TaiidanTomcat said:
Engineering to you is how pretty the helicopter looks on the outside based on your personal preference.
Engineering to me is the construction of the important elements that make a helicopter fly, safely.
Expanding on TaiidanTomcat's point, engineering isn't just producing a product that flies safely, it's flying safely while bringing the project in on time and to budget, and without introducing unnecessary complexity. In essence being risk averse in all of operational, engineering, project management, testing, regulatory adherence and fiscal responsibility, while still meeting the underlying requirements.
Think aesthetics don't matter? Ask a corporate salesman.
Think futuristic aesthetics are a guaranteed win? Ask the corporate salesmen for the Boeing Sonic Cruiser or the Beech Starship.
Think customers will queue up for a daring new set of specs? Ask the Sonic Cruiser and Starship salesmen again. Customers want very specific things from new aircraft, and daring isn't one of them. Study what the trade press reveals about the relationships between Airbus or Boeing and their customers. The customers have very specific requirements on passenger-seat/mile costs, capacity and range, ignore them and they'll walk away to the airframer who will listen, which is why Boeing is playing catch-up with 737 Max to Airbus with A320 Neo - Airbus listened when customers said they weren't ready to switch to new narrowbody designs, but weren't happy about buying current generation aircraft for the next decade without new engines and aero-tweaks, Boeing tried sticking to their guns, lost the better part of a year of sales opportunities and were left playing catch-up.
Think fiscal stuff isn't important? Ask the bosses at Hawker, or Fokker, or Cirrus, or Adam, or any of a host of others who've collapsed under the fiscal pressure of bringing aircraft to market.
Think the most rigid structure possible is the safest? Go and look at the actual accident stats. The major safety issue for commercial helicopter operations is controlled flight into terrain or obstructions. That prioritizes pilot visibility (and VFR+IFR training). Structure is still vital, but structural rigidity isn't the optimum path to crash survivability, you need to tune the structure to what works best, and that usually means a mix of rigidity and designed in crumple paths. A structure that resists damage in a crash, but subjects the self-loading cargo to non-survivable accelerations isn't a safe structure.
Think the costs of existing installed infrastructure can be ignored? Why do you think we identify major airlines as specifically Boeing or specifically Airbus customers? The costs and disruption of switching airframer, or engine manufacturer, have to be exceeded by the future gains to be made.
When you think about engineering, you can't simply want something to look a specific way, or use some apparently cool new technology, you need to look at everything that flows into the design, construction, and operation of the aircraft as a single integrated system.
