Well chaps thanks for all that commentary but the fact remains that the MkI's have often been used overweight which probably justifies the case for new engines but if the frames have been bending then this also would require beefed up frames to be included in the mod programme - has this been included? I have operated overweight many times (not proud of it) just 'operational exigencies' - and I have operated in situations where cabin volume was operationally restricting so how one can justify a certain 'requirement' as being the raison d'etre for purchasing for 'that' specific requirement when I think we all know that in the heat of Ops tasking the 'requirement' is often more than that which is advertised. To that end service 'operational requirements' should surely have a built-in operational flex which, in my experience, would have been more than adequately satisfied with a Super Puma-type cabin volume. Instead of which we have now done the good thing with engines etc but the cabin size remains an unnecessary and embarrassing limiting factor!! It's bloody mad and a waste of money!
I flew in the WG70 (I think it was WG70 and not WG30) ie the Westlands built Blackhawk and trained the Westland engineers in the art of USLs. Now if you think the Puma MkI cabin was small you want to try this one!! It would have to be crewed (in the back) by pygmies; the cabin was much smaller than the Puma MkI and was never a practical option at any time. But if I am to read this aright and be a little cynical then providing the engines had anticipators and a glass cockpit then the job was a good'ne!!
I'm glad to be a civvy and not have to endure this crap any more...but those that have to endure it don't be conned into thinking this is a good idea - it is in part but as usual the 'happy clappy' IPT (?) who put this together didn't give a toss for the crewman/user's lot but just their own ticks in the 'I must be part of an aircraft modification' box in order to gain promotion.
That may be a bit harsh but that's how it looks............
And still you get to piss off the user because there is not enough space FFS!
AP
I am firmly of the opinion that over the years, the deficiencies of the Puma/Wessex cabin volumes has driven the reduction in size of the stick numbers used operationally. That may sound obvious, but I have seen the Army frustration and then the inevitable compromise which then became 'the norm' ie 10. Perhaps eventually the army was happy with the reduced size - it would be good to hear their point of view......please?