HughMartin
I know what you mean about the L2 giving the impression that its hit the limit of development. The engines struggle and pop, the electronics require frequent "re-boots" and are generally quite glitchy, and I would have agreed with you on the 225 had I not actually flown it and seen what a huge jump up from the L2 it is.
The L2 was a transitional aircraft (ie transitioning to EFIS type cockpit) and the electronics of that age don't seem to be up to the job. However the 225 is all-new in that department, and whilst the engines are still Makila, they have addresses all the irritations of the 1A2, eg fadecs (no more popping), proportional bleed valve (no more kicking) with auto-offset scheduled on airspeed, automatic Nr+10 scheduled on airspeed, no need for NrILS, FLI which is Nr-aware.
The AFCS Upper mode and screen design was developed by the EC flight test department and it really feels like it is designed by pilots for pilots. Sorry Nick, but more so that the S92 - or maybe there's a difference between what US pilots and European pilots want?
But there's always a down side - it has the same LH accessory module as the L2
I'm not sure where you get the 16 pax from - the 225's gross weight is 11000kg - up 1700kg from the L2. There is a healthy 4200kg disposable in N sea configuration with re-inforced floor and crashworthy seats, which is slight less than the 92 but because the 225 is faster than the 92 at the same fuel burn (figures taken from both flight manuals) on a long run it only loses about 100kg of payload to the 92 and still has enough for 19 with 11kg bags each at full fuel (2250kg).
As to cockpit & cabin size the S92 ain't no S61. When I flew the 92 I didn't get the impression of any more cockpit leg room over the L2, though it is a little wider. The 92 cabin looks a lot bigger than the L2 but that is mainly down to the increased height, which is of no practical value once you are seated. If you measure up you will find that the increased length of the cabin over the L2 is only about 3 inches (for the S61 its 3 feet) and although the width is up by 7 inches, this is largely offset by the fact that the window openings are high up on the 92, whereas on the 225 (which has enlarged windows over the L2), most outside passengers can put their elbows in the window recess. However as a pilot I am selfishly concerned about what its like to fly, and there the 225 wins by a mile (OK a subjective opinion I know, but I am not the only one to have flown both that thinks so)
You are right that practically speaking, reliability and operating costs are big factors but unfortunately at the moment, none of us knows how that will pan out.
Enjoy your S92 should you get to fly it!
Nick - I agree that stopping the fuel tanks rupturing is vital to survive a crash, but if the tanks rupture and there's a fire it doesn't make much difference whether the tanks are inside or outside - there will be burning fuel everywhere! I believe that EC have now done drop tests with the tanks inside a representative structure so that they can get certification to the lastest standards. Well done to Sikorsky for making it politically desirable for them to do that!
I think the Sikorsky concept of no booster pumps has to be a good crashworthy feature (though I'd rather not crash in the first place
)