plt_aeroeng,
Here are some answers to your points (answers in
italics):
1. VH-92 will have new and more powerful engines not to be certified until 2007
The engines in the EH-101 and the S/H-92 are the same, all are models of the CT7 series. The total differences between the engine now in the S-92 (the CT7-8A) and the upgrade for the VH-92 (CT7-8C) are about 10 parts. The new -8C model has achieved 11% overspec power in its tests this year. It will be certified 3 years before needed for the VH-92.
Presumably that also implies upgrade of rotor, transmission, structure, etc. to accommodate the 10% MGW increase.
Your presumption is wrong, no modifications are needed, a minor upgrade of the transmission (5% continuous, 9% for takeoff) was already qualified earlier this year.
3. The shape of the VH-92, with its aft cabin pregnancy, is quite a bit different from that of the certified S-92
It is not quite a bit different, it is actually less than 16 inches of bulge along the aft lower secton, where the ramp normally is, and has already been built and qualified earlier this year.
4. S-92 has never had a self defense suite installed: the RAF Merlins flying around the US have
True enough. Our partner for the program, Northrop-Gruman, invented the system, and Sikorsky has installed several hunderd such systems on its helicopters in the recent past. Not significant risk. BTW the model installed on the current Merlins is obsolete, and not fit for the contract
5. Fly by wire is being developed for S-92: this would be a first in civil certified helicopters. Sounds like a big change to me
For Sikorsky, it is not a big change, as we have flown several models with FBW. The FBW is not part of the initial delivery kit, and so the schedule does not depend on it.
6. All new suppliers: the prototypes have sections built in several continents (admittedly this just makes it a wash with US101)
No, it is not a wash. All the original S-92 suppliers are retained except for the sheet metal structure, which is being worked right now by Vought, who has done similar jobs for Boeing and Grumman in less time than our schedule calls for. This means all H-92 pumps, actuators, hinges, gears and widgets remain with the fully qualified supplers and purchase orders. The EH-101 has the need to fully qualify its entire parts chain, a job we know it cannot do in time. It is clear that EH-101 will use European parts for the first batch, if they win. Internal discussions between Westland and the press have indicated so, making the "US-101" label even more of a sham
By comparison, EH101 Merlin has the structural strength to land on and be strapped to little ships, so presumably will not need much strengthening for US101 (this is of course speculative .. they could need some upgrades due to weight growth too.)
the EH-101 is comparitively weak, and by design intent falls far short of required US military strength. Its basic fuselage needs considerable beefing up to be fit, the EH-101 team has reportedly already asked for a waiver. A private in the US Army has a more crashworthy ride than a Prime Minister in the EH-101. for the original discussion of this critical compromise, see the paper written by Richard Case, its chief designer:
www.s-92heliport.com/crash.jpg
Were it not for Blair's salesmanship, we, too, think the winner will surely be the best helicopter, and like the Canadian competition, it will be the aircraft with the best payload, range, speed, safety and economics.
Here are the two brochures for the aircraft (with today's engines) to show that the H-92 has more range, payload, speed than the much bigger, much less capable EH-101.
http://www.s-92heliport.com/H92.pdf 200K
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101.pdf This is about 5 megs
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101perfpages.pdf performance excerpt only 600K
Regarding political debts for wartime loyalty, I visited my father's Bomb Group at Bury St. Edmund's a few years back, and was reminded that there were more Yanks who died flying from Britain in WWII than Brits who have walked on Iraqi soil, my friend. I do not remember England repaying anything for the last two times the US helped defeat our mutual enemies. Nor do I remember the US grubbing for the bill. Maybe I just missed that movie, huh?