power reduction after take-off

[kala87]

There's a bit of dissention among our group members regarding climb-out technique. We fly a 1978 C182 which has a 230 HP engine and VP prop. I was taught by our "Chief Pilot" (also a CFI with CPL/IR ratings and around 20,000 hours) to reduce power at about 300 ft agl to around 23/2300 from take-off setting, assuming there are no obstacles in the departure path and a best rate of climb speed is being used.

I've never felt happy about changing the power and prop setting so close to the ground and have changed my climb-out technique so that I now reduce power and prop setting at 1000 feet. This gives better initial climb performance and is, I feel, a safer technique regarding the possibility of an EFATO.

I can understand the requirement to reduce power if a noise abatement procedure is required, but otherwise, it doesn't seem to make sense.

Any comments?

[expedite_climb]

There may be a valid reason not to leave the engine at full power for so long, i.e. maintanence and engine wear.

Having said that 300 ft to 1000ft in that sort of machine will be less than a minute...

[DB6]

You may well find that it has more to do with noise reduction than anything else. While there may not be a noise abatement procedure at your airfield as such it will reduce the possibility of noise complaints from the locals.
With 230 hp you'll still have enough grunt to get off safely I would have thought.

[StrateandLevel]

What does the aircraft manual say?

[The Greaser]

I have always been taught, and taught to reduce to climb power at 500' agl.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Kala87:

Power reductions should be performed as soon as safe airspeed and rate of climb has been established and there is no need for high power to be maintained.

Your chief pilot is correct.

If you own and pay for the engine overhauls it will be more incentive to reduce power when safe to do so.

Conversley when landing you will get better engine life if you leave the prop rpm at the same setting as for cruise, in otherwords do not increase rpm during the approach unless some very unusual circumstances occur such as very turbulent conditions .

The most logical time to increase rpm during the landing is when you make the final power reduction just prior to touch down.


Cat Driver:

.................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[Pilot Pete]

Be careful when considering leaving the prop(s) at their cruise setting on final approach, especially when close to max weight. The reason you put it(them) up is for the possible Go-Around and you may not get the required climb profile without the prop being up. Ok, you could push all the levers up together, but on a twin this is getting clumsy.

Again, StrateandLevel's comment about the flight ops manual is pertinent. If you still have a doubt, question your Chief Pilot more closely, let's face it if he can justify the change to the manufacturers technique you will feel more comfortable having heard the argument. Doing your own thing is really not the best way to operate, no matter how well thought out you think it is. The manufacturer went to all the trouble of deciding on the best way to operate using all their experience (which I would guess would be more than yours and mine) and as the type has been around for some time, any holes in the prescribed technique could well have been ironed out with ammendments.

Be safe.

PP

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Pilot Pete:

Hmmmm...

Help me out here.

You are cautioning me to be careful about leaving the props at their cruise RPM especially when close to gross weight because of a possible go around.

I flew Catalinas for fifteen years fire bombing and unless there was a very compelling reason to increase prop RPM, such as a very difficult entrance and exit from the drop zone or very turbulent conditions that caused signifigant airspeed fluctuations I always left the prop RPM at cruise setting.

We were almost always at or over the normal gross weight due to being a fire bomber.

I also spent 12 or so years as a training pilot for fire bombing and one of the demonstrations I used to teach safe and professional handling of the airplane was to fly the approach, drop the load of retardant and exit the drop zone with the critical engine in simulated feather.

Now was I just lucky to have survived? Or do you think that by using the energy of the airplane and its load along with gravity to keep the flight envelope within a safe range there was no need for tearing the living sh.t out of my engines by using excessive RPM?

Any pilot that canno't select climb RPM and then climb power on any go around either does not understand what he / she is doing or has been the victim of poor flight training given by poor instructors.

But that of course is only my personal opinion. :D :D

Cat Driver:

.....................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[Send Clowns]

The power reduction is related to reducing take-of power to max continuous. Of course take-off power can by definition be used for up to 5 minutes, so your procedure is safe and well within the limits of the aircraft. I was always taught to do this at 500 feet in aircraft with a take-off power higher than max continuous, and 300 feet does sound low to start messing with things, and very soon after take-off if you are light with that sort of power.

Leaving low revs on approach there is also a slight delay when power is demanded as the engine speeds up. This is only a little, but if you are flying in asymmetric and have followed this procedure as habit (you should certainly not have cruise revs on assymetric approach!) the go-around is often critical.

If on the other hand you go around forgetting to increase the RPM you may overboost the engine, doing far more damage than you would by approaching at 2700!

Chuck:

I suspect you generally had a little more power margin available for the go-around than I did learning to fly a Seminole in Florida heat and humidity. There were times when she was only going down, single-engine at just 3000 feet. Remember performance class B - the rate of climb OEI need only be tabulated, it need not be positive! :eek:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Send Clowns:

You in all likelyhood mean well with your comments, however your grasp of the subject could maybe use a little more exposure to the world of flying and possibly a little more training outside of the light airplane training sector of aviation.

Your comment about flying the Seminole in Florida is noted.

The PBY does not have the single engine performance of a Seminole, plese re read my comments and you will note that I trade inertia to assist the thrust available at cruise RPM to save beating the sh.t out of my engines. It is really very academic.

I don't want you to become offended S.C. but please understand my advise is based on using flying techniques that have been learned in fifty years as a pilot.

I also earn part of my living through offering advanced flight training, so far I have not had any unsatisfied customers and no one has ever complained about my rates being to high.

You of course will be coming from the only sourse of knowledge and understanding you have of how to fly...the instruction you have received. That I understand and I expect no more from you than what you have been taught.

Now you take care.... and remember we never quit learning.....

Cat Driver:

[fig]

kala87,

I agree with your technique.

I reduce power at 1,000 AGL in single-engine aircraft. My intent is to use the maximum power available to reach a suitable altitude most expeditously. I want the option of returning to the field if the engine quits.

Notably, in a B737 I reduce to climb power at 1,000 agl as well.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi fig:

Now don't get mad at me but have you considered that by using full power to 1000 feet to gain altitude you may just get the chance to try gliding back to the field someday?

I work on the assumption that if I treat my engines with care they will in all probility last longer.

Physics dictates that engine wear will be porportional to piston travel, eg. the higher the RPM the more distance travelled thus more wear. As well the higher pressures inside the cylinders will shorten the life of the material of which the cylinder is made.

As engine size and horsepower being produced increases the need for thoughtful engine handling becomes more critical.

Throttle monkeys can ruin a good engine in no time.

Aviators who understand the physics and operation of the equipment being operated will generally get better engine life.
( I am not saying you are a throttle monkey. ) :)

By the way what does the 737 have in common with piston engines?

Cat Driver:

[West Coast]

No hard info to back it up, but have been told/taught that engine failures happen most frequently on initial movement of the throttles, so I used to bring power back at 1500ft. Should I have a failure at 1500ft, I have a few more options than at 300ft.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi West Coast:

The reason you have no hard info on this is there is no real data to back up that beliefe.

What kind of airplane do you fly when you leave it at full power to 1500 feet?

I am not tryig to be insulting only inquisitive as I like to find out how others do things and the thinking behind their methods.

One question I have is would you recommend climbing a aircraft with a large radial engine at full power to 1500 feet?

Cat Driver:

[Pilot Pete]

Chuck

I bow to your greater experience in these matters, but, I don't think the initial poster on this question has the in depth knowledge to be deciding to change from the prescribed manufacturers techniques and also, as Send Clowns mentioned already, if as someone relatively (to you) inexperienced is going to use a drill in a critical scenario they need the drill to be as little changed from what they do normally as possible. This is what makes a good emergency drill.

I was not saying that 99 times out of 100 landing with the props in their cruise setting would not work, of course it would, it's the 1 time when it's not working in that go around which may leave the less experienced pilot in some trouble. I could counter by saying that if the pilot waits until he has to go around and it's a very late go around due to a blocked runway for example and then puts the prop(s) up as he applies go around power there is an argument that this could cause more stress on the engine(s) than easing the props up gently early on final approach. We could go on ad infinitum with the pro's and cons for all methods. I feel the main thrust of my posting is however being missed and that was to make the initial poster weary (not you!) of doing anything other than what the flight manual says to do.

I have never flown a Catalina and therefore have no idea about it's performance. I have, however flown several Cessna singles and twin pistons and am all too aware of their performance limitations in the climb with an engine out at max T/O weight (especially the singles!!!) Some of the twins climbed marginally on two engines, let alone on one and needed every ounce you could get from them.

I personally would rather put my safety before cost, so if my ops manual said to put the props up to the top of the greens on final approach I would rather do that than save the company a few extra bucks. I knew another guy in the company who chose not to put the props up on final approach because 'the pax got worried' by the increase in engine note. He is unfortunately not around any more having not survived an EFATO. Equally, I'm not one of your 'throttle monkeys' and always treat the engines with care, especially in the descent from a long cruise. I think it's a balance and what works on one isn't necessarily good for all.

Regards

PP

[GoneWest]

Wouldn't the adoption of a sensible commital height (based on aircraft performance and pilot experience) take away the option of a possible go around??

If you make the decision to land or go around at, say, 300 feet agl (for normal AEO operations) then if you get to that height and have three greens, a visibly clear runway, landing permission from ATC and you are "at one" with the aircraft, you can land with the confidence that you will not need to go around.

Leaving the props back at cruise would also be quieter - so not so many noise abatement complaints from people living below the glide path.

If you get to commital height and don't have all four of the list above - you still have time to gently put the props full forward and open the throttles again.

Just a thought.

[I Fly]

The 182S POH does not require a power reduction after take-off. I'm not sure about the others. However I DO reduce power when I think it's safe. That epends on what is under me.
I'm still learning.
Chuck could you explain your statement to me
"Physics dictates that engine wear will be porportional to piston travel, eg. the higher the RPM the more distance travelled thus more wear."
I always thought the stroke was fixed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh boy:

I sure do get myself set up for a lot of typing... soooo here goes.

First to I Fly:

Piston travel will be increased when you increase RPM for any given time period. For instance we are on final approach for say one minute and the RPM is 2400 so for simplicity we will say the piston travels 100 feet up and down.

If we increase RPM to 2700 the piston will now travel a greater distance for that one minute. Therefore having increased the RPM we have also increased the distance the piston has traveled therefore more friction eaquals more wear. This of course is an oversimplification of the increase of wear on the engine and its components, I use it because it is so simple to visualize, there are many other factors that apply to high RPM during descent.

You will agree that we do not need climb RPM to decend will you not?

As to a go around being an emergency, that truly puzzels me, the only time you do not see the landing area during final approach is when you are in cloud. A go around due to still being in cloud at DH or minimums will not come as a complete surprise therefore a go around is just another change of flight path and can be accomplished by normal control and power imputs.

A go around close to the runway should also come as no surprise unless you are not looking where you are going.

"ANY" go around should be accomplished with smooth control and power adjustments, the prop pitch control / s are placed in close enough proximity to the throttle / s that you should not have any great difficulty finding them and adjusting their position during the time frame the airplane changes its flight path after you command a pitch up with the elevators.

Now this is not all that difficult so I do not see why you would want to increase RPM to descend???

Pilot Pete:

What does a EFATO have to do with where his prop pitch was set?

I only used the PBY to argue the heavy weight senario, fire bombing as you know is done at very heavy weights, and the PBY is not the space shuttle for performance. So therefore in that I survived all those years operating the airplane in the manner I described, it by definition must work.

If nothing else we get to compare different methods of flying these machines don't we? :) :)

Cat Driver:

................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[Centaurus]

West Coast. re engine failures most likely occurring at first power reduction after take off. You are the victim of yet another popular aviation myth.
To quote from Textron Lycoming: "A computer study made over a three year period concluded that engine failures during take off are quite rare and that failures in the cruise are far more common. This does seem logical since the engines of fixed wing aircraft run a majority of their operating life in the cruise power range. There is no evidence that an engine will most likely fail at the first power reduction".

[Turbine]

Centarus, further to your post...

A Review of Old Wives Tales

Tale Number One — "The most likely time for an engine failure to occur is at the first power reduction after takeoff." Every individual who pilots an aircraft has probably heard this statement at some time. Is it a true statement? We will venture a guess and say that perhaps it may have been at some time in the distant past... Full Article (http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/old_wives_tales.html)

Also from the Textron Lycoming web site is an article on the Operating of an Engine at TKOF & Climb (http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/operating_engine_at_takeoff_and_climb.html)


From Textron Lycoming Flyer (http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Turbine:

Good post, wish I knew how to really work this computer so I could cut and past and all that, just never seem to get the time.

With regard to engine handling of these engines that Lyc. produce they of course are relitavely small and are less susceptiable to damage by improper handling than large engines.

It would be interesting if someone could post the P & W engine handling notes and cautions. I used to own my own P & W powerplant books but someone else walked away with them, or better still the Super Connie engine handling procedures. Maybe one of the HARS guys could comment?

Anyhow great stuff.

Cat Driver:

[Pilot Pete]

Chuck

It's the problem with posting, rather than normal conversation that leaves comments sounding out of context. I do not wish to
appear pedantic, but I will answer your points for clarity and then leave it at that;

I was never implying that the EFATO had anything to do with his prop pitch, merely stating why he wasn't here any more.

I agree that we don't need climb RPM to descend, but assisting the descent on final approach is not the reason some of us are suggesting applying climb RPM.

I agree my use of the word "emergency" describing a G/A drill is incorrect (middle of the night-itis whilst posting!), it is however a drill not done very often and one that is therefore surprisingly badly flown on many occassions, especially in larger a/c.

And, just to finish on the most pedantic note of all, just because you have done something for a long time one way does not by definition mean that it must be correct.......you may well have just not come accross a scenario where what you do does not work.

So, I repeat it again, as my view still hasn't changed; Do not deviate from what the flight manual tells you to do unless you have very good reason. Prolonging engine life, although desireable and admirable, in my mind is not a good enough reason not to follow the manufacturers guidelines.

Good discussion though, I will agree to disagree and hope this thread provokes more thought by those considering the merits of various operating methods.

PP

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi again Pilot Pete:

Sorry for the bit about your friends accident I did not mean to insult you, and there is no doubt that typing on a computer very often leaves the wrong message. It is not my intent to belittle you or anyone else, rather my intent is to pass on the lessons and ways of flying airplanes that I have been fortunate enough to have learned during my very diverse flying career.

As to your thoughts regarding maybe my having done things a certain way that works and maybe not having come across a senario where it does not work.

I do not advise things that I have not proven beyond doubt to not only be safe but I belive the methods to be best. You may rest assured that before I commit to any method of flying any aircraft I have proven to myself or had others teach me that the methods are the best we can use. You would not believe how many times I have found out what does not work.

The range of flying machines I have earned a living with is very broad and covers most of the types that are common to our industry both fixed and rotary wing, that are powered by every known power plant in normal use.

I also try to be very careful when giving advise so as not to suggest something that would be unsafe in any type.

Forgive me for using the PBY as a benchmark, it just seemed to be the best for the past discussion.

You will agree that most of the aircraft that are discussed here are the in light aircraft category would you not? Based on that assumption I stand by the methods that I have proven to be the best and safest to fly them.

The foregoing statement of course does not mean that I do not deviate from any procedure if it is required or will be safer and more user friendly.

Wow... that was a long typing session.

Cat Driver

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have been forced to work in the yard by my better half, she has gone out for a few hours so I am goofing off and ended up back here.:D :D

Lets examine some procedures and rote learned emergency drills and the physical movements by the pilot to perform the drills as learned.

We have just passed the point where there is no runway ahead to land on in a multi engine airplane. An engine fails and there is no other choice but to feather the engine.

The actions which must be performed will be.

Fly the airplane and maintain control.

Mixtures up
Props up
Power up
Gear up
Flaps up or (as required.)

Identify failed engine
feather failed engine.

If you are not dead yet you then carry out the engine failure emergency check list items and land the airplane in the safest and nearst place, such as a runway.


Now for the sake of discussion the foregoing is relatively close to what is required of the pilot.

Another senario;

We are on the landing approach with our prop // props in cruise RPM all is normal, suddenly you must reject the approach and go around because you see the airport moving violently up and down and all over, and buildings are collapsing everywhere. Oh fu.ck screams your mind, a fu.king earthquake I am not landing in that mess.


In this emergency go around you only have one extra item to attend to, select climb RPM as you add climb power this can of course be done with one hand.

Now compare the two emergency senarios and the number of items and physical movements to be performed. If you can remember and perform the engine out drill in the first senario why would just one extra item and physical movement completly overwhelm you to the point it would be a safety concern?

By not increasing RPM you will:

Have less wear on your engine

Not annoy the hell out of those under your flight path.

Not annoy the hell out of me if we are flying together. :) :)

Anyone out there get my point?

Now wasen't that fun??

I had better get back to work or I will really have problems.

Your friend: :D :D :D

Cat Driver:
.......................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

[javelin]

As an ex parachute pilot, I have looked long and hard about engine operation from both an engine life point and from a noise point of view. I have operated Cessna 182,205,206,207,Piper PA32 and Lance for parachuting and we always operated for noise abatement when performance allowed. This meant takeoffs were at reduced rpm - back to 2500 or 2300 as applicable. I stress this was when runway performance allowed. Manifold pressure was over square during the takeoff run and brought back to square shortly after takeoff. All landing were done in descent rpm - bottom of the green, again unless performance required otherwise - say if we brought a load down and there was a possibility of a goround. The result was a much quieter operation, reduced wear on the engine - during 10 years as Chief Pilot ALL our engines went to TBO and beyond, so don't say that parachuting screws engines up ! All our pilots operated to standard operating procedures, they had a check flight every year and knew if I heard them coming down in fine they would leave the DZ there and then. All this was done after long consults with the engineers and I think speaks for itself. Operate your aeroplane sensibly, change the oil regularly - it is the cheapest maintenance you will ever do on your aeroplane and have fun !

[DFC]

Some non type specific comments;

1. If the aircraft flight manual states that maximum continuous power is the combination of max throttle and max RPM and the maintenance manual states that the engine requires an overhaul every 2000 hours then the two are related in that the manufacturer expects that an engine will last 2000 hours at max power. Thus there is no requirement to reduce power in order to reach the certified overhaul periods.

2. A power reduction to 25/25 or similar depending on type reduces noise without any major reduction in performance. In todays world, we must at all times keep the neighbours happy.

3. When established on final approach, there will be a low poer setting. In the majority of cases, the power setting will be low enough for the propeller to be operating below the governed range. Moving the propeller lever to full fine at this point will make no difference to the RPM and thus there is no noise problem and at the same time, max RPM is available for any go-arround that may be required.

Thus, I recomend that when the aircraft is clean (gear and flap up) and the required climb speed has been acheived that power is reduced to 25/25 or whatever suits the operation.

Whan on approach, leave the propeller at cruise setting until final approach when the following check is made;

Reds - Mixtures Rich
Blues -Props Full Fine
Greens - 3 of them.

Agree totally with the use od a decision height for all approaches in all aircraft. A sensible height can be used based on experience, type and field.

DFC

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi DFC:

I am curious about your decision height comment.

Do you mean that you advocate a DH for every approach VFR or IFR and how would you determine a DH when VFR and Why?

My only reason for asking is this seems to be an extra pain in the ass to figure out and I wonder what the advantage would be in adding another item in such a simple thing as a VFR approach to a landing.

Hey I am always open to learning something new. :D :D

Cat Driver:

[Send Clowns]

Chuck

A couple of points

Although I have only been flying for ten years I do come from an academic scientific background. I also teach principles of flight, so am aware of the fundamental physical effects of the reduction in RPM on flight profile.

I was commenting on an aircraft in the most marginal condition for that type. I understood that in the Catalina from a fire-retardent drop you could climb away single-engine at less than optimum-power setting on the remaining engine. However in that condition you are clean, have just dumped your load so are not fully-laden and have speed to trade for height.

My comment was on a completely different circumstance: the Seminole in the assymetric go around. This is a critical manoeuvre, and if mishandled in a go around from decision height will result in the aircraft hitting the runway. There is little speed to trade for climb. In order to climb in typical UK summer weather the aircraft needs full power and needs to be clean. During the time it takes to retract gear and flaps the aircraft will be descending even at blue-line speed, and with reduced power this sink will be greater. If the aircraft sinks more than 200 feet there could be a problem!

If the RPM is left at cruise and the pilot does not select max RPM on go around there will be two effects. Full power will not be developed (engine power is roughly proportional to RPM, though the power transmited to the prop is slightly changed this is a reasonable approximation) and the engine will be overboosted. Now the former might kill you if the assymetry is a genuine emergency.

The latter is going to do more damage than using the max revs of the engine - remembering these engines are actually very low-reving anyway (my car will rev to 7500, 2700 is rather conservative!) to make them reliable and long-lasting. You will I hope not try to say no pilot will go around without selecting max RPM - as an instructor you presumably find that under pressure, given enough practice go arounds (a commonly-enough practised manoeuvre) every mistake you could think of will be made and a few that never crossed your mind.

Surely it is much safer always to use max RPM on final approach, just to avoid those errors when a go around is required? Remember most of us will never have the fortune to fly a Catalina, but will be flying with (relatively!) modern flat fours and sixes, and most of us will not be flying our own aircraft, so maintenance schedules are determined by rather conservative JAA or FAA requirements for hire or public-transport aircraft based on engine hours not engine wear.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Send Clowns:

First off I am very familiar with small aircraft and small engines, and quite current on same.

I note your coming from an academic scientific back ground and that you teach the principles of flight.

This forum is a media in which we are fortunate enough to express our opinions and discuss the different methods, ideas and procedures we use in our flying. That is what we both are doing, we just have different methods and procedures that we use. Yours must work for you as mine do for me.

I also have a background of flight instruction as I first received my CFI in 1559 , howeve I no longer teach ab initio flying for several reasons including there is no money in it.

You are muddying the water with your Seminole assymertric thrust approach and an assemetric go around. I have been quite clear in my not increasing prop RPM on final in piston engine airplanes, if the thing is going down I do not need climb RPM to maintain a stabalized approach under normal conditions. If in the unlikely event I decide to go around pushing up the prop and Power in the correct manner does not overload my thought process.

The idea of not teaching such simple methods from the very start of the students training because it is to much of a load on the poor student is by definition inferring that you think the student is an idiot and just couldnt possibly handle such a complex task.

I mean how could you possibly have him / her learn there are two movements to make in a power increase.. Yeh I guess it is easier to just teach a simplified procedure and try to make flight training as idiot proof as possible. But the bright side for me is I get offer advanced flight training and improve their skills. :) :)

As I have previously stated, should I have a good reason to increase RPM at any time during the approach I will do so.

Please understand Send Clowns that there is no need to explain to me the physics and power being produced versus RPM and manifold pressure, do you think I am not familiar with such basic principals of flight.

So each to his / her own way of doing things, I fly my airplanes quite safely without having to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator of the bottom of the gene pool.

In other words I can actually do a go around if needed without forgetting to increase RPM as required.

And I sure as hell would have to have a very, very good reason to go around with a Seminole on one engine period.

Then again there might be the senario I wrote about a few posts ago about the violent earthquake. :D :D Even then I would probably land the thing and ride out the earthquake.

Oh well, to each his / her own.

Cat Driver

[Send Clowns]

I realised there was no need to give you the physics, but also that you are not the only one reading these posts, and many people never consider the power implications of reduced RPM! My point was not to teach you about light aircraft, I assumed you had experience there, but to say that your example was irrelevant to my point by emphasising what I saw as relevant factors.

If your student generally does not take the aircraft to full revs on approach, then there will come a time when he attempts a go around without setting full revs. However simple the action, this result is more likely than forgetting to increase revs on the downwind checks, a standard set that is done every circuit to a mnemonic and in a calm, unhurried, unpresurred situation, or at the start of finals similarly unpressured, with a second opportunity on go around in the unlikely event it is forgotten on previous checks. This is simple application of standard thinking on human factors, as taught in military groundschool and JAA ATPL groundschool.

Now this overboosting will do far more damage than the revs which are within the normal limits of the engine. On a really pressured assymetric go around in a light twin this result is even more likely, and could kill all on board. You know that the go-around is the most dangerous part of assymetric flight, why add an extra factor?

Since no-one is suggesting any engine limitations are exceeded, there is no large decrease in the reliability of the engine due to using full revs on approach. Since most maintenance is routine, on a schedule determined by the manufacturer based on conservative assumptions of useage this will still be sufficient and very little maintenance will be saved by using reduced revs.

Therefore there is no significant benefit to using reduced revs.

Having been taught to use constant-speed props by the UK and US-training civilian instructors, and UK military instructors, I have always been taught to use full RPM on approach.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Jeez Chuck, tone it down a bit.

Remember the old adage- "The one thousand hour pilot thinks he knows it all, The Two thousand hour pilot is sure he knows it all, The Five Thousand hour pilot is positive he knows it all, BUT the Ten thousand hour pilot knows he'll NEVER know it all."

Initially I was always taught to put the props to Fine when doing pre-landings, and I teach the same to my inexperienced students. Most people (instructors included) don't have the benefit of your experience Chuck. And as we all know inexperience + stress (earthquake!!) means that people make mistakes.
When you are competent enough to able to do more than one thing at once, only then should people start thinking about changing the way things are done. SOP's keep people alive and they must be written to take into account the lowest common denominator (low hours, nervous pax,Bad Wx, busy radio and airspace etc.....)
If the pitch is set fine early to be honest so what, ok the engine life may not be as good, but your average self fly hire PPL couldn't really give two hoots about that and DFC has already mentioned that the engine should have been designed to cope with it. But if they forget to fine it up on a G/A potentially you've got a real problem.

As for pulling the power back after take off, do when it is sensible. 300' AGL is normal especially where there is a noise abatement problem. But other factors can sometime dictate that 300 is not high enough.(I wouldn't do it any lower tho'!):eek:

Good debate though.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hey guys:

I am not saying that by advancing the RPM to the full fine setting on approach is going to cause any serious damage to most piston engines in light aircraft.

All I have been stating is that I personally do not use that procedure.

I have great difficulty with the premise that it is beyond the grasp of any pilot to adapt to the very simple procedure of engine handling that I believe has more plusses than negatives, remember when a student is being trained to operate an airplane with propellor pitch control mechanism installed the new age buzz word so loved by the training industry is it is now a " Complex " aircraft.

So in my simple mind if the person being trained has advanced to that portion of his / her training where they are now being introduced to a " Complex " airplane why would remembering to advance prop RPM when applying go around power be beyond their ability to learn.

With that mindset we should not retract the gear on a " Complex " airplane so as not to overload the student with to many actions to be performed.

Anyhow I am tired of this so I'll quit trying to explain my reasons for how I teach flying.

No hard feelings you guys??:D :D

..................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[Tinstaafl]

I teach - and do myself - to leave the prop(s) at cruise RPM until some point on final where the prop has reached its fine pitch stop. Once fine pitch stops are reached - indicated by throttle now controlling RPM - then max RPM is selected.

This point is variable depending on speed, a/c type etc. but is prior to landing to allow for the occasional time when an immediate burst of power is needed during a flare.

This action on final is irrelevent to how I teach & perform a power increase. No matter where any of the levers are I always teach mixture - pitch - power in that order.

The goal is that the automatic response is to always advance all the critical items. The considered response is to sometimes leave some levers where they are.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Tinstaafl:

Precisely.

That is exactly what I was trying to get across, I just get myself all caught up in trying to explain and of course the longer the explination the further I get drawn into irrevelant side issues.

Cat Driver:

[Say again s l o w l y]

No offence meant or taken Chuck.
I agree with you absolutely that anyone who is attempting to fly a "complex"(!!) type should have the nous to do things in the correct order, and let's face it, learning to do - Mixture, pitch, power is not exactly rocket science.

Tinstaffl has put across exactly the point we have all been dancing around and is in my view the most sensible way of flying with a CSU. Can't seem to do it with PT6's though!!;)

I think this thread has highlighted the problem of using a service such as pprune, sometimes I find that a post comes across in a totally opposite way to the one in which they were meant. This is shown in so many threads that just seem to denigrate into slanging matches.
It doesn't help that most pilots think they are correct all the time, so that no opposing view can be countenanced. In this case I find myself holeheartedly guilty:o As per usual!!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Say Again:

Yeh there is a problem with typing, no way to read the persons body language and tone of voice.

As to the PT6, just feather the damn things , then when you need thrust , unfeather that is one advantage to the PT6 at least the turbine just keeps humming right along while the prop is feathered.

Ever flew the PT6 ' s bolted to a Grumman Goose?

A real rocket, you'd love it.

Anyhow we sure beat that subject to death.

I wonder what will be the next on the agenda?

By the way wasen't my earthquake senario just great??:D :D :D

Cat Driver:

[J-Heller]

Exactly the way I was taught Tinstaafl.

Good thread. Cheers all,

JH

[Say again s l o w l y]

Chuck,
Can't say I've had the pleasure of flying a goose or any amphib'.

I'd love to have a go, everyone I've ever talked to about flying off water has always raved about it, and as an avid sailor I think I'm missing out. Not too many of them in the U.K though unfortunately.

All a/c fitted with props should in my opinion be fitted with at least a PT6 in my book. Utterly reliable and as we all know, you can NEVER have too much power!:D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Say Again...

Yeh, the turbine sure has revolunitized aviation.

The PT6 powered Goose is a real hybrid and quite a handful to fly due to the thing zings along just slightly under VNE. But what a rocket in take off and climb! One other thing about the Turbine Goose, the engines are way out front and the torque on take off will twist your nu.s off if you are to agressive on power application. :)

Yeh, the PT6 is Great but the Garretts in the Turbo Commander 690B is like Whirley says...Devine.. :D

Especially when you want to slam dunk a tight approach that sucker will really lose altitude..fast..:D I just love those Garretts.

Have Fun:

Cat Driver
....................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[DFC]

Chuck,

You asked about the thinking behind a VFR decision height.

The reason I use one and require my students to use one is simply to avoid a late go-arround and also try to prevent the rushed application of power that many have discussed or what should have been a powered approach ending up as a glide with touchdown halfway down the runway.

The height used depends on experience, aircraft and field. For example, I require all my students to adhere to a decision height of 200ft. At that height, they must have the following;

Landing configuration - Flap and Gear
Approach stable
Clearance to Land if ATC
Clear Runway

If they do not have the above at 200ft then they go arround.

Note that they are not committed to landing below the decision height and can go arround at any time such as in the case of a baloon in the flare but this is a sensible height where things should be set up.

I personally use 50ft at most large airfields, 100ft where performance is tight.

The whole idea is to avoid the 5ft go-arround halfway along the short strip that clips the hedge at the far end.

Hope that answers your question.

DFC

[Chuck Ellsworth]

DFC:

Thanks.

Makes perfect sense to me. I was not completly clear on what you meant. I must be gettin senile. :mad :mad:

Cat Driver

[excrab]

I expect lots of flak for this but the original post was about smallish engines and aircraft.

Used to operate similar aircraft (C185) over the jungle with no where to go if the engine failed on take-off.

Based on empirical performance calculations (ie try it until it gets frightening) on reasonable runways (over about 600 metres) - and rightly or wrongly assuming that the engine was most likely to fail at a power change - we used to apply max take off power at the start of the roll and having checked MP and RPM back it off to approx 25/25 on the ground. Then you get your engine failure whilst still on the runway if it's going to happen at all.

OK - I know it isn't in the POH but it was taught to all company pilots during base training.

[IanSeager]

Just read this thread. I fly a 182 and originally brought the power back after about 500ft. I then found out about 'economiser' valves, which chuck in a load more fuel to help with cooling when power is high and airspeed low (Takeoff and climb out). I now leave full power but bring back the rpm for noise. Yes it is oversquare, no it isn't a turbocharged engine.

Ian

[B2N2]

;) Cat-driver,relax man.
50 years of flight experience might just be enough to know what you're talking about but stop slacking all these other people of.
Who died and made you GOD?
Sure you can use inertia but how much inertia does a c182 have compared to a ['being a fire bomber always overweight blah blah']
Catalina.
Just to cover the altitude discussion,reduce power as soon as safety allows you to.How about that one?
And where I come from GA airplanes don't get up to 2700rpm
with low powersettings on final.
:p