View Single Post
Old 26th Oct 2016, 14:32
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: llanelli
Posts: 359
II, I hate the 225, overwhelmingly a design that is trying to be the constantly evolving French helicopter version of the Porsche 911, without German engineering. But I'm in the industry so I have to be objective and you've taken certain sentences out of context and deliberately ignored my caveats. Let me set you straight.

One the first point you dislike, I noted that EASA have jumped the investigation. I dislike that immensely as well. Maybe my 3rd para was too far down the page for you to read?

The S92 vs 225 argument on commercials is centered around the payload at distance and cost per seat argument, most often used in production. There is almost nothing in the PBH rates, the S92 burns more fuel but a full 225 can go further than a full S92. If you want to go more than 135nm then it's cheaper/ person in a 225. A 225 full goes out to 170nm. And the 225 in OGP fit was a bit cheaper than an S92 in similar.

As for the grounding, your point is valid I agree. But different regulators have different interpretations of issues concerning design faults. It would have been interesting to see EASA's response to the S92 issues and FAA to the 225.

On the final point of costs of heavies, as I noted, if helicopter operators have to price them as super mediums to get customers to contract them, you're not looking at like for like vs the S92. Balance will be altered in markets which allow the 225 back. Do you really think that a safe 225 capability for the price of a SM will be ignored in Angola or other jurisdictions of that ilk? I think you are too North Sea focused in your thought process. I doubt that helicopter operators are sat at home with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ac sat idle and saying, "ah well I guess we'll just go bankrupt because this conversation is a bit hard"... They'll be back, the industry will just re-balance again.
nowherespecial is offline