# New Role for Labradors



## Allen (24 Oct 2005)

For those interested, a news release posted on Defense-Aerospace.com outlining what is happening with our recently retired Labradors:



> Columbia Helicopters Acquires Eight CH-113 Labrador Helicopters from Canadian Military
> 
> 
> (Source: Columbia Helicopters; issued Oct. 20, 2005)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16259725.1130183548.Q107fMOa9dUAAFBGgAg&modele=jdc_34


----------



## childs56 (26 Oct 2005)

ahh surprise surprise. Seems some one else out side of the military decided that the good old Labs had some long lasting life in them. I know a few Helo company's on the west coast that wanted those helos, along with the Sea Kings when they retire. To bad we just didn't up grade them our selves and use them for the Army.


----------



## SHF (28 Oct 2005)

I flew on the Lab in the early 70s as a young base brat.  Worked alongside them in Greenwood for several years.  Given the decreasing serviceability rate during the last few years and the inability to fly all weather, it was time for the old Lab to move on to retirement.  IMHO an upgrade was not a serious option.  The army would have inherited a relic and the Air Force would have still been responsible for O&M.  Good luck to the company who chose to continue working with the old girl.  They will probably do OK but they won't be flying the risky profiles of SAR or combat support.


----------



## childs56 (28 Oct 2005)

Heli logging and fire fighting are some of the toughest flying on A/C next to Cbt. I assume that is where the old Labs will be heading off to. 

A company in BC rebuilds Seakings, add a few feet to their length and then uses them for various tasks, such as heavy lift and that. Those choppers get some serious time in the air doing some very heavy lifting. 

If we had of sent the Labs down to Boeing for a full rebuild with engine and tranny up grades, the Army would have had a chopper capable of transporting up to a 20 troops. 

Not to make offence to anyone, but those choppers were were still usefull at the fraction of the cost of new un proven helo's.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2005)

CTD, it's not quite that simple...the gearboxes are not the same as the CH46E currently flying with the Marines.  The gearbox mounting points on the airframe wouldn't accept new transmissions without significant airframe modifications...$$$ and flight certification issues for a 42-year old aircraft.  There are times when it's just not economically feasible to keep something so old going.  Columbia will strip those Labs down to just stringers and formers on the inside, part of making the "daily crack check" that much easier.  The reason Columbia wants these helos is they've worked the living daylights out of their other BV107s.  As well, 20 troops is not the only requirement a transport helo has to meet...in fact that doesn't meet the current army statement for troop lift.  Frankly, the Lab doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of lifting some of the things that the army will require of a lifter...M777 light-weight field howitzer is still 9500-10,000 pounds...Lab would be lucky to put 5,000-6,000 lbs on the hook and move it any meaningful distance.  There are times when you have to let the old kit go.  We're not running around with Lee-Enfields today, nor driving steam-powered Corvettes, nor are we flying the CH113/113A Labrador/Voyageur anymore.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Slim (29 Oct 2005)

Duey

That was a good and well thought out post.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (29 Oct 2005)

i think one of the big things you have to consider when rebuilding a former military helicopter.

if your the second owner....your just having to find spare parts and techs to work on it. 
buy 2 and make one out of it. 
But if your the army  looking at a rebuild program.

does not make any sense to me to rebuild these oold tired warhorses they did the job they were designed and purchased for, maybe done the job for too long of a time.

if they  did rebuild it for the army, you would have a big chopper and no more lift power then they had before. still flying a 30 year old airframe.
time to replace, rebuild the newer equipment not the old stuff


----------



## childs56 (30 Oct 2005)

My comment to rebuilding old aircraft is look at all the old Chinooks flying to this day. With the many upgrades that have been implemented and done those Chinooks have performed an outstanding job and will continue to do so for many more years to come. 

The same can be said for the Lab. Is it the ideal helo for our needs. No but it sure could have made a good transition for medium lift in the near future for us.


----------



## childs56 (30 Oct 2005)

Some specs from the Boeing web site as to what the US uses as a equivelant to our Labs. As I said not perfect but way better then what we have now.


WEIGHTS 
 Max gross, lbs (kg)  
 24,300 
 (11,023) 
 Empty, lbs (kg)  
 15,537  
 (7,048) 
 Useful load, lbs (kg)  
 8,763  
 (3,975) 
 Cargo hook, lbs (kg) 
 l0,000 
 (4,536) 
 ACCOMMODATION 
 Cockpit -- crew seats  
 2 
Cabin -- troop seats, litters  
 25/15  
Range, SL and ISA, nm (km)  
 365  (676)


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Oct 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> My comment to rebuilding old aircraft is look at all the old Chinooks flying to this day. With the many upgrades that have been implemented and done those Chinooks have performed an outstanding job and will continue to do so for many more years to come.
> 
> The same can be said for the Lab. Is it the ideal helo for our needs. No but it sure could have made a good transition for medium lift in the near future for us.



CTD, not disagreeing with you...you're probably right that the Lab might have provided a partial, interim capability, but there really would be a fair bit more than painting the Lab/Voyageur back to the olive drab colour the Voyageurs used to be flying for 1 THP in Uplands (the Daddy to 450 Sqn that I flew Chinooks from in Uplands.)  Biggest problem I would see would be the ASE (aircraft survival eqpt) and DEWS (defensive EW suite) that would have to be fitted.  While similarities exist with the USMC's CH-46E, it would take our 'machine' some time to engineer and pump out a certification for the Lab.  Truth be told, probably longer than either a Chinook or EH-101 would first hit the ramp if ordered this coming January.  Hopefully gov't gets moving mucho quicko on the heavy lifter and I can plunk my behind down in a familiar big cockpit again  *cough - Chinook - cough* 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## childs56 (30 Oct 2005)

Boeing had put out a bid to upgrade our labs, for a few billlion less then the EH101. 
When I said rebuild I meant rebuild. That means tear the air frame apart and reconfigure the frame, engines, tranny's and any other modifications you would need to have the helicopter brought up to specs of ther US's Helo's. 

I wish i had some pictures of aircraft torn down to the frame and rebuilt to better then new standards.  

I never once stated that all we would do is repaint the aircraft. I have been involved in ground up resto's of civie a/c and have seen the light to rebuiliding old air frames and the amount of manpower it takes. 

I think had Boeing of won the contract to up grade the Labs we would have had Helo's in the sky right now flying. 

Not trying to start a pissing war here about this matter. The fact is though the LAb could have provided for our short and long term goal needs for SAR, and or Medium lift for the army for many more years to come at a fraction of the cost for the new choppers we have in service today.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Oct 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> Boeing had put out a bid to upgrade our labs, for a few billlion less then the EH101.
> When I said rebuild I meant rebuild. That means tear the air frame apart and reconfigure the frame, engines, tranny's and any other modifications you would need to have the helicopter brought up to specs of ther US's Helo's.
> 
> I wish i had some pictures of aircraft torn down to the frame and rebuilt to better then new standards.
> ...




CTD, I think it's fair to say that you believe in the Lab's case just as firmly as I believe it is time to get a new heavy lifter that will last many more years to come than just a partial-interim solution. 

I'll have to respectfully take exception to your stating, "...The *fact* is, though, the Lab could have provided....Medium lift for the Army for many more years to come at a fraction of the cost of new choppers..."  I think it more appropriate/accurate if you say, "I *believe* that the Lab could......"

And on the topic of "fraction of the cost"...I'm really not so sure that is the case, unless you were thinking of a fraction like 3/4 or 2/3 or 5/8.  Example, the 1989 proposed cost to rebuild 7 x CH147 Chinooks...$400M US in 1989 dollars.  Applying sequential annual inflation rates to current year dollars of that particular project would put that upgrade at $825M Cdn (2005) today.  That's very close to what today's TALC project has allocated to getting new airframes that *fully* meet the operational requirement with IOC in 2008.  Even if you were to scale that upgrade down somewhat since the Lab was only a baby brother to the Chinook, I think you'll still see that it would be a sizable cost to get aircraft upgraded likely no quicker than the first new ones would be showing up on the line anyway.  I don't think that there's a case to be made for the Lab.

p.s.  On the topic of rebuilds...anecdotally, not many folks know that CH147003 through CH147009, while sold to the Dutch, never fully made it as the complete CF airframe to RNLAF service.  It turned out that it was cheaper to take a few transferable components from 003-009 and mate them to production-line products coming off the line in Philadelphia.  I once spoke to Boeing Vertol's International Program Director, who confirmed this as fact, but never told me how much of our 147's actually made it onto RNLAF 47's.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (1 Jan 2006)

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/tandemnotes/tn01-4.pdf
They would probably never serve any military function because of present requirements but Columbia Helicopters is one super professional company. They are the world's specialists when it comes to Boeing products and have a great overhaul and maintenance facility.
They have a web page but it needs Macromedia Flash. Just google Columbia Helicopters.


----------

