g33 - Well said, though this forum would be a bit dull without some irrational debate going on!
212man you said
It's a shame that this has degenerated to such a level on what seems to be a pretty clear cut topic. The 225 is basically old with new bits added, the 92 is basically new.
I agree except that I would change new to newish - remember the engines are CT7s which go back to before I was born, the the gearbox is modified black hawk and the head could be called old fashioned, but yes the fuselage is all-new whereas the 225 fuselage is basically L2.
I don't think there can be to much disagreement on the above, what got me going was Nick's implication that the 225 met virtually none of the new standards whilst the 92 met all (although the dry run one was passed only by using smoke and mirrors!). In fact, as we have seen from the TCDS, there are very few areas where the 225 doesn't meet the latest regs - those are probably insoluable with the current fuselage configuration.
Set against that, I think all pilots will be aware that to be the first to operate a new type is always risky. No matter how careful the manufacturer's boffins and certification authority are, a tiny mistake or oversight could be disasterous. (S76 spindles, EH101 tail rotors etc) That's why I would prefer to be in the first company to be operating the 225 rather than the 92 - the very fact that it is partly old tech reduces the risk! Nick will have a field day with that comment but its my opinion!
There's also the fact that, as you pointed out, the 225 screens are miles ahead of the 92, as are the autopilot upper modes etc. I had a big grin on my face after I flew it which is only just wearing off, whereas following flying the 92 my modest grin only lasted a few hours!
Although there has been considerable conflict on this thread, at least it has given the subject a good airing and I'm sure both Nick & I are man enough to take it!