I didn't think most of those points were in dispute.
Most of them acknowledged by Nick Lappos and JimL on this forum.
Originally Posted by
industry insider
When your arguments are substantiated by engineering design based fact regarding reduced critical component margin
the AS355 against AS350 comparision example provides that 2700kg against 2250kg with the same gearbox, blades, pitch links etc SAME COMPONENTS/working harder - less margin.
or worse autorotation performance caused by having 2 engines
which would you think was easier to autorotate an AS350 with 3SOB and 2 hrs fuel or an AS355 with 3SOB and 2hrs fuel?
confused pilots,
do you think there is a shortage of examples of accidents to confused pilots ? Several examples of wrong engine shutdown - 902 in river in US
complicated fuel systems
the evidence for the complication of the fuel system is the preceeding 200 posts attempting to clearly describe the intricate workings of the EC135 fuel system and the previous ACCIDENT to an A109 in snow in Wales due to not understanding the complications of the fuel system with one pump inop
or reduced payloads
self evident also isn't it? , I may listen
NO HARM IN LISTENING.
It is you who fails to provide any merit
some merit above? for your "statements", they are not arguments because they lack any cogency.
Heard something I don't like? Not at all, I can hardly wait for the next installment.
I don't want to piss on the gravy train, carry on, the public demands it - and they are well known for their expertise in helicopter design
If you can't see what the downsides of the twin are then you don't have a balanced view - the upsides are obvious: it is possible to continue flight when ONE engine fails.
Engine failure rates need to justify the Gearbox/Freewheel/Tailboom deaths - maybe they do? Particularly with larger helicopters - perhaps.
BUT it is clear that the evidence of accident rates to twins are not inline with the maths which is used to justify that approach - 10^-9 !?