I'd guess that neither manufacturer can stay in business if they produce a bad helicopter. The truth is that both helicopters are in competition. Differences abound, one may shine, but in the end they're both competing.
Choosing the superior helicopter based on media reports is dangerous for a number of reasons. The first being that even the most honest and knowledgeable reporter will only tell a story that will sell. The facts may come from a reliable source but one that only knows a part of the story. Neither is superior overall, but one will prove to be superior when role, cost, national interests, safety, etc. are considered. Before you can pick the superior helicopter, you must understand the role it will fly.
On the website, the US101 team has hired a former presidential pilot who's indicated that the US101 will be good for the job. I'm certain Sikorsky has/could do the same and I'm certain they could support the same claim.
We're fortunate that Nick is here with an understanding of the role and the Sikorsky machine. I appreciate the information he provides. It's too bad there is nobody with that knowledge from the US101 team, it means that we're being educated with media clippings, catch phrases, rumour and speculation.
To set the record straight with respect to the Canadian Cormorants, I'd say that the maintenance man hours should not be used to comment on the machine at this point. The fleet here is small, the experience levels are low, the parts supply network is new (and yes, I understand there have been issues...I'd be more surprised if there weren't), and the environment is extrememly harsh. The machine that was replaced was well understood, not in its infancy, and yet it also had high MMH/FH ratio.
I'm about the truth, I'm not taking sides. I hope the president gets to ride in the best helicopter for the job. I honestly do not know which one that is, but I'd certainly be happy to fly either one of those machines (doubt if I could do it with the president on board...I'm not American).
Most important point here. Nobody died because of a hoist fail or any other part failing. In fact, many lives have been saved because of the capabilities of the Cormorant. I know the mission you're thinking about and its obvious that you don't. It's one thing to lie and/or speculate but to make hard hitting grandiose claims that are completely unsubstantiated is tremendously ungrateful to the people that risk their lives to save others. I shouldn't say what I'm really thinking.
Last edited by heedm; 10th Nov 2004 at 05:43.