Oh indeed, but that dual rotor design, while having some very real advantages does have the one big disadvantage. Of course those comments refered to earlier models of both aircraft and they may have improved that aspect somewhat in the D and F models of the -47.
Bad argument. You're essentially talking about a transmission failure, synchronization shaft (which is a drive shaft) failure, or a drive shaft failure. Any single rotor aircraft can have a transmission failure or a drive shaft failure. The major difference is that when a Chinook crashes it usually kills more people and puts a bigger hole in the ground. I'll say this again, Chinooks have one the best safety records of aircraft in the Army inventory. It's a workhorse and in the hands of a competent pilot a true asset to the units it supports. But not just every Joe Blow Pilot can fly that aircraft and do a good job of it.
I find that hard to believe considering the fact that the Marine Corps has never had Chinooks in it's inventory. Sounds like my earlier posts went in one ear and out the other. I'm certain you are referring to the CH46 Sea Knight. At MCAS New River the CH46E outnumbers the other aircraft on station roughly 2/1. It's understandable that there would be more incidents involving the busiest aircraft.
No helicopter can survive surface to air and not go down
I know a few Vietnam Veterans that would be interested in this fact...considering that their own experience disproves it. Your dad was a Corpsman, great. That does not make you an expert. My son's father (ME) was a CH46E crewman, and my son knows little to nothing about the airplanes other than "Hey look daddy, there's a Phrog." At least he identifies them correctly.
Oh indeed, but that dual rotor design, while having some very real advantages does have the one big disadvantage.
The syncronization shafts on a tandem rotor plane are no more vulnerable than the tail rotor drive shaft on other helicopters. What's your point?