Obviously crazy comparison but fun question. Safety of older 212 vs new H130T2

[turbineturkey]

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)

[Ascend Charlie]

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.

[paco]

The 212.... Like driving an old Bentley

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

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.

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.

[Rotorbee]

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.

[Ascend Charlie]

[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.

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by Rotorbee

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.

This is the exact kind of answer i was looking for. I know they are such an apples and oranges platforms but if you just had to put a number on each for safety (same mission, same qualified pilot, VFR) which would be safer. I love flying twins but sometimes I think it can be a false sense of security when comparing an old twin to a very new ship with something like a super reliable Turbomeca. Often simplicity can tilt the scales back in the direction of the less sophisticated heli. Just wanted to have fun to see what the experts here thought. Thanks for the thorough response!

[turbineturkey]

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!

[SASless]

Fly the 212 like a 130 and have the best of both worlds!

Just get a very good but portable seat cushion.

[griffothefog]

The 212 was a pig on long offshore gigs with no AP and anything above 90 kts would rattle your teeth out, load lifting however was a different ball game…

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by SASless

Fly the 212 like a 130 and have the best of both worlds!

Just get a very good but portable seat cushion.

still have my blow up seat cushion for taking a B2 back and forth coast to coast! as smooth as an a-star is by third leg of the day that cushion came in handy with the sporty seats (not the old lazy boy BA style sets)! i would love to hear your scoring on the match up. 212 vs 130T2 ... same exact VFR missions with same pilot that has taken safety course on both and say has 300hrs in each ship (for example just cruising the coast line). obviously need to hold as many things as consistent as possible. i think both are very safe ships.. just always fun comparing the nuances of why one would edge out the other. i suspected the H130 would win even tho the 212 is twin, sas/afcs, etc.. but i was surprised by the gap so far.

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by griffothefog

The 212 was a pig on long offshore gigs with no AP and anything above 90 kts would rattle your teeth out, load lifting however was a different ball game…

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!

[megan]

super reliable Turbomeca

Wonderful how perceptions work, the only engine failures I ever had was with Turbomeca (S-76), two of them a couple of years apart, both caused by a blade in the hot end being released by fatigue at the root, not caused by any overtemp or other abuse.

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

My favourite music.

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by megan

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.

absolutely agree. 95% is maint, training, standards, etc..
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

[megan]

as someone pointed out earlier even with great maintenance that is going to be wear and tear over the years

No one has yet invented a mechanical contrivance that doesn't wear and tear with usage I'm afraid. Don't know what old has got to do with it, you seen the price for a Spitfire or P-51? People have been known to proverbably kill to own one. I dare say the Huey will be the same in the future, being an iconic reminder of a fractious point in history.

[paco]

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.

[turbineturkey]

Originally Posted by paco

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.

preach! all the kids love coding everything in js these days. LAMP stack has worked for me for decades! ;-) i'm such a believer in old/proven as well.

[Salusa]

Originally Posted by paco

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.

Indeed, the old adage that the Serial Plate is the only original part is quite true on 30k plus hours 212.

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.

[paco]

turbineturkey - do you hate wordpress as well? I'm still hand coding my sites.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by turbineturkey

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

The one thing you dont compare is where you choose the operate the aircraft. In some locations the 212 will win hands down from a maintenance point. For one I dont need a computer with a 212. And two, spare availability being equal, there is nothing I couldnt fix in the field on a 212. H130 does have certain limitations in that regard. About the only aircraft that would be higher in the field maintainibilty scale would be a SA315B.