PW Engines using EPR or N1
Thread Starter
PW Engines using EPR or N1
Hi
Just need to clarify a couple of points about engines and the associated primary indications for power setting.
RB211 - EPR
All TRENT series - EPR
GE - N1
Pratt & Whittney - N1?
Just need to clarify a couple of points about engines and the associated primary indications for power setting.
RB211 - EPR
All TRENT series - EPR
GE - N1
Pratt & Whittney - N1?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Colorado
Age: 59
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown all three, definately prefer GE's idea of getting rid of EPR. Absolutely useless guage. Good for setting power but if you want to know how your engine is doing, look at N1, N2, EGT & FF. Never EPR.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: expat@large
Age: 55
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, but...
Isn't EPR the only true indicator of thrust being produced?
As told to me by some checkie or other...
Having said that, I spend more time looking an N1.
As told to me by some checkie or other...
Having said that, I spend more time looking an N1.
Having flown all three, definately prefer GE's idea of getting rid of EPR. Absolutely useless guage. Good for setting power but if you want to know how your engine is doing, look at N1, N2, EGT & FF. Never EPR.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to use EPR to set thrust, I much prefer R-R Integrated EPR (core + fan). P&W uses core EPR only, and its long-term accuracy (EPR vs actual thrust) suffers as the engine wears in (seals, shrouds, etc.)
If you're going to use EPR to set thrust, I much prefer R-R Integrated EPR (core + fan). P&W uses core EPR only, and its long-term accuracy (EPR vs actual thrust) suffers as the engine wears in (seals, shrouds, etc.)
I've seen mixed flow EPR readings (long duct fan air mixing with the core in the tailpipe) getting badly screwed up with some fan FOD damage leading to a control system overboosting the core. but life is just a bunch of trades
Having flown A320s with N1 (CFMs) and EPR (V2500s) and 744s with N1 (CF6s) and EPR (RB211s), I reckon I can comment.
I don’t care who makes the donk or how many spools it has but EPR is a waste of time, just ask the Air Florida guys.
With N1, move the thrust levers and you get the N1 you command. In an EPR bird N1/N2 etc will vary to provide the EPR commanded.
A manual thrust approach in a N1 powered aircraft is a smooth easy affair, in an EPR bird it is a bit wishy washy.
Other than that push forward on thrust levers and trees/waves go past fast, pull back and they go past slower.
I don’t care who makes the donk or how many spools it has but EPR is a waste of time, just ask the Air Florida guys.
With N1, move the thrust levers and you get the N1 you command. In an EPR bird N1/N2 etc will vary to provide the EPR commanded.
A manual thrust approach in a N1 powered aircraft is a smooth easy affair, in an EPR bird it is a bit wishy washy.
Other than that push forward on thrust levers and trees/waves go past fast, pull back and they go past slower.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, the MEL for the DC-10-40 (JT9D) permitted dispatch with one EPR inop, and called for matching TO N1 on the affected engine with the others, with appropriate cross-check of FF. (There are more details I'm sure...)
The 747 probably has something similar.
The 747 probably has something similar.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I worked in the shop test cells, where you get the true static thrust reading, working RB211's, with the FADEC control. You would see at least a 1% diff, if not more in N1 speed, between engines at the same take-off and max-continuous thrust. This demostrated that each fan was individual in it's performance, and speed required to attain the true thrust. Yes, EPR is also a 'moveable feast', but RR believe it less of a moveable feast than N1.
If you were running to an N1 and the efficiency of the fan meant you were 1% or more lower on actual thrust, then it may only be 600lbs.
BUT, remember that all these engines have a 'trimmer' system, be it EPR/N1, bringing them closer than 600lbs to the true thrust.
Brgd's
N1V
If you were running to an N1 and the efficiency of the fan meant you were 1% or more lower on actual thrust, then it may only be 600lbs.
BUT, remember that all these engines have a 'trimmer' system, be it EPR/N1, bringing them closer than 600lbs to the true thrust.
Brgd's
N1V
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: sussex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N1 is only confirmation of power if there are no compressor anti-surge bleed valves fitted.The RB211 and JT9 has them and the GE hasn't.
On the RB211 and P&W JT9 you could have a bleed valve(s) stuck open and although you're achieving the appropriate RPMs the engine would not be producing anything like take-off power - a large percentage of the mass airflow is being dumped overboard.
The only TRUE measure of thrust produced is a measure of the pressure rise measured from the intake and fan/turbine exhaust.
Because of this, if you're dispatching with an EPR gauge u/s, you try to reduce the potential problem by not using graduated power and sometimes imposing an RTOW penalty
On the RB211 and P&W JT9 you could have a bleed valve(s) stuck open and although you're achieving the appropriate RPMs the engine would not be producing anything like take-off power - a large percentage of the mass airflow is being dumped overboard.
The only TRUE measure of thrust produced is a measure of the pressure rise measured from the intake and fan/turbine exhaust.
Because of this, if you're dispatching with an EPR gauge u/s, you try to reduce the potential problem by not using graduated power and sometimes imposing an RTOW penalty
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
virgo, it's a bit more complicated.
GE & CFM engines DO have bleeds (called bypass doors) - and they should open only at low power to dump excess booster (or LP Compressor if you will) air to prevent a booster stall.
But if the doors leak, their discharge goes into the fan duct, ADDING to fan nozzle flow. Thus at a given N1, thrust should be HIGHER than normal.
The catch is that with less core airflow, the LP turbine probably won't be able to spin the fan up to speed without hitting some other control limit.
GE & CFM engines DO have bleeds (called bypass doors) - and they should open only at low power to dump excess booster (or LP Compressor if you will) air to prevent a booster stall.
But if the doors leak, their discharge goes into the fan duct, ADDING to fan nozzle flow. Thus at a given N1, thrust should be HIGHER than normal.
The catch is that with less core airflow, the LP turbine probably won't be able to spin the fan up to speed without hitting some other control limit.
Last edited by barit1; 16th Sep 2007 at 01:17.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, many different opinions.
One wonders..why not look in the respectice aircraft AFM and see exactly what the manufacturer says?
Instead of pontificating, and many times getting it wrong...
And yes, RB.211's, EPR is the primary thrust setting instrument.
If you doubt this, why not call up a Roller tech rep and ask him...the answer you recieve might be enlightening, IE: something might indeed be learned.
Perish the thought....
One wonders..why not look in the respectice aircraft AFM and see exactly what the manufacturer says?
Instead of pontificating, and many times getting it wrong...
And yes, RB.211's, EPR is the primary thrust setting instrument.
If you doubt this, why not call up a Roller tech rep and ask him...the answer you recieve might be enlightening, IE: something might indeed be learned.
Perish the thought....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EPR Command - is the EPR the autothrottle of the a/c requires to maintain an a/c speed
EPR Trimmer - Function to trim the engine so that at a given EPR, at a given OAT at a given Baro that all engines produce the same thrust. It is NOT there to restrict the engine to below test-cell thrust levels.
N1 - On the RB/Trent is used as the alternate, not the primary thrust setting parameter
EPR - is a ratio of the air pressure measured behind the fan OGV's at the front of the engine and in the LP turbine exit at the rear, therefore it has a pretty close relation to thrust. If you cut 2" of the end of all your fan blades or the fan attrition lining was damaged/worn, but the fan was turning at 100% N1 speed, would you still be getting the required thrust? No. If the fan was dirty and therefore less efficient, then it's compression would be less efficient, therefore pressure will be lower, which EPR would show. Since the engine would have to work harder overall to make the same pressure, this would be seen on ECM trending by the engine speeds gradually trending up in relation to EPR.
Hopefully this illustrates.
EPR Trimmer - Function to trim the engine so that at a given EPR, at a given OAT at a given Baro that all engines produce the same thrust. It is NOT there to restrict the engine to below test-cell thrust levels.
N1 - On the RB/Trent is used as the alternate, not the primary thrust setting parameter
EPR - is a ratio of the air pressure measured behind the fan OGV's at the front of the engine and in the LP turbine exit at the rear, therefore it has a pretty close relation to thrust. If you cut 2" of the end of all your fan blades or the fan attrition lining was damaged/worn, but the fan was turning at 100% N1 speed, would you still be getting the required thrust? No. If the fan was dirty and therefore less efficient, then it's compression would be less efficient, therefore pressure will be lower, which EPR would show. Since the engine would have to work harder overall to make the same pressure, this would be seen on ECM trending by the engine speeds gradually trending up in relation to EPR.
Hopefully this illustrates.
N!Vibes
Good explanation for the RB, but how about PW the subject title of this thread?
EPR Command - is the EPR the autothrottle of the a/c requires to maintain an a/c speed
EPR Trimmer - Function to trim the engine so that at a given EPR, at a given OAT at a given Baro that all engines produce the same thrust. It is NOT there to restrict the engine to below test-cell thrust levels.
N1 - On the RB/Trent is used as the alternate, not the primary thrust setting parameter
EPR - is a ratio of the air pressure measured behind the fan OGV's at the front of the engine and in the LP turbine exit at the rear, therefore it has a pretty close relation to thrust. If you cut 2" of the end of all your fan blades or the fan attrition lining was damaged/worn, but the fan was turning at 100% N1 speed, would you still be getting the required thrust? No. If the fan was dirty and therefore less efficient, then it's compression would be less efficient, therefore pressure will be lower, which EPR would show. Since the engine would have to work harder overall to make the same pressure, this would be seen on ECM trending by the engine speeds gradually trending up in relation to EPR.
Hopefully this illustrates.
EPR Trimmer - Function to trim the engine so that at a given EPR, at a given OAT at a given Baro that all engines produce the same thrust. It is NOT there to restrict the engine to below test-cell thrust levels.
N1 - On the RB/Trent is used as the alternate, not the primary thrust setting parameter
EPR - is a ratio of the air pressure measured behind the fan OGV's at the front of the engine and in the LP turbine exit at the rear, therefore it has a pretty close relation to thrust. If you cut 2" of the end of all your fan blades or the fan attrition lining was damaged/worn, but the fan was turning at 100% N1 speed, would you still be getting the required thrust? No. If the fan was dirty and therefore less efficient, then it's compression would be less efficient, therefore pressure will be lower, which EPR would show. Since the engine would have to work harder overall to make the same pressure, this would be seen on ECM trending by the engine speeds gradually trending up in relation to EPR.
Hopefully this illustrates.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't disagree with N1 Vibes about IEPR, but there is a bit more to the picture of N1 as a thrust measurement.
In typical airline service, the fan suffers some degradation, from simple dirt and insect accumulation to outright physical airfoil damage to tip clearance erosion. All of these tend to reduce fan airflow (and thus fan thrust) at a given N1.
But the above is accompanied by similar deterioration in the core engine, and this shows up as increasing EGT over a period of time. This means the core nozzle velocity increases, and it is producing MORE thrust at a given N1.
The net effect is the two tend to cancel each other, and the total thrust/N1 relationship changes very little. The effect on takeoff performance will be within the normal day-to-day statistical variation.
So - is the supposed advantage of IEPR as a thrust measurement worth the added weight/expense/maintenance burden of an EPR system? The certification rules require a tachometer on each independent rotor, so removing the N1 gage on an EPR machine is not an option. Why not use it for thrust setting?
The proof is left to the student.
In typical airline service, the fan suffers some degradation, from simple dirt and insect accumulation to outright physical airfoil damage to tip clearance erosion. All of these tend to reduce fan airflow (and thus fan thrust) at a given N1.
But the above is accompanied by similar deterioration in the core engine, and this shows up as increasing EGT over a period of time. This means the core nozzle velocity increases, and it is producing MORE thrust at a given N1.
The net effect is the two tend to cancel each other, and the total thrust/N1 relationship changes very little. The effect on takeoff performance will be within the normal day-to-day statistical variation.
So - is the supposed advantage of IEPR as a thrust measurement worth the added weight/expense/maintenance burden of an EPR system? The certification rules require a tachometer on each independent rotor, so removing the N1 gage on an EPR machine is not an option. Why not use it for thrust setting?
The proof is left to the student.
Last edited by barit1; 16th Sep 2007 at 13:13.
