PA-34 power setting sequence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Vilnius
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA-34 power setting sequence
Hello there,
I have just started flying on a multi engine Piper Seneca V and recently I've been having a discussion with my instructor about engine power setting for the climb. In all manuals it is advisable to retard the throttles first and only then to decrease the RPM. However, my instructor has been insisting to decrease the RPM before adjusting the manifold pressure. The rest seems to be alright. Could anyone help please? Is there a possibility that my instructor might be wrong?
I have just started flying on a multi engine Piper Seneca V and recently I've been having a discussion with my instructor about engine power setting for the climb. In all manuals it is advisable to retard the throttles first and only then to decrease the RPM. However, my instructor has been insisting to decrease the RPM before adjusting the manifold pressure. The rest seems to be alright. Could anyone help please? Is there a possibility that my instructor might be wrong?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually procedure is to throttle back before reducing rpm to reduce the chance going 'over square'. Eg 27" 2700 rpm on take off reducing to 25" 2500 rpm for the climb. ( 27" 2500 rpm being over square)
But if you look at the book over square is often allowed. Eg 27" 2500 rpm
So to reduce the fiddling of reducing throttle, setting rpm then increasing throttle your instructor is probably just short cutting the exercise. I used to do this in the bulldog and the Pitts all the time.
Read the manual , as I recall the bulldog would allow 29" 2500 rpm at sea level.
But if you look at the book over square is often allowed. Eg 27" 2500 rpm
So to reduce the fiddling of reducing throttle, setting rpm then increasing throttle your instructor is probably just short cutting the exercise. I used to do this in the bulldog and the Pitts all the time.
Read the manual , as I recall the bulldog would allow 29" 2500 rpm at sea level.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is common practice to reduce RPM after take off for noise abatement. 2500 RPM is a common choice, and then maintain full throttle throughout the climb.
This should not result in an 'overboost' otherwise fixed pitch props wouldn't be possible (29" and 2300 rpm is typical of FP at take-off).
However normal practice would be throttle-prop-mixture when decreasing power and mixture-prop-throttle for increasing. The only difference is that there is no need to throttle back when decreasing RPM in the climb.
This should not result in an 'overboost' otherwise fixed pitch props wouldn't be possible (29" and 2300 rpm is typical of FP at take-off).
However normal practice would be throttle-prop-mixture when decreasing power and mixture-prop-throttle for increasing. The only difference is that there is no need to throttle back when decreasing RPM in the climb.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "oversquare" issue is actually a load of rubbish, I think it applies to some historic aircraft, but you should know the limits for what you are flying. Certainly the normal thing is to throttle back first to avoid overboosting, if you know the limits then OK you CAN do it the other way round - but I can see no argument FOR it.
Verrrmin
I have around 2000 hours on piston engine twins such as the PA-34. I have always reduced power after take-off using the throttles before bringing the RPM back - that is how I was taught and it seems to have worked over the years. One type I flew had geared and supercharged engines and your instructors technique would have seen some scary indications - just before the loud bang
I have around 2000 hours on piston engine twins such as the PA-34. I have always reduced power after take-off using the throttles before bringing the RPM back - that is how I was taught and it seems to have worked over the years. One type I flew had geared and supercharged engines and your instructors technique would have seen some scary indications - just before the loud bang
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the others have said, it's 'throttle first'
Enjoy. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...bERsClepz1RwbA
Enjoy. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...bERsClepz1RwbA
Last edited by Jetblu; 21st Jan 2015 at 21:58. Reason: Link
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above all else, operate the engines as the Flight Manual and engine Operating Manual state. Thereafter, it is most common to reduce throttle, then propeller RPM, rather than RPM then power. If noise abatement requires, reducing from 2700 to 2500 RPM first after takeoff is probably okay - if that is the reason for doing it. Other than that, I would not touch the props until the power was reduced.
Reducing RPM while the power is up, is reducing your detonation margins. I have done detonation testing on several Continentals. I have made these engines detonate - it can be done.
If you make the engine detonate, it will be damaged. You have seconds to undo it (though you won't know it's happening) before pistons start melting. Engine temperatures will affect the detonation margins too. Hotter is worse.
Simply put, detonation takes time and power to happen. You give it the power, by having the throttles open. You give it time by slowing RPM. So the faster the engines are turning, the less time (per engine rotation) as available for detonation to occur, before the next cycle begins, and removes the opportunity anyway. So if you reduce power while leaving RPM faster, you are giving more margin for detonation - good for the engines. Opposite, is not so good.
So, I operate engines that way. If someone tells me different, I ask them to show me in the Flight Manual, but I won't do it differently from that, without a darn good reason. The NIMBY's who want quiet around the airport, 'cause they did not notice it there when they bought the cheap house, don't care about your engines detonating. Even your instructor might not be really worried, as long as the engines keep running for them.
Some Lycomings, and all turbo'd engines I've flown allow some over square, so do what the manual says. The best thing you can do is to understand yourself, and make your own informed decision. So good on you for asking, and welcome to PPRuNe......
Reducing RPM while the power is up, is reducing your detonation margins. I have done detonation testing on several Continentals. I have made these engines detonate - it can be done.
If you make the engine detonate, it will be damaged. You have seconds to undo it (though you won't know it's happening) before pistons start melting. Engine temperatures will affect the detonation margins too. Hotter is worse.
Simply put, detonation takes time and power to happen. You give it the power, by having the throttles open. You give it time by slowing RPM. So the faster the engines are turning, the less time (per engine rotation) as available for detonation to occur, before the next cycle begins, and removes the opportunity anyway. So if you reduce power while leaving RPM faster, you are giving more margin for detonation - good for the engines. Opposite, is not so good.
So, I operate engines that way. If someone tells me different, I ask them to show me in the Flight Manual, but I won't do it differently from that, without a darn good reason. The NIMBY's who want quiet around the airport, 'cause they did not notice it there when they bought the cheap house, don't care about your engines detonating. Even your instructor might not be really worried, as long as the engines keep running for them.
Some Lycomings, and all turbo'd engines I've flown allow some over square, so do what the manual says. The best thing you can do is to understand yourself, and make your own informed decision. So good on you for asking, and welcome to PPRuNe......
Hello there,
I have just started flying on a multi engine Piper Seneca V and recently I've been having a discussion with my instructor about engine power setting for the climb. In all manuals it is advisable to retard the throttles first and only then to decrease the RPM. However, my instructor has been insisting to decrease the RPM before adjusting the manifold pressure. The rest seems to be alright. Could anyone help please? Is there a possibility that my instructor might be wrong?
I have just started flying on a multi engine Piper Seneca V and recently I've been having a discussion with my instructor about engine power setting for the climb. In all manuals it is advisable to retard the throttles first and only then to decrease the RPM. However, my instructor has been insisting to decrease the RPM before adjusting the manifold pressure. The rest seems to be alright. Could anyone help please? Is there a possibility that my instructor might be wrong?
This is such a basic engine handling fact that it makes wonder how qualified your instructor is to be teaching on this aircraft.....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why ?
Of all the statements above I agree with the last line form big Pistons the most !
The light twin is overpowered on two engines so that it can (just) perform on one engine if required to do so, my view is that you should be as gentle as you can with both engines to preserve them so that if you need full power from one engine it will be able to make full power.
Tankengine while from an indication point of view you are utterly correct about the oversquare thing, however due to the temp rise of the charge I doubt if the absolute volume of the charge reaching the cylinders is very far adrift from a normaly aspirated engine on a ISA day, of course supercharged engines can maintain ISA conditions in the manifold during conditions far above ISA.
The light twin is overpowered on two engines so that it can (just) perform on one engine if required to do so, my view is that you should be as gentle as you can with both engines to preserve them so that if you need full power from one engine it will be able to make full power.
Tankengine while from an indication point of view you are utterly correct about the oversquare thing, however due to the temp rise of the charge I doubt if the absolute volume of the charge reaching the cylinders is very far adrift from a normaly aspirated engine on a ISA day, of course supercharged engines can maintain ISA conditions in the manifold during conditions far above ISA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Vilnius
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I simply cannot disagree with all the statements mentioned above - I was of the same opinion when discussing it with the instructor. Anyway, take -off power setting for this a/c is 38 inHg and 2600 RPM, so it wouldn't be so dramatic when reducing to 2500 RPM first, as it's not so big difference. The wisest thing would be though, to leave this power setting sequence the way my instructor wants and after the exam just do as the manual and the common sense says. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything 
I believe that my instructor is extremely professional and maybe he has a bit different considerations, which I don't understand at all 
I believe that my instructor is extremely professional and maybe he has a bit different considerations, which I don't understand at all
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about a NA engine now, my own is an IO520.
The last few percent of the throttle movement opens a 'fuel enrichment valve' that allows extra fuel to the engine. If you reduce MP just a bit, say from 29" to 25", you will see the CHT start to rise quickly because this valve closes. Keeping the throttle full open during the climb in an NA aircraft will keep CHT lower and the MP will fall by itself.
Reducing MP is totally unnecessary and even harmful in my situation, reducing RPM is optional and only for noise reduction on the ground. Once established in the climb, say from 4000 ft onwards I will lean to keep a constant EGT during climb.
There is a lot of bad or simplified advice floating around from old days when training had to be 'expedited' or due to lack of proper engine instrumentation.
I have flown a turbocharged twin for 15 years and there was a published climb power with given MP, RPM and fuel flow in the POH.
The last few percent of the throttle movement opens a 'fuel enrichment valve' that allows extra fuel to the engine. If you reduce MP just a bit, say from 29" to 25", you will see the CHT start to rise quickly because this valve closes. Keeping the throttle full open during the climb in an NA aircraft will keep CHT lower and the MP will fall by itself.
Reducing MP is totally unnecessary and even harmful in my situation, reducing RPM is optional and only for noise reduction on the ground. Once established in the climb, say from 4000 ft onwards I will lean to keep a constant EGT during climb.
There is a lot of bad or simplified advice floating around from old days when training had to be 'expedited' or due to lack of proper engine instrumentation.
I have flown a turbocharged twin for 15 years and there was a published climb power with given MP, RPM and fuel flow in the POH.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on - we might be missing something here, and the OP's last post gives a clue.
After departure, leave the throttles but reduce RPM from 2600 - 2500. There's nothing wrong with an adjustment this small for noise reasons without touching the throttles. I was taught this, no doubt many others have been as well.
HOWEVER - it is the only time you do it. Thereafter it's always throttles back first, then Props back. Going the other way Props forward first, then Throttles.
And for the "over square" gang - go fly a Turbo people and discover that it ceases to exist. Even a normally aspirated IO540 is flown "oversquare" on departure and you just let the MP come down naturally, whilst leaving the RPM at 2500 for the climb.
(I delivered a Seneca V from Europe to Brazil - 2200 RPM / 28" MP was a nice cruise setting for that trip)
After departure, leave the throttles but reduce RPM from 2600 - 2500. There's nothing wrong with an adjustment this small for noise reasons without touching the throttles. I was taught this, no doubt many others have been as well.
HOWEVER - it is the only time you do it. Thereafter it's always throttles back first, then Props back. Going the other way Props forward first, then Throttles.
And for the "over square" gang - go fly a Turbo people and discover that it ceases to exist. Even a normally aspirated IO540 is flown "oversquare" on departure and you just let the MP come down naturally, whilst leaving the RPM at 2500 for the climb.
(I delivered a Seneca V from Europe to Brazil - 2200 RPM / 28" MP was a nice cruise setting for that trip)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 60
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Chilli Monster said...
I was taught exactly that. The PA34 POH does say in the climb out section to reduce the throttles first when reducing power from climb, however.
I had the same confusion as the OP, and it was hard enough trying to remember to do everything in the right order at first without figuring out when the rules were being slightly bent.
I was taught exactly that. The PA34 POH does say in the climb out section to reduce the throttles first when reducing power from climb, however.
I had the same confusion as the OP, and it was hard enough trying to remember to do everything in the right order at first without figuring out when the rules were being slightly bent.
What you can and can't do with the engine has to be backed up by data from the engine or airframe manufacturer. Many turbocharged engines require that full redline RPM be set when using the maximum available MP.
The allowable relationship between MP and RPM is model specific and will vary even for the same basic engine.
So to answer the OP's question I would ask your instructor to show you where the 38 in 2600 RPM power setting is authorized. Some POH's have a chart of allowable MP vs RPM which will provide the necessary data, however for most engines you have to go to the engine operation manual provided by the engine manufacturer.
Sadly the practice described seems to be the all to common flying school practice of procedures mindlessly passed down from instructor to instructor with no critical thought and unsupported by any actual data.
The allowable relationship between MP and RPM is model specific and will vary even for the same basic engine.
So to answer the OP's question I would ask your instructor to show you where the 38 in 2600 RPM power setting is authorized. Some POH's have a chart of allowable MP vs RPM which will provide the necessary data, however for most engines you have to go to the engine operation manual provided by the engine manufacturer.
Sadly the practice described seems to be the all to common flying school practice of procedures mindlessly passed down from instructor to instructor with no critical thought and unsupported by any actual data.
According to the EASA Seneca V Type Certificate Data Sheet, the maximum allowable Manifold pressure is 38 inches at 2600 RPM. I stand by my contention that a power setting of 38 In at 2500 RPM is not an approved power setting.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a large well known school in Spain using Seneca 3
It was taught at Top of Climb Level off bring props back to 2400 adjust throttle to give 32" then lean
For descent leave props 2400 reduce power top 22" and descend
Is this the wrong way of doing lever moving ?
It was taught at Top of Climb Level off bring props back to 2400 adjust throttle to give 32" then lean
For descent leave props 2400 reduce power top 22" and descend
Is this the wrong way of doing lever moving ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the wrong way of doing lever moving ?
Remember that the fact that someone flies and aircraft a certain way, and then perhaps teaches someone else, who then teaches someone else, does not necessarily make any of it right. Go back to first principles, what does the Flight Manual, or engine manufacturer say to do?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we all agree on RTFM? Which is, oddly, usually the answer in this sort of discussion.
In fact I had an interesting time reading the POH for a C152 yesterday and comparing the power settings I was taught to the ones in the POH. (The Cessna isn't my usual aircraft.) I've made myself a chart of RPM vs altitude for 65% and 75% like the one which is placarded in the PA28 I usually fly.
In fact I had an interesting time reading the POH for a C152 yesterday and comparing the power settings I was taught to the ones in the POH. (The Cessna isn't my usual aircraft.) I've made myself a chart of RPM vs altitude for 65% and 75% like the one which is placarded in the PA28 I usually fly.