Sorry guys, can't resist pointing something out....
Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?
So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?
How about his statement on range?
At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.
So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.
In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.
Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
HC