# Canadian Forces helicopter capabilities (from pending Africa peace mission thread)



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PSO is the new terminology and the MND was untraditionally clear on there being potential harm and some element of combat-like engagement if required, so even if Blue helmets are traipsed onto a C-17 leaving Trenton for the media, it would still allow for 'value-added activity' on the ground.  CH-147/146 package wouldn't be a bad thing either...worked pretty well supporting ops from K-har to the tip of the Horn and beyond.  :nod:
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.

Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

The Liberals have a longstanding aversion to "gunships" like the Apache.

Vis - CBC News Posted: Nov 26, 2008  : 



> Specially modified helicopter gunships will escort Canada's new Chinook transport helicopters on operations in Afghanistan when they come into service in the new year, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday...
> 
> ...Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh also expressed concern Wednesday, calling on the military to rule out any attack role for the new choppers.
> 
> "We need to put absolute restrictions on these escort helicopters…they cannot be used for attack purposes. They should be purely for defensive purposes, for escorting," he said....



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-to-send-griffon-attack-helicopters-to-afghanistan-1.711112

That is not the first time that a Liberal had spoken out against the purchase or use of Attack Helicopters.

In my particular view, supporter that I am of the F35s, IF (and please note the shouted IF  ;D ) if there were cost savings to be found for the RCAF by procuring something other than the F35 then I would be strongly recommending that those savings be ploughed back into acquiring a fleet of attack/escort/gunship helicopters (all suitably equipped for marine/desert/arctic/mountain conditions).


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.
> 
> Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.
> 
> https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx



Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.

Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Liberals have a longstanding aversion to "gunships" like the Apache.
> 
> Vis - CBC News Posted: Nov 26, 2008  :
> 
> ...



We have an award on the morning radio for the biggest "Bonehead".  Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh just won a nomination.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.
> 
> Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....
> 
> ...



G2G - need to be careful with the use of abbreviations.  They are highly situational.

When I saw TB my first thought was of Treasury Board and high rates of ammunition expenditure .......


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> G2G - need to be careful with the use of abbreviations.  They are highly situational.
> 
> When I saw TB my first thought was of Treasury Board and high rates of ammunition expenditure .......



LOL....some would see little difference, although some would also say TBS is a more accurate 'enemy' than the Board itself...  but yes, "the TB" would have been better...  :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ground forces moving in close confines/urban valleys often preferred the overhead "door-shooting" Griffon over "nose-shooters" like the Apache or Cobra that hd to stand off further for long shots.  TB didn't like Dillon-equipped Griffons much...even named them "Allah's Breath" and pretty much slinked off when they were around.
> 
> Sometimes a LAV is a more appropriate means than a big Kitty Kat....
> 
> ...



I dont disagree about relative advantages and disadvantages of various helos. That said, the reference was in regards to armament if there was a MANPAD threat. Apache is better than a Griffon for armour. One of the slickest ops I saw in A-Stan was griffons and chinooks working in sequence.


----------



## jmt18325 (4 Sep 2016)

Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.



The Taliban definitely had some MANPADs. In 2007 a US Chinook went down in Helmand with US, British and Canadians onboard -- it was probably by a MANPAD strike.  But yes, overall, the bulk of RW lost to Taliban action were brought down by RPG, not MANPAD.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/afghanistan.wikileaks.manpads/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So long as none of the SA-7s and SA-24's that Mali rebels may possess don't show up. With any luck these will be the same as the magical MANPADs the int reports always reported the Taliban as having.
> 
> Replacing Apaches with Griffons is akin to replacing a Leo II with a LAV.
> 
> https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20130715.aspx



An example, Boko Haram are reported to have stuff like this.







My gut feel is the MANPAD threat is limited, but not magical and that makes it real.  You never know where the nasty little buggers are until the corkscrew stuff is happening.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.



Vne is Vne.




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> An example, Boko Haram are reported to have stuff like this.
> 
> [pic]
> 
> My gut feel is the MANPAD threat is limited, but not magical and that makes it real.  You never know where the nasty little buggers are until the corkscrew stuff is happening.



...and something not to be ignored, but also to be put into context, that once you start trucking around with some Igla/Strela under your arms, you become notably different-looking that just a guy with an AK.  Those people stick out, then make themselves part of the trail back to higher levels of the organization...a good thing when you have eyes on to them... :nod:

Most helo folks will respect all threats, but when prioritizing, I'd be most concerned with the Dishka (or other heavier 'small' arms)...those will leave a mark.   :-\

The flip side is that even Boka Haram knows that having a "mini-Spectre" Griffon gunship orbiting, spitting out 6000 rds/min of 7.62 is not something they'd want to deal with on a regular basis.  Move-countermove-countermove-countermove, etc...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Too bad the Griffon isn't faster - apparently they're looking at addressing that.



Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?



"recycled" news from when "they" looked at it in AFG...again, Vne is Vne.  :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Vne is Vne.
> 
> 
> ...and something not to be ignored, but also to be put into context, that once you start trucking around with some Igla/Strela under your arms, you become notably different-looking that just a guy with an AK.  Those people stick out, then make themselves part of the trail back to higher levels of the organization...a good thing when you have eyes on to them... :nod:
> ...



the flip side to the flip side is the strategic impact of a chinook or griffon being shot down. In A-Stan I think the impact would have been more limited since the public was cognizant that we were in a combat mission. I suspect that no matter what the liberal government says about "peace support vs peace keeping" the vast portion of the population will still equate UN to peacekeeping and will subequently be exponentially more upset about taking casualties in what they see as a peacekeeping mission (especially a helo going down, which is flashy).

The problem for the "sunny ways" approach is that it doesn't mesh well with casualties. *IF* the Liberal government is putting us into peacekeeping solely to get a UNSC seat than it will be up to them to explain to the public *why* this is so important.  Casualties will complicate this, so I imagine our use of any asset is extremely contingent on its ability to not be made a casualty. If I'm Boko Haram/ISIS/insert terrorist group than the "juice vs squeeze" analysis on moving/acquiring a MANPAD vs being engaged would look really appealing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> the flip side to the flip side is the strategic impact of a chinook or griffon being shot down. In A-Stan I think the impact would have been more limited since the public was cognizant that we were in a combat mission. I suspect that no matter what the liberal government says about "peace support vs peace keeping" the vast portion of the population will still equate UN to peacekeeping and will subequently be exponentially more upset about taking casualties in what they see as a peacekeeping mission (especially a helo going down, which is flas
> The problem for the "sunny ways" approach is that it doesn't mesh well with casualties. *IF* the Liberal government is putting us into peacekeeping solely to get a UNSC seat than it will be up to them to explain to the public *why* this is so important.  Casualties will complicate this, so I imagine our use of any asset is extremely contingent on its ability to not be made a casualty. If I'm Boko Haram/ISIS/insert terrorist group than the "juice vs squeeze" analysis on moving/acquiring a MANPAD vs being engaged would look really appealing.




Most of the people I know, sadly, would think a noble noisy death in the service of peace (  :-X ) infinitely more palatable than a noisy death in a war.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Who is "they", and how are "they" going to "address" that?



Put new decals on the speedometer..........


----------



## jmt18325 (4 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Vne is Vne.



Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.


----------



## brihard (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.



Not sure if you know much about G2G, but he most definitely is an expert.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.



And all they need is a new Jesus nut to hang it from.

And I second Brihard's comment.   :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Sep 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Most of the people I know, sadly, would think a noble noisy death in the service of peace (  :-X ) infinitely more palatable than a noisy death in a war.



And, no doubt as long as it was someone  else doing the dying too.


----------



## Loachman (4 Sep 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not sure if you know much about G2G, but he most definitely is an expert.



I have sat in a few helicopters, too, from time to time, and no, jmt18325, "new engines would" NOT "allow for an increased top speed", and there is no plan to upgrade the engines on the Griffon anyway.

And the "Turbo" button on the cyclic grip is only there to fool kids at airshows. It's not wired to anything. But don't tell anybody that I let that out.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.



It's a Bell 412. None of the engine configurations I could find for it increase top speed.

You really need to start putting some links beside "I read somewhere".

Loach: If we put flame stickers on the side of the Griffon we can increase top speed, it works for Honda Civics (I read that somewhere on the internet).


----------



## McG (4 Sep 2016)

Speed holes would make the helicopter go faster.


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have sat in a few helicopters, too, from time to time, and no, jmt18325, "new engines would" NOT "allow for an increased top speed", and there is no plan to upgrade the engines on the Griffon anyway.
> 
> And the "Turbo" button on the cyclic grip is only there to fool kids at airshows. It's not wired to anything. But don't tell anybody that I let that out.



having been in 2 (reasonably close to ground), the only thing anybody needs to concern themselves with is "Can the pilot autorotate?"....... ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Apparently (and I'm only going by what I read somewhere) new engines would allow for an increased top speed, but, I'm not expert and I can't confirm that.



Factually untrue.  

New engines, such a PT6T-9, could give improved "hot & high" performance and greater margins of power management through use of FADEC, but as I said before, Vne is Vne.  Throwing more power at the same aerodynamics will not make aerodynamic limitations go away.

There are other limitations out there, and p/n 412‐040‐004-143 (the main transmission) is still p/n 412‐040‐004-143, with its associated performance limitations.  That's but one of the "don't fix it if it isn't broken" items out there.  Ironically, there are few rotorcraft out there faster than a CH-47 variant, and that includes Apaches, Cobras, Tiger, Hind, etc....  

There are tactics, techniques and procedures that make a Griffon quite a reasonable and capable machine for a given concept of operations.  It isn't broken.  Any aircraft, when unrealistic expectations are placed on it (and that includes, Apaches, etc...) will appear to "come up short"...it isn't the aircraft failing to do what it was designed to do, but rather some unrealistic expectations no being properly managed to realize that their expectations are unreasonable....and then they *more than) often take offence at the accusation that they are being unrealistic. 

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

p.s.  Why don't we throw bigger engines in the CPFs?  That way they could do 35+ knots and keep up (sort of) with US CTFs?


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Sep 2016)

But, but, but...what about Airwolf.... you mean it ain't true?


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's a Bell 412. None of the engine configurations I could find for it increase top speed.
> 
> You really need to start putting some links beside "I read somewhere".



I always do - it's just troublesome to remember where they came from sometimes, and I'd rather not look, but if you insist, I'll find it.  I was making a very non confrontational statement, but I forgot that civil conversation can be difficult here.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> p.s.  Why don't we throw bigger engines in the CPFs?  That way they could do 35+ knots and keep up (sort of) with US CTFs?



In that case, wouldn't that actually have the possibility of making them faster?

Thanks for the other info, btw.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In that case, wouldn't that actually have the possibility of making them faster?
> 
> Thanks for the other info, btw.



Because its wetted hull length and form won't absorb much more power...it's not like a Tico that can absorb 4 LMs....

De nada. :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Because its wetted hull length and form won't absorb much more power...it's not like a Tico that can absorb 4 LMs....
> 
> De nada. :nod:
> 
> ...



Again, thank you.  If I actually don't know something, I'm not going to pretend that I do.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

I found the article.  I have no confidence in whats it says, but I'll provide it to reinforce that I don't make things up.  From the article:

When it comes to the CH-146 Griffon (bottom), a modest life extension program is being considered to upgrade the analog cockpit and potentially improve the engines. This is key for the Griffon’s role as an escort for the CH-147F Chinook (top). Currently, the Griffon cannot match the larger helicopter’s speed. The other alternative, of course, is to acquire a new fleet. 

http://skiesmag.com/news/article/Planning-for-power


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2016)

Apaches couldn't match Chinook speed in Afghanistan, not much can. The Chinook is an odd combination of power, speed, size and agility.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apaches couldn't match Chinook speed in Afghanistan, not much can. The Chinook is an odd awesome combination of power, speed, size and agility.



TFTFY....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apaches couldn't match Chinook speed in Afghanistan, not much can. The Chinook is an odd combination of power, speed, size and agility.



Wasn't that the reason the Comanche's specs called for max speed of 325 Kph? It was supposed to be able to keep up with the Chinooks.


----------



## Loachman (5 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I found the article.  I have no confidence in whats it says, but I'll provide it to reinforce that I don't make things up.  From the article:
> 
> When it comes to the CH-146 Griffon (bottom), a modest life extension program is being considered to upgrade the analog cockpit and potentially improve the engines. This is key for the Griffon’s role as an escort for the CH-147F Chinook (top). Currently, the Griffon cannot match the larger helicopter’s speed. The other alternative, of course, is to acquire a new fleet.
> 
> http://skiesmag.com/news/article/Planning-for-power



That merely says "potentially improve the engines" and "cannot match the larger helicopter’s speed", not that an improvement to engines will correct the mismatch. There is no link between the two.


----------



## Loachman (5 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wasn't that the reason the Comanche's specs called for max speed of 325 Kph? It was supposed to be able to keep up with the Chinooks.



Unlikely. The concept of escorting Chinooks is relatively new, driven by the need to operate in hot and high conditions. Chinooks would not normally go where escort was needed in Comanche's day. Any movement by helicopter near or across the FEBA would be done in utility helicopters (Black Hawk, Twin Huey, Huey etcetera), and supporting AHs would not necessarily be tied to the lift formation.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I found the article.  I have no confidence in whats it says, but I'll provide it to reinforce that I don't make things up.  From the article:
> 
> When it comes to the CH-146 Griffon (bottom), a modest life extension program is being considered to upgrade the analog cockpit and potentially improve the engines. This is key for the Griffon’s role as an escort for the CH-147F Chinook (top). Currently, the Griffon cannot match the larger helicopter’s speed. The other alternative, of course, is to acquire a new fleet.
> 
> http://skiesmag.com/news/article/Planning-for-power



jmt, I can see why at first glance, the juxtaposition of improving the Griffons engines and the issue of speed vis-a-vis the Chinook could be seen to imply increasing the Griffon's speed.  In this case, the writer should have been more clear about the kind of improvements that replacing the Griffon's existing P&WC PT6T-3DE with the PT6T-9 would achieve:

 1) increased performance at high altitude and hot temperatures (the PT6T-9 is still "flat rated" [essentially 'restricted' from producing 'too much' power] to a certain HP rating at lower temperatures and altitudes so as to not overpower either the main transmission and/or combining gearbox that adds the input of each of the two 'power sections' together); and 

2) better engine management through the use of full authority digital engine control (FADEC), that optimizes through automation, sequences such as engine starting, run-time governing and engine malfunction management.

For the 'hot and high' take a look at the Pratt and Whitney Canada - PT6T engine information site and scroll down to the chart at the bottom.  Note that the FADEC-controlled PT6T-9 outputs the same (or in some cases very slightly less) mechanical power (1855 SHP), but its thermodynamic rating is close to 20% higher than mechanical rating.  What this means is that while the governor will keep the engine from ever exceeding its mechanical rating, as the helicopter is operated at hotter and higher conditions, the engine will, as the margin between absolute mechanical and thermodynamic performance shrinks, still be able to output rated power for some time, while the other engines will start to lose mechanical power (compared to their max rating) the first degree or first foot above sea level and standard temperature.  I can't find an open source figure for the PT6T-9's increased performance over the Griffon's PT6T-3DE, but suffice to say, if so equipped (with PT6T-9 engines) a Griffon would be able to operate at it's maximum power-related operating limits at higher altitudes and hotter temperatures than it does currently.  Again, Vne is an aircraft design limitation that includes many more factors than just available power, so Vne would not be increased, unless something else were significantly changed with components including, but not limited to the rotor system and the flight control system.

In summary, the SkiesMag writer didn't explicitly say the engines would make the Griffon fly faster, but it certainly in writing juxtaposed the two concepts, and it could have been more clearly written.  That said, I know the folks at SkiesMag, and I don't think it was a deliberate implication to tie the two ideas together, perhaps rather a limitation on the number of words for the article to get into the level of detail I noted above.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

It looks to me to be a simple misunderstanding on the part of the writer.  The use of the word currently when referring to the current speed arrangement after talking about the engine upgrade implies that the upgrade will make it faster, obviously not the case.


----------



## jmt18325 (5 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That merely says "potentially improve the engines" and "cannot match the larger helicopter’s speed", not that an improvement to engines will correct the mismatch. There is no link between the two.



It was the use of the word currently that caused confusion for me.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Loachman (5 Sep 2016)

Not a problem.

VNE, for those unaware, is "Velocity Never Exceed".


----------



## McG (5 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> VNE, for those unaware, is "Velocity Never Exceed".


I assume that is an engineering constraint based on a number of factors relating to the aircraft?  A point where parts of the blade exceed the speed of sound, or a point where the aircraft pulls itself apart?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Sep 2016)

VNE is a sum of a lot of factors. Retreating blade stall can be part of it. So can the advancing blade going supersonic and losing efficiency.

At some point, the aerodynamic forces on the hull become such that you cannot add anymore power to go much faster.

Gearboxes can usually only absorb so much power from the engines, as well.


----------



## suffolkowner (5 Sep 2016)

Is all the above not why the US Marines went with the UH-1Y?

http://www.casr.ca/mp-griffon-soa-helicopter.htm


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apaches couldn't match Chinook speed in Afghanistan, not much can. The Chinook is an odd combination of power, speed, size and agility.



So, just like me then?


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So, just like me then?


Well, as far as the "odd combination" goes, anyway ...  >


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Sep 2016)

For those that work with the Griffons, whats our capability in terms of arming them for escort duty? my understanding is our options are C6, .60, or minigun.


----------



## McG (5 Sep 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> VNE is a sum of a lot of factors. Retreating blade stall can be part of it. So can the advancing blade going supersonic and losing efficiency.
> 
> At some point, the aerodynamic forces on the hull become such that you cannot add anymore power to go much faster.
> 
> Gearboxes can usually only absorb so much power from the engines, as well.


So if I want a faster helicopter, do I get that with more blades?  Recognizing of course that with more blades I probably need a more powerful engine, my power linkages will all have to be stronger to support the increased forces, I will have to carry more fuel or compromise endurance, and elements of the air-frame itself may need to be strengthened ... and as I am adding all this weight there is probably some point of diminishing returns where my aircraft stops getting faster and/or starts loosing other performance strengths?

Maybe I'll just leave this sort of good idea stuff to an actual aerospace engineer.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2016)

G2G: Is there a plan/project to mid life upgrade the Griffon to the newer engines that you're aware of?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So, just like me then?


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Sep 2016)

Vne is normally a structural type of issue with some buffer.  Either dynamic pressure or often, flutter.  You can't change it unless you modify structure.

In terms of new engines increasing the max speed of the Griffon, it could increase the max speed in hot/high environments where you have more torque available, provided the transmission is matched.

I don't think using VNE was appropriate but it defenitely would have potential to increase maximum level speed at max rated torque.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2016)

I guess it depends on how we define a helicopter and how complex you want the solution to become

https://sites.google.com/site/worldfastcar/fastest-helicopter-in-the-world

"Traditional" Helicopters - Single rotor

Griffon - 260 kmh
Cormorant - 278 kmh
Apache - 293 kmh (Vne 365 kmh)
Lynx 324 kmh

Twin Rotors

Chinook - 315 kmh
Kamov KA50 - 315 kmh (Vne 350 kmh)

Compound 

Sikorsky X2 - 460 kmh
Eurocopter X3 - 472 kmh

Hybrid/VTOL

V22 Osprey - 509 kmh


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> G2G: Is there a plan/project to mid life upgrade the Griffon to the newer engines that you're aware of?



PC, in short, yes-ish...although not sure if the timelines won't need updating.  

Griffon Limited Life Extension project.



> *Griffon Limited Life Extension*
> 
> *In-Service Support*
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> So if I want a faster helicopter, do I get that with more blades?  Recognizing of course that with more blades I probably need a more powerful engine, my power linkages will all have to be stronger to support the increased forces, I will have to carry more fuel or compromise endurance, and elements of the air-frame itself may need to be strengthened ... and as I am adding all this weight there is probably some point of diminishing returns where my aircraft stops getting faster and/or starts loosing other performance strengths?
> 
> Maybe I'll just leave this sort of good idea stuff to an actual aerospace engineer.



MCG, in general, it ain't going to get any faster than when they first made it...  




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't think using VNE was appropriate but it defenitely would have potential to increase maximum level speed at max rated torque.



???

What would be more appropriate?

Regards
G2G


----------

