time builder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Posts
- 648
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
AMF BE1900s
- Thread starter time builder
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
AZaviator
El Capitan
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 623
freighthumper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Posts
- 173
Im sure that even if it could be approved, it would cost more to get the STC or whatever approved than they would save by not using the standard engines. Of course Im sure they spent thousands getting that BS expemption from having to supply their flight crews with jepp charts. Anyways...Im sure that rumour about the engines is a load of crap. They are freight planes, the amount of useful load it would cost to put a smaller engine on the 1900 would make it useless for hauling anything but styrofoam peanuts. Now what you heard was probably some distortion of a new policy about using reduced thrust or a lower company mandated power setting.
They put money in our check for those charts. Don't believe me just ask'em. I asked during the winter meeting. I don't know if anything pisses me off more than thinking about that.
time builder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Posts
- 648
Or, you could get the Jepp subscription that AMF pilots are required to get for roughly $300 a year.
DeathPencil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Posts
- 56
I think I recognize this guy from when he came through the schoolhouse...
Actually the plan is to strap a few of the "extra" Lance engines we have laying around on the 1900's.
Last edited:
RedGuy
No Otto Pilot
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Posts
- 226
Well since my employer provides me NOS charts, that I don't have to pay for, that's what I'll stick with.
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
What's more annoying regarding the chart issue is the fact that Lear, CVG, DFW, and San Juan crews have company charts in the aircraft! So should they get a $300/yr pay cut?
There has to be a fairer system.
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
No, we have to use a reduced power setting (1900 ft/lb torque) to save fuel. Considering the old power setting was a conservative value (2400 ft/lb torque), we now basically fly a BE 1900 at the same speed as a BE99!
EatSleepFly
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Posts
- 648
Oh, well, since you asked...
-We are getting an exemption to fly the Brasilias single pilot.
-There is going to be a pay raise this decade.
-All of the airplanes are getting Garmin 430's.
-OH... how could I forget the ATR's that we're getting!
Where do people come up with this crap?!?
There must be a few characters who sit at their layover and brainstorm asinine rumors to spread.
Last edited:
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
Actually, those numbers I gave are meant to be KIAS not KTAS, sorry for my error.
DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
Put in the updates for a Jepp national kit and get back to me about some of us getting them for free. Hell, I don't even do it that often and I hate the thought of it. I really feel for the E120 crews on that. And the Jepp checklist isn't much fun either.
As per the power settings, I think someone reached elbow deep and just pulled some BS numbers out. We don't use them anymore for our Metros as we did (specifically KSU did) some research and found that our old power setting were just about as efficient as could be run in the plane. In fact, at altitude those power setting weren't as efficient as using more power because you'd be flying around 7 degrees nose up wallowing along at 160 kts. That research was forwarded along with a pretty snappy formula for determing best power for speed/altitude in SA227's. Don't know what happened to it from there.
As per the power settings, I think someone reached elbow deep and just pulled some BS numbers out. We don't use them anymore for our Metros as we did (specifically KSU did) some research and found that our old power setting were just about as efficient as could be run in the plane. In fact, at altitude those power setting weren't as efficient as using more power because you'd be flying around 7 degrees nose up wallowing along at 160 kts. That research was forwarded along with a pretty snappy formula for determing best power for speed/altitude in SA227's. Don't know what happened to it from there.
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
Brasilia flying is not in my near future so the joys of a national chart revison are not mine to endure. In regards to the power setting issue, I find it hard to believe that significant fuel saving can be made, especially when you consider that our flight segments are pretty short overall.
What astounds me is that we have to comply with these settings flying our DHL runs-DHL pays for the bloody fuel! On the short flights I have made in the Metro with the new power settings, no significant fuel saving have been noted!
DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
Feel for you on the DHL stuff. Like I said, we ditched them because they were and are BS. I'd rather do what's best for the company than comply with an unresearched and wasteful policy in terms of fuel and time.
Btw, if you're interested here's the formula. Start out at whatever power setting gets 200 kts. at 10,000 feet. We both know it should be about 50 TQ. For every 1,000 feet above that set the power to reduce that speed by 2 knots. For example:
11,000-198 kts.
12,000- 196 kts.
13,000- 194 kts.
and so forth. I know you can't officially do that for DHL, but it might be something to take a look at.
Btw, if you're interested here's the formula. Start out at whatever power setting gets 200 kts. at 10,000 feet. We both know it should be about 50 TQ. For every 1,000 feet above that set the power to reduce that speed by 2 knots. For example:
11,000-198 kts.
12,000- 196 kts.
13,000- 194 kts.
and so forth. I know you can't officially do that for DHL, but it might be something to take a look at.
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
Interesting, you can be assured that if such data was researched and compiled by the BUR "politburu" it would have become policy pronto!
DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
EatSleepFly
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Posts
- 648
What's the deal with this? We don't have any DHL Metro runs, so I haven't heard about it. I know they keep track of fuel consumption pretty close, but how do they know what power settings you're using? And if you're using something that's more efficient (saving them $$$), what do they care? Just curious in case I ever cover a DHL run in the Metro. Wouldn't want to get in trouble for not burning enough fuel...
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
What's the deal with this? We don't have any DHL Metro runs, so I haven't heard about it. I know they keep track of fuel consumption pretty close, but how do they know what power settings you're using? And if you're using something that's more efficient (saving them $$$), what do they care? Just curious in case I ever cover a DHL run in the Metro. Wouldn't want to get in trouble for not burning enough fuel...
The reduced power settings were supposed to be a fuel/money saving measure because of the difficulty in passing on fuel surcharges to UPS (who incidentaly have no qualms about passing it onto their customers!).
My point with the DHL runs is they pay a dry rate for the aircraft, so unless the customer states that we should try and save them money by using such a power setting, then it should be 105% on the reactor/warp speed Mr. Sulu!
SPBRIAN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 103
Aye Cap'n, i've given ya all she can handle, she can't take no more! P.S., just file for 250, that way you'll climb all the way until you start descent, you can't use the lower power setting if you never go to cruise right?
Flyin Tony
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Posts
- 735
TheDogsBollocks
Ex-AMF Scallywag!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 442
Not as much as doing the revisions and paying for the service. Every year those maggots at Jeppesen jack up the price of my subscription, oh wait-that's covered by my yearly pay raise, I feeling better now-NOT!
DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
SPBRIAN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 103
I heard a rumor that AMF was going to go to a paperless cockpit setup to help all of the weary pilots out! on a side note it'll be here when we get the current crop of planes that don't have enough cycles to be considered freighters yet and the technology is so cheap it's not cost effective for the previous owners to rip it out.
DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
SPBRIAN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 103
Not in your Amerilifetime.
Haven't you heard, i'm the next Bob... Now somebody get one of them training captains to give me dual on how to get the tie correct, mine is definately too small. I've almost mastered distance spitting.
The Trainerator.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
