Photos of Chinook tank under construction

As we told you on December 21, Jordan Aircraft Services is constructing internal tanks for the Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. With the horizontal configuration of the tank, 54-inch pistons at each end will push the water toward the valve in the center in order to maintain adequate head pressure and a constant flow. The tanks, designed by Eric Foy of Perideo LLC, will hold up to 2,800 gallons.

Chinook tank
Chinook tank, left side looking forward.

Tony Cabler, the Quality Director for Jordan Aircraft Service, sent us these photos he took, explaining that the tanks are far from being ready to use.

Chinook tank piston assembly
Piston assembly.
Chinook tank
Chinook tank — inside looking forward.

The personnel at Jordan Aircraft Services have been involved in constructing tanks for a number of aircraft, including S-61 Sea King helicopter, 10 Tanker’s DC-10, Erickson’s Air-Cranes and MD-87s.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

13 thoughts on “Photos of Chinook tank under construction”

    1. Do Chinooks have a center of gravity, tandem rotors? All aircraft have a center station. Data acquired on the TMR internal tank showed that pitch up or down of 40 degrees in flight would leave about 320 gallons of water from entering the center (hook hole). But still maintaining adequate authority on the flight controls. Redundant sling; operations by the military; what happens when the front (or rear) hook delivers a 4000 pound plus object to a location and a 6000 pound object (vehicle) is transported to another location, big arm change? I don’t think I want to be in a Chinook at 40 degree pitch either way.

  1. While I admire what Jordan Aircraft is doing….

    Somehow I agree with Joe..

    The 40 yrs of aviation and his combat experience. ….

    Aviation folks are not often consulted in numerous fire aviation including tanking

    Just salute and execute under con tract and accept the mission

    But I will keep an open mind and like Joe says…nothing to do with expertise…we all know and see what is being presented here.

    1. Leo or Bill,
      Do you happen to know what ever happened to the company that had 2 – CH53B models. They were at the Victorville airport years ago. When I saw them one was being test flown and the other waiting on parts. They had put an internal tank system in at least one. Haven’t heard anything about them, it’s been a few years, 10 or so.

      1. The 53’S are now living in Corvallis Oregon with HTS, Inc.
        i’ve heard they won’t fly them because of a lack of spares. Jordan Aircraft Services also built the tanks for these…

  2. With all the CH-46’s coming online I guess the proof will come after someone makes a commercially successful version and shows what can and can’t be done.

    1. Testing of the internal tank by TMR can be seen on You Tube
      riverratewatertankmp4edited. Not approved by the military to drop water while inside the CH 47 it did provide valuable info on the drop time and pattern. Unfortunately the best test video was deleted (circa 2005)

  3. Where does constant flow and helicopters meet? Constant flow is a fixed-wing air tanker RETARDANT delivery system; dropping copious amounts of water in a few seconds (direct attack) to knock down and hold (quick turn-arounds) is a helicopter mission. I hate to say this but a tank designed and tested by the military for the CH 47 already exists. Delivers 2000 U.S. gallons in six seconds, fills in forty five seconds Featured on this site. On the web ‘internal water dropping tank for the military’. The owner and manufacture of the tank ‘collided” with the military at Fort Rucker ($) end of the story. Unless you are a big aero space firm with lobbyist and congressional support forget this path. Although engineers did the math (structural) the tank was designed by military and fire personnel involved in ‘what it takes’. The empty weight of the tanks is 1400 pounds. Video exists (just surfaced) of the tank being test under a CH 47. At a tank altitude of 100 feet and 60 m.p.h. the coverage level will knock down and hold all but the most intense wildfires. Approximately forty drop and fill events were conducted around 2005-6.

  4. I understand the KISS principle, but can assure you that there is nothing simple about an interior suppression dropping tank. Unless you can figure out how to fill and support internally a couple of 1500 gallon bambi buckets ( which cannot salvo) it takes a very complex system. Since there is no way to “dip” a tank, it requires a pump to fill. I was involved with designing part of a similar tank, the impeller. It took months of design and testing, from managing limited filling horsepower to keeping laminar flow in the fill tube. Additionally, all parts of the drop are managed, usually by computer. Some use a constant flow system that adjust the flow by opening the gate as head pressure is reduced. Others have several tanks and adjust the flow by gate timing. A Chinook has its own set of difficulties because of large capacity, limited head and small drop gate openings. This ingenious system by Jordan Aircraft should allow constant flow from long tanks with limited head, and able to drop effectively through a relatively small opening at any deck angle. In addition it is possible that it could actually produce a negative pressure inside the tank during filling, resulting in extremely fast fill rates with a smaller snorkel pump. This is a benefit that no other design has even considered. It is a great idea and hopefully they have patents pending as this may become the standard for all snorkel filled Chinooks. I’ve seen this helicopter flying around and wondered how it solved the puzzle.

  5. If you are going to criticize the design of a tank engineered by a professional who has designed numerous very successful tank systems for multiple operators and aircraft, it would be helpful if you would enlighten us with your credentials, and how you obtained the expertise to evaluate the engineering in a 2,800 gallon tank that has to fit in a Chinook and produce a constant flow.

    1. My statement has nothing to do with expertise, nor do I state that I am an expert. It’s an opinion based on 40 years of aviation experience with over 5500 hours in the air, also flying combat in 3 wars. Though only 2 hours are in a DC4 with Aero Union when they first tanked the 4 and 2 hours with the French in a CL215. I’ve also followed fire fighting aircraft for over 30 years. One doesn’t have to be an expert to understand the concept that you are doing.

      I would also say the craftsmen ship works good, but sorry it still makes no sense to ME to cram a 2,800 gallon tank in a CH47, what’s the point?

Comments are closed.