Nick,
You don’t answer the question (again), but there again as the spin-doctor for the Sikorsky Sales Dept do we expect you to?
This discussion began as a question on windscreen protection against bird strikes. You jumped in with both feet as said …
”For Transport Category, approved prior to 1996 (virtually all large helos out there, except S-92 and perhaps AB-139): No specific bird protection at all”.
This was not correct, but you used the topic to push the S92 (again). You were then forced to admit that:
“The S-76 is qualified to take a 2 lb bird at 165 knots on its windshield. This was done to meet BCAR requirements at that time”.
So in fact Sikorsky had certified the S76 against limited bird strikes protection some decades ago and so your initial plug for the S92 was wrong.
Since I have tried to get an answer if you accept that a 1 kg bird is a sufficiently high standard bearing in mind that 11% (your figures) of bird strikes involve birds larger than 1 kg. We already agree that total aircraft testing is an improvement, so lets move on and answer the question.
My view is that 1 kg is probably not enough for some key areas, but we have to be practical. As BCAR 29 and DGAC Special Conditions required a 1.8 kg bird for the windscreen, engine intakes and rotor head then 1.8 kg is practical in these areas as some current large helicopters already meet this standard. It might not be practical for smaller helicopters due to structural considerations, where 1 kg will be the best compromise. 1.8 kg might not be practical for the tail rotor blades, and as only 1% (FAA figures) of reported strikes occur in that region then 1 kg might be sufficient. After all we require the cabin and cockpit to be able to withstand different g decelerations in the x, y and z axis, so why not different bird masses for different area?
If you can’t produce a constructive reply Nick don’t bother answering.