S-76D
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell has given the S-76D its "approval" based on the S-76 record of over 5.6m flight hours.
If so it would rather undermine the whole 7/7/1 safety philosophy the Shelldroids have been promoting for 6 years or so, which is heavily biased to introducing equipment certified to the to the latest standards.
Of course the accident record of the '100% compliant' S-92 might have caused them to reconsider the benefit.
I supose you believe that if you stick to the 2003 marketing mantra everyone will forget about the MGB!
This is without absolute full FAR JAR latest amendment compliance (the D should get 93%)
Remember too the aircraft is not certified yet either. Plus the S-92's history tells us that problems can emerge just months before certification.
And what's that a percentage of? Individual certification clauses, safety benefit or just a meaningless statistic?
And what is the missing 7%?
By definition one might suspect they are the most recent items and therefore some of the more useful features certified on the AW139 and to be certified to the future EC175 and EC X4 (funny how you didn't mention those other competing mediums
).Fatigue and damage tolerance of structure...minimising critical rotor and transmission failure modes...crashworthiness...30 min loss of lube test...???????????
If you are so well informed can you explain the delays in certification too?
Regarding Certification to latest FAR/JAR and the implication on safety I have to play Devil's advocat:
The real irony is that besides the S-92 which is certified according to latest FAR/JAR standards and has a serious design flaw with the MGB, the other Helo which fully fulfills the standards (AW139) on paper likes to shed its tail after less then 5 years of service life.
So much for
Unfortunately the manufacturers fulfilled the new rules maybe by the books but unfortunately not by the spirit of the rules.
Therefore I would not overrate this compliance stuff. It's good design that counts not paperwork....
The real irony is that besides the S-92 which is certified according to latest FAR/JAR standards and has a serious design flaw with the MGB, the other Helo which fully fulfills the standards (AW139) on paper likes to shed its tail after less then 5 years of service life.
So much for
Fatigue and damage tolerance of structure
Therefore I would not overrate this compliance stuff. It's good design that counts not paperwork....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPP
- Yes they have gone worldwide.
Sav - thanks for asking around and finding I was accurate.
Industry Insider
- Shell have not approved the S-76D and will not as it is a nonALARP, retrograde step for the reasons mentioned by contributors above, which is rightly not attracting interest from offshore customers.
- Yes they have gone worldwide.Sav
- thanks for asking around and finding I was accurate.Industry Insider
- Shell have not approved the S-76D and will not as it is a nonALARP, retrograde step for the reasons mentioned by contributors above, which is rightly not attracting interest from offshore customers.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well for a start the EC225 fuel system hasn't been repeatedly overpressured like the S-92s
and it has certain MRGB oil system advantages too old boy.
Any suggestion that the S-76 is in the same league as the EC225 is both disengenious and ignorant.
Seriously, you shouldn't really believe everything that the marketeers say.
and it has certain MRGB oil system advantages too old boy.Any suggestion that the S-76 is in the same league as the EC225 is both disengenious and ignorant.
Seriously, you shouldn't really believe everything that the marketeers say.
There have been accidents in that 6 million hours though, including Shell's last fatalities in UK and US.
In spite of the very latest and greatest safety and certification standards, Rotorheads records numerous AW139 sorties that ended in tragedy – or very nearly so - with only a fraction of the S-76's fleet hours, so I’m not so sure that pedestal you preach from has sure footings.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the last US incident you refer to was as a result of a cause not within the boundaries of the OEM to control, so hardly the OEM or platform to blame
The aftermarket windshield was only designed to early 1970s bird strike standards and that is why the accident happened. Things would be different on an AB139 (for example).
In fact it is a very good example of the perils of operating an aircraft that was certified to old rules.
The aftermarket windshield was only designed to early 1970s bird strike standards and that is why the accident happened. Things would be different on an AB139 (for example).
The aftermarket windshield was only designed to early 1970s bird strike standards and that is why the accident happened. Things would be different on an AB139 (for example).
Had the original laminated glass windscreen installed by the OEM at build not been removed and replaced with a None-OEM approved cast acrylic windshield limited to only 109 knots and never tested for this model, then I don’t believe the outcome would have been anywhere near as severe, so not so much to do with with the aircraft being certified to old rules.
.
My query remains as to the intended market for the 76D if, as is being suggested, the 76 (existing and proposed variants) has a question mark behind it in terms of suitability among OGP observant operators and indeed OAG companies themselves.
Aeromed yes, corporate certainly but .. these markets do not offer the same revenues as those associated with OAG clients and the near perpetual demand for parts (as a result of the greater hour volumes) so loved by the financial officers of aircraft manufacturers!
Or .. are with dealing with a 'we have such a substantial military market that the 76 is a kind of hobby for us' approach on the part of SAC!
Sav
My query remains as to the intended market for the 76D if, as is being suggested, the 76 (existing and proposed variants) has a question mark behind it in terms of suitability among OGP observant operators and indeed OAG companies themselves.
Aeromed yes, corporate certainly but .. these markets do not offer the same revenues as those associated with OAG clients and the near perpetual demand for parts (as a result of the greater hour volumes) so loved by the financial officers of aircraft manufacturers!
Or .. are with dealing with a 'we have such a substantial military market that the 76 is a kind of hobby for us' approach on the part of SAC!
Sav
.
When the S76 'Spirit' entered the market in 1979 numerous corporate (and a smaller number of private) operators were thrilled. Here was a 'business' helicopter the likes of which we had never really seen before. Her sleek styling, bold size and spacious cabin, combined with twin-engine 'reliability' and a smooth ride quickly propelled her into the upper echelons of VIP flight operations becoming (rightly so) queen of the mide-size corporate world where she has remained for many-a-decade.
In recent years the AW139 has given her a run for her money offering more spacious accommodation and a smoother ride along with the latest in cockpit technology and systems management.
The delays in the development of the 'D' model are disappointing for sure, but given Sikorsky's penchant for getting things right eventually, I find it hard to imagine that they will allow such a successful marque to be eroded (even at their own hands!). My confidence in Sikorsky is mixed with hope that they will in fact do the right thing and, I have wondered during the delays surrounding the 'D', what her future market will be.
One issue on my mind over the past decade has been whether the essentially four place club accommodation arrangement is going to continue serving corporate clients with the same satisfaction in the years ahead as it has in the past. Almost everywhere you look (both fixed and rotary - and certainly in the corporate world) demand for increased accommodation is on the rise. From my own assessment I would say that a 6-7 place rear cabin (offering 2-3 seats behind the 'club four' for flunkeys etc. without compromising the club space) would be ideal - some argue that a double club (8 seats) is required but at a similar price to the 76.
No doubt Sikorsky have it all figured-out but I do believe the S76 market has shifted slightly and suspect that private operations may feature increasingly in her future.
Of the 'D' Sikorsky says: "The S-76D is truly the next step in helicopter technology, setting a new standard of excellence that S-76 operators have come to expect. Power and performance are enhanced by all composite main rotor blades and optimized Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines with dual FADEC controls. Its quiet tail rotor will allow for reduced external acoustic signature and gain acceptance with the communities where it operates. Pilots will appreciate the state-of-the-art integrated Thales cockpit, its increased range and its ability to launch into known icing conditions. Passengers will love the quieter cabin."
Promising indeed, especially the news about a 'quiet tail rotor' - anyone with the inside track on how that will work? The traditional S76 tail rotor was one of those masculine properties of the rotary-wing world which prided itself in letting you know an S76 was coming and that it meant business! On the ground at flight idle the tail rotor screamed an attention which probably only helicopter pilots and mechanics could love but which would often set the hearts of boarding passengers racing (great fun for the drivers but not always appreciated by 'he who pays the bills').
Onwards with the 'D', some of the additional features advertised by Sikorsky are:
- QUIETZONE® main transmission
- Quiet Tail Rotor (QTR) with four enhanced flaw-tolerant, flexbeam composite tail rotor blades
- Two brushless, DC starter generators
Can anyone elaborate on what a 'Quietzone' transmission is and educate me on what the substitute for brushes are on a brushless generator?
Will HUMS be standard fit or optional?
Much of the work (so I understand) has been about integrating the PW210's and delivering that all important combination of performance and economy.
I hope that the outcome of the delay on this programme is that the industry receives an outstanding piece of equipment.
.
When the S76 'Spirit' entered the market in 1979 numerous corporate (and a smaller number of private) operators were thrilled. Here was a 'business' helicopter the likes of which we had never really seen before. Her sleek styling, bold size and spacious cabin, combined with twin-engine 'reliability' and a smooth ride quickly propelled her into the upper echelons of VIP flight operations becoming (rightly so) queen of the mide-size corporate world where she has remained for many-a-decade.
In recent years the AW139 has given her a run for her money offering more spacious accommodation and a smoother ride along with the latest in cockpit technology and systems management.
The delays in the development of the 'D' model are disappointing for sure, but given Sikorsky's penchant for getting things right eventually, I find it hard to imagine that they will allow such a successful marque to be eroded (even at their own hands!). My confidence in Sikorsky is mixed with hope that they will in fact do the right thing and, I have wondered during the delays surrounding the 'D', what her future market will be.
One issue on my mind over the past decade has been whether the essentially four place club accommodation arrangement is going to continue serving corporate clients with the same satisfaction in the years ahead as it has in the past. Almost everywhere you look (both fixed and rotary - and certainly in the corporate world) demand for increased accommodation is on the rise. From my own assessment I would say that a 6-7 place rear cabin (offering 2-3 seats behind the 'club four' for flunkeys etc. without compromising the club space) would be ideal - some argue that a double club (8 seats) is required but at a similar price to the 76.
No doubt Sikorsky have it all figured-out but I do believe the S76 market has shifted slightly and suspect that private operations may feature increasingly in her future.
Of the 'D' Sikorsky says: "The S-76D is truly the next step in helicopter technology, setting a new standard of excellence that S-76 operators have come to expect. Power and performance are enhanced by all composite main rotor blades and optimized Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines with dual FADEC controls. Its quiet tail rotor will allow for reduced external acoustic signature and gain acceptance with the communities where it operates. Pilots will appreciate the state-of-the-art integrated Thales cockpit, its increased range and its ability to launch into known icing conditions. Passengers will love the quieter cabin."
Promising indeed, especially the news about a 'quiet tail rotor' - anyone with the inside track on how that will work? The traditional S76 tail rotor was one of those masculine properties of the rotary-wing world which prided itself in letting you know an S76 was coming and that it meant business! On the ground at flight idle the tail rotor screamed an attention which probably only helicopter pilots and mechanics could love but which would often set the hearts of boarding passengers racing (great fun for the drivers but not always appreciated by 'he who pays the bills').
Onwards with the 'D', some of the additional features advertised by Sikorsky are:
- QUIETZONE® main transmission
- Quiet Tail Rotor (QTR) with four enhanced flaw-tolerant, flexbeam composite tail rotor blades
- Two brushless, DC starter generators
Can anyone elaborate on what a 'Quietzone' transmission is and educate me on what the substitute for brushes are on a brushless generator?
Will HUMS be standard fit or optional?
Much of the work (so I understand) has been about integrating the PW210's and delivering that all important combination of performance and economy.
I hope that the outcome of the delay on this programme is that the industry receives an outstanding piece of equipment.
.
Not sure who the "D" is aimed at. Must be Corporate, 'cause offshore could care less about ice or how quiet the tail rotor is. In these financial tailspin days I don't know whether a cheaper 76 is any easier to justify than a 139. I disagree on the ride though, the 76 is 'way smoother than a 139. Most offshore guys don't bother with the second bifiler, but the Corp guys do. If the de-ice is half decent it might make a difference - the 139 de-ice is best described by that historically appropriate Italian word "fiasco".
Cockpit is nice. I think they should have gone with something other than Thales and their rollerball controllers, maybe the same setup in the Bell 429.
Engines, hmm. The Pratt's are good, but it is going to be hard to beat the track record of that sweet Arriel 2S2 with the best FADEC on the market. Power, economy, reliability.
Nobody compares it to the 155? The 139 and 175 are both in the 7 tonne league, apples to apples what else is out there under that magic 5.7 (12500)?
Cockpit is nice. I think they should have gone with something other than Thales and their rollerball controllers, maybe the same setup in the Bell 429.
Engines, hmm. The Pratt's are good, but it is going to be hard to beat the track record of that sweet Arriel 2S2 with the best FADEC on the market. Power, economy, reliability.
Nobody compares it to the 155? The 139 and 175 are both in the 7 tonne league, apples to apples what else is out there under that magic 5.7 (12500)?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under 12,500 pounds!!!!
So does that mean that we will have to put up with another generation of FAA licensed pilots who haven't done a proper type rating course?? Heavens preserve us.
G.
G.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Somewhere along the ITCZ
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Geoffersincornwall: Sounds like an arrogant JARlander preaching on how good JAA stuff is versus how appalling FAA stuff is. Initial courses like the ones by FSI or CAE are superior to Type Ratings conducted on most JARland countries. Just compare the quality of tutorials, simulators, number of hours of both ground instruction and flight instruction between FSI and Helisim for instance... How's that in terms of proper type rating course? The fact that the regulating body has determined that no type rating was needed under 12500 doesn't mean that Pilots don't get properly trained and checked on ACs.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter Pan Pan
I am very pleased to hear that type courses are available for those discerning companies that decide that their crews deserve a proper structured course and I in no way wish to impugn the standards of FSI courses, I am sure they are excellent and equal or better than the JAR courses, I couldn't say.
You miss the point. I have had to train pilots that have come with a S76 background and similar types, but because the FAA allows pilots to work as crew members without formal training on the specific type they come complete with horror stories about what they were expected to do with little or no formal training.
I am not arrogant, just cross, annoyed that a country that should be a beacon of excellence has a regulatory system that is taking forever to get real. You guys are good despite the system not because of it. ...... and those that aren't good should lift your heads and look for a global best practice to use as a reference for what could and should be the norm. If you find that best practice is not in the US then please don't throw rocks at those who have watched their colleagues perish on the pathway to a proper way to do business.
G.
Edited for spelling
You miss the point. I have had to train pilots that have come with a S76 background and similar types, but because the FAA allows pilots to work as crew members without formal training on the specific type they come complete with horror stories about what they were expected to do with little or no formal training.
I am not arrogant, just cross, annoyed that a country that should be a beacon of excellence has a regulatory system that is taking forever to get real. You guys are good despite the system not because of it. ...... and those that aren't good should lift your heads and look for a global best practice to use as a reference for what could and should be the norm. If you find that best practice is not in the US then please don't throw rocks at those who have watched their colleagues perish on the pathway to a proper way to do business.
G.
Edited for spelling
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 9th Sep 2011 at 10:59.
Third testbed joins S76D flight test program
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 8, 2011
SOURCE Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 8, 2011
Enhanced performance, more power, and a "Grand Canyon" standard of quiet that delivers substantially reduced external noise are all proving to be the new standard in the S-76D™ helicopter as the program introduces its third prototype into testing , Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. said today. Sikorsky Aircraft is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).
"D3," the third prototype, recently flew for the first time, officially taking its place in the flight test program to serve as the primary vehicle to certify the avionics and electrical systems. The S-76D helicopter flight test program has achieved more than 500 flight hours to-date with its first two prototypes. All three prototypes were assembled at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa.
Certification testing on "D3" will begin in the 4th quarter of 2011. In addition, flight test data for the certification effort is being collected on "D1" and on "D2." An Indirect Lightning Test also was completed in August at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa. This certification test simulates lightning strikes to the aircraft to demonstrate that essential avionics and electrical equipment are thoroughly protected. The aircraft continues to demonstrate enhanced responsiveness and the power of its Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines.
"As the flight test program has grown, we have offered customers the opportunity to fly in the aircraft," said Tim Fox, Senior Program Manager on the S-76® helicopter program. "The S-76D helicopter offers a 14 percent increase in takeoff power and an 8 percent fuel efficiency over its predecessor. It is a difference the customers have noticed." The S-76D also will be fully certified for flight into known icing - a first for the S-76® helicopter family.
"We continue to build on the outstanding legacy of safety and performance of the S-76 product family as we mature the S-76D through test. We are confident that the 'D' will be a strong competitor in its class when it enters into service next year," Fox added.
The S-76D helicopter program officially launched in 2005 after an 18-month period of study to identify the key attributes that customers wanted in a new product. "Enhanced safety, avionics and performance were the big requests," Fox said.
The S-76D offers a fully integrated avionics system by Thales® that includes advanced digital maps and enhanced flight systems to deliver an aircraft that reduces pilot workload.
Aircraft certification is planned for the first quarter of 2012, with first deliveries also slated for 2012.
The new generation S-76D helicopter will perform an array of civil missions, including executive transport, offshore oil, emergency medical services, and a multi-mission role.
Among the S-76D helicopter's features are all-composite, flaw-tolerant main rotor blades; an advanced THALES integrated avionics system and autopilot; optimized rotor system for quiet operation; active vibration control; powerful Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines; and an optional Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS) for all-weather capability.
"D3," the third prototype, recently flew for the first time, officially taking its place in the flight test program to serve as the primary vehicle to certify the avionics and electrical systems. The S-76D helicopter flight test program has achieved more than 500 flight hours to-date with its first two prototypes. All three prototypes were assembled at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa.
Certification testing on "D3" will begin in the 4th quarter of 2011. In addition, flight test data for the certification effort is being collected on "D1" and on "D2." An Indirect Lightning Test also was completed in August at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa. This certification test simulates lightning strikes to the aircraft to demonstrate that essential avionics and electrical equipment are thoroughly protected. The aircraft continues to demonstrate enhanced responsiveness and the power of its Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines.
"As the flight test program has grown, we have offered customers the opportunity to fly in the aircraft," said Tim Fox, Senior Program Manager on the S-76® helicopter program. "The S-76D helicopter offers a 14 percent increase in takeoff power and an 8 percent fuel efficiency over its predecessor. It is a difference the customers have noticed." The S-76D also will be fully certified for flight into known icing - a first for the S-76® helicopter family.
"We continue to build on the outstanding legacy of safety and performance of the S-76 product family as we mature the S-76D through test. We are confident that the 'D' will be a strong competitor in its class when it enters into service next year," Fox added.
The S-76D helicopter program officially launched in 2005 after an 18-month period of study to identify the key attributes that customers wanted in a new product. "Enhanced safety, avionics and performance were the big requests," Fox said.
The S-76D offers a fully integrated avionics system by Thales® that includes advanced digital maps and enhanced flight systems to deliver an aircraft that reduces pilot workload.
Aircraft certification is planned for the first quarter of 2012, with first deliveries also slated for 2012.
The new generation S-76D helicopter will perform an array of civil missions, including executive transport, offshore oil, emergency medical services, and a multi-mission role.
Among the S-76D helicopter's features are all-composite, flaw-tolerant main rotor blades; an advanced THALES integrated avionics system and autopilot; optimized rotor system for quiet operation; active vibration control; powerful Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines; and an optional Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS) for all-weather capability.
Deposits being received for S76D in Sikorsky Shares Program
LAS VEGAS, Oct. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX
More
LAS VEGAS, Oct. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX
Associated Aircraft Group (AAG) announced today it is accepting deposits for the Sikorsky S-76D helicopter in Sikorsky Shares, the Sikorsky fractional ownership program. The S-76D helicopter is a highly advanced and much anticipated new model for executive transport and other missions.
The aircraft features industry-leading technologies, including de-icing so that the S-76D helicopter can be flown during unpredictable winter weather. Its advanced main rotor blade design and new Pratt & Whitney engines enhance performance and efficiency. The S-76D helicopter also is equipped with Active Vibration Control and Quiet Zone technology to ensure the smoothest and quietest ride available in the executive helicopter class.
The aircraft features industry-leading technologies, including de-icing so that the S-76D helicopter can be flown during unpredictable winter weather. Its advanced main rotor blade design and new Pratt & Whitney engines enhance performance and efficiency. The S-76D helicopter also is equipped with Active Vibration Control and Quiet Zone technology to ensure the smoothest and quietest ride available in the executive helicopter class.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savoia, don`t get too orgasmic about the S76 in the corporate world in the 1980`s. The AS 365N Dauphin family was superior in all respects bar one. Range, speed, ride quality, reliability, running costs, ease of maintenance, powerplant were all superior to the Allison engined S76. The only plus for the S76 was the cabin, which is what has made it popular with owners over the years. The Dauphin cabin, no matter how plush the interior fittings, was always like sitting on cushions on the floor and the back row of seats was always a challenge for ladies in short skirts.
The sad thing for Eurocopter was the EC 155, which addressed the problems of the cabin dimensions, saddled the airframe with a power hungry transmission which then branded the aircraft a duffer.
I think the S76D model has an assured future in that there are still many areas of the world just waking up to the existence of oil and gas reserves and for whom the D model is exactly the right size and cost. In addition, it remains popular in the corporate and charter world on the strength of its comfortable cabin. Perhaps a corporate EC 175 might be the answer.
The sad thing for Eurocopter was the EC 155, which addressed the problems of the cabin dimensions, saddled the airframe with a power hungry transmission which then branded the aircraft a duffer.
I think the S76D model has an assured future in that there are still many areas of the world just waking up to the existence of oil and gas reserves and for whom the D model is exactly the right size and cost. In addition, it remains popular in the corporate and charter world on the strength of its comfortable cabin. Perhaps a corporate EC 175 might be the answer.
Among rotorcraft there are few more handsome examples than the S76 - in fact only one in my view. Helicopters, in general, (to me) are fairly ugly contraptions but I do believe Sikorsky got it right in terms of exterior design aesthetics.
I am aware that it was only in the 'B' model that decent performance was to be realised and that this was at the expense of thirsty engines. I remember too the AS365 .. and was 'given a go' by a chap who I think was called David Sale. I had visited McAlpine's in the early 90's (perhaps 1990) to consider the Dauphin for a client and was handed over to David who at the time was flying with P&O. I actually didn't find it as smooth as the 76 but .. perhaps that ship was poorly tracked? Also, with a good load on board, the Dauphin made an unbelievable din when approaching at speed; not that the 76 was quiet mind you!
I do hope that Sikorsky 'get it right' with the 'D' model but .. my impression is that the VIP/Corporate requirements of the future are going to lean towards a 4 x 2 arrangement where either two seats (or a bench seat) are available behind the traditional club 4 - a little like the EC145 interior (below) but with more space and with the club 4 isolated from the rear 2-3 seats.
Regarding Dauphins (old and new) the crew at Starspeed certainly seem to like them.
EC145 Interior
I am aware that it was only in the 'B' model that decent performance was to be realised and that this was at the expense of thirsty engines. I remember too the AS365 .. and was 'given a go' by a chap who I think was called David Sale. I had visited McAlpine's in the early 90's (perhaps 1990) to consider the Dauphin for a client and was handed over to David who at the time was flying with P&O. I actually didn't find it as smooth as the 76 but .. perhaps that ship was poorly tracked? Also, with a good load on board, the Dauphin made an unbelievable din when approaching at speed; not that the 76 was quiet mind you!
I do hope that Sikorsky 'get it right' with the 'D' model but .. my impression is that the VIP/Corporate requirements of the future are going to lean towards a 4 x 2 arrangement where either two seats (or a bench seat) are available behind the traditional club 4 - a little like the EC145 interior (below) but with more space and with the club 4 isolated from the rear 2-3 seats.
Regarding Dauphins (old and new) the crew at Starspeed certainly seem to like them.
EC145 Interior
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Its not really relevant because it has largely missed the marketplace
Will the D turn out to be known as the "B+" ?
