Talk:Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion

New page on CH-53 incidents
Is there any particular reason why we are keeping the incidents between CH53A/D/E models separately on each of their own pages? A simple amount of research nearly doubled the entries to such an extent it seems that there should be a dedicated page that each CH53 and CH53E page should be linked to. There are something like 15 entries on the standalone V22 incident page (why those are separated off of the main article I do not understand), whereas the CH53 could easily triple the amount of entries on a dedicated incident page. There should be some consistency; if the 53 had a list including the insignificant entries similar to the V-22 page (nacelle fires?), it would be even more lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the entries are actually not really notable but I dont see a problem with a sub-page for accidents and incidents which tend to be more tolerant to listing non-notable accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the real need to put CH-53 accidents on a separate page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To explain my rationale, it seems like the mere fact that we have segregated the incidents for V22 to its own page makes it appear that there have been "so many" that an independent entry is necessary, when clearly in this case the CH53 has a much more accident-riddled past. This came to my attention when I was reading a recent article (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/osprey-down-florida/) on the CV22 crash in florida last week, in which a commenter posted "It's telling that Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to V-22 crashes. Note that the CH-53 doesn't." This makes it seem like people are inferring things from our seemingly innocuous decision of whether or not to devote a specific page to incidents. I am curious, if we are trying to be objective on Wikipedia, why did we allocate an entire page filled with mostly non-events for the Osprey while somehow omitting at least a dozen loss-of-life incidents regarding the CH53 (which seems to be commonly thought of as some kind of safer classical alternative to the V22 by its critics). This inconsistency does not seem to be very encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Having had a look at the accidents and incidents listed in this article I suspect most of them can be deleted as non-notable and only two or three are probably worthy of mention if that. So on second thoughts not enough to justify a seperate list. This is not really the place to sort out the V-22. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Design/rank by size
The article states the CH-53E being the third largest helicopter in the world. It is in fact the fourth largest. Yet, it is the third largest PRODUCTION helo, since the Mil V-12 was only a prototype with 2 machines ever built. That's also why the 'Mi-' abbreviation is incorrect, because it's only granted as soon as a model is cleared for serial production. Considering payload, the CH-53E is also 3rd. But despite this, it's beaten by the 50ies built Mi-6 in length, width, height, rotor diameter and MTOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.181.188 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/corporate_watch/sikorsky_we_have_a_problem.php
 * Added tag to http://www.theeagle.com/texas/Copter_in_crash_has_spotty_record
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109071259/http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ch53.htm to http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/documents/aircraft/rotarywing/ch53.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310041339/http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A403884&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf to http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A403884&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In Flight Refueling capability
The probe sticking out for the In Flight Refueling Capability is high obvious. For Some Reason I think the US Marine Corps CH-53E originally did not have this capability. - But perhaps through retrofit, now all have the capability. Correct me if wrong. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is covered in the Design section, though not directly cited as it should. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)