Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The normal S-76 sits at +8 degrees nose up at aft CG, and 0 degrees nose up at forward cg, and of course about 4 degrees at neutral cg.
Add 10 knots of wind from the nose, and all those numbers go up by about 3 to 4 degrees, due to main rotor downwash on the tail.
Floaternorthwest,
The position of the tail rotor has absolutely nothing to do with hover nose up attitude, whoever told you so should get a refund on their aero courses!
The S76 node attitude is due primarily to the 5 degrees of shaft tilt.
Add 10 knots of wind from the nose, and all those numbers go up by about 3 to 4 degrees, due to main rotor downwash on the tail.
Floaternorthwest,
The position of the tail rotor has absolutely nothing to do with hover nose up attitude, whoever told you so should get a refund on their aero courses!
The S76 node attitude is due primarily to the 5 degrees of shaft tilt.
Ah, Helmet Fire, as you are well aware, the FBO we use is maddeningly close to the Krispy Kreme outlet, and when the wind is northerly, the aroma of the dognuts can lead to unbearable cravings. Fortunately, I am reminded by my belt buckle of the need to abstain.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 in the offshore role
KMS
You need to define which S76 you are talking about. The A-model is one thing and the C++ something completely different. In between you have the A+, the A++, the B, the C and the C+. Each has it's pro's and cons.
The A is powered by the Rolls Royce Allison C30 engine which if looked after properly performs well these days despite an awful history in the early days. At 10,500 lb MGW it's not much of a performer if you load it with all the North Sea mods or operate it somewhere hot. Non-Sperry models are dinousars and must be hand-flown all the time unless upgraded to Phase III.
The A+ has an Ariel engine and 10,800 lbs MGW. Better than the A-model but even in temperate climates will be challenged and cannot make take offs offshore safely if the wind is less than 10 kts unless you reduce to 10,500 lb. As the 'plus' model is a converted A you get whatever 'toys' it came with in its A form. The A++ is just the same A-model with a later (more powerful) Ariel engine.
The B is my favourite. Lots of power from its bomb-proof PT6, comes with great autopilot and lots of toys that may include flat screens. Higher sfc means that it can't go much beyond a radius of 120 miles which - if you are a pilot - is a blessing not a handicap. This 'range' issue means that you would only find it in the Southern NS and historically only in the Dutch sector. Great machine for the corporate/charter market. Like all S76s you will always need an avionics guy on hand and an engine change, though infrequent, will take you days rather than hours. The B enjoys an increase in MGW to 11,700 lbs.
The C-model is not what it should have been insofar as it ended up with an Ariel with a power output that was below that required for the 11,700 lbs so you end up being N1 limited and real feel the payload pressure when it gets hot. Not Sikorsky's finest hour but I don't have much time on the C so I'm going largely on my colleague's comments.
The C+ I have only flown in the sim at WPB. Looks like it has all the qualities of the B but without the range limitations. The C++ is one I have yet to see in the flesh but I hear it has FADEC and some new pilot-friendly instrumentation. It will also come with EGPWS as standard but I'm worried about the algorythms they use now that the aircraft will be used in the offshore role. Will it replace AVAD? We will see.
All S76s in the offshore role suffer from the following disadvantages.
1. CG problems depending on where you put the kit
2. High nose-up attitude that makes landing offshore a problem and night landings in the rain are an absolute nightmare because the wiper doesn't cover that part of the windscreen you need to look through. How it gained certification for night ops into small sites and offshore is a mystery to me.
3. Emergency exits have proved to be of poor design and the push-out window mod is not a complete solution.
4. No prospect of energy absorbing seats all-round so long as the rear row of pax sit on the fuel tank.
5. Has one of the worst seating positions I have come across. Like the S61 I think the seats were designed by the ACME Screen-Door and Window Company. No for and aft seat adjustment and the huge fixed Instrument Panel Combing means that tall guys can either squat down and see the dials or see where you are going and duck down to consult the instruments/CWP when required.
Verdict - getting better but some iIrreconcilable shortcomings.
AS365 - smaller, quirkier more rugged and can survive just about anywhere. The fenestron on the N2 has some issues but having flown one from Copenhagen to Lagos I can say that it rates up there with the S76 as a highly capable medium twin but this beast is not as passenger friendly - smaller cabin with seats that are nearly on the floor. The N3 is a beast by all accounts - with lots of power thats good for the hotter climes. I could write more but I'll let others expand (or contradict maybe) on what I have written.
Geoff
You need to define which S76 you are talking about. The A-model is one thing and the C++ something completely different. In between you have the A+, the A++, the B, the C and the C+. Each has it's pro's and cons.
The A is powered by the Rolls Royce Allison C30 engine which if looked after properly performs well these days despite an awful history in the early days. At 10,500 lb MGW it's not much of a performer if you load it with all the North Sea mods or operate it somewhere hot. Non-Sperry models are dinousars and must be hand-flown all the time unless upgraded to Phase III.
The A+ has an Ariel engine and 10,800 lbs MGW. Better than the A-model but even in temperate climates will be challenged and cannot make take offs offshore safely if the wind is less than 10 kts unless you reduce to 10,500 lb. As the 'plus' model is a converted A you get whatever 'toys' it came with in its A form. The A++ is just the same A-model with a later (more powerful) Ariel engine.
The B is my favourite. Lots of power from its bomb-proof PT6, comes with great autopilot and lots of toys that may include flat screens. Higher sfc means that it can't go much beyond a radius of 120 miles which - if you are a pilot - is a blessing not a handicap. This 'range' issue means that you would only find it in the Southern NS and historically only in the Dutch sector. Great machine for the corporate/charter market. Like all S76s you will always need an avionics guy on hand and an engine change, though infrequent, will take you days rather than hours. The B enjoys an increase in MGW to 11,700 lbs.
The C-model is not what it should have been insofar as it ended up with an Ariel with a power output that was below that required for the 11,700 lbs so you end up being N1 limited and real feel the payload pressure when it gets hot. Not Sikorsky's finest hour but I don't have much time on the C so I'm going largely on my colleague's comments.
The C+ I have only flown in the sim at WPB. Looks like it has all the qualities of the B but without the range limitations. The C++ is one I have yet to see in the flesh but I hear it has FADEC and some new pilot-friendly instrumentation. It will also come with EGPWS as standard but I'm worried about the algorythms they use now that the aircraft will be used in the offshore role. Will it replace AVAD? We will see.
All S76s in the offshore role suffer from the following disadvantages.
1. CG problems depending on where you put the kit
2. High nose-up attitude that makes landing offshore a problem and night landings in the rain are an absolute nightmare because the wiper doesn't cover that part of the windscreen you need to look through. How it gained certification for night ops into small sites and offshore is a mystery to me.
3. Emergency exits have proved to be of poor design and the push-out window mod is not a complete solution.
4. No prospect of energy absorbing seats all-round so long as the rear row of pax sit on the fuel tank.
5. Has one of the worst seating positions I have come across. Like the S61 I think the seats were designed by the ACME Screen-Door and Window Company. No for and aft seat adjustment and the huge fixed Instrument Panel Combing means that tall guys can either squat down and see the dials or see where you are going and duck down to consult the instruments/CWP when required.
Verdict - getting better but some iIrreconcilable shortcomings.
AS365 - smaller, quirkier more rugged and can survive just about anywhere. The fenestron on the N2 has some issues but having flown one from Copenhagen to Lagos I can say that it rates up there with the S76 as a highly capable medium twin but this beast is not as passenger friendly - smaller cabin with seats that are nearly on the floor. The N3 is a beast by all accounts - with lots of power thats good for the hotter climes. I could write more but I'll let others expand (or contradict maybe) on what I have written.
Geoff
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the Haven of Peace
Age: 79
Posts: 600
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S76C+ with IIDS is a nice machine to fly offshore and has good range. The power, though good compared with A models and the C, is still sadly lacking compared to the good old B. The main advantage of the C+ over the B is range, as both have the same max gross weight and fuel tank capacity, but where the B, in Nigeria, used around 760 lbs/hr in the cruise, the C+ uses around 680 lbs/hr. The SPZ7600 autopilot is great, particularly if coupled to something like a GNS 530 GPS and the machine is a stable instrument platform. However, when you arrive at your offshore destination the high nose attitude makes for difficult approaches and as geoffers says, if it's raining it's almost impossible to see your landing site, particularly as the wipers just increase the amount of water flowing down over the chin window you may be trying to look through. Mostly though' it's like flying a mini airliner en-route. An autopilot's machine rather than a pilot's machine.
The Dauphin is, and always has been, a great pilots machine (though suitable only for very small or deformed passengers
). The N3 is a terrific machine to fly, though it's not as stable an instrument platform as the S76, and most don't have the full 4 axis autopilot like the S76. The drawback of the N3 is that it has the same fuel tank capacity as all the other N series, but a much higher cruise fuel consumtion (out here in Nigeria the N used around 265 kg/hr cruise, and the N3 around 305 kg/hr). Dauphins are amongst my favourite helicopters of all time and the N3 is top of the list. A pilot's machine, not an autopilot's machine, you want to just hand fly it because it's so nice and smooth and fast.
The Dauphin is, and always has been, a great pilots machine (though suitable only for very small or deformed passengers
). The N3 is a terrific machine to fly, though it's not as stable an instrument platform as the S76, and most don't have the full 4 axis autopilot like the S76. The drawback of the N3 is that it has the same fuel tank capacity as all the other N series, but a much higher cruise fuel consumtion (out here in Nigeria the N used around 265 kg/hr cruise, and the N3 around 305 kg/hr). Dauphins are amongst my favourite helicopters of all time and the N3 is top of the list. A pilot's machine, not an autopilot's machine, you want to just hand fly it because it's so nice and smooth and fast.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my "not very unbiased" read (having flown the first test flight on the S76, and having over 2500 hours in it):
"AS365 - ..... more rugged" Not by a long shot! The design of the S76 includes fuselage strength at 20 G's for primary mass retention, so that it is equal to the US military helos as to keeping its occupants inside a strong cage. The 365 family (and the S61, frankly) are designed to only 6 G's, and so are very very much less "rugged." Post-crash damage shows that many times 76 occupants open the doors and walk out, while those from weaker airframes are inside a twisted ball of helicopter. Regarding basic offshore fitness, the 365 is generally not used offshore because it has relatively weak general hardware, such as door fittings, cowls, seat brackets etc, while the S76 is relatively rugged, and is the most popular in its weight class offshore (look at the PHI fleet tallies in the PHI thread for their numbers).
Entry ease, avionics suit and basic panel layout, hands down the S76 is better, with gauges put where they should be, excellent reach for radios and gear. Real pilot doors that allow real people to get in.
Approach visibility, not very good, over the panel vis is poor, but a 10 degree yaw makes a very big difference in the picture. 365 is better in this department, by more than a bit.
Passenger space - absolutely no contest, the 76 is wider, taller and roomier. The back seat in a 365 was invented by Idi Amin.
Systems redundancy and "extra" features - no contest, the 76 has more electric, hydraulic, fuel, floats and other features, redundancies and modes that make a real difference in bad wx, night or emergencies. The 76 is a big helo in this department, the 365 is a growth of a small helo (the 360) and shows it.
Installed power - the A is barely OK, but the B and C+ are quite fine, with lots of HOGE margin at gross weight for rig landings. The 365 has no real advantage here, both machines are the product of knowledge that "extra" performance means lost revenue (sorry pilots, the truth tells).
Control feel and handling - the S76 is exceptional in the basic cleanliness of the control feel, and the lack of funny handling quirks, especially in energencies. The control limits are almost never seen, especially in yaw, where 50 knots of sideward speed is controllable. The 76 flight envelope is enormous, and there is never any "jack stall" or other funny quirks that can kill you. The 365 is weak in all controls, especially yaw, where some wind conditions require it to be babied.
Overall - The S76 is very close to a pilot's dream, with long range (350 NM+), high speed (145kt+), and lots of control margins, with excellent stability and lots of avionics and autopilot features. For passengers, there is not equal. In its class (412, 212, 365, 155) the market has shown it to be the best helo, with the highest percentage of customers, and the highest repeat customer rate. The difference is not astounding, however, 365 is a fine machine, and those who like it are certainly not bonkers.
"AS365 - ..... more rugged" Not by a long shot! The design of the S76 includes fuselage strength at 20 G's for primary mass retention, so that it is equal to the US military helos as to keeping its occupants inside a strong cage. The 365 family (and the S61, frankly) are designed to only 6 G's, and so are very very much less "rugged." Post-crash damage shows that many times 76 occupants open the doors and walk out, while those from weaker airframes are inside a twisted ball of helicopter. Regarding basic offshore fitness, the 365 is generally not used offshore because it has relatively weak general hardware, such as door fittings, cowls, seat brackets etc, while the S76 is relatively rugged, and is the most popular in its weight class offshore (look at the PHI fleet tallies in the PHI thread for their numbers).
Entry ease, avionics suit and basic panel layout, hands down the S76 is better, with gauges put where they should be, excellent reach for radios and gear. Real pilot doors that allow real people to get in.
Approach visibility, not very good, over the panel vis is poor, but a 10 degree yaw makes a very big difference in the picture. 365 is better in this department, by more than a bit.
Passenger space - absolutely no contest, the 76 is wider, taller and roomier. The back seat in a 365 was invented by Idi Amin.
Systems redundancy and "extra" features - no contest, the 76 has more electric, hydraulic, fuel, floats and other features, redundancies and modes that make a real difference in bad wx, night or emergencies. The 76 is a big helo in this department, the 365 is a growth of a small helo (the 360) and shows it.
Installed power - the A is barely OK, but the B and C+ are quite fine, with lots of HOGE margin at gross weight for rig landings. The 365 has no real advantage here, both machines are the product of knowledge that "extra" performance means lost revenue (sorry pilots, the truth tells).
Control feel and handling - the S76 is exceptional in the basic cleanliness of the control feel, and the lack of funny handling quirks, especially in energencies. The control limits are almost never seen, especially in yaw, where 50 knots of sideward speed is controllable. The 76 flight envelope is enormous, and there is never any "jack stall" or other funny quirks that can kill you. The 365 is weak in all controls, especially yaw, where some wind conditions require it to be babied.
Overall - The S76 is very close to a pilot's dream, with long range (350 NM+), high speed (145kt+), and lots of control margins, with excellent stability and lots of avionics and autopilot features. For passengers, there is not equal. In its class (412, 212, 365, 155) the market has shown it to be the best helo, with the highest percentage of customers, and the highest repeat customer rate. The difference is not astounding, however, 365 is a fine machine, and those who like it are certainly not bonkers.
Last edited by NickLappos; 6th Oct 2006 at 11:23.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I've flown the A++ (SAR version), the B (corporate), the C (utility version, with an USL hook - commonly known as the "B minus") and the C+ (corporate). About 3100 hours all in on the type.
The 76 is certainly by far the best rotary IFR platform I've flown. Having said that, however, the full IIDS display (especially IAS and altitude) are not pilot friendly if hand flying under IFR / IMC- the old fashioned big "round gauges" provide much better "pilot cues".
Sikorsky have resorted back to "round gauge" displays, albeit computer generated ones on an IIDS screen, for the S-92.
Has the C+ really got less power than the B when operating normally, twin engine? It's the same gearbox, and the same 100% torque on both........ but the B is over 400 lbs heavier than the C+. We don't have to trade off fuel load against pax with the C+. I know which one I'd rather have OEI, though - the B!
The fit of the cockpit doors on ours leaves a lot to be desired and we get wet in the B when it rains. Thank goodness for laminated charts, which we put across our legs to keep dry.
The 76 is certainly by far the best rotary IFR platform I've flown. Having said that, however, the full IIDS display (especially IAS and altitude) are not pilot friendly if hand flying under IFR / IMC- the old fashioned big "round gauges" provide much better "pilot cues".
Sikorsky have resorted back to "round gauge" displays, albeit computer generated ones on an IIDS screen, for the S-92.
Has the C+ really got less power than the B when operating normally, twin engine? It's the same gearbox, and the same 100% torque on both........ but the B is over 400 lbs heavier than the C+. We don't have to trade off fuel load against pax with the C+. I know which one I'd rather have OEI, though - the B!
The fit of the cockpit doors on ours leaves a lot to be desired and we get wet in the B when it rains. Thank goodness for laminated charts, which we put across our legs to keep dry.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque,
Your observation on the C+ vs B is exactly right! I find the B drivers think it has more "power" than a C+ when it actually has a bit less payload at the same power.
I also like the round airspeed/alt and don't especially like the rotating drums in any machine, but can fly them all, frankly.
Your observation on the C+ vs B is exactly right! I find the B drivers think it has more "power" than a C+ when it actually has a bit less payload at the same power.
I also like the round airspeed/alt and don't especially like the rotating drums in any machine, but can fly them all, frankly.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 - v- 365
Nick - trust you to translate 'rugged' into 'crashworthiness'. Though I cannot disagree with you in this respect what I meant by 'rugged' was that I wouldn't take a 76 into the bush or base it offshore - needs too much attention to its good but fragile electrics/avionics. 365 does well in these environments and have spent up to two weeks offshore and in the bush with the N with great success. The fenestron can bite if you are not careful and I'm sure that like the 350 it would fall apart if you pranged it hard.
For me - at 6'4" (1m92)- getting in and out of the 365 was a pain though once in it was more comfortable than the 76 - those damn pilot seats in the 76 were fixed for and aft so backache was the order of the day. The S76 with the 'pilots' dinghy beside the RHS made entry more difficult that needed and replacing it with the library box doesn't improve things. I have reverted to using a 'back-friend' in the 76 with the rear cushion removed. Such is the lack of consistancy of the A+ models I am flying right now that the relationship between the controls and the seat can be as much as an inch different from ship to ship even though they have all (apparently) been rigged by the same people using the same kit.
All in all a 76B (or maybe the C+/C++) with a good paint job and an executive fit in the back is the best big-boys toy around. When you turn up to the party in one of those (cocktail cabinet and all) it really looks and feels the part.
For me - at 6'4" (1m92)- getting in and out of the 365 was a pain though once in it was more comfortable than the 76 - those damn pilot seats in the 76 were fixed for and aft so backache was the order of the day. The S76 with the 'pilots' dinghy beside the RHS made entry more difficult that needed and replacing it with the library box doesn't improve things. I have reverted to using a 'back-friend' in the 76 with the rear cushion removed. Such is the lack of consistancy of the A+ models I am flying right now that the relationship between the controls and the seat can be as much as an inch different from ship to ship even though they have all (apparently) been rigged by the same people using the same kit.
All in all a 76B (or maybe the C+/C++) with a good paint job and an executive fit in the back is the best big-boys toy around. When you turn up to the party in one of those (cocktail cabinet and all) it really looks and feels the part.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geff
The seat adjustibility carries its own story. The FAA pilot who did the formal eval for the seats insisted that there could be no stick contact with the seat in any position from full forward/up to full down/back. The only way we could certify was to block the seat fore and aft travel permanently!
I do agree, for those 6'2" and taller, the panel bottom is a knee contact problem, but the lower panel can be cut away for those who are shortness-challenged, if a place can be found for the stuff on that area.
The seat adjustibility carries its own story. The FAA pilot who did the formal eval for the seats insisted that there could be no stick contact with the seat in any position from full forward/up to full down/back. The only way we could certify was to block the seat fore and aft travel permanently!
I do agree, for those 6'2" and taller, the panel bottom is a knee contact problem, but the lower panel can be cut away for those who are shortness-challenged, if a place can be found for the stuff on that area.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Many thanks for the useful and very interesting replies. Mr Lappos, you say they don't suffer from Jack Stall. Did you hear what actually happened to the S76 out of Tallin a while back. Was that a hydraulic problem and did the investigators ever find what actually happened on that ship?
Haven't a clue which variant i'll get to fly just yet but at least I have some info to go on.
Haven't a clue which variant i'll get to fly just yet but at least I have some info to go on.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S 76
Are you talking about seventy-six or seventy-****
Never flew this one, but i can tellyou for 3 dauphins you need one enginer for 1 S76 you need at least two enginers.
Some enginers told me recently, that the last good machine manufactured by Sikorsky was the 61 !!!
Sikorsky made only 3 mistakes with the S76.... The A,B and C models
Fly safe
Never flew this one, but i can tellyou for 3 dauphins you need one enginer for 1 S76 you need at least two enginers.
Some enginers told me recently, that the last good machine manufactured by Sikorsky was the 61 !!!
Sikorsky made only 3 mistakes with the S76.... The A,B and C models
Fly safe
Join Date: May 2006
Location: A long way away
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expanding on the post , slightly guys, has anyone flown the 76 ( any variant ) in the police role or the dauphin ( again any variant ). Always found the N2 underpowered over about 3900kg and they always had a hangar queen rep to go with it!
Having flown on different versions of both models, I consider they both have assets in different matters;
If we consider equivalent power plant (Arriel versions) on offshore ops.
S 76 offers a better payload ( about 300 lbs) on same distances....it usually flies slighly faster and provide more confort for passengers (specially when more than 8 ) It also requires more mechanical attention and a deeper system knowledge for pilots. I also believe it is less "forgiving" in marginal weather. The low blades on front sector is also something to keep in mind on prkings and helidecks.
Improvments like sperry DAFCS,EFIS,IDSS, external life rafts, central locking....make life much easier. This rotor aerodynamic is also wonderfull and behave like a freezbee....only 30 kts or so and we are quickly on the safe side of the heigh and velocity graph.
I feel the AS365 is more maneuvrable, more compact for confined or small helidecks, also simpler for pilots, maintenance and more confortable for crew. It behaves better in turbulent weather and is easier to configuration changes (cargo, medevac,sling) The too light doors and cowling design is not such a big hassle as long as we are aware of this.
To make it short, I'd choose the S76 for long sector ops (crew change on rigs, with few T/off and ldgs) since the Dauphin will be prefered as a "field" helicopter (short sector shuttling, many t/off ang ldgs, field maintenance facility)
I love both of them, and their plastic brains haven't shown any sign of jealousy untill now...(if only women were fitted with the same hardware !)
If we consider equivalent power plant (Arriel versions) on offshore ops.
S 76 offers a better payload ( about 300 lbs) on same distances....it usually flies slighly faster and provide more confort for passengers (specially when more than 8 ) It also requires more mechanical attention and a deeper system knowledge for pilots. I also believe it is less "forgiving" in marginal weather. The low blades on front sector is also something to keep in mind on prkings and helidecks.
Improvments like sperry DAFCS,EFIS,IDSS, external life rafts, central locking....make life much easier. This rotor aerodynamic is also wonderfull and behave like a freezbee....only 30 kts or so and we are quickly on the safe side of the heigh and velocity graph.
I feel the AS365 is more maneuvrable, more compact for confined or small helidecks, also simpler for pilots, maintenance and more confortable for crew. It behaves better in turbulent weather and is easier to configuration changes (cargo, medevac,sling) The too light doors and cowling design is not such a big hassle as long as we are aware of this.
To make it short, I'd choose the S76 for long sector ops (crew change on rigs, with few T/off and ldgs) since the Dauphin will be prefered as a "field" helicopter (short sector shuttling, many t/off ang ldgs, field maintenance facility)
I love both of them, and their plastic brains haven't shown any sign of jealousy untill now...(if only women were fitted with the same hardware !)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monsieur Lappos
Flown both 76 and 365 variants. I think you miss the perfect simplicity of the plastic toy from Aerospatiale - just look at the ingenuity and beauty of the starflex as compared to that monstrous and bulbous collection of metal at the top of the 76 (shall we have a bifilar or not?) - and the engineering access to it is so much simpler - reservoirs and sight gauges that you can actually see! And boy does it fly more smoothly ....
Just look at the joy of the fenestron - lighter, fewer shafts and fewer gear boxes ... fewer tailboom cracks.
Yes, it has Peugeot door handles but the doors are less likely to whip forward and dent the airframe in winds/downwash and they don't rattle nor vibrate anywhere near so much in the cruise.
You always talk about catching up with the airlines, quite correctly, but that depends upon how much the operator is prepared to install in the fleet to permit that level of dual crew concept - so I don't buy the more provision of modes argument.
And the toggle switch automatic start of the N3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the antiquated and cumbersome dual track system of the C+ - ECLs to be used only for the emergency.
But you are right in the end .... the pax and clients prefer the 76.
Just one general moan for the offshore in particular - why oh why do we not provide a set position for a row / block of switches that need possibly to be operated in the event of a ditching (HEEL, EXIS, Floats, Emerg Lights, ELT's, ADELT's,) to save embarrassment of watching sprawling hands wandering about the cockpit trying to locate the myriad of after-thought additions! And yes, I do realise a lot depends on the customer's insistance on fitting his fifteenth ELT etc!
Just look at the joy of the fenestron - lighter, fewer shafts and fewer gear boxes ... fewer tailboom cracks.
Yes, it has Peugeot door handles but the doors are less likely to whip forward and dent the airframe in winds/downwash and they don't rattle nor vibrate anywhere near so much in the cruise.
You always talk about catching up with the airlines, quite correctly, but that depends upon how much the operator is prepared to install in the fleet to permit that level of dual crew concept - so I don't buy the more provision of modes argument.
And the toggle switch automatic start of the N3 is leaps and bounds ahead of the antiquated and cumbersome dual track system of the C+ - ECLs to be used only for the emergency.
But you are right in the end .... the pax and clients prefer the 76.
Just one general moan for the offshore in particular - why oh why do we not provide a set position for a row / block of switches that need possibly to be operated in the event of a ditching (HEEL, EXIS, Floats, Emerg Lights, ELT's, ADELT's,) to save embarrassment of watching sprawling hands wandering about the cockpit trying to locate the myriad of after-thought additions! And yes, I do realise a lot depends on the customer's insistance on fitting his fifteenth ELT etc!