Sasless
An excellent pair of posts if you don't mind me saying so, and I technique I must remember for later, ie you make a fairly flippant post, I am sucked into replying in the same vain, then you switch into intelligent, articulate & logical mode and trash my post! You are cleverer than I thought!
Your proposal to use FL as an intermediary is a good idea and I will consider it, however from my point of view it ultimately doesn't matter to me whether I am thought of as being an EC employee or not, so I have nothing material to gain, but with the current politics in my company (which is not EC!) I might have something to lose if it got out. Nick has cleverly manoeuvred away from discussing facts and made the main issue of any thread discussing the S92's flaws into the credentials of those posting criticism of his product.
What I would prefer to do is to eliminate personal attacks and stick to discussing the facts. The problem seems to be that facts that I state are dismissed because I am perceived as working for EC, so lets say that I do work for EC (I don't, but never mind!), now I am on an equal footing to Nick. Surely now my posts supporting "my products" should have equal credibility to Nick's on his? I am quite happy to answer any questions on "my" product (bearing in mind my technical knowledge is limited, as is the case with most salesmen!) will Nick to the same for his?
However this thread is not about the 92 vs 225 - we did that one to death. I am only interested in finding out more about the 92 (which I know very little about) and this incident - one day I may well end up flying it!
If I promise to drop the S92's MGB oil system certification snipes, will Nick give us a briefing on this system - ie where the gauge and warning light sensors are located in the system, how the two pumps operate together, what the analysed failure modes are etc. Is it possible to post a diagram of the system (I can do the same for the 225 if requested, though this thread is not about the 225)?
How about it Nick?