- Reaction score
- 22,858
- Points
- 1,360
Fair enough. One does the best with what they have at their disposal.I quote from a service paper by a LCol at staff college back in 2015/16:
McRaeâs paper isnât bad, but does refer to some material that itself became part of the lore after the fact, and themselves had inaccuracies within them, including Fraserâs AG report of the day. Not laziness on anyoneâs part, just a massive amount of info being parsed and analyzed and situated and published.And this was precisley the issue - successive 10 TAG Commanders (then BGens Cuppens and Waldrum) were clear in the 1990-1992 timeframe that the LOH role was not going to be continued, nor the MTH role. In the 1994-1997 period, then BGens Henault and Pennie sought to investigate what the Griffon could do to support portions of the LOH role (the construct was terms A/B-roles, A being UTTH and B being limited LOH/recceâŠbut it didnât last long as without meaningful EO/IR available, there wasnât a valid capability to support FOO/FAC/Recce).
Hmmm, interesting position. Having flown CH-136, CH-135, CH-146, CH-147 and CH-147F, Iâll differ with that assessment. (Details to follow)
There is NO WAY a Twin Huey was out lifting a Griffon. Most Iâve put on a Hueyâs hook was 2,500lbsâŠand the old girl was bucking like a bronco. Iâm not sure where the 4,400lb figure for the Hury comes from, but it wasnât reality. I slung L5s and LG1s with Hueyâs and Griffons respectively, and the Huey would only do the L5 with the breech and some other components removed during flight, so it wasnât a release and shoot lift by any means (even Dave Brown, 2 RCHAâs CO of the day cursed the Hueyâs sling capacity).
âŠwhich FMCâs LGen Foster knew when he endorsed the CH-136âs and CH-147âs removal from serviceâŠ
Donât forget that the JCSP paper pointed out how much OVERWEIGHT the Artilleryâs flashy new LG-1 was above the requirements specifications.
Buying a 4-person car then complaining when the family grows to 5 isnât the carâs faultâŠI think you mean the CH-147(F)âŠalthough if the CH-147F hadnât come into service when it did, the CH-146 wouldnât have been going to the scrap heap any time soon.
The army can now get by with the Griffons but it won't thrive.
Maybe the army should have thought about that in 1990/1991 when it pushed for the Chinooks removal from service because it didnât want to pay for the $400M upgrade to D-model configuration.
#armyowngoalitstilllikestoblameontheairforce34yearslater
@KevinB, youâre recalling right. Not published frequently, but not unclassified, the CH-146 (B412CF, based on the B412EP) transmission was given a 1,135shp continuous rating (arising from the T400-CP-400âs original max power flat-rating) and 1,250shp takeoff/contingency rating for lifecycle consideration. While the 412EPâs transmission had an additional contingency rating of 1,350shp (and subsequently 20 more shp to 1,370shp in the EPI model), DND chose not to internally certify that rating, because it was close enough to the engineâs 1,250 flat-rated maximum powerI'm just reading specs off a book here - anyone knowledgeable chip in - Wikipedia says the CH-146 has a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T-3D Twin-Pac coupled turboshaft engine, 1,250 shp (930 kW).
The CH 1-35, on the other hand, had a 1,800 hp Pratt & Whitney Canada T400-CP-400 Twin-Pac turboshaft. Bell CH-135 âTwin Hueyâ | Canada Aviation and Space Museum
Not sure if the shp v hp rating matters here.
To be honest, 1135/1250shp was fine, since thatâs all the airframe needed to perform within spec and all the engines were designed to provide in dual-power section mode.
To clarify, a T400-CP-400 IS a PT6T-3#, just a military designationâŠthe Huey and the Griffon had the same engine with a minor variation of the fuel control system, PT6T-3B for Huey and -3D for Griffon. The 1800shp max power rating shared by both PT6T-## Twin-Pac turboshaft engines comes from the fact that it is essentially two separate PT-6 turboshaft engines of 900shp each, joined by a common gearbox. Together, the enginesâ fuel is limited by the FCI so as to not exceed transmission ratings. The 1135/1250shp to 1800shp delta was essentially a âvirtualâ figure, since the only time youâd max out an engineâŠor âpower sectionâ was when the other half of the power-pac failedâŠthen you had 900shp of one section to feed a 1135/1250shp transmission, so about 75% total power with only a single section working. There are some more exact % for OEI (one engine inoperative), but thatâs the general idea in Twin-Pac (T400/PT6T) engines.
Overall, with appropriate expectations, the Griffon does what it does decently, and quite well in many cases. There is no way a Twin Huey could have done the same CCA (close combat attack)/escort role in AFG for example as the Griffon did.
Having flown the Twin Huey and Griffon in some âdemandingâ roles, the Griffon is/was my hands down preference. The only thing I liked the Huey for better was air shows and Friday afternoon, fully rule-compliant passes by certain establishments on the Brigade/base.
Thankfully, a deliberate planned process to assess capabilities required of the tactical aviation future fleet is being conducted and the next Tactical Aviation Capability Set (nTACS), through collaboration and consultation with all existing and potential user agencies will (eventually) result in as best a branch capability as possible (certainly better than the politically-driven, rice-bowled solutions from the late-80s/early-90s.
