CH-46D and CH-47D Interior Comparison

Papa-Echo-64 wrote:

I have always wondered if there was ever any controls or power plant conflict between FE's and Pilots on helos in combat or peace time...like there was in Bombers in WWII... My Uncle was a Flight Engineer on B-17G's in the Mighty Eighth 390th BG w/ 41 missions total!.... and he alwas said that pilots would always want to run the engines hot and rich to 'get there' fast and get back ( who could blame them ) but it was the Engineers job to get the plane back to Uncle Sam.....at times it would get pretty ugly.

There are ways of getting even , especially when the loose nut between the stick and seat wants to do "just one more ILS approach" which translated means at least three more just to get it right. This of course seems to always happen on a Friday evening right in the middle of happy hour at the NCO Club, which effectively means whoever the Flight Engineer and Crew Chief are, will invariably miss it completley

The worst offenders were always the Staff Pukes (Usually Battalion, but sometimes from Group), who we called the "28-30 Club" (Meaning they got all their monthly required flight time between the 28th and 30th of the month). They'd show up and we knew it almost always meant at least two fuel loads. (4.5 to 5.0 hours at a minimum)

Jonathan Primm

I have always wondered if there was ever any controls or power plant conflict between FE's and Pilots on helos in combat or peace time...like there was in Bombers in WWII...

My Uncle was a Flight Engineer on B-17G's in the Mighty Eighth 390th BG w/ 41 missions total!.... and he alwas said that pilots would always want to run the engines hot and rich to 'get there' fast and get back ( who could blame them ) but it was the Engineers job to get the plane back to Uncle Sam.....at times it would get pretty ugly.

Papa-Echo-64 wrote:

........and you loved every minute of it!

Looking back on it, I guess I did...I wound up extending a one year tour to three years...I couldn't see leaving just when I had gotten it flyable.

Avionics continued to be a problem though, especially the IFF. For three months the aircraft was restricted to local traffic, and that meant a bunch of flight time doin the "Camp Humphreys 500". All the rest of the stuff worked OK so it didn't get me out of having to sit through GCA approaches and other instrument work (which is boring as hell to the GIB). All this when the really "good" missions were going on

Unknownpharoah wrote:

Heck our 47s soundproofing was "missing". I have some pics someplace.

You should have seen the interior on the first Charlie model I crewed when they assigned it to me. The thing had been in the hangar for close to a year and had been used as a five finger supply depot...hell, it was easier than ordering parts from supply...just stroll into the hangar and pull out a SAS amp or ECL quadrant, or generator, or flight boost pump, or .... well you get the idea

No engines, one rotor head, two rotor blades, one main fuel cell, three aux cells, no aft transmission, half the avionics were gone along with about three quarters of the sound proofing...it took six months to get the thing flyable, most of which was spent hiding parts from the Maintenance Officer until I could get them installed.

I sure wish the 92nd Hookers were still up the street from where I live...all the Hooks and Hueys from the Nat Guard air com now fly from Fort Lewis.

Man.....I could have gone up on any weekend ( after making a phone call ) with my camera and walked through some of the hanger babies they always seem to have had. Oh well. 

Papa-Echo-64 wrote:

That explains the constant mess that everyone has been talking about......if its not leaking you must be low or fresh out of hydro!

Actually, a good Flight Engineer would stay ahead of those leaks by performing thorough PMDs on his aircraft (that is when you'll find those chaffed pressure, return and case drain lines and hoses) instead of sitting around the flight platoon office playing pinochle! I know because it worked for me

If it wasn't one thing it was another... On '46s it was pitch varying arm seals that leaked, on '47s it was engine bearing pack seals. Which is why as often as not there always seemed to be an oil streak beneath one or both engines on Chinooks. In reality it wasn't that big a deal because when as little as a few ounces of oil is lost it looks much worse after the rotor wash spreads it out.

Jonathan Primm

Ha! Did I say CPU.... I need to clean out my hard drive, reboot and get more sleep

I'm pretty sure that the CPU in a Hook would be in the Cockpit or the avionics cabinet....and there would be a lot more than just one at that.

So....no oil pans on the A models.....dang! can't cover up all that detail!

That explains the constant mess that everyone has been talking about......if its not leaking you must be low or fresh out of hydro!

Papa-Echo-64 wrote:

Thanks Jon, Hey ....I'm sure that looks like a cover under the CPU on the CH47....what made some have em and other not?

Do you mean APU? Actually the "cover" is a three piece drip pan for the aft transmission that was hinged on each side with a central panel that could be removed to facilitate maintenance and servicing of the transmission and other components.

As, Bs, and Cs, didn't normally have the drip pans under the aft transmissions. On D models the drip pans were required as part of the cooling system for the aft transmission.

This photo was taken not long after we got the aircraft delivered from the factory (about 6 months or so) So that along with my anal retentiveness for keeping a clean aircraft explains why it looks the way it does. (notice the seat belts)

HTH

Jonathan Primm

ridleusmc wrote:

Wow, that's some clean soundproofing. Thats very true and rare.....but still on the 1/35 Trump Hook ....its FAR too straight.

Thanks Jon,

Hey ....I'm sure that looks like a cover under the CPU on the CH47....what made some have em and other not?

Wow, that's some clean soundproofing.