No doubt I will get flack for posting on this thread too. Lets just get some facts being bandied around by rj straight.
The disposable loads (with the 225 option of crashworthy floor and seats meeting JAR / FAR 29.561/2 ) of both aircraft in North Sea fit are similar at around 4200kg (say 9250lbs) which allows both to take 19 pax, baggage and full fuel (5000lbs). That is including the strenthened floor option on the 92 as well - the standard floor isn't really up to the rigours of N Sea oil support with its loading limit of 75lbs/sq foot.
The 92 is a couple of million cheaper than the 225, which gives it a clear advantage if you are a bean counter, though this will only last as long as the dollar remains weak - should it go back to 2003 levels that difference disappears.
Ranges are very similar but I think the 225 will just take the lead by about 10 miles.
The S92 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 1999 version
The 225 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 2000 version with the following reversions to earlier standards:
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
That's 7 partial reversions out of hundreds of paras, 5 if you take the crashworthy floor/seat option (that clears 29.562 and 561.)
Of the 5, 3 are to do with the fuel being under the floor - the Super Puma series will never be able to meet this - a clear one up to the S92.
Not quite sure where it doesn't meet 785, but again its a crashworthiness thing.
571 does look like it would be nice to have as its there to stop you falling out of the sky, not just to soften the blow when you do.
So there is one item that I would like to have on my heli out of that lot that the 225 doesn't have, that might stop me crashing. If you are going to crash, the 92 is probably the one to do it in, though its more difficult for the passengers to get out of in a rush (small, high up exit windows).
The 225 does have genuine 30 min run time with no gearbox pumps or oil which the 92 doesn't have. So they are about equal in my book on "paper safety".
Rotorpower - the crashworthy seats are so-called because they stroke downwards in a crash with high vertical (as opposed to forward) speed on ground contact (which is what usually happens in heli crashes) thus reducing the peak g-force experienced by the passengers. They normally do this by using metal shredding or crushing (same idea as the S92 undercarriage has) to absorb energy. You also need a floor that is strong enough not to collapse.
Sas - are you sure that the jetranger is the safest general aviation aircraft in the world - don't you mean safest helicopter? Is this fact or rumour, if the former what is your source?
But you make a good point about the cost of crashworthiness. Even here in the UK, where we think we are the bees knees on safety, there is (with very few exceptions) no clamour from our clients to rush to get the new kit. With the climate of "duty of care" pervading the rest of the business world, and the high cost of killing people (well, westerners anyway), I don't understand this.
Maybe the clients are clever enough to understand the bathtub concept - ie reliability for a new aircraft follows a curve like a section through a bathtub - dodgy at first until the bugs are ironed, settles down to give good service for many years, then old age starts to catch up with it.
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Apr 2005 at 23:40.