Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Bog Standard Chinook

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Bog Standard Chinook

Old 3rd Mar 2013, 07:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Bog Standard Chinook

Looks like a complex programme of works ?

A program to convert the fleet to a single standard is making significant progress; the first standardized aircraft became operational in Afghanistan at the beginning of the year. The £290 million ($451 million) Project Julius program is geared to modernize and, more crucially, standardize the RAF's current fleet of 46 Chinooks.


Full story here ...

Aviation Week

Coff.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2013, 08:29
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 661
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
single standard with mk4,5 and 6 variants

looks like mk 5 is basically mk 4 with bigger sponson tanks?

and a mk6 is a mk4 with additional digital fcs modes? or does a mk6 have the bigger tanks too?

(i appreciate that if the avionics are all basically the same this is the biggest most relevant step toward total standardisation)

Last edited by JFZ90; 3rd Mar 2013 at 08:32.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2013, 10:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 52
Posts: 2,048
Received 163 Likes on 57 Posts
Mk2/2A - Mk4

Mk3R - Mk5

Mk6 is the new purchase F-Models with Digital AFCS as JFZ states.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2013, 13:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,263
Received 463 Likes on 187 Posts
I have always found it odd....that the RAF cannot coordinate the acquisition of the Chinooks and have had so much trouble with that program.

How many years did the one batch set in a hangar waiting for certification and the Mull Crash aircraft was being flown without a proper certification.

Did anyone go to Jail as a result of that mis-management?
SASless is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2013, 13:59
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
SASless:-
Did anyone go to Jail as a result of that mis-management?
No, although a couple of relatively junior SO's were named in the Haddon-Cave Report to take the rap for similar mess ups with Nimrod. Not sure that mismanagement adequately covers the subverting of the Airworthiness Regulations and Air Accident Investigation procedures anyway. The issuing of illegal orders used to be contrary to Military Law, but seems now to be recognised as consistent with the exigencies of the Service...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2013, 19:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To the OP, 'complex' is not the word!
nice castle is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2013, 01:11
  #7 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
Only the MoD can make then apparent end (don't hold your breath) to 33 years of systemic negligence and configuration mismanagement seem like an "achievement". Hopefully someone will get a gong for this.
Two's in is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2013, 19:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
End? We're just about to get going mate. Hold onto your hats...
nice castle is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 09:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,074
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
I'll never forget my first sortie on the OCF about 11 years ago. After all I had read about the Mull incident I was a bit apprehensive about flying what looked to me like a big bag bag of spanners. As I pulled the first engine condition lever (throttle) back to idle (on the ground I hasten to add) the engine failed to respond and error messages became abundant on the FADEC panel. The only way to shut down was to pull the fire handles..."great start" I thought.
Training Risky is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 16:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Did anyone go to Jail as a result of that mis-management?
The Public Accounts Committee, when describing it as the "gold standard cock-up" asked MoD to name the person with "management oversight" of Chinook HC Mk3.

MoD lied, saying this was impossible. A swift glance at the DPA (at the time) staff list told you it was precisely the same 2 Star who had the same responsibility for Nimrod RMPA/2000/MRA4. His name, and the evidence he had been forewarned about the reason for the failure of both programmes years in advance, was passed to PAC. They did nothing, which tells a story.

So, it's a toss up who deserves to spend longer in gaol!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 17:33
  #11 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 593
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
That makes a change, a Chinook thread that degenerates into another diatribe on the Mull of Kintyre and/or Mk3 history.

Last edited by MG; 5th Mar 2013 at 17:33.
MG is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2013, 09:15
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 463
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
MG, agreed, although not new news, it's good news. It's a shame the thread descends to the bottom as usual.
chinook240 is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 17:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Without question the finest transport helicopter ever designed. The Mk 3 is based on the US SOE version with larger external fuel tank to allow greater volume in the cabin (but not weight). To compensate for the reduced hover performance, the US version is fitted with a refuelling probe. (Heilcopters are power hungry in the hover but don't need as much horsepower in the cruise). As a result of the design it has a lower lifting capacity than the Mk 2 it will never be as capable as the latter so talk of harmonising the fleet is just pie in the sky. And let's not even start talking about the different handling characteristics!
kintyred is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 17:27
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
To compensate for the reduced hover performance, the US version is fitted with a refuelling probe.
Errr, what?
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 17:35
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
The Mk3 is slightly less capable in the hover due to the higher wetted area caused by the big tanks and the slightly increased AUM. The Mk3, of course, came with the fittings for a probe, modified fuel system, fuel dump and IFR lights etc. Much, but not all, of this kit has been removed during the Mk3 Reversion programme. It is, however, IMHO a more stable hover platform.

The Mk3s also originally left Ridley Park with an analogue cockpit before flying to Louisiana for the glass cockpit. Now they are back in an analogue configuration they'll have all had 3 cockpits by 100hrs with a 4th to come....

Handling qualities? Hmm.....
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 21:14
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Check the heading hold next time you're in the hover!!! And don't forget the increased fuel minima for the mk 3 reducing the payload. OK only 260kg but that's an extra couple of troops.
kintyred is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.