212man,
Each aspect has a cost, for helos, it is the lost payload that gets us, not the fuel cost. At 200 miles, it might be 2 or 3 pax, making the cost per seat mile for the whole machine too much. This is all speculation, however, I have not seen any payload range info to compare the several machines (the AB-139 site is particularly sparse on technical data, unless I am looking in the wrong spot).
Regarding the 9 seconds, I have posted perhaps 10 times that there is no reason to build engine quantities or power up, at the tremendous expense to the machine, so that engine failure is better protected than the other possible failure modes. The JAR logic is impeccable - with the JAR exposure times, the engine failure risk is as low as all the other risks. This is wise, I think.
The cost to the machine, in weight, operating cost and lost payload to have OEI hover is tremendous.
I only wish that pilots were as vocal for EGPWS, which would cure the 45% or so of accidents that are CFIT, as they were for full hover to hover OEI capability, which accounts for 0.0% of their accidents (in twins). Or for the ability to make a full instrument approach to a rig in zero-zero. Or for the ability to separate traffic in IFR as though it were VFR. Or for ........(you pick it).We are the product of conditioning since we were pups, where emergencies ment engine failures, and we practice them until we are purple. This sets an unconscious conditioning that we must break if we are to truly lower our accident rates.
Last edited by NickLappos; 8th Aug 2004 at 17:48.