Horror Box, thanks for the reasoned counterpoint. I appreciate your perspective on the machine. One *minor* disagreement though...
As was mentioned by someone with experience in this field and you promptly snubbed...
I did not snub it. All I was saying was that in my lifetime in this industry, I've never heard of *ONE* instance of a bird impacting the tail rotor pylon and taking out the t/r driveshaft. So claiming that moving the driveshaft to the rear of the pylon is a "safety" feature is...well...arguable I think.
In fact, I am all for improved bird-strike protection on the front of the aircraft. It's not just about the windscreens and what they're made of, obviously. It's also about the structural integrity of the centrepost, upper cockpit, and those cowlings "in the line of fire" so to speak. I thought I had made that clear. Hey, I fly a 206 with flimsy plastic windscreens and big, long, vulnerable push-pull tubes going up to the rotor. My worst nightmare is having a big bird either come through the screen on my side at night or (worse), taking out one of my push-pull tubes.
As for avionics, I was surprised to be flipping through one of the helicopter-specific magazines recently and seeing...I forget whether it was a CH-47 or an old S-61 with nothing but glass panels up front. Either way it was a 1st-Gen airframe with what looked like the latest-and-greatest cockpit displays.
I don't hate the S-92. As I've said all along, I'm sure the S-92 is a wonderful aircraft with many new features. Whether these features give us a helicopter that is substantially or demonstrably "safer" than anything else on the market is, as I've said, arguable. It's foolish to assume that the oil companies have the last word on what is or is not safe. But you're right, so far its accident record has been pretty good, comparatively.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful post.