I am devastated, but I treat your input as insignificant as SASLASS and Neek!'s were when they hogged the thread with V-22 lies.
Oh, dear. The Sultan again misses the point, gets the wrong end of the stick, choose your metaphor.
Well, color me surprised.
My training included lots and lots of touchdown autos, in Bells. The training I've administered has included lots and lots of touchdown autos, in Bells. Valuable? Yes. The be-all & end-all? Did it prepare me for the type from another OEM I transitioned into a quarter-century ago? The answer to both of those questions is no, not by any stretch.
The requirements gap a number of years later when I instructed in Bells had widened even further, and there was no change in the training platform.
On to today. The requirements gap between what skill sets can be gained in a Bell trainer and what military training needs are from now into the next decade or two is far wider than that wide gap I encountered back when I started and when I instructed and worked in needs analysis. And Bell has not kept up. Dump on other OEMs all you want, but that, dear fellow, is fact.
There is nothing particularly wrong with a Bell (be it a 206 or a 407) as a trainer, but it is, as I said, a basic machine, even the gee-whiz GX. Technologically, Bell is a generation behind most other OEMs in pure rotorcraft. Bell has comfortably rested upon customer support and government inertia for decades, and that is troubling on many levels.
This isn't a thread about either the S-92 (the Cougar crash has been analyzed in great detail and once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what happened) nor the V-22, so I guess I don't understand why you keep bringing those up, though I suppose it may be because getting down to cases isn't something you're prepared to do.
Again, you damage Bell every time you attack other OEMs, because of the way you do it. Whether you discount my input or not is immaterial, because once again, that is fact.