Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Fuel Burn rates

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Fuel Burn rates

Old 20th Oct 2006, 08:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: North East
Posts: 19
Fuel Burn rates

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
SiTurn is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 08:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 343
For the As355 I plan on using 30% per hour (roughly 175 kgs)
Flingingwings is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 11:05
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
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
Head Turner is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 11:17
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
200kg p/h for the A109 give or take depending on which model.
Good luck.
BC
Bladecrack is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 11:26
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
205kg/hr EC135T2 within UK 0 - 3000ft Drops to 200kg/hr 3-5000ft
Head Turner is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 13:25
  #6 (permalink)  
I'll get me coat......
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gold Coast, Australia.
Age: 48
Posts: 532
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
Capt Hollywood is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 13:40
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 3,012
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.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 14:27
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: North East
Posts: 19
Thanks for the all the advice, i'm only after approx figures and so this helps.

Cheers
SiTurn is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 14:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iceland
Age: 50
Posts: 509
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/showthr...10#post2919710
Heli-Ice is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2006, 16:47
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Iceland
Age: 55
Posts: 814
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
Aesir is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2006, 14:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 525
AS355N: 230L/hr (180kg/hr) sea level; 10% better at 5000ft, 208L/hr (165kg/hr). Both fast cruise.

AS350: 180L/hr (143kg/hr).
rotorspeed is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 18:10
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 154
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
Abbeville is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 18:26
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
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...

Last edited by Um... lifting...; 16th Nov 2006 at 18:45.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 19:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oregon, US
Age: 39
Posts: 19
Md500e

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.
flyby_heli is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2006, 19:22
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by flyby_heli View Post
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!

Abbeville is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 15:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
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.
diethelm is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 17:47
  #17 (permalink)  
CVR
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Sandpit
Age: 47
Posts: 75
Devil

BELL 222 burns 500lbs an hour, based on cruise power of 80% and 130 knots at sea level, hope this helps..........
CVR is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2006, 20:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: poor gps coverage
Posts: 204
And the 222b burns 600
whatsarunway is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2021, 14:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Depends on the day!
Posts: 118
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?
PhlyingGuy is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2021, 15:24
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,116
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.
albatross is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.