|
|
| Wanted to ask a few questions from the folks that know.
What is the Sea Level Climb Fuel Rate ?
What is the Service Ceiling Climb Fuel Rate ?
Anybody want to send me performance/fuel numbers ?
thanks
jj |
|
| |
|
| Sea Level Climb--around 32 gallons.
Service Ceiling Climb--around 20.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 47
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland | Sea level T/O about 35 GPH normal climb around 32
at 16-18K cruise at 750 TOT 25 GPH plus minus 1 with a TAS around 200 Kts
JPH
N210RD |
|
| |
|
| The take off fuel burn on a 450HP 250B17F/2 @ 111 torque is 43 gals per hour, I just flew from Calif to Osk. to O&N and back to Calif. and @ FL230 (20 degrees above standard) the fuel burn was 20.2 gals per hour. The normal burn @ 17K is about 24 to 25 gals per hour. Your have to take is consideration, that not all 210s fly the same, and that all carry different loads, some have rubber boots, some TKS, some gear doors, and some with more powerful engines, so these numbers very! The numbers I just gave you are average, The reason I say average is that I currently fly 20 different Eagles, and annually collect 250 to 300 hours in them. The real key is knowing the temp of the outside air, and if you are above standard or below. Below is NICE. Robert Nicolas PropJet Aviation Western Sales O&N Aircrat Modification. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 47
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland | Fuel burn at 111 torque is 43 GPH: I honestly do not know why you should take off at max torque unless you are going in and out very short fields.
P-factor on these plane is very pronouced and I believe it is much safer and performance is very adequate if you use only 80-90 torque. I know, some people like to impress the local crowd. The nice thing about this plane is that the power is there if you need it, but do you need to always push to the line? As far as cruise is concerned, yes I go to 752 TOT. I heard about some owner flying it close to 800. Is this really bad for the engine? |
|
| |
|
| I was making a statement that the take off fuel burn rate is 43 Gals per hour @ 111 torque @ sea level on a Std. day, it you are getting less then this then you have a problem with fuel delivery, and will naturally have a weak running engine @ higher altitudes. The other fuel burn rates that I mentioned are averages also, these are just samples so that people can see if they are in the norm. Has nothing to do with impressing the crowd, thats up to the "nut behind the wheel" The 800 degree thing will get you to hot section in a hurry, anyone suggesting running @ this temp range has more money then common sense and will sooner then later deliver you a possible engine failure. When the engine failure occurs, then these people can experience the "Glide Ratio" with engine out (as others were trying to establish, all of the info is in the POH) Robert Nicolas |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 14
| I noticed this post was from 2005. Do you feel the 800+ operation also applys to the engines with the compressor modification ?
I thought I read some where in a RR doc that these engines have a top of the green max continous of 810c.
Okay, not okay ? thanks. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 56
| Everytime someones refrains to the fact that "I thought I read some where", usually means that you should go back to the book and reread. There is NO OPERATION AT THIS TEMPERATURE SETTING LONGER THEN "FIVE MINUETS" OF OPERATION PER CYCLE. There certainly is no law keeping you from doing this. There is one sure out come! You will be going in for a EARLY HOT SECTION, if not overhaul...Robert Nicolas |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 14
| Actually, I did read it.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/...
777C continuous
777C takeoff
Later, "Note 1" gives other temperatures:
810C takeoff
810C continuous
This document Rev 15 written in 2000 is quite different from the POH written in 1992.
Hence, my question. Since this engine now comes with the turbine modification,
I thought you might know where difference lies. |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 56
| I think the problem might be that you are reading some FAA pub. I have never read in the Rolls-Royce Service instructions a!out this. Previously with this same topic I asked Rolls, they were very addiment |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 56
| Sending from Blackberry, pushed the wrong button.
Rolls was diffinent in the fact, that 752 "C" is the cont. Figure. You can run up to the 1st red line for 5 minuets per cycle. This has been the proper settings for this engine since the beginning of the O&N conversions. - was told by one engineer from Rolls that the military one ran a 250 engine @ 800 "C" in a test cell for a peeriod of time for testing. No data on the test. Suggest reading the 250 Rolls publication regarding the engine operation or you might get hurt...Robert Nicolas Sales Service Training of the O&N Silver Eagles Aircraft |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 14
| So what is your understanding about the difference between the engines with the turbine modification and the
engines without ? |
|
| |
|
Regular
Posts: 56
| There are basically three engines that are in the O&N Silver Eagle. The 1st being the Allison engine. Rolls bought the company in 1995 but continued to build the engine the way Allison (General Motors) did. O&N was not allowed to use the Rolls name or logo unit the middle of the year in 2000. At this time Rolls closed the factory and made some changes. O&N was without any engines for almost six months. Of the changes that Rolls made, the major changes were to the centrifical compressor and to the power turbine (3 and 4 wheels and nozzles). Rolls thought that since the power section of the C-20B & R engines were the same as the 250B17F/2 and F/1 engines they could just change them all. The FAA didn't see it that way. Once they finally released engines, the deall with the FAA allowed these engines to be delivered with the centrifical compressor section upgraded but not the power section. All of the C-20 B and R engines got the full treatment. The first engine that was delivered went into N63DP, which was the first Silver Eagle to get the Rolls-Royce name and logo installed to the aircraft. It wasn't until about a year later that N63DP has a warrantly issue with the intake bellows which allowed me to pull the engine and send to Rolls-Royce Oakland. They had the engine for about three months, which after months of fustration I removed the engine form the Oakland facility and sent the engine to Standard Aero Canada. At this time we learned about the power turbine enhancements that were standard issue in the C-20 B and R engines. We installed this enhancement to the engine form N63DP and this was the first Eagle to get the power turbine enhancement. Subsiquently this for the next eight years became an option (a $49,000.00 option). As of Jan of 2008, all of the Rolls engines, now come with the competely enhanced engine as standard issue. The power turbine enhanced engines has a better performance level, as per not temping out in most situations therefore torqueing out first. You only get 450 HP to the propeller if the torque meter goes to 111 psi. This enhancement in plus thermodynamic horsepower is not the same in all engines. We have seen various dyno ratings from 8% plus to24% plus. Naturally the big guys run stronger. |
|
| |
Fuel Burns & POH
