KMS
You need to define which S76 you are talking about. The A-model is one thing and the C++ something completely different. In between you have the A+, the A++, the B, the C and the C+. Each has it's pro's and cons.
The A is powered by the Rolls Royce Allison C30 engine which if looked after properly performs well these days despite an awful history in the early days. At 10,500 lb MGW it's not much of a performer if you load it with all the North Sea mods or operate it somewhere hot. Non-Sperry models are dinousars and must be hand-flown all the time unless upgraded to Phase III.
The A+ has an Ariel engine and 10,800 lbs MGW. Better than the A-model but even in temperate climates will be challenged and cannot make take offs offshore safely if the wind is less than 10 kts unless you reduce to 10,500 lb. As the 'plus' model is a converted A you get whatever 'toys' it came with in its A form. The A++ is just the same A-model with a later (more powerful) Ariel engine.
The B is my favourite. Lots of power from its bomb-proof PT6, comes with great autopilot and lots of toys that may include flat screens. Higher sfc means that it can't go much beyond a radius of 120 miles which - if you are a pilot - is a blessing not a handicap. This 'range' issue means that you would only find it in the Southern NS and historically only in the Dutch sector. Great machine for the corporate/charter market. Like all S76s you will always need an avionics guy on hand and an engine change, though infrequent, will take you days rather than hours. The B enjoys an increase in MGW to 11,700 lbs.
The C-model is not what it should have been insofar as it ended up with an Ariel with a power output that was below that required for the 11,700 lbs so you end up being N1 limited and real feel the payload pressure when it gets hot. Not Sikorsky's finest hour but I don't have much time on the C so I'm going largely on my colleague's comments.
The C+ I have only flown in the sim at WPB. Looks like it has all the qualities of the B but without the range limitations. The C++ is one I have yet to see in the flesh but I hear it has FADEC and some new pilot-friendly instrumentation. It will also come with EGPWS as standard but I'm worried about the algorythms they use now that the aircraft will be used in the offshore role. Will it replace AVAD? We will see.
All S76s in the offshore role suffer from the following disadvantages.
1. CG problems depending on where you put the kit
2. High nose-up attitude that makes landing offshore a problem and night landings in the rain are an absolute nightmare because the wiper doesn't cover that part of the windscreen you need to look through. How it gained certification for night ops into small sites and offshore is a mystery to me.
3. Emergency exits have proved to be of poor design and the push-out window mod is not a complete solution.
4. No prospect of energy absorbing seats all-round so long as the rear row of pax sit on the fuel tank.
5. Has one of the worst seating positions I have come across. Like the S61 I think the seats were designed by the ACME Screen-Door and Window Company. No for and aft seat adjustment and the huge fixed Instrument Panel Combing means that tall guys can either squat down and see the dials or see where you are going and duck down to consult the instruments/CWP when required.
Verdict - getting better but some iIrreconcilable shortcomings.
AS365 - smaller, quirkier more rugged and can survive just about anywhere. The fenestron on the N2 has some issues but having flown one from Copenhagen to Lagos I can say that it rates up there with the S76 as a highly capable medium twin but this beast is not as passenger friendly - smaller cabin with seats that are nearly on the floor. The N3 is a beast by all accounts - with lots of power thats good for the hotter climes. I could write more but I'll let others expand (or contradict maybe) on what I have written.
Geoff
