KA C90 vs PA-31T vs C425

I think you and I are on the same page, these conversions don't do anything better than their factory built counterparts and and a much higher cost. I know the "new" engine/prop/avionics/paint/interior arguement that goes with the conversions, but how many people actually fly a turbo-prop from 0 hours to TBO?? Darn few private pilots, most turbo-props change hands every 5-10 years, and most owner flown airplanes are 100-200 hours per year. So it would take a lifetime to get the money back on one of the converted airplanes compared to buying a mid-time factory plane and flying it until you wanted to sell it. ;)

I've seen the Baron 55 turboprop experimental; while interesting, as a BE58 pilot I don't care for it. First, it would need to be a 58 for ease of seating and loading bags. With the conversion you have to suck on O2 as the airframe isn't pressurized; big suck factor. Also, you loose the nose baggage which is a major loss of storage space. In the end, you would be much farther ahead buying a TBM700.
 
Like I said, gross over simplification of control

Especially since the combustion area itself is actually rich of peak on most turbines.
 
OK Henning. Your premise was that the 135A conversion on the C90 was a 2000 HP engine derated to 750 then flat rated to 500. I guess if you want to play semantics one might could say that. The family of -135 have similar designs that is true. There are a lot of configurations for the family of "small block Chevrolet". I don't think a person would normally refer to a 265 as a derated 400?

In fact just to correct my statements the 135A is not a family the PT6 is the family with ratings from 500 to 2000 HP. The 135A has a thermodynamic rating of 750HP. The -61 has a rating of 850 HP not the 920 I previously said. Trying to go by my feeble memory. I had a POH laying around and looked it up for the Cheyenne.
I think there are about 70 different configurations of the PT6. If you want to say a 135A is a DErated -61 which is a derated 60A and so on then OK by me.
I only meant to try to explain flat rating, not the semantics of PT6 nomenclature. I stand corrected or whatever.
 
Not a clue, thus the ? . The burner can in the PT 6 is magic to me at least that is the way I explain it to myself.
 
Yep, lots of air goes through the engine, not all used for making fire

Ronnie: -135A can now be in a C90 with the Black Hawk conversion which is called the C90XP. 750 H.P. limited to 550 per side. So, for take off and climb 550 available to a higher altitude, the same as the -21 which is the stock 550 H.P engine, but as you said, 550 is available to a higher altitude. One can look at the Black hawk site to see the difference, but cruise can be 265 6o 270 in the low flight levels. The F-90 has 750 available from the surface with a -135. Probably a way to limit torque in the C90 by limiting max power where the F90 was designed to control that much power to begin with. Besides the cost to upgrade, the cabin differential in my older KA is pretty low and to cruise in the mid 20s I'd be on a cannula in the cabin and passengers might be sensitive to a 10,000 foot cabin.
Here's the Black Hawk site with several articles at the bottom right.
http://www.blackhawk.aero/commercial-products/details/xp135a-upgrade/king-air-90/

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Not a clue, thus the ? . The burner can in the PT 6 is magic to me at least that is the way I explain it to myself.

Up until 2 years ago, I viewed turbine engines as 100% black magic.

Now, only 90%. ;)

The combustion chamber gets a small percentage of air, which is actually normally run at a semi-rich mixture. I'm not sure what the air/fuel ratios are off the top of my head. As with piston engines, lean mixtures are more difficult to keep going. There are some newer combustor that run lean-burn mixtures.
 
As you go up in altitude the % increases, taking away the air for cooling thus temping out the engine. I am about at 99% magic. I do understand the igniters:rofl:
 
OK Henning. Your premise was that the 135A conversion on the C90 was a 2000 HP engine derated to 750 then flat rated to 500. I guess if you want to play semantics one might could say that. The family of -135 have similar designs that is true. There are a lot of configurations for the family of "small block Chevrolet". I don't think a person would normally refer to a 265 as a derated 400?

In fact just to correct my statements the 135A is not a family the PT6 is the family with ratings from 500 to 2000 HP. The 135A has a thermodynamic rating of 750HP. The -61 has a rating of 850 HP not the 920 I previously said. Trying to go by my feeble memory. I had a POH laying around and looked it up for the Cheyenne.
I think there are about 70 different configurations of the PT6. If you want to say a 135A is a DErated -61 which is a derated 60A and so on then OK by me.
I only meant to try to explain flat rating, not the semantics of PT6 nomenclature. I stand corrected or whatever.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I've never heard of a -135 making more than 750 HP. If it makes more than that, it's a different -#.

So I guess I was right in saying that a flat rated engine behaves a lot like a turbo-normalized engine. It maintains a certian HP over a wide altitude and temp envelope.

What sorts of mechanisms do they use to flat rate an engine??
 
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I've never heard of a -135 making more than 750 HP. If it makes more than that, it's a different -#.

So I guess I was right in saying that a flat rated engine behaves a lot like a turbo-normalized engine. It maintains a certian HP over a wide altitude and temp envelope.

What sorts of mechanisms do they use to flat rate an engine??

If it has a FADEC, it just won't let the engine go past that power rating.

If not, it's like a normal turbine - there are red lines, and the pilot is expected not to exceed them.
 
As Ted said. In the aircraft I am familiar with you just use partial throttle. As you climb add throttle until there is not enough air for cooling then you are temped out. The torque limit is set by the airframe mfg, not to exceed the engine maximums. If you will read my post number 33, I tried to explain it.
 
The props will be ready Monday, I got an estimate this morning. $15K, about what I was expecting, but what if I said no? ;)

Too bad I don't have pictures of my Aztec props to show. Now those were good! :D
 
As Ted said. In the aircraft I am familiar with you just use partial throttle. As you climb add throttle until there is not enough air for cooling then you are temped out. The torque limit is set by the airframe mfg, not to exceed the engine maximums. If you will read my post number 33, I tried to explain it.

That's pretty much what we have in the B407 with the RR C47B. On take off I have a mechanical limit of 674 HP. That's a 100 % TRQ limit or 779 on temp to prevent wear and tear on the trans. However, the engine's thermodynamic rating is 813 HP. It's capable of producing more power, it's just derated.

None of that (besides hot start) is limited with FADEC either. On a cold day I could easily pull up collective and blow right by 105 % and over TRQ the thing. Same goes for temp on a hot day.

The engine uses around % 25 of the air for combustion. The rest is used for cooling, anti-ice, & particle separator
 
Actually flat rated. The engine is capable of 813 HP. The airframe mfg. restricts the max HP to 674 HP.
 
Actually flat rated. The engine is capable of 813 HP. The airframe mfg. restricts the max HP to 674 HP.

Well the AFM says the engine is derated from 813 to 674. Either way, I'm operating the engine at less HP that what it can actually produce.
 
Getting back into semantics again. In the general vernacular, if an engine has been restricted by the engine mfg so that it can not make rated HP that would be derated. Never heard of this but... If the engine as installed is capable of making its rated HP but is restricted to a lower max HP by the airframe MFG then it is flat rated. The latter is the very definition of flat rate in turbine aircraft.
 
Getting back into semantics again. In the general vernacular, if an engine has been restricted by the engine mfg so that it can not make rated HP that would be derated. Never heard of this but... If the engine as installed is capable of making its rated HP but is restricted to a lower max HP by the airframe MFG then it is flat rated. The latter is the very definition of flat rate in turbine aircraft.

Ok that's my understanding of derated as it applys to our engine. The max flow that the HMU with allow limits HP to 674. Now, why do they do that? I was told a structural limit. I've also read it is done to extend the life of the engine. I'd have to research further in that.
 
Well the AFM says the engine is derated from 813 to 674. Either way, I'm operating the engine at less HP that what it can actually produce.

That is all the HP the engine can legally and safely produce in it's current configuration, airframe, gearbox, prop etc. ;) I know my PT6's can produce more than 450 HP, but that is what they are limited to in my airplane. ;)
 
That is all the HP the engine can legally and safely produce in it's current configuration, airframe, gearbox, prop etc. ;) I know my PT6's can produce more than 450 HP, but that is what they are limited to in my airplane. ;)

Exactly, and that's my understanding of our engine as well.

I guess the best way to explain my first post is that the engine is derated from 813 to 674. The FADEC through the HMU does this. However, my left arm through the collective can easily exceed the TRQ and temp values of that derated engine. If that makes sense.:rolleyes:
 
Look, we seem to be going in circles. One time you say the engine is derated, not able to produce more than 674 HP. That could be. I know squat about helos. But in the next sentence you state you can over torque the gear box. If you can over torque then it must be able to produce more than the 674 HP. Torque is a function of HP. If you are making more than redline torque unless you are decreasing RPM you are making more HP. Generally gear boxes are rated in HP because RPM X Torque equals HP. On the Cheyenne you have a delta torque. In other words the max torque is dependent on the output shaft RPM.
If the engine itself as installed is not capable of producing more than a HP that is less than its thermodynamic rating then it is derated (674 <813) .
Engine HP is normally given at a certain condition, most common at STP. So you are telling me that your engine is only capable of making the 674 HP at STP. If it is a warm day or as you climb you start losing HP just like any normally aspirated engine? If that is the case then you indeed have a derated engine.
However if you the pilot can maintain the 674 HP in conditions in which the density altitude is above STP, then your engine is flat rated, by definition.
Again, my OP was just to try to explain what "flat rate" means in turbine installations. Honestly, call it anything you want to. This is the best I can explain it.
 
Last edited:
This is a very interest topic for me. There are two terms that come to mind anytime you start limiting aircraft engine power - "De-Rating" and "flat-Rating" The differences between “flat-Rating” and “De-Rating” engines can be confusing. De-rating an engine means arbitrarily assigning a lesser output to an engine than it was designed to have. There are many ways to achieve the power output reduction – mechanically (for example a different fuel computer) or “on paper” (charts and graphs which limit output).

An engine derated to a particular thrust a SL will also be limited to that thrust at 40,000Ft. In other words, when they take away the power, you don’t get it back. There are many reasons to install de-rated engines. One of the major reasons is that they “loaf” – they’re operating at a certain reduced percentage of their design capability. This usually makes for increased engine life. Back about 35+ years ago, a race team (I’ve forgotten the driver’s name - I want to say it was A.J. Foyt) installed a P&W PT-6 in an Indy car and proceeded to eat everyone’s lunch. If it weren't for some bad luck, he would have won the Indy 500 the first time out with it. The following year the race officials forced them to de-rate the engines – by adding restrictor plates to the air inlet – to the point that they lost all of their previous advantage. Way back in the 60's, Piper decided that they needed an airplane co compete with Cessna's 150. Rather than design another aircraft, they simply removed the back seats from their Cherokee 150 and placed a restriction on the engine RPM - bingo... The New and Improved Cherokee 140. The first thing most folks did is get an STC to restore the RPM and get the 10 hp back. That’s de-rating.

Now, for flat-rating…
Generally speaking, it must be remembered that (in very simplistic terms) turbine engines are not supercharged, but rather normally aspirated - in other words, they lose power with altitude just like a Cessna 152. The percentage of N1 (on most turbofans) or EPR (many turbojets) required to obtain the engine's full rated thrust will vary significantly depending upon airport elevation and outside air temperature. For example, on the aircraft that I fly, on a cool day at a sea level airport the engines will develop their maximum rated thrust with an N1 somewhere in the upper 80's say for example 88.7%. Go to a higher elevation airport on a warm day and the N1 will be higher, for example 93.4%. (As I type this, I'm looking at the Static Takeoff Thrust Setting Chart for our aircraft. Depending on the airport elevation and outside air temperature, the N1 settings vary from a low of 84.2% to a high of 96.1%.) These numbers will, of course, vary from engine to engine, but you get my point. On most older generation engines, the flight crew is required to come up with a takeoff power setting from a set of charts or tables. In later generation engines with DEECs (Digital Electronic Engine Controllers) or FADECs, the pilots only have to set the power levers into the takeoff detent and monitor things while the computer takes care of the rest.

Just to make things a bit more interesting, some aircraft have larger engines installed than they were designed for. These engines are "flat-rated" back down to what the airframe was designed to handle. In other words, say for example, an airplane was designed to use a pair of 40,000 LB thrust engines, the aircraft designers might specify a pair of 50,000 LB thrust engines and limit their thrust to 40,000 LBS. Why would they want to do this? Simple, remember that turbine engines are "normally aspirated" and start loosing power the moment they start to climb. By using a larger engine, the aircraft can operate at higher altitudes or temperatures before it runs out of power. The engine never produces more than the “airframe-rated” thrust (in this example 40,000 lbs), it’s just able to do it to a higher altitude.

Turboprop engines are similar, only instead of N1 or EPR, they usually measure their power output in Percent Torque. For those guys it's a bit simpler, they simply advance the power levers until the engines reach either their torque limit or their temperature limit. Typically, with flat-rated engines, they will "torque" out at lower altitudes, then as the aircraft climbs higher they "temp" out as the max operating temperatures become limiting.
 
Look, we seem to be going in circles. One time you say the engine is derated, not able to produce more than 674 HP. That could be. I know squat about helos. But in the next sentence you state you can over torque the gear box. If you can over torque then it must be able to produce more than the 674 HP. Torque is a function of HP. If you are making more than redline torque unless you are decreasing RPM you are making more HP. Generally gear boxes are rated in HP because RPM X Torque equals HP. On the Cheyenne you have a delta torque. In other words the max torque is dependent on the output shaft RPM.
If the engine itself as installed is not capable of producing more than a HP that is less than its thermodynamic rating then it is derated (674 <813) .
Engine HP is normally given at a certain condition, most common at STP. So you are telling me that your engine is only capable of making the 674 HP at STP. If it is a warm day or as you climb you start losing HP just like any normally aspirated engine? If that is the case then you indeed have a derated engine.
However if you the pilot can maintain the 674 HP in conditions in which the density altitude is above STP, then your engine is flat rated, by definition.
Again, my OP was just to try to explain what "flat rate" means in turbine installations. Honestly, call it anything you want to. This is the best I can explain it.


We have 3 different over TRQ scenarios in the B407. First, is flat out over TRQ of 105 %. This can happen in colder than normal ocassions coming straight up out of an LZ. I could still over TRQ it while dropping the rotor as well even if I've reached the fuel flow limiting of the HMU. I know of at least one over TRQ in the company last year where the pilot wasn't watching his gauge on take-off and went through 105. My friend sent one through 105 while rolling up the throttle at a hover.

Second scenario and more common is being in the 100-105 % for more than 5 secs. You'll get a CHK INST light to warn you but if you're looking at other things you might blow thru the transient.

Third and final and most common over TRQs in the community, is exceeding 93.5 % above 100 KIAS. Easy to do considering in EMS we're pulling a hefty amount of collective everywhere we go.

My point is in all these scenarios is that there is no TRQ limiting on the aircraft. We have a caution light but nothing in the FADEC that says OK he's at 105 % so now I'm going to limit it him to prevent damaging me. The actual limiter is my left arm.

Whether all that is derated or flat rated I don't know. The book says the engine is derated but I agree with you, it's actual operation sounds flat rated. My online search says the engine is derated so it looks like I'll write the Bell guys for a definitive answer.
 
Last edited:
Mcfly, first I am not trying to pick a fight or anything else. Originally my post was a simple explanation of what the term flat rate means in the fixed wing turbo prop community. As I said I know nothing about helos. Those mfgs. may not use the term, I just don't know. In fixed wing the red line torque is based on the red line prop speed. If you decrease prop speed torque will rise if the horsepower stays constant. What I was getting from you is that with a constant gearbox speed that you could over torque the, I guess gearbox. If RPM stays constant and torque increases above redline then you have increased horsepower above redline.
In fixed wing the airframe mfg. determines max HP. This could be airframe or even prop limitations, perhaps in single engine operations too much power on the operating engine could raise VMC higher than desired. The engineers in their infinite wisdom makes that call. Therefore by flat rating an engine you can keep that max allowable horsepower to a higher altitude. Remember turbines are normally aspirated. It is that simple.

This may simply have no application with a helo. I would have assumed that rotor speed and prop speed were similar. But, you know what happens when one assumes.:yes: I hope it is all good.
 
Back
Top