The 47 is by far the best choice. Much to the chagrin of various internet experts who claim the Chinook "sure doesn't have the speed of other helos and is quite the large lumbering target", it is actually the fastest helicopter in the US Army inventory and is uniquely maneuverable because of the twin rotor design. Wouldn't hurt to listen to some of these people with 20+ years experience in rotary wing aviation, they might actually know what they're talking about. Also, check out just how "slow" and un-maneuverable this "lumbering beast" is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYw9YFRZa8&feature=related

Posted by: Don at October 23, 2008 03:25 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:54 AM

I had been flying CH-47s for the Army for 22 years(A,B,C,D models), and am quite impressed with it's performance. Even on one engine, it has superb performance, even at high altitudes (I've done mountain rescues on top of Mt. Rainier, 14,411 ft, and it performs as if at sea level. It's service ceiling is 25,000 ft). It can do pinnacle landings that no other helicopter can do (footprint: 1 X 8 ft), and an LZ footprint is almost the same as a UH-60. Loiter time is greater than any of the other candidates, and fast arrival times will be a plus (150 mph+). It is no louder than most other designs. Vietnam service proves it is extremely rugged and can take punishment. Although it looks like a 40 year old design, it is in shape only, as everything else has been updated over the years, making it a modern design in an old overcoat. There is a reason almost every country on Earth either operates them or is trying to aquire them. The Chinook is that good.

Posted by: Mike Morando at March 18, 2008 01:06 PM

The Chinook is by far the best choice for the CSAR mission. Speed, flexibility (Being able to snorkel), high altitude, proven design, combat reliability, endurance and a cavaneous interior beats the competition hands down. LZ size can on occasion be an obstacle, however, with it's pinnacle landing capability, that should nullify the negative comments and solve that problem. It simply out flies the competition.

Posted by: Larry at March 7, 2008 10:09 PM

Older doesn't always mean less capable. Remember this design has been tested in multiple wars. As for the comment about .50 cal rounds, I doubt any of the entrants in the bidding can take a lot of hits from, especially in a vital area.
The bottom line is your not going to please everyone, and new designs usually cost a lot more in the long run

Posted by: Bob at January 11, 2008 12:07 PM

I worked on/with Chinooks for 23+ years at the
factory and with the test pilots. As I recall, the Chinook doesn't fall out of the sky on one engine. It has an elaborate combining transmission and cross shaft mechanism to prevent that. The bird falls out only in a catastriphic accident where an opposite cross shaft or the main drive shaft is severed.

Posted by: Dov at October 21, 2007 09:27 AM

Murc,

LZ is "Landing Zone" - basically any area a helo can land in.

Ralph,

The difference is not a couple of feet in rotor diameter. With rotors turning, the 47 is over 25 feet longer than the 101. Width is about the same, but obviously with two main rotors the 47 needs a lot more square footage, to say nothing of a pilot's ability to keep the rear rotor clear in a tight LZ since he can't see it.

Posted by: Patrick at November 13, 2006 12:30 AM

Ralph, you seem pretty well informed on the Chinooks...so I gotta a question for ya: If one engine craps out, does one of the turbines stop spinning...or is it like the V-22 in which there is a shaft that connects the two engines so if one goes out, the other engine can safly give power to both props.(?)

also...what does LZ mean?

Posted by: Murc at November 12, 2006 03:06 AM

Bill, I suppose you are not aware but the HH-47 has the least downwash of the 3 entrants (simple physics really) the larger mass is distriibuted over an even larger surface area of the blades. The USAF measured the downwash very carefully at the Nellis demos of all 3 aircraft. The 47 has the lowest by 20-30%.

This aircraft is already faster than the 101 or the 92 without a new blade that the other 2 would have to develop and qualify. WE are already at 150 knots and going to 170 in Block 10 with a new blade that has chance at being done in a reasonable amount of time.

We will have a Ballistic Warning System on board in Block 10 and armour that is equal to the USASF requirements.

Oh by the way you don't drop like a rock if 1 engine goes out, so stop spouting misinformation.

The footprint of this aircraft is not that much bigger than the other two. The difference is a coupel of feet in rotor diameter, so that crap about not fittining into LZs is untrue as well.

Posted by: Ralph at November 11, 2006 09:40 PM

Perhaps yes, 141 choppers are needed, if you consider the entire globe, and the fact that you need a few SAR choppers perhaps stationed on each USAF foreign base overseas. Think about the vast, wastelands of Central Asia that need to be covered from Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.

Plus, take combat attrition and damage into account.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at November 11, 2006 03:28 PM

Does the USAF really truly need 141 combat search and rescue helicopters..?

Posted by: JH at November 11, 2006 02:59 AM

$10 billion for 140+ HH-47 Chinooks? O____o

That works out to $71 million per chopper.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at November 11, 2006 12:58 AM

I would of went with US-101...hell, if its good enough for el presidente...it would be good enough for me. ;)

I'm suprised the Chinooks are still the best pick...and Osprey has been crash-less for years...why isn't anybody picking it? its quiet abit faster. Not saying it would be the best pick for this role though...I agree with the majority of you...thats its just to big of a bird, for the missions it will be doing.

Posted by: Murc at November 10, 2006 08:12 PM

I serve in a USAF CSAR HH-60g unit. Out of all of the candidates, the HH-47 was my aircrew's and PJ's last choice. I guess that's why it was picked.

The 47 is so big that it won't fit into many LZ's we can use now. That means the aircraft will have to hover and hoist which makes it quite vulnerable. Our crews and PJ's prefer airland, but in many cases that won't be possible now.

Of course, the aircraft does have advantages - range, power, especially at altitude, but it's simply too big for CSAR. My crews personally wanted the 101 - it is great to fly and doesn't require much more LZ room than a 60, but has a lot more power and room.

I think the majority of the rescue community - meaning those that actually operate and support the airframe, view this as a bad choice.

Posted by: Patrick at November 10, 2006 06:05 PM

I piloted HH-60G PaveHawks for USAF CSAR, and have test flown both the US101 and S-92. Chinook is big and tough alright--in fact it's so big it won't fit into many LZs, and can be seen and heard coming from great distances. H-47 is a great cargo/transport helo but is too much for USAF CSAR. Selection of Chinook was pushed by Special Ops community, with the blessing of Army who'd love to gain control of the Air Force CSAR assets. USAF Pararescuemen will love the cavernous Chinook cabin--assuming it can get to the terminal area without getting shot down first, and can actually "air/land" once it arrives on scene.

Posted by: Boris at November 10, 2006 02:57 PM

The -46 and the -47 are very different birds, will. The -46 was too slow and underpowered, and its too small. The USMC needed something faster and more flexible, hence the Osprey. But if they could figure a way to fit them on an LHD, I'm sure they'd take some Chinooks as well.

Chinooks are Big, Tough, Quick, and most importantly are still all that at any altitude or temperature. This is a great choice and I hope they save alot of lives.

Posted by: Moose at November 10, 2006 02:40 PM

I wonder about the use of the word "replacing" when onehundred smaller birds leave the service and 140+ bigger birds come in.
...

Posted by: b at November 10, 2006 12:44 PM

Decision making on this one seems flakey. Two big loud engines, one fails you drop like a rock. I guess downwash wasn't a big discriminator also ...

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2006 12:34 PM

This makes me wonder why the Marine Corps couldn't put in a bid for more CH-46's, or even 47's. It seems to me that it would be a whole lot cheaper to update the current fleet with revised aircraft.

I know the Osprey is more capable, and goes farther and faster, but what good is that if you can only buy a limited number of aircraft?

Posted by: Will at November 10, 2006 12:08 PM

You have to wonder if a 40-year old design is really the best choice. I understand the need for range and lift capacity but this beast sure doesn't have the speed of other helos and is quite the large lumbering target. I don't know what the countermeasures suite will be but I doubt it will be able to counter a 50 cal round or unguided missile/rocket.

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2006 12:03 PM