ch46a vs ch46e

J.H. Primm wrote:

Screaminhelo wrote:  J.H. Primm wrote: IMHO, 46s have just about reached the end of their design potential, if the process was carried to it's logical next step, insofar as tandem rotor aircraft design is concerned, then it should be the Boeing 360 that should be looked at rather than refurbished or even newly manufactured 46s. I think that the tandem rotor concept in an airframe the size of the 46 is perfect for most utility rolls.  You can carry everything you need for most any mission at all times.  There is no need to go back and get something if you have to go from say a troop mission to an external load mission.  Granted, size can be an issue in some cases, but those cases could be handled by an aircraft more suited to the role of taxi service. As far as the 46 airframe?  I think that one of the problems is they have been rode hard and put up wet like most any military airframe but they have not been supported like most of the of the other ones out there.  The Navy has been counting on the V-22 for 20 years now and thought that there was no need to maintain the lifespan of the 46.  Given the support other airframes have enjoyed, I think that it would still have life left.  What I would really like to see is the 46 re-engineered but maintain its relative simplicity.  Modern materials and methods would make a big difference. Can you believe that all of this is coming from a Blackhawk baby?  Hey, my supervisor crewed 46s for 15 years and I have come to be quite a fan of the airframe.  For do anything versatility, I still say nothing beats the 60, but I believe that the 46 is the king of the utility mission. O.K.  Just got back from refreshing my memory on the 360 and that is what I really have in mind, a modern 46. Mac Yeah, I catch your drift... I spent 22 years on tandem rotor aircraft, and I know what they are capable of. I also know that for the assault mission, something that can be off loaded from both sides, instead of having people coming out of one end is preferable in most situations, so in that respect "Crash"Hawks are better suited than Phrogs or 'Hooks. Upgrading '46s sounds nice but going with the 360 would be a better and cheaper option, you get some really good airspeed, some very powerful engines and the majority of the airframe is composite material which means less problems with corrosion and a stronger structure. I can certainly understand the aversion that many people have toward the V-22, but IMHO many of the delays that were imposed were caused as much by Congressional infighting as by engineering problems.As far as problems with aircraft development go, I seem to remember when I was a young Marine, that the there were very strong objections to an aircaft being fielded that experienced a 20% crash rate when it was being introduced, eventually it turned out to be a good aircraft...AV-8 and later AV-8B. So, unlike a lot of people, I am not ready to start trashing the V-22 just yet. I suppose there were people who crewed CH-37s who weren't happy to see the CH-53 when it was introduced, probably because as humans we are comfortable with what we are used to and changing isn't always easy. When I went from working and flying in '46s to '47s I had some reservations but I quickly learned that many of the problems that exist on '46s were addressed in the '47s...examples include access to the APU, Aft Transmission, Flight Boost and Utility hydraulic systems. Changing from cables to pushpull tubes for the flight control linkages. Having access to both sides of the Aft Pylon, having the SAS amps inside the aircraft instead of in the nose...etc, etc, etc...

Bro, the AV-8's still a pice of crap!

Screaminhelo wrote:

J.H. Primm wrote: IMHO, 46s have just about reached the end of their design potential, if the process was carried to it's logical next step, insofar as tandem rotor aircraft design is concerned, then it should be the Boeing 360 that should be looked at rather than refurbished or even newly manufactured 46s. I think that the tandem rotor concept in an airframe the size of the 46 is perfect for most utility rolls.  You can carry everything you need for most any mission at all times.  There is no need to go back and get something if you have to go from say a troop mission to an external load mission.  Granted, size can be an issue in some cases, but those cases could be handled by an aircraft more suited to the role of taxi service. As far as the 46 airframe?  I think that one of the problems is they have been rode hard and put up wet like most any military airframe but they have not been supported like most of the of the other ones out there.  The Navy has been counting on the V-22 for 20 years now and thought that there was no need to maintain the lifespan of the 46.  Given the support other airframes have enjoyed, I think that it would still have life left.  What I would really like to see is the 46 re-engineered but maintain its relative simplicity.  Modern materials and methods would make a big difference. Can you believe that all of this is coming from a Blackhawk baby?  Hey, my supervisor crewed 46s for 15 years and I have come to be quite a fan of the airframe.  For do anything versatility, I still say nothing beats the 60, but I believe that the 46 is the king of the utility mission. O.K.  Just got back from refreshing my memory on the 360 and that is what I really have in mind, a modern 46. Mac

Yeah, I catch your drift... I spent 22 years on tandem rotor aircraft, and I know what they are capable of. I also know that for the assault mission, something that can be off loaded from both sides, instead of having people coming out of one end is preferable in most situations, so in that respect "Crash"Hawks are better suited than Phrogs or 'Hooks.

Upgrading '46s sounds nice but going with the 360 would be a better and cheaper option, you get some really good airspeed, some very powerful engines and the majority of the airframe is composite material which means less problems with corrosion and a stronger structure.

I can certainly understand the aversion that many people have toward the V-22, but IMHO many of the delays that were imposed were caused as much by Congressional infighting as by engineering problems.As far as problems with aircraft development go, I seem to remember when I was a young Marine, that the there were very strong objections to an aircaft being fielded that experienced a 20% crash rate when it was being introduced, eventually it turned out to be a good aircraft...AV-8 and later AV-8B. So, unlike a lot of people, I am not ready to start trashing the V-22 just yet.

I suppose there were people who crewed CH-37s who weren't happy to see the CH-53 when it was introduced, probably because as humans we are comfortable with what we are used to and changing isn't always easy. When I went from working and flying in '46s to '47s I had some reservations but I quickly learned that many of the problems that exist on '46s were addressed in the '47s...examples include access to the APU, Aft Transmission, Flight Boost and Utility hydraulic systems. Changing from cables to pushpull tubes for the flight control linkages. Having access to both sides of the Aft Pylon, having the SAS amps inside the aircraft instead of in the nose...etc, etc, etc... 

J.H. Primm wrote:

IMHO, 46s have just about reached the end of their design potential, if the process was carried to it's logical next step, insofar as tandem rotor aircraft design is concerned, then it should be the Boeing 360 that should be looked at rather than refurbished or even newly manufactured 46s.

I think that the tandem rotor concept in an airframe the size of the 46 is perfect for most utility rolls.  You can carry everything you need for most any mission at all times.  There is no need to go back and get something if you have to go from say a troop mission to an external load mission.  Granted, size can be an issue in some cases, but those cases could be handled by an aircraft more suited to the role of taxi service.

As far as the 46 airframe?  I think that one of the problems is they have been rode hard and put up wet like most any military airframe but they have not been supported like most of the of the other ones out there.  The Navy has been counting on the V-22 for 20 years now and thought that there was no need to maintain the lifespan of the 46.  Given the support other airframes have enjoyed, I think that it would still have life left.  What I would really like to see is the 46 re-engineered but maintain its relative simplicity.  Modern materials and methods would make a big difference.

Can you believe that all of this is coming from a Blackhawk baby?  Hey, my supervisor crewed 46s for 15 years and I have come to be quite a fan of the airframe.  For do anything versatility, I still say nothing beats the 60, but I believe that the 46 is the king of the utility mission.

O.K.  Just got back from refreshing my memory on the 360 and that is what I really have in mind, a modern 46.

Mac

J.H. Primm wrote:

Screaminhelo wrote: One has to wonder what the helo world would be like if the Navy had continued to put money into the Phrog.  Today it roughly compares to the Hawk in terms of capability, that has not always been the case.  With fresh airframes and engines, it is an awesome aricraft.  Too bad the V-22 is there, I would like to see Boeing building new 46's like they are with the 47. Mac I gotta respectfully disagree with you Mac. Don't get me wrong, I have a very deep affinity for CH-46s, but you have to look at the technology behind it.  With the Ds and Fs the powerplants and airframes were a good combination...The General Electric T-58-10s produced 1250 shaft horsepower and were very reliable engines, and for the most part they held up well. The problem was that at altitude or in hot and heavy conditions more power would have been ideal. So the solution seemed to be  more powerful engines, so with the E model came the -16s, and fiberglass blades. The blades were an excellent fix...no more applying aluminum tape on the blades when the sealant between blade pockets came out. But with more powerful engines came the problem of increased fuel consumption, that meant larger fuel cells to keep a decent mission radius, which means more weight....and the cycle continues. IMHO, 46s have just about reached the end of their design potential, if the process was carried to it's logical next step, insofar as tandem rotor aircraft design is concerned, then it should be the Boeing 360 that should be looked at rather than refurbished or even newly manufactured 46s. Trying to compare CH-46s to CH-47s is like trying to compare DC-2s to DC-3s or C-123s to C-130s. Some aircraft just have more potential for upgrade than others.   Jonathan Primm Youngsville, LA

Come on now,  if they made new phrogs they will last for 46 more years. But we do need a new bird and the V-22 is not it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Screaminhelo wrote:

One has to wonder what the helo world would be like if the Navy had continued to put money into the Phrog.  Today it roughly compares to the Hawk in terms of capability, that has not always been the case.  With fresh airframes and engines, it is an awesome aricraft.  Too bad the V-22 is there, I would like to see Boeing building new 46's like they are with the 47. Mac

Man I like this guy!!

Screaminhelo wrote:

One has to wonder what the helo world would be like if the Navy had continued to put money into the Phrog.  Today it roughly compares to the Hawk in terms of capability, that has not always been the case.  With fresh airframes and engines, it is an awesome aricraft.  Too bad the V-22 is there, I would like to see Boeing building new 46's like they are with the 47. Mac

I gotta respectfully disagree with you Mac.

Don't get me wrong, I have a very deep affinity for CH-46s, but you have to look at the technology behind it.  With the Ds and Fs the powerplants and airframes were a good combination...The General Electric T-58-10s produced 1250 shaft horsepower and were very reliable engines, and for the most part they held up well.

The problem was that at altitude or in hot and heavy conditions more power would have been ideal. So the solution seemed to be  more powerful engines, so with the E model came the -16s, and fiberglass blades. The blades were an excellent fix...no more applying aluminum tape on the blades when the sealant between blade pockets came out. But with more powerful engines came the problem of increased fuel consumption, that meant larger fuel cells to keep a decent mission radius, which means more weight....and the cycle continues.

IMHO, 46s have just about reached the end of their design potential, if the process was carried to it's logical next step, insofar as tandem rotor aircraft design is concerned, then it should be the Boeing 360 that should be looked at rather than refurbished or even newly manufactured 46s.

Trying to compare CH-46s to CH-47s is like trying to compare DC-2s to DC-3s or C-123s to C-130s. Some aircraft just have more potential for upgrade than others.

Jonathan Primm

Youngsville, LA

One has to wonder what the helo world would be like if the Navy had continued to put money into the Phrog.  Today it roughly compares to the Hawk in terms of capability, that has not always been the case.  With fresh airframes and engines, it is an awesome aricraft.  Too bad the V-22 is there, I would like to see Boeing building new 46's like they are with the 47.

Mac

thanks guys, that's what I was hoping to hear. Do the seats come in groups of three, with 12 down one side and nine down the other to make room for the .50 cal?

Johnathan, do you have any more pics.

Thanks again,   Rich

The cabin interior on As, Ds, and Fs were nearly identical to those found in the  initial E model, the only real  differences would be some of the ICS panels,  maybe the panels for the  Power Management System for the engines, also some switches at the crew door for operating the external hoist. So unless someone showed up with very detailed photos of the interior of both aircraft types, it would be extremely hard to tell the two apart.

Because the Es are in fact As, Ds, and Fs that have been modified (and remodified and re-remodified), the location of the internal structural members will be the same. Looooooong ago when I used to crew them the internal workings looked something like this:

HTH

Jonathan Primm

a used to be 6112