Well, there I was working on my post and I inadvertently hit a mystery key... the post was gone but when I went outside to find my computer it had survived by being caught in a hedge!
So, from memory:
This post went from being a request for information to being a debate between the proponents of either the 205 or the 212 (with a few exceptions). Being a lover of debate, I think this is great, provided the original query is answered to the best of everyone's ability.
The original query from Leggo was a direct question regarding the pluses and minuses of one or the other with regard to external load work. It was, however, sort of a two part question because he also stated that they wanted something that would haul more than the AS 350, that they were using at the present time. In a later post he clarified what they were doing by stating that they used a Twinstar for "bush work" and an AS 350 B for EMS. So, to the question of what would be a suitable helicopter to replace what they were already using, I think a 204 or, as Blackmac said, a 407, would do just fine. Of course we are lacking all of the details that would help us decide what the "right" helicopter would be... and we'd never reach a complete consensus anyway.
Now, I'd like to comment on the 205 Vs. 212 debate:
As Hogie said earlier, "we need to compare apples with apples" (at least I think he said something like that). So, as BDVI has already listed the various makes and models of 205's and 212's (and something I've never heard that you could actually buy... the 210), I'll refrain from listing the attributes of each and limit myself to something that I don't think anyone has discussed... the actual application of engine power to mainrotor transmission:
A few points that I hope everyone knows:
The 205 has a transmission rating of 1250 HP. This means that when the torque gauge says "54 PSI" (the 204/205 torquemeters use PSI rather than percentage of allowable power), the engine is producing 1250 HP.
The 212 has a transmission rating of 1290 HP. When the torqemeter in the "old steam chicken" (my hat is off, once again to Hogie) is at 100 %, the engines are producing a combined HP of 1290.
So, the differences between the types:
The 205-A1 has a Lycoming T-53-13 engine. This engine produces somewhere around 1400 HP (I'm not sure of the exact figure so please cut me some slack you detail freaks out there). The transmission in a 205 is rated for 1250 HP. This leaves 150 HP as the "de-rating" of the engine.
The 205-A1 ++, (which is a made up name by people who are trying to differentiate between the various configurations of blades and engines) has a Lycoming T-53-17 engine. This engine produces quite a bit more horsepower than the -13 (once again I can't remember what the numbers are), but the extra ia applied to the de-rating so it only affects hot and high performance.
The 212 has two engines that produce a combined total of 1800 HP (slightly more with the 3B's but this, once again is applied to de-rating). Since the transmission rating is 1290, this allows a margin of 510 HP for the de-rating of the engine. This makes the 212 a really good "hot and high" performer.
Ok, so we've talked transmissions and engines, now let's talk aircraft weight:
The average 205 weighs around 5700 lbs.
The average 212 weighs around 6500 lbs.
Clearly, if the engine of the respective aircraft is making full power then the lighter aircraft will outperform the heavier aircraft (40 HP to the transmission being insignificant when contrasted with the differnce in weight of the machine).
When the density altitude increases the 205 with the -13 engine falls off quite rapidly. The "Straight 205" is a geat helicopter unless it's asked to do something it's not equipped to handle.
The 205 with the -17 engine makes full transmission horsepower to obscene altitudes and temperatures. I personally have made 212's look silly at 10,000 feet. Of course every machine is different and every pilot and every engineer is different... so there's no "one formula for everyone".
I have also worked a 212 beside a guy in a 205 A-1 ++ and never once felt penis envy.
So, I hope I have clarified rather than muddied the issues, playful though they are.
I have empirical evidence that supports my views and some good solid numbers that back me up... regardless of what Hogie says... and I respect what he says... and it's not 'cause he's so huge!!!!
HV
So, from memory:
This post went from being a request for information to being a debate between the proponents of either the 205 or the 212 (with a few exceptions). Being a lover of debate, I think this is great, provided the original query is answered to the best of everyone's ability.
The original query from Leggo was a direct question regarding the pluses and minuses of one or the other with regard to external load work. It was, however, sort of a two part question because he also stated that they wanted something that would haul more than the AS 350, that they were using at the present time. In a later post he clarified what they were doing by stating that they used a Twinstar for "bush work" and an AS 350 B for EMS. So, to the question of what would be a suitable helicopter to replace what they were already using, I think a 204 or, as Blackmac said, a 407, would do just fine. Of course we are lacking all of the details that would help us decide what the "right" helicopter would be... and we'd never reach a complete consensus anyway.
Now, I'd like to comment on the 205 Vs. 212 debate:
As Hogie said earlier, "we need to compare apples with apples" (at least I think he said something like that). So, as BDVI has already listed the various makes and models of 205's and 212's (and something I've never heard that you could actually buy... the 210), I'll refrain from listing the attributes of each and limit myself to something that I don't think anyone has discussed... the actual application of engine power to mainrotor transmission:
A few points that I hope everyone knows:
The 205 has a transmission rating of 1250 HP. This means that when the torque gauge says "54 PSI" (the 204/205 torquemeters use PSI rather than percentage of allowable power), the engine is producing 1250 HP.
The 212 has a transmission rating of 1290 HP. When the torqemeter in the "old steam chicken" (my hat is off, once again to Hogie) is at 100 %, the engines are producing a combined HP of 1290.
So, the differences between the types:
The 205-A1 has a Lycoming T-53-13 engine. This engine produces somewhere around 1400 HP (I'm not sure of the exact figure so please cut me some slack you detail freaks out there). The transmission in a 205 is rated for 1250 HP. This leaves 150 HP as the "de-rating" of the engine.
The 205-A1 ++, (which is a made up name by people who are trying to differentiate between the various configurations of blades and engines) has a Lycoming T-53-17 engine. This engine produces quite a bit more horsepower than the -13 (once again I can't remember what the numbers are), but the extra ia applied to the de-rating so it only affects hot and high performance.
The 212 has two engines that produce a combined total of 1800 HP (slightly more with the 3B's but this, once again is applied to de-rating). Since the transmission rating is 1290, this allows a margin of 510 HP for the de-rating of the engine. This makes the 212 a really good "hot and high" performer.
Ok, so we've talked transmissions and engines, now let's talk aircraft weight:
The average 205 weighs around 5700 lbs.
The average 212 weighs around 6500 lbs.
Clearly, if the engine of the respective aircraft is making full power then the lighter aircraft will outperform the heavier aircraft (40 HP to the transmission being insignificant when contrasted with the differnce in weight of the machine).
When the density altitude increases the 205 with the -13 engine falls off quite rapidly. The "Straight 205" is a geat helicopter unless it's asked to do something it's not equipped to handle.
The 205 with the -17 engine makes full transmission horsepower to obscene altitudes and temperatures. I personally have made 212's look silly at 10,000 feet. Of course every machine is different and every pilot and every engineer is different... so there's no "one formula for everyone".
I have also worked a 212 beside a guy in a 205 A-1 ++ and never once felt penis envy.
So, I hope I have clarified rather than muddied the issues, playful though they are.
I have empirical evidence that supports my views and some good solid numbers that back me up... regardless of what Hogie says... and I respect what he says... and it's not 'cause he's so huge!!!!
HV
And yes the second stove would be nice but we all know that with a load on whether it be a drill or a log or what ever, you must be in a pretty good flight configuration for it not take you to the ground where the 205 will be, you may just extend a bit. That said, I look forward to the day when I can make all the VS comparisons first hand to pass on down the line for when this same discussion is going on ten years from now. Fly safe in Utah, I will be in Two Lakes drilling 6000 holes for the next couple of months 
, PTI camp at 105 on the Two lakes road, can't wait!! :down: 
