In my retrospection of the WG30 I am prepared to be one of the few who believed this project possessed the potential to reinvigorate Westland's balance sheets by serving as a catalyst for an effective civilian revenue stream.
The craft's Achilles Heel, as we know, was its underwhelming performance in practically all areas; range, power, operating cost and doubtless too Westland's technical support. However, the potentially 22 place accommodation, even if reduced, as well as the dimensions and layout of the passenger cabin, gave it, in my view, the potential to succeed - had the aforementioned flaws been avoided/overcome.
I sometimes ask myself what are some of the measures Westland could have taken to avert the project's failure and here's my tuppence worth:
Fuselage: The WG30 employed a composite tailboom (Bravo!) but, had they tried to develop a near all-composite airframe the weight savings could have been significantly advantageous.
Powerplant: Sincerely, I don't know which of the 70's powerplants would have best suited the 30, my stab would be something like the General Electric CT7 or the Turboméca Turmo either of which would have cost less to operate than the Gem and both of which would have yielded greater power.
Running Gear: Westland's already possessed a history of cooperation with Aérospatiale and, though they wanted to undertake this venture independently, they could have collaborated with Aérospat in the design of a more tailored solution to the WG30's dynamic systems providing, in particular, a main transmission with the capacity for at least one additional generation/upgrade of the type.
Had the WG30 proved a success she would, I believe, have been an effective pre-cursor to the AW139 and had successive developments of the type applied effective enhancements with each generation you just might have seen one British marque serving the international market but .. it was not to be!
Regarding Bristow; Alan, for the most part, seems to have been a pragmatist and his comments revealing his intention to 'kill' the WG30 programme would seem to confirm this. One can only speculate as to his intentions with Westlands but my guess is that he was not interested in pioneering some newfangled product (unless the returns were guaranteed) and even less interested in restoring Britain's ailing aviation legacy. More than likely he wanted to streamline the performance of Westland's military contracts and get the firm running (with a healthy buffer) in the black.
For me the WG30 represents a commendable effort on the part of Westland to break into pastures new and, even as a youngster, I was inspired by their willingness to divert from their staple military market. For the many reasons tendered on this thread (and other factors besides) the WG30 failed and which, I feel, was a sad chapter in British rotorcraft history.
Not all is lost however! Westlands are now welded to a company with a compatible history and the AW139, in the minds of a few, flies on as an unintentional tribute to what the WG30 could have been like had things turned-out differently!
Various frames of the WG30 testbed, plus cutaway and last but by no means least, a photo autographed by Roy Moxam who flew test on the type