Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

EPR vs. N1

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th January 2007 | 11:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter

Aviator
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
From: Norveg
EPR vs. N1

Done a search on the Forum, but no joy. Google not very helpful either.

Why do some jet engine manufacturers use EPR, while others use N1 for thrust setting? What are the pros and cons of the two? From what I've read so far, it seems as though EPR is a bit outdated when it comes to modern turboFANS, but still RR insists on using EPR?

Cheers,
Crossunder.
Crossunder is offline  
Reply
Old 9th January 2007 | 13:53
  #2 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Crossunder - try http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive...p/t-10159.html - I found this through Google in the archive. It covers most of the good points.

One issue that seems to pop up now & then is engine deterioration. Using EPR (assuming it's properly calibrated) then EGT/TGT will gradually creep up to produce the same rated thrust after a few thousand hours.

With N1 management, two things happen as the engine deteriorates: The fan airfoils lose a bit of efficiency so they pump less airflow at the same N1, but the core runs a bit hotter to drive the fan. Thus fan thrust drops a bit, but core thrust increases a bit, and they effectively balance each other.

For a bit of education, check out the MEL for TO thrust-setting procedure if your primary thrust gage (N1 or EPR) goes dead.

Last edited by barit1; 9th January 2007 at 14:04.
barit1 is offline  
Reply
Old 9th January 2007 | 22:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: London
Try googling the accident report on the 737 which crashed in the Potomac river in Washington?, having take off in icing conditions using EPR with the P7 probe covered in ice.

They thought they had enough power to get airborne but they didn't. If they had cross checked on the N1/N2 readings then things might have been different.
Seat1APlease is offline  
Reply
Old 9th January 2007 | 22:47
  #4 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
This is the NTSB report.

Except - it wasn't the Pt7 probe iced up -- it was the probe at the front end (Pt2).
barit1 is offline  
Reply
Old 9th January 2007 | 23:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
From: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
As a primary instrument for setting power I belive it varies according to the manufacturer. Sucks, blows, spins or whatever.... Just a good idea to understand what you're using, why and what numbers to set. My brain is too small to go any further than that.
JackOffallTrades is offline  
Reply
Old 10th January 2007 | 13:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 1
From: Florida
Originally Posted by JackOffallTrades
As a primary instrument for setting power I belive it varies according to the manufacturer. Sucks, blows, spins or whatever.... Just a good idea to understand what you're using, why and what numbers to set. My brain is too small to go any further than that.

Right-on!

a little bit like Boeing and Airbus differences.
lomapaseo is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.