SAS and company here have a point about it being time for an S-92 upgrade. Not due to just the time/technology consideration, but the inevitable GW creep and mission expansion. Note that the original S-92 design was laid down in the 1990’s for a 23000 lb machine. During an extended design and development period this weight morphed to 26500. Now it is 27700 for the civil and VH version, and 28650 for the Canadian MHP, all the while with the same power train and rotors ( except for some engine upgrades ). We did a flight loads test program preparatory to a Portuguese Coast Guard proposal at 31,800lbs ( my recollection-could be off by a bit ) and up to 9000 ft, and that data clearly indicated that rotor growth was indicated. I should add that increasing the number of main blades to 5 or better yet 6, would not only restore the maneuver and performance envelope as the GW increases, but also result in a better vibration situation, accompanied by a reduction of the parasitic weight of the vibration attenuation systems. Some of my former colleagues at SA have heard this before-going back to the initial S-92 design stage, but it was decided, and quite frankly I concurred with the strategy to put a four bladed system on the 92, providing a pre designed, pre-flight tested, pre qualified, upgraded rotor system for the UH-60 at an appropriate future time. At this point, however, and addressing only the 92, its time to increase the number of blades for the next growth version. A smart design would be back-retrofittable.
On the cockpit/controls subject, a couple of comments. First, the FBW system on the Canadian MHP has received excellent marks from both the SA and Canadian pilots, and should, one would think be a natural upgrade to the civil version. My opinion is based on the fact that the FAA has yet to address FBW in Part 29 and its attendant Advisory Circular ( which instructs on how the applicant is to meet the Part 29 standards ), and thus, folks like the AW 609 team are obtaining certification based upon “ special conditions “. I haven’t seen those special conditions published anywhere, but I’m guessing ( and I do mean guessing ) that AW briefs the FAA on how their system works and the FAA flies it, assesses whether it does what AW says, and then approves it. ( That Part 29 is two decades plus behind current flight control technology is a subject for separate discussion ). Anyway, by this line of thinking, putting the FBW system into the FAA certified S-92 should be relatively easy.
The cockpit equipment discussion is also valid. During initial design, Honeywell proposed their Epic cockpit, along with an updated version of their S-76 autopilot. That was up against a Collins proposal for cockpit equipment and a Sikorsky/Hamilton Standard SAS/autopilot. That the UTC based system ( Ham STD is a UTC company and had built all the AFCS hardware for all models since the S-58 ) was selected was understandable, but disappointed a segment of SA who had perhaps a better feel for the direction and capability the operators were looking for. Understatement. Back to the point raised: certainly the technology has advanced demonstrably since the basic design of the 92 and those capabilities are valid candidates for inclusion in what one might call a “ S-92B- Model “.