more innuendo, spin, outright untruths, spin, incorrect analysis, axes being ground, spin, bad losing and bulls@@t from the normal suspects.
The implication that inc 1 is being replaced by inc 2 due to specification short fall is a lie, as is the statement about HIGE capability, but lets not get the truth in the way of sour grapes.
The project always assumed that the initial buy aircraft (whatever the winner) would not meet the full spec mision and that a reworked design (increment2 ) would be evolved to fully meet the desired mission (for obvious reasons the mission requiements are not in the public domain).
Matt Parsons post is the most sensible one here but it also requires a clarification
'Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.' the answers werent wrong, it's just that the aircraft design agreed at contract isnt what it is now(specification creep) and so those answers are no longer relevant.
From all the reports so far the USMC and GAO are not unhappy (unless I missed something), Nicks prediction is about as realistic as thinking the canadians are going to can the Cyclone and order the 101 because its capability is behind schedule.
Some months ago Nick offered to prove his point to me on this forum regarding 92 vs 101 capability, we are still waiting.....
Waspy77s analysis proves the 101 superiority (as well as any other analysis proves otherwise!)
Finally
It depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.
DM