of me disappear suddenly. Then I stepped off the edge and dropped into 6 feet of snow, landing on the 3 guys in front of me. All 10 of us exited and the Chinook departed, leaving us all in a pile, flopping around like turtles on our backs, unable to get up due to the monster rucks. Took about 30 minutes to get everyone stood up and geared up to move.
 
Piperonca said:
Chinook is too big a target for the typical air assault mission in my opinion. Army thought that way for a long time, too. Don't know about now.

I do recall some operations in the early days of Afghanistan being done with Chinooks due specifically to their load carrying ability at high DA. Agreed a Hawk can fly very high, but how much can it carry up to that high place?
Click to expand...

Well a typical load a Chinook will win out in a high DA battle. But, the highest FOB / COP there back in the day was at 8,500 ft. Both aircraft can easily do that that. What you’re getting is the difference in maybe a max 12,000 ft air assault in a Black Hawk vs maybe 16,000 + ft in a Chinook. Neither of those matter though because the Taliban isn’t running around at oxygen depleting altitudes. Tali is generally 8K and below. Even the local villages generally stop around 8K. Anything above that is abandoned.

Example, I flew a 101st Major and party around in Op Enterprise a few days prior to the botched rescue. He was reconning for possible exfil PZs for the SEALs. He was picking unrealistic PZs that were a couple thousand feet higher than the fast rope LZ they’d be going into. Almost had the sense he was a bit wary in my claims of exfilling at that altitude so I landed at one of the highest peaks around that area; believe it was just under 10K. He seemed satisfied after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Linda_Norgrove
 
Velocity173 said:
Example, I flew a 101st Major and party around in Op Enterprise a few days prior to the botched rescue. He was reconning for possible exfil PZs for the SEALs. He was picking unrealistic PZs that were a couple thousand feet higher than the fast rope LZ they’d be going into. Almost had the sense he was a bit wary in my claims of exfilling at that altitude so I landed at one of the highest peaks around that area; believe it was just under 10K. He seemed satisfied after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Linda_Norgrove
Click to expand...

That's a hard business. No other way to say it.
 
IK04 said:
The -714A engine has a sophisticated combustion chamber drain valve that is designed to prevent spillage of fuel during shutdown. It was added to keep the usual bed wetters from complaining about fuel spilled on the ground.

The -714A has a FADEC system and uses a computer to control the flow of fuel into the engine. The old mechanical fuel control unit was replaced in order to give this newer engine additional power to match the internal improvements.

After years of service, the mechanical portion of the fuel control that controls that drain valve and the valve itself begin to fail and fuel is sucked into the hotend without ignition and it causes what we call a stack fire. That allows burning fuel to pour out of the tailcone.

There have been a few reports of this happening lately, mostly from the Foreign Military Sales customers, so I guess the Big Army decided to stand down and have everyone check their valves.

Hopefully, Honeywell can produce enough of them to satisfy the safety people and make it all go away...
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the combustor drain valve, to my recollection that didn't change from the 712 to the 714. I've never seen that mode of failure before, but I suppose it could happen.

The problem here is simply some bad pre-formed O-ring packings either not manufactured to spec, or not changed out during overhaul causing fuel leaks, leading to fires. I've personally never had one catch fire, but I have had a fuel leak or two back in the day.

@IK04, my FAVORITE thing to do as an FE was to be outside to watch the first crank on a motor when you KNEW they didn't drain the all of the preservative out. It's even better if a new Crew Chief was posting fire guard... "Hey chief, you gonna say somethin' to the pilots or just let it burn?"

Alright: now for the rest of you haters... How many of y'all have flown one? ;)

All in good fun, each airframe is a tool for a job. Chinooks are big, but I'd argue it is not a good assault platform. It has been the preferred platform by a number of SOCOM entities for the past twenty years. But, it DOES have it's limitations.

Cheers
 
Remember in the old days with A models if you shut it down with the wind blowing up the tailpipe, you had to have somebody on each side back by the engines with a fire extinguisher. Most of the time you'd get a fire with anything approaching 10 kts, so you would hear MOTOR THE STARTER over the intercom. Sucks the fire right back up the pipe. Amazing to witness.
 
Piperonca said:
That's a hard business. No other way to say it.
Click to expand...

Yep. And you and I know a lot of performance capabilities vary greatly depending of airframe model and configuration. An A model of anything could be a dog compared to the newest F or M model. Then again, if that A model is lightly loaded, doesn’t have all the latest and greatest toys slapped on it, it might outperform the newer airframes. Of course crew experience can make all the difference when operating at those high DA extremes as well.
 
Flymy47 said:
If you are talking about the combustor drain valve, to my recollection that didn't change from the 712 to the 714. I've never seen that mode of failure before, but I suppose it could happen.

The problem here is simply some bad pre-formed O-ring packings either not manufactured to spec, or not changed out during overhaul causing fuel leaks, leading to fires. I've personally never had one catch fire, but I have had a fuel leak or two back in the day.

@IK04, my FAVORITE thing to do as an FE was to be outside to watch the first crank on a motor when you KNEW they didn't drain the all of the preservative out. It's even better if a new Crew Chief was posting fire guard... "Hey chief, you gonna say somethin' to the pilots or just let it burn?"

Alright: now for the rest of you haters... How many of y'all have flown one? ;)

All in good fun, each airframe is a tool for a job. Chinooks are big, but I'd argue it is not a good assault platform. It has been the preferred platform by a number of SOCOM entities for the past twenty years. But, it DOES have it's limitations.

Cheers
Click to expand...

When I did ATC we had an F-15 on the ramp that was doing an engine start with a brand new engine. Mech told us to come down stairs to watch. Didn’t think anything of it until they cranked. Smoke poured out of that thing!
 
Velocity173 said:
No doubt it’s a workhorse but it’s not the equivalent of 5 Black Hawks in an air assault and it isn’t used for any high altitude ops in Afghanistan that a Black Hawk can’t do. Don’t know why that second part keeps getting circulated.

Click to expand...

That was me flying in that thumbnail. It was filmed at Fort Hood during the NET training of the 1CAV unit. I was demonstrating how to land on one or two of the aft landing gear.

In Afghanistan, we flew hundreds of missions in the high mountains where the ACL for a Blackhawk was two dudes and 1,000 rounds. We had a two-ship High Altitude Recovery Team with a heavy tanker at 10,000 feet and a light bird for all the work up to 20,000 feet. Luckily, we were never needed.

Having been in the 101st Air Assault, I can tell you that three Chinooks in a infantry raid can deposit 100 badasses into a small area in less than a minute and require less space than five UH-60s.

I personally recovered over 50 stinkys in one load during a snatch and grab op in the Northwest sector. The Apache escorts had to beg us to slow down coming out of those valleys.

Those O-rings will get replaced and this will all be forgotten in a few weeks..
 
IK04 said:
That was me flying in that thumbnail. It was filmed at Fort Hood during the NET training of the 1CAV unit. I was demonstrating how to land on one or two of the aft landing gear.

In Afghanistan, we flew hundreds of missions in the high mountains where the ACL for a Blackhawk was two dudes and 1,000 rounds. We had a two-ship High Altitude Recovery Team with a heavy tanker at 10,000 feet and a light bird for all the work up to 20,000 feet. Luckily, we were never needed.

Having been in the 101st Air Assault, I can tell you that three Chinooks in a infantry raid can deposit 100 badasses into a small area in less than a minute and require less space than five UH-60s.

I personally recovered over 50 stinkys in one load during a snatch and grab op in the Northwest sector. The Apache escorts had to beg us to slow down coming out of those valleys.

Those O-rings will get replaced and this will all be forgotten in a few weeks..
Click to expand...

I’d say 3 Chinooks is the equivalent to 5 Black Hawks but not 1 Chinook as Ward stated. No doubt the Chinook can bring more up to altitude but like I said,there wasn’t a single LZ in RC East above 8.5K when I was there and we could take a full load to it (Bamiyan). Apache escort speed was definitely an Achilles heal as was the KW’s. Apparently the AH-64E Guardian resolved those issues.
 
IK04 said:
That was me flying in that thumbnail. It was filmed at Fort Hood during the NET training of the 1CAV unit. I was demonstrating how to land on one or two of the aft landing gear.

Having been in the 101st Air Assault, I can tell you that three Chinooks in a infantry raid can deposit 100 badasses into a small area in less than a minute and require less space than five UH-60s.

Those O-rings will get replaced and this will all be forgotten in a few weeks..
Click to expand...

Aft wheel pinnacle landings were always fun. In Macedonia, we had to hold a two wheel for 15 minutes while a team "disassembled" a hunter drone with chainsaws and load it to get it off of a mountain top.

Oh how I remember the 101st days. Division Air Assaults with over 100 helicopters sharing the same sky, stretched from Ft. Campbell, to Greenville, KY. It was a sight to behold, but nobody liked doing Mega Gold exercises.

You are correct. Slow news cycle. Next week there will be a story about some bad oil samples... That require a resample after next flight.

@ IK04, If you were part of the F Model NET team, we probably know some of the same people. If you weren't, we probably still know some of the same people!
 
Velocity173 said:
I’d say 3 Chinooks is the equivalent to 5 Black Hawks but not 1 Chinook as Ward stated. No doubt the Chinook can bring more up to altitude but like I said,there wasn’t a single LZ in RC East above 8.5K when I was there and we could take a full load to it (Bamiyan). Apache escort speed was definitely an Achilles heal as was the KW’s. Apparently the AH-64E Guardian resolved those issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Ward got some stuff wrong on that one. I have heard that 5 to 1 ratio in the past as well. Like I said before, lots of tools in the box. Mix and match if it makes sense for the mission.

The stuff he spoke about the Block II, not Block III as he stated, was also wrong. But then so are most of the press releases on Chinook Block II. When it hits the street there's going to be some sad kids getting helicopters that have been hyped to have capabilities that the Army cut or didn't pay for.
 
Flymy47 said:
Aft wheel pinnacle landings were always fun. In Macedonia, we had to hold a two wheel for 15 minutes while a team "disassembled" a hunter drone with chainsaws and load it to get it off of a mountain top.
Click to expand...

In Korea, I had to balance on the aft left wheel for almost 20 minutes while a LRRS team recovered their SGM, who had a medical emergency. That was in a brand new D-Model and that's when I learned the DASH actuator motors like crazy in gusty conditions. I was flat wore out after that exercise!

Flymy47 said:
Oh how I remember the 101st days. Division Air Assaults with over 100 helicopters sharing the same sky, stretched from Ft. Campbell, to Greenville, KY. It was a sight to behold, but nobody liked doing Mega Gold exercises.
Click to expand...

During Mega Gold 1999, I was number 13 of 23 Chinooks, flying with our Battalion S3 (great pilot for a staff guy) and by the time we flew all over North America and arrived with our sling load at the LZ, we were flight lead! There were Chinooks and HMMWVs deposited all over three states that night!

Flymy47 said:
@ IK04, If you were part of the F Model NET team, we probably know some of the same people. If you weren't, we probably still know some of the same people!
Click to expand...

No doubt. I was one of the original three SPs on the NETT, back when we had DES and EAATS guys flying with us. Several of the SOA guys were my student at one time. I've been doing this for over 30 years...

Flymy47 said:
The stuff he spoke about the Block II, not Block III as he stated, was also wrong. But then so are most of the press releases on Chinook Block II. When it hits the street there's going to be some sad kids getting helicopters that have been hyped to have capabilities that the Army cut or didn't pay for.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I work at the Cargo PM and the Block II is a disgrace. WE have been flailing about with the rotor blades, fuel system and electrical system for years and they are still not right. The MH Block II has none of those upgrades and is only a minor update. I could go on, but this is not the forum for that stuff.

The CH-47 will be around for nearly 100 years, since there is nothing that can replace it. The Future Vertical Lift aircraft are just that- future.
 
IK04 said:
In Korea, I had to balance on the aft left wheel for almost 20 minutes while a LRRS team recovered their SGM, who had a medical emergency. That was in a brand new D-Model and that's when I learned the DASH actuator motors like crazy in gusty conditions. I was flat wore out after that exercise!

During Mega Gold 1999, I was number 13 of 23 Chinooks, flying with our Battalion S3 (great pilot for a staff guy) and by the time we flew all over North America and arrived with our sling load at the LZ, we were flight lead! There were Chinooks and HMMWVs deposited all over three states that night!
Click to expand...

Yeah single aft wheel would have been sporty.

I was there for Mega Mud '99... I don't remember where we were in the que, but I do remember seeing aircraft strung out for miles through NVG's.

IK wouldn't happen to be short for InnKeeper, would it?
 
Flymy47 said:
Yeah, Ward got some stuff wrong on that one. I have heard that 5 to 1 ratio in the past as well. Like I said before, lots of tools in the box. Mix and match if it makes sense for the mission.

The stuff he spoke about the Block II, not Block III as he stated, was also wrong. But then so are most of the press releases on Chinook Block II. When it hits the street there's going to be some sad kids getting helicopters that have been hyped to have capabilities that the Army cut or didn't pay for.
Click to expand...

5 to 1 makes sense for a 160th MH with a fast rope assault. I think they use 6 pax with seats out and Robbie tank in the back. We routinely had 11 for air assaults with no issues.

Roughly 6,000 ft DA on this one. Blades smacked the side of the hill on shutdown. DART.

A0295651-5580-4741-8F40-AD1D898C0B9D.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
5 to 1 makes sense for a 160th MH with a fast rope assault. I think they use 6 pax with seats out and Robbie tank in the back. We routinely had 11 for air assaults with no issues.
View attachment 110114
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. The MH Mike models are heavy. But I will say it all depends on the ground forces kit as well. Want to leave some extra gear on the bird in case you need it, and we bring it to you later? It's gonna cost you.
 
Flymy47 said:
That sounds about right. The MH Mike models are heavy. But I will say it all depends on the ground forces kit as well. Want to leave some extra gear on the bird in case you need it, and we bring it to you later? It's gonna cost you.
Click to expand...

I guess the new MH-60Ms got plenty of power with the new GEs. Then again an old friend who tested them said they were still under powered. Not sure if 160th is equipped across the board with those though. The old MHs were dogs.
 
Velocity173 said:
I guess the new MH-60Ms got plenty of power with the new GEs. Then again an old friend who tested them said they were still under powered. Not sure if 160th is equipped across the board with those though. The old MHs were dogs.
Click to expand...
It's straight Mikes across the board now. They are heavy and we can't seem to keep from adding stuff onto them. But, that's the same across all platforms.
 
Flymy47 said:
If you are talking about the combustor drain valve, to my recollection that didn't change from the 712 to the 714. I've never seen that mode of failure before, but I suppose it could happen.

The problem here is simply some bad pre-formed O-ring packings either not manufactured to spec, or not changed out during overhaul causing fuel leaks, leading to fires. I've personally never had one catch fire, but I have had a fuel leak or two back in the day.

@IK04, my FAVORITE thing to do as an FE was to be outside to watch the first crank on a motor when you KNEW they didn't drain the all of the preservative out. It's even better if a new Crew Chief was posting fire guard... "Hey chief, you gonna say somethin' to the pilots or just let it burn?"

Alright: now for the rest of you haters... How many of y'all have flown one? ;)

All in good fun, each airframe is a tool for a job. Chinooks are big, but I'd argue it is not a good assault platform. It has been the preferred platform by a number of SOCOM entities for the past twenty years. But, it DOES have it's limitations.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Non-approved parts are the issue. Hopefully not from a Harbor Freight assortment.
 
From the accident earlier this year. Nevada Chinooks to the rescue.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top