Obviously crazy comparison but fun question. Safety of older 212 vs new H130T2
A surprising number of folks do not use this 212 chart correctly.
Remember the good old 3000 ft reduction is based on DA not PA.
So if you are at 3000 PA and 30c at 11000 lbs your DA is 5500 so your VNE is now 102-7.5 = 94.5 knots BUT remember your TAS is 102 Kts.
In this scenario if you are at sea level for take off and the OAT is 35C you are at +- 3000DA at +- 1000 PA
A lot of companies impose Vno of Vne -5 Kts.
Gawd grant me a well done Track and Balance in any case.
In Rwanda we could easily be at 8000 Da taking off from Kigali with nowhere to go but up from there. I remember one nasty ridge line that was at 8700 ASL …often +- 11300 DA…payload was limited.
Remember the good old 3000 ft reduction is based on DA not PA.
So if you are at 3000 PA and 30c at 11000 lbs your DA is 5500 so your VNE is now 102-7.5 = 94.5 knots BUT remember your TAS is 102 Kts.
In this scenario if you are at sea level for take off and the OAT is 35C you are at +- 3000DA at +- 1000 PA
A lot of companies impose Vno of Vne -5 Kts.
Gawd grant me a well done Track and Balance in any case.
In Rwanda we could easily be at 8000 Da taking off from Kigali with nowhere to go but up from there. I remember one nasty ridge line that was at 8700 ASL …often +- 11300 DA…payload was limited.
Last edited by albatross; 26th Sep 2023 at 15:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quick question for anyone that has flown really high hour stuff. for sure over time just about everything is replaced/OH... essentially the only thing left original is the airframe. i know with planes they will do x-rays to look for anything concerning. have you ever seen that done with the high time helos?
Nigerian In Law
On my Army pilot course my QHI imparted a couple of pearls of wisdom: always look at engineering when choosing where to work and never volunteer to fly a new aircraft, i.e. one that's just been introduced. That advice stood me in good stead for 30 years.
Never flown an H130T2 but it's new so I'm glad (see above), but 1,500 hours in AS355, 5,000 in 412 and 3,500 in 212, all aged designs at the time. Now retired with an accident free career behind me.
NEO
Never flown an H130T2 but it's new so I'm glad (see above), but 1,500 hours in AS355, 5,000 in 412 and 3,500 in 212, all aged designs at the time. Now retired with an accident free career behind me.
NEO
The following users liked this post:
Agreed Wrench.
The only hassle with Lama is having to oil the TR driveshaft bearings after each flight.
Seen its days though. Struggling for support and spares especially on the engine.
Worthy of a new thread I believe...
The only hassle with Lama is having to oil the TR driveshaft bearings after each flight.
Seen its days though. Struggling for support and spares especially on the engine.
Worthy of a new thread I believe...
This is a great question, and the answer is not that easy to define, which makes it more interesting. It would be easy to make some initial assumptions, such as the fact that the H130 is a new model and the B212 has been around since Pontius was a Pilot, so one might logically assume the 130 to be safer as it is built to more stringent safety standards. However, because the B212 has been around for so long, it's fault's and maintenance needs are thoroughly well understood and it is very unlikely it has a skeleton hiding in the closet. The same cannot be said of the H130 just yet.
Equally, one might assume the B212 to be safer as it has 2 engines, but statistically you are more likely to have an engine failure the more engines you have ie. if you could design an engine that only has one failure every million flight hours, and you put one of these in your single-engine helicopter, then you are extremely unlikely to have a failure, but to exaggerate to demonstrate the principle, if you then put a million of these engines in your helicopter, then you could expect an engine failure everytime you go flying for an hour.
This shows that all things being equal, a twin is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a single, which then leads to one of 2 scenario's: either the pilot deals with the failure correctly and lands safely with the remaining engine, which he can't in a single, or he mishandles the emergency and makes things worse. The twin is more likely to have the emergency and therefore at greater risk of crashing as a result of the emergency being mishandled.
Isn't statistics/probability great!
https://usa.leonardo.com/en/helicopters/th-119
The US Navy recently selected the TH119 single-engine aircraft over the twin H135 for their trainer, which will spend time over the sea. The single is clearly safe enough for them.
For me, the answer is the H130, but both are inherently safe.
PS. I have flown neither. I have around 1500hrs Squirrel and 3000hrs 412 (also 3500hrs Seaking but that's not relevant, although it was fun)
Equally, one might assume the B212 to be safer as it has 2 engines, but statistically you are more likely to have an engine failure the more engines you have ie. if you could design an engine that only has one failure every million flight hours, and you put one of these in your single-engine helicopter, then you are extremely unlikely to have a failure, but to exaggerate to demonstrate the principle, if you then put a million of these engines in your helicopter, then you could expect an engine failure everytime you go flying for an hour.
This shows that all things being equal, a twin is twice as likely to have an engine failure as a single, which then leads to one of 2 scenario's: either the pilot deals with the failure correctly and lands safely with the remaining engine, which he can't in a single, or he mishandles the emergency and makes things worse. The twin is more likely to have the emergency and therefore at greater risk of crashing as a result of the emergency being mishandled.
Isn't statistics/probability great!
https://usa.leonardo.com/en/helicopters/th-119
The US Navy recently selected the TH119 single-engine aircraft over the twin H135 for their trainer, which will spend time over the sea. The single is clearly safe enough for them.
For me, the answer is the H130, but both are inherently safe.
PS. I have flown neither. I have around 1500hrs Squirrel and 3000hrs 412 (also 3500hrs Seaking but that's not relevant, although it was fun)
Chalk and Cheese?
One is certified under Part 27 Normal Category and the other under Part 29 Transport Category. Outcomes from failures may vary.
Statistically and empirically - both seem to do OK.
Personally my only reservation would be the provenance of the 212 these days.
One is certified under Part 27 Normal Category and the other under Part 29 Transport Category. Outcomes from failures may vary.
Statistically and empirically - both seem to do OK.
Personally my only reservation would be the provenance of the 212 these days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On my Army pilot course my QHI imparted a couple of pearls of wisdom: always look at engineering when choosing where to work and never volunteer to fly a new aircraft, i.e. one that's just been introduced. That advice stood me in good stead for 30 years.
Never flown an H130T2 but it's new so I'm glad (see above), but 1,500 hours in AS355, 5,000 in 412 and 3,500 in 212, all aged designs at the time. Now retired with an accident free career behind me.
NEO
Never flown an H130T2 but it's new so I'm glad (see above), but 1,500 hours in AS355, 5,000 in 412 and 3,500 in 212, all aged designs at the time. Now retired with an accident free career behind me.
NEO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: florida
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome breakdown Lucifer. Thank you. Exactly the kind of thoughts/analysis I was seeking. So many ways to look at it. Really enjoying all the points of view.
