Electric or Bleed Air start?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
Electric or Bleed Air start?
Just a quick question.
What are the reasons that a manufacturer will opt for a bleed air crank/start system over an electriclly run crank in a Jet engine. Both will achieve the max motoring needed for start so why is there variation?
Cheers
What are the reasons that a manufacturer will opt for a bleed air crank/start system over an electriclly run crank in a Jet engine. Both will achieve the max motoring needed for start so why is there variation?
Cheers
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: Sin City
I've never seen an electric starter on a commercial jet engine( except APU) before although I think the 787 will be the first with it.
My guess will be the weight savings. Modern jet engines with their huge size will need electric starters of a few hundred kilos compared to air starters which only weigh abt 20 kgs max. And i believe that the 787 has an electric starter that can also function as an IDG. Could be wrong there, but remembered reading somewhere abt that.
My guess will be the weight savings. Modern jet engines with their huge size will need electric starters of a few hundred kilos compared to air starters which only weigh abt 20 kgs max. And i believe that the 787 has an electric starter that can also function as an IDG. Could be wrong there, but remembered reading somewhere abt that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The BAe 146/ RJ 85 RJ 100 use electric start (LF 507 engines). It;s not done via the IDGs (as only two of the engines are fitted with IDGs).
It's actually quite handy compared with air starting because when the APU is u/s, it's a lot easier to get a ground power cart than a huffer.
Also huffers tend to vary a great deal in efficacy.
There might be a weight penalty but really the whole a/c is a bit of a weight penalty!
It's actually quite handy compared with air starting because when the APU is u/s, it's a lot easier to get a ground power cart than a huffer.
Also huffers tend to vary a great deal in efficacy.
There might be a weight penalty but really the whole a/c is a bit of a weight penalty!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: London down town
146 / RJ uses DC electric motors to start. Fairly small engines but means that you can start from APU Gen, Ground AC (Thru TRU), Ground DC, Cross GEN start or even from BATT (with a second batt option). Having said all that an air starter would save weight.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: Stockholm Sweden
Before the B787 it was for weight.
Go and look at the size of the electric starters on the old engines, the Tyne Dart and early Avons all had electric starters. The starters on the Tyne were massive, and the electric supply cables were the size of your thumb!
I expect that everyone will have to buy new GPUs when they get their B787 to handle the load.
Go and look at the size of the electric starters on the old engines, the Tyne Dart and early Avons all had electric starters. The starters on the Tyne were massive, and the electric supply cables were the size of your thumb!
I expect that everyone will have to buy new GPUs when they get their B787 to handle the load.
Registered User **
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
From: USA
2 issues,
The 787 is supposed to be a bleedless aircraft, now take out all the engine and apu valves and ducting as well as the ducting in the wings to the cross/bleed valves and back to the APU. Put it all on a scale and I wonder if a couple of electric starters that weigh a bit more than the existing IDG's would not weigh a whole lot less than a pile of scrapmetal that would fill a U-haul?
I understand the IDG's of the 787 are to be rated at 120kva, common volt/amp rating to atleast the 777. gear ratio has IDG's rotating at 400hz. I believe it quite possible to get an estimated 20% n2 or n3 out of as little as 60kva or less, regulate enough amperage to get her rolling and accelerating at a demand within spec. I am interested to find out more but do not believe the electric starter demand will be a factor.
The 787 is supposed to be a bleedless aircraft, now take out all the engine and apu valves and ducting as well as the ducting in the wings to the cross/bleed valves and back to the APU. Put it all on a scale and I wonder if a couple of electric starters that weigh a bit more than the existing IDG's would not weigh a whole lot less than a pile of scrapmetal that would fill a U-haul?
I understand the IDG's of the 787 are to be rated at 120kva, common volt/amp rating to atleast the 777. gear ratio has IDG's rotating at 400hz. I believe it quite possible to get an estimated 20% n2 or n3 out of as little as 60kva or less, regulate enough amperage to get her rolling and accelerating at a demand within spec. I am interested to find out more but do not believe the electric starter demand will be a factor.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
...but do not believe the electric starter demand will be a factor.
The 787 is so far ahead, design-wise, of any other jet transport airplane, Boeing has absolutely nothing to worry about...late first flight, or not.
Lets face facts here.
Boeing (and Lockheed, on a smaller scale) have absolutely led the design criteria as regards large jet transport airplanes.
Comet excepted...but then they had their problems as well, as we all know, now.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
Convential electric start systems use power from a battery as the source of energy. A battery with sufficient energy for starting large engines would be excessively heavy. The 787 uses new technology, not available years ago. The engine mounted generators can also perform start motor operation. They are variable frequency machines that can be driven by the generators on the APU, or the other engine. The starting operation would be similar to a bleed air system except that AC power through wires is used in place of bleed air through ducts. The initial start power would come from a battery to light off the APU, followed by much higher capacity electrical power from the APU to turn the engines.
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,183
Likes: 1,119
From: UK
Can open, worms all over the place...
Lets face facts here.
Boeing (and Lockheed, on a smaller scale) have absolutely led the design criteria as regards large jet transport airplanes.
Boeing (and Lockheed, on a smaller scale) have absolutely led the design criteria as regards large jet transport airplanes.
Back to the thread.
On an associated topic, does the 787 APU also have air start facility like the 777?
Just seems like all the electric eggs are in one basket otherwise.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: Stockholm Sweden
I'm with Swedish on this one, will all B787 operators/line stations require >140KVA GPUs?
It really depends on how frequency sensitive they are. We have big problems here with old GPUs on the B777. A GPU that can easily handle any narrow body has problems with the B777 because of the high loads, and narrow frequency range the aircraft will accept. We always use two GPUs, and have no problems with modern FEP. But most of our stands have only a single FEP, so the second ground power must be a mobile diesel one. Of the ten that our handling agent has, only one will stay on line reliably. But they all work on other older aircraft ( and A320s B737NG etc.)
Registered User **
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
From: USA
Turin
On an associated topic, does the 787 APU also have air start facility like the 777?
It took me 30 minutes to convince the people to do a hot refule with #2 running on the MD-11, thinking back I should have given in and gone to the hotel as we were in the Dominican Republic. There is nothing like an ice cold Presedente Beer to set the mood right.
Screw the APU, worthless as an operational requirement when you can crank engines with electrial power.
On the gate at a hub even, no need to drag a huffer cart out for an inop APU. The theory is sound.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
According to Boeing the 787 will have four 250kVA starter generators (two per engine) and two 225 kVA generators on the APU. That is some serious generator potential and it will be interesting to see the GPU demands with an inop APU.
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,183
Likes: 1,119
From: UK
Screw the APU, worthless as an operational requirement when you can crank engines with electrial power.
Is the 787 APU fitted with an air start motor or just electric?
Usual disclaimers apply!
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
From: EGGW
TURIN
Don't think there is any bleed air after all they call it a bleedless engine! BUT I'm not so sure about NAI though. Even the aircon packs for pressurisation are electric motor driven... 400VDC IIRC
edit due to poor description!!!!
Don't think there is any bleed air after all they call it a bleedless engine! BUT I'm not so sure about NAI though. Even the aircon packs for pressurisation are electric motor driven... 400VDC IIRC
edit due to poor description!!!!
Last edited by gas path; 30th June 2009 at 17:53.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: Sin City
UT I'm not so sure about NAI though. Even the aircon packs for pressurisation are electric motors... 400VDC IIRC
Even the aircon packs for pressurisation are electric motors
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
From: Smogsville
Some additional info
I'd agree the Hamilton Sundstrand APS 5000 APU for the 787 does not have an air starter like the Honeywell 331-500 Series APU for the 777 as there is no bleed system to start it, the 787 APU does have two starter/generators so does have redundancy.
The power source for APU starting may be the airplane battery, a ground power source, or an engine-driven generator. The power source for engine starting may be the APU generators, engine-driven generators on the opposite side engine, or two forward 115 VAC ground power sources. The aft external power receptacles may be used for a faster start, if desired.
