RAF Mk6 Chinook : First Flight

[CoffmanStarter]

http://www.shephardmedia.com/static/images/article/mk6.jpg

Boeing has revealed that the first flight of the newest CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter for the Royal Air Force (RAF) took place on 15 March at the Boeing helicopter facility near Philadelphia. The successful flight took place ahead of schedule and confirmed initial airworthiness for the Mk6 Chinook.

More here ...

Boeing Press Release (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2650)

RAF Mk6 Chinook (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/new-raf-chinook-completes-first-flight/)

Coff.

[denachtenmai]

Made by Boeing! Hope it hasn't got Li-Ion batteries:ooh:
Regards, Den.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, come on! Boeing's sparkies make one little mistake and you never let it go. It's not easy multiplying volts by amps, you know.

Still looks like a good old Chinook to me (and I do mean GOOD). Nice and clean, though.:ok:

[A2QFI]

Any further news on these Chinooks or are they money down the pan?

Delivered to the UK in May 2002, the extended-range aircraft was originally planned for use in support of operations involving Special Forces personnel, but along with the RAF's other HC3s was placed into storage after it became clear that the type's flight software could not be properly certificated.

Work to prepare the stored aircraft for operational use began in June 2008, with the reversion project to increase the acquisition's cost of almost £270 million ($435 million) to around £420 million. The current effort involves Boeing, GE Aviation Systems, Qinetiq and the RAF, with the aircraft being modified at Qinetiq's Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire.

[Rhino power]

A2QFI, the Mk.6 Chinooks are all new build, they haven't been delivered yet. The ones which you refer to are the HC.3s, which have since all been retro-modded by QinetiQ to become HC.5s...

-RP

[Chinny Crewman]

Not quite RP the Mk3s have indeed been retro fitted with analogue cockpits and have been flying from Odiham as Mk3Rs for some time. They are due a Julius upgrade to the Thales digital cockpit over the next few years when they will be Mk5 standard.
Busy time at Odiham!

[SASless]

Errrrrr....back to Square One.....why not just wipe the Software install and install the new version? (Or...perhaps just buy an off the shelf version from Boeing that is well proven and in use for years by the US Army?):ugh:

[minigundiplomat]

The successful flight took place ahead of schedule and confirmed initial airworthiness for the Mk6 Chinook.

I'm sure Boscombe will continue the precedent...........

[A2QFI]

Many thanks for the three replies. It still seems to me that it has taken an unquanitified shed-load of money to sort out a poorly researched purchase.

[Rhino power]

Thanks for the update Chinny Crewman! :ok:

-RP

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

ErrrrrrErrrrrr....back to Square One.....why not just wipe the Software install and install the new version? (Or...perhaps just buy an off the shelf version from Boeing that is well proven and in use for years by the US Army?)
Yeah, because buying a complex weapon system is that easy........ Plus, the US Army is happy to live with airworthiness risks that many other uses are not comfortable with, and with ITAR regulations you only get what the USG wants to give you - which sometimes is not that much. But then, I'm sure you would have done a better job of it.

Wait - hang on, I'm not in the RAF anymore, what am I saying. What a rubbish job the MoD did in buying those Mk3s, anyone could have done it better!

CWD

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Anyhow - well done to the Brits and Boeing on getting the Mk6 into the air, now could you please get the other one off the production line so the RCAF aircraft can get thier turn.:)

CWD

[dervish]

The successful flight took place ahead of schedule and confirmed initial airworthiness for the Mk6 Chinook.

Can someone say what this actually means? If you look at the non-compliance matrix in the Chinook Mk2 evidence achieving first flight doesn’t tick that many boxes in the airworthiness checklist.

https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/finance-docs


a common configuration

Reading the same evidence they’re only 28 years late as RAF engineers demanded this in 1985. There were at least 5 accidents caused by poor configuration control. I wouldn't have let the PR man even mention this.

BZ the current Chinook team, but one success doesn't make up for what went before.

[Evalu8ter]

CWD, now now, play nicely! One for us, one for you!!

The Mk6 is not 'common' to either the CH47F or the Mk2/3/4 as it has the DAFCS. The UK has not adopted a standard 'F' for a number of good reasons. CAAS, at the time, had a HMI optimised for US Army ops and would have required a complete change in RAF SOPs - for example, the UK use crewmen in the cabin extensively for navigation and data entry, none of which are (were) possible with CAAS when we looked at it. When I asked for some necessary changes the answer from US Army was 'when you've got 2500 cockpits running this system we'll listen to you...' Airworthiness, as CWD mentioned, was also tricky because CH47 didn't have the best rep (MoK, Mk3 AU fiasco) so getting a nascent MAA and reluctant RTSA to buy into US Army airworthiness regs was a step too far at the time. There are other important changes in avionics and mission kit and the Mk6 also has a rotorbrake to help with ship ops.

A2QFI,
The original Mk3 purchase was a dreadful mess, and has been thoroughly rodded-out by the NAO. Suffice to say, in the finest traditions of procurement, no senior hands were sacked or even reprimanded; indeed, several involved were still in post when I arrived at ABW a decade later. The cost to 'put it right' is misleading as it involved several upgrades that would have to have been put onto the ac even had it entered service on time - in many respects they were just catching up with their sisters. The real irony is that the 8 Mk3s were built by Boeing with legacy cockpits then flown to Honeywell to have the glass cockpit installed; they are now on 'legacy' cockpits again until the Mk5 programme...therefore some ac will have had 3 cockpits by 100hrs TT and some will be on number 4 by about 1000hrs....

MGD,
Mk6 is a Combined Test Team from day 1 with Boeing, Boscombe and RWOETU crews involved; never say never, but hopefully even QQ can't put unnecessary delays into this programme. Oh, I'm aware of the potential irony of what I've just said......

[Old-Duffer]

Advice please ladies and gentlemen and a serious question.

I was told that the Mk 3 - about which so many awful stories have been told - was also purchased by the Dutch and they have flown the aircraft without issue.

a. Is this true.
b. Is it correct that the only real issue is that we didn't have the software codes and so couldn't prove the aircraft safe.
c. Why could we not buy the aircraft to a US spec in the first place?

Old Duffer

PS Whatever else - Chinook is a great piece of kit!!!

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Good programme on this week about BN, the RAF chinook that has served for 30 years. They also went around the Boeing factory looking at the new series being made. The yanks reckon they will still be operating theirs for another 20-30 years

[Cows getting bigger]

Hey, Evalu8ter, you mention that the Mk6 has a rotorbrake to help with ship borne ops. Do the US Chinnoks not have one or did we bin it somewhere since the Mk2?

[Duplo]

I assume this brand new helo also has useful things like radar and TCAS?

[chinook240]

OD,

a. No

b. No

c. See Evalu8r's excellent summary just above your post.

CGB

All UK Chinooks have a rotor brake.

[MG]

Old-Duffer,
The Dutch Block 5 ac had a similar, though older Honeywell cockpit. Theirs was monochrome and ours got colour. The issue was that the DefStans were written very stringently and we would have had to have paid lots to access the source code to prove the primary flt instruments were certified to our standards. They were already meeting US DO178B standard. It was an issue, but not the only one.
Having said that, the spec wasn't great and we would probably not have lived with that cockpit for long, it would have driven us nuts. As Evalu8ter has said, buying US off the shelf means that we don't get a rotorbrake and we get an inferior DAS set up, so it's not a cost-effective idea.

Duplo: No, don't be daft! That would be far too useful. We're lucky to get the 14 that we are, we were going to in line for 22. Any add ons like radar just increase cost and reduce airframe numbers. More likely, if you ask for too much, you just get laughed at and end up with nothing.

[dragartist]

Good summary Evalu8.

Interesting to note remnants of SRIMs 4052 (RWR) 4088 (Rad Alt) and 4084 (Chaff and Flare) remain after all these years. We began work on these in 1981 at EWAU just prior to Falklands. I can't have done that bad a job.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Another excellent post Evalu8ter - as per usual. Just to bring you into the loop, the Canadian CAAS (we call it AMS eh?) development has had its share of difficulties, but will be an improvement over the original. But as 'we' use the Flight Engineer concept from our American neighbours, it still would not be suited to RAF SOPs.

I'm sure QQ will be able make you regret your last sentence.:)

Stay safe mate,

CWD

[SASless]

So....rather than change an SOP....you would rather spend a shed load of money, accrue much embarrassment, and do without a bunch of badly needed aircraft. Is that what you said but in a much more eloquent way?

Am I to accept the Non-Flying Pilot cannot input Nav Data...and actually....Navigate? Surely....that is not the case....is it?

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

SASLess,

You are missing so many important facts to be in a position to make the sweeping conclusions you seem to be making, plus I think that you are confusing the Mk3 and the newer procurement of the Mk6 - which is based on a CH47F (but not the same).

WRT the Mk3(R) programme, a shed load of money was being spent either way, and if I remember the cost estimates at the time (I'm sure Evalu8ter does), CAAS was more expensive, plus would have introduced a completely different cockpit between versions of aircraft, something that the UK Chinook Team at the time wanted to avoid. Furthermore, CAAS was (is) not developed to DO178B - a solution that would never have received airworthiness clearance from the RTSA or a safety endorsement from QQ. Lastly, a crewman - in RAF speak is a Loadmaster, rearcrew - not a pilot, and they are able to input Nav data on RAF Chinooks, or were pre Mk4, I'm out of the RAF loop since I joined the RCAF.

One important thing to remember is - just because the US Army does things a certain way, it doesn’t make it right for everyone else.

CWD

[SASless]

One important thing to remember is - just because the US Army does things a certain way, it doesn’t make it right for everyone else.


Yet if the RAF does something different than every other Chinook operator...it is the only way to do things properly I guess?


As the UK RAF and US Army were both NATO members....and supposed to be seeking commonality in equipment as much as possible....it would seem one of the considerations would be to place some importance on that idea when it comes to "common" aircraft.

Granted all aircraft configurations are a moving target with improvements, Mods, and arrival of new technology....but in time of War....assuming we were on the same side....I can see great value in compatibility between friendly force equipment.

Or...does that just apply to ammunition and petrol?

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Again, your comments undermine your argument. Support solutions are bespoke to the operator. The US Army does things that best suit the US Army, the RAF and the RCAF both have entered in to PBA arrangements with Boeing. Spares must remain within the maintenance programmes of the user, anything else would introduce parts that have unknown life or incompatible usage spectrums to the weapon system. Commonality only rarely crosses national boundaries wrt weapons system capability support solutions, users always do something different to the other guy for very good reasons. Ammo and fuel are about the only dead cert for the commonality that you mention.


Lastly - I didn't say the RAF way is the only best way, just that the US Army way isnt the best way for all users. BTW, I left the RAF 4 years ago, I now run with the RCAF.


CWD

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

CWD & Evalu8r - Thank you! It's great to see some authoritive and informative comment on a subject in these forums... :ok:

Don't suppose you know anything about the F-35? They badly need someone like you over at the 'F-35 cancelled...' thread!

[Evalu8ter]

SASless,
The RAF crew concept enables the NHP to concentrate on lookout (we tend to fly routinely a lot lower than US Army crews), fight the platform tactically and cover most of the radios. Normally he/she will also do the nav/data entry, but at times of high workload it's very handy being able to pass it to the back. A major difference between 'green' RAF and US crews is FLIR; although a fantastic aid to obstacle clearance and LZ recce, it can also be a heavy workload for the NHP. The crew concept also permits flexible replanning; the crewman can generate a completely new flightplan then pass it to the front crew for execution. Pretty much every NATO crew who've seen our crew system would like to adopt it but if they've been forced to buy a CAAS system due to cost (CWD, I believe the CAF TPs suggested an alternate cockpit due to high workload but were over-ruled on cost grounds...) or problems with changing their training systems to provide the requisite rear-crew trg they stick with what they've got. Just because we do it this way doesn't make it right, but with so 'few' ac compared to the US we have to wring all the flexibility and capability out of what we've got. Interestingly, the RAF Merlins also have the full crew station in the cabin and I hear it's been a step change for some RN rearcrew transferring from the Sea King.

F/A-18, thank you for your kind words. I do have a small 'in' to F-35 in my current role and have some sympathy for posters as there is much that can't be said for good reason in the public domain. I'm staying out of that forum, there be dragons there....!!

[tucumseh]

Evalu8ter

Excellent, as ever.

Suffice to say, in the finest traditions of procurement, no senior hands were sacked or even reprimanded;

To be fair, what RAF regulations would permit disciplinary action? It is often ignored, or even unknown, that the Director of Helicopter Projects (DHP) at the time (civvy) selected on merit the best programme manager candidate available, based on experience, direct knowledge and track record. But having handed over to his relief, on the day he was due to start work he was recalled as the RAF (yet again) insisted on parachuting an inexperienced officer into the post. I dare say this officer was horrified, and he was certainly out of his depth. This was before the Chinook buy was split, creating the Chinook Mk3. His boss, the Chinook Project Director, was tied up being MoD front man for MoK, but I can assure you that he knew of all the forthcoming problems on Mk3 and was also ignored. (He was my immediate boss). His primary concern, from day 1, was perceived inability to attain airworthiness - based largely on what he'd learned about Mk2 since taking up post in early 1995. With hindsight, I can also see he had been made privy to the CHART report, which was withheld from us plebs. (Dervish alludes to this above).



In this period (1993-on) the RAF hierarchy (CAS, ACAS, CE, Gp HQs etc) were the bane of DHP’s existence, bearing in mind the MoK shenanigans and the pressure applied to sign off on the Mk2 airworthiness in July 94. (Pressure that was resisted, as it had no clearance to fly). This resistance alienated DHP, and was probably not helped by his 2 Star boss being, unusually in that post, an AVM.

However, I agree with your sentiment as applied to the higher grades. The next 2 Star’s (civvy) performance level has never been in doubt; chief among his achievements was Nimrod MRA4. He was also taken with inexperienced young graduates, and any study of the Mk3 programme should dwell heavily on the excellent advice these youngsters were given, and ask why they were encouraged from above to ignore it. It remains the DE&S party line that Mk3 was a rampant success! To say otherwise would reveal too much about MoK and XV230, and perhaps damage certain careers. All 3 events are inextricably linked, with numerous common factors.

[minigundiplomat]

SASless,

The US Army method of operation suits an outfit with 400+ airframes.

The UK method of operation suits an outfit with 40+ airframes.

I can see the merits in both, but with a smaller fleet, the crew and system have to be more versatile. That's why a number of nations operating smaller fleets have copied the UK model.

It's not a slight on your nation, or an offence to your manhood - its doing the most with what you have.

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

F/A-18, thank you for your kind words. I do have a small 'in' to F-35 in my current role and have some sympathy for posters as there is much that can't be said for good reason in the public domain. I'm staying out of that forum, there be dragons there....!!


I'd like to echo Evalu8ter here. Thank you for your comments; however, unlike Evalu8ter I have no 'in' to the RCAF Next Generation Fighter (NGF) Project (not allowed to call it F35 as we are back to the options analysis phase) but the NGF project is located 2 floors above my own project - not many people work there anymore, and I don't like going up there, I have this urge to zap the zoomie 'gate guard' they have just inside their entrance. :}

CWD

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

F/A-18, thank you for your kind words. I do have a small 'in' to F-35 in my current role and have some sympathy for posters as there is much that can't be said for good reason in the public domain. I'm staying out of that forum, there be dragons there....!!

You're welcome, and me too. Have already said too much in there and have had my butt royally kicked accordingly!:uhoh:

They think because we can't talk about stuff, that we're hiding stuff. Well, we are, that's the whole idea. :ugh:

Anyway, back to Chinooks...I understand our first F is also on the line. Our Ds are rapidly tiring and apart from some of the dynamic components, may not even be worth bringing home from Afghanistan, so the Fs will be a welcome reprieve! :ok:

[GreenKnight121]

E8 & FA18... while I have no inside access to anything anymore (and never did have much), having left the USMC in 1989, I feel for those who do know and cannot tell what they know due to security restrictions.

There have been many times over the years when I heard garbage being spouted by both opponents and defenders of certain aircraft & systems where I could (even with my lowly maintenance Sgt level of access) have corrected both... but couldn't, as the correct info was not yet public domain, and therefore my voice had to be silent.


I am sure that there are both good and bad things about the F-35 program (and the separate models) that are classified and therefore cannot be provided in debates like the one you refer to... and that lack makes most of the debate pointless.

[Evalu8ter]

GK,
You are absolutely right; the veil of secrecy (rightly) prevents classified data entering the public domain, but it also can protect embaressment to individuals, companies and organisation. That's life I guess.

F/A-18; was working with your 'chook drivers last year - yep, the aircraft will be tired but you should see the state that some of ours come back in!!

[Rigga]

...Nice to see the traditional Oil Slick under the new engines though!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

GK - the really sad thing about the F-35 is that there are no "bad" things about the program in the classified domain, and these are being ticked off every day. There are only lots (and LOTS) of good things that can't be spoken of! People keep banging on about transonic acceleration and sustained Gs and kinematics etc, but the jet and its system is SO MUCH MORE... *sigh* :ugh:

A fairly senior colleague with much more high-end fast jet recency than me told me over a cuppa the other day, "I have a wife and two kids and everything to live for, but if I had a choice I would put myself in an F-35 cockpit over anything else tomorrow!"

CWD - can imagine! I'm actually working on a project now with a recently retired senior with Chook experience...man, has he got some war stories!!! :eek:

Was interested to read today that the new Canuckdian Chooks have the MH-47G's larger sponsons and resulting increased fuel capacity. :D

Does this have an affect on lift capacity due to rotor download onto the sponsons?

[Evalu8ter]

F/A-18,
We have 8 'fat tank' Mk3s (yes, those ones.....) and there is a slight impact on hover performance due to an increased downdraught 'wetted area'. The Mk3, therefore, would not be my first choice for a heavy USL task but if you need to go a long way with a full cabin (ie, not full of extra fuel tanks) then it's the platform of choice. The Canucks need them to transit over the GCFA between Petawawa and Edmonton......eh?:E

[Lordflasheart]

I suppose a Flight Recorder would be out of the question ? Or is that already in and classified need to know only ? LFH

[Evalu8ter]

Flash,
All CH47s have FDRs and CVRs nowadays.....

[SASless]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/66007_654870547860148_62222686_n.jpg

[Lordflasheart]

Thanks Evalu8r. Guess I should have known, but it was kind of you to confirm. LFH

[SASless]

A "For What It Is Worth" Article about US Army CH-47F Models.

Block 2 CH-47F To Tackle Payload Shortfalls (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_04_22_2013_p33-569864.xml&goback=%2Egde_1735177_member_234848073)

[Evalu8ter]

SASLess,
Thanks for the link; Boeing have been trying to keep quiet about the weight growth - it's about 1000-1500lbs from the D to F IIRC. The -714 engine hid a good part of it, and there's no doubt the avionics upgrade makes the F a more flexible asset. The rotor system is well overdue modernisation; studies have been done on applying BERP tech to Ch47 blades but PM Cargo were never that interested because the US Army R&D org (at Ames?) were working on one...it's just never shown up and until now there's never been a need for it. BERP IV did a lot to keep the Merlin viable, imagine what it (or similar tech) could do to the CH47. Oh, and Boeing, sort out the electrical system.......please.

[SASless]

In my time....very early on in the life of the Chinook....just getting the APU on line without blowing out a hydraulic line or two was a feat in itself.

The really early Models had more Road Miles than Air Miles for quite a while.

Fly them to the field for training, then when they went U/S, pull the blades, hook up the tow bar....and drag them back to the airfield.

They have improved considerably since those days.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Also to be taken into account is the additional ballastic armour matting/plating, door guns & ammo, radios, and other mods required for Afghan ops which are de-installed when back from the warzone. Combined, these must weight quite a lot...!