EC135
But in answer to your question. Yes there is a saving in fuel of between 5 and 25kgs per hour, depending on which graph you use. But as you're a multi millionaire, it's probably not worth worrying about. 
I often used to ferry a 109AII Melbourne - Gold Coast, usually up at FLnosebleed (well, 9-10,000ft: our flight levels don't kick in until above 10k), and the fuel burn would be reduced by 10+%. The cost saving wasn't the point, but the increased endurance was, for IFR flight planning. There are surprisingly few JetA1 stops available in the 800nm trip 
Performance was fine, TAS a couple of knots better than 3000ft for the same power setting, but it varied with DA and temp, of course. The S76 would always give better performance at higher levels, with a better fuel burn. Stronger winds at higher altitudes can often provide a better GS, too (or headwind, in which case stay down a bit).
Mind you, Hilico, 200 miles is just a short drive up the road, isn't it?
Performance was fine, TAS a couple of knots better than 3000ft for the same power setting, but it varied with DA and temp, of course. The S76 would always give better performance at higher levels, with a better fuel burn. Stronger winds at higher altitudes can often provide a better GS, too (or headwind, in which case stay down a bit).
Mind you, Hilico, 200 miles is just a short drive up the road, isn't it?
Mighty Gem,
I think you will find it the same company as you. Look slightly right out of your office window and on a good day you may see his base.
Rick is the new Chief Pilot.
FNW.
I think you will find it the same company as you. Look slightly right out of your office window and on a good day you may see his base.
Rick is the new Chief Pilot.
FNW.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the answers chaps! It is a much better idea to fly fixed wing, right up until I want to leave from my garden, or land at the Helicopter Museum. And 200 miles might be nothing where you come from John, but...I still think it's a fair way to travel and then go to work.
And in case anyone's going to dun me for money, I have none and IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
And in case anyone's going to dun me for money, I have none and IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilico: You did take the thread off on a bit of a tangent!
FloaterNorthWest: Can't keep any secrets can I? Should have known better. Anyway, cabs here now and looking very nice thank you. A little better than the little green and grey ones across the pan
Rick
FloaterNorthWest: Can't keep any secrets can I? Should have known better. Anyway, cabs here now and looking very nice thank you. A little better than the little green and grey ones across the pan
Rick
EC135 DOC´s
Anyone out there that has the manufacturer´s direct operating cost figures for the EC135?
´
I haven´t had any luck finding the info on the manufacturer´s website!
´
I haven´t had any luck finding the info on the manufacturer´s website!
Adjust this for inflation:
estimates are based on existing UK operations using a new EC 135 ‘new generation’ helicopter and have been
checked against the Fall 2002 Conklin & de Decker Aircraft Cost Evaluator (Fall 2002) model used by Booz Allen
Hamilton for Total Direct Costs per Flight Hour for the following aircraft: EC 135 T1 (US$538), A109 Power
(US$577), MD 902 Explorer (US$587), AS 365N2 - Dauphin (US$873) and EC 145 - (US$684) – the latter two
aircraft, whilst not uncommon in HEMS operations, are significantly larger than most aircraft used for HEMS work.
It would be reasonable to expect that competitive tendering, inter alia, would result in lower costs. For example, one
significant operator consulted suggested that a flying charge of €500+ per hour would be a reasonable expectation for a
new generation twin-engine helicopter, for example, an EC 135.
estimates are based on existing UK operations using a new EC 135 ‘new generation’ helicopter and have been
checked against the Fall 2002 Conklin & de Decker Aircraft Cost Evaluator (Fall 2002) model used by Booz Allen
Hamilton for Total Direct Costs per Flight Hour for the following aircraft: EC 135 T1 (US$538), A109 Power
(US$577), MD 902 Explorer (US$587), AS 365N2 - Dauphin (US$873) and EC 145 - (US$684) – the latter two
aircraft, whilst not uncommon in HEMS operations, are significantly larger than most aircraft used for HEMS work.
It would be reasonable to expect that competitive tendering, inter alia, would result in lower costs. For example, one
significant operator consulted suggested that a flying charge of €500+ per hour would be a reasonable expectation for a
new generation twin-engine helicopter, for example, an EC 135.
Any EC135 drivers....
...having problems with electrical master boxes. We've just had our 5th or 6th failure this year. Always the number 2. Just wondered if anyone else is having the same problem.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thales SIL 4502/3-300/350-24-003 June 03/04
It is strongly recommended to plug in the helicopter battery PRIOR to connecting a GPU.
The battery will act as a buffer against spikes.
The battery will act as a buffer against spikes.
What GCN says tallies with the 155, which I guess uses similar architecture. We had EMB problems initially, and this seemed to more or less stop once we adopted this logic.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting as the FLM, Section 4, Normal Procedures, does not give any information on connecting/disconnecting a GPU. Section 3 Limitations gives no clue to what the minimum voltage should be for starting. The Pilot's Check List does not make any reference to the procedure to be adopted either.
The procedure we adopt is to connect the GPU then switch the Battery ON. After start of both engines the GPU is disconnected.
The procedure we adopt is to connect the GPU then switch the Battery ON. After start of both engines the GPU is disconnected.
DB check out the national air support forum.
But the latest ECD newsletter tells us to switch the BMS on first then the ext pwr.
IF as was mentioned before, there is nothing previous to this to warn of the correct batting order - there may be a case for clawing back the costs of an electrics box. Latest price for one:
70,000 euros
But the latest ECD newsletter tells us to switch the BMS on first then the ext pwr.
IF as was mentioned before, there is nothing previous to this to warn of the correct batting order - there may be a case for clawing back the costs of an electrics box. Latest price for one:
70,000 euros
No, we don't use ground power for starts. Interesting about switching the battery on first, before connectin GP. That info hasn't reached us yet. Our last two replacement boxes have been free of charge.
Oddly enough, it's now working with "no fault found". If we fly tonight, I'm not laying any odds on it lasting the night.
Oddly enough, it's now working with "no fault found". If we fly tonight, I'm not laying any odds on it lasting the night.