Nick - I thought you had got over your personal attack mood - obviously not!
Crashing - like I said, it depends on how you crash! Hitting the ground hard is certainly the problem, but whether or not the fuel tanks rupture was the issue we were discussing. Yes, having fuel tanks in a crumpled pile of twisted metal is a bad thing (though I probably already be dead by then) but so is a fuel tank/sponson breaking off , bouncing and being sliced into bits by the rotors -then you get nice fine droplets of fuel with plenty of air about to burn.
I'm sure you would agree that neither scenario is desirable, but which is better, who could say?
Those "modern helicopters" you talk about woudn't happen to be the S92 by any chance would they? Some self-fulfilling logic there!
Yes, the 225's payload is always less, but unless you are going for a near-full range trip that extra payload is no use in a 19 seat configuration - both aircraft can take 19 plus bags and a bit of freight. At full range, the difference becomes about 100kg but the 225 has slightly better range (by about 15nm). This is enough to make the difference between 19 pax and lots of baggage (92) or 19 pax and a reasonable amount, ~11kg (or 25lbs to you Nick) of baggage (225).
In other words the 92 does have better payload, but its only useful in the 19 seat configuration at extremes of range, say over 350nm
Do you think everyone else is getting bored with us trading minutiae? You seem determined to hijack this thread to continue promoting your product and trashing the opposition and with relatively few people in a position to argue you have a strong hand. Its a pity the French don't have a Nick equivalent - maybe I should ask for a job?
Since I have no vested interest other than the truth, and have to get up early for a flight tomorrow, I let you get on with it!