# Of Helicopters and Hellfires



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

This article about US helicopter intentions also describes modifications to the Hellfire programme which could have implications for the MMEV program up here.

Emphasis is on improving what already exists, as in the case of existing helos and the Hellfire, improvinge serviceability and survivability. There is also an expressed intention to buy more Kiowas or similar ASAP.

The only really new programme is the 25 ton Heavy Lift helo.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jan 2005)

Seems nice but most of those mods will not effect the CF besides aren't you happy with the Griffion.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> besides aren't you happy with the Griffion.



You're kidding, right?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Would not most armies in the world be happy with a civilian helicopter with a green coat of paint.  This is the wave of the future man.

Yes of course i am kidding.


----------



## Bograt (10 Jan 2005)

Hey, as a possible future griffon driver I believe I can speak as an expert on the issue. I like the colour green.


----------



## Gunnerlove (11 Jan 2005)

I was under the impression that the Griffin is a Bell 412 which is a twin Huey with a quad rotor. So a military helicopter based on a military helicopter.

They are what they are light utility helicopters, don't hate them for being what they are.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

Maybe Inch could jump in but I think the difference is in the power pack.  If I understand correctly the Griffon uses a Pratt and Whitney Canada TwinPac which generates about half the shaft-horsepower of the General Electric? pack that the USMC is installing as an upgrade on its UH-1N Hueys.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the Griffin is a Bell 412 which is a twin Huey with a quad rotor.



The Bell 412 is nothing like the good old Twin Huey.  The huey had lots of power and her former pilots still sing accolades to this day.

The Griffon is an underpowered, civilian helicopter painted green - the veritable LSVW of the sky.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

This anything like the way you understand it Zoomie?

The Upgraded Huey with 2x GE T700-GE-401 for 2x 1723 shp

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRUH-1Y.htm   

The Bell 412 EP with 1x PWC PT6T-3D for 1x 1800 shp

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRB412EP.htm   

The Griffon with PWC PT6T-3D

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_45_1.asp?uSubSection=45&uSection=1

To be fair, the UH-1Y configuration will generate 100% more power than the predecessor which would put the predecessor into the same range of available power as the Griffon. 

By the same token, it seems to leave open the intriguing possibility of re-engining the Griffons.

The UH-1Y supposedly can carry 4 crew and 8 troops on a 203 km radius mission with 30 mins on station and 20 mins reserves or about 1900 kg with a full load of 1400 kg of fuel.

On the other hand I do seem to recall NDHQ and Bell info saying the Griffon would be able to carry 14 persons.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2005)

Those 14 would have to be anorexic...

GW


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

And a very short trip.


----------



## Inch (11 Jan 2005)

Actually guys, most helicopters are torque limited, not power limited. Even the mighty Sea King is torque limited, the engines are de-rated to 1500 shp from about 2200 shp. The Griffon is no different, PT6 engines are capable of putting out 1800 shp or more, I don't know off hand what the exact number is, maybe Laps can jump in here and fill us in. In any case, I have a feeling that the twin engined Griffon makes fairly close to the same power that the Sea King does, except that our all up weight is 20,500 lbs while there's is just under 12,000 lbs

My understanding is that the transmission and rotor mast (the vertical "drive shaft" that connects the rotor head to the transmission) are the problems. If you pull too much torque, you in effect, twist the rotor right off the helo, break the mast in flight or disintegrate the gearbox. The Griffon mast is fairly skinny, I'd say it couldn't be more than 3 inches in diameter. Whereas the Sea King mast is about 6 or 7 inches in diameter. My buddies have told me that over-torquing is a major concern while flying the Griffon, we really don't pay it much attention in the Sea King. 

So to sum up, if you wanted to upgrade the Griffon, I'd start with the transmission and mast, then if you find it underpowered, upgrade the engines too. Keep in mind that a bigger stronger gearbox is also heavier, so there's a limit to how big and strong you can go. Otherwise you'll just be adding power so the helo can lift itself and that's not what you guys are looking for.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2005)

BTW Inch congrats on your 1000th post....kind of fitting its about aircraft .


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

Thanks Inch,  figured you would have the answers.  Your explanation also explains the addition of that large triangular sail on top of the UH-1Y.


I dug this information out from an old edition of Janes' last night

CH118 (UH-1H) The original single engined Huey

Empty Weight  (EW) 2116 kg
Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) 4309 kg
Lift Delta (LD) ~2200 kg

Twin Blade
Lycoming T53-L-13 at 1400 shp.

CH135 (UH-1N) The Twin Huey purchased by the CF - also known as the Bell 212

EW 2753 kg
MTOW  5080 kg
LD ~2350 kg

Twin Blade
Pratt and Whitney Canada PWC PT6T-3 at 1290 shp

CH146 (Bell 412 EP)

EW 3146 kg
MTOW 5398 kg
LD ~ 2250 kg

4-Blade
Pratt and Whitney Canada PWC PT6T-3D at 1800 shp

UH-1Y

EW 5025 kg
MTOW 8390 kg
LD ~ 3350 kg

4-Blade
2x General Electric T700-GE- 401 at 2x 1723 shp = 3446 shp.

So at first blush, if the CH146 doesn't handle like the CH135 the problem isn't in the powerplant.  Any other thoughts?

And like Ex-Dragoon said Inch, congrats on you 1000th post.

Cheers.


----------



## Inch (11 Jan 2005)

Thanks guys, not only was my 1000th post about aircraft, but about my one true love, helicopters.  ;D

Kirkhill, just a point of clarity for the aircraft you listed, they're all twin engined except the single Huey. So the Griffon can actually put out about the same power or more than the UH-1Y but the Griffon engines are probably de-rated to a lower output so that they don't over torque the transmission.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

So to be clear Inch

the CH135 will actually generate 2x 1290 or 2580 shp while the Griffon (theoretical max) can generate 2x  1800 or 3600 shp?

Is that about right or am I still misunderstanding the situation?

Thanks.


----------



## Inch (11 Jan 2005)

Yep, you got it, if the engines were allowed to put out as much power as they could possibly make, that's what would be going into the gearbox. Again, I don't know the numbers for the Griffon's PT6's, but according to Pratt & Whitney's website, the PT6T-3D that's in the Griffon is capable of putting out 1800 shp, not too far off in my estimation eh?

http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_4/3_0_4_4_2.asp

Click on the drop down menu and select PT6T-3D and it'll give you the shp.

So yes, in theory, the Griffon is capable of putting 3600 shp to the gearbox. See what I mean? It's not the engines, those engines put out more than enough power. In fact they put out just as much power as the ones that were in the Twin Huey, which were de-rated to 1290 according to the Jane's you referenced. It's the gearbox and rotor system that are the problem. The engines in the Griffon are without a doubt de-rated down to something more manageable by the gearbox.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2005)

Ahh...it's like the difference between Engine Horsepower and Rear-Wheel Horsepower.  Too much engine horsepower and the tranny and/or rear differential goes "snap" and you're in trouble (even more so in a whirly-bird).


----------



## Inch (11 Jan 2005)

Well put Infanteer, that sums it up nicely.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

I don't like to here fast moving metal objects go "snap". It causes me to have palpitations.  What's it like at 5000 feet?

Would the 4-Blade rotor generate more torque than the old 2-blade design?


----------



## Inch (12 Jan 2005)

I've never had it happen at 5000 ft and I hope I don't find out.  

Honestly, you got me there. The Sea King has 5 blades but I don't know if takes more torque to get the thing turning or not. To the operator, all we see is the torque gauge and it's a percentage of torque that we fly off. I don't have the first idea how many ft-lbs of torque we pull.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2005)

I hope not too. Continued good luck.

As to the other, silly question, just letting my curiosity getting the better of me.

Cheers and thanks.


----------



## Mortar guy (18 Jan 2005)

1 Wing (the Tac Hel guys in the Air Force) did a study a while back about upgrading the Griffon to the UH-1Y standard (or CH-146Y as they called it). IIRC the plan involved replacing the gearbox and main rotor shaft with the sturdier ones from the UH-1Y and replacing the metal tail boom with a composite one that would reduce weight. The presentation that I saw mentioned that the good people at Bell Helicopters in Mirabel said this could be easily accomplished as the UH-1Y and CH-146 were so similar. I'm sorry I can't back this statement up with a link but we can't link to the DIN here.

MG


----------



## Inch (18 Jan 2005)

I think you're right MG, I recall discussion on that very subject while I was on OJT at 1 Wing HQ prior to going to Moose Jaw. It seems very feasible, it's just a matter of getting the funding for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2005)

MG and Inch, if so that doesn't sound like a very pricey solution - not billions anyway considering the whole buy was just about 1 billion  for 100 AC IIRC.

That would go a long way to solving SOME of the TAC lift issues wouldn't it?  Not to mention deployability.

 ???


----------



## Inch (18 Jan 2005)

I agree Kirkhill, it won't be too bad. The only hang up would be that the Griffon is still only about 10 years old ( I think we got them in 95-96) so I think we may have a hard time selling the upgrade. 

It should solve some of the issues, keep in mind that it's still not going to lift as much as a Blackhawk will, but I don't think the crunchies will have much trouble settling for lifting a combat loaded section.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Jan 2005)

Plus it might turn the Griffon into an aggressive platform not something the government wants to project.

they wanted them painted pink but green was cheaper whheeee we lucked out there. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Pink, green or UN white, here's an update on how Bell and the Marines are making out with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z upgrades.  If only I didn't have to wake up in the morning then I could enjoy the fantasy of us upgrading the CH-146s and maybe buying a couple of dozen AH-1Zs as well,  commonality donchano....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

And here's a story on the "upgrading" of the US Army's fleet of  Chinooks to the CH-47F/G standards.  11.4 BUSD between now and 2018 to upgrade them and keep them flying well beyond that date.
The tale sounds kind of like "My Grandfather's Axe" though - My Grandfather bought and Axe, my Father replaced the handle, I replaced the head, but it is still my Grandfather's Axe.  When you replace rotors, engines, drivetrains, avionics and fuselages what is left from the original aircraft?

I wonder how much it would cost to buy some of these "Upgraded" CH-47s and AH-1Zs.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Jan 2005)

Griffons, arggghhhhhh...
I don't have the same technical knowledge most of you guys do but I have flown on them numerous times..
I have also flown on Chinooks, twin hueys, USMC Sea Knights, Czech Hips and Dutch cougars...
The griffon is such a little kid compare to the others..

Put your helmets on, I have a war story...
John Manley (He was like minister of foreign affairs or something at the time) came to visit us in Bosnia on Roto 8 and he would not fly on a CF Griffon. He managed to get the dutch to   fly him into our camp at Tomislavgrad.
I was kind of torqued and wished that the Canadian public knew this. What the CF helicopters weren't good enough for him? 
Oh well.

I know for sure the this story is true by the way because I was with RCR Para and we provided LZ security for him.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (19 Jul 2005)

War Story that  made the news  , last visit from the Pesident of the United States to see the Prime Minister Jean .
There is a protocol things that  says host nation leaves last.  Marine One had to leave 45 minutes  earlier then required so that  Canadian Helicopter carrying the PMO and staff would be able to arrive a head the US Prez.  The US Prez went on a planned sight seeing touring over Ottawa in to Quebec , I forget where the meeting was being held at in Quebec but our helicopter needed a head start to get there before the rest and it had to be the last one in the air. 
We do need a faster , more powerful taxi  system here


----------



## Black Watch (23 Jul 2005)

BHere's a good one: when a Griffon flies overhead, there will be clear sky for at least 10 days.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2005)

Black Watch,

Quit littering the board with your inane comments. No one thinks they're funny, the one above doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2005)

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/sep/SB-Navy_Wants.htm

Joint Common Missile not yet dead?  I know Lockheed Martin has been pursuing the programme on its own nickel.

Maybe congress will come to the rescue.  Or maybe the pentagon will decide their are no available options.


----------



## baboon6 (19 Aug 2005)

I've seen pictures of USMC UH-1Ns and Ys fitted with Miniguns and rocket pods. Has this kind of armament ever been fitted to a Griffon? Do armament kits exist? (Besides door guns)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Aug 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> I've seen pictures of USMC UH-1Ns and Ys fitted with Miniguns and rocket pods. Has this kind of armament ever been fitted to a Griffon? Do armament kits exist? (Besides door guns)



There are a few links on here with pics provided that answer your question


----------



## Black Watch (19 Aug 2005)

But with all the thigns i read on this topick, why don't we replace Griffons by blackhawks?


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (21 Aug 2005)

There is a common misconception that Blackhawk's are magical low-maintanence birds. While they are awsome to fly in and are one of the workhorse's of the U. S. army (the other being the Chinook) they require a lot of maintanence time after so much of hours of flight time. Plus it's not built in Quebec so we'll never see it!


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

US ordering Thermobaric Warheads for Hellfire.  That would give the Hellfire Thermobaric, Bunker-Buster and Anti-Tank warheads that could be integrated with Longbow, Brimstone, Joint Common Missile and Netfires Loitering Attack Missiles and Netfires Precision Attack Missiles,  all of which are derivatives of the same family with ranges from 5 km to >70km.


----------

