We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:49:19 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification I don't think we can blame Bill, though I'm working on it. 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!... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:16:01 -0600 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. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65919 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65919 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:43:58 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65883 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65883 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:01:48 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65882 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65882 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:53:00 -0600 Are the front rotors supposed to scrape against the top of the wing - or is that just the angle of the picture? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65856 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65856 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:04:14 -0600 ...So it's the wings, right? :) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65855 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65855 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:53:35 -0600 Jim B ~ Nah...it was just slumming. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65854 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65854 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:06:25 -0600 Looks like that Chithook tried to grow up and grow wings like a respectable aircraft http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65851 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65851 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:01:30 -0600 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! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65850 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65850 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:34:14 -0600 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! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65849 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65849 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:31:46 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65848 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65848 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:27:14 -0600 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? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65847 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65847 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:23:34 -0600 Tie-down straps? We don't need no steenkeng tie-down straps! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65845 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65845 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:32:22 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65844 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65844 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:08:04 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65843 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65843 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:11:07 -0600 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! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65842 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65842 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:36:19 -0600 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. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65840 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65840 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:27:31 -0600 It looks funny, ergo it must be Barnum and Bailey. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65838 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65838 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:06:02 -0600 ...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.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65833 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65833 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:14:49 -0600 it looks funny, ergo it must be French. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65829 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65829 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:26:45 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65828 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65828 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:19:22 -0600 So am I supposed to believe that rotors on the 347 don't leave shadows? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65827 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65827 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:15:31 -0600 I don't think we can blame Bill... Oh, go ahead. Maybe I'll get a job offer from DARPA.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65825 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65825 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:06:55 -0600 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. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65823 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65823 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:44:43 -0600 ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65821 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65821 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:09:48 -0600 All I can say after seeing this and the last one is ..less is more. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65820 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65820 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:27:03 -0600 Rear rotor's got an extra blade. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65819 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/10/so_whats_wrong.html#comment-65819 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:24:04 -0600