previous post next post  

So, what's wrong with this picture?

By The Armorer on October 24, 2007 | | Comments (26)

I don't think we can blame Bill, though I'm working on it.

Why's this helo look funny?

Nope, it's not a Chinook parked in front of an engineless C-17.

And there's something else funny about it.

Slightly larger pic available here.

Bill can't play, except to provide appropriate misdirection and snark. You snipe-hunters will have to do it on your own.

Ready, set, Google!

Share This Article:

Categories:

26 Comments

By Heartless Libertarian on October 24, 2007 5:24 AM
Rear rotor's got an extra blade.
 
By Trias on October 24, 2007 5:27 AM
All I can say after seeing this and the last one is ..less is more.
 
By Fred on October 24, 2007 7:09 AM
It's a 347. All helicopters are funny so, that isn't much of a clue.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 24, 2007 7:44 AM
Yeah, Fred - but most people don't know about the 347. And HL only got it half right - both rotors are 4 bladed, though the angle on the pic makes it hard to see that. I didn't know about the 347 until I saw it on Sunday. If you're used to Chinooks, it's an eyecatcher when you first see it, especially nose-on.
 
By BillT on October 24, 2007 8:06 AM
I don't think we can blame Bill... Oh, go ahead. Maybe I'll get a job offer from DARPA.
 
By homebru on October 24, 2007 8:15 AM
So am I supposed to believe that rotors on the 347 don't leave shadows?
 
By NinjaFluff on October 24, 2007 8:19 AM
I dunno... all the pics I can find of the 347 seem to have some small jet engine lookin' things on the rear pylon... since this is a nose-on pic, they may be obstructed. Kind of hard to tell.
 
By MajMike on October 24, 2007 8:26 AM
it looks funny, ergo it must be French.
 
By BillT on October 24, 2007 9:14 AM
...all the pics I can find of the 347 seem to have some small jet engine lookin' things on the rear pylon... They're *turbine* engines, Ninj (tsk -- jet engines on a helicopter -- what a ridiculous idea). Between the pitch of the wings and the stretched fuselage, the engine nacelles are masked. The wings even hide 'em when you're looking from the front quarter.
 
By AFSister on October 24, 2007 10:06 AM
It looks funny, ergo it must be Barnum and Bailey.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on October 24, 2007 11:27 AM
I gotta go with homebru on this one. Not only that but the splotch on the front rotor looks exactly like the splotch on the pictures of the 347 at Fort Rucker at http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/A_Models/65-07992/65-07992.html This helicopter looks to be in much better repair and a darker color than the Fort Rucker helicopter while the rotors are the same color.
 
By HomefrontSix on October 24, 2007 1:36 PM
Funny lookin' bugger, ain't she? I remember asking MacGyver what the he!! that was when we first got to Rucker. I love that museum...they have the coolest stuff in there!
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 24, 2007 2:11 PM
All the proper shadows are there, they're just hard to see. It *is* the Rucker machine. When they built the new museum and rearranged the external displays, they painted many of the aircraft.
 
By NevadaDailySteve on October 24, 2007 3:08 PM
Okay, duh, one of a kind. Sometimes it takes awhile. Are the tie down straps as invisible as the shadows? I don't think I'd want to be close to that thing in a windstorm.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 24, 2007 3:32 PM
Tie-down straps? We don't need no steenkeng tie-down straps!
 
By NinjaFluff on October 24, 2007 4:23 PM
It's a hauler, so no weapons were ever mounted to be missing... No evidence of fire, so that means Bill hasn't flown it... Can't see the innards, so we don't know if it's stripped out in the inside... Wait, is this a trick? Is the "something funny" even about the equipment, or is it more in line of the story behind this beast?
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 24, 2007 4:27 PM
NinjaFluff - to those of us who have been around Chinooks, the 4 bladed rotors are enough - but when you add the wing to it... and reference your first comment - yes, it does have twin jets on the rear pylon, like all Chinooks - though on this particular bird, the engine pods are empty. She's not completely stripped, but she's certainly not anytime-soon airworthy.
 
By NinjaFluff on October 24, 2007 4:31 PM
Ahh, I see now... the standard Chinooks only have three blades, where this one has 4. Now I understand what you meant when you told HL he was half right!
 
By NinjaFluff on October 24, 2007 4:34 PM
Ahh, I see now... the standard Chinooks only have three blades, where this one has 4. Now I understand what you meant when you told HL he was half right!
 
By jim b on October 24, 2007 9:01 PM
Looks like that Chithook tried to grow up and grow wings like a respectable aircraft
 
By HomefrontSix on October 25, 2007 2:06 AM
Jim B ~ Nah...it was just slumming.
 
By Casey Tompkins on October 25, 2007 2:53 AM
...So it's the wings, right? :)
 
By Ledger on October 25, 2007 4:04 AM
Are the front rotors supposed to scrape against the top of the wing - or is that just the angle of the picture?
 
By Justthisguy on October 25, 2007 9:53 PM
Ledger, most all hellaflopper rotors are floppy and flappy, and loosely jointed, and this is one of the many things which scare normal people who have to ride in one of those gizmos.
 
By Justthisguy on October 25, 2007 10:01 PM
P.s. I am not a normal person. I would have perfect confidence in Chief Bill's transporting me in a helicopter. I'd like to have a somewhat younger co-pilot along, just in case the Chief dropped dead or something, but, yeah, the fun would be worth the risk.
 
By Ledger on October 26, 2007 7:43 PM
“Ledger, most all hellaflopper rotors are floppy and flappy…” –Justthisguy Yep, I can see from the other pictures that the rotor blades do not scrape the wing – it is just the angle of the picture. I got a few hours behind the cyclic.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.