Just wondering if the chinooks in service in Vietnam carried .50cals out the crewchief windows or if they only carried M60s?
Also what mount would they have used back in those days?
One final qusetion. Was the Ch-47A ever used for Medivac / Dustoff duties?
Just have a dio idea for the 1/35 Trump Hook.
Cheers
Robert
Dio with 1/35 Chinook! You are brave man Robert! 
Andy
Brave Or Silly… Either one i will have a go Andy.
Cheers
Robert
The M-60D was the standard weapon carried by Slick Chinooks in Vietnam… normally one in each of the front lateral positions, and one on the ramp. The ACH-47A was the only one built with specific facilities for the .50cal and it’s Ammo, but as I understand it, some units used the .50, fabricating their own mounts, but this was rare.
Here’s some illustrations of the M-60 mount…
Although none were specifically used for Dustoff duties, nearly all participated in the evacuation of wounded and KIA personnel, as well as Troop and refugee movement during some stage of their mission.
All the best on your Trump dio; can’t wait to see pictures. [:)]
Take care,
Frank
Thanks For The Informative Reply Frank.
All pics will help out heaps, thought 60s were the standard but if you say 50s were used but rare, i will be happy with that.
Just thought it would look unique with 50s aboard.
In saying this, if i go with the 50s i can make my own mounts?
Thanks Again For The Heads Up.
Cheers
Robert
Robert,
I wish I had some pictures of a Slick Chinook with .50cal’s mounted, but I don’t. chinook-helicopter.com has a great page showing the M-60D mounts, http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/armament.html , but I couldn’t find any reference to a .50 mount. Units may have experimented with optional defensive weapons, but here’s why their use was so limited in the Chinook;
(1) The mount had to be much stronger than that of the M-60D,
(2) They needed an external ammo supply because the weapon mounted ammo bag wouldn’t hold but a couple good burst of fire.
(3) The weight of the additional ammo.
Generally, these three factors made the M-60D a more practical option for the Slick mission, both on Chinooks and UH-1’s.
Take care,
Frank
Thanks for looking Frank
I’ll keep trying aswell.
If only i could find a .50 mounted in a -47A then that would put my mind at ease.
Wishfull thinking hey…
Take Care
Robert
Try, if you haven’t already, the ‘Guns-a-go-go’ site.
The armed Chinooks carried .50 caliber on the flanks, and you should be able to find some decent pictures. Surely, someone at the site will be able to help you.
joe
Joe,
I’m the “someone” at that site. [:D][#welcome]
I think Robert is looking for one of the “hangar-built” .50cal mounts that some Hook unit members experimented with. Unfortunately, these mounts never worked their way into the mainstream because of the extra modifications required to secure them, and the extra ammo facilities required to feed the weapon/catch the spent brass, which took away from the Chinook’s available interior space and payload capacity. Both BIG no-no’s to most/all Hook Unit Commanders.
It was kinda like the “Flash Supressors” someone come up with to mount on the muzzel of the .50’s on the Go-Go ships; after one mission, they were all thrown in the garbage cans.
Take care,
… still looking
Frank
that would be one big dio woul dlove to see that
joes: Could you email me directly, please?
Just click on my username and scroll down to the email link.
Your profile doesn’t have an email link and the private message you sent was one of the “no-reply” things from FineScale.
Thanks,
Frank
Boeing built 4 gun ship nooks that had door mounted guns. It also had pylon mounted cannons ,and rockets.The nose had a granade launcher on it. There were 50 cals mounted in all 4 large windows They turned out to be a disaster crashing, One even shot it’s own roter and crashed and killed everyone. There are photos of these in several books. They were nick named
Go GO Birds. There is a 1/72 kit of this type done by Italeri. Very good details. I have done it a couple of times… The book Vietnam The Helicopter War by Philip D Chinnery has a couple of good pics … One color photo shows the mounts with no guns … There is a small 2 page article about the 4 gun ship . They were designated ACH 47A… I will attempt to copie and send you this stuff. Good luck to you.
The best
Davey 5 dhi69@aol.com
Davey5,
Of course, it’s a disaster anytime an aircraft and crew are lost, but, once one knows the REAL story behind those occassions, it reveals the fact that circumstances played a larger role in the two supposedly freak accidents the Unit suffered:
(1) #64-13151 “Stump Jumper” was shot down one time and had to autorotate into a field with tree stumps sticking up. She landed on one of them, punching a big hole in her belley just behind the winch door, which broke through two of the main structural supports. These structural members were patched, not replaced, and because of political/publicity pressure, the aircraft was returned to Flight Status. After four missions, the pilots and FE complained that the aircraft was “out of rig” and dangerous to fly. The FE wrote in his report that he was afraid the fuselage was going to “break completely in two”… but the order was given to continue scheduling missions (because scraping one of the aircraft might look bad on the experimental program as a whole). Because of this, the crew decided to “Scuttle the Ship” rather than risk an in-flight structural failure. Only three of the eight man crew were aboard “Stump Jumper” the morning she taxied into a parked Chinook on the ramp and Vung Tau. The Chinook she taxied into was a worn out piece of sh*t from another unit that was purposely parked on the end of the ramp, FAR AWAY from the others. Stump Jumper’s fuselage seperated in two pieces upon impact, along the exact line the FE said it would. At that time, the brass realized had they went on the scheduled mission that morning, all eight crewmembers would be dead. There never was even an investigation on that incident.
(2) A very complex tunnel system lay beneath the “Golf Course” at An Khe, and the night before #64-13145, “Co$t of Living” (the one that shot it’s own rotor) went down, two “Sappers” were discovered near the ACH-47’s in their parking slots. They were chased and shot at, but in the words of Hugh Buzzell (one of the guards), “they simply disappeared”. The aircraft were inspected for explosives (sappers usual means of destrying aircraft), and since none were found, they figured they had caught them before they done anything to the aircraft. Obviously, they hadn’t.
On my website, “They Called Them Guns A Go-Go” (http://gunsagogo.org/), you can find over 400 photographs, as well as mission reports and stories concerning their exploits. The information was not gathered from press releases, rumors, or second-hand opinions (like most of the Go-Go info in books are), but from the actual personnel who were IN the unit.
Take care,
Frank
Frank, check your email?
Joe
AND all that info from someone asking ,what type of mounts were used on the 50s.
I would of sworn this was a modeling site.
YUP It is a modeling forum DAVEY5, But me as a modeler along with many other forum members like to build our models as a scale replica of the real deal!
I asked a few questions and got very good imformative replys which has helped me be a better model builder.
No hard feeling DAVEY5
Robert
DAVEY5,
No… “all that info” came as the result of your post about the ACH-47 being a “disaster”.
In Modeling, we strive for accuracy, right? Well, if we’re going to be as accurate as possible in physical details of the subject, why not be as accurate as possible in the HISTORICAL circumstances concerning that subject?
The more I know about a subject, the more motivated I become, thus, better models I build.
I’m going to locate a picture of an archetype .50cal mount eventually; Robert’s question caused me to embark on this quest, so stories & such aside, everything still falls within the Modeling format.
Take care,
Frank
No offance taken , and great reply Frank, Here is an accurate story for you.One persons accurate can be a mile off. To waste time nit picking on the colors or where a mount is,or interior details is in the eye of the builder. If that is what you enjoy ,thats fine … Heres
what I mean. I display my finished models at different stores ,hobbie shops,craft stores ect. and people contact me to build kits for them. I had a 1/24 P-51 on display at a ship modelers supply shop. Ships as in wooden Serious builds. Some sell in the 10’s of thousands. They are accurate builders down to the amount of spikes used.
I built the 51 as miltary outside,and did a race plane engine. Added wiring and piping and all kinds of stuff that was never ever used on this aircraft.I even did a anodized vavle covers and chrome pumps … Two guys were looking at it on day and I could hear them talking ,saying The floors weren’t that color,and the seat didn’t have pading like that ect… ect . But ya know what . One of them paid 400 $ for it.They never met me and I never talked to them to this day.
Accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Same store i had a 1/32 F 4 Phantom on display. It was a German decal kit ,so I used decals from a A 4 Skyhawk… Just put them on where I thought they would look ok/… I get a call from a guy ,he wants to know if I could take some pics of the plane so he could copy the sceem on his build . I nearly craped… Then I sent him a pile of photos. So accurate is cool but not always necessary. I build to please the eye. Light colors in dark places and stuff like that.Most people want to see the details. If you do some cockpits to the specs they are all black and dark. Ya cant see any detail… Bottom line do what you like to do … What ever makes ya happy. If it is the stories or the colors or lettering what ever Blows your skirt up. Sorry I can build but can’t spell or type
The best to all
Thanks for your help on the 37 Frank
Davey5 dhi69@aol.com
No offance taken , and great reply Frank, Here is an accurate story for you.One persons accurate can be a mile off. To waste time nit picking on the colors or where a mount is,or interior details is in the eye of the builder. If that is what you enjoy ,thats fine … Heres
what I mean. I display my finished models at different stores ,hobbie shops,craft stores ect. and people contact me to build kits for them. I had a 1/24 P-51 on display at a ship modelers supply shop. Ships as in wooden Serious builds. Some sell in the 10’s of thousands. They are accurate builders down to the amount of spikes used.
I built the 51 as miltary outside,and did a race plane engine. Added wiring and piping and all kinds of stuff that was never ever used on this aircraft.I even did a anodized vavle covers and chrome pumps … Two guys were looking at it on day and I could hear them talking ,saying The floors weren’t that color,and the seat didn’t have pading like that ect… ect . But ya know what . One of them paid 400 $ for it.They never met me and I never talked to them to this day.
Accurate is in the eye of the beholder. Same store i had a 1/32 F 4 Phantom on display. It was a German decal kit ,so I used decals from a A 4 Skyhawk… Just put them on where I thought they would look ok/… I get a call from a guy ,he wants to know if I could take some pics of the plane so he could copy the sceem on his build . I nearly craped… Then I sent him a pile of photos. So accurate is cool but not always necessary. I build to please the eye. Light colors in dark places and stuff like that.Most people want to see the details. If you do some cockpits to the specs they are all black and dark. Ya cant see any detail… Bottom line do what you like to do … What ever makes ya happy. If it is the stories or the colors or lettering what ever Blows your skirt up. Sorry I can build but can’t spell or type
The best to all
Thanks for your help on the 37 Frank
Davey5 dhi69@aol.com
I realize this may not be much help, but the standard mount for M-60Ds on CH-47s was(is) known as the M-24 Armament Subsystem.
As Frank mentioned, the mounting system wouldn’t be adequate for mounting an M-2. It isn’t just the actual mount, but the airframe structure to which the mount is attached that is the main concern.
CH-46s on the other hand had(have) sufficient airframe supports and gun mounts for .50 cals. Whereas the M-24 systems look like modified lengths of pipe, the mounts used on '46s are huge box beams with the airframe reinforcement to support them.
Hope this helps.
J Primm