To start with Thanks to Nick for the kind words, I never said I thought the 101 meets the Mil specs, I know in service variants don't, however all VH71 aircraft (inc1 or 2 ) will have a 20/20/10 structure from build, therefore I guess I should have said the VH71 is as safe as the S92.
Unfortunately the assertion that the increase in structural weight is 'thousands' of pounds is not correct. It is true the main frames and floor have been strengthened but just by looking at the airframes you would be hard pushed to tell. The redesign is not mythical to me, I know what has changed, I know the weight impact. Does anyone else here?
Contrary to some views the VH71A will meets its performance requirements, it has been stated here that it won't, I can state that it will hover at mission weight at the target altitude, the EH101 with the normal blades and CT7-8Es has done better than that already (believe me or not, I can't make you). Unless someone here has access to the AW flight test data the true capability of the aircraft is not known.
It is this constant unsubstantiated promulgation of incorrect information that is the problem with this thread. I draw your attention the original source of my annoyance
This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. This purports to be an absolute statement of fact, there are no caveats or boundaries to the statement, and is (and remains) completely incorrect. It was for this reason I got 'personal'. A person of Nicks standing in this community should not need to issue broad brush unsubstantiated statements that are so wrong any credibility is lost and the poster leaves himself open to ridicule. It is however comforting to see that Nick has now begun to caveat his views to make them more objective (ie stating an alt/temp associated with his analysis).
BTW the crash test case would be a mandatory requirement for any aircraft for this mission, along with battle danage tolerance, HIRF etc, it has not just been called up because of the redesign, remember the specification took no credit for previous certification so even the S92 would have had to go through this.
I think this thread has run its course, so far no one in the US procurement team (including Dr Etter) has said LM or its subcontractors are at fault, so was this really a story at all...... Spec changes cost, end of story
DM
(going away for the weekend so no posts until tuesday)
