AMF BE1900s

[time builder]

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!

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.

 

[Trogdor]

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.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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.

 

[jtrain609]

I heard we're getting RJ's...

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

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!

 

[ksu_aviator]

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!

Don't just attest to it....prove it. On each leg set three power settings (if you have time) and record the ground speed vs the fuel burn. Send it in, they are listening and they know that the power setting they picked isn't perfect. The more info they get will help them in determing the proper course of action later.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I heard we're getting RJ's...

Only after the first 747 is on property.

 

[jtrain609]

Hey it's funny you mention that, I saw one of the dudes in the white shirts runnin' around with a 727 MX book saying something about expansion and buying Express.Net. Maybe it's a sign...

 

[barnyard]

This might be the only useful thread about AMF that I have read on here in years.

Great research KSU. Hopefully BUR will realize this policy does nothing but put more time on the metros.

 

[freightomatic]

About charts....

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.

I used to work for a couple other outfits that supplied charts. One thing to keep in mind though: Do you trust the last person who flew the plane to leave ALL of the charts that you might need for that day in the binder? Small out fit, yeah, maybe I would. Large outfit. Heck no!

 

[ksu_aviator]

I used to work for a couple other outfits that supplied charts. One thing to keep in mind though: Do you trust the last person who flew the plane to leave ALL of the charts that you might need for that day in the binder? Small out fit, yeah, maybe I would. Large outfit. Heck no!

It has never been a problem.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Hey it's funny you mention that, I saw one of the dudes in the white shirts runnin' around with a 727 MX book saying something about expansion and buying Express.Net. Maybe it's a sign...

The only sign there would be on your back that says kick me j/k

 

[RefugePilot]

Of course Im sure they spent thousands getting that BS expemption from having to supply their flight crews with jepp charts.

Is it in the FARs that 135 operations are supposed to provide charts and plates to their crew?

 

[citabriapilot]

Is it in the FARs that 135 operations are supposed to provide charts and plates to their crew?

It is, but AMF simply says they are including the monies required for chart into our paychecks, so in their eyes they are supplying the means, we are just required to phone the order in. BS, huh? Funny thing is, it's not listed as a seperate column on the paycheck and I'm still paying taxes on my "chart fund". As Borat would say, "Nnniiiiiicccce!"

 

[RefugePilot]

It is, but AMF simply says they are including the monies required for chart into our paychecks, so in their eyes they are supplying the means, we are just required to phone the order in. BS, huh? Funny thing is, it's not listed as a seperate column on the paycheck and I'm still paying taxes on my "chart fund".

I wish they had told me that before I signed on, like an asterix in the pay column *= minus expenses. I read somewhere Flight Express is paying $40k/year to fly C210s. My 90 days is up, they figure they might keep me a while, so I start to get my bennies, just trying to figure out how to afford them, thankfully I don't live in Cali. I can't see how anyone could afford Calif on PA31 wages.

Do any of the oldtimers remember when the monies were added to pay for the charts, or did we get a pay cut at the same time we were given a chart expense 'bonus'?