Nick
I can't help thinking that your statement that tanks are less likely to rupture if installed outside the aircraft is based on bias and not science. Let me ask you where you would rather be when a helicopter crash lands - sitting in the cabin or standing outside 10 feet away? Unless your sponson tanks can withstand impact from a rotor blade rotating at near flight speed, I can see no less liklihood of rupture for external tanks. Of course one could come up with scenarios that favour either option - it just depends on how you choose to crash!
Yup I've already agreed with you on the pumps!
If you read my post again you will see that the figures I was using are based on the strengthened floor and crashworthy seats option that oil companies are likely to require. With that kit, the 92 and 225 have very similar disposable loads - the 92 comes in a few hundred kilos ahead but burns more fuel, so that on a long run there's not much in it. You may be looking at old figures from a couple of years ago before the gross weight of the 225 was upped to 11 tonnes?
I believe EC also has PBH for the whole aircraft (at least all the dynamic components anyway) but that is only one factor. Getting new bits "for free" as part of PBH is only minor compensation for an aircraft that is always in the hangar, annoying clients and not generating revenue. Which one is best there, only time will tell!