EPR vs N1
Guest
Posts: n/a
EPR vs N1
Why is it that some engine manufacturers use EPR and yet others use N1 as the primary thrust setting parameter? Certain EPR set engines will revert to N1 operation (N1 mode) anyway if the EPR system fails, so why bother? I have a tendency to lean toward N1 simply because there is less to go wrong with N1 over that of EPR indication. Your thoughts on this or on the basic functionality of these systems would be appreciated.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With the advent of high bypass engines, EPR became a less important measure of thrust. Total thrust is fan thrust and core added together.
EPR measures core thrust, and in the old days that's all you cared about. Now N1 (the big prop) produces the lion's share of the thrust, and that's not measured by the EPR syatem.
------------------
EPR measures core thrust, and in the old days that's all you cared about. Now N1 (the big prop) produces the lion's share of the thrust, and that's not measured by the EPR syatem.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK,
Why then does RR and Prat still insist on using EPR as the primary thrust setting parameter, even on their latest engines?
quid,
An intergrated EPR system actually puts the EPR probe aft of the fan into the fan stream. This gives a higher EPR readout now reflecting fan power. There still must be some benifit here over N1 for all the extra agro EPR systems can present.
Why then does RR and Prat still insist on using EPR as the primary thrust setting parameter, even on their latest engines?
quid,
An intergrated EPR system actually puts the EPR probe aft of the fan into the fan stream. This gives a higher EPR readout now reflecting fan power. There still must be some benifit here over N1 for all the extra agro EPR systems can present.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Pacific to Amsterdam
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.E. to the best of my knowledge never had EPR..it was always N1. Pratts were nothing but EPR, and considered N1 rpm not a true measure of the ratio of reactive thrust, ie. what went in, what you did with it, and what went out. They then thought that was the best measure of "available thrust". Pt2 vis Pt7. Just way the Rollers use EPR, I don't really know, but as you say, when the EPR fails go to N1. I use EPR for the reverse reasons...Indication of icing, temp inversion, A/T malfunction, and if you have the ol' PMS on the -300, a good check.
And after all that...I use N1 for all the good reasons. T/O, CLB, CRZ opt, and last but not least Turbulence penetration. And if you were ever on the 727, then its "spin up" on final.
I just love the N1.
And after all that...I use N1 for all the good reasons. T/O, CLB, CRZ opt, and last but not least Turbulence penetration. And if you were ever on the 727, then its "spin up" on final.
I just love the N1.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The RB211 series uses IEPR (integrated engine pressure ratio) which closely relates to gross thrust and maintains it's accuracy despite changes in engine efficiency due to deterioration. The indication is obtained by taking pressure signals from both cold stream (PF, behid the fan) and the hot stream exhaust outlet total pressure (P8) and comparing them with intake pressure (P1). Probably a more accurate measure of engine thrust but if you are using FFRATS, N1 is a more stable source of input.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hot Dog and Drambuie you got it just about right there..
The RB211 uses IEPR which is based on the on the ratio of the combined low p/x turbine exhaust (P5) and the low p/x fan exhaust (PF) over the inlet pressure (P2).The combined P5 and PF are refered to as pressure integrated (PINT).It is as you say a more accurate measure of thrust.
P and W also uses EPR but it is just a measure of exhaust p/x (P7) over ambient p/x (P2) ambient because its probe is on the side of the strut!
The RR trent epr system is similar to the Pratt. in as much it is now just low p/x turbine exhaust (P50) over inlet p/x (P20).
Accurate measure of thrust is carried out in the test cell and various forms of ballast are used to match individual engine characteristics,this is due to manufacturing tolerences.
Also for interest, on the Pratt, the turbine exhaust sleeve and plug are a matched pair and (by mix and match) you could trade off thrust for EGT margin.
GE as far as I know always went for straight N1 as the measure of thrust.
At the end of the day I don't suppose it really matters as long as you get airbourne!!!
The RB211 uses IEPR which is based on the on the ratio of the combined low p/x turbine exhaust (P5) and the low p/x fan exhaust (PF) over the inlet pressure (P2).The combined P5 and PF are refered to as pressure integrated (PINT).It is as you say a more accurate measure of thrust.
P and W also uses EPR but it is just a measure of exhaust p/x (P7) over ambient p/x (P2) ambient because its probe is on the side of the strut!
The RR trent epr system is similar to the Pratt. in as much it is now just low p/x turbine exhaust (P50) over inlet p/x (P20).
Accurate measure of thrust is carried out in the test cell and various forms of ballast are used to match individual engine characteristics,this is due to manufacturing tolerences.
Also for interest, on the Pratt, the turbine exhaust sleeve and plug are a matched pair and (by mix and match) you could trade off thrust for EGT margin.
GE as far as I know always went for straight N1 as the measure of thrust.
At the end of the day I don't suppose it really matters as long as you get airbourne!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Ironbutt..
That was for the RB211-524g,h,and h/t engines
for the 22b and b4 (Tristar) and the b2/c2/d4 (B747) variants although the tappings are the same the station no's were different being PF (fan p/x) and P8 (exhaust p/x) over P1 (inlet p/x).
The changes in station no's were to bring them in line with other engine manufacturers. (read American!!! )
I see your a 757 driver no wonder you were slightly
[This message has been edited by gas path (edited 14 January 2000).]
That was for the RB211-524g,h,and h/t engines
for the 22b and b4 (Tristar) and the b2/c2/d4 (B747) variants although the tappings are the same the station no's were different being PF (fan p/x) and P8 (exhaust p/x) over P1 (inlet p/x).
The changes in station no's were to bring them in line with other engine manufacturers. (read American!!!
)I see your a 757 driver no wonder you were slightly
[This message has been edited by gas path (edited 14 January 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your input. I agree with many of the points raised here. This, however, keeps me coming back to my original question. Why have it? Particularly as "THE" main engine indication when N1 speed is provided anyway. In an age when aircraft design is directed towards reducing crew work load, aircraft weight and complexity, EPR seems unnecessary. It is a system that is prone to error (leaks, blockages, probe icing, xmitter faults...) and has been on more than one occasion a contributing accident factor. If Rolls or Pratt are listening in, why this extra instrument to deal with? (too much to hope for I suppose).
Thank you for your input. I agree with many of the points raised here. This, however, keeps me coming back to my original question. Why have it? Particularly as "THE" main engine indication when N1 speed is provided anyway. In an age when aircraft design is directed towards reducing crew work load, aircraft weight and complexity, EPR seems unnecessary. It is a system that is prone to error (leaks, blockages, probe icing, xmitter faults...) and has been on more than one occasion a contributing accident factor. If Rolls or Pratt are listening in, why this extra instrument to deal with? (too much to hope for I suppose).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Pacific to Amsterdam
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will keep it simple rather than going into physics. Not too good at that either!
We have two lots of engine performance, primary indications.
1. Power
2. Thust
It was always my understanding that EPR and Fuel Flow gave you the power indications, and N1 (on the Pratt anyway) was the Thrust.
Interesting to note that the Military certify and use N1 for their performance envelopes.
That is, all performance must be achieved and is based on "MIL" power. Which in our world is approximately 90%N1. Everything else is a bonus. As the engine deteriorates, they tweek it (MIL-screw) to get the guaranteed performance MAX, which is approx 90%N1. Admittedly their N1 'top' limitations are lower than some of the commercial versions of the Pratt. The ol J-79 / JT3 was a good example.
Might not answer your question, but I hope it doesn't raise further ones.
[This message has been edited by Drambuie (edited 16 January 2000).]
We have two lots of engine performance, primary indications.
1. Power
2. Thust
It was always my understanding that EPR and Fuel Flow gave you the power indications, and N1 (on the Pratt anyway) was the Thrust.
Interesting to note that the Military certify and use N1 for their performance envelopes.
That is, all performance must be achieved and is based on "MIL" power. Which in our world is approximately 90%N1. Everything else is a bonus. As the engine deteriorates, they tweek it (MIL-screw) to get the guaranteed performance MAX, which is approx 90%N1. Admittedly their N1 'top' limitations are lower than some of the commercial versions of the Pratt. The ol J-79 / JT3 was a good example.
Might not answer your question, but I hope it doesn't raise further ones.
[This message has been edited by Drambuie (edited 16 January 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ironbutt.. you drive 75 with 535e4 that epr system is ratio of p/x signals from fan exhaust (PF)and engine air inlet (P1) only. The 535c engine uses IEPR (PF+P8)/P1.
(sorry I just had to look it up).
Back to the original thread though, as far as I can make out N1 or EPR for thrust measurement is a historical thing, but EPR is a more accurate measurement of gross thrust.
The control laws are more accurate and power is more tightly defined.
For interest with for instance the RB211 a given EPR with a tired engine N1 and N2 will be up and N3 will be down.
cheers.
(sorry I just had to look it up).
Back to the original thread though, as far as I can make out N1 or EPR for thrust measurement is a historical thing, but EPR is a more accurate measurement of gross thrust.
The control laws are more accurate and power is more tightly defined.
For interest with for instance the RB211 a given EPR with a tired engine N1 and N2 will be up and N3 will be down.
cheers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
% N1 is a measure only of the rotational speed of the the fan, the actual Thrust developed will vary with the efficiency of the fan. This is in turn affected by pressure / Temperature / Density. Put simply the fan that is bent by a bird strike may still be spinning at 100% rpm but will not devlope the same thrust as a perfect unit.
EPR is a measure of the real thrust produced. ie. Input vs output pressure expressed as a ratio.
As both input & output pressures are equally effected by ambient pressure / temperature & density variations thus the indication is not affected.
------------------
EPR is a measure of the real thrust produced. ie. Input vs output pressure expressed as a ratio.
As both input & output pressures are equally effected by ambient pressure / temperature & density variations thus the indication is not affected.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting technical points guys, but I have a sneaky feeling that EPR is used for control to keep the fuel burn down and hence the profits up.
The impression I was given on Rollers was EPR for fuel efficiency as the various bits wore out and only revert to N1/root theta if something packed-up completely (or GYH if things got really bad !).
VnV...
The impression I was given on Rollers was EPR for fuel efficiency as the various bits wore out and only revert to N1/root theta if something packed-up completely (or GYH if things got really bad !).
VnV...