Bell 407 vs AS-350 B2/B3 [Archive]

BlenderPilot

5th Sep 2008, 23:20

Maintenance Support on Bell, is way, way better.

Operation Cost, EC is cheaper, I would say at least 80 dollars less per hour.

Performance I would say is equal, the B3 might carry a little more, but the 407 is more manuverable, better for off airport for my taste, for EMS the Bell litter kit is more comfortable to use I would say.

Never done sling loads in either one.

I feel a lot safer on the Bell, the EC is more confortable to fly, the Bell is a lot more manuverable and fun to fly.

If I were to pick one in the next 5 minutes, Bell 407 would be it. The decisive point would be the EC's maintenance support, I see so many cases of people being stuck for lack of it, EC around here in Mexico is absolutely bad, and having to deal with EC is always a pain for those involved.

rotorrookie

9th Sep 2008, 03:31

Thanks Blender good points.... being a Bell brainwashed, I would go for the 407 too.

Would like to hear more comments.... where are the EuroCopter fans out there?? or are there none left:}

burger

9th Sep 2008, 04:25

B407 - carrying pax good considering 2 x rearwood facing pax, slinging/longline great, EMS good however crampted with stretcher in FWD pos and you loose a seat with it in the rear position medico's can access most of patient in rear pos, winching good but strecher winching is something to get used to. Performance, handling and reliability good with front bubble windows for larger types. Utility mode is good however limited without flat floor depending on load types. sliding doors a must on LH side

AS350b2/3 - carring pax good, better with twin bench front seat, slinging/longlining good however better with large vertical reference window in floor if you aren't tall enough to hang out or fit mod to move pilots seat outwoodly, EMS good with plenty of room however second medico in middle back seat might have to have long arms to assist medico at patients head. Difficult to work on patients trunk and lower limbs in flight because of position of stretcher in fwd pos. Excellent winch (pax or stretcher) platform with flat floor, utility roll is excellent with rear folding seats or easy to remove ie no probs with 200lt drum of fuel for ferries and plenty of tie down hard points, sliding doors a must. Performance, handling and reliability is good.

I concure with preivious statements as well on both types.:ok:

docstone

9th Sep 2008, 10:25

Good answers before. Love our 407, great aircraft, AOG and parts support excellent, if pricey. Never flown a 350, but we have a 355N...and it feels a tad flimsy (mostly trim) - biggest issue I have with EC is engine supoprt, Turbomeca just hopeless. Bell feels/looks a tad old fashioned but hewn from granite and so much power - given the choice would go Bell.

Perhaps more subjectively, the guy from whom we bought our 407 had just bought a 350B3...and was regretting it

Fun Police

9th Sep 2008, 11:19

not being an operator myself, i can't comment on operating costs and tech support. although i have heard all of those comments before.
as one with 3K in 350's and 35 hrs in 407's i can say that if i had the choice of going on a job in either a/c i would choose the 350. the types of jobs i do make the 407's advantage in speed a moot point. the 350 is very comfy for slinging or not (bell seats are garbage), i'm 6' and have no problem seeing out the vert. ref. window. the cockpit is spacious and can accomodate more than a post-it note and pencil. oh yeah, and why is the collective the most tempting thing for front seat pax to grab on to as they are getting in (yes, they have been briefed about keeping their hands to themselves!), and also the first place that the seatbelt disappears underneath when they unstrap in order to disembark. unnerving when doing a toe-in, to say the least.
cargo capacity with pax is also far superior in the 350 with cheeks or without as opposed to the bell that has the same shi++y baggage compartment as the 206 which was designed when? decades ago??:ugh:
flat floor makes the 350 much easier to clean after you have loads of filthy slashers/treeplanters/surveyors/drillers/jughounds filling it up with as much crud as they can carry on the outside of their boots.
engineers tell me that if they had their druthers, the 350 would be the machine to work on as everything is easy to get to whereas the 407 is a real PITA to get anything done.
even in my limited 407 experience, the demisting system in the 407 has already proven itself to be pretty dismal compared to the 350. this, for those of us who have the luxury of operating out of heated hangars every day might not be much of a concern, but for those of use who work in the bush not being able to see properly is a real drag. apparently, with the demisting system on and a little bit of heat, the 407 will be pushing temp limits pretty quick even in cool conditions.
i have never found the astar to be lacking in build quality, but i am glad that bell managed to finally figure out how to make doors that close properly.

so...it is pretty obvious that i am an astar guy and there must be a reason that (in canada at least) the vast majority of intermediate helicopters are of the 350 series.

cheers
FP

rotors88

9th Sep 2008, 13:06

I hear ya, here in India the most popular machine is the 407 mainly due to the support from the French or rather lack of. The 407 is a good to 14,000' with 6 on-board & gear in the boot (just). Its fast & more fun to fly than the 350. 350 better for slinging from left seat. If I had to pick I feel better in the 407. The 407 is also more reliable. Good Luck & happy landings

victor papa

9th Sep 2008, 15:48

I don't understand the reliability issue with the 350. We have 6 flying an average of 500hrs/year and in the last 2 years the total time offline for the fleet was 16 days(including an engine and MO4 repl). The 350B2 and B3 is great for preventative maintenance due to accessibility which, if attended to once/twice in between 100hrs, make the 100 hour (and even the 500hr to an extend) a non event. We have our own engineers and are not bounded to servicings at an specific day booked at an AMO. The flexibility of the EC scheduled maintenance makes it easy to plan maintenance around bad weather days. Solve the possible problem before it becomes a problem basically.

I do think it is unfair to include the B2 in a race against the 407. Although a great aircraft, you can not compare a hydromechanical driven engine with a "FADEC" engine. B3 and B3+ are the 407's competition and it is a credit to the old B2(although they are still producing plenty new once) that she is mentioned in this company with the superior techno engines.

rotorrookie

11th Sep 2008, 01:06

Great comments.... keep em coming.

350boy

11th Sep 2008, 03:15

Hi all,can someone tell me exactly what the diff is between a B3 and a B3+ ?.
Thanks.

maxtork

11th Sep 2008, 05:21

Rotorrookie

I would say from a maintenance aspect that the 350 is a easier machine to work on than the Bell. That being said the success of operation depends alot on who is doing the maintenance. If your mechanics are EC guys then they could probably work on the 407 without too much trouble. If they are Bell guys then converting to the 350 may not go so smooth. Bell has very good manuals for the most part and EC and Turbomeca have a much different approach that many people find hard to learn. With a good wrench on staff the 350 is a pretty reliable aircraft and doesn't require a huge amount of tech support from the manufacturer. The 407 may be a bit easier for the new mechanic to learn and what he doesn't know he can usually get help with from Bell fairly easily, not always so with the EC/TM product. Beware also that tech support varies widely by region with every manufacturer so just because someone has great support from Bell in Dallas Tx doesn't mean you will where you are! The same goes for the bad reputation for EC and TM support;)

Experience really is the key. The maintenance manuals today are written to keep the manufacturer from getting sued not just to tell you how to work on the machine. There are lots of things that are not written in the books and it isn't easy to just "tell you all the tricks". It takes some time for someone to learn all the quirks of a new aircraft and know how to keep it flying in a cost effective manner and find things before they become an AOG situation.

350boy,

The B3 is one with the Arriel 2B engine which is a single channel FADEC and a mechanical backup system. The B3+ as it is sometimes refered to is a 350 with the Arriel 2B1 engine which is a dual channel FADEC and an electrical backup system directly out of the EC130B4. No real power differences to speak of but most folks like the dual channel set up a bit better.

Hope it helps

Max

Bushrat

11th Sep 2008, 05:21

B3 has arriel 2B engine single channel fadec(manual backup) B3+ has arriel 2B1..dual channel fadec(automatic backup with ebcau)

350boy

11th Sep 2008, 06:53

Thanks Max and Bushrat,guess thats where the term "Full FADEC"comes from Ivé heard engineers talk of.
Have flown lots of 350's over the last 10 yrs of so and love em !!.
Never touched a 407 but for a 407 to be better than a B3 is a big call.
If the seat is moved over a little in the squirrel it's a nice sling platform(I'm 5 &1/2 Ft) and a good comfortable machine to spend time in.
Have a few hundred hrs in the B3 now and they are a gr8 bit of kit .
Have worked along side 407's over the years and must say they look impressive and can haul arse but with a "fat"Longranger internal layout I much prefer the wide body of the 350's .
Depends on the gig you want to use it on also.
Don't think we'll see a 407 land on" top of the world " though ,or even close to it !!,sorry you bell fan's ,couldn't resist .
Fly safe all.

victor papa

11th Sep 2008, 08:29

Careful, they might team up with their ex-alliance again and claim the speed record. I will take the ability to land on top of the world personally-makes me feel better knowing I have that margin of capability left unused.

rotors88

11th Sep 2008, 11:34

It seems dubious as to a Squirrel ever landing on Everest. Eurocopter refused to get the necessary permission's from CAAN also denying Guinness Book of records to confirm the event. If it were true it would be an awesome marketing angle but it was more likely a PR stunt. Certainly it is no argument here to justify a B3 over a 407 or not. If one wants to achieve a world record then why not do it openly, honestly with all paper work correctly in place..... unless of course you have something to hide ??? hmmmmmmmm

victor papa

11th Sep 2008, 11:44

OK rotors, I won't go into the politics(but it was accredited:ugh:) but instead go for second best achievement then.

I think the RESCUE of 2 Italian climbers a while ago at a height of 5 700m at mountain Nanga Parbat in Pakistan by a B3(NDTV) can not be disputed and if it can do a rescue at 5700m I think it pretty much landed and took off and landed again at Everest:D:D:D

CGWRA

11th Sep 2008, 18:03

Another thing that hasn't been noted is that the 407 is more crashworthy than the b3.

boeing747-200

11th Sep 2008, 21:34

Hi.....I see that you are in India on the 407......I used to fly there many years ago for ONGC in a Sikorsky 58T mainly offshore.

How did you get sorted out with a job over there? any suggestions....?

I went over to the dark side for a while and really miss the helicopters & India.

Best Wishes Paul

snotcicles

12th Sep 2008, 19:07

I'm not sure this is an issue to everyone operating a B3 but isn't the internal gross something like 4960lbs and a 407 is 5250lbs. With similar empty weights, you are legally allowed more internal in a 407 but more external in a B3.

victor papa

12th Sep 2008, 20:32

B3 internal is a auto rotation and aerodynamic limit with single hydraulics if I understand correctly. Shows you how much power margin you have? Order a new one on the line with twin hydraulics and a TR/stabiliser(do not know the detail-anyone?) mod and bingo you have more internal usage. I believe it is closer to the B4 2400kg(think I read 2380 somewhere on a techno's sb?)? Just speculation from what I think I saw. Still magnificent beast for it's size(B3):ok: even limited to 2250kg internal.

GeorgeMandes

12th Sep 2008, 21:16

Speaking of manufacturer's tech reps, Bob Pearson, the Bell Helicopter tech rep for Alaska is terrific. He stops in regularly, even though our L4 has been squawk free for the two years we have had it. We are going to a 407 later this fall, and Bob Pearson was just in to discuss that transition, and will return when our ship arrives. He has also arranged for his counterpart to meet us at the completion center, and go over the software on the laptop for the 407's FADEC.

TangoMikeYankee

16th Sep 2008, 11:51

I'll have the B3 over the "4-0-Lemon" any day:oh:
Not saying that I like the service I get from Turbomeca, but the product is great.

rotors88-The 407 might be more reliable than the B3 in India, but definately not in Africa or Aus?

But hay-some of us like Eurocopter and some of us like Bell:ugh:

The dual hyraulic B3 MAUW goes up to 2370kg.

Just my 2c:E

HeliJedi

16th Sep 2008, 13:10

TMY I totally agree with you. The B3 outstrips the 407 any day. I recently took a B3 up to 10500', 80% fuel on board, 6 pax plus pilot......... brought her into the hover, pulled 100% onto the FLI and she climbed in the hover at 650 fpm. Outside temp was 16 degrees celcius. I challenge any 407 to do that..........

Not to mention, the B3 is so much more better ergonimically designed than the 407. I don't remember being uncomfortable ever in the B3. the 407, is another story.

Helijedi

(Darth Vader's a pussy...)

sherpa

18th Sep 2008, 16:58

I can only confirm your statement about performance. The last two fire season I was flying the AS350B3 and was working side by side with the B 407, Lama, SA316, AS350B2 and 350FX at different altitudes and temperatures.

B3 vs. Lama/SA316
If it’s not to terrible hot and besides flying a circle around the Lama, the B3 will do a bit better up to about 9000 ft. SA316 is no match against the B3.

B3 vs. B2/FX:
The B2 dies at altitude and temperature. The FX does perform well but still not close to a B3 and for the Fuel consumption and speed I had an interesting comparison between the FX and B3.
Long story short, we both topped off fuel and flying from Fort St. John, BC to Fort Nelson, BC. The weather wasn’t all that great and he had more local knowledge of the area so I followed the FX all the way to Fort Nelson. We were cruising about 110kt IAS and the FX pulling MCP 94% TQ vs. B3 only 70 to 75 % TQ. Pulling MCP in the B3 gives you an IAS of 125 – 130Kt. In Fort Nelson we both topped off again and surprisingly the FX burned 16 liters more (and a black tail boom:O). I know cruising at 70 % reduces the fuel consumption, but at MCP I would have been a bit faster too.

407 Vs. B3
The 407 is very fast at MSL and looks like handles very well and great to longline, but as soon as you get some elevation and temperature she is fading away. Put a different motor in a 407 or give that engine more air and besides being a four bladed Jet Ranger she probably would do ok.

:-D

HeliPilot1

27th Jul 2011, 15:12

My fellow pilots,

We recently sold our B407 and looking for a suitable replacement. We have narrowed down to either a B350B2 or B3. Our mission is corporate/private and speed, smoothness, passenger comfort (and baggage capacity) and safety. Can you provide feedback on both models compared to the B407? On a personal note, I will miss our 407 dearly but alas, that chapter is closed :{!

How does the 350 compare to the 407 in autoration, cruise speed, pilot feedback/maneuverability etc? Any feedback would be appreciated! Is there a big difference between the B2 and B3?

Much appreciated!

Bitmonx

27th Jul 2011, 16:07

I have flown only the b2.
I am quite sure the 407 is faster and probably a bit smoother.
The b3 i am sure has more power especially at altitude and hot temps.
The 407 in standard config has probably more room for baggage. The b2 or b3 have the option of the squirrel cheeks that add more room to the heli since the tail (or rear) baggage compartement is not quite big.
I am also quite sure the b3 has a higher fuel consumtion than the 407 and maybe the 407 uses abouz the same amount of fuel than the b2.
Cheers
bitmonx

belldriver

27th Jul 2011, 16:24

I fly both B3 and 407,

I my vieuw the 407 is the better corporate machine with the smoothest ride and a better fuel burn per mile,
On the other hand the B3 has a nicer cabin (but will only seat 6 in normal configuration) with everybody together and has the better fadec of the 2 with a bit more power hot and high and the B3 is also slightly better in autorotation

hope this helps

paco

27th Jul 2011, 19:12

They're both good ships from a pilot's point of view, each with their own benefits. My only concern would be the operation of them (i.e. maintenance, spares, etc) - my choice would always be Bell unless you have a compelling reason such as hot or high with the B3. I have flown and operated both.

Phil

Jack Carson

27th Jul 2011, 19:58

If you are looking to get into a different machine, the 206L-4 should be considered as well. Its operating cost will be significantly lower than the 407. The 206L-4 has better authoritative characteristics than the A-Stars. The A-Stars have a 5-10 KIAS speed advantage.

rotorrookie

27th Jul 2011, 23:03

Heli-Pilot 1, may I ask why you are changing brands? was it the price of the new 407 or?
According to the type of operation corporate/private and speed, smoothness, passenger comfort (and baggage capacity) and safety that you mentioned I think the Bell 407 better in all areas.
The B3 is better as aerial work horse no argue there, it lifts more externally and you have better option for mirrors, floor window and such and there are more of the new camera mounts for it if you doing lot of aerial filming.
But for passenger transport, sightseeing fast and smooth the B-407 wins and is the second best lifter after B3..
and one more, the crash-worthiness of AS-350 is just crap:*

GoodGrief

27th Jul 2011, 23:13

The ecureuil series wasn't really made for full size guys.
I am 190cm and my left knee hits the vertical instrument panel.
And I like my workplace being separated from lunch eating passengers.
Love the 407:ok:

Aesir

27th Jul 2011, 23:28

The only good replacement for your 407 is another 407 :)

alouette

28th Jul 2011, 00:04

I have flown both, the 407 and the B2. However, why does one want to trade away from a 407? The cabin if the 407 is slightly bigger, the aircraft is faster, and quite maneuverable. The Ecureuil is a workhorse, but the crashworthiness is poor. Besides, the customer support with Bell is much better. So, why Eurocopter?

Vertical Freedom

28th Jul 2011, 04:12

I have flown the 407, the 350B, B2 & B3. There is no doubt that the 350 series even without the cheeks has maybe 3 times more luggage space than a 407. All seats are forward facing with more leg room than a 407 ever had. The B3 is the fastest of them all & uses the most fuel, depending on temp & amsl 195 to 220lph @ sea level & 160-170lph above 10,000'. The B2 uses less fuel than a 407 but can do more in HOGE & HIGE at slightly less top end speed. As for crash worthy the 350 shell is outstanding for survivability. I am here today because of that only. Thank You Aerospatiale for giving me a new lease on life thanks to Your excellent crash worthiness airframe. :ok:

Arrrj

28th Jul 2011, 05:50

Great thread gents,

I have been talking to Eurocopter, Bell etc about a new machine, so the thoughts of long hour pilots are of great value.

Eurocopter did land on Everest (according to their website, and they wouldn't lie ???:hmm:).

Here is the "sell" on the B3, but apparently the B3E is the way to go !Check the Eurocopter website (which the boys at Eurocopter in AUS recommended for me, I am just $3 million short of the $3 million cost :E).

Making the best even better !

The high-performance member of the Ecureuil family, the AS350 B3 outclasses all other single engine helicopters for performance, versatility, safety and competitive acquisition and maintenance costs. It excels in hot conditions and very high altitudes, and broke records when a standard production aircraft landed on the top of Mount Everest in 2005 (altitude: 29,029 ft / 8,848 m).

Cheers,
Arrrj :ok:

Flyting

28th Jul 2011, 06:36

Not trying to throw the spanner in the works, but the companny I worked for a while back was looking at trading all their B3s for Koalas - mainly because of the waiting time for service from EC... Went so far as going to the factory in Italy and doing the whole shin-dig with our chief pilot and engineer...Unfortunately, with the finiancial woooooops, it never happened :ugh:

...... I have no idea about the Koala or the 407, but I know the 350 backwards and I love her....:}

GoodGrief

28th Jul 2011, 07:07

Has anyone here actually flown the 407 with the Honeywell engine?
If so, how does it compare?

patatas

29th Jul 2011, 23:14

I understand the issue when asked about B3 and 407 but we cannot forget the Agusta AW 119 Koala... very powerfull PT6, 150 kts cruising speed and take more passenger than the B3 and the 407. Also it takes 150 kgs in the baggage room and is a very very confortable helicopter to fly...

Seriously, have a look into the koala.... it's a outstanding machine to fly!!

Vertical Freedom

30th Jul 2011, 03:03

no doubt the Koala is very sexy & sleek. But ask Yourself why don't they work them hot n' high??? Simply they run out of puff. Also You are looking at almost double the operating & purchase cost. So a very expensive machine.
http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h338/rotors99/Clip.jpg

HeliPilot1

30th Jul 2011, 12:19

Looks like we have settled on a 350B2. She is a beautiful 2008 with a stunning interior but still no 407! I've never flown a B2 so I'll give my feedback in a couple of weeks.

Our firm has a policy of purchasing 2-3 year old aircraft and resell them 2-3 years later. The 407’s time came up and surprisingly, she sold in less than 30 days. What recession?!?! We’ve tried to replace her with another 407 but the market is too high for us at the moment.

Thanks for the feedback!

Savoia

3rd Dec 2011, 04:38

This is actually a pretty useful thread because the toss-up between 407 and B3 is a fairly common consideration among single-turbine buyers. So, once again, thank you PPRuNe!

A couple of comments made which, if anyone was able to justify with empirical comments, one would be most grateful:

CGWRA wrote in post #17: ".. the 407 is more crashworthy than the B3 .."

Is there a report anywhere on a crashworthiness test which echoes this comment?

Blender Pilot wrote in post #2: ".. the operating cost of the Eurocopter is cheaper, I would say by at least 80 dollars per hour."

Really, a B3 is USD 80 less to operate (DOC) than a 407?

Sherpa wrote in post #24 " The 407 is very fast at MSL and handles well and is great to longline, but as soon as you get some elevation and temperature she is fading away."

At what altitude (approximately) does the 407 begin to drop-off (noticeably) in its performance?

Grazie.

Gizachew Wondirad

22nd Nov 2012, 15:32

What is the average cost of operating B3 helicopter per hour

two0six

21st Aug 2013, 10:48

What if you had to fly 5 pax with 25kgs of luggage on a tour of the country highlighting the great scenery to your pax. You then had to pay the helicopter owner the current going rates for the option you choose?

Important factor:

Scenery
Baggage space
Hourly rate economy / fuel burn

Gemini Twin

21st Aug 2013, 19:42

"Our firm has a policy of purchasing 2-3 year old aircraft"
Hey HeliPilot 1 you just busted your company policy with the 2008 B2.

haihio

21st Aug 2013, 21:02

Across the Alps from north, south east and west the AS350 dominates the market in the single engine turbine utility helicopter.
Even deep in to Agusta land, the AS350 is still the most used.

lamanated

21st Oct 2014, 19:23

Thought I would get some input for the powers that be. shopping for a work machine. Interested in ability to fold blades as well ,

CRAZYBROADSWORD

21st Oct 2014, 20:01

Agusta 119 !

PhlyingGuy

21st Oct 2014, 21:05

new or used? budget? how much are you planning to use it? etc...

lamanated

22nd Oct 2014, 21:20

New machines, working passengers and firefighting, little bit of long lining,. have easy access to bell and airbus support and parts,

victor papa

23rd Oct 2014, 02:58

No question AS350 territory. B2 will take 850kg on the hook but like 407 becomes limited when it gets a bit hotter or higher. This becomes B3 territory and the B3 lifts 1.4tons on the swing. So between B2 and B3 depends on whether you want to fire fight with 800kg limited at hot and high or 1 ton(very realistic and conservative for B3) up to very hot or high or both. Easy maintenance and extremely reliable if your mechanic knows what to look for and keep it clean due composites and teflon. Fit the seats again and she gives you the perfect visibility for pax.

mlagersson

1st Dec 2015, 20:56

Vertical freedom wrote:

"no doubt the Koala is very sexy & sleek. But ask Yourself why don't they work them hot n' high??? Simply they run out of puff. Also You are looking at almost double the operating & purchase cost. So a very expensive machine."

Dude really?
Fuel burn in a b3 according to your comment is 33 us gallon/hr? haha that's like a Longranger 2....
And the koala being 61 us gal/ hr?

Don't think so, b3 47-50, koala 50-55...

Never in Balance

1st Dec 2015, 22:04

I find it hard to believe that the AW119 (formerly Koala) is double the purchase price of a B3 or a 407.

NiB

Fun Police

1st Dec 2015, 22:24

my previous employer used to be a strictly Bell product company and had 4 407's in the fleet. once they assumed us (the VFR division of another company with 9 B2's) it took them only two years to acquire 2 new B3e's and all of the 407's are for sale or going back to the lessor's. the reason: they are far more expensive to operate than B2/3's and far less dependable.

fuel burn in the B3e (IIRC) is about 170-180L. better than i would have expected and much better than a 407

SuperF

3rd Dec 2015, 19:28

B3 may well be rated for 1.4tn on the hook, but you will very rarely see it done. There may be a few "pilots" that try it, but most "owners" will tell you 1.2tn and even less if you can get away with it.

Go on a fire with them, most have 900 ltr buckets... even at sea level, like we were last week.

As for altitude, i was up a hill the other day had to pick up a load that the B3 couldn't take, they told the client that it was 1.3 tn. Only weighed about 900 kg on my weigh gauge, and that was only about 6000'....

fadecdegraded

4th Dec 2015, 09:16

Flowen both, the B3 cannot be touched for lift capacity, the 407 cannot be touched for speed.
The 407 became temp limited above about 3000ft (ISA +20) but still performed well up to 10-12000 ft.
The B3 still out performs it though there's only one thing that will perform like a B3 and that is another B3.
I have heard all the story's about FX2s out performing a B3....... Total horse sh!t.
At sea level or close to it a B3 will lift 1.4 tons it is at the top end of its capability but it does do it.
The 407 lifts its 1200kg limit but is also at the top end of its capability.
Not sure about the operating costs I just fly them.

Vertical Freedom

4th Dec 2015, 09:34

Hey mlagersson....double operating costs, doesn't necessarily mean double fuel burn :bored: I plan 160-170lph in the H125 below 10,000' above 7,000' say at 810º or 95.9%Ng around 125-130kts :p
==============================================
the enhanced 407 was here in the Top of the World ~ Nepal :D didn't impress anyone at EBC :ooh: 2 up & outa puff at only 18,000' :O
==============================================
Hey fadecdegraded.....nuthin' beats a B3, nuthin' but another B3 :ok: maybe B3e for higher & hotter, holds it together longer on Ng. But then without the pentrometer upping the Nr to 400 she looses Tail Rotor Authority quiet easily above 22,000' on an ISA plus 30 day :yuk:
==============================================

Happy Happy