Talk:D77-TC Pelican

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Air Force" Pelican[edit]

I have been wondering why there has not been a page made for the Reach incarnation of the Pelican (also called the "Air Force" Pelican).--One who survived 15:39, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Why Not the 70mm chin gun?[edit]

Not a 70mm chain gun? Is there anyone who can explain why the in game pelican does not have a 70mm chin gun? In game the chin gun appears to be the same weapon, if not smaller caliber than the Warthog's chain gun. But it obviously is not a 70mm cannon - Blehm98 21 October 2006

The in game gun is 2D and accessable by a glitch, so I think it just wasn't ready yet. --Dragonclaws 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Halo: First Strike, the Longswords chin-gun deploys from under the Longsword (because they have to reaise the gears to allow it to deploy). Perhaps the Pelican's is similar.--Rot 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I am dubious about the possibility of mounting an automatic 70mm weapon on an aircraft. As is, 70mm rounds would have a huge recoil. I suppose technology may have advanced, but I wasn't sure if it was an automatic weapon. Diaboy 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've read the first chapter of Ghosts of Onyx, and it says a Pelican has TWO 70mm chainguns. perhaps an older model? or a typo? -- SpecOps306 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I went back and studied Halo 2. Look at any pelican with a weapon (Outskirts, Metropolis, Delta Halo or Regret are ideal) and examine the chaingun under its nose. Now go to the AIE-468H Heavy Machinegun that we used in the Beta. Look familiar? Kora ‘Morhekee The Battle-Net My Conquests. 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that a 70mm gun is way to big to be the gun mounted under the pelican? The one on the pelican is about the same size as the chaingun on a warthog but only 1 barrel. Think about it in world war 2 the U.S. had a 70mm gun but it was mounted on a TANK and was used as an Anti-tank gun. I dont think that such a large gun would be used against infantry. just my opinion. EliteSpartan 6:46 August 9 2007

  • Ahem. I give you the Lockheed AC-130 Gunship, mounting a 105 Mike-Mike howitzer, a 40mm BOFORS cannon, and two 20mm cannons (Which can be replaced by a 25mm gatling gun.) A 70mm automatic used as an anti-vehicle weapon is NOT out of the range of possibility. Load it with beehive rounds, and you can say GOODBYE to infantry.--Quirel 05:36, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Halo 2 Pelican gun and I couldn't see ANY chaingun simaler to the one from halo 3.--The Demonic Idiot 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be on the chin, upside down. --CoH|Councillor]] SpecopsUserWiki:Specops306|306]] - Qur'a 'Morhek 08:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Explain the opening hatch[edit]

In the books it sometimes says that the hatch at the back closes and opens, but for that to be possible the ramp would be very long and would cause problems if a vehicle was attached to the magnetic clamps, can someone make me understand because it is confusing.-- Joshua 029 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it retracts? it could be stored underneath the troop-bay, extend, and then close? it is confusing, but fun working stuff like this out. -- SpecOps306 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

well in H3 there is a two-pronged like bottom hatch and a top hatch raises up with a window

Heavy Pelican[edit]

  • Heres a picture of a Heavy Pelican (Don't know if its a fake or not, I'm posting just in case) -- Helard 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

M-779 Troop Bay Extension[edit]

Where in...anywhere is the M-779 mentioned?! I've scoured the novels i have, the games, heck, i've even asked someone about the Halo Graphic Novel. but nowhere have i found it! -- SpecOps306 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it from this article but someone should put the other article up for deletion. Actually now that I take a look, it says its in fall of reach, I'll check.

Troop Capacity[edit]

In Halo The Fall of Reach it makes several references to one pelican carrying all the Spartans in the Battle of Reach except John Linda and James. I am curious how it can carry all of the Spartans, in their MJOLNIR armor mind you, along with equiptment. If anyone has ideas or explanations please PLEASE let me know. Thanks. --Captain Jacob Rathens 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. even though in Halo First Strike it says that they took out the seats and the life-support generators, it wouldstill not be enough. in Halo The Flood talked about weight problems if I remember correctly. this is quite the cunundrum.--Captain Jacob Rathens 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

like the article says, the dropship used a troop-bay extension - though it is never given the M-779 designation. -- SpecOps306 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I realizethat, but wouldn't 20-some spartans be extreamely heavy? If I remember correctly in Halo the Flood doesn't it say that the pilots were complaining about weight issues because they were being overloaded? Even with a troop bay extension it would just add more weight. Couldn't this just be another tiy mistake found in the halo universe? Anyway I kow that I'm probably annoying so I'll leave this for now. --Captain Jacob Rathens 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I never thought about it but you're right. 27 Spartans in their armor, that's an extra 15 tons of weight! A lot of extra cargo for a little ship like a pelican. Then again, the Pelican was in space and going down to a planet when they were in it. -ED 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet the Scorpion MBT is 66 tons and the Pelican can carry that...-- Joshua 029 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole thing is just inconsistent. Just a small mistake, like many others of its kind, in the Halo universe. My point still stands though, at least I think so. Anyway, I like nitpicking a little cause my life is boring. --Captain Jacob Rathens 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Erm, you forgotten they are in space. Also, a pelican would be able to recover from free fall, but that one did not. I suspect it is because of the spartans.-- never ending-summerMy personal COM chanel 10:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know exactly how the Pelican flies? I guess it uses traditional jet thrusters for atmospheric flight and VTOL, but how does it get into space?

You know, on the Halo 3 website, they call the Pelican a D77H-TCI Pelican.-- Joshua 029 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference to an upgraded version perhaps? -- Manticore Talk | CSV 03:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps.-- Joshua 029 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC) fusion engines that are similar to a PDE engine like the ones in the movie Stealth (Kick ass movie)


Under the pasenger tray there is an indent of a number seven. Choose do use this or not but I keep noticing it all the time and even now as I speak I am looking at the number seven on the Pelican.

Twilightstorm 07:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


When did it get an "I" on it? or the "H" for that matter. Was I just not paying attention? --Captain Jacob Rathens 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Loftus says it should be "D77-TC," and I usually go with what he says... sources? Güéߣ¥-éҐøñ¥-ħîИg¥ 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC) classifies it as the D77H-TCI. Then again, these are the people who brought us the so-called "Halo 3 M6D," so take it with a grain of salt. Kora 'Morhekee 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it a varient of the standard pelican? Is there a standard pelican? I don't really understand , but then again I never understand anything sooh well. --Captain Jacob Rathens 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a new production model of the Pelican, but considering the state of Earth at the end of Halo 2, raises the question of where are these new Pelicans and weapons being made. --Kregano 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Earth isn't the last UNSC planet, its just the last major stronghold. There are plenty of other places where ordinance could be made. --ED(talk)(gaming) 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One being Mars, as 'Arms Race' showed us. Poison headcrab 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Missle pods[edit]

I noticed it says in the trivia that the pelican only uses its missles on the Scarab, but I saw it using them again on quarantine zone. Right after you reach the part with the flood controlled Scorpion, and you come to the section with the sentinels and enforcers fighting(It's the place where you have that glass wall on your right.) a Pelican flies over and shoots at the sentinels. UnrelentingSoldier 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That pelican can also shoot its missle pods at you if you get over the wall, its shoot at most 2 salvos at me and the sentinals. --Pileyourbodies 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pelicans in Halo 3!!!![edit]

Turn to Official Xbox Magazine's August 2007 issue on page 88. Under the rumor mole section, it states "...Been waiting to fly Halo's Pelican dropship since the original game? You'll finally get to on Spetember 25th." I think this would work in Multiplayer and Single Player, if Shrine is as big as they say it is.

Sorry, the september issue (the one with the halo 3 feature) confirms that pelicans will NOT be flyable.

I hope there's a sequence where Chief gets to use the chaingun in the back of the pelican.

new cockpit[edit]

look in the E3 trailer at 1:22 the pelican has a new cockpit with a diferent seating arangement and presumably a holotank (in front of MC)

im giving you guys a screenshot i took[edit]

p.s. im new to this


Apparently first generation pelicans were actually modified Slave I's.

Neat. But how do you know it wasn't trying to pull out of a dive?--Blahmarrow 20:31, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Pelican Speed[edit]

I’m just wondering where the retarded speed listed for the Pelican came from, I find it exceedingly stupid that I can apparently outrun a spaceship in my CAR is there any sane evidecne to support this crap?

on a short track you would be able to out run the space shuttle too. Might be that the pelican is built for power not speed how heavy an airframe do you think is required to lift a 66 ton tank into orbit with vertical take off and landing capabilities?

The first bit is a red herring nevermind idiotic of CORUSE my car is “faster” over some minute distance, but that’s because my care doesn’t weigh 4 millions pounds. This is about TOP speed and the rest of your own message helps highlights why the given number is retarded.

I discount any non-senses about it being super heavy myself many vehicles can carry more then their own weight in cargo. Never mind that huge portions of the interior are just full of air, and the fact that Banshee guns and such which don’t appear anymore lethal then a machine gun seem totally able to damage and destroy it which shows it’s probably not armored to any serious degree. I see no reason it should weigh more then a comparable helicopter at 15 to 20 tons.

Now lifting a tank weighing 66 tons vertically with just raw thrust would take… 66 tons of thrust, plus the weight of the Pelican.Given its size let’s just say that’s 14 tons (not at all out of place for a large’ish helicopter so a good fit) so we get a nice round 80 tons of thrusts. Hauling a load THAT heavy the low number might be almost reasonable, problem is most of the time it isn’t hauling 60+ tons of dead weight on the back.

At those times it’s thrust to weight ratio sores and is probably over 4 to 1, most modern fighter jets can’t even break 1.25 to 1!!! It should be able to climb like a rocket ship… wait it CAN based on ALL the novels. Even if we postulate some super heavy airframe the fact is that the engine, no matter HOW you cut it, have an excesses lifting capacity/thrust of around 66 (probably somewhat more) tons, that’s ALLOT of thrust.

66 tons of thrust IE JUST the excesses from when it’s not carrying a tank (and again it’s probably more since you want a margin of safety) could easily lift a fully loaded 737 straight up… As in if you stuck these engines under the belly they’d lift it skyward like a rocket, at least until it flipped over and crashed anyway. The 737 own engines, putting out a pidly 20 tons of thrust combined, by comparison can easily push that 54 ton aircraft up to 600+ miles per hour in level flight. True it has a large wing to help, but it also probably like a forth the thrust, nearly 4 times the weight of an empty pelican by my reckoning, and a much larger (if perhaps marginally more streamlined) surface area. Anyone that thinks that much power couldn’t move something that sized faster then a car on the highway is a moron. I won’t even get into the fact we see Pelican’s covering huge areas of Halo in a reasonable period of time. If it really could only go 45 miles per hour it would take DAYS to traverse any serious distance across or around Halo. In fact at 45 miles per hour with decent roads modern TANKS could DRIVE their faster.

That number is killing my braincells it’s gone unless someone can come along and give me a logical reason it could possibly be true. TK3997 12:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the book Halo: The Flood a captured Pelican flown by Elites was doing 300KPH while aproching Alpha Base in atmosphere carrying thirty Elites

Conceivably any low ball figure for its speed could be a combat speed. In some military air forces minimum and maximum air speeds and altitudes are mandated and only excedable in times of emergency (ie dogfighting). Also, the figure could be ground speed and not air speed. ps is the spell check terrible on this site?

I know this discussion is old, but I'd just like to add that for the Pelican to lift the 66 ton Scorpion, it would have to apply a thrust equal to 66 tons + it's own weight, times a minimum of 9.80665 meters/sec. That way it hovers. The tank alone would mean ~647,000 newtons of thrust. P03 James 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

how much capacity!!![edit]

how much can this thing hold in the halo:ce stragity guide it says that it can hold up to 30 people but it only holds 10 usually cause theres 10 seates is it possable that 20 of then stand cause im comfused please help me

The article actually says. Ten in a normal craft, plus more in an altered Pelican with a troop-bay extension - but they don't appear in the game. Kora ‘Morhek The Battle-Net My Conquests. 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bravo 22[edit]

The medic from the landfall documentary is "bravo 22" ring any bells? ..."This is dropship BRAVO 22 taking heavy fire and are losing altitude"...

Well Bravo is a common call sign in the lilitary. Also the medic isn't called Bravo-022, the ODST she treats is. --Ajax 013 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bravo 22, Halo: CE Silent Cartographer? dont remember? its the pelican that got shot down, carrying rockets to the chief --CHr0n0sPh3r3 11:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)cHR0n0sPh3r3


i dont know if anyone has noticed this but if you were to watch the pelicans fly in during the H3 mission The Covenant, after you destroy the AA Wrath one or two pelicans come down and deliver the Warthog and Mongoose, well the mongoose isnt attached to the Pelican like a Scorpion or Warthog. it simply drives out of the carrier bay i snapped a pic of it but am having troubling trying to get it on my comp. -- Hollywood 03:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cup Holder?[edit]

In Halo # when you go into the pelicans cockpit in theater there appears to be a cup holder thing sticking out near the pilot. Although this might be a holo pad as mentioned somewhere above.


Okay, with all due respect to the author's of this page, where did the stats on the pelican come from (things like the consumables, mass, lifting capacity, drives, etc)? They read like fanwank to me. Is there any backing of Bungie or MS of these numbers, a source of some kind (or someone with engineering experience with worked out calculations?) Regards, P03 James 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the info is taken from :)--Spartan-781 CommCSV 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please point me to a link for the specs then please? I've searched through HBO, searched official Bungie/Microsoft websites, etc, and haven't come across them. General searches on the internet come up with similar figures, but they all come from fan-run websites without references. Thanks in advance. Regards, P03 James 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate Articles?[edit]

What about making two separate articles, one for the general Pelican, this one, and a second for the D77H-TCI of Halo 3? Honour Light Your Way - Kora ‘Morhek The Battle-Net My Conquests. 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, because they are too similar to have separate articles. And also, it's the same "type" of pelican, not say one which carries Elephants or something. It does not need 2 articles.
Really? The fact that the older D77-TC Pelican has been replaced by the newer D77H-TCI Pelican, the major role they play in Halo 3, and the numerous differences would suggest otherwise. Honour Light Your Way - Kora ‘Morhek The Battle-Net My Conquests. 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Landfall Pelicans[edit]

If you'll notice in the abolve image, about eight pelicans can be seen under construction. The back four are almost unrecognizable, but I think I can read the tags on the front four: O5 (Oscar 5) on the left, O6 (Oscar 6) In the front, O8 (Oscar 8) on the right, and O9 (Oscar 9) in the back. Unless anyone has any objections or thinks this is incorrect, I will add them to the list of identified Pelicans. --ED 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a couple years old by now, but the Pelicans in the picture could also be 06, 05, and so on and so forth. With the font of the identification numbers, I think it is hard to tell between a 0, and an 'O'. I believe, however, that they ID numbers are simply 06 and so on, because of the corresponding IDs on the floor. Perhaps the factory putting these dropships together labels them that way so they know where parts are supposed to go, which i think would not be too unbelievable, as the Pelicans would most likely recieve their final ID number after rolling off the factory floor and heading out to move to their designated unit/attendant starship.SpartaWolf 06:12, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


Ummm how in the hell is the pelican 35 ft tall? has anyone stoped to think about this?I mean thats atleast 5 normal height human beings! Im mean i could give into 76 by 100 but no fucking way is it 35 ft tall..

35 feet does seem a bit high, though with landing gear extended it's actually a bit above that, but I think that it does fit the overall size of the Pelican. You have to remember that, when landed, the back end of the ship sticks high up into the air. When measured like that, the highest point of the fuselage is sticking up around twice the height of the cockpit. With a modern comparison, the V-22 Osprey comes in at about half the Pelican's height with its tail fins, but its fuselage is relatively on the same horizontal level as the cockpit. It's still hard to believe, but that's because of the general lack of any real perspective shots between a normal human standing next to a landed pelican in any of the games. SpartaWolf 06:33, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Halo Wars[edit]

Does anyone else think that it's ironic that the only way the Pelican is ever going to be playable is in Halo Wars?

  • well it might be like the Ox transports from C&C3 you can call for them to transport squads from one place to the other but you can't actaually use them. However it could be the H3 pelican instead of the H1 and H2 pelicans but either way its probably going to be like the Ox transports--Garyclementspunji 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • About Halo Wars... I don't think even there you'll be able to control it. Maybe they'll conviniently appear just like in the games and drop off troops you ordered (or troops that are scripted to be given to you for some reason) E93 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No i have definately read that they will be usable in groups to transport previously-built warthogs, scorpions and marines faster than they can travel by themselves and the give some direct fire support. Like an airbourn IFV

Lifting Body[edit]

The wings on the Pelican look extremely small for the weight they have to provide lift for, and using the thrusters would get costly. So is it possible that the actual hull of the Pelican provides most of the lift? Lifting Bodies arent new - the general shape and layout look very similar. The wings would just be for directional and altitudal control, with the thrusters as backup. The Space Shuttle has wings, even though it's a lifting body. Does this deserve inclusion? Specops306, Kora 'Morhek 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Flight isn't necessarily linked to lift if you put big enough engines on a brick it could break the sound barrier in level flight... control would be a bit of an issue though. Really any time you see a modern fighter stand on its tail and accelerate straight up you’re seeing the triumph of thrust over gravity same with a rocket. The Pelican is likely relying largely on this principle the simple fact it can hover with a full load is fair evidecne of this. Hovering is purely a question of thrust as no air is moving over any lifitng surfaces. (which is why it's so damn hard) the Pelican can do this which means it has enough thrust to basiclly hold itself up under earth gravity without any lift.

If it can do that it ought to be able attain level flight easily IMO and the vestigial wings and limited aerodynamic shaping we are probably largely an attitude control measure that works in combination with the vectored engine pods. The fuselage doesn’t strike me as very lifting body like less so on the HCI which is more angular lifting bodies are all very smooth, flattened, and quite wide with large undersides the Pelican doesn’t really resemble them IMO with it’s fairly narrow body, high set wings, and tapering stern plus the stuff sticking out of hanging off the bottom (guns, missile pods, 60 ton tanks...)would ruin the carefully directed airflow needed to make this sort of thing work.TK3997 12:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO (mildly educated as I'm in aerospace engineering), I don't think the Pelican actually flies traditionally. I think it's more of a rocket that hovers. Because the thrust required to support the craft to hover would greatly exceed the necessary thrust to keep it moving forward. I'd say the wings are more of an altitude control method for a few more seconds if the craft gets heavily damaged. So I'd def be supporting that it's not an aircraft (esp because it functions in outer atmosphere), and more of a rocket propelled troop transport. P03 James 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey those stub wings don't work i'm just an ex-army turned PT student and i know that the stub wing concept doesn't work the F-104 was fast yes but it was nearly imposible to control and killed more of it's pilots then any enemy migs they engaged in india the congo or the worst case the pilot bought the farm turning the damn thing at speed.

Dosen't anyone else notice the jets that are etirnaly aiming down? or how slowly it moves upward? for level flight i feel it uses a number of consepts combined; Jet-Based lift, some lift of the small wings, a partial lifing body and it powerfull lateral jets.Gunnery-seargent Maiar 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


If you look at this image, supposedly a battle scene from the Interplanetary War, it has Pelicans in it. Does that mean that Pelicans have been in service since the 2100's? Stryker117 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think Ensemble just put a piece of concept art in the wrong area. Notice also that the Pelicans are being destroyed by lasers? I don't think the Frieden or Koslovics would use such advanced weaponry if the UNSC centuries later don't. Specops306, Kora 'Morhek 04:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

this image needs to get cut out and put else where

Looks like a more artistic version of the Outskirts scarab intro-duction.Maiar 07:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Echo 419[edit]

in the trivia section int says that echo 419 is the only pelican skin in halo ce but in the level 343 guilty spark the crashed pelican in the swamp is clearly marked as Dropship Victor 933. Sir aaron 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Sir aaronSir aaron 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Color Pelicans???[edit]

Lift and Thrust Theories[edit]

With short, stubby wings, the Pelican cannot remain airborne at all. It couldn't even fly. So the lift needed for airworthiness must come from an additional source, supplementing the lift generated from the wings. This could either be antigravity (unlikely, as the USMC didn't do much with that), or generated directly from the fuselage. This is known as the lifting body principle, and was tested during the Space Race and afterwards as a search for a reusable space vehicle (now known as the Space Shuttle, thanks to all the testing). Lifting bodies are exactly what they sound like: an aerodynamically engineered fuselage that is capable of generating its own lift, supplementing its wings. The Pelican likely operates in the same fashion, albeit with greater efficiency thanks to its advanced engines. This would explain how Pelicans can remain aloft instead of dropping out of the sky (or not taking off in the first place).

As for thrust directing, we all know that the Pelican uses two nacelles mounted at the wing roots that rotate, and two rear-mounted nacelles that operate in a similar fashion. By moving these four nacelles in different combinations and to different angles, the Pelican gains enhanced maneuvering, eliminating the need for control surfaces seen on modern day aircraft (ailerons, elevators, rudders). The Pelican does appear to have some control surfaces mounted on the trailing wing edges, but these are either flaps or smaller ailerons that aid in turning. The Pelican has horizontal exhausts that create horizontal thrust, and downward facing exhausts that allow it to hover and take off vertically. The V-22 Osprey uses similar methods to maneuver. It has two nacelles with internally mounted turboprops. By directing the nacelles upwards, the Osprey can take off as a helicopter; by directing them forward, the Osprey can fly like an airplane. The nacelles can also be rotated different directions to maneuver differently. The similarity here is that the Osprey and Pelican both use thrust directing to control how they maneuver, albeit the Pelican relies heavily on it and uses four nacelles as opposed to the Osprey which primarily relies on control surfaces to maneuver and only has two nacelles. [User:orionf22|orionf22]] ("TALK PAGE") 17:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

An aircraft can remain airborne even with short and stubby wings provided they have a good propulsion system which is capable of VTOL. A popular example of a VTOL aircraft would be the Harrier Jet Fighter and a popular example of an aircraft with a short, stubby wings is the ol' F-104 Starfighter. Also, have you ever consider the amount of power and force the propulsion engine the Pelican can produce? It is capable of escaping planetary gravity, manage to carry a Scorpion Tank with ease, and maneouvre around hostile areas while carrying a vehicle like a jet fighter. Using these examples, I would say that the propulsion system used by the Pelican can ensure that it could stay airborne. The real question is for how long and how does the craft maintain such reserve power to fuel the propulsion system. Instead, think of how it stays airborne like this: Harrier's unique Propulsion System + Chinook body design/fuselage? + F-104 Starfighter's Stubby and Short Wings = Pelican. That being said, the propulsion system used by the Pelican can keep it airborne and rendering the Lift Body theory useless.
Regarding the Osprey, yes... it uses a similar method to maneouvre but not like a Pelican (Tiltrotor are heavily influenced by the weather (like all helicopters) whereas the Pelican's propulsion does not (like the Harrier)), thus holding little relevance to this claim. The closest resemblance you can compare for thrust directing for the Pelican is the Harrier's propulsion system which also relies on the direction of its thrust nozzle (Point down, you go up. Point behind, you go front. One point behind with larger force while the other one points down with smaller force, you spin around like in a merry-go-round.).- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:49, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Well put. I see your reasoning there. I have considered that a significant degree of airworthiness is generated from the Pelican's mighty engines. Such a thing exists in modern day times on the F-15 Eagle, which has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, allowing it to gain altitude even when in a full 90 degree climb. But sometimes a great thrust output is not what will make an aircraft fly. Current flight theories require some form of wings; varying the wing's cross-section and airfoil shape varies how much lift can be produced. The F-104's J-79 powerplant rates as the second most powerful energy producer known to man, second only to a nuclear reactor, yet even its great thrust performance would not be enough to get it in the air. The F-104 still needed wings, and if you think about it, the F-104 does not always fly at high speeds, negating the theory that an aircraft with little airfoil cross-sectioning (Pelican) can remain aloft by means of a powerful engine. Even the Pelican does not always travel at max speed. It hovers and takes off, and requires some degree of lift to get in the air. However, since we do not actually know the exact output of the Pelican's engines, I theorized that some of the lift may be produced from the fuselage, since the combination of the Pelican's weight, size of wings, and other factors does not seem to support the theory that it remains airborne with a heavy reliance on its engines. Yes, it would assist in keeping it up, but that still leaves the problem of how the Pelican flies while it is accelerating to max speed.
The tilt-rotor theory here...I forgot about the Harrier, and that definitely seems to be a better fit than the Osprey. I brought the Osprey up, however, because its engines are directly installed in the nacelles, just like the Pelican, and by varying the direction of the nacelles it can maneuver. The Pelican obviously relies heavily on this principle, more so than the Osprey, so I would say the connection still stands. The Harrier uses its nozzles to take off vertically and uses them somewhat to maneuver, but also relies on control surfaces as its primary means of maneuvering. Additionally, its engine is mounted internally as is the case on most other aircraft. The Harrier also generates its lift from its wings just like a regular aircraft. Yes, it initially uses its powerplant to get up to speed, but once it gets up to a certain speed, the wings generate enough lift to support it, and it no longer needs to rely solely on its powerplant to keep it up. I definitely agree that in the final theory/explanation, it should mention the Harrier's method of maneuvering. [User:orionf22|orionf22]] ("TALK PAGE") 22:01, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
"'Current flight theories'"
— What you said above
The problem with your statement above is Current flight theories. The Pelican was developed in the future, thus scientists in that timeline might have solved the problem with short, stubby wings and powerful propulsion systems. Our current knowledge of the world is constantly changing and expanding as we progress through time, thus we can say it is possible for the Pelican to achieve such feat with such propulsion system in the future. All we can do for now is speculate with concrete support/evidence... I would suggest getting someone with a degree in aerodynamics to explain it for us and show whether it's feasible. As for now, just hold off with the speculations. We've came into some trouble in the past with these speculations in articles and it resulted badly. So, please hold off these speculations. If you insist, please provide concrete proof/evidence to support it and get someone with an official degree to explain it to us.- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 22:35, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I would like to point out that by suggesting the theories above, I was attempting to explain how a Pelican would fly in today's world. It is possible that the 26th century scientists have found a way to promote airworthiness by means of gradually diminishing airfoil sizes and increases in powerplant efficiency. However, based on the advances seen in other systems, i.e. humans in the 26th century still drive on wheels, I am led to believe that not much has changed in terms of aerodynamics so much as powerplant technology. Look at the Longsword. It is heavily based of the B-2 Spirit and its flying wing design. It seems the only advancements in the aeronautical industry have been made in the powerplant, intelligence, defense, and weapons support fields. Additionally, the shape of the Pelican's body leads me to believe that it generates some lift from its body. I don't necessarily consider myself to be speculating; I consider it theorizing, but that's just me. If you really want a knowledgeable source, I could attempt to locate one. Part of this knowledge comes from time with my grandfather, who has a degree in aerospace engineering. I can contact him and get an 'official' theory if you feel this is necessary. [User:orionf22|orionf22]] ("TALK PAGE") 23:41, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Color Changes[edit]

In halo 2 some pelicans are gray and some are green why is that??

That is caused by Halo 2's lighting technology..-5ub7ank(7alk) 19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

on delta halo, some pelicans are really grey

Modding deletion[edit]

Reason it is deleted, is because it is a mod... only available through a mod, so not much point putting it in. I side with Specops306 here. Also, what "Other Vehicles"? ~Enlightment~ 07:05, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Missing Pelican[edit]

On the table for known UNSC pelicans Charlie 217 is missing from that listSomeguy789 04:19, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I added it. Thanks for the heads up. CR8ZY-Ar@B"Dancin' on Glass." 04:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Battle Begins[edit]

I'm pretty sure I saw a Pelican in the new trailer. Yes, there was a Pelican behind the other UNSC vehicles in the scene where everyone was in Warthogs. This should be in the artcle, right? After all, this proves that Pelicans are in Reach, and seeing as the Battle of Reach occurs before Halo: Combat Evolved, they have to be D77-TC Pelicans, as the TCI Pelicans made their debut in Halo 3. Arbington 19:30, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

The D77-TC/I is just a variant of the standard D77. It's an updated model in the process of replacing the standard. It has been going on since before 20 October 2552, as the NMPD already had a police TC/I model. Halo: Reach may very well feature the TC/I, though there is no confirmation that it will be the upgrade or the D77 standard appearing in the game. The planet itself no doubt has both models - we'll juse only see one.-- Forerunner 19:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Troop Deployment Pod[edit]

Am I really the ONLY person here who noticed this fanon addition to the Pelican pages? There is NO mention of any extended Pelican pod in any of the books/comics or the games. The article (Troop Deployment Pod) has no actual sources (check yourself, there is no mention of it anywhere), and the picture shown is apparently FAN ART. What sort of oversight is this?


I think it's time we move it back to D77-TC Pelican'. D is the classification, as is the "TC" - you don't label an Apache "Attach Helicopter 66," you just call it "AH-66 Apache." More relevant to Halo, we con't call the "UH-144 Falcon" the "Utility Helicopter 144" -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 21:52, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Support.svg Support-- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 21:52, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support.svg Support However, Covenant titles stay the same. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 21:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support.svg Support Good reasoning. -- // ŝтŕγκęŕ [ COM | LOG/M | LOG/S ]
  4. Support.svg Support Yeah. Col. Snipes450 19:25, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support.svg Support Good point. --Tiku-Orava 10:59, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support.svg Support --Odysseas-Spartan53 11:09, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support.svg Support Makes sense. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:22, 22 November 2010 (EST)



1. Oppose.svg Oppose SomethingDifferent 21:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose.svg Oppose I oppose the renaming just because of consistency. Specops306 may have a point, but you may not believe it, but AH-64 Apache really meams 'Attack Helicopter-64. Apache is just a nickname given to it.-- 21:10, 14 November 2010 (EST)

That isn't a nickname, that's the designation. That is what the designation means, not the designation itself. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 21:31, 14 November 2010 (EST)


I don't know why we keep the "neutral" section, if we also keep the "comments" section as well. If people aren't committed to a yes or no, then why do they still get a vote? Oh, and did you have a reason for your opposition SD? I'd just like to know. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 06:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral is generally more for stating why they remain out of the vote. Comments is more to ask questions about the position itself. As for me, I don't know enough on the subject in question to say so myself. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Halo: Reach[edit]

If the Halo: Reach pelican is supposed to be the older version, why in the ending cutscene of "The Package" and in the opening of "The Pillar of Autumn" levels, the cockpit is the same as the Halo 3 pelican?Joaovader 03:34, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

It is called retcon. Wait, do we have confirmation the Pelican in Reach is actually D77-TC and not D77H-TC/I (the Halo 3 variant)? Because it looks awful lot like Halo 3's Pelican. Of course the Reach Pelican could be a variant of Halo 3's Pelican or a prototype of it or a variant of the Halo CE/2 Pelican. Though retcon is the simplest solution, even if it's not much more than graphic overhaul. T51b 11:27, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it could be a D77H-TC/I. It's not like they would magically start appearing between Halo 2 and Halo 3. Logically, they would have begun entering service at least a few months prior to the Battle of Earth. Besides, we don't know when the D77H-TC/I entered service; people just assume it was introduced between Halo 2 and Halo 3 because it hasn't appeared in pre-Halo 3 material. For example, when Halo 3 came out, people thought the Mongoose, the SPARTAN Laser, and the Hornet were all recently developed; they were, of course, wrong on all three counts. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. --"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson 14:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

So the list of appearances should be changed Joaovader 16:47, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Game manual says its the D77-TC versionAdmiralmorris 05:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Pelican flyable in Halo: Reach[edit]

Bungie's Oct. 30th Weekly Update says that the Pelican is able to be flown. They say that this is done through hidden devices or something like that.


I looked on Google, only stuff I could find were mods using them, and some Invasion Glitches.

Yeah I saw that too, I just wish that they wold tell us how.-- Tentacletornado 12:40, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

It has been found. Turns it out can fly the phantom too: Jabberwockxeno 20:54, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

What's with the blue background?[edit]

Well? Jabberwockxeno 16:45, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Blue is a nice colour?- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)
If you mean behind the introductory image, it's customary for characters and matériel to have a background. The Covenant for instance have a purple background.-- Forerunner 17:47, 1 January 2011 (EST)
It's the wrong blue I selected for the infobox... I've made it lighter now. :) - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (EST)
Ah, thank you subs, I thought I had messed up with the pelican render at first D: signxb.jpg 09:09, 15 January 2011 (EST)

Someone add please?[edit]

Does this image look good? It's called Pelican, with a description that says, "It crashed." [1] Sorry for not being able to show the image right here, but I still haven't figured it out.--Blahmarrow 18:06, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Special:Upload (Please write in the name, yourself. We don't want to see "Halo-Reach-049392958598294857285759382.jpg").-- Forerunner 18:08, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

The rookie has tried to do it.--Blahmarrow 20:20, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

if it's 100 by 76 feet surley it can carry more then one tankButthead4 20:02, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

No. You included the cockpit in your measurments along with the large aft. section that is just for the engines - there's no flight pod there to contain a tank.-- Forerunner 20:30, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Wait, what's that got to do with the picture?--Blahmarrow 18:42, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Added to article.— subtank 19:06, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

10-4 thank you--Blahmarrow 12:17, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Halo 2 Anniversary Pelicans mistake[edit]

In the pre-rendered cutscenes the cockpit have the pilot and copilot side by side, however in gameplay the cockpits have the pilot in front and the copilot behind as has been since H3 pelicans. This is most noticable with crashed pelican on the beach VARGR (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2014 (EST)

I wouldn't call it a mistake. The cutscene models are much higher quality models than the ones used in the game. These are now pre-rendered custscenes and don't use in-game assets. The Warthogs are also better resolution models (note how the towhook bobs around when its driving) as are the characters. Look at Sgt. Johnson in the cutscene versus the game. The cutscene Pelicans are physically different model files from the ones we encounter during gameplay. -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2014 (EST)