SF340 driving

Vinman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2002
Posts
83
Total Time
4100+
Any SF340 drivers, I have a question for you all. I am currently in training for the SF340A and our normal start procedure is to engage start switch, condition lever to start, THEN turn on ignition. We can't do autostarts and the company specifically wants it this way. In my experience though, you add spark to the engine before go-go juice so you didn't get a lesson in the Big Bang theory from fuel pooling. (The note says that we have to turn on ignition within 2 seconds of introducing fuel, or start must be aborted. I guess this is to prevent the explosion from happening.)

I was just curious as to if this was just a standard in the Saab (S-hit aa-ss b-ackward) or is my company just trying to save a few bucks (not wearing out the ignitors and excitor box from use) in a stupid way? Can I reverse the condition lever and ignition switch order?

Many thanks for all replies in advance.
 

WIDGETBOY

Capt. Homer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
25
Total Time
5000+
I think that way of starting is pretty standard. that was the way Eagle wanted us to start the slaab. The main reason was that the saab is bad about hot starting and they would do it this way to bring down the itt before adding the gas. If you are slow in getting the ignition on after taking the condition lever to start you will get a big bang. If switch the ignition and adding fuel it will still start fine. If the engine has not been running for a couple hours and the engine is cool it will start fine use the auto start.
Also watch out when start with a tailwind it is real easy to get a hot start.
 

Vinman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2002
Posts
83
Total Time
4100+
Hey guys,

Thanks for the info. I hear you speak of logic though and just have to laugh when it comes to the Saab. Any engine that has "Power Fluctuations" had to of had someone not thinking on all cylinders.

Once again thanks.
 

JohnDoe

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Posts
840
Total Time
4500
Yep, JP11 brought up the point I was going to......you can't do a motoring start with the ignition switch in the "auto" position, and the condition levers off (or something like that....its been awhile).

Motoring starts helped provide cooler starts (so they say), which in turn......reduced wear and tear....which in turn saved money.
 

Vinman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2002
Posts
83
Total Time
4100+
JohnDoe,

As to your point, our procedures do tell us to turn off the ignition switch, but I really love JP11's input, I may have to try it.

I guess the biggest part of my question is, can I do a motoring start but put the Ignition to Auto prior to CL to Start and still get the same end result of a cool, non-explosive start?
 

JohnDoe

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Posts
840
Total Time
4500
Well,
Like I said, its been awhile, and what I am saying could be wrong, but I believe that the start switch will not engage the starter with the ignition in auto, and the condition lever in cutoff (like jp11 stated, there is something in the "logic" that prevents it)
So... if you went to ignition "auto" Before the condition lever was moved out of cutoff while motoring, I would imagine that it might cut power to the starter (then again, it may let it continue since it was already motoring, not sure, I never tried it that way).
Sorry I can't be more definite. I have since had two different aircraft types crammed into my head since the Saab. It brings back "somewhat old times" trying to remember the system though. :)
 

I.P. Freley

I like people food
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Posts
2,038
Total Time
Enough
So I recently discovered that one of my uncles did some of the design work on the SF340... Of course this means I have one more reason to punch him. :)

Really, though, he did some REdesign work on the yaw damp system. Apparently the way it came out of the factory was, at first, problematic... And his company did an update to the system approximately 15 years ago.

He told me tonight that the Saab 2000 has fly-by-wire controls for the empennage, and his company did the design work on it. Unfortunately Saab sold so few of them that his company actually ended up doing the work for free, since something in their compensation deal with Saab was tied into the number of units produced.

Ooops!
 

English

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,374
Total Time
1
Hey I.P. Freley,

I KNEW you must have had something to do with all the quirks n the Saab!

Too bad the 340 doesn't have the avionics the 2000 has...have you seen one yet? I've seen the Penske 2000 and the GM, and heard rumor there's a third out there somewhere.

Ah, the Saab. I miss flying down low and slow in hot bumpy weather with an inadequate air conditioning system with Brazkillas passing me up....uh NOT. Just kidding, it's a great aircraft.
 

I.P. Freley

I like people food
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Posts
2,038
Total Time
Enough
Yeah, other than the fact that it needs an additional 2-300hp per side, it's not bad.

At least I get a good laugh when, on hot days with a full airplane and the anti-ice on, I hear ATC say something outrageous like "climb and maintain one-seven thousand". Sometimes I laugh so uproariously the passengers can hear it.

Gotta love the Saab. :)
 

MartinFierro

Flyin' Gaucho
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Posts
89
Total Time
is now
"can I do a motoring start but put the Ignition to Auto prior to CL to Start and still get the same end result of a cool, non-explosive start?"

it just plain wont do it.
One time I was starting an engine and did just that by accident (hey, it was like my 3rd engine start), put the IGN to Auto before advancing the CL, and it did start. Nothing to dramatic happened, but from what I remember it wasn't as smooth as the proper procedure. Maybe it's not supposed to start like that, but it did.

Nice airplane, albeit underpowered. Funny to think that the Brakilya has over 1,000 more horses on each side, yet has a MGTOW almost 3,500 lbs. less than that of the slaab.
 
Top