Fuel Burn rates

[SiTurn]

Hi - I was hoping that somone could help me, I am after the fuel burn rates per hour for the following helicopters, can someone assist?

AS350
AS355
AS365
Bell 222
A109
EC130

Thanks in advance

[Flingingwings]

For the As355 I plan on using 30% per hour (roughly 175 kgs)

[Head Turner]

Just a reminder that fuel burn rates will vary according to such things as altitude and temperature. Eg. Fuel burn will be higher at lower altitudes and lower at higher altitudes.
So, be more specific in your request

[Bladecrack]

200kg p/h for the A109 give or take depending on which model.
Good luck.
BC

[Head Turner]

205kg/hr EC135T2 within UK 0 - 3000ft Drops to 200kg/hr 3-5000ft

[Capt Hollywood]

I'm getting about 210L/hr at sea level in the EC130 and on a recent trip I got that down to 165L/hr at 10,000'

CH :cool:

[NickLappos]

At the risk of turning things around too much, can I recommend that helo pilots no longer discuss the burn rate of the helo as if that tells you something about its range?

Can I also suggest that we not discuss the fuel available as so many "hours of fuel"?

Both were ok when all helos flew at 105 knots and all were Hueys, and neither makes any sense when the cruise speed of a helo can be 10 or 15% faster than another, making the burn rate or fuel endurance time a meaningless way to compare the two.

For example, Head Turner, you got dramatically lower burn rate at altitude (which is generally true) but you didn't tell us what the TAS was at each pilot so we could know the effect on range.


The best way to compare cases between helos or between atmospheric conditions is to use the burn rate (Kg/Hr) and divide it by the True Air Speed (NM/Hr) so that you get the Kg/NM - the fuel needed to go one mile. The lower this number, the more miles in your tank.

[SiTurn]

Thanks for the all the advice, i'm only after approx figures and so this helps.

Cheers

[Heli-Ice]

SiTurn

Tell us about your project?

You might build a good database for us with your research and it would be nice to be able to access it.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2919710#post2919710

[Aesir]

If I remember right the AS350 also uses about 30% hr or about 180lt/hr The
B3 uses a bit more but on average 180lt. Those that fly it every day can give more accurate numbers. The B3 has very accurate fuel flow meter.

The SA365N uses about 245kg/hr average.

The B222 uses 540lb/hr.

This is all from memory so I may be a bit off so dont use the information for real flight planning purposes :=

[rotorspeed]

AS355N: 230L/hr (180kg/hr) sea level; 10% better at 5000ft, 208L/hr (165kg/hr). Both fast cruise.

AS350: 180L/hr (143kg/hr).

[Abbeville]

Could someone give me a ballpark fuel flow figure for the MD500E on a typical training flight? Worst case figure would be fine.

Thanks

A

[Um... lifting...]

FUEL BURN AS365N/N1/N2/N3
AEO LOITER (75-80 KIAS): 240KG/HR 240KG/HR 280KG/HR 300KG/HR
AEO CRUISE: 265KG/HR 290KG/HR 285KG/HR 305KG/HR
OEI CRUISE: 180KG/HR 160KG/HR 173KG/HR 200KG/HR
START/TAXI/TURN-ROUND 20 20 20 25

I think that 160KG/HR figure for the N1 in OEI cruise is a bit on the low side, but these are planning figures. They're a bit higher than you'll likely see on a standard day near sea level. And like the other folks have said, with altitude, they'll tend to improve as TAS goes up about 2 knots/1000' and engine efficiency tends to improve as well. But consider where and how you operate. If you never go up to 10,000', that figure is of little use and of course, once you get up higher you start dealing with differing wind effects, so, take all figures with a grain of salt. In a 365 with a full bag of fuel, you might get just a bit over 2 hours out of the machine and you might get over 3, depending...

[flyby_heli]

I know for utilitywork the 500E-model burns about 27-30 Gal/hr. So i guess that would be considered worst case for a training flight.

[Abbeville]

I know for utilitywork the 500E-model burns about 27-30 Gal/hr. So i guess that would be considered worst case for a training flight.

Many thanks!

:ok:

[diethelm]

530F, max continuous power, 85 degrees, 1250 above sea level burns 34.5 gallons per hour. I did not look at speed to do Nick's calculation. Putting around at 110 knots, same ambient temp, burns 30.5 gallons per hour. Fuel burn rates based upon fuel flow meter.

Nick is as usual correct plus I beleive you need to add limits. An E model when it is 120 degrees out with a C20R may have less range per gallon at certain operating limits simply because the turbine temps out with a high burn rate whereas an F model at 120 degrees with a C30 will not temp out and the result is you can actually get more range per gallon. So I would guess in models with different engine options, differnt engines in the models will yield different fuel consumption per distance.

I apologize for gallons versus Kg or Lbs per hour as the fuel truck delivers fuel in gallons and my brain can not on a part time basis convert to Lbs without occasional errors so it is easier and safer......simply to stay in gallons.

[CVR]

BELL 222 burns 500lbs an hour, based on cruise power of 80% and 130 knots at sea level, hope this helps..........

[whatsarunway]

And the 222b burns 600

[PhlyingGuy]

Here's an old topic... I was wondering if there are any industry solutions/apps that you've found that publishes fuel flow rates? I have a friend that is evaluating a few different helis, but it doesn't seem like this information is readily available?

[albatross]

Joke .. I always chuckle when folks say “Fuel burn at sea level”. Wouldn’t the sound of scraping metal be distracting. Joke over.
We all know what they really mean but the phrase is incorrect unless you are flying in Death valley or low level over parts of Holland.

I used to be amused at fellows who insisted on cruising at max continuous power in a bush machine. Overcoming all the drag from the skis, high skid gear, cargo hook, HF antenna and sometimes even a cargo basket gave them about a 4-5 knot speed increase vs cruising at perhaps 80% Q saving fuel and wear and tear on components. If you are on fixed floats the same thing applies.
Then there is the “ I don't want to fly high because VNE restrictions slow me down.” crowd. Obviously they were either mentally or physically absent from class the day TAS vs IAS was taught.

[[email protected]]

Obviously they were either mentally or physically absent from class the day TAS vs IAS was taught. And also the day wind increase with altitude was taught such that a favourable tailwind can give you a huge advantage at height.

[Gordy]

This is what the USFS uses for their contracting---it is about the best average you will find:

[Hughes500]

Our As 350B3 with OAT at plus 25( 1500 ft ) fully loaded using 9 bananas on the FLI is around 195litres an hour about 115 kts
MD 500 with C20b engine uses around 110 litres an hour at 75 psi ( max cont 81.3) which gives around 125 kts

[lelebebbel]

That forestry chart is interesting, but imo the burn rate for the A119 is pretty optimistic. 55Gal/hr would be about 166kg/hr - in cruise it is closer to 200kg unless at higher altitudes.

[Gordy]

That forestry chart is interesting, but imo the burn rate for the A119 is pretty optimistic. 55Gal/hr would be about 166kg/hr - in cruise it is closer to 200kg unless at higher altitudes.
I am guessing they got than from the manufacturer as I have never seen a 119 on fires in the US.

[spinner79]

Just adding More fuel burn info.
189 does actual with about mass 8.3tonnes at 5000 feet, tas 140kts 372kg/hour

[JohnDixson]

This discussion reminded of a related situation in the late 60’s at Sikorsky. We had started a Commercial Skycrane Marketing effort and on-site demonstrations were a key part. Now the S-64, no matter what you were doing, burned 3000 lb/hr and it went up from there when hovering with a max load. At this time pilot office personnel were not paid overtime but rather got compensatory time, which was sort of OK, IF your job allowed you to use it.. BUT, the older members of this forum might recall the S&H Green Stamp program. Well, the guys flying that Crane really raked in a truck load of green stamps. Counting the aux tank, the total fuel load could be 9000 lbs, but of course for the most part, the 3000 lb aux tank was used for ferry to the next stop. After awhile, management found out about it and a dustup occurred, of course. Disclaimer: your truly didnn’t get involved with that operation but for a trip to the high arctic on a Canadian freighter in 1971. No green stamps at Resolute Bay/Pond Inlet/Arctic Bay etc.