[email protected],
The S-92 SAR aircraft has 2x185 gallon internal tanks, as does the Irish aircraft. This gives it over 350 NM radius of action, while still allowing between 16 and 20 internal seats, litter stowage and all mission equipment. The chart shows that, its the OTHER line, the one you didn't see.
Eyeglasses made in Yoevil, Crab?
I define the max range of an aircraft as its range at max fuel capacity, not by the size of its "normal" tanks. So does the rest of the world. The EH-101 has only a bit more useful load than a 92, and the 101 burns about 15 to 20% more fuel to go a mile, so it has less maximum range. One of the costs of lugging around a third engine, and of having a lower payload/gross weight factor.
The idea of what an aircraft can do is different if you decide that it must be in a brochure, or if it can do it. Bizarrely, I think what an aircraft can do is what it can do. We take sheet metal into one end of the plant, and fly it out the other end, so we become used to describing what we can do. The limitations of range are not the fuel tankage, they are the ability to fly efficiently at the weight. Most helicopters have a max range, with full payload devoted to fuel, of about 1000 NM. This is a physical limitation of the physics of the machine.
If you take an S-92 on the ramp, and put the aux fuel onto it until it has no more gross weight to spare, and you do the same with an EH-101, and then they fly out as far as they will go, the S-92 will go farther. It will also fly faster, as the best range speed for the 101 is 123 knots, and the 92 Vbr is 138. External fuel tanks have now been designed for 92, they look much like those on the H-53 family, leaving much internal room for the SAR mission.
OTOH, your comment about the Sea King shows that you do not appreciate what has occurred in design and safety features in the last 40 years. Do you have your kids drive around in a 1959 Chevy? No seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, dual brakes, spill proof fuel tank, crashworthy bumpers, cast iron dashboard for your face, rigid steering wheel to spear you and finish you off? The measure of progress is doing more in many areas, not just one.
The safety improvements brought about by design and regulation improvements in the 4 decades between Sea King and S-92 are eye-watering, and easily swept away by comparisons like yours, usually made by politicians and lawyers, I must admit. This is the first time I have heard it from a pilot!
Crashworthiness of fuel and structure, Cat A from a rig, control system redundancies, critical parts redundancies, flaw and damage tolerant fatigue parts, bird strike resiliance, energy absorbing seats, the list is endless. I did a study of the paragraphs of the FAR requirements, virtually all devoted to safety, to see what changes have been made for each model from its design until today. S-61 (Sea King) - 80% changed, as-332/L2 (Super Puma) - 66% changed, EH-101 40% changed, and S-92 -2% changed.
Just because a helo looks new, or was built yesterday does not mean it has any modern safety features. The "grandfather" clauses of FAR do not require that modern features be retrofitted into the production line.
There are several customers for 92 now, with 21 aircraft so far committed. We certify this year. The EH-101 passed this point back in 1993, when it was new. Look back in 9 years, crab, and ask those questions. With some luck (and some modern safety features) we might both still be here!
