Single engine cruise for twins
Now please don't get me wrong and I'm not a saying it's a brilliant idea or that it could be ever economically justifiable. But given the right mix and using proper techniques it does work very well.
In the early 90's we did in fact gain FAA approval for single engine operations on the Tridair's Gemini 206L-1. 9 (Covered in supplement 6 of the Gemini flight manual dated 28 July 1994).
It was the right mix as we were trying to produce the ultimate Cat A helicopter, in that an engine failure on take off had very little effect on the twin engine performance. We had two 450 shp engines and the transmission was rated at 456shp. The systems were developed so that the loss of the engine after decision point, full power was immediately available with out exceeding any engine limit.
Returning from Heli Expo in Miami 1992 we always took off on two and shut down one engine when in cruise. The big impact here was that the C20R at MPC cruise used quite a bit less fuel that the original C28 or C30 at the same power setting.
By alternating the engine shut down on each leg each engine had less time on them than the airframe. Miami to Seattle via LA it made quite a difference.
We always started the "spare" prior to landing and it really was a easily managed process. The technique used to prevent clutch grab at the restart was to beep the engine down prior to shut down so the it was completely off line. We use triple needles on the torque indicator one for each engine and one for what was going into the transmission. So in cruise it would display 85% at the transmission and 42.5% for Eng 1 and Eng 2. As the engine was beeped off line the torque on that engine was drop to 0 while the running engine would rise to 85%. When restarted we would get it running to flight idle delivery zero torque then slowly beep it up to 42.5% while doing this the running engine would drop also to 42.5%.
Bell installed our kits in the Twin Ranger version of the L4, while being an excellent Cat A performer they did not want the single twin option.
It's kind of interesting for us to see the recent announcement mentioned above, more than 20 years after our experiments. Could have saved them some money perhaps.
In the early 90's we did in fact gain FAA approval for single engine operations on the Tridair's Gemini 206L-1. 9 (Covered in supplement 6 of the Gemini flight manual dated 28 July 1994).
It was the right mix as we were trying to produce the ultimate Cat A helicopter, in that an engine failure on take off had very little effect on the twin engine performance. We had two 450 shp engines and the transmission was rated at 456shp. The systems were developed so that the loss of the engine after decision point, full power was immediately available with out exceeding any engine limit.
Returning from Heli Expo in Miami 1992 we always took off on two and shut down one engine when in cruise. The big impact here was that the C20R at MPC cruise used quite a bit less fuel that the original C28 or C30 at the same power setting.
By alternating the engine shut down on each leg each engine had less time on them than the airframe. Miami to Seattle via LA it made quite a difference.
We always started the "spare" prior to landing and it really was a easily managed process. The technique used to prevent clutch grab at the restart was to beep the engine down prior to shut down so the it was completely off line. We use triple needles on the torque indicator one for each engine and one for what was going into the transmission. So in cruise it would display 85% at the transmission and 42.5% for Eng 1 and Eng 2. As the engine was beeped off line the torque on that engine was drop to 0 while the running engine would rise to 85%. When restarted we would get it running to flight idle delivery zero torque then slowly beep it up to 42.5% while doing this the running engine would drop also to 42.5%.
Bell installed our kits in the Twin Ranger version of the L4, while being an excellent Cat A performer they did not want the single twin option.
It's kind of interesting for us to see the recent announcement mentioned above, more than 20 years after our experiments. Could have saved them some money perhaps.
In the early days Bristow in Oz used Wessex on a particular offshore contract where it was SOP to shut one down in the cruise. Reportedly I believe to have dropped fuel consumption by 25%, which was the aim as they were operating at their extremes of range. Regulator required flight above a certain altitude so you had room to get the other one started (hopefully) should the operating engine fail. Wonder what the innocent pax would have thought, had they known. Still, different days back then.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The twin Wessex fuel consumption was not that much different between 2 engine ops & single engine. I was amongst the original Wessex pilots & we did several tests in both cold & hot weather to get some data. The result was the navy didn't do single engine cruise.
Another important point was that the combining gear box had only a 25 hour life on 1 engine. I would imagine that restriction must have been lifted by the time Bristows got the series 60.
Another important point was that the combining gear box had only a 25 hour life on 1 engine. I would imagine that restriction must have been lifted by the time Bristows got the series 60.
Last edited by Nigel Osborn; 21st Feb 2015 at 20:47.
In the early days Bristow in Oz used Wessex on a particular offshore contract where it was SOP to shut one down in the cruise. Reportedly I believe to have dropped fuel consumption by 25%, which was the aim as they were operating at their extremes of range. Regulator required flight above a certain altitude so you had room to get the other one started (hopefully) should the operating engine fail. Wonder what the innocent pax would have thought, had they known. Still, different days back then.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single engine ops
Not sure its that relevant, but my log book tells me when flying the Meteors at No 209 AFS Westonzoyland circa 1954, I was tasked to carry out a search on Exmoor for a downed aircraft. The brief was to shut down the right hand Derwent. I see the sortie was logged at 1 hour 35 minutes. The standard endurance for the Meteor Mk V11 on both engines was circa 55 minutes. Quite an improvement. Dennis K.
Aging brain cells John is my excuse. Checked with one of the people and his reply
Nearly time for morning tea, better park the BMW and have coffee and cake.
I personally never flew it single engine with passengers. To do that deliberately would have been against all regulations.
It was done occasionally on long distance ferries crew only, where fuel was critical and I have done that. You would fly twin until the overload external tank was empty then shut one down. 25% sounds about right. The machine flew slowly, maybe 100K single or twin. A very good single engine machine. I flew it back from the Scott reef on one when the number two had a runaway up. We were at MAUW, 13600?? and she just waddled all the way back. 180 NM as I recollect.
Part of the conversion was to go to 3000 (I think) and shut an engine down, set it up for restart then pull the other to idle. It was then a matter of entering auto and getting the shut down engine on line. As I recall (it was over 35 years ago for me too!! ) you could be up and running by 1000 feet. No big deal. It was Mayne Bristow by the way.
It was done occasionally on long distance ferries crew only, where fuel was critical and I have done that. You would fly twin until the overload external tank was empty then shut one down. 25% sounds about right. The machine flew slowly, maybe 100K single or twin. A very good single engine machine. I flew it back from the Scott reef on one when the number two had a runaway up. We were at MAUW, 13600?? and she just waddled all the way back. 180 NM as I recollect.
Part of the conversion was to go to 3000 (I think) and shut an engine down, set it up for restart then pull the other to idle. It was then a matter of entering auto and getting the shut down engine on line. As I recall (it was over 35 years ago for me too!! ) you could be up and running by 1000 feet. No big deal. It was Mayne Bristow by the way.
I did a bit ferrying in the Wessex 60, again the concept of single engine was not on the menu; Broome to Perth springs to mind. But maybe your contact was from an earlier time than mine?
Ask him if he was mistaken for a road train driver; we all had six shades darker tan on the right arm due to North in the morning, South in the afternoon with the door open
The brief was to shut down the right hand Derwent.
IIRC one had to get 270 knots at the last part the of the QGH to ensure that the engine was windmilling fast enough to relight otherwise there was a lot of pumping.
Singling up to extend range
I can't find a reference on current mishap data bases. There are a bunch of SH-2F accidents/write offs from the 80's that have very little detail over at the flight safety web site. All I can recall is that it was a west coast squadron. HSL-31, 33, 35. One of them.
As we got told in the east coast ... there was a reason that singling up to "extend range" was more or less an emergency procedure when using the T-58-8-F engine. The NATOPS manual had some interesting charts on how far one engine could take you. (If you fly over the open seas in single ship ops that kind of info is very handy to have ..)
The data point from the west coast was flight during the early/mid 80's, crew traveling from south to north California.
One engine taken one off line to extend range/extend reserve due to ... memory foggy I cannot recall details well ... perhaps a change in weather and alternates all of a sudden becoming less than desirable.
As it worked out, the one they were running on acted up. They were unable to restart the one that had been windmilling, which seems to have fouled the ignitor plugs ... something like that.
Ended in tears. IIRC, all souls perished, landing in mountainous terrain that went badly.
My takeaway was: use them both, unless it's an emergency.
As we got told in the east coast ... there was a reason that singling up to "extend range" was more or less an emergency procedure when using the T-58-8-F engine. The NATOPS manual had some interesting charts on how far one engine could take you. (If you fly over the open seas in single ship ops that kind of info is very handy to have ..)
The data point from the west coast was flight during the early/mid 80's, crew traveling from south to north California.
One engine taken one off line to extend range/extend reserve due to ... memory foggy I cannot recall details well ... perhaps a change in weather and alternates all of a sudden becoming less than desirable.
As it worked out, the one they were running on acted up. They were unable to restart the one that had been windmilling, which seems to have fouled the ignitor plugs ... something like that.
Ended in tears. IIRC, all souls perished, landing in mountainous terrain that went badly.
My takeaway was: use them both, unless it's an emergency.
I know there was a discussion some time ago here on pprune about shutting one engine off if in an fuel emergency at sea. Dont remember the helo type though...
If the 'shut-one-down' was for economy it would be a total other angle about it.
All helos i ever flown( military, different sizes), the fuel is a very little part of the total cost. Only have one FM here so I used it for this example(but from memory, about the same proportions for the other Twins, from qiute small to big): I picked a normal weight, about standard day at 3000'.
(Fuel-) Economical cruise 135kt @ 550kg/h
Max cont cruise AEO: 153kt @ 690kg/h
Max cont cruise on one Engine: 107kt @385kg/h
At 5000E/h; The cost for flying 135Nm(equals 1h economical crusie):
Economical Cruise = 5000E
Max Cruise = 4400E + 72E(72L extra) = 4472E
Max single Engine = 6300 - 80E(80L minus) = 6220E
Seems obvius to keep the speed up. As I said, the other twins had about the same proportions.
If development proceeds(which I doubt) , I guess it would be possible to save some Money on the enginge shut down, but not as much as it differs. I also guess the quick start system would add some weight, both slowing single engine cruise and payload...
[Edit] The helo in the example above does about 4.1kg/Nm in economical cruise and 3.6kg/Nm in single engine so in fuel emergency over sea, I see the Point !
If the 'shut-one-down' was for economy it would be a total other angle about it.
All helos i ever flown( military, different sizes), the fuel is a very little part of the total cost. Only have one FM here so I used it for this example(but from memory, about the same proportions for the other Twins, from qiute small to big): I picked a normal weight, about standard day at 3000'.
(Fuel-) Economical cruise 135kt @ 550kg/h
Max cont cruise AEO: 153kt @ 690kg/h
Max cont cruise on one Engine: 107kt @385kg/h
At 5000E/h; The cost for flying 135Nm(equals 1h economical crusie):
Economical Cruise = 5000E
Max Cruise = 4400E + 72E(72L extra) = 4472E
Max single Engine = 6300 - 80E(80L minus) = 6220E
Seems obvius to keep the speed up. As I said, the other twins had about the same proportions.
If development proceeds(which I doubt) , I guess it would be possible to save some Money on the enginge shut down, but not as much as it differs. I also guess the quick start system would add some weight, both slowing single engine cruise and payload...
[Edit] The helo in the example above does about 4.1kg/Nm in economical cruise and 3.6kg/Nm in single engine so in fuel emergency over sea, I see the Point !
Last edited by AAKEE; 23rd Feb 2015 at 18:48. Reason: Add fuel saving value on single engine
And as for the BO105 in the OP, it didnt do much more than 60kt on OEI, maybe 70 at best ? (..dont remember but this was on 30min OEI rating ?)
...So speed down to 50%, and a little fuel saved...
Just get a R22 instead and you are that slow, and on one engine
...So speed down to 50%, and a little fuel saved...
Just get a R22 instead and you are that slow, and on one engine
Absolutely
Ian C:
Quoting the article that you posted ( in part ): " More work needs to be done, Hajek said, especially in assessing the effects on the main gearbox "
Their research will most likely find, unless the box has been way over-designed structurally, that regular use of much higher than normal power on one input will have an effect on the box TBO. Not something everyone thinks of at first.
Quoting the article that you posted ( in part ): " More work needs to be done, Hajek said, especially in assessing the effects on the main gearbox "
Their research will most likely find, unless the box has been way over-designed structurally, that regular use of much higher than normal power on one input will have an effect on the box TBO. Not something everyone thinks of at first.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
John,
Point well made. The concept is probably better suited for a dedicated design (i.e. the 'little & large' engine configuration mentioned previously, with input shafts rated accordingly) rather than an adaptation of an existing platform.
I/C
Point well made. The concept is probably better suited for a dedicated design (i.e. the 'little & large' engine configuration mentioned previously, with input shafts rated accordingly) rather than an adaptation of an existing platform.
I/C
The concept is probably better suited for a dedicated design (i.e. the 'little & large' engine configuration mentioned previously, with input shafts rated accordingly) rather than an adaptation of an existing platform.
The enlarged MGB and bigger engine weighs more and costs more, and it doesnt add payload. It eats from the payload availabe, as the Quick start mechanism do.
More expensive, less payload.
No change in TBO on our cobox. Part of the certification program was a gear fatigue test to prove infinite gear life which included 50 hours on one input at 585 shp. We also performed a full 30 min. no oil test at 70 % of mcp.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I can't find a reference on current mishap data bases. There are a bunch of SH-2F accidents/write offs from the 80's that have very little detail over at the flight safety web site. All I can recall is that it was a west coast squadron. HSL-31, 33, 35. One of them.
As we got told in the east coast ... there was a reason that singling up to "extend range" was more or less an emergency procedure when using the T-58-8-F engine. The NATOPS manual had some interesting charts on how far one engine could take you. (If you fly over the open seas in single ship ops that kind of info is very handy to have ..)
The data point from the west coast was flight during the early/mid 80's, crew traveling from south to north California.
One engine taken one off line to extend range/extend reserve due to ... memory foggy I cannot recall details well ... perhaps a change in weather and alternates all of a sudden becoming less than desirable.
As it worked out, the one they were running on acted up. They were unable to restart the one that had been windmilling, which seems to have fouled the ignitor plugs ... something like that.
Ended in tears. IIRC, all souls perished, landing in mountainous terrain that went badly.
My takeaway was: use them both, unless it's an emergency.
As we got told in the east coast ... there was a reason that singling up to "extend range" was more or less an emergency procedure when using the T-58-8-F engine. The NATOPS manual had some interesting charts on how far one engine could take you. (If you fly over the open seas in single ship ops that kind of info is very handy to have ..)
The data point from the west coast was flight during the early/mid 80's, crew traveling from south to north California.
One engine taken one off line to extend range/extend reserve due to ... memory foggy I cannot recall details well ... perhaps a change in weather and alternates all of a sudden becoming less than desirable.
As it worked out, the one they were running on acted up. They were unable to restart the one that had been windmilling, which seems to have fouled the ignitor plugs ... something like that.
Ended in tears. IIRC, all souls perished, landing in mountainous terrain that went badly.
My takeaway was: use them both, unless it's an emergency.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
I once had to carry out a single engined takeoff, transit and landing in a Puma HC1. We practiced minimum power takeoffs quite regularly so I had no real qualms about it, other than that it involved a sea transit. This type of flight had to be approved by the Air Officer Commanding. He willingly gave verbal authorisation in person for it, not surprising seeing as we were on our way to get a serviceable aircraft to fly himself and entourage back to the mainland.
I agree with previous posters about some modern medium twins being very capable on one engine. Having taken off on two, I shut down the one with the stuck oil cooler thermo valve then started it up again for a twin engined landing. It would easily have managed the entire trip on one, far better OEI performance than the old Puma (which didn't have a lot, tbh).
I agree with previous posters about some modern medium twins being very capable on one engine. Having taken off on two, I shut down the one with the stuck oil cooler thermo valve then started it up again for a twin engined landing. It would easily have managed the entire trip on one, far better OEI performance than the old Puma (which didn't have a lot, tbh).
Thanks, Hedge.
The number of class A mishaps that H-2 squadrons experienced in the 80's was (in my view looking back) eye watering.
Only by looking back do I understand the significant number of my compadres who left the community (and small deck aviation) for good after one tour.
I, of course, went back for more. (OK, a little bit of crazy isn't bad.
)
The number of class A mishaps that H-2 squadrons experienced in the 80's was (in my view looking back) eye watering.
Only by looking back do I understand the significant number of my compadres who left the community (and small deck aviation) for good after one tour.
I, of course, went back for more. (OK, a little bit of crazy isn't bad.
)
I was a Knox class pit snipe during my Canoe Club days, but having come from the oil fields (212s and 412s) my first love was always aviation - I didn't start flying helos until after I removed the uniform. That said, the quirkiness of the H-2 appealed to me for a number of reasons and I always had a stack of request chits on the CHENG's desk prior to getting underway with an air det aboard.
Along the way I formed close friendships with a number of AWs and drivers, and was always amazed by the list of names any one of those guys could rattle off, drunk or sober, lost in H-2s and -3s during the late 80s and early 90s.
Of course, now I'm the head of an organization trying to retrieve a Knox hull from our friends overseas, and a SeaSprite to park on her flight deck. Nobody ever accused me of being very smart, either
Along the way I formed close friendships with a number of AWs and drivers, and was always amazed by the list of names any one of those guys could rattle off, drunk or sober, lost in H-2s and -3s during the late 80s and early 90s.
Of course, now I'm the head of an organization trying to retrieve a Knox hull from our friends overseas, and a SeaSprite to park on her flight deck. Nobody ever accused me of being very smart, either
The last Knox I landed on was Ainsworth. 85/86. Med.
Before that, I spent a short while on the W.S. Sims before our squadron assigned me to a different det on a SpruCan
While the QOL on a SpruCan was better, I found the winds around the aft end of a Knox a lot less turbulent, which made for a smoother end game during night landings.
FFG 1's and Garcia class Frigates, and for that matter, FFG 7's ... not so fond of them.
Best wishes on getting that Knox frigate back to this side of the pond.
As to single engine performance, (the topic of this thread) with T-700's and the new gear box, I am pretty sure the single engine stats on the G would have been awesome. Never got to fly it.
Before that, I spent a short while on the W.S. Sims before our squadron assigned me to a different det on a SpruCan
While the QOL on a SpruCan was better, I found the winds around the aft end of a Knox a lot less turbulent, which made for a smoother end game during night landings.
FFG 1's and Garcia class Frigates, and for that matter, FFG 7's ... not so fond of them.
Best wishes on getting that Knox frigate back to this side of the pond.
As to single engine performance, (the topic of this thread) with T-700's and the new gear box, I am pretty sure the single engine stats on the G would have been awesome. Never got to fly it.
