HeliComparator and Eurochopper,
First one thing, HeliComparitor - I do not post here to fool or to hide "glitches" as you state. If you doubt my veracity, it is your loss, frankly.
Fitness for the job is the customer's, nobody can dispute that. Your choice (assuming that you are a customer, and not an EC salesman) is what counts. Please chose, buy and operate as you wish. Have your opinions and debate as you wish! The marketplace is the best forum.
However, Compliance with the law is not subject to our opinion. The governments that we have pick experts, these experts tell the manufacturers what to do to make a new helicopter. Only they determine compliance.
The only measure of compliance is the Type Certificate, upon which neither sales guys not customers get a vote. The tests that the S-92 underwent were all passed, with new designs and new concepts in many cases, because the requirements are new, and revolutionary. The latest FAR/JAR/EASA regs are known, published in 2003 and the S-92 is certified to them. The gearbox meets the requirement, and in fact has six times the protection for its crews as the reg requires. (the shutoff valve is felt by several customers as better than the alternative, a collection of parts and valves and reservoirs that adds complexity, weight, maintenance and failure modes. ) I listed some of the other new requirements above, the actual number is enormous. Of the 1700+ , the facts are irrefutable:
The S-92 meets all, the Super Puma MKII meets 44% of them, and is allowed to ignore the remaining 56% because it is "grandfathered." This is exactly as if you could sell a brand new 1987 car as if it could compete with a 2004 model on its safety features.
There are hundreds of JAR paragraphs that the Super Puma MKII does not meet, because it is so old, and safety technology has changed so much. That is irrefutable, but acceptable to the authorities, and to the customers who buy it. It is not acceptable to the customers who decide to buy a newer, better product.
If the EC 225 salesmen say "fully JAR compliant", it is up to them to provide its certification basis, which lists (by JAR/FAR paragraph) what it meets and doesn't meet. It is also a matter of public record, as published by the certifying agency. It is my knowledge, until proven otherwise, that the 225 does not comply with the latest JAR/FAR.
Nick
PS The paper 225 has respectable performance, I agree. But, the empty weight of the EC 225 does not include the many safety features desired by the end customer. For example, crashworthy seats and the structure of the floor to support them. If you ask EC to sell you those seats (assuming your passengers ask for the latest protection, and assuming you are wise enough to know how to ask) then EC will tell you the aircraft grows by about 1000 lbs empty weight ( "crash-resistant seats can be fitted" says the EC press release. ) They will try to talk you out of them, because they haven't even designed them yet. Now once you have configured the seats that way, ask them to give you the choice on each other JAR paragraph, and add up the weight. Two S-92 customers told about the flying squad of EC salesmen that descended on them with all this bunk! This is proof of their grandfathering, since there is no 'option" under the new requirements, it must be part of the design. Let me know when you decide that the certificate means something.
Last edited by NickLappos; 1st Aug 2004 at 14:48.