Talk:Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

Grounding of CH-46 by USMC in 1967-68[edit]

It's been forty years, but am I the only one who remembers that the Corps grounded all the Sea Knight helicopters in late 1967 because they developed the unfortunate habit of breaking in half? I took many a ride in obsolete UH-34 helicopters operated by MAG-16 by reason of that grounding. The interesting sidenote is that Stanley Kubrick correctly filmed UH-34 helicopters in action in the movie 'Full Metal Jacket' since the Tet offensive occurred during or right at the end of the period when the Sea Knights were grounded for repairs and modifications. When they were returned to service most folks wouldn't get on a CH-46 without first doing a couple of dozen Hail Marys and Our Fathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeminarian (talkcontribs) 20:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know the cause of this problem and/or how it was addressed? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The cause can be found on pages 121 - 124 of Marines and Helicopters 1962 - 1973 Numerous crashes (I believe it was 6 crashes with 19 lives lost) in 1967 led to the grounding of the fleet. Most of the crashes were caused by problems with structural failures occuring in the area of the aft pylon or more specifically the mounting brackets of the main transmission were failing causing the front and rear rotors to intermesh. A conference was called at the Boeing Vertol plant outside Philadelphia they recommended "a strengthening of structural members in the aft pylon and along the ramp closure area." This required about 1000 man hours per aircraft which occured at MCAS New River and MCAS Santa Ana for stateside aircraft and at MCAS Futenma for aircraft in the western Pacific. Later investigation revealed that extensive modifications made from the original YHC-1A that was sold until the aircraft that was finally produced for the Marines caused many of the issues. The addition of a blade folding mechanism introduced new loads on the transmission and fuselage. The widening of the ramp door resulted in smaller support for the shelf in which all of the aircraft's main components rested. More powerful engines also added to the strain. The persistent high frequency vibrations imposed were far beyond what the unmodified aircraft could handle. All of the modifications were completed by the end of December 1967.--Looper5920 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe there was something related to the Hover-Aft function /maneuver that was thought to cause additional strain on the rear pylon.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo help![edit]

The photo of JA9503 is up for deletion. The editor - in my humble opinion - who is putting it up for deletion does not understand the subject matter and therefore does not find it significant. Before I do something stupid, anyone have any advice on fighting this?

Thanks, --Trashbag (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finish filling out the fair use rationale at File:JA9503 You Only Live Twice.jpg and add details to what is there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I offended the previously mentioned editor and it looks like he has a personal grudge against the photo now. I have relatives in town right now so I can't deal with this at the moment. I'll pitch in on Monday when I have more time. --Trashbag (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're taking this personal where it's not that at all. Fair-use rules are very stringent for a reason, and need to be followed closely. In this case, if the photo is in the movie's article, that should be sufficient, with a link here to the movie's page. There isn't anything visually about the helicopter that the movie image presents that can't be seen in other photos. The action is unique, but as a copyrighted image, it really should not be here. I'm not anti-fair-use, but I do no if we overuse fair-use images, thare are those who will push for baning them altogether, and that would be a shame if it happeneded. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The image lacked a fair use rationale. It might not have been noticed if it had that. The image caption may need more details and the image may be better suited for the movie article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, not taking it personal, to paraphrase Shelden of The Big Bang Theory it's a hypothesis based off of observation. The editor seemed upset at my talk page about my commentary here. And shortly afterwards he put the picture back up on the chopping block. I really don't think the editor nor the ones who have commented on the photo know anything about it other then it's a screen shot from a movie. When I have a moment to retort I will explain in more detail --Trashbag (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For those interested, feel free to see the discussion for further info on the picture. Vote honestly if you feel if it should be kept or tossed. Enjoy --Trashbag (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Operational history[edit]

This section could use a lot of fleshing out. Especially since the quote about the airframe being venerable and reliable is debateable. The link is no longer active and it didn't seem to be a relibable source in the first place. While I was serving in the 1990's, there were a large number of CH-46 crashes, including one that clipped an antennae off my ship, the USS Juneau. The fleets were grounded at least once during that time if I remember correctly, and there were enough high profile crashes around SOCAL alone to make headlines in both the Navy and Marine Corp Times, and in the local papers. Perhaps there are some archival links to be dug up. Personally, I got the impression that the Sea Knight was a death trap. There are reasons why the Navy got rid of them.--Woerkilt (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Every article on WP has it debatable moments, but we need to stay as neutral as possible. On the flip side there's dedicated article on the V-22 Osprey (Sea Knight replacement) accidents rate seen here, and now the corp has stated that the Osprey is one of the safest flying rotorcraft in service. Talk about contradiction. As for links you just have to surf the web. Jetijonez (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Things aren't so simple. The V-22 had a bad crash in 1992 and two in 2000; that's largely been it. The safest stuff I'd read recently was for the 10-year period after that. Anyway, sources are needed to add info on the CH-46's problems, etc. There's not much out there as for details in books on the CH-46, CH-47 and other cargo aircraft in general. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
3 crashes? I don't see how thats worth its own article. Harrier losses now, thats more in the nieghborhood. The Osprey article looks more like someone's anti-V-22 agenda, than anything else. But thats just my thought. Jetijonez (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal Merging Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador into Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Kyteto (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. After looking closely at both the Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador and Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight articles, it is my personal opinion that perhaps they would be better served being one combined article, rather than dealt with seperately. The CH-113 is the Canadian designation for the CH-46, and it does have a destinct identiy and notable history onto itself, but as its article has less than 5 kb of readable prose, it would probably be suitable to just have its own section in the Operational History of this CH-46 article, much as the CH-147 is redirected to the main article for the Boeing CH-47 Chinook. The CH-46 main article isn't particularly crowded as it stands either, and will not suffer from extreme length by being merged into. I am asking for any thoughts, opinions, supports, or objections on this proposal, to confirm that it is warrented and agreeable. Kyteto (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There would need to be many changes, including the map of operators, for a merge to continue. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am capable of making the necessary changes, changing the map of operators is fairly easy to do, but those changes won't be made unless/until the merge is given the go-ahead. Kyteto (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
A demonstration of an already-merger-ready version of the article is available here User:Kyteto/sandbox; it wasn't too hard to assemble. Kyteto (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - there is a lot of operational history that could be added to the CH-113 article and there are sources to do so, mostly Squadron histories. On that basis alone I think that it should stay as a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is only my opinion, but couldn't the article be folded into this one for now, and in the future if/when it grows to the point where it becomes undue weight/unbalanced to maintain as part of a combined article, split it back out when it is an appropriate size? The article has more or less maintained the same small stature for about 3 years, growth is extremely slow, if happening at all, is there reason to expect it to noticably enlarge? What is effectively four paragraphs of prose isn't much for an individual article, it just seems like it could be better served as a section of the main type article to me. I've also conducted searches of my typical sourcing pools, I can't claim my efforts to be exaustive and supreme, but it is my perspective that there isn't a wide abundence of material on the individual subject with which to grow with, even the official RCAF page has scant (less than four lines, followed by a dozen pictures) on the type. The majority of books coming up on a Google Books search are one-line mentions at best as well. Kyteto (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge - while there may be a significant operational history, there isn't a parallel development history - the CH-113 is merely a version of the same aircraft, and not one that differs in any great manner, and only 18 ever existed. They were not built in Canada so beyond having served here, are not particularly significant as a distinct type. To split this off, one would then be justified in splitting off the British Mustangs from the P-51 page for instance. Let Vertol CH-113 Labrador (and any variations on that name) forward to the main page about the type where the information belongs.NiD.29 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge-The developmental history should be in one place. If necessary, the Canadian-specific info can be broken out later into a separate article if it ever gets big enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge there's no need for a separate article; as NiD29 says, it's the same aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Support, weak - There are many more reasons (mentioned above) to merge than not. If the Canadian content is expanded a lot, then that content can be split off again. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Photo of landing on Bell Island[edit]

Obviously fake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.2.246 (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Placement of External Video template[edit]

I'd prefer to keep the external video links near the text that pertains to it. The in text links are frowned upon but I felt were the most eloquent. The article lacks the history From Vietnam until the 2000s. Reverting for now but I'm willing to discuss the 'requirement' that this template be used in the external links section. It's nothing we can't reach compromise on. Thanks for the all of the hard work on this entry! Thoughts?Johnvr4 (talk)

The external video links should not be in the middle of the article, that said they dont really add any value to the article so I have removed them per WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The exception to the rule about not being in the middle of the article is to use the template per WP:ELPOINTS. Upon reading more closely, the external links section appears to be the more preferred method. I've found a partial solution which is to use an internal link [1]. If I understand your position, the other argument is relevance. Therefore, I'd like to use an image or shorter excerpt of the videos that would focus on the CH-46 in the video and add to the article such as this :29 sec clip. ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The video doesnt add anything even a short bit, we are not a replacement for google (other search engines exist) any external link has to add something unusual to the article and I dont see anything out of the ordinary in those videos. Your 29-second video has very little H-46 content and none of it adds to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that 1. a top-secret declassified film with either dropping a SEAL with an atomic bomb out of a CH-46 or 2. a contingency for a crash in the not very well-known CH-46 mission of transporting nuclear warheads (in a simulation with live radiological agents) is not "out of the ordinary." Equating Wikipedia as a replacement of for Google to state this position is not understood. Wikimedia (internal) is a replacement for no copyright material on YouTube (external) was my observation. I asked about the short(er) video simply because I do not yet fully understand (haven't read) whether the small excerpts of videos are allowed out of context of the entire film. As I explained previously, the entry lacks much of anything from the Vietnam War through the 2000s and further details which I intend to add soon. Additional photos or videos from this era-even in ordinary roles will only add to the understanding by the reader.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Move Design section before further Development[edit]

Fnlayson, MilborneOne (or any other interested party) I see you are one of the main editors on top of keeping this entry clean. Can I propose that we please move the 'Design' section before 'Further Development' or incorporate all of it under 'Development'? In the current state of the entry, we talk about the new engine and upgrades etc. prior to the discussion of the engines it was designed with. I thought this could be cleaned up a bit and wanted to check in and give you an opportunity to do it how you'd like to before I modified it. Thanks a lot.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The sections are in the normal order for Aircraft article based on the Aircraft project's layout guide (WP:Air/PC). The Design section should mainly cover the design of the major variant(s), not necessarily the initial variant. The Design section could be incorporated in the Development section; this section should be renamed to 'Design and development' afterward. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Are both of the following methods compatible with WP:AIRCRAFT-D&D? Do you have a style preference between A or B?
A: Development
Design and Further Development
or
B: Development and Design
Development
Design
Further Development
Thank you,Johnvr4 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the text in the Design section being moved to the Development section. This what is stated (or meant) on the WP:Air/PC page. I think there would little to gain by simply moving Design section under Development (renamed to 'Design and development'). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand and agree that first we want to talk why the design was needed and how it came about in the "Development" and next comes the "Design" which includes the variants (we can keep the separate sections).
I'm getting hung up where the "further development" section (indicating modifications improvements to the design) should be an extension of the "Design" section instead of how it currently is with having the "further development" section under "Development" (indicating further development of the purpose for a CH-46).
If I was unclear, my intent was to move "further developments" or it's text (I don't care who does it) to a subsection of the "design" section.
Can we try that out? Thanks again Johnvr4 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Armament[edit]

Under Armament, Can the arms be further identified though years used on model? Wasn't carrying armament optional rather than simply having an option between machine gun models or a having a tail gun. There are reliable sources that state the CH-46 also carried the 7.62 M-60 but I assumed that it was well established (and obvious in war photos from that era) (WP:OR for the moment) that the .30 cal (7.62) Browning MG was used on the CH-46 in Vietnam and during Cold War. Am I mistaken? ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to note a bit like the video question above images and videos are not reliable sources for anything. That said a bit in the design section about armament would do no harm if it has reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Was poking around last night and found the following information to consider for this section. I'm also interested in including a sentence or two on the official and unofficial aircrew side arms. So far, I think there is: .38 revolver (make, model?), Colt M1911, Beretta M9 (have not looked for any sources yet).
"During the Vietnam War the Marines also installed a 7.62mm machine gun, which was fired through the cabin door." Boeing-Vertol Model 107 / CH-46 1958 (citing Janes?)
"From 1968-1971 the Corps received the upgraded CH-46F, which included improvements in avionics and all-weather performance, a better navigation system and three M-2 .50-caliber machine guns." PHROGS: Corps’ historic birds take final flights
US Marines in Vietnam: 1968 The Defining Year, page 523 Is this considered correspondence?

"Another modification was added to the CH-46s in 1968 that had nothing to do with the structural problems. In February 1968, after much hesitation. General Krulak, at FMFPac, finally approved an experiment of General Anderson's, the wing commander, to replace the 7.62mm machine guns on board the CH-46 with the .50-caliber guns. Major General McCutcheon told Krulak after his visit to Vietnam in January 1968 that almost all commanders, including a division commander, were in favor of the replacement and willing to give up troop space to carry the heavier armament with its greater range. According to McCutcheon, the question was which weapon was "most effective in the air, not on the ground. . . . Perhaps if you had a .50 to start with you might nor have been forced down." Faced with the almost unanimous opinion from Vietnam, General Krulak relented. He told both Generals Anderson and McCutcheon that while believing the issue was "completely emotional . . . [but] I am no fool where emotion is involved." With the final assent from FMFPac, General Anderson announced that he desired to arm all of the 46s with the .50-caliber guns, but would "leave it to the discretion of the group and squadron commanders, however, as to whether or not they actually mounted the 7.62mm or the .50-caliber." As General Anderson stared later, he did not want "to make a dogmatic rule" but wanted to permit his commanders to determine the best armament according to the particular circumstances. MajGen Norman Anderson Itrs to McCutcheon, dtd 2 and 7Feb68, and McCutcheon to Anderson, dtd 8Feb68, Letter No 50, File A and LtGen Victor H. Krulak to McCutcheon, dtd 2Feb68 and McCutcheon Itr to Krulak, dtd 8Feb68, Ltr No. 39, File K, 1968 Cor, McCutcheon Papers; MajGen Norman J. Anderson, Comments on draft, n.d. IJan95] (Vietnam Comment File), hereafter Norman Anderson Comments."

Unofficial Squadron (or Crew level) armament modifications
Some WP:OR or Sub-optimal sources follow from Veterans. These are available sources where other sources may be scarce. This does not mean that some other more reliable source do not exist or that reliable sources for this material may exist in the future.
[2] (and elsewhere) "HMM-364 twin M60's and later a minigun that was supplied from the Cobra squadron next door mounted in the door. True, these were not factory mods, but squadron level mods."
CamSa Raid— aka “The August 4 Caper” (reprinted with the permission of Michael Dan Kellum and Leatherneck magazine )"Our aircraft, named ‘The Grateful Dead,’ was armed with two .50-caliber machine guns and a mini-gun, which fires about 6,000 rounds per minute,” noted Benson."
Photo Album '70, Page 10 Photo Caption: "Lt. Doug Orahood and Sgt. Joe "JJ" Johnson. "JJ" installed a mini gun on his bird and with modifications obtained in excess of 3,000 rounds per minute. That's another story we may soon develop."
Photo Album '69, Page 23 Photo Caption: Sgt. Joe V. "JJ" Johnson manning his M-60 machine gun. "JJ" was known far and wide for equipping his bird with additional, non-TE, fire power. One such modification was a mini-gun from a Cobra gun ship capable of 4,000 rounds per minute.
Photo Album '70, Page 42 Photo Caption: "Aircraft in the foreground is YK-20, Joe V. Johnson's bird. Larger image shows the famous minigun mounted at his door."
Photo Album '70, Page 36, Bob Marshall sitting beside the mini-gun Photo Caption: "the mini-gun ... truly converted this CH-46 transport to a ... gun ship named "The Putny Swope."
Photo Album '69, Page 8 Photo Caption: "YK-21 the "Jungle Bunny" with the mini-gun originally installed by Sgt. Joe V. "J. J." Johnson. It was some electronic headache to make it work, but it finally did as indicated by confirmed kills in red."
Same Photo as above [Photo Album '70, Page 46 ] Photo Caption: "7.62MM Mini-gun door mount. It took some strength to fire it at high speed, but it was necessary to keep the ammo belts from breaking."
Same ship as above with the twin M-60s in door Photo Album '70, Page 46 "Adoor mounted twin M-60 (TAT system) mounted in YK-21 March of 1970]]
Using a "stinger" on the ramp of a CH-46
"4 50cals, two each side and the M-60 on the ramp, I remember at HMM-161 we would have at least one bird configured with 4 50's and a 60 on the ramp for Kingfisher ops. We had some kind of metal box or skid held down with cargo straps..."
"SSgt Hess of HMM 364 in 1968 and his metal shop designed both the tail stinger and the mountable 4 unit .50 Cal mount that went in the the Belly of the CH46D. Use on a few mission by Major Lacy (Sq maint Officer) Maj Lacy was put in for a Silver Star but Wing reverse it when they heard about the added arms."
Johnvr4 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Torpedoes for ASW! It will need some references though.Johnvr4 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Operators list[edit]

FOX 52 (also Fnlayson) Hi, I noticed this diff [3] that removed mention of the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, (INL) Office of Aviation; (flown by DynCorp and Columbia Helicopters as U.S. Government support contractors) and wanted to talk about the State Dept Operators and Wikipedia Standard (and where exactly this should go). I was directed to WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS but that states "For civil aircraft types that have a large number of operators...", and it offers none of language that was cited in the reason for the change "we only use service branch and squadrons." Just for arguments sake, until it was updated yesterday, too many service branch units were included in the operators list. However, looking at the talk page discussion here:[4] indicates the inclusion of the civilian operators is perfectly acceptable given there aren't dozens of civilian operators or its inclusion create some huge cumbersome list that no one can keep track of. For the CH-46, we have only two (or three) civil operators, two civil contractors (and 3 or 4 foreign government interest/ proposals from 2012 which would go in the "Development" or "Operational history" of the body) and I feel there is no good reason not to include it (as long as there are reliable citations that support it). Another argument (based on only including military) would be that the the State dept is generally accepted to have its own "Air Force" under the INL which is operated from a US Air Force Base (where a CH-46 is sometimes parked).

Separate issue is that the operators list has no former units CH-46 of the US Navy, (and most of the Naval operators unit page don't seem to exist on Wikipedia even as stubs). Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to inundate the reader with to much technical information, that's why we have certain words, names and phases linked so they can click & see the specifics of something (ie: base location). I think you should place a few words on the subject in "Operational history". - FOX 52 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)