Converted 212

[Mike Reyno]

Not to be a naysayer, what is the difference between a 205-A1 airframe, 212 tail boom, 212 xmsn and rotor system, with a -17 engine??????

 

It seems to me a lot of hoopla for something that already exists.

 

I do beleive Frontier already went thru that process.

 

Cheers, Don

 

PS: STC's are only required, I beleive, when up-grading an existing airframe, or improving an existing FAA approved design.

 

I guess the biggest thing you gain right out of the gate is 1,000 lbs over the 205 because it is actually a 212 less the weight of one engine.

[cap]

Blackmac ------did the Frontier "thing" also 'ol bean and after all is said and done, it's all about more "poop" than the Frontier machines had. They also didn't have all the other changes you mentioned either. Other small things like a 57Q "Limitation" instead of 54Q and a higher N1 "Limitation" of 105% make her a "stump-puller". Regarding the latter, you don't want to even know what the Q was if you pull 100%+..........just go see your engineer with your "tail between your legs" because "the beatings' will begin shortly afterwards.

[Skids Up]

I guess the biggest thing you gain right out of the gate is 1,000 lbs over the 205 because it is actually a 212 less the weight of one engine.

 

???

 

What is the EW on the 212?

 

Seems it must be a bit heavier to begin with - never flown one, so it might be a dumb question...

[cap]

Skids Up ------you can get them down "in 205 country", but you gotta work at it. The IFR-equipped ones that worked next to one time all averaged about 7100-7200 and once you strip all the IFR out of it and go "half-pamel" you can get them pretty light. There's alsoa pile of 205's out there now that are running as much as 6300.

 

After all is said and done, you're loosing the weight of the sheet metal and the weight of one engine. Where the machine excels is at altitude and that's where the difference is really noted. Down lower, you use the N1 and MGT (that's the term for EGT in the conversion or 210) for start-up and shut-down and other than that, they're just along for the ride.

[heliho]

The main advantage of the 212S over the 205 is the 212S has a max gross weight of 11,200 verses 10,200 for the 205 depending on the version of 205. The 212S will be fairly close in empty weight of the 205 right around the 6000 pound mark. Sounds like a good drill moving machine to me.

[Blackmac]

Mike R:

 

I don't see any problem taking a 212 airframe, which was type certified as a twin engine helicopter and turning it into a single engine helicopter. This constitutes a major change to the original design. If and when the STC is approved, I doubt that it will be called a single engine 212.

 

Should you or anybody else wish to do some reading, read the following from the horses mouth, TC.

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/Int/TA/usa2000imp/Section3.htm

 

Remember the 212 was certified twin, capable of bringing you to the scene of the accident on one engine.

 

The Eagle machine reverts to one engine with no margin for error, if it quits.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Cheers, Don

[Elvis]

What's your point Don if a 205 or the 210 engine quits same result.

 

A 212 airframe with a single engine with the 212 max gross will be a killer drill

mover.

[cap]

Blackmac ------ "don't go there" with the 2nd engine "thingy". If you're going to talk that way, then I'll remind you of a saying of an old engineer friend of yours and mine and it went like this:

 

"I'll only feel safe in an aircraft when one engine goes and I hear the Captain YELL (denoting the size of the flightdeck) to the FO 'Feather number 4".....and I hear the FO YELL back......'Rodger sir.....which side?"

 

Sorry, but this "twin-engined" thing always breaks me up.

[Blackmac]

Elvis/Cap:

 

I have no problem with either analogy. What I'm talking about is the certification process. How can you call a 212 that has been extensively modified a single engine 212?????

 

I could be wrong but I beleive the 210 is a 205 airframe and is being promoted by Bell.

 

And the saga goes on.

 

Alahoot 3 drive components were put on an Alahoot 2 and became the "Lama", not the smaller cabin 3 or the upgraded 2.

 

Of course if you read the section from TC it's clear as mud.

 

Cheers, Don

[Skids Up]

Maybe they will have to call it the 106,

 

(1/2 of 212..) sorry :fart: