That’s amazing. I looked at the E500 some years ago…
Does this indicate that the engine simply loses power rapidly, with altitude? I believe it is a helicopter engine, but the key thing is that jet engines are “normally aspirated” (not turbocharged, in the piston engine sense where the MP is maintained as you climb) so the max available power reduces with altitude.
The RR250 has a low thermodynamic rating. Meaning it’s power tapers off with altitude very fast. It was designed as a gas turbine mainly for helicopters and low flying aircraft and is not ideally suited for planes flying in the FL’s. With a different engine this aircraft could probably be a great contender. Let’s hope they re-engine it down the road with one of the new GE engines perhaps? World doesn’t need another PT6 plane.
Just want to add, that the RR250 is pretty frugal, tho. At 23-26gal/hr of Jet A1, hard to find a piston plane that can match it cost-per-mile for the same speed.
In eco cruise, a well maintained E400 burns 18.5 GPH of AVGAS (71 liters) and does 190 KTAS at FL 190 and 200 at FL250.
Compare with the E500? On a fuel cost basis that’s probably a tie in Europe?
Yes I know: like Cleopatra “what a lovely nose…”
The smaller PT6-35 in my Jetprop is equally frugal if l dial it back to long range power.25 GPH @ 205Kts TAS, with an excellent climb rate all the way up to its ceiling.
Out of interest what is the MTOW of the Extra500?
E
E500 MTOW is 2130 Kg. Useful load about 680 Kg.
What are the Eurocontrol enroute charges (IFR) approximately per hour for that MTOW? 100 EUR?
By the way, is the E400 also above 2t?
Flyingfish wrote:
E500 MTOW is 2130 Kg.
I hear it can be registered with a 1999kg MTOW, too.
Yes Lionel there is an STC or something like that to register the E500 as 1999Kg.
The airframe and landing gear of the E400 and E500 are designed for 2’130 Kg MTOW and 2000 Kg landing mass but the E400 is only available at 1’999 Kg MTOW and landing.
The E500 has a lower Vne – not sure if it is the consequence of higher mass or longer tail – i’d guess it’s the tail. I really like the very high Vne of my 400 because it makes for truly impressive descents and allows me to use the tailwinds up high until the last moment and just dive into the arrival pattern between two grown-up airliners. And both the 500 and 400 are unusually rigid airframes that inspire confidence.
Slight thread drift, about those descents; sure they’re a big advantage of pressurised aircraft, but I’ve become a big fan of long slow descents, Lean of Peak, in the PA46: spending 20 minutes at 160kias 14.5usg/h is a nice way to extend the range and pays for the fuel flow in the climb.
