Nick
At last you have finally admitted (in a roundabout sort of way) that the 92 has no dry running time. Its only taken 2 years!
Just to correct your justification, the 225 like the 332L/L2 before it, only has external pipework to the oil cooler. In the event of loss of oil, the oil cooler is automatically bypassed. If you look at the 225 transmission you will see a lot of pipes but those are for the glycol injection to give the 30 mins dry running time. There is no oil in them.
In the 92, similar external leaks require pilot intervention. Does the RFM still say "within 5 seconds"? If so, that is a very poor system for a multi-pilot helicopter.
Lets just check the safety score for a minute. You have the wonderous S92 which meets the letter of the FAR29 admirably. Then you have the EC225 which is a worthless piece of junk because it has the wrong writing on the TCDS. Well the 92 is the clear winner isn't it!
Or maybe we should get in touch with reality?
I know of all the events on the 225 fleet. I only know of some of the events on the S92 fleet - those that became public knowledge. In the first 10,000 hours of operation:
Engine failures: S92 - two. EC225 - none
Fires: S92 - one. EC225 - none
Bits falling off in flight: S92 - one (anti-vibe actuator). EC225 - none
Transmission lube critical failures: S92 - two. EC225 - none
Rotor system problems: S92 - one (tail rotor). EC225 - none.
That's all I can think of at the moment but I'm sure there are more. As I have said before, compliance with the letter of FAR29 does not make for a safe helicopter.
Whilst you might fare better in a crash in the S92, that is just as well because you will almost certainly need that protection. Given the choice between crashing in a crashworthy helicopter or not crashing in a non-crashworthy helicopter I choose the latter thanks.
HC