Jump to content
Blackmac

Griffon Helicopters (412's)

Recommended Posts

The DOC for the H145  is about $1450 USD an hour, As mentioned before it has very short legs, at 2 hours, plus reserve, the aux tank is small and adds maybe another 30 to that. it has no space/weight for armour or armament. is super sensitive to ground operations with a Mast Moment indicator that will go off for nothing, and as stated before, all the control cables for the engines go up the center windshield post, and can be taken out by a bird...

the UH-72 is a great machine for Liaison, and training, and medevac, but it will not be able to carry two M134 minigus, so it can be top cover for the chinooks, and where the CH-146 struggles to get even 8 troops on, you wouldn't get 2 on a H145 if it was up-armoured and armed...

Edited to say, that the cost for an H145 is also staggering, at $13.5 million, you can get an AW139 for that, with double the capacity, and 30 knots faster cruise speed. The H135 cost about 3.5 to $5 million and are only about 1000 to 1500 lbs behind the H145 in max gross weight and carries fuel for 3 hours...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they...Canadian military... is asking Bell to come up with a retrofit for their under powered 412....why would they not just tell them to get the Y model. I am sure they would be willing to do some horse trading. The 145 is nowhere near capable of doing what a Y model huey will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/h145m-battlefield-support-helicopter/

Here is some added info on the H145M and seems to be popular with the Germans and others militaries in the EU and elsewhere, with the five-bladed model it would be even better. The only problem it has, it's not American. 

The rotor head is the same fixed torsion straps as on the BO105 that the Red Bulls Use in aerobatic maneuvers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I would love to see them get the 145. I personally would love to get a check out on the one with the tailrotor. I read that they will not be putting the 5 rotor unit on the one with the tailrotor as opposed to the fenestron one. Too bad! The five bladed one has blades attached directly to the mast as opposed to attaching to a head...very strange. But I am sure Bell will be happy to take the cash for whatever they come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DGP said:

I have to say that I would love to see them get the 145. I personally would love to get a check out on the one with the tailrotor. I read that they will not be putting the 5 rotor unit on the one with the tailrotor as opposed to the fenestron one. Too bad! The five bladed one has blades attached directly to the mast as opposed to attaching to a head...very strange. But I am sure Bell will be happy to take the cash for whatever they come up with.

DGP; for a guy that has been around for as long as you have, I would have thought you would you be glad to have a helicopter without an actual tail rotor. Does anybody have any idea how many people have been killed by tail rotors?? Personally, I have always hated them as an anti-torque device. I loved the Gazelle with the original fan, no stump problems.

I also like the fact, with the original rotor head from the BO105, makes it a better machine for military maneuvers.

If Hydro One had been flying an Airbus helicopter with a Fan at Tweed, four people would still be alive. Stupid is as Stupid was and still is.

INMHO, twin-engined helicopters for working around powerlines, including power line patrol, and Cat 1 take-off, mandatory and NO tail rotor. Lives matter, not dollars when doing a risk assessment.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never flown a ship with a fenestron  but I have talked with guys that flew the 600N. They were not impressed. Having flown a 407 for nearly 20 years I can say that that tailrotor is awesome. I will knock on my head...haven't dinged a main or t/r yet. I talked with a few guys at the HAI's that I have attended that flew both 145 and they all said they liked the tailrotor version better...who knows. The problem I see is the mast....its like the ones on the 117 I believe which does not like off level landings.I could tell you stories about the ones that Toronto Heli had....especially the one that was based in Kenora.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am a little bit confused as a 600 N doesn't have a fenestron...me bad. Happens to us old guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently fart around in the 135 and love it, it has some peculiar vibrations but has lots of room in the cabin for an airframe that is as long as a Jetbox...

The H145 (BK-117D2 and D3) will be better than previous iterations but the D2 with the 4 blades has some pretty severe vibrations and issues that cause airsickness amongst the people in the back. I know, who cares... But again, size IS a thing and this is simply not the machine needed.

As far as the UH-1Y, the low cost was due to parts being used were from older airframes, UH-1N bodies, and Cobra tail booms, with the new 4 bladed rotor system and T-700 engines (CT-7).

 

In Europe, they have very short distances to travel, and don't need much endurance, but Canada is HUGE and the distances are enormous as most of you already know. 2 hours+ reserve simply isn't enough. Wether the machine is assembled in Germany, or Texas matters little in the end. Capabilities count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Winnie said:

I currently fart around in the 135 and love it, it has some peculiar vibrations but has lots of room in the cabin for an airframe that is as long as a Jetbox...

The H145 (BK-117D2 and D3) will be better than previous iterations but the D2 with the 4 blades has some pretty severe vibrations and issues that cause airsickness amongst the people in the back. I know, who cares... But again, size IS a thing and this is simply not the machine needed.

As far as the UH-1Y, the low cost was due to parts being used were from older airframes, UH-1N bodies, and Cobra tail booms, with the new 4 bladed rotor system and T-700 engines (CT-7).

 

In Europe, they have very short distances to travel, and don't need much endurance, but Canada is HUGE and the distances are enormous as most of you already know. 2 hours+ reserve simply isn't enough. Wether the machine is assembled in Germany, or Texas matters little in the end. Capabilities count.

I don't disagree with any of your observations, but, how many long distance do helicopters normally fly from there home base under a normal workday? Working from a base camp not very far, when moving drills, fire fighting, basically local work and as fuel is part of the all up weight, is normally kept it to a minimum. It basically comes down to what application you are using a helicopter for and what type is applicable for the job you are doing. e.i. putting an antenna on top of the CN Tower, using a B412, not good.

The UH-1Y is a bastardized military aircraft and will never be certified under the FAA for commercial use.

The Griffon B412), certified FAA, H145 FAA, AW139 FAA, S-92 FAA, and the list goes on. Most governments are purchasing helicopters that are primarily certified in the country of origin for civilian or military use with add-ons as required. One of the reasons for making the parts the same is to have a better resale value and eliminate the use of bogus parts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...we are talking  military use...Canadian military. so who cares about civilian certified. UH-1Y is Us military ....you have some where near 100 Canadian 412 that could be converted to UH-IY. I say go for it boys! And tell them to do it in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...