Nick I do wish you would stop lying about the EC225. You said
The Super Puma family cannot be redesigned to prevent this, in fact, the 225 does not meet this new turbine burst requirement. Instead, regardless of the requirement to withstand a burst, the engines are said to not be able to burst. The regulation is not met, however.
which you know to be a lie because you have seen the TCDS - even posted it on Pprune- you know there is no grandfathering on the engines, and you know that its not possible to grandfather on a new engine (which the Makila 2A is). Or perhaps you are not lying, perhaps you are just as thick as mince?
As you well know, the certification requirement is met by the blade shedding technology whereby in an overspeed situation not contained by the electronic shutdown system, the N2 blades are dumped into the containment shield and then the N2 turbine discs cannot go any faster (and start to slow down). This in my opinion is far better than the Sikorsky system where the turbine disc is allowed to explode, with the hope that there is sufficient protection within the airframe to prevent serious damage.
Amusingly Sikorsky's slide showing this wonderous innovation shows the bits of turbine debris can fly through the rotor disc. Unless you are going to tell me that the rotor blades are impervious to turbine disc that was doing 50,000 rpm an instant ago, I would say that the EC system is far better and safer.
The S92, and the other more modern helicopters, are designed so that a turbine burst does not allow engine chunks to cut primary flight controls.
- Yea, pity about the rotor blades. Flight controls don't work too well without those.
Even you once described EC's idea as "cool" - how times and bitterness have changed you.
Your constant and irrational lying in a pathetic attempt to make the EC225 look worse than your baby just means that you lose all credibility. Get a grip!
HC