Mr Whirly:
I don’t think that people are really missing the point......I think most of us realise the country are sourcing a SAR solution that it’s able to afford at present. Do you buy a Ferrari every time you need a car for getting from A to B?....or do you like me charter a Saturn 5.
IFR piglet - if you read what I wrote, you would see I was comparing the 175/139 cabins in a VIP/corporate role in terms of headroom, not the SAR role
Crab:
You’re quite right I didn’t pay your post my fullest attention.......................pardon my piggy!
For this thread (and much too late anyways) what’s missing is a poster that operates the AW139 as a SAR crewman. If the AW139 is a real dog of a SAR aircraft they should say so. Perhaps the lack of a response in support of the AW139 already dose? Or maybe it’s adequate for the job it’s employed to carry out. I don’t have a bias and wish – like crab – that the British public get the best solution available. Frankly there isn’t an alternative to the S-92 that provides the same ergonomic benefits and therefore you’re wasting your breath touting the benefits of a mixed fleet if a deal breaker is a cab less roomy than the S-92. An EC175 or an AW189 is much better than nothing should the rest of the SAR fleet be grounded.......right? Or would you still advocate an all S-92 fleet?
On the subject of cabin space:
I wonder how the USCG has managed all these years with the HH-60 JayHawk. Did they get their SAR solution wrong? They’re not exactly roomy and they don’t even have a 360 radar........but do they get the job done? Perhaps all this time they’ve just been.............lucky!
So why didn’t Sik offer a SAR variant of the S70? To pricey perhaps or do Sik think it’s too god damn small? See the attached link for the approx internal dimensions of a SAR aircraft operated by the USA. Quick somebody give me a high five!!!!
http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/...060_IBH_TI.pdf