CH-146 Griffon

[TR23]

Hello All,
I was wondering if someone would take the time to explain some of the problems with the CH-146 Griffon helicopter.   I understand that it seems to have a poor reputation in the forces, and I was hoping to learn more about why.   I believe that the Griffon is based on the Bell Helicopter 412 twin engine design.   I also thought that the 412 was development of the Twin Huey, which itselt stemmed from the original Huey.   Wasn't the original Huey revered as a marvel of design?   I would have thought that an update to the Huey, especially adding twin engine safety and capability to an already sound design would produce an excellent helicopter.   You can probably see by now that I know little about what I'm asking- I'm just hoping to learn more.   Please don't think that I'm suggesting the Griffon's reputation is undeserved, I'm simply trying to understand the problems.   Thanks.

 

[Inch]

First, multiple engines aren't for safety, they're for speed and power. The old saying amongst pilots is that 2 engines just means that you've got twice the chance of having an engine failure. In most cases, a twin engine helo with a failed engine won't be able to hover with that engine out, kind of a problem if you don't have an airport or a long, flat, and hard surface to do a run-on landing.

For the Griffon, it has a higher max weight than the Huey, but the aircraft itself also weighs more. As it works out according to the numbers published in Jane's, the Griffon's payload is 200 lbs less than the Huey's. The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges. If you compare the Huey to the Griffon, the numbers are quite similar and IMO, most of the negative press on the Griffon is unwarranted.  As for the rest of it, I'll leave that to Strike, our resident Griffon pilot.

 

[mdh]

The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges

Inch,

This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view?

I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?  Does it just depend on the role?

cheers, mdh

 

[Inch]

The main problem I think is expectations, it's not going to perform like a Blackhawk yet everyone compares it's performance to a Blackhawk, apples to oranges

Inch,

This is probably an unfair question, but how does the Griffon stack up to the Blackhawk overall as a tac helicopter in your view?

I know that they may not be strictly comparable, but are there some advantages in using the Griffon or is the BH just plainly superior?   Does it just depend on the role?

cheers, mdh

Keep in mind that my opinion isn't grounded in being a TacHel pilot, but here it goes.

It all depends on what you're using it for and where you're using it. The Griffon is smaller and lighter, thus it can fit into smaller clearings in the trees and it doesn't put down as much rotorwash as a larger helicopter. The Griffon has skids so I'd be inclined to say that it's probably better at landing on soft surfaces (snow, etc) since the weight is more spread out than the 3 points of contact that the Blackhawk wheels make. I think I've seen pictures of the Blackhawk with skis attached to the landing gear so that would help, but I'm not certain how common this is or if it's a quick add-on.

Overall, I think the Blackhawk would be more suited to the majority of the roles that we use the Griffon for. However, I've said it once and I'll say it again, I believe very strongly that the right kit should be used for the job. The Blackhawk would bring it's own limitations with it, the US Army uses a few different helos for their Tac Aviation, whereas we try to use one and as I stated above, expectations that it should be able to do all jobs well is why the Griffon draws so much flak from the naysayers.

 

[Garry]

The Griffon replaced the Kiowa, Single Huey and the Twin Huey. The CH-47 was, iirc, gone prior to the buy.

The Kiowa was a scout helicopter. Typical tasks included FAC, Recce, RRB, FOO, MFCO, Liason, and Airmobile support. These taskings required low altitude flight (app 3 feet agl) as well as manouvering in tight conditions, at times flying under standard telephone wires (to avoid observation). This is a tough environment for a 3,000 pound aircraft, very (VERY) challenging for a 9,000 pound aircraft.

The Single Huey was a SAR aircraft, based (by the time of the Griffon arrival) solely at Jet airbases, and used to (primarily) retrieve downed aircrew. The Griffon does a fine job of that....although the winch tends to fail, and the static electricity generated by the aircraft is quite stunning, and tends to make those on the ground pay for any mistakes they make (such as grabbing the cable before it hits the ground)

The Twim Huey was employed primarily as an airmobile platform, transporting troops around the battlefield. It also moved some artillery guns. The Griffon is unable to move the same amount of men and material (weight limited) as the Huey could, nor can it move artillery pieces as far as the Huey could (again, weight limited).

The Griffon has better avionics and flight management sytems than the Huey did.

Cheers-Garry

 

[TR23]

Hey, thanks for the info, this is great.   I'm really enjoying what i've learned from this site, and I appreciate everyone putting up with someone who knows little to nothing.

What Garry said about the Kiowa provided the answer to something that had been kicking around in my head for awhile.   I had been pondering the possibility of reconfiguring some of the Griffons to an armed observation/scouting role, similar to the 'Kiowa to Kiowa Warrior' program in US Army Aviation.   I had thought that since both the Kiowa and the Griffon were Bell helicopters(meaning that Bell has experience in this kind of program), and seeing how Bell has a division in Montreal, this might be seen as a politically 'do-able' upgrade.   In my imagination i had seen new avionics, some sort of MMS (Mast Mounted Sight) like the Kiowa Warriors, and some light weaponry, like direct fired rockets or heavy guns, maybe even light/medium armour.   I imagine that while the troops would love true attack helicopter support, I can't see funding for that coming, even with budget increases.   So i thought any kind of air support would be appreciated.

I also thought that if Canada increased it's aerial recce abilities, and integrated them with the Coyote on the ground, as well as our infantry recce platoons, and UAV assets (which I'm not too sure of how well developed they are) we might be able to offer that as a 'package' option to allied/coalition operations.   I believe the US asked for coyote support on various operations, and it would seem like a 'high profile' operation that would look good for the army and the Canadian government.   This all popped into my head after reading the article on Canada reprocurring Chinooks as heavy lift birds, and i started wondering if their procurement would allow any griffons to be re-tasked.   I've always been impressed with the Kiowa Warrior, it seemed like an economical solution to a problem, by adapting relatively inexpensive aircraft -really Bell 206 JetRangers, I believe.

Anyway, I take from what Garry said that adapting the griffon to this role would be a poor compromise due its high weight, and perhaps lack of manuverablity?
I don't want to seem like i think i'm an expert by any means, i just had this idea and was wondering what you guys thought of it, how/if it would work, etc...

Trevor

 

[mdh]

That's actually a good question TR23 - I was going to ask how the Griffon would stack up as a gunship - I believe that it can carry some rockets now - and that machine guns can be mounted on the doors.

 

[pipstah]

I'm gonna talk about my personnal point of view about the Gryffin. First of all, comparing the gryffin to the blackhawk is like comparing a sport car to a truck... it's fast and agile but cant load as much as we want. The gryffin right now have the option of mounted side HMG on each side. Dont remember if its the C6 or the C9 or maybe both...maybe someone can tell us. Sitting in the back of these littlebirds is kinda a good challenge... but its fun. On the winter sometime it get hard because of the tobogan. The pilots are professionnal and they try to do their best with what they have. The gryffin is doing a pretty good job but maybe for not all the roles its suppose to fullfill in the canadian forces. I dont know about the combat role it could play... if you want to use the gryffin for combat support you will need to put armor on wich mean more weight...less agile...less faster... less carrying load... it would be a nice challenge to solve! We will see with Gen Hillier what will happen... the tact helo world future seems that it will gonna change alot with the arrival of a land Gen... wich I think is pretty good. We just have to wait to see the new ideas...

 

[TR23]

Thanks for all the replies guys- it seems i was under a misconception, I had believed that the griffin was comparable to the twin huey, similar to what the USMC has, which are currently undergoing a refit to UH-1Y standard.  however, it seems that the griffin isn't as capable as the Twin Huey, especially the new standard Y model.  How do the Griffin and Huey compare?  How does a fully upgraded Huey compare to a Blackhawk?  Does the USMC operate them due to cost or preference?  Could Canada upgrade its Griffins to a smilar standard?  Tons of questions, and I hope you guys don't mind, but I'm learning tons.

 

[Inch]

K guys, it's spelled "Griffon".

You don't need a lot of armour, only a bit under and around the crew. If you're thinking along the lines of LAV armour, well that's not feasible for a helicopter. The fact is that the rotor head and blades aren't designed to take a lot of small arms fire, so armouring the hell out of it to protect the crew won't do you a whole lot of good if you take a few bullets in a rotor blade or the tail rotor gearbox. Helicopters rely on speed and agility as their primary defense, they use the contours and terrain to hide and move to where they want to go. They carry C6 GPMGs, an HMG I believe is .50 cal and up and they're not carried on any of our helos.

TR23, the Griffon is comparable to the Twin Huey, the Griffon will carry one guy less, that's pretty comparable if you ask me. I don't know the specs on the Y upgrade but I highly doubt it'll come close to a Blackhawk performance wise. The L model Blackhawks have an all up weight of 22,000 lbs. The rest of your questions I'm not too sure on so I'll leave those for Duey or someone else to answer.

 

[Strike]

Hey guys,

Sorry for the late reply.  I was busy getting ready for the field.

So, let's see what I can answer.  I never flew the Huey so I really can't compare them.  From what I've seen, the main reason some bash the Griffon is because they expect it to do the same roles the Kiowa, Iroquois (single Huey), Twin, and Chinook did.  Well, obviously not possible since it is one helicopter with only temporary add ons to change the configuration for different roles.

It certainly cannot do what a BH can.  Weight limitations (from what I have witnessed) seem to be due to the different head configuration.  Whereas most helo have all the blades attached to a single point, the Griffon has two plates laying on top of each other with the blades attached at the ends.  This generally adds for a smoother and quieter ride (unless these elastomeric bearings are cold) but also makes them a little more susceptible to torque.  You certainly can't treat it like you would a Sea King taking off from deck.  Even a Jet Ranger (of which the Kiowa is a derivation) is much more forgiving when it comes to pulling torque.

The main role we seem to be tasked with and train for is troup transport but, after the role 430 Sqn played in Haiti, we are exploring other options.  The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry.  One of their main roles was to monitor various areas with the FLIR and send reports back.  Can you imagine hearing a helicopter but not seeing it because all of their lights are out?  Suddenly you are lit up by the "Night Sun" and a dozen Army troups are shouting at you with rifles at the ready.  They did a great job.

This bring the whole Recce aspect of our job into play.  It really isn't something we do enough of but, once again, the community is trying to change this with keeping Recce quals up to date.  There once was a project called ERSTA (before my time in the Griffon) which focused on kitting the aircraft with the latest in recce equipment.  With the added bonus that these helos can quite successfully hide with the appropriate back-drop or cover, this would have been a great addition.  There's nothing better than playing 1 vs 1 (our version of hide and seek) and never being found -- even when you give the other a/c the grid where you are hiding.  Maybe Gen Hillier will revive it (or some form of it).

WRT armour, well, never had the chance to fly with it.  There are special armoured seats which are installed and are protected under, on the sides, and on the rear.  Armour is also placed in the chin bubble which is an annoyance for those who like to use the bubble when in a high hover or going into a confined area.

My personal thoughts on the Griffon?  I compare it to an SUV.  It's certainly not the beater pick-up like the Twin may have been -- works hard no matter what you do to it.  Of course, if you treat it with a bit of finess (which I am still learning; still no overtorques for me though ) you can do some great stuff.  Nothing beats zipping over the trees at 15 feet and 100 knots!

 

[Bograt]

Having spent the last two weeks in Beautiful Farnum, the only thing that kept me sane was watching the Griffons doing their low level stuff.

It kept a smile on this baby pilot as I was humping through the sticks with a ruck. -32 and the wind. I love Quebec in the winter. ;P

Cheers,

 

[mdh]

The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry

Strike,

Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress).

Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?

Cheers, mdh

 

[Strike]

The high temperatures and humid weather played havoc with their "all Up Weight" but they were extremely usefull during night ops for the Infantry

Is this similar to the problem most aircraft have operating in hot and humid climates? Or is the Griffon especially vulnerable? I remember being paranoid (getting my PPL) flying shortfield practice in a C150 when it was very hot/humid (30C plus) in southwestern Ontario. (Not to mention roasting to death in the cockpit on the ground, but I digress).

Are there occasions when the Griffon was just not operational under those conditions - or is there just extreme vigilance on the weight and balance?

It's exactly the same.  If the density altitude (density of the air at ground level when taking into account pressure and humidity) is too high more power is required to get in the air.  DA is basically an equivalent Alt reading using ICAO standards (15 degrees, 29.92) at ground level.  That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.  The DA is probably somewhere around  minus 1000 feet right now out here in Pet -- the air is nice and dense.  Service ceiling of the Griffon is 14 000 feet (Not taking into account the whole oxygen thing).

Jeez, those hours of Met and IF are really starting to pay off.

 

[mdh]

That's why right now if you were to take that 150 up it would feel like a little rocket.

That's for sure! - the rate of climb would be anemic in the 150 on hot days (II RC 150 feet per minute)   - and then on cold days almost 300 or more. (a stunning 100 HP don't ya know! not really much of a rocket at all - but I do miss that old trainer.)

Then again the real challenge was landing at the Island Airport in TO - some of the weirdest cross winds and wind shear around because of the city scape. (nothing like being on short final and the IAS drops by 10 knots).  

Thanks for the info Strike,

cheers, mdh

 

[Good2Golf]

Gents, Garry gave a good back ground on the three helos that were removed from service and portions of their separate capabilities were provided by the Griffon.   Garry and I were quite involved in the implementation of the Griffon (its entry into service) in the mid-to-later 90's, then he went on to fly them while I kept flying my desk.   There were a number of challenges including determining how the Griffon really was going to be operated by the Tactical Aviation community once it was fully entered into operational service.   There was much discussion of how much of the Kiowa's and Twin Huey's roles would the Griffon be used to provide.   In the end, the direction was principally to provide roles that the Twin Huey had provided earlier and to save until later the employment of the Griffon in the kind of recce and surveillance missions that Garry noted earlier for the Kiowa.

I'll start off by saying that the Griffon is what it is...a single main-rotor, utility helicopter that can perform a variety of tasks, either as a basic aircraft or with the addition of several mission kits (FLIR, Nitesun searchlight, C6 MG, cabin armour, skis, hoist, etc....)   Folks love to make comparisons, but a direct comparison is not always a fair thing to do.   The closest comparision to the Griffon is obviously the Twin Huey, but there are noticable iddferences between the two helicopters...both in their characteristics and in the way that they were/are employed.   Some folks (myself included) like to compare the Griffon and Twin as a Ford F-150 Lariat-trim, Super Cab with a/c, cruise, p/w, p/s, p/b and a short-bed (Griffon) with an older regular cab, long-bed, vinyl seating, no a/c, no cruise, base-model F-100 (Twin Huey).   You could put a bit more in the F-100 but the F-150 was much nicer to drive for extended periods.

As noted earlier in the thread, the Griffon is a little heavier than the Twin and even with the four-bladed rotor (vs. the Twin's two blades), leads to a noticably heavier rotor loading.   Guys may tell you that the Griffon is not quite as solid hovering on its column of air as the Twin was, until you get down into "ground effect" (by definition 1/2 the distance of the main rotor, in practive around 4-5' above the ground).   The Griffon's avionics are far more integrated than the other previous helicopters in the CF...the first of the "electric aircraft" if you will.   The Avionics Management System (AMS) uses a dual digital databus (MIL-STD-1553-B) and has Cockpit Display Units (CDUs) that the pilots uses to program the avionics, communications and some of other mission systems.   Ironically, though, it was a hybrid system that took much of the digital information running through the data-buses and reconverted it back to analog signals and (aside from the two CDUs) presented the information in a traditional "steam-driven" instrument panel.   We are missing a few flat-screen MFD (multi-function displays) that would have kept the modernization theme throughout the aircraft.

Operationally, the Griffon is not without its challenges...mind you, nor is any other helicopter.   Depending on the mission kits installed, the Griffon is limited to how much paylod it can carry.   The Griffon also has some performance limitations based on how it manages torque...which tends to oscillate more than the Twin.   This means guys will usually add a bit of a "buffer" to how much power they pull, so that they don't overtorque the aircraft inadvertantly.   Interestingly, many of the missions, like those that Spike referred to in Haiti, don't use the aircraft at its AUW (all up weight) and the capability the Griffon then provides (surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... vs. large fore mobility) it quite useful to the Task Force commander.   I think it's more an issue of finding what and where the Griffon can be best leveraged...moving large numbers of troops in an airmobile is perhaps not the best employment of the asset.

Where it's future leads (as with just about everybody else in the CF, right about now, eh?) remains to be seen.   Time will tell how the Griffon can be developed in the future to contribute to the CF.

p.s.   Just to caveat my words, I only have two hours in the Griffon...my op time was all on the CH147 and CH135 (including the infamous trip of 29 April 1992 to transport Marcel Masse to Bell in Mirabel to anounce the 100 Griffons to be purchased ).   Much of my words above were based on dealing with supporting the Griffon from a number of different positions (EW, systems, life support, engineering, employment, ops management, torque-sensitivity solutions, etc...) now for almost a decade.   I feel I know the beastie pretty well and have worked with others to make it as much as it is today (which to be honest, could have been a lot worse were it not for the contributions of lots of motivated folks).   That said, I'm still holding out for a little "something else" before I get back in the cockpit... *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*   ;D

Cheers,
Duey

*edit* - Got my Garry/Gary's mixed up...I worked for Gary, not Garry although both flew on Kiowas...mea culpa....P.S. Garry's summary of the helos was still very good, though!

 

[TR23]

Duey, that truck comparison was exactly what I needed!  I think I understand better what the Griffon is all about now, thanks to all you guys taking the time to educate a layman.  So much of what I've read bashes the Griffon, but from some of these comments I can see that it has it's role, and can be quite useful in it.

So if Duey get's his dream machine, which seems to be a new Chinook fleet to fly around, would that take some of the load of the Griffons for logistics/troop movement, perhaps allowing them to be used more in the surveillance, overwatch, illumination, small reation team insertion, etc... role that Duey and Strike brought out?  Or would the Chinooks do their thing, and the Griffons remain tasked pretty much as they are now?

 

[Good2Golf]

TR23, you're pretty much bang on!

"Hypothetically"    I think you'd see the focus of air mobility and air logistical sustainment responsibilities move to the Chinook...or whatever the medium lifter is.  Note:  I have many guys ask me why a Chinook is 'only' a 'medium' helicopter...it's a NATO designation (which is different from designations of the ICAO - Int'l Civil Avn Org)...IIRC medium is from 10,000kg to 30,000kgs. Heavy is anything over 30,000kgs max gross weight - currently only two helicopters are "heavy" that I can think of off the top of my head...MH-53E Super Sea Stallion and the Mi-26 Halo.

It would be reasonable to assume that the Griffon would take on more of a "sense" role...recce, surveillance, tactical security, observation, etc... and retain some of the lighter utility transport tasks where a medium or heavy lifter might not be best employed.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[PJOsborne]

Just adding on here... do you TacHel guys think that there's a need for a light recon / close support helo? It seems obvious from what you guys have posted that the Griffon isn't exactly cut out for that line of work    And if we're not going to use Kiowas, what else is out there? MD-500 defenders perhaps? the israeli versions can carry quite a bit of firepower from what i've seen. add a mast-mounted sight and you get a tidy (probably overloaded) little machine.. what do you think?

 

[Good2Golf]

LordOsborne, personally, I do believe that there is a place for a recon and close support helo in todays battlespace, even if Tac Hel were to get heavy lift and the Army gets UAVs.  There is a niche in the midle where helos can still contribute (if properly equipped) to the combine-arms recce team.  Interestingly, the US Army ARH (armed recconaissance hel) project looks like it will be advancing with a militarized variant of the Bell 407 helicopter.  Also interesting is that the ARH is supposed to have a nose-mounted EO/IR pos, not mast mounted.  It seems that the mast-mounted benefit (which manufacturers always capitalize on in promo videos) no longer outweighs the benefit of being able to drag a few helos onto a C17 or C130 for a quick deployment around the world in support of expeditionary forces.  The US Army also has an LUH (light utility helo) project which is rumoured to look pretty much like a Bell 212/412 type helo...no final word yet on whether it's a 2 or 4-bladed maint rotor.

So, it you loook at the functionality that the US Army is looking for in the near future, both ARH and LUH, and you look at what the candidate aircraft for those projects are, and you also look at what the Griffon is today, with some power and performance modifications, there's no reason why the Griffon could not conceivably perforam a reasonable amount of those types of missions in the future.  Before we "throw the baby out with the bath water" we should make sure what aviation tasks would remain aside from medium/heavy lift and UAV functionality and see what the CH146 could do for us there.  I don't doubt that "tomorrow's" Griffon fleet might be smaller than it is today, but I do believe there is still some capability left there that would be pretty useful for the future CF.

My 2 ¢,

Cheers,
Duey