Hopefully they learn the lesson and don't try to cut too many corners to shave the last ounce of the design
I have been privileged to fly the Puma and the Super Puma since their first introduction in The Royal Air Force in 1971 until my last flight in a 332 L1 in 2008. Having sat in a 225 I found it interesting but had no desire to operate it.
The Puma started off as a French Army requirement and first flew in 1965. Being a French military project there were certain requirements that regulated the design. One of these was that it had to be able to travel in a SNCF railway truck so it had to be sufficiently narrow. Another was that it had to fit into the back of a Transall C60 so it had a height restriction. This meant that compared with other helicopters of that era, ie S55 and S58, one could not stand up in the back. The first two prototypes had blunt UH1 type noses and minimal instrumentation. Small windows were admissible because being a military helicopter any passengers were not going to be on board for much more than ten minutes at a time.
A lot of the dynamics were licenced from Sikorsky and others, blades, autopilot, but there was a severe vibration level which was only brought under control by inventing the barbeque plate. Apart from that it was a fast, powerful helicopter with impressive manoeuvrability. It was accepted by the French Army and subsequently by the Royal Air Force, among others. It entered service in France in 1967 and the UK in 1970. It was fast, cruised at the unheard of speed of 145 knots with a VNE of 167knots. It flew like a fighter, being able to hold a 2G 60 degree banked turn and could carry sixteen troops and fuel up to a MAUW of 6,400kgs..
There was a demand for a civilian version to satisfy the market. A major obstacle was the TBO of the gearbox made in those day IIRC by FIAT. This was only 800 hours which in the military sphere was no problem but it was in the civilian world. A program known as CAAP (Component Advanced Ageing Program) was initiated using two RAF and I believe four French Army helicopters whose sole job was to continuously fly some 100 hrs./month using the same gearboxes that would be inspected at regular intervals and reissued. The aim was to prove that they could go to 1800hrs. TBO. It was difficult to find enough tasks to suit the one aircraft so it would be used for anything that burned off the hours. (Germany to pick up wine for a party, kippers from Machrihanish, look up old girlfriends, even to Aberdeen looking for a job) The project was successful and the civilian model became a reality.
Some problems were manifesting themselves. The engine mountings were cracking because of the vibration and there was a reinforcement programme. The boom/pylon joint was also suffering because of the very powerful tail rotor and doubling plates were applied. The initial models had no protection for the tail rotor and when subsequent examples appeared with a 'sting' on the boom that we were informed that they would not be fitted retrospectively. At Stanford PTA one brushed it's tail rotor and crashed; two weeks later they all had them on. It was generally thought that any helicopter that cruised at 145 knots was entitled to shake so the general moderate to heavy vibration was tolerated. The structure of the aircraft did not agree and bits were starting to fall off, things like doors and doghouses.
The along came Chadwick Helmuth.
Main rotor balancing and dynamic tracking transformed the vibration levels. You could read the Decca roller map and yout coffee stopped spilling over the floor. To celebrate this new found smoothness the AUW went up to 6,700kgs. With the proviso of being limited to 30 degrees of bank above 6,400kgs. The so-called standard problem of the Puma remained, however, which was the lack of anticipators owing to the steam traction system of engine control. (Spinning weights) This was usually a secondary cause when sudden contact with the ground was concerned. In the civil world the because of the more refined handling the MAUW was increased to 7,200 and with the 330J with the new plastic blades up to 7,400kgs. 1,000kgs above it's original MAUW.
The 332 then came on the scene. The heritage was obvious as the first 'Super Puma' was a 330A blunt nose prototype with Makila engines, a two wheel main undercarriage and an AFT plug in the fuselage. It's introduction with it's lead customer was accelerated because their large S76A order had been cancelled owing to their blades shedding. Their 332s had large windows, proper plug doors, anticipators and were delivered in a green state and completed in the UK. The MAUW was now up to 8,600kgs, 1,800 above it's original MAUW with the same basic fuselage design and similar rotor swept area. Despite the fact that it was still the original size as required in the 1960s so one could not stand up in it but was very successful especially when the production of the S61 ceased.
One would have thought that that was as far as one could stretch a Puma. Apparently not, and we have the 225 which has generated all sorts of problems in it's relatively short life. Putting new wine into old bottles springs to mind and one must wonder whether they stretched the elastic just a bit too far. I cannot think of it regaining its passenger's trust in the same way as the BV234 exited the offshore world so it is time for Airbus or whoever they call themselves nowadays to start with a new sheet of paper.