I was preparing a longer answer to your questions, with some long details that will take some time to write, but I decied to cut short and post this
I must tell you that I am a former conscripted military pilot and had to made a “tour of duty” that lasted almost two and an half years battling Soviet backed terrorists (today they would be called Insurgents whatever that is) and had to learn how to fly helicopters in courses that included how to avoid SAM 7 Strella’s missiles, 14.7 calibre anti-aircraft guns, barrages of mortar “flak” and a huge generality of other smaller threats that other pilots that go for “commercial” licences do not have to learn or care about.
I went through a two and an half “tour of duty” where I personally experienced all that and had to put what I have learned to good use. I am not a sofa coach.
The
military operations and the
commercial world are two completely different types of flying with completely different tasks, needs and requirements. In a certain way they are opposites of each other.
Consequently a machine that is GOOD for one of these two worlds is almost forcefully BAD to the other because the concerns, needs and requirements addressed during the development phase are almost antagonic.
The H92 seems a fine “commercial” machine, IMHO is a BAD military machine.
The “pave Low” accident report I posted in my July 27 post is an example I can use again and again just to show you that:
- Well overpowered de-rated turbines are a MUST for high and hot military missions.
- Full survivability with the loss of one engine is ANOTHER MUST for military operations especially over the sea, that can only be achieved either with two horrendously powerful turbines or with three engines powerful enough for two allowing a safe return to base, or, in certain cases, the completing of the mission.
These requirements were part of the initial bid and the second one, for whatever reason, was withdrawn when the first “watered down" of the specs that you and some politicians keep denying it existed. (I saw both documents).
Sikorsky insists in “
if you loose one engine you land” type of approach that I qualify as irresponsible and the accident of the Pave Low show that perfectly. First to land one has to have
where to land. And if even “uneven” terrain, as we saw, might be a “problem”, the middle of the ocean, frankly is not a fine place to put it.
So they bough a fine commercial machine to fly over the prairies flatlands as a substitute for the military Sea King…
The EH101
has to carry the weight of his
superior performance, his
superior endurance, his
superior equipment his
superior reliability, and his
superior mission capability.
If THAT affects the payload, I say WHO IN HELL CARES FOR THAT because that helicopter it is not intended for commercial operations.
I don’t give a dime for better payload in exchange of
inferior performance,
inferior endurance,
inferior equipment inferior reliability, and
inferior mission capability.
And all the “performances” of the H92, whatever they are, were achieved sacrificing everything, safety included, but payload as the commercial operators wants.
The PAVE LOW payload was also
decreased for a number of reasons. The US Air Force in a helicopter initially developed for the Navy also traded
payload for better safety when it ordered the inclusion of
armour in vital parts of the machine. Also traded payload for better capability loading it with advanced electronics including terrain following radar, FLIR, and a number of other advanced avionics.
This is to say that, military speaking,
payload is something good but not something to be obtained at all costs and it is there and can be traded for something else if and when needed.
Speaking about “jet fighters”:
- How much payload can they carry with full tanks ???
- How much time can they fly with a full load of weapons ???
What one want over the sea is a helicopter that will not go to the fishes if one engine fails as it happened to the Sikorsky PAVE LOW a 55 million piece of flying equipment for 38 soldiers with two engines so underpowered that can’t fly safely within its own limits in Afheganistan.
Of course if more powerful and de-rated turbines were to be installed, that would include the reduction of the payload, the increase of its price, the increase fuel consumption and so on. In a word that aircraft would not be so competitive and it would be more expensive to operate... as usual, with something that is better, more powerful and with far bigger mission capabilities,
just as the EH101 is.
Among other things it’s the FULL SURVIVABILITY WITH THE LOSS OF ONE ENGINE that is important. But those that did not want the EH101 cut this requirement. Now they accept to loose one helicopter to the loss of one engine. Its a very EXPENSIVE and DEADLY option.
To trade some of the payload for a third engine is a very smart choice that includes heavier gear box and transmission and so on.
To finish for now, I am saying something that has been a curse all my life:
ANYONE can access
the cost of doing something or buying something. It takes a very INTELLIGENT and KNOWLEDGEBLE person to access
the cost of NOT doing or not buying something.
The payload of the EH101 ?
Is exactly the difference between its maximum load and the weight of all the equipment necessary to fly safely high and hot, assure full survivability with the loss of one engine and all the advanced avionics necessary to help the pilots achieve the objectives of their future missions without too many risks of their lives and those of the troops they are carrying.
It can change over time with the inclusion of better and new equipment or if it is decided to trade some of it for something else.
Dicit
BTW that "thing" always saying
Last edited by RotorPilot in sunch and such date is driving me nuts
