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

Help required on Super Puma fuel consumption...

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

Help required on Super Puma fuel consumption...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Feb 2012, 05:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geordieland
Posts: 91
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Help required on Super Puma fuel consumption...

Hi All,

A friend of mine is writing a novel and would like some info.

It's a while since I flew the S Puma, but I know the average fuel consumption is around 950 lbs/hr, but I don't have access to the manuals any more.

The specific question is with 400 lbs remaining in flight, (which would give around 25 mins flying) and if one of the engines is shut down or pulled back and the fuel for that engine transferred to the good engine, what additional flight time can be gained?

I know there are variables, but let's assume still air conditions.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Prawn2king4 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 09:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near the bottom
Posts: 1,357
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That's going to be one hell of a novel...
toptobottom is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 09:58
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,290
Received 517 Likes on 215 Posts
It's been done in real life...so not fiction....maybe not in a Super Puma but in a Wessex and Chinook for sure.
SASless is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 10:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 68
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
950 Lbs/hour seems quite optimistic to me.
On one engine, as I remember, the fuel consumption is around 11 Lbs/min
I let you make the maths

Cheers
drakkar is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 11:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Behind the curve
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Super Puma fuel consumption for planning at average weights, at twin engine cruise of 130 knots gives a safe average consumption of 1030 lbs/hour.

From the tables for single engine fuel consumption I've selected at high-ish weight 18500lbs, 3000' altitude and intercontingency(continous) power, 115 knots giving 740 lbs/hour.

3850 in tanks at take-off less 400 remaining at end of flight leaves 3450 usable:

Twin engine endurance in cruise 3.3 hours x 130 knots = 435 NM range

Single engine endurance " " 4.6 hours x 115 knots = 536 NM range

So another 100 NM possible in still air, which would take 52 mins at 115 knots.

Last edited by Colibri49; 12th Feb 2012 at 15:54.
Colibri49 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 21:32
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Cornwall
Age: 77
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tell you what, the 332's I used to fly didnt give you 130 kts. Thats what we were told to plan on by commercial but in reality 120 - 125 kts if you were lucky but I will give you 1030 lbs/hr.

TipCap is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 22:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Prawn2king4
The specific question is with 400 lbs remaining in flight, (which would give around 25 mins flying) and if one of the engines is shut down or pulled back and the fuel for that engine transferred to the good engine, what additional flight time can be gained?

I know there are variables, but let's assume still air conditions.
I suspect that discussions on twin engine burn isn't what the OP is after! Just the extra flight time (endurance) that is available with 400lbs remaining?

400lb Normal endurance to dry tanks would be 23 minutes, AEO 1030lb/hr
400lb Endurance to dry tanks, OEI would be 33 minutes 740lb/hr

Extra flight time would be 10 minutes.
Squeaks is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 22:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,266
Received 336 Likes on 188 Posts
A certain German senior BHL pilot found himself in this situation in the early '90s, having found himself fogged out in the Beryl and left with no choice but trying for Norway (carried offshore alternate fuel!) I think the analysis was that the engine shutdown hindered rather than helped!
212man is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 22:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Cornwall
Age: 77
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I remember that incident

Althought I remember he thought he was heading for Sumburgh on diversion but turned the wrong way and realised that he didnt have enough fuel for it so was committed to Stavanger.

Mind you there were many "interesting" incidents in the early days which paved the way for safer operations in the long run.
TipCap is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 23:25
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,290
Received 517 Likes on 215 Posts
One thing learned early on was to tote plenty of fuel for Mum and the Kids when operating out of Sumburgh or out of Teeside as it could get to be a long way between watering holes. Sometimes one even listed that MAK fuel....but not always.

Ever start your transfer from the external aux tank into the mains....to keep your onshore diversion fuel...but then forget to shut it off before pumping most of it overboard? Instant rethink of the flight plan at that point!
SASless is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2012, 04:27
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geordieland
Posts: 91
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks all, particularly Squeaks, who cottoned on to what I was after. Would have been simpler to ask for SE fuel burn I guess.

Don't know where I got 950/hr from, of course it's 1030 now I am reminded.

And yes, SAS, it's been done before - and on a S Puma; but not by me fortunately.

I'll pass on the info - maybe a good read...!
Prawn2king4 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2012, 08:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Don't ask me why but a 332 with sponson tanks on will go 5 knots faster than one without.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2012, 06:53
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting

I know nothing about these particular machines except what I read. But responding to FED's comment about the increased speed to be had from a sponson-equipped aircraft...just looking at photos, it might be due to some lift obtained from the sponson body, and also the sponsons might re-direct airflow that could create a low-pressure (drag-inducing) region just aft of the cabin and below the tailboom in a machine without sponsons.
If guesses were dollars I would not be a poor man.
arismount is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.