Obviously crazy comparison but fun question. Safety of older 212 vs new H130T2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously crazy comparison but fun question. Safety of older 212 vs new H130T2
Overall what would you say is a safer bird to fly. A new H130T2 or a B212 that is from the 90s, less than 10k hrs and very well maintained? Totally different everything including single vs twin.. but taking into account age, added complexity of combiner gear box, etc.. which do you feel is the least chance of putting you in a very bad position (assuming you are well trained in EPs for each airframe of course) Not comparing costs, how fun they are to fly, etc.. If you had to put just a safety number on each with those specs (new T2 vs late model well maintained 212 with low hrs). What would you rate each? i.e. H130 a 9 and the B212 an 8.
(all VFR flying)
(all VFR flying)
The 212 isn't "fun to fly", it is a noisy, slow workhorse. Lucky to get 100kt out of it, comfortable around 90kt.
Haven't flown a 130, but it's great-uncle, the Squirrel, was a hoot.
Haven't flown a 130, but it's great-uncle, the Squirrel, was a hoot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for sure.. an older heavy two bladed ship is not going to fly nearly as nice as the H130. the H130T2 and b3e are very fun to fly. there is def no comparison there. i'm talking just safety of the two. if u had to rate each on a 1 to 10 what would you rate them.
How do you want to compare this? Generally the H130 should be saver, because it was certified to higher standards. There you go. Give the 212 a 5 and the H130 a 10.
Both ships were developed for different purposes. The 212 is basically a military helicopter adapted for the civilian market, the 130 was built for the site seeing industry.
If you want to know, go to the Aviation Safety Network and count all the accidents with technical reasons for the accidents. Look up the numbers built and there you have it.
Generally speaking a new H130 will always be safer than a 10'000h 212. Even if the maintenance was immaculate. There are things that just wear out and you will only see this with time. And you do not know, if there wasn't a log that slipped at 800 h which made a tiny little crack in the roof that will show up at 11'000h as a big crack.
Take the 130.
Both ships were developed for different purposes. The 212 is basically a military helicopter adapted for the civilian market, the 130 was built for the site seeing industry.
If you want to know, go to the Aviation Safety Network and count all the accidents with technical reasons for the accidents. Look up the numbers built and there you have it.
Generally speaking a new H130 will always be safer than a 10'000h 212. Even if the maintenance was immaculate. There are things that just wear out and you will only see this with time. And you do not know, if there wasn't a log that slipped at 800 h which made a tiny little crack in the roof that will show up at 11'000h as a big crack.
Take the 130.
[QUOTE]
i'm talking just safety of the two. if u had to rate each on a 1 to 10 what would you rate them./QUOTE]
Safety, eh? The 212 is used for totally different, hard-working purposes than the 130. It will have more accidents than the 130, simply for that reason. I have 14,900 accident-free hours and only 10 seconds of an accident, which was during training for night touch-down autos to an unlit area, in a B206. What could go wrong.
So, statistically, for me a twin is safer, because that accident happened in a single. But the twin I prefer is an S76B. Second choice, A109. Third, BK 117, fourth B412. Last, B212.
For a single, 7000 hrs in a B206 gets the tick. Second choice, B407, third AS350, way down the back comes the EC120, R22 and totally left on the starting blocks is the Enstrom.
Go for the H130.
i'm talking just safety of the two. if u had to rate each on a 1 to 10 what would you rate them./QUOTE]
Safety, eh? The 212 is used for totally different, hard-working purposes than the 130. It will have more accidents than the 130, simply for that reason. I have 14,900 accident-free hours and only 10 seconds of an accident, which was during training for night touch-down autos to an unlit area, in a B206. What could go wrong.
So, statistically, for me a twin is safer, because that accident happened in a single. But the twin I prefer is an S76B. Second choice, A109. Third, BK 117, fourth B412. Last, B212.
For a single, 7000 hrs in a B206 gets the tick. Second choice, B407, third AS350, way down the back comes the EC120, R22 and totally left on the starting blocks is the Enstrom.
Go for the H130.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you want to compare this? Generally the H130 should be saver, because it was certified to higher standards. There you go. Give the 212 a 5 and the H130 a 10.
Both ships were developed for different purposes. The 212 is basically a military helicopter adapted for the civilian market, the 130 was built for the site seeing industry.
If you want to know, go to the Aviation Safety Network and count all the accidents with technical reasons for the accidents. Look up the numbers built and there you have it.
Generally speaking a new H130 will always be safer than a 10'000h 212. Even if the maintenance was immaculate. There are things that just wear out and you will only see this with time. And you do not know, if there wasn't a log that slipped at 800 h which made a tiny little crack in the roof that will show up at 11'000h as a big crack.
Take the 130.
Both ships were developed for different purposes. The 212 is basically a military helicopter adapted for the civilian market, the 130 was built for the site seeing industry.
If you want to know, go to the Aviation Safety Network and count all the accidents with technical reasons for the accidents. Look up the numbers built and there you have it.
Generally speaking a new H130 will always be safer than a 10'000h 212. Even if the maintenance was immaculate. There are things that just wear out and you will only see this with time. And you do not know, if there wasn't a log that slipped at 800 h which made a tiny little crack in the roof that will show up at 11'000h as a big crack.
Take the 130.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for this awesome answer Charlie. I should have specified. Comparing for identical mission (i.e. GA flying in VFR conditions with qualified/conservative pilot). For sure the 212 is doing a lot of hard/unique missions so I wouldn't try and compare it to an H130 doing loops around vegas. That would be unfair. Thanks again for the response!
Fly the 212 like a 130 and have the best of both worlds!
Just get a very good but portable seat cushion.
Just get a very good but portable seat cushion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must really rattle because i think you are the 4th person that has pointed this out! I'm used to two blade rides but it must be even worse. Everyone mentions the 412 but I think once you lose the huey thump its just not the same!
super reliable Turbomeca
Maintenance is the key to aircraft reliability in the main, I was fortunate to have top notch engineering, even in a two aircraft 206 operation, would fly a 212 again in a heart beat.
Comparing which aircraft is "safer" is a moot discussion, all aircraft are inherently safe, what makes for an unsafe operation is poor maintenance, lack of training, poor standards, wrong aircraft type for the intended operation etc.
Always had absolute confidence in any aircraft I flew, recognising of course that things can happen, flying the 76 often used to wonder what my ex instructor Gerry Hardy went through in his last moments when his 76 threw a blade in flight at Aberdeen. RIP good friend.
once you lose the huey thump its just not the same
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is why i was saying holding all those things constant as much as possible. for instance on two brand new ships on a 10 mi viz day i feel it is reasonable to say a 109SP over LA is safer than an R22. i find it kind of fun comparing something like a brand new single vs older twin (holding all the other things constant like maintenance, pilot skill, mission, etc..). obviously not an exact science.. just fun to nerd out. ;-)
H130
pros: very new machine with latest tech, vemd/FLI, safran Arriel 2D, starflex, relatively simple machine with less things that can go wrong, etc..
cons: single
212
pros: twin, PT6, SAS, etc..
cons: even a newer one that is well maintained is still kind of old. as someone pointed out earlier even with great maintenance that is going to be wear and tear over the years
as someone pointed out earlier even with great maintenance that is going to be wear and tear over the years
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
The 212s we had in Dubai had upwards of 30K hours on them, and they all flew like new due to the skills of our engineers (and the pilots of course!) Every year, one of the fleet was taken down to nuts and bolts and reassembled. My computer background tells me that old technology is proven technology, but then I'm still using Multiuser DOS.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 212s we had in Dubai had upwards of 30K hours on them, and they all flew like new due to the skills of our engineers (and the pilots of course!) Every year, one of the fleet was taken down to nuts and bolts and reassembled. My computer background tells me that old technology is proven technology, but then I'm still using Multiuser DOS.
The 212s we had in Dubai had upwards of 30K hours on them, and they all flew like new due to the skills of our engineers (and the pilots of course!) Every year, one of the fleet was taken down to nuts and bolts and reassembled. My computer background tells me that old technology is proven technology, but then I'm still using Multiuser DOS.
As for vibration levels quite easy these days to get below 0.1 Vertical and Lateral with the right gear and time.
Still get the transition vibes though which wouldn't make it a 212 otherwise.
Mostly fly in the back these days so 212 for me.
H130
pros: very new machine with latest tech, vemd/FLI, safran Arriel 2D, starflex, relatively simple machine with less things that can go wrong, etc..
cons: single
212
pros: twin, PT6, SAS, etc..
cons: even a newer one that is well maintained is still kind of old. as someone pointed out earlier even with great maintenance that is going to be wear and tear over the years
pros: very new machine with latest tech, vemd/FLI, safran Arriel 2D, starflex, relatively simple machine with less things that can go wrong, etc..
cons: single
212
pros: twin, PT6, SAS, etc..
cons: even a newer one that is well maintained is still kind of old. as someone pointed out earlier even with great maintenance that is going to be wear and tear over the years