Mamaput,
You see it exactly as I do, I think. It is important to realize that the excellent Cat A performance and the very high fuel burn are actually two facets of the same design decision!
Noooby,
I do see that the increased MGW will help the useful load (and thus either tange or payload) but it will harm the OEI performance to some extent. This actually proves my point - too much engine power means less useful load.
AB139engineer,
I have no doubt that the 139 will end up as a relatively easy to maintain helo, but it will be a helo with a drivetrain and powerplant that can carry 21000 lbs of helo in a 15000lb package, so it will cost 30% more to maintain, even if it is easy to maintain, since cost is directly related to horsepower, and the transmissions, shafts, gearboxes, engines and rotors are "too big" for its payload by about 30%. Is this a problem? Only if operators don't buy it because of these costs.
helmet fire,
Wow, you said what I was trying to, thanks for the clarity. The statistics that are used by JAR to determine rig landing compliance is that the aircraft has good OEI performance virtually all the time, except during a few seconds on takeoff and landing, and probability of engine failure during those critical portions of the flight (typically about 6 to 10 seconds during a 1 hour flight - about 0.2% of the time) is less than the demonstrated probability of a major component failing. In other words, why make the engine failure safety lots of times better than the safety of the rest of the helo, especially when engine power has such a strong influence on economics of operation.
All,
Remember, we are not talking about Cat A from a rig, several helos have that capability, but not to the massive extent of the 139. We are talking about no HV curve limitations at all, and asking iof the market wants to pay the price for that increase in capability (I do not call it an increase in safety, because it is not.) I believe the dollar cost for extra performance is very very high, and that if we spent these dollars on what causes accidents, we would get more safety by far. It can be said that if we put too much power into the helo, we make it less safe, since we now have less money to spend on real (not imagined) safety items.
Let me not sound like bad-mouthing any particular helo. The 139 by all accounts is a fine machine, smooth, fast and powerful. I however do challenge the basic premise that "power equates to safety", and that "you can't have too much power."