JimL,
Thanks for clarifying the case with your last post. Note that the performance for Cat A is not a sharp decision, yes or no, as you say. I believe few helicopters will come out where the maximum weight allows full Cat A, because the ability to recoup this extra power as payload for other operations will be so compelling that the aircraft will have two or three operating procedures, one for hard Cat A, and one for lesser OEI but a higher MGW and much better payload/range. Thus one design will serve several possible customer bases.
This debate has unfortunately not driven into the kind of discussion I had hoped, because it became a vote on hard Cat A yes or no, and not a discussion of safer or less safe.
It seems that so many vocal regulators and some customers (FLI out there?) speak as though the solution to helicopter operational safety concerns is more power. This is in spite of the data, and of the real hazards. If the debate does not move off this as a flip switch, yes/no, helicopter safety will suffer for another generation, I believe.
I am struck too at the inability of we who make the machines to express the cost to a design to meet these requirements - the plots I provided that showed a massive penalty for hard Cat A were virtually ignored by all, as if they were not part of the discussion, perhaps because I phrased the discussion so poorly.
So, here is a possibly new way to state the question:
Given that a helicopter will be designed to lose 25% of its range (or the equivilent payload) and this penalty assigned to safety concerns, what concerns should be addressed? A possible sample:
Hover to hover full Instrument procedures to heliports in rural and urban areas, independant of airplane operations
Pilot visionics, where the pilot sees the world through a see-through virtual reality device, with FLIR and CGI mixed so that night/instrument is as if he were in a simulator, and VFR like rules are applied to all traffic.
Hard terrain avoidance, where the machine is not capable of being driven into the ground except as a controlled landing. This includes brown out and zero light available circumstances.
Maintenance free operation for a full year, during which only pilot pre-flight inspection is required, and during which all maintenance activities are diagnosed by the aircraft
Tolerance to accept common corrosion, damage and mishandling so that no unsafe condition is developed for the year.
Ability to Fly in any icing, rain, or wind condition without loss of control.
Fly with the noise signature of a common large car, so that ground observers note no objectionable noise, even in rural areas.
As a helicopter R&D engineer, I can state that all the above are not just possible, they can be certified within 10 years. And none will cost half of what hard Cat A does cost to the design. As someone who wishes the best for all of us (we are one big family in a way) I simply cannot understand why we are not asking for these things to be legislated!
And for FLI, your questions about the Cat A performance of the S-92 have already been answered in this thread. It is my belief that the S-92 is the most capable hard Cat A platform now available, with more payload, range, speed from a hard Cat A operation off a rig or from ground level than any helicopter. However, this thread has nothing to do with any specific helo, in spite of your wish to make my general comments somehow specific to any given helicopter's capabilities. You might just be one of those fellows who just never gets the message, sadly.