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)

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. (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 preserved as an archive. 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 (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)