Originally Posted by
George K Lee
From all the numbers it seems that the only advantage of the 53K is sheer payload and the ability to fold itself into a pretzel on demand. Everything else favors the 47.
Indeed. And yet.....
While the CH-53 can fold itself to fit into a ship's hangar while a CH-47 cannot, the level of disassembly required for
air transport (in either C-17 or C-5) is roughly the same for both the -53 and -47, but slightly favoring the -47. So if shipboard use is not a factor, that self-fold feature is also not a factor. And incidentally, that self fold feature comes at a cost (in terms of dollars, weight, complexity, maintainability, etc) and is not free. So if the feature is not needed, why pay its cost?