Chinook Question???

  Dio with 1/35 Chinook! You are brave man Robert! :-)

Andy

Brave Or Silly.... Either one i will have a go Andy.

Cheers

Robert

wooty wrote:

Just wondering if the chinooks in service in Vietnam carried .50cals out the crewchief windows or if they only carried M60s?

 The M-60D was the standard weapon carried by Slick Chinooks in Vietnam... normally one in each of the front lateral positions, and one on the ramp.    The ACH-47A was the only one built with specific facilities for the .50cal and it's Ammo, but as I understand it, some units used the .50, fabricating their own mounts, but this was rare.

Also what mount would they have used back in those days?

Here's some illustrations of the M-60 mount....

One final qusetion. Was the Ch-47A ever used for Medivac / Dustoff duties?

Although none were specifically used for Dustoff duties, nearly all participated in the evacuation of wounded and KIA personnel, as well as Troop and refugee movement during some stage of their mission.

All the best on your Trump dio; can't wait to see pictures.

Take care,

Frank

Thanks For The Informative Reply Frank.

All pics will help out heaps, thought 60s were the standard but if you say 50s were used but rare, i will be happy with that.

Just thought it would look unique with 50s aboard.

In saying this, if i go with the 50s i can make my own mounts?

Thanks Again For The Heads Up.

Cheers

Robert

wooty wrote:

Thanks For The Informative Reply Frank. All pics will help out heaps, thought 60s were the standard but if you say 50s were used but rare, i will be happy with that. Just thought it would look unique with 50s aboard. In saying this, if i go with the 50s i can make my own mounts? Thanks Again For The Heads Up. Cheers Robert

Robert,

    I wish I had some pictures of a Slick Chinook with .50cal's mounted, but I don't.       chinook-helicopter.com has a great page showing the M-60D mounts, http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/armament.html , but I couldn't find any reference to a .50 mount.         Units may have experimented with optional defensive weapons, but here's why their use was so limited in the Chinook;

(1)  The mount had to be much stronger than that of the M-60D,

(2)  They needed an external ammo supply because the weapon mounted ammo bag wouldn't hold but a couple good burst of fire.

(3)  The weight of the additional ammo.

Generally, these three factors made the M-60D a more practical option for the Slick mission, both on Chinooks and UH-1's.

Take care,

Frank

Thanks for looking Frank

I'll keep trying aswell.

If only i could find a .50 mounted in a -47A then that would put my mind at ease.

Wishfull thinking hey.......

Take Care

Robert

 Try, if you haven't already, the 'Guns-a-go-go' site.

http://gunsagogo.org/

The armed Chinooks carried .50 caliber on the flanks, and you should be able to find some decent pictures. Surely, someone at the site will be able to help you.

joe

joes wrote:

http://gunsagogo.org/ .... Surely, someone at the site will be able to help you. joe

Joe,

  I'm the "someone" at that site.

  I think Robert is looking for one of the "hangar-built" .50cal mounts that some Hook unit members experimented with.      Unfortunately, these mounts never worked their way into the mainstream because of the extra modifications required to secure them, and the extra ammo facilities required to feed the weapon/catch the spent brass, which took away from the Chinook's available interior space and payload capacity.     Both BIG no-no's to most/all Hook Unit Commanders.

  It was kinda like the "Flash Supressors" someone come up with to mount on the muzzel of the .50's on the Go-Go ships;  after one mission, they were all thrown in the garbage cans.

Take care,

... still looking

Frank

joes:   Could you email me directly, please?

Just click on my username and scroll down to the email link.

     Your profile doesn't have an email link and the private message you sent was one of the "no-reply" things from FineScale.

Thanks,

Frank

      Boeing built 4 gun ship nooks that had door mounted guns. It also had pylon mounted cannons ,and rockets.The nose had a granade launcher on it. There were 50 cals mounted in all 4 large windows They turned out to be a disaster crashing, One even shot it's own roter and crashed and killed everyone. There are photos of these in several books. They were nick named

 Go GO Birds.   There is a 1/72 kit of this type done by Italeri. Very good details. I have done it a couple of times..   The book Vietnam The Helicopter War   by Philip D Chinnery has a couple of good pics ..  One color photo shows the mounts with no guns .. There is a small 2 page article about the 4 gun ship . They were designated ACH 47A.. I will attempt to copie and send you this stuff.  Good luck to you.

                                                   The best

                                               Davey 5   dhi69@aol.com

 Davey5,

DAVEY5 wrote:

They turned out to be a disaster crashing, One even shot it's own roter and crashed and killed everyone.

Of course, it's a disaster anytime an aircraft and crew are lost, but, once one knows the REAL story behind those occassions, it reveals the fact that circumstances played a larger role in the two supposedly freak accidents the Unit suffered:

(1)  #64-13151 "Stump Jumper" was shot down one time and had to autorotate into a field with tree stumps sticking up.     She landed on one of them, punching a big hole in her belley just behind the winch door, which broke through two of the main structural supports.     These structural members were *patched*, not replaced, and because of political/publicity pressure, the aircraft was returned to Flight Status.      After four missions, the pilots and FE complained that the aircraft was "out of rig" and dangerous to fly.      The FE wrote in his report that he was afraid the fuselage was going to "break completely in two".... but the order was given to continue scheduling missions (because scraping one of the aircraft might look bad on the experimental program as a whole).      Because of this, the crew decided to "Scuttle the Ship" rather than risk an in-flight structural failure.      Only three of the eight man crew were aboard "Stump Jumper" the morning she taxied into a parked Chinook on the ramp and Vung Tau.     The Chinook she taxied into was a worn out piece of sh*t from another unit that was purposely parked  on the end of the ramp, FAR AWAY from the others.     Stump Jumper's fuselage seperated in two pieces upon impact, along the exact line the FE said it would.      At that time, the brass realized had they went on the scheduled mission that morning, all eight crewmembers would be dead.      There never was even an investigation on that incident.

(2)  A very complex tunnel system lay beneath the "Golf Course" at An Khe, and the night before #64-13145, "Co$t of Living" (the one that shot it's own rotor) went down, two "Sappers" were discovered near the ACH-47's in their parking slots.      They were chased and shot at, but in the words of Hugh Buzzell (one of the guards), "they simply disappeared".       The aircraft were inspected for explosives (sappers usual means of destrying aircraft), and since none were found, they figured they had caught them before they done anything to the aircraft.      Obviously, they hadn't.   

The book Vietnam The Helicopter War   by Philip D Chinnery has a couple of good pics ..  One color photo shows the mounts with no guns .. There is a small 2 page article about the 4 gun ship . They were designated ACH 47A.. I will attempt to copie and send you this stuff.

On my website, "They Called Them Guns A Go-Go" (http://gunsagogo.org/), you can find over 400 photographs, as well as mission reports and stories concerning their exploits.   The information was not gathered from press releases, rumors, or second-hand opinions (like most of the Go-Go info in books are), but from the actual personnel who were IN the unit.    

 Take care,

Frank

Frank, check your email?

Joe 

      AND all  that info from someone asking ,what type of mounts were used on the 50s.

       I would of sworn this was a modeling site.

DAVEY5 wrote:

AND all  that info from someone asking ,what type of mounts were used on the 50s.        I would of sworn this was a modeling site.

YUP It is a modeling forum DAVEY5, But me as a modeler along with many other forum members like to build our models as a scale replica of the real deal!

I asked a few questions and got very good imformative replys which has helped me be a better model builder.

No hard feeling DAVEY5

Robert

DAVEY5 wrote:

AND all  that info from someone asking ,what type of mounts were used on the 50s.        I would of sworn this was a modeling site.

 DAVEY5,

No... "all that info" came as the result of your post about the ACH-47 being a "disaster".     

In Modeling, we strive for accuracy, right?     Well, if we're going to be as accurate as possible in physical details of the subject, why not be as accurate as possible in the HISTORICAL circumstances concerning that subject?   

The more I know about a subject, the more motivated I become, thus, better models I build.

I'm going to locate a picture of an archetype .50cal mount eventually; Robert's question caused me to embark on this quest, so stories & such aside, everything still falls within the Modeling format.

Take care,

Frank

                 No offance taken ,, and great reply Frank, Here is an accurate story for you.One persons accurate can be a mile off. To waste time nit picking on the colors or where a mount is,or interior details  is in the eye of the builder. If that is what you enjoy ,thats fine .. Heres

what I mean. I display my finished models at different stores ,hobbie shops,craft stores ect. and people contact me to build kits for them. I had a 1/24 P-51 on display at a ship modelers supply shop. Ships as in wooden Serious builds. Some sell in the 10's of thousands. They are accurate builders down to the amount of spikes used.

       I built the 51 as miltary outside,and did a race plane engine. Added wiring and piping and all kinds of stuff that was never ever used on this aircraft.I even did a anodized vavle covers and chrome pumps .. Two guys were looking at it on day and I could hear them talking ,saying The floors weren't that color,and the seat didn't have pading like that ect.. ect . But ya know what . One of them paid 400 $ for it.They never met me and I never talked to them to this day.

    Accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Same store i had a 1/32 F 4 Phantom on display. It was  a German decal kit ,so I used decals from a  A 4 Skyhawk.. Just put them on where I thought they would look ok/... I get a call from a guy ,he wants to know if I could take some pics of the plane so he could copy the sceem on his build . I nearly craped.. Then I sent him a pile of photos.   So accurate is cool but not always necessary. I build to please the eye. Light colors in dark places and stuff like that.Most people want to see the details. If you do some cockpits to the specs they are all black and dark. Ya cant see any detail.. Bottom line do what you like to do .. What ever makes ya happy. If it is the stories or the colors or lettering what ever Blows your skirt up.  Sorry I can build but can't spell or type 

                                                 The best to all

                                             Thanks for your help on the 37 Frank

                                                  Davey5   dhi69@aol.com

                 No offance taken ,, and great reply Frank, Here is an accurate story for you.One persons accurate can be a mile off. To waste time nit picking on the colors or where a mount is,or interior details  is in the eye of the builder. If that is what you enjoy ,thats fine .. Heres

what I mean. I display my finished models at different stores ,hobbie shops,craft stores ect. and people contact me to build kits for them. I had a 1/24 P-51 on display at a ship modelers supply shop. Ships as in wooden Serious builds. Some sell in the 10's of thousands. They are accurate builders down to the amount of spikes used.

       I built the 51 as miltary outside,and did a race plane engine. Added wiring and piping and all kinds of stuff that was never ever used on this aircraft.I even did a anodized vavle covers and chrome pumps .. Two guys were looking at it on day and I could hear them talking ,saying The floors weren't that color,and the seat didn't have pading like that ect.. ect . But ya know what . One of them paid 400 $ for it.They never met me and I never talked to them to this day.

    Accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Same store i had a 1/32 F 4 Phantom on display. It was  a German decal kit ,so I used decals from a  A 4 Skyhawk.. Just put them on where I thought they would look ok/... I get a call from a guy ,he wants to know if I could take some pics of the plane so he could copy the sceem on his build . I nearly craped.. Then I sent him a pile of photos.   So accurate is cool but not always necessary. I build to please the eye. Light colors in dark places and stuff like that.Most people want to see the details. If you do some cockpits to the specs they are all black and dark. Ya cant see any detail.. Bottom line do what you like to do .. What ever makes ya happy. If it is the stories or the colors or lettering what ever Blows your skirt up.  Sorry I can build but can't spell or type 

                                                 The best to all

                                             Thanks for your help on the 37 Frank

                                                  Davey5   dhi69@aol.com

wooty wrote:

Just wondering if the chinooks in service in Vietnam carried .50cals out the crewchief windows or if they only carried M60s? Also what mount would they have used back in those days? One final qusetion. Was the Ch-47A ever used for Medivac / Dustoff duties? Just have a dio idea for the 1/35 Trump Hook. Cheers Robert

I realize this may not be much help, but the standard mount for M-60Ds on CH-47s was(is) known as the M-24 Armament Subsystem.

As Frank mentioned, the mounting system wouldn't be adequate for mounting an M-2. It isn't just the actual mount, but the airframe structure to which the mount is attached that is the main concern.

CH-46s on the other hand had(have) sufficient airframe supports and gun mounts for .50 cals. Whereas the M-24 systems look like modified lengths of pipe, the mounts used on '46s are huge box beams with the airframe reinforcement to support them.

Hope this helps.

J Primm

Hi Jonathan,

  Yea, I forgot about the .50 mounts in the Phrogs!      Nice getting to talk to you again!          Hope all has been well with you, sir.

Robert,

    Here's a pretty good shot of the waist gunner's position in the ACH-47, and you can see how the large mount was attached inside.     Although the bolt suggest of a hinge at the end of it, none of the Crews ever remember seeing the .50 mounts disconnected.    

    Even after they DD'd the ship and began parting it out, "Easy Money" still had the .50 mounts attached!

DAVEY5,

    My point was not "modeling" accuracy, but historical; specifically concerning what you said about the ACH-47 aircraft/Unit being a "disaster".      The Armed Chinook's were built to accomplish a 6 month TDY tour in Vietnam to test weapon systems and explore the possibilities of a production line "super gunship".      The test were successful and refinements were made to the new AH-1G weapon systems as a result.     Had Boeing been the only voice in it, the ACH-47 would have been religated to the boneyard then because her OFFICIAL work was done, but the 228th wanted to use them, so they stayed..... but it was understood from the beginning that there would be no aircraft replacements, and when they're gone, the Unit's gone.      They fought valiantly and saved many lives, until the attrition of war finally caught up with them.

The only ones who thought of them as a disaster was the gooks on the recieving end of their firepower, infact, show me one Official document that has anything but praise for the mission "Guns A Go-Go" carried out in Vietnam?     

Take care,

Frank

Thanks For The Pic Frank

It gives me a clear indication of what i have to scratchbuild, i might even scratch the used cartridge holders.

Davey, No offence towards you in any way, just like it what said beforethe mor people get involved in the subject the more enjoyable it can be. To be good at something one must enjoy what he is doing. Again No Offence.

Cheers

Robert

Davey5,
I hope it doesn't seem like folks are ganging up on you but I just wanted to be sure that you knew that Frank knows what happened to these aircraft because they were his aircraft.  There are alot of people that have first-hand knowledge of CH-47s but there are precious few who have such knowledge of Guns-A-Go-Go.  Frank was there and saw much of the history of the ACH-47 in person.  There may be those that would dispute his information on these aircraft but the burden of proof is on them as far as I am concerned.

I agree with you whole heartedly on you philosophy in building.  If the builder is happy with their work then it is "right".

BTW, All crashes are a disaster in my book

                  I totaly understand were Frank stands as to the Guns a GO GO .... My hats off to any and all veterans.,now and then.. What Frank has not mentioned is that two of these aircraft never made it to Action.. They never left The USA.. My info sources are Two very close relitives.One has been at Boeing for 30 years,and one is on his 25 year at Sikorsky in Ct. where I was born and raised. I can remember seeing Igor walking the streets of Bridgeport ,shopping.My dad would point him out since I was only about 48 inches tall and couldn't see over people in front of us.We have over 45 years of intrest in Helicopters. Only about 30 years of modeling.I learned to fly in Fl. where I am now. Again thank God for people of Franks background or we might be flying Mil Mi s instead of Agustas.  thanks for info and chatting to everyone, The best  Davey5 out

  PS ya ... I also froun on wrecks, they can really screw-up your day..

DAVEY5 wrote:

What Frank has not mentioned is that two of these aircraft never made it to Action.. They never left The USA..

DAVEY,

LOL!   No disrespect to your relatives, but they gave you information that is incorrect.

You not only have my word on it, but many pictures of each of the four aircraft IN the Rebublic of Vietnam while fully operational (flying combat sorties), along with photos and stories of their final disposition. (all except #149 remained in RVN)     

I encourage you, and your "info sources", to go read and look at the TRUE history of "Guns A Go-Go", from material submitted exclusively by those directly associated with the program.

Take care,

Frank

    Thanks Frank , Much praise was a good word to use was the reply from my brother at Sikorsky and same from my cousin at Boeing. They were totally captivated and impressed by your site. They both thank you for all that information and your service performance,as I do. Again ,without good folks who serve their country as they did also,we might be saluting a red flag instead of  red white and blue one.Back to modeling and Helicopters.One of my instructors in the 109 flew 47's. His name was Gene last name started with Co. You know how small the world can be,did you know any pilots with this  name. He was from Missippi.  The earliest heli I can remember seeing  as a kid was a CH 34. then CH 53Ds and the last large bird I remember was the CH 54. I never saw a Mojave. I don't why.  I didn't leave Ct. till 1977 . First one I saw was in a book. i can't explane it .. With out a memory of a real one I need photos like the ones you sent me.All the pictures I have seen up to yours were black and white,.Was she painted in gloss as the show was or reg drab?This is going to be a fun build.. I can feel it. Well I shall move on Sir and thanks again for your help ,the best to all

                                                                     Davey5

Thanks, I'm glad you all like it.     

DAVEY5 wrote:

His name was Gene last name started with Co. You know how small the world can be,did you know any pilots with this  name. He was from Missippi.

    I'll do some searching.... I don't personally remember anyone I was with named Gene, however, that's not unusual because we generally never used first names.

Was she painted in gloss as the show was or reg drab?

    #64-13145 and #64-13149 were painted in the HiVis scheme off the line because they were going to be used for publicity photos.     30 days later, when #151 & #154 (in OD) rolled off the line, #149 was then painted OD and the three of them sent to Ft Benning to begin Crew Training.      #145 kept the HiVis scheme and was sent to Edwards AFB for continued testing.     A few months later, after #151 was destroyed, #145 was also painted OD and sent to RVN.

    Take care

     Frank

Robert,

 I located a couple more pictures that may be of use in your scratchbuilding...

  ....and, one of the #1 Gun position firing.

 Take care,

Frank

oldhooker wrote:

Thanks, I'm glad you all like it.       DAVEY5 wrote:     His name was Gene last name started with Co. You know how small the world can be,did you know any pilots with this  name. He was from Missippi.      I'll do some searching.... I don't personally remember anyone I was with named Gene, however, that's not unusual because we generally never used first names.   Was she painted in gloss as the show was or reg drab?      #64-13145 and #64-13149 were painted in the HiVis scheme off the line because they were going to be used for publicity photos.     30 days later, when #151 & #154 (in OD) rolled off the line, #149 was then painted OD and the three of them sent to Ft Benning to begin Crew Training.      #145 kept the HiVis scheme and was sent to Edwards AFB for continued testing.     A few months later, after #151 was destroyed, #145 was also painted OD and sent to RVN.     Take care      Frank

Frank;

You probably already know this, but the following website has been put together by Mark Feller and has quite a few folks listed in it. I have found it very useful and have been able to locate quite a few people I'd had lost touch with.

 http://www.chinookcrews.com/

Hope this is of use.

Jonathan Primm