If we are going to have the 1 v 2 engine debate let me be plain, I AINT going offshore with one period.

Peace out

Si

I can understand this statement, would make sense I guess, eventhought I have no experience in these fields at all...

Gents this argument is futile as no manufacturer is going to propose a large single for marine environments. FACT
Let's get back on topic or maybe wind up the thread. The 225 is currently stone cold dead. It died while we were debating in this forum.
We are now debating whether it can be brought back to life.

I used to fly singles offshore, Si.

Whirlwind s3, Hiller 12E. AB206A, AB204B to mention a few

TC

Waters colder off the shores of Europe than, for example, off of the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. (Granted, in the winter it's cold enough that hypothermia can still be a factor). Do you think that may contribute to the PoV differences? We've got a long running thread that addresses Single Engine helicopters flying, and losses, over the GoM.

Aye but we are beyond that now and I would rather have two.

Hope you're well TC :)

Si

No, that's not it. In Europe we just have a different take on GA safety. Compare the whole HEMS situation. Also European law makers have a tendency to heavily overregulate.
But I think for US Americans life threats subconsciously translate to ultimate freedom in some weird way. Ref the crackbrained gun culture...

Stick with what you know, like flying helicopters. Your use of the term "gun culture" shows both bias and ignorance. Let's not let this become a JB eligible thread, shall we?

Back on topic:
As to the risk averse / less risk averse cultural baseline, I thank you for your observation. My idea on the water temp was a bit too simplistic, in retrospect.

I must admit I am heavily biased on that topic, yes. I didn´t know the term Gun Culture was a no-go, sorry about that. No personal insult intended whatsoever.
It was just a simple comparison that sprung to my head thinking about the different GA safety measures. Interesting enough that in the airliner industry you won´t find that difference across the pond as far as I know.

But you´re right, it doesn't have anything to do with helicopters in generally and especially not with the hypothetical (?) end of the 225.

I may be a bit too sensitive on that other point, so sorry for any offense from my end.
Good point made on the closer philosophical bent in the airline industry than GA.

Good grief! We'll have none of that compromising, seeing the other fellahs point of view, understanding and apologising behaviour around here you two. Get with the programme!�� (Thumbs up smiley)

Alright handysnaks :ok:
I see your point. I understand and apologize... :E
Will try and get more into the whole AnFi vs crab kinda mood if you prefer that.

Since they don't seem to have a clue why this happened it is quite difficult to foresee a fix that will be considered convincing. And even after a potential fix it will take a significant time until a bit of trust would be restored. Realistically the 225 is more or less dead, at least in the North Sea O&G industry. Probably time for AH to accelerate work on the successor. Hopefully they learn the lesson and don't try to cut too many corners to shave the last ounce of the design.

i think that you will struggle getting the bears offshore in a 22, or even off the ground, don't they have a seat weight limit??? ;)

Where's that LIKE button? :ok:

Consider this example. A single engine is apparently acceptable for the F-35B, a couple of which just safely flew across the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the new CH-53K helo is designed to use three engines to make the same flight.

When the established reliability rate of turboshaft engines meets or exceeds that of the rest of the propulsion system which has no operational fault tolerance, such as much of the rotor system and gearbox, what is the justification for not using a single engine?

@riff_raff post #240

I was just about to make that point exactly, when I noticed you beat me to it.

There isn't one - simplicity is a major benefit and single engines can undoubtedly be safer than twins - It's just human nature - I very much doubt the Pilatus PC12 is any less safe than the King Air and it has many advantages in performance and cost. But I also doubt you would get an oil company flight department to specify it over the twin. Same probably goes for helicopters

The F-35 is not a passenger carrying aircraft. (Nor is the F-16). The risk profile in the design spec is probably different, with stronger emphasis on different performance goals and the way to get there.

:

Maybe the F35B is not the best choice of example for propulsion reliability…? They may have flown here but when they go back to the factory for repair it will be by surface. The UK’s forward thinking MOD is building 2 new ‘transporter’ ships, so they can run a shuttle service across the pond ;)

Also an ejection seat and parachute might be some comfort to the F35B pilot, as he bobs around on his personal life-raft, waiting to be collected by a twin-engined helicopter, expecting it to be capable of the return journey.

I do understand your point and that reasoning is why we now see 2-engined airliners crossing the Atlantic whereas the norm used to be 4-engined. Not yet singles though...