B212 Vs. B205-a1

[leggo]

Blackmac, we have one AS350B and one AS355F1. And get this... the B-model is set up for EMS while the Twinstar is usually in the bush...

 

I'm gathering data on some light singles and your suggestion is one of them.

 

Just one question though: is the 140 mph with a line on? Or clean?

 

Cheers

[Zazu]

All I fly are lights, but from a strictly logging point of view the 205 (don't know the specifics with either machine) outperformed the 212 every time. On the other hand one 212 blew an engine while I was hooking up a turn right underneath it and still made it to staging. If you play the "what if " game you do the math.

 

Zazu

[jetbox]

The one thing I would strongly recommend regardless of what model medium you get, make sure you get a strake kit. They are definately worth the money!!!!

[Blackmac]

Leggo: Depending on what you are slinging makes the difference in what a/c you use.

 

From a marketing point of vue, if a load can be broken down to a manageable level with a smaller and faster helicopter and all costs are taken into account, go with what your answer that you arrive at.

 

i.e. a 4000lb item has to be lifted by a helicopter that can do so.

 

The same 4000lb item, IF ?????, it can be broken down? Maybe it is cheaper to use a smaller machine.

 

Just a thought, and I don't have to many.

 

Cheers, Don

 

PS: I see that you asked the same question on another site. Believe me, if you don't get the right answer here, no body knows, only the shadow.

[downwash]

Leggo, if you find me a machine in Canada that can haul a slingload at 140 knots OR mph, let me know post haste, puh-leeze! While some machines may have external load VNEs higher than others (and most run around the 80K range), controllability has to become a major concern, as well as the likelihood of shorter life for critical parts/points of your gear.

 

On your basic question, I have to go with what appears to be a majority in pushing the 205 with 212 dynamics. We haven't had to go to a -17 engine yet, but are ready to do so if the need arises. The strakes also mentioned are a worthwhile addition. Before the 205 market went wild, your best bet, financially, would have been a 205 upgraded, but that's a big question mark now (and the 210 is one **** of a hunk of coin). And yes, the souped-up 212 will pull away from the 205++ at altitude, but you say altitude's not a problem.

 

If that 407 Blackie mentioned will pull your loads, it could be a winner. I don't think its speed carries through to external, though. And don't forget, ALL of these have to be measured in terms of cycle costs, Leggo, or you could find yourself with winning performance but horribly losing economics. Keep sniffing, you'll get the right scent.

[Harmonic_Vibe]

Well, there I was working on my post and I inadvertently hit a mystery key... the post was gone but when I went outside to find my computer it had survived by being caught in a hedge!

 

So, from memory:

 

This post went from being a request for information to being a debate between the proponents of either the 205 or the 212 (with a few exceptions). Being a lover of debate, I think this is great, provided the original query is answered to the best of everyone's ability.

 

The original query from Leggo was a direct question regarding the pluses and minuses of one or the other with regard to external load work. It was, however, sort of a two part question because he also stated that they wanted something that would haul more than the AS 350, that they were using at the present time. In a later post he clarified what they were doing by stating that they used a Twinstar for "bush work" and an AS 350 B for EMS. So, to the question of what would be a suitable helicopter to replace what they were already using, I think a 204 or, as Blackmac said, a 407, would do just fine. Of course we are lacking all of the details that would help us decide what the "right" helicopter would be... and we'd never reach a complete consensus anyway.

 

Now, I'd like to comment on the 205 Vs. 212 debate:

 

As Hogie said earlier, "we need to compare apples with apples" (at least I think he said something like that). So, as BDVI has already listed the various makes and models of 205's and 212's (and something I've never heard that you could actually buy... the 210), I'll refrain from listing the attributes of each and limit myself to something that I don't think anyone has discussed... the actual application of engine power to mainrotor transmission:

 

A few points that I hope everyone knows:

 

The 205 has a transmission rating of 1250 HP. This means that when the torque gauge says "54 PSI" (the 204/205 torquemeters use PSI rather than percentage of allowable power), the engine is producing 1250 HP.

 

The 212 has a transmission rating of 1290 HP. When the torqemeter in the "old steam chicken" (my hat is off, once again to Hogie) is at 100 %, the engines are producing a combined HP of 1290.

 

So, the differences between the types:

 

The 205-A1 has a Lycoming T-53-13 engine. This engine produces somewhere around 1400 HP (I'm not sure of the exact figure so please cut me some slack you detail freaks out there). The transmission in a 205 is rated for 1250 HP. This leaves 150 HP as the "de-rating" of the engine.

 

The 205-A1 ++, (which is a made up name by people who are trying to differentiate between the various configurations of blades and engines) has a Lycoming T-53-17 engine. This engine produces quite a bit more horsepower than the -13 (once again I can't remember what the numbers are), but the extra ia applied to the de-rating so it only affects hot and high performance.

 

The 212 has two engines that produce a combined total of 1800 HP (slightly more with the 3B's but this, once again is applied to de-rating). Since the transmission rating is 1290, this allows a margin of 510 HP for the de-rating of the engine. This makes the 212 a really good "hot and high" performer.

 

Ok, so we've talked transmissions and engines, now let's talk aircraft weight:

 

The average 205 weighs around 5700 lbs.

 

The average 212 weighs around 6500 lbs.

 

Clearly, if the engine of the respective aircraft is making full power then the lighter aircraft will outperform the heavier aircraft (40 HP to the transmission being insignificant when contrasted with the differnce in weight of the machine).

 

When the density altitude increases the 205 with the -13 engine falls off quite rapidly. The "Straight 205" is a geat helicopter unless it's asked to do something it's not equipped to handle.

 

The 205 with the -17 engine makes full transmission horsepower to obscene altitudes and temperatures. I personally have made 212's look silly at 10,000 feet. Of course every machine is different and every pilot and every engineer is different... so there's no "one formula for everyone".

 

I have also worked a 212 beside a guy in a 205 A-1 ++ and never once felt ***** envy.

 

So, I hope I have clarified rather than muddied the issues, playful though they are.

I have empirical evidence that supports my views and some good solid numbers that back me up... regardless of what Hogie says... and I respect what he says... and it's not 'cause he's so huge!!!!

 

HV

[cap]

HBG ----------I've run the -17 and am aware of what you speak. I was considering all the factors though.. The man may or may not be able to find a 205 with a -17 . Last price I heard quoted for the conversion was approximately $1M. Parts for 205's have to be watched much closer than the 212 also. I say that because there now exists approximately 400 more 205's than Bell ever produced at the factory. We won't even get into the 212 with single hydraulics the MOT chased around for years trying to have a good look at.

 

Again, airframe time is increasingly starting to be a factor with the 205's. That was one of the driving forces behind the COMPLETE -17 conversion in the first place, which Rocky Mountain Helicopters had in their stable many years ago. That conversion had the 212 nose, blades, transmissiom plus the -17. I saw then what that a/c could do to 8 drums of fuel at 8000' compared to a 214 and of course there was still a difference, but the margin had been reduced by quite a bit. I don't have to be sold on the -17 performance and the absolute nicest thing to me was, once started, I might as well have thrown the EGT guage out the window. With the 205 -13 my eyes were always feasting on the EGT and N1 guages on a hot day and "Q-ing out" was a dream only, but the -17 changed all that. Slinging speed is an irrelevant thing to me because it is 80-90kts for me maximum and I don't care what I'm flying or what the power reserve is. The 407 is also a good aircraft for this, but I believe the first point made was the desire to move more bodies at once. 407 Driver can also relate factual stories about where that problem was negated also.......just by speed alone.

 

So my attention was focused on all ALL the factors that I think one has to include. If we are just talking performance only then the "deck gets re-shuffled" quickly. I know of one company that had the ideal situation as far as I'm concerned.........they carried both the -17 and the -13 for the same aircraft and that allowed them to bid on a whole wider range of contracts. Ideal for me because I didn't have to foot the operating or conversion costs and all this comes down to money, sooner or later ******.

 

I mentioned the airframe age as a factor only because it is a consideration and more and more 205's are now very elderly "ladies". I have nothing against age at all and in fact go to bed each night with a grandmother, but her "airframe" doesn't have embarrassing stories to tell about having exceeded it's limits over the last 30+ years either.

[HBG]

Bell Vs a Bell, this is a new one. Your right Big Duke, I don't have the experience you do on the Steam Chicken, but I don't rely upon my own experiences only, I usually look towards the more experienced fellow aviators like Cap, VR, and your very own VX to make my final conclusions, just to name a few. Each machine has its own merrits, there is know doubt, but talking to and working with other pilots and customers, yes your drill company too, the concensis has been that the 205 ++ is a better performer than a 212, Hot and High. Its just that some customers require two engines to fly for them because some body along the way told them its Ok to fly recording crew with an single engine A-star but you have to have 2 engines to fly drills. Doesn't make sense to me. Now I don't know who's 205 it is that you are working along side to make this comparison but I am sure they don't have the vast long line in tow experience that you have. And yes the second stove would be nice but we all know that with a load on whether it be a drill or a log or what ever, you must be in a pretty good flight configuration for it not take you to the ground where the 205 will be, you may just extend a bit. That said, I look forward to the day when I can make all the VS comparisons first hand to pass on down the line for when this same discussion is going on ten years from now. Fly safe in Utah, I will be in Two Lakes drilling 6000 holes for the next couple of months :up: , PTI camp at 105 on the Two lakes road, can't wait!! :down:

 

All the Best.

HBG

[VERTICAL X]

Hey HBG..... Leave me out of this conversation, don't get me started!!!!!!!!! I'm a STEAM CHICKEN driver now and don't want to be dragged into something that everybody already knows the truth about. HA HA HA

 

Take care buddy

 

VX

[Big Duke 6]

HBG,

 

Boyyy, just when my knuckles were starting to heal . Well we could go on and on about this topic. They are both excellent machines, and as long as it is doing what your marketing guy told the client it would, well I guess your in good shape. But we are all entitled to our opinions. Have fun up in Two Lakes .

 

P.S ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, PRINCESS even with a 212 & longline in tow. And yes I've heard all about your drilling experience from the Bertram boys, there AIRWRECK . Let me now when you want to move upto the majors. Things must be getting lonely @ the farm team .

 

JMHP.

Cheers BDVI