PDA

View Full Version : CH46 Helo & HMMWVs


MajorH
10-16-1999, 01:26 PM
There has been some question in the testing of TacOps v3.0 over wheither a USMC CH46 can lift a HMMWV or not. The current 3.0 test version does not allow it and TacOpsCF v2.3 does not allow it.

I spent the morning searching the Internet and have decided to allow this lift. I am going to increase the lift capacity of the CH46 from 6000 lbs (2721 kg) to 8763 lbs (3975 kg).

The Boeing website <http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/> was the only site that I found that provided such a high lift capacity for the CH46E but who am I to buck the manufacturer http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.

By the way, according to Boeing there are currently 232 CH46Es and 9 CH46Ds in the USMC - give or take a few.

Another by the way ... the Boeing site is quite a bit more interesting than the last time that I cruised through it. They have added a number of audio clips and video clips. Might be useful if you ever need a wav file of a helo flying by http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.

------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh1@aol.com

Michael emrys
10-28-1999, 06:11 AM
I live in Boeing country, Major, and I would be just a little cautious about taking their claims at face value, especially the lift numbers. Those are probably for a well-maintained machine at sea level on a cold day. Out in the field after a hard days's flying might be a very different matter.

Michael

jcurtis
11-10-1999, 10:33 PM
I flew the CH-46 (forget the model, it has been 10 years) for the navy and NATOPS prohibited any loads over 6000 lbs from being lifted (internally or externally). Besides lifting the 6000 load was a one time event due to a reduced fuel state. This was all predicated on the ambiant conditions. I do not believe the marine version (E) would be capable of lifting 8K+, even on a cold day.

MajorH
11-11-1999, 04:24 AM
Thanks for the scoop. I ended up with a bunch of conflicting claims for the latest model but I decided to leave the 8K lift capability in. Leaving it in at this point is less risky and gives more user flexibility than disallowing it in the code. I'll let the users argue with each other about it until the next edition http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.


------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh1@aol.com