Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: davidpt40 on November 02, 2003, 01:29:21 AM
-
32 to 35 troops believed to be on Chinook helicopter when it was shot down south of Fallujuah.
-
What's your fascination with posting threads about our troops dying? Just curious.
-
Granted I dont know this guys posting history concering the iraq war and our troops, but taken at face value it just seems that he is posting it as breaking news..
Has he posted inappropriately or gloated over our casualties in the past?
-
D'ar! Once when he was sailing round the arctic circle!
-
This is breaking news to me. I am interested both in aviation and military events. This involves both.
-
Manpads or RPG hit?
-
No details on weapon used yet. Helo was in a 2 Helo convoy OTW Baghdad with troops for R&R.
CNN STORY (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/02/sprj.irq.int.main/)
-
I take it that the US military informs family members of injuries prior to making it public?
-
I take it that the US military informs family members of injuries prior to making it public?
-
I take it that the US military informs family members of injuries prior to making it public?
I doubt it in this case. The news story had aired before rescue teams had even arrived.
Luckily there are only 20 wounded. No fatalities. Probably just a very rough emergency landing.
-
isn't that the o-club though.. race to post news first?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I take it that the US military informs family members of injuries prior to making it public?
I don't think they release names until the families have been notified, but they'll give general statements regarding what happened.
-
in nearby Fallujah townspeople celebrated on the streets. “This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors,” said one Iraqi, who wouldn’t give his name.
Moslems...
-
13 Dead...
Love the way AP makes sure they find the people who are happy about it and sticks a mike under their mouth....
Friggin' media.
-
Just saw it on the news, 15 dead and 20 or so injured. The officer said it made an emergency landing, wouldn't say if it was due to taking hostile fire.
I can't wait for the day I don't have to wake up to this kind of news anymore.
-
Sheesh.. you'd think the Military would establish a "Corridore Of Flight" where helo's can enter in and out with out problems. I don't know how hard of an undertaking this would be, but hell thought it was something they would do.
-BM
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Manpads or RPG hit?
Whats a manpad?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Whats a manpad?
Tronsky
Man Portable SAM, SA7, SA14, SA16, Stinger - they stop helicopters from flying as the Sovs found out in Afghanistan.....
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
What's your fascination with posting threads about our troops dying? Just curious.
Read this thread, get back to me if you have any other questions.
;)
How come our military is filled with morons? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80746&highlight=morons)
-
Sounds like an SA7. It's just not practical to hit a moving helicopter from several thousand feet away with an RPG.
We live in a day where any jackoff with a shoulder launched missile system can shoot down a jet, helicopter, or blow up a tank. Because of this, there isn't much you can do to fight them, other than try and catch people with the launchers. It's more of a police type of an operation than military.
As tragic as this is, it is unavoidable that things like this will happen. It doesn't take a massive resistance force, only a couple of guys who got thier hands on the launchers.
(http://www.innomi.com/bug.php)
-
Two SA7's were seen to be fired at the Chinook Helicopters from behind. Apparently there were two Chinooks flying in formation carring soldiers headed for R&R.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
"Alright, settle down guys. I know that your Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is kicking in. I used that provocative title to draw in people.
I just re-read my posts, and I don't see anything negative that a good, loyal military person would find offensive. Perhaps I struck a chord with the folks that truely were military screw-ups.
I didnt know the court system had started the "Prison or the Army" program again Dago. But hey, someone had to do the ****-barrel burning detail. You and hangtime can swap stories about that sometime, that is if he remembers anything from the 60s and 70s.
I really didnt think I wrote anything offensive. But as long as your talking about physical violence, what are you going to do about it? You gotta be pushing 60, I am nearly 20. I would put you in a wheelchair long before you sent me to the dentist, you drugged out old shell of a man. But I realize that typing on the internet gives you a sense of power."
-Davidpt40
These types of comments disqualify DavidPT40 from having a valid opinion on anything remotely relating to the military. The lack of respect he's shown to Vets on this Board, his low opinion of the people, past and present, who are/were military and the very fact he's still a youngster disqualifies his opinion.
Once he grows up, moves out of his parents' home and loses his virginity then, and ONLY then, will I consider DavidPT40 to be more than a child crying out for attention. And like all children, Davey should be seen, not heard.
"Uh oh, looks like I got another old-timer after me. So whats your beef with me FunkedUp (I assume your handle is short for ****ed-up, referring to the status of your life)?"
And THIS one- I would pay money to see. And bet on Funked to end it 30 seconds in with a KO. :D
-
Baghdad Airport sounds pretty dangerous too:
Eye witness: 'They're getting better,' Chuck said approvingly. 'That one hit the runway'
(http://www.bestofdesign.co.uk/antiwarblog/archives/000070.html)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
These types of comments disqualify DavidPT40 from having a valid opinion...
My personal favorite:
Originally Sniveled by DavidPT40
"Better watch your mouth when your talking to me Nath"
lol.
-Sik
-
****ing camel jockeys
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"Alright, settle down guys. I know that your Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is kicking in. I used that provocative title to draw in people.
I just re-read my posts, and I don't see anything negative that a good, loyal military person would find offensive. Perhaps I struck a chord with the folks that truely were military screw-ups.
I didnt know the court system had started the "Prison or the Army" program again Dago. But hey, someone had to do the ****-barrel burning detail. You and hangtime can swap stories about that sometime, that is if he remembers anything from the 60s and 70s.
I really didnt think I wrote anything offensive. But as long as your talking about physical violence, what are you going to do about it? You gotta be pushing 60, I am nearly 20. I would put you in a wheelchair long before you sent me to the dentist, you drugged out old shell of a man. But I realize that typing on the internet gives you a sense of power."
-Davidpt40
These types of comments disqualify DavidPT40 from having a valid opinion on anything remotely relating to the military. The lack of respect he's shown to Vets on this Board, his low opinion of the people, past and present, who are/were military and the very fact he's still a youngster disqualifies his opinion.
Once he grows up, moves out of his parents' home and loses his virginity then, and ONLY then, will I consider DavidPT40 to be more than a child crying out for attention. And like all children, Davey should be seen, not heard.
"Uh oh, looks like I got another old-timer after me. So whats your beef with me FunkedUp (I assume your handle is short for ****ed-up, referring to the status of your life)?"
And THIS one- I would pay money to see. And bet on Funked to end it 30 seconds in with a KO. :D
wtf? where are these quotes from?
what an asshole
-
What does me making fun of some BBS losers have to do with my interest in Iraq? The troops don't read my posts, you all do.
But this was just a random act of war. Most likely a missle hit a helo full of troops and it crashed. Theres no reason to be happy about that.
So if anything, no I don't hate the U.S. military.
-
Ok first of all. As a "currenlty" deployed Aircrew member I would like to say thanks to the guys that are supporting the military and the decisions that the President and my military leadership.
Second of all, to Toad, we are not all morons. We dont have the quanity of deployed forces to assign fighter escort to every non shooter in the book. I am currenlty deployed about 280 days a year and couldn't even think how much I would be away from my family if we had to escort every flight.
Third, As to the question of notification of a crash and number injured or killed. The military will announce a crash, and the number on board, but will not release the names of anyone on board till ALL families or next of kin is notified. I know this to be true because I have had several friends die in crashes in the last 2 years and sometimes we didnt even find out until after the NOK was notified.
Fourth, I have been into Baghdad over 30 times and yes it is very dangerous. I sure hope that everyone out there not only thinks about our troops deployed to Iraq right now, but also remember the guys still in the **** in A-stan. Sorry if I sound like a jerk here, but I would much rather be home with my family flying online with you guys then deployed to a ****-hole reading posts on a friendly board calling me (a guys who has been deployed over 450 day since 9/11) a moron. I know I signed on the dotted line and I cant blame anyone for this, but a little support from home would be nice. Again, thanks to the guys that had the kind words...
SSgt Scott Mesaros
MC-130E USAF/AFSOC
-
"What does me making fun of some BBS losers have to do with my interest in Iraq? The troops don't read my posts, you all do."
-Davidpt40
LOL I don't know Sikboy, this one is almost as good as the "watch yo mouth" one. I wonder which one of the Icy Hot Stuntaz is his favorite?
-
Originally posted by T1loady
Second of all, to Toad, we are not all morons.
Scott... You're calling in fire on your own position man :)
-Sik
-
What does that mean Sikboy? Did I say something out of line? If so this will be my last post... Sorry if I offended anyone..
-
toad never said that Scott- in fact Toad is a former AF pilot, current commercial pilot and all round good guy.
and stay safe.
-
Hey Toad, sorry about that, I jumped into you butt to fast before ready the entire article about what you were talking about. I mean zero disrespect at all, I just went off an a tangent that I shouldnt have. I guess that reading these boards and replying isnt a good idead unless I look at the meaning of the other guys post. Again sorry about that Toad. Blue Skies to ya (S)
And to the other guys thansk for the heads up. I didnt mean to be a bone head....
-
Originally posted by T1loady
What does that mean Sikboy? Did I say something out of line? If so this will be my last post... Sorry if I offended anyone..
Sorry for the confusion. Toad is trying to support the same position you are. The thread he posted was an example of DavidPT40s understanding of the military and those who serve in it.
-Sik
-
Loady-
Here's a rare opportunity. What is the feelings of the troops in Baghdad these days. How is morale...really..is the media accurate or not?
Also, how is the overall situation in Baghdad? Are the residents getting restless with out presence? Are the troops still welcomed there?
What I'm asking is, how do you feel about the situation, vs what we all hear in the news?
-
Mukmaw, I said I was deployed, but I didnt say where. I am not in a position that I can comment on anything that is going on at a particular location. I was speaking of the past when I referd to BIAP and I would rather not comment on my current locaton. Even if I could, I fly C-130's and dont get onto the ground much to see what is going on in the city and how the "troops" are doing. We as Air Force guys are normaly staging from bases outside the "hot area" I know that most (85-90%) of the guys that I work with, are here becuase they belive in the mission. I am sure that everyone would rather be home, but are proud to serve. Sorry that I cant go into more but in my first post I put my name and command and would rather not make anymore statements that compromise any OPSEC. I am sure that you understand..
O'yea, did I say that I was a bonehead Toad?
-
NP, T1.
I'm not a fan of PT40 in the least.
Just linked to his former thread to give a point of reference for his comments on the military.
I see no need to go into great detail on just where I'd put him on the scale of "life important to the survival of the nation" but hey, you have to fill chuckholes with something and asphalt is expensive.
;)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Loady-
Here's a rare opportunity. What is the feelings of the troops in Baghdad these days. How is morale...really..is the media accurate or not?
Also, how is the overall situation in Baghdad? Are the residents getting restless with out presence? Are the troops still welcomed there?
What I'm asking is, how do you feel about the situation, vs what we all hear in the news?
Ask Sgt Hook (http://www.sgthook.com/)
-
Very sad indeed.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Whats a manpad?
Tronsky
MAN Portable Air Defense
-
Thats almost as many as where lost in Black hawk down.
-
peace to those these deaths have left behind for their agony has just started
-
Originally posted by T1loady
Ok first of all. As a "currenlty" deployed Aircrew member I would like to say thanks to the guys that are supporting the military and the decisions that the President and my military leadership.
Second of all, to Toad, we are not all morons. We dont have the quanity of deployed forces to assign fighter escort to every non shooter in the book. I am currenlty deployed about 280 days a year and couldn't even think how much I would be away from my family if we had to escort every flight.
Third, As to the question of notification of a crash and number injured or killed. The military will announce a crash, and the number on board, but will not release the names of anyone on board till ALL families or next of kin is notified. I know this to be true because I have had several friends die in crashes in the last 2 years and sometimes we didnt even find out until after the NOK was notified.
Fourth, I have been into Baghdad over 30 times and yes it is very dangerous. I sure hope that everyone out there not only thinks about our troops deployed to Iraq right now, but also remember the guys still in the **** in A-stan. Sorry if I sound like a jerk here, but I would much rather be home with my family flying online with you guys then deployed to a ****-hole reading posts on a friendly board calling me (a guys who has been deployed over 450 day since 9/11) a moron. I know I signed on the dotted line and I cant blame anyone for this, but a little support from home would be nice. Again, thanks to the guys that had the kind words...
SSgt Scott Mesaros
MC-130E USAF/AFSOC
SSGT you have my Grattitiude.
SGTE-5 US Army (ret)
:aok
-
The USA needs to find out who the rags are getting theses weapons from!
then they need to go kick the watermelon out of that rathole country.
We need to make it too painful for these bastardos to do buisness with anybody in Iraq.
Man we need to put the fear of GOD in there arse:mad:
I am getting so sick and tierd of good American diying for theses
Chitsucking scumbbags .
Scew em all lets come home let em sleep in the cold and eat camel watermelon for all i care:mad:
-
Originally posted by Airhead
These types of comments disqualify DavidPT40 from having a valid opinion on anything remotely relating to the military. The lack of respect he's shown to Vets on this Board, his low opinion of the people, past and present, who are/were military and the very fact he's still a youngster disqualifies his opinion.
Instead why don't you refute his arguments? If they are as invald as you make them sound, you should be able to so with little difficulty. Because I certainly don't see wtf his cronological age has to with it. Perhaps I should disqualify what such a fossil has to say based on the fact that he is older than dirt. ;)
The respect I do or do not show veterns has nothing to do with the strengh of my arguments. Infact, calling upon such a thing is nothing but base rhetoric.
Airhead, really, break it down and refute.
-
Why? We all know david is a crackhead. A dissertation on the validity of his posts won't help.
-
Sorry to jump into a silly argument like that, but getting a little back to the thread topic, these are bad news indeed. Wouldn't it make sense to escort Chinooks that are loaded with troops? With a combat Helicopter I mean. It would not stop a missilie hitting for sure, but perhaps there would not be a second one. Not to mention the mental effect, - not so pleasent having an angry Apache hunting you is it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
MAN Portable Air Defense
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Man Portable SAM, SA7, SA14, SA16, Stinger - they stop helicopters from flying as the Sovs found out in Afghanistan.....
Thanks guys, never heard of it being called that before..
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Instead why don't you refute his arguments? If they are as invald as you make them sound, you should be able to so with little difficulty. Because I certainly don't see wtf his cronological age has to with it. Perhaps I should disqualify what such a fossil has to say based on the fact that he is older than dirt. ;)
The respect I do or do not show veterns has nothing to do with the strengh of my arguments. Infact, calling upon such a thing is nothing but base rhetoric.
Airhead, really, break it down and refute.
Refute what? His jabbering nonsense?
Davidpt40 reminds me of the four old in the grocery cart in the check out line. You know the one- the kid who throws a fit because he doesn't get every package of cookies he wanted or the sugar coated breakfast cerial he wanted, so now, in line to check out, he's screaming his displeasure.
There's nothing to refute- like the brat in the grocery cart, all you can do is look on and feel sorry for his parents... and thank God he's not your kid.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sorry to jump into a silly argument like that, but getting a little back to the thread topic, these are bad news indeed. Wouldn't it make sense to escort Chinooks that are loaded with troops? With a combat Helicopter I mean. It would not stop a missilie hitting for sure, but perhaps there would not be a second one. Not to mention the mental effect, - not so pleasent having an angry Apache hunting you is it?
The CH-47 Chinook is armed. It has defensive wepons mounted on each side and on the ramp. These guns are maned by crew cheifs and gunners. Generally these weapons are old modded M-60's but several units are switching over to the M-240 & .50cal. Some "****hooks" are even armed with the 7.62mm mini gun. Having another attack helo escort a flight of 47's is not practical nor is it feasable. There are FAR Fewer attack helo's in a theather than attack choppers. Using the tactics taught during training "is supposed" to make the chances for getting hit far less. Now just think of the number of helo's and aircraft in the Iraq AOR. The number is still in the 100's. The use of night, terrain, and technology is the only protection that many of YOUR combat crew members have. Some missiles are going to hit you now matter what you do. Nothing will provide 100% protection. Angus I hope I answered you question.
-
didnt see a damn thing wrong with what the kid posted.
you guys attack anything that dosent totaly agree with you.
how about this BLIND PATRIOTISM IS CRAP
met damn few in the military that had it, none that i liked. seems like everybodys a hero now that their out. smells bad to me.
to act that way is to belittle the thing. you can do it with your politics but not my military, it is not the realm of neocon repubs cemetarys are full of liberal dems. you own george bush not my grandaddys honor.
calling fire on your own position lol. im still laughin at you .
-
If that was really and SA-7 variant - which was the ubiqtous in the Iraqi armed forces - than it has a pretty low ceiling (~12,000 feet). Was there any particular reason for the transport helicopter to fly low over the hostile territory rather than gain max altitude over the secured area and proceed in safety?
Also, shouldn't just two missiles both launched from behind be detected by an observer and counteracted by flares and other measures?
miko
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The USA needs to find out who the rags are getting theses weapons from!
then they need to go kick the watermelon out of that rathole country...
you gonna kick the watermelon outa russia, china, france and u.s.?
-
SA 7 was the standard armament of the Iraqi army. They had warehouses full of them.
miko
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The USA needs to find out who the rags are getting theses weapons from!
then they need to go kick the watermelon out of that rathole country.
We need to make it too painful for these bastardos to do buisness with anybody in Iraq.
Man we need to put the fear of GOD in there arse:mad:
I am getting so sick and tierd of good American diying for theses
Chitsucking scumbbags .
Scew em all lets come home let em sleep in the cold and eat camel watermelon for all i care:mad:
er duh you moron...the weapons come from massive Iraqui arm dumps that you stupid idiots didn't bother to guard because you let that moron Rumsfeldt force the army to use too little resources to do a job that required another 150,000 men!
God I hate stupid civilians with big mouths even more than I hate politicians!!
Oh and offering 500 dollars reward for a weapon that is worth 5000 on the black market is not the brightest thing I've ever seen either.
-
Actually, US was the major supplier of the russian-made SA-7 missiles to the radical muslim fundamantalists when Al-Qaeda were our friends.
And where would we get those 150,000 men? It's one thiing when regular army grunts get blown up. It's another thing altogether when family men from Reserve or National Guard get killed by the dozen.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Actually, US was the major supplier of the russian-made SA-7 missiles to the radical muslim fundamantalists when Al-Qaeda were our friends.
And where would we get those 150,000 men? It's one thiing when regular army grunts get blown up. It's another thing altogether when family men from Reserve or National Guard get killed by the dozen.
miko
Just how does the US become a major supplier of Russian made missiles. The US was providing Stinger and Rockeye MANPAD's to Afghan rebels to use against USSR gunships. They would not really be providing SA-7's.
To get to 12000 ft would take a LONG time and a LONG distance from the point of take off if you were heavy. I don’t think they provide O2 to the back of an unpressurized troop helicopter anyway. I think the slant range of a MANPAD would be about 2.5 miles to an aircraft at 5000 ft agl (a lot of area to cover).
The fact that many survived tells me that both did not hit (the C-hook is a twin engine) and there is little a slow h-copter can do to evade a missile, flares tho not perfect may have been tried without sucess.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
er duh you moron...the weapons come from massive Iraqui arm dumps that you stupid idiots didn't bother to guard because you let that moron Rumsfeldt force the army to use too little resources to do a job that required another 150,000 men!
God I hate stupid civilians with big mouths even more than I hate politicians!!
Oh and offering 500 dollars reward for a weapon that is worth 5000 on the black market is not the brightest thing I've ever seen either.
Watch your mouth you silly little english man.
Or I will have to visit our 52snd state and teach you a lesson.LOL
I am retired Army did my time so don't ever ****ing call me a civilian.
And mr expert you for a fact know where that weapon came from?
Maybe it came from Russia?
The fact is you know nothing more than the rest of use you silly bastardo.
-
Scootter: Just how does the US become a major supplier of Russian made missiles. The US was providing Stinger and Rockeye MANPAD's to Afghan rebels to use against USSR gunships. They would not really be providing SA-7's.
They really did provide a whole sh#tload of Soviet-made SA-7 - actually Strela ("Arrow") 2 - missiles to the mujaheddin.
After it's introduction in the 1960s, Soviets sold it in thousands to practically anyone - including edyptians, various african countries, etc.
According to a report by the Federation of American Scientists, during the 1980s, in an effort to topple the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan, the U.S. government provided mujahideen with Soviet-made SA-7s.
Also, Chinook with a three dozen troops is hardly "heavy".
miko
-
If I recall correctly, and it has been some time since my army days, SA-7s are not "all aspect". I seem to recall that they need to see the heat source before they will track, which means that most sucessful shots need to be from the rear quarter. If so, the Chinook crew may not have seen them coming or had a chance to react.
Credit goes to the crew for bringing the bird down with any survivors at all.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Also, Chinook with a three dozen troops is hardly "heavy".
miko
I contend the a CH-47 with 36 troops is not only heavy but overloaded.
and 12k is above the AC's ceiling of 11,100 ft
Sometimes you think you are soooo smart, little bloopers like can make people question other things you say.
We would not want that, would we?
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/ch47sdspec.htm
CH-47D/F Chinook Specifications
Powerplant:
• Two Textron Lycoming T55-L712 engines
Rotor System:
• Three blades per hub (two hubs)
• Fiberglass construction
• Speed: 225 r/min
• Manual folding blades
Performance at 50,000 lb:
SL cruise:
143 kn.
Rate of climb:
1,522 ft/min.
Range:
SL and ISA, 230 nmi.
Crew:
Cockpit-crew seats:
2
Cabin-troop seats/litters:
33/24
Weights:
Max gross:
50,000 lbs.
Empty:
23,401 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by Scootter
I contend the a CH-47 with 36 troops is not only heavy but overloaded.
and 12k is above the AC's ceiling of 11,100 ft
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/ch47sdspec.htm
CH-47D/F Chinook Specifications
Powerplant:
• Two Textron Lycoming T55-L712 engines
Rotor System:
• Three blades per hub (two hubs)
• Fiberglass construction
• Speed: 225 r/min
• Manual folding blades
Performance at 50,000 lb:
SL cruise:
143 kn.
Rate of climb:
1,522 ft/min.
Range:
SL and ISA, 230 nmi.
Crew:
Cockpit-crew seats:
2
Cabin-troop seats/litters:
33/24
Weights:
Max gross:
50,000 lbs.
Empty:
23,401 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about that. Let's say that the 36 (plus 3 or 4 crew) are really large people. So you have 40 people at 250 lbs. each is 10,000 lbs. or 5 tonnes. I think a Chinook can carry more than that, at least as a slingload.
Also remember that any aircraft runs out of volume before it runs out of lifting capacity, so just because only 30 or so people would actually fit in the aircraft doesn't mean that it can only lift 30 or so people.
-
From the same link:
Weights
• Max Gross, lbs (kg) - 54,000 (24,493)
• Empty, lbs (kg) - 25,463 (11,549)
• Useful Load, lbs (kg) - 28,537 (12,943)
• Fwd & Aft Cargo Hooks, lbs (kg)
20,000 (9,072) each
25,000 (11,340) tandem
• Center Cargo Hook, lbs (kg)
28,000 (12,700)
The danger of not reading all of the specs. :D
-
the term is cubed out (as in cubic feet)
a sling load can be overloaded as it can be droped if you loose an engine, troops on the other are more less eager to jump.
The loadmaster has a set of TO's for the AC loading and I think the seating is a requirment (unless an emergency).
The CH-47 could carry it if you can close the door but you must consider the loss of power.
AC load calculations are not figured with what it can carry with full power, or every time an engine quite the AC would crash.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
From the same link:
Weights
• Max Gross, lbs (kg) - 54,000 (24,493)
• Empty, lbs (kg) - 25,463 (11,549)
• Useful Load, lbs (kg) - 28,537 (12,943)
• Fwd & Aft Cargo Hooks, lbs (kg)
20,000 (9,072) each
25,000 (11,340) tandem
• Center Cargo Hook, lbs (kg)
28,000 (12,700)
The danger of not reading all of the specs. :D
Useful Load INCLUDES FUEL not just payload
2068 X 6.5 ppg = 13442 lbs for pods
internal fuel not given
the danger of not understanding what you are reading
;)
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Useful Load INCLUDES FUEL not just payload
2068 X 6.5 ppg = 13442 lbs for pods
the danger of not understanding what you are reading
internal fuel not given;)
OK, point taken, but explain this to me (again being a groundpounder not a flyboy):
How then can you then hang 28,000lbs. on the centre cargo hook? Or, put another way, why even bother rating the center cargo hook at 14 tons if the bird can only lift 6 as a useful load? Even assuming minimal fuel, you would still never get close to the rated cargo hook capacity (yes I know that they are overstressed).
My point was that I don't think that carrying 40 very large people is overloaded for a Chinook when I have seen them lift artillery pieces, light armoured vehicles, trucks, down aircraft, etc.
Anyway, I think Scootter answered my inquiry :)
-
I don't know guys. The sources I'm seeing say that the CH-47 could lift 44 combat troops or 25,000lbs. of cargo, so someone's numbers/calculations are a bit off.
-
In reply I think the specs shown should not state USEFUL LOAD as it does. In avaition useful load includes fuel and in this case it cant as you pointed out.
The load you describe would be (IMO) with an empty AC and with a hand close to the cargo release button.
With breathing cargo you would be at the safe limit with 32 or so people. Don’t forget they had a lot of cargo in the form of gear and going home stuff. So lets say average 200 per man and 100 of gear 9600 in cargo min.
Close to 5 tons or a 105-mm field gun right? Guessing here
Not a lot of room left over inside for more
I think 36 troops (as stated as not a big load early in this post)
Would take it to 10800 not a small load if they had full fuel (don't know)
Now figure this load needs to keep lifting if you loose an engine and the pilot would agree that its a good load.
Max load (28000) most definitely would not be with full fuel.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I don't know guys. The sources I'm seeing say that the CH-47 could lift 44 combat troops or 25,000lbs. of cargo, so someone's numbers/calculations are a bit off.
D model or F = 33 troops
The SD has larger engines and and can take 37 in back
cargo ratings include sling load and can be much higher as it can be droped if power is lost
Darn thing can probabley lift 40k with low fuel and a fearless crew
-
Originally posted by Scootter
In reply I think the specs shown should not state USEFUL LOAD as it does. In avaition useful load includes fuel and in this case it cant as you pointed out.
The load you describe would be (IMO) with an empty AC and with a hand close to the cargo release button.
With breathing cargo you would be at the safe limit with 32 or so people. Don’t forget they had a lot of cargo in the form of gear and going home stuff. So lets say average 200 per man and 100 of gear 9600 in cargo min.
Close to 5 tons or a 105-mm field gun right? Guessing here
Not a lot of room left over inside for more
I think 36 troops (as stated as not a big load early in this post)
Would take it to 10800 not a small load if they had full fuel (don't know)
Now figure this load needs to keep lifting if you loose an engine and the pilot would agree that its a good load.
Max load (28000) most definitely would not be with full fuel.
The problem with manufacturer's specs. is they mean F-all in the real world :D
At max load I doubt it would have full fuel since, as you correctly pointed at, you would need full power and/or not have enough power to lift the 28K load. None of us have any idea as to what the fuel load was on this particular CH-47, but I still say that 40 people does not overload a CH-47 in terms of weight lifting capability. In terms of volume yes, but not in terms of lifting power (assuming something less than max external and internal fuel).
-
"Close to 5 tons or a 105-mm field gun right? Guessing here"
That, and Bisons (i.e., LAV-25s, LAV IIIs). I think a Bison is around 13 to 15 tons.
-
Umm....the CH-47's ceiling is certainly NOT 11,100 ft. Hell, UH-1 can go past 14k (been there done that). There is a special Army aviation unit in Alaska that has flown over Mt. McKinley in oxygen equipped CH-47s. Typically, you will fly at whatever altitude the big eye-in-the-sky tells you. Even helicopters are usually controlled by AWACS in a combat theater. Lower altitude=lower exposure time to a tracking weapon. But of course, you all knew all this already.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Umm....the CH-47's ceiling is certainly NOT 11,100 ft. Hell, UH-1 can go past 14k (been there done that). There is a special Army aviation unit in Alaska that has flown over Mt. McKinley in oxygen equipped CH-47s. Typically, you will fly at whatever altitude the big eye-in-the-sky tells you. Even helicopters are usually controlled by AWACS in a combat theater. Lower altitude=lower exposure time to a tracking weapon. But of course, you all knew all this already.
Gosh..... Don’t tell me, tell Boeing, it's their site that is posting the info.
You could help them win new contracts with your wisdom
you do know what service Ceiling is right?
at gross right?
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/ch47sdspec.htm
;)
-
Well, I was only a US Army helicopter crew chief for 6 years, so you'll have to pardon my ignorance. That ceiling is at just about max gross weight. I seriously doubt that the Hook shot down was anywhere near that. 1 person is figured at 250lbs for weight and balance purposes on Army aircraft. 36 troops=3 in cabin, 33 in rear. 36x250=9000lbs+25,000lb empty weight=34,000lbs. Even assuming a full fuel load and estimating 2,000gal*7.0 (approx)=14,000lbs. 34,000+14,000=48,000lbs, still well below the max gross weight. I seriously doubt that ammo, guns, etc weigh more than the 6,000lbs that would put it over the top. Just my 2 cents.
The whole point is still moot though. Army aircraft do not regularly fly anywhere near that high unless they have to for weather or some other reason.
-
Scootter: Sometimes you think you are soooo smart, little bloopers like can make people question other things you say.
:) I trust the guys have explained to you the difference between the seating capacity and weight load capacity....
Raubvogel: Army aircraft do not regularly fly anywhere near that high unless they have to for weather or some other reason.
Well, now we know one good reason to stay up. :(
miko
-
Bottom line is the lose of life sux:mad:
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Bottom line is the lose of life sux:mad:
I dont think you really believe that.
We have to make the penalties much stiffer for gun crimes. And inforce them. HARD TIME!!! And I mean HARD TIME none of this oh please reforme me BS. put there butts to work(cool hand luke style). Till the day they DIE. And If they kill someone then give em the needle fast. None of this sitting on death row for 10 years farting around on appeals. Get tha watermelon over with give the clown his due process and then kill him"
[/size][/b]
Thats you ^. and another
"But I do live in America and If you break into my house you DIE! that simple, nothing more nothing less. Thank God I live in a country that allows me to protect myself and my family
GOD BLESS AMERICA"
[/size][/b]
Eh?
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
If I recall correctly, and it has been some time since my army days, SA-7s are not "all aspect". I seem to recall that they need to see the heat source before they will track, which means that most sucessful shots need to be from the rear quarter. If so, the Chinook crew may not have seen them coming or had a chance to react.
Credit goes to the crew for bringing the bird down with any survivors at all.
I never shot a Strela-2, but I have played with a launcher for some time when I was in college. It has a "rear hemisphere" ("Vdogon") button. As far as I remember we were told that this missiles are most effective from forward hemisphere, they have a "core" warhead that explodes into a ring (in fact a round chain) that cuts the enemy wings off.
The whole accident looks like a Mi-26 catastrophe in Hankala, Chechnya, last summer. Mi-26 was carrying more then 150 men, hit by a "manpad" and ditched on a mine field :(
-
Originally posted by Octavius
I dont think you really believe that.
[/size]
Thats you ^. and another
[/size]
Eh? [/B]
Bonehead I was reffering to the soldiers lose of life.
As far as criminal dying LOL well The only problem with that is it don/t happen fast enough:aok
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The whole accident looks like a Mi-26 catastrophe in Hankala, Chechnya, last summer. Mi-26 was carrying more then 150 men, hit by a "manpad" and ditched on a mine field :(
Jeebus Cripes!!! Some folks have all the luck eh?
What happened Boroda? Anyone make it out alive?
Reminds me a bit of a show I saw on telly about this bloke (Troy Dann....complete tool extrodinaire) in Australia's Northern Territory mustering cattle with a Bell 47.
He lost power due to some mechanical/hydraulic malfunction, and had to put the chopper down ASAP....he did it safely, just..........he put it down in 5 foot of water in the middle of a swamp, right next to a saltie's nesting sight.
Ma Croc wasnt impressed to say the least.