Grob Tutor engine handling
Thread Starter
Grob Tutor engine handling
Howdy y'all, I'm visiting friends in Lincolnshire right now, and when a Tutor goes over the engine often seems to be howling in pain. Some of the throttle movements seem very abrupt, and it sounds as if the prop is jammed fully fine. My friend claims he's heard that the instructors don't teach the use of the prop control at all, but I can't believe that! Anyone out there know?
Thread Starter
What did they do with it when the engine failed? I'm intrigued - about the only thing you can do is pull it to 'Fully Coarse' to reduce drag.
He has mentioned their propensity to shed blades! Have other operators experienced this or is it unique to the RAF?
He has mentioned their propensity to shed blades! Have other operators experienced this or is it unique to the RAF?
When I instructed on the Bulldog, normal cruise was 2400/19" with best power mixture. We'd also stopped giving the 2400/15" vs. 1800/21" 80KIAS demo. However, I heard that the normal cruise was changed to 2600 rpm some years later so that, 'as in a jet', Bloggs normally only had one noise lever to worry about....
Perhaps that's the same in Das Teutor?
I guess they're not too worried about engine life.... But when I flew in loose formation from Abingdon to St Mawgan for Summer Camp one year, I reduced rpm and increased MAP to the verge of 'parallel needles' and leaned the mixture as far as I could. I saved gallons of fuel, but the engine response was pretty dire.
Perhaps that's the same in Das Teutor?
I guess they're not too worried about engine life.... But when I flew in loose formation from Abingdon to St Mawgan for Summer Camp one year, I reduced rpm and increased MAP to the verge of 'parallel needles' and leaned the mixture as far as I could. I saved gallons of fuel, but the engine response was pretty dire.
Thread Starter
I've heard the 'as in a jet' argument before* - its remarkably specious isn't it, and also rather patronising of Bloggs. After all, how hard can it be? At least you knew what you were doing Beagle!
* Unless of course they are also flying the Tutors at the same speeds as a Tucano or Hawk, which doesn't seem very likely.............
* Unless of course they are also flying the Tutors at the same speeds as a Tucano or Hawk, which doesn't seem very likely.............
Use of the rpm control is taught and practiced. Normally set to High for whole sortie, reduced if needing to set for range or endurance. Also set to Low for PFLs if needed.....it glides a LOT further!
Can't account for the noises you heard though.
Can't account for the noises you heard though.
about the only thing you can do is pull it to 'Fully Coarse' to reduce drag.
I too have noticed the noise produced by continuous high RPM on the Tutors operating near me from Benson. Other than for aeros etc a normal cruise for an I0-360 would be 22"/2200rpm or perhaps 23/23.They seem to operate at a continuous 2500 rpm, probably doesn't help prop life.
I also remember my daughter, when flying at her UAS, telling me that they leaned the mixture by setting a fuel flow before take off? My Lycoming Manual states that full rich should be used for take off, for engine cooling and increased life, except at high altitude airfields.
Perhaps the 180/200HP Tutor is so heavy and underpowered, with two pilots togged up with military gear and parachutes, that it needs to operate at max continuous power.
I also remember my daughter, when flying at her UAS, telling me that they leaned the mixture by setting a fuel flow before take off? My Lycoming Manual states that full rich should be used for take off, for engine cooling and increased life, except at high altitude airfields.
Perhaps the 180/200HP Tutor is so heavy and underpowered, with two pilots togged up with military gear and parachutes, that it needs to operate at max continuous power.
Last edited by cessnapete; 17th Jun 2015 at 15:20.
The Tutor has a constant speed propellor. When I flew it, before the latest prop change, RPM was full high for take off, then reduced to 2500 I think just before top of climb. It is then left there for the duration. In the event of an engine failure, it is normal to select RPM to low which should give the coarsest possible blade angle for least drag.
The mixture was set to 'Best power Mixture' before take off. Students were taught how to set up for best endurance but it was rarely used.
The engine is operated as per Lycoming/Grob procedures - what works for a Cessna isn't necessarily going to be correct for another type!
The mixture was set to 'Best power Mixture' before take off. Students were taught how to set up for best endurance but it was rarely used.
The engine is operated as per Lycoming/Grob procedures - what works for a Cessna isn't necessarily going to be correct for another type!
Awesome but Affordable
Now that the Tutors are operating from Wittering the tortured sound of an AEI-360 in continuous fully fine pitch offends my senses. The increased fuel burn and engine wear is costing the RAF a lot of money (out of my tax payments). I operate a Skybolt fitted with, essentially, the same power plant and a reduction to 2500rpm/25" after takeoff and for aerobatics is SOP if only to reduce the noise nuisance with 2200rpm/22" in the cruise. As for the "one power lever" argument, what about all the turbo prop RAF aircraft.
Trapper 69
Trapper 69
Now that the Tutors are operating from Wittering the tortured sound of an AEI-360 in continuous fully fine pitch offends my senses. The increased fuel burn and engine wear is costing the RAF a lot of money (out of my tax payments). I operate a Skybolt fitted with, essentially, the same power plant and a reduction to 2500rpm/25" after takeoff and for aerobatics is SOP if only to reduce the noise nuisance with 2200rpm/22" in the cruise. As for the "one power lever" argument, what about all the turbo prop RAF aircraft.
Trapper 69
Trapper 69
Hi RP - you wrote:
Why on earth do they do that when giving Space Cadets their 20 min of air experience? Or when 'teaching' the odd UAS student? Unless it's how NOT to operate c/s prop SEP aircraft?
The Tutor now leaves the RPM at max throughout the sortie (2700 RPM).
Thread Starter
Good God! So they leave the prop at 2700rpm for the whole trip? That explains a lot (and also possibly why the blades kept falling off!).
Are the AEFs known as the '20 minuters' because that's how long the engines last? It seems to me that perhaps a little airmanship needs to be learnt regarding how to operate an IO-360 with a CS prop (irrespective of the airplane its bolted too).
I haven't seen the POH for a Tutor, but I'd be amazed if Lycoming say "oh, just leave it fully fine."
I've never heard such bullcr@p!
Are the AEFs known as the '20 minuters' because that's how long the engines last? It seems to me that perhaps a little airmanship needs to be learnt regarding how to operate an IO-360 with a CS prop (irrespective of the airplane its bolted too).
I haven't seen the POH for a Tutor, but I'd be amazed if Lycoming say "oh, just leave it fully fine."
I've never heard such bullcr@p!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gentlemen,
I have followed this thread with interest. I was lucky enough to have been trained to fly by the Royal Air Force when they could afford jet training aircraft. In the following 40 years I avoided being tainted by props or turbo props. I find it inconceivable that a disorganised bunch of QFIs cannot agree on how to operate an aircraft. Does the RAF not have some central organisation that enables and encourages Standardisation? I would assume that there is a CORRECT way to operate a variable prop ac?
If it is required to bastardise how to manage the engine to facilitate future fast jet pilots maybe the RAF should stream prior to EFT. - No, I was only joking! A better solution would be to get rid of the Tutor and EFT (and many of the QFIs) and get a proper basic trainer. You could then give ALL pilots an adequate amount of training and then stream them. Thus all pilots would be trained to the same Basic standard and not “short changed” by the present system.
Thud105 - I have just seen your comments - well said!
I have followed this thread with interest. I was lucky enough to have been trained to fly by the Royal Air Force when they could afford jet training aircraft. In the following 40 years I avoided being tainted by props or turbo props. I find it inconceivable that a disorganised bunch of QFIs cannot agree on how to operate an aircraft. Does the RAF not have some central organisation that enables and encourages Standardisation? I would assume that there is a CORRECT way to operate a variable prop ac?
If it is required to bastardise how to manage the engine to facilitate future fast jet pilots maybe the RAF should stream prior to EFT. - No, I was only joking! A better solution would be to get rid of the Tutor and EFT (and many of the QFIs) and get a proper basic trainer. You could then give ALL pilots an adequate amount of training and then stream them. Thus all pilots would be trained to the same Basic standard and not “short changed” by the present system.
Thud105 - I have just seen your comments - well said!
Last edited by Dominator2; 18th Jun 2015 at 09:17. Reason: Too much red wine
Gentlemen
Before you all get on the outrage bus, you are asking the wrong person (I don't know why the changes were made) but the changes were made after the introduction of the new prop following the blade failures
. I assume Lycoming have approved the use of the engine at 2700 because it is the "max continuous" for the engine - not saying that there aren't different, maybe better ways of operating the engine but it's all been tested and approved by the owners of the aircraft.
Before you all get on the outrage bus, you are asking the wrong person (I don't know why the changes were made) but the changes were made after the introduction of the new prop following the blade failures
. I assume Lycoming have approved the use of the engine at 2700 because it is the "max continuous" for the engine - not saying that there aren't different, maybe better ways of operating the engine but it's all been tested and approved by the owners of the aircraft.
I have never heard of a civilian/ private operator flying their Lycomings continuously at max RPM. The obvious factor being engine longevity, reliability and fuel costs. Normal SOP for a 2700rpm engine would be 25/25 for the climb and perhaps aeros, and 22 or 23 squared for the cruise with appropriate leaning at cruise power.
Leaning the engine before takeoff, again never seen that recommended in any manual for cooling reasons,except for high altitude take off, not many of those in UK.
Presumably any MOD contract does not include civilian cost operation saving in their calculations.
Leaning the engine before takeoff, again never seen that recommended in any manual for cooling reasons,except for high altitude take off, not many of those in UK.
Presumably any MOD contract does not include civilian cost operation saving in their calculations.
Last edited by cessnapete; 18th Jun 2015 at 16:30.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,915 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Does the RAF not have some central organisation that enables and encourages Standardisation? I would assume that there is a CORRECT way to operate a turbo prop?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,915 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
With you on operation at Max continuous RPM Cessnapete
Engine TCDS ( AEIO-360-B1F )
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...20Rev%2024.pdf
Regulations re overspeed and the rated continuous RPM of the engines
http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/te...0Overspeed.pdf
I would recommend you read this, especially if you fly or operate a piston aircraft engine
http://web.archive.org/web/200810210...ints/index.jsp
Ahh the heady heights of the Lincolnshire mountain range 
.
Engine TCDS ( AEIO-360-B1F )
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...20Rev%2024.pdf
Regulations re overspeed and the rated continuous RPM of the engines
http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/te...0Overspeed.pdf
I would recommend you read this, especially if you fly or operate a piston aircraft engine
http://web.archive.org/web/200810210...ints/index.jsp
A. GENERAL RULES
1. Never lean the mixture from full rich during take-off, climb or high-performance cruise operation unless the Pilot’s Operating Handbook advises otherwise. However, during takeoff from high-elevation airports or during climb at higher altitudes, roughness or reduction of power may occur at full-rich mixture. In such a case, the mixture may be adjusted only enough to obtain smooth engine operation. Careful observation of temperature instruments should be practiced.
1. Never lean the mixture from full rich during take-off, climb or high-performance cruise operation unless the Pilot’s Operating Handbook advises otherwise. However, during takeoff from high-elevation airports or during climb at higher altitudes, roughness or reduction of power may occur at full-rich mixture. In such a case, the mixture may be adjusted only enough to obtain smooth engine operation. Careful observation of temperature instruments should be practiced.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 18th Jun 2015 at 11:53.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My word there is some nonsense being posted on here.
Firstly the engine is operated as per the manufactures recommendations, not because we want to teach students to fly a prop like a jet engine. Thats done on the Tucano, not the Grob. Every light aircraft with a VPP that I have ever flown has always been 'RPM MAX' for take off,climb and landing. At the TOC the RPM is reduced. As for mixture admittedly this is the first a/c I have flown with 'BPM' but again that is as per the manufactures advise for best engine handling.
In reply to cessnapete the reason you came back in the low 20's was, I suspect, because you were utilising one of the Radar Corridors that allow mil a/c to transit from each side of the country. A tanker doesn't necessarily know when its going to come off station and so they can't just file for the RTB at FLXXX, additionally they have no idea what their Gross weight will be when they RTB (depends on offload). Try picking up a clearance with London for an RTB from the North Sea to Brize at FL 350, straight through the airways out of the south east and see how much luck you have. Thats why the Radar Corridors are used.
Whilst we don't work to profit margins I can assure you that mil aircrew understand and utilise max rec and econ speed as much as possible.
Firstly the engine is operated as per the manufactures recommendations, not because we want to teach students to fly a prop like a jet engine. Thats done on the Tucano, not the Grob. Every light aircraft with a VPP that I have ever flown has always been 'RPM MAX' for take off,climb and landing. At the TOC the RPM is reduced. As for mixture admittedly this is the first a/c I have flown with 'BPM' but again that is as per the manufactures advise for best engine handling.
In reply to cessnapete the reason you came back in the low 20's was, I suspect, because you were utilising one of the Radar Corridors that allow mil a/c to transit from each side of the country. A tanker doesn't necessarily know when its going to come off station and so they can't just file for the RTB at FLXXX, additionally they have no idea what their Gross weight will be when they RTB (depends on offload). Try picking up a clearance with London for an RTB from the North Sea to Brize at FL 350, straight through the airways out of the south east and see how much luck you have. Thats why the Radar Corridors are used.
Whilst we don't work to profit margins I can assure you that mil aircrew understand and utilise max rec and econ speed as much as possible.
Last edited by AutoBit; 18th Jun 2015 at 22:12.