How Important Is Crashworthiness?
The thread on S-92 Oil Pressure problems raised some interesting points, some old and some new.
It was previously discovered that the EC-225 was certified using 332 as the basis, so the 225 has only some improved features (I understand they call this "grandfathered"). Lappos touts the S-92 as having all new features (he also admits that the AB-139 shares this trait).
So we have the EC 225, with unprotected passenger and crew seats (I think the inference is that these seats somehow could be made to not harm the occupant in a crash, although I don't understand the process) and the S-92 with the "better" seats.
We have the EC 225 with a cabin that does not meet the latest crash strength rules (I don't know what these rules are, actually) and the S-92 that claims to do so.
Lappos claims some S-92 advantage in "flaw tolerant" components, presumably an advantage, not shared by the 225.
The 225 is based on the proven 332 family (which I assume has a good safety record, does anyone have the facts?) and we know the S-92 is unproven, just now building time.
It seems that we really don't know if the aircraft are relatively equal on payload and range performance, and perhaps on price - it has not ever been clearly stated here.
So which one is better? Which one carries more? Which one is safer? Which one has more payload and range? Which costs less to buy? Which costs less to operate?
Does anyone know the facts here (perhaps besides Lappos and helicomparitor, who both seem too close to their aircraft!)
Rick Burt, your company operates aircraft from both companies, what do you say?