• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

No Canadian helocopters in Afghanistan; 30 Aug 07 - Sen Kenny calls for this to change.

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
421
Points
760
I was watching the military channel Thursday  night and they were running a program Task Force Red Dog. It was about a res force of Marines called upon to fly  helicopters in Afghanistan.  They showed the various choppers used by the unit,  BlackHawks, Cobras,Ch47s, and UH 1 Bell Helicopters for varios missions.
if they can fly UH1 birds why is Canada's new Bell Choppers not being used?

I do not understand much about helicopters and flight planning so educate me on this decesion. Or is it a case of it is not being  a CH47 model so we will not fly it?
or is the Canadian Bell Helicopter not able to fly in those conditions?
thanks in advance for the answers
 
Short answer:

We own the Gryphon, which for a variety of reasons, is unsuitable for use in Afghanistan, or anywhere outside of Canada, with the possible exception of Bosnia Roto 48.

...so we have to borrow helo lift from our allies.
 
The Bell Model 412 (CH-146 Griffon) is considered by many in the CF to be anemic in terms of engine power, and that is in Canadian climates. I would hate to see what would happen if they were operating in the hot and high climate of Afghanistan, as it is common sentiment that due to the climate, the Griffons probally would lack the capability to carry any useful load.
 
i should of said giffon choppers , sorry for any confusion.  they are the newer choopers, i last rode on the kiowa and the twin engine hueys back in my days.
why did we buy under powered birds?????????????????

duh........must be  a Canadian Government purchase I forgot the rules for buying  things with the government. must not be what is required just look good on paper, that is just one of the many rules they have for purchasing
 
FormerHorseGuard said:
i should of said giffon choppers , sorry for any confusion.  they are the newer choopers, i last rode on the kiowa and the twin engine hueys back in my days.
why did we buy under powered birds?????????????????

duh........must be  a Canadian Government purchase I forgot the rules for buying  things with the government. must not be what is required just look good on paper, that is just one of the many rules they have for purchasing

Blame Brian Mulroney, as he single sourced the bird from Bell, as they were transfering production of the Model 412 to Quebec, and he needed to do something to help boost polls in Quebec. The Auditor General was later on extremely critical of the government's decision to purchase the helicopter and in regards to single sourcing the helicopter without a competition.
 
Are you just providing facts or trying to hint at a corollary between that and the apparent contract awarding to Boeing for the Chinook and C 17?
 
Quagmire said:
Are you just providing facts or trying to hint at a corollary between that and the apparent contract awarding to Boeing for the Chinook and C 17?

Only the facts. I am in favour of the Chinook and C-17, as it is evident that they are the best solutions the CF can acquire today, compared to back then with the Griffons were procured as there were other more superior options (the Griffon purchase in my opinion was a political tool to garner votes in Quebec). And there is a proper competition with Chinook and C-17 procurement, it is just that it so happens that one company can satify the requirements.
 
Exxxxxccccccccceeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttttt.
 
Armymatters said:
The Bell Model 412 (CH-146 Griffon) is considered by many in the CF to be anemic in terms of engine power, and that is in Canadian climates. I would hate to see what would happen if they were operating in the hot and high climate of Afghanistan, as it is common sentiment that due to the climate, the Griffons probally would lack the capability to carry any useful load.

DISAGREE

Armymatters said:
Only the facts. I am in favour of the Chinook and C-17, as it is evident that they are the best solutions the CF can acquire today, compared to back then with the Griffons were procured as there were other more superior options (the Griffon purchase in my opinion was a political tool to garner votes in Quebec). And there is a proper competition with Chinook and C-17 procurement, it is just that it so happens that one company can satisfy the requirements.

AGREE




I'd fly a CH146 Griffon for my operator brethren around K-har without a second thought.  IMO, politics are keeping it out of theatre...maybe if the Chinook clears any ACAN contests we can whip a det of 146 into K-har in double-time.  While I'd love to get back in the cockpit of a '47, I'd like even more to beat around the hills of Kandahar/Helmand/Oruzgan in a Griffy just to point out some of the ongoing fallacies regarding the Griffon.  It doesn't do what a Chinook can do, but it certainly does a fair bit more than what the Twin Huey did.  While the Twin was what I flew the largest chunk of flight time on (~1,500 hrs), I'm not about to romanticize its capabilities as something far superior to the Griffon.  Sure, Griffon was primarily a politically-directed compromise procurement, but it is not the piece of crap that those who haven't flown it themselves say it is...

My 2 ¢

Duey
 
I sort of figured the 412 could handle the taskings over there, if the UH 1 could do the job, I figured a newer machine could do the job. I was not thinking the Bell 412 could do the job of a CH 47, that  would be like saying the mini van could do the job of the greyhound bus.
I was just curious why the 412 was not operating in the present taskings.

if they sent the 412 over I am sure there is a wide range of taskings it could provide and the crews would get to see some operational action that would be useful back home in training crews that were going over there to work.
thanks for the answers guys
 
Duey:

Please correct me if this is wrong but was it you that said that the turbines in the Griffon were fine, it was the transmission that was the weak link. So much so that the turbines were actually de-rated?

Thanks
 
Armymatters said:
Blame Brian Mulroney, as he single sourced the bird from Bell, as they were transfering production of the Model 412 to Quebec, and he needed to do something to help boost polls in Quebec. The Auditor General was later on extremely critical of the government's decision to purchase the helicopter and in regards to single sourcing the helicopter without a competition.

Ah!  Yess!  Back when the EH 101 was all the front page news prior to the election, this purchase was announced in a one paragraph statement hidden away on page 26, or so, of the Globe and Mail.  An announcement that the Bell plant between Montreal and Mirabel, had gotten the contract to replace the Twin Huey.  ;D
 
Jantor said:
Duey:

Please correct me if this is wrong but was it you that said that the turbines in the Griffon were fine, it was the transmission that was the weak link. So much so that the turbines were actually de-rated?

Thanks

Jantor, that's roughly the gist of it.  The Griffon's PW&C PT6T-3D is an upgrade from the Twin Huey's PT6T-3B.  Better hot and high performance and single-engine (OEI) capability.  Both PT6T PowerPac's (3B and 3D) were de-rated automatically from their theoretical maximum combined power of 1800shp, however the derated amount when both engines were operating is greater in the Griffon because its transmission can accept a greater continuous power input -- max 2-engine power on the Huey was 1290 shp and is 1584 shp for the Griffon.  This may be partially be offset by the fact that the Griffon is a little heavier than the Huey, but the additional dual engine power available through the transmission is a real-world boost in the seat of the pants.  :D

George Wallace said:
Ah!  Yess!  Back when the EH 101 was all the front page news prior to the election, this purchase was announced in a one paragraph statement hidden away on page 26, or so, of the Globe and Mail.  An announcement that the Bell plant between Montreal and Mirabel, had gotten the contract to replace the Twin Huey.  ;D

George, entry in my log book: 29 APR 1992 - 1.0/1.5(hr) YOW-YMX-YOW - VIP M.MASSE.  I actually flew the guy to Bell to make the announcement...forgive me, I knew not what I was doing...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey
 
FormerHorseGuard said:
I sort of figured the 412 could handle the taskings over there, if the UH 1 could do the job, I figured a newer machine could do the job. I was not thinking the Bell 412 could do the job of a CH 47, that  would be like saying the mini van could do the job of the greyhound bus.
I was just curious why the 412 was not operating in the present taskings.

if they sent the 412 over I am sure there is a wide range of taskings it could provide and the crews would get to see some operational action that would be useful back home in training crews that were going over there to work.
thanks for the answers guys

USMC Huey's have an even further upgraded transmission and have two GE T700 turboshafts, as found in the Blackhawk, EH-101, and S-92. In short, USMC Huey's have even more power than our 412's. Not only that, they are also slightly larger than the Bell 412.
 
HML/A-157 was flying the UH-1N in Afghanistan...the UH-1Y is not operational yet.  The UH-1N has the same PW&C PT6T-3B as out CH135 Twin Huey had...
 
Duey,

you are correct that the twin pack is derated for the Griffon.  The PT6 is a good engine.  It is used on numerous a/c around the world, such as the Dash series a/c, etc.  I'm not sure if the other readers understand the exact way a helo gets lift, i.e. can take off and fly.  So, I will try to explain it simply.  The rotors are actually airfoils (wings) spinning around.  The only way you can get lift is to have air flowing over the airfoils (rotors).  In a helo, this is done by spinning the rotors around.  This causes the air to go over the rotors and because of their shape, lift is produced, and the helo can take off.  The thing that affects lift the most (lift varies with the square of the velocity while the other terms only vary to the first power) is the velocity of the air going over and under the blades.  So, why don't we speed up the rotors?  Well, a problem comes up where the rotor blade tips (end of rotor) could actually go supersonic if the rotors were sped up too fast.  That is really bad and could cause the blades to break apart, stall, etc.  Generally put in the bad category.  Another way to explain it is to tie a rock to a string and spin it around.  The rock has to be going faster than the string near your hand in order to cover the larger distance the rock travels in the same time that the distance the string near your hand travels.  So, if we can't speed up the blades to get more lift, what do we do?  Well, the answer is to increase the surface area of the blades.  You can do this different ways but the two general ways are to increase the number of blades or increase the width (i.e. chord) of the rotors (blades).  However, this causes another problem.  This will increase the torque that is felt by the mast.  This torque has to be overcome by the engines (through the combining reduction gear box, then through the transmission, and then through the mast).  A helo's engines are almost always turboshafts, such as the PT6 is (smaller helos actually use piston engines).  Turboshafts don't give a high velocity of air out the rear end, like turbojets do.  Most of the power a turboshaft produces goes into turning the compressor and then the remainder goes into the shaft that goes into the reduction gear box.  As for the mast, the thicker the mast, the more torque it can take.
Now, for the Griffon as compared to the Twin Huey or the new Yankee class "Super Huey" that the Marines have planned.  The Griffon was originally designed to have a larger payload than the Twin Huey.  It does have a greater all up weight (aircraft plus payload, essentially) than the twin.  One other major difference is that the Twin never had what is called a torque tube.  The Griffon does.  This measures the torque that the mast is feeling.  I venture to say that a lot of Hueys were being overtorqued and nobody knew about it.  The Griffon has a small mast as compared to the Black Hawks, etc.  Therefore, it is torque limited, thus the engines must be de-rated.
From above, one can see that you can't just throw in more powerful engines in a helo and hope to get more lift and thus be able to take off with more mass.  It ain't going to happen.  In combination with the more powerful engines, you need a beefed up RGB, tranny, and most importantly, mast.  That is what the Super Huey (Yankee model) has, in combo with the more powerful GE engines. 
On a side note, unless my material is date (been away from Tac Hel for one year now), the Super Huey has not entered into full production due to a lack of older models to refurbish (read war in Iraq causing these probs).  Duey, do you know if this prob has been fixed?

Duey, when did you get to 427?  I don't remember seeing you there when I was there (I saw your pic in front of the Chinook in a different post).

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse anyone.  I'm available for questions if you have any.  I was at Tac Hel and I'm an AERE (Aerospace Eng).
 
Scoobs

From your Quote below:

Scoobs said:
...........  The Griffon was originally designed to have a larger payload than the Twin Huey.  It does have a greater all up weight (aircraft plus payload, essentially) than the twin.  One other major difference is that the Twin never had what is called a torque tube.  The Griffon does.  This measures the torque that the mast is feeling.  I venture to say that a lot of Hueys were being overtorqued and nobody knew about it.  The Griffon has a small mast as compared to the Black Hawks, etc.  Therefore, it is torque limited, thus the engines must be de-rated.
From above, one can see that you can't just throw in more powerful engines in a helo and hope to get more lift and thus be able to take off with more mass.  It ain't going to happen.  In combination with the more powerful engines, you need a beefed up RGB, tranny, and most importantly, mast.  That is what the Super Huey (Yankee model) has, in combo with the more powerful GE engines.

Am I to take it that the Griffon was originally designed to have a larger mast, but it (the mast) never made it to production ?
 
Back
Top