DirtyBeech
The Last Starfighter
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 782
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know you can't officially do that for DHL, but it might be something to take a look at.
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!
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!Doing the jepps in the bro sucks! It takes about 5-6 hours sometimes, altho Mr. B has that stuff down he can have a book done in 1 flight
I still have my south central subscription and definitely think that the guys doing national jepp revisions every couple of weeks are on the short end of the stick. I don't care that they get it for free. It truly sucks.
Not in your Amerilifetime.
Sounds about right, the 99 pilot who told me was saying how they were going to be just as slow as the BE99, so he assumed they were smaller engines, which had me scratching my head too. Thanks for the clarification.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!
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!
Man that sucks. We cruise the 1900 at 780 degrees as long as the overspeed isn't going off.
The thing about cruise power is that the engine is well cooled by the fast moving air. As long as you are with in limits, the engine will show very little wear. The only time you are actually doing any significant wear and tear on the engine is during start and take off. Both of those incidents occur with relatively little air flow over the engine with the EGT/ITT up to limits.
If you do my cruise power settings like Dirtybeech outlined you'll fly at or around 610 deg EGT below 15,000 and creep up toward 650 by FL250. The best thing for everyone in the AMF SA227 fleet to do is to right down specific fuel burns v ground speed each flight and forward it to EM and SK.
If you do that you'll be able to document the fuel lost on those legs. Just show your lbs/nm burn. You should be able to get 2.5 lbs/nm + 0.5 depending on wind. Example:
14,000
Power Setting-lbs/hr-gnd speed-lbs/nm
Company 580 600/200/3.0
Old Power 610 620/215/2.9
LRC (as above) 625/220/2.8
I don't have any of the actual numbers I documented in flight in front of me. However, those are pretty representative of the actual numbers you'll get. LRC (long range cruise) will just barely beat out 610 every time and 580 will only beat 610 if you are at really low altitudes like 5,000.
Besides being less fuel efficient, 580 also creates extra maintenance. If you have a route that is taking about 1 hour of flight time per day on the 610 power setting, you'll probably take 1.1 hours to complete it at 580. That means timed maintenance items like letter checks that come up every 100 hours or so will occur with fewer legs flown.
So, if you had been flying for 1 hour per leg and are now flying 1.1 hours per leg you'll have to have a 100 hour inspection done every 90 legs rather than every 100 legs. If you are getting X amount of dollars per leg (which AMF is in some cases) than you have fewer funds to pay for that maintenance.
I've told everyone in DFW this, and most agree. If you need a procedure for an aircraft, chances are someone somewhere has already researched it, done it, documented it and published it for our edification. If you want to save gas and be more efficient, look up the numbers in the AFM. They aren't straight forward, but they are there. You just have to convert TAS to IAS and you'll have all the info you need.
Your research is most insightful indeed, I fly one of those low altitude/short duration Metro runs on a regular basis and can attest without repudiation that the fuel saving with the "fuel saving power setting" is simply not there!
Your other point regarding the maintenance aspect of these power settings is something I did not even consider, I'll be surprised if BUR has either!
I heard we're getting RJ's...
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.