" I was simply suggesting that for those for whom it is engrained that the prop lever is advanced on the approach in a moment of stress on the go around they might just forget to advance the prop altogether but they are so accustom to it being done already. In other words if you change the way you do things worth making sure it comes naturally? "
You have a valid point about changing proceedures, but would it be out of the question to change the method of teaching the students that it is not necessary to move the prop pitch to full fine on the approach to teaching them to select the desired RPM when needed? Why would a pilot need full fine and full power to go around, wouldn't climb power and climb RPM be sufficient to conduct a go around?
" By this I take it you mean that lower RPM means less wear on the engine and higher RPM means higher wear? This contradicts what Walter Atkinson, who runs the Advanced Pilot Seminars in the US, claims, namely that higher RPMs produce less wear on an engine.
Any comments? "
drauk, I have not read the claims by W. Atkinson, my comments were based on known physics.....namely friction is a result of travel and rate of travel, in the case of a light four stroke engine such as being discussed here the higher the RPM the further travel you will have with all components.
I am basing my broad assumption on the basis of the less distance your comonents such as pistons travel the less chance of wear.
Lets have a look at large radial engines and read the engine manufactures recommandations regarding RPM and manifold pressures, I have yet to operate one that did not have limits on RPM and manifold pressures.
Anyhow it looks like once again I have managed to get myself into a situation where I will be fielding "what if's" forever.
So all you good people fly your airplanes any way you choose, and I shall fly mine the way that has worked for over half a century for me with no problems safety wise nor mechanically wise.
