Steve_oc - they may be 1-1.5 ins bigger in one dimension, but what about the other? I can't put lay my hands on the 92's window size at the moment - do you have both dimensions?
rj - as I posted earlier, the 225's fuel system is "less crashworthy" than the 92, though its much improved from the old 330 puma that you are referring to. EC have done about as much as can be done in terms of strengthening and thickening the bags, but whilst they are under the floor they will never pass the new regs.
There has been no mention of weak seat belts - where did that come from? Its true that the stroking passenger seats are an option, but at least that gives the customer the choice - better payload or better safety. With that option the seats are not "poorer" as you suggest.
Yup, give me comfort AND safety please, but none of the manufacturers do that yet.
SAS - by Tiger do you mean the AS332L Super Puma - the EC Tiger is surely a military attack helicopter? The AS332L's flight manual was the subject of a CAA change sheet which removed references to fast cruise - only economical cruise was allowed. This was a long time ago and the result of the experiences of all the North Sea operators. I believe the reason was to do with general vibration levels as well as the gearbox.
It looks like the same thing is happening to the S92 - operators are already finding airframe cracks in aircraft with less than 200 hrs in service, due to the high vibration levels. I suspect we will be seeing them reduce their cruise speed unless SKy can reduce the vibration.
As to the 225, no-one knows yet. However it is intrinsically much smoother than either the 332L or the S92. Its being promoted to be cruised at max continuous power, giving 141kts tas at 11 tonnes, 151 at 9.5 tonnes (6000' 0degC, with floats). When I flew it, it was very smooth at that speed but we were quite light. Not sure what it would be like at max gross weight.
HC