B212 vs. B205-A1 - external load
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B212 vs. B205-A1 - external load
My company is considering getting a B212 for external load work in order to carry more per trip than we presently do, using an AS350. We’d use the aircraft in a warm, low-altitude environment (35ºC, below 2,000 ft MSL); our loads are heavy and compact, and stable when carried on a line. Other than a hook limit of 5,000 lbs. and a max gross weight of 11,900 lbs., I don’t know any weights/performance limits on this type of aircraft. If any of you have used or are using the B212 in external load operations, please help me with the following questions:
- What is a typical empty weight for a B212 in VFR, external load configuration (no autopilot or co-pilot instruments, seats removed or web seats only)?
- What is the max gross weight of the B212 with external load, in other words, is there a difference with the internal load-only MGW?
- What’s the average fuel burn per hour doing external load work?
- What is the published VNE with door(s) removed, bubble door for the pilot, and/or with a load on the hook?
- In the environment I’ve described (ISA + 20-25ºC, 0-2,000 ft MSL), does the B212’s performance (hover OGE) limit it to less than its structural limits?
- How would a B205-A1 rate in comparison to a B212 on these points and also price?
Any help with these questions will be highly appreciated.
- What is a typical empty weight for a B212 in VFR, external load configuration (no autopilot or co-pilot instruments, seats removed or web seats only)?
- What is the max gross weight of the B212 with external load, in other words, is there a difference with the internal load-only MGW?
- What’s the average fuel burn per hour doing external load work?
- What is the published VNE with door(s) removed, bubble door for the pilot, and/or with a load on the hook?
- In the environment I’ve described (ISA + 20-25ºC, 0-2,000 ft MSL), does the B212’s performance (hover OGE) limit it to less than its structural limits?
- How would a B205-A1 rate in comparison to a B212 on these points and also price?
Any help with these questions will be highly appreciated.
The 205 will outperform the 212 due to its lighter weight...burns less fuel....but will not perform nearly as well following an engine failure as the 212....but only marginally worse when heavy.
Depend on a whole lot of variables. But they are essentially the same aircraft and have very similar figures, and all your questions will be effected by which engine you have fitted to each.
The 205 A1 is essentially a 205 fitted with the 212 running gear, therefore they have the same speed limitations: normal cruise at 100 kias, vne at 120. Fuel burn depends on donk fitted as does lifting performance. Both can be fitted with the same range extenders, etc.
205 A1 (MAUW 10,500lbs) is often fitted with a -13 or -17 donk. Both will allow MAUW hover IGE at the figures you quote, but the -13 struggles OGE and is obviously outperformed at HDA. The -17 is good to quite high DAs. Fuel burn is 600lbs/hr (as low as 580 in the cruise) for the -13. I cannot recall the -17 burn.
212 (MAUW 11,200 lbs) has the PT6 in two versions, -3, and -3B. Same story as above, both will do IGE at MAUW at the DAs you mention. Same as OGE, the -3 will start to strugggle OGE, and the -3B begins to out perform at higher DAs. Fuel burn for the -3s is 640lbs/hr, but can be up to 700 - 740 for the -3Bs and has a noticeable affect on range.
for lifting, the body weight differences actually gives the A1 the advantage, generally by about 100 to 200kg despite a lower MAUW. But generally, they are pretty similar unless you compare say the -17 A1 at altidude to the -3 212, or vice versa.
Our old chief engineer used to say that due to the expense of the Lycomings, the 212 was only about 10-15% higher costs even though it is a twin. But I believe that with the increase in ex mil UH-1s, the Lycoming costs may be getting better.
My prefernce is always for the twin, especially doing ext load ops, because once the load is gone, the 212 will not come down and mess with your ground crews - or your pilot's next of kin.
The 205 A1 is essentially a 205 fitted with the 212 running gear, therefore they have the same speed limitations: normal cruise at 100 kias, vne at 120. Fuel burn depends on donk fitted as does lifting performance. Both can be fitted with the same range extenders, etc.
205 A1 (MAUW 10,500lbs) is often fitted with a -13 or -17 donk. Both will allow MAUW hover IGE at the figures you quote, but the -13 struggles OGE and is obviously outperformed at HDA. The -17 is good to quite high DAs. Fuel burn is 600lbs/hr (as low as 580 in the cruise) for the -13. I cannot recall the -17 burn.
212 (MAUW 11,200 lbs) has the PT6 in two versions, -3, and -3B. Same story as above, both will do IGE at MAUW at the DAs you mention. Same as OGE, the -3 will start to strugggle OGE, and the -3B begins to out perform at higher DAs. Fuel burn for the -3s is 640lbs/hr, but can be up to 700 - 740 for the -3Bs and has a noticeable affect on range.
for lifting, the body weight differences actually gives the A1 the advantage, generally by about 100 to 200kg despite a lower MAUW. But generally, they are pretty similar unless you compare say the -17 A1 at altidude to the -3 212, or vice versa.
Our old chief engineer used to say that due to the expense of the Lycomings, the 212 was only about 10-15% higher costs even though it is a twin. But I believe that with the increase in ex mil UH-1s, the Lycoming costs may be getting better.
My prefernce is always for the twin, especially doing ext load ops, because once the load is gone, the 212 will not come down and mess with your ground crews - or your pilot's next of kin.
Be aware of the proposed AD that will affect a lot of Lycoming engines....to the tune of about 150,000 USD per engine....do some research to see if the engine you are considering falls within the AD.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we are on the subject. I have always been curious why companies prefer the 212 over the 205. If all things being the same or close and expense for the 212 being more. In the states I always see more 212s on firework than 205s. Is it contract requirements or as someone above states in regards to engine failures.
Bert,
Imagine yourself at 6000 feet msl, temp about 90F, at the end of a longline hovering OGE trying to dump water on a snag or someother point drop....and you have an engine failure or low side governor failure in your trusty 212...does it really matter the other engine is running? The cost of operation for a 212 exceeds that of a 205....but how many of the things got retired from Offshore Flying by competition from newer faster machines thus are now available for fires or other utility work.
Imagine yourself at 6000 feet msl, temp about 90F, at the end of a longline hovering OGE trying to dump water on a snag or someother point drop....and you have an engine failure or low side governor failure in your trusty 212...does it really matter the other engine is running? The cost of operation for a 212 exceeds that of a 205....but how many of the things got retired from Offshore Flying by competition from newer faster machines thus are now available for fires or other utility work.
SASless,
You are right, but if you have a -3B fitted 212 and you get rid of the load, your body weight (if you have optimised it for lifting) will be at it's minimum, and whilst it may not give you a 200ft hover OEI, at 6000ft 90F, it is still pretty good at most reasonable DAs, especially if you can move it to a IGE situation, and it ALWAYS gives you a bit of cushion at the bottom that I wouldn't ever swap the A1's extra 100kg for.
You cannot leave it at that Buitenzorg: spill the beans.......
You are right, but if you have a -3B fitted 212 and you get rid of the load, your body weight (if you have optimised it for lifting) will be at it's minimum, and whilst it may not give you a 200ft hover OEI, at 6000ft 90F, it is still pretty good at most reasonable DAs, especially if you can move it to a IGE situation, and it ALWAYS gives you a bit of cushion at the bottom that I wouldn't ever swap the A1's extra 100kg for.
You cannot leave it at that Buitenzorg: spill the beans.......
It's not just an adventure....
it's just a job!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Philippines
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
Having flown both types, I prefer the "Non Torque Limited" BH05!
Nothing worse than climing into a 3B 212 with the torque limiter set to droop at 99%! Believe me, it happens.
Cheers,
OffshoreIgor
Having flown both types, I prefer the "Non Torque Limited" BH05!
Nothing worse than climing into a 3B 212 with the torque limiter set to droop at 99%! Believe me, it happens.
Cheers,
OffshoreIgor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chilliwack, BC Canada
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are you saying? Do you WANT to overtorque, or are your engineers just not able to adjust the Q limiter?
I can't enter the conversation, as I have no 205 time, but I certainly like the thought of those 2 -3B's purring away behind me, and having some small chance of flying away in an engine failure situation, given favorable temps, alt's, loads, and airspeed.
I can't enter the conversation, as I have no 205 time, but I certainly like the thought of those 2 -3B's purring away behind me, and having some small chance of flying away in an engine failure situation, given favorable temps, alt's, loads, and airspeed.
